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.