Please
let us know any ideas you have for how
to improve the service. January 31 2005 | NY
Times analyses Moyers' and other liberals' misreading of Christians First
Hillary and now the New York Times sounds conciliatory toward evangelical
Christians. Do we here have a vast left-wing conspiracy amakin'? If
so, may it's tribe increase.
January 30 2005 | Silicon
Valley public school reluctant center of schools religion controversy Steven
Creek School teacher Stephen Williams reminds us of the thousands of first-through-third-century
Christians who chose martyrdom rather over silence for their testimonies for Christ
in the face of legal restrictions against so speaking up. Williams is no doubt
paying for his stand, and will continue to do so in professional terms, And
when I read the unsupportive reaction of a colleague, "a Stevens Creek fifth-
and sixth-grade teacher for nine years and herself a Christian," I remembered
for the first time in some years some of the prophetic words of Francis
Schaeffer about Christians, when persecuted in the Christian-despising society
of post-modern times, preferring "peace and safety" over the way of
the cross. What is the place of "nice" on your
hierarchy of values? One can only imagine the actions school
officials would have taken had a teacher defended homosexual lifestyle or paganism.
January 29 2005 | 'Christianophobia'
is being touted as new name for persecution of Christians Nor
is it necessary to go to third-world countries to observe this latest pathology.
January 28 2005 | Human-animal
hybrid 'chimeras' latest challenge facing bioethicists Brave
New World meets Animal Farm.
January 27 2005 | Another battery
of tests on Turin Shroud finds it older than reported in 1980s The
outcome of tests on the Shroud of Turin, though interesting, isn't earthshaking
news. And as for significance, the most I find in this is that scientific research
is not to be trusted. Especially when it's researching "religious" subjects.
Not news to us, but we hope it may be to others.
January 26 2005 | Christianity
Today critics pick the 10 'most redeeming' films of 2004 Okay,
it was a slow news day. And okay, this is the Christian
News and MEDIA Portal.
January 25 2005 | Senator Hillary now
appeals to abortion supporters, opponents: 'find common ground' At
Roe v. Wade 25th anniversary event.... Campaign 2008 getting
into high gear early.
January 24 2005 | NO UPDATE
TODAY Our Internet access, SBC/Yahoo,
was offline again, c. 30 hours.
January 23 2005 | Tumult
over Christian groups' opposing sexual agenda behind kids' video In
general, the story linked today has been one of the most widely published and
discussed on cable news outlets for several days, but nearly always reported from
the side of the producers of the "We Are Family" video rather than those
opposing the alleged pro-homosexuality agenda in its supporting literature. The
approach in the Reuters story linked above is an exception. It lets the
American Family Association and Focus on the Family represent their own case.
On the other hand, the
Associated Press coverage, leading with a ludicrous claim which it in turn
calls ludicrous even though the AP never produces any evidence that the claim
was made by any of the groups mentioned, takes the left perspective and, through
innuendo and insinuation rather than factual reporting, makes the left subversives'
case for them. Of course all adults should be tolerant of
homosexuals (regardless of how they regard gay sex practices), but to tell children
who still think the opposite sex "has cooties" that same-sex experimentation
and play is normal and disapproved only by bigots and religious neanderthals is
certain to implant in the minds of many children the idea that they may miss something
if they don't experiment with gay sex or accept the first invitation from a pedophile
that comes their way. I repeat every time this subject arises:
"Sexualizing children is always wrong. Let them be children. Seducing their
minds by introducing concepts they're not ready for is just as immoral as physically
seducing them." Here are links to
The
American Family Association Journal article on the video and its educational
background literature
and
the Focus
on the Family position statement. If you see anything here that calls Spongebob
Squarepants gay, or even suggests such a thing, please let
me know.
January 22 2005 | Good
news from a reluctant source: 'TV has become more conservative' I
think I saw every episode of LA Law (the locations were the top—but
not the only—attraction) and most of the first several seasons of NYPD
Blue. But week to week it devolved one step after another until finally I
tuned it off and have never tuned it in again, probably more than five years ago.
TV may be more conservative (whatever that means) now than two years ago, but
thanks to the likes of Bochco (and the industry is full of "likes" of
him), far less so than 10 years ago. For most of my life I was a diehard sitcom
fan; now I might watch Everybody Loves Raymond if it didn't leave me nothing to
watch for the half hour after it. Other than that, there's no still-in-production
sitcom that's not too disgusting to watch. As Bochco says, there's no putting
the genie back.
January 21 2005 | Sen.
Clinton supporting faith-based social programs, 'faith in public square' As
expected, Mrs. Clinton is emphasizing her right profile in a bid to gain wider
support for her Presidential aspirations among Democrats and party-uncommitted
voters. And of course the current President's inauguration eve is not too soon
to start the next campaign.
January 20 2005 | Advertisement
for a Bible edition deemed 'not hip enough for Rolling Stone' Of
course any privately owned advertising medium has the right to determine its own
standards. I'd never accept condom, booze, tobacco or gambling-related ads in
anything I published. But just as legitimately, Christians have the right
(perhaps the obligation) to view this as another attack, another instance of persecution,
a rejection of Christ and a renewal of His crucifixion by those He loves.
January 19 2005 | Killing
of Christian family, targeted by Islamists, ignored in most news media When
silence means consent...to murder.
January 18 2005 | Yet another
public school district sued for denying academic freedom Your
tax dollars at work...to deny your rights and shut you up.
January 17 2005 | 'Taxonomy
of Christians in 21st-Century America has value'...barely
Balderdash is the most apt modifier for most of what's in this
essay. None of the categories in Robinson's taxonomy are new to anyone who's been
observing American religion since 1940, at least. And to imply that there's some
connection between "fundamentalism" and embracing technology ("broadcasting...?"
Ooooo, how modern! How progressive!) is either intentionally obfuscating the realities
or completely missing them. Modernity, which fundamentalists, almong with all
official doctrinal bodies in Catholicism and Orthodoxy and at lease sizeable minorities
in even the "mainline," Protestant bodies, refers to the Enlightenment
strands of thinking which add up to: "science can save us; science will have
to save us, because the myth of god has been disproven and thrown onto the ash
heap of civilization and has no power to do so." That's the only modernity
that fundamentalism and any other biblically based Christian religion opposes. But
this piece still "barely" has value, as typical of what Christians and
those interested in what Christianity is about will be asked to swallow if they're
gullible enough. Frankly, the slotting of the various categories in Robinson's
six-member taxonomy is much better served under the two labels of "liberal
and progressive" and "conservative and orthodox." January 16 2005 | 'Freedom From
Religion' group wins suit to stop faith-based funding
Applications now being taken. Christians need not apply. January 15 2005 | New rules
for religion in China are called just a rehash of the old ones
The Eastern left points the way for the West's. January 14 2005 | The bad
news: in key moral measures, evangelicals are no more moral
Very sobering findings from credible studies. January 13 2005 | President
Bush discusses the role religion plays in his administration
However, Mr. Bush said that unlike many Christians,
he does not think that faith is under attack by culture at large and points to
the "backlash" against attempts to further secularize the public square
as proof.
I guess it depends on how you defend "culture."
Or maybe it depends on how powerful you think the Presidency is in or over our
culture? The secularists came within a hair's breadth of taking us spiralling
down in November and their core groups have only redoubled their efforts to defeat
Christianity in public life since then. Scroll down and click to the two previous
months' links for the corroborating evidence. Eternal vigilance
is the price of liberty. —Wendell Phillips January 12 2005 | Former
bishop preaches the death of God: the liberal (humanist) 'gospel'
Rarely do we get so frank and honest an opening of the liberal
mind. I don't doubt that the International Herald Tribune (a New York Times
newspaper) published this as a confession of its own faith and that of all elitist
media (and liberal establishments) of the world. January 11 2005 | Gallup
finds significant 'values' disparity between Canadians, Americans
I see no rational difference between "the Bible is the actual
word of God and is to be taken literally, word for word" and "the Bible 'is the
inspired word of God but not everything in it should be taken literally.'" Obviously,
to take every word of the Bible "literally" would mean no one doing so could own
more than one outer garment and I know of no denomination or preacher that teaches
Luke 6:29 that literally (or even the first, "turn-the-other-cheek,"
clause of the same verse, for that matter). Or maybe I don't know the meaning
of "literally," but if I don't I doubt that one in a hundred of the thousand surveyed
in each country would have a clearer understanding of it. So I discount the lead
premise of this article. In what sense is the Bible less "authoraitative" if it's
the "inspired" instead of "actual" word of God? I would say that it is actually
inspired, but that still doesn't have anything to do with "literalness." Historically
accurate, factual, infallible, and never fictitious yes, but literal...no. The
linked article is informative on other issues, however, especially abortion and
"gay marriage." As goes Canada, so goes the United States? Not especially, but
if both Canada and Western Europe go this way (as they are), the left in the United
States will be pushing harder and harder to make us also abandon biblical morality.
We've already lost so much of that in this generation that it's not hard to believe
we'll continue tilting ever-farther into the abyss the left has prepared for us.
January 10 2005 | A theologically
liberal voice joins the criticism of The Da Vinci Code novel
This isn't the first time that the principle, "the enemy
of my enemy is my friend," has helped facilitate communication. January 9 2005 | NY
Times analysis: religion increasing worldwide, but not fundamentalism
Goodstein's arbitrary attempt to define fundamentalism, evangelicalism
and Pentecostal movements is ludicrous. For example, her claim that fundamentalism
is against secularism and modernity could just as well be said of Catholism and
Orthodoxy, neither of which are ever cited as "fundamentalist" in the
literature so far as I've known. And I've ever known any Pentecostal who does
not stress biblical inerrancy and the other Protestant "fundamentals." On
the other hand, Martin Marty and Philip Jenkins are qualified observers of movements
in the history of Christianity worldwide and as the main sources of this article's
thesis, are worth paying attention to. And I agree with Marty's assessement that
the stock of fundamentalism, within American Christianity, is not a good investment.
Even the one-time self-declared champion of American fundamental Protestantism,
Jerry Falwell, is sounding more "evangelical" and less separatist all
the time. But why and how I think this is another topic not within the time constraints
of today's comments. January 8 2005 | PBS
station cancels program, alleging Christian bias of its producers
So let me get this right. Pretending to be unbiased is
fine for virtually all of PBS' programs, from the virulent anti-Christianity of
Bill Moyers on down, but being honest enough to admit a bias disqualifies any
program for broadcast on the network? More evidence that PBS is not deserving
of tax support or contributions of people who love truth and the Lord who called
himself The Truth. January 7 2005 | Christianity
Today delves into why millions of 'believers' opt-out of church
Though many reports on the phenomenon of evangelical Christians
becoming Orthodox (like me) focus on the trappings and pagaentry luring them,
the truth more often is that the converts are former evangelicals—one-time
"commonsense individualists"—who realized that church was never intended
to be easy or fun, any more than the way of the cross has ever been, but it is
necessary, and part of that necessity is a long obedience to an even longer tradition
of the believer's life in Christ. The linked long article is an excellent treatment
of this post-modern form of graceless (or at least grace-eschewing) religion.
Tim Stafford's concluding question, "How can you enjoy the benefits of Christ
if you detach yourself from the living Christ?" says it all. January 6 2005 | Scientists,
philosophers, theologians look at parallel universe theories
Food for thought. January 5 2005 | Slate review:
God's Politics presents the leftist agenda as Christian
It seems to me that the so-called Christian right approach to
political activism is correct, and therefore truly "right," whereas the "Christian
left" (I put in quotation marks because I suspect it's an oxymoron) approach is
the really theocratic one. The Christian right, as I understand it, is not asking
for government control of all aspects of the economy and the totalitarian interference
in everyday life that would entail, nor does it want to exercise power over others
who don't agree with them, but rather prefers persuasion in order to encourage
individuals, including corporate and political leaders, to be charitable toward
the poor and needy and to be able to thrive in a free marketplace. But when the
very foundation of the culture—the family as attacked by the gay marriage/civil
rights movement, and the culture of death fostered through abortion on demand—when
this is threatened it will use any Constitutional means necessary to prevent further
erosion of our moorings. The Bible is full of god-fearing believer-warriors,
so even if the left's portrait of President Bush has validity, he is in ancient
good company. Further, the charge that the President calls all or even most of
his adversaries eviloers is fatuous; it is terrorists who destroy innocent lives
in civilian attacks rather than acts of war that he has labeled evildoers, a position
that most American Christians and other people of goodwill support. Obviously,
if the left had been able to come up with a better plan to prevent further such
terrorist acts (not that the current plan is perfect, flawless, or even free of
dangers, but at least it seems to be working thus far) if they had such a plan,
Kerry, not Bush, would be getting inaugurated as President this month. But the
American left has offered nothing but bitter cynical criticism and power-envy
to supplant the powers the electorate—and, pray, God—has chosen. January 4 2005 | Theological
ethicists speak on the implications of the tsunami disaster
These questions are inevitable whenever disasters occur, and so
are the press wrap-ups. Any death raises the same questions in the minds of those
most closely affected and the answers are also the same. "As he went
along, [Jesus] saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who
sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' 'Neither this man nor
his parents sinned,' said Jesus, 'but this happened so that the work of God might
be displayed in his life'" (John 9:1-3). January 3 2005 | Professor:
what's behind leftists' attacks on Christians over Christmas
Some claim that America's public schools virtually created today's
version of Christmas by putting it into the curriculum to teach art, music, cultural
values, and to promote harmony among denominations and between Protestant and
Catholic pupils. Is it then beyond ironic that the same institution now seems
bent on destroying Christmas in particular and Christianity in general? And
which will destroy which? January 2 2005 | Churches
accommodating 'pigskin parishioners' with games on premises
What are your priorities? January 1 2005 | 'If
there's no God to blame for Tsunami, United States must be behind it'
Common sense down under. |
