And ThinkProgress, an extremely popular liberal blog, calls out the Right over this guy, James Jay Lee, who took hostages at the Discovery Channel, because one of his eleven points refers to immigration. 

Really?  Is this what passes for intellectual honesty on the Left these days?  A guy who said Al Gore’s "An Inconvenient Truth" woke him up is a product of the Right?

None other than President of the United States Bill Clinton blamed conservative talk radio for Timothy McVeigh, and recently brought that back up in light of the Tea Party.  Conservatives against the "Ground Zero Mosque" were blamed for the stabbing of a Muslim cabbie (until it was found that it was a GZM supporter who stabbed the cabbie who was against the Mosque).  And Caleb Howe reminds us:

Lee acted irrationally. His environmental extremism was likely a function of his derangement, rather than the source of it. He latched on. He took it to the extreme, to say the least. Lee was not, by any measure that I would choose, a sane man. The story told by his brother-in-law - one of temper, erratic behavior, and irrational views - recalls Jerry Kane.

Jerry Kane, and his son Joe, killed two police officers and were killed themselves, in a shoot-out precipitated by a simple traffic stop. Jerry Kane, too, was an unstable man. His hometown mayor said of him that “You were always looking over your shoulder to make sure he wasn’t there. You never knew what he was going to do. I always thought he was an unstable individual.” Like Lee, the aftermath anecdotes painted a picture of paranoia and fear. But that didn’t stop liberal sites like Crooks and Liars from laying him at the feet of the conservative movement. Or Joseph Stack. Or Richard Poplawski. Or Byron Williams. It didn’t stop them from suggesting that Erick [Erickson] was responsible for a census worker slaying.

In fact, every time someone is shot in a lone gunman scenario, the right, and the tea parties and talk radio in particular, are virtually instantaneously blamed by the left at large for “violent” rhetoric and instigation.

Stop me, again, if you’ve heard THAT one before.

We never stop hearing from the MSNBC left how the Fox News right is stirring up violence. But when someone clearly basing his murderous intent on the idea that humans are going to destroy the world, and soon, acts on the dire prophecies of Al Gore … well suddenly you can’t blame rhetoric for crazy people.

Rachel Maddow, Keith Olbermann and Ed Schultz will simply not take responsibility for this guy.  I don’t think they should, but they should then not require the Right to take responsibility for the acts of other nuts.

But they will, as will Bill Clinton.  This is what passes for intellectual honesty on the Left.

Unfortunately, though pervasive within contemporary evangelical culture, felt-led theology has no scriptural foundation and, in my opinion, is tantamount to Christian superstition.

How many times have you encountered a fellow Christian who has made an important commitment decision or, worse, has left a previous commitment, mainly because they felt that God was leading them in such and such a direction? How many times have you encountered a fellow Christian, while contemplating a decision, state that they are “praying for direction”? It seems to me that the Bible makes it clear that we should pray for wisdom (and then use our own minds to make the decision).

Maybe it’s the introvert in me, as I deal with a decidedly extroverted Christian culture, but I tend to find the notion of relying on inner nudges and feelings, while we have access to God’s Word, to be a bit counter intuitive. Recently, I saw a discussion pertaining to how one should expect an answer from God, after prayerfully asking, especially when no answer seemed (felt) to be forthcoming. Some comments were (with my emphasis),

Yes, the waiting time can be very difficult. However, sometimes we have to ask ourselves if we are really listening or if we are really waiting for an answer.

Sometimes we’re so afraid of what the answer might or might not be that we’re not ready to listen to what he has to say.

He’ll only answer if you want him to.

While it’s sad to see such lame theology coming from other Christians, it’s even sadder to realize that such notions are commonly held beliefs within the evangelical community. One has to wonder if those who hold such beliefs have ever considered that God not only has the ability to deliver a message to us in any manner he chooses, regardless of whether or not we’re “listening” or whether or not we’re afraid of the answer, but that scripture does not support the notion that we have control over whether or not God speaks to us. Indeed, when one looks at scripture, one finds that God has no problem at all getting His message to whomever He chooses (ref. Saul on the road to Damascus); and that those who happen to feel that God is not answering them do not conclude that they aren’t listening hard enough, but understand the distinction of who they are and who God is (ref. David calling out to God).

Unfortunately, the message behind the idea that we can control whether or not answers from God get through is that we can conjure up God. That makes God our puppet - and that’s sending the wrong message to our fellow Christians.

For additional reference:
Just Do Something - Kevin DeYoung
Decision Making & the Will of God - Greg Koukl

However, he’s apparently branching out into a new area that he is not as well versed in; religion.

In his latest book, The Grand Design, an extract of which is published in Eureka magazine in The Times, Hawking said: “Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing. Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist.”

He added: “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going.”

In A Brief History of Time, Prof Hawking’s most famous work, he did not dismiss the possibility that God had a hand in the creation of the world.

He wrote in the 1988 book: "If we discover a complete theory, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason — for then we should know the mind of God.”

In his new book he rejects Sir Isaac Newton’s theory that the Universe did not spontaneously begin to form but was set in motion by God.

Scientists have a conniption when theologians delve into the scientific realm.  But apparently, that doesn’t work both ways in Prof. Hawking’s estimation.

Frankly, I think there can be spill over to each other.  The God of creation made us to be curious and made the order of the universe understandable to us.  I just would like scientists, who frown when a religious person appears to infringe on territory they claim exclusive rights to, would judge themselves by their own standards when moving the other direction. 

1. Satan and cinema.
2. Another view of the POTUS speech. I think the right was not his intended audience. I’m not sure who was.
3. Thoughts on marriage, mostly from the left. I’d offer that if you’re considering marriage and want to pretend to live the self-examined life, this resource is indispensable (Wing to Wing, Oar to Oar).
4. Ahhhhh. 
5. Occupied territory.
6. Why is this even a question? 
7. Thought and sin.
8. Liberal caricature.
9. Comments of note.
10. Of rest and restlessness.
11. Noetic processes.

Evangelical leaders of previous generations are in the process of passing the torch to younger leaders, for whom there are at least 10 fresh challenges. We’ve considered the challenge of Navigating Newfound Authority, Waging a New Bloodless Revolution, Overcoming Spiritual Superficiality; Creating Culture; and now a fifth challenge:

Returning to Virtue. 

The new generation must deal with the crisis of basic character that overwhelms the nation and has also inflicted the church–with temptations of self-interest, immediate gratification, and moral laziness sapping the strength of its leaders and the witness of its people. All of us who are honest with ourselves will grieve our own failures to consistently demonstrate Christian character and to rise above our self-interest and harmful attitudes. There is less and less encouragement from our culture to demonstrate the basic virtues called for in not only the Christian tradition but in most traditions of Western civilization. Our Christian leaders must be known not primarily for their power, their persuasiveness, or their cultural conformity, but by their virtue.

These are not new concepts; they are ancient. Effective Christian witness will be seen from believers who can consistently demonstrate virtue.  Here’s one list of virtues:

 Purity

Abstaining from sexual conduct inappropriate for one’s state in life; the ability to refrain from being distracted and influenced by hostility, temptation,  or corruption.

 Restraint

Practicing self-control, moderation, and deferred gratification. Prudence to judge between actions with regard to appropriate actions at a given time. Proper moderation between self-interest, versus public-interest, and against the rights and needs of others.

Generosity 

Charity and self-sacrifice. Spending time, money, or labour, for others, without being rewarded in return.

Diligence

Decisive work ethic. Fortitude and the capability of not giving up. Budgeting one’s time; monitoring one’s own activities to guard against laziness. Upholding one’s convictions at all times, especially when no one else is watching; integrity.

 Patience   

Forbearance and endurance. Resolving conflicts and injustice peacefully, as opposed to resorting to violence. The ability to forgive; to show mercy to others. Creating a sense of peaceful stability and community, rather than engendering suffering, hostility,  and antagonism.

 Kindness  

Compassion and friendship for its own sake. Empathy and trust without prejudice or resentment. Unconditional love and voluntary kindness without bias or spite. Having positive outlook and cheerful demeanor; to inspire kindness in others.

 Humility    

Modest behavior, selflessness, and the giving of respect. The courage of the heart necessary to undertake tasks which are difficult, tedious or unglamorous, and to graciously accept the sacrifices involved. Reverence for those who have wisdom. Giving credit where credit is due; not unfairly glorifying one’s own self

That’s a good list for all of us. 

Bishop and New Testament scholar N.T. Wright makes a good case for believers to take seriously the formation of Christian character and the daily practice of virtues in his book After You Believe: Why Christian Character Matters.

This is an excerpt from the book:

“It is thus more or less impossible to speak of God with any conviction or effect if those who profess to follow Jesus are not exemplifying humility, charity, patience, and chastity. These are not optional extras for the especially keen, but the very clothes which the royal priesthood must ‘put on’ day by day. If the vocation of the royal priesthood is to reflect God to the world and the world back to God (the world, that is, as it was made to be and as, by God’s grace, it will be one day), that vocation must be sustained, and can only be sustained, by serious attention to ‘putting on’ these virtues, not for the sake of a self-centered holiness or pride in one’s own moral achievement, but for the sake of revealing to the world who its true God really is. The church has been divided between those who cultivate their own personal holiness but do nothing about working for justice in the world and those who are passionate for justice but regard personal holiness as an unnecessary distraction from that task. This division has been solidified by the church’s unfortunate habit of adopting from our surrounding culture the unhelpful packages of ‘left-wing’ and ‘right-wing’ prejudices, the former speaking of ‘justice’ and meaning ‘libertarianism’ and the latter speaking of ‘holiness’ and meaning ‘dualism.’ All this must be firmly pushed to one side. What we need is integration.

1. Son of a great man.
2. On the POTUS address.
3. Verse.
4. Huh, the average male has a GPS these days.
5. France and the Roma.
6. Hmm, in a search for a less substantial less vapid political post … this might be in the list. My wife lists here occupation on our 10-40 as “domestic goddess.” 
7. Male midlife crisis … a temporary one.
8. Mr Assange.
9. About those free riders.
10. I think that assessment is right, although I doubt my own ability to judge the motives of liberal/progressives.

David, blogging at the Thirsty Theologian, aims at the Roman Catholic dogmas on the Theotokos (I’m guessing the title is one to which he’d admit she has claim). Now … I’ve only got half a dog in this fight, as the Eastern and Roman beliefs about the Theotokos differ somewhat, although their overlap is far more than of that with the Evangelical. I’m not going to claim she never sinned or that she was immaculately conceived. But still … 

The point is making silly claims about marital duty/bed and so on is irrelevant, consider 1st Kings 1:1-4. The teaching is that Joseph was elderly when he married a very young Mary and never had relations with her, as this was just a few centuries before the population was sex obsessed and email spam about little blue pills became inescapable. Tradition holds as well that the brothers of Jesus were by Joseph’s first wife. David might also wonder, or confront, why both John Calvin and Martin Luther affirmed that she remained virgin throughout her life. These were and are not inconsequential protestant theologians

I will not attempt to give all the reasons and argument for why her continued virginity is believed, but just one might be exemplary. In our recent feast of the Dormition (the Roman feast of the Assumption) we read this Old Testament lesson (Ezekiel 43:27-44:4). Why? The Theotokos is a type of the Mercy seat (by her womb where God “sat”). By bearing Christ she became a symbol/type of the mercy seat or the holy of holies. This door of which we read in Ezekiel, “shall remain shut, it shall not be opened.” and so on. I’m hoping that the clear connection that can be made from that to her virginity is clear. This is not the only Scriptural reference which the early church used which points clearly to her virginity. 

The early church affirmation of her continued virginity prior to and after her birth were based on this and testimony (oral not in Scripture) traced to Luke who tradition holds has the Mary/Virgin story on account via an extended interview he had with her prior to her Dormition (falling asleep). 

Look, it’s easy to fall into the trap of arguing against straw men instead of the more difficult task of addressing their actual teaching and beliefs. I’m pretty sure I fall into that trap all the time. So, don’t be shy about pointing it out when I do it and I’ll continue to do it when I see it as well. I would recommend if you want to tilt against Roman’s that this should be a required reference: Catechism of the Catholic Church, Alas, if you want to tilt against the East there is no such thing. 

Creating Culture. 

New leaders will be faced with the challenge of combating what has become transcendent societal secularism. The culture gives no one– young believers, newlyweds, young parents, mid-lifers, or the aging–help in dealing withthe hard work and hard choices that are necessary to live godly lives in a secularized environment. 

 Who teaches us values? Who leads the celebration for what is right and good? Who establishes the boundaries of decency? Who paints the living portraits of beauty?

Today, the answer to all of those questions is usually someone who is not guided by the biblical view of life or the Creator’s definitions of goodness and human flourishing. A rising generation of Christians seems to be attuned to cultural trends, but will the leaders among them influence the cultural waves or be carried along by them to an unknown destination?

 Chuck Colson writes:

“We bear children, plant crops, build cities, form governments, and create works of art. While sin introduced a destructive power into God’s created order, it did not obliterate that order. And when we are redeemed, we are both freed from sin and restored to do what God designed us to do: create culture.”

 In How Now Shall we Live, Colson and Nancy Pearcey called this the cultural commission:

 “God cares not only about redeeming souls but also about restoring his creation. He calls us to be agents not only of his saving grace, but also of his common grace. Our job is not only to build up the church but also to build a society to the glory of God. As agents of God’s common grace, we are called to help sustain and renew his creation, to uphold the created institutions of family and society, to pursue science and scholarship, to create works of art and beauty, and to heal and help those suffering from the results of the Fall.”

 Os Guinness pins the blame not on the culture, but on the church: 

“Much of the opposition to Christians has been brought down on our own heads through our sub-Christian behavior, as in the failure of Christians demonstrating love for their enemies in obedience to the call of Jesus,” Guinness writes in The Last Christian on Earth. “We’ve lost a tough-minded understanding of ‘worldliness.’ Though we’re getting better at recognizing and resisting philosophies and ideologies –secularism, humanism, postmodernism– we are often naïve about the shaping power of culture. But the real menace of the modern world comes in its philosophies – in things such as ‘consumerism’ and ‘secularization.’”

Andy Crouch, author of Culture Making, writes on his blog:

 “Cultural transformation is something that a lot of Christians talk about and aspire to. We want to be a part of transforming the culture. The question is, how is culture transformed? Does it happen just because we think more about culture, or because we pay more attention to culture? As I was thinking about cultural transformation I became convinced that culture changes when people actually make more and better culture. If we want to transform culture, what we actually have to do is to get into the midst of the human cultural project and create some new cultural goods that reshape the way people imagine and experience their world. So culture-making answers the “how” question rather than just “what” we are about. We seek the transformation of every culture but how we do it is by actually making culture.”

In an interview, sociologist Peter Berger observed that in the U.S. evangelicals are shifting from being largely a blue-collar constituency to becoming a college educated population. His question is, will Christians going into the arts, business, government, the media, and film

• assimilate to the existing baseline cultural narratives so they become in their views and values the same as other secular professionals and elites?
• seal off and privatize their faith from their work so that, effectively, they do not do their work in any distinctive way?
• or will they do enough new Christian ‘culture-making’ in their fields to change things?

That’s a primary question for the next generation of evangelical leaders.

While President Obama was on vacation, his West Wing office got a bit of a face lift, complete with a new rug, fresh wallpaper and paint, and new furniture — all done at no taxpayer expense, the White House says.

I would think, of all things, a makeover of the President’s office should be done at taxpayer expense.  It’s all this unconstitutional, required purchases that I think ought not be.

Tell ya’ what, I’ll trade a coat of paint and new carpeting for another unfunded mandate to be named later.

During the first half of this year, German and American political leaders engaged in an epic debate. American leaders argued that the economic crisis was so bad, governments should borrow billions to stimulate growth. German leaders argued that a little short-term stimulus was sensible, but anything more was near-sighted. What was needed was not more debt, but measures to balance budgets and restore confidence.

The debate got pointed. American economists accused German policy makers of risking a long depression. The German finance minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, countered, "Governments should not become addicted to borrowing as a quick fix to stimulate demand."

The two countries followed different policy paths. According to Gary Becker of the University of Chicago, the Americans borrowed an amount equal to 6 percent of G.D.P. in an attempt to stimulate growth. The Germans spent about 1.5 percent of G.D.P. on their stimulus.

This divergence created a natural experiment. Who was right?

The early returns suggest the Germans were.

Indeed, Germany’s economy is growing at an amazing 9% annual rate and unemployment is back to what it was before the crisis.  Back home, Obama and company are considering a second stimulus.

Because the first one worked so well?

There’s nothing unconstitutional about doing with your own property what you wish.  Insofar as there are any relevant ordinances, it’s a local issue.  But also, people are free to exercise their right to protest and express their displeasure at such a thing, and try to convince those who are doing it to reconsider their plans, as I am trying to do.

OK, now I’m talking about the "Ground Zero Mosque".  Or both.

Are liberal websites who criticize the Dove Center’s burning of Korans and mock them anti-Christian bigots?  Certainly this criticism, in and of itself, is not proof of any such bigotry.  They just feel it’s wrong and are expressing their opinion.  I would be building a straw man to suggest that they are motivated by hate of Christians.  Equally, appealing to the constitutionality of this would be ignoring the other, more substantive, points of their protest.

And yet when the tables are turned, out come their straw men and their baseless accusations.  Liberal talking heads speak of constitutionality of building the Mosque on private property and accuse opponents of Islamophobia.  A nutty and drunk cab passenger killing his Muslim cabbie is pointed to as an example of the alleged overall fear, even though the perp was for the Mosque and the Muslim victim against it. 

Why can’t we have a civil discussion about race, religion or any sort of sensitive subject in this country?  This is a big reason why. 

1. Of Beck and Obama.
2. A man shot and consequence.
3. Two Gulf disasters, two Presidents, and a cricket race.
4. One post which clearly shows Mr Krugman and his ilk are non-serious about economy and politics.
5. And lo and behold, he shows the origins of his fantasy.
6. A big bubble?
7. The continuation of the lying to Congress charge … one wonders how actual real-live you-can-tell-they’re-lying-because-their-lips-are-moving Congress-critters make such charges with straight faces.
8. Appeasement.
9. A challenge.
10. Just get on your bike and ride, dude.
11. Shotgun tracts.
12. Contra smut.

For myself, the matter comes down to a question of local vs national control. Local zoning boards control what gets built where, yet the site of the WTC attack is no longer just a local affair. So here we have two conflicting authorities. How far out from the WTC site does the WTC memorial committee hold sway? Does the fact that the Park51 group has selected that site on account of its proximity to the WTC mean that the more global WTC committee might be consulted and in that case … might the religious nature of the 9/11 attack which is exactly the same as the religion to be practiced at the Cordoba House have impact. On these sorts of questions I don’t think the default notion that the Constitutional notion of separation of church/state necessarily holds sway. Certainly these questions could and should allow for differences of opinion and the discussions should not be as dismissed out of bounds purely on a Constitutional basis.

If the WTC commission is the one making the zoning decision on the Park51 project, I’d be curious to hear their reasoning for why that project can is given its blessing and the St. Nicholas (the church actually destroyed by the event) cannot be restored. Mr Bloomberg has offered the opinion that both projects should go forward. 

But the interested observer has noted, I have not given my opinion about whether or not I think Park51 should be allowed and have been dancing around the question. I think that the project should be given the OK, but my reasoning is admittedly convoluted, but I will attempt to give it. 

In the Orthodox liturgical practice in either the Great Vigil (on Saturday evening in the Slavic tradition) or Sunday morning Matins service in the Greek tradition there is a part of the service known as the Resurrection canon. These canons are meditations on eight of the nine “Odes” which were important liturgical poems from Scripture (for example the ninth ode is the Magnifcat + Benedictus from Luke’s gospel and the third is Hannah’s poem from 1st Kings (1st Samuel for the protestant readers)). The canon grew to replace the readings of the odes over the centuries and are poetic reflections on those verses and their connection to Christ. In several of those odes we find adamant and definitive phrases against the “sons of Ishmael” which is to say Islam. These Odes were written and composed and passed into liturgical concrete during the seven or so centuries in which the Roman empire (Eastern) struggled against the rise of Islam. The initial thrust of Islam west was halted in three crucial battles, of which the battle of Tours and Charles Martel is the one typically remembered in the West as that occurred in Spain and was instrumental in making Charlemagne place and time on the world stage possible. The other two battles were between fleets and armies of the (Eastern) Roman empire in Greece. 

The point of this digression is that there is precedent and reason for a principled stand for Christianity against Islam. So why then should this Cordoba house be built by the Saudi’s? Because I think the proximity to the WTC memorial of this building will serve as an irritant not as an easement. It will stiffen not weaken our resolve to oppose the spread of Islam.

A year ago, these groups seemed to be at the peak of their influence, needing only the Senate’s approval for a landmark climate-change bill. But they lost that fight, done in by the sluggish economy and opposition from business and fossil-fuel interests.

2.    God, the Gospel, and Glenn Beck:  Southern Seminary’s Russ Moore writes about relying on populist God-and-country sloganeering and outrage-generating talking heads.

It’s taken us a long time to get here, in this plummet from Francis Schaeffer to Glenn Beck. In order to be this gullible, American Christians have had to endure years of vacuous talk about undefined “revival” and “turning America back to God” that was less about anything uniquely Christian than about, at best, a generically theistic civil religion and, at worst, some partisan political movement.

3.    Advertising Parasites: Ads that follow you from site to site.

“For days or weeks, every site I went to seemed to be showing me ads for those shoes,” said Ms. Matlin, a mother of two from Montreal. “It is a pretty clever marketing tool. But it’s a little creepy, especially if you don’t know what’s going on.”

4.    Jim Wallis Apologizes: Sojourners’ Jim Wallis apologizes to World’s Marvin Olasky.

“I was wrong, out of anger at the insinuation about the dependence on these foundations, I was wrong to imply that like Beck, Marvin lies for a living,” Wallis said. “Glenn Beck does lie for a living. Marvin Olasky doesn’t lie for a living; that’s not something I should say about a brother in Christ.”

5.    Crooked Afghan Partner?: Another Diem? Karazi fires his corruption fighter.

“What he was doing was very important,” State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley said of Mr. Faqiryar. “Those charged with pursuing corruption need to continue their work without political interference. It’s something we are watching to make sure the Afghan government lives up to the pledges it has made in battling corruption.”

6.    America’s Creativity Crisis?:  For the first time, research shows American creativity declining.

What’s driving the drop? According to Newsweek, technology and education are particularly nefarious culprits. At home, kids are spending more time watching television and playing video games; at school, our educational system is evaporating the creative juices. Neither of these criticisms is particularly new, but they are informative within the context of the creativity discussion.

7.    Baseball Replay Confirms Walk-off Homer:  For the first time, the limited replay rule is used on a play that ends game.

McCann capped a stunning comeback with a replay-assisted homer that gave Atlanta a 7-6 victory over the Marlins on Sunday - the first time a game ended on a call using video. Without it, McCann might have only gotten credit for a double and the game would have continued on. Instead, he was jumping into the arms of his teammates after the umps took a second look, taking advantage of a limited replay rule that went into effect two years earlier almost to the day - Aug. 28, 2008 - to make sure they got these sort of calls right.

1. Some with Nixie tubes. 
2. The VP and those pesky details.
3. Going up?
4. Setting aside the (excessive) sarcasm, I think the question of how to treat differently talented kids in school to optimize goals is a valid question. And “making things equal” is not necessarily the best answer.
5. Stupid liberal tricks … now bullets.
6. That’s what we need more, bigger deficits.
7. Extreme airport.
8. Friendship.
9. Mr Obama goes on the offensive against misinformation, with hyperbole and misinformation.
10. Great photo anyhow.
11. Reading on the Mosque. 
12. 2-d time.
13. Iraq.
14. A photo.
15. Norman and virtue.

Overcoming Spiritual Superficiality

In the wake of megachurch-building success and a new ability to be culture-cool, the pews are filled with biblical illiterates who may be ill-equipped for the next personal or national crisis. In many cases spiritual depth has been sacrificed in the interest of growth and new church models are designed to multiply conversions but fall short in assuring spiritual growth and doctrinal understanding.”

The fear that theological lessons will bore and drive away new converts and a generation with a miniscule attention span, churches are not guiding their members through the fundamentals of the faith and the dangers of popular theological perversions such as:

• universalism (that what God did for humans in Christ will redeem all humans, whether they are Hindus, Muslims, or atheists, all will eventually be saved),
• pluralism (the belief that no religion offers superiority in the process of redemption; that all religions lead us to the same god and the same ends), and
•  modalism (a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms.  Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times.  At the incarnation, the mode was the Son.  After Jesus’ ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit.)

Scot McKnight of North Park University and the Jesus Creed blog told Margaret Feinberg:

“The biggest challenge facing American evangelicals is Christian universalism– the belief that everyone will eventually be saved because of what Christ has done….I think many young evangelical adults who have been reared in the church have imbibed pluralism and tolerance from their years in the public educational system.”

Norman Geisler, Christian apologist and president of Southern Evangelical Seminary said:

“The evangelical church in America is about 3,000 miles wide and an inch deep. Doctrinally, we are very shallow. We have enough religion to makes us susceptible, but not enough doctrine to make us discerning. You can’t recognize error until you can recognize the truth. I’m told that when government experts want to train people to recognize counterfeit currency, they study genuine currency. The same is true with doctrine.”

Some are recognizing the weaknesses. Bill Hybels, pastor of megachurch granddaddy Willowcreek, said after a study of the church’s ministry:

“We made a mistake. What we should have done when people crossed the line of faith and become Christians, we should have started telling people and teaching people that they have to take responsibility to become ‘self feeders.’ We should have gotten people, taught people, how to read their Bible between services, how to do the spiritual practices much more aggressively on their own.”

And that’s a key charge for the new evangelical generation: pair great growth, engaging entertainment, and compassionate service with the teaching of theological truth. Build strong and knowledgeable believers who will have the ability to dismiss error and to maintain their faith through difficult days.

We’ve considered the challenge of Navigating Newfound Authority; now a second challenge:

Waging a New Bloodless Revolution:

There is a divide in the evangelical church that is roughly along generational lines, although not entirely. The Evangelical Generation that began in the 70s has dedicated an enormous amount of its time, energies and resources to fighting the cultural corrosion of two values: First, the protection of human life from conception to natural death, threatened by the normalization of abortion-on-demand and the calls for euthanasia.  Second, the protection of heterosexual marriage, seen as under fire by increasingly ambitious homosexual activism. Those who have championed these protections have often done so at the exclusion of other valuable causes, and at the cost of public popularity.

The Emerging Generation and others have identified pressing issues that deserve the attention of the church and are biblical values and imperatives that cannot be left to secular interests. These include care for the poor, stopping human trafficking, protection of God’s creation or environmental stewardship; nuclear non-proliferation; the dreadful crises of the African people, including AIDS; and clean water crises around the world. These are vital (and popular) causes.

Through my work with many organizations over the years, I have been involved in nearly all of these causes, and I have seen and felt the passion of people who commit their lives to the important missions to which God has called them. The most discouraging aspect of the Church’s work in all of these areas is that its leaders rarely speak to the importance of the followers of Jesus addressing both the traditional concerns and newer concerns.

I see two major challenges for young Christian leaders in public engagement: 

1. Avoid the division on issues that is expected in politics. Recognize that God’s people must transcend this and cheer and support ministries that battle for unborn life and that battle against climate change. New leaders must be as bold in speaking out for more liveable conditions for those in the inner city as they are in speaking out for better conditions for those who preach the gospel in hostile nations. Leaders must share the living water as they dig for clean water.  The bifurcation of Christian public engagement is wrong and harmful to the Kingdom. 
2. It is dangerous to get comfortable with the notion that Christian advocates taking difficult and unpopular positions on public issues should back away from these issues and find warmer and fuzzier social causes. Instead, new leaders need to remain engaged, but with greater attention to tone and posture. We don’t need to be popular, but we cannot demonstrate unchristian characteristics as we do battle. A new generation cannot abandon the revolution of values; let’s just make it a bloodless revolution; a revolution where the ends do not justify means unbecoming to the followers of the prince of peace. 

To the barricades!  Just don’t break anything.

1. Interfaith events almost always feature lukewarm and dumbed-down faith. This is true whether it’s a progressive event put together by Unitarians and barely religious theists or a conservative event put together by a god-and-country Mormon such as Glenn Beck.
2. Interfaith is fine and good for patriotic events and to gain momentum on common causes, but Beck bills this as a time to help “heal your soul,” and I can promise you that the red-meat rhetoric that highlights most Beck events won’t heal anything.
3. Evangelicals don’t look to Mormons for spiritual solace.
4. While I am an active conservative, I do not appreciate Glenn Beck’s caustic and smirking approach to political dialogue. One evangelical leader is participating in the event because, he says, although Beck is a Mormon, he exhibits Christian “fruit.” “The fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control.” (Gal.2:22,23) I’m sorry, but that’s not a list of Beck traits. He exhibits a commitment to promoting many conservative political principles, but—in my view—by employing unchristian means.
5. Let me give you some perspective. Most evenings during the 5 o’clock hour I’m on a treadmill at the local fitness club with a TV screen in front of me. Last night, rather than watch Glenn Beck I was watching the Little League World Series. The LLWS, really? That’s pathetic, I know, but it should tell you all you need to know about my appetite for Glenn Beck programming.
6. I am a Republican and I think both Beck and this event are potentially harmful to improving Republican fortunes.
7. I have a date with my wife.
8. The Braves are in a pennant race and they’re on TV tonight (although that is trumped by #7 above).

I could come up with several more reasons, but thinking about Glenn Beck makes my head hurt.

Navigating Newfound Authority

During the last 50 years, neo-evangelicals have sought to break free from fundamentalist isolation and to give Christian orthodoxy a stronger voice than theological liberalism. They have gone far in achieving these goals, while also leaving the scars of the scorched earth strategy of the culture wars. A new generation of evangelicals will require the hand of God’s blessing to demonstrate the great wisdom, strength and grace that will needed to navigate current challenges and to be prepared to address the issues and crises that few of us can foresee or imagine. There are at least ten major challenges for young leaders; the first is identify these leaders.

We already know that there are many bright young leaders who can critique the church and analyze the actions of those who have preceded them. But can they lead? Will they be equipped to face fresh challenges?

Christian leaders for these times will need to be multi-dimensional and authentic; today there are few secrets and an alarming taste for exploitation of weaknesses. Leaders will need to be doctrinally sound, culturally relevant, publicly engaged, relationally winsome, attractively articulate, and morally consistent.

What young Christians may have what it takes to lead the church during the next generation and to be the face of American Christianity in the days ahead. I’m compiling a list of such potential leaders?

Here are three dozen on my list of candidates (with a hat tip to Brad Lomenick at Catalyst who has been thinking about these things). I’d like to hear for you: who do you think has the qualities and gifts to lead into the heart of the 21^st century? Please let me know. 

1. Jonathan Acuff, writer/blogger/consultant, creator of the Stuff Christians Like blog.
2. Ben Arment,innovative author, trainer, church planter, creator of Story and the White Board Sessions.
3. Leroy Barber, founder of Mission Year and author of New Neighbor, pastors in innercity Atlanta and guides young Christians into cross cultureal ministry in American cities.
4. Mark Batterson author and pastor of National Community Church, which meets in theaters and coffee shops throughout the Washington, D.C. area.
5. Francis Chan, popular speaker and author of Crazy Love: Overwhelmed by a Relentless God.
6. Eugene Cho. pastor in Seattle of Quest Church. Also soon to launch a new organization focused on global poverty.
7. Ryan Dobson, edgy son on Christian radio’s most famous name; founded Kor Ministries and now co-hosting new radio program with his Dad.  
8. Mark Driscoll, author and pastor of Mars Hill church in Seattle and leader of The Resurgence.
9. Joshua Dubois, executive director of the White House office of Faith Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. 
   

   Margaret Feinberg, author of Scouting the Divine

Tyler Wigg Stevenson, a pastor and writer who leads the Two Futures Project, a movement of Christians for nuclear threat reduction and the global abolition of nuclear weapons 

Tyler Wigg Stevenson, head of the Two Futures Project.