Lady Gaga, Rob Bell and Hell

Isn't the whole point of religion to teach us morals and to love and care for each other no matter what age, gender, sexual preference, religion or race we are?

The question was one among many comments posted on a recent YouTube video by Lady Gaga. In one segment of the video, titled “Gagavision No.41”, Lady Gaga sits in the back of her limo on the way to give a performance. She sees a Christian street preacher standing outside, protesting her show. He is carrying a large sign that reads, “Trust in Christ or End in Hell”. Rolling down her window, she cheerfully introduces herself, “Hi, I’m Lady Gaga”, to which the man promptly replies, “So?”

The man hands her a “Get Out of Hell Free” card, and says, “It’s gonna happen one day, darling”. She retorts, “Well, they better open up the gate”. In the further brief exchange, the man comes across as condescending and hostile. Gaga tells him that she and her fans believe in God and that she went to Catholic school for 13 years. He replies that growing up in that screwed-up religion is probably the source of her problems. Later in the video, Gaga reflects on her encounter with the man her video identifies as a “fundamentalist preacher”.

“What I’m trying to understand is, there’s 3000 people standing in my line and no one standing in your line. Who’s going to hell?”, Gaga says, laughing. “But I think what’s mostly confusing is why he printed up these things (referring to the man’s “Get Out of Hell Free” cards). If it was so easy to get out of hell, why don’t we just print up a bunch of these guys?” Becoming more serious, Gaga continues, “It just makes me sad that my fans have to see that. But I know that’s just part of what I’m supposed to do.” At that point in the video, words flash on the screen in black, ALL CAP letters against a red backdrop: IF YOU HAVE REVOLUTIONARY POTENTIAL, THAN YOU HAVE A MORAL IMPERATIVE TO MAKE THE WORLD A BETTER PLACE

As I began writing this blog article, Gaga’s video had already garnered more than 420,000 views and 5,000 comments. Since then, the video has racked up 950,000+ views and 7000 comments and counting. From such numbers, it would seem Lady Gaga is accurate in observing that her way of looking at life resonates with a lot of people. On the other hand, the Christian message has never claimed to be a popular one:

Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. [14] For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few (Matthew 7:13-14 ESV)

But I want to respond in this article to the question posed by the person who asked, “Isn't the whole point of religion to teach us morals and to love and care for each other no matter what age, gender, sexual preference, religion or race we are?” I think the question reflects a quite common conception of what religion is supposed to accomplish. This view sees all religions, including Christianity, as basically a means of inculcating morals and helping people strive to be better, more loving persons. All paths to God are equally valid. This popular view is one held not only by non-religious people, but even by many who identify themselves as Christians. Before I discuss this further, I want to sidetrack for a moment.

In terms of "media time" it is already ages ago, but a firestorm erupted in the Christian blogosphere just 2 months back, when Justin Taylor posted an article titled, Rob Bell: Universalist? that strongly criticized Rob Bell's theological message. The article focused, not on Bell's soon to be released book, "Love Wins", but rather, on the publisher's description and video promo for the book .

The piece got thousands of views and elicited hundreds of comments (maybe not Gaga's kind of numbers, but for a reformed blog, it was lots of attention). Many who commented complained that it was quite unfair to criticize Bell's book and its ideas, since at that point, the book was not yet released. Others brought out the old, tiresome "we should never judge other Christians, it's not loving" speech. But many recognized that Taylor's article was on target and helpful in identifying, in advance of its release, the controversial ideas that Bell has been espousing for some time now.

In the wake of the March 17 release of Love Wins, well-known Reformed writers, Michael Horton and Kevin DeYoung, each wrote thoughtful, detailed critiques. Southern Seminary president Al Mohler posted excellent articles engaging the discussion on Bell, and recorded and posted a panel discussion held at the seminary. Pastor John MacArthur has now written a series of articles strongly critical of Bell and his work, boldly calling out Bell as a false teacher (for these resources and more, see the links below).

But some will ask, why all the hoopla? Is it really that important that Christians focus so much attention on a book one does not agree with theologically?

Well, in a word, YES.

Because Christians have got a revealed message to proclaim, not a story that may be altered to suit one's own fancies, or re-fashioned to make it a better sell. Yes, the doctrine of hell is a turn-off. No one likes to think mankind is so sinful that all people deserve hell, and that apart from Christ, all of us are by nature "children of wrath" (Ephesians 2:3). Such a thought pricks against human pride-- we protest: we're not that bad!

But the question we ought to be asking, especially if we claim to believe the Bible, and claim that we believe in the Jesus of the Bible, is not, "Why doesn't God save everybody?, or "How can a loving God send people to hell?" Rather we should ask, is Jesus telling the truth when He states that unless we believe in Him, we already stand condemned and the wrath of God remains on us? Everybody loves John 3:16-17. But what about John 3:18 and John 3:36?

[16] For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. [17] For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. [18] Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God... [36] Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him (John 3:16-18, 36 ESV)

Christians gladly partake of the blessing of receiving Christ as Savior by believing what He says about going to the cross for our sins is true. But then we must also listen to and receive what He says about hell, for He spoke of it often. As John Yenchko has written,

This is the Lord of Lords and the King of Kings, the Prince of Peace, the Lamb of God. The One who held children tenderly in His arms spoke more about hell than anyone else in the Bible; and I, for one, am glad that it was He. If you will not hear Jesus on hell, then don’t pretend to hear Him on anything else. Let’s have integrity, shall we?

Jesus says in the parable of the weeds, Matthew 13, that all who do evil will be thrown into the fiery furnace where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. He quotes the above sentence in Mark 9:48 where He describes hell as “the place where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” He says of those who did not take in a stranger or provide for the needy: “They will go away to eternal punishment” (Matt. 25:46). In the parable of the rich man and Lazarus that Jesus told, the rich man is in hell and looks up to see Abraham far away in heaven, with Lazarus beside him. The rich man cries out, “Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue because I am in agony in this fire” (Luke 16:24). Abraham’s negative reply comes back, Between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us” (Luke 16:26). So Jesus says in Matthew 10:28, “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”

In contrast to the Jesus of Scripture, whose continual theme is telling people to repent of their sins and escape the wrath of God in hell, there is the sentimental conception that Christian love is all about God unconditionally, uncritically loving all people, regardless of their beliefs or behaviors. In this view, true Christ-likeness is to be non-judgmental and “loving” towards all others, no matter what they do. Those who label certain behavior as morally wrong or sinful, have strayed from the original message of unconditional love that Christ meant us to emulate. Thus they become “haters”, “fundamentalists” and “judgmental” people who distort the “loving” message of Christ and give Christianity a bad name.

Now I understand that non-believers might believe this fluff-- they usually don't believe that the Bible is accurate, or they may question how faithfully it represents what Jesus really said. But those who claim to know Christ as revealed in Scripture must see that the same Bible that reveals Jesus as a gentle and meek in some ways, also shows Him issuing the sternest warnings about the hell that awaits those who reject Him. Jesus loved people enough to tell them the truth about hell.

Interestingly, Rob Bell’s book seems to paint a similar picture of God’s love as the view described above. Bell downplays the traditional understanding that God is angry towards sin and that the sinfulness of mankind is our biggest problem. Now Rob Bell has a huge, young evangelical audience, and is recognized as a gifted communicator, even by those who don't agree with his theology. This is why many well-known reformed teachers have worked overtime to present strong rebuttals to his teaching. They see the spiritual peril in the ideas Bell is spreading, the deadly consequences for those who might be swayed to adopt his views.

Bell’s new work pointedly questions the traditional understanding of hell, and attempts to clarify what he thinks is the the true nature of the gospel message. He argues that the primary message of Christianity, the prime characteristic of God Himself, is “God is love”. “Love Wins” says Bell, because in the end God wants everyone saved, and He is powerful enough to get what He wants. In Bell’s view, hell is not a literal place where unbelieving rebels will be eternally and justly punished by God. Instead those who reject God and don’t live in relationship to Him are already experiencing their “hell” in this life. If there is a hell in the next life, Bell surmises that it will not be eternal, because those who don’t accept and profess Christ consciously while on earth will no doubt get a second chance. Hell thus becomes a kind of purgatory.

Bell writes, [There will be] “endless opportunities in an endless amount of time for people to say yes to God. At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most ‘depraved sinners’ will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God.”

Now what should be said in response to this? Is Bell's version of the Christian story superior because it will be appeal to and be embraced by those who've really wanted to be Christians, but just didn't like all the stuff about hell and sin? Yes, Bell's version of Christianity probably will be received happily by those who have a difficult time accepting the more traditional view. The problem, is what Bell gives them as a substitute is a lie and a mirage. Hell is real and literal. We don't have the luxury of "endless opportunities in an endless amount of time" to either accept or reject Christ. There is no biblical warrant to believe that those who do not consciously choose Christ in this life will get another chance to do so in the afterlife. In my next article, I will examine in greater detail the biblical evidence for hell and what happens after we die.

It's ironic, but sometimes we can get a true message even from a not-so-good messenger. The street preacher who spoke so condescendingly to Lady Gaga was not an accurate reflection of our Lord's compassion towards lost sinners. Yet his "Trust in Christ or End in Hell" message is much more accurate than a message that teaches that God doesn't punish evildoers in an eternal hell for their sins committed in this life, of which the greatest is to reject Christ.

From the beginning, there have always been competing versions of Christianity. Thus it remains always our responsibility as believers to "contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints (Jude 1:3)." False gospels and false Christs don't save. The world has its many gospels, but Christianity has but one faith and one message to give: Jesus Christ shed His blood to save sinners.

More Resources

Bell’s Hell: A Review by Michael Horton

Bell’s Hell: A Review by Michael Horton- PDF version

God Is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School Is Still True: A Review of “Love Wins”

God Is Still Holy and What You Learned in Sunday School Is Still True: A Review of “Love Wins- PDF version)

We Have Seen All This Before: Rob Bell and the (Re)Emergence of Liberal Theology

Panel Discussion — Rob Bell and “Love Wins”

“A Massive Shift Coming in What it Means to Be a Christian?” — TIME Magazine Considers Rob Bell

MSNBC: Martin Bashir’s Interview with Rob Bell

Call it a Comeback: Evangelicals, Liberals, and the Problem of Hell

Love Never Wins When Truth Loses

The Blood-Drained Gospel of Rob Bell

Pastor Rob Bell: What if Hell Doesn't Exist? (TIME cover article April 14 issue)

Articles by John MacArthur:
Bell’s Inferno

Rob Bell’s Unbelief in His own Words

Rob Bell: a Brother to Embrace, or a Wolf to Avoid?

How Christians Really Change the World

I just came upon an excellent and articulate essay titled, RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P. by Cal Thomas that was posted November 5, 2008, just as President Barack Obama had been elected.

Mr. Thomas argues that Christians wanting to make a deep, long-lasting impact upon our culture must not make their primary focus and effort the attainment of political power, but should instead live out truly Christian lives before all, as in the revivals of yesteryear which history proves did bring radical change to our nation. This is a much needed reminder, for though in these days of Obama we rightly are alarmed over the direction this country seems to be headed, it is a mistake to focus all of our energies on political solutions if we neglect the most effective agent of changing the human heart-- the transforming power of the gospel in the life of individuals, which in turn impacts culture at large.

I am not saying Christians should completely extricate themselves from politics; in fact living as faithful Christians means that we as a community must continue to speak out on the moral issues facing this country by defending and applying biblical values and principles. Yet in his essay Mr. Thomas makes the excellent point that even when evangelicals attain the positions of power, this does not and has not of itself transformed the heart of the culture. Only God can do that. He does it by transforming individuals into His likeness, that they might become an example that shines its powerful light in the midst of the prevailing darkness.

I urge you to read his thoughtful essay, which appears below, or click the link to be taken to Mr. Thomas' website.


RELIGIOUS RIGHT R.I.P.

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, 2009, he will do so in the 30th anniversary year of the founding of the so-called Religious Right. Born in 1979 and midwifed by the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, the Religious Right was a reincarnation of previous religious-social movements that sought moral improvement through legislation and court rulings. Those earlier movements — from abolition (successful) to Prohibition (unsuccessful) — had mixed results.

Social movements that relied mainly on political power to enforce a conservative moral code weren’t anywhere near as successful as those that focused on changing hearts. The four religious revivals, from the First Great Awakening in the 1730s and 1740s to the Fourth Great Awakening in the late 1960s and early ’70s, which touched America and instantly transformed millions of Americans (and American culture as a result), are testimony to that.

Thirty years of trying to use government to stop abortion, preserve opposite-sex marriage, improve television and movie content and transform culture into the conservative Evangelical image has failed. The question now becomes: should conservative Christians redouble their efforts, contributing more millions to radio and TV preachers and activists, or would they be wise to try something else?

I opt for trying something else.

Too many conservative Evangelicals have put too much faith in the power of government to transform culture. The futility inherent in such misplaced faith can be demonstrated by asking these activists a simple question: Does the secular left, when it holds power, persuade conservatives to live by their standards? Of course they do not. Why, then, would conservative Evangelicals expect people who do not share their worldview and view of God to accept their beliefs when they control government?

Too many conservative Evangelicals mistake political power for influence. Politicians who struggle with imposing a moral code on themselves are unlikely to succeed in their attempts to impose it on others. What is the answer, then, for conservative Evangelicals who are rightly concerned about the corrosion of culture, the indifference to the value of human life and the living arrangements of same- and opposite-sex couples?

The answer depends on the response to another question: do conservative Evangelicals want to feel good, or do they want to adopt a strategy that actually produces results? Clearly partisan politics have not achieved their objectives. Do they think they can succeed by committing themselves to 30 more years of the same?

If results are what conservative Evangelicals want, they already have a model. It is contained in the life and commands of Jesus of Nazareth. Suppose millions of conservative Evangelicals engaged in an old and proven type of radical behavior. Suppose they followed the admonition of Jesus to “love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, feed the hungry, clothe the naked, visit those in prison and care for widows and orphans,” not as ends, as so many liberals do by using government, but as a means of demonstrating God’s love for the whole person in order that people might seek Him?

Such a strategy could be more “transformational” than electing a new president, even the first president of color. But in order to succeed, such a strategy would not be led by charismatic figures, who would raise lots of money, be interviewed on Sunday talk shows, author books and make gobs of money.

Scripture teaches that God’s power (if that is what conservative Evangelicals want and not their puny attempts at grabbing earthly power) is made perfect in weakness. He speaks of the tiny mustard seed, the seemingly worthless widow’s mite, of taking the last place at the table and the humbling of one’s self, the washing of feet and similar acts and attitudes; the still, small voice. How did conservative Evangelicals miss this and instead settle for a lesser power, which in reality is no power at all? When did they settle for an inferior “kingdom”?

Evangelicals are at a junction. They can take the path that will lead them to more futility and ineffective attempts to reform culture through government, or they can embrace the far more powerful methods outlined by the One they claim to follow. By following His example, they will decrease, but He will increase. They will get no credit, but they will see results. If conservative Evangelicals choose obscurity and seek to glorify God, they will get much of what they hope for, but can never achieve, in and through politics.

(Direct all MAIL for Cal Thomas to: Tribune Media Services, 2225 Kenmore Ave., Suite 114, Buffalo, N.Y. 14207. Readers may also e-mail Cal Thomas at tmseditors@tribune.com.

(c) 2008 TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES, INC.

Tags: Cal Thomas, religious right, Christians and politics, transforming culture

"Get to Work" - The Impact of Goverment Health Care on the Next Generation

A humorous video from FRC (Family Research Council) on the burden the current health reform package (in terms of debt) will pass on to future generations. "There's no free ride with a government-run health care system."

Gary Gilley reviews "The Shack" by William P. Young

Gary Gilley has provided a valuable service to all with his review of the bestselling novel "The Shack" by William P. Young. Analyzing the book's theological message, he demonstrates that while the tale occasionally gets some Christian theology correct, it mostly distorts the biblical message and inaccurately presents the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Some would argue that "The Shack" is just a story and as such does not aim to be a theological presentation. It should therefore not be judged on the accuracy of its theology. Gilley acknowledges that "good Christian fiction has the ability to get across a message in an indirect, non-threatening yet powerful, way." Yet he also believes that "what determines the value of fiction is how closely it adheres to Scripture" and sets out to measure "The Shack" by these criteria.

In a sense, every individual has a working "theology". Even if one's theology is not a theistic (or even conscious) theology, human beings are always trying to understand the meaning of their existence. One's "theology" then, describes the beliefs one develops and holds in order to explain and give meaning to reality.

Gilley writes,

The Shack, like many books today, decries theology on the one hand while offering its own brand on the other. A story has the advantage of putting forth doctrine in a livelier manner than a systematic work can do—which is why we find most of Scripture in narrative form. The question is, does Young’s theology agree with God’s as revealed in Scripture? The short answer is “sometimes” but often Young totally misses the mark.

Gilley is quite kind in the tone of his critique, acknowledging that Young portrays some biblical truths accurately. But in my mind this is precisely what makes Young's book all the more deceptive-- it lures one in by getting a few things right, but its overall message is New Age pantheism (and or panentheism) and not Christianity at all.

Friends, if theology describes what one believes about God and the way the world works, let us not make the mistake of saying that all such views and beliefs are equally valid and helpful. The Bible certainly does not present theology that way, but depicts God in a definite way and says: this is God, and this is how you must have a relationship with Him. One can either accept or reject the Bible's presentation, but we must at least acknowledge that the Bible's message is specific. It says Jesus Christ "is the way, the truth and the life" and no one comes to the Father except through Him, rather than "all paths lead to God in the end" (so it doesn't matter what one believes). The Bible contradicts such universalism, as well as the God-is-in-everything message presented in novels such as "The Shack". As for me, I believe the Bible's eternal revelation is true and will stand long after books like "The Shack" are utterly forgotten.

You can read Gilley's full review here:

The Shack by William P. Young

Tags: Gary Gilley, The Shack, William P. Young, book review, discernment, New Age, pantheism, panentheism, theology

Blips on the Blogosphere 20- Post-Christian America?

There's been a lot of press and discussion lately about the United States as a "post-Christian" nation.

President Obama's phrase, "we are no longer just a Christian nation", spoken during a keynote address Obama gave in June 2006, later generated much controversy during his presidential campaign. Obama has frequently reiterated this view, including just 10 days ago in prepared remarks made during a diplomatic visit to Turkey. He said, "We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation or a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation; we consider ourselves a nation of citizens who are bound by ideals and a set of values."

Newsweek's cover story this month by editor Jon Meacham is ominously titled The End of Christian America. Meacham notes troubling statistics about the state of American Christianity. According to the article, recent surveys by the American Religious Identification Survey [ARIS] and the Pew Forum's U.S. Religious Landscape Study have found that:

• the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has nearly doubled since 1990, rising from 8 to 15 percent;

• the percentage of self-identified Christians has fallen 10 percentage points since 1990, from 86 to 76 percent;

• the percentage of people who say they are unaffiliated with any particular faith has doubled in recent years, to 16 percent; in terms of voting, this group grew from 5 percent in 1988 to 12 percent in 2008;

• the number of people willing to describe themselves as atheist or agnostic has increased about fourfold from 1990 to 2009, from 1 million to about 3.6 million. (That is about double the number of, say, Episcopalians in the United States.)

Southern Baptist Seminary President and conservative blogger Al Mohler played a prominent role in the Newsweek essay. In a thoughtful analysis of the Newsweek piece, Mr. Mohler complements "the care, respect, and insight that mark the essay", and notes that the article "is elegant in form and serious in tone."

He agrees that Newsweek is right to designate, at least certain sections of America, as "post-Christian". But in his analysis Mohler highlights that the Newsweek story is primarily concerned with Christianity's waning political influence. Mohler notes that while this is hardly a "non-issue",

... my greater concern is not with political influence and what secularization means for the political sphere, but with what secularization means for the souls of men and women who are now considerably more distant from Christianity -- and perhaps even with any contact with Christianity -- than ever before. My main concern is evangelism, not cultural influence.

Mohler agrees in part with Meacham's argument that "what binds America together is not 'a specific faith' but instead 'a commitment to freedom' and, in particular, freedom of conscience. The founding generation did not establish the young republic on any religious creed or theological doctrine." But Mohler points out "there is something missing from this argument, and that is the recognition that

freedom, and freedom of conscience in particular, requires some prior understanding of human dignity and the origins of conscience itself. Though the founders included those who rejected the Christian Gospel and Christianity itself, Christianity had provided the necessary underpinnings for the founders' claims."

Mohler, as usual, hits the nail on the head-- the incredible freedoms and prosperity this nation has enjoyed to date were built upon a Christian foundation, without which they would not have been possible. So when the President says that we are a nation of citizens "bound by ideals and a set of values", his argument is that there is some set of values that transcends any particular religion and which all may somehow come to recognize and embrace. But Obama's argument raises many questions.

Is it really accurate to say that a certain set of values is going to be universally recognizable and agreeable to all? If not, who gets to define which are the set of values acceptable to be promoted in schools and enacted in public policy? Does government have the authority to play the role of deciding which values are the right ones to be promoted? Are values to be decided by majority vote? And shouldn't religious views be allowed to enter the public debate about values? Even if really it could be, why should values discussion and public policy-making be a "religion-free" zone?

Mohler closed his analysis with these fine words:

This much I know -- Jesus Christ is Lord, and His kingdom is forever. Our proper Christian response to this new challenge is not gloom, but concern. And our first concern must be to see that the Gospel is preached as Good News to the perishing -- including all those in post-Christian America.

Now a few of the questions I raised above are touched upon-- albeit briefly-- by writer/pastor Tim Keller, speaking on the MSNBC program "Morning Joe" last week on a special Good Friday edition. Keller sat next to Jon Meacham and participated in the short but interesting discussion on issues raised by Meacham's article. You can watch a video of the discussion below.

Keller agrees with Meacham that there is danger when the Church becomes overly concerned with grasping for political power and worldly influence. "If the Church tries to turn the world into the Church it turns out that the Church becomes more like the world." But Keller points to the rise of a new generation of college-educated evangelicals that is seeing these issues differently and with more clarity and depth than did their parents, who were more of a "blue-collar generation" of evangelicals:

All public policies are based on views of human flourishing that are basically based on faith, they are not scientific, they are not empirical, they're based on faith. And therefore everything that happens in the public sphere is based on a kind of religiousness, a kind of "faith" view of human flourishing, human nature, the ultimate sense of what reality is about. And therefore Christians wouldn't want to say well, we're not going to bring our religion to the public sphere anymore because they actually see everything happening in the public sphere having essentially religious roots. And I think people that have gone to college see that a little better and they have a tendency to see that there's religious background to all the positions instead of looking at just certain hot-button issues, I think evangelicals in the future are going to have a more nuanced and comprehensive, you might say, public philosophy than they have in the past. So I think John's right, that the old approach is dying.

I agree with Mr. Keller's argument-- public policy is not and cannot be forged in some sort of metaphysical vacuum in which questions about meaning-- theological questions- are simply ignored. Inquiries dealing with profound questions such as the existence of God and the ultimate reality of life must be answered, and those who advocate secularism indeed have their own "faith-based" take on such questions but want to mandate that overtly religious and particularly, Christian answers to these questions cannot be entertained in the public sphere, citing so-called separation of church and state. But Keller's comments show the fallacious thinking behind this position. Additionally history proves that Christianity has had a most powerful role and influence, in policy-making discussions, in law-making, and in the adoption of various policies in the United States. Christian principles have been felt in the creation of American universities, hospitals, charities, and of course, in the creation of our unique form of democratic government. The positive outcome of all this Christian influence is well-documented. And if Keller is right, a new generation of smart evangelicals will continue to see the connection between faith and policy-making and insist that Christianity is allowed to continue to make its case in the public square.

Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy

HT: Alex Chediak

Tags: post-Christian, post-Christian America, President Obama, Newsweek, "The End of Christian America", Al Mohler, Jon Meacham, Tim Keller, MSNBC, "Morning Joe", Blips on the Blogosphere

Blips on the Blogosphere 18

I've been hard at work editing the old introductory article to my "Arminian vs Reformed theology" series and getting ready to re-post the series. In the meantime, here's some things I've stumbled across in the blogosphere lately.


Alex Chediak, who live-blogged almost all of the recent Ligonier 2009 National Conference (the reformed ministry headed up by R.C. Sproul), has put together links to all his conference posts here.

AND THIS JUST IN (3-26-09): Videos from the 2009 Ligonier National Conference (The Holiness of God).

And if you're into photos, check out these conference photos on Flickr.

-----------------------------
Pointing out that more top church blogs are by reformed bloggers than any other "theological strain or movement", an article titled "Young, Restless, Reformed Bloggers" asked this question back in January:

Are there so many popular Reformed blogs because of the movement, or has the movement grown, at least in part, because of so many average Reformed Joes and more-than-average Reformed mega-stars getting into New Media and using it more effectively than the other guys?

The author of the article, A- Team blogger David Nilsen, is inclined to think that the Reformed community as a whole, from the big ministry names to the not well-known (yet numerous) bloggers, have been drawn to "new media" (such as blogs) and has used such media very effectively in promoting the reformed view. I agree with this assessment. Let's keep up the good work friends.

------------------------------
Mark Dever writes on "What I CAN and CANNOT Live With as a Pastor" (there's also a corresponding MP3). One of those things Dever cannot live with is the practice of infant baptism, which he calls, sin. Wow. Fighting words? But Dever doesn't seem like he wants a fight, and explains his views in a related article, "The Sin of Infant Baptism, written by a sinning Baptist".

------------------------------
The coming evangelical collapse by Michael Spencer

Writing for the Christian Science Monitor (March 10, 2009 edition), Michael Spencer adapted a series from his blog, InternetMonk.com and created the above-titled article. In it he presents his vision of what is on the horizon for evangelicalism, and the picture he paints isn't pretty. I admire Spencer for speaking in this "naysaying" prophetic voice, saying things that aren't very heartening but at the same time, seeming to do so as a challenge to all Christians to prepare for tough times ahead. He says he's not a prophet and that his predictions could be wrong, but I do think much of what he's envisioning are trends one can already see in the present.

A few of his predictions:

Denominations will shrink, even vanish, while fewer and fewer evangelical churches will survive and thrive.

Expect evangelicalism to look more like the pragmatic, therapeutic, church-growth oriented megachurches that have defined success. Emphasis will shift from doctrine to relevance, motivation, and personal success – resulting in churches further compromised and weakened in their ability to pass on the faith.

The emerging church will largely vanish from the evangelical landscape, becoming part of the small segment of progressive mainline Protestants that remain true to the liberal vision.

Aggressively evangelistic fundamentalist churches will begin to disappear.

Charismatic-Pentecostal Christianity will become the majority report in evangelicalism. Can this community withstand heresy, relativism, and confusion? To do so, it must make a priority of biblical authority, responsible leadership, and a reemergence of orthodoxy.

While Spencer does see evangelicalism as a "crumbling empire", he remains optimistic. "We can rejoice that in the ruins, new forms of Christian vitality and ministry will be born. I expect to see a vital and growing house church movement. This cannot help but be good for an evangelicalism that has made buildings, numbers, and paid staff its drugs for half a century.

We need new evangelicalism that learns from the past and listens more carefully to what God says about being His people in the midst of a powerful, idolatrous culture."

Personally, I resonate with his statement that "a small band will work hard to rescue the movement from its demise through theological renewal", noting that "this is an attractive, innovative, and tireless community with outstanding media, publishing, and leadership development."

Spencer believes that despite such efforts, the "coming evangelical collapse will not result in a second reformation, though it may result in benefits for many churches and the beginnings of new churches."

Perhaps a reformation on the scale of the great Protestant Reformation is not to be, still it is my hope to be part of that small band that will trumpet reformed doctrine, and preach and practice the gospel in powerful ways, so as to purify the church and make her more effective in producing mature disciples, of whom I hope to be one.

Tags: Ligonier 2009 National Conference, R.C. Sproul, Alex Chediak, young restless and reformed bloggers, new media, Mark Dever, infant baptism, Michael Spencer, InternetMonk.com, the coming evangelical collapse

Blips on the Blogosphere 17

(image at right from MSNBC News)

Obama and Rick Warren, Together Again
President-elect Obama picked Rick Warren to say the prayer for his invocation as President, a controversial choice that has upset liberals as well as his gay constituents.

La Shawn Barber offers her take on this, in
Obama Picks Socially Conservative Rick Warren for Invocation.

Al Mohler, as always, offers a perceptive analysis, noting in his article "The High Cost of Being (and Staying) Cool -- Rick Warren in a Whirlwind" that the day has already arrived when any evangelical who publicly states opposition to homosexuality or gay marriage is immediately rejected as "uncool" in the popular marketplace, "no matter how much good work you do nor how much love and compassion you seek to express."

Mohler says that he would not have accepted an invitation to give the prayer invocation at Obama's inauguration ceremony (though he notes he wasn't invited), given Obama's pledge to sign the Freedom of Choice Act as President and also to reverse Bush administration policies regarding embryonic stem cell research.

Mohler writes,

Knowing the intentions of this President-elect, I could not in good conscience offer a formal prayer at his inauguration. Even in the short term, I could not live in good conscience with what will come within hours. I could not accept a public role in the event of his inauguration nor offer there a public prayer, but I will certainly be praying for this new President and for the nation under his leadership.

Christless Christianity
The Washington Post ViewPoint section recently interviewed Michael Horton about his new book, "Christless Christianity: The Alternative Gospel of the American Church". Though I haven't yet read the volume, I did read an excerpt (Chapter 1) and also a review by Tim Challies. Horton has provided what appears to be an timely, incisive and insightful critique of the state of Christianity in America, sounding a call to reformation of evangelicalism according to the biblical gospel.

Horton has also done a fine job promoting the book. There's a website-- Christless Christianity-- that provides excerpts and related resources, including this article that appears in Modern Reformation journal, the magazine for which Horton is the Editor:

Christless Christianity: Getting in Christ's Way by Michael S. Horton

Grunge Christianity?
Though the article featured in Pulpit Magazine is already two years old, "Grunge Christianity? Counterculture’s Death-Spiral and the Vulgarization of the Gospel" by John MacArthur still seems like a timely and relevant topic-- how to engage our culture without compromise. In the article MacArthur challenges the idea that Christians must adopt culturally hip, but often crass and superficial attitudes/language to communicate effectively to postmoderns. He points to Paul, as an example for us today:

We could learn from the example of Paul, who engaged the philosophers on Mars Hill. But far from embracing their culture, he was repulsed by it. Acts 17:16 says, “while Paul waited for [Silas and Timothy] at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols.”

When Paul spoke to that culture, he didn’t adopt Greek scatology to show off how hip he could be. He simply declared the truth of God’s Word to them in plain language. And not all of his pagan listeners were happy with that (v. 18). That’s to be expected. Jesus said, “If the world hates you, you know that it hated Me before it hated you. If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you” (John 15:18-19).

In other, less controversial news, I've continued to tweak and add new resources to my Netvibes site, ReformingChristianity.com. Check out the new look.

Tags: Michael Horton, Christless Christianity, Rick Warren, President-elect Obama, Presidential Invocation, La Shawn Barber, John MacArthur, ReformingChristianity.com, Netvibes

Countdown to Election 2008- Vote McCain

There is a "statistical dead-heat among born again Christians, with 45 per cent planning to vote for McCain and 43 per cent, for Obama" according to a Barna survey released last Wednesday.

This is truly shocking when one considers Obama's radically pro-abortion views and his liberal stance on so many issues. Obama's fervor to protect a woman's choice or right to abortion extends to voting against measures that would protect babies born alive after a failed abortion. If elected, he also plans on using the White House as a "bully pulpit" on behalf of homosexual causes.

As David Wheaton exclaims in his Final and Fervent Appeal to Christians, "have Christians lost their minds?!"

Apparently many evangelical Christians have bought into the idea that they ought not to be "single-issue" voters (translate: they should not stand firm on abortion). Instead, the spirit of being a true Christian means practicing a kinder, gentler form of Christianity. But what many overlook is that "kinder" and "gentler" are euphemisms for "tolerant", which in turn, means, one may not take a principled stand on biblical truth, because that means we're no longer being "loving". Well, in that case Jesus Christ Himself must have been a big hater, since He stood upon the truth of the Word of God and denounced those who were not teaching in line with the truth of Scripture with such phrases as "whitewashed tombs" and "You are of your father the devil!"

Christian "values voters" have proven themselves to be a formidable force in previous elections. Now, as much as ever, those who believe in America's Judeo-Christian heritage and who understand that it is the principles deriving from this heritage that made America the most free and prosperous nation the world has ever known, must vote wisely. And though McCain is not a perfect candidate, he is an infinitely better choice for those who believe in Judeo-Christian values than Barack Obama.

Do we value our freedoms, including liberty to worship and speak freely as Christians? On national security, is our greater need to be liked in the court of world opinion, or to be respected as a power that will repel our enemies from daring to attack us? There's a good reason our Islamic enemies want Obama to win-- they regard him as Muslim!

For the sake of the unborn, and for the sake of the Christian values we hold dear, read the resources below and recognize that Obama is not one to trust or place our hopes in. We trust in God alone, but a vote for McCain is wise because his positions on the sanctity of life and on marriage are in line with traditional Christian values, while Obama's positions on these issues are not.

Please, read these resources below if you're not yet convinced!

The Closing Argument By John Perazzo

The Choice (McCain) by the Editors of National Review Online

Sorry, But Obama Scares Me by Jonah Goldberg

Will Americans Really Vote to Fundamentally Transform America? by Dennis Prager

The Christian Case Against Barack Obama by Frank Pastore

Videos
The Christian Case Against Barack Obama, Part 1
The Christian Case Against Barack Obama, Part 2
The Christian Case Against Barack Obama, Part 3

Top Ten Reasons To Vote For John McCain by Daniel Jordan
Foolish Evangelicals by Daniel Jordan

Tags: McCain, Obama, Presidential election 2008, values voters, evangelical voters

Don't Rock the Vote?

One keeps hearing/seeing all the ads by celebrities (especially from RocktheVote.com) advising people, particularly youth, to get out and vote. But in "A Duty Not To Vote?", John Stossel raises a politically incorrect position when he says, "when people don't know anything, maybe it's their civic duty not to vote." Stossel isn't against voting, he just doesn't think that uninformed voters who haven't educated themselves on why they are voting for whomever they choose to vote for should necessarily be encouraged. I agree.

A more on-target message to young voters would be "Get informed, then vote!" Any idiot can pull the lever in a ballot box; it demonstrates no great, admirable civic virtue merely to cast a vote, not knowing whom or what you are supporting by your vote.

Don't get me wrong, I do hope many young people will vote, but only after they have informed themselves about the issues and the positions of the candidates they will vote for. Along these lines, a resource for young voters that is an alternative to RocktheVote.com is RedeemTheVote.com, a group which aims to "register people of faith regardless of party affiliation, or personal political beliefs, but as a matter of Christian principle, that people of faith must be engaged in the political debate and vote as a matter of moral imperative... It also "reach[es] out to both parties to find the best in both, and find solutions to the debate, not trump or destroy one person or party."

Also, please see my previous three posts, for many links to resources on Election 2008.

Resources for Christian Voters- Election 2008

More Resources for Election 2008: The Issues

A Critical Election 2008 Issue: Supreme Court Justices

Tags: RocktheVote.com, RedeemTheVote.com, John Stossel, voting as a civic duty, Presidential Election 2008, election 2008 resources

More Resources for Election 2008: The Issues

Updated 10-28-08 with new articles from Randy Alcorn and John Piper (see links below).

My friends (as some like to say),

There are very important issues that will be strongly impacted by the outcome of the Presidential election just a week away. The two candidates before us in this election-- John McCain and Barack Obama-- offer starkly different ideas and solutions in response to critical issues facing our country and the world. Both refer to themselves as Christians. But from the perspective of issues of traditional importance to Christians, I think that McCain is clearly a better choice.

Some issues on which the differences are clearly seen include:

• The issue of whether or abortion will continue to viewed as a "fundamental right" and therefore, one that must be protected from abrogation;
• The issue of whether marriage will be redefined as gender-neutral and as a "right"for same-sex couples.

These are two fundamental issues that Christians rightly see as vital to a Christian worldview. Abortion deals with the value we place on human life-- whether we recognize God alone as the Creator of life, or whether human beings are merely cells and life is whatever humans define it as. Gay-marriage touches on how much respect we hold for God's design of mankind as man and woman--whether or not we accept His institution of marriage as the fundamental relationship upon which human societies must be built.

Other important issues:
Iraq/Afghanistan Wars and the War on Terror
I do have some unresolved questions about the US wars in Iran/Afghanistan. However I also believe that we need a President who understands that our nation is under continuous, serious threat by the existence of terrorists, especially Islamic terrorists, who are harbored and abetted by certain nations. Many who hate America and want to see America destroyed do so on the basis of their religious ideology. These sworn enemies of America will not be won over by diplomacy, but must be kept in check by understanding that America's leadership will not be intimidated by threats and will respond with overwhelming, powerful force if attacked. It is very telling that the Islamic world wants Obama to be our next President.

Freedom of Speech
The issue of whether those who advocate Christianity in the marketplace of ideas, whether in the pulpit or in the media, will be able to continue to do so openly and freely, or whether their ideas can be labeled "hate speech" and thus silenced.

Education and Parental rights
The issue of whether it is parents or the government that has ultimate responsibility over the education and welfare of children.

• Judicial Activism (Selection of Supreme Court Justices)
• Cloning
• Energy and Environmental Stewardship
• The Poor and the Persecuted globally
• The Right to Bear Arms

It may not necessarily be immediately clear what the proper Christian response is on all of the above issues. But because of the pervasive and continuous inundation with the secularist views of media and culture, thinking on these issues is clouded and confused. I point you to the following resources then, as an aid to educating oneself about these issues from a Christian moral perspective and making an informed choice for President.

Voter Guides and Other Election Resources/Information:

Christian Coalition of Washington

Wallbuilders Voter Guide

Election Resources and Information


Abortion

I'm not Voting for a Man, I'm Voting for Generations of Children and their Right to Live by Randy Alcorn

One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society by John Piper

Obama's Abortion Extremism by Robert George

Obama and Infanticide by Robert George

Pro-Life Politicians Have Made a Difference, Pro-Life Laws Work by Michael J. New

American Voters and the Abortion Issue by David Barton

The Abortion Question and the Future by Albert Mohler

Senator Barack Obama and The Born Alive Infant Protection Act

The End of the Nation? Russia Chooses Death Over Life by Albert Mohler

Rights Talk Right to Death -- Euthanasia and "Religious Primitivism" by Albert Mohler


Gay Marriage

What's Really at Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate? Part One by Albert Mohler

What's Really at Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate? Part Two by Albert Mohler

What's Really at Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate? Part Three by Albert Mohler

What's Really at Stake in the Gay Marriage Debate? Part Four by Albert Mohler


Defense and Miscellaneous Issues

The Islamic World Looks at Obama by Robert Spencer

Muslim world's view of Obama

Obama's Pentagon

Where McCain, Obama stand on the issues by Calvin Woodward

Tags: Presidential Election 2008, Barack Obama, John McCain, Christian voters, Christian issues, abortion, gay marriage, same-sex marriage, Christian voter guides, election 2008 resources, McCain vs Obama on issues

Resources for Christian Voters- Election 2008

I have come across the following articles and web resources for helping those who hold Judeo-Christian values determine who to vote for in this next election. Although neither McCain nor Obama are the ideal Christian candidate, I believe that the McCain-Palin ticket would be much more favorable to upholding core Christian values, such as the sanctity of life and marriage between a man and a woman.

There are Christians supporting Obama who argue that an Obama/Biden administration would bring more unity and cooperation to government. They seem to believe that Obama's economic strategies will help reduce abortions because they will direct more aid to the poor. In addition many Christian Obama supporters claim that Christianity should embrace homosexuality and homosexuals as our brothers and sisters in Christ, because of the call of Jesus to love and not judge. Still another argument is that to maintain a consistently pro-life policy necessitates bringing an end to the war in Iraq, which is causing the loss of many lives.

I think that all of the above arguments are inconsistent with a traditional, orthodox understanding of Christian faith. The Bible teaches that God creates life in the womb and that we are not to snuff out lives that God alone has created. In Scripture, war is a sometimes necessary evil. Homosexuality is unnatural because it goes against God's design of man and woman and how the sexes are to relate to one another. One cannot practice a lifestyle that is considered immoral by the law of God and yet at the same time claim to be obedient to God as a Christ-follower.

It is naive to think that either an Obama or a McCain administration would somehow engender more unity and cooperation in the current government. There is an ideological divide in America, reflected in Congress, and the divide is widening. An Obama presidency certainly will steer this nation in the liberal trajectory it already seems to be on; his stands on issues such as abortion or gay marriage are in alignment with liberal Hollywood and media values, but not with traditional Christian beliefs.

Only by re-defining the meaning of Christian is it possible to advocate Barack Obama as one whose stance on the issues is in harmony with traditional Judeo-Christian family values. On issues of fundamental importance to traditional Christians-- the protection of life and the defense of marriage-- Mr. Obama's views and his record are the opposite of what most Christians have supported in these areas, as the resources below demonstrate.

Now if "Christian" is re-defined to mean someone who is an unrelenting advocate for a woman's so-called "right" to choose to kill her baby, and/or to be one who promises to pursue the aggressive agenda of pro-homosexual special interests, then yes, Obama is a solid Christian. I know that some say that Obama's stated concerns for improving the economic fortunes of those who are struggling demonstrates a Christian priority. I agree that the poor are properly the concern of all Christians, whose God is full of compassion towards all and especially the poor, the orphan and the widow. But I disagree with Obama's basic approach to fixing their economic plight via social programs and redistribution of wealth. I admit I am no expert on economics, but like many, I have a great skepticism and fear about a plan that seems to depend upon socialistic principles for its success.

Finally I think that Christians must make sure to vote in this coming election, even if one is not happy with the candidates in terms of how well they align with one's Christian values. Again, a very critical issue to our future is the lifelong Supreme Court justices that will be chosen by the next President-- I think that a McCain-Palin administration is much more likely to nominate conservative candidates in this regard. We will be feeling the impact of the decisions of these justices for years and years to come.

I fear that we are going to see a time in the not-too-distant future when Christians, who for so long have enjoyed freedom of worship in this country and whose values helped shaped the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, which in turn produced the great freedoms and prosperity this nation has experienced, are going to be persecuted as intolerant and hateful for simply remaining true to their faith.

I think an Obama-Biden administration will create a climate wherein all forms of religious expression will be acceptable--except Christian speech. Hate crime laws may be passed that will prevent pastors from preaching according to the truth of the Bible or face jail for doing so. I pray the Lord would give believers wisdom to the significance of what is happening and the importance of our choices right now, and to not be deceived by the smooth promises of peace and prosperity being offered by Mr. Obama and his campaign.

Now to be fair, all of the candidates for President/Vice-President state that faith profoundly influences their decision making. There are several articles below examining the faith of the candidates. I think the important thing is to read their statements, and examine how their track record aligns with issues of traditional importance and value to Christians.

Now matter who wins in November, we know that our God is in control. May we have a government in which there will be continued freedom to worship-- for Christians as well as those of other faiths-- freedom to state one's religious convictions without fear of reprisal or being thrown in jail. If one speaks critically about the Muslim faith they are often met with violence, but may it not be true here-- the American way is to protect the freedom of speech of even enemies or those with whom we bitterly disagree. May we continue to be able to speak our minds, our hearts and our consciences in this manner, as we protect the right of all to liberty of speech.

May we all cast our votes wisely, with God's help.

Should Christians Support Obama?

Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency (Side by Side Comparison of Answers)

Saddleback Civil Forum: Rick Warren Questions Obama and McCain (Videos)

Obama-McCain Comparison on Issues

Download the FRCA Congressional Voter Guide (PDF file)

2008 Presidential and Vice Presidential Debates

John McCain: keeping faith, on his own terms

How religion guides Palin

Obama: I have a deep faith

Joseph Biden: a frank and abiding faith

King Wilberforce

Tags: 2008 Presidential Election, Barack Obama, John McCain, Sarah Palin, Joe Biden, Christian voters, family values, Who should Christians vote for- Obama or McCain?, election 2008 resources

A Critical Election Issue: Supreme Court Justices

The video below is produced by the Judicial Confirmation Network and reminds Americans that a most critical issue in the Presidential election is that whoever becomes President will choose those who are nominated and eventually will be the next Supreme Court Justices. The decisions made by this small body (appointed for life) certainly will impact the lives of Americans for years to come.

As an article by Matt Lewis on TownHall.com states:

Whether you are worried about the so-called “Fairness Doctrine” or the abortion issue, the next president will select Supreme Court Justices that will dramatically impact your life. But are voters paying attention? With any luck, the Judicial Confirmation Network will succeed in their quest to bring judges back to the forefront of the political debate. The economy may be scary right now, but the idea of referring to “Justice Clinton” for the next two decades could be even scarier.

Although history has shown that having a conservative President selecting justices is no guarantee that the justices ultimately appointed will prove conservative in their decision-making, the selection of justices is just too important an issue to be ignored. Obama is charming and articulate, but his agenda for this country is radically socialistic and liberal.

Tags: Presidential Election 2008, Obama, Supreme Court Nominations, Supreme Court justices

Saddleback Civil Forum: Rick Warren Questions Obama and McCain

Rick Warren of Saddleback Church interviewed Presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain this past Saturday evening, on issues related to faith and government. I don't happen to be a big fan of Rick Warren but I think that the interviews do provide a useful public service. A full transcript of the Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency can be found at this link.

Here are the videos:

Part 1- Obama


Part 2- Obama


Part 3- Obama


Part 4- Obama


Part 5- Obama


Part 6- Obama


Part 1- McCain


Part 2- McCain


Part 3- McCain


Part 4- McCain


Part 5- McCain

Tags: Rick Warren, Saddleback Civil Forum, faith issues, Presidential candidates, interviews, Barack Obama, John McCain

Responses to An Evangelical Manifesto

On May 7th 2008, a "representative group of Evangelicals in America" issued a statement titled "An Evangelical Manifesto: A Declaration of Evangelical Identity and Public Commitment", during a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. The conference and manifesto are their attempt to clarify the meaning of the term "Evangelical" and also to correct negative perceptions of the Evangelical movement. At the same time, the document challenges Evangelicals to follow a more Christ-like, "civil" way of pursuing common objectives. It encourages all who are of like mind about its analysis and prescriptions for Evangelicalism to demonstrate solidarity with its aims by signing the Manifesto.

At the press conference, Dr. Os Guinness, a chief architect of the document, spoke of its dual purpose, saying that the Manifesto is intended for two groups, "an internal audience calling for reformation of evangelicals", and an "external audience... a call to a re-thinking of the evangelical position in public life, and openly, a call for civility" in the "global public sphere". The Manifesto, written by a steering committee of nine, was signed by over 80 well-known evangelicals and is accumulating hundreds of other signatures, although some well-known Evangelicals such as Al Mohler, James Dobson, Pat Robertson and Rick Warren have not signed.



The Manifesto has drawn mixed reactions from bloggers and columnists across the blogosphere and web. Several analyses, by journalists Alan Jacobs and Frank Pastore, and Christian blogger Dan Edelen (see links below), find little by way of practical application to be drawn from the statement, which they assess as too theoretical and not as direct, specific and focused as a manifesto ought to be.

Questioning "An Evangelical Manifesto"- Frank Pastore

A Show About Nothing- Dan Edelen

Come On, You Call This a Manifesto?- Alan Jacobs


Others, such as Darrell Bock and Daniel Wallace (both professors at Dallas Theological Seminary), have been positive, citing the Manifesto's call to civility in the global public square, its humble tone and moderate prescriptions, as good, necessary steps towards recovering respect and credibility to the Evangelical movement. They would urge many to sign the document. Joe Carter, blogger of Evangelical Outpost also has signed the manifesto and has generally positive thoughts on it.

Darrell Bock: Why a Manifesto from Evangelicals? Why Now?- Darrell Bock

Evangelical Manifesto - Part 2- Daniel Wallace

I particularly resonated with the assessments of the manifesto made by Bill Muehlenberg and Albert Mohler (links below).

Both writers praise the analysis of issues that the manifesto gets right, yet also point out its weaknesses, especially noting its failure to give more specifics. For example, Mohler writes, "what the document never makes clear is how to hold to deep moral and political convictions, based in biblical principles, without running the danger of identification with a political agenda -- at least to some extent", and again, "The Manifesto is brave in calling for and end to 'culture warring' that threatens to unravel the society and shut down civil conversation and deliberation. But its bravery does not extend to any specific proposals about how this can be done."

Mohler, who has not signed the Manifesto, concludes his critique with the following words:

In the end, I must judge "An Evangelical Manifesto" to be too expansive in terms of public relations and too thin in terms of theology. I admire so much of what this document states and represents, but I cannot accept it as a whole. I want it to be even more theological, and to be far more specific about the Gospel. I agree with the framers that Evangelicals should be defined theologically, rather than politically, culturally, or socially. This document will have to be much more theological for it to accomplish its own stated purpose.

An Evangelical Manifesto: An Assessment

An Evangelical Response to "An Evangelical Manifesto" Albert Mohler

"An Evangelical Manifesto" -- Continuing the Conversation

Having now read the Manifesto through a couple of times and taken in various commentaries, I've come to some of the same conclusions as others. First, the Manifesto seems to be misnamed, as it lays out no strong, specific agenda for implementation of its purposes. Although it rightly decries politicization of the gospel, the document and surrounding press conference seemed mostly aimed at correcting the public image of Evangelicalism (a seemingly political or public relations endeavor). In a time when political correctness rules the media and an increasingly vocal secular influence strives to remove all vestiges of religious and particularly Christian influence from the public square, this document seems too accommodating to the times. The Christian gospel by its very nature is exclusive. It is also a call to repentance and is therefore offensive, a stumbling block to many. Yet the Manifesto seems more preoccupied with civility than with bold proclamation. Certainly the Manifesto affirms the basic truths of Christianity, yet its conciliatory and defensive tone is not inspiring, and its prescriptions seem to open the door to an inclusivism that will ultimately affect not only with whom we align ourselves, but also the content of the message. Like Mr. Mohler, I would have preferred that a Manifesto that declares that "Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally" would present a more theologically-based call to action. I am also concerned that evangelicals I admire for their sound theology are nowhere to be found on the list of signatories, but some about whom I would have theological concerns are.

For further information:

An Interview with Os Guinness about the Evangelical Manifesto

An article titled An Evangelical Manifesto by Matthew Kratz at The Truth Will Set You Free blog, does a fine job of quoting and summarizing the key points of the Manifesto.

Press Club and Interview photos about the Manifesto

Why Some Leaders Won't Sign the Evangelical Manifesto

Tags: An Evangelical Manifesto, Al Mohler, Os Guinness, National Press Club

Religion in the Public Square-Debate: Should Religion Have a Place in Politics or Government?

On March 6, 2008, The Miller Center of Public Affairs at the University of Virginia sponsored a lively and fascinating debate on the resolution: "Religion should have no place in politics or government", as part of the National Discussion and Debate Series.

Rev. Barry Lynn, Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, and Jacques Berlinerblau, Associate Professor and Director of the Program for Jewish Civilization at Georgetown University's Edmund A. Walsh School of Foreign Service, spoke in favor of the resolution. Chuck Colson, Founder and Chairman of Prison Fellowship Ministries, and Bishop Harry Jackson, Senior Pastor of Hope Christian Church, argued against it. Evan Thomas, Editor at Large of Newsweek, moderated the debate.

At the link above, you can watch the debate in its entirety, or download video or audio of the entire debate Transcripts of the debate and a question and answer session are also available.

Facebook Online Community: National Discussion and Debate Series

Tags: Miller Center of Public Affairs, National Discussion and Debate series, debate, religion and politics, religion and government, Rev. Barry Lynn, Chuck Colson, Jacques Berlinerblau, Bishop Harry Jackson, Evan Thomas