For the sixth time in eight seasons, a professing Christian has been elected the newest "American Idol." I know I should be glad about this. After all, pop culture is a legitimate field of endeavor - within certain limits - and if someone has to be recognized by all the pop afficionados in the land, it may as well be a Christian. I guess. I just wish that something Christian would show up in a more significant area of endeavor. Like some Christian lawyer winning a case before the Supreme Court by citing Biblical precedent and demonstrating the fallacy of progressive law. Or some Christian businessman pioneering an endeavor to create new jobs for the increasing ranks of the jobless. Or some Christian preacher casting off all restraints and emulating his colonial predecessors in the pulpit by holding forth consistently on Biblical issues with respect to politics, morality, culture, and the good society. Or a Christian President, I don't know, acting in some manner consistent with his profession of faith. That would really be good news. Instead, we have another Christian American Idol. Does that language strike anyone besides me as strange? After all, it takes a lot of time and effort, not only to become a pop idol, but to follow "American Idol" through to the final night and elect your fellow believer to the pantheon of pop idols. Surely there are other endeavors as worthy - perhaps more worthy - than this? It's worth a thought anyway.

Only 20% of teens who are highly churched will still be spiritually active by age 29, according to a Barna.org study. Only 9% of Americans have a Biblical Christian worldview, according to another recent Barna.org study. This includes homeschool students. Are you interested in encouraging your homeschool families to prepare their college-bound students for the ideas they will face in college? Do you desire to help your homeschool families teach their children how to be like Paul in the marketplace in Athens, quoting the poets of their society to bring people toward Christ? Maybe we can help…

The goals of this one day event include:

1. To demonstrate the reality that ideas have consequences – especially ideas from popular culture.

2. To teach parents and their students about the concept of a worldview and the importance of understanding the worldviews that are present in our culture.

3. To convince parents and their students of the necessity of critical thinking through instruction, interaction and modeling between the AXiS team members and your students.

John Stonestreet, Executive Director of Summit Ministries will conduct sessions for parents. John is a highly sought after speaker at Homeschool Conventions around the country, and his sessions will include (1) "Why Students Walk Away from Their Faith (and what we can do about it);" (2) "Why a Worldview Education is Absolutely Crucial;" and (3) "The World of Worldviews: Making Sense of Your World."

AXiS will be teaching the students. The Axis style of communication implements an energetic team approach. Each session will be led by one teacher who will be supported by 3-6 team members comprised of alumni from the Focus on the Family Institute and Summit Ministries staff members. The team will perform skits, facilitate small groups, and present current popular culture examples. This engaging, high-energy presentation will be enjoyable for your students and equip them with information that will impact the rest of their lives.

This event is sponsored by the High Country Home Educators Support Group in Colorado Springs and will be held on Tuesday, May 12th at New Life Church in Colorado Springs. It is open to the public, but you must register here.

Please spread the word about this very important event.

To learn more about AXiS, please visit the Axis website.

Plato once quoted Socrates as saying that the “unexamined life is not worth living.” We suggest that “the unexamined faith is not worth believing.” We would love to help you encourage your families and their students to take their thoughts captive to the obedience of Christ (2 Cor. 10:5) and to live out an examined faith in Jesus Christ.

The class both clarified my complaints and chastened them, as I realized where I had come from in a larger ecclesiological sense. With a childhood in a church and school which followed the lead of Jerry Falwell (first as an independent fundamental Baptist church then as a more mainstream Baptist church), college years in first a liberal Mennonite college and then at a school named after the greatest enigma in fundamentalism (William Jennings Bryan), seminary at Reformed Theological and eventually Trinity Evangelical, my church makeup was plenty diverse but my understanding of where these various streams of evangelicalism had come from was thoroughly anemic.

I learned from Dr. Woodbridge how many silly assumptions I had because I was operating from my limited experience without any understanding of real history. In my view, this is epidemic in the American evangelical church - we have what my friend Debbie Brezina calls evangelical Alzheimer's. Personally, I went through a Christian school, Christian college, and nearly halfway through seminary without having to learn church history. The little I did get was truncated or strangely juxtaposed together.

I tend to think this overall lack of church history is one reason why what has come to be known as emergent thought is so attractive. In so many ways, it is merely a rehashed liberalism, but so many don't realize it because they have no clue about the modernist/fundamentalist battles of the early 1900's. They literally think that Shane Claiborne, Brian McLaren and Tony Jones are on to something new. Further, it is not uncommon for those in this crowd to toss around the "fundamentalist" label as the emergent equivalent of the scarlet letter while offering really bad definitions of it because, again, they don't know the history of the term.

Without a basic knowledge of recent church history, emergents seem "cutting edge." When understood within this history, they seem presumptuous, naive and arrogant. (I recently saw a "conversation" between one of these emergent leaders and a well-known evangelical leader. The emergent leader was waxing eloquent about the lack of compassion in evangelicalism, forgetting that his older counterpart had spent the last 50 years taking care of prisoners and their families. For what it's worth, I also think that the reactionary response of too many conservatives resembles the mistakes the second wave of fundamentalism made in the mid 20th century, but that's another blog topic.)

I bring up all of this because a friend and former professor from Bryan College has written a nice little history of fundamentalism in America while also dealing with some of the bad definitions of fundamentalism that are thrown around. Dennis Ingolfsland is a terrific scholar, especially in Jesus studies, whose blog is worth following. And, his entry from a few days ago on fundamentalism is especially terrific.

For more on the history of evangelicalism and fundamentalism, see George Marsden's Fundamentalism and American Culture, or see the summary chapter in James Davidson Hunter's Culture Wars.

That is what Sean did. In fact, he took them to the University of California at Berkeley, a campus notorious for its liberal views. You can see a video about the trip here.

(BTW, I especially enjoyed when the Cal-Berkeley professor said, "I hate Josh McDowell!")

Want to support Summit Ministries, but are low on funds?

We want you to become an active part of our new exciting association with Christian Values Network where you can contribute to Summit through your everyday online shopping with no extra cost to you!

Here's how it works....

All you have to do is begin all your online shopping at www.cvn.org and a percentage of your everyday shopping will go directly to Summit Ministries. It's that simple! Buy travel, clothes, everyday products, textbooks, MP3's and more.

Just like the millions of others that shop online - you will get the best prices possible at your favorite major stores. Literally hundreds of your favorite stores are available through this program including:

• Music and movie stores like iTtunes, Blockbuster, NetFlix, and F.Y.E.
• Bookstores like Barnes & Noble and Borders 
• Everyday stores like Target, Best Buy, Office Depot, and PetSmart 
• Travel stores like Expedia, Hotwire, Travelocity, and Orbitz
• Computer stores like Apple Store and Dell 
• And so many more! 

Click here to learn more about Christian Values Network and browse our list of well known, respected and trusted shopping partners and become a member today! Be sure to pick Summit as your chosen ministry.

Membership is FREE! When you sign up you can begin helping Summit Ministries through your financial support.

Do all of your future online shopping through Christian Values Network and immediately begin helping Summit Ministries!

Report full of misinformation The

After reading the Q&A on stem cells and the front-page article from the Los Angeles Times, I was left wondering whether the L.A. Times journalists are merely ill-informed or blatantly committed to misrepresentation ("An issue at intersection of science and politics," The Gazette, March 10). According to these authors, any arguments against embryonic destructive research are merely religious or political, while all arguments in favor are solidly scientific. This is flatly untrue.

To suggest adult stem cells are "useful for some kinds of therapies" is to drastically understate what has been the most important medical development in the past few decades. More than 70 conditions have been treated using adult stem cell treatments. 

The critique that adult stem cells are "not as versatile" as embryonic stem cells is to ignore the astounding new development in induced pluripotent stem cell research, which offers us this versatility without destroying a human embryo. In fact, a report on May 8, 2008, announced that the virus problem of creating these cells has likely been solved.

Describing the ethical concerns as only among those "who believe life begins at conception" ignores the scientific fact that life does, in fact, begin at conception. It is not debated whether the embryo is a human life, but whether the embryo is a valuable human life. Those of us who think all human life is valuable are not merely religious, but deeply concerned that we ought not draw a line within the living human race which leaves some members on the outside.

Finally, one wonders why additional funds should be dedicated to morally and scientifically questionable research, when we are in the throes of the current economic crisis. I know President Barack Obama assumes government is the answer to all our problems. However, in this case he is fabricating a problem that doesn't exist and asking the taxpayer to pay for it, even those of who have strong convictions against it.

John Stonestreet, Colorado Springs

I know, I know, that sounds quite critical. It's just that I have found most of these books to be a complete waste of time, frankly. A waste of time to read, and a waste of time to critique.  Typically, they are either mushy foolishness (i.e. Your Best Life Now), theologically bankrupt (i.e. Your Best Life Now), or literally inept (i.e. Your Best Life Now). I know a lot of Christian thinkers really get worked up about these various books. Sometimes they have very good reason to get worked up (i.e. A New Kind of Christian), and sometimes they are reducing years off their life for a book that isn't going to make much of an impact a year from now (i.e. Your Best Life Now).

Personally, I am much more concerned about how we are reading than what we reading. Most of the students I work with, in high school and college, show just an utter lack of discernment in both their reading choices and their reading practice. Not that we should just read anything - that is actually my point. When the average Christian cannot tell the difference between good books and bad ones, the bigger problem is with the Christian who is reading and not the book being read.

I offer you two great quotes, and one great book, on this way of thinking: 

(1) "For every new book, read three old ones." (C.S. Lewis)

(2) "If you still buy the books at the front of the Christian bookstore, stop it." (Kevin Bywater)

(3) Neil Postman, Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business (Penguin Books, 1985).

So, due to this, I have happily avoided the Shack. My review of it is simply, "Seriously, have you already read all the really good books out there? Have you made it through all of C.S. Lewis, Augustine's Confessions, the four books by David Wells on theology and culture, and Noebel's Understanding the Times?"

At the same time, I know that for many of the folks asking about it, they need to know because a colleague, friend or family member has been reading it and asking them about it. So, thankfully, a good friend of mine and colleague at Bryan College was confronted with the need to read the book and has written a review.  Dr. Kenneth Turner is an Old Testament scholar and an instructor for the Summit in Tennessee and Virginia. He is also Biblically and theologically astute, a discerning reader, thoughtful, and only alarmist if necessary. 

So, I offer you, with his permission, his take on the book, which I find thoughtful and thorough and a good example of discernment without resorting to mere disdain or embrace. It is not in an official "article" format, but I trust you will be able to navigate it. 

Thoughts on The Shack by Dr. Kenneth Turner

Why I (finally) read it:

Its general popularity among Christians and mixed reviews by people I respect (I've heard both claims and ecstasy and charges of heresy!) put this book in the "should-read-someday" category. But two recent things made me read it: (1) My wife's best friend's church is actually doing their Sunday morning services based on this book, and she wanted to converse with her about it; (2) in our Sunday school class we're discussing the doctrine of God, and I knew this book interacted in that area.

As a piece of literature:

I found it just okay. The 1^st half was better than the 2^nd, which got a bit choppy for my taste. A few moments were riveting, even tear-jerking, but not my cup of tea over all. Preference, I guess, whatever. I tend to be disappointed after hearing the "hype" of a movie or book.

Theological Errors:

These are things that come to mind immediately, and even those who like the book admit these. I will reflect on the significance of these below.

(1) God and Trinity - despite the orthodox statements (one God, three Persons), the portrayal is often modalistic, among other errors (and I'm not just talking about characterization - see below)

- Is "love" God's most basic attribute? - I only remember holiness mentioned one time

- Jesus - only pictured in his state of humiliation (and extended to the Father and Spirit), not in his state of exaltation [this may just be due to characterization, so it's not as big a deal to me]

(2) Faulty view of God's Providence, Sovereignty, Governance

(3) For all the talk of "love" (and "relationship")--which is so central to the book--it is ill-defined at best; I certainly did not see it consistent with a biblical understanding of love

(4) Faulty view of the Gospel - all flowing from the author's embrace of Christian Universalism (you can research both the term itself and the author's explicit embrace of it)

- Denial of God's wrath - no hell for anyone

- God's (same) love for all men without distinction - all are God's children; and we are asked to think of God's relationship to his children in the exact same way as we relate to our children

- Inclusivist - along the lines of Christian Universalism, not universalism in general

(5) Rejection of all "authority" and "institutions" - it's sneaky b/c it starts out rejecting wrong views/applications of these (e.g., power plays, programs, abuse), but then rejects them outright as not part of God's design at all (even the Trinity has no hierarchy; neither does marriage nor the church; in fact, the church seems slighted throughout)

(6) The Bible - not sure how the Bible functions really; I liked the jab at WWJD and other parts, but couldn't grasp a consistent picture

More could be said, but these come to mind immediately. Having said all this, I thought the book did a great job at getting to the essence of sin as independence.* This is consistent with the book's emphasis on relationship (not all of which I agree with, but I liked most of it). Of all the theological categories, this one was most positive to me, and I hope I learned something from it.

On the Significance of Errors: 

(1) I've heard many say, in response to some of these objections, "It's fiction; it's just a story!" Yes, it is fiction. No, it is certainly not "just a story."

- Fiction - as a piece of fiction, I am willing to allow for some license. For instance, I had no problem with most of the characterization, such as Papa being a Black woman. Despite what I said about Jesus above, I can live with the focused and limited portrayal. I enjoyed the Spirit's character the best.

- Just a Story -  here's my biggest beef, b/c it's where I think the book is most dangerous. Because it's a story, many Xns will be drawn into its plot. Because it has enough connections to orthodox Xty (using much of the same lingo; rejecting much of the abuse we all have experienced in church and life), many will be drawn to its appeal against the status quo. But this book is highly theological in intent; so it cannot be "just" a story. That is, the author is intentionally (by his own admission) seeking to teach his readers about God and God's relationship to his creation. Therefore, examination of its theological claims is mandatory in my mind.

(2) This may not be the best comparison/contrast, but consider how we evaluate the theological truth of music.  A country music song often speaks of God or Jesus or the devil or prayer. If the song gets the theology wrong, I'm not offended, b/c God (etc.) is usually being brought in as an add-on to another point. But I would examine a hymn or praise song differently b/c it is intended to teach theological truth.  To me, the intent governs how much weight I must give to evaluation and scrutiny.  Since The Shack is explicitly and intentionally theological, it merits the criticism.

(3) In doing some research, I found it interesting that the original version of the book was more overt about its universalistic claims. The editors cut the most blatant statements out, though I think it is still evident. This goes to show the author's intent.

Final Thoughts: I am all for Christians discussing a book like this. I am glad for the "help"** some have gotten from it for their relationship with God. I myself (despite all these negatives) was moved at times--b/c I never had a good father-figure and especially now that I have three little girls. But I am fearful that many Christians are not able to be discerning enough to sift the wheat from the chaff.***  I am fearful that many will actually embrace the book's portrayal of God en toto, and the church will suffer the consequences.

President Obama made his most forceful break yet from his predecessor's controversial scientific agenda Monday, opening the door to a major expansion of government-funded research on embryonic stem cells and ordering federal agencies to strengthen the role of science in their decision-making. 

The twin announcements marked a clear departure from former President George W. Bush's approach to science, which had caused a rift between that administration and a large segment of the nation's research community. Many complained that scientific data had been ignored or skewed as the Bush administration set policy on climate change, oil and gas drilling, and other aspects of environmental and health policy. 

In particular, Bush's limits on federal funding for embryonic stem cell experiments had become a touchstone for many scientists angry at the administration, as well as for advocates for patients who have hoped the research would lead to cures for a wide range of diseases. 

For the purposes of the survey, a "biblical worldview" was defined as believing that absolute moral truth exists; the Bible is totally accurate in all of the principles it teaches; Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic; a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or do good works; Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth; and God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today. In the research, anyone who held all of those beliefs was said to have a biblical worldview.

Tuesday, February 03, 2009

Young Evangelicals and Politics

Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 9:36 AM

According to a Zogby poll, 28% of Evangelicals aged 18 to 29 voted for Barack Obama.  Four years earlier, only 14% of Evangelicals in that age cohort went for John Kerry.

Even though it was an online poll, that's a major shift in a key demographic so yesterday I spent some time asking two leading Evangelicals who work with young men and women what had happened.

Dr. Albert Mohler is the president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, and the transcript of our conversation is here.

John Stonestreet is the executive director of Summit Ministries, and the transcript of our conversation is here.  (I'll be speaking at Summit's adult conference on March 1.)

The educators hit some very similar notes, and the challenge for the church going forward is to realize that the old models of raising young people to understand the world are simply broken.

If you comment on these conversations, send me the link: hugh@hughhewitt.com.  If Dr. Mohler is correct, the conversation about young evangelicals and politics is going on with great intensity within the age demographic and in a way that is only partially visible to older evangelicals, even those who are moderately well-wired into the community.