What do you think of when you hear the phrase "the world?" Does it elicit a positive or negative response?

The Scripture has a lot to say on the subject of "the world" that, on a cursory reading, can seem contradictory. Consider, for example, what the Apostle John says. In John 3:16 he wrote: "For God so loved the world..." But then in 1 John 2:15 he wrote: "Do not love the world or the things that belong to the world. If anyone loves the world, love for the Father is not in Him." He records Jesus' words in John 12:47, "For I did not come to judge the world but to save the world," but relates Jesus' admonition in 15:19, "If you were of the world, the world would love its own. Yet because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you."

It seems like poor John can't seem to make up his mind about "the world," and whether we should love it or hate it.

Of course, John wasn't confused. The Scripture draws a distinction between the people of the world and the fallen system of ideas that work in rebellion against God. In that sense, we are to both love and hate the world (Prov. 8:13). Part of what that means is living in the world (being present and active where God has sent us) but not being of the world (being influenced by and accepting a system profoundly opposed to God). Many Christians, however, are so fearful of being of the world that they completely isolate themselves from anything in the world. Under the banner of "separation," they've gone underground and disappeared from sight. That's not how we are supposed to live as citizens of God's kingdom - and it denies the missional nature of the church.

Perhaps a change of terms will help clarify the issue for us. For a moment, let's use "the people of earth" for "the world" (where we live) and the phrase "the attitude that rejects God's love, law and leading" for "the world" (its fallen system). Now, let's paraphrase: "Be among the people of earth (in the world), but not of the attitude that rejects God's love, law and leading (of the world)." This simple contrast should bring a great deal of clarity to a potentially confusing line of thought. Now read John 3:16 to say, "For God so loved the people of earth..." and 1 John 2, "Love not the attitude that rejects God's love, law and leading, nor the things that take priority over God's love, law and leading. If anyone loves the attitude that rejects God's love, law and leading, the love of the Father is not in him." It becomes apparent that John and other New Testament writers are dealing with two separate matters: a place of residence and the people God loves, and a condition of the heart that opposes God.

The Bible specifically tells us to live with "worldly" people. That's exactly what always got Jesus in trouble - hanging out with drunkards, sinners, prostitutes ... you know, the "bad" people. Paul emphasized the same point to the church at Corinth. The church had become confused about some things the apostle had taught earlier. In reaction, they began to disassociate with the world (people) around them. But Paul wanted them to understand that the solution to their problems - and they had lots of them - was not withdrawal from the people around them:

I wrote to you in a letter not to associate with sexually immoral people - by no means referring to this world's immoral people, or to the greedy and swindlers, or to idolaters; otherwise you would have to leave the world. But I am writing you not to associate with anyone who bears the name of brother who is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a reviler, a drunkard or a swindler. Do not even eat with such a person 1 Corinthians 5:9-11

Paul's words make two things very clear. First, he has absolutely no intention to separate Christians from non-Christians. To him, the concept was laughable because it would negate the whole reason Christians live in the world. Second, someone who claims the name of Christ must be held to an incredibly high standard. If such a person forgets where his or her loyalty lies and adopts an attitude contrary to God's love, law, and leadership, faithful followers of Christ are to disassociate themselves from that person. They must choose. (This, incidentally, is the forgotten part of the biblical doctrine of separation. We are not instructed to separate from the lost, but from church members who live out and indulge in their deep depravity, until such time they give evidence of repentance.)

Some of us will choose to not participate in any of the world's systems, and opt for insulating ourselves in a self-made Christian bubble, a life constructed so that we can live out our days without ever even bumping into someone who doesn't believe or live as we do. Safely detached from the spiritual lepers outside, we can glory in Christian preschool through graduate school, Christian music, Christian romance novels, Christian leadership books, and even Christian Halloween candy. Thank God for those Christian Yellow Pages. The only thing we will not have is the personal influence of the gospel in the lives of those who do not know Christ. It's difficult to make disciples of people we won't even talk to. In a perverse twist of our Lord's expectation, many Christians find themselves of the world by means of some kind of pseudo-sacred imitation, but not in it.

It is easy for us to continue missing the mark on both of these implications. Often our lives as Christ-followers look no different from the system of the world. We too often settle for a truncated holiness that has a shiny gloss of Christian spirituality, but is for the most part inoffensive to the world, while overlooking greed, arrogance, and injustice. John described the world's system - the attitude that rejects God's love, law, and leading - very clearly. After he implored us not to love that attitude in 1 John 2:15, he continues (paraphrasing): "For all that is in the people of the earth (the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life) is not from the Father, but is from the attitude that rejects God's love, law and leading." Verse 17 then confirms the eternal contrast: "The attitude that rejects God's love, law, and leading is passing away, with its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever."

But in this "world vs. world" dichotomy, we find a subtlety that often blinds Christians. On the average Sunday morning, there is as much of the world in the church's building as there is in the world outside it. Why? Because "worldliness" does not reside in Tennessee, Canada, or Russia, i.e., the earth; it resides in human hearts and attitudes - in both believers and non-believers the world over. That is why separation from the world is not a matter of avoiding people, but a constant warring within ourselves against the attitude that would see us reject the love, law, and leadership of God over our lives.

As the sent church of God, we must love the people who live on this earth with the love of Christ, expressed in words and deeds, while hating the broken and sinful systems of the world that war against the Kingdom of God.

This becomes an important distinction in regards to contextualization, the focus of this series (see parts one, owo, three, and four and five). Contextualization reminds us that we genuinely need to be IN the world while not being OF the world.

I express it as being: biblically faithful, culturally relevant, counter-culture communities for the Kingdom. Or, for this conversation, we are:

-biblically faithful (driven by scripture)
-culturally relevant (living in and among the world with people in cultures)
-counter-culture communities (not being of the world's system, values, or morality)
-for the Kingdom.

As it turns out, John wasn't confused at all - but the church often is.

Please feel free to weigh in, give your opinion, and discuss how the church is called to be in and not of the world-- and how that relates to contextual ministry. And, as always, if there is your first time here, you might want to review the comment policy.

If there were such a thing as a Hall of Fame for '80s movies, Back to the Future would have to be there. Michael J. Fox is in his heyday, wearing his iconic red, puffy vest, riding his skateboard through town, carrying the role of Marty McFly beautifully. In one of the film's most memorable scenes, Marty is playing electric guitar at his parent's 1955 "Enchantment Under the Sea" dance. What starts as a crowd-pleasing, "Johnny B. Goode," ends in a confusing climax when Marty rips into an intense guitar solo straight from 1985. The 1955 crowd just can't relate to the music of the 80's, and Marty awkwardly leaves the stage.

In a very small (and humorous) way, the "Enchantment Under the Sea" scene exemplifies the challenge of creating an indigenous expression in a foreign environment--sometimes our expressions just don't fit.

We've been discussing the issue of contextualization here at the blog (Parts one, two and three of the newest series "Calling for Contextualization") and the conversation has been good. As you probably know, this is not a topic all will agree on, but it is an important one to talk through, and I am hoping that through this series we can at least clear away some of the misconceptions that are often attached to this conversation.

Part of what makes this issue of contextualization difficult is that some leaders aren't even comfortable with the idea of "engaging culture." Some well-known pastors argue that the church must not only maintain its own distinct culture (a good thing), but be completely separate from the culture around it (an impossible and even unhelpful thing).

Let me begin with two high-profile examples from two men that I admire. In both cases, I think we would probably have much in common, but they have each recently taken "engaging the culture" to task -- and they have done so in a way that I think confuses more than clarifies the issue.

In all of the discussion and debate revolving around the issue of contextualization most will agree that knowing the truth of the gospel is not enough, but that we are called by God to also make it known to make disciples. As the Apostle Paul wrote, "... how can they call on Him in whom they have not believed? And how can they believe without hearing about Him? And how can they hear without a preacher? And how can they preach unless they are sent?" (Rom 10:14, 15 HCSB).

The desire for contextualization is often driven by a hope for clear gospel communication. (I've touched on this a bit in part 1 and part 2 of this series.) However, agreement on our calling to make the gospel known to make disciples will only help us to see the need for contextualization if we define it properly.

Contextualization is not so easy to define because people use the word differently in different traditions. Yet, as I did when defining culture, I think it is important to consider how evangelicals define and use a term if we are to have any meaningful conversation in the evangelical community. Thus, we look again to The Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions, where Gilliland explains that contextualization is a tool to "to enable, insofar as it is humanly possible, an understanding of what it means that Jesus Christ, the Word, is authentically experienced in each and every human situation" (Gilliland, Dean. "Contextualization." In The Evangelical Dictionary of World Missions. Ed. Scott Moreau. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2000).

There are other variants of that view and I will not try to address each one. For that, I would suggest reading Contextualization: Meanings, Methods, and Models by David Hesselgrave and Edward Rommen. And, it should tell us something that whole books would be written on the subject.

Thus, all definitions of contextualization address communication. Gilliland says elsewhere, "Contextualization is, first of all, concerned with communicating by appropriate and understandable means that salvation is in Jesus only." (Cited by Darrell Whiteman in "The Function of Appropriate Contextualization in Mission" in Appropriate Christianity, edited by Charles Kraft. William Carey Library, 2005).

Though communication is not all that contextualization includes (as subsequent installments will discuss), it is a central part of the concern.

What is Contextualization?

Most generally, to contextualize is to place something in a particular context. Thus, I would say that any definition of contextualization must include presenting the unchanging truths of the gospel within the unique and changing contexts of cultures and worldviews. This requires us to retain the nature of the truth and the integrity of the message while explaining and applying such things in the necessarily unique or specific ways that enable hearers to understand and respond.

Maybe Pictionary will help me make this point.

Most of us are familiar with the classic party game, Pictionary. The "artist" gets a name of a person, place, or thing and he has to draw the picture so that his team can guess it, without ever using any words to help. Imagine if I was playing a game of Pictionary at a party. I am assigned to draw the person President George W. Bush. So, in efforts of simplicity and speed, I draw a picture of a bush. I'm playing with a pretty quick crowd, so they guess it right away. "BUSH!!!"

They've partially got the answer, but not all of it, so it doesn't count. So, I start pointing at the bush and make hand gestures, moans, and grunts (but no words). I use my hands to say, "that's right, but more." Again, the crowd is smart, so they can see the clue has something to do with a bush so they start guessing. "Tree!... Plant!... Green!... Photosynthesis!... Oxygen to carbon dioxide!... Krebs Cycle!" (I told you they were smart.) Now, they're getting way off base, but I can't say anything, so I just keep pointing at that bush. I point at it harder and harder and keep gesturing and grunting and, at this point, I'm getting mad.

The others never get it. I know what it is. I know they should know it. It is so obvious. But they don't.

I get frustrated, and yet, I never gave another clue.

Too often, I think this is what many evangelicals look like in the twenty-first century. For example, many today in American culture want to talk about "spirituality," but are unfamiliar with the gospel and not warm to the idea of spiritual absolutes. Some well-meaning Christians hear the spirituality talk and want to move people to the gospel, but the unexplained theological language and the old evangelistic approaches that were targeting a different worldview amount to noise that leaves the hearer in the dark trying to guess. It's like we, as believers, start communicating through our gestures and grunts, but they don't get it. We wind up giving clues that lead them in circles, and not to the truth. We know the answer, and we want them to know the answer, but we just can't make a solid connection.

Without contextualization, the words and arguments we use can amount to ineffective clues.

We Already Contextualize

Let's be clear about this issue of contextualization; everyone does it. Everyone. Whether or not they use the term, all have contextualized, because every presentation of the gospel must be given to a particular audience, in a particular culture. If you share the gospel with others, then you are contextualizing. You either do it properly, or poorly. For example, you do it poorly when you are attempting to share Christ with the unchurched person in front of you, but present the gospel as if you're speaking to someone who is already familiar with the claims of Jesus.

You can't just jump into "Jesus died to save you, and his resurrection demonstrates that he is who he said he is" because the person first needs to know about the one true God, their sin before him, and who Jesus is and what he has done. A person must first know they are lost before they will be found. I am fairly certain most of you will agree with the previous two sentences. If you do, you believe in contextualization, which is placing the gospel in a particular context. We may argue about the amount of contextualization, but we cannot argue with the need for such (assuming the definition mentioned earlier).

We can also turn the example around. The de-churched southerner who has grown up in an evangelical church where the Scripture is preached might not need convincing that the Bible is God's word, or that he or she is a sinner, but he or she may simply need clarity on the new birth, or how one responds to the gospel (personally via faith and repentance).

Contextualized Communication and Clear Gospel Proclamation

Contextualization is necessary because while the human condition and the gospel remain the same, people have different worldviews which in turn impact how they interpret themselves, the world and the things you say. People who care about contextualization care because they want a clear gospel proclaimed AND understood.

It's one thing to know the gospel, but it's another to make the gospel known. And making the gospel known is more complicated in America today than it was in decades past. Less people today have a general Christian orientation, or even a shared Judeo-Christian ethic. This means concepts (truths) like sin, death and hell cannot be assumed. So when we want to communicate the gospel and deal with categories like God, man, Christ and faith we must not only know them well, but also how to effectively make them known to the people God has sent us. Knowing where to begin and how to explain the truth to particular people are issues of contextualization.

We are already contextualizing. Let's do it well.

Last week, we started this Calling for Contextualization series at the blog. The folks at The Christian Post are also carrying the series here. As such, I will work to keep these essays to about 1000 words.

Today, we talk more about the danger and necessity of contextualization and engaging culture.

One of the first issues has to be what is contextualized and what is not. Evangelical Christians do not believe everything is culturally determined and formed, though we (humans) do perceive our world through a cultural lens.

There are some things that we consider eternal and unchanging, such as the nature of God and biblical revelation. Thus, the "gospel" is generally not something that most evangelicals want to contextualize (though they may say "contextualize the gospel," they tend to mean its communication rather than its content).

Evangelicals tend to believe that we don't change the gospel because we don't own the gospel. We don't change or alter the gospel because the gospel is history. The gospel is the life death and resurrection of Jesus Christ that rescues sinful humanity from eternal ruin.

Thus, evangelical believers don't need to say that they want to "make the Bible relevant" or "make God relevant." They already are (though I will address issues of Bible tranlastion in this series). Yet, contextualization matters because we are not eternal, timeless, and a-cultural. Some of the ways we worship, how we present eternal truths, and how we live in and relate to society all must be considered. We live in a culture. How we see things, understand them, and present them to others must take culture into account.

And, we encounter Christianity in cultures. Walls explains:

No one ever meets universal Christianity in itself: we only ever meet Christianity in a local form and that means a historically, culturally conditioned form. We need not fear this; when God became man he became historically, cultural conditioned man in a particular time and place. What he became, we need not fear to be. There is nothing wrong in having local forms of Christianity--provided that we remember that they are local. (A. Walls, The Missionary Movement in Christian History: Studies in the Transmission of the Faith (Maryknoll: Orbis, 1996), 235).

It is odd for me to hear people say we should not worry about culture. It seems like a fish saying we should not worry about water. You LIVE in that water. Thus, you have to redefine the term culture to say it must be avoided and not engaged (again, see the last entry to how evangelicals define culture).

The scriptures clearly teach us that there are things that are true and transcend particular cultures and times. Yet, the scripture also models for us the need to address cultural realities. In MissionShift: Mission Issues for the Third Millennium, I explain:

I suggest that we return to first-century thinking. What we find in the New Testament is that to be biblical requires contextualization. Dean Fleming developed this point in Contextualization in the New Testament. He argues, "Scripture itself can offer us a more adequate approach to the challenge of reappropriating the gospel," because "each book of the New Testament represents an attempt by the author to present the Christian message in a way that is targeted for a particular audience within a sociocultural environment."

Thus, we must acknowledge there are eternal and transcultural truths but also changing cultural realities to be considered. Sometimes these two tasks feel as if they are in opposition to one another, but it is wrestling through that very tension that will help to keep us sharp and effective in whatever mission field God has sent us.

There are different approaches. In MissionShift, Paul Hiebert (in his last word on contextualization before his death), spoke of levels of contextualization:

No Contextualization:

...we see the gospel as acultural and ahistorical. It is unchanging and universal, can be codified in abstract rational terms, and communicated in all languages without loss of meaning. Neither the sociocultural contexts of the listeners nor the messengers need be taken into account.

Minimal Contextualization:

The more we live with and study the people we serve, the more we become aware of the depth and power of the people's culture, and the need to contextualize both the messenger and the message for them to understand and live the gospel; but we are afraid that this can distort the gospel, so it must be done minimally. We realize that we must speak and translate the Bible into their language and that we must organize their services and churches in ways the people understand, but we equate Christianity with our beliefs and practices.

He also speaks of Uncritical Contextualization, which I will address later. (It seems that many critics of contextualization are actually referring to this approach.)

As an alternative, Hiebert points us toward Critical Contextualization, where:

The Bible is seen as divine revelation, not simply as humanly constructed beliefs. In contextualization the heart of the gospel must be kept as it is encoded in forms that are understood by the people, without making the gospel captive to the contexts. This is an ongoing process of embodying the gospel in an ever-changing world. Here cultures are seen as both good and evil, not simply as neutral vehicles for understanding the world. No culture is absolute or privileged. We are all relativized by the gospel.

Contextualization matters to those concerned about clear gospel proclamation. Yes, contextualization is a dangerous thing. It is also a necessary thing. Without contextual considerations, we do not transmit the gospel, but we transmit more of our cultural adaptation of that gospel.

As Dean Gilliland explained,

Contextualization [is] a delicate enterprise if ever there was one . . . the evangelist and mission strategist stand on a razor's edge, aware that to fall off on either side has terrible consequences . . . Fall to the right and you end in obscurantism, so attached to your conventional ways of practicing and teaching the faith that you veil its truth and power from those who are trying to see it through very different eyes. Slip to the left and you tumble into syncretism, so vulnerable to the impact of paganism in its multiplicity of forms that you compromise the uniqueness of Christ and concoct "another gospel which is not a gospel" (Dean S. Gilliand, "Contextual Theology as Incarnational Mission," in The Word Among Us, ed. Dean S. Gilliland (Dallas: Word Publishing, 1989), 10-11.).

Thus, contextualization is a tool. Clear gospel proclamation is the goal. We must not confuse the two.

I often explain this using two terms: contending and contextualizing. (The terms came from a lunch discussion with my friend Jim Millirons a few years ago.) The call to "contend and contextualize" seems to have "caught on" in some circles as a helpful way to consider the issue.

The need to contend is clearly commanded in Jude 3. It says that we are to "contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." In other words, central to our mission and our ministry is to faithfully proclaim and defend the Gospel given to us and to people in culture. But, it seems we are also commanded to contextualize in 1 Corinthians 9:22-23 where Paul says, "I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some."

On the one hand we must contend, and on the other hand we need to contextualize. In fact, contending for the faith demands contextualization because in articulating and advancing the truth we are responding to culturally created idols and false doctrine.

Feel free to weigh in and discuss.

For the past few years the issue of "contextualization" has been intensely discussed and debated. Throughout the many discussions I have had, listened in on, and read, I have found some legitimate differences in perspective, but also some pretty serious misunderstandings concerning the nature of contextualization. I will spend several posts sharing my thoughts on the nature of contextualization and the need to contextualize. The place to start in this conversation is with an understanding of culture. So, let me start with a bit of a personal journey...

People have been living in Paris, before it was "Paris," since 4200 BC. Today the capital city of France is the most populated city of Western Europe. It counts over 2 million inhabitants and is the center of the 13 million people Paris region.

Paris has for centuries attracted many of the brightest writers, composers, artists and thinkers the world has ever known. It's obvious that Parisians love art and music-- which is both reflected in and cultivated through their many museums, theaters and opera houses. As I have walked through the city it has been amazing to see the convergence of ancient and modern cultures blend together so beautifully. I can understand why 45 million people visit La Ville-Lumière (The City of Light) annually.

Despite its nickname, this "City of Light" is a spiritually dark place where conversions tend to come along slowly through gospel witness and relationships.

The largest percent of Parisians claim to be Catholic (67.7%), but only about 10% participate in the Catholic faith regularly. The next largest group consider themselves to be non-religious (19.7%). Only around 2% of Paris is Protestant, and another 1.5% is Jewish. The fastest growing religion in Paris is Islam claiming 10% of the population.

I got the opportunity to talk with a pastor in Paris and to see how this cultural context shapes church planting:

Right now, many of you are gathered around the TV, surrounded by bowls of dip and chips, platters of wings, and other tasty treats as you watch The Game. Are you getting your Superbowl on? Some people watch mostly for the commercials, and at least one spot has already generated a lot of controversy because of an athlete's pro-life stance in it.

Airlines are much in the news lately-- and much of it is negative. I thought I would share something that turned out positive.

Recently, I flew on Continental Airlines. It was a quality experience. I had very gracious crew, clean plane, and an on-time flight. You can't go wrong with that!

But, I did something I hardly never do. I sent a complaint letter. It takes a lot for me to write a letter since I am on airplanes a lot and have, well, seen it all. I generally just go with the travel flow.

Anyway, here is what happened.

While I was typing away on my sweet Mac Book Pro, I looked up to see the video entertainment. The choice on the flight that day was a talk show featuring pole-dancing lessons from the Pussy Cat Dolls.

I rang my flight attendant call button, something I never do. I expressed my concern in what, I hope, was a very kind way. I explained that as the father of three daughters, I would think that Continental would not think they need to see pole dancing lessons on the screens throughout the cabin. I was pleased that the flight attendant agreed-- she gave me a card to fill out and asked me to be sure to send it in.

It was a small card so I did not have much room to write, but here is what I said:

Dear Continental Airlines,

I was surprised and disappointed to look up from my work to see the Pussy Cat Dolls giving pole dancing lessons on the in-flight entertainment. I expressed my concern to the flight attendants who agreed and asked me to fill out and send in this card.

As a father of daughters, I do not believe I should have to worry about them seeing stripper activities on all the screens of a Continental Flight.

Please change that.

Thanks.

Well, over the Christmas break I received a response from my complaint letter and I was very pleased. Since I think there are ethical concerns with reprinting someone's correspondence, I do not feel at liberty to do so. However, some key things are worth sharing.

First, they apologized and explained how this video was inadvertently included in their program. Second, they explained how they pulled the video. And, they explained how they will avoid it happening again.

I was impressed with their response and I will now be MORE likely to fly Continental.

Now, let me add, I think it is important to make such complaints when appropriate. I do not want to be "that guy" who is always complaining, but a brief and well-written letter that graciously shares concerns is worth your time and valuable for the public good.

I also know that Continental, like all companies now, uses "Google alerts" to track their comments. So, let me say to the Continental Airlines employees, "Well done and thanks for responding and fixing the issue."

The Barna Group has just released four themes they see from their research in 2009. Read the excerpts below, check out the full article here, and come back to discuss.

Theme 1: Increasingly, Americans are more interested in faith and spirituality than in Christianity.

Continue reading Barna's End of Year Review.

A new study done by Patrick F. Fagan examines the effects of pornography on individuals, marriage, family and community. Fagan is Senior Fellow and Director of the Center for Research on Marriage and Religion at the Family Research Council. He specializes in examining the relationships among family, marriage, religion, community, and America's social problems. This study is important for everyone to read as it demonstrates that it has damaging effects on individuals and families. In the summary Fagan explains,

Pornography is a visual representation of sexuality which distorts an individual's concept of the nature of conjugal relations. This, in turn, alters both sexual attitudes and behavior. It is a major threat to marriage, to family, to children and to individual happiness. In undermining marriage it is one of the factors in undermining social stability.

Social scientists, clinical psychologists, and biologists have begun to clarify some of the social and psychological effects, and neurologists are beginning to delineate the biological mechanisms through which pornography produces its powerful negative effects.

Some of the findings inside the study include:

• Pornography is addictive, and neuroscientists are beginning to map the biological substrate of this addiction.
• Users tend to become desensitized to the type of pornorgraphy they use, become bored with it, and then seek more perverse forms of pornography.
• Married men who are involved in pornography feel less satisfied with their conjugal relations and less emotionally attached to their wives. Wives notice and are upset by the difference.
• Pornography use is a pathway to infidelity and divorce, and is frequently a major factor in these family disasters.
• Among couples affected by one spouse's addiction, two-thirds experience a loss of interest in sexual intercourse.
• Many adolescents who view pornography initially feel shame, diminished self-confidence, and sexual uncertainty, but these feelings quickly shift to unadulterated enjoyment with regular viewing.
• The main defenses against pornography are close family life, a good marriage and good relations between parents and children, coupled with deliberate parental monitoring of Internet use. Traditionally, government has kept a tight lid on sexual traffic and businesses, but in matters of pornography that has waned almost completely, except where child pornography is concerned. Given the massive, deleterious individual, marital, family, and social effects of pornography, it is time for citizens, communities, and government to reconsider their laissez-faire approach.

You can (and should) download the study here, and then jump into the comments to talk. Is your church addressing the issue of pornography? Should it? How?

I have watched with interest the discussion about The Manhattan Declaration. I was invited to attend the "launch" meeting and to be one of the original signers. However, I did not attend-- not out of disinterest, but due to schedule. Yet, in the last few weeks I have been asked on many occasions what I think of the Declaration. I do have an opinion-- and will mention that in the comment thread later. But, I would like to get your input first.

First, some information: The Manhattan Declaration is an affirmation of and call to defend biblical truths that relate to three specific areas of conflict in our culture today. The Manhattan Declaration website opens with this:

Christians, when they have lived up to the highest ideals of their faith, have defended the weak and vulnerable and worked tirelessly to protect and strengthen vital institutions of civil society, beginning with the family.

We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians who have united at this hour to reaffirm fundamental truths about justice and the common good, and to call upon our fellow citizens, believers and non-believers alike, to join us in defending them. These truths are:

1. the sanctity of human life
2. the dignity of marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife
3. the rights of conscience and religious liberty.

As I am writing this there are 262,918 signatures on the Manhattan Declaration. While many Christian leaders have signed and support this statement, there are others who have not, and voiced their concern. The Reformed community seems more split than others on this issue. (Almost all of the objections I have read come from the Reformed wing of evangelicalism.)

As such, looking at the statements of some Reformed leaders may be illustrative.

For example, men like Al Mohler and Kevin DeYoung have signed it. And their reason for signing the Declaration comes down to seeking the good of others and the glory of God by fighting against a common enemy. Dr. Mohler explains in a recent blog post why he signed it.

I believe we are facing an inevitable and culture-determining decision on the three issues centrally identified in this statement. I also believe that we will experience a significant loss of Christian churches, denominations, and institutions in this process. There is every good reason to believe that the freedom to conduct Christian ministry according to Christian conviction is being subverted and denied before our eyes. I believe that the sanctity of human life, the integrity of marriage, and religious liberty are very much in danger at this very moment. (Read his entire post here)

Not much with which I can disagree there.

So who wouldn't sign it? What is their problem? Well, some are choosing not to sign it because, while sharing the same values and concerns as those who do sign, the issue of the gospel is cloudy in the Declaration. The opening line, "We are Orthodox, Catholic, and evangelical Christians," includes an affirmation that many evangelicals (and perhaps a higher number of Reformed evangelicals) find inappropriate.

Two of the recognizable Reformed names who won't sign are Michael Horton and Alistair Begg.

Michael Horton wrote at whitehorseinn.org, "This declaration continues this tendency to define "the gospel" as something other than the specific announcement of the forgiveness of sins and declaration of righteousness solely by Christ's merits."

Alistair Begg shares the same concern, explaining,

Why then have I chosen not to append my name as one of the initial signers? Because of my convictions about the nature of the Gospel, and the importance of Christian co-belligerency being grounded in it.

Some have chosen not to sign because the Declaration introduces the gospel without defining it, and may even conflate the gospel with law (what Christ has done for us, vs. what we are called by God to do). They are not suggesting that Christians should remain inactive in culture and politics, but that we cannot confuse gospel and politics.

Two divergent views from the Reformed world... and that is a world where theological precision is paramount.

So, did you sign it? Will you sign it? Why or why not?

A friend recently pointed me to an interesting approach to communicating the gospel in multiple languages.

Hollywood veteran Bruce Marchiano (who played Jesus in "Matthew") is developing a film on the life of Christ and scripted word-for-word from the Gospel of John.

Funding wont be coming from a major movie studio, but from millions of Christians around the world. Specifically, the goal is 10 dollars each from 4.5 million folks, most of it raised online from their web site. Each contributor is considered a "producer" and can provide filming input to Bruce. I don't think that's ever been done, Christian or secular.

"A movie for the next generation" is how it is being billed. Using the latest in movie technology and techniques, the film is expected to be used around the world (read: translated into many languages) to impact millions for Christ.

I though it worth passing on.

Here's the movie promo. Go to www.newjesusmovie.com if you'd like to be a part.

Oh so many moons ago, I wrote a book with Elmer Towns called Perimeters of Light. In that book, we talked about how to choose your music. In light of my comments last week about, "Ending the Worship War Without a Truce," I thought you might find this helpful.

The ideas are a bit of me and a bit of Dr. Towns. Here is the excerpt:

We must test everything by the Word of God. All of us are responsible to interpret the Bible and apply it to our life but this is where disagreement comes because we interpret differently. Music is a form that is used to convey meaning. It may be the most challenging of all forms because it involves preference, emotions, vocalization, etc.

The following seven test statements each relate to biblical principles that we should apply to our music to determine if it is Christian. Examine these seven test statements to determine if the music you prefer is Christian.