When the Susan G. Komen Foundation made a decision to defund Planned Parenthood, they knew they'd be kicking a hornet's nest of controversy. But when they decided to essentially reverse their decision, they stuck their entire leg in the nest. They've been pummeled by "hornets" on both sides now, and they'll doubtlessly be feeling the fallout--financial and otherwise--for years to come.

I've never been skiddish about being pro-life. I believe abortion is a terrible social ill, and one of the clearest illustrations that human beings are depraved down to our cores. I've also worked to find common ground with pro-choice advocates, supporting increased support for unwed mothers, higher adoption incentives, and greater access to contraceptives. There is much progress to be made in promoting the common good both with communities who hold my position and among those who don't.

Yesterday, Christianity Today, a pro-life, evangelical publication released a handful of articles discussing the Komen controversy from a pro-life Christian perspective that gives fellow believers much to chew on. I've decided to point interested readers to these pieces.

First, Albert Mohler, President of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary wrote, "It's not Easy Being Pink." He focused on Komen's reticence to be forthcoming in their motivations for making such a controversial decision.He draws on Reinhold Niebuhr's insistence that moral ambiguity is not moral innocence, and holds that this was a terrible moral failure in addition to a PR mistake.

"The organization lacked the confidence to stand on moral grounds and deny the funding because of Planned Parenthood's involvement with abortion," he says. "Instead, it tried to finesse the issue by adopting a policy that, on its face, was really not about Planned Parenthood at all. The ruse did not work."

Second, Matthew Lee Anderson of Mere Orthodoxy wrote, "The Politics of Breast Cancer." I love and respect both Matthew and his writing (his book, Earthen Vessels, is a fine theology of the body that I recommend to you), but I found myself disagreeing in varying degrees with his assertions that 1) health care is inherently political, 2) there is no common ground on this issue, and 3) the culture wars are still raging, but in hibernation. Perhaps I am wrong, and he is right. Read his article and decide for yourself.

Third, Russell Moore, Dean of The Southern Baptisti Convention, penned, "The Pink Ribbon and the Dollar Sign." I found his article stunningly brilliant due to his characteristically gospel-centered approach and fresh perspectives. Moore turns the argument back on readers by showing how greed is at the root of this problem, and the malady infects all of us. The issue is placed into proper perspective and Jesus is raised up when he says,

"Let's stop highlighting how God "blesses" the millionaire who tithes. Let's stop trumpeting the celebrity football players and beauty queens as evidence of God's blessing. Let's show that God has blessed us in a Christ who never had a successful career or a balanced bank account, but who was blessed by God with life, and with children that no one can number, from every tribe, tongue, nation, and language."

Finally, journalist Mollie Ziegler Hemingway wrote, "The Komen Fiasco's Silver Lining." I found her piece refreshing for a reason that exceeded the strong content. Too often Christians discuss this issue from a male perspective, excluding the voices that are most intimately connected to the issue itself. Of course, Christians are guilty of excluding women from many conversations, but the reasons for inclusion here are great. I say "kudos" to Christianity Today for allowing a woman to weigh in, but perhaps this should have been three women and one man rather than three men and a lady. I digress.

Mollie provides the other side of the Komen controversy in her article, offering several points I'd not considered. For example, she notes that Planned Parenthood's lack of mammogram services have been exposed. The public now has a better picture of what exactly Planned Parenthood is up to, and the answer is providing abortions.

Take a look at the articles, and then let me know what you think of this controversy by leaving comments below.

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

In the recent past, it sometimes seemed that evangelical leaders were only concerned with a handful of hot button issues--namely, abortion and gay marraige (with religious liberty often thrown in for good measure). But recently, this brand of Christians seem concerned about a whole range of issues including poverty, fiscal responsiblity, healthcare, and care for creation. The former are still impotant issues in their thinking--as well they should be--but they aren't the whole of it.

The results of a new survey conducted by The National Association of Evangelicals (NAE) confirms this shift. It asked evangelical leaders what they perceived to be the most important issue facing America in 2012. According to an NAE press release, the number one response was economic recovery including reduction of poverty, unemployment, taxation, and reducing the naitonal debt. Foreign policy was "a distant second," with the threat of a nuclear Iran doubtlessly on the front of many leaders' minds.

The results weren't surprising, says NAE President Letih Anderson, because the whole country is focused on the same issue. Additionally, evangelicals recognize that the economy touches many other issues about which they're concerned: “Our leaders understand that a poor economy negatively interacts with many other issues that evangelicals care about including the growing disparity between the rich and poor, adequate health care, marriage, immigration reform, national security and abortion.”

Other answers given included political polarization, the role and size of the government, health care reform, environmental concerns and sex trafficking. The survey was open-ended (often the best kind), and the broad range of answers illustrates how the today's evangelicals' faith is informing their thinking on a wide array of political issues.

Here's a question: What do YOU think is the most important political issue of 2012?

Editor's Note: The picture above is from the opening rally of the 1964 National Association of Evangelicals in Chicago.

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

The Super Bowl halftime show was popularized by Michael Jackson in 1993, scandalized by his sister Janet in 2004, and brutalized by Tom Petty in 2008. Next to the game itself and, of course, the commercials the mid-game concert will be the most anticipated event of Sunday evening. Madonna will perform this year, a decision that’s received mixed reactions from critics and musicians.

But what if you could spend halftime sitting with your friends and watching something worthwhile. Would you be interested?

The Adoption Journey has released a short video featuring former NFL Super Bowl-winning NFL coach Tony Gungy talking about the orphan crisis. A free downloadable video kit is available online.

“With more than 100,000 children in need of a stable and loving family in the US, if just a fraction of groups gathering to watch the Big Game influence just one family to adopt, we would make a huge dent in this social crisis,” said Marc Andreas, Vice President of Marketing at Bethany Christian Services, the largest adoption agency in the country.

Check out the video, let me know what you think, and consider playing it during your party’s halftime.

Super Bowl Winning Coach Tony Dungy Halftime Video for AdoptionJourney.org from Adoption Journey on Vimeo.

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

I've been critical of my denomination, The Southern Baptist Convention, for engaging the public square in a way that is overly partisan and reactive. Christians can engage politics in a way that is constructive, thoughtful, and promotes the common good. This week, the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission (ERLC) of the SBC made me proud to be Southern Baptist.

In a collaborative video released by the ERLC, the Palmetto Family Council, and the Humane Society of the United States, the issue of cockfighting is addressed in a way that is both non-partisan and distinctly Christian.

As Richard Land of the ERLC says when the video opens, "We do not have the right to treat living things as if they were inanimate objects. We do not have a right to cause them needless pain for frivolous reasons such as our entertainment." He points out that violence against animals contributes to the coarsening of our culture and violates the commands of the Christian Scriptures. Land rightly calls cockfighting a "pornography of violence" and adds, "I would defy anyone who defends cockfighting to say that they would take Jesus to a cockfight."

Watch the video below and then leave comments/reactions.

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

The following piece appeared today in The Christian Science Monitor.

Last week, ahead of the South Carolina primary election, 114 evangelical leaders gathered in Texas to determine which GOP presidential candidate they would collectively endorse. The Christian right vanguards voted 85 to 29 to anoint Rick Santorum. As it turns out, their constituency wasn’t listening.

Two-thirds of voters in the South Carolina primary described themselves as Evangelical or born-again Christians according to exit polls. Yet 44 percent of Evangelicals voted for Newt Gingrich while Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum – the chosen evangelical candidate – nabbed 21 percent each.

Turns out that Evangelical heavyweights like former Focus on the Family president James Dobson, Gary Bauer of American Values, Tony Perkins of Family Research Council, and others no longer have the uniform sway over Christian voters en masse. This marks a dramatic shift in the movement – with far-reaching implications for American political contests to come.

KEEP READING...

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

When my copy of Common Prayer: A Liturgy for Ordinary Radicals by Shane Claiborne, Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove and Enuma Okoro arrived, I was struck by the intentionality of its physical make-up. The cover was wrapped in off-white linen with a debossed cross in its center, the pages were beautifully laid out and marked for each day or the year, and a silky, shiny page-marker dangled from the bottom. When I finally began to search out the book's contents, I found that they were equally intentional and beautiful.

Each day begins with the same short prayer:

O Lord, let my soul rise up to meet you
as the day rises to meet the sun.
Glory to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit,
as it was from the beginning, is now, and will be forever. Amen.

Equal parts brevity and profundity, this prayer is a perfect way to begin each day by focusing my heart on God's glory. Following these words, every entry also features a short psalm for reflection and some suggested scripture readings. Nearing the bottom is a brief quote from or story about a great Christian from history and then a final prayer to close.

Raised a low-church Baptist, I've never embraced liturgy. Heck, I've never even brushed up against it. But I've found my recent encounter--however brief it may be--both refreshing and uplifting. As I pray and reflect through this book, I'm reminded of a whole community of believers who join me in the endeavor. I'm also reminded of those persecuted Christians who aren't able to carry a book like this in public for fear of reprimand or imprisonment.

Common Prayer has sold beyond expectations, and the hefty tome has started something of a movement. The paperback pocket edition has just released, and will be no doubt welcomed by a Christian marketplace hungry for spiritual vitality. Given the impact on my life and in many others', I decided to interview co-author Jonathan Wilson-Hartgrove on the project:

JM: Prayer compilation books usually have a hard time gaining traction in the marketplace. Why do you think people have connected so much with yours?

JWH: A lot of prayer books are devotional reading--excerpts from other books to read for a season or every day of the year. I'm sure those books are good news to some people. I know my granny always kept a book like that on the back of her toilet.

But Common Prayer is different. This is a book that grew out of discipleship communities and a book that draws users into community. It introduces you to a new "we" and gives you a way to pray with the global God movement that longs to become the church we pray for.

JM: People are talking about how this book has created a "movement." What does that movement look like?

JWH: I'm part of a community of Christians who live, eat, and pray together at the Rutba House. This book grew out of the need that communities like ours have for a common life of prayer. But it's been fascinating--inspiring, really--to see how this way of praying is creating a new community. We've heard from folks all around the world who are gathering in small groups or even using the prayers individually, but with the knowledge that they're part of something much bigger than themselves. We're uniting in prayers that don't just make us feel better, but prayers that challenge us to live better. We're devoting ourselves to remembering the saints--not to create monuments, but to live in our own time the life of Christ that they embodied in their time.

JM: What is your favorite prayer in the book and why?

In the new pocket edition, I love the bed time prayer. It's called "compline" in the liturgical tradition. But this prayer has a quote from Oscar Romero that I think of often. It's about our identity as people who've been claimed by God's movement. It says, "We are ministers, not messiahs. We are prophets of a future not our own."


JM: Can you share a story of how this book has changed someone's life or altered the way they pray?

JWH: We've heard so many. People write or call to say thanks, and they end up sharing some of the most intimate parts of their lives. I think about the elderly couple who said, "We've never been able to pray together in our marriage, but this has made it possible." Or the young woman who said, "I posted on Facebook that I was excited about this prayer book and I found out I had a neighbor who was using it too. Now we meet and do morning prayer together." Finding one another, they've found community. We have several friends in prison who have the book and pray with us at 8am, when we gather for morning prayer here at the house. One of them wrote from solitary today to say how glad he is to know he's not alone.

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

I began a writing series of posts some time ago to all the aspiring writers who may happen upon this blog. Part one addressed the need for preparing oneself, part two spoke of the need to hone one's craft, part three taught on the importance of reading to the art of writing, and part four focused on the importance of relationships. In the fifth installment, I'd like to address the act of storytelling.

Tip #5: Tell a Good Story

The inspiration for this post comes form a speaking engagement I had over the weekend. I was asked to speak on the necessity of storytelling, something about which I'm most passionate. During the past two years, I've been doing consulting work for authors who are writing a book but need assistance to get over the hump. Within a few hours of our first meeting, I often find that the author has a strong idea but lacks the ability to tell a good story. This flaw won't kill you in the pulpit or boardroom, but it turns fatal when it hits the page--a space where a captive audience doesn't exist.

As a writer, I've learned that the key to creating a social movement, the key to penetrating the hearts of the masses, the key to sharing the vision pulsating in one's heart is learning to create, tell, and invite people into a good story.

Deep down we all know this is true.

Imagine I were to ask you think of a good story you've heard in the last few months--perhaps a bedtime story you told your child, a moving film, or a side-splitting joke--and then I were to ask you to think of a good statistic or fact you've heard recently. Which came easiest? For most of us, the story arrives on the scene long before the stat or fact.

Why?

Because great stories stick to us like fly paper. They can haunt or thrill, shock or stir. They connect with our emotional cores and shake up our insides. And yet, so often, writers spend most of their time talking about strategies or techniques. While the latter are important, the former is indispensible.

Peter Guber, chairman of Mandalay Entertainment whose films have garnered more than 50 academy award nominations, writes in Psychology Today,

The need for narrative is embedded in our brains .... In four decades in the movie business, I've come to see that stories are not only for the big screen, Shakespearean plays, and John Grisham novels. I've come to see that they are far more than entertainment. They are the most effective form of human communication, more powerful than any other way of packaging information.

If you want to become a writer, you must believe you have something to say. And if you have something to say, you'll need to learn to package those ideas in a way that penetrates the hearts of readers. I agree with Guber: the most powerful way to do that is to learn to tell a good story.

Here are a few practical pointers I've picked up that many of the authors I've worked with seem to overlook:

1. Good Stories Have a Distinct Audience

Any endeavor you engage in must first answer this question: Who is this intended to reach? The failure to answer this question and write to an indistinct audience is one of the most common errors that writers make. It's like shooting an arrow without picking a target. The arrow will sail into the air, and on occasion graze something by accident, but you'll never hit the bullseye.

Remember this: If you try to write to everybody, you'll end up writing to nobody, but if you try to write to somebody, you'll end up with a product for anybody.

So who is your audience? Who is your product attempting to reach? How old are they? Are they educated? What do they like to do? What are their fears and perceived needs?

2. Good Stories Have a Clear Message

Daniel Pink in A Whole New Mind says that every story must have a clear message. Let's say you want to write about the global water crisis (since that seems to be the issue everyone loves right now). You could google some statistics and string them together with a couple strong quotes and interesting turns of phrases. Your piece might even float (pun intended) using this approach. But perhaps you tried another approach. Perhaps you went to Uganda and looked a needy child in the eyes. You saw and smelled and tasted and touched the problem. After the experience, you flew back to America and typed a piece about the issue while wiping tears off your laptop. Either piece would seek to acheive the same thing, but the latter would be far clearer and more compelling.

Remember this: There is a chasm of difference between a good action plan and an action plan wrapped in a good story. Find a single message, and wrap that message in a moving narrative.

Many authors I know have messages they want to share, but few have a single message. As a result, their books often seem quilted and schizophrenic. Too often we fail to develop what writers call a "unifying theme" for our projects. This is the plumbline, the standard, for determining what stays in the manuscript and what goes.

Despite all of her faults, no one perhaps grasped this point better than Oprah. The talk show host planted her flag in the soil early on. Her message was to help others live their best life. She covered a range of topics and shared many stories over the years—from weight loss to inspiring transformations to literature she believed in—but her team always held their show proposals against this standard. As a result, she inspired millions, developed an ironclad following, and created one of the strongest, clearest, most recognizable brands of the last fifty years.

What is your message? What is that one thing that you want your project to say or accomplish?

3. Good Stories Have a Compelling Plot

What separates a good story from a bad one or even mediocre one? The answer is plot.

Many types of stories exist that can be effective, and I would encourage you to research various structures. With limited space here, I will just share one with you: the hero's journey. This type of story is explained in Joseph Campbell’s book, The Hero with a Thousand Faces. Campbell note out that the hero's journey spans across all cultures throughout all history and contains the same basic recipe. It’s the most popular story structure that has withstood the test of time. It has three parts: departure, initiation, and return. You’ll find this in Homer’s Odyssey, the story of Buddha, Huckleberry Finn, even The Hunger Games.

In this type of story, someone goes on a journey and is changed in some way. Once they return, they find themselves on a mission. If you take a mission trip and it changes your life, you can tell this type of story. If you participate in an inner city project and you experience something new, you have this type of story. If you lived more than a few years of life, you can probably tell this type of story.

Have you found a story with a great plot for your current project? Do you have a strong framework in which to structure that story?

I've not always told great stories in every piece I've written, and of course, in a world of deadlines it may not always be possible. But my work is slowly evolving. As it changes, I'm conforming to these principles more and more. If you want to be a writer, you should to.

But there is a starting point to all of this, something we’ve been assuming. That is, that you have a story to tell. I can teach authors how to write a better sentence, but I can’t teach them to have something to say. And many people can’t tell a good story because they aren’t living a good story. If you don’t have a story, I might advise you to place your work aside for a moment and go live the right kind of story first. Witness the thing you want to address with your own eyes, touch it with your own fingers, let the smell of it fill your nostrils. Make sacrifices for it—the kind that hurt.

Then, you’ll be ready.

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

This week at Cross Pointe, we were blessed to have Scott Williams speak to our people. Scott is a former prison warden and campus pastor at Lifechurch.tv. He is also author of a great book, Church Diversity: Sunday the Most Segregated Day of the Week. I've included a chapter on race in my new book, A Faith of Our Own, and will be teaching a 7-week "faith and race" class at Cross Pointe beginning next week. I believe it is one of the most pressing conversations that the church should be having. Scott addressed this topic better than any modern speaker I've heard.

When he began his talk, Scott shared a spoken word video with us that I found especially compelling. Unlike some spoken word videos I've seen that amount to bad theology and even worse poetry, this video is moving and contains much truth. Take a look and see what you think:

Diversity's Symphony from Emanate Media, Samson Varughese on Vimeo.

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

Ted Seuss Geisel (known by most as Dr. Seuss) has impacted millions of children through his stories and illustrations. I am among them, and because you clicked on this link, I'm guessing you are one too. I remember sneaking into a quiet corner in my elementary school library and catapulting into the dreamlands he created.

For more than 50 years of his professional life, he sold more than 200 million books that resulted in a Peabody award, the Pullitzer Prize, and several academy awards and emmys. When he died in 1991, the world assumed we'd heard the last of him. But the world was wrong.

A collection of long lost stories from Dr. Seuss has now been published. The tales in this book are as spectacular as his previous works. In fact, his final hoorah impressed me so much, I decided to review The Bippolo and Other Lost Stories for Paste Magazine.

READ IT NOW, and let me know what you think. Especially if Seuss has made an impression on your life.

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

Note: The following piece is an excerpt from an article that originally appeared in Relevant Magazine.

On April 16, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. sat quietly in a Birmingham City Jail cell. He had been arrested during a non-violent protest against the racial segregation of downtown retailers organized by the Alabama Christian Movement for Human Rights. While confined, King penned his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” which was smuggled out of the prison in a tube of toothpaste.

“Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue,” King wrote. “It seeks so to dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored.”

The now-famous letter by the civil rights paragon expressed what has become a often cited rationale for civil disobedience. King stated that one has a moral obligation to break unjust laws when efforts to change those laws are unsuccessful. The oppressor never offers freedom voluntarily, he argued, but rather the oppressed must demand it.

But, is it ever right for Christians to disobey the law, and if so, when?

Continue reading . . .

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

The phrase "change the world" has become so overused (particularly by well-meaning believers in my generation) that it has nearly lost it's meaning. But last night, when I was speaking at a dinner for Bethany Christian Services, I asked the question: "Could orphan care change the world?" Not in the buy-a-tshirt-and-a-pair-of-toms-shoes way, but in a tangible, global way that bestows on that phrase the meaning it deserves. I concluded that "yes" it can change the world, and I told one story that seems to support this thought:

On February 24, 1955, Stephen was born in San Francisco to an unmarried mother named Joanne Simpson. Joanne was a graduate student at the time and had concluded that her life was just too hectic to raise a child. She was faced with a decision that millions of pregnant women must make every year both in America and around the world: she would either have an abortion or she would bring the child to term and put him up for adoption. After giving the decision much thought, Joanne chose the latter and a handful of months later, she gave birth to her son.
 
Stephen was almost immediately adopted by an accountant named Clara and a machinist named Paul, two parents that would provide a loving home for him. Stephen would go on to graduate from Homestead High School in Cupertino, California and attend only one semester at Reed College in Portland, Oregon. For the next 18 months, he spent his nights sleeping on a friend’s floor and spent his days returning empty coke bottles for the 5 cent deposit and dressed up as characters from Alice in Wonderland in a San Jose mall for $3 an hour.
 
But in 1974, Stephen’s fortune changed. He would become a designer for the video game giant Atari where he would create one of the most popular games of the era, Breakout. He would stay there for two years before leaving to start a new computer venture with two friends. They chose a simple name for their company: Apple.
 
Today, the late Steve Jobs is considered one of the greatest creative minds of the modern era. Many cultural observers place him among the ranks of innovators such as Thomas Edison in terms of his contribution to the way humans live their every day lives.
 
At work today, some of us used an Apple computer or iPad. On our commutes over we listened to music downloaded on iTunes and played through our car stereo speakers by our iPod. Many of you have an iPhone sitting in your pants pocket right now. You’ve enjoyed memorable moments with your children while watching the latest film from Pixar, a company Jobs founded that pioneered computer animation. He was executive producer of Toy Story, one of the most beloved children’s films of the last twenty years.
 
Even though, by all accounts, Steve Jobs never came to know Jesus, millions of Americans have encountered the word of God through apps on his products. It will take decades to accurately assess the impact of his inventions on modern society. Steve Jobs has changed our world. And all because on February 24, 1955, Joanne Simpson said “no” to abortion and Clara and Paul Jobs said “yes” to adoption.
 
How would our world look differently if the 2.1 billion people on planet earth who claim to follow Jesus began taking their Lord and his word seriously? How would our world be different if the Christian church emptied out the orphanages in places like Brazil and Ethiopia, if we put the American foster care system out of business? How many children would be raised up to change the world? How many adopted children would come to know Jesus and go on to become, not just the next Steve Jobs, but the next Billy Graham, the next Mother Teresa, the next John Stott?
 
The opportunity is so great, and the task is so clear. My prayer for us and our churches and our families is that God would light a fire in our guts to partner in His mission, identify with His son, participate in His story, and change the world for His glory.

-----

Order my newest book, A Faith of Our Own: Following Jesus Beyond the Culture Wars.

The following article is was originally published in USA Today.

What's in a name? As Shakespeare has it, a rose by any other name smells the same. But in the case of America's largest Protestant denomination, changing the name could change everything.

A week ago, Southern Baptist Convention President Bryant Wright told his organization's executive committee in Nashville that he had appointed a task force to study a possible name change. Abandoning the 166-year-old identifier, he argued, would help the group thrive both in America and internationally.

"First, the convention's name is so regional," Wright said. "With our focus on church planting, it is challenging in many parts of the country to lead churches to want to be part of a convention with such a regional name. Second, a name change could position us to maximize our effectiveness in reaching North America for Jesus Christ in the 21st century."

Wright is, well, right. The label is no longer accurate. Until the mid-20th century, the denomination was concentrated almost exclusively in the American South and Southwest. That is no longer the case. While most congregations still exist below the Mason-Dixon line, SBC churches — all 40,000 of them, as well as 16 million members — have spread to all 50 states, and the SBC's missionary effort has planted thousands more globally. The denomination also comprises more than a quarter of all American evangelicals.

It's safe to assume that if the denomination were forming today, the name "Southern Baptist Convention" wouldn't even be considered.

CONTINUE READING

-----

Order a copy of my book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

Nearly every American remembers where they were when they first learned of the September 11, 2011 terrorist attacks. Moments of such magnitude have a way of branding our memories. I was leaving my college dorm room the day the earth twitched.

Where were you when you first heard? Or, more importantly, what went through your mind?

In the days that followed, A Chicago Sun-Times religion columnist asked various religious leaders the ominous question we were all wrestling with: “Why would God allow this to happen?” Perhaps the most accurate answer to that question was offered by University of Chicago theologian Marty Martin.

“I don’t know, and nobody does,” he told the Sun-Times.

Martin’s answer allows us to sit in the discomfort of puzzlement, accepting that we can’t know why life unfolds like it does. We will never understand why God refuses to answer the cries of millions of babies in dank orphanages, and we’ll never know why God did not intervene to prevent more than 2,900 deaths that day. Not on this side of eternity, at least.

We are now ten years from normal and still no one can answer that question. But like any event of such magnitude, we stare back through a corridor of time with another inquiry. What, if anything, have we learned? How do we see the world more clearly, and what do we now grasp that previously evaded our reach?

Many writers will no doubt answer this question with lists of their own, but here are a few learned lessons I’ve observed:

CONTINUE READING...

The following piece was co-written with Timothy Willard and originally appeared in The Huffington Post. The artwork above is quoted from here.

The wordsmithing Brits behind the Oxford Dictionary define "hate" as "hostile actions motivated by intense dislike or prejudice." But words take on new meanings as people speak them, often deriving more from the context of their usage than from their actual definitions.

The word "hate" has become one of many such grammatical casualties as some now use it to describe the positions of any who vary from emerging cultural norms. ??Among offenders are gay activists who increasingly define anyone who believes that marriage should be applied only in the context of monogamous, heterosexual union as anti-gay and hateful. But is a belief in traditional marriage an inherently hateful posture?

Blogs erupted last month with news that Blake Mycoksie, founder of TOMS Shoes, apologized for speaking at an event hosted by Focus on the Family. The Christian non-profit is "dedicated to helping families thrive," but has long opposed same sex marriage. Bloggers at Change.org lamented Mycoskie's association with what they termed an "anti-gay hate-group." He responded with a public apology:

"Had I known the full extent of Focus on the Family's beliefs, I would not have accepted the invitation to speak at their event. It was an oversight on my part and the company's part and one we regret."

The move against Focus incited other activists to apply pressure to companies like Apple, Microsoft and Delta Airlines to cease their involvement with the Charity Give Back Group (CGBG). CGBG encourages consumers to give to more than 200,000 charities, including socially conservative groups like Family Research Council, when they purchase items from over 600 brand retailers.

Ben Crowther, a student at Western Washington University, collected more than 20,000 signatures on a petition to Apple, prompting the removal of iTunes from CGBG.

"I knew that once this issue was brought to Apple's attention, they would not want to be a part of CVN because it funds anti-gay hate groups," Crowther said. Microsoft and Delta caved to the pressure as well.

The third hammer fell last Wednesday, this time on Chicago pastor Bill Hybels and his Willow Creek Church. Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz announced he would withdraw from Hybels' Leadership Summit, an annual conference at Willow Creek that simulcasts to more than 168,000 people worldwide. Schultz's decision immediately followed a petition from Asher Huey on Change.org.

The ultimate coup, however, may lie just around the corner. Change.org has issued yet another petition soliciting PBS to have Bert and Ernie marry. Big Bird and Snuffleupagus, you're next.

This recent shelling of Christian groups by those who support same sex marriage is not unique. The rhythm of crossfire over marital law has become a staple in America's culture wars. But it does raise questions about the prudence of applying emotional labels to those who disagree with one's position.

Are organizations that oppose same sex marriage, and people who associate with them, hate-mongers? Should we assume those who support the traditional definition of marriage are "motivated by intense dislike or prejudice"?

American Christians must surely wrestle with a sordid history on same sex issues. In years past, some believers opposed funding for HIV research and aid because they viewed the illness as God's judgment on sexual immorality. Worse still, the faithful have often employed angry, reactive and, yes, even hateful rhetoric when speaking about the LGBT community.

But today's Christian leaders seek common ground solutions to same sex problems, even as many still hold to a traditional definition of marriage. Willow Creek Church, for example, disassociated with the controversial ex-gay Christian group Exodus International in 2009. And none can deny the softer, less partisan posture taken by Focus on the Family since it's former President James Dobson retired and Jim Daly took the reins.

When gay activists wield the label of hate against such organizations, their efforts turn counter-productive. They simply reinforce the conservative talking point that gay activists cannot be satisfied shy of full capitulation to their positions. Turning up the rhetorical heat serves no purpose other than retrenching your opposition and inflaming an already contentious issue.

We live in a world that glorifies tolerance. It's ironic that those who often champion this characteristic are quick to abandon it when they encounter people who disagree with their perspectives. Tolerance is a two-way street. Advocates on both sides of contentious issues should avoid extreme rhetoric and name-calling in attempts to marginalize political opponents.

As Jim Daly rightly responded, "'Hate' is too big a word to be thrown around with so little discretion. It is a damaging and dangerous thing to hang such an emotional epithet on a person or group because they think differently about some issues than you do."

These labeling efforts are inappropriate. The word "hate" is too potent and carries too much baggage to be thoughtlessly tossed around. Those engaged in public discourse must display better judgment in the words they choose.The importance of the marriage debate demands our commitment to intelligent, winsome and precise language.

It's time to stop applying hurtful and emotional labels to people who disagree with us. This tactic is more than poor form; it's bad grammar. And that's something that these two writers absolutely hate.

Veneer by Tim Willard and Jason Locy is one of the most well-crafted works I’ve read in the past several years. Even the book itself conveys a deep level of thoughtfulness—from carefully selected fonts to an intriguing dust jacket design, from charming chapter titles to the linen-wrapped cover. But Veneer is more than an attractive product; it is an insightful and worthwhile read.

The subtitle conveys the hefty task taken on by the authors: “Living deeply in a surface society.” From confronting our celebrity-obsessed culture to practicing presence in a world filled with techno-distractions, readers will find Willard and Locy competent tour guides who speak with playful intelligence. I don’t recommend books often, but this is one that should make your fall reading list. In fact, I was so impressed, I took time to ask the authors a few questions about why they wrote Veneer and what they hope readers will take away. Watch the book trailer, and then check out the interview below.

JM: The subtitle to your book is "Living deeply in a surface society." How do you define a surface society?

TW/JL: We define our surface society by the language it speaks: consumption, celebrity and technology. Society tells us we can gain meaning through our purchases. It encourages us to emulate the lifestyle of celebrities and that even we can become self-made celebrities. We diminish real humans by transmogrifiying them into a social media profile that we project (and consume from others).

When we evaluate this language we see a scenario where the self is elevated. We see a language that, if spoken, forgoes finding our true selves and instead favors projecting an image of our self that we think others will like more.

JM: We live in a culture that exalts celebrity, even "Christian" ones. How do your perspectives inform the way Christians should live in a celebrity-saturated society?

TW/JL: There is no room in Christianity for the pursuit of celebrity. In our culture, however, it is almost inevitable that Christian celebrities will emerge. The social aspect of the web makes this possible. As long as you have a blog and a Twitterfeed you can become a Christian celebrity. Though we may be overstating here a bit, you get the point. Technology makes it easy for one to promote their own persona or an organization to do the same.

A common justification for celebrity building is the influence related to it. Because celebrity is viewed as the currency that affords one influence, many leaders now view celebrity as the ultimate form of influence, and thus, pursue it. This seems off base in a faith expression that calls for the disciple of Christ to become less in order to promote the Savior and his Kingdom.

For leaders who are already in the limelight, so to speak, it is a question of stewardship. What are you communicating through your channels? Are you infatuated with self-promotion? Do you care more for your follower count on Twitter than your real life leadership? We must hold one another responsible for how we lead publicly and be willing to submit to the virtues that constitute our faith, namely if one seeks to be great he must be the servant of all.

JM: A lot of Christians believe that the goal of following Jesus is arriving in heaven. Is that perspective at odds with what you're putting forward in Veneer? If the goal is getting to heaven, it seems that the way we relate to this society—surface or otherwise—matters very little.

TW/JL: Heaven is our great hope as Christians. Glorifying God in our present is our great task for life. As vassal-kings representing our Chief King in the world we must be ambassadors worthy of our King. Heaven should act as a catalyst for living in such a way as to draw others to Christ and to glorify God. So, though heaven is a goal, it is not the only one. God created humankind to work and create and enjoy life, as well as enjoy communion with him. With our ultimate communion on the heavenly horizon, we work and create and live enjoying Him.

So often we talk in terms of “being in the world and not of it.” But the onus of this verse is on not being of it. We are already in it. So how do we live in a way that does not adhere to the world and it’s life formations? This is what we address by contrasting the language of culture with the language of God. Where the world says pursue self, God says pursue me. Where the world says get what you can, God says give everything you have. The two are opposed. If we are to follow Christ then our lives should be marked by his language, not the world’s.

JM: Name one way we can begin stripping the veneer off our lives.

TW/JL: Honesty in our relationships. When we make honesty a priority in our relationships we no longer need to veneer ourselves. “Authenticity” receives all the press these days and it might be easy to simply write off this answer. But consider the definitions. Authenticity refers to something being genuine—faithfully resembling an original. Honesty means to be free of deceit and untruthfulness--to be morally correct and virtuous.

When we first free ourselves of deceit in our relationships then we can be genuine. And, for Christians, the great thing about “resembling the original” is the fact that we view Christ as our archetype. He’s the original.??Let’s be honest with one another and with God and see what a life free of deceit—free of veneer—looks like.

JM: How have the ideas in Veneer shaped the way you live?

TW/JL: [Jason:] We say in the Authors Note that this book was written to ourselves. And, that is absolutely the case. Both of us have been profoundly impacted by the topic and the writing process was quite introspective.

For me, the biggest way the book has shaped the way I live is through the positive impact it has had on my relationships. I always joke that I am an “emotional introvert,” meaning I tend to keep my deeper feelings and thoughts and struggles to myself. As a result, some of my closest friends were unaware of stuff I was dealing with and how those things were impacting the way I lived my life.

The book challenged me to open up. To share. To be vulnerable with those I am close with. The impact of this new perspective has had really positive impact in my relationships.

[Tim:] For me, the process of writing the book revealed the subtleties of veneer. It’s when I think that I have no veneer that I need to reassess and dig a little deeper—sure enough, there it is. It also challenged me to evaluate my relationship with God. Was I just going through the motions? Was the relationship “me” centered or Christ centered? Perhaps the most profound shaping by-product of dealing with this content was how it affected my interaction with my wife. I was challenged to seek times of honesty and renewals, using our shared Eucharist times as an opportunity to pray and draw close through confession. How were we doing? Were there unresolved hurts? The unveneered life can be challenging, but also beautifully freeing.

Pick up a copy of Veneer: Living Deeply in a Surface Society.

Last week, I published an article for Relevant Magazine on why I believe America is an exceptional nation, but I am not an “American Exceptionalist.” Not everyone took kindly to the piece because they either felt like I was being unpatriotic or unfair in my argument. One such detractor was Eric Teetsel of the American Enterprise Institute. Eric is a good friend, and I’ve constantly said that he is one of the brightest youngest Christians working in the public square. We agree on much, but in this case he decided to offer a “corrective response” to my article.

His basic issue with my article was that it “tackles the popular misconception: that American exceptionalism is, as one liberal pundit puts it, ‘the theory that Americans are better than everyone else.’” This, he says, is a straw man predicated on misunderstanding.

Perhaps he is right. My simplistic definition may be a straw man, but if it is such, it has been stuffed with the straw of many public figures in a litany of statements on the matter. To wit, when Sarah Palin was questioned about her strong belief in American Exceptionalism, she didn’t pull out an academic textbook. She responded almost matter-of-factly, “There’s no denying it. America is the greatest country in the world.”

Of course, Palin is not alone on this one. She rarely is. Her words almost always seem to echo rather than lead. So we turn to another public persona, Herman Cain. Cain is a Presidential hopeful who frames the phrase in nearly the same way when he penned an article titled, “In Defense of American Exceptionalism” in the conservative staple, The American Spectator: “There is no denying it: America is the greatest country in the world.”

Are you starting to see a trend?

When I was preparing the piece for Relevant Magazine, I began googling speeches and statements about this phrase and I found that Cain and Palin are not isolated in their views. They are part of a larger chorus singing the same song. Perhaps there is a stark difference between “America is the greatest country in the world” and “Americans are better than everyone else,” but I strain to see it. Is there a difference between saying we are the “greatest” and saying we are “better” or “best?” 

If, as Teetsel argues, I was merely addressing a misconception about American Exceptionalism, then the locus and root of that misconception most assuredly does not reside in my article. It resides with those who are publicly framing, not commenting on, this topic.

It's ironic, however, that while I don’t think it is healthy to spend all of our public energy constantly reassuring ourselves of how great we are, I actually agree with what Cain and Palin are saying on some level. As I wrote in Relevant:

“Few deny that America is special. We are the most charitable country in the world. Each year, Americans voluntarily donate hundreds of billions of dollars to churches, non-profits and humanitarian agencies. We are one of the freest countries in the world. Americans can worship whatever god they choose whenever they choose, and no one here can force his wife to cover her face in public. The conditions are better in America. Unlike much of the world, clean water is a readily available commodity and the average wage is much higher than most of the world.”

But even the assertion about America being special raises a bigger question: Why? And this is where again I part ways with many who consider themselves “American Exceptionalists.” Too many today claim that we are exceptional because we have received some exceptional blessing from God due to our morals or Christian principles. This seems to be Cain’s position as he relies on “the glory of our founding” as well as the “blessings of God” to conclude that “We are not just any other nation, and we are certainly not analogous to our friends in Europe and elsewhere.”

This view was articulated to me again by a family member just yesterday. But such a view fails to embrace what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the long arc of history.” If we had been born in another time, would we have said the same of the pagan Roman Empire or even the great Chinese dynasties?

In Mitt Romney’s new book, he actually touched on this with more acumen and eloquence than you’ll hear from others.  He acknowledge that other nations—the Soviets, the Spanish, the Portuguese, the Chinese, the British, the Ottomans—were all superpowers at one time. But then he essentially says that because we are better than they were and, therefore, “It is simply inconceivable to us that America could ever be eclipsed.” His conclusion? “America is destined to remain as it’s been since the birth of the Republic—the brightest hope for the world.”

Look deeper and you'll find that the reasons given for our blessings continue to diverge. Tim Pawlenty, for example, says it is because we have a “fundamentally different worldview.” Marco Rubio says it is the political and economic systems we perpetuate that make us better, drawing on his experience in a family of immigrants. Even Eric offers a unique defintion: “What makes America exceptional—truly unique among the nations—is the tendency of our citizens to participate actively in the life of the Republic regardless of race, ethnicity, or country of origin.”

[RELATED: Voter Turnout by Country. America ranks #117, between the Dominican Republic and Benin.]

Wait a minute. I thought Herman Cain said it had to do with our founding and God’s blessings? Why are Pawlenty, Rubio, Teetsel et al saying something else? Who is correct and who is mistaken?

What I’m trying to illustrate here is that there is a both a high level of diversity and continuity in each persons’ formulation of this ideology. Maybe that’s the reason so many conservatives bristle when someone tries to critique exceptionalism. It’s the same reason their definitions end up being so simplistic: no one seems to agree on what it means other than “America is better than every one else.” The common denominator is their shared belief that America is better or the best nation around, and that is the view I was addressing in my piece.

To pretend that there is a commonly held contemporary understanding of the term by those who embrace the ideology or to wax philosophical about Alexis de Tocqueville is to deny that language carries with it the cultural baggage of those who use that language in public spaces. It gives a nod to de Tocqueville’s Democracy in America, while turning a blind eye to Sarah Palin’s America By Heart, Mitt Romney’s No Apology: The Case for American Greatness, or even Rep. Mike Pence’s talk on “Restoring American Exceptionalism” at the Detroit Economic Club. It attempts to embrace a term etymologically rather than examine that term within the cultural framework placed upon it.

Worse still, it ignores the way the term is being used by those who hold both to the ideology and it's underlying theology. As I wrote:

"This theology has many effects, most of them advantageous only for exceptionalist politicians. It keeps their detractors from saying “boo” about anything America does unless they want to be labeled “unpatriotic,” or worse, “ungodly.” After all, what God has built up, humans should not tinker with . . . . An ideology that is constantly used as a tool to quiet those who want to deal honestly with our problems is a broken one."

In the end, I’m not all that concerned with so many Americans’ obsessions with exceptionalism. But I am concerned with what that ideology means for those of us who follow Jesus. We’re called to a humble expression of our earthly affections. I find this calling inconsistent with so many of the statements above. We’ve called to recognize that every good and perfect gift comes from the gracious hand of God, and is not ultimately the result of human ingenuity or our carefully devised systems. Even great human wisdom is foolishness to God. We’re called to pledge our allegiance first and foremost to the King of heaven and his majestic Kingdom. Jesus is what is truly exceptional, and I can’t understand why more Christian conservatives aren’t trumpeting Him.

So I stand by the basic premise of my article, recognizing that like every piece I pen with my fallen hands, it is both incomplete and insufficient. And I also stand by these twins assertions: America is a blessed country, but it is not nearly as exceptional as the Blessing-Giver. May those Americans who claim to follow Christ never lose sight of the latter even as they celebrate the former.

-----

Editor's Note: The image above is by Noma Bar and first appeared in the New York Times.

This July 4th, like every other I remember, I’m going to a birthday party for a nation. On that day 235 years ago, a ragtag band of patriots declared they would no longer submit to the tyranny of a foreign monarch, and Americans have been celebrating ever since. But July 4th, 2011 is unlike any other birthday party I’ll attend this year, and not just because I don’t feel pressured into bringing a gift. What makes this party unique from others is that the birthday girl—America—thinks she’s better than everyone else.

“On the Fourth of July, we don’t only celebrate the birth of our nation,” writes conservative columnist Ken Klukowski. “We celebrate American exceptionalism—everything that makes the United States the greatest nation on earth.”

The term “American exceptionalism” is not a new one; it’s often traced back to Alexis de Tocqueville and the belief that our economic underpinnings were extraordinary. In recent years, however, the term has grown and evolved as American politicians have trumpeted it with increasing frequency. Michael Kinsley of Politico offers a blunt, contemporary definition for the term: “the theory that Americans are better than everyone else.”

If you want to run for political office these days, holding to such a theory is almost a prerequisite. “There is no denying it,” GOP presidential hopeful Herman Cain wrote in The American Spectator, “America is the greatest country in the world.” But are Cain and his compatriots correct about America being exceptional, and if so, is it something we should be shouting from our star-spangled rooftops?

On the one hand, few deny that America is special. We are the most charitable country in the world. Each year, Americans voluntarily donate hundreds of billions of dollars to churches, non-profits and humanitarian agencies. We are one of the freest countries in the world. Americans can worship whatever god they choose whenever they choose, and no one here can force his wife to cover her face in public. The conditions are better in America. Unlike much of the world, clean water is a readily available commodity and the average wage is much higher than most of the world. No wonder a recent Yahoo poll found that 75 percent of Americans believe the United States is the “greatest country in the world.”

I do think America is great. In our sinew and our spirit, we are a great people living in a great nation. That's why countries look to us when drafting constitutions and forming governments. That's why we spend so much time debating immigration, not emigration. This is a wonderful place to live, and many citizens of other nations are clamoring to come here while our citizens largely stay put.

The politically correct police might have us believe all countries are exceptional in their own way, but such assertions are thin and meaningless. They're reminiscent of a scene from The Incredibles in which the mother says, "Everyone's special" and the son replies, "Which is another way of saying no one is."

Yet, even though I believe America is exceptional, I am not an “American exceptionalist.” Why? Because the former is rooted in objective facts and the latter is built upon bad theology and is counterproductive.

“[Exceptionalism] has been adopted by the right to mean that America, alone among the nations, is beloved of God,” writes Richard Cohen of The Washington Post. Many who comprise the religious right have long held that America has somehow achieved special standing with God. Working on a fundamental belief that obedience to God brings blessings and disobedience brings curses, these thinkers believe we've earned God's blessings through historical obedience. However, this is rooted in several false beliefs, such as America being founded as a "sacred Christian nation" and the misapplication of Old Testament passages addressing ancient Israel to modern America.

Just as the America-is-a-dime-a-dozen paradigm falls flat in the face of facts, so these beliefs don't stand up to historical and hermeneutical scrutiny. As former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson points out in his new book, City of Man: Religion and Politics in a New Era, the biggest problem of the religious right is not tonal or strategic, but theological.

This theology has many effects, most of them advantageous only for exceptionalist politicians. It keeps their detractors from saying “boo” about anything America does unless they want to be labeled “unpatriotic,” or worse, “ungodly.” After all, what God has built up, humans should not tinker with.

I love America, and I wouldn’t live anywhere else. But I also recognize the many difficulties in our country that aren’t so exceptional. We maintain a relatively high murder rate for an industrialized nation, and we have a high rate of prisoner execution. Our educational system is failing to compete with other nations, and continues to work against disadvantaged children in poor communities. An ideology that is constantly used as a tool to quiet those who want to deal honestly with our problems is a broken one.

How would you feel if your neighbor made no bones about the fact they thought they were better than you? What about if they told you they thought they were specially blessed by God and you weren’t? What if they required constant reassurance from you about how amazing they were?

My guess is you’d end up emotionally drained and tire of their company rather quickly. You’d probably avoid eye contact when retrieving your mail, stay indoors when they were out cutting their lawn and conveniently lose the invitations to their annual barbeque. Is it any wonder, then, that when Americans express the same sentiments we find our global neighbors running the other way?

The difference in believing America is exceptional and American exceptionalism is significant. Believing America is exceptional recognizes our blessings—like every good and perfect gift—come from God. It emphasizes God's grace rather than America's greatness. The latter assumes our nation has claimed favored status with God and often yields a don't-you-wish-you-were-like-us attitude.

Why is this important? Accepting that America is exceptional due to God's unmerited favor breeds the virtues of gratitude and humility. But a belief that America is the recipient of divine favoritism, on the other hand, breeds arrogance and triumphalism—an arrogance that robs one of any claims to being truly exceptional. This July 4th, celebrate with gratitude, not with boastful entitlement. Let’s light fireworks, gather our friends and family, throw hot dogs on the grill. And most importantly, let’s bow our heads in humble gratitude to the grace-giver.

Editor's Note: This piece was originally published by RelevantMagazine.com

In 1965, a thin, soft-spoken man sauntered into Pittsburgh’s WQED, the nation’s first public television station, to pitch a show targeting young children. The concept was simple enough: convey life lessons to young children with the help of puppets, songs and frank conversations. It doesn’t sound like much. That is, until you realize that the man was Fred Rogers, and the program was “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood.”

It's been 10 years since he filmed his last episode, but childhood memories still flood my mind at the mention of his name. The sound of the trolley’s bell reverberates from my past, and the thought of King Friday or Daniel Striped Tiger brings a smile to my face. I can still see him slipping off his jacket and putting on one his cardigans, famously knitted by his mother, Carolyn. He said he was my friend, and I believed him. During my formative years, Mister Rogers and I met often to talk about life, and his gentle candor made him the best neighbor any kid could ask for.

But Rogers was more than a great neighbor or good host; he was a restorer. According to Gabe Lyons in The Next Christians, a “restorer” is someone who views the world as it “ought to be.” Faced with the world’s brokenness, restorers are “provoked, not offended.” They work to make the world a better place by “creating, not criticizing” and by “being countercultural, not relevant.” Using this definition, Rogers may be one of the greatest American restorers of the 20th century.

Rogers got into television because he “hated” the medium. During spring break of his senior year in seminary, he encountered television for the first time and what he witnessed repulsed him. “I got into television,” he recounted, “because I saw people throwing pies at each other’s faces, and that to me was such demeaning behavior. And if there’s anything that bothers me, it’s one person demeaning another. That really makes me mad!”

In the wake of WWII, when men—many of them veterans—were having trouble expressing their feelings, Fred Rogers recognized that the children of these quiet giants might have problems expressing their emotions. He worried that the type of programming that was becoming normative would create a generation of emotionally-bankrupt Americans.

Faced with the decision to either sour on television itself or work to restore the medium, he chose the latter. He dropped out of seminary and began pursuing a career in broadcasting. Fourteen years later, he would create one of the most beloved American television shows of all time, and one that would shape entire generations of children.

While both the show and its affable host may be easy to caricature, a closer look at “Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood” uncovers the handiwork of an uncommon artisan. Each show was crafted to meet the psychological and emotional needs of young viewers by delivering what Rogers called “a neighborhood expression of care.” He worked closely with Dr. Margaret McFarland, the administrative director of Pittsburgh's Arsenal Family and Children Center, a division of the University of Pittsburgh's medical school. Before each episode was taped, a team of experts in child psychology would read and discuss the script’s effect on a child’s cognitive and emotional development.

When cameras were rolling, Rogers spoke sincerely about emotions such as trust or anger. When his pet goldfish died, Mister Rogers didn't just purchase a new one; he used the occasion to talk about loss and sadness. Never one to shrink from a difficult conversation, Mister Rogers held the hands of our children as they walked through a plethora of difficulties—from “Vietnam and Watergate, Chernobyl and Challenger, Ethiopian famine and ethnic cleansing, Oklahoma City and Littleton, Polly Klaas and JonBenet Ramsey.” When the world was grieving and pulling its collective hair out, children found a place of calm and coping alongside a neighbor that would make State Farm jealous.

As I’ve gone back to re-watch forgotten episodes, I’ve noticed a depth I never recognized before. Mister Rogers talked to children like adults, teaching kids to face the world’s brokenness, not shrink back from it. “The world is not always a kind place,’’ he once said. ‘’That’s something all children learn for themselves, whether we want them to or not, but it’s something they really need our help to understand.’’

The dialogue often felt so personal that they would trigger a verbal response from young viewers, a “byplay,” in which they “may respond vocally to a question and Rogers, anticipating the reply, may follow through to his next point.” He imagined himself as something of a surrogate parent, which is why other children never appeared on the show. He didn’t want to create a sentiment of “sibling rivalry.” When Rogers would encounter a child who watched faithfully he might say, "Why, I think you've grown!" The child would often proudly respond, "I thought you'd notice that, Mister Rogers.”

The primary goal for the show was not relevance or entertainment value, but something deeper. Rogers aspired to produce quality programming that ran counter to what others were producing and connected with the inner needs of viewers. As a result, children connected to him in ways they didn’t connect with other hosts and he inexplicably competed with slick and fast-paced cartoons in similar time slots. Such success earned him many deserved accolades—a Presidential Medal of Freedom, four Daytime Emmys, the honor of being the longest running personality in the history of public television and the lifetime achievement award of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences.

[WATCH: Fred Rogers' acceptance speech for the Lifetime Achievement Award at the 1997 Emmy's.]

But Rogers’ impact on culture stretches far beyond television and into the realms of both government and technology. Unbeknownst to many, he single-handedly saved two iconic acronyms: PBS and the VCR.

In 1969, PBS was in danger of losing its $20 million federal funding allotment due to national budget cuts, so Rogers went to Washington to articulate his mission before Congress. In just six minutes, he shared his philosophy with the grizzly Senator John O. Pastore. ??“I give an expression of care every day to each child to help him realize that he is unique,” he said. “If we in public television can only make it clear that feelings are mentionable and manageable, we will have done a great service for mental health.”

Pastore responded that Rogers’ words gave him goose bumps, and that he “just earned the 20 million dollars” for PBS’s budget.



When the VCR landed in the American marketplace, it was illegal to record television shows from home. The debate over copyrights and freedom was fierce, but a calm and respected Rogers argued to Congress that recording a program like his was important because it allowed working parents to watch his show as a family. His testimony swayed enough votes to allow a change in the law, and the VCR began showing up in homes all across the country.

Rogers was a devout Christian that almost never explicitly talked about his faith on the air, but the way his show infused society with beauty and grace was near-biblical. We may never know how much he has shaped or even saved a generation of children from a life of emotionless stoicism through his thoughtful approach to television and his daily encouragement.

“You’ve made this day a special day by just your being you,” he’d famously sign off. “There is no person in the whole world like you, and I like you just the way you are.”

In many ways, the lasting legacy of Fred Rogers will not be the greater emotional stability of generations of children or even a reinvigoration of imagination. It will be his example of how to restore the world through impassioned creativity and craftsmanship. For nearly four decades, Rogers entered our homes and entered our hearts. And each day without fail, he left our collective neighborhoods better and made our days a little bit more beautiful.

-----

Editor's Note: This article was originally published by QIdeas.org.

This piece originally appeared at RelevantMagazine.com.

The snuffing of Osama bin Laden’s life has left White House officials beaming, news reporters busy and the thumbs of Twitterers raw. I can’t blame any of them. After all, this is one of the biggest events of the last decade. When I got the call Sunday night and turned on the television, I could hardly believe it was true, even though it was in bold print across the bottom of the screen: “Bin Laden Killed by Navy Seals.” My heart leapt with joy.

But as the night rolled on and I watched the reports come in and then President Obama speak, I found myself flooded with twin emotions. On the one hand, I was elated that a man responsible for so many deaths was finally brought to justice. On the other hand, I was deeply saddened knowing that someone who by all accounts never confessed Christ had passed from life to death.

I began to question my reactions, asking myself which emotion was more appropriate, more Christian? Should I rejoice at bin Laden’s death ... or mourn it?

After the announcement was made that the world’s most infamous terrorist was indeed dead, the Twitter-sphere blew up. As many as 4,000 tweets per second posted to the social networking site—each one a 140-character reaction to an event that undoubtedly deserved more. For many Christians, it seemed they were not wrestling with how they should feel. Celebration was their clear choice.

Pastor Rick Warren sent out Proverbs 21:15, which says, "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers." Coincidentally, The Atlantic reported that Warren’s Scripture choice became the #3 most tweeted verse on this subject. Jordan Sekulow of the American Center for Law and Justice tweeted: “Crank this up as you celebrate the termination of bin Laden http://t.co/N7K9X8u.”

I admit that there's a part of me that wants to pump my fist, signal a flyover and spit on the dead man’s corpse. But is this an appropriate response for a Christian, to celebrate the death of the wicked? Or, to push it further, can a Christian ever celebrate the death of a non-believer?

I’m reminded of the words of Ezekiel: “As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, I take no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but rather that they turn from their ways and live” (33:11, TNIV). The outcome that God desired and we should have too is that while Osama bin Laden was still breathing, he would have rejected doing any more evil and confessed Christ. This would have been cause for a true celebration—even the angels in heaven would have rejoiced (Luke 15:7). Anything short of this is a tragedy.

If nothing else, the propensity we feel to celebrate his death unveils the human tendency to want retributive justice for the sins of others but not for our own sins. Christians claim to believe all humans—yes, even Jesus-followers—deserve death (Romans 6:23). Justice demands such a penalty from each one of us. But we don’t want justice for ourselves; we want grace. Luckily, God has provided such grace through Christ.

“Rejoicing in the death of another, however wicked, involves forgetting the depths of our own depravity and the astonishing reality of our own salvation,” wrote Gideon Strauss of the Center for Public Justice in response to bin Laden’s death.

When a Christian points her finger in the face of the wicked getting what they deserve and shouts for joy, she is only revealing that she has forgotten her own need for grace. How can we celebrate God’s saving grace in our own lives on Sunday morning and celebrate retributive justice for others on Sunday evening? Is this not the ultimate hypocrisy?

While the situation will be clearer as more details are revealed, it seems the operation that killed bin Laden was likely in the bounds of government (Romans 13). Yet when a government must bear the sword, its Christian citizens must stand behind it weeping.

And when justice is served to those who wish only to harm others—as it was last night—we may perhaps express relief. Relief in knowing innocent people woke up to a safer world this morning. But relief ... not celebration. God loves those innocents, and I believe He desires to see them free from fear and violence. Yet even as our spirits lift knowing that this man will do no more evil, our eyes should burst forth with weeping knowing that bin Laden will likely spend eternity like he spent his life: separated from the true God.

What do you think of Osama bin Laden's death?

-----

Order a copy of my new book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

My theology was shaken this week. Spending time in Thailand and India, I was able to walk through red light districts and peer into the eyes of women who had been shoved into the sex trade as young as 10 years old. Many American Christians love to preach a Christian gospel that promises happiness and health. How does our faith speak to such things?

As I read the sacred Christian scriptures, I’m struck by the unbroken command to defend the marginalized (Isaiah 1:17) and “do justice” (Micah 6:8). I’m swept up by the clear message that God “takes up the cause of the oppressed” (Psalm 146:7). I’m convicted by the teaching that “the righteous care for the justice of the poor” (Proverbs 29:7). It was Jesus himself that declared he had come to “preach good news to the poor … to proclaim freedom for the prisoner” (Luke 4:18). Those who, like Glenn Beck, argue against an ethic of social justice must not read the same Bible I do.

At the same time, the Bible seems to highly exalt peace. Who can ignore Jesus when he stands upon a mountaintop and declares, “Blessed are the peacemakers” (Matthew 5:9)? I question American Christians who support imperialistic philosophies, participate in unnecessary saber-rattling, and endorse wars that will undoubtedly steal the lives of innocents.

And then there is Libya.

This country is ruled by an oppressive tyrant, and yet remarkably the drumbeat of freedom still beats in the hearts of its citizens. As I watched the situation unfold from Asia, cut off from American media, I found myself struggling to answer this question: When a man like Muammar Gaddafi insists on oppressing Libyans and is even willing to kill his own people, how should followers of a peace- and justice-loving Jesus respond? How can we do justice in this situation and still be the peacemakers Jesus asks us to be? The answer is not an easy one.

Today, I support the action taken by the international community and President Obama to hear the cries of innocent Libyans and take military action. Perhaps tomorrow I will question myself. This kind of wrestling with so weighty an issue is exactly what American Christians should be doing, I think. If we do support forceful intervention, we should do so with tears in our eyes.

It is clear that Christians must fight against oppressors and for the oppressed. How to best do that must be worked out among those who bear the name of Christ. We can only hope that the God who loves both justice and peace will grant us wisdom in a time like this when we need it most.

-----
Is the bombing in Libya something Christians should support in your opinion? How can we reconcile justice with peace in the face of oppression?

-----
Editor's Note: This piece was originally published on TheWashingtonPost.com.

“Architecture is the alphabet of giants; it is the largest set of symbols ever made to meet the eyes of men. A tower stands up like a sort of simplified statue, of much more than heroic size.”
-G.K. Chesterton

I’ve always been fascinated with the gleaming sentinels that comprise America’s skylines. I still stoop to peer up at the skyscrapers when I drive through midtown Atlanta, and when I’m in New York, I must perpetually remind myself to stop gazing upward as I walk the streets.

Skyscrapers have always been storytellers. Draw up next to a historic building and you’ll hear tales of the time in which they were constructed. You’ll learn about architecture and innovation. But today’s skyscrapers speak about more than a bygone era. They tell us about a people, about ourselves.

On June 27, 2004, Barack Obama stood before the Democratic National Convention at the Boston Fleet Center to give the keynote address. “Tonight, we gather to affirm the greatness of our nation, not because of the height of our skyscrapers, or the power of our military, or the size of our economy,” he said. “Our pride is based on a very simple premise, summed up in a declaration made over two hundred years ago.”
 
The now-President’s reference to skyscrapers tapped into a sentiment prevalent in American culture for some time. It’s been called “American materialism” because as much as it is materialistic, it is American. As a people, our identity often sprouts from the soil of our “stuff.” We are because we have. Today, we’re obsessed with bigger, better, taller, shinier.

Have you ever wondered why on 9/11, the terrorists chose the World Trade Center towers as their bullseye? Why not a packed baseball stadium? Or a shopping mall on a Saturday afternoon? They chose skyscrapers because they symbolized something greater than concrete and windows. The towers symbolized American opulence and braggadocio, and taking them down was intended both to kill and to humiliate.

Mason Cooley stated it most succinctly: “A skyscraper is a boast in glass and steel.” As such, our city’s buildings have become a statement on our prosperity spoken through the megaphone of architecture. Someone has well said, if one wants to know what America thinks of herself, look at her skylines.

CONTINUE READING AT QIDEAS.ORG

-----

Order a copy of my recent book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

For the most part, I've stopped signing public statements. Perhaps one day I will write about the various reasons I've decided to do this. Occassionally, however, someone drafts a statement that is both timely and reasonable. In these cases, I might make an exception. Today, Evangelicals for Social Action and The Center for Public Justice released such a statment, titled, "A Call for Intergenerational Justice."

The statement attempts to frame our current debt crisis as a moral issue. "Today’s federal debts threaten not only the present generation, but also our children and generations yet unborn," the statement says. "Intergenerational justice demands that one generation must not benefit or suffer unfairly at the cost of another."

[Inforgraphic: Putting the national debt into perspective.]

Clearly, our national debt and governmental spending is out of control. We should not tolerate wanton excess from our policymakers. At the same time, we cannot balance the budget on the backs of the poor.

While the statement avoids specific legislative proposals, it does make general recommendations on how we can fix our current woes. Bi-partisan Christian signers include ESA's Ron Sider, author Shane Claiborne, former Bush speechwriter Michael Gerson, and Fuller Seminary President Richard Mouw. Prison Fellowship's Charles Colson released a statement applauding the effort.

I was a part of the press call today that announced the release of this document. Here is my statement:

I support “A Call for Intergenerational Justice” because the Scripture’s mandate to “do justice” clearly demands that we steward the resources with which God has blessed us.

As a Christian and a Southern Baptist, the first place I look for ethical guidance is God’s witness in the Bible. As we survey those 66 sacred books, we find an unbroken chain of commands to promote justice and protect the poor. If the Bible is clear about anything it is that the people of God must be people of justice.

Biblical Justice is more than a private virtue or moral platitude. Justice is a commitment to care for those who are powerless, to speak for those who lack a voice. Doing justice means both caring for those who need us now and speaking for those who are yet to come. Because of this commitment, our attention must turn to our national economy. It is clear that our growing debt risks placing an unjust burden on future generations. This is irresponsible and immoral.

I signed onto this statement not because I am an economic expert with wisdom to offer on its specific policy recommendations. In hard financial times, there will be fierce debates over how to allocate resources. Christians will disagree about budget priorities, and will do so in good faith.

Rather, I’ve signed on because, as a minister, my duty is to be immersed in scripture so that I can communicate it to God’s people. And as I spend time in the Word of God, I am struck by twin facts. First, the management of material resources—particularly with regard to “the least of these”—is central to how the Christian life is lived. Second, a biblical attitude toward wealth is that we are mere stewards of that which God allows to pass through our hands.

Therefore, it seems worthy and reasonable to affirm the spirit of “intergenerational justice” that quickens this document. It’s my hope and prayer that God would find us faithful and our children and grandchildren would find us faultless.

If you'd like to sign this statement, you can add your name here.

-----

Order a copy of my new book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet

The morning following Election Day is always filled with winners and losers. But this past November, a surprising winner could have delivered an acceptance speech: the Tea Party.

Of the 60 seats turned over in Congress, Tea Party-endorsed candidates made up more than 30 of them. President Obama called it a “shellacking.”

As the new Congress gets sworn in today and we enter a non-election year, it’s easy to forget—but hard to overstate—the influence and momentum of this political amalgam. Formed as a grassroots reaction to the election of Barack Obama and policies such as the health care reform bill and the bailout of the auto and banking industries, the Tea Party is flying high. Nearly four in 10 Americans claim to be a part of the movement.

“Tea Party influence is likely to extend beyond mere numbers,” the L.A. Times reports. “By stiffening the anti-spending bloc in the House and Senate, the Tea Party members will put new pressure on conservative Democrats as well as members of their own party, impacting future legislative battles and the climate for 2012.”

But who are these people? Are they truly a third party or just a reinvigorated Republican conglomerate? What do Tea Partiers believe, and what do they want?

Some have speculated that the Tea Party is actually a new expression of the old Christian right. According to an October 2010 survey conducted by the Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI), 47 percent of Americans who support the Tea Party also say they identify with the Christian right. Additionally, the study found that nearly half of Tea Partiers believe America is “a Christian nation” and the Bible is the literal word of God.

“If you took the Christians and their values out of the Tea Party movement, it would no longer be a movement. It would no longer be a factor on America’s political scene,” says Joseph Farah, editor-in-chief of WorldNetDaily and author of The Tea Party Manifesto. He notes that the movement recognizes America as a “self-governing Christian society” and points out that every Tea Party meeting he has attended began in prayer.

Additionally, some Christian leaders have fallen in line with the movement, and others have been quick to declare their affections for the party after the midterm results were counted. Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, held a post-election press conference and made it clear that the “Tea Party and evangelicals are not at odds.”

It’s what Robert Jones of PRRI has called a “shotgun wedding” between Christians and the Tea Party. “But these groups’ happy union is challenged by a classic relationship problem: misplaced worries that there are serious divisions where there are few, and blind confidence that there are no divisions where significant differences lurk,” he says. Christians need to ask just how “Christian” this movement is, so as not to rush off to the altar and wake up the next morning with regrets.

Who's Throwing This Party?

The last time we saw a so-called “Republican revolution” was in 1994 when no Republican incumbent lost and America witnessed a 54-seat swing. In that year, Christian political leaders were among the most notable and vocal voices. Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson’s Christian Coalition, for example, was at its political peak and distributed 40 million copies of the “Family Values Voters Guides” in more than 100,000 churches nationwide.

But this movement is quite different in terms of leadership. “There are massive numbers of Christians, especially evangelical Christians, awakening as part of the Tea Party movement. Polls show a clear majority of them fit this category,” Farah says. “But, whereas the movement spurred by Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell was an awakening led largely by Christian leaders, this movement arises in the midst of a vacuum of spiritual leadership.”

Rather than cheering for evangelical pastors on political talk shows, conservative evangelicals are now tuning into lectures from Mormon pundit Glenn Beck or downright offensive soliloquies from radio host Mark Williams (who was thrown out as a Tea Party spokesperson for making racially charged comments). Many Tea Partiers admit being influenced by the writings of philosopher Ayn Rand, who was both an atheist and anti-Christian and authored such best-sellers as Atlas Shrugged that de-emphasize humans’ moral obligations to others. And former U.S. Representative Dick Armey, who has been vocal over the years in his opposition to well-known Christian leaders such as James Dobson, is a prominent Tea Party leader.

Whether or not this movement can be called “Christian” may be up for debate, but we can say for certain that at least some of its leadership doesn’t fit the bill. And, as a result, not every Christian is falling in lockstep behind the ones throwing this party.

Sure, there are some evangelical Christians, including Sarah Palin, at the helm of this movement, but their involvement has often been eclipsed by others. It was Beck who delivered the commencement address this year at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University, and his “Rally to Restore Honor” was seen by some as an effort to mobilize religious voters behind his headship. Gallup reports that the Fox News host is now admired by more Americans than the pope. His rising popularity as a spokesperson for evangelicals has incited a backlash from many Christian leaders.

“I was disturbed to see huge sectors of American Christianity willing to repudiate the Gospel of Jesus Christ for the sake of a political movement,” says Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. “Glenn Beck, who is a member of a church which denies that Jesus Christ is the eternal Son of God, set himself up as a religious leader, leading a ‘revival.’ Some so-called ‘evangelical’ leaders empowered him to do so, and that is a scandal.”

This is not to suggest Christians should rush off to form their own political enclaves with their own self-appointed Christian generals. That’s an approach that was tried by previous generations, and the net effect on the Christian movement has been disastrous. Still, when evaluating any organization to which pundits apply the “Christian” moniker, we must ask whether the leaders are faithful to such a label. And in the case of the Tea Party, we find a mixed bag at best.

What's Being Celebrated?

As with any party, you would want to know who (or what) the party is for before agreeing to attend. It seems the same principle applies here. So what exactly do Tea Partiers believe, and how does that line up with where Christians have stood historically?

When Tea Partiers were asked what most stoked their passions in a CBS News/New York Times survey, the top four responses were the health care reform bill, the government not representing the people, government spending and the economy.

They overwhelmingly see illegal immigration as a serious problem and doubt the impact of global warming. Ninety-two percent say America is on the wrong track, 88 percent disapprove of the president’s performance on the job and only 1 percent approve of the job Congress is doing.

In light of such things, Moore notes the Tea Party may have retained the tone and strategy of the religious right, but the emphasis has clearly changed. During the “Republican revolution” in 1994, the most pressing issues were the so-called “moral issues” dealing with traditional values. But those have been a non-factor in this new movement.

As Jonathan Martin and Ben Smith of Politico said before the November election, “At a moment that finds the Right energized and seemingly ascendant, the battles over morality-based cultural issues such as gay marriage, abortion and illegal drugs that did so much to drive the conservative movement and dominated the political conversation for more than 30 years have abated, giving way not just to economic anxiety, but to a new set of emotionally charged issues.”

“What the Tea Party movement is really about—fundamentally—is a desire to return America to its constitutional roots and its form of limited government and self-government,” Farah says. “Having spoken to tens of thousands of Tea Party activists and met hundreds and hundreds of them, I believe the mission statement that best represents this movement can be found in the Declaration of Independence.”

Such a sentiment would be a shift for those Christians who believe for better or ill that another document must guide us as people—namely, the Bible. But it also marks a change in the guiding narrative of Christian political engagement. Rather than being rooted in a personal faith that guides a political narrative, public discourse is now largely rooted in American historical narrative.

Perhaps the Tea Party agenda is made up of issues that Christians can, in good conscience, rightfully support. That’s a separate debate. But issues historically championed by most Christians have taken a back seat.

Who's at the Party?

You can tell a lot about a movement by simply showing up, looking around and surveying the participants. When you sample the Tea Party, you find—to put it bluntly—middle-aged, angry, white people. Only 1 percent of Tea Partiers are black, 75 percent are 45 years old or older, and 53 percent describe themselves as “angry” about what is going on in Washington.

These are problems for a movement largely comprised of Christians, and one that needs the continued support of Christians to survive. Any organization with hopes for long-term viability must find new recruits. Every movement is either getting older or staying younger. But this movement doesn’t seem able to capture the heart of younger voters.

This goes back to the question of agenda. Not only does the Tea Party seem disinterested in traditional issues, but they also fail to address things many young people care about. Poverty, environmental care and global injustice are mostly absent in Tea Party discussions in favor of issues for which young people have rarely shown concern (i.e., small government and social security).

“I think you’re going to see the next generation of evangelicals, unlike the last generation, unwilling to be an interest group of either party or either movement,” Moore says. “Evangelicals will be concerned about the unborn, the orphaned, the widowed, the immigrant and enslaved, and [they] will be drawn to issues ranging from the right-to-life, to creation care to AIDS relief in ways that don’t fit the easy categorizations.”

After Moore wrote an article criticizing Glenn Beck’s rally, he said he received an onslaught of complaints. Interestingly, the responses were almost exclusively from angry baby boomers. “Those falling for this kind of hyper-politicized civil religion tend to be in the oldest wave of the baby boomers. Younger evangelicals tend to be more theologically and missiologically defined,” he says.

Perhaps there is some overlap between the conservative Christian movement and the Tea Party movement. But if it might be appropriately labeled “Christian,” it does so without Christian leadership, without much of the historic Christian agenda and without the support of an entire generation.

The After Party

As the dust settles from last year’s election, the Tea Party may just be getting started. Brendan Steinhauser, director of federal and state campaigns for FreedomWorks, a national Tea Party group claiming 650,000 members, says their “long-term goal is to build a movement that is here to stay for decades and focus on our core issues.”

Congresswoman Michele Bachmann’s (R-Minn) newly formed Tea Party congressional caucus already has more than 50 members. A representative for Bachmann told FoxNews.com that they are expecting “a huge boost when the new Congress meets.”

The growing prominence of the Tea Party movement only intensifies our need as Christians to be prayerful and thoughtful in public engagement. We should be slow to enlist ourselves in any organization whose message could usurp the Gospel’s and cautious about any agenda other than Christ’s.

“The quest for political power (whether Left or Right),” Moore reminds us, “always diverts the Church from the Gospel of the Kingdom.” There’s no real reason the Tea Party might be called “Christian.” Like any political movement, it runs the risk of distracting Christians from things of first importance.

-----

This piece was originally published in Relevant Magazine.

The debate over mountaintop removal coal mining (MTR) has seen little movement in recent years despite the tireless work of activists throughout Appalachia. Meanwhile, in Kentucky and Tennessee and West Virginia, hundreds of feet of our oldest mountains are being demolished and toxic waste is being dumped into headwater streams. Politicians in the region seem mute and deaf despite the outcries of their citizens to protect lives and landscapes from such destruction.

Their silence incited a new stalemate Friday when more than a dozen Kentuckians met with Governor Steve Beshear in his Frankfort office to voice their opposition to MTR. Among those meeting with Beshear were Beverly May from the MTR documentary Deep Down, a nurse whose been treating black lung infections for decades, and the 76-year-old acclaimed author/philosopher Wendell Berry.

[Read my review of Deep Down in Christianity Today.]

Upon realizing the Governor was not interested in considering their complaints, the group sat upon the floor and refused to leave. Beshear said they were welcome to stay “as long as they wanted.” The group took him up on the offer.

For four days the group remained in the Governor’s office, serenaded in the evenings by housekeeping staff publishing the marble floors and protected by a statue of Abe Lincoln peering down on them from the Rotunda. Updates were being posted on the Kentucky Rising blog and endorsements began to roll in from well-known figures including Michael Pollan and Bill McKibben.

“People across America today…are electrified by what's going on in Frankfort,” McKibben wrote. ”It's about time that people said: 'No more business as usual, if that means leveling the mountains of southern Appalachia.'”

The silence snapped open, however, when Governor Beshear made a pledge this morning to travel to eastern Kentucky within thirty days and personally inspect the devastation caused by MTR. The protestors decided to vacate the office upon hearing the news and were met by over 1,000 elated supporters on the steps of the state Capitol building.

I wish I had been able to join them on those steps and add my voice. Mountaintop removal is one of the single greatest atrocities occurring in our nation today. Governor Beshear has been one of its most shameful supporters, joined by others including Tennessee’s Lt. Governor Ron Ramsey. Finally, Beshear has budged and will go see for himself what is happening among the citizens he took an oath to protect.

[Watch a video of Ron Ramsey speaking about MTR.]

Any movement is a victory in the movement to end MTR, which has seen very little progress in recent years. The coal industry is very wealthy and the sooty money fills the coffers of Appalachian politicians. When a beloved 76-year-old man has to sleep on the floor of a governor’s office for four days, you know the situation is bad. Let’s hope the pledge from Beshear will serve as a catalyst to make it better.

When Sarah Palin's team of marketers ill-advisedly placed a few crosshairs on a map of Democratic districts that included U.S. Congresswoman Gabby Gifford's, they probably hoped to invigorate their base and rally some support. They couldn't have known that within a few months a crazed Jared Loughner would open fire on Arizona innocents, critically injuring the Congresswoman. Regardless, the Palin team's map took a six-person killing and breathed life into a national debate about public discourse.

A New York Times editorial recently declared, "We live in the age of opinion." And with so many opinions bathing us on a daily basis, it is often the most ridiculous, most inflammatory, most contentious perspectives that rise to the top. As a result, we also find ourselves living in an age of incivility. Sniping pundits crowd our airwaves while the mouths of politicians are filled to overflowing with personal attacks and heated rhetoric.

Continue reading this piece at The Huffington Post.

-----

Order a copy of my new book, Green Like God: Unlocking the Divine Plan to Our Planet