TruthBook Religious News Blog

Amanda Shimko
Issue date: 11/29/07

Page 1 of 2 - Please click on "external link" for full article

A September report released by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life states that candidates who are viewed by the public as not highly religious seem to top the newest Gallup Polls for both the Democratic and Republican Parties.

The nationwide survey, based on telephone interviews from 3,002 adults in August, rated people's perceptions of candidates and their religiosity.

Romney, a candidate with a Mormon background, was perceived as most religious by participants. Of those polled, 46 percent found Romney to be very religious, while George W. Bush comes in at 43 percent.

The latest Gallup Poll, released Nov. 13, shows Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani as the frontrunners of the Democrat and Republican Parties. Both candidates ranked in the bottom of the religious survey, ranking 16 and 14 percent, respectively.

While these numbers state the percentage of people who found the candidate to be very religious, 63 percent found Giuliani to be somewhat religious, while Clinton received 53 percent in the same category.

Clinton received the biggest percentage of all candidates, both Democrat and Republican, of those who find her not too or not at all religious.

According to the study, voters in the past have said it is important for a president to have strong religious beliefs, and voters tend to express a more favorable view toward those candidates.

But, the report goes on to state, the new study finds that candidates with White House dreams do not have to be seen as very religious in order to be accepted by the public.

James Riddlesperger, professor and chair of the political science department, said religion has always been an important part of American politics.

However, Riddlesperger said, the effect of a candidate's religious preference on the next election outcome remains to be seen.

"We've never had an election this intense this early," Riddlesperger said. "It's too early to tell."

Labels: Amanda Shimko, candidates, election, Gallup Poll, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, politics, religiosity

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, November 29, 2007

Debunking the Galileo Myth

By Dinesh D'Souza
Monday, November 26, 2007

Many people have uncritically accepted the idea that there is a longstanding war between science and religion. We find this war advertised in many of the leading atheist tracts such as those by Richard Dawkins, Victor Stenger, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens. Every few months one of the leading newsweeklies does a story on this subject. Little do the peddlers of this paradigm realize that they are victims of nineteenth-century atheist propaganda.

About a hundred years ago, two anti-religious bigots named John William Draper and Andrew Dickson White wrote books promoting the idea of an irreconcilable conflict between science and God. The books were full of facts that have now been totally discredited by scholars. But the myths produced by Draper and Dickson continue to be recycled. They are believed by many who consider themselves educated, and they even find their way into the textbooks. In this article I expose several of these myths, focusing especially on the Galileo case, since Galileo is routinely portrayed as a victim of religious persecution and a martyr to the cause of science.

The Flat Earth Fallacy: According to the atheist narrative, the medieval Christians all believed that the earth was flat until the brilliant scientists showed up in the modern era to prove that it was round. In reality, educated people in the Middle Ages knew that the earth was round. In fact, the ancient Greeks in the fifth century B.C. knew the earth was a globe.

Huxley’s Mythical Put-Down: We read in various books about the great debate between Darwin’s defender Thomas Henry Huxley and poor Bishop Wilberforce. As the story goes, Wilberforce inquired of Huxley whether he was descended from an ape on his father or mother’s side, and Huxley winningly responded that he would rather be descended from an ape than from an ignorant bishop who was misled people about the findings of science. A dramatic denouement, to be sure, but the only problem is that it never happened.

Darwin Against the Christians: As myth would have it, when Darwin’s published his Origin of Species, the scientists lined up on one side and the Christians lined up on the other side. In reality, there were good scientific arguments made both in favor of Darwin and against him. The British naturalist Richard Owen, the Harvard zoologist Louis Agassiz, and the renowned physicist Lord Kelvin all had serious reservations about Darwin’s theory. Historian Gertrude Himmelfarb points out that while some Christians found evolution inconsistent with the Bible, many Christians rallied to Darwin’s side.

The Experiment Galileo Didn’t Do: We read in textbooks about how Galileo went to the Tower of Pisa and dropped light and heavy bodies to the ground. He discovered that they hit the ground at the same time, thus refuting centuries of idle medieval theorizing. Actually Galileo didn’t do any such experiments; one of his students did. The student discovered what we all can discover by doing similar experiments ourselves: the heavy bodies hit the ground first! As historian of science Thomas Kuhn points out, it is only in the absence of air resistance that all bodies hit the ground at the same time.

Galileo Was the First to Prove Heliocentrism: Actually, Copernicus advanced the heliocentric theory that the sun, not the earth, is at the center, and that the earth goes around the sun. He did this more than half a century before Galileo. But Copernicus had no direct evidence, and he admitted that there were serious obstacles from experience that told against his theory. For instance, if the earth is moving rapidly, why don’t objects thrown up into the air land a considerable distance away from their starting point? Galileo defended heliocentrism, but one of his most prominent arguments was wrong. Galileo argued that the earth’s regular motion sloshes around the water in the oceans and explains the tides.

The Church Dogmatically Opposed the New Science: In reality, the Church was the leading sponsor of the new science and Galileo himself was funded by the church. The leading astronomers of the time were Jesuit priests. They were open to Galileo’s theory but told him the evidence for it was inconclusive. This was the view of the greatest astronomer of the age, Tyco Brahe. The Church’s view of heliocentrism was hardly a dogmatic one. When Cardinal Bellarmine met with Galileo he said, “While experience tells us plainly that the earth is standing still, if there were a real proof that the sun is in the center of the universe…and that the sun goes not go round the earth but the earth round the sun, then we should have to proceed with great circumspection in explaining passages of scripture which appear to teach the contrary, and rather admit that we did not understand them than declare an opinion to be false which is proved to be true. But this is not a thing to be done in haste, and as for myself, I shall not believe that there are such proofs until they are shown to me.” Galileo had no such proofs.

Galileo Was A Victim of Torture and Abuse: This is perhaps the most recurring motif, and yet it is entirely untrue. Galileo was treated by the church as a celebrity. When summoned by the Inquisition, he was housed in the grand Medici Villa in Rome. He attended receptions with the Pope and leading cardinals. Even after he was found guilty, he was first housed in a magnificent Episcopal palace and then placed under “house arrest” although he was permitted to visit his daughters in a nearby convent and to continue publishing scientific papers.

The Church Was Wrong To Convict Galileo of Heresy: But Galileo was neither charged nor convicted of heresy. He was charged with teaching heliocentrism in specific contravention of his own pledge not to do so. This is a charge on which Galileo was guilty. He had assured Cardinal Bellarmine that given the sensitivity of the issue, he would not publicly promote heliocentrism. Yet when a new pope was named, Galileo decided on his own to go back on his word. Asked about this in court, he said his Dialogue on the Two World Systems did not advocate heliocentrism. This is a flat-out untruth as anyone who reads Galileo’s book can plainly see. Even Galileo’s supporters, and there were many, found it difficult to defend him at this point.

What can we conclude from all this? Galileo was right about heliocentrism, but we know that only in retrospect because of evidence that emerged after Galileo’s death. The Church should not have tried him at all, although Galileo’s reckless conduct contributed to his fate. Even so, his fate was not so terrible. Historian Gary Ferngren concludes that “the traditional picture of Galileo as a martyr to intellectual freedom and as a victim of the church’s opposition to science has been demonstrated to be little more than a caricature.” Remember this the next time you hear some half-educated atheist rambling on about “the war between religion and science.”

Labels: atheism, church, Darwin, Dinesh D'Souza, fallacy, Galileo, myth, religion, science

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Collins: Faith, Science Compatible

Geneticist Makes His Case At EMU
By David Reynolds

HARRISONBURG — Like many young doctors, Francis Collins sometimes found himself at the bedsides of patients he could no longer help.

But always curious, Collins sat by their side listening and marveling at how many patients didn’t despair but found comfort in religion.

Then in his mid-20’s, a dying woman asked Collins what he believed on the subject. And the young man who was embarking on a career that would tackle some of the natural world’s toughest puzzles was stumped.

For all his training, Collins says, he had no answers for life’s basic questions: Why am I here? What will happen after I die? Is there a God?

On Saturday, Collins, 57, now a renowned geneticist and a Christian, spoke to a packed crowd at Eastern Mennonite University’s Martin Chapel.

His message: that science and religion, two ways of explaining the world we live in, are not incompatible.

“Truth can be found in scientific exploration and religious exploration; It’s all God’s truth,” Collins said. “Some people are saying you have to pick one or the other. I would say that would be an impoverished outcome.”

‘The Language Of God’

Raised near Staunton, Collins, is the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Md.

And he coordinated the Human Genome Project. Genomes, he says, are like books contained inside every living organism, which hold the secrets of life.

In 2003, Collins and other scientists finished “mapping” the human genome, a landmark achievement that, he says, was like figuring out each letter in a book. His leadership on the genome project and work overall work on genetic research has catapulted him to the top tier of scientific researchers and earlier this month earned him the Medal of Freedom. President Bush awarded him the medal, the nation’s highest civilian honor, in a ceremony on Nov. 7 in Washington.

Faith Bolstered By Science

Although scientists have yet to grasp the full meaning of the human genome, doing so could lead to advances in the fights against diseases such as cancer, diabetes and asthma.

But on Saturday, Collins focused on how decades in science has encouraged, not dampened, his religious faith.

It’s an experience described in his 2006 book, “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence For Belief”.

Known And Unknown

By studying fossils and DNA, scientists have achieved a greater understanding of life and found support for the theory of evolution, Collins said.

And most scientists now agree that the universe began about 13.7 billion years ago, he says, and that people share more than 98 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees.

Still science, Collins said, can’t answer how life began or the mystery of why 15 mathematical constants show up over and over in nature like a well-designed pattern.

Those questions, Collins says, are part of what has led him and about 40 percent of scientists to a belief in some God.

But Collins’ said his Christian faith led him a step further, to belief in a God who cares about people and has instilled in them a sense of right and wrong.

“We all have written in our hearts what is good and holy and the desire to reach out and find it,” he said.

Tricky Subject

Christian Early, a philosophy and theology professor at EMU says Collins’ message is important in a society where science and religion often seem at odds.

Still, aspects of Collins speech, especially evolution, can be difficult for Mennonites and other Christian denominations to accept, Early said.

Victoria Clymer, 15, and Malinda Bender, 14, both freshman at Eastern Mennonite High School said that Collins’ world-view is different from theirs.

“Coming from a Mennonite background, you take what the Bible says,” Bender said. “It was a little bit different, but interesting,” she said. “I’m glad I came.”

Dan McSweeney, 71, of Augusta County, says he’s an atheist who has no trouble with religious people, unless they tell him to be religious.

After the speech, he said he admired Collins as a scientist, but that the logic of his religious arguments doesn’t add up.

“What we have is the world around us, that’s what exists,” McSweeney said. But “a personal God? That’s a leap of faith,” he said. “Not science.”

Labels: Francis Collins, God, human genome project, religion, science

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

UW Professors' Book Examines Religion in Popular Films

News Release

UW Professors' Book Examines Religion in Popular Films

Nov. 28, 2007 -- Many of America's most popular movies use religious imagery and symbolism to convey cultural viewpoints and to debate social questions of their times, according to the authors of a new college textbook, "Film and Religion: An Introduction."

"We examine how American culture uses religious material for many purposes, quite often to promote political and ideological statements," says Paul Flesher, University of Wyoming associate professor of religious studies who co-wrote the book with Robert Torry, associate professor in UW's Department of English. They wrote the book in response to a nationwide demand for a text to accompany an increasing number of college courses that teach religion and film. The pair began team teaching the course at UW in the early 1990s.

"Our students watch the films in context of cultural issues that affect the society in which the films were made. So we look at the 1950s films in terms of the Cold War issues -- nuclear bombs, foreign policy and military policy," says Torry. "These issues are expressed even in science fiction films such as "The Day the Earth Stood Still" and "When Worlds Collide."

The religious films of the ‘60s and ‘70s were produced after the strict motion picture code was relaxed, says Flesher, who also directs UW's Religious Studies Program. For example, more traditional films on the life of Jesus, such as "The King of Kings" and "The Greatest Story Ever Told" were replaced by films reflecting the era's social rebellion, such as "Godspell, "Jesus Christ Superstar" and "Jesus in Montreal."

The authors say the textbook (Abingdon Press, 2007) incorporates three areas of knowledge essential for understanding film's use of religion: the movies themselves, the religious features that appear in them, and the cultural concerns they address.

Each chapter is organized around an issue addressed by a group of films. For example, one chapter on "God As Alien: Humanity's Helper" examines 1968's "2001: A Space Odyssey" and 1977's "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." "The Exorcist" (1973) and "The Omen" (1976) are highlighted in a chapter about the devil.

The book also includes popular films that take a less explicit look at the relationships between religion and culture. Religious themes and imagery of the films "The Natural" and "Field of Dreams" are examined in a chapter on "The Religion of Baseball."

"We want our students to have fun with these films, but the overall point we make is that religion interacts with culture," Flesher adds.

Posted on Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Labels: filmmakers, movies, Paul Flesher, religion, Robert Torry

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Sunday, November 25, 2007

A business model for saving souls

By Manya A. Brachear | Tribune religion reporter
November 24, 2007

Page one of a two-page article. Please click on "external link" for complete article.

For more than three decades, Willow Creek Community Church has defined its success by tallying the throngs who walk through its doors.

But a survey recently revealed something the South Barrington mega-church hadn't realized: Some of its members had become unsatisfied, saying they felt abandoned on their spiritual journeys.

The research yielding this uncomfortable revelation came from the business world. Using a model originally designed to find what emotionally drives consumers to buy perfume, running shoes and insurance, each of Willow's members was placed on a spectrum of belief, ranging from curious about Christ to seeing Christ at the center of their lives.

It then pinpointed what kind of spiritual formation works best for each believer.

Willow Creek Association paid for similar surveys at 30 more churches, with similar results. Now Willow is offering to conduct surveys at 500 more churches around the world. More than 1,500 churches from 14 denominations applied, including Methodist, Lutheran and Roman Catholic.

"We are doing an exemplary job with people who are far from God and just beginning to explore Christian life," said Rev. Bill Hybels, Willow Creek's founder and senior pastor. "But there were some unpleasant surprises we had to face. If people are not feeling supported by the church, they don't grow in faith."

The business model doesn't sit well with all Christians. Some say the survey fails to grasp that not all things spiritual can be measured empirically. Though Rev. Erwin Lutzer of Moody Church commends Willow's intentions, he says it's risky to measure applause.

"The marketing approach might have some benefit, but we must be careful that we simply not consider our members to be customers who we need to satisfy," he said. "The care of souls is very different from the goal of satisfying shareholders. We must be willing to give people what they need, not just what they want."

But surveying customer satisfaction is part of how Willow became a model mega-church.

In 1975, Hybels spent six weeks knocking on doors to find out why people stayed home on Sunday mornings. Some didn't like the way pastors pestered them for money. Others described church as "boring," "predictable" and "irrelevant."

Hybels decided to "defer to the customer except where it conflicted with Scripture." With simple sermons, rock 'n' roll and no collection plate, Willow took off, growing to nearly 20,000 members.

Recently other mega-churches have left Willow in the dust by drawing even more members and retaining them. To figure out why Willow was static, Hybels turned to noted consumer scientist Eric Arnson.

For 25 years, Arnson studied consumers for Fortune 500 companies such as Nike and Procter & Gamble. He revolutionized the insurance industry by gauging buyers' attitudes toward risk and redefined the perfume market by mapping customers' romantic sentiments.

To do something similar for churches, Arnson "segmented the market" by defining churchgoers' relationships with Christ and placing them on a scale of Christian maturity. Questionnaires probed the circumstances that brought people to Willow and sought to rate their experience since then.

Arnson discovered that two-thirds of those surveyed traced spiritual growth to difficult times in their lives such as addiction or personal loss.

He also interviewed nearly 300 people who had left Willow; about half said they did so because the church was not helping them grow. Those who came to Willow 30 years ago said they were hearing the same message though their faith had matured.

"What we need is a different framework that says each of us is at a different place," said Greg Hawkins, Willow's executive pastor. "Creating a different lens for people would quite honestly generate higher satisfaction with the church."

Jerry Thornhill and his wife are among the seekers who came to Willow Creek based on its reputation as a relevant and welcoming place. And it was. "When we first started there, we really loved it," he said.

But after a few years, Thornhill said, "We felt like we were kind of stagnating."

Thornhill, who is a veterinarian. , only had time to attend church once a week, so he relied heavily on the message from the pulpit to stoke his faith. He found the guidance he was looking for at Harvest Bible Chapel, another mega-church in nearby Rolling Meadows.

Labels: business, church, Manya A. Brachear, marketing, spirituality, surveys, Willow Creek Community Church

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Why are we religious?

After studying apes, anthropologist Barbara King wrote a book about man's need for spiritual belonging

By DAVID NICHOLSON
November 24, 2007

As an anthropologist, Barbara King studies human ancestors who lived thousands, even millions, of years ago. But her writings on the origins of religion strike a modern chord with an unlikely pairing, scientists and theologians.

Earlier this year, the College of William and Mary professor published "Evolving God," her thoughts on how early man developed his religious imagination. Though it's the first time she's tackled the topic of religion in her research, the book has been named one of the top 10 religion books for 2007 by the American Library Association/Booklist. It's garnered far more attention than any of her previous publications, and the response suggests to her that people continue to struggle with the relationship between religion and science.

Evolutionists do not believe that man descended from the apes, she says, but rather that man and the apes share a common ancestor and exhibit similar behaviors. Much of her research has involved studying the behavior of gorillas and other apes in Africa and places closer to home such as the National Zoo in Washington, D.C. From her observations, she's developed the theory that one of the most powerful precursors to religion is a concept she calls belongingness, which is "mattering to someone who matters to you."

Belongingness is the need to relate to one another, as members of a family or a society. Humans have it, and apes have it, too.

"I got to thinking about how important social groups are," King says. "We've evolved to really seek connections with each other. People matter to us."

Her theory is that this need to relate to one another evolved into a need to relate to a higher power.

King says she is writing against the gene-determinant theory, which says that things like language and religion are coded in our genes. Before she tackled the topic of religion, she came to believe that social and emotional interaction between humans, and between apes, had a major role in how language developed. An editor at Doubleday Religion urged her to examine religion in the same way she looked at language.

"People are wanting to understand where the yearning to connect to God comes from," she says. "Many people are personally grappling with science and religion. I'm saying there are all kinds of ways to bring these things together."

King isn't out to prove whether or not God exists. In that same closing chapter, she writes, "I do not believe that science can 'explain' religion ... I do believe that science can explain something meaningful about the evolution of the religious imagination."

Labels: anthropology, apes, Barbara King, belongingness, David Nicholson, God, humanity, religion

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Will neurotheology cause faith to wane?

Not likely, experts say
By Hannah Elliott

Associated Baptist Press

NEW YORK (ABP)—If science asserts that prayer is more neurological than metaphysical, will it cause the believers to abandon their faith? It’s highly unlikely, experts in the field of neurotheology agree.

Neurotheology is the study of the correlation between neurological and spiritual activity. Its aim is to find a neurological basis for belief-based experiences like trances, perceived oneness with the universe and altered states of consciousness. Proponents say it can also help explain the daily habits of religious life, namely prayer, meditation and senses of the presence of God.

“The ordinary person who attends church will dismiss this as a minor blip on the screen,” said Paul Simmons, a clinical professor of family and community medicine at the University of Louisville School of Medicine. “It will make them angry at the world of science in a way that they should not be, but it’s understandable.”

Despite the disapproval of some, neurotheology pioneer Brian Alston said he is hopeful for the future of the discipline he has devoted himself to forming. Neurotheology will help scientists and theologians alike navigate through a world that is increasingly becoming a single community, “a backyard,” he said.

A large component of the field is the impact it can have on ideas, and when Christians study their ideas, they can better understand other religions, he said. Eastern psychologists and religions traditionally have encouraged the study of meditation and mind-body wholeness, Alston continued, citing the success of a book by the Dali Lama about Buddhism and the brain.

Among intellectuals, some scientists will give up what they call “infantile” beliefs in favor of believing that religion is fabricated by chemicals in the brain, but other scientists will continue “an emotional attachment” to religion, Simmons said.

That’s fine by him. Good theology always stays in touch with the insights of science, but it never simply accepts the conclusions some scientists reach in religious matters, Simmons said. And it never tells people what to think or believe.

Neurotheology, for instance, can help determine the difference between someone who is mentally unstable and someone who is a visionary, Simmons said. Joan of Arc heard God, or at least she thought she did. But there are too many bizarre things in her life to think she had a direct line to God, he added.

“We cannot just say, ‘Now you’ve got the answer, sure.’ No. The same activity that gives one person a religious experience gives someone else a breakdown,” he said.

On the other hand, Martin Luther King Jr. never claimed to have a vision from God, Simmons pointed out. He never claimed “direct insight into God. He had a strong God-consciousness but never made claims to the bizarre or the unusual, as you get with some people who claim to be prophets,” Simmons said.

Simmons, who wrote Freedom of Conscience: A Baptist/Humanist Dialogue in 2000, said his first reaction to someone who says they have “a direct word from God” is “extreme skepticism and maybe cynicism.”

He noted that Jesus warned that some people would make claims about being the savior, so “someone has to stand up and say, ‘Wait a minute, we know too much about the brain’s chemistry to be taken in by charlatans.’”

“Those are dangerous people,” he added. “Sincere? Well, yes. But sincerity is no test for truth.”

Labels: Brian Alston, Hannah Elliott, neurotheology, Paul Simmons, prayer, religion, spirituality

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, November 23, 2007

Spiritual Economics at Work

Trust Matters, new Chicago-based consulting firm, helps organizations improve bottom line through building and promoting trust

A recent global trust and credibility survey indicates that trust is a market asset and a new way forward for global institutions.

According to survey results, average employees are considered more credible spokespersons than corporate CEOs. While the survey reported that 53 percent of respondents trust business, marking an all-time high for the survey, with business trusted more than government and the media, only 27 percent of U.S. respondents judged information about a company coming from a CEO or CFO to be "very" or "extremely" credible, compared with 42 percent for regular company employees. The survey also found that distrust can result in refusal to buy or invest in a company's products or services.

Other surveys indicate that employer turnover costs companies millions of dollars each year, and that employers' communication with employees is key to earning their trust. Current research shows that a large majority of companies in the United States and around the world are struggling to attract and retain top-performing and critical-skill workers. Studies indicate that to attract, retain and motivate the best employees, companies must clearly communicate expectations about rewards and then deliver as promised.

These studies confirm that trust is a critical factor in employee retention and customer loyalty and can have a bottom line impact on an organization's profitability. "Trust Matters works with business leaders to build an environment of trust and helps transform a company from the inside out," says Noreen Kelly, Trust Strategist and President, Trust Matters.

"Since the periods of major corporate and accounting scandals involving Enron and other companies that resulted in a decline in public trust, followed by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002," says Noreen Kelly, organizations are being held to higher standards in their behavior and communications, yet mistrust in business is still prevalent. Establishing trust can increase profitability, boost market value, Add competitive advantage, lower costs, provide efficiencies, improve morale, and result in lower turnover, improved productivity, and increased job satisfaction.?

"Trust is a fundamental, timeless spiritual dimension that is at the core of all business activity," states Noreen Kelly, also a member of the International Center for Spirit at Work (ICSW), a worldwide, non-profit organization whose mission is to support global transformation by integrating spirituality in the workplace. As reported in Megatrends 2010, by Patricia Aburdene (2005), a shift in corporate consciousness has been happening, from ?profit at any cost? to the rise of Conscious Capitalism. Promoting trust within organizations can create a positive force in the workplace by its focus on both the highest good and the bottom line.?

About Trust Matters

Trust Matters is a newly formed (2007) Chicago-based consulting firm dedicated to helping organizations deliver trust building strategies and solutions. Its mission is to help organizations drive their business towards greater levels of trust by offering: executive coaching and communications counsel to management, consulting on employee engagement issues, organizational change and transition strategies, mediation services for mergers and acquisitions and restructurings, promotion of new initiatives to internal and external audiences, and facilitation of knowledge sharing and collaboration initiatives. Contact Noreen Kelly, Trust Strategist and President, Trust Matters, at 312.988.7562 or noreen@noreenkelly.com More information is available at http://www.noreenkelly.com

Labels: business, credibility, distrust, Noreen Kelly, spirituality, Trust Matters

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, November 22, 2007

Survey: Many Christian Parents Choose to Satisfy Children Over God

By Nathan Black
Christian Post Reporter
Nov. 20 2007

Despite concern over the negative influence of media on young people, Christian parents are likely to spend more than $1 billion on media products this Christmas season, a new survey showed.

Seventy-eight percent of Christian parents had purchased DVDs of movies and TV programs in the past year for their teenagers and 87 percent had purchased DVDs for their children under 13, the latest Barna Group study found. Yet 26 percent of them did not feel comfortable with the DVD products they purchased.

About six out of 10 parents bought music CDs for their teen children but one out of every three of them had concerns about the content. Also, slightly more than half of all Christian parents had purchased video games for their children yet nearly half (46 percent) of parents of teens admitted to concerns about the content of those games.

Christian parents who were generally the least comfortable with the content of the media products purchased were non-whites and parents involved in a house church, according to the survey, which was released Monday. Those most comfortable were single parents, mothers and parents least active in practicing their faith. Moreover, the study found that the more media consumed by the parent, the more comfortable they were with all forms of media they bought for their children.

The Parents Television Council (PTC), a non-profit organization that focuses on family-friendly television programming, reported earlier this year that television violence has increased 75 percent since 1998 and that the increase may pose a threat to children who may mimic what they see.

Among other media purchases that Christian parents had purchased for their children were magazines (51 percent), with 31 percent saying they were not very comfortable with the content. Thirty-nine percent bought their teens computer software although 24 percent were not comfortable with the software.

Researcher Barna noted that selecting appropriate Christmas gifts is "a microcosm of the spiritual tension millions of Christian adults wrestle with."

The Barna report is based on a nationwide survey on 601 Christian adults who were the parents of children between the ages of 2 and 18.

Labels: Barna Group, Christian, Christmas, Media, Nathan Black, parents, Parents Television Council, teenagers

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Ethical, scientific breakthroughs seen in new stem-cell studies

By Nancy Frazier O'Brien
Catholic News Service

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- Scientists, ethicists and church leaders hailed as a breakthrough two studies showing that human skin cells can be reprogrammed to work as effectively as embryonic stem cells, thus negating the need to destroy embryos in the name of science.

Separate studies from teams led by Shinya Yamanaka of Kyoto University in Japan and Junying Yu and James Thomson of the University of Wisconsin-Madison were published online Nov. 20 by the journals Cell and Science, respectively.

By adding four genes to the skin cells, the scientists were able to create stem cells that genetically match the donor and have the ability to become any of the 220 types of cells in the human body.

Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia, chairman of the U.S. bishops' Committee on Pro-Life Activities, welcomed the news, expressing gratitude "for scientists who took up the challenge of finding morally acceptable ways to pursue stem-cell research, and for government leaders who have encouraged and funded such avenues."

The new technology "avoids the many ethical land mines associated with embryonic stem-cell research: It does not clone or destroy human embryos, does not harm or exploit women for their eggs, and does not blur the line between human beings and other species through desperate efforts to make human embryos using animal eggs," he added.

The White House also praised the breakthrough Nov. 20, saying that President George W. Bush's June 2007 executive order expanding stem-cell research using "ethically responsible techniques" was "intended to accelerate precisely the kind of research being reported today."

"The president believes medical problems can be solved without compromising either the high aims of science or the sanctity of human life," said press secretary Dana Perino. "We will continue to encourage scientists to expand the frontiers of stem-cell research and continue to advance the understanding of human biology in an ethically responsible way."

Australian Archbishop Philip Wilson of Adelaide, president of the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference, said, "While it is still early days for this research, it is a very promising discovery which will help scientists to fight serious diseases without resorting to the deliberate destruction of human embryos to obtain stem cells."

In Great Britain, the head of the pro-life group Society for the Protection of Unborn Children said the new stem-cell studies "show that one can be both pro-life and pro-science."

Ian Wilmut, the Scottish scientist who created Dolly the cloned sheep in 1996, told the London Telegraph that he had decided in light of the new findings to abandon his efforts to clone human embryos and would instead concentrate on research involving the new reprogramming techniques.

Archbishop Mario Conti of Glasgow, Scotland, chairman of the United Kingdom and Ireland Joint Bishops' Bioethics Committee, welcomed Wilmut's announcement, saying: "The Catholic Church has constantly supported the work of scientists who use adult stem cells, research which has produced much more promising results and avoids the ethical dilemma involved in creating and destroying human life."

The National Catholic Bioethics Center said Wilmut's change of heart "flowed largely from practical considerations" but that the scientist also had acknowledged that the new approach was "easier to accept socially."

However, Thomson and the International Society for Stem-Cell Research called on scientists to continue research involving the destruction of human embryos. More study is needed to ensure that the newly made cells "do not differ from embryonic stem cells in a clinically significant or unexpected way, so it is hardly time to discontinue embryonic stem-cell research," Thomson said.

"These findings do not obviate the need for research using human embryonic stem cells," said the society in a Nov. 20 statement. "Rather, the different avenues of human stem-cell research should be pursued side by side providing complementary information."

In light of that stand by some scientists, Mailee Smith, staff counsel for the Chicago-based Americans United for Life, said: "The need for states to pass legislation that bans all forms of human cloning remains."

Labels: Catholic, embryonic stem cells, ethics, human cloning, Nancy Frazier O'Brien, National Catholic Bioethics Center, science

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, November 19, 2007

'Golden Compass' Film Angering Christian Groups -- Even With Its Religious Themes Watered Down

By Jennifer Vineyard

Thought Harry Potter was blasphemous? That was kids' stuff compared to the "His Dark Materials" trilogy, in which God is an imposter, angels are sexually ambiguous and the Church kidnaps, tortures and assassinates to achieve its goals, one of which is stealing children's souls.

But try as the filmmakers might to take religion out of the equation in the first installment — "The Golden Compass," due December 7 — Christian groups are gearing up to protest and fans are urging New Line not to water down the provocative material in remaining films.

The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, which most recently protested a picture of Britney Spears sitting provocatively in a priest's lap — the image appears in her new album, Blackout — takes this issue a little more seriously. The anti-defamation group accuses the film of "selling atheism to kids" and has produced its own booklet in response, "The Golden Compass: Agenda Unmasked," which it's been distributing to churches and other Christian groups.

Also, Snopes.com, which typically debunks urban legends, claims that the assertion that the film has "anti-religious" themes is "true." (Kansas State literature professor Philip Nel posted an open letter in refute, saying it would be more accurate to call it "a matter of debate.")

Ironically, this debate was exactly what New Line was trying to avoid by softening the religious references in "The Golden Compass." (Whether religion would reappear in "The Subtle Knife" or "The Amber Spyglass," producer Bob Shea told MTV News that plans weren't firm yet: "One film at a time!") So in "Compass," the revisionist Church is simply referred to as the "Magisterium," because the focus is the power of the agency, not the agency itself.

"Religion is at its best when it's far from power," author Philip Pullman said during his Times Talks appearance Tuesday. "When a religion gains power, it goes bad."

"The Church is a symbol of oppression in the books," HisDarkMaterials.org webmaster Ryan den Rooijen said, "and they've retained that essence. Even if they don't name it as the Church, it's not a terrible loss. The story is still retained."

"We'll have to deal [with God and the angels] when we get to the next bit," said "Golden Compass" director Chris Weitz. "I don't think anyone here sees it as a particularly [controversial] series of films that we're making."

"This is the least offensive of the three, and they're watering down the most despicable elements, so why the protest? Not because it's going to be so shocking," Catholic League President Bill Donohue said. "The protest is this: It's being done at Christmastime, and when parents don't find the film troubling, they're going to buy the books for their kids as Christmas gifts. They're doing it through the back door, in a stealth fashion, because each book becomes more provocative, more aggressive and more anti-Christian. I've never seen anything quite like this before, to use a movie like this."

Defenders of Pullman's works — who range from liberal Christians to religious scholars to readers of the books — counter that the Gnostic and Nietzschean ponderings in the series shouldn't make conservative Christians fear that their kids will be "seduced" into atheism. Calling the online chatter "fearful to the point of hysterical," Boston University religion professor Donna Freitas argues on BeliefNet.com that the challenges to traditional images of God should be welcomed, not protested, as part of a "lively dialogue about faith."

Though independent Christian groups may be opposed, not everyone in the Church is upset about that dialogue. Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams has even proposed that "His Dark Materials" be taught as part of religious education in schools.

"I found that to be one of the most provocative elements, the religious overtones, aspects, ramifications of the thing," said actor Sam Elliott, who plays Lee Scoresby in "The Golden Compass." "It's thought-provoking, is all. It's good material, good stuff. But why not deal with it? That's how I feel. It's provocative material, and deal with it as such."

Labels: atheism, children, Christmas, church, God, Jennifer Vineyard, oppresion, religion, The Golden Compass

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Sunday, November 18, 2007

A dose of God to help doctors connect to families of sick kids

Posted November 15th, 2007
by Mohit Joshi

Giving physicians a little training in religion and spirituality could help them build bridges with the families of very sick children, a new study has suggested.

The finding is based on a survey of 74 pediatric hematologists and oncologists at 13 elite hospitals from the U. S. News & World Report ranking of "honor roll hospitals. "

The survey was conducted by researchers at Brandeis University and the University at Buffalo.

It found that 47.3 percent of paediatric oncologists describe themselves as very or moderately spiritual, and 37.8 percent describe themselves as slightly spiritual.

However, what was also noted that while most oncologists say they are spiritual, and many are open to connecting with the families of very sick children through religion or spirituality, they typically lack the formal healthcare training that could help them build such bridges.

"Increasingly, religion and spirituality are being recognized as important in the care of critically ill patients and we know that many parents draw on such resources to cope with their child's illness, " said coauthor Wendy Cadge, a Brandeis sociologist.

"This study suggests that we should consider training to help physicians relate spiritually to families confronting life-threatening illness such as cancer.

"Research shows that many patients do not feel the medical system adequately meets their spiritual needs. By shedding light on how religion and spirituality connect to the practice of medicine, this study is a first step toward addressing such needs of patients and their families during a profoundly threatening chapter of life, " said Cadge.

The study appears in the journal Pediatric Hematology and Oncology. (ANI)

Labels: children, families, God, hemaologist, Mohit Joshi, oncologist, Pediatric Hematology and Oncology, pediatrics, physicians, religion, sickness, spirituality

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, November 16, 2007

Judgment Day in the news

Commentaries regarding the recently aired NOVA documentray: Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Judge John E. Jones III, the federal judge who presided over Kitzmiller v. Dover, appeared on The NewsHour on November 13, 2007, to discuss Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, the documentary that recently aired on PBS stations nationwide. Following a clip from the program, Jones discussed his background knowledge of "intelligent design" and evolution, the Establishment Clause and its applicability in the Kitzmiller case, the role of the independent judiciary, and the influence of his seminal decision. Jones commented, "It's not precedential outside of the middle district of Pennsylvania, but I thought that if other school boards and other boards of education could read it, they would possibly be more enlightened about what the dispute was all about."

Judgment Day aired on PBS stations nationwide on November 13, 2007. It will be available to watch on-line as of November 16, 2007, and it is likely to air again in various places -- schedules for local affiliates can be checked on-line via the PBS website. Be sure also to visit the generous website, featuring interviews with Kenneth R. Miller on evolution, Phillip Johnson on "intelligent design," and Paula Apsell on NOVA's decision to produce the documentary; audio clips of Judge John E. Jones III reading passages from his decision in the case, and of various experts (including NCSE's Eugenie C. Scott) discussing the nature of science; resources about the evidence for evolution and about the background to the Kitzmiller case; material especially for teachers, including a briefing packet (PDF) for educators; and even a preview of the documentary.

Meanwhile, Judgment Day is continuing to receive high praise from reviewers, both in Pennsylvania, where the historic trial took place, or across the country. The York Dispatch, one of the two daily papers serving Dover, Pennsylvania, editorially offered (November 11, 2007), "Thumbs Up to PBS for bringing tribulations of the Dover Area School District to national attention in the two-hour Nova special 'Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial' ... The blatant attempt to introduce religion-based 'creationism' into the public school classroom is detailed along with a recreation of the ensuing battle in a federal courtroom in Harrisburg that resulted in a humiliating defeat for the intelligent design proponents. A reminder that fiddling with public education to impose an individual religious viewpoint is a non-starter, 'Judgment Day' should be required watching."

Reviewing Judgment Day for the Philadelphia Inquirer (November 13, 2007), Jonathan Storm praised not only the scientific content of Judgment Day but also its objective approach: "Nova, the science show, stoutly defends science against the attack of the surprisingly hard-to-pin-down intelligent-design brain trust. It does use such loaded words as 'claim' and 'so-called' to describe tenets of the supposed theory, but it is surprisingly clear of a 'nyah-nyah, we won' tone. That makes this significant program more accessible to all." He also quoted Judge Jones as saying, "If you glibly embrace intelligent design, or if you're in that 48 or 50 percent who believe creationism ought to be taught in school, I hope [you] will watch this."

It was as a legal drama that Judgment Day struck Rob Owen, writing in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (November 12, 2007). Describing the program as "a fascinating and gripping look at the trial and both sides of the issue," Owen wrote, "I didn't know much about so-called 'intelligent design' theory beyond its name and a sense that it's synonymous with creationism. So I went into the film willing to be persuaded that maybe there's some validity to intelligent design. If there is, those in favor of ID failed to prove it. And failed miserably. That's what makes 'Intelligent Design on Trial' such a thriller. As a legal exercise, the pro-evolution team presents a slam-dunk case; in the end, even a defense attorney says his losing side received a fair trial."

In The New York Times (November 11, 2007), Cornelia Dean admired the scientific content of Judgment Day, commenting, "the program as a whole recognizes that there is no credible scientific challenge to the theory of evolution as an explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on earth. And it shows how witnesses attacked two of the central premises of intelligent design -- that there are no 'intermediate' fossils to show one creature morphing into another (there are) and that some body parts are too complex to have formed from the modification of other body parts (not true)." She added, "But viewers also learn a more important lesson: that all science is provisional, standing only until it is overturned by better information. Intelligent design, relying as it does on an untestable supernatural entity, does not fall into that category."

Elsewhere, the Cincinnati Post's reviewer (November 13, 2007) wrote, "Leave it to the respected PBS science show "Nova" to put some common sense back into the often hysterical debate over whether intelligent design is science or religion -- and remind us that Darwin's theory of evolution is a solid one that should be taught in science classes." The Deseret News's reviewer (November 13, 2007) described the progam as "captivating," and quoted Judge Jones as saying, "I think there's a lesson here for communities and how they elect their school board members." And the Oregonian's reviewer (November 13, 2007) wrote, "'Judgment Day' offers an admirably compact and methodical presentation of the sides in the debate. It should be highly useful in years to come."

Finally, writing in Salon (November 13, 2007), Gordy Slack, the author of The Battle Over the Meaning of Everything: Evolution, Intelligent Design, and a School Board in Dover, PA, looks forward from the trial, explaining that although "intelligent design" aspired to be a big tent under which creationists of all stripes were welcome to shelter, "Judge Jones'[s] decision was like a lightning strike on the big top, sending many of the constituents running home through the rain." He ends by quoting NCSE's executive director Eugenie C. Scott's warning: "Evolution remains under attack ... If creationists have their way, teachers will eventually just stop teaching evolution. It'll just be too much trouble. And generations of students will continue to grow up ignorant of basic scientific realities."

November 15, 2007

Labels: creationism, education, evolution, intelligent design, Judge John E. Jones, Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial, Nova, PBS

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

What can Israeli scientists tell you about creativity?

Jurgen Wolff

A survey of 3300 Israeli scientists conducted by the Project Mind Foundation has yielded some interesting results.

When asked to comment on the surroundings most conducive to creativity, a number of respondents described an absence of sensation - a dark room, being tired, being relieved of all stress, etc. - as sparking the greatest inspiration. Some 90% of the scientists reported that they had experienced their most potent strokes of creativity when they were in their 20's. More than 60% of the respondents expressed a strong belief that they had experienced creativity as a spiritual process.

My guess is that these all link together. The 20's is when many people have the most time with "an absence of sensation" - at least the time when they are at university, with fewer daily obligations, more time to sit around chatting deep into the night or working through the night on papers due the next day, more focus on the bigger questions of life including the subject of spirituality, etc. It's also a time when they are not yet experts, so they approach their subjects with a beginner's mind.

ACTION: How can you recreate, if only in miniature form, the conditions of your life when you were most creative? Can you take a weekend off and go somewhere that does not remind you of your daily obligations, so you can let your mind wander? Or even just a couple of hours a week?

How long has it been since you read something that stimulated your thinking - and then actually took the time to think about it and form your own ideas?

And a Quote to consider:
"Creativity is more than just being different. Anybody can play weird - that's easy. What's hard is to be as simple as Bach. Making the simple complicated is commonplace - making the complicated simple, awesomely simple - that's creativity."
Charles Mingus, jazz great

Labels: creativity, Israel, Jurgen Wolff, Project Mind Foundation, science, spirituality

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Thursday, November 15, 2007

New Survey Refutes Claim that Taking Kids to Church is Harmful

By Audrey Barrick
Christian Post Reporter
Wed, Nov. 14 2007

Most Americans, even those who no longer attend religious services, say their childhood experiences of attending worship has had a positive impact on them, a new study showed.

The latest Ellison Research study, released Tuesday, found that 66 percent of Americans believe their religious attendance before age 18 gave them a good moral foundation and 62 percent say it's something they are glad they did. Even among those who have currently abandoned regular worship attendance (once a month or more), a majority says childhood attendance has been more positive than negative.

Fifty-six percent of Americans who no longer attend services say their attendance as a child has had a positive influence on their life; 55 percent feel their childhood attendance gave them a good moral foundation; 51 percent say they are glad they attended as a child; 48 percent say it gave them important religious knowledge; 35 percent believe it helped them grow spiritually; 34 percent feel it helped them prepare for life as an adult; and 27 percent say it deepened their spiritual faith.

On the negative side, 31 percent of adults currently not attending services say their childhood attendance turned them off to organized religion; 24 percent believe that past experience is not relevant to their life today; and 13 percent believe it sent them down a different spiritual path than the one they were on at that time.

Only 9 percent of adults who currently attend worship say childhood attendance turned them off on organized religion and 19 percent of all surveyed adults say the same. Fifteen percent of all adults say it is not relevant to their life today and 13 percent feel it helped send them down a different spiritual path than the one they were taking at that time.

The vast majority of Americans have attended religious worship services regularly at some point in their lives. Only 7 percent have not had any point in their lives when they regularly attended. Currently, 51 percent of adults say they attend religious worship services of some kind once a month or more.

However, attending worship services as a child is becoming less common, according to the study. Among Americans who do not regularly attend worship services today, 24 percent of those under age 35 also did not attend as a child, compared to 13 percent of people age 35 to 54 and 9 percent of those 55 or older.

Still, most Americans who look back on their childhood attendance view it in a positive way. Fifty-seven percent of all adults believe it gave them important religious knowledge; 50 percent believe it helped them grow spiritually; 47 percent feel it helped them prepare for life as an adult; and 44 percent say it deepened their spiritual faith.

Seventy-eight percent of those who currently attend religious services feel their childhood attendance has made them more interested in religion as an adult compared to 30 percent of adults who do not currently attend services. Also, only 8 percent of those who currently regularly attend say childhood religious involvement decreased their interest in religion as an adult compared to 30 percent of adults who do not currently attend services regularly.

Only 8 percent of all adults and 13 percent of adults currently not attending services said childhood attendance has had a negative influence on their life. Also, 18 percent of all adults and 30 percent of those who have stopped attending services feel it has had no real influence.

Sellers noted that the survey findings should have some influence on parents.

The study was conducted by Ellison Research, a marketing research company located in Phoenix, among a representative sample of 1,007 American adults. The sample was balanced by gender, age, income, race, and geography.

Labels: adults, Americans, Audrey Barrick, children, church, Ellison Research, religion, spirituality

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Wednesday, November 14, 2007

Are young intellectuals 'possessed'?

Monday, November 12, 2007
By Joe Hung, Special to The China Post

Page 1 of 2 - click on "external source" for complete article

Let me first define who Chinese intellectuals are. In imperial China, they were -- for lack of a better English equivalent -- literati, most of them serving as government officials at one time or another. There were others who never passed the civil service examination and couldn't join the civil service. But they were all educated and intelligent because they learned much from Confucian books. They were the elite. Nowadays, people who have college degrees are considered intellectuals. Therefore, it follows that college students are young intellectuals.

Confucianism is an existentialistic and activist religion, albeit many prefer to call it a philosophy or a way of life, with most monotheist Western scholars convinced that it isn't a religion. Chinese literati were activist when they were young. As they grew older, they almost invariably turned to Taoism -- usually not religious Taoism -- for they came to know that their desire to put society in good order wasn't easily fulfilled, or they gave it up altogether to let everything taking its natural course. When they were nearing death, they took to Buddhism, hoping to reach enlightenment (or achieve "satori," in Japanese Zen Buddhist thought). Incidentally, neo-Confucianism after the Sung period (960-1278) had Buddhism superimposed on it. But one thing was certain: Literati never got depressed.

That's why I was shocked to learn that in Taiwan at least one out of every four university students, or young intellectuals who should belong to the class of literati in imperial China, is "depressed enough to benefit from assistance" of one kind or the other. That information was found, among other things, by a John Tung Foundation survey conducted between last May and June. An even more shocking finding was that the kinds of assistance these depressed young intellectuals are seeking include "divination" and "exorcism."

The survey shows at least 1.8 percent and a slightly lower 1.7 percent of the 6,960 respondents rely on divination and exorcism, respectively, for help in dealing with depression. Those who wish to seek counseling from school counselors account for a mere 2.3 percent, much fewer than another 3.3 percent of the students chanting sutras and/or praying for divine help. Still another 2.8 percent believe their folklore religion -- animism, or more often than not, outright superstition -- can cure their depression. Altogether, 11.9 percent of Taiwan's young intellectuals want supernatural powers to get rid of their psychiatric disorder.

These statistics indicate more than one tenth of young intellectuals in Taiwan are sick, not of depression but of superstitious fantasy. For divination, one has to see a Taoist priest, a geomancer, or even a fortune teller or palm reader. Divination, however, can't cure disease or maladies.

Labels: China, Confucianism, divination, intellectuals, Joe Hung, John Tung Foundation, religion, supernatural

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

A force for good

For a growing movement of believers, an activist faith means more than proselytizing about Jesus and stoking the fires of our culture wars. Welcome to the new (and yes, liberal) world of evangelical Christianity.

By Tom Krattenmaker

A passerby might not have known: Was this going to be a church service or a concert by an alternative rock band? The set-up on the stage suggested the latter — a drum kit, guitars on stands, several microphones, and large screens flashing iconic Portland scenes — and so did the look of the young, urban-hip crowd filling up the auditorium.

Then the band hit the stage with a loud, infectious groove, the front man singing passionately about God, and it was clear that the Sunday gathering of Portland's Imago Dei Community was both alt-rock concert and church service, or neither, exactly. So it goes in the new world of alternative evangelical Christianity, better known as the emerging church.

Like the postmodern philosophy it embraces, the emerging church values complexity, ambiguity and decentralized authority. Emergents are quite certain about some things, nevertheless, especially Jesus and his clear instruction about the way Christians are to live out their faith — not primarily as respectable, middle-class pillars of status quo society, but as servants to the poor and to people in the margins. In the words of Gideon Tsang, a 33-year-old Texas emergent who moved himself and his family to a smaller home in a poorer part of town, "The path of Christ is not in upward mobility; it's in downward."

Nothing to resent

According to best estimates, several hundred emerging church congregations, or "communities," have sprung up around the country. Although some are quite large, with memberships well into the thousands, emergents are still bit players on the national religious stage. But the emerging church is making its presence felt, with new groups forming rapidly and major secular and religious media outlets chronicling its influence and potential to dramatically change religion in this country.

Like mainstream evangelicals, emergents believe in spreading the Gospel and in the necessity of believers having a personal relationship with Jesus. The difference lies in how faith is applied — the way it's acted out "in the culture," as emergents typically put it. In the eyes of the emerging church, Christianity lived out in the respectable confines of megachurches and suburbia is fading into irrelevance as a new generation comes of age with a passion for healing society and a reluctance to shout moralistic dogma.

Emergents tend to be more tolerant than establishment evangelicals on issues such as abortion and homosexuality. Do emergents believe in heaven and hell? Yes, McKinley explains, but according to emergent theology, the point of being Christian is not solely to achieve heaven in the next life, but to bring some heaven to this life by doing the work of Jesus.

Serve the community

The "downward mobility" cited by the Texas emergent applies as well to the church-growth strategy, or lack thereof, of emerging communities. Unlike the megachurches of mainstream evangelicalism, emerging groups do not emphasize attracting new members (although it seems to happen anyway) or constructing church buildings. Some emerging groups meet in rented auditoriums, some in people's homes, some in pubs. There is less emphasis, too, on programming for members. In their view, the church exists not primarily to serve members but to serve the community.

Typical of the movement's critics, Falwell accused the emerging church of trying to "modernize and recreate the church so as not to offend sinners." That's probably code for "liberal," a shoe that would certainly fit.

Writer Scot McKnight, a supporter of the movement, says emergents are seen as "a latte-drinking, backpack-lugging, Birkenstock-wearing group of 21st-century, left-wing, hippie wannabes. Put directly, they are Democrats."

As is so often the case with religious movements in this country, the emerging church is both old and new: Old, in that Christianity in America has seemingly always been in a state of re-invention in response to the ever-changing culture; and new, in that we see in the emerging church a group of Jesus followers who reject the social conservatism modeled by Falwell and many other leading evangelicals this past quarter-century.

Is the emerging church compromising biblical truth for the sake of being hip? That debate won't be resolved here. Whatever the case, there is something hopeful about the appearance of a youthful, idealistic form of faith focused more on healing broken neighborhoods than accumulating members and political power.

For those hoping religion can more consistently serve as a force for kindness, unity and society's renewal — and not so much as an argument-starter — the verdict seems simple: Let the emerging church, and its larger ideals, continue to emerge.

Labels: Christianity, emergents, Gospel, Jesus, Tom Krattenmaker

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Scots Put Their Faith In Prayer

Nov 12 2007

ONE in three Scots still believes in the power of prayer despite a big decline in church attendance, according to a survey.

More than 1.4million adults in Scotland - 32 per cent - pray. But that figure is below the UK average of 42 per cent.

The survey, by Christian relief agency Tearfund, found just under half of those who pray do so at least once a day.

Family and friends are the most popular topic, accounting for 68 per cent of prayers.

Of the 20million adults who pray in the UK, nine million pray every day.

One in three says praying makes them feel better and happier, while one in five believes their prayers will be answered.

However, the popularity of prayer appears to be at odds with church attendance in Scotland, which has dropped to just 11 per cent of the population.

If the current rate of decline continues, only 8.7 per cent will attend church on Sundays by 2010 and 6.8 per cent by 2020.

But experts believe the gap between the numbers of churchgoers and those who pray reflects a greater sense of spirituality outside official faiths.

Psychologist Dr Stephen Kelly, of Strathclyde University, said: "A lot of people don't agree with those institutions but still believe there is a spirituality out there."

Labels: church, prayer, Scots, spirituality, Tearfund

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, November 12, 2007

A Comeback for Confession

Thursday, Sep. 27, 2007 By TIM PADGETT

Increasingly, it seems the only thing U.S. Catholics confess these days is that they rarely if ever confess. In a 2005 survey by the Center for Applied Research on the Apostolate at Georgetown University, 42% said they never go to confession. Only 14% said they go once a year, and just 2% said they go regularly. The fading away of one of Catholicism's best-known traditions has finally gotten alarming enough that bishops have begun turning to modern marketing tools to reverse it. "Confession isn't about rationalizing or explaining away the wrongs we do," says Washington Archbishop Donald Wuerl, who has used radio commercials and billboard ads to promote the sacrament in his archdiocese. "It's about having the courage to admit them and experience the healing forgiveness that's waiting."

Any revival effort has a long way to go. Confession has been in steady decline for decades. Reasons range from long-standing doubts about church teachings to the current obsession with public mea culpas that have largely supplanted the confessional booth. One oft mentioned cause is Vatican II, the 1960s church council whose reforms stressed what Pope John XXIII called "the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity." Since confession, with its accompanying penances, is all too often associated with the latter, many Catholics use Vatican II as a cue to scratch the sacrament from their to-do list. Some also cite Pope Paul VI's 1968 encyclical, Humanae Vitae (Of Human Life), which reaffirmed the church's ban on contraception. Because few U.S. Catholics consider birth control immoral, Humanae Vitae has led to a wider re-evaluation of what constitutes sin--and whether confession is really necessary.

The church's sexual-abuse scandal has also taken its toll. Catholics felt that the bishops--many of them accused of enabling pedophile priests--were arrogantly evading the same kind of penance they demand from their flocks. "The very teachers of the sacrament of confession seemed to be ignoring a constitutive part of that sacrament," says the Rev. James Martin, associate editor of the Jesuit-run magazine America. "It made the confession crisis worse." Wuerl, who in fact was praised for taking a hard line on abusive priests, concedes that those are "significant issues." But he also believes that Catholics are tired enough of America's no-accountability culture to make the rite of owning up appealing again--as long as it involves, he adds, a "spirit of gentleness." A campaign Wuerl ran this past Lenten season--dubbed "The Light Is On for You"--made confessions available on Wednesday evenings as well as the traditional Saturday afternoons. Priests were instructed to create warm and well-lit atmospheres at their churches.

Some parishes reported the effort a bust, but many others got results. At St. Patrick's in Rockville, Md., the Rev. Adam Park took a book along the first evening, but instead of reading it, heard confessions for two hours straight. "I think folks rediscovered that getting rid of that weight in a confidential setting can be a freeing experience," he says. Mary Ellen Gwynn, a nurse in Upper Marlboro, Md., who often drove by one of the campaign billboards, agrees: "It reminded me that while telling mistakes to a friend can be cathartic, this seems to do something deeper to help me fix them."

Dioceses in Philadelphia, Phoenix and Toledo, Ohio, say they're planning similar Lenten campaigns for 2008--and some priests are even hearing confessions in venues likes shopping malls. Church watchers like Martin applaud all this as a sign that "the church, like Jesus, is capable of being creative about getting these things across to people." Others, like Gregory Baum, emeritus professor of theology at McGill University in Montreal, call it a belated Hail Mary pass. "Traditional confession," he says, "just isn't part of Catholic spirituality anymore." Maybe, but for now the church is keeping the light on, just in case.

Labels: Catholic, Center for Applied Research, confession, Tim Padgett

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Do Intercessory Prayers Work?

By Mansur Hallaj Sindhi

28 September, 2007
Countercurrents.org

As a child, the author learnt that self help, rather than prayers or dua would help. The result of a recent comprehensive study about intercessory prayers, which is common in Christianity and Islam, showed that it does not work. Similarly, having people pray for rain as often done by our leaders is futile.

Before long I realized from my report card that the Almighty had better things to attend to than listen to a lad in Karachi. This was about the time that science education, books and film documentaries had raised doubts in my mind about this method of marks-enhancement. Plain hard work turned out to be a surer way to success. This was also the time when I became aware of the importance of prime numbers and began wondering about the magic of '3' and '7': the first was the number of times one washed each limb before prayers; ablution and '3' went together. As for '7' that would be a whole new ball game…

At university I became aware of the historical battles between science and religion, starting with the case of Galileo, and the continuing lack of acceptance of Darwin's theory of evolution. After considerable amount of reading and thought I could no longer keep the ideas of science and religion in separate compartments .

Science is our way of arriving at empirical truths. Its process of refining truths or turning them around completely are evolutionary, in that when people come up with better ideas and experimental results, old findings are altered or discarded. In contrast, most religious scholars refuse to accept that religious texts need to be interpreted differently for each age to match the findings of science and be in line with rational thinking. This is particularly so for areas where interpretations of religion generally differ from what science offers. But for religion to be relevant to people's lives its interpreted doctrines cannot be in opposition to what is found by science, whose strength is based on the idea that there is no finality in ideas. Therefore for religion to remain alive and relevant to modern believers, its interpreters should exercise flexibility. This means not trying to force science into the straight-jacket of religion.

Some of these contentious issues will become clearer through a discussion of a ten-year rigorous study conducted on intercessory prayers, with results announced in 2006. In Islam and Christianity this is a prayer to God on behalf of another person or situation. The prayer pleads on behalf of the subject, believing that God will answer the prayer.

The study cost $2.4 million and was supported by the Templeton Foundation. It was directed by a Harvard University cardiologist Dr Herbert Benson, who is a believer in the power of personal prayer and meditation. There have been at least 10 studies on the effect of prayers since year 2000 with mixed results, with this one intended to overcome the flaws in earlier investigations. The US government has itself spent $2.3 million on prayer research over this period.

The outcome of the study was that prayers offered by strangers had no effect on the recovery of people who were undergoing heart surgery. Patients who knew they were prayed for had a higher rate of post-operative complications perhaps because of the expectations that prayers created or that their condition was so bad that prayers for them was warranted.

Some have argued that prayer is a deep response to illness and it may relieve suffering by some mechanism as yet unknown. Skeptics contend that studying prayers is a waste of money and it presupposes supernatural involvement, and therefore, by definition, beyond the scope of science.

In the study over 1800 coronary bypass patients at six hospitals were monitored. The patients were divided into three equal groups, with groups A & B both prayed for. While group A was told that they would be definitely prayed for, group B was told that they may or may not be prayed for. This resulted in patients in group B not knowing for sure if they were being prayed for. Group C knew that it was not being prayed for.

Members of three different Christian congregations in different parts of the U.S. were asked to pray for the patients in any manner they liked but were instructed to include the following phrase in their prayers: "for successful surgery with a quick healthy recovery and no complications." Prayers began the night before the surgery and continued daily for two weeks after. List of names of people each congregation was to pray for was given as first names and initials of the last names.

Results showed no statistically significant difference between prayed-for and non-prayed for groups. Results were also computed for two types of complications: (a) not serious and (b) major. Patients who received prayers were marginally more likely to develop complications of category (59 to 51 percent) – this is category (a). There were substantially more likely to develop major complications (18 to 13 percent) than patients who received none.

Needless to say, I as a teenager, with my experience of prayers, could have predicted the main findings of this research. The Americans wasted $4.7 million on it.

Labels: God, intercessory prayer, Mansur Hallaj Sindhi, religion, Templeton Foundation

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Has science affected belief in a personal God?

By GARY STERN
THE JOURNAL NEWS

(Original publication: November 10, 2007)

NEW YORK - At this "atheist moment," when books that ridicule the notion of a personal God are making best-seller lists, believers must acknowledge that the challenges posed to faith by modern science are very real, a panel of experts said this week at Fordham University.

The long-standing belief in the West that the universe has purpose and meaning has been replaced in the corridors of science by a focus on nature's processes that are not only intricately complex, but mindless and pointless.

"This leaves us, it seems, with an impersonal and purposeless universe," said John Haught, the main speaker, a Roman Catholic theologian who writes about the relationship of science and religion.

Close to 300 people overflowed Pope Auditorium at the Jesuit university's Columbus Circle campus on Tuesday for what promised to be a timely and provocative program: "After Darwin and Einstein: Is belief in a personal God still possible?"

The squeezing out of a personal God, for some, by advances in science may represent an update on Time magazine's famous 1966 cover story "Is God Dead?" which proclaimed that "the basic premise of faith - the existence of a personal God, who created the world and sustains it with his love - is now subject to profound attack."

The science-based questioning of today, though, come from only a segment of the country. Polls consistently show that about half of all Americans do not accept the theory of evolution.

Haught surveyed the views of Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan and others who dismissed any notions of a personal God. He also explained that if the 13.7-billion-year history of the cosmos was divided into 30 volumes of 450 pages each - with each page representing 1 million years - human development would not pop up until the very last page.

But Haught also reviewed ways of looking at the cosmos that leave room for a divine creator. The physical chemist Michael Polanyi, he said, suggested that since DNA is a carrier of codes, there is something informational about the universe that transcends matter.

The Jesuit paleontologist Teilhard de Chardin Pierre, he said, wrote that since the universe becomes increasingly organized and coherent, people must think of the promise of the future and not just the billions of years of dust that came before us.

Fordham philosophy professor Brian Davies, a Dominican priest, said in response that "contemporary science seems to suggest that people are woven into the fabric of things, that the universe was in a sense pregnant with us long before we emerged."

But a lot hinges, he said, on what people mean by a personal God. People talk about God as if he's a "top person" or a better "guy on the street," not the ongoing creator of all being, Davies said.

Science writer John Horgan, a lapsed Catholic/agnostic, described belief in a personal God as "narcissistic," particularly when there's no explanation for the existence of evil.

But he did concede that "reality seems awfully designed and too good to be here by pure chance."

No one gave much time to the popular idea of "intelligent design," which holds that God designed the universe as it is.

"Design is a deadly idea," Haught said. "I don't want to think of God as drawing up a blueprint. We live in an imperfect universe riddled with evil and suffering."

What underlies reality, Haught said, turning more personal, is the promise of something better and God's fidelity to his creations.

"We live in a universe that is still coming into being," he said.

Labels: atheism, cosmos, Gary Stern, God, John Haught, science

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

A third of adults believe God watches over them

Denis Campbell
Sunday November 11, 2007
The Observer

Two in five adults say prayers and one in three believes that God is watching over them, a new poll reveals. Of the 20 million Britons aged over 18 who say they pray, 13 million do so at least once a month, 12 million every week and 9 million every day. Most people (68 per cent) pray for family and friends, 41 per cent to thank God and 25 per cent over world issues.

But just 22 per cent go to church at least once a year.

A third of adults questioned think that God will answer their prayers, while 12 million believe that prayer can change their own lives or those of their nearest and dearest. London is the UK's least secular area, with 73 per cent of adults praying and one in five attending church at least once a month.

Tearfund, the Christian aid charity that commissioned the survey, says: 'The results fly in the face of the view that faith is increasingly irrelevant in today's secular society.' Matthew Frost, its chief executive, said the report 'demonstrates the prevalence and potential of prayer' and he hoped that more people would pray about issues such as world poverty and climate change.

Labels: church, Denis Campbell, God, prayer, Tearfund

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, November 09, 2007

Bi-religious couples overcome differences in opinion, open to making contrasts work

Tangled up in love

Published Thursday, November 8, 2007.

Amanda Wilcosky / Staff Writer

Approximately 28 million U.S. couples that are married or in domestic partnerships live in mixed-religion homes, according to the American Religious Identification Survey done in 2001 by The City University of New York. This is nearly a quarter of all marriages or domestic partnerships.

While many couples make their relationship work, maintaining a bi-religious relationship can be difficult.

According to a May 2006 study by Scott M. Myers published in the Journal of Marriage and Family, married partners that share the same religious background report greater marital quality than do bi-religious partners.

The ability of partners to triumph over religious differences can depend on their faiths.

Labels: Amanda Wilcosky, American Religious Identification Survey, bi-religious, faith, Journal of Marriage and Family, marriage, religion, US couples

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Wednesday, November 07, 2007

Pope lauds Christian presence in Saudi

Pope lauds Christian presence in Saudi
By VICTOR L. SIMPSON, Associated Press Writer
Tue Nov 6

VATICAN CITY - Pope Benedict XVI lauded the contributions of Christians in Saudi Arabia — a kingdom that embraces a strict version of Islam, restricts worship by other faiths and bans Bibles and crucifixes — in the first meeting ever Tuesday between a pope and reigning Saudi king.

Benedict and the Vatican's No. 2 official raised their concerns during separate meetings with King Abdullah, the protector of Islam's holiest sites.

The Vatican counts 890,000 Catholics, mainly guest workers from the Philippines, among the estimated 1.5 million Christians in Saudi Arabia. Christians are barred from opening churches in the desert kingdom where Islam's holiest sites, Mecca and Medina, are located.

Benedict greeted the king warmly, grasping both his hands before heading into 30 minutes of private talks in his library.

At the end of the meeting, Abdullah presented Benedict with a traditional Middle Eastern gift — a golden sword studded with jewels — and a gold and silver statue of a palm tree and a man riding a camel. The pope admired the statue but merely touched the sword.

He gave Abdullah a 16th century print and a gold medal of his pontificate.

Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia, and the kingdom requires all Saudi citizens to be Muslims. Only Muslims can visit the cities of Mecca and Medina.

Under the authoritarian rule of the royal family, the kingdom enforces Sharia, or Islamic law. It follows a severe interpretation of Islam known as Wahhabism that rejects the possibility of diplomatic relations with a Christian entity. This interpretation would prohibit a Vatican embassy in Saudi Arabia on the grounds it is equivalent to raising the cross inside Islam's holiest places.

The Vatican maintains diplomatic relations with 176 states and institutions, including many in the Islamic world. Before the king's meeting with the pope, a Saudi official said the Vatican has not asked to have a diplomatic mission in the kingdom or to have diplomatic relations.

It is forbidden to practice Christianity publicly inside Saudi Arabia, and it is illegal to bring symbols from religions other than Islam into the country. Bibles and crosses are confiscated at the border.

Some Christian worship services are held secretly, but the government has been known to crack down on them, or deport Filipino workers if they hold even private services.

The Vatican has said it wants to pursue a dialogue with moderate Muslims after the pope angered the Muslim world in 2006 with a speech linking Islam to violence.

The Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano said the Vatican hoped the meeting with the Saudi king would produce a "sincere" dialogue on Christian worship in the country.

The Vatican said the talks were "warm" and allowed a wide discussion on the need for inter-religious and intercultural dialogue among Christians, Muslims and Jews "for the promotion of peace, justice and spiritual and moral values, especially in support of the family," a statement said.

Benedict has said he wants to reach out to all countries that still do not have diplomatic relations with the Vatican. Those countries include Saudi Arabia and China.

Abdullah had visited the Vatican twice before, as crown prince and deputy prime minister.

Labels: Catholic, Christian, diplomacy, Islam, King Abdullah, Pope Benedict, Saudi Arabia, Sharia, Vatican, Victor L. Simpson, Wahhabism

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Tuesday, November 06, 2007

Leader's Insight: A Broad and Diverse Bloc

New research shows five kinds of Christians in America.
by Eric Reed, Leadership managing editor

A new report in the Fall issue of Leadership journal shows great disparity among people in the United States who call themselves "Christian." In fact, this nationwide survey of more than 1,000 self-identified adherents reveals five distinct types of practitioners with very different views on salvation, the Bible, morality, and the cultural impact of their faith.

For news reporters and news consumers, this diversity requires careful attention to the variety of opinion among people generally labeled "Christian." Not all Christians think alike on cultural issues, and the survey makes the reasons clearer.

The survey was conducted for Christianity Today International (publisher of Leadership journal) and Zondervan Publishers by the research firm Knowledge Networks. It is one step in the development of NationalChristianPoll.com, a new research database for surveying the opinions of Christians in the United States on a variety of issues.

Who Are my Christian Neighbors?

While between 70 and 80 percent of people in the United States identify themselves as Christian according to a number of studies, what those people mean by the term varies widely. Respondents to our new survey were almost evenly divided among five categories:

Active Christians (19%): Committed churchgoers, often in positions of church leadership; believe salvation comes through Jesus Christ; Bible readers.

Professing Christians (20%): Similar beliefs to Active Christians, but less committed to church attendance; focus more on personal relationship with God and Jesus, less on Bible reading or faith sharing.

Liturgical Christians (24%): High level of spiritual activity; regular churchgoers, recognizing the authority of the church; predominantly Catholic and Lutheran.

Private Christians (24%): Largest and youngest segment; believe in God and have spiritual interest, but not within the church context; only one-third attend church at all, almost none are church leaders.

Cultural Christians (21%): God aware, but do not view Jesus as essential to salvation; affirm many ways to God; express little outward religious behavior.

We found that almost 9 in 10 Active and Professing Christians said "accepting Christ as Savior and Lord" is key to being a Christian, while Liturgical, Private, and Cultural Christians favored a more general "believing in God" as important to being a Christian. For half or more of the people in America who call themselves "Christian," Christ is not the defining figure in their faith.

Labels: Bible, Christianity Today International, Eric Reed, faith, lChristianity, morality, salvation

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monday, November 05, 2007

Survey: Wealthier Nations Less Religious

By Nathan Black
Christian Post Reporter
Mon, Nov. 05 2007

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God." Results from a recent survey may agree with that familiar Scripture passage.

A Pew Research Center report recently showed that religion is less likely to be central to the lives of individuals in richer nations than poorer ones.

The survey found a strong relationship between a country's religiosity and its economic status. According to the report, which released last month, African and some Asian countries – which are among the poorest in the world – scored highest on the religiosity scale. Meanwhile, rich Western European countries are among the most secular. Canada, Japan and Israel are also wealthy nations that have low levels of religiosity.

The United States, the wealthiest nation, was "most notably" an exception, scoring higher in religiosity than those in Europe. The level of religiosity in the United States was found to be similar to less economically developed countries such as Mexico. Americans tend to be more religious than the publics of other affluent nations, the survey stated.

Other exceptions include the oil-rich, predominantly Muslim kingdom of Kuwait which has a much higher level of religiosity than its economic situation would predict.

Over the last five years, the percentage of people who think believing in God is necessary for good values has increased in nine countries, stayed about the same in 10, and declined in 13. Sharp decreases were found in Eastern Europe, India and Kenya.

The survey was done as part of the Pew Global Attitudes Project, which is a series of worldwide public opinion surveys that encompass a broad array of subjects.

Labels: economics, Nathan Black, Pew Global Attitudes Project, religiosity, wealth

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Youths increasingly shunning Christianity, poll finds

By Tom Jacobs, Correspondent
Saturday, November 3, 2007

Young Americans are increasingly turning away from Christianity and expressing negative views of the faith, according to a startling new survey by Ventura-based Barna Group.

Only 60 percent of 16- to 29-year-olds describe themselves as Christians, according to Barna Group President David Kinnaman. He believes that figure represents "a momentous shift," noting that 77 percent of Americans over age 60 consider themselves Christians.

What's more, young people — Christians and non-Christians alike — feel increasingly disillusioned with the church, according to the results of Kinnaman's three-year research project involving 305 churchgoers and 440 outsiders.

Among young non-Christians, nine out of the top 12 perceptions of Christianity were negative. Large majorities called the church judgmental (87 percent), hypocritical (85 percent) and too involved with politics (75 percent).

Seventy-six percent said Christianity is based on "good values and principles," but many expressed the view that the church has turned away from the teachings of Jesus. Only 16 percent said they have a "good impression" of Christianity.

Even more strikingly, half of young churchgoers agreed with those negative perceptions.

"One of the defense mechanisms Christians use is believing this (unfavorable attitude toward the church) is the result of a negative, or at least skeptical, media," Kinnaman said. "There is certainly some truth to that.

Kinnaman and his collaborator on the study, Atlanta-based Gabe Lyons, are both committed Christians, and their book is aimed largely at an audience of church leaders. It is likely to make many of its readers distinctly uncomfortable.

"One of the defining characteristics of youth development in America is going through a Christian church," Kinnaman said. "More than four out of five teenagers will spend at least six months in a Christian church. They tried it, but it was a bad experience. It left a flat taste."

"Judgmentalism is a sticky substance that puts distance between our hearts and other human beings," Kinnaman said. "It says that we are somehow better. It marginalizes the other person. That doesn't mean we don't recognize and affirm people's fundamental brokenness, but we also recognize and affirm their fundamental goodness."

Chris Hall, pastor of the recently founded Catalyst Ventura ministry, was not surprised by Kinnaman's findings. "Unfortunately, there is a loud minority within the Christian church that has said some really stupid things," he said. "We need to stop looking at ourselves as people who have arrived at the answers."

One key issue that is alienating young Americans from most Christian denominations is homosexuality. According to the survey, 91 percent of young non-Christians and 80 percent of young Christians describe the church as "anti-homosexual."

Numerous surveys have shown a growing majority of young Americans have a relaxed, tolerant attitude toward homosexuality. A 2001 Kaiser Family Foundation poll found that 60 percent of Americans ages 17 to 29 support same-sex marriage.

The issue is a tricky one for those who believe the Bible condemns homosexuality (an interpretation not universally shared among Christians, and currently the subject of heated debate among Episcopalians). In Hall's view, part of the answer is to stop the loud and vociferous condemnation of what he sees as simply one sexual transgression among many.

Overall, Kinnaman was impressed with the thoughtful and nuanced nature of the responses he received.

"Faith is much more complex than we like to admit sometimes," he said "Some self-described atheists or agnostics will meditate or do yoga as a spiritual exercise. Among Christians, you will also find people who meditate, as well as some who believe in reincarnation.

"So it's very much a smorgasbord of picking and choosing. It's very hard to put your finger on a person and say, Now I've got you figured out.' Labels create distance between us."

Labels: Barna Group, Christianity, church, faith, homosexuality, Kaiser Family Foundation, Tom Jacobs, youth

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Friday, November 02, 2007

ASU students amid 21-day prayer marathon

No agenda, just 'people hungry for God'

John Faherty
The Arizona Republic
Nov. 1, 2007

In the middle of the day, in the middle of the week, in the middle of the Arizona State University campus, it is easy to miss the students sitting with their heads down and their hands together.

They are part of a group of Christian students on the Tempe campus who are praying 24 hours a day for 21 days.

All through the day and night, they pray outside the Danforth Meditation Chapel, their stillness and quiet in marked contrast to the nearly constant rush of the 51,000 students on the campus.

Many students on campuses nationwide are speaking to God, or, at the very least, hope to.

A survey of more than 112,000 incoming college students in 2004, today's seniors, by the Higher Education Research Institute at UCLA revealed that a significant number of them describe themselves as spiritual.

• 80 percent have an interest in spirituality.

• 76 percent are searching for meaning/purpose in life.

• 80 percent attended a religious service in the past year.

Jennifer Lindholm is the project director for the study and knows that college students are often portrayed as being focused entirely on getting a job or having a good time.

Lindholm's study further indicated that students have no intention of putting issues of faith or spirituality aside during their college years.

Reasons to pray

The patch of lawn next to the Danforth Meditation Chapel has informal stations where poster board and pens allow students to write down what they are praying for, or who they are forgiving, or Bible verses that have resonance for them.

There is no particular agenda. It is, instead, prayer for the sake of prayer.

The people who come are absolutely college students. They sometimes stop in midprayer and text-message or shout a hello to a passing friend.

Some arrive on skateboards, others have tattoos and piercings.

They know their public act of faith may result in people looking at them as different, but they are fine with that.

Mostly they sit quietly with their heads down and their hands together. Others pray out loud in groups of two or three or more.

They ask for peace and wisdom and forgiveness.

When students on the busy campus notice the praying, most walk past, looking surprised or confused.

An important value

They started praying on Oct. 8, and will continue to do so through Monday.

So far, more than 200 students have signed up to cover shifts, and countless others have simply stopped by to join them.

The UCLA study indicated that more than two-thirds of college students pray and four in 10 consider it "very important" that they follow their religious teachings.

So far, there has been no controversy regarding prayer at a public university.

Yuhchang Hwang, faculty adviser for a Christian Students club on campus, said the rights of students to express themselves are paramount.

"The campus promotes free speech," Hwang said. "All voices should be heard, including believers."

One night on campus, Jacqi Nicholson did not stop to pray, but she was glad students have the option.

Labels: Arizona State University, Christian, college, Higher Education Research Institute, John Faherty, prayer, spirituality, students

Permalink | Link to External Source Article

Monthly Archives - Previous Articles
03/01/2003 - 04/01/2003 04/01/2003 - 05/01/2003 05/01/2003 - 06/01/2003 06/01/2003 - 07/01/2003 07/01/2003 - 08/01/2003 08/01/2003 - 09/01/2003 09/01/2003 - 10/01/2003 10/01/2003 - 11/01/2003 11/01/2003 - 12/01/2003 12/01/2003 - 01/01/2004 01/01/2004 - 02/01/2004 02/01/2004 - 03/01/2004 03/01/2004 - 04/01/2004 04/01/2004 - 05/01/2004 05/01/2004 - 06/01/2004 06/01/2004 - 07/01/2004 07/01/2004 - 08/01/2004 08/01/2004 - 09/01/2004 09/01/2004 - 10/01/2004 10/01/2004 - 11/01/2004 11/01/2004 - 12/01/2004 12/01/2004 - 01/01/2005 01/01/2005 - 02/01/2005 02/01/2005 - 03/01/2005 03/01/2005 - 04/01/2005 04/01/2005 - 05/01/2005 05/01/2005 - 06/01/2005 06/01/2005 - 07/01/2005 07/01/2005 - 08/01/2005 08/01/2005 - 09/01/2005 09/01/2005 - 10/01/2005 10/01/2005 - 11/01/2005 11/01/2005 - 12/01/2005 12/01/2005 - 01/01/2006 01/01/2006 - 02/01/2006 02/01/2006 - 03/01/2006 03/01/2006 - 04/01/2006 04/01/2006 - 05/01/2006 05/01/2006 - 06/01/2006 06/01/2006 - 07/01/2006 07/01/2006 - 08/01/2006 08/01/2006 - 09/01/2006 09/01/2006 - 10/01/2006 10/01/2006 - 11/01/2006 11/01/2006 - 12/01/2006 12/01/2006 - 01/01/2007 01/01/2007 - 02/01/2007 02/01/2007 - 03/01/2007 03/01/2007 - 04/01/2007 04/01/2007 - 05/01/2007 05/01/2007 - 06/01/2007 06/01/2007 - 07/01/2007 07/01/2007 - 08/01/2007 08/01/2007 - 09/01/2007 09/01/2007 - 10/01/2007 10/01/2007 - 11/01/2007 11/01/2007 - 12/01/2007 12/01/2007 - 01/01/2008 01/01/2008 - 02/01/2008 02/01/2008 - 03/01/2008 03/01/2008 - 04/01/2008 04/01/2008 - 05/01/2008 05/01/2008 - 06/01/2008 06/01/2008 - 07/01/2008 07/01/2008 - 08/01/2008 08/01/2008 - 09/01/2008 09/01/2008 - 10/01/2008 10/01/2008 - 11/01/2008 11/01/2008 - 12/01/2008 12/01/2008 - 01/01/2009 01/01/2009 - 02/01/2009 02/01/2009 - 03/01/2009 03/01/2009 - 04/01/2009 04/01/2009 - 05/01/2009 05/01/2009 - 06/01/2009 06/01/2009 - 07/01/2009 07/01/2009 - 08/01/2009 08/01/2009 - 09/01/2009 09/01/2009 - 10/01/2009 10/01/2009 - 11/01/2009 11/01/2009 - 12/01/2009 12/01/2009 - 01/01/2010 01/01/2010 - 02/01/2010

News Archives Predating March 2003

RSS Feed

Blogroll Me!

Blogarama
The Urantia Book : Pictures of Jesus : Angel Pictures: Inspirational Quotes : Life After Death : Story of Jesus : Truthbook.com : Urantia : The Urantia Book

EXPLORE TRUTHBOOK

The Urantia Book

Jesus in the Urantia Book

Quote of the Day

Urantia Book Video

Urantia Book Audio

Discussion Forum

Art Gallery

Heartwarming Stories

Humorous Stories

Life's Toughest Questions

FAQ

Spiritual Studies

About Us

News and Blogs