Tuesday, December 16, 2008

An Index on Promiscuity

Sex and the citizen

Dec 15th 2008
From Economist.com

Where people are most, and least, promiscuous


HOW much do sexual habits vary between countries? A great deal, according to a study of 14,000 people in 48 countries. The survey asked respondents to consider seven questions related to sex. Some questions were factual: how many sexual partners have you had in the past year and how many one-night stands have you had? Other questions were about attitudes to sex: is sex without love acceptable, or sex with casual partners? From the answers, the researchers compiled an index of promiscuity for respondents from each country. The result appears to show that Finns and other Europeans are the most promiscuous, whereas respondents from more conservative countries, such as Bangladesh and Zimbabwe, are less promiscuous. Around the world men and women vary in their attitudes to casual sex. Men are more likely to seek it out in their late twenties. Women wait until their thirties when the chances of a casual encounter resulting in pregnancy are less.

Celebrating Christmas at Altona Baptist Church

Here we are celebrating Christmas, and the Sunday school set up a play for us to remember the true meaning of Christmas.

Thursday, November 27, 2008

A Short History against Christianity

There seems to be a never-ending fascination to see the demise of Christianity. Since the time of the apostles, the Jews wished for Christianity to go away, cf. Acts 5:35-39. Then the Romans wished for Christianity to go away, since the subject of the Empire were not finding answers in the old pagan religion, but in Christ preached by Christian. Then, the big schism in 1054 between the Orthodox Church in the east and the Roman Church in the west happened. Many saw this a sign of the end of Christianity. Yet, it didn’t happened. Then, the church in the west became corrupt, and again, many said that Christianity was done for, but then, the Reformation came along.

After the Reformation, the new Humanism that changed our contemplation of God as the creator, and focused our attention to God’s creation, not to praise Him, rather, to doubt Him, then attacked Christianity. With the Enlightenment, humanity seemed to have grown up, and did not need the out of fashion belief of a powerful and all loving God, and of Jesus. Those who held such views were seen as to hold back progress. Voltaire, the great French Revolutionist, predicted that in 100 years, the Bible would be no “forgotten and eliminated”. In the last century, Time magazine had an issue in which it declared God as dead, on April 8, 1966. And of lately, there’s a group within Christianity, the Emergent Church, that calls for Christianity to die in order to survive.

There seems to be a fascination with the death of Christianity. I think it is because that while Christians exists, they will be a reminder that Jesus is the Lord of all, and that the world needs a saviour. Although the world may wish for the demise of God’s people, we hold on to Jesus’ promise, Mat. 16: 18 “And I tell you that you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.

Luis A. Jovel

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Are We Promised Prosperity?


Now that the economic "bailout" plan has been passed by Congress, expect all parties involved to claim credit if it appears to work and deny blame if the crisis worsens. Though the primary problem is a crisis in the credit markets and the financial sector, the entire economy feels the crunch. The crisis now may lie in the awareness of uncertainty -- and no one likes uncertainty when it comes to matters economic.

The public is also bracing for more bad news. Just today, the State of California announced that it might need a $7 billion bailout. The state's credit rating is not the problem, but the state has been unable to get the short-term money it needs, given the constriction of credit. Who is next?

There are a host of issues to be considered here. Many Americans are just waking up to the basic facts of economics. Most, sad to say, remain oblivious. Some among the more curious are discovering how much borrowing and lending goes on in the course of business -- and among their neighbors.

Niall Ferguson, one of the world's most influential historians, puts much of this into perspective in an essay published in the current issue of TIME magazine. In "The End of Prosperity?," Ferguson argues that another Great Depression -- a "Depression 2.0" -- is avoidable. Nevertheless, a period of far less material prosperity is almost surely at hand.

He explains:

The U.S. — not to mention Western Europe — is in the grip of a downward spiral that financial experts call deleveraging. Having accumulated debts beyond what's sustainable, households and financial institutions are being forced to reduce them. The pressure to do so results from a decline in the price of the assets they bought with the money they borrowed. It's a vicious feedback loop. When families and banks tip into bankruptcy, more assets get dumped on the market, driving prices down further and necessitating more deleveraging. This process now has so much momentum that even $700 billion in taxpayers' money may not suffice to stop it.

The unavoidable reduction of debt is traumatic at every level. Excessive and unsustainable valuations led to bad decisions and the illusion of free money. It never lasts. The "deleveraging" we are now witnessing will take some time to run its course. And that course is still unpredictable.

The most interesting part of Ferguson's analysis has to do with the causes and course of the Great Depression as compared to the present crisis. His historical precision and honesty are helpful -- even as his analysis is bracing.

One of the most interesting paragraphs in Ferguson's essay has to do with the credit crisis at the household level. Consider this:

In the case of households, debt rose from about 50% of GDP in 1980 to a peak of 100% in 2006. In other words, households now owe as much as the entire U.S. economy can produce in a year. Much of the increase in debt was used to invest in real estate. The result was a bubble; at its peak, average U.S. house prices were rising at 20% a year. Then — as bubbles always do — it burst. The S&P Case-Shiller index of house prices in 20 cities has been falling since February 2007. And the decline is accelerating. In June prices were down 16% compared with a year earlier. In some cities — like Phoenix and Miami — they have fallen by as much as a third from their peaks. The U.S. real estate market hasn't faced anything like this since the Depression. And the pain is not over. Credit Suisse predicts that 13% of U.S. homeowners with mortgages could end up losing their homes.

We can only wonder how many Americans realize that total household borrowing now amounts to the productivity of the entire U.S. economy for a year. That is a staggering reality. Such borrowing levels are economically unsustainable. At the level of the individual household, this downturn can be catastrophic.

The Christian tradition has been very suspicious of credit and borrowing. Usury laws and a bias against borrowing and lending dissuaded most Christians from borrowing except in a dire emergency. Until fairly recently, the wide-spread use of consumer credit was unimaginable among Christians. Evidence that this is no longer the case can be found in the popularity of so many Christian financial advisors who have been calling for believers to get out of debt.

In another article -- fascinating on its own -- TIME's David van Biema looks at the influence of prosperity theology in the current credit crisis. His article, "Did God Want You to Get That Mortgage?," starts with a punch:

Has the so-called Prosperity Gospel turned its followers into some of the most willing participants — and hence, victims — of the current financial crisis? That's what a scholar of the fast-growing brand of Pentecostal Christianity believes. While researching a book on black televangelism, says Jonathan Walton, a religion professor at the University of California Riverside, he realized that Prosperity's central promise — that God would "make a way" for poor people to enjoy the better things in life — had developed an additional, toxic expression during sub-prime boom. Walton says that this encouraged congregants who got dicey mortgages to believe "God caused the bank to ignore my credit score and blessed me with my first house." The results, he says, "were disastrous, because they pretty much turned parishioners into prey for greedy brokers."

Lee Grady, editor of Charisma magazine, explained it this way: "It definitely goes on, that a preacher might say, 'if you give this offering, God will give you a house.' And if they did get the house, people did think that it was an answer to prayer, when in fact it was really bad banking policy."

It is easy to see how prosperity theology could lead to these unwarranted assumptions. Prosperity theology is a lie, and a false Gospel. We are not promised economic or financial prosperity in the Gospel. We are promised what money cannot buy and poverty cannot take away.

It is also easy for non-Charismatic critics of prosperity theology to look down on those who were so susceptible to its false promises. Many devotees of prosperity theology are desperate in ways the more privileged cannot understand, and they are prey to both lenders and preachers promising prosperity.

I must wonder how many other Christians -- far removed theologically from Charismatic prosperity theology -- might have bought into a very different prosperity theology. Have we all been seduced by the idea that prosperity is a given? Do we now think that prosperity is our right? Do we associate prosperity with the blessings we receive in the Gospel?

Perhaps we all need a refresher course in Christian economics and Christian theology. Niall Ferguson argues from the record of history in looking to the current crisis. Perhaps we should remember our own history lesson -- that far more believers in Christ have been and are now among the poor, rather than among the wealthy. We should hear Jesus warn against materialism and Paul remind us that we are to be content when we have plenty and when we have little. We should know that the Christian virtue of thrift is incompatible with the lies of those who push consumer credit.

We are not promised prosperity. When we do enjoy prosperity, we should be thankful stewards -- not peddlers of our own prosperity theology.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=2575

Thursday, July 3, 2008

A Date with Disaster -- Presbyterians Approve Homosexual Clergy

Meeting in San Jose, California, the Presbyterian Church USA, the liberal branch of American Presbyterianism, moved to approve homosexual clergy on June 27, 2008 -- a date that may well mark a final blow against biblical orthodoxy in that denomination.

The PCUSA has debated sexuality issues for decades now, with activists for homosexual ordination pressing their case until they finally got their way at the denomination's General Assembly. In that historic meeting, the General Assembly actually approved several proposals.

Even before dealing directly with the question of ordination standards, the General Assembly approved a first step toward revising the denomination's official translation of the historic Heidelberg Catechism. Once again, the crucial issue was homosexuality. The question was "complex and multi-layered," as the proposing group admitted.

Here is how the official PCUSA news office described the issue:

Most of the Assembly's attention focused on Question 87 of the catechism: "Can those who do not turn to God from their ungrateful, impenitent life be saved?"

The current text of the answer reads: "Certainly not! Scripture says, 'Surely you know that the unjust will never come into possession of the kingdom of God. Make no mistake: no fornicator or idolater, none who are guilty either of adultery or of homosexual perversion, no thieves or grabbers or drunkards or swindlers, will possess the kingdom of God.'"

According to the overture rationale, two phrases in the current answer that were supplied by the 1962 translators do not appear in the original text or in any translations produced prior to 1962. The primary phrase that is in dispute is "or of homosexual perversion."

The words "homosexual perversion" in an official church document would, to say the least, present a challenge to approving the ordination of active homosexuals. The General Assembly voted to approve the change, arguing that the issue was accuracy in translation. Those opposed to the change noted that the catechism is making a direct reference to 1 Corinthians 6:9-11, which explicitly does include homosexual behaviors among those condemned.

That out of the way (though requiring further action at the next General Assembly), the denomination then turned to the issue of standards for ordination. The language to be replaced requires that all ministers of the church must live in "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness." That language, consistent with Scripture and Christian tradition, is to be replaced with a new standard that would require nothing at all with reference to sexual integrity.

The new wording would read:

Those who are called to ordained service in the church, by their assent to the constitutional questions for ordination and installation, pledge themselves to live lives obedient to Jesus Christ the Head of the Church, striving to follow where he leads through the witness of the Scriptures, and to understand the Scriptures through the instruction of the Confessions. In so doing, they declare their fidelity to the standards of the Church. Each governing body charged with examination for ordination and/or installation and establishes the candidate's sincere efforts to adhere to these standards.

The new wording is liberal in application and neo-orthodox in form. The minister must merely pledge to live in obedience to Christ, but with no reference whatsoever to what Jesus would require in terms of sexual ethics. The language about following where Jesus leads "through the witness of the Scriptures" reduces the Bible to a witness and obedience to utter subjectivity.

The proposed amendment to the standards now moves to the denomination's 173 regional units (presbyteries) where it must receive sufficient support. Similar efforts have failed in the past, but many believe that this proposal will be difficult to defeat. The defection of many conservatives from the denomination (and some churches as well) may weaken the opposition.

Nevertheless, even without the change in the standard, local presbyteries may well move to ordain active homosexuals anyway. The Associated Press explains how:

Of equal importance to advocates on both side of the debate, the assembly also voted to allow gay and lesbian candidates for ordination to conscientiously object to the existing standard. Local presbyteries and church councils that approve ordinations would consider such requests on a case-by-case basis.

That vote was an "an authoritative interpretation" of the church constitution rather than a change to it, so it goes into effect immediately. The interpretation supersedes a ruling from the church's high court, issued in February, that said there were no exceptions to the so-called "fidelity and chastity" requirement.

Taken together, these changes represent a disaster for this church. In capitulating to the demand that homosexuality be normalized, the church turned its back on the Bible, on its own tradition, and on the protests and prayers of its members who would, of all things, expect their ministers to exhibit "fidelity within the covenant of marriage between a man and a woman or chastity in singleness."

Just reflect for a moment about what the removal of those words really means. The General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church USA has just proposed to define its own denomination as a church for which those words no longer make sense.

The Albert Mohler Program

Saturday, June 7, 2008

The Demise of the New Perspective on Paul. Wishful Thinking?


Mark Siefried, roughly a decade ago, in an article published in
Themelios (I can't quite remember it, and thought that I had it at home, any help would be appreciated) said that the NPP, like communism, would die down with time. It would look lke Siefried is going back to the fifties, comparing the NPP with communism. Sounds like a witch hunt was on order.

In the latest Trinity Journal, G. K. Beale, in his review of
Justification and Variegated Nomism, Vol. 2: The Paradoxes of Paul, writes in the last paragrah of his review: "The New Perspective is now thirty years old. There have been so many qualifications of it over theyears it should now be seen to be outdated as the primary default lens through which to understand Judaism or Paul." I don't get it. So outdated, then why write two volumes to try to knock it down? It would
seem to me that Beale, who I admire a lot, has shot himself on the foot by saying what he is saying.

Finally, what sparked me from lurking to writing, was what Don Carson
said at the latest CLARUS Conference, where he said at the end that the
NPP has lost interest among theologians. What? Why write so much
against it then?

Today I was reading part of the article by Wright, "Redemption from the
New Perspective? Towards a Multi-Layered Pauline Theology of the Cross
", where Wright mentions that there are many grave diggers, wanting to
bury the NPP, and along with it him as well.

It would seem to me that by not being able to knock down the NPP by
writing and scholarly exchange, the new tactic is to down play the NPP.

At least, this is my take on this issue.

You can follow this conversation on the Wright Yahoo List

Luis A. Jovel.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Plant Rights, Screaming Vegetation, and a "Biocentric" Worldview

Several years ago now, I was appearing on a national network interview program and found myself discussing capital punishment with a woman who, during a commercial break, indicated that she had recently seen a combine going through a wheat field. She was horrified. The wheat was being cut down by thousands of stalks a second. She felt grief for the wheat, she revealed.

No one person on the panel knew what to do with that off-hand statement. I think it is safe to say that none of us had ever grieved over the intentional harvesting of vegetation.

Now, ethicist Wesley J. Smith indicates that an ethics panel in Switzerland has decided that "the arbitrary killing of flora is morally wrong." Writing in the current edition of The Weekly Standard, Smith explains that the idea of "plant rights" is now a matter of serious consideration among the Swiss.

The background to the current panel is a constitutional clause adopted years ago in Switzerland that demands Swiss citizens to recognize "the dignity of creation when handling animals, plants and other organisms." Until just recently, no one seems to have expected that this would lead to a plants rights movement.

As Smith explains, the Swiss panel came up with a radical conclusion based in a radical worldview:

A "clear majority" of the panel adopted what it called a "biocentric" moral view, meaning that "living organisms should be considered morally for their own sake because they are alive." Thus, the panel determined that we cannot claim "absolute ownership" over plants and, moreover, that "individual plants have an inherent worth." This means that "we may not use them just as we please, even if the plant community is not in danger, or if our actions do not endanger the species, or if we are not acting arbitrarily."

Smith rightly points to this kind of logic as "a symptom of a cultural disease that has infected Western civilization, causing us to lose the ability to think critically and distinguish serious from frivolous ethical concerns."

The very idea of "plants rights" indicates a loss of cultural sanity. Until now, this cultural confusion has been most evident in the animal rights movement -- a movement that presents some legitimate ethical concerns but pushes its ideology beyond sanity. The failure to distinguish between human beings and the larger animal world is a hallmark of a post-Christian culture. The extension of this ideology to vegetation is a frightening sign of mass delusion.

Wesley Smith gets it just right:

Why is this happening? Our accelerating rejection of the Judeo-Christian world view, which upholds the unique dignity and moral worth of human beings, is driving us crazy. Once we knocked our species off its pedestal, it was only logical that we would come to see fauna and flora as entitled to rights.

So, now Swiss ethicists are working up protocols on "plant dignity" and determining scenarios that might qualify as a violation of "plant rights." The Swiss panel's report, "The Dignity of Living Beings with Regard to Plants," is a wake-up call. The adoption of a "biocentric" worldview is a leap into irrationality. Good arguments can be made for responsible agricultural practices that honor God by demonstrating care for creation. But the ideology of "plant rights" and the suggestion of something like an inherent "right to life" for vegetation is beyond all reason.

The most tragic dimension of all this is that a culture increasingly ready to euthanize the old, infanticize the young, and adamant about a "right" to abort unborn human beings, will now contend for the inherent dignity of plants. Can any culture recover from this?

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1143

Friday, May 2, 2008

United Methodists Maintain Standards

The United Methodist Church voted this week to maintain its official policy that homosexual activity is "incompatible with Christian teaching." The policy of the church also prohibits the recognition or celebration of same-sex relationships.

Meeting for its General Conference in Ft. Worth, Texas, the Methodists voted 517 to 416 to keep the current policy and language in its Book of Discipline. The denomination voted down a proposal to replace the "incompatible with Christian teaching" language with a statement that the church should "refrain from judgment regarding homosexual persons and practices as the Spirit leads us to new insight."

As Religion News Service and Christianity Today reported:

Many Methodists rose to speak in favor of a clear continuation of traditional teachings, especially for the purpose of evangelizing to a world that they said is beset by moral confusion.

"Friends, this is serious business," said the Rev. H. Eddie Fox, director of evangelism for the World Methodist Council. "It is an urgent matter for our church. It matters what we believe and what we practice and we do not meet here in isolation."

A group of 300 delegates protested the decision and blamed it, at least in part, on delegates from Africa. As The Dallas Morning News reported:

"It was a terrible day," said the Rev. Eric Folkerth, pastor of Northaven United Methodist Church in Dallas. . . .

Mr. Folkerth said, "American Methodists are ready for change." But he and others said change was thwarted this time by international delegates, particularly delegates from Africa, whose numbers and influence have grown because the denomination is growing there.

Dogo Jean Yoou, a lay delegate from Ivory Coast, agreed that the African delegates oppose relaxing the UMC's stands on homosexuality. "We are still very conservative on this issue," he said.

The United Methodist Church has been debating issues of human sexuality for four decades. The controversy is hardly unique to that denomination. The liberal churches often identified as "mainline Protestantism" have been torn asunder by these debates, with the Episcopal Church breaking up in some regions and other denominations attempting to avert immediate disaster by avoiding a decision for as long as possible. The sand in that hourglass is running out. As one United Methodist leader commented, a decision to approve homosexuality and same-sex relationships would signal "the death knell for the church."

As some of those pressing for the normalization of homosexuality made clear, they believe that time is on their side. The fact that the most important vote was separated by only 101 votes may indicate that they are right. The next General Conference in 2012 is certain to confront similar efforts.

Nevertheless, the denomination's decision to retain its teaching that homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching" should encourage all those working within other denominations and churches to maintain biblical standards. A narrow victory is still a victory.

____________________

Art depicts the historic sanctuary of First United Methodist Church of Huntington, West Virginia.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1142

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

John Piper on the Emerging Church


What is the "emerging church"?

March 12, 2008
By John Piper

The following is an edited transcript of the audio.

What is the "emerging church"?

"Emerging" and "emergent" are sometimes distinguished.

Emergent seems to be a reaction—among younger believers primarily, 20- and 30-somethings—to several things. In my judgment it's not a very healthy reaction, though I can understand why it might happen.

On one hand it seems to be a reaction against the large, plastic, mega-church phenomenon where relationships are not paramount. The emphasis on bigness, success, slick marketing, and super-duper high-powered worship services all feels very plastic, commercial, and not real, poetic, gutsy and down-to-earth. So there is a reaction against that.

On the other hand it's a reaction to formalized doctrinal statements. The emergent church tends to find creative ways of coming together, like sitting on sofas, using candles for lighting, painting the walls—strange and different things like that—because it's fresh and new and it gives release to different peoples' expressions, and so on. And if you try to push them on what they believe they don't like to tell you.

If you Google the emergent church you'll find some emergent websites. You'll notice that they don't like statements of faith. They don't like them because they say that they alienate people. They push people apart instead of relationally nurturing people to come together.

So that's the flavor. It's not defined. There is not list on "this is what it means to be emergent." It's just kind of a general reactionary movement.

What concerns you most about the emergent church?

The single greatest concern for me is their attitude towards doctrine. Stylistic things are neither here nor there. They come and go: whether you meet in a home or meet in a church, sit in a circle or sit in rows, paint on the walls or not—they're all just peripheral issues. They're the wineskins, not the wine.

The issue is their attitude towards truth. I'm deeply concerned about it, and I think that it will be the undoing of the emergent church as it has come to be. They don't believe that truth itself is an objective propositional thing that has a yes and a no. Nothing is ever either/or, good or bad, right or wrong, ugly or beautiful. It's all vague.

I've talked with some emergent types and tried to understand even their concept of truth, and you can't get your hand around it.

Here's a typical kind of response. One person made an accusation that the emergent church's view of doctrine is like trying to nail Jello to the wall. I mentioned that to one of them and his response to me was, "Why would you want to nail Jello to the wall?" That's clever, right? Yes it is, but it shows that that Jello is there. You just don't nail it to the wall. You eat jello. You cut it in cubes, etc. But you don't nail it to the wall.

So all of this "nailing to the wall" of theses—doctrines that you would subscribe to—they're not at home with that kind of talk. They regard their position here as a virtue, I think, but I regard it as the undoing of their movement.

Now let me clarify one other thing. I said earlier that emergent and emerging aren't necessarily the same.

Emerging might be used by some people—like Mark Driscoll—to describe a proper reaction that is taking place against some of the negative things going on in the church, but a reaction that doesn't throw away the doctrines.

So Mark is a very vigilantly biblical, reformed person when it comes to what we ought to believe. And he would want to stress that a big piece of that emerging church is not just its reaction to certain unreal things in middle class Christianity but also a very intentional mission orientation. The word "missional" is kind of the "in" word today. And a church that is missional tends to be a church where everything is thought about in terms of making an impact on people around the church who are not Christians. You design everything to think that way. And I think that is a good thing.

So be careful, when you're talking emerging or emergent, to know which group you're talking about. The Mark Driscoll "emerging" type would put a very high premium on biblical faithfulness, truth, doctrine and propositions. But the emergent types would not put premium on that, but would explicitly say on their websites that they regard that kind of emphasis as harmful.


© Desiring God

Permissions: You are permitted and encouraged to reproduce and distribute this material in any format provided that you do not alter the wording in any way and do not charge a fee beyond the cost of reproduction. For web posting, a link to this document on our website is preferred. Any exceptions to the above must be approved by Desiring God.

Please include the following statement on any distributed copy: By John Piper. © Desiring God. Website: desiringGod.org

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

America's Changing Religious Landscape

A massive new study of the American religious landscape reveals big changes and powerful trends shaping the future. The Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life surveyed 35,000 Americans in one of the largest research projects yet undertaken.

The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey report is over 140 pages long, but the Pew Center for Research has provided a helpful summary. Among the major findings:

  • Most Americans (78.4%) identify themselves as Christians of some sort. This Christian majority seems to be a settled fact for some time to come, with trends such as Hispanic immigration bolstering these numbers.
  • America's Protestant majority -- a mainstay of American life from the colonial era to the present -- is in decline and Protestant Christians will soon become a minority. The survey revealed that only 51.3% of Americans now identify as Protestants.
  • Evangelicals are now the largest single group of American Christians (26.3%).
  • Roman Catholics (23.9%) are the second-largest Christian grouping, though almost a third of those born into Catholic homes no longer consider themselves as Catholic. In all, almost 10% of all Americans are "former Catholics."
  • Mainline Protestant churches and denominations continue to lose membership and now represent only 18.1% of the population.
  • Buddhists (0.7%) outnumber Muslims (0.6%).
  • Mormons (1.7%) and Muslims report the largest families.
  • Those identifying as "unaffiliated" represent a fast-growing segment of the population (16.1%), including atheists (1.6%), agnostics (2.4%) and "nothing in particular" (12.1%).
  • At least 27% of families are interfaith to some extent. The percentage rises to 37% if spouses of different Protestant denominations are included.
  • Among younger Americans (ages 18-29) almost a quarter claim no religious affiliation.
  • The Midwest is the most representative region of the country, while Evangelicals are concentrated in the South.

Here is a particularly important section of the report:

More than one-quarter of American adults (28%) have left the faith in which they were raised in favor of another religion -- or no religion at all. If change in affiliation from one type of Protestantism to another is included, roughly 44% of adults have either switched religious affiliation, moved from being unaffiliated with any religion to being affiliated with a particular faith, or dropped any connection to a specific religious tradition altogether.

The first wave of media reports pointed to this section of the report, while pointing to the larger issue of religious diversity and the growth of "nothing in particular" as a response. The "switching" phenomenon was a leading focus of the report summary, with Pew researchers arguing that "religious affiliation in the U.S. is both very diverse and extremely fluid."

What are we to make of this? The report is a credible and extensive review of the American religious landscape. Taken as a whole, the data point to big changes on the horizon. The loss of a Protestant majority will lead to further adjustments in the cultural worldview. Clearly, America is more of a mission field than ever before.

There are some caveats about the research as well. These affiliations are self-reported, meaning that some of the individuals may have little affiliation, knowledge, or commitment behind these identifications. Nevertheless, that has always been a limitation on these surveys.

The issue of "switching" should attract a great deal of interest. In one sense, this is the inevitable product of religious liberty and religious diversity. But it also reveals that many Americans are looking for something they have not found in the tradition and affiliation of their childhood.

Even so, the research methodology probably understates this phenomenon. A member of a liberal Presbyterian church who switches to a conservative Presbyterian church is still a constant Presbyterian in the survey.

Evangelical Christians and churches should look at this report closely. There is a wealth of data here that helps to define the mission field we face in America. There are danger signs. Here are several points of concern:

  • Our evangelism is not keeping pace with growth in the population. Evangelical churches are growing, but falling behind in the task of reaching Americans with the Gospel.
  • We are losing many young people and many of those who switch from evangelical identity switch to "nothing in particular."
  • Evangelicals are accustomed to being part of a Protestant majority, but that majoritarian posture is about to be taken away (and already has been in some communities).

All this reminds us of the complexity of our context and the immensity of our challenge. We cannot look at this data with mere interest. These numbers represent real people who desperately need to hear the Gospel -- and to see authentic Christianity made visible.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1104