Throughout the evening, the panelists described a mainstreaming of their religion that they never dreamed possible. Today modern paganism is the 19th most popular religion in the United States, said Adler. “Wicca has exploded as far as numbers,” she said. There are now Wiccan-based charities, Wiccan-based AA chapters and Wiccan groups adopting highway beautification projects. Pagan studies courses are offered in major universities, she said.

Why is Wicca more accepted today? The MTV.com points to favorable portrayals in the media: "A surprising number of young witches MTV News spoke with also said that they became curious about their faith through misguiding pop-culture fare like the camp Neve Campbell vehicle "The Craft" and the "Harry Potter" series. (Guess a few conservative Christian groups were right about that one)." The Salem News article points to the dispelling of old impressions that witches are evil and to some degree of compromise in order to make it more mainstream.

We all expect the Spanish Inquisition to show up sooner or later in our discussions with atheists.  Does the presence of the Inquisition in Christian history discredit all of Christianity?  Does it render our past completely barbaric?

Here's a question that can help clarify the issues involved with the Inquisition objection:  Do you honor Thomas Edison for inventing the light bulb, or do you merely scoff at him for not inventing a computer?  Edison explored the same world we explore, and yet he only invented a light bulb.  Was he a colossal failure?  Absolutely not.  Data (in this case, the data of the physical world) takes time to work through, sort out, and apply.  Edison had a less than perfect understanding of the world, but he furthered the process of our knowledge and application of the facts of nature by one more step, moving us all towards a more precise understanding of the one reality of nature that has existed since the beginning.  Eventually scientific data would lead to computers, but that doesn't mean we can't appreciate the beauty and wonder of the invention of the light bulb in its own time.  And even though at the time of the light bulb's creation there were many other false ideas about how to apply the laws of nature (the use of leeches, for example), the false applications did not discredit science for all time.

Now move this same idea away from science and into the realm of morality and Christianity.  Like the unchanging laws of nature, we have the unchanging words of God in the Bible.  And as in the world of science, in the world of Christianity we've had to work out our knowledge and application of those unchanging words into our societies.  This takes time because human societies started off so far from the ideal--with many false ideas and without knowledge of some true ideas of application that hadn't yet occurred to them.  (For example, the idea that a pluralistic society could peacefully exist and not tear itself apart looks obvious to us now, but before the cultural situation made the discovery of this radically new idea possible, it was assumed that one must enforce unanimity for the good of the citizens, in order to survive.)

It's no surprise, then, that 500 years ago societies had only reached the moral equivalent of the light bulb and not the computer; but the problem was in the application, not in the data.  That is, as inevitably as an application of the facts of the physical world led to computers, so the ideas of the Bible have led to the free societies we now see in the West.  But one ought not be surprised by the amount of time it took the societies of the West to work through ideas based on biblical data any more than one is surprised by the thousands of years it took us to work through scientific ideas based on the observable data of nature.  Nor does it make any more sense to fault the unchanging Bible itself for those societies' slow pace than it does to fault the always-present laws of nature for our formerly rudimentary ideas about science.  The Bible and nature remained the same even if the implications had not yet been fully explored and rightly applied.  And, as with the light bulb, we ought to honor the steps that were made in creating better societies rather than merely degrade the people of the past for not creating the inventions and institutions we have today.

But why, we may then ask, when first creating the nation of Israel, did God not immediately demand that they live as we do today?  The answer might be similar to the reason why He didn't supply them with computers.  A computer would have been completely beyond their grasp.  In the same way, Israel had a difficult enough time adjusting their society to what God did give them explicitly at that time.  Some things, to be fully understood, accepted, and lived out, have to be reached on our own as we struggle over time, learning little by little.  Applications of ideas are discovered and then take time to permeate and transform a society.  This, in turn, lays the groundwork for discovering more applications.

What God did do is speak to Israel where they were.  He addressed the world as they knew it, and He set a foundation of ideas in place through the Old and New Testaments that would infect societies in such a way that the spread of those ideas would eventually lead us to where we are today.  He told us that we're all--men and women--created in His image (Gen 1:27) and equal in value before Him (Gal 3:28, Philemon).  We're not to kidnap people and sell them into slavery (Ex 21:16), we're not to punish people in a way that humiliates them (Deut 25:3), we're not to make converts by the sword (John 3:5-8, 18:36), the State is under God and the law (Deut 17:14-20), no one--rich or poor (Lev 19:15), native or foreigner (Num 15:15-16)--is to be favored when justice is dispensed, and the foundation goes on and on.

Unfortunately, just as the lack of good scientific instruments slowed the discovery and application of the laws of nature, our moral weaknesses--stubbornness, ignorance, biases, selfishness, and inherited false beliefs--have made the application of the Bible to our societies a difficult, slow process.  This is why the Inquisition, while condemnable, is not unexpected or surprising and so does not successfully argue against the truthfulness of Christianity.  And in fact, it gives further witness to the truthfulness of the Bible's central message of our desperate need for Jesus and the forgiveness He provides.

It's funny to me that while William Wilberforce needed to argue in his book, A Practical View of Christianity, that the religious affections--love, gratitude, joy, hope, trust, etc.--are a necessary a part of our relationship with and service to God, we have the very opposite problem only a couple of centuries later.  Today, knowledge about God, not emotion, is looked on with suspicion.  Many postmodern Christians prefer a fuzzy image of a God who is beyond our understandable categories, and they resist definitions that might "limit" Him.

But Wilberforce's words, though they were written to argue for emotion (i.e., the experience that postmoderns seek), also reveal the absolute necessity of knowledge as the foundation of true experience:

To ascertain [the genuineness and strength of the religious affections in a person] we must examine whether they appear to be grounded in knowledge, to have their root in strong and just conceptions of the great and manifold excellences of their object, or to be ignorant, unmeaning, or vague. . . .

Religious affections are only sustainable if they are attached to a real God who is known to be worthy of those affections; they simply can't carry themselves for very long.  But when knowledge is in its proper place, and the perfect and beautiful, solid and known truths about Him are meditated upon, desire for God inevitably follows; and that desire, in turn, fuels more intellectual pursuit of the truths of God.

Wilberforce charges that we all know this interplay between knowledge and affections exists, and it's the way any person would encourage another to continue on in a difficult task of any kind (not just religious): 

Weigh well (he would say) the value of the object for which you are about to contend, and contemplate and study its various excellences, till your whole soul be on fire for its acquisition. . . . Accustom yourself to look first to the dreadful consequences of failure; then fix your eye on the glorious prize which is before you; and when your strength begins to fail, and your spirits are well nigh exhausted, let the animating view rekindle your resolution, and call forth in renewed vigor the fainting energies of your soul.

Why, Wilberforce argues, should this be different only in the case of religion?  Knowledge is the root of love, passion, service, and perseverance.  With knowledge, you get all of these things.  Without knowledge, you'll have none of them.

Audio book, that is.  This month's free selection at Christianaudio.com is The Life of David Brainerd by Jonathan Edwards.  I love biographies, and this one promises to be very interesting: 

Though he was orphaned at age fourteen, repeatedly struck with debilitating illnesses, and unfairly expelled from college, Brainerd allowed nothing to deter him from serving God wholeheartedly. He traveled thousands of miles by horseback across treacherous terrain to preach the gospel to remote Indians. His calling required a rugged man--he even slept outside in the cold without cover--yet he constantly displayed a gentle and meek love for people entirely different from himself. Their benefit ultimately brought about his early death at the age of twenty-nine. Like an invigorating shower, the listener will be rejuvenated by Brainerd's life-giving devotional insights, refreshing clarity of purpose, and heartwarming preaching. This book offers not only a captivating story, but an uplifting buoy for those who are weary, distant, or discouraged.

For a preview of the life you'll hear about in this book, you can listen to (or read) John Piper's biographical lecture on Brainerd.  (And if you haven't listened to the rest of Piper's biographies, what the heck are you waiting for?!)

I guess they got the idea for this from the Jews' evil plan to use Tom and Jerry...

But don't be worried.  It turns out that, as Christians, we'll be much better off under Islamic rule...

I've always had a certain bizarre fascination with things that annoy me, and now, it has happened:  Someone has finally succeeded in bringing together everything that makes me crazy into one amazing conglomeration--including (but not limited to) certain New Age ideas (we're our own god, there's an impersonal base behind the universe, we should blame victims for their situation); Marxist theories; conspiracy theories; infomercials; historical revisionism; pseudoscience; narcissism; hoaxes perpetrated against lost, hopeless people; putting feelings in charge; and even the use of quantum physics to support dubious philosophical claims.  (It would achieve total perfection if only it were set to the music of the Electrical Light Parade and hosted by the dancing Six Flags guy.) 

Ahhh.  It's so beautiful in its (near) perfection of all things annoying, I can only stand in awe of...The Secret.

[Warning:  You probably should not watch that whole video in one sitting.  You will not know whether to laugh or cry at any given moment, and various points may cause strokes and/or exploding heads among viewers.  Too much of it at one time is likely to bring on all of these things at once.]

But seriously, I don't mean to make light of this.  Real people--including some of my friends--are into this, and it's frustrating because God is so much better than the impersonal "universe" the video is offering, but people settle for this cheap imitation!  The Secret offers health, wealth, love, and power?  Big deal!  God is the one for whose sake people endure painful physical persecution, lose all their possessions, suffer rejection from their family and friends, and become the servant of all.  Which, then, is greater?

The kingdom of heaven is like a treasure hidden in the field, which a man found and hid again; and from joy over it he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field. 

Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a merchant seeking fine pearls, and upon finding one pearl of great value, he went and sold all that he had and bought it (Matthew 13:44-46).

I hope you'll go out there today and tell people this good news.

Doug Pagitt and his emerging church on Christianity, including their view of you if you're conservative:

Now compare that to these.

When a Christian comes up against difficult intellectual arguments against Christianity, there are two paths that can be taken (and indeed, I'm seeing this split occur in the Evangelical community).  First, one can take refuge in the perspective so dominant in our culture that religious values and spiritual questions are "above the line" of rationality (as Francis Schaeffer put it)--beyond the reach of intellectual investigation, attacks, or proofs.  Spiritual "truths" are not in the same category as material truths, so challenges are irrelevant. 

On the second path, one sees all of true reality as a single whole--spiritual and material--existing as it is, never as its opposite, and capable of being known (never exhaustively, yet truly) through observations, rational thought, and revelation.  But since all of reality is the same kind of reality, this means there is only one truth about what exists as the spiritual aspect of that reality.  If the Christian who believes this about reality cares about truth (i.e., what actually exists), he must face the difficult questions and struggle through them, working to find the answers, for he's not willing to place his trust in something that is not there.  If Christianity is true, it will hold up to scrutiny; if it is not true, this Christian doesn't want to believe it. 

Can a Christian persevere through mockery, persecution, or a time of dry emotions and few experiences without the confidence that he is held up by a solid, true reality?  Can he act consistently and deeply on a faith he doesn't believe represents what actually exists?  I don't see how the first path can sustain the confidence needed for sincere, enduring love, service, and sacrifice.  On the other hand, I think the second path leads to a spiritually deep, authentic, persevering church.

For this very reason, Schaeffer encourages believers to grasp the reality of Christianity in his book, He is There and He is Not Silent:

The truth of Christianity is that it is true to what is there.  You can go to the end of the world and you never need be afraid, like the ancients, that you will fall off the end and the dragons will eat you up.  You can carry out your intellectual discussion to the end of the discussion because Christianity is not only true to the dogmas, it is not only true to what God has said in the Bible, but it is also true to what is there, and you will never fall off the end of the world!  It is not just an approximate model; it is true to what is there.  When the evangelical catches that--when evangelicalism catches that--we may have our revolution.  We will begin to have something beautiful and alive, something which will have force in our poor, lost world (p. 289).

It seems that liberal Christianity is not the wave of the future that so many people predicted, as Charlotte Allen explains in her LA Times editorial: Liberal Christianity is paying for its sins.  [Please note that I know of many orthodox individual Presbyterian and Episcopal churches (and grew up Presbyterian!), so the following doesn't describe every individual church.]

What sins, you ask?  Some examples:

The Presbyterian Church USA, at its general assembly in Birmingham, Ala., was turning itself into the laughingstock of the blogosphere by tacitly approving alternative designations for the supposedly sexist Christian Trinity of Father, Son and Holy Spirit. Among the suggested names were "Mother, Child and Womb" and "Rock, Redeemer and Friend." Moved by the spirit of the Presbyterian revisionists, Beliefnet blogger Rod Dreher held a "Name That Trinity" contest. Entries included "Rock, Scissors and Paper" and "Larry, Curly and Moe"....

The Presbyterian Church USA is famous for its 1993 conference, cosponsored with the United Methodist Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and other mainline churches, in which participants "reimagined" God as "Our Maker Sophia" and held a feminist-inspired "milk and honey" ritual designed to replace traditional bread-and-wine Communion.

As if to one-up the Presbyterians in jettisoning age-old elements of Christian belief, the Episcopalians at Columbus overwhelmingly refused even to consider a resolution affirming that Jesus Christ is Lord. When a Christian church cannot bring itself to endorse a bedrock Christian theological statement repeatedly found in the New Testament, it is not a serious Christian church. It's a Church of What's Happening Now, conferring a feel-good imprimatur on whatever the liberal elements of secular society deem permissible or politically correct....

The result of incidents and positions like these is a drastic drop in the percentage of protestants in mainline churches from 40% in 1960 to 12% today:

Some of the precipitous decline is due to lower birthrates among the generally blue-state mainliners, but it also is clear that millions of mainline adherents (and especially their children) have simply walked out of the pews never to return....

Incidentally, why the correlation here between blue states and mainliners?  Did liberal Christianity lead to blue-state conclusions, or did blue-state thinking lead to liberal Christianity?  Or is there a third factor involved, connecting the two?

When your religion says "whatever" on doctrinal matters, regards Jesus as just another wise teacher, refuses on principle to evangelize and lets you do pretty much what you want, it's a short step to deciding that one of the things you don't want to do is get up on Sunday morning and go to church.

Read the rest of the article here.