A few weeks ago, I spoke to a church in New York City that is now vulnerable to eviction from the school building where they meet because they spoke of the wrong things - religious things. As such, their speech is soon likely to be banned from NYC public school buildings that sit empty and unused on the weekend.

According to city officials, worship in a public facility -- when the schools are not even in session -- is too much mixing of church and state so they've ordered dozens of churches evicted by February 12.

I agree with most Americans who believe this is wrong-headed.

In a recent study by LifeWay Research, two-thirds of Americans believe public schools should rent to churches and other community groups (click on the image to enlarge). For that matter, school districts across the country have shown their agreement by renting to thousands of congregations every weekend.

Until recently, religious groups have been legally permitted equal access to public buildings. But recently the U.S. Supreme Court let stand the ruling of a lower court, which approved the New York City Department of Education's ban, opening up NYC churches to lawful eviction. So, legally the city government can enforce a ban, but just because it's legal doesn't mean it's best for our communities and our country.

Churches benefit communities

Schools and churches make their communities better and the public knows it. According to a 2011 Barna Research study:

Three-quarters of U.S. adults believe the presence of a church is "very" (53%) or "somewhat" positive (25%) for their community. In contrast, only one out of every 20 Americans believes the influence of a church is negative.

It seems odd for a municipality to ban something from public buildings that their constituents strongly view as positive.

The New York Law Department, however, disagrees, stating:

We view this as a victory for the City's school children and their families. The Department was quite properly concerned about having any school in this diverse City identified with one particular religious belief or practice.

Most Americans see churches as partners in the community, but the NYC school system sees churches as a threat rather than a benefit. They are mistaken.

Discriminating on the basis of the speech content is against our values

The NYC municipal government contends religious speech should be banned from public school buildings to avoid confusing our children. (Remember churches use the schools when school is not in session.) Yet, the Long Island public school I attended as a child had plenty of religions present--and NYC today has nearly every faith represented. Allowing individuals to worship in empty public buildings does not confuse children about religion. To the contrary, it affirms our commitment to religious freedom.

Father Richard John Neuhaus wrote against stripping religion from our institutions. Neuhaus believed religion is a public endeavor, not an enterprise best kept underground. I'm not one who believes in the war on religion by the secular elites, but it is hard not to see a problem with what Yale University scholar Stephen L. Carter called 'the culture of disbelief' in his book by the same name. The book, introduced to many by President Clinton, reminds us that banning public religion threatens the individual liberties of millions of Americans.

Religion-neutral is better than religion-hostile

Any constitutional concerns about church use of public school buildings can be answered by a religion-neutral approach. A government that is religion-neutral we will not discriminate based on the content of speech--even unpopular religious speech. Thus, I stand with my Muslim friends who wish to rent on Friday, my Jewish friends on Saturday, and my Christian friends on Sunday--all paying money to use space that belongs to us all.

The rationale that leads to a ban like the one enacted by New York City follows the principle that in order to avoid poisoning young minds, we must strip religion out of our lives, and essentially relegate it like pornography to the back of the store. Yet metro NYC includes a robust mixture of the cultural and religious milieu. Renting empty public buildings, with the income going to under-resourced schools, benefits many and imposes nothing.

We need to decide if religion is a danger to our culture that should be banned from the public square, or something to be valued and protected. I desperately pray it is the latter.

• OpEd: Tim Keller on "NYC School's Decision to Ban Churches"

• Massive march for fairness to NYC churches

• Hunger strike ends, fasting begins. Worship in public school controversy enters new stage on Sunday.

• Protest movement grows, Bronx Pastor willing to die to oppose city policy against churches meeting in public schools

• Temperature check: how the crowd outside see the Bloomberg administration

• Waves of pastors, professors, politicians, lay people arrested at Bloomberg's annual State of City gathering

• New York City, Church and Civility. OpEd by Mac Pier, NYC Leadership Center

• NYC public housing authority pulls Christmas Pearl Harbor on religious groups

Sex.

A lot of Christians are talking about it... and some are talking about talking about it.

I do get that part of this is a way to engage culture and answer questions people are asking. As John Ortberg jokes, to draw a lot of people, you should teach on three subjects: sex, the end times, and will there be sex in the end times?

American churches are competing for attention through television, twitter, media, talking heads, talk show hosts, and any other medium they can use. Strategies are developed for their message to be heard over the noise of culture. Sex, indeed, seems to get people's attention-- and many use it for that purpose in the church-- yet, it is also an important issue in need of biblical clarity and discernment, not just attention and discussion. Yes, people want to talk about sex, but how do we do it in a way that glorifies Christ?

I remember when I first heard of AIDS in church. It may have been called GRID (Gay Related Immune Disorder) at the time, but I know for certain the speaker that day called it "the gay plague." The speaker was half right, but also completely wrong.

He was right that it is a plague-- 34 million people worldwide are infected with HIV and 2.7 million more are infected each year (See World Health Organization data here). Yet, he used his sermon that day to claim so many crazy facts about homosexuality and this disease. Many Christians, once again, reacted poorly at first. He was wrong in that he never mentioned caring for the hurting and ministering to the sick. That's something that Christians should always care about-- regardless of the stigma or source of a disease.  And, at first, many churches did not.

Yet, that is not the end of the story. Christians did get involved and still are. Ministries such as Samaritan's Purse, Every Orphan's Hope, He Intends Victory, and World Vision are involved and serving. Lately, we hear less about AIDS, but days like this help to remind us how prevalent it is-- here and around the world.

AIDS is still a very real problem. About 1 out of every 300 people in the U.S. have AIDS, but in Botswana it's almost one out of 4 people. (See infection rates by country here.) But the good news is that both the number of new infections and number of people dying each year is decreasing.  There are a number of reasons for this, but one widely acknowledged reason is that churches and Christians have become involved.

The Gospel Impacts AIDS Ministry

The fight against AIDS is more than an educational or moral issue. It's a Christian issue.  Yet, since AIDS is primarily spread through sexual contact, it has led to awkward conversations-- or no conversation at all. That's a mistake. 

We know that the ultimate remedy for the global HIV/AIDS pandemic is not a medicinal remedy, an educational remedy, or a moral remedy. It is a gospel remedy.  Like Jesus, we can show the love of Christ to those hurting the most. And, here is a case where we can both show and share the love of Christ.

What You Can Do Today

1. Pray for those who are facing the disease. World Vision has a helpful page for a prayer emphasis on World AIDS Day.

2. Be aware. The Centers for Disease Control has a web page with lots of information. Yes, it's graphic since AIDS is primarily spread by sexual content, and I do wish that there was some mention of abstinence education, but many of the fact sheets provided by the CDC are enlightening. Facts are our friends and people need to know more, not less, about AIDS.

3. Give of your time and talents to those who are fighting the disease or ministering to its victims. You and your church can partner locally with health care ministries, pregnancy centers, and even hospice in your area and globally with other ministries to fight the spread of the disease in third world countries.

4. Show courage. Too many people have lacked courage to learn about the illness, to be around those who have the illness, or to care for those who do. If Christians had more courage and less fear, I would have heard something different that first time, and we'd hear more about the illness in our churches today.  

At the end of the day today, many people will have talked about AIDS-- and I hope you will as well. Talk about how your church can be involved in AIDS ministry and engagement.  I found it interesting that I could find few evangelical churches or denominations with ministry resources for ministering to and with people with AIDS.  The Christian Reformed Church has one, Saddleback has one, Wheaton Bible Church has one, yet where are the rest?  

Feel free to share some resources if you have some.

The ability of a man and woman to live with each other day after day is, as Bill Cosby once observed, "undoubtedly a miracle the Vatican has overlooked." When you factor in a prolonged sickness like cancer, ALS ("Lou Gehrig's Disease") or Alzheimer's, even the closest, most solid marital ships can find themselves near to running aground.

Regardless of these inherent dangers, those of us who are married have taken vows of commitment, generally before God and witnesses. And, most all of us make this promise to keep these vows "as long as we both shall live" or "until God shall separate us by death" or other equally strong, compelling words. Biblical admonitions about taking vows (Ecclesiastes 5:4, 5, for example) make the seriousness of such promises clear.

Recently on the 700 Club broadcast host Pat Robertson answered a viewer's question about marriage, divorce and Alzheimer's Disease. The caller wanted advice on how to speak to a friend who had entered a dating relationship with a lady because his wife had Alzheimer's and she "as he knows her is gone," speaking of her mental condition.

Christianity Today reports here.

Let me start by saying that Pat Robertson has done some good things--kingdom things--over the years. He has participated in the public square, as more Christians should. Operation Blessing is a wonderful organization. Many have been impacted by his ministry. When I met him, I found him to be a kind and gracious man. So my evaluation here should not be interpreted as yet another person on the "Bash Pat" bandwagon. Yes, Pat has said some many things I find unhelpful and just wrong, but I am glad I am not on television answering questions for hours each day. We all make mistakes.

That being said, however, what Robertson said in answer to this viewer was wrong--not just wrong, but utterly reprehensible. I hope he will apologize and do so soon.

I watched my grandfather forget my name (and just about everyone else's name) as Alzheimer's took its toll. Similar stories are already popping up on Facebook walls all across the Internet. Alzheimer's is a terrible thing, made more terrible when we abandon those who need us most.

I can appreciate that Robertson has concern for the spouse who remains healthy, and he should. But the greatest sacrifice is not that we lose our spouse to a mental black hole from which there is no return. That must be agonizing beyond words, but the answer is not abandonment of the afflicted one. Surely we cannot post-modernize "for better for worse, in sickness and in health" to cover our own feelings rather than physical realities.

But, Robertson's error reminds us that EVERY DAY we can lay down our lives for one another. It might not involve changing the diapers of a demented adult, but it very well could that or other needs for extreme sacrifice.

The famed Princeton theologian of the late 1800s-early 1900s, B.B. Warfield, knew this experience. Shortly after his graduation from Princeton and marriage to Annie Pierce Kinkead in 1876, Warfield and his new bride visited Germany where she was struck by lightning, suffering permanent paralysis. He cared for her, working his job a theologian and teacher around her needs, until her death in 1915--nearly 40 years.

Closer to our own day is the moving story of former Columbia International University president, Robertson McQuilkin and his wife, Muriel, who contracted Alzheimer's disease in 1981. After caring for her as much as possible for nine years while continuing to lead the school (including having her accompany him to classes at times) he found it unworkable to be her full time caregiver and simultaneously maintain his ministry commitments. Therefore, he resigned from the presidency of Columbia. Here is an of a portion of speech where he gives his reasoning:

Not only was Robertson McQuilkin like Jesus in keeping his word to Muriel; he was like Jesus in his love for her. In his resignation letter to the school, he made clear that he didn't think of it as his "duty" to care for her:

Duty, however, can be grim and stoic. But there is more: I love Muriel. She is a delight to me--her childlike dependence and confidence in me, her warm love, occasional flashes of that wit I used to relish so, her happy spirit and tough resilience in the face of her continual distressing frustration. I don't have to care for her. I get to! It is a high honor to care for so wonderful a person (quoted in Disciplines of a Godly Man, by R. Kent Hughes, p. 34).

The name of McQuilkin's own book, A Promise Kept, is as clear a statement as needs to be made. Others can refute unwise statements like those of Pat Robertson, but this how Christ's love for the church is our model-- he laid down his life. So should we. When it comes to marriage and Alzheimers, listen to Robertson McQuilken and not Pat Robertson.

Last month, it was reported that Willow Creek Church ended its decade-long relationship with Exodus International. Christianity Today reported:

Willow Creek Community Church's formal relationship with Exodus International has ended.

While the decision to part ways dates back to 2009, news that the South Barrington megachurch had cut ties with Exodus, the world's largest ministry addressing homosexuality, did not surface until late June.

Scott Vaudrey of the elder response team said in writing that Willow Creek's decision was not intended as a social or political statement, but rather an indication of "a season of reviewing and clarifying some of our affiliations with outside organizations."

Alan Chambers, president of Exodus, disagrees. "The choice to end our partnership is definitely something that shines a light on a disappointing trend within parts of the Christian community," he said, "which is that there are Christians who believe like one another who aren't willing to stand with one another, simply because they're afraid of the backlash people will direct their way if they are seen with somebody who might not be politically correct."

Yet, such a "split" does not seem to placate some.

This week, Willow Creek is hosting its well-attended Leadership Summit. Bill Hybels has a history of inviting diverse speakers from within and from outside of the Christian community. In this case, one of those invited has withdrawn from the venue-- and it is all over the news.

The issue started with an online petition was posted to demand that Starbucks Chairman and CEO, Howard Schultz withdraw from speaking at the Willow Creek Leadership Summit due to the church's "history [of] anti-gay persecution." The petition stated:

The church that is sponsoring the event on August 11th and 12th has a long history anti-gay persecution. For decades the church was a member of Exodus International, the organization that seeks to cure homosexuality through dangerous conversion therapy. The church split ways with the group, but in doing so stated that it wasn't a change in belief but a change in focus. The church also has their own "outreach" programs to the LGBT community to spread their anti-lgbt message.

The Chicago Tribune reports the connection to Starbuck's CEO Schultz:

This week, the founder of the coffee company on virtually every corner backed out of an appearance at Willow Creek Community Church, an evangelical mega-church in South Barrington. Starbucks isn't saying why, but... speculation points to an online petition urging Schultz to denounce the church's views on homosexuality before he spoke.

Bill Hybels ended that speculation and mentioned the connection in his comments, and was (as he always is) very gracious. You may want to watch his comments here:

Moments like this elevate the issue and create important discussions. The issue of homosexuality will need to be increasingly addressed-- and addressed graciously-- in the Christian community.

Andrew Marin tweeted that he was attending the Willow Creek as a "special guest of Willow Creek re: Starbucks CEO cancellation." Andrew's book, Love is an Orientation: Elevating the Conversation with the Gay Community, seeks to help Christians engage in grace-filled conversations. I believe it has won awards because so many are asking how best to engage in a conversation when so many have failed in the past.

Much could be said here, but let me briefly suggest five principles to consider about the issue of homosexuality and evangelical churches:

1. The issue is not going away and you cannot ignore it or seek to downplay your views.
2. The culture sees this as a "justice" issue-- Christians discriminating on the basis of immutable characteristics.
3. Though it is easy to make the case (in the church) that homosexual practice is incompatible with scripture, it will be exceedingly difficult case to make in today's culture.
4. Building bridges and showing grace and love is needed, lacking, and essential when dealing with people with different views and values.
5. At the end of the day, all evangelicals (including centrist evangelicals like those at Willow Creek) will still have to deal with an issue that the world perceives as narrow and bigoted.

Pray for Willow as they are in the media this week-- that they will make much of Jesus, will continue to stay true to the scriptures, and will show grace in the process.

How do you deal with this issue?


By now, it appears, the media has decided that Norway's shooter was not a "Christian fundamentalist." GetReligion's Terry Mattingly, explained:


At this point, I think most journalists have reached the point that they know that Anders Behring Breivik (a) has self-identified as a 'Christian,' (b) yet he also made it clear that he is not a Christian believer, in terms of beliefs and practice and (c) that it is bizarre to call him a "fundamentalist," in any historic sense of the word.



This is a far cry from initial reports.  CNN is my preferred news station and I could not count how many times I heard the word "Christian fundamentalist."  We are told we should renounce the "Christian terrorist," and lest anyone be unclear, I (and all Christians) do.  That label "Christian fundamentalist" traveled around the world before anyone asked if it was correct.
 
Now, calmer voices have emerged. CNN's Belief Blog brings the clarity:
  

"
He was a flaky extremist who might as well have claimed to be fighting for the honor of Hogwarts as for the cause of Christ," said Philip Jenkins, a Pennsylvania State University professor who studies global religion and politics, describing the suspected Norway attacker. "He did not represent a religious movement. ... People should not follow that Christian fundamentalist red herring."


Agreed.  It's a red herring.  But, I don't think that ends the conversation for the mainstream media.  As I wrote last week (as did many others with bigger megaphones), this identification was obviously incorrect, yet the media pursued and propogated THAT VERY red herring... and the question I would like to ask is, "why?"
 


To be fair, this is what the initial police report said.  However, that was soon debunked by those who took the the time to read what Breivik actually wrote.  And, reporters are a fiercely independent bunch--except when there is a preconceived perception. We all tend to see the world through our preconceptions.  For example, I am more likely to believe something questionable when I already have a perception or belief about an issue.

In other words, when new information (the police officer's solitary comment) reinforces how we already see the world (Christian fundamentalists are dangerous). 

I think there are three reasons that many in the media were so quick to assume and report this unsubstantiated label.
 


1. Many in the media have deep suspicions about what they call "fundamentalism." They do not understand these strange people and are afraid of what they might do.  If you are reading this blog, you are probably what the media would call a "fundamentalist." 



2. Some desire to create a moral equivalence.  There are Muslim fundamentalists and they are bad.  There must be Christian fundamentalists who are equally bad. 



3. Many believe that Christian fundamentalists are just a moment away from violence. Franky Schaeffer continues to be a sad spectacle of evangelical hate, comparing conservative evangelicals to the Taliban.




A narrative is being fashioned about conservative Christians (and to the media, just about all evangelicals would be very conservative). 
That narrative is that they are simple, angry, persecute gays, cling to God and guns, and are close to violence at any moment.  
 
So, to the media, this was an "aha" moment--they saw it coming all along.  However, their response says more about the media than it does about Breivik.
 


Now, all this to say, I think an important moment of self-examination needs to take place in the media.  Simply put, in regards to labeling Breivik a fundamentalist, "Why so eager?"   I think we can all see why--I just hope that those in the mainstream media can as well.
 

Christianity Today has a discussion starter that deals with issues of hospitality, sacred space, and mission. Say what? Well, as other religions continue to grow in many of our cities, churches are appropriately seeking ways of engaging these people and their faith with the gospel. Some, seeking to be hospitable, have opened their places of worship to other faith groups to use for their worship gatherings. For example, "Heartsong Church in Tennessee and Aldersgate United Methodist Church in Virginia have hosted Muslim worship communities in their church buildings, prompting the question of how much hospitality is too much."

So here begins the discussion. How should we think about our buildings, and the issue of "sacred space?" Is it hospitable to allow other groups outside of the church to use our buildings? Is it appropriate to allow political voting to happen within our walls? How about a blood drive? Do you think the space itself is sacred, and to be used only for explicitly Christian purposes? Or maybe you don't buy the sacred space idea. Either way, the bigger problem is a church essentially encouraging another religion to reach out and make their own disciples.

I'm quoted in this piece as saying,

Christians need to be stalwart advocates for religious freedom while not succumbing to the temptation of religious pluralism. People should be free to worship according to their convictions, but it's necessary to recognize that Christianity is not the same as other world religions.

Check out the article here, but come back to discuss on the blog.

A recent survey by The Pew Forum says that Evangelicals would favor federal budget cuts in areas that support the needy and disadvantaged. Christianity Today has an article explaining the situation and the survey.

The House of Representatives is working day and night in its effort to cut more than $60 billion from the federal budget. The House is considering a continuing resolution, a bill used to fund the federal government for the remainder of the year. The bill includes deep cuts for environmental agencies, education, and foreign aid (except those related to security). It makes modest reductions for defense, homeland security, and police. These cuts are in line with the spending priorities of most American evangelicals.

The Pew Research Center for People and the Press released a February 10 survey of Americans on their budget priorities, in which they asked them whether they favored increasing, decreasing, or keeping current levels of spending in specific policy areas. Pew provided Christianity Today with a religious breakdown of questions on the budget and spending priorities.

...

The top choices among evangelicals for the chopping block are economic assistance to needy people around the world (56 percent), government assistance for the unemployed (40 percent), and environmental protection (38 percent). In each of these categories, evangelicals were more supportive of decreasing spending than are other Americans. In fact, evangelicals were more supportive of funding cuts in every area except military defense, terrorism defense, aid to veterans, and energy.

Read the entire article and then come back to discuss. Are the Sojourners asking the right question, "What Would Jesus Cut?" What would you cut? Should the church's prophetic voice be heard on this issue, and if so, what should we be saying?

When I spoke at the D6 Conference, I made an off-handed statement that has generated a lot of questions. In that talk, I said something to the effect that teen rebellion is not found in all cultures. Thus, it is not a universal cultural experience. In other words, it is a myth that teens consistently rebel in every culture and context.

I probably mentioned teen rebellion is more common in Western industrialized societies with formalized educational systems. Since that time, people keep asking me, "where can I find more about that?" (Which teaches me not to make an off-handed comment in front of thousands of people.)

We had a good conversation in response to Collin Hanson's article in Christianity Today regarding ministry to Muslims and some how to approach the translation of "son of God." In response to some of the material covered in that article, and other articles by Rick brown my friend, "Rod," offers his thoughts below. Due to his situation, I cannot use his real name. But, I know Rod well. He has written his Ph.D. dissertation on Islam, has studied 10 languages, and lives incarnationally among Muslims doing evangelism and church planting in Asia.

Brief Thoughts on Rick Brown's articles, Explaining the Biblical Term 'Son(s) of God' in Muslim Contexts and Translating the Biblical Term Son(s) of God in Muslim Contexts.

Rick Brown has written two challenging articles in the Fall and Winter 2005 issues of the International Journal of Frontier Missions. The articles warn of the danger of the term "Son of God" in Islamic contexts as well as showing the importance of explaining and translating the term carefully when it is used. Perhaps this was the extent of the author's purpose, and if so the articles are very informative.

Unfortunately, the articles are being used to encourage people across Asia and perhaps in other places, to drop the term "Son of God" from new translations of scripture and new versions of the Jesus Film. For this reason, I feel it is necessary to take a closer look at some of the comments in these articles.

Continue reading The Son of God and Ministry to Muslims.

Collin Hansen has written an article in Christianity Today about the current controversy in missiology relating to ministry to Muslims. At the heart of the controversy is how to best translate the Bible. But, it's not just a matter of translation. It is also an issue of contextualization. For example, is it appropriate to use the word "Allah" (a title older then Islam) to refer to God in these new translations? Another key translation issue is what to do with Jesus' title, "Son of God." Since last week's discussion of the MissionSHIFT book was focused on contextualization, it seems this might be a worthwhile addition to the topic.

While this title and its meaning are very important to identity of Jesus, proponents of dropping the term indicated that Muslims become confused over it and "believe this phrase means that the Father engaged in sexual relations with Mary." If you have ever had a serious conversation with a Muslim, this always comes up. I mentioned this is my talk at the Global Faith Forum, with Muslims, Christians, and Jews all in attendance. To overcome such a misunderstanding, one translation instead refers to Jesus as "the Beloved Son who comes (or originates) from God."

The Religion Newswriters Association released the top ten religion stories of 2010. The RNA is generally made up of religious reporters / writers in secular newspapers. I think it is interesting what they believe made the most significant headlines last year. In case you weren't paying attention, here are four of the top stories listed.

#9. The U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey released by the Pew Forum offers some surprising findings, including that atheists, agnostics, Jews and Mormons had the highest correct answers.

You weren't expecting that, I bet. You can hit the Pew Forum for the details of that study here.

#7. The prolonged economic slump spells trouble for additional churches and ministries.

I blogged on this issue myself. You can read that here.

#3. Pope Benedict XVI is accused of delaying church action against pedophile priests in Ireland, Germany, the United States and other countries when he led the Vatican office in charge of discipline 1981 to 2005.

You can read a BBC report on this story here.

And the #1 religion news story of 2010 is one you certainly recognize.

#1 A proposal to build an Islamic center and mosque near Ground Zero leads to a national debate on religious freedom, with strong statements on both sides as the 9/11 anniversary approached.

This issue elicited strong responses among evangelicals on both sides of the discussion. You can check out the wikipedia page of Park51, the name of the mosque/cultural center, here.

Head over to RNA.org and check out the entire top ten list, and then come back here to discuss. They also have #'s 11-20. The number 11 slot goes to the "Faith-based aid workers are slain in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Half of Iraq's 750,000 Christians have left it since 2003." I wish that story got more attention, but at least it did get some press.

What religious stories will make the news this year? Are you ready to engage in the dialogue (wherever it goes) with truth and grace, seeking to point the world to Christ?

I have an article up at the Christian Post called, "Why Share Christ at Christmas," encouraging us al to use this time of year to share Christ, rather than argue about how a culture of unbelievers should greet customers in stores. It turns out that during the holidays a large percentage of people are pretty open to hearing about "the reason for the season."

Research has borne out the fact that Christmas is a great time to share Christ. In 2008 LifeWay Research did a study for the North American Mission Board. The results showed that among the top five times of life when American adults are open for considering matters of faith, Christmas tops the list. In fact, 47 percent of respondents indicated openness during the time of yuletide cheer.

Additionally, those in this same demographic indicated they were somewhat or very willing to receive information about a local church from a family member (63 percent) or a friend or neighbor from the church (56 percent). When we combine these ideas, it becomes clear that people are very open to hearing about Christ at Christmas, especially from people they know.

Christmas marketing campaigns and advertising are good support, but the most effective approach remains the personal relationship. Let's not miss it by being distracted by Christmas trappings ourselves.

In 2006, the team I led at the Center for Missional Research (my old job) sponsored a poll and found that 41 percent of Americans indicated they are likely to be open to an invitation during the Christmas season.

And it is not simply detached believers who are open. Our study found:

• Nearly 34 percent of respondents who registered "Other/None" for their religion indicated that they'd attend when invited to a Christian worship service during the Christmas season.
• Of the respondents who were not churchgoers, 12 percent of those who never go to church and 34 percent of those who rarely attend indicated they were more likely to attend a Christmas service if invited.
• And an astounding 42 percent of those who said they were not born again would come to a Christian worship service during the Christmas season if asked.

You can read the whole article at The Christian Post. But come back here to discuss. Are you finding that people in your community are open to such invitations? What value do you place on this sort of "attractional" approach to reaching the lost? Does your church celebrate Advent, have a Christmas Eve service, etc.?

I'm sure many of you have seen this, as it has been making the rounds this week on the interwebs. I've been working on some other research and missed it until Mark Driscoll emailed it to me (thanks, Mark).

The New York Times has produced an interactive map of America that allows users to browse data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (based on samples from 2005 to 2009) in specific neighborhoods. The website says, "Because these figures are based on samples, they are subject to a margin of error, particularly in places with a low population, and are best regarded as estimates." Nevertheless, this is a helpful (and cool) tool that offers some good information on your city and the neighborhoods that make it up.

Churches and church planters in particular use websites like city-data.com, or get specialized research of their communities through their denomination or network, to better understand the makeup of the people they are seeking to reach with the gospel. If you want to weigh in, I wonder: Are you using any tools like this to better understand your city? How have you found such demographic research to be helpful in your ministry?

The Global Faith Forum 2010 was an opportunity to move from a conversation about other faiths, to a conversation with one another. This was a gathering unlike most of you have ever been to, where leaders with different faiths and worldviews came together to talk about how we can better understand and communicate with one another in the 21st century. From the website,

The Global Faith Forum brings together distinct and conservative bodies of faith for greater understanding, while facing our differences with grace and humility. Muslims, Jews, and Christians hold different beliefs about who Jesus and God is.

Below you can listen to my talk from the Forum, but I'm continuing this blog series (you can go back and read parts One and Two) by breaking down that talk so we can work through the ideas together.

GFF - Thu Evening Keynote from Northwood Church on Vimeo.

In Multifaith and the Global Faith Forum, Part 2 I argued that an interfaith approach to different religions is impossible because we all make absolute truth claims that conflict with one another. We looked at the four world religions that represent approximately 75 percent of the world's population, and saw that "according to the four largest world religions God does not exist, God is one with creation and takes on millions of forms, God is one, and God is trinity--One God in Three Persons."

Today I'd like us to work our way into the issue of coexisting with other religions while maintaining fidelity to the truth of God's word and his command to love our neighbors.

So, how do religions that are mutually exclusive exist side by side peacefully? In the spirit of multi-faith dialogue I would like to propose four foundational commitments that the followers of the world's religions could agree to make:

• We commit to letting each religion speak for itself;


• We commit to talking with and about individuals and not generic "faiths";


• We commit to mutually respect the sincerely held beliefs of people in other religions, and


• We commit to granting each person the freedom to make his or her own faith decisions.

First, in order for there to be healthy multi-faith dialogue, we must allow the followers of each of the world's religions to speak for themselves. Otherwise we are not responding to the actual beliefs of people but to caricatures of those beliefs--and there are plenty of those.

A friend of mine living in India had an interesting conversation with a Hindu about Islamic faith and practice. In all sincerity the Hindu stated, "As you know, Hindus worship cows and therefore we do not eat beef. Similarly, Muslims do not eat pork because they worship pigs." All of us know how false--even offensive--that assertion was.

What happened? How did this man get it so wrong? His mistake was trying to interpret what he saw in Islam through his Hindu worldview and he missed the point entirely. By thinking he understood Islam, the Hindu had actually insulted Muslims. Had he understood his error he would have been horrified--he was not being malicious; he was just ill-informed.

When we assume that we understand the worldview of another better than they understand it themselves, we get into all kinds of trouble. The same problem often occurs when some Muslims have tried to explain the doctrine of the Trinity. Across the globe Christians are often accused of worshipping three gods--God the Father, God the Mother and God the Son. In reality the idea that God would have a physical relationship with a woman and produce a child is as offensive to Christians as it is to Muslims. But instead of asking Christians what they actually believe, many people are content to get their understandings from non-Christians rather than going to the source.

Any good researcher will tell you that examination of the primary sources is vital to good research. If someone wants to understand Judaism, he should read the Talmud and visit a synagogue. The same applies to someone who wants to learn about Hinduism -- talk to Hindus. Read the Ramayana and the Mahabharata. To find out what is important to Muslims, don't watch biased news reports (whether liberal or conservative), but talk to your Muslim neighbors. And to understand the message of Christianity, read the Bible and meet with followers of Christ.

That is why, on a recent trip to London, I preached at Westminster Chapel on the need for Christians to be on mission to reach out to their neighbors. I brought pastors to help plant churches in communities of people without Christ. But, we also took the time to visit the largest Gurdwara (Sikh Temple) in England. I covered my head as a sign of respect, listened to the leaders, Granthi, as they read from the Guru Granth Sahib and prayed for those I met. It matters to learn from those of other faiths. And, we should not be afraid of this. If we believe (as I do) that we have found the truth (or in my case, the Truth has found me), then a mutual search for truth will lead people in the right direction. We ought not fear such.

But getting the facts straight is not enough. We would all benefit from gaining an understanding of the basic principles of cross-cultural communication--not misunderstanding (or misrepresenting) what others mean and how they came to the decisions they have made.

We need to learn to see the world as followers of other religions do. This is not as easy. And it does not mean agreeing with them or adopting their religion. But judging another culture using one's own patterns of "good" and "bad" leads to all sorts of misunderstanding.

So, in summary, to engage in multi-faith conversation is that we learn about each person's religion and culture from original sources. We should not learn from people who speak as if they know but in reality do not.

Jump into the comments to share your thoughts. Up next, how do we commit to talking with and about individuals and not generic "faiths?"

I do not get much into causes-- they take way too much energy and produce little change. However, I do think that there are times to stand up-- and I think this is one of those times. Today, there will be much talk in Congress about the new TSA procedures.

I will offer four reasons why I think you should resist these new TSA procedures. Now, I do not mean you should be rude nor do I intend on breaking the law-- I do neither. I think it is important that I am not saying to disregard, disobey, or disrespect. If I am screened, I will submit to the gropes (and refuse the scopes), but I will resist. I will resist by refusing the virtual strip search and complaining each and every time I am groped-- respectfully and kindly (it is not the employees fault). Resist is defined as, "to make a stand or make efforts in opposition; act in opposition; offer resistance." That's what I plan to do and I think you should as well.

But, I think you should resist the policy that requires some passengers to either submit to a full body x-ray scan that produces an essentially nude image of the passenger, or endure an invasive "pat down."

Let me say right up front that President Obama is seeking to protect our county from harm.  And, for that matter, I do not consider Secretary Napolitano and TSA Administrator John Pistole to be bad people with nefarious motives.  They have just made a bad decision. And, if you have watched the news at all this week, it appears that many folks feel the same way (including pilots, flight attendants, the House of Representatives, the New Jersey legislature, and many regular people just like you and me).

Why should we resist the new procedure?

1. It is wrong.

Yes, I will say it that bluntly. It is wrong to take naked pictures of people as a requirement for them to travel across a free country. And, it is wrong to grope their genitals as a requirement of travel.

Now, honestly, I don't care if they want to look at my lumpy physique all day. In one sense, you would have to consider that a painful sacrifice on the TSA agent's part.

But, I have a wife and three daughters. I teach my children that only their parents or their doctor should see or touch certain places on their bodies. And, I do not think I should add, "Oh, and strangers in the airport."

The TSA has already backed down on groping children under 12. (This video is an example of why this change was made.) But, does that mean that at 13 it is OK for a man alone behind a screen to see naked pictures of my daughter. And, let's not forget how graphic these pictures are. (You can see that many places on the web so I won't link that here-- they are too graphic.)

But, you say, "it is a stranger and you do not see that person." Well, I do not want strangers to see my wife naked. Simply put, that is unacceptable.

The government promises they won't keep the pictures, and (last I saw) they have a little paper sign on the door to the room where they see them. The sign says you can't bring in your cell phone camera. Great idea-- but I wonder how long it will be until some famous movie star ends up on the Internet.

2. It doesn't work.

The TSA has been at work for nine years and has caught a grand total of zero terrorists. The widespread view is that this is simply "security theater." It is a show that won't make a difference.

At some point, you have to recognize that you simply cannot continue the ratcheting up of privacy invasion. Yes, you can take naked pictures and grope people's genitals, but that won't stop a determined terrorist. For example, it is questionable if it would have stopped the underwear bomber and it certainly would not have stopped the Saudi assassin who put explosives in his rectum.

So, if you say we have to be sure to catch every possible person at this check point, you need to start searching up people's rectum. That may seem ridiculous, but I bet naked pictures and genital gropes seemed ridiculous in early October.

What is needed is a system more like the Israeli one-- but politicians lack the political will to do so.

3. It gives government too much power.

Our founders always were concerned that the government not have too much power. They put checks and balances on the government because the natural tendency of government is to grow more, not less, intrusive. And, that is exactly what has happened with the TSA.

For example, the House of Representatives specifically voted to not allow the TSA to use virtual strip searchers as their primary means of security (the Senate never voted). Yet, here they are.

It is the right and responsibility of the people to stand up and demand change. I do not think that you should give up your rights in order to fly.

Now, I am aware of the legal issues involved. And, yes, you DO forfeit your Fourth Amendment rights as a condition of carriage, but that can change if people resist.

4. You should not have to give up naked pictures in order to go to work.

I wonder if you would keep working at Home Depot if they required you take naked pictures and have your genitals touched. Yet, millions of people fly for their job. And, that is exactly what this means for them.

Secretary Napolitano has said that you can choose other means of travel. Really? This week I have been in Dallas, Seattle, Oklahoma City, and Columbia. I have taken ten airline flights in the last ten days-- and they were for my work. Some of us have to fly. I could stay home, but I have talked to several flight attendants this week and they, by nature of their job, have to fly -- and they are mortified that the people they see every day get to see them naked.

So, what should you do? Well, I get that most of you do not fly much. And at this time you should be thankful for that. It seems like some are working hard to make it a painful experience. But, you might have to fly some time soon, and you can help make a difference right now.

I believe when you think about the issue you will want to do something. For example, when I showed uberblogger Trevin Wax the pictures (which felt wrong to even do that), he was shocked and has already expressed his concern. (By the way, Doug Wilson is a prominent Christian leader / blogger who has expressed his concerns here).

But, here are three ways to resist:

1. Don't fly and tell your airline that you won't.
Actually, there is a website with that very suggestion. Call the place where you were going and tell them why you are not coming.

2. Opt out of the virtual strip search machine.
And, I would do that by telling the TSA agent (where others can hear), "I do not believe you should have naked picture of me in order to fly -- I opt out." Yes, you will have your genitals handled by a stranger, but I would complain about that as well -- with kindness since they are doing their job.

Now, I recognize that TSA Administrator John Pistole has said (of a forthcoming protest called "opt out day"): "On the eve of a major national holiday and less than one year after al Qaida's failed attack last Christmas Day, it is irresponsible for a group to suggest travelers opt out of the very screening that could prevent an attack using non-metallic explosives." (via) But, I do not think that people exercising their right to not be photographed naked is a threat to national security.

3. Call your Senator today.
You can find a list of those on the committee here. I have already contacted my Senators and one on the committee that is meeting right now.

Let's not forget that they have already changed the policies once and public pressure can help them change again. However, the law of the land is what it is. If you choose to fly, you may have to give up naked pictures of you, your wife, and your children or you will have to explain to them that a stranger will touch them.

So, resistance is a grand Christian tradition. When people have stood up to unjust laws, things have changed. And, this is an unjust (and immoral) law. It is not the fault of the many fine employees of the TSA. They are just doing their job as assigned-- and they don't like the gropes either. So, follow the law, exercise your rights, and call your member of Congress.

This is actually not a radical view.  It is ALREADY the view of the House of Representatives.  As Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, explained, "You don't have to look at my wife and 8-year-old daughter naked to secure an airplane."  The House voted 310-118 to ban the virtual strip search machine as the primary scan. The Senate never voted on the issue so it is not law. Today, I am guessing the Senate will take additional action.

Everyone knows we need security.  My suggestion is simple: enhance the current system with more Israeli-like security and live with the fact that you simply cannot make every place in society a fortress that you can only enter via strip search.  You don't want to live that way.

Feel free to weigh in but do so respectfully or our government and others.

As a rule, I don't do interfaith meetings. Our goals generally do not line up. Yet, next week I will be speaking at the Global Faith Forum at Northwood Church (led by Pastor Bob Roberts) in Keller, Texas which will be one of the few times I am on the same platform as those of other faiths-- the last time being a meeting at the Washington Post building with the Religion Newswriters Association.

Five years ago, however, I found myself sitting in an interfaith meeting. Gracious people from different religions and denominations had gathered together to plan for common research on congregations. We met at the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America headquarters in Chicago to plan the ongoing work of congregational research, a project launched and funded by a major grant through a charitable endowment. The goal of the Cooperative Congregational Studies Partnership was to bring together participants from Protestant, Catholic, Jewish, Muslim, Baha'i' and Orthodox churches to research and compare the realities of our work.

I was one of those participants but was unsure if I belonged. During one of the main sessions, the facilitator explained that this research should lead to cooperative resourcing to help all our respective congregations. He suggested that we could jointly create, publish, and distribute resources to help congregations deal with faith development, growth, and other issues.

At the appropriate time, and with my best smile, I raised my hand and said something like, "I am here for the research. I appreciate the funding which allows us to survey our churches and I think it is helpful to use similar questions and metrics for better research. But, I am not here to form a partnership to help one another and our congregations. I want to help the churches I serve, but part of the reason they exist is to convert some of you."

I paused, smiled, and worked hard not to sound menacing. Some of them looked at me as if I had just used a string of profanities. But others nodded in agreement. And then the Muslim Imam seated next to me spoke up and said, "I actually feel the same way."

Though we were in a minority in that group of (predominantly) liberal Protestants, we represented the growing groups. We believed in sharing and growing our faith, we did not think that we were all worshiping the same God or gods, and we were not there to pretend we believed the same things. In other words, our goal was not a merging of faiths, a blurring of belief, or even interfaith partnership.

In any case, we were able to help move the meeting back to its original intent-- doing better research with the funding of a major endowment and using some similar metrics for comparison.

The Imam and I had a good laugh after the meeting. At the same time, we realized that we were not of the same faith and, honestly, we would each be overjoyed if we could bring the other to the truth.

Without using the word, we were acknowledging that we were "multi-faith. " By "multi-faith," I mean to acknowledge that we are not all of the same faith, we are not sharing a faith, but we are representing differing, multiple faiths. Acknowledging our distinctive belief systems, even when they contradict, is critical to bringing value to our existence. Anything else is at least dysfunctional, and more likely dishonest at the core. Simply put, we do not all worship the same God, we are not on the same path, and those who say so are naive at best.

Multi-faith, if the word catches on, is simply a recognition that within a particular group we are more than one faith. Worldwide trends indicate that a multi-faith approach is reality and our future. Adherence to the major world religions is growing. German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche declared "God is Dead" well over 100 years ago, but statements declaring the death of God were apparently premature. In fact, although Nietzsche's angst was against Christianity, secular thinking has long embraced the idea that religion was the problem of society, not so much the solution.

"God is Dead" has been replaced by the declaration "God is Back." Economists John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge (an atheist and Roman Catholic) wrote a fascinating book by that title:

Statistics about religious observance are notoriously untrustworthy, but most of them seem to indicate that the global drift toward secularism has been halted, and quite a few show religion to be on the increase. One estimate suggests that the proportion of people attached to the world's four biggest religions - Christianity, Islam, Buddhism and Hinduism - rose from 67 percent in 1900 to 73 percent in 2005 and may reach 80 percent by 2025.

John Micklethwait and Adrian Wooldridge, God is Back: How the Global Revival of Faith is Changing the World, New York: The Penguin Press, p. 16]

The phrase multi-faith might sound strange to you. Yet the idea makes much more sense if peaceful co-existence and understanding in a crowded religious world are important-- and I think they are.

For years people have promoted the concept of "interfaith dialogue." The idea was to discover common ground that unites us and work as one for the good of humanity. That sounds good, until we begin to analyze what that really means.

In an interfaith world there is often a desire to all work together on everything as if there are no issues. This always fails to work among serious believers of any faith because the differences are clear and pronounced.

In a multi-faith world, we recognize that we are not worshiping the same God, gods, or goals. And, we must not be offended by our desire to proselytize one another.

Yet, we will be NEAR one another. I do not believe in interfaith partnership, but we can be what Francis Schaeller called "cobelligerents," battling everything from poverty to pornography. However, we have to recognize when it comes to the souls of men and women we have a very different vision for the future. We can (and should) all serve the poor, and perhaps even work to not overlap our efforts, but for the poor in spirit our message is quite different. Those messages must be able to be freely given to those in need of good news.

The core belief of many in the interfaith dialogue business has been that at the core, all religions teach the same thing so we should be able to work together, standing on common ground, to make the world a better place. Hindus and Buddhists, Muslims and Jews, Christians and Animists ultimately are all saying the same thing and therefore should be able to cooperate to improve society. But how true is that assumption?

Check in next week and I will share more about why I believe Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life and that no one comes to the Father but through him. Yet, I know I will proclaim that message in a world where others believe something very different -- and I want to know them and their views, respect them, love them, and have the freedom to hear their views and present the good news of Jesus to them.

Feel free to weigh in as long as you do so in accordance to the comment rules. I will be giving the opening talk at the Global Faith Forum. What you have read above is the beginning of my presentation -- and I will share more of it next week. Also, I look forward to learning from others involved, including Mark Galli (Senior Managing Editor of CT), Mark DeYmaz, Al Weiss, Ray Bakke, Vance Pittman, and Os Guinness.

In leading or planting a church, central to your calling is the proclamation of the gospel in words and works of grace. As Christians and leaders in the church we represent Jesus, do the things of Jesus, and tell others about Jesus. And we do that in "relevant" ways.

If you've read my blog for any length of time you know I'm a believer in cultural relevance in our churches. Perhaps a better way to say it is that I believe gospel-centered, biblically faithful churches are culturally relevant. Not everyone gets excited about this subject, and I understand their concerns because I have some concerns as well. But I believe cultural relevance is a necessary aspect of and tool for missional ministry in each of our contexts.

The Gospel must always be delivered into a specific cultural context. To be culturally relevant is to take the unchanging Gospel into ever-changing cultures. We do that by listening to and understanding the culture, learning to speak their language, connecting the Gospel to the idols of the culture, and showing the beauty and supremacy of Jesus. Read through Paul's approach to the cities of Iconium, Lystra, Macedonia, and Athens in Acts 14-17 and you will find an excellent model of a discerning cultural relevance.

Trouble starts with cultural relevance when we misunderstand its importance. Sometimes we believe being relevant means being missional, but it doesn't. The truth is we can be culturally relevant and ultimately go nowhere in helping people know Jesus or serving Him on mission. Relevance is an implication of mission, and a tool for the mission, but it is not the goal of the mission. Making disciples through the spread of the gospel is the goal. If cultural relevance is our goal, the Gospel is demoted and we lose confidence in its transforming power and necessity.

How does this happen? How do we wind up elevating cultural relevance, intentionally or not, to be an ultimate goal? Here are a few ways.

We elevate cultural relevance when we focus on personal or social transformation and not Gospel transformation. The Gospel message is not about trying harder to be a good person. Atheists, Mormons, and Oprah can help you be good. The gospel message is not about cleaning up our cities. Atheists, Scientologists, and politicians can improve our cities. Cultural relevance as a goal will encourage us to stop short of the most needed and deepest changes in our lives because because of the desire not to offend those in the culture. When it is the goal, we stay on the surface of change and avoid the heart. But if cultural relevance is a tool we will focus our work on the Gospel that says that we need to be changed from the inside out. We will focus on a ministry in which Jesus transforms lives.

We elevate cultural relevance when our sermons are so practical that they lack a Gospel priority. Of course I'm not saying that practical sermons are bad. I think sermons with practical implications and application are essential. Some are trying so hard to be practical in their preaching that their messages are easily understood, received and applied, but Christ is not made known. I seek to never preach a message that would not be true if Jesus had not died on the cross. Belief in a bloody cross and an empty tomb should be foundational to whatever practical advice we share.

We elevate cultural relevance when our outreach demeans others who preach the Gospel. I've seen the mailers from churches that say things like, "top 10 reasons every other church in this county stinks, but ours is great." They often use words like "relevant," "exciting," "fresh" and "real" to explain their ministries. If we are not careful, we can show confidence in our relevance, not in the Gospel. If the Gospel is at the center of our message and ministry, we will not communicate anything that allows people to devalue other churches that preach the Gospel. We will work with them and pray for them.

We elevate cultural relevance when personal evangelism is an oxymoron at our churches. Relevance as the goal makes our cool worship services the place where people connect and pastors are the only ones who tell people about Jesus. When the Gospel is the point and relevance is a tool, pastors will also equip God's people to take the Gospel with them into their communities. Sure, let's invite the neighbors to our worship services and ministries. But when done alone, it hinders the work of the Gospel.

We elevate cultural relevance when attendance is celebrated more than conversions. In one of our studies we asked a question about the conversion rate in new churches. We found that most churches never ask that question, and even if they ask they often give an inflated answer. One church from the study had done an incredible job planting multiple churches. They had the courage to survey all their people and ask the simple question, "Did you come to faith in Jesus Christ in this church?" The goal was 10% conversion growth in their new churches, but they found it was only 2-3%. Our focus can't simply be on our attendance, but seeing men and women come to faith in Jesus Christ.

We elevate cultural relevance when not offending seekers is often more important than telling the Gospel. God taught us a lot of things in the seeker movement. But it is hard to be perceived as sensitive when you talk about sin and death and the cross, the central elements of the Gospel. I think our focus needs to be "seeker-comprehensible": to communicate the Gospel clearly and understandably even as we communicate a message that is not sensitive or comfortable. Relevance is a tool that helps seekers comprehend the truths of the Gospel.

The good news is that cultural relevance and the Gospel aren't at odds. Relevance is a tool to be used by all churches from the painfully hip to the quietly liturgical, because it is the necessary consequence of doing things God's way. It is a missiological principle that helps us fulfill the goal of getting the Gospel to the greatest amount of people. Whatever community you find yourself in, use relevance with discernment and the Gospel with liberality.

If you missed the previous 7 parts in the series check out the links below:

Calling for Contextualization (Part 1)
Calling for Contextualization: The Need to Contend and Contextualize (Part 2)
Calling for Contextualization: Knowing and Making Known the Gospel (Part 3)
Calling for Contextualization: Untangling Cultural Engagement (Part 4)
Calling for Contextualization: Indigenization (Part 5)
Calling for Contextualization: Loving and Hating the World (Part 6)
Calling for Contextualization: The Contextualization Spectrum (Part 7)

Feel free to weigh in...

America is anything but "secular." We are a religious, mystical, "spiritual" country. But how does this differ from city to city, and region to region? The Barna Group did a "study of regional and city-level expressions of faith [that] both confirms and rejects many popular stereotypes about faith and religion in America." Head over to their website for the details. I'll share a few highlights below.

The cities with the highest percentage of residents who describe themselves as Christian are in the South. Shocking, I know. They include: Shreveport (98%), Birmingham (96%), Charlotte (96%), Nashville (95%), Greenville, SC / Asheville, NC (94%), New Orleans (94%), Indianapolis (93%), Lexington (93%), Roanoke-Lynchburg (93%), Little Rock (92%), and Memphis (92%).

The cities with the lowest percentage of self-identified Christians were in: San Francisco (68%), Portland, Oregon (71%), Portland, Maine (72%), Seattle (73%), Sacramento (73%), New York (73%), San Diego (75%), Los Angeles (75%), Boston (76%), Phoenix (78%), Miami (78%), Las Vegas (78%), and Denver (78%). Barna points out that even in these cities that's roughly 3 out of every four people aligning with Christianity.

One of the interesting findings is that some markets have a much higher percentage of skeptics. In both Portland, Maine and Seattle, WA 19% of the population identify as being atheist or agnostic. It drops to 16% in Portland, Oregon, Sacramento, CA, and Spokane, WA. Compare this with those cities that have a high proportion of faiths other than Christianity. For example, New York (one of the cities with the lowest representation of self-identifying Christians) reports 12% of the population shares a religious faith other than Christianity.

The article summarizes one aspect of the findings, stating, "Nearly three out of four people call themselves Christians, even among the least 'Christianized' cities. Furthermore, a majority of U.S. residents, regardless of location, engage in a church at some level in a typical six-month period."

There is much more in the article touching on politics and outreach, so head over there and read the whole thing. The come back here to talk about it.

This article from Fast Company is getting a lot of attention, suggesting that social media, and Twitter specifically, is not an effective tool for spreading influence.

According to a new report from analytics firm Sysomos, tweets have an incredibly short shelf life. Sysomos analyzed more than 1.2 billion tweets and determined that only 29% produce a reaction, which they define as a reply or retweet.

What's more, just 6% of tweets are retweeted, and nearly all occur within the first hour. What happens after those precious 60 minutes? Just 1.63% of tweets are retweeted in the second hour, and only 0.94% in the third. @Replies too have the same life span--a whopping 97% happen within the first hour. Additionally, the majority of @reply threads end after just one response--only 15% of tweets generate a reply, and just 11% of those threads move to a second response.
Twitter's 60 Minute Shelf Life, Fast Company

So, few tweets produce any reaction, fewer are specifically "retweeted," and a tweet's influence, if it has any at all, lasts about an hour. After that it's practically gone.

I don't think this is game changing information. I doubt any regular users of Twitter are surprised by the research. But I don't think the numbers really measure influence-- at least not the kind of influence I am interested in.

Many Christians use Twitter to share ideas, their own as well as others, in order to stir one another up. For many, Twitter has become an instrument that helps provoke thought, initiates conversations, and encourages others to dig deeper into linked books and articles. Much of the "response" that interests me happens offline. There is real influence there that may not be reflected in responses and retweets.

I'm on Twitter because it is a fun and fruitful way top communicate quickly and immediately to those who also use it. Whether sharing a laugh, or a few words and a link from a brother or sister that have me reflecting on truth, I think there is value in Twitter, and that more people are influenced by tweets, at least in the way I am thinking about influence, than some are concluding after reading the Fast Company article.

Of course, our greatest realm of influence will be in the lives of the people God has actually sent us to. It's possible, and good, to use Twitter as a tool for spreading influence, but I would encourage us all to focus on those around us with whom we can share more than 140 characters, but also our lives.