Dr. Albert Mohler has a new podcast beginning today: "Thinking in Public." Today's show has guest Christian Smith, whose research leads him to believe many American young people who have grown up in our churches are less Christian than moralists. God to them is the distant author of a great self-help guide.

Let's talk about this.

It is Labor Day, and (as every year) I had to go to work. So I shall pour forth my frustration on the Communists, whom I hold ultimately responsible for the holiday, and who have done me no good at all.

Grim at Grim's Hall embedded this, the original recording of the South African song ("Mbube") that became “The Lion Sleeps Tonight.”
Read the rest of this entry . . .

I don't generally get into the Creationist/Evolutionist controversy. This is not because I don't have opinions (or beliefs) on the subject, but because I don't feel I have the necessary knowledge to contribute to the discussion. If I hear an intelligent Creationist, he sounds convincing to me. If I hear an intelligent Theistic Evolutionist, he makes sense to me too. (Atheistic Evolutionists won't get a very sympathetic hearing from me. Sorry.) I am not a scientist nor the son of a scientist; it's a fight I'm just not equipped to jump into myself.

But I have some observations about what a critic might call the meta-narrative. I mean the entire historical drama of the conflict between faith and science, which began in the Enlightenment and reached critical mass with Darwin.

It seems to me that, for people who are supposed to have all the answers, the Scientific Naturalists sure fail in their predictions a lot. Read the rest of this entry . . .

I heard an interesting piece of gossip at my class reunion last Saturday.

I don’t think anyone will be hurt by it. The news was more than a hundred years old.

The reunion took place at the farm of one of my classmates (we lived in a small town, and it was a small class. Smaller now). The town is Kenyon, Minnesota, not a famous place, but once a center of Norwegian-American settlement, made conspicuous once upon a time by the story I shall now relate.

Our host told us, “This farm once belonged to the first doctor in Goodhue County, Dr. Grønvold.” That was interesting.

Later another classmate, who knows I’m interested in history, told me, “You know, there was a big scandal here in the 1800s. That farm over there” (he pointed to a brick house about a thousand feet away) “is the Holden church parsonage. The pastor there was gone a lot, and his wife had an affair with the doctor who lived here.”

“B. J. Muus?” I asked. Yes, he said, that was the pastor’s name.

I’d read about the story, but never gave it close study. Now I’d stumbled across the living oral tradition, on the very spot, and it piqued my interest. So I read up about it. Read the rest of this entry . . .

Here's a touching quote from Bonhoeffer's diary, "Today I encountered a completely unique case in my pastoral counseling, which I'd like to recount to you briefly and which despite its simplicity really made me think. . . .

Christianity Today interviewed Anne Rice on following Christ without the institutional church (thanks to Jeffrey Overstreet). I'm sure the whole interview is interesting for conversation at the least, but I noticed this paragraph, which our friend Hunter Baker (may his books always be in print) may enjoy:

The damning of the secular culture is upsetting and embarrassing. Secularism in America has done great things. It's allowed people to live here whether they're Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim, and it has protected people from the extreme beliefs of their neighbors.

Oh, the soothing influence of secularism. If not for it, we would have slaughtered our neighbors and warred with the nations all in the name of some irrelevant deity.

In related news, Jared Wilson has quit the ninja. I doubt he will live out the year, but I hear ninjas are turning over a new leaf. The tolerating influence of secularism, you know.

I hope I didn't contribute to the confusion.

I posted a while back (during the election, I think) that I wondered if Muslims around the world might be offended if we elected a man whose father was a Muslim, but who was not practicing Islam. I based it on what I believed to be a Muslim teaching, that the son of a Muslim man is always a Muslim, forever.

Apparently that doctrine is not universal among Muslims. Certainly we haven't heard much about it during this administration. So that doesn't seem to be an issue, and I was mistaken.

But it appears, according to a Pew Research poll, that 34 percent of Americans think President Obama is a Muslim, while 43 percent aren't sure what he believes.

The usual voices are blaming talk radio, but I'm sure I've never heard any national talk show host espouse that idea (though crazy callers bring it up from time to time). Well, Michael Savage might have said it, but Michael Savage will say anything.

I did hear a guest on a local talk show last weekend say the president was a Muslim, but that was small-time radio.

Our president says he's a Christian, and I believe he's a “Christian,” at least according to his own lights (which would appear to be very different from my lights. Insert Rev. Wright joke here). When the form says “Religion,” he checks the box next to “Christian.”

But is anybody really surprised people are confused on the matter?

Has President Obama ever made a positive statement about Christianity to rival the many flattering statements he's made about Islam since his inauguration? American politicians have a tradition of joining churches and parading their piety. It's often hypocritical, but the president's avoidance of public worship while in office has been no secret.

If I know a man is married, and I hear him talking all the time about Jane, and how beautiful Jane is, and what a great wife Jane is, I think I can be excused for being surprised when I learn that he's in fact married to Sally, about whom he never talks.

Today I was too busy to listen closely to the weekly Ultimate Issues Hour on Dennis Prager's radio show. But I caught one guy calling in on the subject of the existence of God. He explained that, for his own part, he thought of God as some kind of Force. Seeing God as an “old man in the sky” seemed to him primitive thinking.

One hears that sort of thing fairly often. I attribute it to the scientific world view that's dominated public thought ever since the Enlightenment. Religion, under that view, is irrational and all about emotion. Science is about reason. If there's a true explanation of ultimate reality, such thinking argues, it must be a scientific answer. So if there's a God, He must be describable in scientific terms. A powerful Force seems to fit the bill.

Hey, George Lucas built a whole movie franchise out of it.

I would like to propose that describing God as a Force is both inadequate and profoundly unsatisfactory. Here's why.

My first proposition is that God must be the greatest thing in the universe. Because if anything were greater than Him, that thing would be God. God is, by definition, that which has no superior.

A Force is by its nature an impersonal phenomenon. Forces do not think or choose or love.

Therefore, if God is a Force, God is not love.

But if you believe (as I do, and most people in our culture do, because they've never examined their beliefs) that love is the greatest thing of all, how can you say that God is a Force? That would mean that something that cannot love is superior to things that do love (that would be us).

You have to have it one way or the other. If God is a Force, He is not love, and love is not the greatest thing of all.

If God is Love, He is not a Force (or not merely a Force). He has to be a Person (three persons in one, according to Christians).

For me it's a no brainer. Love wins. God must be Personal.

Earlier this year, several blogs participated in a review tour for Stephen Prothero's book, God is not One: The Eight Rival Religions That Rule the World and Why Their Differences Matter. Here's a quote from the introduction.

To claim that all religions are the same is to misunderstand that each tradition attempts to solve a different aspect of the human condition. For example:

• Islam: the problem is pride / the solution is submission
• Christianity: the problem is sin / the solution is salvation
• Confucianism: the problem is chaos / the solution is social order
• Buddhism: the problem is suffering / the solution is enlightenment
• Hinduism: the problem is the endless cycle of reincarnation / the solution is release
• Judaism: the problem is exile / the solution is our return back to God and to our true home

When we gloss over these differences we fail to appreciate each religion on its own terms.

The book appears to be a survey and not an apologetic. This Lutheran reviewer said she wanted more from the Christianity chapter "wishing I could add to further clarification regarding . . . consequences that 95 theses had on the world." Unfortunately, the list of blogs doesn't link directly to the reviews, save one. So here's a link to a review from someone who disagrees with the book's central premise.

A few weeks back I wrote about a matter in the church which I attend, which has drawn national attention. I think it's appropriate for me to follow that story up now, as our congregation has finished its investigation and the principle figure involved is speaking publicly again.

First of all, to name names, my church is Hope Lutheran Church of Minneapolis, and the subject of the story is our senior pastor, Tom Brock. Pastor Brock fought a long battle with The Very Large Lutheran Church Body Which Shall Not Be Named, over issues like women's ordination, abortion, and homosexual marriage, before finally encouraging withdrawal from that church body and affiliation with ours a few years back. He has a cable television show, and a local radio talk show, in which he discusses religious issues. Through these outlets he has made himself fairly prominent, and indeed (as we have seen) a target.

A local homosexual publication called Lavender Magazine heard a rumor that Pastor Brock was attending a Catholic support group called Courage, a group for men struggling against same-sex attraction. A freelance reporter then posed as a prospective member, attended a meeting, and wrote an article for Lavender, in which he insinuated that Pastor Brock was leading a secret “gay” life. This move has been “viewed by many as journalistically unethical,” according to this AP story on the One News Now website.

Gee, ya think? Breaking the confidentiality of a Twelve Step Program?

Pastor Brock was placed on leave of absence while our congregation conducted an inquiry.

He appeared before the congregation again this past Sunday. He and members of the elders explained that he has been exonerated by their investigation. Among other things, they spoke, with his permission, with people in the Courage group in whom he had confided. They can find no evidence that he has been living a secret sex life. They are satisfied that Pastor Brock is celibate, which is all we ask of any man dealing with this difficult problem.

Reports that Pastor Brock was “back in the pulpit” last Sunday are technically true, but misleading. He did occupy the physical space behind the pulpit when he talked, but he didn't deliver the sermon. He will be preaching again, but not right away. His intention is to resign as Senior Pastor but stay on staff, concentrating on the radio and television outreach that put him in the crosshairs in the first place.

I know Pastor Brock to say hello to. I do not know him well. But I shook his hand on my way out of the sanctuary, and told him he's a hero to me.

I heard something of a radio show tonight that ties in a bit with Lars’ last post. The show was discussing a Christian response to homosexuality, and I believe both guests had struggled with same-sex attraction over the years. A woman called in to ask if they believed people could be born gay and told her painful story of being rejected by churches repeatedly. She was 66 years old now, did not want to have homosexual feelings, but was beginning to believe God made her this way.

What burned me up was when she said churches had alienated her when they learned she struggled with homosexuality. Some churches wanted her to embrace the perversion; others wanted her to clean herself up before she could come to God with them. Naturally, I believe the first group is not practicing biblical morality, but the second group? Who do they think they are?! Are they in church to do God a favor? Does the Almighty need them to do his work? Did they clean up themselves before God redeemed them?

I hate hearing of church people who reject those struggling with the ugly, public sins. It’s just as blasphemous as any play or movie you might be recruited to boycott.

But as usual when I start writing, I calm down before I’m finished. I know the church has many godly people who help anyone who comes to them through the roughest sins and struggles. And I know there are churches with many religious people, who do not know God, but think they can save themselves by doing good things and avoiding certain bad things. Of course, the second group is going to hold to whatever religious culture they have in their town and kick out the ugly sinners who can’t overcome their own faults through sheer moral courage or maybe bad luck.

Yes, it’s bad luck to overcome your faults on your own Read the rest of this entry . . .

The big news in Christian popular culture today is that Anne Rice, the bestselling vampire author who announced her conversion to Christianity a couple years back, has unconverted.

The 68-year-old author wrote Wednesday on her Facebook page that she refuses to be "anti-gay ... anti-feminist," and "anti-artificial birth control."

She adds that "In the name of ... Christ, I quit Christianity and being Christian. Amen."

There was a surge of debate about this on a Christian SF/Fantasy e-mail discussion list I subscribe to. Part of the scuttlebutt (who knows how reliable?) was that she had a bad business experience with a Christian company that planned to film her novels about Christ, and that that may have contributed to her disenchantment. If that's the case, it wouldn't be the first time. The history of celebrity converts in my lifetime hasn't been a happy one. And it's not just a matter of the celebrities' immaturity. Christian enterprises are rather notorious for their shoddy business practices and promise-breaking. Sad but true.

But if the Facebook posting really reveals her heart, it would seem she simply found the gate too narrow and the way too straight. She appears to be one of those many who want a Jesus who'll accommodate their preferences. Being in the church involves a certain amount of doctrinal teaching and accountability, which they find offensive and intrusive.

I think of the rich young ruler from Luke 18—“When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was a man of great wealth.”

Discipleship has a cost. The cares of the world often choke out the seed that has been sown.

Let's pray for Anne Rice.

(Photo credit: Getty Images)

Novelist Andrew Klavan, about whose work you may have read from time to time in this space, reports at City Journal that his French publisher has backed out of a deal to publish a translation of his novel Empire of Lies.

The book’s French cancellation is, I realize, a rather small cultural event. Yet it gives specific color to the recent revelations on the Daily Caller website that left-wing journalists conspired to suppress scandals that might harm Barack Obama and to the brouhaha over Breitbart’s online release of a video that resulted in a government worker’s momentarily losing her job. In both stories, one thing leaps out at me: everywhere, the Left favors fewer voices and less information, and conservatives favor more. Everywhere, the Left seeks to disappear its opposition, whereas the Right is willing to meet them head-on.

Meanwhile a federal judge has ruled that Eastern Michigan University did not violate a student's freedom of religion when they required her to abandon her religious beliefs or be booted out of a graduate counseling program.

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh dismissed Ward’s lawsuit against Eastern Michigan University. She was removed from the school’s counseling program last year because she refused to counsel homosexual clients.

Anybody else sense a trend?

This is remarkable. At about the 15 minute mark, author Eric Metaxas talks about how focused the Nazis were on race. Their corrupt view of purity and polluted ideas about the Jews became woven into almost every German, Christian and non. Bonhoeffer among a few others argued against the Nazis racism in part because he had seen racial division in the United States.

It was one of those rare, perfect moments in preaching.

While living in Florida some years back, due to limited choices I was attending a church of a different denomination than my own. It was a large, growing, dynamic congregation. The pastor announced a series of sermons on Revelation. But when he started preaching, it quickly became clear he was not teaching the Dispensational Premillenial (i.e., Left Behind) interpretation that's so popular in our day. He was an amillennialist.

Many congregation members were not happy about this, and made their opinion known.

After a few weeks of controversy, the pastor got into the pulpit one Sunday morning and announced that, for the sake of peace, he was discontinuing the sermon series on the End Times. Instead, he would take up a topic that would trouble people less.

“I'm going to preach on Hell,” he said. Read the rest of this entry . . .

I came across this remarkable language in an essay on holiness by Thomas Brooks (1608-1680), and I thought I would share it.

The eighth argument to prove that without real holiness there is no happiness; that without holiness on earth no man shall ever come to a blessed vision or fruition of God in heaven, is this, The Scripture, that speaks no treason, styles unholy persons beasts, yea, the worst of beasts ; and what should such do in heaven? Unholy persons are the most dangerous, and the most unruly pieces in the world, and therefore are emblemized by lions, Ps. xxii. 21, and they are cruel; by bears, and they are savage, Isa. xi. 7 ; by dragons, and they are hideous, Ezek. xxix. 3; by wolves, and they are ravenous, Ezek. xxii. 27; by dogs, and they are snarling, Rev. xxii. 15; by vipers and scorpions, and they are stinging, Mat. xii. 34, Ezek. ii. 6; by spiders and cockatrices, and they are poisoning, Isa. lix. 5; by swine, and they are [still grunting, Mat. vii. 6. No man in this world is more like another than the epicure is like a swine; the fraudulent person a fox ; the lustful person a goat; the backbiter a barking cur; the slanderer an asp ; the oppressor a wolf; the persecutor a tiger; the seducer a serpent. Certainly the Irish air will sooner brook toads and snakes and serpents to live therein, than heaven will brook such beasts as unholy souls are to live there. Surely God, and Christ, and the Spirit, and angels, and 'the spirits of just men made perfect,' are not so in love with dogs and swine, £c., as to put them into their bosoms, or make them their companions. Heaven is a place of too great state to admit such vermin to inhabit there. Read the rest of this entry . . .

How many times have you read verses like this and thought little of them?

“To you, O LORD, I lift up my soul.”

Those are the opening words of Psalm 25:1, not even the whole verse. I usually think of words like these as the Psalmist saying hello, but look at what Charles Spurgeon wrote about these words. Read more on cbmc.com.

The word for today from the Wordsmith is bibliolatry, used in this sentence: "Fifty percent of college graduates expect Jesus to be here any day now. We are, says Paul Boyer, almost unique in the Western World in combining high educational levels with high levels of bibliolatry." Martin Gardner; Waiting for the Last Judgement; The Washington Post; Nov 8, 1992.

Bibliolatry is defined as "excessive devotion to the Bible, especially to its literal interpretation." It's also the worship of any book, but sticking to the first definition, I have to laugh when I see references to a literal interpretation of the Bible. I hesitate to use labels, but I'll do it anyway. The idea in the example sentence is the essential thing conservatives think of when defining academic and some other types of liberals. They tell us if we would use our brains we would see the nuance, the deeper meaning, the shades of gray in the situation and not be so cock-sure of ourselves, but when pressed for a good answer, they don't have one. They can only criticize the answers the conservatives have given.

But bibliolatry in this sense does not exist. There can be no excess in devotion to the Word of God. See Psalm 19 and Psalm 119, but don't take them literally. Take them poetically. Your soul may not "cling to the dust," but you can have life in His Word.

I'm not a great one for end-of-the-world prognostications, but all my life I've heard of this (or something like it) as being a sign of the Last Days:

Protestant translators expect to have the Bible — or at least some of it — written in every one of the world's 6,909 spoken languages.

"We're in the greatest period of acceleration in 20 centuries of Bible translation," said Morrison resident Paul Edwards, who heads up Wycliffe Bible Translators' $1 billion Last Languages Campaign.

Portable computers and satellites get the credit for speeding things up by about 125 years.

Full story here, from the Denver Post.

Apocalyptic or not, it's good news.

A PASTORAL LETTER

From Bishop Judith Hardanger-Hansen

Dearly beloved,

There has been considerable dissension in our fellowship recently, and a number of hard words have been spoken, causing much pain. I feel it my obligation to address the matter directly, exercising openmindedness and charity, both to the enlightened, Christ-like people who agree with me, and the knuckle-dragging Nazis on the other side.

From its inception, the Merry Pride movement has been like the wind of the Holy Spirit, breathing new life and new ideas into the church. Sadly, however, some people do not welcome change, and run from the challenges of a new day.

In case anyone reading this is unaware of recent history (home-schooled people, perhaps), the term “Merry” was adopted by the oppressed group formerly known as “adulterers,” employing a pun on the word “marry,” to give their lifestyle a more positive public face. They felt it intolerable to be forced to live any longer with a name that bore the weight of centuries of misunderstanding, prejudice, and oppression.Read the rest of this entry . . .

I attend a Lutheran congregation in north Minneapolis, one that belongs to the church body I work for. It's large but not huge. The senior pastor has made himself visible in the media for a number of years as a critic of the liberal church, and of modern trends such as universalism, women's ordination, higher criticism of the Bible, and the normalization of homosexuality. He is a single man.

Last night, while watching local news on television, I discovered that he'd been “outed” as a homosexual.

He was not discovered in a “gay” bar. He was not discovered having sex with another man in a public rest room.

According to the news accounts I've seen (emanating from liberal sources) he was discovered attending a support and accountability group in a Roman Catholic church. He was speaking honestly, to men he trusted, about his struggles, slips, and temptations.

In other words, he was doing precisely what people on our side of the argument say a man in his situation ought to do. He is the very opposite of a hypocrite.

On the basis of the accounts I've read, the “journalist” who produced the story infiltrated this accountability group, lied about his purposes, and then broke the promise of confidentiality he made to get in.

The television story pretended to be a high-minded think piece about whether it's ever appropriate to “out” someone against their wishes.

I don't believe that was the real purpose of the story. I believe it was to splash my pastor's picture all over TV screens in our state, with a metaphorical scarlet letter on his chest.

My pastor has my full support, and my prayers. God bless him, and all godly men in his situation.

To really write properly on this subject, I should have read all five articles, but I only read the first in this series linked by Grim at Grim's Hall. It's about scientists who are studying the mystery, not only of not knowing, but of not knowing that we don't know certain things. In other words, problems we don't solve because we're not aware of any problem—even when we have to live with the consequences of not solving it.

DAVID DUNNING:  Well, my specialty is decision-making.  How well do people make the decisions they have to make in life?  And I became very interested in judgments about the self, simply because, well, people tend to say things, whether it be in everyday life or in the lab, that just couldn’t possibly be true.  And I became fascinated with that.  Not just that people said these positive things about themselves, but they really, really believed them.  Which led to my observation: if you’re incompetent, you can’t know you’re incompetent.

Read the rest of this entry . . .

Over at Townhall Magazine, Prof. Mike Adams tears into Don Miller, author of Blue Like Jazz:

The only problem with this story is that it isn’t true. Oddly, Don came back to visit that Christian camp just a few years ago. When he did, he was confronted with his very public and untruthful account his time at Summit Ministries.

In response, Don just said it wasn’t a big deal. He fabricated the story just to make a point. He was confronted privately but was unrepentant, which was not too surprising. Remember that Don thinks Christianity is not about rules. It’s about a relationship with God.

Jared Wilson has a Bible study called Abide: Practicing Kingdom Rhythms in a Consumer Culture and answers a few questions about it here. Here's a bit from the first part of the interview:

Your book has much to say about the influence that our consumer culture has upon us as Christians. How would you describe its impact upon the being and doing of today’s evangelical church? In other words, is the influence of consumer culture hindering us from being the church, and, if so, how?

Yes, consumer culture has enormous impact on the evangelical church, and the “root” way it hinders us from being the church is how it appeals to and feeds our innate self-centeredness. Consumer culture urges us to see ourselves at the center of the universe. From self-service to self-help, everything about consumer culture makes convenience, quickness, and comfort idols that are difficult not to worship. And of course the more self-centered we are, the less inclined we’ll be to see the great need of experiencing the gospel community of the church. And consumer culture affects the “doing” of the church, as well, which is fairly evident in the way many churches not only don’t subvert consumerism but actually orient around it and cater to it. From some of the more egregious forms of marketing to the way church services are designed to the way many preachers prepare the messages, the chief concern appears to be to keep the customers satisfied.

As you'll note from the comments on my last post, Dr. Hunter Baker (fiend in human shape that he is) heartlessly refuses to engage in a public exchange of insults with me, appealing, apparently, to some principle of non-retaliation or something. Thus am I stymied in my ploy to try to raise interest in my books through a blog feud.

I need to find somebody to fight with. Somebody who's actually a published author, but not so venerable (like Dr. Gene Edward Veith) that my insulting him would seem impertinent. As my mama always told me, “Keep your hair combed, wear clean underwear, and always be pertinent.” Read the rest of this entry . . .

From FrontPage Magazine, an article on the vulnerability of Islam, if courageously challenged.

One answer is that you do all you can to force Muslims to question their faith in Islam. As Mark Steyn observes, “there’s no market for a faith that has no faith in itself.” He was speaking, of course, of the more mushy versions of Western Christianity—the post-Christian Christians who seem anxious to dialogue themselves into dhimmitude. But there’s no reason the concept can’t be applied to Islam. Surely the average intelligent Muslim has occasional doubts about the founding revelations. And just as surely he keeps them to himself, not only because he fears his fellow Muslims, but also because the rest of the world seems to be going along with the pretense that he belongs to a great religion. It may be time for the rest of the world to drop the pretense.

Tip: The Recliner Commentaries.

Connection Point, June 2010 Edition from CBMC on Vimeo.

I edited this video last week, and we've talked about it around the office since, so I am spontaneously sharing it with you. This is part of my day job as a graphic designer for Christian Business Men's Connection. The story is remarkable, and you will see only a few of the details. Two guys who met as teenagers in a Kung Fu school became great friends through God's saving grace.

I finally watched “Gladiator” the other day. This news may surprise you. A guy who loves swords as much as I do, you would think, would have leaped for “Gladiator” like a trout after a fly, the moment it was released.

But in fact I found myself putting it off. I'm pretty sure I know why I delayed, too. I'd read a review that told me what happens to Maximus' wife and son. I knew that in order to enjoy the good parts, I'd have to go through that scene, and whether it happened off screen or on, it would poison the whole thing for me. I hope you won't think less of me if I admit that I'm basically a pretty tenderhearted guy, with a low tolerance for the suffering of innocents.

As a writer, I understand why they added that scene (and, according to Wikipedia, it was added. It wasn't in the original script. They put it in to increase Maximus' incentive for vengeance). You have to raise the stakes, if you want to engage an audience and motivate a character to dire and terrible deeds. People don't wake up one morning and say, “I think I'll assassinate a dictator today.” They need (or so we imagine) a personal reason, a mighty, visceral wrong to right. Read the rest of this entry . . .