Dr. Albert Mohler concludes his series on the Emergent Church and has some tough questions for members of the movement. But he also has some tough words for evangelicals as well:
Contemporary evangelicals face the responsibility, not only of becoming conversant with the Emerging Church, but of continuing a conversation about what this movement really represents and where its trajectory is likely to lead. Some of the best, brightest, and most sensitive and insightful individuals from the younger evangelical generation have been drawn to this movement. Undoubtedly, they have much to offer in terms of legitimate criticism of mainstream evangelicalism. The evangelical movement is far too immersed in pragmatism, experientialism, consumerism, and anti-intellectualism. Evangelicals seem only too eager to provide evidence of cultural isolationism and an eccentric grasp of cultural priorities.
Dr. Albert Mohler has begun a series in his daily commentaries entitled What Should We Think of the Emergent Church that will be worth following closely. For anyone who has heard the term "Emergent Church" but didn’t know what to make of it will want to read Dr. Mohler’s series.
There is some great analysis on yesterday’s hair-splitting decisions from the Supreme Court on the 10 Commandments. Paul Mirengoff of Powerline examines some of the legal reasoning in these cases. Hugh Hewitt says that long-time court watchers were not surprised by the decisions. George Will looks at the historical context of the Establishment Clause to reveal the absurdity of the Court’s decisions. Finally, Dr. Albert Mohler says in his commentary today that the decisions reveal the Court’s increasing hostility towards religion, specifically Christianity.
The Supreme Court today issued it’s long-anticipated ruling in McCreary County vs. ACLU which dealt with whether displaying the 10 Commandments in a public building such as a courthouse is constitutional.
While the display was disallowed in the case before the Court, the justices determined that some displays (such as the one in their own court) are constitutional while others are not. The Court, rather than providing a clear guideline for such displays, said that they needed to be evaluated on a case by case basis.
This will probably continue to be a contentious issue until the Court provides clear guidelines on what constitutes an appropriate display under the Establishment Clause. It’s a safe assumption the ACLU use this ruling as a springboard for intimidating other governments to remove their 10 Commandments displays.
Hat tip: Stones Cry Out
Warhurst told WND the committee members appeared to agree with the statements presented in the "Whereas" section of the resolution, but didn’t believe the denomination should take the step of encouraging its 350,000 members to pull their children from government school.
The pastor said he couldn’t figure out how committee members could agree that children should have a Christian education but then oppose the resolution.
According to Warhurst, those voting against the measure thought it was "inappropriate for the General Assembly to recommend that children be removed from the public schools, that it is better handled at the presbytery level and the local church level."
The latest hot topic in the blogosphere is speculation about the impending resignation of Supreme Court Justices. Bill Kristol writes in the Weekly Standard that it’s Sandra Day O’Connor who will be the first to resign and President Bush will nominate Alberto Gonzales to the Court. Hugh Hewitt, in an interview with Kristol yesterday on his radio program, said that Chief Justice William Rehnquist would resign on Monday. (Hat tip: Confirm Them)
I’m sure our normal readers all believe they know what stance I am going to take on both of these issues, but I may surprise you.
Veil of Deception: The Impact of Same Sex Marriage on American Youth is a DVD from www.missionamerica.com, a Christian organization whose goal is to "cover the latest cultural and social trends in our country and what they might mean for Christians."
Discolsure: I am reviewing this particular DVD as part of the Mind & Media network of reviewers, who are given books and other media by publishers in exchange for an honest review on their site.
Having just began reading Total Truth, it is amazing to see the insights that Nancy Pearcey brings in the first couple of chapters.
I had never noticed how so much of the world seeks to seperate the spiritual from the natural and present us with two versions of “truth.” This plays out in so many of today’s debates whether it is gay marriage or intelligent design.
Researchers at the Austrian Academy of Sciences altered one gene in a female fruitfly, and she began avidly sexually pursuing other female fruit flies. Pro-gay advocates are hailing this as proof that homosexuality is not a choice, but genetic in origin, and therefore, natural and normal.
I have yet to find any conservative scientific examinations of this study, but let me make the following comments:
The persecuted church is one of my passions and I look forward to seeing updates from around the world at this blog.
If you do not already, log on to Voice of the Martyrs website – persecution.com and sign up to receive their free weekly e-newsletter. You will hear heartbreaking stories of Christians being tortured for their beliefs as well as heartwarming stories of Christians overcoming all odds to share their faith.
Sometime this week the normal MTV’s TRL scene will take place – A musician will come in to premeire their video, dozens of teenagers will be screaming, the hosts will give them “mad props” for their new song, but this time it won’t be so normal.
Nick Cannon is showcasing his new song entitled “Can I Live?” and it is anything but the normal TRL fare.
Matthew Fox, the well-known Creation Spiritualist, has a new book out entitled A New Reformation (not available on Amazon yet). In it, he lists what he considers 95 "truths" that he thinks the church should return to, or emphasize. They are worth a look, even though they are laregely panentheistic and non-orthodox. Here’s my take on his claims.
Just came across this post which reviews the new book, Destructive Trends In Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm. The authors argue that, rather than being guided by science, groups like the APA are being guided by political pressures, among other things. And while not from the conservative right, they seem to want to protect psychology from the undue political pressures, mostly from the left. Here are some interesting quotes on my favorite subject, gay recovery therapy:
"In the current climate, it is inevitable that conflict arises among the various subgroups in the marketplace. For example, gay groups within the APA [American Psychological Association] have repeatedly tried to persuade the association to adopt ethical standards that prohibit therapists from offering psychotherapeutic services designed to ameliorate "gayness" on the basis that such efforts are unsuccessful and harmful to the consumer. Psychologists who do not agree are termed homophobic. Such efforts are especially troubling because they abrogate the patient’s right to therapist and determine therapeutic goals. They also deny the reality of data demonstrating that psychotherapy can be effective in changing sexual preferences in patients who have a desire to do so." (From the introduction, page xxx, emphasis added).
"Although the APA is reluctant or unable to evaluate questionable practices and has thus avoided addressing the issue of best practices, this did not prevent its Council of Representatives in 2002 from stampeding into a motion to declare the treatment of homosexuality unethical. This was done with the intent of perpetuating homosexuality, even when the homosexual patient willingly and even eagerly seeks treatment…Vigorously pushed by the gay lobby, it was eventually seen by a sufficient number of Council members as runaway political correctness and was defeated by the narrowest of margins…Although the resolution was narrowly defeated, this has not stopped its proponents from deriding colleagues who provide such treatment to patients seeking it." (From Chapter One, by Nick Cummings and William O’Donohue, pp. 17-18).
Be sure to read the entire review at crosswalk.com.
Here’s the next Schiavo-like pro-life case, but probably not as controversial (we’ll see). A 17-week pregnant woman has become brain dead, and they are keeping her alive at least until her "fetus" is 25 weeks old.
You can read about it at the Susan M. Torres Fund site, and you can donate to help with their medical bills and such.