A Nation of Young Therapeutic Deists?

Thursday, July 07, 2005

George Barna has done extensive research on the faith of young America and the task of bringing children and youth to faith in Christ, which he has summarized in the book Transforming Children into Spiritual Champions.

A group of Christian leaders and ministries in the U.S. and Canada--called The 4-14 Forum-led by Barna and Awana Clubs International has been grappling with how to better deal with the task of child evangelism.

In a report to The 4-14 Forum, Barna writes:

The research reinforces one simple but profound truth, over and over again: if you want to have a lasting influence upon the world you must invest in people's lives; and if you want to maximize your investment, then you must invest in those lives while they are young. The research simply crystallizes lessons that we can observe through history and personal experience: if you connect with children today, effectively teaching them biblical principles and foundations from the start, then you will see the fruit of that effort blossom for decades to come. The more diligent we are in these efforts, the more prodigious a harvest we will reap. Alternately, the more lackadaisical we are in our efforts to raise up children as moral and spiritual champions, the less healthy will the Church and society of the future be.

The difficulty and complexity of the task has become more evident. Researchers with the National Study of Youth and Religion at the University of North Carolina (Chapel Hill) and have written up findings from a recent study in a new book: Soul Searching: The Religious and Spiritual Lives of American Teenagers (Oxford University Press).

Gene Edward Veith writes about the findings here, in an article reprinted from World magazine.

After interviewing over 3,000 teenagers, the social scientists summed up their beliefs:

(1) “A god exists who created and ordered the world and watches over human life on earth.” (2) “God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions.” (3) “The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself.” (4) “God does not need to be particularly involved in one’s life except when God is needed to resolve a problem.” (5) “Good people go to heaven when they die.”

Even these secular researchers recognized that this creed is a far cry from Christianity, with no place for sin, judgment, salvation, or Christ. Instead, most teenagers believe in a combination of works righteousness, religion as psychological well-being, and a distant non-interfering god. Or, to use a technical term, “Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.”

Ironically, many of these young deists are active in their churches. “Most religious teenagers either do not really comprehend what their own religious traditions say they are supposed to believe,” conclude Mr. Smith and Ms. Denton, “or they do understand it and simply do not care to believe it.”

Another possibility is that they have learned what their churches are teaching all too well. It is not just teenagers who are moralistic therapeutic deists. This describes the beliefs of many adults too, and even what is taught in many supposedly evangelical churches.

Clearly many churches are not teaching young people the deep truths of the Christian faith. I’m beginning to fear that even evangelical churches are striving so much to be relevant to the culture and to attract seekers that they are not digging deep into the marrow of Christianity—-leaving their parishioners young and old with a thin and ultimately inadequate set of beliefs.

--James Jewell

Africa’s Fate Will Be Determined By Africans

Wednesday, July 06, 2005

America gets a bad rap on international aid. As a nation, first we’re pressured or shamed into making massive loans to African nations, then pressured to forgive the loans, while all along being cajoled to make outright aid grants to help African children and families.

As Doug pointed out, America is the most generous nation in the world, and the American people—informed and inspired by their Christian ethic to help those in need—give more to address international poverty, hunger, disease than any other group in the world. Hands down.
Now the leaders meeting at the G8 Summit are being called on to give more, forgive more, and even make long term commitments of aid.

Americans will continue to aid Africa, both through our government’s international aid programs and largely through our Christian churches, missions, and aid organizations. But there needs to be more strings attached to aid, if Africa is ever to become something more than a continent of nation beggars.

Africa can solve their own problems in the long run, but only through deep spiritual and moral regeneration, a commitment to capitalism, the ultimate rule of law, and broadly adopted sexual ethics.

Aid must be tied to progress in all of these areas, or we will continue to be co-dependents in the continent’s cultural suicide.

The NY Times editorializes today that Africa’s fate will be determined by the eight men at the G8. That’s nonsense. Africans and the decisions they make on the fundamental foundations of their nations and people groups will determine Africa’s fate.

How to Shrink a Denomination: The UCC Endorses Gay Marriage

Tuesday, July 05, 2005

The United Church of Christ took a stand for homosexual marriage at its national convention yesterday, which the networks touted as a move by one of the large Christian denominations.
But the UCC is not large at all, and it--as well as other mainline denominations--is shrinking because of its biblical unfaithfulness.

Whereas the church must open its arms to homosexuals, it cannot do so at the price of ignoring Scripture’s clear teaching against homosexuality and for marriage as a union of man and a woman.

The UCC is not among the top ten religious groups in America. And it's sinking like a rock.

--James Jewell

I’m Glad We Have That Cleared Up

Friday, July 01, 2005

Norman Pearlstine, Time Inc.'s editor in chief, said that he concluded after much reflection that, "We are not above the law."

[This as Time Inc. said] that it would provide documents concerning the reporter's confidential sources to a grand jury investigating the disclosure of the identity of a covert C.I.A. operative, Valerie Plame.

The magazine's decision to give in to the demands of federal prosecutors followed the Supreme Court's decision on Monday to reject appeals by the agazine and its reporter, Matthew Cooper, as well as a reporter for The New York Times, Judith Miller. (NY Times).

While this is clearly the right decision by Time Inc., it is not without consequences.
The ability of the media to use sources that wish to remain anonymous is paramount to the freedom and the capabilities of the press.I was trained as a journalist and although I have spent most of my career in public relations, I have also been a reporter. Most stories with any bite to them at all rely on background, off the record, and unattributed quotes and information. If sources cannot trust that you will keep their identity hidden, much of this information will dry up.

I also understand the decision by reporters to go to jail rather than reveal confidential sources. Their word is central not only to their ongoing ability to get information from sources, but it is also part of their journalistic soul. To yield would be akin to the abortion protester getting up off the sidewalk and going home when the police arrive and threaten arrest. Their civil disobedience has a purpose beyond the parameters of any one case.

But in matters of life and death and national security, a corporation such as Time Inc. must obey the courts. Appeal it as far as possible, which they did, but when all avenues are blocked, obey the law.

I sympathize with the journalists, but if we don’t have rule of law we lose everything.
As a side note, I believe the whole anonymous source thing is out of control and in many cases has gone from a vital part of reporting to lazy even dishonest reporting. Every source should assume that a reporter will keep his or her confidence, but that in America the law is king and if the courts require a media company to disclose a source, their confidentiality will be forfeited.

Courts should exercise this power with great caution, because anonymity does allow the tongue to way, but no one should be above the law.

--James Jewell

A Sad Day in Our Home

Thursday, June 30, 2005

There is deep sadness in our home today that many homes have known, but never this one. After a short pregnancy that still had the freshness and vibrancy of an early spring day, our baby has died. There is no good reason at such an early stage, just six weeks old, and there will be no great physical trauma. But the new trajectory that we had just been planning for our lives must now be recalibrated without this child, who we resisted naming even as my other children reveled in the process of coming up with new names and possibilities.

The joy, which I described in an earlier post, was strong and heartfelt, but it was not the opposite of this bitter taste of death. For the joy was mitigated with the view of danger—we knew this was a high-risk pregnancy—and the anticipation of the hard process of bearing and birthing a child. In this world there is little that can mitigate the terrible finality of the death of such promise, the end of a life before it can be truly celebrated.

Because we believe in life and know beyond doubt that human life begins when it is conceived as such, we also know that God took home this young addition to our family, who we had not even named except to call it our “little pumpkin seed,” and He has a name for it that is listed in his book of life.

Almost everyone we have talked to has suffered similar pain, and we know the loss is a common one. We don’t mean to heighten our own sorrow as something special or even unique. But we mourn the loss of this child and the suspension of this hope and the darkening of the light that this growing baby was already bringing to our lives.

We’ve prayed long and hard about all of this, and we don’t have any thought that God lost control. No, we recognize His hand, and we are sad that today His plan was for our home to suffer this loss.

Goodbye little pumpkin seed, until we meet again.

--James Jewell

It's OK, Dr. Graham

Monday, June 27, 2005

Billy Graham’s last crusade in New York City has become a media love fest, and it is really great to see the admiration for Dr Graham and the way the Crusade is pulling together the Christian church in the city. But please don’t pay attention to anything Dr. Graham says these days, except in his prepared sermon. He has lost his political discretion, but it’s OK. He deserves a little senility late in life. Don’t condemn him, as some have. Just smile when it sounds as though he’s endorsing Hillary Clinton for president (when Bill Clinton joined him on stage, Graham "quipp[ed] that the former president should become an evangelist and allow 'his wife to run the country'”). This wasn’t politics; just a good-natured quip at an evangelistic crusade. We need to read in the discretion the grand old man of evangelicalism is now lacking.

--James Jewell

Examining the Joel Osteen Cult

The teaching of Joel Osteen has great appeal because of its sunny prescription for good times. It’s the epitome of the froth that is bubbling up in pulpits throughout the nation. Ken Silva has a sobering look at Osteen and the Word/Faith movement:

As one looks deeper into this “feel-good” message of Joel Osteen, however, it becomes clear that his doctrine is actually far worse than junk-food, for it is indeed the spiritual poison of the metaphysical Mind Science cults which is the actual root of W/F.

--James Jewell

What’s in Domain Name? This Eminent Domain is Called Tyranny

Thursday, June 23, 2005

The Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision today to allow governments to use eminent domain to seize the land of private landowners for the purpose of giving the land to other private interests, for economic purposes, is one of the worst Court decisions since Roe v. Wade.

Property ownership is a pillar of our free society, is it not? Not according to the liberals on the Supreme Court. We’re not talking about taking private land to build a road or put in a river levee or a power plant. We’re talking about seizing land so Wal-Mart can add a store, or a land developer can put in a multi-use development, office park, or hotel complex.

Why is it that the liberals want every kind of freedom, except the freedom to buy and own land?

The battle to put conservatives on the Court gains in importance as each day passes. Especially today--a bad day for freedom in America.

--James Jewell

Oh, the Boycott Hadn’t Already Ended?

The Southern Baptist Convention, which kick-started a widespread conservative religious boycott of Walt Disney Co. eight years ago, voted Wednesday to end the action but warned Disney that it was keeping its eye on the company (MSNBC).

I’m not against boycotts, but they just invite derision if they have absolutely no impact. It seems to me the boycott by the Southern Baptists and others had no effect on Disney, either because not enough conservative Christians participated or because Disney’s size and popularity could sustain the loss of a small portion of its business.

Next time, it would be good to do an impact study before sticking out our necks.

--James Jewell

Air Force Academy Findings

A Pentagon panel investigating charges of improper religious pressure at the Air Force Academy found zealotry and what it called “insensitivity” by Christians sharing their faith, but no overt religious discrimination. (Source)

Of course this wasn’t good enough for the likes of the NY Times, which editorialized that the findings were a whitewash, evidently because they didn’t agree with a Yale University investigation.

Let’s see, who do a go with on issues of Christian expression, the Pentagon or a liberal east coast university? I’m supporting the men in uniform. This was a witchhunt from the start, which took advantage of the whines of a handful of cadets and tried to smear Christians preparing men and women who will put their lives on the line.

--James Jewell

How Are We Doing? A Mid-Year Look at 2005

Wednesday, June 22, 2005

In December 2004, in the afterglow of a Bush victory and solid Congressional gains fueled by a coalition of values-voters, I made my predictions for this New Year. While only a few of the predictions were off-track, somewhat unrealistic optimism is clear in the timetables for change. Meaningful social, political, and geopolitical change is slow cooking. While we see some of the predicted advancements brewing, it appears that it will be some time before they are possible. Many will depend on the mid-term elections of 2006, the 2008 presidential election, and the effectiveness with which the conservative evangelicals use their supposed political power.

Let’s take a look at mid-year progress on these predictions:

1. Iraq: There will be no meaningful reduction in the number of U.S. troops in Iraq during 2005, and there may be an increase. However, the insurgency will begin losing its popular support and violence will decline.

I did not envision the dramatic success of the Iraqi election, or its impact on the movement of democracy throughout the Middle East and the world. There is no sign of troop reduction and solving the insurgency remains a mystery. But I still predict that by year’s end the Iraqi political progress will take some of the wind out of the insurgents sails.

2. Iran: The opposition in Iran will grow in strength and the government will accelerate meaningful reforms rather than face upheaval. There will be a thaw in U.S.-Iranian relations.

The protests prior to the election, and the election itself, suggests that there is, indeed, a meaningful move toward reform. I believe this prediction is on the right track, but that it is unlikely that there will be signficant reform during this year.

3. Palestinians: There will be significant progress on an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement, with Egypt and Jordan exercising a strong hand. A firm timetable will be set for the establishment of a Palestinian State.

Things are relatively quiet and there are more positive signs than negative. I’m optimistic about continuing progess, but don’t see a firm timetable for a Palestinian state this year. Hope can be dashed so easily here.

4. Attack on the U.S.: As a result of the progress in the Middle East, those who do not benefit from the advance of democracy will turn to additional terror in the U.S. and attempt another major attack in 2005.

Not yet, praise theLord. Although I’m grateful, I honestly don’t know why. Our homeland security isn’t that good; we know that. Border security? All a Middle Eastern terrorist has to do is learn Spanish and swim the Rio Grande disguised as a Mexican peasant.

5. Deaths: There will be major losses in evangelical leadership, as key leaders die. As I’ve mentioned in this space, there is a generational shift in the evangelical community, with the entrepreneurs of the 1950’s passing or fading from active involvement. (Who will die in 2005, and what will the impact be? I’ve provided my 15 names to the morbid Dead Pool, competing to predict the most of those who will pass to the next life during 2005. Mine are a combination of religious leaders, statesmen, and heads of state, among others.)

Here are the 15 that I predicted will pass in 2005:

1. Rev. Billy Graham, evangelist, born November 7, 1918
2. Pope John Paul II, Bishop of Rome, (Karol Józef Wojtyła), born May 18, 1920
3. William Rehnquist. Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, born October 1, 1924
4. Henry Kissinger, former Secretary of State, born May 27, 1923
5. Rev. Robert Schuller, TV pastor, born September 16, 1926
6. Gerald Ford, former President, born July 14, 1913
7. Hamid Karzai, President of Afghanistan born December 24, 1957
8. Dr. Iyad Allawi, interim Prime Minister of Iraq, born in 1945
9. Margaret Thatcher, former British Prime Minister, born October 13, 1925
10. General Pervez Musharraf, president of Pakistan, born August 11, 1943
11. Fidel Castro, dictator of Cuba, born August 13, 1926
12. Nelson Mandela, former President of South Africa, born July 18, 1918
13. Rosa Parks, civil rights hero, born February 4, 1913
14. Muhammad Ali, American boxer, born January 17, 1942
15. Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh (Philip Mountbatten), born June 10, 1921

I’m failing miserably. Only the Pope has died,which is great news for these other folks, and really for all of us. In fact, Billy Graham is preaching a New York City Crusade this week. Never say die.

6. Conservatives: Bush will begin falling out of favor with the most conservative groups, as more focus returns to domestic issues and he fails to deliver on their social priorities.

More than anything, the President has been falling out of sight, with the focus on Congressional Republicans. Conservatives seem to hanging with the President, but largely in support of his war against terror. Hard to find a rock-ribbed conservative with any enthusiasm for Bush’s domestic policy. The greatest disappointment may be in his failure to lead in stopping illegal immigration. This prediction is on track; the disenchanment will deepen.

7. Evangelical Politics: The political high water mark will soon pass for the evangelicals, as leading evangelicals overplay their hand and politicians calculate that they will succeed in 2006 with more moderated positions.

The high water mark probably passed when the Senate Moderate Club dictated how the filibuster issue would be handled, which left First hanging out in church with the suddenly emasculated religious right. The evangelicals seem more comfortable in the opposition. In power, they find ways to eat their own young. This prediction seems to be on track.

8. Network Change: At least one of the major networks will make an attempt to bring more conservative viewpoints to its reports, but in a way that will be more showcasing than meaningful change.

Anyone see any evidence of this? This prediction now looks like wishful thinking.

9. Blogosphere: Blogging will explode, but there will be efforts to organize the blogosphere to create categories of bloggers, and to further separate types of blogs and degrees of professionalism.

The explosion continues, although we feel as though the fever has broken in the post-election months. The organization is yet to come. I have no idea when this may happen, but if the growth continues, it must.

10. Charity Scandal: There will be a major legal case against one or more charities, probably Trinity Broadcasting Network, but perhaps elsewhere. This will have a slight negative impact on charitable giving.

Might be TBN, or perhaps Benny Hinn. Could happen at any moment, or might not be part of the 2005 story.

11. Supreme Court: Two Supreme Court seats vacancies will be created, one at Chief Justice. Bush will want only two confirmation battles, so he will nominate two new justices—a conservative for Chief Justice, and a moderate for Associate Justice. This will enrage just about everyone, but both will be confirmed.

Renquist should retire soon, which will set up the battle everyone has been preparing for. I don’t think Bush will try to move Clarence Thomas to Chief Justice, facing that confrmation battle, and then another to fill Thomas’ post. The White House must already know who they’ll nominate as Chief. This selection and the battle that ensues will frame the relationships and effectiveness of the White House and Senate over the remainder of the Bush presidency.

12. Bin Laden: Osama Bin Laden will be captured or more likely killed, but the impact will be largely symbolic, since he has been ineffective hiding in a cave anyway.

This may or may not happen in 2005. At some point, Bin Laden will be history, as will al Zawari. But the inevitability of these captures no longer captivates the public as much as the question of when the insurgency will be defanged in Iraq. That won’t happen in 2005, but if the situation in Iraq is not greatly improved by November 2006, the nation may be seeing blue.

13. Fair Tax: The Fair Tax movement will grow and progress will be made in the Congress, although passage is years away.

There’s good momentum for the Fair Tax legislation, but right now it appears impossible to get much of anything done in Congress. Still waiting for the new book on the fair tax by John Linder and Neal Boortz, which should be out any day.

14. Radio: Democrats will push for a return of the Fairness Doctrine, as an attempt to defang the Republican advantage on talk radio. The effort will not succeed.

At the moment, the liberals are still playing with a competitive radio network, but it’s failing, so an attempt for legislative remedies can’t be far behind.

15. China: The growing business class in China will push for more civil freedoms as their economic power grows, and the Communist government will yield some ground.

This is going to happen, but no news yet.

16. Same-Sex Marriage: The homosexual community in America will change tactics, backing away from the same-sex marriage initiatives and seeking equal rights for homosexual couples without using “marriage” language. This will not raise the same red flags among many groups across the country.

Except for a few local court rulings, there isn’t much happening on this front. Mitt Romney is trying to reverse the Massachusetts measures. And it does appear that the homosexual community is laying low on this for now, looking for a fight they can win.

17. Economics: There will be steady economic growth, and the stock market will continue its climb and end the year over 11,000.

We’re over 10,500, and with a little good news out of Iraq or Israel, or a significant drop in gasoline prices, we’re reach 11,000 this year.

18. Pharmaceuticals: The positive economic trends will be marred by the collapse of major pharmaceutical companies, fueled by massive class action suits.

If a pharmaceutical company can come up with vaccines for the bird flu, it will give them some air to breath.

19. Social Security: Social security restructuring will see some progress in 2005 because of a relentless campaign by the Bush administration. Fear of demagoguery will prevent meaningful reform, but the steps taken will be seen—in retrospect—as the beginning of serious change.

I think I got this one wrong. Social security reform is probably dead for now, and I’m sure Bush is wishing he hadn’t burned so much political capital to fight for the private accounts. The groundwork by this Adminsitration may payoff in the long run, however.

20. EU: The European Union will seek to flex its muscle and establish itself as a major economic and political competitor to the United States—opposing the U.S. on key international and trade policies. The U.S. will shrug and turn to the Far East.

The death of the EU constitution makes it more difficult for the EU to be a unified competitor. Until the Europeans work as hard as the Americans, the Japanese, and Chinese, they’ll never pose a serious economic threat.

What is most striking about making any predictions for a new year, is that other events overtake those that seems so important at a previous time. Who could have predicted that Terri Schiavo and the filibuster would dominate political news in the New Year. Or that the Democrats would let Howard Dean push their national rhetoric further to the left.

--James Jewell

PCA Rejects Anti-Public School Resolution

Monday, June 20, 2005

Last week the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA) wisely rejected a resolution that would encourage Christian parents to remove their children from public schools. It was proposed by a Tennessee minister who does not believe any subject can be taught separate from a intentional Christian worldview.

The PCA stated:

"We strongly affirm that it is the responsibility of Christian parents to raise their children in the nurture and admonition of the Lord; it is not appropriate for the General Assembly to make such a recommendation as contained in [the] Personal Resolution to all the members of the PCA,” stated the Bills and Overture Committee.

Those who have made the legitimate choices of Christian schools and homeschooling often unfairly criticize those who make the choice to sent their children to public schools. Well-grounded Christian children who received proper training and care at home can thrive in public school settings. And they can be salt and light in school. Who is going to do that if all the Christian kids are pulled out of school?

And many families cannot make the choice to send their kids to private schools of any kind, and cannot teach them at home. Nothing but public schools are available for families who can barely make ends meet with both mother and father working.

Instead of demeaning their brethren who either choose to mainstream their children or don’t have any choice at all, Christians are better served engaging the system, tackling the structures and policies of public education, and seeking to make a difference in this very public square.

--James Jewell

Study Skewed Facts on Sexual Conduct of Virginity Pledgers

The results of a study on sexual activity by young people who have taken a virginity pledge were purposely skewed, according to an analysis by the Heritage Foundation.

[Heritage researchers Rector and Johnson] conclude that virginity pledgers are substantially more likely to not engage in risky sexual behaviours, and that those who do break the pledge are still less likely than non-pledgers to engage in more risky anal or oral sex – a direct contradiction to the supposed conclusions reached by [the study’s researchers Bearman and Bruckner.]

The Heritage reports says:

“The centerpiece of their argument about pledgers and heightened sexual risk activity is a small group of pledgers who engaged in anal sex without vaginal sex,” Rector and Johnson explain.

“This ‘risk group’ consists of 21 persons out of a sample of 14,116. Bearman and Bruckner focus on this microscopic group while deliberately failing to inform their audience of the obvious and critical fact that pledgers as a whole are substantially less likely to engage in anal sex when compared to non-pledgers.”

“This tactic is akin to finding a small rocky island in the middle of the ocean, describing the island in detail without describing the surrounding ocean, and then suggesting that the ocean is dry and rocky,” they add. “It is junk science, a willful deception of the American public.”

--James Jewell

For Father’s Day: Portrait of a Great Day

Sunday, June 19, 2005

June 9 was a great day.

I awoke in a cabin on the shore of Lake Michigan a few miles west of the Mackinac Bridge on the northern most tip of lower Michigan to the sound of light waves breaking on the gentle shore. After a big breakfast fit for a male outing, my 10-year old son, Michael, and I were standing in our waders, with brother-in-law Dave and nephews Caleb and Enoch, in the shallows of Sturgeon Bay, lazily urging the bass to bite. It was a bright morning, and although we caught very little, there was cool breeze on a warm day, with the expansive clear waters stretching to the shores of Upper Peninsula. The only concerns were keeping bait on the hook and finding the rock refuges of the reticent fish. I doesn’t get any better, it seemed to me.

It was the final day on our fishing expedition, and after an ice cream and coffee in quaint Mackinaw City, and buying fudge for the women in our lives, we headed south to my sister’s house in Grand Rapids, where our families were gathered.

Amazingly, the best part of my day was yet to come. An exuberant wife, happy to see me, noticeably even more happy than usual, greeted me. After pleasantries, Debbie took me by the hand and we went to our downstairs room, and she urged me to kneel with her by the bed, where she began to pray.

“Thank you, Lord, for bringing back safely to me my husband. . . and the father of our new child.”

As I’m processing what she’s prayed, she leaps to her feet and grasps a positive pregnancy test indicator, with all the right lines. We’re going to have a baby. We embraced and kissed and tears rolled down my cheeks. We plotted an announcement to the family, and spent the rest of the evening sharing the good news.

A great day, indeed.

--James Jewell

The American Way: Mocking Dads On Television

Saturday, June 18, 2005

Can you think of one consistent positive portrayal of a father on prime time television since Bill Cosby’s Huxtable?

John Tierney can’t.

We can make our share of mistakes, but fathers aren’t nearly as stupid as we are made out to be on television. The decades-long campaign to emasculate men and to demean fathers has been remarkably successful. Its part of the devastating trend of the great disappearing father and the resulting delinquency, teenage pregnancy, increasing drug use, and much more.

Here’s one group, the National Fatherhood Initiative, whose mission is to restore the proud role of fathers.

--James Jewell

Mitt Romney Still Afloat in the Massachusetts Alligator Pond

Friday, June 17, 2005

Mitt Romney is showing creativity and dexterity as he carves a thoughtful conservative agenda in Massachusetts. Now he’s trying to roll back the advances of same sex marriage in his state. It’s a bit like watching the protagonist using the alligators to step his way across an alligator pond.

--James Jewell

Sacred Music That Makes You Forget the Guitars and Church Choirs

Thursday, June 16, 2005

With the popularity of rocking praise bands—which I like, and the prevalence of bad church choirs—which are painful, it is still a great joy to hear sacred music sung at the highest levels of precision and beauty.

We work with the Atlanta Sacred Chorale, probably the nation’s most accomplished choral group dedicated to mostly a capella sacred music.

The Chorale’s last concert was attended by the Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s arts critic, Pierre Ruhe, which was greeted with pleasure, and some trepidation.

His review in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution is mostly good, although I disagree with his characterization of Love Divine, which I found unbelievably inspiring and beautifully presented.

He characterized the ASC’s performance of one piece as “delivered by the chorale with exquisite control and stained-glass vocal colors.” That has a nice ring to it.

--James Jewell

A New Blueprint: Millard Fuller is Back at Work, Building Homes for the Poor

Housing pioneer Millard Fuller publicly launched his new organization earlier this month, announcing a new name, dedicating the headquarters, and providing two grants to community groups. The organization, The Fuller Center for Housing, will provide funding to groups that are building quality and affordable housing for the poor, the driving passion for Millard and Linda Fuller for more than 29 years.

The announcement was a welcome celebration after several months of vicious battles with Habitat for Humanity that resulted in the firing of not only Millard, but his wife Linda. It is an encouragement to see Millard, 70, look beyond that to the needs that still need to be met.

Addressing a crowd on the grounds of the renovated 1860’s era house at 701 South Martin Luther King Blvd. in Americus, Georgia, that will serve as The Center’s offices, Fuller said that “all of the good work that has been done to provide affordable housing for the poor pales in comparison to the work that is yet to be done.”

“Linda and I never considered departing from the mission that God set before us three decades ago,” Mr. Fuller said. “We will seek to help anyone who picks up a hammer and saw to help put a roof over the head of a neighbor in need.”

Group Adopts New Name
The Fuller Center for Housing was initially named “Building Habitat” as an indication of a willingness and intention to work cooperatively and to support Habitat for Humanity affiliates in the U.S. and around the world. However, the name was changed following the filing of a federal lawsuit by Habitat for Humanity International against Millard Fuller and the new organization, alleging trademark infringement.

“We don’t want either organization to spend donated dollars on a lawsuit,” Fuller said. “We want the money to be used to build houses for the poor.”

--James Jewell

Turmoil at Hollywood Presbyterian

Hollywood Presbyterian Church, an evangelical congregation within the liberal Pacific Presbytery, is in turmoil as two of its pastors are placed on leave by the Presbytery.
The news article I wrote for the next edition of Christianity Today has been posted on the CT website.

--James Jewell

The Gitmo Discussion

Wednesday, June 15, 2005

Because we are a nation founded on and sustained by Judeo-Christian values, central among them that human beings are created in the image of God, we treat prisoners and prisoners of war humanely. That’s why there is a prison camp at Guantanamo Bay and not a mass grave.
While there will be violations of policy wherever there are young soldiers and old wounds, it is our values that cause us to correct our excesses. But it is clear that the drumbeat of criticism of the treatment of prisoners at Gitmo stems not from the concern for human rights, but distain in some media and Democratic circles for the military and this Administration.

The Anchoress has a selection of articles on Gitmo, including links leading to this good piece by Patrick Ruffini.

--James Jewell

From Grand Rapids: A Study Shows Profitability of Family-friendly Films

Monday, June 13, 2005

I spent the last week in Michigan with my family, most of it in Grand Rapids and a few days bass fishing on the northern-most shores of lower Michigan, on Lake Michigan near the Mackinac Bridge.

Grand Rapids is a tidy city of conservative values and largely Reformed faith, the former Congressional seat of Gerald Ford, and home of Amway. It’s the buckle of a northern Bible belt, headquarters of Zondervan and Baker publishing houses, the site of Calvin College and Cornerstone University.

While I was there I ran across (h/t: Doug) this report, from the Hollywood Reporter, that Grand Rapids-based Dove Foundation will release a 10-year study tomorrow that “family-friendly movies are more profitable than R-rated films.

The Dove Foundation advocates wholesome family entertainment. The study examines the revenue and production costs for 3,000 Motion Picture Association of America-rated theatrical films released between Jan.1, 1989, and Dec. 31, 2003, using the 200 most widely distributed films each year based on the number of theaters.

"While the movie industry produced nearly 12 times more R-rated films than G-rated films from 1989-2003, the average G-rated film produced 11 times greater profit than its R-rated counterpart," said Dick Rolfe, Dove’s founder and chairman.

The new study found that the average profit for films rated G rose to $92.3 million from $74.2 million, PG vaulted to $78.8 million from $9.9 million, PG-13 rose to $45.6 million from $15.4 million, and R-rated films increased to $17.9 million from $3 million. The study notes that those increases are probably due in part to higher ticket prices, coupled with a decrease in home video manufacturing costs.

"Dove is not suggesting that Hollywood produce only G and PG movies," he said. "We just think the proportionality is out of balance, given the relatively few, highly profitable family-friendly movies released each year. Our study reveals that Hollywood is not serving the most prolific audience segment in the entertainment marketplace: the family."

--James Jewell

Trouble for the European Repose

Friday, June 03, 2005

Reading about Europe in the aftermath of the rejection of the EU constitution by France and the Netherlands made me think about China. France and so much of Europe are going the way of the welfare state, which has deadened ambition and work ethic in the seedbed of Western Civilization. I contrast this with what I saw in Beijing on two trips there last year. The ability to be rewarded for hard work, as capitalism emerges, has unleashed fresh ambition that is red hot.
European ease, comfort, and privilege are going to be left in the dust by Asian ambition. It’s a theme that Thomas Friedman has written about today in the Times.

This article from Acton Institute on European statism is also a good read. (h/t: Considerettes). It notes:

People who expect the state to do everything for them will come to do nothing for themselves, whereas a healthy democracy depends on notions such as self-governance and moral responsibility supported by vibrant religious faith and practice. It is no surprise that Europe’s woes continue as governmental power grows and faith lags.

--James Jewell

An Identity for Deep Throat; But Do We Know Everything?

Wednesday, June 01, 2005

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

The Lazy French Reject the Godless Constitution

The French made the right decision for the wrong reasons. Fearful that they lose some of their cushy government social giveaways, Frenchies rejected the accountability of a European union with teeth. But the constitution is a horrendous collection of bureaucratic nonsense in which the European framers choose to deny the existence of God. It will go down in flames, praise The One Who Was Ignored.

George Will has a good column on the right decision, wrongly determined.

--James Jewell

And Yes, There Are Failures

I am a huge supporter of President Bush and this Administration, for many reasons, high among them the President’s courage to fight the good fight against international terrorism and against domestic opposition to the very strength that has resulted in the expansion of democracy in the world.

But there are disappointments. For me, the major disappointments of the Bush Administration thus far:

(1) Illegal Immigration: Failure to secure our borders and stop or even slow illegal immigration. This problem didn’t start with the Bush Administration, but I am shocked that it has not been addressed meaningfully—particularly in a post 9-11 world. I am for liberal immigration—I think it makes our nation strong. But allowing unfettered illegal immigration makes no sense at all. None.

Some think the tide may be turning. John at What Can Brown Do For You cites Mark Krikorian at NRO:

Perhaps most important, the public is becoming increasingly concerned about immigration. The issue is seldom among the top two or three issues for voters, but that seems to be changing. Recurrent reports of terrorists and super-violent gang members exploiting our broken immigration system are finally getting people's attention. The way the Minuteman Project border-watch program in Arizona resonated on talk radio, its spread to other states, and its adoption by prominent politicians like California Gov. Schwarzenegger are all signs that the McCain/Kennedy amnesty bill may well be the last gasp of the anti-borders crowd.

Others weighing in here and here.

(2) Darfur: Failing to take effective action to halt the genocide in Darfur. With a miniscule expenditure of money and military personnel, we could stop most of the killing and abuse. This would not be another military front; it would be a demonstration of compassion. Must we wait for Hotel Darfur, the movie, to be outraged as a people and a government?. Here and here are two posts on the travesty.

(3) Bankruptcy: The bankruptcy bill, which was a total sell-out to the banking industry. Rick wrote about this here, and I did Christianity Today’s news article. I share Dave Ramsey’s outrage.

--James Jewell

Would Evangelicals Support Mitt Romney?

Tuesday, May 31, 2005

I’ve been impressed this year by Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and I’m pleased to see his name being mentioned as a potential presidential candidate. I posted on his judgment on the embryonic stem cell issue here, and on his call for the death penalty in Massachusetts if the standard of “no doubt” is met, here.

Hugh Hewitt points to a good column by Terry Eastland that weighs the merits of a Romney and finds it plausible.

My colleague Matt cites an optimistic NRO column, but he doesn’t believe Romney’s Mormonism will fly in the South or among evangelicals. Mark Daniels doesn’t think Romney’s faith will be a problem unless he pushes it too much.

It is untested ground because there hasn’t been a serious Mormon contender since Mitt’s father, George Romney, and his candidacy crashed for other reasons. My theory is that evangelical conservatives are less inclined to put their faith ahead of their politics in these matters than the secularists believe. That’s not necessary good news, and we’ve decried this tendency in this space.
l
If Romney’s policy credentials look solid to evangelicals, and it appears he could beat Hillary Clinton, I believe evangelicals will focus on his conservative values and not on his Mormonism.
One rationale I would use is the evangelicals’ embrace of Ronald Reagan, by no means an evangelical and not even a church-goer. He carried the banner for many issues of concern to evangelicals.

Mitt Romney could do the same. And if he can win in the northeast, it’s trouble for any Democrat.

--James Jewell

The Moderate Party in the U.S. Parliament

Friday, May 27, 2005

Doesn’t this banding of Democrats leaning right and Republicans leaning left have the feel of a third party? Perhaps the Moderate Party. The Band of 14 throwing its weight around, offering its strength to whichever party yields to its will, resembles the parliamentary system. Get Bill First a powdered wig and lets see where it goes.

Around the ‘sphere: Truth, Marriage, Religious Liberty, and Border Control

Total Truth: Daddypundit blogs for Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth. This substantial work by my former Prison Fellowship colleague is getting a lot of blog play.

Adventures in Holy Matrimony: Julie Ann Fiedler, whose blog Fidler One the Roof I’ve been reading since my first week of blogging last October, has a new book coming out June 7 titled Adventures In Holy Matrimony. Julie says: “It's a memoir-type of book, about the many, large, bizarre challenges my husband and I faced in the early years of our marriage, and our story of how we came back from the brink of divorce. I wrote this thing because when my own marriage was troubled, I couldn't find any good relationship books that weren't "the white picket fence kind."

What is Valid Religion?: Guess the Alliance Defense Fund should plug its nose and take up for the Wiccans in this bizarre Indiana court ruling, reported by Ed at In the Agora.

Border Control Strategy: Does someone have a cogent explanation of why we do not control our borders? Is the Hispanic voting bloc that strong? Are we sure Hispanics who have come to the U.S. legally don’t want us to guard the borders? LaShawn’s has been on this case for a while. She says, “There is no border control strategy.”

--James Jewell

Runaway Justice: Making Cold Feet and Bad Judgment a Crime

Thursday, May 26, 2005

If you’ve followed this blog you may recall that I am a resident of Gwinnett County, Georgia, home of the 2005 heroine (Ashley Smith of the courtroom murder drama) and the female villain (Jennifer Wilbanks, the runaway bride).

I also posted last week about my experience as jury foreman in a criminal trial here in Gwinnett.
I am disgusted that the district attorney forced and a grand jury bit on a two-count indictment yesterday against Wilbanks, with the potential for seven years in prison if convicted.
Oh to be on the jury for the Jennifer Wilbanks trial.

This is an absolute travesty of justice based on public anger at Wilbanks for wasting their time and costing the citizens of Gwinnett some money. This is nothing about the law. At the very worst this should be a civil case to try to recover some of the money spent looking for Wilbanks.
The only folks that would have a potential case against Wilbanks would be the police in New Mexico. She lied to them and caused them to take some action. But they were smart enough to recognize that this was not a criminal at work, but a messed up young woman who needed to go home and get help.

As her story to the Albuquerque police was about to unravel, Wilbanks called the police here in Gwinnett County and related her false story of abduction. But she—-and the fictional perpetrators—-were in New Mexico, not Georgia.

No Gwinnett police officer had to leave a Dunkin Donuts; no district attorney had to leave the golf course. At that point no public employee had to do anything but take a phone message.
And they’ve indicted this space cadet for a felony.

A lot of people are mad at Wilbanks for fooling them, and for costing Duluth, Georgia $40,000. But the call she made to police at the end of the saga didn’t cost anyone anything.

Leave her alone. Let her get help. This has become the case of runaway justice. What an embarassment.

UPDATE: It gets worse. I just read the article on this in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and was reminded that Wilbanks did not call the Duluth police. She called home (or her fiance's home) and while she was on the phone, the Duluth police chief rushed to the house and got on an extension. That's how he got the false report, with which he could do nothing! Sham indictment.

--James Jewell

Capitalism at Work

I am a resident of the state of Georgia and my brother-in-law, a missionary in Russia, is engaged to marry a young woman from the republic of Georgia. So I was drawn to a post by Sean at The American Mind that points to a fascinating piece (titled Georgia is Larger Than Georgia) at Club for Growth. It charts the GNP of U.S. states compared to the nations of the world. (also noted by Karol at Alarming News).

The GNP of Georgia, the American state, is 21 times larger than Georgia, the country that was formerly part of the Soviet Union ($320B vs. $15B).

The GNP of the United States is nearly double that of China, which has a population three times that of our country. But capitalism is surging in China. Check back in 10 years.

--James Jewell

The Filibuster Deal: Compromise Isn’t Always a Bad Word

Tuesday, May 24, 2005

I was late in coming to the position that the nuclear option should be used to coerce Democrats into playing fair on judicial nominees. My fear all along has been that the Republicans would regret the day that the power of the filibuster was weakened; on that day when they need it.

This assumes that the Republicans will not always be the majority in the Senate, a bet I’d be willing to make. There is an arrogance that comes with victory, and with having the strong arm in the all three Houses—Senate, Representative, and White.

I came around during the Terri Schiavo case, when an unresponsive and irresponsible judiciary irked me.

So, my approval of The Deal may be suspect. Perhaps I am a Moderate. Oh, my. But on most issues I am probably a moderate only in comparison to a very hard right.Although we'll hear a lot about how The Deal solves nothing and about how the weak-kneed Republican leadership failed, it appears that the potential downsides of the deal are much greater for the Democrats. Although the Republicans may have to fight the same battles again, it is more likely that the Democrats will have to go along with an up/down vote for candidates that they would have otherwise threatened to filibuster. They will look disingenuous if candidates they filibuster meet the Owen/Brown/Pryor standard.

I believe it was wise to compromise, that it is a good deal for the Republicans, and that there some progress on assuring fairness in the President’s appointment of his own judges. If we can continue on that track without messing with Senate rules, that is preferable.

--James Jewell

The New York Times: Seeking Your Trust

The New York Times published an internal critique last week titled Preserving Our Readers’ Trust, conducted by a self-named Credibility Group headed by Allan Seigel.

Most of the report makes recommendations that will help the paper take advantage of new technologies and do better and more accurate reporting. So most of the report misses the mark, because it does not deal with the central issues that have caused the Times to violate the trust of its readers—an insular, elitist worldview and blatant bias.

But on the last page of the report, the study group hits on some of the real issues. (h/t: Terry Mattingly)

In a section titled Diversifying Our Vantage Point, the report reads:

Too often we label whole groups from a perspective that uncritically accepts a stereotype or unfairly marginalizes them. As one reporter put it, words like moderate or centrist "inevitably incorporate a judgment about which views are sensible and which are extreme." We often apply "religious fundamentalists," another loaded term, to political activists who would describe themselves as Christian conservatives.

We particularly slip into these traps in feature stories when reporters and editors think they are merely presenting an interesting slice of life, with little awareness of the power of labels. We need to be more vigilant about the choice of language not only in the text but also in headlines, captions and display type.

Many staff members say that the paper covers breaking news well, but that it needs to take additional steps to cover the country in a fuller way. The national desk is already moving in this direction, but we encourage more reporting from the middle of the country, from exurbs and hinterland, and more coverage of social, demographic, cultural and lifestyle issues. We would also welcome even more enterprise reporting beyond New York, Washington and a handful of other major cities.

Nothing we recommend should be seen as endorsing a retreat from tough-minded reporting of abuses of power by public or private institutions. In part because the Times's editorial page is clearly liberal, the news pages do need to make more effort not to seem monolithic. Both inside and outside the paper, some people feel that we are missing stories because our staff lacks diversity in viewpoints, intellectual grounding and individual backgrounds. We should look for all manner of diversity. We should seek talented journalists who happen to have military experience, who know rural America first hand, who are at home in different faiths.

A candid analysis and recommendations that the Times would be wise to heed.

As Mattingly writes in his weekly column, the cover of the report should have had the famous New Yorker illustration, which demonstrates the self-focus of New Yorkers, but notably also fails to include even one church steeple.

As the Times’ study group has pointed out, the paper—and all of MSM—need to more aggressively seek out the steeples that not only dot the New York and the national landscape but animate the lives and dreams of all of America.

--James Jewell

The Most Dangerous Entanglement of Church and State

Monday, May 23, 2005

The most dangerous entanglement of church and state in the current Administration was not the prayer at the Inauguration, or Christian evangelism at the Air Force Academy, or the lobbying by overtly Christian groups on the issue of filibuster.

It was the establishment of the Office of Faith-based Initiatives in 2001.

This was one of President Bush’s first official acts, and I believe it was prompted by his personal faith and his confidence in the non-profit, and specifically the faith-based, organizations.

The Office was tasked at its inception with leading a "determined attack on need" by strengthening and expanding the role of faith-based and community organizations in addressing the nation's social problems. The President envisions a faith-friendly public square where faith-based organizations can compete equally with other groups to provide government or privately-funded services.

Sounds warm and fuzzy, but we thought this was a bad idea from the start, and that it was short-sighted for Christian organizations and churches to applaud this well-intentioned, but flawed, initiative. It may be that the War on Terror derailed the Faith-based Initiative, because not much has become of the effort.

Writing in this space in October, Debbie called for the elimination of the OFBI, because it is unfair to taxpayers, and because it is dangerous for Christian ministries.

She wrote:

If the government gives contracts and funding to faith-based organizations, those organizations will of necessity turn into today’s YMCA. (Does anyone even remember that the “C” stands for Christian? I doubt The Village People did.) Faith-based organizations will not be able to witness to those they assist. They will not have the right to refuse to hire people who do no subscribe to the tenants of the stated faith of the organization or church. They will not be able to pray in Jesus’ name before they feed their hundreds of clients. And rightly so, because part of their money will have come from people who do not support those beliefs, and from people who are vehemently opposed to them.

I have heard leaders of faith-based organizations say, “Yes, we’ll take the money provided there are no strings attached.” How arrogant. How selfish. They want the right to take the money from gays and Buddhists, then determine how the money is spent – ways that many gays or Buddhists would despise. They are thinking of only the recipient (themselves) and not the giver (the taxpayer).

Even if the rules for faith-based organizations would be flexible now due to an empathetic Administration, they are likely to change down the road, recognizing that the giver of the money has the right to determine the rules and how the money is spent. Rules that atheists and pro-choicers and Jews can live with. And those rules of necessity will say that an organization cannot preach Jesus Christ and Him crucified with money that came from the personal pocket of the local Rabbi.

And when you are dependent on money that becomes 30% or 60% of your budget, will you be able refuse further issuance of that money, and look in the face of the one you are serving and say, “I can’t serve you today?” Will you have the courage to pay the piper, cut that money you are now dependent on out of the budget--thereby cutting your services--and start a new fund-raising program to replace that government money and rebuild your organization?
Faith-based organizations would do well to take the high road. If money is offered from the government, refuse it and instead rely on the One you say is sufficient to meet your needs, and Who will do so for the purpose of making your ministry prosper. The One who gave you that ministry in the first place.

Tom at NewsWithViews agreed:

"A word to the wise: if you are a faith-based charity performing a valuable service providing for those in need, stay away from federal funds. Your program will survive on willing private contributions. If you accept federal dollars to pay for your program then you deserve what you get."

Much more on this topic, with many links here at FailureIsImpossible.

The liberals and secularists oppose the OFBI, but for the wrong reasons. When church and state become enmeshed, it is the church, not the state, that is endangered.

--James Jewell

Trial by Jury

Thursday, May 19, 2005

A tall, soft-spoken, 62-year-old Jamaican immigrant spent last night in the Gwinnett County Jail because I joined 11 other citizens of the county in convicting him of aggravated assault in a March 2 attack on his wife of two years, when an argument over money got out of hand.
After two days of intense testimony and deliberation, I was the foreman of a jury of mostly young people who found “Alfie” guilty of grabbing his short, stocky and combative wife by hair, punching her, and wielding a knife and waving it threateningly.

His wife’s daughter-in-law jumped on him and no one was stabbed. The overly dramatic and reasonably obnoxious defense attorney (as a jury we joked about asking the judge for permission to indict him for being a drama king) said the slight Vietnamese daughter-in-law could never have stopped Alfie from stabbing Dolores, if he’d wanted to. That’s possible; we’ll never know. What is clear is that he was holding her down on the stove by the hair and waving a knife in her face.

There was a 911 tape that made the case for the prosecutor, in that it captured the terror of the two women. It really defined terror. And it corroborated the testimony of the police officer and the daughter-in-law.

The two Jamaicans were a disaster on the witness stand. Neither could answer questions directly. It’s probably a cultural trait, although perhaps it was just these two individuals. The wife was particularly maddening. She was the last witness the first day of the trial, and I think we all went home thinking we’d acquit the guy, and in our minds figured we’d count living with this overbearing woman as “time-served.”

But the defense brought the defendant, Alfie, to the stand the next day. Although he was much more likeable, his story was ridiculously fictionalized. It didn’t match any of the other evidence and made it sound like he and his wife were discussing poetry in the kitchen on the afternoon of the incident.

Bad decision by the defense. Another bad move by the defense counsel was in his closing argument. His central argument was that his defendant was 62, and that the rules are different for someone 62. He really said that, several times. “When you’re 62, the rules are different.” I still can’t figure out what he meant by that. It sounded like the argument for some government program, where the rules are different for some groups that are old or poor or illegal immigrants, or gay.

No, we compared the evidence to the indictment, and the rules weren’t different for Alfie, although he was 62, affable, and simple.

As a jury we didn’t think the prosecution was able to prove three other counts—aggravated assault on the daughter-in-law and two counts of making dangerous threats, called “terroristic threats.”

We were unanimous on one count of guilty, and three counts not-guilty. No jury room arguments or stubborn hold-outs. No arm twisting.

So Alfie went to jail to await sentencing, and we went home for dinner.

But the trial will not go away in my mind. Surprisingly, it is a heavy weight to stand in judgment on another human being. There was a solemn responsibility that we felt to rule justly. We recognized that we would be altering the life of this generally likeable man—he didn’t have any previous convictions—if we found him guilty. But he had clearly snapped, and may do it again and put these women in further danger if he was not punished for what he had clearly done.

I prayed for Alfie last night, that God might be with him and redirect his life. And I prayed for peace in the family.

--James Jewell

Evangelism, the Left, and the Air Force Academy

From time to time it seems as though there can be no meaningful discourse in American public life, particularly between those of diverse philosophies, faiths, or worldviews. It is easy to diagnose this as an inability of the Red States and Blue States to communicate, because red values and blue values are so drastically different. And there is some truth to that.

But perhaps more accurately, we are many red and blue islands, not necessarily geographic, but spiritual, economic, racial, and social. The islands have their own communications channels; their own books, magazines, and newspapers; their own churches, social gatherings, television shows, and political parties.

I’ve seen this kind of an island for many years in the evangelical Christian community. Having been raised in a Christian home, educated in a Christian college, and working much of my career in Christian organizations, I have met many, many believers who cannot identify one non-Christian friend. Or even a non-Christian acquaintance with whom they’ve had a meaningful conversation. In fact, many conservative Christians have never knowingly had a conversation with a homosexual person.

I confess all of this because I know that the flip side is also true—secular elites and many unchurched folks don’t have an evangelical friend or acquaintance. They’ve never met a authentic evangelical person. Most have never had a decent conversation with a serious Christian believer.

This all came to mind when I wrote a post on the criticism of Air Force Academy Christians. Seeing some of the visceral reaction on liberal blogs, I wondered who these bloggers were describing when they wrote about evangelical Christians.

The aggressive, take-no-prisoners evangelical zealots described in media coverage of the Air Force controversy bear no resemblance to 90 percent of the evangelicals I have met and played with, learned with, worked with, and worshipped with. I have been an evangelical Christian for 36 years. And since I have been working in what we call the evangelical cocoon, I have not been isolated from the trends and teachings of the evangelical community.

There are at least three things that we are taught within the evangelical cocoon about evangelism, or sharing your faith. (Never once have I ever heard it called prosyletizing by the church. It’s a word critics use to make it sound scary). First, in order to be obedient to instructions from Jesus Christ, we are taught, we must be a witness of our Christianity to others who are outside the faith. And it’s a joy—although most of us are uncomfortable with intruding on others’ personal privacy—because we believe we have the best news in the world.

Second, we are taught that individuals come to faith in Christ as a result of the moving of the Holy Spirit in them and it is our task only to present the good news with logic, emotion, anecdote, or personal reflection. We don’t bring anyone to faith in Christ. God does that.

Third, we learn that people who are turned off by us personally are not going to be receptive to what we are presenting. Converts at the edge of the sword are converts in name or number only. No one teaches us to badger seekers or use threats or intimidation. That’s a crazy evangelistic strategy.

Because the message of Jesus Christ is unwavering—“no one comes to the Father but by Me”—the Christian message is often characterized as arrogant. The message is clear and unchanging, but not boastful. When Christian believers are arrogant in their manner or words, they do damage to that faith. At those moments, they are an embarrassment to the Kingdom.
All that said, what is it that Americans for the Separation of Church and State, the New York Times and other MSM, and Yale Divinity School are talking about when they describe the activities of Christians at the Air Force Academy?

The NY Times describes what it sees at the Academy as “unconstitutional proselytizing of academy students by evangelists whose efforts were blessed by authority figures in the chain of command.” What is that? Is proselytizing unconstitutional? No, in fact it is unconstitutional to be” prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. Is it unconstitutional for the leaders of a military academy to bless the efforts of those who share their faith on campus? It would be only to the extent that it established one religion as the official religion of the academy or the military.

To avoid the appearance of the establishment of evangelical Christianity as the religion of the Academy there are legitimate lines that should not be crossed. No one should have their rights abridged because they are not adherents to a particular faith or if they have no faith at all.
But the free expression of faith, the open dialogue of all faiths, is not what is at stake here. My hunch is that Christian witnessing—Christians explaining the truths and benefits of trusting Jesus Christ—just grates on those who detest Christianity, or are repulsed by certainty.

The critics have mentioned several incidents:

Chaplains
In its analysis of the Academy’s actions, the Los Angeles Times quotes the Yale report: “During Protestant worship services, cadets were encouraged to proselytize to others and ‘remind them of the consequences of apostasy.’”

Wait. This is during the Protestant worship services! Is Yale suggesting that the administration of the Academy control the worship services? And look at their incendiary message: Go tell it on the mountain that Jesus Christ is Lord and that rejecting Him will have negative consequences.

We are in trouble as a nation if Christians cannot share that message everywhere and anywhere. The report continues: “Protestant Cadets were regularly encouraged to witness to fellow Basic Cadets.” Welcome to Evangelism 101. What a threat to the Republic. As I said earlier, this is what we are taught from our earliest days as Christians. Why did it become so shocking just because the men and women are wearing uniforms?

Passion of the Christ
The Times says there were flyers on dining hall chairs inviting cadets to view The Passion of the Christ. What strong arm tactics! How could these impressionable, vulnerable airmen resist such pressure?

Name Calling
Evidently, a Jewish cadet was called a “filthy Jew” by someone. That’s stupid and childish. But if it was an evangelical Christian, denigrating the Jewish people is totally out of line with the teachings of the church. There isn’t a faith group that has more respect for Jews and for Israel than evangelicals. Anyone who would take a little time to learn about evangelicals would know this. To include this in an analysis of the lines between church and state indicates the bias of the reporter.

Christians are not the persecuted minority in America and we shouldn’t act like it. But Christians are, interestingly, the constantly belittled and criticized majority.

When it comes to matters of faith, there is too much whining on the left and too much hand wringing on the right.

Frankly, if we—-as evangelicals—-took all of the opportunities presented to us each day to authentically and sensitively communicate our faith and our concern for others, the rapid expansion of the Christian community might scare the daylights out of those who think the armed forces that we rely on to defend our nation can’t possibly resist the spiritual entreaties of their colleagues.

--James Jewell

The Darfur Collection

Monday, May 16, 2005

Catez at AllThings2All is presenting The Darfur Collection, a number of posts on the genocide in Darfur, including one written here last week. Please check this out and do what you can to keep this issue alive in the blogosphere.

--James Jewell

The Savage Nation Falls Prey to Longstanding Urban Legend

Friday, May 13, 2005

Michael Savage fell prey to a longstanding internet Urban Legend when he read a piece sent by a listener and identified it as something Andy Rooney had delivered on 60 Minutes “a few weeks ago.”

You can read it at Loadmouth Soap.

But Andy Rooney never gave this commentary. As Snopes.com explains, Rooney denied that it was his material in 2003 and "whoever created this version appears to have lifted some parts from an earlier piece known as "Yes, I Guess I am A BAD American" and falsely credited to comedian George Carlin. Here’s the list from the psuedo-Carlin."

Snopes traces the origin of much of this material back to a bootyist-monk at Free Republic in September 2000.

A lot of this is quite true, plenty of it blatantly insensitive, and a little of it too crude. Enough of it is really funny.

So: Michael Savage meet bootyist-monk. And beware of the urban legend.

--James Jewell

The Assault on Christians at the Air Force Academy

Thursday, May 12, 2005

The artificial controversy concerning overzealous Christians at the Air Force Academy is a textbook example of how liberals influence public opinion. In this case, a renowned anti-Christian liberal group (Americans for the Separation of Church and State) visited the Academy, talked with 15 students and staff, wrote a 13-page report, sent it to the Department of Defense, and announced it through the AP and others.

The MSM (here and here) picked up the charge and gave liberal ink to the “high level investigation” that “uncovers Christian bias” at the Air Force Academy. Now, the MSM says, the military is investigating.

Congratulations to the AFSCS. It was a wonderful exhibition of using the media apparatus available to them to create a crisis that exists only in the minds of people who hate to see strong Christians in positions of authority in any part of the government, including the military.

It is clear that faith is quite important to the cadets at the Air Force Academy. When life is about to involve screaming through the sky at unimaginable speeds or landing a plane on a piece of steel bobbing in the middle of an ocean, I’m not surprised that airmen want to be acquainted with their Creator and Sustainer.

It may be that their have been some who have been too aggressive in spreading the Word. And guidelines are fine. But don’t base anything on a bogus public relations campaign by a biased group seeking to wipe Christian influence entirely from the public square.

In Family News in Focus, Tom Clemmons, an Air Force Academy graduate and former officer, said it's really an attempt to quash the free speech of Christians.

"I totally disagree with what they're saying. I applaud any chaplain that would encourage students to know the Lord. This is a free country, even in the military. If I did experience a bias in the Air Force, it was against Christians. Now, while we do have Christians at the Academy and in the Air Force, it's definitely a minority."

If you’ve ever visited the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs, the most striking structure is a dramatically designed modern chapel in the center of the campus. Those who risk their lives each day to protect America have always looked to God to protect them and guide their perilous steps. For decades, the centrally located chapel has been a symbol of that dependence of God. May it always be.

--James Jewell

A Heart of Courage

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

I received an email today from a longtime friend and former colleague. Her 16-year-old daughter Esther had surgery on a badly weakened heart this week at the Cleveland Clinic. The surgery was perilous and the outcome uncertain, but Esther pulled through and she seems to be out of immediate danger. But there are great struggles—and probably more surgery—ahead.
But today, her daughter has a grin as wide as her face because she is keeping food down and there’s hope that she may have the strength to ride a bike again, something she has been unable to do since 2nd grade.

Esther was diagnosed with Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy at the age of seven and she has lived a limited life physically. But although the muscles of her heart are diseased, Esther’s spirit is strong, encouraging, and illuminating.

Esther and her family are faithful followers of Christ, deeply spiritual as they approached this ordeal years ago, and attuned now to every lesson and every provision from the hand of the Lord. Every challenge is for growth, every personal contact an opportunity, every provision—from an ice chip to a new medicine—is a blessing of God.

The Cleveland Clinic provides a personal blog for each patient to update family and friends as often as they would like. What a wonderful use of blogging.

The posts of this personal password-protected blog show us the courage of a young person, emboldened by faith in God to confront deadly illness with purpose and confidence.
There are lessons for us, too.

1. Life is a precious and delicately balanced gift.

2. Life’s struggles have a purpose. At times the purpose may be the witness of persevering through trials, yielded to God.

3. Courage is often exhibited in small packages. We have much to learn from the courage of a young person such as Esther, finding meaning in the midst of great pain and fear. Her Mom is showing a lot of courage, too!

4. There is, of course, the gift of perspective. What problems are you facing today? Perhaps they are as serious as Esther’s. I know mine pale in comparison and that I need to be as grateful for a good night’s sleep or a new project as Esther is that she can walk down the hall and back.

We pray that God will mend Esther’s heart and give her many more years. We pray that she’ll be able to ride her bicycle, and dance and sing and celebrate a full life. And we pray that we would have her courage to see God in each detail of the day, and to lean on Him when we find it hard to stand on our own.

--James Jewell

WHO WILL STOP THE GENOCIDE IN DARFUR? FRANCE WON’T; WILL WE?

Monday, May 09, 2005

In Darfur, destruction moves quickly across the African Sahel, marauders terrorizing defenseless villages too far from anywhere to expect help. With hundreds of thousands dead and almost two million people now squatters in refugee camps in neighboring Chad, hope moves with alarming reticence, the world too busy to scare away this apocalypse of darkness that’s descended on the Christian and other non-Arab peoples of western Sudan.

Prior to the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake, the UN called the Darfur conflict the world's worst current humanitarian crisis. When the tsunami devastated Asia, the focus of the humanitarian community necessarily shifted to the East.

It is time for the United States to stop the genocide in Darfur. How many times are we going to look the other way as hundreds of thousands of African families are decimated. Did we learn nothing from Rwanda?

This should be a job for the United Nations (yeah, right). Darfur is a failure of the international community, but its doubtful that anyone but the United States has the moral will and the ability to do anything.

Potential Progress Thwarted by France?
It is time to accelerate the diplomatic, and if necessary, the military, action. Even the slightest progress has us pitted once again against France, which wants to do nothing on its own.

This is the latest news:

The latest piece of a solution is a decision last week by the African Union (AU) to triple its troops in Darfur to 7,700 and ask NATO for logistical support. Even that additional foreign presence in a region the size of France wouldn't be enough, but it shows confidence is growing that outside intervention can be effective.

Sudan's government tacitly approves NATO's potential role in Darfur, but France, which has preferred a strictly European role in Africa's crises, may be ready to shoot down this request of NATO by African nations.

So far, France has preferred to deal with Darfur by weaker measures, such as UN Security Council steps to impose sanctions on Sudan and put Darfur's attackers on trial (if they can be caught). These have been inadequate. Only by backing AU troops with essential NATO planes and other equipment can the Arab militia, known as Janjaweed, be intimidated to give up for good.

NATO's post-cold-war role has yet to be defined. It wasn't included in the antiterrorism invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. Now it has a chance for a limited role in an African conflict. The US would like more NATO intervention on the continent - perhaps with the AU leading - to keep failing states from becoming home to terrorist groups. If France again fails to back the US in such ventures, NATO itself may wither and bilateral ties worsen.

The Coalition for Darfur maintains a daily blog kof actions on Darfur.

Mark Daniels points us to a strong column on Darfur by Nicholas Kristoff.

From the Financial Times:

The failure of the international community to halt the ethnic cleansing, mass rape and killings in Darfur in western Sudan is a disgrace to our time. For two years the world stood by while Darfur burned. In place of action there was a grotesque debate over whether we should call it genocide.

A little over a month ago the United Nations Security Council finally agreed to refer Darfur to the International Criminal Court. This was an important breakthrough. But the promise of justice in the future is not enough. The people of Darfur need protection now.

If we cannot move NATO, we need to support the AU on our own. We didn’t overcome the failures of Somalia by invading Iraq. We’d accomplish that by intervening with what would be a relatively small contingent of U.S. military.

Of course there isn’t much oil in Darfur. Saving the lives of African villagers probably doesn’t advance the war on terror. But there weren’t many good reasons for intervening in Kosovo, either,except to stop genocide. Why not now, in Darfur?

Another blog resource.

The Darfur Conflict
Here’s a summary of what’s happened:

The Darfur conflict is an ongoing conflict in the Darfur region of western Sudan, mainly between the Janjaweed, a government-supported militia recruited from local Arab tribes, and the non-Arab peoples of the region. Note that both sides are largely black in skin tone, and the distinction between "Arab" and "non-Arab" common in western media is heavily disputed by many people, including the Sudanese government. The conflict has been widely described as "ethnic cleansing", and frequently as "genocide". In September 2004, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated 50,000 deaths in Darfur since the conflict's beginning, mostly by starvation; in October, its head gave an estimate of 71,000 deaths by starvation and disease alone between March and October 2004. While a recent British Parliamentary Report estimates that over 300,000 people have already died[1] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4268733.stm), the United Nations estimates that 180,000 have died in the 18 months of the conflict [2] (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4349063.stm). More than 1.8 million people had been displaced from their homes. 200,000 have fled to neighboring Chad. The refugees include non-Arab victims of non-Arabs, Arab victims of non-Arabs, and Arab victims of Arabs; however, the large majority are non-Arab black Africans fleeing Janjaweed attacks [3]

Last month, a U.S. envoy received assurances from the government of Sudan that they would step in and stop the slaughter. No one believes them. Or about as much as the fox in the henhouse.

So Who Will Stop the Killing?
From the Los Angeles Times:

So who will stop the killing? That question should trouble any tender soul who has ever mindlessly muttered, "Never again." That incantation is repeated after every genocide — after the Holocaust, after the Cambodian killing fields, after Rwanda — and yet the next time mass slaughter breaks out, the world conveniently averts its gaze. The major exceptions in recent years have been Kosovo and Bosnia, which had the good fortune to be on Western Europe's doorstep. The rest of the world is treated to high-minded cluck-clucking and, maybe, ex post facto prosecutions.

The only way to save Darfur is to dispatch a large and capable military expedition. But Security Council members France, China and Russia have blocked a U.N. decision on armed intervention because they covet trade ties with Sudan.

That still leaves the possibility of civilized states acting independently of the U.N., as they did in Kosovo. But the only nation with a serious military capacity, the United States, is overstretched in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The European Union should step into the breach. Its economy is as big as the United States' and its population is even bigger. But it has chosen to spend its euros on extravagant handouts for its own citizens rather than on the kind of armed forces that might bring a ray of hope to the "heart of darkness." Although the European members of NATO actually have more ground troops than the U.S. — about 1.5 million soldiers — only about 6% are readily deployable abroad. The Europeans could still scrape together the 25,000 to 50,000 soldiers it would take to pacify Darfur, but it would be a stretch for them given their existing commitments, and not one they're willing to make.

As a last resort, even if they're not willing to send their own troops, the U.S. and the EU could offer to provide much more logistical support to allow the African Union to dispatch more of its own peacekeepers to Sudan. That's not asking a lot, yet it's more than anyone has been willing to do so far.

Aside from a handful of journalists and human rights activists, the only Westerners who have shown any sustained interest in the Sudan are evangelical Christians, who've been exercised primarily about the fate of their coreligionists in the south.

Little solace to hundreds of thousands of people still suffering. We have the might to stop genocide in Africa at the same time we establish democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan. We must see to it that it is done.

--James Jewell

Disadvantages of Pissing Off America

This is very funny, but with a lot of truth in it.

(h/t to Doug at Considerettes)

God Bless America, Land That Loves to Eat

Thursday, May 05, 2005

America is eating itself to death. Obesity is rampant. The sweet land of liberty has more desire for sweets than liberty. When the advertisements said: “Have it Your Way,” we choose the double cheeseburger and lots of fries.

Indeed, this may be a new long-range strategy for Al Qaeda. In the pursuit of vascular terrorism, the nefarious characters may be buying stock in McDonalds, Burger King, and Pepsico. Advertising for Ryans and Golden Corral—all you can eat until your arteries are completely clogged and they carry you out in a cattle wagon. Starting blogs that constantly reinforce the notion that heavy people are just big-boned and suffering from glandular disorders.

Fatitude is not a respecter of party or ideology. Rotundity is transcending the great political divides from Michael Moore to Rush Limbaugh (yes, I see he’s again the round mound of sound), and from Teddy Kennedy to Dennis Hastert.

Just when we thought there was no hope, two from the South--where there’s nothing that cannot be deep fried and you can get enough cholesterol for breakfast to last you the whole day--are introducing a new campaign to fight fat. Former President Bill Clinton and Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee on Tuesday announced the launch of a 10-year initiative to combat childhood obesity, calling it a national epidemic. (h/t: Broken Masterpieces)

It’s a worthy effort from two who have something to say on the matter. Clinton has always had bad eating habits, and paid for with by-pass surgery. Huckabee was huge and lost 110 pounds in the last couple of years. He said in a Newsday interview:

"Two years ago I would not have been asked to be here today to speak to this issue, for the simple reason that I would have been about the worst role model you could have had. My doctor sat me down and said if you don't change your lifestyle you're in the last decade of your life."

Yesterday, Limbaugh said that the campaign needs a new slogan--something like Mrs. Reagan’s anti-drug line: “Just Say No”—-and for Clinton it could be “Just Don’t Swallow.”

Or maybe: "Fight Terrorism. Eat a salad."

--James Jewell

Runaway Morality

Tuesday, May 03, 2005

We’ve wondered about this, too.

Could we have an explanation concerning the failure of the Baptist church in Duluth, Georgia, to make any reference at all to the fact that the Runaway Bride and her Live-in Groom shared a home without the benefit of marriage?

In all of the newscasts that I saw on the story here in Atlanta, the fact that the marriage had been consummated before the wedding was presented as commonplace. We’ve come to expect that of popular culture, but we’d like to believe that evangelical churches would require a bit more from their Sunday school teachers.

--James Jewell

Public Schools Telling Us “Who’s in a Family”

Michelle Malkin writes about a David Parker, father of a 5-year-old boy in Concord, Mass., was arrested Wednesday at his son's kindergarten over a disagreement about the appropriateness of the book, "Who's in a Family?." It teaches preschoolers about "multicultural contemporary family units" including nuclear, intergenerational, mixed-race, and lesbian and gay arrangements.

At Blogicus, Tim says:

Christian parents are concerned about the promotion of homosexual marriage in the classrooms of their children, and they should be. However, this latest controversy reveals something much worse: the ethical bankruptcy of the school system, the forcible indoctrination of students and the illegitimate acceptance of the government as the source ethical truth.

The easy answer is to get your kids out of public school. But that is also a cop-out answer. We should not capitulate so easily, for it is our tax dollars at work. And private schools or homeschooling is not an option for all parents. These are issues worth some civil discourse and, like Mr. Parker, even civil disobedience.

--James Jewell