The best form of evangelizing souls to the reality of God's love is the witness of a life well spent in demonstrating that love for them. So it is with Mag Hughes...

Before my crash, burn, search, discovery and conversion there were Christian footbag player's in the world such as Mag Hughes and Andy Linder. Both phenoms in the footbag/sports world and true champions of sport, but more importantly, champions of life. Andy e-mailed me today the following announcement from Mag:

I sincerely hope this email finds you all healthy, happy and thankful for all the awesome blessings we all enjoy. Some of you may be hearing this information for the first time, others have heard this news already. I just wanted to let you all know how thankful I am that you all are in my life. I have been blessed many times over by our Heavenly Father and I put all my trust in Him.

I found out Feb. 15 that I have prostate cancer, not a big surprise since 50% of all males in America one day will.
I have chosen, through praying about this situation a lot, that I will have surgery to remove the prostate. In the next few weeks I will have two pints of blood drawn from me to be used during the operation if necessary. The surgery date is set for June 6, 7:30 AM at Willamette Falls Hospital in Oregon City, OR. Dr. Burke will be doing the operation. I will probably spend two or three days in the hospital and then 10 to 20 days with a catheter.

Please keep me in prayer. I have always said, "I don't want a million dollars just a million friends," and I consider you all very special friends. May God continue to bless all of you. When in crisis always believe in our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

One word of advise, Men have your prostate checked.

God Bless and I love you all,
Mag Hughes

For those readers unfamiliar with footbag (see below for pics and pro demos) or Mag Hughes himself: Mag was an original National Hacky Sack Association member. In 1981 He became a member of the 2nd major National Hacky Sack Tour Team. Key to the founding and development of the game of footbag as sport, mag was a teacher and coach. Accomplishment's include 9 time Doubles Net Footbag Champion, and 3 time Singles Net Footbag Champion are among many of his sport's awards and titles. Mag continues to teach the fundamentals of the sport of Footbag through his educational and entertaining W.E. C.A.R. E. Alternative Sports Programs... Click here.

Sports accolades aside, there are people in the world who appear naturally born to be all-around nice people (some of us have to learn) Mag is one of these. Scripture says love is patient and kind and Mag is both--a dear soul to many. Several years back, my wife Dea attended one of his footbag camps up in Oregon, and she came back with nothing other than admiration for Mag--as I'm sure all of us who know him would still confirm today... In deeds and truth, he says, “I don’t want a million dollars just a million friends...,” and in deed and truth, I have no doubt he has...

I ask all my reader's, friends, and family to join me in earnestly praying for this good man during his time of trial...

Mag.., (from our family to yours) may God bless you and keep you all. May his light shine upon you... I've placed your intentions within the Holy Mass at the Grotto of Our Lady of Lourdes, in France. (confirmation on the front page of this blog) 

All our love and prayers-- Jimmy and Dea Evans.

Below dear readers is a footbag video (from a young gun) for your enjoyment. Warning: Don't attempt these moves before praying... (especially you old timers!!!).

KING OF FOOTBAG/REACH OUT AND TOUCH FAITH (Music)

(Hat Tip Mr. Klouda, hat tip...)

One of the most disappointing encounters I have had in recent weeks was with a Catholic "bioethicist" who gave a talk and then was available for small group discussion afterwards.  I left the discussion realizing that the meaning of the word "ethics" had totally escaped him, and he had misplaced "morals" for "ethics"--a common but unfortunate mistake.  Ethics is concerned with the greater good and achieving an optimized balance of this.  More on this subject soon, I've been quite riled ever since this particular encounter but have not had time to write a well-constructed and researched post on the subject.  Regardless, the issue here is morals and the attempt to impose your own moral judgments on others.  

I digress a bit, but I really do wonder.  Why is it that these Evangelicals feel the need to impose their views on others?  What exactly are they trying to achieve?  A world that is "safe" from things that they find distasteful?  State-mandated sequestration of their own children to prevent them from hearing about sex, gay love, unplanned pregnancy?  Exactly what good to they think it will do the world to be rid of these things, when their persistence in culture demonstrates their common-ness?  Humans come in a variety of flavors, pardon my expression.  We sit across the full range of the Kinsey scale and some logical combination of this and the normal distribution would suggest that most of us are in the middle.  If people want to form stable, legal partnerships with people they love, that is their business.  Casual marriage and cheap divorce are far greater threats to the institution of marriage than gay partnerships.  Full stop.

Now, there are a couple things to note about this ad and since my family is heavily evangelical, I feel somewhat qualified to comment on it.

First, it looks like Obama is in a bit of a sticky wicket in KY. After all, it was only a month ago that small town folks were called bitter and clung to their religion, xenophobia and guns when they didn't understand what was going on in the world. I gotta tell you, that didn't go over too well in PA and I suspect WV wasn't too amused either. And Obama suffered humiliating defeats in both states. I'll betcha Bittergate is still turning up in their internal polls. That coupled with Wright makes it necessary for him to roll out this flyer. In other words, it's pandering out of panic. Do you think Kentuckians will be assuaged? Ahem, moving on.

In this flyer, Obama says:

"my faith teaches me that I can sit in church and pray all I want, but I won't be fulfilling God's will unless I go out and do the Lord's work."

Very interesting. Now most of you will say this makes perfect sense if you are a Christian. Ahhh, but *evangelical* Christians believe that we are saved by grace alone. It isn't necessary to do any more than accept Jesus. It's the bare minimum requirement but an important one. It's where the protestant church divides from the Catholic church. Your good deeds do not get you into heaven; grace does. No need for good works, pennance or any of that. But here, Obama is putting his work first as fulfilment of God's will. Is it a minor point? I dunno. I've only lived with evangelicals, I can't get inside their heads. But it may suggest that he doesn't know his audience very well.

Finally, there is a rumor floating around in the escatological side of evangelicalism that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ. Hey, if you feed people enough Left Behind books, they start to forget they're fiction. And here he is, sending out a flyer looking to all the evangelical world like a false prophet (point 1), unbeliever (point 2) standing in front of a cross.

It's delicious. ;-)

[UPDATE] -- katiebird's take (amazingly I had this scheduled to go later this morning):

Is Religion a Winning Issue for Obama? Should Religion even BE an Issue?

I think Obama is in a pretty tight place on the religion issue. I'm not a part of the weird-Internet-rumor world so I don't know first hand but, I wouldn't be surprised if he's still battling that whole "secretly Muslim" thing. And I'm sorry about that. This election is too serious for the distraction of lies and misdirection.

Also, it seems to me that the blizzard of lies obscured some serious questions. In South Carolina, Obama successfully used his relationship with the Trinity Church to counter those "he's a secret Muslim" rumor -- and to build a bond with voters. Will this pitch be equally successful in Kentucky?

His campaign thinks so. As lambert at Corrente and Jeralyn at TalkLeft report, Obama's campaign in Kentucky is reaching out the religious community with this flier:

My question is: Do people really want to see pictures of Obama in church? Well, I don't want to see pictures of ANY politician in church, so I'm not a good one to ask. But that reservation aside, I don't think this is a winning issue for Obama.

What do you think?

The Authorized Conversion happens when someone "asks Jesus into his heart." The act of praying this prayer, evangelicals have taught, transfers a person from darkness to light. It is the moment of salvation. Preaching drives toward it, and testimonies feature it. When we ask each other how we "got saved," we are asking about the circumstances that led to praying the prayer. We count the people who pray it, and we tell them to write the date and the hour in their Bibles.

But in my own experience, praying the sinner's prayer was only one step in my salvation -- a defining step, a step that summed up what the Lord had been doing in my five-year-old soul, but not decisive. As I remember growing up, I can see many points that were clearer, more specific. There was a day in the fifth grade, for instance, when I was in despair because I had no friends. At recess, I retreated to a far corner of the schoolyard to pray, and found friendship from Jesus.

For me, salvation is the fruit of many defining experiences and decisions, not one. And we seem to induce spiritual lethargy when we teach people to rely on a single prayer.

In high school, I saw how people went forward for tearful prayers, but almost never showed any change later. I constantly meet Christians who, in an effort to know that they're saved, have repeated the sinner's prayer so many times they've lost count. Like many of my generation, I'm suspicious of conversion numbers, even cynical that anything good comes of guiding more people through the steps. Indeed, evangelical doubt over the sinner's prayer seems to be a primary cause of the movement's splintering. Emergents and Calvinists both put the altar call at the top of their lists of "what's wrong with us."

There are modern Christian movements that have connected more vigorously with people's experiences.

Graham Greene wrote a novel decades ago called, The End of the Affair. He told the story of an adulterous woman whom God lures out of sexual immorality. It was a story that reflected not just Greene's experience, but the experience of many English contemporaries -- Evelyn Waugh, Malcolm Muggeridge, and C. S. Lewis being only the most prominent.

While I might have problems with Greene's theology, there is no question that literature like his shows how conversion happens in post-Christian culture far better than anything evangelicals have written.

Evangelicals need to make a lot of changes. They need to separate their political and cultural resentments from their proclamation of the gospel. They need a revival of the arts so that they can nurture people emotionally with truth. They need to understand the real characteristics of the people in their churches.

But, fundamentally, evangelicals need to rearticulate what conversion is.

The conversions I see are slow. There's the young woman who attended church in Orland for three years before startling her friends by announcing that she believed in Jesus. She told me she found Christ not by being miserable, but by being happy -- and realizing that it wasn't enough. Then there's the older man who had "prayed the prayer" decades ago, but who only found assurance of salvation when he went camping alone last summer to seek the Lord.

So one of my goals is to describe the conversion experience that people actually have: the slow, step-by-step acquisition of an art under the direction of the Master. Real Christians fumble with faith, making crude brush strokes and mixing their paints poorly. But the Master keeps instructing and the apprentice keeps fumbling. Sometimes the apprentice slips into the zone with his faith, but he slips out again. The Master just keeps him painting, painting, painting, until one day the apprentice realizes that his faith lives.

The February 2008 edition of Christianity Today  ran a cover story about evangelicals looking to the ancient Roman Catholic Church in order to find beliefs and practices.1 What was shocking about the article was that both the author of the article and the senior managing editor of CT claim that this trip back to Rome is a good thing. Says Mark Galli the editor, “While the ancient church has captivated the evangelical imagination for some time, it hasn’t been until recently that it’s become an accepted fixture of the evangelical landscape. And this is for the good.”2

Chris Armstrong, the author of the article who promotes the trip back to the ancient church, claims that because the movement is led by such persons as “Dallas Willard, Richard Foster, and living and practicing monks and nuns,” that therefore, “they are receiving good guidance on this road from wise teachers.” This he claims shows that, “Christ is guiding the process.”3

Apparently, contemporary evangelicals have forgotten that sola scriptura (scripture alone) was the formal principle of the Reformation. Teachings and practices that could not be justified from Scripture were rejected on that principle. To endorse a trip back to these practices of ancient Roman Catholicism is to reject the principle of sola scriptura being the normative authority for the beliefs and practices of the church. In this article I will explore how modern evangelicalism has compromised the principle of sola scriptura and thus paved smoothly the road back to Rome.

NEW “REFORMATIONS” COMPROMISE SOLA SCRIPTURA

Today at least three large movements within Protestantism claim to be new “reformations.” If we examine them closely we will find evidence that sola scriptura has been abandoned as a governing principle—if not formally, at least in practice. To have a new reformation requires the repudiation of the old Reformation. That in turn requires the repudiation of the formal principle of the Reformation. That’s where we’ll begin.

ROBERT SCHULLER AND RICK WARREN

In 1982, Robert Schuller issued a call for a new Reformation with the publication of his book, Self Esteem: The New Reformation.4 Schuller issued this fervent call: “Without a new theological reformation, the Christian church as the authentic body of Christ may not survive.”5 He was apparently aware that his reformation was of a different type than the original: “Where the sixteenth-century Reformation returned our focus to sacred Scriptures as the only infallible rule for faith and practice, the new reformation will return our focus to the sacred right of every person to self-esteem! The fact is, the church will never succeed until it satisfies the human being’s hunger for self-value.”6

The problem is that Schuller based much of his self-esteem teaching on psychological theory and did not provide a rigorous Biblical defense of the idea. Thus his reformation was a de facto denial of the Reformation principle of Scripture alone.

For example, Schuller criticized the Reformation for a faulty doctrine of sin:
“Reformation theology failed to make clear that the core of sin is a lack of selfesteem.”7 But Schuller does not discuss the many verses in the Bible that define sin. For example: “Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness” (1John 3:4). It is not hard to see that Schuller’s reformation constituted the abandonment of sola scriptura as a formal principle.8

In one sense, since Schuller’s call for a reformation based on self-esteem was made 26 years ago, one could argue that it never happened. Of course the idea of self-esteem is still around and taught by many evangelicals, but it never became the one key idea of the church. In another sense, however, Schuller’s reformation was broadened and transferred to others. In 2005 Schuller claimed the following as noted alumni of his institute: Bill Hybels, John Maxwell, Bishop Charles Blake, Rick Warren, Walt Kallestad, and Kirbyjon Caldwell. Bill Hybels himself credited Robert Schuller as a key person who influenced his ideas.9 Though Rick Warren disputes Schuller’s influence on his theology, he has carried forward Schuller’s idea of creating a church that meets people’s felt needs and thus attracts them.

But what interests us here is that Warren is now proposing yet another reformation: And we’ve actually created what we call clinic-in-a-box, businessin- a-box, church-in-a-box, and we are using normal people, volunteers.

When Jesus sent the disciples into a village he said, “Find the man of peace.” And he said, “When you find the man of peace you start working with that person, and if they respond to you, you work with them. If they don’t, you dust the dust off your shoes; you go to the next village.” Who’s the man of peace in any village – or it might be a woman of peace – who has the most respect, they’re open and they’re influential? They don’t have to be a Christian. In fact, they could be a Muslim, but they’re open and they’re influential and you work with them to attack the five giants. And that’s going to bring the second Reformation.10

The problem is that solving the world’s five greatest problems as Warren defines them (11) using anyone willing to help regardless of religion, cannot be justified on Biblical grounds. If sola scriptura were the formal principle in Warren’s theology, then he would provide vigorous, Biblical analysis using sound exegesis to ground his reformation on the authority of Scripture. But his teachings and public statements are not characterized by sound Biblical exegesis.

As I documented in my book on the Purpose Driven Movement, Warren’s reformation compromises sola scriptura in many significant ways.12 These include the use of loose paraphrases that go so far as to change the meaning of various passages, the integration of unbiblical, human wisdom, serious misinterpretation of Scripture, and an unbiblical philosophy of ministry.

Warren has an orthodox statement about the authority of Scripture on his church Web site. In fact, most evangelicals other than those who convert to Roman Catholicism do not overtly reject Scripture alone. But is it practiced?13

There is reason to believe that Warren’s reformation is the continuation of Schuller’s in a modified form. Warren has made finding one’s purpose the lynchpin of his teachings and practices. Finding purpose may not be identical to finding self esteem, but the idea is at least a first cousin. Also, both concepts derive their power from outside Scripture.

C. PETER WAGNER

Another proposed reformation of the church is C. Peter Wagner’s New Apostolic Reformation. As I argued in a recent CIC article,14 Wagner sees the presence of apostles who speak authoritatively for God as the key to the church fulfilling her role in the world. He even speaks approvingly of the “apostles” of the Roman Catholic Church. Wagner and the thousands of apostles and prophets in his movement have shown as little regard for sola scriptura as any non Roman Catholic Christian group apart from the Quakers. So their reformation is a de facto repudiation of the Reformation. Their writings and messages show little or no concern for sound, systematic Biblical exegesis. If they were to adopt sola scriptura as a formal principle and rigorously use it to judge their own teachings and practices, their movement would immediately come to an end.

THE EMERGENT CHURCH

The third (if we count Warren’s reformation as a current replacement for Schuller’s) proposed reformation is that of the Emergent Church. In their case sola scriptura dies a thousand deaths. As we saw in the previous issue of CIC, Rob Bell denies it using the same arguments that Roman Catholics have used. The Emergent Church and its postmodern theology is noteworthy for being a non-Catholic version of Christianity that forthrightly assaults the type of use of the Bible that characterizes those who hold sola scriptura as the formal principle of their theology. The Emergent Church adherents reject systematic theology, and thus make using the principle impossible.

For example, defending the doctrine of the Trinity using Scripture requires being systematic. I have read many Emergent/postmodern books as I write a new book, and each of them attacks systematic theology in some way.

The Emergent Reformation rests on the denial of the validity of foundationalism.

Gone are the days when Christians debated the relative merits of evidential and presuppositional apologetics— debates based on the need for a foundation for one’s theology. Either one started with evidence for the authority of Scripture and then used the Bible as the foundation of one’s theology; or one presupposed the Bible as the inerrant foundation. But today both approaches are mocked for their supposed naïveté. To think that one can know what the Bible means in a nonrelativistic way is considered a throwback to now dead “modernity.” The Emergent mantra concerning the Bible is “we cannot know, we cannot know, we cannot know.” Furthermore, in their thinking, it is a sign of arrogance to claim to know. For the postmodern theologian, sola scriptura is as dead and buried as a fossilized relic of bygone days. So the Protestant (if the term even means anything today) world is characterized by reformations that have either rejected or compromised sola scriptura as the formal principle for their theology.No wonder few voices of concern are raised at Christianity Today’s proposed trip back to Rome to find beliefs and practices. Once sola scriptura has been rejected, there remain few reasons not to go back to Rome. If religious traditions can be considered normative, then why not embrace those with the longest history? DALLAS WILLARD LEADS US BACK TO ROME The cover of the CT article reads, “Lost Secrets of the Ancient Church.” It shows a person with a shovel digging up a Catholic icon. What are these secrets? Besides icons, lectio divina and monasticism are mentioned. Dallas Willard, who is mentioned as a reliable guide for this process, has long directed Christians to monastic practices that he himself admits are not taught in the Bible.15 Willard pioneered the rejection of sola scriptura in practice on the grounds that churches following it are failures. He writes, “All pleasing and doctrinally sound schemes of Christian education, church growth, and spiritual renewal came around at last to this disappointing result. But whose fault was this failure?”16 The “failure,” according to Willard is that, “. . . the gospel preached and the instruction and example given these faithful ones simply do not do justice to the nature of human personality, as embodied, incarnate.”17

So what does this mean? It means that we have failed because our gospel had too little to do with our bodies. The remedy for “failure” says Willard is to find practices in church history that are porven to work. But are these practices taught in the Bible? Willard admits that they are not by using an argument from silence, based on the phrase “exercise unto godliness” in 1Timothy 4:7. Here is Willard’s interpretation: Or [the possibility the phrase was imprecise] does it indicate a precise course of action he [Paul] understood in definite terms, carefully followed himself, and called others to share? Of course it was the latter. So obviously so, for him and the readers of his own day, that he would feel no need to write a book on the disciplines of the spiritual life that explained systematically what he had in mind.18 But what does this do to sola scriptura? It negates it. In Willard’s theology, the Holy Spirit, who inspired the Biblical writers, forgot to inspire them to write about spiritual disciplines that all Christians need. If this is the case, then we need spiritual practices that were never prescribed in the Bible to obtain godliness. Having determined the insufficiency of Scripture, Willard looks to human potential through tapping into spiritual powers: “It is the amazing extent of our ability to utilize power outside ourselves that we must consider when we ask what the human being is. The limits of our power to transcend ourselves utilizing powers not located in us—including of course, the spiritual—are yet to be fully known.”19 So evidently our spirituality is to be discovered by various means that are not revealed by God in the Bible. If the Bible is insufficient in regard to the spiritual practices that we need in order to become sanctified, where do we find them? Here is Willard’s solution:

“Practicing a range of activities that have proven track records across the centuries will keep us from erring.”20 This, of course leads us back to Rome. Catholic mystics spent centuries experimenting with spiritual practices without regard to the Biblical justification for such practices. If evangelicals are going to join them in rejecting Scripture alone, AGAIN they might as well not reinvent the wheel—go to the masters of mystical asceticism. Willard admires the monastics and suggests that solitude is one of the most
important disciplines. He says, “This factual priority of solitude is, I believe, a sound element in monastic asceticism. Locked into interaction with the human beings that make up our fallen world, it is all but impossible to grow in grace as one should.”21  If it is impossible to grow in grace without solitude, why are we not informed of this fact by the Biblical writers? In Willard’s mind sola scriptura is a false idea, so therefore God failed to reveal to us the most important way to grow in grace! Willard says that solitude is most important even while admitting that it is dangerous: But solitude, like all the disciplines of the spirit, carries its risks. In solitude, we confront our own soul with its obscure forces and conflicts that escape our attention when we are interacting with others. Thus, [quoting Louis Bouyer] “Solitude is a terrible trial, for it serves to crack open and bust apart the shell of our superficial securities. It opens out to us the unknown abyss that we all carry within us . . . and discloses the fact that these abysses are haunted.”22 This danger was shown by the early desert fathers, some of whom came under demonic torment in their solitude. Before following people whose practices are dangerous and not prescribed in the Bible, wouldn’t we be better off sticking to the safe ground of revealed truth?

SPIRITUALITY FOR THE UNCONVERTED

The fact is that the various ancient practices of the Roman Catholic Church are not unique to Christianity. The meditative techniques that make people feel closer to God work for those who do not even know God. Thomas Merton (who is recommended by Dallas Willard) went to the East to find spiritual practices. They work just as well for those who do not know Christ, probably better. Many ancient Roman Catholic practices were invented at times when many illiterate pagans were ushered into the church, sometimes at the point of a sword. Those pagans were not exactly the type to search the Scriptures daily in order to find the things of God. But why are literate American Christians running away from sola scriptura at a time when searching the Scriptures (especially using computer technology) has never been easier? On this point I am offering my opinion, butthere is good evidence for it. I believe that the lack of gospel preaching has allowed churches to fill up with the unregenerate. The unregenerate are not like “newborn babes who long for the pure milk of the word” (1Peter 2:2). Those who have never received saving grace cannot grow by the means of grace. Those who are unconverted have not drawn near to God through the blood of Christ. But with mysticism, it is possible to feel near to God when one is far from Him. Furthermore, the unconverted have no means of sanctification because they do not have the imputed righteousness of Christ as their starting point and eternal standing. So they end up looking for man-made processes to engineer change through human works because they have nothing else. Those who feel empty because ofthe “pragmatic promises of the church growth movement” as the CT article calls them, may need something far more fundamental than ancient, Catholic, ascetic practices.They may very well need to repent and believe the gospel. Those who are born of the Spirit will find that this passage is true: “His divine power has granted to us everything pertaining to life and godliness, through the true knowledge of Him who called us by His own glory and excellence” (2 Peter 1:3).

CONCLUSION

Perhaps the best antidote to rejecting sola scriptura and going back to Rome would be a careful study of the Book of Hebrews. It describes a situation that is analogous to that which evangelicals face today. The Hebrew Christians were considering going back to temple Judaism. Their reasons can be discerned by the admonitions and warnings in Hebrews. The key problem for them was the tangibility of the temple system, and the invisibility of the Christian faith. Just about everything that was offered to them by Christianity was invisible: the High Priest in heaven, the tabernacle in heaven, the once for all shed blood, and the throne of grace. At the end of Hebrews, the author of Hebrews points out that they have come to something better than mount Sinai: “But you have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem, and to myriads of angels, to the general assembly and church of the first-born who are enrolled in heaven, and to God, the Judge of all, and to the spirits of righteous men made perfect, and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Hebrews 12:22-24). All of these things are invisible. But the life of faith does not require tangible visibility: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Hebrews 11:1).

The Roman Catholic Church has tangibility that is unmatched by the evangelical faith, just as temple Judaism had. Why have faith in the once-for-all shed blood of Christ that is unseen when you can have real blood (that of the animals for temple Judaism and the Eucharistic Christ of Catholicism)?

Why have the scriptures of the Biblical apostles and prophets who are now in heaven when you can have a real, live apostle and his teaching Magisterium who can continueto speak for God? The similarities to the situation described in Hebrews are striking.

Why have only the Scriptures and the other means of grace when the Roman Church has everything from icons to relics to cathedrals to holy water and so many other tangible religious articles and experiences? I urge my fellow evangelicals to seriously consider the consequences of rejecting sola scriptura as the formal principle of our theology.

If my Hebrews analogy is correct, such a rejection is tantamount to apostasy.

END NOTES
1. Chris Armstong, “The Future lies in the Past” in Christianity Today,
February 2008. I wrote a critique of Armstrong’s article here:
http://www.christianworldviewnetwork.com/article.php/3174/Bob_DeWaay
2. Mark Galli, “Ancient-Future People” in Christianity Today February 2008,
7.
3. Armstrong, 24.
4. Robert H. Schuller, Self Esteem The New Reformation, (Waco: Word,
1982).
5. Ibid. 25.
6. Ibid. 38.
7. Ibid. 98.
8. I wrote an article some years ago about Schuller’s self-esteem reformation: http://cicministry.org/commentary/issue18.htm

Article from http://knowthetruth.servantsofjesuschrist.com/2008/04/30/why-return-to-rome/

"'More and more people want to see a common-good politics replace the politics of individual gain and special interests.' Wallis and communism go hand in hand. Communism has not been good for the safety and freedom of religion and human beings. Wallis is the harbinger of an altered Gospel to fit a marxist agenda. The Humanist Manifesto should not be the inspiration for Christians, but alas, it is inseperable to liberals. Be prepared for a mark on your right hand or forehead from Wallis soon. I do not trust this man."

Really? COMMUNISM? Regardless of your own political affiliations and how you feel about Jim Wallis, that's going a bit too far. I'll admit I was actually a bit shocked by seeing accusations of communism in 2008... perhaps I'm a bit too sheltered in my liberal university, but I've studied enough American Foreign Policy to be fairly confident that any threat of "communism" is way out in left field. Am I wrong?

On the other side of things, a lot of great CONSTRUCTIVE critiques have some up, too. Here is Al Mohler's conclusion:

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

Others purport that as followers of Christ this "identity crisis" is not actually bad for us... Jesus said that we would be despised by the world if we follow Him. On the flip side, Paul advocates adhering to Christian principles of behavior so as to make Christianity attractive to others. Still others say that as Christians we should abandon all political affiliations and "manifestos" and simply claim to follow Jesus only. (I call this the "I pledge allegiance to the flag Jesus" view, which I myself advocate.)

Anyway, it's been interesting to see the reaction, but also a bit discouraging to see how divided American Evangelicals are over things as simple as basic theology, e.g. the inerrancy of scripture. If Christians are divided, how can we reflect Christ to our neighbors and fellow Americans, let alone the world?

• Timothy George
  Dean, Beeson Divinity School, Samford University
• Os Guinness
  Author/Social Critic
• John Huffman
  Pastor, St. Andrew's Presbyterian Church, Newport Beach, CA
  Chair, Christianity Today International
• Rich Mouw
  President, Fuller Theological Seminary
• Jesse Miranda
  Founder & Director, Miranda Center for Hispanic Leadership, Vanguard University
• David Neff
  Vice President and Editor in Chief, Christianity Today Media Group
• Richard Ohman
  Businessman
• Larry Ross
  President, A. Larry Ross Communications
• Dallas Willard
  Professor of Philosophy, University of Southern California
  Author

The introduction to the project is also important because it clarifies motives, and there are three:

An Evangelical Manifesto is an open declaration of who Evangelicals are and what they stand for ...

As an open declaration, An Evangelical Manifesto addresses not only Evangelicals and other Christians but other American citizens and people of all other faiths in America, including those who say they have no faith. It therefore stands as an example of how different faith communities may address each other in public life, without any compromise of their own faith but with a clear commitment to the common good of the societies in which we all live together.

For those who are Evangelicals, the deepest purpose of the Manifesto is a serious call to reform—an urgent challenge to reaffirm Evangelical identity, to reform Evangelical behavior, to reposition Evangelicals in public life, and so rededicate ourselves to the high calling of being Evangelical followers of Jesus Christ.

The Manifesto tackles all three areas, with the identity section first, the call for reform second, and the "let's all get along" section third. OK, my characterization of the last section is simplistic. I wanted a nutshell way of referring to it, but it probably defies such paring. More accurately, the third section (second in their stated purpose in the intro) is to encourage openness and civility in discussion of faith or non-faith, as the case may be.

Yesterday I posted my initial three reactions to the Manifesto. I hope, at some point, you visitors here at A Christian Worldview of Fiction will take a look at the Manifesto for yourselves. It is beginning to create some stir—there are some 1300 blog posts on the subject already. Until then, here are a few more of my random thoughts on the content.

1. The Manifesto's "identity definition" flies in the face of post-modern thought that resists propositional truth. There are parts of the document that make me think this is purposeful.

2. While I applaud much of what the Manifesto intends, I see areas that I wish were ... more accurate, more Biblical.

And speaking of the Bible, one of the weak points is the watered-down statement of belief about the Bible. From the Manifesto itself, not the summary version (which is even weaker):

Fourth, we believe that Jesus' own teaching and his attitude toward the total truthfulness and supreme authority of the Bible, God's inspired Word, make the Scriptures our final rule for faith and practice.

Compare that to the statement about the Bible from the National Association of Evangelicals:

I. We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.

Or how about this statement from my church, First Evangelical Free Church of Fullerton:

The Scriptures, both Old and New Testaments, are the inspired Word of God without error in the original writings, the complete revelation of His will for the salvation of men, and the divine and final authority for all Christian faith and life.

Yes, the Manifesto states, in its round-about way, that the Bible is inspired and that it is authoritative. One could suppose that it implies the Bible is without error. But why the ambiguous language on such a pivotal point?

I mention this because I read one blog post in which the writer praises the Manifesto as needed since from his church experience he had not received clear teaching on "these seven foundational points," referring to the beliefs the Manifesto enumerates as part of the evangelical identity.

Granted, the Steering Committee probably wanted to choose wording that would allow believers with different shades of understanding to agree, but isn't that what started the slippery slide away from a clear understanding of evangelical—and more importantly of Christian (you knew I'd throw this in one more time, didn't you? ;-) )—in the first place?

OK, this post is much too long, and I have more to say on the subject. As always, I'm interested in your reaction, either to what I've spouted or to the original document that brought these ideas bubbling to the surface.

The document acknowledges right up front that no one can speak for all Evangelicals because Evangelicals have no centralized leadership.  Nevertheless, if this is what it means to be an Evangelical, I for one want to stay on board.  The document seeks to redefine what it means to be Evangelical, especially in opposition with those who would seek to align Evangelicals with the Republican party, or with conservatism, or reactionary-ism, or any other sort of -ism.  It calls for Evangelicals to focus on three things:  First, to reaffirm our identity as gospel-believing people above all other allegiances.  Second, to act out our belief in the gospel by truly loving our neighbors as ourselves, and not merely with lip service.  The document lists several crucial areas where this is particularly needed, such as moving toward multi-racial churches, rejecting the rampant materialism of the age, and renouncing anti-intellectualism.  Third, to work for a truly civil public square, rejecting the notion that individuals must leave their religious beliefs behind when entering the public arena, but also rejecting any attempt to force religious beliefs on others.  "Contrary to the medieval religious leaders and contemporary atheists who believe that 'error has no rights,' we respect the right to be wrong.  But we also insist that the principle of 'the right to believe anything' does not lead to the conclusion that 'anything anyone believes is right.'" (p.19)  Amen.

If we Evangelicals will accept this document, with all its challenges, it will take us a long way toward fulfilling the purposes of God in our generation.

One final observation is worth making.  I am surprised at the way the document ends.  No catchy slogan like, "Evangelicals of the world unite," or "Evangelicalism: the choice of a new generation."  Just two simple words:

The End.

     1.  I am Protestant rather than Catholic.

     2.  I do not belong to a mainline denomination.

     3  I am a conservative or traditionalist in my theological views rather than a liberal or modernist.

     4  I don't identify myself as a Fundamentalist, although I subscribe to the so-called fundamentals.

Here's what I want people to know about me as an Evangelical:

• I don't hate anyone.
• I am just an ordinary family man and nice guy.
• I don't consider myself better than anyone else.
• I care about people in need and help them with both time and money. 
• I don't want to force my views on anyone. 
• I like science and want it taught well.
• I don't want a theocracy.
• I don't like Rush Limbaugh very much.
• I like Ann Coulter but think she's a bit naughty sometimes.
• I haven't blown up any abortion clinics.
• I am pretty well educated and often read books with polysyllabic words.
• I have never burned a cross on anyone's lawn.
• I don't want to take away anyone's right to free speech.
• I want other people to respect my right to free speech.
• I have never beaten up a homosexual.
• I try to debate people civilly, although I'm sometimes too sarcastic.
• I'm willing to have my opinions challenged and have been known to change them.

One of the main reasons I don't like the two party system is that if you are a Republican, you follow these guidelines, and if you are a Democrat, you follow these guidelines. Traditionally, Christians have been known to be Republican, but I do like this surge of Christianity on the Democratic side, although there are some out there that would say they are not really Christians. That drives me nuts, because who is to say who is and is not a Christian? I know for a lot of people, it boils down to being a social conservative. That's great and all, but must we mix our social issues with issues like the economy, war, and etc.? When we lump them all together, we get stuck in this two party black hole.

I understand why it's good to be strong on these moral issues, but what if people do not agree with how to handle poverty or the war in Iraq? Then you're stuck. What do you do then? You have to weigh out what matters more to you, and I think that as a citizen of the United States, you really shouldn't have to do that. If somebody is a staunch Republican who has got their Biblical moral truths laid out, does that necessarily mean they have everything else together?

For example, let's say candidate A is pro-choice and candidate B is pro-life. Who would the Christian traditionally choose? Well the answer is mostly obviously, candidate B. But what happens if pro-life is the only thing candidate B has going for him or her? What if their economic policies would send the U.S. into a recession or if their foreign policy would make us vulnerable to being dominated? Then what? Do we still choose candidate B merely because they are pro-life? I fear that many Christians today would say yes, but then we are dooming ourselves in other areas. This is why the two party system doesn't work. Life is not black or white, red or blue, donkeys or elephants.

Sigh.... maybe this is just me. Am I being too pessimistic? Am I missing something? Please let me know what you think about all of this. Do you think we need the two party system or is it time to look for something else? I look forward to hearing what you guys think.

But of course, all is not right with the world. We seem to have an issue with religion in this country, with its place in public life, and with its place in public policy and the law. How does it fit into the system – and who is appropriately religious and thus qualified for high office? And should their faith be a key part of what qualifies anyone for high office? After all, the constitution explicitly bans any "religious test" for office (see Article VI).

But we have developed an informal test. You might have watched CNN's April 13 Compassion Forum:

Good evening, everybody, to our viewers in the United States and around the world. Welcome to Messiah College in Grantham, Pennsylvania. I'm Campbell Brown.

Tonight, we bring you something different in this already extraordinary campaign year. We are calling it the Compassion Forum, an evening with the Democratic presidential candidates to focus on the issues of faith and compassion and how a president's faith can affect us all.

They trotted out their qualifications. Each is deeply religious, just trying to do God's work here on earth, humbly, and in a non-threatening mainstream way. Obama had to explain his comment on how some bitter people "cling" to their religion, and Clinton had to explain she's not a mean dragon-lady, just a humble servant of God, and so on and so forth. They had to pass the test. They did, each is his or her way. One must jump through the hoops.

But things aren't that easy. Obama has his Jeremiah Wright, and must deal with the persistent efforts by the worried to convince others that he's really a Muslim. John McCain has his Reverend Hagee, the fellow who calls the Catholic Church "the Great Whore" and says Hurricane Katrina was God punishing New Orleans for scheduling a Gay Pride parade for the day the hurricane leveled the city. Another McCain supporter, the late Reverend Jerry Falwell, famously blamed 9/11 on "the pagans and the abortionists and the feminists and the gays" and threatened that it could happen again if "God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve." McCain says he disagrees with all that sort of stuff, but his "spiritual guide," Ron Parsley, keeps saying the United States was founded, really, to wipe out Islam (here's the video clip). You may think this is all nonsense, but people do take this stuff seriously.

It has always been so – from the Scopes Trial to Bush's government-funded Faith-Based Initiatives, with all the anger about prayer in public schools in between, we just cannot seem to work out the proper role for religion in government. Some of us persist in believing – given the documentation – that the United States was founded as something quite apart from religion – as a system of government by the consent of the people, no matter what anyone's faith, or lack of faith, might be. The idea was that religion might be nice and all that, but the Founding Fathers were, so to speak, working on a completely different matter – how to structure a system where everyone gets the three basics things that they deserve, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and no one gets screwed.

Religion just wasn't an issue, other than saying anyone could believe what they wished to believe – and that in and of itself is pretty much saying that, hey, we're working on something else here. In the recent controversy over display of the Ten Commandments, one Supreme Court Justice, Scalia, disagrees - Ten Commandments displays and government recognition of God descends from tradition, and that trumps that silly constitution with its specific text. And so it goes.

It never ends. See this, Philip Wentworth's 1932 article on how college destroyed his faith:

It is no accident... that the groups which are demanding ever more stringent laws to regulate our private lives are identical, almost to a man, with the religious groups in the population. It makes no difference whether they are Protestants clamoring for stricter enforcement of prohibition or Catholics agitating for stricter legislation regarding the dissemination of birth-control information. In both instances increasing pressure is being brought to bear upon government to take over the practical functions of religion - and for the obvious reason that religion, in its decay, is no longer able to do its work in the world.

That is via Andrew Sullivan, who offers it without comment. But it deserves a comment. Wentworth seems to be saying that religions, of course, can seem like a crock if they have to get the government to do their work for them – and maybe that is the problem. Our particular form of government wasn't designed for that. You don't drive to work in your toaster, or ask your cat for investment advice (maybe).

But there seems to be a big bloc of people who do want things to be as they think things should fundamentally be, and as God intended – and the government would be useful in making things as they should be. They have no doubt, and those that have different views, even slightly different views – those damned moral relativists – have not allowed themselves to see the Truth. On the other side, what you might call the secularists, you can easily fall into saying that because there may not be one Truth, well, there is no such thing as truth.

At the Pew Forum, Peter Berger – in a dialogue on "Relativism and Fundamentalism: Is There a Middle Ground?" – points out just how mad this all is:

Under modern conditions, where almost everyone lives in communities in which diversity has taken the place of consensus, certainty is much more difficult to come by. Relativism can be described as a world view that not only acknowledges but celebrates the absence of consensus. So-called post-modernist theorists like to speak of narratives; and, in principle, every narrative is as valued as any other. The moral end result of this world view can be captured by imagining a television interview with a cannibal. "You believe that people should be cooked and eaten. I certainly don't want to be judgmental, but the audience will be interested. Tell us more." (Laughter.) This is not all that fictitious.

Fundamentalists respond to the same situation of certainty-scarcity by seeking to regain absolute certainty about every aspect of their world view. No doubt is permitted. Whoever disagrees is an enemy to be converted, shunned or, in the extreme case, removed. The last two centuries of history have made it very clear that there are secular as well as religious fundamentalisms.

Both relativism and fundamentalism threaten the basic moral order without which no society, least of all a liberal democracy, can exist: relativism because it makes morality a capricious game, fundamentalism because it balkanizes society into mutually hostile camps that cannot communicate with each other.

And that doesn't even address the role of government. But you know what's coming next. See this Wall Street Journal item – conservative, fundamentalist churches, those which overly support the Republican Party and specific Republican candidates, and tell their parishioners that God wants them to vote in a very specific way, are challenging the IRS. They should be albe to keep their tax-exempt status:

A conservative legal-advocacy group is enlisting ministers to use their pulpits to preach about election candidates this September, defying a tax law that bars churches from engaging in politics.

Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz., nonprofit, is hoping at least one sermon will prompt the Internal Revenue Service to investigate, sparking a court battle that could get the tax provision declared unconstitutional. Alliance lawyers represent churches in disputes with the IRS over alleged partisan activity.

The action marks the latest attempt by a conservative organization to help clergy harness their congregations to sway elections. The protest is scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 28, a little more than a month before the general election, in a year when religious concerns and preachers have been a regular part of the political debate.

Of course, by law, they are exempt from taxes as the government is willing to do without the tax revenue as long as churches do what they do, and let the government do what it does. These folks are saying that this is unfair – they should be able to act as agents of the Republican Party, and of specific Republican candidates, and still not pay taxes. The argument speaks to both free speech and freedom to practice religion as they see fit. And if they say God wants Republicans in office, and Jesus wants their parishioners to vote for John McCain, why should they lose their tax-exempt status? They're just relaying what God wants, to their folks – no harm, no foul.

That's an interesting argument – but it may be coming far too late. See this from CNN - Religious Right Leaning Toward Democrats?

Trouble brewing:

For decades, evangelicals have been seen as solid supporters of the Republican Party. That could be changing.

The religious right, a cornerstone of the so-called Reagan revolution - the battle over abortion law, and gay marriage - wants a change.

At least some evangelicals do.

A group of influential Christian leaders are declaring they are tired of divisive politics, tired of watching fights over some issues trump all the good they could be doing.

Well, yes, leaders of the Religious Right recently signed this manifesto condemning Christians on the right and left for using faith to express political views without regard to the truth of the Bible. One Os Guinness (great name!) is really angered by all this, but some people are fed up. If George Bush is God's chosen one, something is wrong with that chosen-one concept. Perhaps God is profoundly uninterested in American politics – there are far more important things.

This rebellion of sorts – a movement to get the absurdly irrelevant Republican Party out of God's house – seems to be spreading. See this anecdote-filled item from the Seattle Times, fundamentalist Christians are leaving the Republican Party in droves – "I just keep thinking, if Jesus were alive now, he wouldn't necessarily be voting Republican."

The item notes no one is going over to the Democrats. It seems they're walking away from the secular. The Founding Fathers are smiling – if you believe they went to heaven and for some odd reason still follow things down here.

And the ironies abound. See the New York Times on the wedding of the president's daughter:

On Saturday afternoon, the Hager family hosted wedding guests at a barbecue in Salado. The wedding, which began at 7:30 p.m., took place on the Bush ranch, before a white limestone altar erected next to a man-made lake. The Rev. Kirbyjon Caldwell of Windsor Village United Methodist Church in Houston officiated at the ceremony. Mr. Caldwell, a longtime religious adviser to Mr. Bush, has endorsed Senator Barack Obama.

Ah – one can keep the two worlds separate.

Of course there will always be issues, like that Tampa-area public school firing a substitute teacher for doing a magic trick for his students:

The telephone call that spelled the end of Jim Piculas' career as a substitute teacher in Pasco County came on a January day about a week after he performed the disappearing-toothpick trick for a group of rapt middle school students.

Pat Sinclair, who oversees substitute teachers in the Pasco County School District, was on the phone. She told Piculas there had been a complaint about his performance at Rushe Middle School in Land O' Lakes.

He asked what she meant. "She said, 'You've been accused of wizardry,'" Piculas said.

Say what? Witches and Wizards – there's a problem for Christians, or not:

Piculas said he replied, "I have no idea what you're talking about." He said he also told Sinclair, "It's not black magic. It's a toothpick."

See Steve Benen:

Oh sure, it's a toothpick today. But what about tomorrow? What will we tell parents when a substitute teacher starts trying to do spells? Or shows kids pictures of Willow from "Buffy the Vampire Slayer"? Or accidentally turns someone into a newt? Hmm?

As Piculas - who, as far as I know, is not a warlock - explained it, he got a call after doing his trick from the head of supervisor of substitute teachers. "He says, 'Jim, we have a huge issue, you can't take any more assignments you need to come in right away,'"

Benen has more detail – it's all quite mad, or deadly serious, depending on your point of view. We may never get this business about religion and government straightened out.

I’m glad to be part of this panel for a variety of reasons: first, because I get to serve with esteemed colleagues and world-changers at the table; second, because the Statement that we’re responding to is an important one; and third, because an Asian American has been invited to the table to bring an Asian American perspective—not the Asian American perspective, as if there is such a thing, but one perspective—namely, mine, who happens to be Asian American.

As a short aside to the topic at hand, I do find it curious when cultural diversity in America is talked about or called upon, that Asian Americans are more often than not left out. Diversity in America remains predominantly a black-white issue. And increasingly, Hispanic Americans have been invited, but Asian Americans not quite yet. For example, the title of this particular presentation [which this panel discussion follows] was “African-American, Hispanic, and White Evangelicals: Can They Come Together on Politics?” And I was on the planning committee!

I’m not sure this exclusion is legitimate in light of the rapid growth of Asians in America. According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, 10,242, 998 Asians and 1,655,830 mixed race people with Asian blood live in the United States. This does not include Pacific Islanders, which if you add them/us, balloon up to almost 17,000,000 Asian and Pacific Islander Americans. There are over 4,000,000 of us Filipinos alone running around the country (as we continue our quest to take over the world)! It is projected that the Asian and Pacific Islander population will double by 2030.

There are a few theories floating around in my head as to why Asian Americans are not readily included in diversity discussions despite their numbers, and maybe we’ll get into it here a little. For now, let me just say that it is an honor to bring an Asian American perspective to this panel and to this Conference.

And not just an Asian American perspective, but an evangelical Asian American perspective. 26% of the Asian community in the United States profess a Protestant faith, the largest percentage, with Catholicism at a close 20%. Of the Protestants, most Asian Americans identify with evangelicalism.

“For the Health of the Nation” – Random Thoughts from an Asian American Perspective

Strengths
•    The Statement works toward consensus in the midst political diversity in the evangelical community
•    It provides biblical basis for civic engagement, and affirms the Bible as the source from which we as Christians derive norms
•    It calls for humility, civility and integrity amidst political differences
•    Pledges allegiance first and foremost to the kingdom and then America. I find the statement, “As Christians we confess that our primary allegiance is to Christ, his kingdom, and Christ’s worldwide body of believers, not to any nation,” particularly promising to include people of color, including, of course, Asian Americans.
•    (Related to the last bullet) the Statement acknowledges the contribution of the worldwide Christian community in enriching American political life with the sentence, “We invite Christians outside the United States to aid us in broadening our perspectives on American life and action.”

Weaknesses
•    There was no wiggle room with regard to different perspectives on violence; the Statement seemed to adopt the just war principles wholesale with no regard to those who may think differently about the role of force in bringing about change. The People Power Revolution of 1986, for example, told us Filipinos and really the whole world, that indeed non-violence can work to change political realities. So to appreciate diversity in this area in the document would have been more consistent with the nature of the document as a whole.
•    There were also no developed thoughts on the church as the social conscience of the nation. The idea of community in the Asian mind, generally speaking, is central; so language of Christian community as a change agent in the larger community seemed lacking in the document.
•    Racism seemed buried under “We Work to Protect Human Rights;” but the “health of the nation” depends on how we deal with racism and therefore should be more prominent. In fact, it should be a free-standing principle alongside the other principles—something like: “We Seek Racial Equality and Work toward a Fully Integrated Society.” And include the last paragraph under Human Rights, expand the proposed section also to include what it means to be “hospitable to strangers,” i.e., immigrants. And add a specific example from the Asian-American experience in the paragraph: Choose from the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, the banning of Filipinos coming to America in 1934, the infamous relocation of Japanese Americans into camps during WW II, etc.
•    Lastly, there was limited distribution/visibility of the document on the grassroots level. Evangelical laypeople and clergy alike know very little to nothing about this Statement. And it is too important to be discussed solely in the ivory towers of the NAE. Let’s get this document in the hands of local congregations.

Overall, the Statement has the potential to bring diverse evangelical political camps together, and if the issues of race and ethnic diversity were lifted up, people of color would feel more welcomed to join the convergence.

• Newsweek cover story on Obama's upcoming battle with McCain.
• New SUSA Poll has Obama up 54-43% in Oregon, a 5-point bounce since last poll.
• House GOP's new slogan is already used by an antidepressant drug: "The Change You Deserve."
• New WaPo/ABC Poll. Obama leads McCain by 51-44%. Elected someone age 72 is a problem for 39% of voters, while electing a woman is a problem for 16% and an African American, 12%. As for the old Rev. Wright thing, 60% of all Americans and 73% of Democrats think Obama handled it just "right." And almost forgot, Obama leads Hillary 53-41%.
• Obama goes on the offensive against McCain on climate change as McCain tries to refashion himself as green to woo independent voters.
• Brilliant Move by Obama in WVA Today. Frank Rich wrote yesterday that the GOP's biggest mistake has been treating this election as if it were framed by the same old polarized divisions of the 1970s or '80s. It is a different time and many of the voters of that era are now in their sixties and seventies. Obama recognizes where we are. In WVA today, in front of an audience of Vietnam veterans, he denounces how many in the Sixties were unfairly critical of the soldiers who returned from Vietnam. He makes it clear that it was wrong and should not be repeated. Obama was born in the Sixties - he wasn't a part of that time - and he is not going to be a captive of those old debates.
• Daily Tracking Polls. Obama maintains 10-point lead in Rasmussen, 52-42%. Gallup shows biggest Obama lead since mid-April, 50-43%.
• McCain's Campaign Run by Lobbyists for Communists, Military Dictators and the Oil Monarchy that Gave Us Osama Bin Laden. In the wake of the resignation of two lobbyists for the Burma's military junta from McCain's campaign, the New York Sun examines how other lobbyists with senior leadership positions in McCain's campaign are paid lobbyists for China (Charles Black, his senior adviser) and Saudi Arabia (Thomas Loeffler, his co-chairman). So McCain is calling for a gas tax holiday while his campaign managers are representing Saudi's best interests? Is that because a gas tax holiday will stoke demand for gas? Such questions are relevant when you have these conflicts of interest.
• Drip, Drip, Drip. Rep. Tom Allen (D-ME) endorses Obama. Since last Tuesday's primaries in NC and IN, Obama has picked up 20 superdelegates to Hillary's net of 1.5 (after taking into account several switchers) -- that may not be a "flood" as McAuliffe defines it, but a net gain of 18.5 delegates in any primary contest would be a landslide. UPDATE: Obama now up +4, with the endorsements of a DNC official, Senator Akaka (D-HI) and the Idaho State Democratic chair (I believe it's a wicker).
• No More Fear Factor. Democratic politicians on the Hill and state and local offices no longer fear Hillary -- a key turning point that is evident in sharper public criticisms of the Clintons and endorsement switches to Obama.
• Former Rep. Bob Barr (R-GA) to declare himself a Libertarian candidate for president. Presumably any votes for Barr would otherwise be votes for McCain, not Obama. While it's unlikely he'll have a material impact in many states, it's always possible that in a particular swing state, he could cost McCain a victory. There is a faction of the GOP that despises the Bush/Cheney neocon-"imperial executive" approach to governance, and yet many of these voters would be unwilling to vote for Obama. To the extent McCain continues to sell himself as a Bush third term on the neocon agenda, Barr gives these folks an alternative (even if it is a symbolic protest vote).
• "Vino" Fosella's (R-NY) troubles grow worse by the day. First was the DUI, then the illicit affair and love child, and now word that the feds are investigating his possible use of taxpayer funds for questionable trips abroad. He took an expensive "fact-finding" trip to France alone ("Let's see, is France still there? Check."), which is unusual for a Congressional junket, and there are questions about whether he was joined by his mystery woman.
• Hillaryland confirms it's at least $20M in debt. The campaign has already disclosed it owes Mark Penn $12M and Hillary $11.4M (to repay her loans) -- that's $23.4M. The actual total could easily be over $30M in debt.
• Howard Kurtz gives a lengthy profile on the zen master of the delegate count, Chuck Todd.
• WaPo looks at McCain's enviromental record, which he plans to play up to woo independent voters, and finds it mixed at best.
• Ben Smith looks at Hillary's grim options.
• Novak: McCain has a real problem with the evangelical Right.
• Word of the day for Democratic voters who threaten to cross party lines if the candidate they like doesn't win the nomination: pissenfranchised.
• Oops! New Hillary ad uses newspaper clipping of "TrooperGate" scandal. TrooperGate involved allegations that Arkansas state troopers were told to find "liaisons" for then-Governor Bill Clinton. Is this what happens when you don't pay your vendors?
• House GOP - Double Agents for Obama? House Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-MO) acknowledges that McCain is running for "Bush's third term", and adds with no sense of irony the Seinfeldian qualifier, "There's nothing wrong with that!"
• Hillary leading in West Virginia and Kentucky by huge margins.
• Missouri among 19 states looking for "proof of citizenship" as a voting requirement to protect America from the likes of geriatric nuns who might destroy our democracy.
• NY Times looks at Karl Rove, Stephanopoulos and other former pols who, in a revolving door similar to the lobbyist game, join the ranks of MSM TV punditry.
• Politico: Obama acting like the nominee. He will be in Missouri the night the WVA returns come in -- telegraphing a focus on the general election battle.
• Could the GOP's dominance in the South be coming to an end?

This is awful news for those of us who love Dottie Rambo and her music.  She was a wonderful part of the large Southern Gospel music family, and has brightened our home with her music for years.  Her songwriting was nothing short of incredible.  Rambo has had more than 2,500 published songs, including gospel classics such as "He Looked Beyond My Fault and Saw My Need" and the 1982 Gospel Music Association Song of the Year, "We Shall Behold Him."

Dottie was on her way to a singing event in Texas when 50mph winds blew her bus off the road into a ditch in Missouri.  Dottie was sleeping in the back lounge when the accident occurred.   She was active in the role of changing hearts in our society.  It was a role she never strayed from.

Last Thursday Dottie performed in Wisconsin Rapids.  We had planned months ago to see her Wisconsin show, but with the high cost of gasoline, and not wanting to travel back home at night, we did not attend. 

She had many rocky moments in her life, but never seemed to forget that she traveled life's road with a most trustworthy friend.  Her message of hope was transmitted through her music, and as many have described, her ability to pen a song was nothing short of a gift.

Gospel singer-songwriter Joyce "Dottie" Rambo died early Sunday when the bus she was in ran off a road in southwest Missouri and struck an embankment.

Rambo, 74, of Nashville, Tenn., died in the crash about two miles east of Mount Vernon on Interstate 44, the Missouri State Highway Patrol said. Seven other people in the bus were injured, and were hospitalized in Springfield with moderate to severe injuries, the patrol said.

It was unclear if the accident, which occurred about 2 a.m., was weather-related, the patrol said. Severe storms and tornadoes hit the region about 6 p.m. Saturday, killing 14 people. Sustained winds and storms swept through the area later in the night, according to the National Weather Service. 

"She was a giant in the gospel music industry," said Beckie Simmons, Rambo's agent. "Dolly Parton recorded some of her songs."

She was on her way to a Mother's Day performance in Texas, according to her Web site.

Below is one of my favorite ones she wrote and sang.

Technorati Tags: DottieRambo, SouthernGospelMusic, GospelMusic

Even the evangelicals are coming out for Obama - so will that offset the "White - hard working "white" Americans?

It would seem so as they are the very Reagenites that Obama will need for him to take the swing states.

The religious right, a cornerstone of the so-called Reagan revolution -- the battle over abortion law, and gay marriage -- wants a change.

At least some evangelicals do.

A group of influential Christian leaders are declaring they are tired of divisive politics, tired of watching fights over some issues trump all the good they could be doing.

"Our proposal in [our] manifesto is to join forces with all those who support a civil public square. ... a vision of public life in which people of all faiths -- which, of course, means no faith -- are free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faith," said evangelical leader Os Guinness.

We will certainly have to wait until after W Virginia - but that could be the out for her, she could take the massive she is going to get and bow out on a high.

Well that's what I think will happen - again, we will have to see. Let's just hope that they, too, want a change in the US as much as Obama does - and it could be that Washington is going to see a man who wants to make that change.

My criticism that I still have of Obama - his healthcare solution. Americans need a proper system - maybe the Christian right will be Christian and push him in that direction - but the Christian right are, after all - Pro-Life AND Pro-war.

A group of influential Christian leaders are declaring they are tired of divisive politics, tired of watching fights over some issues trump all the good they could be doing.

"Our proposal in [our] manifesto is to join forces with all those who support a civil public square. … a vision of public life in which people of all faiths — which, of course, means no faith — are free to enter and engage public life on the basis of their faith," said evangelical leader Os Guinness.

Wow. You mean we should all get together, ignore faith (and political)-based divisions, and talk about the good that can be done though ones respective faith? Gee golly, that sounds like something that Jesus guy would have liked.

The photo is from yesterday's twister in Oklahoma. We have relatives there who deal with this all the time. A storm like this carries incredible power to rearrange a landscape and change lives. As powerful as this twister was, the power of unconditional love and forgiveness is even greater.

Several times a year my mother will report that her fellow churchmen question: Why don't we have 'the power'? The Power they're looking for is the power to lay on hands and a person is healed, delivered, or whatever is needed by the seeker. It would also be The Power to raise people from the dead. Frankly, when I die just let me go on and rest in Jesus arms---don't be calling me back. That's just me, and I need to get back to what I intend to say in this blog.

In my opinion The Power is only two things: unconditional love and forgiveness. From there you'll be able to witness the nine visible attributes of Fruit of the Spirit from Galatians 5:22-23: love, joy, peace, patience, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness and self-control. There's no law against these, and people will be able to identify you as a follower of Christ because of these attributes.

Warning! Unconditional love is very difficult, but it's something that Satan cannot copy. He can't copy forgiveness either. And that's The Power...this power might not be able to raise a dead person, but it's the power that will transform a broken heart, heal a dispute, or resurrect a family.

I live in The South, and as the weather changes we experience tornadoes all spring and fall. I've seen hundreds of after-the-storm interviews on television. The only thing that matters to any of those being interviewed is that their family and friends made it out okay. After the storm it isn't the gold Cadillac or the Prada shoes that matter.

Once we're living with Jesus and can look back on this life we'll see how important relationship is and wonder why we didn't move quicker to reconcile. In the hereafter it won't matter what "Sister Susie" thinks. It will only be about how much we did in forgiving and giving grace to the extent that it hurts.

So this Sunday in church think about the richness of relationship. Think about the person in your life who isn't there anymore because of an "ought"---Bible term to mean "we got mad and haven't made up yet." As you reach out to them, forgive and restore, then The Power will come like a tidal wave.

He suggested, however, that Christians were partly to blame for the prevalence of modern atheism, which was a product of a "distorted kind of Christianity".

"What did we do to generate unbelief? We need to examine what we might have done to give people a misleading idea of God. Faith in Britain might be improved by a deeper grasp of the mystery of God on the part of our believers." 

It is the "what did we do" part that I find the most interesting.  It appears as though there is a growing realization amongst church leaders that the world has become almost largely secular, and that this may have been something that was actually caused--at least in part--by Christian behavior.  It goes back to the classic:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.
(Gandhi)

Has this message finally gotten into the heads of church leaders?  Will there be a new wave of Christians who stop being so insular and actually reach out in charity and Christian spirit.  Perhaps.  I am not holding my breath, especially concerning the Evangelicals.  But I am definitely finding this discussion interesting.

This reminded me of what the Lord looks for in each of us. It isn't about acts and actions. For example, a person can bake pies for everyone in the country, but if their heart is full of evil then they don't reflect the love of Jesus. They are only a good pie maker. Let's get past the pie to the scripture: I Samuel 16:7---But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not consider his appearance or his height, for I have rejected him. The LORD does not look at the things man looks at. Man looks at the outward appearance, but the LORD looks at the heart."

The problem with the religious people of Jesus time was they looked at outward appearances. Jesus was always about what is in a person's heart. Therefore, the secret things we hide aren't really a secret from God. And I'm amazed at how many church plum lines are all about appearances. Possibly it's because you can't see the heart, and it makes it real difficult to get a fix on motives and desires of a person. As well, when we only consider what's in the heart, then we have to "leave it up to God." We serve a big God who managed to create the entire universe and arrange redemption without our help.

I've heard there was a man named Starr Daily who was in prison---in solitary confinement---and was considered to be a sociopath; a man who would never be rehabilitated. From what I'm told Jesus appeared to this man in prison, and within a short time he was released and went on to write books and speak at Christian camps. While I have only heard this, and in part it might be an urban legend, I can speak for my brother-in-law's experience.

My brother-in-law lived a fast life. A cocaine addict who was the body guard for a dealer in a large US city. After they were all busted and he ended up in jail, Jesus appeared to him on night, and he was immediately delivered from drugs. He's stayed on a fixed path toward Christ these 25 years. The best testimony comes from his daughter who visited with him for two weeks every summer when she was a child. The year she came to see him after he became a Christian, there was such a change in his life that she committed her life to Christ---and her mother's home was not Christian.

Jumping back to the top and where I started this blog as it relates to my book, And You Invited Me In---in our conservative Christian effort to convert the world and beat Jesus into people, we overlook the fact that he doesn't need us. However, he uses us...and that would be as loving examples of forgiveness and unconditional love. Or the things that are inside the heart.

Your "fellow brother of major good works" might be a person with a heart of evil intent. Therefore, we can't assume that certain groups are lost or don't know Jesus just because their life is different from ours. As Protestants we can't assume Catholics are going to hell. As straight people we can't assume that gay people are going to hell.

First we can't assume---God never mentions anything about assumptions on the "to do" list. Second we have to work on ourselves and that will take a great deal of time. Next, we have to rewire our thinking to understand that the power comes from forgiveness and unconditional love....and this is where I will stop for tonight, more tomorrow....

Since this is a political year in which guilt by association is fair game; And since Barack's former pastor has been the constant grist of the last two months of the media cycle, can we please give equal time to the colorful cadre of religious charlatans that John McCain elects to share the stage with? For instance, Rev Rod Parsley of Columbus' World Harvest megachurch. He has some very interesting thoughts on American history and our national duty to slay the infidels. All this guy needs is a limp and cave.

In an impressive display of solidarity, intelligence, and single-mindedness, a group of Evangelical leaders recently drafted “An Evangelical Manifesto” which attempts to “address the confusions and corruptions that have attended the term Evangelical” and “to clarify where we stand on issues that have caused consternation over Evangelicals in public life.” The document was officially announced and released in Washington D.C. on May 7.

It’s a breath of fresh air at a time when the term “Evangelical” is coming under assault both inside and outside the church. In contrast to many of the “emerging church” folks who are ready to abandon the much-maligned term, this group is holding fast to the E-word: “We boldly declare that, if we make clear what we mean by the term, we are unashamed to be Evangelical and Evangelicals” (notice the capitalization of Evangelical). On the other hand, the document strongly repudiates the hyper-politicized nature of contemporary Evangelicalism, hoping to expand the concept of “Evangelical” beyond the social issues (abortion, gay marriage) that have preoccupied it in recent years (at least in the perceptions of the media).

Among the 80+ signers of the document are Os Guiness, Richard Mouw, Kelly Monroe Kullberg, Mark Noll, Ron Sider, Miroslav Volf, and Duane Litfin (President of my alma mater, Wheaton College). Notably absent are several evangelical stalwarts like Gary Bauer, Tony Perkins, and James Dobson, who likely were not comfortable attaching their name to a document so critical of the evangelical right’s militant engagement in the culture wars.

I’m happy to sign my name to the document, and I did.

It’s a beautifully-written piece of prose, a comprehensive and timely articulation of how the Church can unite and thoughtfully proceed in this rapidly changing culture. It’s full of great ideas and great passages, so I urge you to read through the whole thing. Here are some of my favorite parts of the 19 page document:

• “Contrary to widespread misunderstanding today, we Evangelicals should be defined theologically, and not politically, socially, or culturally.” (4)
• “To be Evangelical, and to define our faith and our lives by the Good News of Jesus as taught in Scripture, is to submit our lives entirely to the lordship of Jesus and to the truths and the way of life that he requires of his followers, in order that they might become like him, live the way he taught, and believe as he believed.” (5)
• “The Evangelical message, “good news” by definition, is overwhelmingly positive, and always positive before it is negative. There is an enormous theological and cultural importance to “the power of No,” especially in a day when “Everything is permitted” and “It is forbidden to forbid.” Just as Jesus did, Evangelicals sometimes have to make strong judgments about what is false, unjust, and evil. But first and foremost we Evangelicals are for Someone and for something rather than against anyone or anything.” (8)
• “Evangelicalism should be distinguished from two opposite tendencies to which Protestantism has been prone: liberal revisionism and conservative fundamentalism.” (8)
• “To be Evangelical is earlier and more enduring than to be Protestant.” (10)
• “We confess that we Evangelicals have betrayed our beliefs by our behavior. All too often we have trumpeted the gospel of Jesus, but we have replaced biblical truths with therapeutic techniques, worship with entertainment, discipleship with growth in human potential, church growth with business entrepreneurialism, concern for the church and for the local congregation with expressions of the faith that are churchless and little better than a vapid spirituality, meeting real needs with pandering to felt needs, and mission principles with marketing precepts. In the process we have become known for commercial, diluted, and feel-good gospels of health, wealth, human potential, and religious happy talk, each of which is indistinguishable from the passing fashions of the surrounding world.” (11)
• “All too often we have disobeyed the great command to love the Lord our God with our hearts, souls, strength, and minds, and have fallen into an unbecoming anti-intellectualism that is a dire cultural handicap as well as a sin. In particular, some among us have betrayed the strong Christian tradition of a high view of science, epitomized in the very matrix of ideas that gave birth to modern science, and made themselves vulnerable to caricatures of the false hostility between science and faith. By doing so, we have unwittingly given comfort to the unbridled scientism and naturalism that are so rampant in our culture today.” (12)
• “We call for an expansion of our concern beyond single-issue politics, such as abortion and marriage, and a fuller recognition of the comprehensive causes and concerns of the Gospel, and of all the human issues that must be engaged in public life. Although we cannot back away from our biblically rooted commitment to the sanctity of every human life, including those unborn, nor can we deny the holiness of marriage as instituted by God between one man and one woman, we must follow the model of Jesus, the Prince of Peace, engaging the global giants of conflict, racism, corruption, poverty, pandemic diseases, illiteracy, ignorance, and spiritual emptiness, by promoting reconciliation, encouraging ethical servant leadership, assisting the poor, caring for the sick, and educating the next generation.” (13-14)
• “Called to an allegiance higher than party, ideology, and nationality, we Evangelicals see it our duty to engage with politics, but our equal duty never to be completely equated with any party, partisan ideology, economic system, or nationality. In our scales, spiritual, moral, and social power are as important as political power, what is right outweighs what is popular, just as principle outweighs party, truth matters more than team-playing, and conscience more than power and survival. The politicization of faith is never a sign of strength but of weakness.” (15)
• “Our commitment is to a civil public square — a vision of public life in which citizens of all faiths are free to enter and engage the public square on the basis of their faith, but within a framework of what is agreed to be just and free for other faiths too. Thus every right we assert for ourselves is at once a right we defend for others.” (17)
• “We utterly deplore the dangerous alliance between church and state, and the oppression that was its dark fruit. We Evangelicals trace our heritage, not to Constantine, but to the very different stance of Jesus of Nazareth. While some of us are pacifists and others are advoca