Valor Take the time to view the sequence of events which led to Staff Sgt Robert Miller being awarded the Medal of Honor.

###

Bad News / Good News The Bad News – from Mark Dever (HT: Joe Carter),

One part of clarity sometimes missed by earnest evangelists, however, is the willingness to offend. Clarity with the claims of Christ certainly will include the translation of the Gospel into words that our hearer understands, but it doesn’t necessarily mean translating it into words that our hearer will like. Too often advocates of relevant evangelism verge over into being advocates of irrelevant non-evangelism. A gospel which in no way offends the sinner has not been understood.

The Good News – Most evangelicals are looking forward to having a whole lot of fun at church this coming Sunday (ostensibly so that non-Christians will like what they experience).

###

Anti-Anti-Government Uh, no, Tea Party protests, and the like, are not “anti-government”. Advocating small government is completely contrary to advocating anarchy.

###

Politics, as meant to be If the GOP makes gains in November, then it will be “hand to hand combat” in Congress next year. Bring it on! That’s what the founders counted on.

###

Huh? Janet Napolitano “doesn’t know the answer” to the question of what to do with illegal alien Nicky Diaz? What’s not to know? Aren’t illegal aliens supposed to be deported to their country of origin? Methinks the first part of “immigration reform” would be to start enforcing the laws as they stand.

###

Pessimism on U.S. Race Relations? Many people, prior to the election in 2008, categorically stated that they were voting for Obama because he was black [sic], and some people implied it was morally wrong to not vote for him, presumably because he would be the first black [sic] president. With that type of naive thinking (i.e., racist), are the results of this poll surprising?

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 challenges of Navigating Newfound Authority, Waging a New Bloodless Revolution, Overcoming Spiritual Superficiality; Creating Culture,  Returning to Virtue, Bridging to Everyday Relevance, Resisting the Seduction of the New Social Gospel and Learning to Communicate Again. Now this challenge:

Embracing the Diversity of the New Christian World

Ask Americans what faith group they belong to and the vast majority—some 75 to 85 percent—will say they are Christian. About 37 percent will say they are evangelical or born again. Non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, and Hinduism), collectively make up about 4% to 5% of the adult population. The rest say they have no religious belief or affiliation. Those statistics probably surprise most people because of the efforts of media and others to be sensitive to the increasing number of non-Americans among us and to the vast diversity of faiths that they bring with them.

(A Barna poll, by the way, showed that born-again Christians are increasingly well-educated, well-off and from a variety of cultural backgrounds, perhaps most surprisingly, Asian-American.)

The greatest threat to American Christianity is not other faith groups but faithlessness, spiritual vacuity. Although individuals identify themselves as more Christian than non-Christian, the sad reality is that for far too many of those supposedly adherents, there is no “there” there.  

While in the U.S. evangelicalism is the only part of Christianity that is growing, it is growing slowly and that growth is among independent groups, not denominations (for the most part), while a conservative strain of Christianity—both Protestant and Catholic—is surging in Africa, Latin America and Asia.

Orthodox or evangelicals Christian believers in America will increasingly find their strongest and most numerous allies and spiritual partners not in the western mainline Christian denominations, but in the conservative Christian—both Protestant and Catholic—in the global south.   

Philip Jenkins, Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State and author of The Next Christendom (2002) wrote about the shifts in the global church:

If we look beyond the liberal West, we see that another Christian revolution, quite different from the one being called for in affluent American suburbs and upscale urban parishes, is already in progress. Worldwide, Christianity is actually moving toward supernaturalism and neo-orthodoxy, and in many ways toward the ancient world view expressed in the New Testament: a vision of Jesus as the embodiment of divine power, who overcomes the evil forces that inflict calamity and sickness upon the human race. In the global South (the areas that we often think of primarily as the Third World) huge and growing Christian populations—currently 480 million in Latin America, 360 million in Africa, and 313 million in Asia, compared with 260 million in North America—now make up what the Catholic scholar Walbert Buhlmann has called the Third Church, a form of Christianity as distinct as Protestantism or Orthodoxy, and one that is likely to become dominant in the faith. The revolution taking place in Africa, Asia, and Latin America is far more sweeping in its implications than any current shifts in North American religion, whether Catholic or Protestant.

The growth in Africa has been relentless. In 1900 Africa had just 10 million Christians out of a continental population of 107 million—about nine percent. Today the Christian total stands at 360 million out of 784 million, or 46 percent. And that percentage is likely to continue rising, because Christian African countries have some of the world’s most dramatic rates of population growth. Meanwhile, the advanced industrial countries are experiencing a dramatic birth dearth. Within the next twenty-five years the population of the world’s Christians is expected to grow to 2.6 billion (making Christianity by far the world’s largest faith). By 2025, 50 percent of the Christian population will be in Africa and Latin America, and another 17 percent will be in Asia. Those proportions will grow steadily. By about 2050 the United States will still have the largest single contingent of Christians, but all the other leading nations will be Southern: Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, and the Philippines. By then the proportion of non-Latino whites among the world’s Christians will have fallen to perhaps one in five.

———

Perhaps the most remarkable point [is that the trends have] registered so little on the consciousness of even well-informed Northern observers. What, after all, do most Americans know about the distribution of Christians worldwide? I suspect that most see Christianity very much as it was a century ago—a predominantly European and North American faith.
As the media have striven in recent years to present Islam in a more sympathetic light, they have tended to suggest that Islam, not Christianity, is the rising faith of Africa and Asia, the authentic or default religion of the world’s huddled masses. But Christianity is not only surviving in the global South, it is enjoying a radical revival, a return to scriptural roots. We are living in revolutionary times.

Timothy Keller of Redeemer Presbyterian in New York writes:

The demographic center of Christian gravity has already shifted from the West to Asia, Latin America, and Africa. The rising urban churches of China may be particularly influential in the future. But the West still has the educational institutions, the money, and a great deal of power. What should the relationship of the older Western churches be to the new non-Western church? How can we use our assets to serve them in ways that are not paternalistic? How can we learn from them in more than perfunctory ways?

Evangelical leaders of the next generation will be looking at a very different evangelical church, likely to be more diverse and stagnant in America and soaring in the global south. Their challenge will be to grasp new opportunities to serve and support the growing yet needy church communities, and to learn all they can from the fresh new perspectives from vibrant New Testament expressions of the Body of Christ around the world.

In this video, slam poet Chris Tse apologizes for being a Christian (warning: a couple of instances of foul language). Before you watch the video, think for a moment which actions Tse might have singled out as worthy of apologizing for. Consider our culture, its worldviews, and especially how Christians are portrayed in secular media.

How did you do? It really wasn’t that difficult to guess which sins he’d be apologizing for, was it?

As one would expect, some of the politically correct sins presented were: the crusades, homophobia, anti-abortion protests, culturally insensitive missionaries, etc. Now, regardless of whether or not Christians, in general, are guilty of some or all of these infractions, does anyone else find it unsettling that the infractions listed match up with how the Christian and Christianity is portrayed in secular media?

While it appears that Mr. Tse is sincere, albeit naive, I’m concerned about how this type of “apology” dovetails with the secular worldview of the liberal west. I find it interesting that we live in a world which considers all ideas valid, yet demands apologies from those whose ideas which, truth be told, they consider wrong (i.e., not valid). It’s the old, “We will not tolerate intolerance!” mantra. Recall that one of President Obama’s first actions, as President, was to travel ’round the world apologizing on behalf of the United States.

Apologizing, evidently, is in vogue.

I’ve read some commentators who state that we live in a post-modern society which is not really interested in viewing the world through rational, enlightenment eyes. Therefore, any discipline which presents an argument to make its case, such as that of apologetics, is considered old-school. Instead, we’re told, we need to expend our efforts to reach the heart of the person – namely by means of anything relational.

Hence, we see efforts such those to administer so-called social justice to the less fortunate in our midst – or – to deliver apologies for hurting other people’s feelings.

Yet we humans are neither wholly rational or wholly emotional creatures – we are much more than that. We have, after all, been stamped with the Image of God.

As such, worldviews which tout the truth of pluralism are self-defeating, not because they don’t feel right but because they don’t work. In the same vein, apologies for the past actions of a particular group had better have the facts and context of those actions objectively correct, lest such apologies be nothing more than a meaningless flapping of wind.

References: (which I don’t apologize for listing)

The Crusades – Rodney Stark – God’s Battalions

Abortion – Christians offering help and healing to those who’ve chosen abortion

Jim Elliot – ’nuff said

Focus on the Family (yes FOTF) – an article that must surely be filled with hate towards the homosexual…

With regards to stories such as these, of U.S. military personnel committing crimes and atrocities, take care to note “The Difference”. While murderous actions of terrorists are considered the norm, such acts, when committed by U.S. soldiers, justifiably result in outrage here in the U.S.

As graphically illustrated, by Michael Yon’s photograph of a U.S. soldier cradling an Iraqi girl, mortally wounded by the normal actions of terrorist insurgents, there is a difference between us and those who would wage terror on the innocent.

Image © 2005 Michael Yon

College and university professors seem to be a very social-justice-conscious bunch.  900 of them, from over 150 college campuses, signed a petition urging the US to abandon Israel as an ally because of its human rights abuses, for example.

But Prof. Fred Gottheil decided to try an experiment.

"Would these same 900 sign onto a statement expressing concern about human rights violations in the Muslim Middle East, such as honor killing, wife beating, female genital mutilation, and violence against gays and lesbians?" he wondered. "I felt it was worth a try."

The results? "Almost non existent," he told Frontpage editor Jamie Glazov. Only 27 of the 675 "self-described social-justice seeking academics" agreed to sign Gottheil’s Statement of Concern – less than 5 percent of the total who had publicly called for the censure of Israel for human rights violations.

Politics trumps social justice for this paragon of the Left; the academic.  I would really like to know how deep this penetrates other areas of the Left.  How about liberal churches that has divested themselves from Israel; do they also actively divest themselves from Islamic countries for the same reasons?

In my late-vocations class were were informed that during late antiquity in the Eastern (very Christian influenced) Roman empire there was an operational just war theory. That theory was quite simple and was as follows. 

War is never just. 

Now this is an interesting theory of war to be held by a Empire which was almost continuously at war (mostly for defense) for 800 years or so. This merely points out that the conclusion that war is not just is not equivalent to the claim that war is at times necessary. 

War not being just however, did not mean war was not practice or even should not be practiced. Those engaged in war, because of its inherent injustice, were excluded from Eucharist for a period of five years (if the war was not deemed defensive, in which case it was three years). I think there are some problems with this theory as presented about how the Eastern Roman Empire viewed justice vis a vis war, in that I’m pretty sure that clerical presence was found alongside the army. What was its purpose if these soldiers were all “out of communion” during wartime? 

Ken Ham, staunch Young Earth Creationist, has recently written a blog post highlighting a recent position change taken by the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination (HT: Ron’s Bloviating). Ham takes issue with the AG for revising their earlier held position, sympathetic to a Young Earth position, for that of one which allows for Old Earth belief as well. For the record, I have grown up in the AG denomination and have been partial to the Old Earth Creation model, despite their earlier stance, since I was in elementary school (the 1960s). In A Sad Day for the Assemblies of God Denomination, Ham writes,

The general presbytery of the Assemblies of God (AG) denomination, in session August 9–11, 2010, adopted a revised statement on “The Doctrine of Creation.” Here is an excerpt from the official AG position paper, that opens the door to evolution and millions of years, and the various compromise positions on Genesis held by some in the church (such as gap theory, day age, progressive creation, theistic evolution, etc)

Of particular concern, to Ham, is the statement by the AG,

The advance of scientific research, particularly in the last few centuries, has raised many questions about the interpretation of the Genesis accounts of creation.

evidently because he connects such reasoning as equivalent to succumbing to the lie told by the serpent in Genesis 3, in which he tempted Eve to doubt God’s Word. By comparing a 1977 statement, from the AG, Ham contrasts a previous belief that a “natural reading” of the Genesis 1 creation account results in an understanding that the account refers to consecutive 24 hour solar days. His concern seems to be that any acceptance of data, from scientific research, that points towards a billions of years old universe, is tantamount to the doubting of God’s Word, which he understands – nay, demands – to state otherwise. Ham writes,

The AG with its August statement is now saying we have to take the fallible ideas of fallible humans and use these in authority over the Word of God.

I applaud Ham’s concern, which is ultimately driven by a desire to keep Christians from falling prey to worldly wisdom, yet I seriously question the dogmatic stance he has taken. He posits that a Young Earth interpretation of the creation accounts, found in Genesis 1 and Genesis 2, is the only viable interpretation allowed. Such a position has neither a theological, historical, or scientific grounding.

While this blog post is, by no means, an attempt to exhaustively answer the Young Earth / Old Earth debate, I do want to make a few concise points.

In discussing this subject, with Young Earth proponents, I’ve sometimes been told that the Young Earth position is held because “it’s what the Bible says”. The obvious conclusion, from such a position, is that the Old Earth interpretation is NOT what the Bible says. I wonder if Young Earthers, who make such a statement, are really aware of implications of what they’re proposing? Do they really think that some of their fellow Christians are not aware of what they happen to be reading in God’s Word? I also wonder how consistent Young Earthers are with their “natural reading” of “what the Bible says” argument? If they wish to be consistent, then surely they must think that God has wings, that Jesus’ had nails driven through his hands, that it’s the Sun that revolves around the Earth*, that the mustard seed is the smallest plant seed on earth, and that the value of Pi is equal to the integer 3. But, of course, I would imagine that for those references they would argue that the meaning found in text involves intent and context – context which includes culture, language, genre, etc. Try as they might, they cannot get around the fact that the Genesis creation accounts have not been dogmatically held, through Christendom, to mean that God created the cosmos in 6 24 hour solar days, nor that one is mandated to translate the Hebrew text as such. It’s my conclusion that they are incorrect in stating that their interpretation is the “natural reading” of “what the Bible says”.

Another point in which Ham slips up, in my opinion, is his accusation that the belief the universe is billions of years old correlates with a belief in natural process evolution. To his credit, he does not accuse Old Earthers of categorically believing in natural process evolution, but merely states that the Old Earth position “opens the door” to such belief. Still, I take issue with such a proposition, for it demonstrates a lack of understanding of both the Old Earth position as well as the natural process evolutionary position. The Old Earth interpretation attempts to harmonize not only the multiple creation accounts found in the Bible (including and beyond the two major ones found in Genesis), but our understanding of the physical realm as well. If the data points towards a universe billions of years old, and if we can harmonize the data with what we read in the Bible, then it is irrelevant whether or not the natural process evolutionary model also accepts a billions of years old universe. Also, as research continues, the complexity of our natural realm is becoming more evident: from the minute structure of DNA to the makeup of the universe itself. As we discover that advanced life requires this specified complexity, and as we understand that specified complexity is highly improbable, by chance, we begin to understand how improbable our existence is – from a purely natural point of view. Truth is, billions of years is appearing to be not enough time for advanced life to arise through natural means.

It seems to me that many in the Young Earth camp dismiss scientific research too easily. At best, they simply recognize man’s fallibility and apply that fallibility to our interpretation of the natural realm; at worst, they assume some grand conspiracy, in the scientific community, dedicated to the undermining of all religious belief. I will spend zero time discussing the latter option, as I believe it to be nonsense and as I believe that Ham holds to the former option.

I wonder, at what point do I, as a fallible human, disregard the ideas of other fallible humans? Do I refuse to board an airliner simply because it was designed by fallible humans who, obviously, have fallible ideas about aeronautical engineering? Do I take the stairs, when visiting a high-rise building, because the elevator was designed by fallible humans with fallible ideas of structural engineering? How many Young Earthers have ever taken an over-the-counter medication? Since such medication was developed by fallible humans with fallible ideas regarding chemistry, I must conclude that Ken Ham does not take any over-the-counter medication. Speaking of fallible ideas – how about the idea of how we read, and understand, text? I think that we believe, however fallibly, that we are able to see, and then read text, due to the physical action of light photons bouncing off of a page of text, being received and processed by our eyes, through the lens, retina, and optic nerve, with the resulting electrical impulses then being interpreted by our brain. The whole notion of understanding God’s written Word is dependent on a physical process.

You see, the problem with discounting scientific research is that one ends up having to pick and choose which scientific research they will believe in. While we don’t have an exhaustive understanding of the physical realm, we do have some understanding of it and – this is important – our level of understanding grows as we continue to do more research. So, whereas the scientific community in the 1800s thought that the universe had always existed, Albert Einstein threw them on their heads by proposing (with scientific backup), in the early 1900s, that the universe was finite and actually began to exist. It is indeed very interesting that this notion of a beginning was already found in God’s Word.

In the years since Einstein, the ideas of general and special relativity have been refined, through continued experimenting and testing, and as our understanding of cosmology grew. Likewise, in the years since the Wright brothers, we’ve moved from airplanes built out of wood and fabric, capable of carrying only one person, to jet powered airliners which transport hundreds of people thousands of miles at a time. Is there a chance that as we gain a better understanding of the physical realm the ideas of general and special relativity, as well as those of aeronautical engineering, will be overturned? Certainly. As stated earlier, we don’t have a complete understanding of the entire cosmos. However, and this is how the process of progressive understanding works, as continued research builds cumulative support for a particular theory, the more reliable such a theory becomes in explaining the natural realm.

Unfortunately, for the Young Earth camp, they have no credible scientific data which can support a universe of 6,000 – 10,000 years in age. And, to make matters worse, further research in multiple, unrelated disciplines, continues to support an old age for the universe. The Old Earth model is certainly not without paradoxes or weak points, yet one should consider its many strengths before dismissing it out of hand.

Kudos to the Assemblies of God for revising their position on the creation accounts found in Genesis 1 and 2.

* a natural reading obvious conclusion, if the Earth truly does not move (and a conclusion that the church had to revise due to an eventual better understanding of the physical realm).

In response to (what was going to be) a mass burning of Korans, the Massachusetts Bible Society decided to take action.

As people of the Book, we are joined to Islam and Judaism in a special way and as an organization that has sought to put that Book into people’s hands for 201 years, we cannot stand idly by while the sacred text of a sister religion is burned as our beloved Bibles once were.

Lest the culture believe that Rev. Jones’ position represents that of all Christians, MassBible is prepared to take a counter action.  For 201 years we have given the Bible to those without access.  In response to Rev. Jones despicable act, we are prepared to give two Qur’ans for every one that Rev. Jones burns.

(Emphasis theirs.)

The Koran burning was called off, but not this effort.  So a Bible society is financing the purchase of Korans for distribution. 

What?

Given what (I hope) the MBS thinks about the Bible (y’know, that it’s true and gives life and eternal hope and all that), why are they handing out the text of a religion that they are trying to convert people away from?  I think of missionaries in Islamic countries, who fear deportation at best or physical persecution at worst, watching a Bible society working directly against them by spreading the words of the Koran rather than words of Life. 

But that’s not all!  Guess who’s cheering them on?  Duane Shank, senior policy advisor at … (wait for it) … the Sojourners!

While the Quran will no longer be burned, it seems to me that this response followed in the steps of Jesus, showing love and respect where others were showing hatred. It is a strong witness for what Christians should be showing to our neighbors.

By tying the millstone around their neck lovingly and tossing them over the cliff into the sea, we’re showing love and respect.

What?

Is this really what Wallis and the Sojourners hold up as an example to follow?  Why are we pushing them further from Jesus the Messiah?  How, in the name of all that is eternal, is that in any way loving?  A cup of water, a meal, a school in the name of Christ is loving.  Bringing people to a saving knowledge of Jesus is loving.  Supplying them with their own brand of heresy and idolatry is not loving. 

If the Sojourners and the Massachusetts Bible Society really believe that Christianity is true and Islam is false, they have an awful way of showing it.  My respect for both as purveyors of the gospel of Jesus Christ has gone way, way down.

 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 challenges of Navigating Newfound Authority, Waging a New Bloodless Revolution, Overcoming Spiritual Superficiality; Creating Culture,  Returning to Virtue, Bridging to Everyday Relevance, and Resisting the Seduction of the New Social Gospel. Now this challenge:

Learning to Communicate Again

John Maxwell tells the story, presumably true, about a denominational meeting on June 19, 1908, at which the following minutes were recorded:

Mr. Grueber introduced the following to be discussed: Nine reasons not to introduce the typewriter into our church.

1. The paper must be put into the machine and aligned properly, tabs must be set. This is not easy. When writing by hand, one simply begins, exactly where you want with no restrictions. 

2. With a typewriter, you have to constantly remember to capitalize and put in punctuation. It is easy to forget, and to go back and change things is hard. When writing by hand, such things are automatic. 

3. With the typewriter, you have to have been trained to find the proper keys. This takes time. We already know how to write. 

4. With the typewriter, you are limited to the size and spacing of the type. When writing by hand, you can use any size letters or style you want. 

5. With the typewriter, centering and setting margins is [sic] not easy; when writing, it is no problem. 

6. A typewriter breaks down and costs to be fixed. Writing does not. 

7. Correcting a mistake after something has been typed is a problem; when writing by hand, it is not. 

8. The church has gotten along for over 1900 years without a typewriter; why do we need this now? 

9. Instead of learning a machine with all the above drawbacks, time should be spent on penmanship (Maxwell, J. in Galloway, D. ed., 2001, p. 23-24) 

As one writer mused: “Debating the use of typewriters in 1908 proved just about as fruitful as the research devoted to perfecting the manufacture and sale of the buggy whip when the automobile was accelerating into the lifestyles of an increasingly mobile population in First World Countries. And no doubt future generations will derive a certain humorous pleasure in reviewing the record of our debates over technologies that will one day be deemed completely obsolete.”

The urgency of God’s message for our world has throughout history been a prime mover of communication and communications technologies. At times, people of faith have led the drive for new communications methods, and occasionally they have struggled to stay current with the available means of communications.

We take for granted the technologies and methods that have, one by one, been enormous contributors to the work of the church:

Printing:  The printing press revolutionized the Church, serving as a major catalyst for the Reformation. It was in 1450 that Johann Gutenberg developed a technique for commercial printing using movable type. The process became known as letterpress, and enabled Gutenberg to produce printed books of high quality. Most notable of these was the Gutenberg Bible of 1455. In a breathtakingly short period of time, roughly 50 years, more than eight million volumes had been printed, estimated to be more books than all the combined scribes of prior human history had produced. Throughout the years, Christian activists have tried to master the art of getting positive mention in newspapers and magazines, two media products that are heading (I fear) toward extinction.

Telephone: It was the manipulation of electrical current that created the first telegraph, opening the era of immediate long-distance communication. In 1837 British scientists Charles Wheatsone and William Cooke were inventing an electric telegraph system right at the same time as Samuel Morse, working with Alfred Vail, was also inventing a workable system. Just 39 years later Alexander Graham Bell invented the first practical telephone.

Until the invention of the telegraph, long-distance communication required people to move messages physically from place to place, a time-consuming activity involving travel by horse, boat, stagecoach, or other vehicle. Because of the difficulty of this type of one-way communication, messages were simple and utilitarian. The telegraph, and later the telephone, helped decrease the dependence of communication on transportation, making the space between people less important and their messages longer but often less consequential. Today the cell phone has made instantaneous long-distance communication portable. 

Radio: In 1915 a former telegraph operator by the name of David Sarnoff suggested to a Vice-President of the Marconi Wireless Telegraph Company of America that he had an idea to produce a “Radio Music Box” that would be capable of receiving radio signals on several different wave lengths. In a memo he wrote: “If only one million families thought well of the idea, it would…yield considerable revenue.” That idea was rejected and about a decade later Sarnoff’s company, RCA, was selling enough radio sets to establish it as a world leader among industrial firms.

In the early days of radio, some church leaders were wary of radio waves because they feared that it was a medium controlled by Satan, the “prince of the air.” An early radio preacher marveled when people came to Christ listening to a broadcast. “Unction can be transmitted,” he exclaimed.

Radio has been used mightily by the church for evangelism, preaching to the faithful, discussing Christian engagement, and broadcasting the music of the faith. This is true in this country, and it continues to be used for multiple purposes, especially in areas more difficult to reach with the Gospel through traditional means.

Television:  The television has had powerful influence on the church. Indeed, millions of viewers each week find their spiritual education, conviction, and nurture on the television. For huge numbers of people, both the infirmed and the healthy, their preacher is the television preacher. However, the use of television by evangelicals is mixed.  The evangelistic message of Billy Graham’s televised crusades is unmistakable, including the offer of counselors that can be reached by toll-free numbers on the telephone. But many of the “televangelists” have misused the medium. “Television evangelism,” Christian fundraising guru Russ Reid said, “is bad television and bad evangelism.”

The Internet:  Thomas Jefferson advanced the concept of the free library system in which information in printed form could be transferred and made accessible to large numbers of people. What would Mr. Jefferson think of the information superhighway available today on computers via the Internet? He’d probably love it and its power to equalize. The church is learning how to use the new media along with everyone else. With smart phones that access the Web, dynamic websites with flash graphics and webcam, churches have global access and reach, and the power to create a kind of digitally-based holiness for members and non-members alike.

Last week, a friend who pastors a Christian church in India, extended his visit to our area, which made it necessary for him to preach Sunday morning services in India from here in Atlanta.  He stood on the kitchen counter, preached vigorously into a Webcam on a laptop in the middle of the night (12 hour time difference), a broadcast to the church via Skype. Except for the relatively low cost of the laptop and a Skype fee, it was virtually free. That’s just amazing!

Christian churches, organizations, writers, and just about everyone else are learning along with the rest of the world how to establish and embellish an Internet presence. Church web sites and Internet blogs are increasingly being seen as opportunities to engage the culture with the message of Jesus Christ.

New Technologies

Today’s communication is a blur. How do you communicate spiritual depth in digital bytes or in 140 characters? We are moving from the immediacy of television and radio to the blinding speed of 4G and an almost completely mobile world.  Just how do you communicate the deep truths of faith and purpose in the constantly attention-compromised, distracted time bits afforded to you by a generation on the run?

That brings us to the challenges that will be faced by the Christian leaders of the rising generation. There seems to be a new device or communications system every day, and many of the next-generation technological developments are not yet on the horizon.

Here’s Forbes’ guess at the coolest communications devices of the future. They include:

1. Empathetic Communication
2. The Phone Glove
3. Micromedia Paper: a book on one sheet
4. $100 laptop
5. Ubik Concept Mobile Phone
6. Haptics: touchy-feely
7. VOWI-FI:  hot spots become home phone lines
8. 802.16 Phones: huge band width for phones
9. VVT Finish Walking Bio Identification Phone
10. Qualcomm IMOD Phone: revolution in screen lighting

Throughout the decades we have certainly learned that modernizations and technologies are spiritually inert and must be evaluated not simply by their modernity but by the impact they will have on individual character, communion with God, meaningful community, authentic communication of the Gospel, depth of knowledge, the quality of family and community life, and service to those in need.

How come when a small group of Muslims kill innocent men, women, and children (e.g., 9/11, Bali, African embassies, Spanish train, British train, etc.), we’re reminded that Islam is a religion of peace, and that the murderous acts were those of fanatics; but when a small group of Christians decide to burn the Koran, there’s nary a word of Christianity being related to peace or that such a wacko group of self-proclaimed “christians” are fanatics?

From a Facebook post by La Shawn Barber:

So much ink and hand-wringing over Koran-burning, yet so little over child killing. Strange, that.

If we could get Democrats this riled up over living beings, we’d have substantially fewer abortion tomorrow.  But they reserve their high dudgeon for … books. 

Well, holy books to be sure, but not all holy books.  See, it all depends on how the believers in said holy book might react.  La Shawn’s Facebook post links to her blog which adds this:

Burn an Islamic holy book, and Muslims kill in retaliation. Burn the Bible, and Christians pray for the one who lights the match and for the crowd cheering.

The planned Koran burnings are being highly, and rightly, criticized by the Left.  There are various reasons cited — Islamophobia, America’s reputation, insensitivity — but given the two different ways those believers react, it appears the Left only complains loudly when they might be hurt by those believers.  It’s more self-preservation than any pretense of religious tolerance. 

And children being killed in the name of convenience?  Well, that’s a right.

I’ve written previously on the false notion, in my opinion, of “felt-led” theology (see here and here). Felt-led theology, as coined by Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason, is a mindset among Christians, in which life decisions are based on whether or not one feels led – presumably of the Spirit – towards said decision. This experiential approach is heavily dependent on interpreting inner feelings and urges as potential messages from God. In a broad sense, such an approach is also used as a measure of one’s “connectedness” with God. In other words, your walk with God is determined by how well you decipher those inner nudges; the better you decipher, the more closely aligned you are with His Will.

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