Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission and Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, are living demonstrations of the theological diversity of the SBC. The former is an example of cultural captivity, the latter of biblical fidelity.

On Sunday, Moore posted on his blog a thoughtful and provocative piece on professing Mormon Glenn Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally on the National Mall the previous day. In it, he decried American evangelicals’ dearth of discernment that has led them to embrace Beck’s potpourri of religio-nationalistic rhetoric at the expense of the gospel.

On Monday, Land was interviewed on NPR’s All Things Considered explaining why he spoke at the rally. He admitted that most evangelicals would not consider Mormonism a Christian faith and noted that he probably has more in common theologically with Barack Obama than with Glenn Beck.

But his most interesting statement came later in the interview when he noted, “I think perhaps the most charitable way for an evangelical Christian to look at Mormonism is to look at Mormonism as the fourth Abrahamic faith.”

This was Land’s way of connecting the historical roots of Christianity, Judaism, Islam and Mormonism, but it’s worth noting that neither Jesus nor the Apostle Paul share his view. According to them, there is one Abrahamic faith, unified under one common denominator (see Matthew 3:9, John 8:38-40, Romans 9:6-8, Galatians 3:7-9, Galatians 3:16-17).

I’ve become convinced that Mormon radio personality Glenn Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin and others are part of a moralist cabal, who drape their political goals in the language of religious revival, spiritual awakening and moral reform. I was reminded of this vividly while watching parts of Beck’s “Restoring Honor” rally on the Washington Mall yesterday.

While this recent fervor has been orchestrated by a host of well-meaning Christians, Mormons and pagans of shared political views, the true “Organizer” for any campaign of societal moral improvement would be easily identified by Dana Carvey’s Church Lady.

An ongoing theme throughout C.S. Lewis’ The Screwtape Letters is the more experienced demon’s advice to his nephew to tempt his victim with the prospect of moralism, both personally and in society—all, of course, at the exclusion of and distraction from the gospel.

“We want very much to make men treat Christianity as a means; preferably, of course, as a means to their own advancement, but, failing that, as a means to anything—even to social justice,” Screwtape writes to Wormwood. “… The Enemy [God] will not be used as a convenience. Men or nations who think they can revive the Faith in order to make a good society might just as well think they can use the stairs of Heaven as a short cut to the nearest chemist’s shop.”

Some of the causes trumpeted by the conservative movement in America are noble ones and worth advancing in the political sphere. But Christians must be careful not to confuse the advancement of political conservatism with authentic spiritual renewal. This conflation of causes leads to the use of the Christian faith to advance an agenda.

At its heart, the gospel is political, but not in any sense that would be comforting to those who put their faith in democracy. After all, the gospel announces the ultimate overthrow of human government and the rise of a monarchy led by a King who does not share His power.

I wasn’t surprised when I read this article that cited a study revealing that, “when we fall under the spell of a charismatic figure, areas of the brain responsible for scepticism and vigilance become less active.”

The research used MRIs to examine the brains of believers and non-believers as they listened to pre-recorded prayers from someone posing as a faith healer. “Parts of the prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortices, which play key roles in vigilance and scepticism when judging the truth and importance of what people say, were deactivated when the subjects listened to a supposed healer,” the study noted.

This research is just the tip of the iceberg. Imagine if scientists were to explore the effects of certain subtle keywords and phrases, musical stimuli or hearing someone speaking in tongues. From experience I can say I have sat through Christian events and accepted things being said—only to later evaluate them in a more neutral (and biblical) light and realize that I had been completely hoodwinked.

Often in these settings, music was being played in the background, statements were prefaced with phrases such as “The Bible says …” and “The Lord told me …” or the speaker was introduced as “a pastor of a great church” or “a man used mightily by God.” Of course, these are subtle—and mostly unintentional—cues that have become part of religious subcultures. However, in some settings, the manipulation is anything but subtle, as audiences are instructed to “shut down your mind” or “don’t question what God is doing.”

I’ve learned–sometimes the hard way–that any religious system that openly discourages discernment, critical thought or reflection and instead encourages us to evaluate truth based on our feelings and emotional responses should be avoided.

I would point out that this phenomena is not exclusive to flakey Christians. Have you ever sat through a visually-stunning film or listened to a moving musical performance, only to realize after the fact that you were manipulated into accepting the artist’s worldview by the aesthetic appeal of their art?

Somewhere, someone is being tortured, detained, falsely imprisoned, raped or murdered—simply because they are a follower of Jesus. Somewhere else, Stephen Baldwin is being denied the opportunity to be a movie star, apparently for the same reason.

There are so many things wrong about this site, I can only hope that Baldwin—an actor who professed faith in Christ about eight years ago—did not have a hand in creating it and soon requests that its creators shut it down.

From what I can gather, Baldwin has fallen on tough times financially (to the tune of several million dollars) and is facing bankruptcy.  Apparently blackballed from Hollywood because of his outspoken faith, he has no means of earning an income in the field in which he formerly worked. Calling Baldwin a “modern-day Job”, some of his fans are collecting donations so that he can regain influence in the entertainment industry.

“Hollywood worships money,” the FAQ section of the site notes. “And without it you are seen as a loser and cannot be an effective influence to this group.”

What is wrong with this picture?

As I read this article about formerly supportive religious leaders now experiencing disappointment with President Barack Obama, I was struck by the similarity of these leaders with the first-century disciples who unknowingly encountered Jesus on the road to Emmaus.

The so-called “religious left” in America is increasingly frustrated that Obama has failed to deliver on the theologically tinged promises of his campaign. The moral outrage he expressed at Guantanamo, the Iraq War, health care, corporate corruption and poverty has become tempered by the seedy reality of the Oval Office. Those who put their faith in him, expecting that he would restore their ideal of morality and justice to America, are seeing that their dreams were as elusive as the clouds of tobacco in the smoke-filled rooms where decisions really get made in Washington.

Similarly, the disciples on the road to Emmaus expressed their disappointment with Jesus to the mysterious Stranger who accompanied them: “We had hoped that he was the one who was going to redeem Israel” (Luke 24:21). The mighty warrior on a stallion they were expecting had been a peasant carpenter on a donkey, who couldn’t keep his mouth shut and got himself killed by a religious establishment in league with the Roman government.

Unlike the leaders of our day, with their unrealistic expectations of a human president, the disciples’ expectations were set far too low. This unlikely hero had no intention of meeting their meager demands for national restoration. Instead, he would not be satisfied until he had conquered death and offered salvation to all of humanity.

In regard to Obama, any expectations are probably too high. In regard to Jesus, we cannot set our expectations high enough.

Note: Lest you think I’m just picking on Obama, if the McCain/Palin ticket had won, I predict we would be hearing similar whining from the religious right, as that dynamic duo miserably failed to restore morality and righteousness to this country in its first term.

As you know, I’ve been following the Todd Bentley fiasco and attempting to reconcile the fact that people may be healed and miracles may happen in his services. How can he be a false prophet, if there is positive fruit in his ministry?

One explanation is that God is endlessly compassionate and responds to the sincere faith of His children, even when they are receiving ministry from someone on whom God’s calling and gifting no longer rest, because they have disqualified themselves through immorality or false doctrine.

But I think there’s a better explanation for Todd Bentley. We know that miraculous signs, healings and even professions of faith are very poor indicators of whether someone is a true prophet, because Scripture predicts that in the last days false prophets will perform miracles and deceive even the children of God (Mark 13:22).

Therefore, is it possible that signs, miracles and healings in Bentley’s ministry are being performed by the enemy for the purpose of validating the bad doctrine and lifestyle of a false teacher, so that weak believers may think that God does not care about morality, truth or righteousness?

Satan’s ultimate goal is not the destruction of bodies, so allowing a healing or miracle here and there is no big deal to him. His targets are much larger: the supremacy of God’s word, the sanctity of marriage and family—the building blocks of the church itself and a reflection of God’s own Trinitarian nature. If he can give people the impression that God is not particularly concerned when a man cheats on his wife, leaves his children and marries his girlfriend, he will gladly risk people being saved, delivered and even healed through that man’s ministry.

So, that’s my theory. Any takers?

It’s only been in the last 200 years or so—and only in the Western world—that natural disasters have been entirely explained as the capricious whims of low pressure systems, the arbitrary shifting of tectonic plates or the random release of lava from volcanic pockets. The Enlightenment disabused the Western world of its archaic notions of divine judgment, along with the outdated mythology of angry river gods who flood villages and beneficent rain gods who water crops.

So, when an aging televangelist like Pat Robertson blames a devastating earthquake on a nation’s apocryphal pact with the devil, both the Christian and secular world recoil in disgust and label him an insensitive and outdated buffoon. But is it possible that there is some proverbial meat left on the bones of Robertson’s misled statement?

If we look at the biblical record, we will be hard pressed to find a natural disaster that does not have some spiritual dimension. Robertson’s error was in his implication that a current crisis was judgment for an incident 200 years ago—and that we as humans are in a place to make these cause and effect connections.

In doing this, he falls into the same error as Jesus’ undiscerning disciples who asked about the man born blind in John 9:2-3, “Who sinned, this man or his parents?” and the followers who inquired about the Galileans Pilate murdered (Luke 13:1-5).

In both incidents, Jesus turned their attention from idle speculation to worship (“Neither,” he said of the blind man. “This happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”) and repentance (“But unless you repent, you too will all perish.”)

Robertson’s comments were a distraction from the true spiritual reality of earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes, famines and floods: The earth is groaning under the weight of a universal curse and waits expectantly for its redemption. Both sinners and saints equally suffer under this judgment—some in despair and others in expectation of creation’s transformation into a new heavens and new earth (Romans 8:18-25).

My friend Rich passed on this fascinating article about a man who murdered a woman in cold blood in 1975, was converted in prison, served eight years of a sentence and now pastors an Assemblies of God megachurch in the Nashville area. Biblical accounts of redeemed murderers like Paul and David notwithstanding, here are a few of my questions about this story:

Just because Jesus says “case closed”, does this mean an offender no longer owes a debt before God to society or to his/her victims? A man may be forgiven by God for abandoning his wife and children and marrying his girlfriend, but he still must pay child support and alimony. A woman may be forgiven by God for driving the getaway car in a bank robbery that claims the life of a teller, but she will spend time in prison for colluding in the crime.

On the flip side, just because a court says “case closed,” does that mean the biblical demands of justice have been met? We must consider the possibility that God’s demands of justice may not be equivalent to that of our legal system, which often metes out justice based on money, class and race, with little regard for God. A court may have a statute of limitations on when a victim of rape may no longer accuse her attacker, but a rapist is still accountable to God for his actions. A court may call someone “married”, but this doesn’t necessarily make them wed in God’s sight, and a secular court’s writ of divorce does not mean the covenant a couple made before God is no longer in effect. While we’re on the topic, just because a court says a fetus is not a human being does not mean this is true.

I don’t think there’s any easy answer to these questions, except to say that the church often uncritically accepts our secular society’s views of justice and accountability without considering that God’s standards may be even higher. It is also true that biblical reconciliation, forgiveness and restoration are sometimes viewed as scandalously liberal from the viewpoint of modern society. Although biblical grace is radical in its demands both for the sinner and the victim, someone recently described the current Christian conception of grace as closer to someone robbing a bank, saying they’re sorry and getting to keep the money.

One ironic note on the Nashville story: Within his denomination’s restrictions (until they were changed several years ago), this pastor would have been unconditionally disqualified for ministry if he had divorced his wife and married another woman—instead of murdering someone—before becoming a believer.

I recently read this article on the need for evangelical leaders to embrace the “new” because they may miss the next big thing (e.g. the Catalyst Conference, the Willow Creek phenomenon or Rob Bell’s NOOMA).

Interestingly, last night I read an article in National Geographic magazine about the Hadza, hunter-gatherers whose culture has experienced little to no noticeable change in 10,000 years. This people group of 1,000 living in northwestern Tanzania is nomadic, its members carrying their few possessions in small sacks on their backs. They resist change, are non-literate and have no understanding of or interest in the outside world. As the article aptly puts it, after 10 millennia, they have left no footprint on the earth.

So, here’s the question: Is our obsession with change, progress, information and novelty a Christian value or a Western value? How does an expression of Christianity that places these values in such high regard engage with a culture like the Hadza that places a high value on tradition? One could argue that the introduction of medical technology, electricity, written language and hygiene to the Hadza would greatly improve their plight. In fact, some would say that these improvements provide a perfect venue for conveying the gospel.

But what if they don’t want these things, and what if our insistence that they are backward because they don’t becomes a hindrance to them accepting the one Thing they do need?

Is it any different here in the land of iPhones, big screens and H1N1 vaccinations?

I was recently talking to a friend who is walking through some deep waters in his marriage and family. As we were unpacking some of the issues he is facing and I was recommending some resources for him, we became mutually aware of a disturbing reality.

He has been a believer for many years and has been a part of “gospel-preaching” churches—some that even add the word “full” to their gospel. He has heard multiple sermons on tithing, on the importance of bringing your family to church, getting involved in “ministry”, supporting the vision of the pastor. But he has never been exposed to any substantive, biblical teaching on the role of the father as a shepherd and pastor to his own family.

As the lights went on, my friend became angry, as he realized that many of the things he had been taught in church had not been for the purpose of empowering him to fulfill the primary role God had given him. Instead, he was being systematically programmed to orient his life and his family’s life to support and to become dependent on a religious institution and to subcontract his God-given responsibility to professional clergy.

Two types of people will one day be held accountable for this travesty: first, the pastors who encouraged it for the sake of increasing their egos and ensuring the security of their careers; and second, the lazy and cowardly fathers and husbands who farmed out their responsibilities.