Connecting with International Students in Austin

In the Wall Street Journal article, "Ambassador Training," Katherine Mangu-Ward asks, "What are we teaching 600,000 foreign students about the U.S.?"

She contends that foreign students, especially those from countries with troubled relations with the West, can become America's best "ambassadors" when they return home. Many are from elite or middle-class families, and since they are on student visas they are required to return to their home country upon completion of their American study program. This, she says, gives us a prime opportunity for influence. Students from many countries that are hostile to America come here with nothing more than a caricature of American people and our culture. Ms. Mangu-Ward writes:

Aida Sykes, a rising senior at Yale and a native of Tanzania, says that she came to U.S. with an impression of American culture heavily influenced by television sitcoms. "I am not really going to learn anything from these people," she thought. "I will teach them that there are more people in this world besides them." She remains unimpressed by American foreign policy, but she has changed her mind about one thing. Says Ms. Sykes: "Americans are human, so to speak."

Well, that's a start!

The article is particularly relevant to those of us in Austin, given that we have a good percentage of the 600,000 foreign students here in Austin universities.

Ms. Mangu-Ward wants us to look for ways to expose international students to American culture beyond the cardboard caricatures they came with, but I have an additional motivation for highlighting her article. We believers also need to look for ways to expose international students to real Christianity. Many students who come with little understanding of American culture are from countries with little religious freedom. Their two-to-six years on a student visa may be their only real chance to interact with Christians and explore Christianity.

Let’s not waste that chance. Pray for ways to build personal friendships with international students, and help us look for ways to connect Hillcrest with service opportunities to these students.

Religion in Public Life: New Poll of American Attitudes

The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life released a much-discussed poll last Thursday. The poll examined American religious convictions and their attitudes toward religion in public life. A few reactions:

Both parties will have a harder time appealing to religious motivations in the Fall elections. A scant 26 percent see the Democratic Party as friendly to religion, and while 47 percent see the Republican Party that way, that’s down from 51 percent last year. Significantly, the number of evangelicals who see the GOP as friendly to religion, dropped from 63 percent last year to 49 percent this year.

It appears that, on the left, recent efforts to rally religious “progressives” to liberal political causes may prove difficult. And on the right, it doesn’t look like conservative politicians will be able to take the evangelical vote for granted. The poll didn’t explore the reasons for the waning enthusiasm of evangelicals over the GOP, and it doesn’t appear that evangelicals are changing parties. Likely they will just stay home on voting day this year.

The public wants more religious influence in public life, but they’re wary of more religious influence in public policy. Most Americans (59%) continue to say that religion's influence on the country is declining, and most of those who express this view believe that this is a bad thing. Seventy-one percent of respondents wanted more religious influence in American life. There’s less enthusiasm, however, when it comes to religious influence over government policy, especially among Democrats. About a third of Republicans said they thought religion's influence on government was growing, and by a wide margin (23 percent vs. 10 percent), they saw that as good. Among Democrats, 45 percent said religion has a greater impact on government now, but they generally saw that as bad (28 percent vs. 14 percent). Independents agreed with the Democrats. From the poll report:

Fully 69% of Americans say that liberals have gone too far in keeping religion out of schools and government. But the proportion who express reservations about attempts by Christian conservatives to impose their religious values has edged up in the past year, with about half the public (49%) now expressing wariness about this.

It appears that the public is open to religious influence in the public square, but what is perceived as religious imposition is not welcome. In other words, it seems that people are open to seminars and op-ed pieces and sermons designed to change minds, but wary about rallys and voter guides and campaigns designed to change laws.

The Philiadelphia Inquirer article, “U.S. conflicted on religion,” was one of many American papers covering the poll. The poll also reviewed America’s opinion about Israel, science and religion (specifically evolution), the environment (especially global warming), the Bible, and the second coming of Jesus Christ.

Man Shall Not Live By Krispy Kreme Alone

Twenty-seven percent of Baptists are obese according to a recent study--and their church culture may have something to do with it.

In her article, "Weighty Matter" Cathleen Falsani reported on a study by Ken Ferraro, a Purdue sociology professor who studied more than 2,500 adults over a span of eight years looking at the correlation between their religious behavior and their body mass index.

He found that about 27 percent of Baptists were obese. That's compared with 20 percent of "Fundamentalist Protestants" (Church of Christ, Pentecostal, Assemblies of God and Church of God), about 18 percent of "Pietistic Protestants," (Methodist, Christian Church and African Methodist Episcopal), and about 17 percent of Catholics. (No mention of Greek Orthodox, though--and, hey, I saw the meals they were serving in My Big Fat Greek Wedding).

On the other end of the--um--scales, his study found that only 1 percent of the Jewish population were overweight, and less than 1 percent of other non-Christians, including Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists.

So, what's with the Baptist waistlines? Given that Baptists tend to eschew vices like smoking and drinking, Ferraro says, "Baptists may find food one of the few available sources of earthly pleasures." I'm sure his tongue was planted firmly in cheek with that wisecrack. Our preference for organizing fellowships around "comfort foods" probably has more to do with it. As Homer Simpson so eloquently put it on his way to a First Church of Springfield picnic: "If God didn't want us to eat in church, he'd have made gluttony a sin."

"America is becoming known as a nation of gluttony and obesity, and churches are a feeding ground for this problem," Ferraro says. "If religious leaders and organizations neglect this issue, they will contribute to an epidemic that will cost the health-care system millions of dollars and reduce the quality of life for many parishioners."

Anyone up for a power walk around the parking lot?

Discovering Mat Kearney

Is that a Coldplay song on the radio? It may be a song from Mat Kearney's April 2006 CD release, Nothing Left to Lose. Kearney, who hails from Oregon and has spent time as a youth pastor is now opening for the John Mayer/Sheryl Crow tour.

His 2004 debut Bullet earned widespread acclaim and a nomination for GMA New Artist of the Year. It also quickly attracted the attention of a mainstream label. In an interview with ChristianityToday.com Music he said, “I'm a Christian, but I felt like I had a message for a lot of people. So I made a record that I felt could stand up to any artist out there, from any market, based on excellence of music.”

You can listen to his CD in its entirety on his website and read a review of the project at ChristianityToday.com Music.

The War for China's Soul

"They treated us like dead dogs," he says. "Some of them scoffed at us as we lay there, saying, 'Where is your God now? Why can't he help you? If you want to go to heaven, we'll help you get there right now.'"

That was how one Chinese Christian described his recent treatment at the hands of authorities in "The War For China's Soul," a fascinating article in TIME magazine. The unnamed witness was a volunteer working on a half-completed church in a suburb of Hangzhou 112 miles southwest of Shanghai. From the article:

Financed by local Christians, the church was to serve a community of 5,000 parishioners. Hundreds of them gathered at the site on the afternoon of July 29, some joining the construction crew building the church. Others, many of them elderly parishioners, sat on plastic chairs surrounding the church, singing hymns. About 2:30 p.m., thousands of uniformed police and plainclothes security officers appeared at the construction site. The police cleared a way through the crowds for a few drill-equipped backhoes, and the authorities then demolished the church.

Witnesses say police bludgeoned people indiscriminately with nightsticks. "They were picking up women--some of them old ladies--by their hair and swinging them around like dolls, then letting them crash to the ground," says a man who watched the clash from across the street."

The reporter contends that treatment like this is happening as a reaction to the spread of Christianity and the formal and informal challenges it creates to the centralized Communist leadership. "Christianity is finally taking root and evolving into a truly Chinese religion," the reporter writes. "Estimates vary, but some experts say Christians make up 5% of China's population, or 65 million believers."

This is one of those articles that will lead you to pray. Many of our Christian brothers and sisters in China face significant challenges to the worship and witness that we take for granted. However, the growing Christian presence in China needs protection not only from persecution but also from heresy. The article reports that, in addition to the spread of traditional Christianity, strange quasi-Christian groups with questionable beliefs are also growing.

I happen to know of one small group of Chinese Christians and their seeking friends who gather in an apartment to sing, pray, and then listen to one of my sermons from our website. You don't need to know any more than that to pray for them, so take a moment to ask God's blessing on them!

UPDATE: Chinese authorities have dismissed the reporter who posted comments on the Internet that formed the basis for the TIME story. Reuters reports:

Zan Aizong, bureau chief of the Zhejiang office of the China Ocean News newspaper, recently converted to Christianity and was baptised in July. He denounced his dismissal as a blow to freedom.

"The authorities are doing whatever they can to crack down on reporters who dare to tell the truth," Zan told Reuters. "They deprived me of my freedom some days ago, and now they are taking away my job."

Earlier this month, Zan said he was detained for a week on charges of "spreading rumors harmful to society" in Hangzhou, capital of Zhejiang province, after issuing reports on the Internet, criticizing the demolition of a nearby church.

What Is Your Church's Attitude Toward The Spiritually-Curious?

A church will fall into one of four categories in its attitude toward seekers:

Seeker-Hostile: Church groups with this mindset view non-believers as a threat. Most in this mindset, of course, would say that individual believers must be kind to non-believers and look for ways to share the gospel. But they would insist that corporate life of the church is no place to involve a non-believer. Therefore, the study topics, conversations, and even jokes in the Bible study classes or worship services create an environment hostile to a seeker's questions or objections.

Seeker-Indifferent: Church groups with this mindset are indifferent to the concerns and questions that non-believers have of the faith. They believe the job of the church is to provide Bible studies and activities that meet the needs of believers. Churches that are seeker-indifferent may have evangelistic activities and support mission causes, and they may encourage the individual members to witness to non-believers. But it simply doesn't occur to these churches that they have a responsibility to engage the concerns and questions of spiritual explorers.

Seeker-Sensitive: Church groups with this mindset focus on building believers while connecting with the seekers that believers bring with them. In one sense, the aim of worship services and Bible study groups in these churches is the same as it is in seeker-indifferent churches: the church exists to build a strong community of believers. But seeker-sensitive churches pursue this goal with a sensitivity to non-believers who have begun to be attracted to the faith through their friendship with believers.

Seeker-Targeted: Church groups with this mindset direct everything they do toward reaching the non-believing world with the gospel. The music, the sermon topics, the approach to Bible-study . . . it's all done with the aim of catching the attention of non-believers and persuading them to embrace the gospel truth.

I want us to be a seeker-sensitive church. I do not believe that our only reason for our worship services and Bible studies is to reach non-believers--these events are gatherings for believers to lift up the Name of God and study the Word of God. But while Hillcrest worship services and Bible studies exist to build believers, they also exist to connect with earnest seekers that believers bring with them. I believe we should be a place where people find and follow Jesus together--that's a nice summary of our mission.

Among several of the speakers and writers I enjoy, the word for this kind of church is missional. In fact, the word "seeker" has fallen out of vogue in circles that prefer the word "missional" to describe a biblical church. For example, I viewed a couple of clips from Mark Driscoll belittling the "seeker" approach and contrasting it to the "missional" approach (here and here). And yet, the way he describes a missional church--and his call for "cultural immersion" in this clip and "relating to sinners" in this clip sounds exactly like my defintion of a "seeker-sensitive" church.

I'm reminded of one of my seminary professors who drolled that the pronunciation of the name "Augustine" changed with every generation of graduate students: one generation would pronounce it "AWE-guh-steen," and then the next generation would pronounce it "awe-GUH-stin." The professor drily remarked that it was simply an indication of young bucks trying to distinguish themselves from the previous generation of scholars.

I wonder if the same thing isn't going on among younger leaders like Driscoll. Maybe each new generation of leaders has to invent their own labels to express the biblical mission of the church.

At any rate, whether a church is labeled "seeker-sensitive" or "missional" isn't nearly as important as whether the label the church chooses is properly defined and accurately communicated.

These clips were prepared to promote John Piper's Desiring God National Conference in late September. Other video clips from interviews of the conference speakers can be found here. By the way, on the topic of being a church that is "missional" and sensitive to the non-believing world, you really should view the clip from the always-intriguing Tim Keller. Excllent!

The Open Hand and the Closed Hand

Fellowship and partnership with other believers is only possible if we know how to distinguish between non-negotiable convictions on the one hand, and those issues where freedom and flexibility is allowed on the other hand. To that end, I liked what Mark Driscoll had to say in this video clip about putting certain matters in the “open hand” and putting other matters in the “closed hand.” He says that Christians get into trouble when they put issues in one "hand" that really belong in the other. Good stuff.

The clip was prepared to promote John Piper's Desiring God National Conference in late September. Other video clips from interviews of the conference speakers can be found here. I'll add some reactions to some other video clips in later posts.

What Kind of Advice is Your iPod Giving You?

A study has just been released confirming what most parents and youth workers already know: regular exposure to sexual lyrics contribute to sexual promiscuity. A recent AP article reported:

Teens whose iPods are full of music with raunchy, sexual lyrics start having sex sooner than those who prefer other songs, a study found. . . . Songs depicting men as "sex-driven studs," women as sex objects and with explicit references to sex acts are more likely to trigger early sexual behavior than those where sexual references are more veiled and relationships appear more committed, the study found.

The study, based on telephone interviews with 1,461 participants aged 12 to 17, most of whom were virgins when the study began.

"Teens will try to deny it, they'll say 'No, it's not the music,' says Natasha Ramsey, the teen editor for Sexetc.org, “but it IS the music. That has one of the biggest impacts on our lives."

No wonder the Bible says (Psalm 1:1-2, NLT):

Oh, the joys of those who do not follow the advice of the wicked,
or stand around with sinners,
or join in with scoffers.
But they delight in doing everything the Lord wants;
day and night they think about his law.

We’re constantly bombarded by “advice” from songs, films, and TV shows. Even provocative ads that pop up on MySpace tell us, “It’s nice to be naughty.” Wise is the person who will take the steps to reduce exposure to all of this “advice.” As this most recent study shows, we really are impacted by it all.

From the Bench to the Barstool?

Most of us know the experience of sitting at the lunch counter or on a barstool near a man who has the answer for all the world's problems. It can be an entertaining conversation to hear him spout off about how to solve the Mideast crisis or why gas prices are so high or who was really behind the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

But when Jon Wisser opined about the heart-breaking news of sexual scandal at an Austin church, he wasn't on a barstool or in a diner booth. The judge for the 299th Judicial Criminal District Court was being interviewed by the local Fox News affiliate.

Since he was the presiding judge over a similar scandal involving a staff member at the same church in 1998, it makes sense that the media would ask him for a comment on the latest police report.

His response? In last night's Fox-7 News report, he said, "The media is filled with stories about various religious orders . . . especially the Catholic church has been under constant siege all over the world for sexual improprieties of young people . . . we've had monks recently just south of Austin . . . and now this. I can see where some citizens would start thinking that any male who goes into these religious orders or ministers is somewhat suspect."

Huh?

This response went way beyond the scope of the current unfolding scandal to remark on all ministers in general. Were the judge's comments misrepresented through a reporter's sloppy editing, or did the judge think he was chatting with tavern patrons over a cold one? Either way, this segment was a grating insertion into last night's report.

Coulter-ism

You say that the Episcopal Church is "barely even a church." Why?

Because it's become increasingly difficult to distinguish the pronouncements of the Episcopal Church from the latest Madonna video.

Ann Coulter, author of

Godless: The Church of Liberalism,

in a Beliefnet interview

Checking Out Audioblogger

Making Sense of The Da Vinci Code

This week someone asked me how to get a copy of the sermon series, "The Da Vinci Code Breakers" that we covered back in May. One place you can find that is on our iTunes podcast. Scroll down to the month of May for the sermons, "Trust the Story of Christ," "Understand the Nature of Christ," and "Experience the Community of Christ."

You can listen to single sermons by clicking the button, "Get Episode." You can also subscribe to the "Hillcrest Sermons" podcast and get sermons delivered to you every week. You don't need an iPod to use iTunes on your computer.

By the way, once again, the Austin-American Statesman front-page story about our sermon series can be found here. And links to resource material about The Da Vinci Code can be found on our website.

God's Opinion of Terrorism

We're weary of war coverage, and wondering where to stand on an increasingly-unpopular war in Iraq. It's a complicated issue, but I like the perspective Marc Gellman, shared in his Newsweek commentary, "Remember Amalek." He writes:

In Deut. 25:17-19 we read: “Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way, when ye were come forth out of Egypt; How he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, even all that were feeble behind thee, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God. Therefore it shall be, when the Lord thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it.”

What made Amalek so dastardly was that unlike any other enemy who attacked
the Israelites fleeing slavery in Egypt from the front, Amalek attacked the rear. This meant that his soldiers could kill women and children, the elderly and the infirm and in so doing avoid engagement with the soldiers at the front. In this way he could produce maximum carnage and maximum terror. The moral problem the Bible addresses is that this is not warfare, it is the slaughter of innocents—it is terrorism.

Why, I wondered, would God command us to remember the terrorist Amalek? There are other villains in the Bible, but there is no biblical command to remember Pharaoh or Nebuchadnezzar, or Cyrus. We are commanded only to remember Amalek. I believe this is because the planned and plotted slaughter of innocents even during wartime cannot be condoned and must be remembered as a bright moral line which can never be crossed. Indeed our remembrance of Amalek is combined with a chilling pledge from God that is also unique in the Bible: “The Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation” (Exod. 17:16). Our enemies are just our enemies except if our enemy is Amalek. In that case our enemy is also the enemy of God. Amalek thus becomes the symbol of terrorism in every generation. He is the symbol not of evil but of radical evil.

In our generation Amalek is alive and well and killing the weak ones at the rear of the march. Amalek has attacked the rear of our line of march in Madrid and Bombay, in Jakarta and London, in Haifa and Tel Aviv, in New York and Washington, in a quiet field in Pennsylvania and in a hundred other homes and
families—leaving them covered with blood and tears. Yes, one can disagree and debate how Amalek must be fought, but not that Amalek must be fought. One must report and mourn the innocents who are inadvertently killed by our soldiers in our battle against Amalek, but that remembrance must always make the spiritual moral and political distinction that our victims were killed by mistake and Amalek's victims were killed by design.

I have no new or fresh or insightful take on the latest battle in the worldwide war on Islamic fascism except the message of our president: victory is the only way. In my heart and prayers, I thank President Bush for remembering Amalek. And to all the world leaders who are used to thinking about war as just a struggle for land or oil or power, remember that this war is different and this enemy is different. If you can, come to realize that this is a war against a lover of slaughter. If you join us, then we shall not have to fight Amalek alone and he cannot again attack the weak ones at the rear of the line.

The Christian Vision Project

I ran across The Christian Vision Project, by the editors of Christianity Today publications. The website says the Project “is asking a select group of creative Christian thinkers—pastors, scholars, artists, and activists—one big question. You'll find their answers in the pages of Christianity Today, Books & Culture, and Leadership, and, in October 2006, on a groundbreaking documentary DVD. Here you can learn more about the contributors, read their responses, and add your voice to the conversation.”

For a start, check out Glenn T. Stanton’s article, “The Conservative Humanist.” Stanton serves as director of global insights and trends at Focus on the Family. (Director of Global Insights and Trends—where can I get a job like that?). In his article, he says that we don’t need to leave “family issues” behind, such as prolife legislation and resisting pornography, but we do need to go “upstream” and become “people who are unreservedly committed to human life at its fullest, and people deeply pained by human life at its worst.”

I also liked the articles by Tim Keller, Lauren Winner, and Michael S. Horton. It would be worth your time to stop by the website and leave a comment.

The Messengers on TLC

Monday, July 24

The Learning Channel, also known simply as TLC, has a new show getting some buzz called "The Messengers." It's like an "American Idol" to identify and reward inspirational speakers. The show starts with 10 young speakers, including a pastor. Each week they put the group in a situation needing the attention of the public--homelessness, migrant farm workers, the world of the handicapped, and so on. In response to their brief immersion in the issue, they present a 2 or 3 minute appeal to an audience to respond to the need. The audience votes for the most inspirational Messenger of the night, and the Messenger with the least amount of votes is removed from further competition.

The first episode aired this past Sunday evening, July 23, and it's worth your while to tune in for the rest of them. The young adults in the competition show a remarkable ability to capture the essence of the issue and quickly figure out how to move the audience to a response.

The Bible says, "And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds" (Hebrews 10:24). These young adults can show us all how to "spur one another on."
I've set my DVR to record the series. It airs on TLC Sunday nights at 9:00 p.m. Central.

Monte Montgomery

Those of you who are fans of Austin music will tell me I'm way behind if I'm just now running across Monte Montgomery, but I ran across his music just this week.

The Saturday paper said he was playing at Antones, and the write-up made me think I'd probably like him. So I listened to clips on iTunes and downloaded a few songs. When I checked his website, I noticed in the discography that he had a song called "In the Gaze of the Spotlight's Eye." I knew that song from listening to Mark Heard albums about 20 years back. Heard died of a heart attack at 40 about 10 years ago or so, but I was a big fan back in my seminary days.

I couldn't make it out to the Antones show, but he was playing solo at the Saxon Pub this past Wednesday, so I went with Michael, Stephen and Angela.

It's a small venue, and he was standing by our table before he went on, so I introduced myself and told him it was our first night to hear him. I asked him about "In the Gaze," and how he knew about Heard. He said he used to listen to a lot of Christian music in the past. Sounds like an interesting story, but we didn't have any more time to talk.

About 4 songs into the show, though, he started in on "Moonflower," another Mark Heard tune from the same album (Eye of the Storm). He looked my way afterward and said, "Well, I tried; it's been a while." I let him know he did great with it! And the rest of his show was fantastic, too. Be sure to hear this local artist whenever you can! And if you're a Monte fan, let me know!

Non-Believers Are Paying Attention to This Geneticist

In an earlier entry, I commented on Francis Collins, the geneticist who cracked the genome and has recently written a book on his Christian belief.

Subsequent articles about Collins and his new book have been interesting reading. We learn a lot about how people deal with issues of faith by reading their reactions to books about faith written by reputable persons like Collins. For example, Time magazine has a review of the book by David Van Biema, "Reconciling God and Science." Though I'm intrigued with what Collins has to say and I plan to read his book, I doubt I'll agree with his convinction that the evidence for evolution is "thoroughly convincing" and that Christians should therefore see evolution as the process by which God created the world. Maybe I'll respond to that in a future blog entry after I read the book. Still, I thought this comment from the Time article was interesting:

The Language of God is enlightening but not always convincing. . . . The book seems liveliest when Collins turns his guns from atheists on the left to creationists and intelligent designers on the right, urging the abandonment of what he feels are overliteral misreadings of Scripture.

Well, of course Van Biema is going to find the book "liveliest" at the point he happens to agree with. Is this any surprise to anyone? We always tend to find someone "intelligent" or "compelling" or "persuasive" when they happen to be saying something we agree with!

Also, see this Washington Post article by Scott Russell Sander:

Collins goes beyond the evidence when he speculates that "God's intention in ccreating the universe" may have been "to lead to creatures with whom He might have fellowship, namely human beings." Many readers will doubt that all 10 or 15 billion years of cosmic history merely prepared the way for us, a pack of inquisitive primates pondering the starry expanses from our speck of planetary dust. Still, it's bracing to be reminded, in our disenchanted day, that an eminent scientist can read the genetic code as sacred speech.

Though Sander says that "many readers will doubt" that the purpose of existence is to find fellowship with God, that's exactly why I'm so thrilled that Collins book is out there and getting read. The Apostle Paul told the intellectuals on Mars Hill the same thing (Acts 17:16-34). He said that God created the world "so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us."

If you get to read the book before me, tell me what you think.

Listening--and Talking--to Left-Wing Believers

In an earlier entry, I commented on the efforts that political "progressives" were making to reach out to Christian conservatives. In "Don't Be Afraid of the 'Christian Left'," Ken Conner says that Christian conservatives need to join conversation with believers who are on the left-wing of politics. Conner is the past president of Focus on the Familys Family Research Council. He writes:

As fellow believers, we should not be afraid to engage the evangelical left's ideas in a spirit of love. It would be a mistake, as we begin this dialogue, to view these men and women as "political enemies" rather than fellow members of the body of Christ. From the outset, we should insist that our discussions be grounded in our mutual love of Christ rather than our differing political commitments.

He calls for both sides to learn from each other, but since he's a conservative writing in Human Events, which bills itself as the "national conservative weekly," his call is primarily to believers on the right wing of politics.

He says that conservative evangelicals need to accept the call from liberal evangelicals to wrestle with issues we tend to ignore, such as poverty. He says that respectful engagement with believers on the left wing will serve as a witness to the Christian unity that transcends politics. And he says that listening to members of our Christian family on the left will keep us from getting mentally lazy.

Good stuff.

Connecting the "Great Commandment" to the "Great Commission"

Here's an interesting observation from Malcolm Gladwell:

"Ram Cnaan, a professor of social work at the University of Pennsylvania, recently estimated the replacement value of the charitable work done by the average American church--that is, the amount of money it would take to equal the time, money, and resources donated to the community by a typical congregation--and found that it came to about $140,000 a year. In the city of Philadelphia, for example, that works out to an annual total of 250 million dollars worth of community "good"; on a national scale, the contribution of religious groups to the public welfare is, as Cnaan puts it, "staggering." In the past 20 years, as the enthusiasm for publicly supported welfare has waned, churches have quietly and steadily stepped in to fill the gaps."

We're doing our part at Hillcrest to minister to the needs of the community. About 16 cents of every dollar given to Hillcrest goes to missions and ministries beyond our walls, and our people give generously to special offerings for things like tsunami relief and hurricane recovery. Through your generosity, our church is able to provide benevolence gifts to those in financial crisis, we support the Overcomers and Network for Life and Maggie's House--all ministries to ex-offenders. We maintain the Helping Hands closet in a room off our MPC. We send high school upperclassmen to Acuna every Spring Break to build an entire house for a family living in a shack made of pallets. Recently, our staff has been involved in the mentoring program at Hill Elementary and the abstinence program in the health classes at Anderson High. Our young adults have begun to get connected with Austin Habitat for Humanity projects. Two tons of food have been collected for the Captial Area Food Bank in Herb Ingram's "Can Hunger" campaign--which was an effort to get to know our neighbors by enlisting them in serving the Food Bank.

Check out the Missions Page on our website for more information. I'm grateful to our Missions Committee for this new effort at educating our church on missions.

As we fulfill the Great Commission to make disciples, we're also fulfilling the Great Commandment to love our neighbors. A well-known pastor has said, "A Great Commitment to the Great Commission and the Great Commandment will build a Great Church."

Thanks to you, we're on our way!

Film Studios Won, But Will They Learn?

Companies that edit movies to delete objectionable language, sex and violence have been ordered to stop (article here).

For the last few years, subscribers to companies like CleanFlicks, Play It Clean Video, and Hollygood Films have received two copies of every DVD they ordered: the studio version and the edited version. Studios objected to these companies from the start, but now a federal judge has ruled that the editing violates the copyright of the studios.

The ruling is probably a good one: the studios own the copyright to an artistic work and should have control over how its presented to the public.

But I wonder if the studios understand why edited films are so popular with their customers. Families like a lot of the stories and cool special effects of many films, but we can do without the foul language, vivid gore, and steamy sex scenes. When my kids were small, we had to say "no" to a number of video rentals where we had no problem with the basic story but didn't want to put up with the language. And it's not just about the kids: movies like "Titanic" and "Jerry McGuire" would have been just fine without the nudity.

What I don't understand is why the studios don't release their own edited version to the public. They create it for network television, basic cable, and in-flight entertainment anyway. So why not offer that version as an option through companies like Blockbuster and Netflix?