“It was a subconscious act,” said Gallagher. “Young people today are connected socially from the moment they open their eyes in the morning until they close their eyes at night. It’s compulsive.”

Zaslow calls the lifestyle of these young people “hypersocializing.”  As he observes:

Because so many people in their teens and early 20s are in this constant whir of socializing—accessible to each other every minute of the day via cellphone, instant messaging and social-networking Web sites—there are a host of new questions that need to be addressed in schools, in the workplace and at home. Chief among them: How much work can “hyper-socializing” students or employees really accomplish if they are holding multiple conversations with friends via text-messaging, or are obsessively checking Facebook?

There is an argument to be noticed here.  Some assert that this generation of teens and twenty-somethings has developed an invaluable ability to multitask, to frame arguments with few words, and to stay constantly connected. Some, like Ben Bajarin of Creative Strategies, go so far as to argue that these young people are so skilled at “multimedia socializing” that their social skills are superior to previous generations, rightly understood.

Others, noting the time spent obsessively checking digital devices, see a loss of community, a fog of constant chatter, and, for both employers and educators, a massive volume of lost time. As P. M. Forni at Johns Hopkins University observes, “There is a lot of communication going on that is futile and trivial.”

Consider what this means for educators:

Educators are also being asked by parents, students and educational strategists to reconsider their rules. In past generations, students got in trouble for passing notes in class. Now students are adept at texting with their phones still in their pockets, says 40-year-old Mr. Gallagher, the vice principal, “and they’re able to communicate with someone one floor down and three rows over. Students are just fundamentally different today. They will take suspensions rather than give up their phones.”

As Gallagher concludes, asking students to separate themselves from social media for the school day seems futile. “It’s like talking to kids about why they don’t need air.”

Jeffery Zaslow’s article, published in the invaluable “Personal Journal” section of The Wall Street Journal, is directed mainly to the business community, where executives are hard pressed to know how much they should (or even can) restrict social networking among younger employees. But the issues he addresses go far beyond the business context. His article should be read by parents, pastors, teachers, and anyone who cares about the minds and souls of young people.

One thing is clear — Zaslow is not exaggerating. Almost every parent of a teenager or twenty-something will recognize the truth of his diagnosis of “hypersocializing” among the young. If anything, the issues range beyond the concerns he identifies.  Business executives are concerned about the financial costs and economic impact. Educators are rightly concerned about distractions from the learning process. But what does this hypersocializing do to the souls of young people?

As prophets of technological pessimism from Jacques Ellul to Neil Postman have reminded us, every technology comes with an effect on the soul. How does this digital revolution effect the souls of young people who quite literally sleep with cellphones on the pillow, lest they miss a text message in the night? What space is left for the development of flesh-and-blood friendships? How are they related to people who do not have access to text messages? Is their communicative ability now limited to 140 characters in a burst?

Among young Christians, what space is left for the development of a devotional life? Do their lives contain any space for extended quiet and reflection, for prayer, or for reading anything longer than a text message?

This is precisely where evangelical Christians need to invest serious thought and reflection. We should all be concerned when Steve Gallagher laments that these young people think they need constant access to social media the way they need oxygen for breathing.

Then again, maybe the real problem is much worse than Zaslow and Gallagher acknowledge. Is this phenomenon limited to the “hypersocialized” young?  In the spirit of personal confession I must admit that I turn on my iPhone the moment the plane hits the tarmac on landing. I feel irresponsible if I do not post regular Twitter updates and check email and messages constantly. Colleagues, friends, and constituents expect “hypersocializing,” and they now range across the age spectrum.

There is no going back — at least not in terms of retreat. The social universe is a fact of life, and a missiological challenge for the Christian church. We are all Facebookers now.

The hypersocialized generation of teenagers and young adults needs to learn limits. Parents must provide those limits for their children and encourage them in older offspring. Educators and executives cannot ignore the challenge, but there is as yet no mechanism for determining proper balance in a world growing more hypersocialized by the day.

We are all looking for someone to figure this out and find the responsible boundaries. When this happens, let’s hope they send a text message to the rest of us.

_____________________________

Jeffery Zaslow, “The Greatest Generation (of Networkers),” The Wall Street Journal, Wednesday, November 4, 2009.

That said, there is something very strange and revealing about the response of the intellectual elites to the fact that their cherished theory of evolution is held by such a small percentage of the world’s population. Indeed, polls indicate that Americans reject the theory of evolution by a significant margin, leading observers like Nicholas Kristof of The New York Times to express public exasperation.

We know that about half of all citizens in the United Kingdom now want intelligent design taught alongside evolution in the British schools. In America, evolutionary scientists are trying to explain why young children seem “hardwired” to see evidence of intelligent design in the world around them. And a quick look around the globe will demonstrate that belief in the worldview of evolution is actually held by a very thin demographic slice of the world’s population.

Now, a really interesting slant on the global perspective comes as the Western media discover that (can you believe it?) Muslims tend not to be evolutionists. That accounts for between 20 and 25 percent of the world’s population.

From a report by Drake Bennett in The Boston Globe:

Americans familiar with the long and bitter battle over the teaching of evolution in our schools likely have a set of images of what creationism looks like: from the Scopes trial, and its dramatization in “Inherit the Wind,” to more recent battles over textbooks on school boards in Kansas and Georgia and in federal court in Pennsylvania. The doctrine of creationism, and its less explicitly religious cousin intelligent design, are extensively developed counter-narratives of the origin of life on Earth, fed by Christian concerns and shaped by Christian beliefs.

And then:

But there is another creationist movement whose influence is growing, and which is fueling challenges to science in countries where Christianity has little sway: Islamic creationism. Campaigners in countries like Turkey, Lebanon, Egypt, and Indonesia have fought the teaching of evolution in schools there, sometimes with great success. Creationist conferences have been held in Pakistan, and moderate Islamic clerics are on record publicly condemning Darwin’s ideas. A recent study of Muslim university students in the Netherlands showed that most rejected evolution. And driven in part by a mysterious Turkish publishing organization, Islamic creationism books are hot sellers at bookstores throughout the Muslim world.

According to the report, the existence of an Islamic version of creationism “has raised concerns among scientists and educators.” Salman Hameed, a scientist at Hampshire College, predicted that “the next major battle over evolution is likely to take place in the Muslim world.”  That is a long way from Dayton, Tennessee and the Scopes trial.

The Islamic form of creationism is different in key respects from the Christian version, which can only be expected. Common to both, however, is the central belief in a divine Creator who designed and made the cosmos and all therein.

You can expect to see more about this, but consider a key question that the media coverage of Islamic creationism raises: How could the fact that Muslims generally reject naturalistic evolution come as a surprise to Western intellectuals?

Get out much?

_________________________

Drake Bennett, “Islam’s Darwin Problem,” The Boston Globe, October 25, 2009.

Salman Hameed, “Bracing for Islamic Creationism,” Science, 322 (December 12, 2008) [PDF file].

Write me at mali@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

On the other hand, the negative dimensions of the postmodern turn are often deeply subversive of the very concept of truth. Indeed, the rejection of truth in any knowable and objective form is one of the greatest challenges postmodernism presents to the Christian faith. The questions raised by postmodernism can lead to the development of a healthy and faithful epistemological humility. On the other hand, the more general effect of postmodernism has been to insinuate a very dangerous epistemological humility that can undermine confidence that any truth can actually be known.

In recent years, John R. Franke, a professor at Biblical Theological Seminary in Hatfield, Pennsylvania, has been among the foremost proponents of the embrace of a postmodern worldview. A major figure in the emergent church, Franke has been a significant critic of modern evangelicalism. In his new book, Manifold Witness: The Plurality of Truth, Franke offers an argument that pushes the postmodern envelope and offers what amounts to a completely new way of understanding truth. Truth, Franke argues, is inherently plural.

Franke’s new book is part of the “Living Theology” series published by Abingdon Press in cooperation with Emergent Village. The book deserves close attention, for it presents a vision of truth we are sure to confront in years to come.

From the onset, Franke speaks honestly of his frustration when asked about his understanding of truth. “Personally I will admit that I am beginning to find the question more than a little annoying,” he states. Franke forcefully insists that he does believe in truth, but manifold witness presents an understanding of truth that amounts to postmodernism in full force.

Is Christianity Pluralist?

Helpfully, Franke sets out his thesis early in the book. He begins with the argument that the Christian church has embraced pluriform truth claims and then argues that the Christian faith “is inherently and irreducibly pluralist.” As he explains, “The diversity of the Christian faith is not, as some approaches to church and theology might seem to suggest, a problem that needs to be overcome. Instead, this diversity is part of the divine design and intention for the Church as the image of God and the body of Christ in the world. Christian plurality is a good thing, not something that needs to be struggled against and overturned.”

This is a truly breathtaking argument. Indeed, Franke understands that his embrace of pluralism is itself a product of his own postmodern context. Previous generations of Christians, he acknowledges, considered plural truth claims, doctrinal formulas, and theological systems to be a challenge that required clarification and the discernment of truth — not as a condition to be embraced. “The early Protestant church was characterized by plurality, but this does not mean that Protestants were pluralists,” he concedes. “They were not. Instead, they were committed to establishing the one true church over against the Roman Catholic Church, which they viewed as a heretical distortion of the one true church. They were committed to one true way to be a Christian, the one right way to read the Bible, the one system of doctrine, the one right set of practices.”

Not so in the emerging church movement. Instead, that movement “is similarly characterized by plurality.” But, in contrast to historic Protestantism, “it also affirms plurality as an appropriate and necessary manifestation of Christian community.” Thus, plurality “is not to be opposed, but rather something to be sought and celebrated.” This explains how the Emergent Village community can claim “to honor and serve the church in all its forms — Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Protestant, Pentecostal, Anabaptist.”

In Manifold Witness, Franke offers a skillful review of postmodernism and its understanding of truth. Furthermore, he expends considerable energy and thought in the task of calling Christians to an understanding of the careless way some believers speak of truth. Many of his thematic statements are both eloquent and helpful. Franke is certainly right when he exhorts:

“Christians committed to the Lordship of Jesus Christ should not acquiesce to the cultural relativism that gives up on the notion of ultimate or transcendent truth. But we must also resist the temptation of espousing a notion of truth that makes an idol out of our own conceptions, assumptions, and desires as though they are not subject to critique.”

Is the Trinity Pluralist?

So far, so good. Franke also offers a genuine and prophetic warning when he urges white Western evangelicals to consider the extent to which our own cultural context has shaped our thinking and beliefs and the temptation to assert our own cultural assumptions, rather than the Gospel, as the Christian message.

Nevertheless, the thrust of Franke’s argument goes far beyond that warning. In arguing for the plurality of truth, Franke seeks to ground this plurality in the very nature of God. In emphasizing a social understanding of the Trinity, Franke argues that plurality exists even within God. As he explains, “difference is part of the life of God as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit live in the fellowship of missional love.”

The ministry of the Trinity is indeed so profound as to be beyond human imagination and knowledge. Nevertheless, the Bible does reveal the unity of the Trinity to be definitive. Throughout the centuries, faithful Christians have taken care to honor what the Bible reveals about the unity of the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. Yet, Franke asserts “in the life of God is the experience of what is different, other, not the same.”

Franke argues that God does reveal himself to his creatures, but he also insists “that God chooses to be revealed through creaturely mediums that bear the marks of their finite character.” In other words, the actual text of the Bible involves creaturely limitations. “These limitations remain in place in spite of the use God makes of them as the bearers of revelation,” Franke asserts.

In the end, Franke’s understanding of the Bible falls desperately short of evangelical conviction. In an argument similar to that made by his late mentor, Stanley Grenz, Franke argues that “Christian communal identity has been bound up with a particular set of literary texts that together have been identified by that community as canonical Scripture.” He speaks of the Bible as “inspired,” but his argument is that “the Spirit has spoken, and now speaks, and will continue to speak with authority, guiding the church into truth, through the canonical texts of Scripture.” His proposal seems to leave no room whatsoever for verbal inspiration.

“The Bible is the principal means by which the Spirit guides the church today,” Franke affirms, but he goes on to state that “the speaking of the Spirit is not bound solely to the original intention of the biblical authors.” Utilizing a postmodern understanding of literary texts and their interpretation, Franke asserts: “The speaking of the Spirit through the texts of Scripture means that while the intention of the author is an important concern, it is not the only concern. It does not represent the fullness of the speaking of the Spirit, since this always involves the response of the reader.”

Further:

“Put another way, the goal of reading the Bible is not the attempt to identify and codify the true meaning of the text in a series of systematically arranged assertions that then function as the only proper interpretive grid through which we read the Bible. Such an approach is characteristic among those who hold particular approaches to theology and hermeneutics in an absolutist fashion and claim that such procedures will lead to the arrival of the one true and proper conception of doctrine contained in Scripture. The danger here is that such a procedure can hinder our ability to read the text and listen to the speaking of the Spirit in new ways.”

This means that we are not actually bound by the words of Scripture. Instead, the church is to engage the Bible, trusting that the Holy Spirit will lead the community into a new understanding. Thus, the emerging church would be freed from accountability to the actual words and propositional statements of Scripture. The community can simply claim that it is being led by the Spirit into a new and different understanding.

Theological Liberalism in a New Key

Of course, this is the very argument asserted by Protestant liberals over the last two centuries. Franke adds postmodern concepts and language to an old argument. The new liberalism, chastened by postmodernism for its extreme individualism, now puts theological revisionism in a communal context. The result is the same — the subversion of biblical Christianity.

Clearly, Franke and other emerging types will chafe under that criticism. Indeed, even as he criticizes the notion of “historic Christianity” and any set of “minimum beliefs” necessary to be a Christian, he also asserts: “Of course I believe in truth. I believe in God. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. I believe in the Holy Spirit, the holy catholic church, the communion of the saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen.”

The problem is this –  Franke’s argument that truth is plural means that the church should both embrace and celebrate different and even contradictory understandings of these doctrinal statements and core truths. While Franke is undoubtedly correct in warning that no theological system is free of cultural limitations, his proposal amounts to a total and unconditional surrender of doctrinal accountability. While he insists that not all doctrinal assertions are allowable, he undercuts the authority of Scripture to serve as the norm for establishing truth from error.

The Protestant liberals of the 19th and 20th centuries often offered words of criticism that orthodox believers and theologians needed to hear. Nevertheless, their subversion of biblical truth and their embrace of heresy rather than orthodoxy established these theological liberals as adherents of a religion fully distinct from Biblical Christianity.

Now,  the leading edge of the emergent church movement follows the very same trajectory. Manifold Witness is a fascinating book, but John Franke’s proposal is a recipe for theological disaster. In this book, a new postmodern form of theological liberalism comes fully into view.

________________________

I’m always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

The research indicates that little degus raised without dads “exhibit both short-and long-term changes in nerve cell growth in different regions of the brain.” The research also reveals that “fatherless degu pups exhibit more aggressive and impulsive behavior than pups raised by two parents.” Sound like anyone you know?

The specifics:

The researchers then looked at the neurons—cells that send and receive messages between the brain and the body—of some pups at day 21, around the time they were weaned from their mothers, and others at day 90, which is considered adulthood for the species.

Neurons have branches, known as dendrites, that conduct electrical signals received from other nerve cells to the body, or trunk, of the neuron. The leaves of the dendrites are protrusions called dendritic spines that receive messages and serve as the contact between neurons.

Dr. Braun’s group found that at 21 days, the fatherless animals had less dense dendritic spines compared to animals raised by both parents, though they “caught up” by day 90. However, the length of some types of dendrites was significantly shorter in some parts of the brain, even in adulthood, in fatherless animals.

The end result can be a pup without normal cognitive and emotional function that experiences brain activity like “a horse without a rider.”  Since the basic wiring of the brain is similar in both the human child and the degu pup, Dr. Braun believes that a very similar process is likely to emerge in the brains of fatherless children. Even so, the human brain is far more complex.

Similar research at the University of Ottawa has found a similar pattern in young voles (another rodent).  As a result, it appears that biological evidence now exists that would suggest that fatherless children (and especially boys?) are at greater risk of cognitive and emotional instability — and eventual delinquency — without dad in the home.

Of course, we should not need biological studies to demonstrate and validate what we should already know — children need fathers in the home. The epidemic of fatherlessness has brought disaster on a society-wide scale, and has brought harm into the lives of millions of young children, both boys and girls.

Girls raised with biological fathers in the home begin to menstruate at later ages than girls without a father in the home.  Boys raised without dad are far more likely to drop out of school, be arrested, be unemployed, and be designated as delinquent.  In sum, fathers matter.

Christians recognize this as a theological matter, long before we consider biology.  We know that the Creator’s intention in marriage and the family is for children to have both mother and father.  One of the most vulnerable designations in the Bible is the fatherless.

So, read the reports on biological research with interest and connect the dots from the data to the biblical worldview.  This is about far more than young degus and voles.  This is about the lives of children who deserve both mom and dad.

_______________________

Shirley S. Wang, “This is Your Brain Without Dad, ” The Wall Street Journal, Tuesday, October 27, 2009.

Freedman also found the Rev. Selena Fox, senior minister and high priestess of Circle Sanctuary, a Wiccan church in Barneveld, Wisconsin.  Rev. Fox won a major legal battle when the Department of Veterans Affairs agreed to allow the Wiccan pentacle on the gravestones of dead Wiccan soldiers.  “Our symbol was literally being carved in stone and taking its place alongside the symbols of other religions,” she said.  “Our religion was at last getting equal treatment. It was one of those crossroads moments.”

The most significant feature of Samuel Freedman’s report is his recognition of how ancient paganism experienced a resurgence in postmodern America — now claiming as many as 500,000 to 1 million adherents of one sort or another:

In several ways, though, Paganism was waiting for modernity to catch up with it. The emphasis on the worship of nature in virtually all variations of Pagan faith, and the embrace of a female divinity in many, situated the religion to mesh with the environmental and feminist movements that swept through the United States in the 1970s.

Exactly.  The resurgence of paganism in our times is not the recovery of ancient traditions simply reasserted in a new age, but a selective New Age embrace of pagan symbols, themes, and practices in order to add “spirituality” to ideological movements such as feminism and the radical ecologists.  The gynecological and pantheistic focus of ancient paganism is exactly what Judaism and Christianity rejected in full — and the embrace of these ancient heresies is further evidence of the widespread rejection of Christianity.

“From academia to the military, in the person of chaplains and professors, through successful litigation and online networking, Paganism has done much in the last generation to overcome its perception as either Satanism or silliness,” Samuel G. Freedman writes. Well, whatever you want to call it, the resurgence of paganism is a keen reminder that old heresies never die; they just fade away only to return once again.

___________

See, “Paganism, Just Another Religion for Military and Academia,” by Samuel G. Freedman, The New York Times, Saturday, October 31, 2009.

Throughout most of the 20th century, economic policy has been informed by the “Leading Economic Index” calculated by The Conference Board. That index, designed to track economic trends and to warn of impending recession, utilizes ten components of data, ranging from the average weekly hours worked by manufacturing workers to the amount of new building permits for housing. Just about everyone — including both government and the private sector — utilizes the Leading Economic Index as an essential tool for evaluating the health of the economy and its future prospects.

Now, for the first time, The Marriage Index does for the health of marriage what the Leading Economic Index does for the health of the economy — it provides essential data we ignore at our own peril.

The Marriage Index is a project of the Institute for American Values and the National Center on African American Marriages and Parenting. As their recently released report asks: “Why do we so carefully measure and widely publicize our leading economic indicators, and do everything we can to improve them, while rarely bothering to measure our leading marriage indicators, or try to do anything as a society to improve them?”

The availability of The Marriage Index as a means of assessing the health of marriage is a most welcome development.  As Maggie Gallagher, president of the National Organization for Marriage, comments, “It’s a brilliant conceptual idea, long overdue. This is a GDP for marriage, a way to statistically sum up complex trends in a way that allows us to capture a core truth: Is marriage getting weaker or stronger?”

The Marriage Index is based on solid data and includes five major components: the percentage of adults ages 20-54 who are married, the percentage of married persons who are “very happy” with their marriage, the percentage of first marriages that are intact, the percentage of births to married parents, and the percentage of children living with their own married parents.

The percentage of adults who are married is an obvious indicator of the health of marriage in society. The report considers this percentage among the population of adults who are most likely to be coupling and least likely to be widowed. This indicator is not encouraging. As the report reveals, “The trend in the last four decades suggests that many adults are less likely to find marriage an attractive choice. In 1970, 78.6 percent of adults age 20-54 were married. In 2008, it dropped to 57.2 percent.”

“People still form relationships and still have children, but they are more likely to do so without marriage,” the report summarizes. This trend is especially common among younger adults. These young adults have experienced a disillusionment about marriage due to the divorce rates of their own parents. They now “show a much more favorable attitude toward cohabitation than earlier generations.”

The second indicator considers how many married persons report themselves to be “very happy” in their marriages. This measure of marital quality can be tracked through available data, and the trend is not positive. Though a clear majority of married Americans report their unions to be very happy, that figure has dropped from 67 percent to 62 percent in 40 years.

The marriage quality indicator is also important for children. As the report affirms, “when parents’ marital relationship suffers, children also tend to suffer.” The report also cites University of Texas sociologist Norval Glenn, who argues that the decline in marital happiness can be directly traced to the undermining of marital permanence by the availability of divorce.

The third indicator is the percentage of first marriages that are intact. In 1970, 77.4 percent of first marriages were intact, but only 61.2 percent were intact in 2007. There are signs that the percentage of intact first marriages may have actually increased in the last decade of this period, indicating that the divorce statistics are not inevitable. In other words, marital commitment can increase over time.

The percentage of births to married persons is the fourth major indicator. There has been a stunning increase in the percentage of children born to single parents or cohabiting couples. Today, only 60.3 percent of all babies are born to married couples, compared to 89.3 percent in 1970. Few statistics in social science reveal such a massive shift in the way human beings act and organize their lives. Marriage is the unique context in which children are most likely to flourish. Just one fact to keep in mind: Half of all children born to cohabiting couples see those unions end by age five.

The fifth indicator is the percentage of children living with their own married parents. “Marriage not only ensures that children are born into a stable family,” the report argues, “it also intends that children are raised with their own biological or adoptive mother and father.” The report cites family scholar David Popenoe, who stated, “Few propositions have more empirical support in the social sciences than this one: Compared to all other family forms, families headed by married, biological parents are best for children.”

In contrast, children from divorced or single-parent families are more likely to drop out of school, to be unemployed, and to become teen mothers. Interestingly, recent research indicates that children raised in stepfamilies “look more like children of single parents than children being raised by their own married parents.” In 1970, 68.7 percent of all children lived with their own mother and father. In 2007, that percentage had dropped to 61.0.

Taken as a composite, these leading marriage indicators reveal a score of 60.3 percent in 2008 — a devastating drop from 76.2 percent in 1970. Clearly, the nation’s marital health is in a free fall. This raises a frightening question: How low can these indicators fall and the society continue to survive?

The index of Leading Economic Indicators is understood to be a vital measure of America’s health and future prospects. If anything, The Marriage Index should be understood to be even more important to the health and welfare of our society. How low can these indicators go and the nation survive? Let’s pray we do not learn that answer the hard way.

________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/Albert Mohler.

On October 29 I discussed this issue on The Albert Mohler Program with special guest Maggie Gallagher of the National Organization for Marriage.

The bill, named for two men killed in vicious attacks, extends the definition of federal hates crimes to include attacks “based on a person’s race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or mental or physical disability.”

Referring to Matthew Shepherd and James Byrd, the President said:

It’s hard for any of us to imagine the mind-set of someone who would kidnap a young man and beat him to within an inch of his life, tie him to a fence, and leave him for dead. It’s hard for any of us to imagine the twisted mentality of those who’d offer a neighbor a ride home, attack him, chain him to the back of a truck, and drag him for miles until he finally died.

Those words are eloquent in exposing the deep evil that resides in far too many human hearts. If anything, the President spoke too cautiously.  It is not only “hard” for any morally sane person to imagine the mentality behind these attacks, it is and must be impossible.  Such crimes of violence against any human being should and must be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. But defining these crimes as “hate crimes” shifts the legal issue from the criminally violent act itself to the thoughts and intentions of the criminal. This is a dangerous and unnecessary step, for the very idea of a hate crime requires the government to play the role of psychiatrist and also requires a list of those who deserve special protections. How can government stop the extension of that list?  If criminalizing hate is legally justifiable, should not every citizen be granted these same protections?

Even more ominously, the logic of hate crime laws inevitably leads to the idea of laws against what is defined as “hate speech.” It is not fair to suggest that this specific legislation includes a hate speech provision.  It is fair, however, to sound the alarm that very important rights involving the freedom to speak openly against homosexuality, for example, are now at far greater risk.

There was no surprise in the fact that President Obama signed the bill.  The shock came, not in the fact that he signed it, but in what the President said in his comments.  “This is the culmination of a struggle that has lasted more than a decade. Time and again, we faced opposition,” said the President. “Time and again, the measure was defeated or delayed. Time and again we’ve been reminded of the difficulty of building a nation in which we’re all free to live and love as we see fit.”

Does President Obama actually mean what he said here?  Does he really call for a society “in which we’re all free to live and love as we see fit?” The hate crimes bill he signed into law covers gender, gender identity, and sexual orientation.  The courts will have to sort out all that is covered in those categories.

But the “free to live and love as we see fit” language was set in a context larger than the hate crimes bill.  President Obama is an intellectually serious man. He knows that words matter.  When he speaks of all citizens being “free to live and love as we see fit” he opens the door far beyond the categories of heterosexual, homosexual, and bisexual.  Does he mean to include polygamists in this vision?  The “polyamorous?” Incest?  The catalogue of sexual interests claimed by some as “loves” goes far beyond these.

We are living in an age increasingly marked by what Sigmund Freud called “polymorphous perversity.”  I do not believe that President Obama meant to include any and all sexual interests and lifestyles under his blanket category of living and loving “as we see fit.”  But words really do matter, and this President now bears responsibility for signing a dangerous bill into law and then for compounding that act by using language that was self-congratulatory, dishonest, and dangerous.

In another sense, the President’s language was revealing.  The logic that leads to the celebration of gay, lesbian, and bisexual relationships cannot stop with those sexual categories.  In an age that elevates “consent” as the only meaningful moral and legal issue, any effort to refuse similar recognition to any consensual sexual relationship, lifestyle, or practice is doomed to eventual failure.  It is all just a matter of time.

Yes, Sen. McCain, elections have consequences. But words have consequences, too, President Obama. Do you really want to live with the consequences of your words spoken on Thursday?

_____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates throughout the day on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

The availability of divorce without cause, so-called “no-fault” divorce, rendered every marriage less than it was before. Once impermanence became a mark of marriage in the law and in the culture, couples were required to muster a special level of marital commitment to remain married. Right before the nation’s eyes, divorce redefined marriage.

The revolution was, as is so often the case, led by members of the cultural, academic, legal, and political elites. Liberal intellectuals made the case for divorce as liberation, subverting marriage as a repressive institution. The moral revolutionaries attacked marriage as sexually limiting and oppressive. Feminists demanded divorce as a means of escaping marriage and achieving a right of exit for wives. There were even liberal religious leaders willing to offer a benediction over the dismantlement of marriage.

But as University of Virginia sociologist W. Bradford Wilcox recounts, it was none other than Ronald Reagan, then governor of California, who signed the nation’s first no-fault divorce bill. Reagan, who had recently experienced a bitter divorce from actress Jane Wyman, saw the legislation as a way to humanize divorce. Reagan later saw his role as, in Wilcox’s words, “one of the biggest mistakes of his political life.” Nevertheless, the damage was done — with effects far beyond California. As Wilcox explains, the availability of no-fault divorce “gutted marriage of its legal power to bind husband to wife, allowing one spouse to dissolve marriage for any reason — or for no reason at all.”

Professor Wilcox is one of the nation’s most knowledgeable authorities on the effects of divorce. He is director of the National Marriage Project at the University of Virginia and a senior fellow at the Institute for American Values. In “The Evolution of Divorce,” published in the inaugural issue of the journal National Affairs, Wilcox traces the effect of the revolution:

This legal transformation was only one of the more visible signs of the divorce revolution then sweeping the United States: From 1960 to 1980, the divorce rate more than doubled — from 9.2 divorces per 1,000 married women to 22.6 divorces per 1,000 married women. This meant that while less than 20% of couples who married in 1950 ended up divorced, about 50% of couples who married in 1970 did. And approximately half of the children born to married parents in the 1970s saw their parents part, compared to only about 11% of those born in the 1950s.

Every revolution requires cultural preparation, and the Divorce Revolution is no exception. Wilcox helpfully traces three developments that fostered the acceptance of no-fault divorce. First came the sexual revolution. An age of sexual obsession not only celebrated sex outside of marriage; it also elevated sex as, in effect, the only motivation for a relationship. Second, the “anti-institutional tenor of the age” undermined the authority of the churches to oppose divorce. Third, the psychological revolution undermined marriage with its “focus on individual fulfillment and personal growth.”  Of these three factors, the last was most central.

Wilcox’s article covers a wide range of issues related to the evolution and effects of divorce, but one section of his article deserves particular attention. Early in his analysis he cites the complicity of the elites in bringing about the revolution of no-fault divorce. Yet, the elites never felt the impact of divorce in the same way that the poor and less educated did. As he explains, “This imbalance leaves our cultural and political elites less well attuned to the magnitude of social dysfunction in much of American society, and leaves the most vulnerable Americans — especially children living in poor and working-class communities — even worse off than they would otherwise be.”

Later, Wilcox returns to this imbalance, documenting the “divorce divide” that marks American society. Among more educated and wealthier Americans, divorce is now more rare that it was in 1980. These privileged Americans have seen the impact of divorce and have more to lose if a marriage dissolves. They are now more likely than their parents’ generation to remain married. It is surely good news that “a clear majority of children who are now born to married couples will grow up with their married mothers and fathers.”

Furthermore, elite opinion among the academics has also shifted significantly on divorce. As Wilcox reports:

Although certainly not all scholars, therapists, policymakers, and journalists would agree that contemporary levels of divorce and family breakdown are cause for worry, a much larger share of them expresses concern about the health of marriage in America — and about America’s high level of divorce — than did so in the 1970s. These views seep into the popular consciousness and influence behavior — just as they did in the 1960s and ’70s, when academic and professional experts carried the banner of the divorce revolution.

So far, so good. But this is not the end of the story. Hauntingly, Wilcox observes that “marriage is increasingly the preserve of the highly educated and the middle and upper classes.” Further:

When it comes to divorce and marriage, America is increasingly divided along class and educational lines. Even as divorce in general has declined since the 1970s, what sociologist Steven Martin calls a “divorce divide” has also been growing between those with college degrees and those without (a distinction that also often translates to differences in income). The figures are quite striking: College-educated Americans have seen their divorce rates drop by about 30% since the early 1980s, whereas Americans without college degrees have seen their divorce rates increase by about 6%. Just under a quarter of college-educated couples who married in the early 1970s divorced in their first ten years of marriage, compared to 34% of their less-educated peers. Twenty years later, only 17% of college-­educated couples who married in the early 1990s divorced in their first ten years of marriage; 36% of less-educated couples who married in the early 1990s, however, divorced sometime in their first decade of marriage.

This “divorce divide” compounds the scandal of divorce, adding yet another level of moral responsibility to the issue and even greater culpability to the culture at large. The subversion of marriage flowed from the elites to the larger society. As Wilcox observes, working class and poor Americans once held more conservative views of marriage and divorce than the elites. No longer.

Now, the effects of the Divorce Revolution fall disproportionately on the poor. Even as the elites recover a significant level of commitment to marriage (and to being and remaining married in order to raise children), the effects of the revolution now fall on the poor, the less educated, and the less powerful. Even more tragically, the tragedy of divorce and the subversion of marriage fall on their children.

The Divorce Revolution is a national tragedy with enduring pernicious effects. Now we can see more clearly that the “divorce divide” is nothing less than scandal added to tragedy.

What Bradford Wilcox calls “the fallout of America’s retreat from marriage” now disproportionately harms the least among us. Shame on us all.

__________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers and listeners. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/Albert Mohler.

Professor Bradford Wilcox was my special guest on Tuesday’s edition of The Albert Mohler Program. Listen here.

National Affairs is an important new journal of ideas. As editor Yuval Levin explains, “To think a little more clearly means first of all to be better informed, and National Affairs will publish essays that bring to bear hard facts and figures and employ the social sciences, even as we remain aware of their limitations. It also means thinking more deeply, and we will publish essays that look to the philosophical foundations of our public life. And it means thinking constructively, so that we will publish not only diagnoses but, when possible, proposals for plausible remedies.” I welcome this new journal and recommend that you take a closer look.

Taking its stand with the radical theological revisionism of the Protestant Left, the ELCA “left the Great Tradition of moral teaching to identify with United Church of Christ and the Episcopal Church,” Benne lamented.

Writing in Christianity Today, Benne argued that his denomination had abandoned the Gospel for a social gospel. “The liberating movements fueled by militant feminism, multiculturalism, anti-racism, anti-heterosexism, anti-imperialism, and now ecologism have been moved to the center while the classic gospel and its missional imperatives have been pushed to the periphery.”

Benne, director of the Roanoke College Center for Religion and Society, offers a first-hand account of what took place in Minneapolis in August as the ELCA met for its Church Wide Assembly. The actions were sweeping in scope and effect. The ELCA voted to allow churches to call partnered homosexuals as ministers and then adopted a Social Statement on Sexuality (which passed by one vote) which insists that the Bible offers no clear teaching on homosexuality.

As the smoke now begins to clear from the votes in Minneapolis, a larger issue comes clearly into focus — the authority of the “bound conscience.”

As Robert Benne explains, the ELCA’s authority-smashing actions were made possible by the denomination’s adoption of a “bound conscience” principle that, in effect, means that anyone can believe almost anything and demand a place at the table, if they claim that their belief is rooted in a “bound conscience.”

Mark Hanson, the ELCA’s Presiding Bishop, explained that the “bound conscience” principle calls upon all Lutherans to respect the “bound consciences” of those with whom they disagree. Documents released or adopted by the ELCA explained in multiple ways that a conflict of interpretations concerning the Bible should not lead to a break in fellowship. For example:

The very fact that several different positions may be bound to Scripture means that we cannot assert one interpretation of Scripture over another but are called to respect consciences in the community of faith on this matter. The emphasis of “conscience-bound” is not on declaring oneself to be conscience-bound; rather it is that we recognize the conscience-bound nature of the convictions of others in the community of Christ.

In the case of the ELCA, the “several different positions” included the entire spectrum of positions on an issue as controversial and important as same-sex unions. The Social Statement on Sexuality affirmed no less than four “conscience-bound” positions within the church. The positions, all claimed as “conscience-bound,” ranged from the rejection of same-sex marriage to its outright acceptance. This affirms Robert Benne’s judgment that the church now has “no authoritative biblical or theological guidance” on a crucial theological and pastoral issue.

Though the issue of sexuality garnered media attention, the theological issue of “bound-conscience” is more fundamental. In accepting this principle, these Lutherans effectively abandoned any claim of normative instruction from the Bible. On an issue of such crucial pastoral and moral importance, the ELCA offers an entire range of contradictory positions, each of which is now to be “respected” because someone holding it claims to be bound by conscience.

Of course, any serious person declaring a position on any important issue will (and should) claim to be bound by conscience. The alternative to this is to suggest or to admit one’s position to be both baseless and insincere.  All sides in a theological controversy claim to be bound by conscience. This claim settles nothing and, on its own, leads to ecclesiastical disaster. The church simply surrenders to the autonomous individualism so prized by the larger culture and abdicates any authority to speak the truth.

The concept of being bound by conscience goes directly back to Martin Luther, the great Reformer who established what became known as the Lutheran tradition. On more than one famous occasion, Luther publicly took his stand and held his ground, claiming that his conscience was bound by the Word of God. He most famously made this case as he stood on trial before the Diet of Worms on April 18, 1521. Before the impaneled church leaders and the Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire, Luther declared:

Unless I am convinced by the testimony of the Scriptures or by clear reason …,  I am bound by the Scriptures I have quoted, and my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not retract anything, since it is neither safe nor right to go against conscience.”

Of course, Luther was not merely claiming to be bound by conscience. He was specifically claiming that his conscience was bound by the word of God. Luther, unlike the ELCA, believed that the Scriptures offer a very clear presentation of the Gospel and of moral and theological teachings. Luther affirmed the inspiration, authority, sufficiency, and clarity of the word of God and he took his stand on the authority of Scripture alone. The Word of God bound his conscience by its clear teaching.

Indeed, Luther was very suspicious of the human conscience. In the main, he was convinced that sin had so warped the capacity of conscience that it actually functions in most persons to foster a works religion which is the very opposite of the Gospel. The conscience makes the sinner aware of doing wrong, but then suggests works as a way of earning God’s good pleasure. As Randall C. Zachman documents in his important work, The Assurance of Faith: Conscience in the Theology of Martin Luther and John Calvin, Luther was convinced that the conscience uncorrected by Scripture would lead to “the idolatrous religion of conscience.”

In Luther’s own words: “God wants our conscience to be certain and sure that it is pleasing to Him. This cannot be done if the conscience is led by its own feelings, but only if it relies on the Word of God.”

Thus, the ELCA’s new principle of “bound-conscience” actually embraces and leads to what Martin Luther most feared — a burlesque of conflicting consciences without accountability to the Scriptures.

The point was not lost on many Lutheran observers.  Retired ELCA Bishop Paull Spring of State College, PA, chairman of the Lutheran CORE Steering Committee, a group opposed to the ELCA’s radically liberal direction, noted: “In its emphasis on conscience, the task force forgot that Luther was not talking about his own right to his own opinion. He was declaring his commitment and allegiance to the Word of God.” He added: “It is exactly the opposite of the task force’s idea of conscience as one’s personal beliefs. They are encouraging the strange notion of a bound conscience as nothing more than individualism.”

The idea of a bound conscience is deadly dangerous unless the conscience is bound by the Word of God. Those who would claim a bound conscience but pervert, deny, subvert, or relativize the Word may indeed be bound by conscience. But a conscience bound by anything other than the Word of God is a conscience given over to idolatry.

This is a Lutheran lesson we all desperately need to learn. And Martin Luther himself deserves the last word:

“It is the nature of all hypocrites and false prophets to create a conscience where there is none, and to cause conscience to disappear where it does exist.”

_____________________________________

I am always glad to hear from listeners and readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Rev. Robert Benne will be my guest on today’s edition of The Albert Mohler Program. Tune in to hear a discussion of why the actions of the ELCA must be of interest to all committed Christians.

This issue came to light last month in a fascinating essay by Maureen Dowd of The New York Times. Dowd, whose columns often reveal the nation’s Zeitgeist, cited the fact that a number of major studies indicate that “women are getting gloomier and men are getting happier.” She asked: “Did the feminist revolution end up benefiting men more than women?”

A very similar set of questions arises from TIME magazine’s current cover story and special report, “The State of the American Woman.” As the cover of the magazine explains, “A new poll shows why they are more powerful — but less happy.”

Reporter Nancy Gibbs traces the vast changes brought about by the feminist revolution. “It’s funny how things change slowly, until the day we realize they’ve changed completely,” she observes. As she documents, these changes are easily visible in contemporary America:

In 1972 only 7% of students playing high school sports were girls; now the number is six times as high. The female dropout rate has fallen in half. College campuses used to be almost 60-40 male; now the ratio has reversed, and close to half of law and medical degrees go to women, up from fewer than 10% in 1970. Half the Ivy League presidents are women, and two of the three network anchors soon will be; three of the four most recent Secretaries of State have been women.

Along the way, Gibbs also traces more fundamental changes. With remarkable understatement she simply notes “the detachment of marriage and motherhood” among other transformations. “Women no longer view matrimony as a necessary station on the road to financial security or parenthood,” she explains.

Nevertheless, “Among the most confounding changes of all is the evidence, tracked by numerous surveys, that as women have gained more freedom, more education and more economic power, they have become less happy.”

Gibbs cites a growing body of research that documents this trend toward unhappiness. In “The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness,” [pdf file] published in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, economists Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers explain that women in the 1970s “reported higher subjective well-being than did men.” Now, the opposite is the case.

The big question raised by these studies is this: Has feminism produced unhappiness among women? That question is inescapable when seen in light of the historical context. The great transformation of society by feminism took shape only after the 1970s. As a political and social movement, feminism has been stunningly successful. In the span of a single generation, the society has been overwhelmingly transformed. But, over the same period, women report themselves less happy, especially as compared to men.

As Gail Collins notes in her new book, When Everything Changed: The Amazing Journey of American Women from 1960 to the Present, the pace of this transformation has been absolutely stunning. “The cherished convictions about women and what they could do were smashed in the lifetime of many of the women living today,” she observes. “It happened so fast that the revolution seemed to be over before either side could really find its way to the barricades.”

Nevertheless, Collins, also a columnist for The New York Times, concluded: ” The feminist movement of the late 20th century created a new United States in which women ran for president, fought for their country, argued before the Supreme Court, performed heart surgery, directed movies, and flew into space. But it did not resolve the tensions of trying to raise children and hold down a job at the same time.”

These tensions have erupted as flash points in our national conversation over recent years. Some feminists have accused women who decide to stay home with their children as “letting down the team.”  Gail Collins cites Marlyn McGrath Lewis, director of undergraduate admissions at Harvard University as saying, “It really does raise this question for all of us and for the country: when we work so hard to open academics and other opportunities for women, what kind of return do we expect to get for that?”

The essays by Maureen Dowd and Nancy Gibbs both raise the fundamental question of feminism –  Has it led to greater unhappiness among women? Dowd and Gibbs remain committed feminists. Nevertheless, as Dowd notes, feminism has served to increase the burdens upon women, even as it promised to open doors.

Sadly, most feminists seem incapable, given their ideological commitments, of asking the hardest questions. “Progress is seldom simple,” Gibbs explains, “it comes with costs and casualties, even challenges about whether a change represents an advance or a retreat.”

In reality, feminism was never only about opening doors for women. In order to make the case for the vast social transformation that feminism has produced, the feminist movement aspired to nothing short of a total social, moral, and cultural revolution. Along the way, feminism redefined womanhood, marriage, motherhood, and the roles for both men and women.

Nevertheless, it appears that most women are uncomfortable with this total package. Instead of producing a vast expansion of happiness among women, the feminist movement must now answer for the fact that women, by their own evaluation, appear to be less happy than before the revolution.

The reason for this is probably quite simple. Women are in the best position to evaluate, not only what feminism has gained, but what it has lost. Maybe Susan Faludi is right –  The women’s movement wasn’t about happiness.

_____________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

I discussed this topic on Thursday’s edition of The Albert Mohler Program with special guest Dr. Denny Burk, Dean of Boyce College.

John Shelby Spong’s new manifesto is a sign of the times. For the past three decades, Bishop Spong has staked out a theological position that is so far outside the realm of Christian orthodoxy that it defies description. In a succession of notorious publications, Spong has denied virtually every conceivable doctrine and has embraced almost every imaginable heresy. His abandonment of biblical Christianity is both intentional and straightforward — what this bishop demands is nothing less than the total reformulation of the Christian faith. In other words, Bishop Spong would replace Christianity with a new post-Christian religion while continuing to be recognized as a bishop of the Episcopal Church.

An ardent proponent of gay rights and the total normalization of homosexuality, Bishop Spong has long pressed for same-sex unions and the ordination of practicing homosexuals to every office in his church. In his new manifesto, he simply declares victory for his cause. Though skirmishes in many churches and denominations continue, the bishop is convinced that the final outcome of the struggle is clear: “Homosexual people will be accepted as equal, full human beings, who have a legitimate claim on every right that both church and society has to offer any of us. Homosexual marriages will become legal, recognized by the state and pronounced holy by the church.”

In an act of individual self-assertion, Spong simply declares that he no longer needs “a majority vote of some ecclesiastical body” in order to bless or ordain gay and lesbian people throughout the life of the church. “The battle in both our culture and our church to rid our souls of this dying prejudice is finished,” he asserts.  “A new consciousness has arisen. A decision quite clearly has been made. Inequality for gay and lesbian people is no longer a debatable issue in either church or state.”

In the most interesting section of his manifesto, Bishop Spong announces that he will no longer debate the issue of homosexuality with anyone. “I have been part of this debate for years, but things do get settled and this issue is now settled for me,” Spong explains. “I do not debate any longer with members of the ‘Flat Earth Society’ either.”

Indeed, Spong has been a participant in debates over homosexuality for the last quarter century. Now, he simply announces that he will no longer debate the issue because he is no longer even willing to admit that there are two sides to the debate.  I suppose I should not have been surprised to find my name listed among those he will never again debate.

Though Bishop Spong appears to mean that he will not engage in debate concerning homosexuality on any conceivable grounds, he is particularly clear that he will not debate the question of whether homosexuality is a sin. Those who claim that homosexuality is sinful or deviant are, Spong insists, simply “unlearned.” He writes: “I will no longer engage the biblical ignorance that emanates from so many right-wing Christians about how the Bible condemns homosexuality, as if that point of view still has any credibility.”

Of course, Bishop Spong rejects any claim that the Bible is the Word of God. He knows full well that the Bible comprehensively condemns homosexuality in any form as sinful, so when he refers to “biblical ignorance” he is referring to those who would understand the Bible to be the binding authority for the church. Belief in the Bible as the revealed Word of God, he makes clear, is simply ignorant.

One section of his manifesto reeks of unintended irony.  He simply declares that the global debate over homosexuality has been terminated. “The world has moved on, leaving these elements of the Christian Church that cannot adjust to new knowledge or a new consciousness lost in a sea of their own irrelevance. They no longer talk to anyone but themselves.”

The obvious irony is this — the churches and denominations that have most eagerly embraced the normalization of homosexuality are also those losing members by the millions. While the Episcopal Church in the United States is following the dictates of Bishop Spong and his apostate colleagues, that denomination has lost entire dioceses, along with a huge swath of its membership. Meanwhile, the conservative and orthodox churches in the Anglican Communion are thriving, growing, and emboldened. So, which churches are “lost in a sea of their own irrelevance?”

Bishop Spong clearly hopes that his new manifesto will bring all debate over homosexuality to an end. Not hardly. While the bishop’s manifesto is written in the language of bravado, it actually represents an intellectual posture of surrender. Worldwide, the percentage of churches and denominations that have embraced Bishop Spong’s position on homosexuality is infinitesimally small. The Episcopal Church has taken radical steps to abandon biblical sexuality, but even within that denomination the debate over sexuality is hardly over.

If, as we should expect, Bishop Spong is true to his word, he will be missing from any future debate over the question of homosexuality. That debate will continue without him. Nevertheless, we should note carefully his effort to marginalize and silence those committed to a biblical understanding of homosexuality. While Bishop Spong’s manifesto is nothing to fear, the effort to silence all opposition to the normalization of homosexuality will undoubtedly continue.

And so, Bishop Spong exits the debate. And yet, given what we have come to expect of John Shelby Spong, I’m betting we haven’t heard the last from him yet.

____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

“Somehow, we’ll survive without him displaying a ‘John 3:16′ Bible verse under his eyes,” Cook wrote. “We separate church and state. Why not church and sports?”

Sam Cook’s column was prompted by a far more prominent essay published in Monday’s edition of USA Today. In “And I’d Like to Thank God Almighty,” Tom Krattenmaker leveled a comprehensive critique of the evangelical Christian message that, as he laments, permeates so much of the sporting world at both the college and professional levels.

The Bible verses painted in eye-black, fingers pointed heavenward, and expressions of thankfulness to God at the conclusion of a big game amount, Krattenmaker argues, to “a faith surge that has made big-time sports one of the most outwardly religious sectors of American culture.”

Krattenmaker’s concern is that this “faith surge” is overwhelmingly evangelical in its substance and message. He addressed this issue in a recently-released book, Onward Christian Athletes: Turning Ballparks into Pulpits and Players into Preachers. In both the column and his book, Krattenmaker seeks to describe “the infrastructure and strategy of the sports-world evangelicalism” that is the source of his concern.

In his book, Krattenmaker offers a more nuanced and developed argument than what is found in his recent column. Nevertheless, in both contexts his main concern is what he sees as a near monopoly of evangelical influence and expression in the sporting world.

He writes:

How did this come to be? Suffice it to say that Christianity is a strong presence in sports is no accident. It happened because a movement of athletic-minded evangelical Christians have been making it happen since setting out more than a half-century ago to reach and convert athletes and leverage their influence to spread the gospel to the wider sports-loving public.

Krattenmaker correctly traces evangelical influence in sports to the “muscular Christianity” movement so popular in America between the Civil War and World War II. He expresses appreciation for the moral influence of evangelical Christians and Christian conviction within the lives of athletes. Nevertheless, he is clearly alarmed by evangelical displays of the Gospel.

Looking beyond Tim Tebow, Krattenmaker points to Baseball Chapel, a Christian ministry that offers chaplains and worship services for professional baseball players on the road or at the ballpark. He is specifically offended by the fact that the ministry believes that those who do not come to faith in Jesus will face “everlasting punishment separated from God.”

He pointedly addresses the same concern to Tim Tebow. After praising his athletic ability and charitable works, he criticizes Tebow for his belief that faith in Jesus is necessary for salvation. Specifically, Krattenmaker cites the stated beliefs of the Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association. As he asserts, the ministry affirms the exclusivity of the Gospel and rejects “the modern ecumenical movement.”

In his USA Today column, Krattenmaker describes Tebow’s beliefs as “a far-right theology.” Yet, in his book Krattenmaker describes the same beliefs as “hardly fringe or half-baked.” As he explains, “On the contrary, they are quite consistent with the long tradition of conservative evangelicalism in America and the beliefs that more or less define the religious lives of millions of churchgoing Americans.”

In his column, Krattenmaker goes even further in denouncing Tebow’s beliefs:

Certainly, Tim Tebow must be applauded for the good he does working on his father’s missions, but he should be seen, too, as one who promotes a form of belief that makes unwelcome judgments about everyone else’s religion. Let’s not forget the twinge that is felt by sports-loving Jewish kids and parents, for example, or by champions for interfaith cooperation, when adored sports figures like Tebow use their fame to push a Jesus-or-else message.

Both Sam Cook and Tom Krattenmaker identify the exclusivity of the Gospel as the key issue of their concern when it comes to Tim Tebow and any number of other prominent sports figures. Krattenmaker repeatedly stresses that he believes athletes should be free to express their faith. Nevertheless, he argues that belief in the exclusivity of the Gospel of Christ is out of bounds for such expression.

What we face here is undoubtedly a sign of things to come. The belief that Jesus is the only Savior and that salvation comes only to those who come to Christ by faith is essential to Biblical Christianity. As Krattenmaker rightly observes in his book, when it comes to historic Christianity this belief is “hardly fringe or half-baked.” Yet, it is precisely this doctrine that is so odious and inconceivable to the postmodern mind.

Krattenmaker argues that evangelical Christians are unfairly using what he describes as “the civic resource known as ‘our team.’”  He demands that the management of professional sports open the door to other religious organizations and make room for expressions of other religious beliefs. He also calls for Christians to use “discernment” in seeking to evangelize their teammates.

Cook, on the other hand, calls for an outright separation of “church and sports.” The sporting world is hardly the only arena where the same arguments are made.  You can count on seeing these same arguments appear anywhere evangelical Christians express their faith in public or within ear-shot of those who may be offended. The belief that faith in Jesus Christ is necessary for salvation is now at the very center of secular outrage.

Consider this: Tom Krattenmaker ransacked the website of the Bob Tebow Evangelistic Association in order to find the statement that caused him to criticize Tim Tebow as espousing “a far-right theology.” The outrage directed at Tim Tebow is not just about a Bible reference written in eye-black. The outrage is directed at the sincerely-held beliefs of a young man and an evangelistic association.

Tom Krattenmaker suggests that Tim Tebow should adopt a “more generous conception of salvation.” And now we all know the price of being seen as “more generous.”  Just abandon the Gospel.

I am confident that Tim Tebow will withstand this pressure. He has shown enough theological maturity and strength of conviction to earn that confidence. But, we have to wonder, how many others will fold under the intimidation?

___________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

In “The Defiant Ones,” a recent essay published in the New Yorker, Daniel Zalewski argues that picture books for children now reflect a world turned upside down in terms of the relationship between parent and child. As he explains, in the newest picture books for children, the kids are solidly in charge.

In this sense, the books we read to our children reflect the cultural values of our age. Inescapably, these narratives for children reveal far more than a storyline. Indeed, the books tell us more than we may want to know about the tenor of our times.

And Zalewski explains:

Like the novel or the sitcom, the picture book records shifts in domestic life: newspaper-burrowing fathers have been replaced by eager, if bumbling, diaper-changers. Similarly, the stern disciplinarians of the past—in Robert McCloskey books, parents instruct children not to cry—have largely vanished. The parents in today’s stories suffer the same diminution in authority felt by the parents reading them aloud (an hour past bedtime). The typical adult in a contemporary picture book is harried and befuddled, scurrying to fulfill a child’s wishes and then hesitantly drawing the line.

Zalewski’s insight into the revelatory character of books for children is truly important. As he knows, today’s parents have indeed experienced a “diminution in authority” that is unprecedented in human history. Increasingly, it is children who have the upper hand in the power equation. Parents, who have been drinking deeply from the wells of contemporary secular parenting advice, have largely become passive facilitators in the lives of their children.

As Zalewski argues, today’s young parents “learn that there are many things they must never do to their willful young child: spank, scold, bestow frequent praise, criticize, plead, withhold affection, take away toys, ‘model’ angry emotions, intimidate, bargain, nag.” In other words, “nearly all forms of discipline appear morally suspect.”

Modern “experts” like Alfie Kohn now go so far as to argue that rewarding children for good behavior is virtually as injurious to the child as punishing children for negative behavior. Arguing against what he calls “conditional parenting,” Kohn came out against everything from the “time out” to positive reinforcement. Writing recently in The New York Times, Kohn asserted:

Conditional parenting isn’t limited to old-school authoritarians. Some people who wouldn’t dream of spanking choose instead to discipline their young children by forcibly isolating them, a tactic we prefer to call “time out.” Conversely, “positive reinforcement” teaches children that they are loved, and lovable, only when they do whatever we decide is a “good job.”

Today’s parents, advised by the likes of Alfie Kohn, are themselves the children and grandchildren of a generation raised by parents who abandoned traditional parenting for the advice of Dr. Benjamin Spock. The war against parental authority gained momentum throughout the 20th century. Now, today’s children are often virtually undisciplined — their parents having abandoned the central role of disciplinarian due to distraction, ideological intimidation, cultural pressure, or sheer confusion.

In his essay, Zalewski reviewed some of the most popular of the picture books released in recent years. In these books, “the default temperament of the child is bratty.” Indeed, the brattiness of the children depicted in these books is often “so zesty and creative that the behavioral transgressions take on the quality of art.” Parents are presented as frustrated, bewildered, and concerned — but clearly not in charge.

It was not always so. As Zalewski observes, “The parents in picture books used to be tougher.” Parents used to set the rules, and children were expected to obey. Disobedient children were corrected and (gasp!) even punished. The new literature for children presents a world in which parents are more likely to obey their children.

Indeed, in today’s world “nearly all forms of discipline appear morally suspect.” Do parents have any clue that it is the lack of discipline that is far more likely to harm a child?

Today’s Christian parents must push hard against the prevailing secular wisdom if they are to be faithful. The Bible makes clear (and simple observation affirms) that children desperately need discipline from their parents. Furthermore, the Bible reveals that the faithful and wise parent disciplines, teaches, corrects, chastens, rewards, and punishes the child as a demonstration of true love and parental responsibility.

Furthermore, the Bible straightforwardly presents a model of the family in which the parents possess an authority over their children that is nonnegotiable and essential for the health and happiness of the entire family. Indeed, the faithful parent is the one who rightly exercises and fulfills that authority. In our current cultural context, there are few collisions more direct and determinative than that between the secular and biblical conceptions of the role of parents.

Once again, we are reminded that books matter. In this case, Daniel Zalewski’s essay reminds us that books intended for the very youngest matter very much. The picture books we put in front of our children help frame their expectation and understanding of their place in life and in the family. Today’s parents must look carefully at the books they put before the eyes of their children. Some of the most subversive literature in the land is designed to put children — and not parents — firmly in charge.

________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

The Human Rights Campaign is one of the leading organizations promoting what it describes as “lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) civil rights.” The group’s annual dinner, held Saturday night, featured well-known politicians and entertainers popular in the LGBT community, as well as an appearance by the President of the United States. President Obama’s speech was a matter of controversy long before he arrived. Though pledging soon after his election to be what he called a “fierce advocate” for gay rights, the President has frustrated the gay rights community with what they see as inaction and hesitation in dealing with their agenda.

Indeed, the Obama administration has been under sustained pressure from the gay rights community — a crucial sector of its political support — and the HRC dinner was seen as an opportunity for the President to reassert his identification with gay supporters. Mr. Obama was the second sitting president to appear at an HRC dinner. President Bill Clinton appeared before the group in 1997.

Addressing the group, President Obama spoke of the obstacles in the way of the agenda hoped for by gay activists. The President told the group that they faced a continuing fight, adding: “I’m here with you in that fight.”

In the course of his address the President took credit for a federal hate crimes bill that was passed last week by a Democratic majority in the House of Representatives. He also pledged to push for an employee non-discrimination bill and fully-inclusive hate crimes legislation.

But the greatest attention was directed at the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bars openly-homosexual individuals from serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. “I will end don’t ask don’t tell,” the President pledged. “That’s my commitment to you.” Nevertheless, the President did not stipulate any timetable for this action — a fact noted by his audience.

The President’s perceived lack of action — and his refusal to hold his administration to a timetable for action — meant that many in the crowd were disappointed. Though his speech was repeatedly interrupted by eager applause, a good many activists complained that his speech was politically expedient. At TIME.com, John Cloud summarized the President’s message with these words: “I’m with you. But I can’t do much for you.”

Nevertheless, in contrast to that reading of the President’s comments, others understood Mr. Obama to make a sweeping series of promises. In addition to pledging a repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, the President also pledged to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

The President said:

And that is why — that’s why I support ensuring that committed gay couples have the same rights and responsibilities afforded to any married couple in this country. I believe strongly in stopping laws designed to take rights away and passing laws that extend equal rights to gay couples. I’ve required all agencies in the federal government to extend as many federal benefits as possible to LGBT families as the current law allows. And I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and to pass the Domestic Partners Benefits and Obligations Act.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), passed in 1996, stipulates a federal definition of marriage as the union of a man and a woman and protects any state from being forced to recognize a same-sex marriage legal in another state. The law was passed by huge majorities in both houses of Congress and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton. The opposition of the homosexual community to the law has multiplied since the advent of legalized same-sex marriage in a handful of states.

In a significant portion of his address, President Obama spoke of the fact that gay and lesbian concerns “raise a great deal of emotion in this country.” He did not counsel the homosexual community to be patient, but he did ask for understanding. He spoke of advances made over the last three decades, but then reflected that “there’s still laws to change and there’s still hearts to open.” Furthermore, “There are still fellow citizens, perhaps neighbors, even loved ones — good and decent people — who hold fast to outworn arguments and old attitudes; who fail to see your families like their families; who would deny you the rights most Americans take for granted. And that’s painful and it’s heartbreaking.”

The President’s promises were sweeping. Nevertheless, the most remarkable section of his address included a truly unprecedented promise. The President told the group that his expectation is that when they look back over the years of his administration, they would “see a time in which we put a stop to discrimination against gays and lesbians.”

Then he spoke these words:

You will see a time in which we as a nation finally recognize relationships between two men or two women as just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.

Those words represent a moral revolution that goes far beyond what any other President has ever promised or articulated. In the span of a single sentence, President Obama put his administration publicly on the line to press, not only for the repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act, but for the recognition that same-sex relationships are “just as real and admirable as relationships between a man and a woman.”

It is virtually impossible to imagine a promise more breathtaking in its revolutionary character than this — to normalize same-sex relationships to the extent that they are recognized as being as admirable as heterosexual marriage.

The attendees at the Human Rights Campaign’s annual dinner heard the President of the United States make that breathtaking pledge. Was the rest of America listening?

______________________

I’m always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Official White House photo by Pete Souza.

Most Americans seem completely unaware of the actual contours of the abortion debate as it emerged in the early 1970s. In 1973, the primary opposition to abortion on demand came from the Roman Catholic Church. Evangelicals — representative of the larger American culture — were largely out of the debate. At that time, a majority of evangelicals seemed to see abortion as a largely Catholic issue. It took the shock of Roe v. Wade and the reality of abortion on demand to awaken the Evangelical conscience.

Roe v. Wade was championed as one of the great victories achieved by the feminist movement. The leaders of that movement claimed — and continue to claim — that the availability of abortion on demand is necessary in order for women to be equal with men with respect to the absence of pregnancy as an obstacle to career advancement. Furthermore, the moral logic of Roe v. Wade was a thunderous affirmation of the ideal of personal autonomy that had already taken hold of the American mind. As the decision made all too clear, rights talk had displaced what had been seen as the higher concern of right versus wrong.

Also missing from our contemporary cultural memory is the fact that many Republicans, as well as Democrats welcomed Roe v. Wade as the next step in a necessary process of liberating human beings from prior constraints. Yet, we now know that even more was at stake.

Tapes recently released by the Nixon Presidential Library reveal that President Richard M. Nixon, who had been considered generally opposed to abortion, told aides on January 23, 1973 (the day after the decision was handed down) that abortion was justified in certain cases, such as interracial pregnancies.

“There are times when abortion is necessary. I know that. When you have a black and a white,” said Nixon. President Nixon’s words, chilling as they are, are also a general reflection of the moral logic shared by millions of Americans in that day.

As a matter of fact, one of the dirty secrets of the abortion rights movement is that its earliest momentum was driven by a concern that was deeply racial. Leaders such as Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, argued quite openly that abortion and other means of birth control were necessary in order to limit the number of undesirable children. As she made clear, the least desirable children were those born to certain ethnically and racially defined families. Sanger, along with so many other “progressive” figures of the day, promoted the agenda of the eugenics movement — more children from the “fit” and less from the “unfit.”

President Nixon, speaking off-the-cuff about the Roe v. Wade decision handed down just the day before, did register his concern that the open availability of abortion would lead to sexual permissiveness and a further breakdown of the family. Nevertheless, he carefully carved out an exception for interracial pregnancies.

Nixon’s comment, made almost 40 years ago, was strangely and creepily echoed in comments recently made by Supreme Court associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In an interview published in The New York Times Magazine, Justice Ginsburg made her absolute support of abortion on demand unconditionally clear. She tied her support for abortion to the larger feminist agenda and lamented the passage of the Hyde Amendment which excludes the use of Medicaid for abortions. The Supreme Court upheld the Hyde amendment in 1980, surprising Ginsburg, who commented:

“Frankly I had thought at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of. So that Roe was going to be then set up for Medicaid funding for abortion.”

Justice Ginsburg’s comments were made in the context of comments about her hopes for feminism and her anticipation of being joined at the court by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, then about to begin confirmation hearings. The larger context of Justice Ginsburg’s comments do not provide much assistance in understanding whether she was speaking of her own personal convictions or describing what was being thought by others at the time.

Of greatest importance is the fact that Justice Ginsburg’s comments reveal the racial, economic, and ethnic discrimination that was at the very heart of the push for abortion on demand throughout much of the 20th century. Also revealed is Justice Ginsburg’s virtually unrestricted support for a woman’s right to an abortion. In the interview, she goes so far as to lament the fact that the language of Roe v. Wade mentioned abortion is a decision made by the woman and her physician. As Justice Ginsburg told The New York Times, “So the view you get is the tall doctor and the little woman who needs him.”

The American conscience remains deeply divided over the question of abortion. Tragically, we have never experienced a sustained, reasonable, and honest discussion about abortion in the society at large. One step toward the recovery of an ethic of life would be an honest discussion about the actual agenda behind the push for abortion on demand. Proponents of abortion rights do everything they can to hide the ugliness of the agenda behind the comments made by President Nixon and Justice Ginsburg.  Nevertheless, the truth has a way of working itself into view.

Just take a good look at the comments made by the late President and the current Justice. Furthermore, ask yourself why there is such racial disparity in abortion. Those comments turn more chilling by the day.

____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

The cross, just six and a half feet tall, is now covered with plywood.  The Ninth Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the display of the cross is an unconstitutional establishment of religion. An appeal of that decision now goes before the nation’s highest court — and the eventual ruling could have sweeping effects.

The Supreme Court’s rulings in similar cases have bred nothing but confusion. In recent years, for example, the Court has held that a display of the 10 Commandments in Texas meets constitutional muster while a display of the same 10 Commandments in Kentucky is unconstitutional. The very fact that the Court accepted this case may indicate that it intends to clarify the confusion it has itself spawned.

The Mojave cross became the focus of legal action in March 2001, when Frank Buono, a former assistant superintendent of the preserve, filed suit to demand that the cross be removed from government land. Buono, a Roman Catholic, claims that he is not offended by the cross as a religious symbol but by the fact that it stands as part of a national preserve. He claims to be offended because the National Park Service will not remove the cross and that other religious groups are not allowed similar displays.

In an attempt to resolve the issue, the National Park Service transferred the property on which the cross stands to private ownership. Nevertheless, lower courts have found that this does not represent a satisfactory solution in light of constitutional questions.

The case before the Supreme Court, Salazar v. Buono, raises very few new issues. For this reason, many observers expect that the Court’s majority must intend to send a message as they rule on this case. If so, the Court could finally declare its unwillingness for the legal system to be used as a means of constantly challenging any religious symbolism on government property or under government supervision. If it does not rule in this direction, the stage could be set for an avalanche of legal claims against everything from the language on our coinage to the text of the Pledge of Allegiance.

In a brief submitted to the Court, lawyers for the American Center for Law & Justice made the following observation:

This case is only the most extreme example of a phenomenon that has plagued the federal courts for the past three decades. Ideologically motivated citizens and public interest groups search out alleged Establishment Clause violations, almost always in the form of a passive religious symbol or display of some sort, and make a federal case out of offense at the display. The basis for standing is typically that the religious display offends the sensibilities of the plaintiffs. The offense may be characterized as an affront to religious values, or as one in which plaintiffs feel stigmatized as political or community outsiders. But the sum and substance of the injury is that the display bothers the plaintiffs.

This raises one of the central constitutional questions faced by the Court: Is being offended or bothered by a display sufficient cause to be granted standing for a federal lawsuit? As numerous observers have recognized, the only claims accepted by the courts in this regard are those related to religious expression or symbolism. “Offended observer” status is a legal disaster. There is no end to the reasons why any citizen may be offended at any time by any display, language, or symbolism. If the Court does not put an end to this argument, the floodgates will be opened for a virtual flood of similar claims.

After all, the Mojave display is hardly unique in this respect. Far more visible is the Argonne Cross in Arlington National Cemetery, for example, or the Memorial Peace Cross in Bladensburg, Maryland.

Arguing for the retention of the display, lawyers for the government are expected to argue that the Mojave cross is constitutional because it represents a secular symbol intended to honor those who died in the nation’s service in World War I.

At this point, Christians should pay particular attention. While the government’s lawyers try to press their case, Christians should reject any argument that presents the cross as a secular symbol. There is nothing remotely secular about the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ. Arguments for the constitutionality of religious language and symbolism based in the supposedly secular character of the speech or imagery may win in the courtroom, but the arguments are devastating to authentic belief.

Of all people, followers of the Lord Jesus Christ must be the first to insist that the cross is a symbol of Christian faith, pointing directly to the cross on which Christ died as our substitute. The cross must not be reduced to a generic symbol of death and the memory of loved ones.

Salazar v. Buono is a case worth watching. The eventual outcome of the case may set a direction for Establishment Clause challenges in decades ahead. Yet, the arguments presented in this case may be just as important as the eventual decision handed down by the Court. Even as the government’s lawyers present the arguments they believe will best serve their cause, Christians must serve the cause of Christ.

In this case, this means that we must defend the integrity of the cross as the preeminent symbol of Christian belief. As the Apostle Paul would remind us, we must frame our arguments carefully and never compromise the meaning of the cross.  The cross is about Christ’s atonement for sin. We must never be even the slightest bit unclear about the meaning of the cross, lest it be robbed of its power.

________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Hypocrisy is found in ample supply among both conservatives and liberals. The conservative variant seems most evident when political or religious leaders are found guilty of transgressing the very principles they preach. The hypocrisy spreads in both extent and significance when those who claim to be conservatives attempting to conserve moral wisdom excuse those who flaunt their personal disregard for that wisdom.

The liberal variant seems most evident when, for example, moral relativists all of a sudden discover moral scruples. It turns out that even postmodern relativists and the children of the 1960s do believe in moral principles after all. Yet, the cultural left has always found sexual morality most difficult to define or defend.

The other liberal variant that so often appears is the argument that artists or celebrities or academics are above the morality to which the rest of society is accountable.  In the end, the children of the sexual revolution have gravitated toward a sexual morality that boils down to consent. In its essence, this sexual morality holds that anything consenting individuals do with each other sexually is beyond moral censure.  And anything means anything.  An ethic of consent is all that remains after the ethic of moral rules is discarded in the name of liberation.

That leaves the definition of consent as the issue of central concern. Who can and cannot give adequate consent to sex? Feminists have been quick to point out, quite rightly, that women are often forced into situations in which consent is an illusion. Thus, they have been steadfast defenders of laws and moral codes that protect women from situations in which consent is not genuine. They have insisted, rightly again, that the very young, the vulnerable, and those under threat of harm (such as an employee approached by an employer) cannot grant meaningful consent.

Of course, the most vulnerable are the youngest, and the most vulnerable of all are the youngest when exploited by adults. This moral wisdom — the wisdom of any sane society — has been affirmed by virtually all but the most scandalously outrageous figures driven into the moral wilderness.

Until now?

The response of so many Hollywood leading lights to the arrest of filmmaker Roman Polanski now suggests that, at least when it comes to one of their own, sex with children is within the pale. This deserves and demands a closer look.

The cultural left has responded to the arrest a week ago of Polanksi with outrage — directed not at Polanski but at the arrest.

The facts are not in dispute. Roman Polanski pleaded guilty to having sex with a 13-year-old girl in 1977. The girl had been invited to a “photo session” with the famous director but Polanski gave her alcohol and drugs and then twice had sex with her.  Polanski entered a guilty plea based on an agreement that he would not be prosecuted for rape or sodomy (crimes for which he had been indicted). He fled the United States before his sentencing and has generally avoided any nation that has an extradition treaty with the United States.  His arrest in Switzerland set off international protests.

The French cultural minister expressed outrage that the United States would demand Polanski’s return. Within days, over 100 Hollywood luminaries had signed a petition demanding Polanski’s release.  Names on the petition included Woody Allen, Martin Scorsese, David Lynch, Tilda Swinton, and Harvey Weinstein.

Weinstein defended Hollywood’s defense of Polanski, referring to his sex with a 13-year-old girl as a “so-called crime” and telling The Los Angeles Times: “Hollywood has the best moral compass, because it has compassion . . .  We were the people who did the fundraising telethon for the victims of 9/11. We were there for the victims of Katrina and any world catastrophe.”  In other words, our morality is superior to you unartistic types with your moral scruples about sex with children.

As Terry Teachout commented in The Wall Street Journal, “Mr. Weinstein is, of course, a moral idiot.” Clearly.  The larger question is why so many Hollywood types have jumped so eagerly to defend Polanski.  Whoopi Goldberg said on “The View” that what Polanski did “was not rape, rape.”  Then what is rape, rape?

The Los Angeles Times reported:

Jonathan Kuntz, a visiting professor in UCLA’s Cinema and Media Studies school, said the local reaction may be a version of the “there, but for the grace of God, go I.” “I think that there are a lot of folks in Hollywood in the late ’60s and ’70s who may have done a lot of things they weren’t really proud of, and may have been participating in very similar things,” Kuntz said. “And it touches on a question that’s been around for a long time: whether the celebrity is above the law.

Is the celebrity above the law? The case of Roman Polanski is tragic to the core. He went on to have an affair with a 15-year-old actress even after fleeing justice in the United States.  He was always warmly embraced by Hollywood, receiving a standing ovation when he was announced as the winner of an Oscar for “The Pianist.”  He gave his acceptance speech by satellite broadcast.  Hollywood was glad to oblige.

Give Katha Pollitt credit, the feminist left-winger supreme was quick to denounce both Polanski and his Hollywood enablers:

The widespread support for Polanski shows the liberal cultural elite at its preening, fatuous worst. They may make great movies, write great books, and design beautiful things, they may have lots of noble humanitarian ideas and care, in the abstract, about all the right principles: equality under the law, for example. But in this case, they’re just the white culture-class counterpart of hip-hop fans who stood by R. Kelly and Chris Brown and of sports fans who automatically support their favorite athletes when they’re accused of beating their wives and raping hotel workers.

No wonder Middle America hates them.

The moral gap between Hollywood and “Middle America” is vast, though for some reason many Americans blind themselves to this fact.  The Hollywood embrace of Roman Polanski and their outrage at his arrest in Switzerland shines a floodlight on this gap.

Are art and artists above moral accountability? The Hollywood elite seem to believe so — and even to be willing to lend their names to the defense of the morally indefensible.  Is the celebrity above the law?  Watch this case closely.

_________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Forrest Church was in the public eye for most of his life.  His father was the late Senator Frank Church [D-Idaho], who chaired committees that investigated the Central Intelligence Agency during the 1970s.  Sen. Church also ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1976.  After serving four terms in the Senate, Church was defeated for re-election in 1980.  Then, in 1984, he was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.  He died just three months later.

Forrest Church was 61 when he died last Thursday.  He lived only two years longer than his father.  But Forrest Church did something that few people are able to do — he wrote extensively about his own (impending) death.  When told that his cancer was terminal, Forrest Church preached a sermon that was intended to help his congregation understand the process of death and dying.  In the months that followed, he wrote a book about death and the experience of approaching his own death.

In Love & Death: My Journey Through the Valley of the Shadow, Church wrote of his understanding of death and its meaning.  At the end of it all, the Unitarian pastor and philosopher wrote of “my abiding belief in love after death.”

Significantly, Church wrote of his fascination with death.  As a younger person, he had romanticized death and contemplated various scenarios of a famous demise.  Later, though no longer believing himself to romanticize death, Church still seemed to see death in similar terms.  Writing as a pastor, he told of a terminally ill church member who had committed suicide with the assistance of the Hemlock Society.  Church wrote of his sympathy for her wish to remain in control of her life, even through her death.  “I could only admire her,” he wrote.

Forrest Church was a man of intelligence and culture — assets no doubt valued by his socially elite congregation at All Souls.  He was also a gifted writer.  In helpful sections of the book, Church took on the “conspiracy of silence concerning death” and helpfully reminded his readers that all of us will surely die.  Church saw our modern obsession with health as a barely-disguised effort to postpone death, but to no avail.  Vegetarians and joggers die, the pastor reminds.

Church compared life to the voyage of the Titanic.  In the end, every life hits an iceberg and sinks.  His exhortation was for all people to “dare to live before you die.”

He also tied his understanding of religion to the knowledge that we shall surely die.  “I draw from a strong faith tradition which, if not orthodox, invites me to explore everything from the scriptures to ancient philosophy to current events,” Church wrote.  “But the object is always the same.  For me, religion is our human response to the dual reality of being alive and having to die.”

Therefore, “if religion is our human response to being alive and having to die, the purpose of life is to live in such a way that our lives will prove worth dying for.”

Missing from the picture is any notion of life on the other side of death.  The minister declared his belief in “love after death,” but not in life after death.  The reason for this becomes more clear as Church writes of Jesus Christ.  “I have no idea whether Jesus was physically resurrected or not, but I suspect he wasn’t,” he wrote.  “If I am right, for many people that would be it for Jesus, period, end of story.  Christianity would be a delusion, a miscommunication of events faithfully transmitted from generation to generation.”

Indeed, Church insisted that his faith was not grounded in the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, but rather in the “spiritual rebirth of Jesus’s followers.”

The disciples experienced a “saving transformation” in which the love of Jesus was reborn in them, Church suggested.

It was the love of Jesus that survived his death, Church insisted — not the life of Jesus.  And that is a power available to all of us today, he promised.  Forrest Church often repeated his “mantra” with words his church came to know:  “Want what you have, do what you can, and be who you are.”

Forrest Church was a classical religious and theological liberal.  He rejected a supernatural Christ and did not believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection.  He also denied that Christianity could be reduced to some mere admiration for the teachings of Jesus.  While Jesus’ teachings were “in many ways wonderful,” those same teachings were “also flawed, limited by cultural and personal experience.”

The Unitarian minister came to his theological liberalism quite early.  At the age of ten, Forrest was given a Bible by his father.  That Bible was the so-called “Jefferson Bible,” produced by Thomas Jefferson as an experiment in removing all references to the supernatural Jesus from the New Testament.  Known formally as The Life and Morals of Jesus of Nazareth, the Jefferson Bible ends with these words:  “There they laid Jesus, and rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulcher, and departed.” End of story.  No resurrection.  Jesus is simply sealed into the tomb.

If that is all there is to the life of Jesus, Christianity does indeed fall apart.  Christianity would be a delusion and a misrepresentation of the truth.  The New Testament clearly claims that Jesus Christ was physically raised from the dead — and that his resurrection is the promise of our own.  The New Testament clearly promises life after death, not merely love after death.  This is where Christianity stands or falls.

The death of Forrest Church at age 61 is a sobering reminder of our mortality.  More tellingly, it is a lamentable but important reminder of the centrality of the resurrection of Christ to our Christian understanding of death and eternal life.  Without the resurrection of Christ, there is no hope for us after death.  We are, as Paul warned, of all people most to be pitied, for we believed in a false hope.

The Christian hope is essentially grounded in the physical resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. Without life after death, love after death will not matter.  No resurrection — no hope.

____________________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Keep up with regular updates on Twitter during the day by following www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

The choice of September 30 looks back to that date in the year 2005, when the publication of cartoons depicting the prophet Muhammad’s face sparked outcry and protests in the Muslim world and threats toward the West.

Now, as Religion News Service reports, the Center for Inquiry is planning a day of observances to mark the occasion.  Ron Lindsay, a lawyer who serves as president of the Council for Inquiry International, said that the day was part of the group’s effort to expose religious beliefs to investigation.  In the words of the RNS report, the goal is “to expose all religious beliefs to the same level of inquiry, discussion and criticism to which other areas of intellectual interest are subjected.”

Here is one feature of the day as planned by CFI:

You’ve never seen Jesus like this before: dripping red nail polish around the nails in his feet and hands, an irreverent riff on the crucifixion wounds. The provocative title of the painting: “Jesus Does His Nails.”  Blasphemous? Absolutely. Deliberately provocative? You bet.

Artist Dana Ellyn told RNS that she is an “agnostic atheist” whose purpose is to be provocative.  “My point is not to offend, but I realize it can offend, because religion is such a polarizing topic,” she said.

Among other things, CFI International also plans a “blasphemy contest,” “in which participants are invited to submit phrases, poems, or statements that would be, or have been, considered blasphemous.” Winners are to receive a t-shirt and mug.

Bet you can’t wait to see those.

More seriously, participants are also to be encouraged to take up the “Blasphemy Challenge” in which individuals register their blasphemy in the face of Mark 3:29.  In that verse, Jesus warns, “whoever blasphemes the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin” [ESV].  Those who take up the “Blasphemy Challenge” record video submissions which must include the words, “I deny the Holy Spirit.”

The Blasphemy Day events are certain to draw media attention, which is no doubt the whole point of the observance.  That is how a group like CFI can gain publicity for itself and its cause.

How should Christians respond?

First, take no offense. Refuse to play into the game plan of those sponsoring International Blasphemy Day.  The Lord Jesus Christ was and is despised and rejected of men.  Our Lord bore the scorn heaped upon him by his enemies. Christianity is not an honor religion. Believers in the Lord Jesus Christ are not commanded to defend his honor, but to be willing to share in the scorn directed to him. Is the servant greater than his master?

Islam is an honor religion, and the major forces in the world today seeking to criminalize blasphemy are Islamic. The riots on the streets of many nations in protest of the Danish cartoons do represent what faithful Muslims believe their religion requires them to do.  Not so for Christianity. We must be those who take to the streets with the Gospel — not with a defense of our honor or the honor of our Lord.  When Christians forget this, we lose our Gospel witness.  The history of the church includes far too many instances of this loss. We dare not add another.

Second, mourn the blasphemy. The warning of Jesus is clear — blasphemy has eternal consequences.  The worst form of blasphemy is the refusal to hear and believe the Gospel.  For that sin there can be no forgiveness. We must mourn the blasphemy, not because honor is at stake, but because souls are at stake with eternal consequences.  God will ultimately and perfectly defend his honor.  On that day, there will be no escape for unrepentant blasphemers.

Third, see this observance for what it really is — an unintended testimony to the existence of God and the foolishness of those who deny Him.  The sheer foolishness of a blasphemy contest with t-shirts and mugs betrays the lunacy of it all.  They can do no better than this?  One testimony to the power of God is the fact that his self-declared enemies come off as so childish and manic. The heathen rage and God sees the foolish grasshoppers.

International Blasphemy Day will come and go. Take note, ponder its meaning . . . and skip the t-shirt.

__________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates throughout the day at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Elson, who died September 7 at age 78, was the son of a reporter, and he knew a big story when he saw one.  He worked on the TIME cover story for more than a year, interviewing theologians and religious leaders. When published, the story became a symbol of the tumultuous decade of the sixties.  For the first time, TIME published the magazine cover without a photograph or drawing. The question, “Is God Dead?,” was all that mattered.

As William Grimes of The New York Times recounts,

The issue caused an uproar, equaled only by John Lennon’s offhand remark, published in a magazine for teenagers a few months later, that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.  The “Is God Dead?” issue gave TIME its biggest newsstand sales in more than 20 years and elicited 3,500 letters to the editor, the most in history to that point. It remains a signpost of the 1960s, testimony to the wrenching social changes transforming the United States.

Elson’s report looked at the increasing secularization of the society. The decade of the 1960s saw the emergence of secularizing trends in intellectual life, the arts, and mass culture. And yet, Elson’s major focus was on the radical theologians of the decade.  The so-called “Death of God Theologians” were garnering headlines and forging a new post-theistic theology.

As Elson reported:

Is God dead? The three words represent a summons to reflect on the meaning of existence. No longer is the question the taunting jest of skeptics for whom unbelief is the test of wisdom and for whom Nietzsche is the prophet who gave the right answer a century ago. Even within Christianity, now confidently renewing itself in spirit as well as form, a small band of radical theologians has seriously argued that the churches must accept the fact of God’s death, and get along without him. How does the issue differ from the age-old assertion that God does not and never did exist? Nietzsche’s thesis was that striving, self-centered man had killed God, and that settled that. The current death-of-God group believes that God is indeed absolutely dead, but proposes to carry on and write a theology without theos, without God. Less radical Christian thinkers hold that at the very least God in the image of man, God sitting in heaven, is dead, and—in the central task of religion today—they seek to imagine and define a God who can touch men’s emotions and engage men’s minds.

Elson got right to the point. The radical theologians, influenced by theologians such as Paul Tillich, rejected the existence of a God who would possess being, but affirmed what Tillich called the “ground of being.”  The “theology without theos” Elson described became mainstream fare in liberal seminaries and divinity schools.  Before long, leading “Death of God” figures such as Thomas J.J. Altizer, Paul Van Buren, and William Hamilton had become media celebrities and public intellectuals.

The radical theologians pressed their case that orthodox theology was based on an outdated understanding of God.  God does not have to exist to be meaningful to human existence, they argued.  He remains a potent symbol and source of meaning. God is still a useful concept, they insisted, but, in the words of Langdon Gilkey of the University of Chicago Divinity School, the believer “still needs to learn that talk of God is largely symbolic.”

Seen in retrospect, it is clear that the “Death of God” movement did not survive the 1960s.  Within a few short years, much of the stridency of the secular tide had been repackaged into the more benign-appearing “spiritualities” of the postmodern age.  Furthermore, many of the central concepts of the “Death of God” movement were simply absorbed into the increasingly secularized mainline Protestant world.  Theological non-realism no longer holds the power to shock within liberal theological circles.

Looking back to the TIME cover story, what seems most remarkable now is what was absent from that report — the rise of a vigorous and fully orthodox alternative to liberal theology.  Elson noted the continued presence of the “true believer,” but the believer appeared to be in a rather lonely position. Missing from the account was the rise of an energetic Evangelicalism.  That story would produce a memorable cover story for Newsweek, exactly ten years later.

John T. Elson concluded his iconic cover story by wondering if the “contemporary Christian worry about God could be a necessary and healthy antidote to centuries in which faith was too confident and sure.” An antidote? Not hardly. But Elson’s essay about the death of God was a theological wake-up call that will be remembered long after his own death.

___________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow my regular updates on Twitter through the day at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

As Science Daily reports, a new leading article to be published in Archives of Disease in Childhood points to developments in the near future that will likely increase the diagnosis of Down syndrome [DS] during pregnancy.  “New tests expected to be introduced next year will offer a simple blood test that poses no risk to the fetus and delivers a definitive diagnosis of one of more of the genetic variants of Down syndrome — trisomy 21, translocation, or mosaicism,” the journal reported.

The development of these new tests will almost surely make the practice of prenatal screening for Down syndrome more widespread. At present, the available tests pose some risk to the fetus and are invasive. The new tests expected next year are based on simple blood tests.

The new research is based on work by Dr. Brian Skotko, a clinical genetics fellow at Children’s Hospital Boston.  Skotko, who has a sister with Down syndrome, asks this haunting question: “As new tests become available, will babies with Down syndrome slowly disappear?”

His research reveals deeply troubling trends. Between 1989 and 2005, births of babies with Down syndrome decreased by 15 percent.  As Science Daily explains, “In the absence of prenatal testing, researchers would have expected the opposite — a 34 percent increase in births — due to the trend of women waiting longer to have children; known to increase the chances of having a baby with Down syndrome.”

In an article published in 2005, Skotko argued that doctors are often ill-prepared to discuss the diagnosis of Down syndrome with their pregnant patients.  Chillingly, he also revealed that a significant percentage of the doctors “reported that they ‘emphasize’ the negative aspects of DS so that patients would favor a termination.”

With the new technologies of prenatal diagnosis so close on the horizon, Skotko now sees a “true collision” on its way.  “More women will be going through the testing process, which could lead to a lot of difficult, uncomfortable conversations between physicians and expectant patients.”

The reason for the decrease in the number of babies born with Down syndrome comes into clearer focus when The Washington Post cites Skotko’s research indicating that 92 percent of women who learn they are carrying a baby with Down syndrome choose to abort the pregnancy. That is more than nine out of ten.

The dimensions of the “collision” Dr. Skotko sees coming now come into view. If these percentages hold, the development of these new tests will almost certainly lead to a vast increase in the number of babies aborted after the diagnosis of Down syndrome.

This presents a grave moral challenge to the medical community — and to the society at large.  Medical care is a social good for which the entire society is responsible. The development of prenatal diagnostic technologies and procedures brings a moral crisis right to our doorsteps — and our hearts.  Will we see people with Down syndrome simply disappear?

In his 2005 article, published in the American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, Dr. Skotko explained that prenatal testing for Down syndrome presents expectant parents with a simple choice — continue the pregnancy or abort. He continued:

Knowing this, health care providers have historically operated under the assumption that if a woman consents to prenatal screening or diagnosing, she must believe that having a child with DS would be an undesired outcome and wish to terminate her pregnancy if such a diagnosis were made prenatally.”

Expectant parents should read that sentence over and over again, and so should those who counsel them.

As Dr. Skotko understands all too well, this moral crisis is not limited to babies with Down syndrome. He asks: “Should expectant parents be able to select out fetuses with an undesired sex? Should fetuses with genes that predispose them to adult breast cancer be prenatally identified? Should couples in the future be supported if they wish to terminate fetuses with genes correlated with sexual preferences?”

The fact that 92 percent of women who are told that their unborn child carries the high risk of Down syndrome choose to abort the baby should shock us all. What does that say about our devaluation of human life and human dignity? This can only mean that these women see a child with Down syndrome as not worth having — and the baby as a life not worth living.

Dr. Skotko points to the new tests just around the corner and sees a collision coming.  Given his important research, we had better see a moral crisis looming. The Culture of Death is gaining momentum before our eyes. Who will be next in line to be considered unworthy of life?

__________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler

The paper’s “Weekend Journal” section front page for the September 12-13, 2009 edition featured articles by Richard Dawkins and Karen Armstrong set in opposing columns.  The paper headlined the feature as “Man vs. God: Two Prominent Thinkers Debate Evolution, Science, and the Role of Religion.”  Well, the feature at least looked interesting.

Dawkins, after all, is probably the world’s most famous atheist.  At the same time (and not coincidentally, he would insist) he is also the world’s foremost defender of Darwin and evolutionary theory.  Karen Armstrong is a popularizer of works on world religion.  She takes a basically benign view of religion, arguing that the different religions of the world are avenues toward the same quest for meaning.  A former nun, she has written several books on themes and figures related to Islam, and she is a critic of what she terms “fundamentalist” religion.  She is a critic of “fundamentalism” on whom the media can depend for comment.

The paper presented the articles by Dawkins and Armstrong in an interesting format.  The article by Dawkins is headlined, “Evolution Leaves God with Nothing to Do.”  Armstrong’s essay is headlined, “We Need to Grasp the Wonder of Our Existence.”

Predictably, Dawkins begins his article with Charles Darwin and the theory of evolution.  Evolution, Dawkins claims, has simply displaced God.  “Evolution is the universe’s greatest work.  Evolution is the creator of life, and life is arguably the most surprising and most beautiful production that the laws of physics have ever generated,” he asserts.  Quoting a T-shirt, Dawkins insists that evolution “is the greatest show on earth, the only game in town.”

As for God, evolution just renders deity a useless and vacuous concept.  “Where does that leave God?,” Dawkins asks.  “The kindest thing to say is that it leaves him with nothing to do, and no achievements that might attract our praise, our worship or our fear.”

Evolution, he continues (presumably less kindly), “is God’s redundancy notice, his pink slip.”  God, who never existed in the first place, has now been fired.

Demonstrating the point that this exchange is really not a meaningful debate, Karen Armstrong begins her essay with this amazing statement:  “Richard Dawkins has been right all along, of course — at least in one important respect.  Evolution has indeed dealt a blow to the idea of a benign creator, literally conceived.  It tells us that there is no Intelligence controlling the cosmos, and that life itself is the result of a blind process of natural selection, in which innumerable species failed to survive.”

Furthermore, she asserts that human beings “were not the pinnacle of a purposeful creation; like everything else they evolved by trial and error and God had no direct hand in their making.”

And yet, Armstrong insists that Darwin really did God a favor by forcing us to give up our “primitive” belief in his actual existence — thus freeing us to affirm merely a “God beyond God” who exists only as a concept.

Along the way, Armstrong offers a superficial and theologically reckless argument that comes down to this:  Until the modern age, believers in God were not really believers in a God who was believed to exist.  Then along came Sir Issac Newton and the “modern” belief that God must exist in order to be God.  When Darwin came along to show “that there could be no proof for God’s existence,” he was doing God a favor — allowing his survival as a mere symbol.

She makes statements that amount to elegant nonsense.  Consider this:  “In the ancient world, a cosmology was not regarded as factual but was primarily therapeutic; it was recited when people needed an infusion of that mysterious power that had — somehow — brought something out of primal nothingness: at a sickbed, a coronation or during a political crisis.”  So she would have us to believe that, in centuries past, cosmology was merely therapy.  She simply makes the assertion and moves on.  Will anyone believe this nonsense?

Armstrong calls for the emergence of “a more authentic notion of God.”  Her preferred concept of God would be about aesthetics, not theology.  “Religion is not an exact science but a kind of art form,” she intones.

Interestingly, it is Dawkins, presented as the unbeliever in this exchange, who understands God better than Armstrong.  In fact, Richard Dawkins the atheist rightly insists that Karen Armstrong is actually an atheist as well.  “Darwin’s Rottweiller” sees through Armstrong’s embrace of a “God beyond God.”

He writes:  “Now, there is a certain class of sophisticated modern theologian who will say something like this: “Good heavens, of course we are not so naive or simplistic as to care whether God exists.  Existence is such a 19th-century preoccupation! It doesn’t matter whether God exists in a scientific sense. What matters is whether he exists for you or for me. If God is real for you, who cares whether science has made him redundant? Such arrogance! Such elitism.”

Clearly, this “certain class of sophisticated modern theologian” refers to those theologians who embrace theological non-realism.  Dawkins clearly lumps Karen Armstrong in the same category of deluded theologians.

“Well, if that’s what floats your canoe, you’ll be paddling it up a very lonely creek,” Dawkins warns.  “The mainstream belief of the world’s peoples is very clear. They believe in God, and that means they believe he exists in objective reality, just as surely as the Rock of Gibraltar exists. If sophisticated theologians or postmodern relativists think they are rescuing God from the redundancy scrap-heap by downplaying the importance of existence, they should think again.”

We should at least give Dawkins credit here for knowing what he rejects.  Here we meet an atheist who understands the difference between belief and unbelief.  As for those, like Armstrong, who try to tell believers that it does not matter if God exists –  Dawkins informs them that believers in God will brand them as atheists.  “They’ll be right,” Dawkins concludes.

So the exchange in The Wall Street Journal turns out to be a meeting of two atheist minds.  The difference, of course, is that one knows he is an atheist when the other presumably claims she is not.  Dawkins knows a fellow atheist when he sees one. Careful readers of The Wall Street Journal will come to the same conclusion.

No one envisioned this kind of longevity for Hubble when the telescope was first put into orbit in 1990.  Named for astronomer Edwin P. Hubble (1889-1953), the telescope’s location in orbit around the earth avoids the distortions of the earth’s atmosphere.

Now, with images streaming from the Hubble, scientists are elated and NASA is relieved. “The hair was standing up on the back of my neck to see the potential of this telescope,” said John Grunsfeld, one of the astronauts who fixed the telescope back in the spring. Heidi Hammel of the Space Science Institute said, “We’re giddy with the quality of the data we’re getting.”  Astronaut Mike Massimino simply said, “Thank God, we didn’t break it.”

It is easy to see why. The images are simply amazing, even to a non-astronomer.  These visions have never been seen by human eyes before. In these and so many other ways, this generation has glimpsed the grandeur of the creation like no generation before us.

One interesting facet of the publicity around the new images from Hubble is the inadequacy of the comments offered by so many.  Consider this portion of an account by the Associated Press:

The butterfly photo shows details, such as gassy folds in what looks like butterfly wings, that the Hubble previously could not see, said Hubble senior scientist Dave Leckrone.

The glow in that photo and others is hot gas and dust pushed out from the stars, Leckrone said. In a way, it’s like a lightbulb, with the star as the filament but the overall glow from the gas, he said.

The images, especially the butterfly, don’t just show science, but can evoke a sense of spirituality, Leckrone said.

“What I see is the grandeur of creation, however it got there,” Leckrone told The Associated Press.

The Associated Press offers a very credible news story on the Hubble excitement. But consider the statement provided by Dave Leckrone:  “What I see is the grandeur of creation, however it got there.”  As the report indicates, Leckrone suggested that the Hubble images should evoke “spirituality,” and not merely a respect for science.

Leckrone may well be speaking honestly about his lack of concern for “how it got there,” but I doubt that is all there is to it.  How can intelligent people consider the grandeur of the cosmos without pondering, “how it got there?”  In the end, the “how” question (or the “who” question) determines the meaning of the cosmos itself.  If the universe (and what lies beyond) is merely an accident of physics, the grandeur is simply in the sheer unlikeliness of it all.  Beyond this observation, little more can be said.  We are left to ponder the cosmos as a freakish accident that provides human beings (also accidents) with an opportunity for amazement.

If, on the other hand, the cosmos is the work of a sovereign and holy Creator, the cosmos is itself a reflection of His character and power — and the theater of His glory.

According to The New York Times, astronaut K. Megan McArthur reacted to the images coming from the newly-repaired Hubble with this: “I’m in awe of the human ingenuity that could conceive of such a thing and then make it happen.”  Well, the human ingenuity displayed in the Hubble is indeed impressive — deeply so.  But how do we explain even the wonder of this human ingenuity?  Furthermore, how can one’s wonder stop at human ingenuity?  The real wonder is not Hubble, but what Hubble has allowed us at last to see.

“The heavens are telling the glory of God,” sings the Psalmist, “and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.” [Psalm 19:1, NASB]  Every atom of creation cries out the glory of God.  The Hubble Space Telescope now shows the glory of God in the universe in a new dimension — and in breathtaking color and complexity.  To see these images is to view the work of the Creator in a glory newly disclosed, newly visible to human eyes.

To read of the vast distances and dimensions seen and measured by Hubble’s technology is to be reminded just how small our planet really is — and how even smaller we humans are.  As the Psalmist reflected:  “When I consider your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars which you have ordained; What is man that You take thought of him, and the son of man that You care for him?” [Psalm 8:3-4, NASB]

The cosmos does reveal the glory of the Creator — indeed it is inevitably so.  The heavens — and Hubble — are telling the glory of God.  He who has eyes to see, let him see.

_____________________________

Photo credit, NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration).  Main Hubble page with images available here.

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow my regular updates through the day at Twitter by going to www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

Francis Schaeffer well understood the epistemological crisis and accordingly titled his most significant contribution, He Is There and He Is Not Silent. I first read this classic as a sixteen-year-old. To be honest, I think the greatest assurance I got from the book at that age was that some really smart person believed in God. But even at that age, lacking the vocabulary to understand what I was experiencing, I understood the epistemological crisis. How do we know anything? How would we speak of anything? Furthermore, how do we jump from the empirical knowledge of what we can observe to speaking of God whom we cannot see?

The claim to know anything, certainly in terms of empirical and scientific observation and study and phenomenology, is audacious enough. But then to speak of the “immortal invisible God only wise”—that is a new leap of audacity altogether.

Dr. Schaeffer understood the epistemological problem that is silence – the claim and the implication that we can know nothing. And he understood that there is only one epistemological answer—revelation. Christianity depends upon a Christian epistemology, a Christian theory of knowledge based in revelation alone. There is no greater challenge than this—to make certain we know on what authority we speak, and know, and teach.

In Deuteronomy chapter four, Moses reminds Israel of the authority by which they were to live. They heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire and survived. This great sermon concludes the introductory section to Deuteronomy, and stands as a unit all to itself. The sermon begins and ends with a parallel structure, and in the midst is itself a large component of a suzerainty treaty. Such a treaty was a common form in the Ancient Near Eastern world, giving the conqueror the right to set down the terms of the treaty. In the book of Deuteronomy, the conqueror is none other than the Lord God Jehovah and the conquered is none other than His own chosen nation Israel. God sets down terms, and they are very easy to understand. It comes down to a very simple formula: hear and obey and live. Refuse to hear, disobey, and bear the wrath of God.

Looking back to the covenant at Horeb, it is clear that obedience led to blessing, disobedience led to God’s curse. The generations that survived, kept alive through forty years of wandering in the wilderness, witnessed the death of their own parents who disobeyed and did not trust the Lord.

And now, as the Lord prepares His people for the conquest of the Holy Land, they hear exhortation and memory mixed together. Lest they forget, they are being reminded that they heard the voice of God speaking from the midst of the fire and survived. They share in the memory of God’s great saving work in bringing Israel out of captivity to Pharaoh in Egypt, and His keeping the children of Israel alive through forty years of wandering in the wilderness. They were led by smoke and by fire – Moses says, “Remember, and live!”

_______________________

These words are from the introduction to my newest book, Words From the Fire: Hearing the Voice of God in the Ten Commandments, which was released this week by Moody Press. The book is a theological exposition of the Ten Commandments with a special concern for the meaning of these commandments for the Church. You may find out more about the book here.

At first glace, that seems to be exactly what this fracas is all about. Much of the controversy is reckless, baseless, and plainly irrational. Some have called the speech an effort to recruit America’s children into socialism. Others have argued that any presidential speech piped into classrooms is illegitimate. But a presidential speech to students is hardly unprecedented. This speech by this president has led to an unprecedented uproar.

At this level, the controversy is a national embarrassment. Conservatives must avoid jumping on every conspiracy theory and labeling every action by the Obama administration as sinister or socialist. Our civic culture is debased when opposing parties and political alignments read every proposal by the other side as suspect on its face.

Furthermore, this controversy smacks of disrespect for the President and, by extension, disrespect for the presidency itself. Both fly in the face of Christian responsibility to pray for those in authority. Respect for our government, though never as an end in itself, is part of our Christian responsibility. This controversy threatens to sow seeds of permanent distrust and suspicion in the hearts of the young. In an age of rampant cynicism, this is inexcusable.

And what will the President say?  The entire speech is now available online. The main thrust of the President’s address is a call for students to remain in school, set personal goals, and make a difference in society and a future for themselves.

As the President will say:

In reading through the remainder of the prepared remarks, they follow similar lines of encouragement. Some sections are quite personal:

I get it. I know what that’s like. My father left my family when I was two years old, and I was raised by a single mother who struggled at times to pay the bills and wasn’t always able to give us things the other kids had. There were times when I missed having a father in my life. There were times when I was lonely and felt like I didn’t fit in.

His words could not be more clear: “But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to what we have preached to you, he is to be accursed! As we have said before, so I say again now, if any man is preaching to you a gospel contrary to what you have received, he is to be accursed!” [Gal. 1:6-7]

This warning from the Apostle Paul, expressed in the language of the Apostle’s shock and grief, is addressed not only to the church in Galatia, but to every congregation in every age. In our own day — and in our own churches — we desperately need to hear and to heed this warning. In our own time, we face false gospels no less subversive and seductive than those encountered and embraced by the Galatians.

In our own context, one of the most seductive false gospels is moralism. This false gospel can take many forms and can emerge from any number of political and cultural impulses. Nevertheless, the basic structure of moralism comes down to this — the belief that the Gospel can be reduced to improvements in behavior.

Sadly, this false gospel is particularly attractive to those who believe themselves to be evangelicals motivated by a biblical impulse. Far too many believers and their churches succumb to the logic of moralism and reduce the Gospel to a message of moral improvement. In other words, we communicate to lost persons the message that what God desires for them and demands of them is to get their lives straight.

In one sense, we are born to be moralists. Created in God’s image, we have been given the moral capacity of conscience. From our earliest days our conscience cries out to us the knowledge of our guilt, shortcomings, and misbehaviors. In other words, our conscience communicates our sinfulness.

Add to this the fact that the process of parenting and child rearing tends to inculcate moralism from our earliest years. Very quickly we learn that our parents are concerned with our behavior. Well behaved children are rewarded with parental approval, while misbehavior brings parental sanction. This message is reinforced by other authorities in young lives and pervades the culture at large.

Writing about his own childhood in rural Georgia, the novelist Ferrol Sams described the deeply-ingrained tradition of being “raised right.” As he explained, the child who is “raised right” pleases his parents and other adults by adhering to moral conventions and social etiquette. A young person who is “raised right” emerges as an adult who obeys the laws, respects his neighbors, gives at least lip service to religious expectations, and stays away from scandal. The point is clear — this is what parents expect, the culture affirms, and many churches celebrate. But our communities are filled with people who have been “raised right” but are headed for hell.

The seduction of moralism is the essence of its power. We are so easily seduced into believing that we actually can gain all the approval we need by our behavior. Of course, in order to participate in this seduction, we must negotiate a moral code that defines acceptable behavior with innumerable loopholes. Most moralists would not claim to be without sin, but merely beyond scandal. That is considered sufficient.

Moralists can be categorized as both liberal and conservative. In each case, a specific set of moral concerns frames the moral expectation. As a generalization, it is often true that liberals focus on a set of moral expectations related to social ethics while conservatives tend to focus on personal ethics. The essence of moralism is apparent in both — the belief that we can achieve righteousness by means of proper behavior.

The theological temptation of moralism is one many Christians and churches find it difficult to resist. The danger is that the church will communicate by both direct and indirect means that what God expects of fallen humanity is moral improvement. In so doing, the church subverts the Gospel and communicates a false gospel to a fallen world.

Christ’s Church has no option but to teach the Word of God, and the Bible faithfully reveals the law of God and a comprehensive moral code. Christians understand that God has revealed Himself throughout creation in such a way that He has gifted all humanity with the restraining power of the law. Furthermore, He has spoken to us in His word with the gift of specific commands and comprehensive moral instruction. The faithful Church of the Lord Jesus Christ must contend for the righteousness of these commands and the grace given to us in the knowledge of what is good and what is evil. We also have a responsibility to bear witness of this knowledge of good and evil to our neighbors. The restraining power of the law is essential to human community and to civilization.

Just as parents rightly teach their children to obey moral instruction, the church also bears responsibility to teach its own the moral commands of God and to bear witness to the larger society of what God has declared to be right and good for His human creatures.

But these impulses, right and necessary as they are, are not the Gospel. Indeed, one of the most insidious false gospels is a moralism that promises the favor of God and the satisfaction of God’s righteousness to sinners if they will only behave and commit themselves to moral improvement.

The moralist impulse in the church reduces the Bible to a codebook for human behavior and substitutes moral instruction for the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Far too many evangelical pulpits are given over to moralistic messages rather than the preaching of the Gospel.

The corrective to moralism comes directly from the Apostle Paul when he insists that “a man is not justified by the works of the Law but through faith in Christ Jesus.” Salvation comes to those who are “justified by faith in Christ and not by the works of the Law; since by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified.” [Gal. 2:16]

We sin against Christ and we misrepresent the Gospel when we suggest to sinners that what God demands of them is moral improvement in accordance with the Law. Moralism makes sense to sinners, for it is but an expansion of what we have been taught from our earliest days. But moralism is not the Gospel, and it will not save. The only gospel that saves is the Gospel of Christ. As Paul reminded the Galatians, “But when the fullness of the time came, God sent forth His Son, born of a woman, born under the Law, so that He might redeem those who were under the Law, that we might receive the adoption as sons.” [Gal. 4:4-5]

We are justified by faith alone, saved by grace alone, and redeemed from our sin by Christ alone. Moralism produces sinners who are (potentially) better behaved. The Gospel of Christ transforms sinners into the adopted sons and daughters of God.

The Church must never evade, accommodate, revise, or hide the law of God. Indeed, it is the Law that shows us our sin and makes clear our inadequacy and our total lack of righteousness. The Law cannot impart life but, as Paul insists, it “has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith.” [Gal. 3:24]

The deadly danger of moralism has been a constant temptation to the church and an ever-convenient substitute for the Gospel. Clearly, millions of our neighbors believe that moralism is our message. Nothing less than the boldest preaching of the Gospel will suffice to correct this impression and to lead sinners to salvation in Christ.

Hell will be highly populated with those who were “raised right.” The citizens of heaven will be those who, by the sheer grace and mercy of God, are there solely because of the imputed righteousness of Jesus Christ.

Moralism is not the gospel.

___________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow regular updates on Twitter through the day at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

The announcement of a new NIV update will attract special attention because of the controversy that surrounded the publication and release of what became known as the TNIV, or Today’s New International Version, announced in 2002. As is now well-known, the release of the TNIV led to a firestorm of controversy among evangelicals. Even as supporters of the TNIV declared the translation to be superior to previous contemporary English translations in terms of “gender accuracy,” others saw the new translation as hopelessly accommodated to contemporary concerns about gender.

The controversy over the TNIV was heated and uncomfortable, but inevitable. Those of us who saw the translation as deficient and misguided in its claim to and application of “gender accuracy” responded to the new translation with alarm and deep concern. The issues of primary concern with the release of the TNIV remain. These issues include, but are not limited to, matters of gender reference.

As many of us made clear at the time of the TNIV’s announcement and release, the issues with this translation had to do with translation decisions that we were convinced did not produce “gender accuracy,” but lamentable inaccuracy. The rigorous application of these decisions produced a translation that was not only problematic in terms of direct and indirect gender references, but also in its confusion of crucial texts with messianic significance.

The announcement by Biblica (formerly known as the International Bible Society), the Committee on Bible Translation, and Zondervan comes as the world of English Bible translations has been transformed, even in the brief years since 2002. The joint release indicates that this new translation will be known as the NIV, even though it will be based on the TNIV as it has been edited even since publication. This is a significant departure from the earlier promise to “freeze” the NIV translation in order to protect it from controversy. This decision had been a defensive move taken by the publisher and its partners as controversy threatened to cause significant harm to the reputation of the NIV. As far back as 1997 an effort to revise the NIV was met with intense concern related to the use of “inclusive language.”

The issues of concern related to the TNIV remain. For the sake of the Gospel, we must hope and pray that we do not confront these same issues in the updated NIV. At the same time, we must avoid reckless talk. Even where we must disagree, we must recognize that everyone involved in this discussion will face the judgment of God for how this disagreement is conducted.

Today’s decision indicates that the NIV will be now be “unfrozen.” But now the NIV partners have acted openly and honestly to announce their intention. One of the most lamentable aspects of the earlier controversy over the TNIV had to do with what were clearly understood to be broken promises related to the NIV.

The “unfreezing” of the NIV is inevitable. Evangelicals must be committed to the translation of the Bible into the vernacular language of contemporary people. No translation, no matter how worthy, can remain static and unchanged without the consequence of becoming dated and increasingly out of touch with the development of language. The “unfreezing” of the NIV has now been announced in a way that is respectful and honest.

Maureen (Moe) Gerkins, president of Zondervan, along with representatives of Biblica and the Committee on Bible Translation, have approached this new project and update with the stated determination to revisit controversial translation issues related to the TNIV and to consider all the concerns raised in that process. She has demonstrated integrity in discussing these issues openly and honestly. She, along with Zondervan’s partners, has promised an openness to these concerns. They have not promised to change their translation philosophy. Their straightforwardness on this is commendable, even where we may find ourselves in disagreement over these decisions and the underlying translation philosophy.

The controversy over the TNIV divided the evangelical community. Regrettably, in many cases the controversy produced more heat than light. Nevertheless, this was not always the case. This controversy brought strategic attention to crucial questions related, not only to the NIV family of translations, but to the entire project of translating the Bible into the English language. Furthermore, the controversy was directed to very real disagreements about the meaning of gender and language. These are issues of great theological, biblical, pastoral, and moral importance.

Behind the most recent controversies there remains the larger question of translation philosophy, often conceptualized in the distinction between more formal translations and translations that are more dynamic. Even as I recognize a spectrum between formal and dynamic approaches, my strong preference, based in theological and biblical considerations, is for a translation that is committed to formal equivalence as the primary goal.

In the end, the update of the NIV to be released in 2011 will have to stand on its own. Those of us who have had significant concerns with the TNIV should communicate these concerns respectfully, candidly, and directly to the Committee on Bible Translation, to Zondervan, and to Biblica. When released, the updated NIV will deserve and require the attentive study and review of all committed evangelicals. We must hope and pray that this updated NIV will be found both faithful and useful. For now, the decisions that will determine the faithfulness and usefulness of this updated edition are in the hands of the Committee on Bible Translation. We must all pray that their work will produce an updated translation we can greet with appreciation and trust. We must take the members of the Committee on Bible Translation at their word that they will consider these concerns. To fail to pray and to act in this way will be to fail at a basic Christian commitment. The issue is not only the integrity of a Bible translation, but our integrity as Christians.

And so we hope.  And so we pray.  And so we wait.

________________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler for updates through the day.

Read:  Good coverage of the announcement from Cathy Lynn Grossman at USA Today [read here].

Indeed, for hundreds of thousands of couples (and in many cases, just individuals) this crucial moral question grows more difficult to ignore by the day. For those whose progeny are now frozen in fertility clinics, the “disposition decision” will eventually have to be made. The decision about the eventual disposition of these human embryos will reveal what these couples truly believe about human dignity and the sanctity of human life. On the larger landscape, the pattern of these decisions and the policies adopted by medical practitioners will reveal the soul of our culture as well.

Writing in The New Atlantis, Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill contributes an essay on this issue that is both informative and haunting. She begins with an anecdote that establishes the moral sense of urgency we face on this issue:

Noah Markham was born in January 2007 to worldwide media notice. Like his Biblical namesake, this Noah had been saved from a flood. He had been one in a barrel of frozen embryos transported in a flat-bottomed boat from a flooded east New Orleans hospital in the days after Hurricane Katrina by the Louisiana State Police and Illinois Conservation Police. Interviewed at the time of Noah’s birth, his mother, Rebekah Markham, said that she and her husband Glen were uncertain about whether they would use their remaining three frozen embryos to add to their family of Noah and his big brother Witt. Interviewed again on the occasion of Noah’s first birthday, she said, “How can I not? I’m happy with two, but how can you not when you know what the possibility is? We almost lost Noah. I don’t want to lose the others voluntarily.”

Of course, most of these stored human embryos are not in direct danger of a hurricane. Nevertheless, they are all in danger of both neglect and destruction — a moral context of quicksand that is the inevitable consequence of producing far greater numbers of embryos than are ever intended to be transferred to a mother’s womb.

Of course, the moral issues related to advanced reproductive technologies are manifold and complicated. Advances in IVF technology now project the potential that frozen embryos could be successfully transferred into a womb years or even decades after fertilization. For the first time in human history, this allows for a form of generational confusion human beings have never encountered before. Quite literally, an embryo from a genetic ancestor generation could potentially be transferred into a womb and gestate, thus being born after the generation of what would be considered his or her grandchildren. Are we ready for this? A technology that has allowed so many couples to give birth to desperately-wanted children has also brought a host of moral complications.

Clearly, the majority of women whose fertilized eggs are now stored in reproductive health clinics are not even ready to make a decision about the disposition of the embryos that will not be transferred into their wombs. Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill cites two studies indicating that over 70% of such women lack a plan for what to do with these embryos and seem intent to postpone that decision as long as possible.

In the most important part of her essay, Merrill cites a study published in the scientific journal Fertility and Sterility in which patients were asked to rank their estimation of the moral status of the embryo from “minimum moral status” to “maximum moral status.” Only 10% of these patients indicated their belief that the human embryo should be considered as having “minimum moral status.” But this means that one out of ten patients responded that they consider the human embryo to be of virtually no moral significance whatsoever. Some see these embryos as something akin to excess body parts. Some actually spoke of these embryos as being stored in the event they needed a “replacement” for other children. As Merrill explains, “Presumably the disposition decision is easiest for these few patients who think of embryos as lacking moral worth, free of the weight of morally fraught deliberations at the conclusion of their IVF treatment.”

The other nine out of ten patients estimated the moral status of their embryos on a continuum ranging from some moral status to “maximum moral status.” As these patients reflected, the decision about what to do with their embryos was understood to be freighted with moral consequence. As Merrill reports, these patients recognized their own “strange feelings about discarding human life.”  Nevertheless, “strange feelings” are no substitute for responsible moral decision-making.

As Jacqueline Pfeffer Merrill makes clear, the structure of the IVF process allows for hundreds of thousands of frozen human embryos to be created in laboratories without any clear plan for their future. She is undoubtedly correct in suggesting that most patients see these embryos as the promise of fertility at the time of their treatment. But what about these embryos and their future once the childbearing years are over? Some patients indicated a willingness to allow other infertile couples to “adopt” their embryos. Nevertheless, these represent only a fraction of the patients involved in the study. Furthermore, many of these individuals and couples are apparently more theoretically committed to this option then in fact. In the end, very few patients choose to allow the adoption of their embryos — often seen as akin to “virtual children.”

Another small percentage indicated a willingness to allow the embryos to be used in medical research. As Merrill explains, this is often a hypothetical possibility anyway, since most of these embryos are unsuitable for medical research. Of course the greater problem with this option is that it views human embryos as mere material for medical research. The embryos are destroyed in the name of medical science.

A significant number of patients are deciding to “thaw” their embryos and allow their demise. Hauntingly, Merrill writes of some patients and couples who understand clearly enough that these embryos are of some moral significance, and some patients express a desire for some ceremony to accompany the demise of their embryonic progeny.

For the vast majority of patients, the current decision is to make no decision at all. This condition will not last, for the reproductive technology industry faces logistical, moral, financial, and technological limitations to the indefinite storage of what may even now be more than a million human embryos that are never to be transferred into wombs.

The “disposition decision” related to these frozen human embryos represents one of the most significant, if neglected, moral crises of our age. This crisis is entirely the result of our own technologies and we as a society bear responsibility for this moral crisis. As it now stands, we face the specter of untold thousands of frozen human embryos who will meet their demise largely out of sight and out of mind.

Perhaps the most chilling question is this: How long will it be before someone asks about the moral status of all human beings — embryonic or otherwise — and proposes that this moral status be estimated on a continuum from “minimal moral status” to “maximum moral status?” We cannot fool ourselves into thinking that this essential question of human dignity will be restricted to frozen embryos in the laboratory.

_____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers.  Write me at mail@albertmohler.com.  Follow my updates to Twitter during the day at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler.

These differences in belief systems are apparent in Lisa Miller’s recent article for Newsweek. As she explains, “A million-plus Hindus live in the United States, a fraction of the billion who live on Earth. But recent poll data show that conceptually, at least, we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, our selves, each other, and eternity.”

Many Christians will flinch when reading this. Does this mean that Hindu temples are appearing across the American landscape? Not hardly. What Miller describes is the transformation of the belief system in ways that resemble Hinduism. Her argument deserves a fair hearing.

She begins by quoting a Hindu writing, the Rig Veda: “Truth is One, but the sages speak of it by many names.” The idea of one truth known by many names is not new. Indeed, it is central to polytheism and the syncretistic beliefs of several historic and current worldviews. Hinduism is radically polytheistic and syncretistic. According to Hindu belief, the many gods and goddesses of their veneration all represent one fundamental divine reality. The idea of a singular and exclusive truth is antithetical to classical Hinduism.

So what is Lisa Miller’s point? She suggests that contemporary Americans, including many who consider themselves Christians, are abandoning the exclusive truth claims of Christianity for a form of theological pluralism or relativism.

“A Hindu believes there are many paths to God. Jesus is one way, the Qur’an is another, yoga practice is a third. None is better than any other; all are equal,” she asserts. Christianity, on the other hand, has affirmed that Jesus Christ is the only Savior, and that the only way of salvation is through faith in Him.

“Americans are no longer buying it,” she insists, and by this she means many American Christians. She cites a 2008 Pew Forum survey that indicated major slippage in terms of Christian conviction. According to the Pew Forum survey, 65 percent of Americans believe that “many religions can lead to eternal life.” More tellingly, 37 percent of those identified as white evangelicals shared this belief.

Miller cites Stephen Prothero, a leading researcher on American religion, who defined this “divine-deli-cafeteria religion” as “very much in the spirit of Hinduism.” As he added, “You’re not picking and choosing from different religions, because they’re all the same.” This is not exactly like traditional Hinduism, of course, but it works in much the same way. As he explains, “It isn’t about orthodoxy. It’s about whatever works. If going to yoga works, great—and if going to Catholic mass works, great. And if going to Catholic mass plus the yoga plus the Buddhist retreat works, that’s great, too.”

There is every reason to believe that Lisa Miller and Stephen Prothero are correct in these assessments. Without doubt, Americans have been growing more and more accepting of plural and relative understandings of truth. A tragically large number of those who identify as Christians have been drinking from the same wells of thought.

The exclusivity of the Gospel is not merely a facet of the church’s message. Indeed, a Gospel that does not affirm that salvation comes through faith in Jesus Christ alone is not the Gospel of Christ, but a false gospel. As Lisa Miller correctly recites, Jesus did say, “I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the father except through me.” [John 14:6]

Another aspect of the story is this: Many Americans have such a doctrineless understanding of Christianity that they do not even know what the Gospel is — not even remotely. A greater tragedy is that so many who consider themselves Christians seem to share in this confusion.

Many observers who trace these trends see this doctrinal shift among Christians as a good development. After all, if you hold to nothing more than a functional view of religion, this might seem to promise less conflict among religious believers. But, if you believe that truth is essential to Christian faith, there is every reason to see these trends as nothing less than catastrophic. Nothing less than our witness to the Gospel of Christ is at stake.

Are we becoming a nation of Hindus? Well, in this sense it appears perhaps we are. The really urgent question is whether the Church will regain its theological sanity and evangelistic courage to resist this trend. If not, being described as a nation of Hindus will be the least of our problems.

_____________________________

I am always glad to hear from readers. Write me at mail@albertmohler.com. Follow me on Twitter at www.twitter.com/AlbertMohler for regular updates throughout the day.