Love Divine: The Atlanta Sacred Chorale Sings at Emory

This weekend we attended a concert of the Atlanta Sacred Chorale, with The Michael O’Neal Singers and the Atlanta Boy Choir. It was an evening of great, uplifting music in the beautiful new Schwartz Center at well-endowed Emory University. It was a joy to listen to sacred music in the liberal university setting. Classical music is one area where the expulsion of God would pretty much shut down the discipline, since so many composers are dead white male Christians.

The Atlanta Sacred Chorale, a client of our firm, is arguably the finest chamber chorus in the nation dedicated to a sacred repertoire. They sing almost everything a cappella, with amazing precision and beauty.

The evening ended with the combined choirs singing the great hymn by Charles Wesley, Love Divine, All Loves Excelling (Text: Charles Wesley, 1707-1788. Music: John Zundel, 1815-1882):

Love divine, all loves excelling, joy of heaven, to earth come down; fix in us thy humble dwelling; all thy faithful mercies crown! Jesus thou art all compassion, pure, unbounded love thou art; visit us with thy salvation; enter every trembling heart.

Breathe, O breathe thy loving Spirit into every troubled breast! Let us all in thee inherit; let us find that second rest. Take away our bent to sinning; Alpha and Omega be; end of faith, as its beginning, set our hearts at liberty.

Come, Almighty to deliver, let us all thy life receive; suddenly return and never, nevermore thy temples leave. Thee we would be always blessing, serve thee as thy hosts above, pray and praise thee without ceasing, glory in thy perfect love.

Finish, then, thy new creation; pure and spotless let us be. Let us see thy great salvation perfectly restored in thee; changed from glory into glory, till in heaven we take our place, till we cast our crowns before thee, lost in wonder, love, and praise.

What a sound. What a song.

--James Jewell

Free Speech for Churches and Charities: Pass the Houses of Worship Freedom of Speech Restoration Act

Churches and non-profit charities lost their right to free speech 51 years ago when Lyndon Johnson, then a Senator, introduced and forced through a terrible piece of legislation to silence his critics.

As a result, churches and charities have forfeited their right to free speech as the price for exemption from certain taxes under the IRS code, section 501-C-3. If a church or charity violates regulations that prohibit them from “substantial” lobbying or the endorsement of political candidates, the IRS can revoke the group’s 501-C-3 status, and individuals who donate funds to the group cannot deduct these contributions.

It’s time to stop this nonsense and allow church and charities their First Amendment rights.

Jay Sekulow of the ACLJ wrote last fall:

The special power given to the IRS not only stifles the First Amendment rights of pastors and churches, but the IRS has been selective and biased in its enforcement.

The law is flawed, misplaced and a disaster.

The IRS often ignores political involvement from liberals and targets conservative churches and ministers such as the Church at Pierce Creek in New York, which had its tax-exempt status revoked after the pastor placed newspaper ads in 1992 calling attention to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton's position on the critical moral issues of abortion and sexual abstinence outside of marriage.

Religious leaders not only have a constitutional right to address the moral issues of the day; many believe they have a responsibility to do so - especially in the context of political campaigns. And pastors should have the ability to speak out from the pulpit - and support or oppose a political candidate based on where the candidate stands on the issues. Unfortunately, that is not permissible now.

This article from the trade publication for CPA is extremely helpful in defining the limits. It begins:

In 1954, at the height of the McCarthy era, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson sought a legislative route to silence some of his anticommunist critics. Encouraged by Johnson, the U.S. Senate passed a major tax code revision by a voice vote. Although Johnson’s revision was targeted specifically at nonprofit groups that were contesting his seat, churches—which also are nonprofit organizations—fell under the new tax code provisions.

Although the ban excluded churches and other IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations from active participation in the political process, years passed without major incident. Then, in 1992, the religious organization Branch Ministries, Inc. (BMI), purchased a newspaper advertisement urging Christians to vote against presidential candidate Bill Clinton, and the IRS initiated an investigation. In January 1995, the IRS revoked BMI’s status as a section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organization. By contrast, in the 1994 New York gubernatorial campaign, the IRS chose not to initiate an investigation when Governor Cuomo received vocal support from the pulpit of a Harlem church.

The liberals should want the law changed, as well, since the political axe can swing both ways. As LaShawn Barber writes, the NAACP has been whining about being targeted by the IRS for its political violations.

The social club liberals at the NAACP thought they were above the law. Well, there is no such thing as skin color entitlements when it comes to the IRS and its rules against political activity.

But as the Washington Post pointed out:

The Internal Revenue Service followed “established procedures” in deciding which tax-exempt entities to investigate for possible improper involvement in last year’s political campaign, and there is no evidence that the agency’s decisions were politically motivated, according to an inspector general’s report released yesterday.

The IRS attracted headlines last fall when the NAACP announced that the agency was threatening to revoke its tax-exempt status because its chairman, Julian Bond, had given a speech attacking the Bush administration.

In the early days of the 2004 presidential campaign, the Houses of Worship Political Speech Protection Act was proposed as a means to reverse a portion of the 1954 legislation and to return First Amendment speech protection to America’s churches, synagogues, and mosques. That bill (HR2357) failed to pass the House in October 2002.

In October 2004, a Republican congressman joined African-American clergy and other members of Congress to re-introduce the legislation.

North Carolina Rep. Walter B. Jones enlisted Reps. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) and Robin Hayes (R-N.C.) to drum up support for Jones' bill, the Houses of Worship Freedom of Speech Restoration Act (HR 235).

"There is a muzzle upon the clergy. As ministers, we are obligated to speak about the moral and political issues of the day, and taking away that right is harassment. It is wrong, and it is extortion," said Clergy United leader Bishop Anthony Muse, who called on the Congressional Black Caucus to back Jones' bill and to push for its passage. (Source)

The House bill introduced by Congressman Jones, HR 235, was referred to the Ways and Means Committee, where it remains.

It’s time to return freedom of speech to America's churches and charities by passing the language in HR 235.

The Wal-Mart Experience

Hugh Hewitt is amazed by Wal-Mart hatred, but I agree with my colleague Matt at Stones Cry Out, here and here. I shop at Wal-Mart for convenience, but hate it and yearn for alternatives. Unfortunately, Target is only slightly more attractive. If the superstore concept is the only way that makes sense economically, how about introducing some character. Like Wegmans has done in the northeast with the grocery store experience.

35 Facts You Were Perfectly Happy Not Knowing.

Just because it’s Friday and some of these are actually interesting, here’s a list I picked up somewhere (sorry, can’t find the source).

1. Rubberbands last longer when refrigerated.
2. Peanuts are one of the ingredients of dynamite.
3. There are 293 ways to make change for a dollar.
4. The average person's left hand does 56% of the typing.
5. The shark is the only fish that can blink with both eyes.
6. There are more chickens than people in the world.
7. Two-thirds of the world's eggplant is grown in New Jersey.
8. The longest one-syllable word in the English language is "screeched."
10. All of the clocks in the movie "Pulp Fiction" are stuck on 4:20.
11. No word in the English language rhymes with month, orange, silver or purple.
12. "Dreamt" is the only English word that ends in the letters "mt".
13. All 50 states are listed across the top of the Lincoln Memorial on the back of the $5 bill.
14. Almonds are a member of the peach family.
15. Winston Churchill was born in a ladies' room during a dance.
16. Maine is the only US state whose name is just one syllable.
17. There are only four words in the English language which end in "dous" - tremendous, horrendous, stupendous and hazardous.
18. Los Angeles' full name is "El Pueblo de Nuestra Senora la Reina de los Angeles de Porciuncula"
19. A cat has 32 muscles in each ear.
20. An ostrich's eye is bigger than its brain.
21. Tigers have striped skin, not just striped fur.
22. In most advertisements, the time displayed on a watch is 10:10
23. Al Capone's business card said he was a used furniture dealer.
24. The Sesame Street characters Bert and Ernie were named after Bert the cop and Ernie the taxi driver in Frank Capra's "It's A Wonderful Life."
25. Some dragonflies have a life span of 24 hours.
26. A goldfish has a memory span of three seconds.
27. A dime has 118 ridges around the edge.
28. It's impossible to sneeze with your eyes open.
29. The giant squid has the largest eyes in the world.
30. In England, the Speaker of the House is not allowed to speak.
31. The microwave was invented after a researcher walked by a radar tube and a chocolate bar melted in his pocket.
32. Mr. Rogers was an ordained minister.
33. The average person falls asleep in seven minutes.
34. There are 336 dimples on a regulation golf ball.
35. "Stewardesses" is the longest word that is typed with only the left hand

Evangelical First Things in Public Life: 12 Things We Should Expect of Evangelicals

After the election, I wrote a post titled What Do the Evangelicals Want? As evangelicals continue to gain visibility, I think it is worthwhile to turn the topic around and ask: What Should We Expect of Evangelicals in the Public Arena?

What is the role of individual followers of Christ in the public arena? By this I do not mean solutions presented by the political parties and the governing philosophies that must guide public policies. For evangelical Christians in public life there must spiritual first things--the bedrock that precedes and provides the foundation for actions, traits, and political positions, and that must supercede interest in re-election.

Individuals that are engaged in the public arena in any way find it tremendously difficult to find—and even to do—thinking about public policy and public life that precedes political philosophy and does not rely on the positions articulated by politicians, media commentators, and other political observers.

With some exceptions, Christians looking at public issues are faced with religion-based information in two groups. First, biblical teaching on spiritual life and personal growth that does not attempt to address public issues. And second, political discourse that starts with political philosophy then seeks biblical proof-texting.

I agree with what Jim Wallis wrote in the introduction of God’s Politics: “The best contribution of religion is precisely not to be ideologically predictable or loyally partisan but to maintain the moral independence to critique both the Left and the Right” (pg. xix).

Unfortunately, Wallis immediately puts his counsel in question by his own measure when a few pages later he reprints the copy from his pre-election advertisement: God is Not a Republican. Or a Democrat. The language sounds like it is directly from a John Kerry campaign speech (“Do the candidates policies pursue wars of choice or respect international law and cooperation.” “Do the candidates tell the truth in justifying war.”) How is repeating the Democratic litany for international cooperation anything close to a biblical issue or moral independence?

I have probably posed bigger questions than I can come close to addressing at this time, but I will plod forward, nonetheless, with brief thoughts in 12 areas. Perhaps I will return to each at another time.

12 First Things
What should we be able to expect of evangelical Christian in the public arena? I suggest that there are the 12 first things that should be embraced by faithful Christians whatever their political philosophy. While there can be honest and worthy disagreements on how to apply political philosophy to adddress these concerns, they should transcend the call of the party.

1. Value Character
2. Support Human Rights
3. Develop a Consistent Ethic of Life
4. Honor and Protect Families
5. Help the Poor and Imprisoned
6. Be Responsible Citizens
7. Be Good Stewards
8. Do Justice
9. Recognize Evil
10. Seek Spiritual Vision
11. Demonstrate a Graceful Spirit
12. Share Your Faith

Now, a closer look at each of these:

1. Value Character: Recognize, honor and create public policies that promote personal character and virtue, such as personal responsibility, temperance, duty, respect, kindness, perseverance, and patience. These and other virtues are clearly held in high regard in the Scriptures, and they need champions among policymakers.

2. Support Human Rights: I do believe that the basic human rights of safety from abuse and bondage, the opportunity to worship as we please, freedom of movement and livelihood, and fundamental fairness are God-given, not government-given. It is the role of government to confirm and protect these human rights.

3. Develop a Consistent Ethic of Life: The ethics of life are perhaps the most difficult and divisive issues in the public arena, although there are those who would say that they are the simplest.

Abortion
When people say life ethics are simple they are in most cases speaking of the unacceptability of taking innocent human life through abortion. I agree that it impossible to develop a Christian ethic that supports abortion on demand as a means of birth control.

To back up a bit, it is essential that the Christian in public life develop a consistent ethic of life. Something like this: To influence culture and create laws to best save and extend lives; to honor the inherent value of human life, made in the image of God; and to safeguard lives in the present and in future generations.

Death Penalty
A life ethic that argues only against abortion is not complete. I believe it must also re-examine the death penalty, which is routinely supported on both sides of the aisle. The taking of human life by the government is always troubling, and must be constantly scrutinized. If execution is necessary to save lives, then there is an ethical reason to continue is use for capital offenses. But both the death penalty and life imprisonment without the chance of parole effectively remove the perpetrator from society. As such, the death penalty is not necessary for that purpose. If, however, it can be proved that the death penalty is a deterrent to other potential murderers, we should support the death penalty, because it will save lives. I haven’t seen such findings, by the way, but would be open to this proof.

Is it necessary to kill a murderer in order to exact justice or fairness, or is that simply retribution masquerading as “closure?”

Euthanasia
Life is a precious gift of God. But what should we allow when the gift is terrible burden to its holder. Should we allow the intentional killing by act or omission of a dependent human being for his or her alleged benefit. Strong emotional arguments for euthanasia are presented in cases where an individual’s pain is overwhelming or remaining days will be essentially unconscious. But as merciful as it seems at times, and do not believe that we are granted the divine right to take innocent life before God’s time.

Former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop, M.D. wrote:

"... we must be wary of those who are too willing to end the lives of the elderly and the ill. If we ever decide that a poor quality of life justifies ending that life, we have taken a step down a slippery slope that places all of us in danger. There is a difference between allowing nature to take its course and actively assisting death. The call for euthanasia surfaces in our society periodically, as it is doing now under the guise of "death with dignity" or assisted suicide. Euthanasia is a concept, it seems to me, that is in direct conflict with a religious and ethical tradition in which the human race is presented with " a blessing and a curse, life and death," and we are instructed '...therefore, to choose life." I believe 'euthanasia' lies outside the commonly held life-centered values of the West and cannot be allowed without incurring great social and personal tragedy. This is not merely an intellectual conundrum. This issue involves actual human beings at risk..."

War
Our Christian duty as we approach the issues of war and peace is to first look at them as issues of life and death, not geopolitics. Although the temporal issues may need to be factored, questions of life must be first because warfare kills people. Not going to war can either save lives or cost many more lives that the war itself. That recognition is why a longer view of impact must be considered in life ethics. I do believe that strength is the best peacemaker, a contention that has gained great credibility with the collapse of communism.

However, war is unacceptable to satisfy national ego, to gain creature comforts, or to settle scores.

4. Honor and Protect Families: God ordained the institution of the family and His children need to try to keep it together. We must recognize that the family is the primary conduit of the values that civilize us. The leading cause of economic and moral poverty is a broken families. Kids need to grow up with a mom and a dad to love them, to teach them virtue, and to train them up in the ways of the Lord.

There is probably no greater challenge for our culture than maintaining strong families, and there are many forces pulling in the opposite direction. Curbing these negative forces is a worthy role of the public servant.

(By the way, I believe the advance of homosexual unions is way down the list of dangers to the traditional family).

5. Help the Poor and Imprisoned: There is no clearer mandate in Scripture than to bear good news to and serve the poor, those in prison, and the brokenhearted. (Luke 4:18). To care for the widow and orphans. This should be high on the agenda of individual Christians and the church. It is vital that believers personally demonstrate that they follow Jesus Christ by their care for the poor.

How do we deal with this mandate as it relates to the levers of government?

Matt at SCO wrote:

“I see the Bible with a lot to say about caring for the less fortunate, but I never see Scripture advocating that we use the state as a means of doing so. If anyone can provide with clear Biblical teaching and some church history that suggests otherwise, I'm all ears, but I've yet to see it. I don't believe that the state is an effective means of curing poverty. It has never proven to be such a thing.”

If government largesse was effective at creating anything dependence, I believe we could assume biblical support. The Bible certainly doesn’t prohibit action of the state to assist the poor. But our history shows that government isn’t good at anything but providing relief. Government fails at community and personal development.

6. Be Responsible Citizens: As Christians we are called to submit to the governing authorities (Romans 13). Although in cases when the laws of the state violate God’s laws civil disobedience is the right path, there are far fewer times when that is necessary than some lead us to believe. The Bible clearly calls for submission in most cases, even when the authorities are unjust.

Christians in public life must lead by adhering to this teaching, but must also appreciate and teach the tension between the state and the church.

In The City of God, Augustine wrote:

“The heavenly city, or rather the part of it which sojourns on earth and lives by faith, makes use of this peace only because it must, until this mortal condition which necessitates it shall pass away. Consequently, so long as it lives like a captive and a stranger in the earthly city, though it has already received the promise of redemption, and the gift of the Spirit as the earnest of it, it makes no scruple to obey the laws of the earthly city, whereby the things necessary for the maintenance of this mortal life are administered; and thus, as this life is common to both cities, so there is a harmony between them in regard to what belongs to it.” (Book XIX, Chapter 17)

7. Be Good Stewards: We should expect evangelicals in public life to acknowledge that all good gifts are from God and that He calls on us to be grateful for them and to be good stewards and worthy caretakers of all he has given us.

When there is bounty, God calls for personal generosity. We are to enjoy good things in moderation. And we are to care for the earth, our temporary home. It is right to determine the truth on the impact of human actions on the environment, and exaggerations and blatant lies have undercut the credibility of environmentalists. We cannot fall prey to the emotional earth-worship of hyper-environmentalism.

However, there is simply no biblical support for being anti-environment. When we blindly follow the ravings of many conservative commentators in their criticism of all things pro-environment, we are falling in line with a political strategy, not biblical teaching.

For more on the evangelical approach to the environment, look at the Evangelical Environmental Network and its Evangelical Declaration on the Care of Creation.

8. Do Justice: When we hear someone calling for justice, it is usually a cry for a right to be wronged or for the government to help with pay-back. Getting even. Micah 6:8 says that God requires us to “do justice,” or to “act justly.” The task of the public servant is to look deeply at the biblical call for justice, which has embedded the understanding of fairness, of justification, of equal treatment, and of reconciliation:

"[In biblical times] when wrongs were done, ordinary people went to the city gates to seek justice in a 'legal assembly' in which citizens participated. The focus of this court, sometimes called an 'organization of reconciliation', was not to satisfy some abstract concept of justice but to find a solution. Restitution and compensation were common outcomes. Biblical Justice seeks first to solve problems, to find solutions, to make things right, looking toward the future." (H. Zehr, Changing Lenses, p. 140-1, 152)

9. Recognize of Evil: The Bible teaches that the forces of evil are aligned against the forces of good. Evil is not a concept; it oozes from every heart not constrained by love. It seeks to overcome the world. The Christian seeking to impact public policy must recognize what the founders did—man is inherently inclined toward evil and dominated by self-interest. It is not a popular thought, but thinking otherwise makes for deadly policy.

“The total depravity of man,” said G.K. Chesterton, “is the one doctrine empirically validated by 4,000 years of human history.”

We have lost sight of this in modern society, which endangers the republic.

“The most common myth of [our time] is that people are good. We aren’t,” wrote Charles Colson, who after a career in cut-throat politics and 20 years in prison and prison ministry knows of what he speaks.

10. Seek Spiritual Vision: The Christian cannot view the struggles and triumphs of our days only through the lens of our immediate interests and of our age. The eyes of the Christian soul must see further, with a view of the unseen (spiritual vision) and a view of the world (world vision).

Although we acknowledge in our churches and personal study that we are only passing through this world, it is difficult to apply this to the rough and tumble struggles of our days and in public life. When we are granted spiritual vision, we see a spiritual dimension to how history is unfolding and our role in it. Paul wrote: “So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen. For what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal” (II Corinthians 4:18).

Also, I am not sure that a mature Christian can be a thorough isolationist, at least not as he or she becomes aware of the violation of human rights around the world, and the persecution of the church. This requires a world vision.

11. Demonstrate a Graceful Spirit: The Christian in public life undercuts his witness and diminishes his effectiveness if he does not show the grace that his been shown to him by God. For the many in leadership the twin challenges in this area are showing humility and forgiving others. Both of these graces are in rare supply in the halls of power and there is no higher work for the Christian public servant than to model these disciplines.

C.S. Lewis said to British servicemen after World War II (the text of which was to become Mere Christianity):

"Everyone says forgiveness is a lovely idea, until they have something to forgive, as we had during the war. And then, to mention the subject at all is to be greeted with howls of anger. It is not that people think this too high and difficult a virtue: it is that they think it hateful and contemptible. “That sort of talk makes them sick,” they say. And half of you already want to ask me, “I wonder how you’d feel about forgiving the Gestapo if you were a Pole or a Jew?”

So do I. I wonder very much. Just as when Christianity tells me that I must no deny my religion even to save myself from death by torture, I wonder very much what I should do when it came to the point. I am not trying to tell you in this book what I could do—I can do precious little—I am telling you what Christianity is. I did not invent it. And there, right in the middle of it, I find: “Forgive us our sins as we forgive those that sin against us.” There is no slightest suggestion that we are offered forgiveness on any other terms. It is made perfectly clear that if we do not forgive we shall not be forgiven. There are no two ways about it. What are we to do. "

12. Share Your Faith: Those who observe evangelicals for any length of time should at some point be aware that they are telling others about their faith in Jesus Christ for the grace to live each day and for eternal salvation. IN a day when “proselytizing” is said with curled lip and a sneer, it should be known in the public square that this is part of the Christian’s obligation. To be obedient we must tell of the hope that is in us and the source of that hope. It is gives us joy to do so. To do otherwise creates a much high level of condemnation.

Observers should also expect evangelicals, along with everyone else, to fail. We are but “jars of clay” who recognize that it is through our weakness that God’s strength can be seen.

More Skepticism on Deep Throat

I wrote earlier this month that Woodward and Bernstein’s Deep Throat May Be Composite of Multiple Sources, which has been the opinion of Nixon aide Charles Colson. Here, Jonah Goldberg explains why he believes Deep Throat is “Bob and Carl’s imaginary friend.”

Goldberg also adds to the composite theory:

Recently, Fox News media analyst Eric Burns revealed that the late, great historian Stephen Ambrose had told him there never was a Deep Throat. Burns' evidence was second-hand at best. He said Ambrose had shared an editor with Woodward and Bernstein - the legendary Alice Mayhew - and she had told him that Deep Throat was a composite of various sources. Mayhew told Ambrose that the first manuscript of "All the President's Men" contained no references to Deep Throat and that she told them the book needed a stronger plot device. D.T. was the result.


--James Jewell

Pardon me, You’re in My Kitchen: The Supreme Court and Eminent Domain

When you walk through the housewares section of your local Wal-Mart, remember that it used to be Maggie Smith’s kitchen, and she’s not happy you’re there.

Or at least there a fair chance the area used to be someone’s kitchen, or living room, or back yard.Wal-Mart has been a common beneficiary of local governments using their power of eminent domain to seize private property for the economic advancement of the community. Wal-Mart is hardly alone, as communities across the country have found more and more reasons to seize private property for the enrichment of their citizens (except the property owners whose homes were taken).

The Supreme Court agreed yesterday to hear a typical case brought by a group of New London, Connecticut homeowners. The Supremes heard oral arguments yesterday.

It’s risky to jump to conclusions on the sentiment of the Court based on oral arguments. Here’s what some media outlets thought:

CNN:
Striking an unusual populist tone, the Supreme Court appeared divided Tuesday over whether city officials in Connecticut have the authority to seize homes in a working-class neighborhood and turn the property over to private developers.

Detroit Free Press:
The Supreme Court appeared sympathetic Tuesday toward a group of New London, Conn., homeowners fighting to keep their land, but justices seemed equally skeptical of their own power to keep the city from seizing property to create an upscale development.
It's the first major case on eminent domain -- the power of the government to condemn property for redevelopment -- to reach the high court in years.

Washington Post:
An attorney for a group of Connecticut homeowners told the Supreme Court on Tuesday that his clients have a constitutional right to stay in their houses even though their city says it needs the sites for privately developed offices, hotels and parking, in a case that could affect property rights nationwide.

The lawyer, Scott Bullock of the libertarian Institute for Justice, said that if New London, Conn., can use its power of eminent domain to force Susette Kelo and six other owners to sell for the sake of jobs and tax revenue that private-sector development brings, the Fifth Amendment guarantee that private property cannot be taken for "public use" without just compensation would be a dead letter.

If you think private property rights are important this may very well be the most important case facing the Supreme Court in our lifetime.

--James Jewell

What End, The Wounded Butterfly?

The hammer is poised over the wounded butterfly, Terri Schaivo, and the dark day has arrived. There is still much that the blogging community can do. Catez at AllThings2All has a good summary of the situation and the actions that can still be taken, which follows her post with the haunting title:

Who Crushes a Butterfly with a Hammer?

--James Jewell

Pay For Your Own Erection

“Drug companies,” it is reported, “are strenuously resisting bipartisan efforts in Congress to prohibit Medicare from paying for Viagra and other drugs for erectile dysfunction.
The drug companies need to shut up.

Look, I feel bad for the guys who have had some physical issues that leave them impotent or with some degree of ED. And I’m sure the performance enhancement drugs such as Viagra have provided fuller lives for many men, most of them senior citizens.

But frankly, the Constitution doesn’t grant the right to an erection. It is a violation of the rights of others to force them to pay for yours. Further, the estimated costs of Medicare’s new prescription drug benefit have spiraled wildly beyond original estimates, and we certainly cannot afford to cover these or other “lifestyle drugs.”

It’s hard to believe government has become so involved in our lives that this even has to be debated.

--James Jewell

France Pushes EU to Lift Chinese Arms Embargo

Just as President Bush visits Europe and will “talk about how this is a time to move beyond past differences and work in unity,” the EU announced plans to lift its arms embargo against China.
“[A U.S. official said] the United States had "real problems" with EU. plans to lift an arms embargo imposed on China after the 1989 Tiananmen Square crackdown.” (Source)

(When my wife and I visited Tiananmen Square last August our Chinese guide told us it was the place where “a few bad characters misled a large group of students.”)

From The Scotsman:

“The issue of military sales to China will be much harder to fudge. The EU, pushed by France, is set to lift an embargo imposed in 1989. US officials including Karl Rove, Mr Bush’s chief of staff, see the EU move as a fundamental challenge to US interests. Mr Bush has promised to defend democratic Taiwan from China.

China claims Taiwan is a renegade province, and Beijing yesterday condemned US support for Taiwan. America’s stance on Taiwan "concerns China’s sovereignty, territorial integrity and national security, and the Chinese government and people firmly oppose it," the Chinese Foreign Ministry said.

Richard Fisher, a prominent Washington analyst and commentator on Chinese affairs, said the EU move was a serious provocation to the president’s pro-democracy agenda.

"As both Japan and the US begin to seriously prepare for a real war on the Taiwan Strait, it is simply sickening that European leaders are proposing to take any steps that would help to enable a dictatorship to kill democracy," said Mr Fisher.”

When was the last time the French have shown any cooperation with the U.S. or support for the expansion of democracy?

--James Jewell

The Case for Condi Replacing Cheney

Early in George W. Bush’s first term, before 9-11 changed his presidency, I predicted that Dick Cheney would step down either with real health problems or as a strategic move, and Bush would name Condoleezza Rice as his new vice president. Rice would the run as Bush’s vice presidential candidate in 2004. This, I thought, would be a the right political calculation because it would change the dynamics of the 2004 election in a way that would breathe life into what appeared to be a vulnerable Bush re-election candidacy, and it would set Rice up to compete with Hillary Clinton in 2008. Of course none of that happened, and Cheney has served the nation with distinction and class.

Now this report from Jack Wheeler at To The Point that Vice President Dick Cheney likely will step down next year due to health reasons and be replaced by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. (h/t: WorldNewsDaily)

Wheeler says there's a "red-breasted rumor bird" flying around Capitol Hill that has whispered the same thing to most congressional committee chairmen.

One such chairman evidently told Wheeler: "None of us will be surprised if, sometime next year, he will step down from the vice presidency due to his health."

According to the Wheeler, in this scenario these Members of Congress believe Bush would appoint Condoleezza Rice. “As a sitting vice president, Condi would be in an impregnable position for the GOP nomination in 2008 and would suck every breath of wind from Hillary's sails.

Exactly.

--James Jewell

The Vatican, Paul’s Grave, and Noah’s Ark

The Vatican will make a public announcement soon that archeologists have positively identified the tomb of St. Paul the apostle, according to Catholic World News. (h/t: WorldNetDaily via Considerettes.)

From Catholic World News:

“A sarcophagus which may contain the remains of St. Paul was identified in the basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls, reports Giorgio Filippi, an archeology specialist with the Vatican Museums. The sarcophagus was discovered during the excavations carried out in 2002 and 2003 around the basilica, which is located in the south of Rome. Having reached what they believe is a positive identification of the tomb, Vatican experts will soon make a public announcement of their discovery.”

From WorldNetDaily.com:

“Giorgio Filippi, a specialist with the Vatican Museums, said a sarcophagus that might still contain the apostle's remains was identified in the basilica of St. Paul Outside the Walls in Rome. ‘The tomb that we discovered is the one that the popes and the Emperor Theodosius [A.D. 379- 395] saved and presented to the whole world as being the tomb of the apostle,’ Filippi said. He has no doubt, Paul was buried on the site, ‘because this basilica was the object of pilgrimages by emperors; people from all around the world came to venerate him, having faith that he was present in this basilica.’"

I’ve been to active archeological sites in Israel and I fined archeology a fascinating discipline. The painstaking examination of layers of rock and soil has told us much about human history, and it has done much to verify the truth of the Scriptures. But there are dangers.

The Dangers of Discovery
Unfortunately, this kind of discovery presents a major problem. The burial site will be a site of worship, not of the Christ preached by Paul, but of Paul himself. Veneration of the saints is already a far too common diversion from the worship of Christ.

Another issue is the use of archeological discovery as an evangelism tool. Whenever there is a find—-and there have been many—-that affirms biblical accuracy, Christians and Jews celebrate the confirmation of their faith. Nothing wrong with that. It’s healthy.

But it isn’t the evangelism tool some think it would be.

Noah's Ark
All of this reminds me of a project that I worked on seven years ago. I took a call at the public relations agency where I worked from one of the best-known figures in evangelicalism, now deceased. I will let him remain unnamed, because the corpus of his life work is laudable, and he was one of the most humble servants of Christ I’ve ever met.

It was late 1998 and this Christian leader felt that God was calling him to facilitate the discovery of Noah’s Ark, because it would show that the Bible is true and would prompt mass conversions around the world. The timing was important because this leader believed it was important to complete the task of world evangelization by the year 2000.

He was offering a $1 million prize to the individual or group that provided inconvertible evidence of the existence of Noah’s Ark. Now by this time there had been books written and movies made that recounted the proof that adventurers had that remains of the ship were on Mount Ararat or nearby. But they weren’t treated with any great interest, and it hadn’t resulted in millions of new believers.

Our client thought a better approach was to advertise the contest in Turkey. “Certainly there are people in the villages of the Turkish mountains who know about the whereabouts of Noah’s Ark.” A million dollars would loosen their tongues.

He wanted proof that would convince skeptics, media, and the world community.

So we created ads, in Turkish, and had them placed in several newspapers in Turkey. And, indeed, we received a lot of mail and emails. Much of it in Turkish (which created significant translated expenses). And lots of fuzzy photographs.

Nothing rose to the level of certainty. After about a year, the project was declared over. The new millennium arrived without the benefit of Noah’s Ark

What if the proof had been convincing? What if the ossuary recently found is that of James the brother of Jesus? And what if the Vatican archeologists have found Paul’s body?

What will be the impact on world evangelization? A similar scenario was posed by Jeusus in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Luke 16:19-31). In hell, the rich man asks for Abraham's permission to send Lazarus back to warn his five brothers, for “if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.”

The response: “If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.”

Nor will many unbelievers be convinced by archeology. (I still hope it really is Paul’s grave.)

--James Jewell

Harvard Releases Transcript of Summers Remarks on Gender Differences

A transcript of remarks by Harvard President Lawrence Summers on women in science was released by the university yesterday. Disgruntled members of the faculty had been calling for the transcript of the January 14 speech to be made public. The university had previously declined to release the transcript, saying they had been given in an off-the-record setting.

The transcript includes his contention that intrinsic differences between the sexes, along with family pressure and employer demands, probably play a bigger role than cultural factors and discrimination in explaining why fewer women than men have top science jobs. (source).

Here’s the salient comment by Summers on why women are generally not in high positions in science and engineering:

"In the special case of science and engineering, there are issues of intrinsic aptitude, and particularly of the variability of aptitude, and that those considerations are reinforced by what are in fact lesser factors involving socialization and continuing discrimination.”

At the vortex of political correctness, Harvard’s president committed the cardinal sin of surmising that there is an intrinsic difference between men and women, and that this and the desire of women to spend more time with their children—-not only discrimination—-has resulted in variances in the work force.

Here’s a site with links to many of the articles written on Summers remarks.

Two Harvard professors wrote in The Boston Globe:

“Considerable evidence exists on women making different choices than men with regard to the family-career tradeoff. Female medical doctors, for example, reduce their practice hours when they have families, particularly after the birth of their second child. But male doctors do not. Women economists occupy positions that have less intense tenure pressure. Female lawyers shift to smaller firms and the government sector.”

Often, women are making the decision that spending time with their families is more important that reaching the highest positions. Anywhere west of the Hudson River and east of the Sierra Nevada’s this is generally seen as a good thing.

However, now that the comments are on the record, the pressure will mount for Summers to be ousted, and that this cardinal transgression by the Charles River be declared a mortal sin.

--James Jewell

The Shortest Seminary Course

Organizations use a distribution feature offered Religion News Service to send their news releases out to people like me. Yesterday’s releases included this one:

“The Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, in conjunction with the Chicago Theological Seminary, has launched a first-of-its-kind curriculum, ‘Theology and Reproductive Choice,’ to teach seminary students theological perspectives on reproductive freedom as a distinct subject.”
It seems to me this would be the shortest seminary course in history.

--James Jewell

Hillary, Abortion, and the Partisan Juggernaut

Even those who might be otherwise viewed as ideologues often get caught up with the juggernaut of partisanship, putting preservation of the party over advocacy or principle.

We’ve seen support among conservatives for changing historic Senate filibuster rules because the Republicans are frustrated by Democratic misuse of the rule that protects the minority party. But even more blatant is the failure of the pro-life movement to recognize and even praise unquestionable shifts within the Democratic Party on abortion.

“Since its defeats in the November elections, nothing has put the fractured soul of the Democratic Party on display more vividly than abortion. Party leaders, including Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and the new chairman, Howard Dean, have repeatedly signaled an effort to recalibrate the party's thinking about new restrictions on abortion.” (Source)

When Senator Clinton moderated her public position on abortion restrictions, infuriating the pro-abortion cabal, the only thing we heard from conservatives was skepticism and analysis of the enemy’s political calculation.

William Saletan wrote in Slate:

[Clinton said]: "There is no reason why government cannot do more to educate and inform and provide assistance so that the choice guaranteed under our constitution either does not ever have to be exercised or only in very rare circumstances."

Does not ever have to be exercised. I searched Google and Nexis for parts of that sentence tonight and got no hits. Is the press corps asleep? Hillary Clinton just endorsed a goal I've never heard a pro-choice leader endorse. Not safe, legal, and rare. Safe, legal, and never."

Senator Clinton’s move is no doubt a political adjustment, not a change of heart. But if we discount changes by politicians that are, well, political, we will discount much that is done in Washington (maybe a good idea).

Perhaps I missed it, but I didn’t hear any pro-life conservatives celebrating this shift by Clinton. All I heard were observations about how early in the election cycle she was moderating her positions in order to be electable. I’m sure she is doing just that, and that is the right political commentary. But the pro-life movement should be celebrating any new successes and praising Democrats for the changes that are being made.

And it’s not just Hillary. Other examples:

Senate Democrats named a professed opponent of abortion rights, Harry Reid of Nevada, as the leader in the Senate.

Many Democrats supported another abortion opponent, Timothy J. Roemer, for the party's chairmanship.

The party has recruited Robert P. Casey Jr., Pennsylvania's treasurer and a Catholic opponent of abortion (and son of one of the party’s renowned abortion opponents) to challenge Senator Rick Santorum.

One Republican Senator has noticed. Pro-life Senator Sam Brownback, (R- Kansas) said: "Just the language that allows for the Democrats to open up and even encourage people to run for office as a pro-life candidate is an enormously positive development for me."

(I guess the pro-life groups are otherwise occupied. I just noticed that the American Life League has announced its National Pro-Life T-Shirt Day. I’m sure that will change a lot of hearts and minds.

The list of thoroughly pro-life Democrats is short, mind you (Note the website of Democrats For Life), but progress on the issues of life on both sides of the aisle should be praised by pro-life advocates, if indeed saving lives is more important than electing Republicans.

--James Jewell

Changing the Filibuster Rules

Senate Majority Leader Bill First has the votes needed to change filibuster rules, which would clear the way for easier confirmation of judicial appointments, according to The Washington Times.

Hugh Hewitt agrees with Frist “that the Constitution does not provide 41 Senators the power to block nominees. Thus every time a filibuster is employed against the nominee, damage is done to the Constitution's intent. I think that is a damage worth halting at the first opportunity.”
And Hugh argues that the fact that Republicans may need to use the nominee filibuster at a later date is unconvincing because it is “the embrace of extraconstitutional means to reach political objectives.”

Yes, but not unconstitutional. We should be careful seeking rule changes that serve immediate political goals but may be dangerous for long term protection of the power of the political minority. I’m not ready to assume that the current domination by the Republican Party will last. The political landscape could easily trend back toward the Democrats, particularly if inroads into the Hispanic community don’t continue.

Jerry Falwell and Jim Wallis

I can 't remember ever being so embarassed to be a conservative Christian as I was last night driving down the highway listening on the radio to Jerry Falwell lambasting Jim Wallis on the Sean Hannity show, without any regard for civilty, decorum, or good taste.

Falwell's boorishness sunk to its lowest level when he began namecalling Wallis a "secularist liberal." And then flashed some of the famous Falwell arrogance as he demeaned Wallis spiritual credentials because Wallis is a church attender but not a church member.

The gospel according to Jerry is that the mark of a Christian is church membership. Particularly if we disagree with your politics.

I am delaying any comment on Jim Wallis' new book God and Politics until I read more of it. I've followed his Sojourners work for decades and find it interesting that he has emerged from virtual anonymity at this time.

I am no fan of Wallis' political views. But this is a man who has spent his entire adult life living among the poor in Washington, D.C. He has, as we used to say, "walked the talk." This doesn't make his political views any better, but I believe it earns him more respect than Jerry Falwell showed him last night.

Actually, everyone has earned more respect than that from a follower of Christ.

--James Jewell

A Tax Bill Worth Getting Excited About

If you haven’t heard about the Fair Tax bill introduced and championed by Georgia Congressman John Linder, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, it’s time to read up.

Congressman Linder (R-GA), reintroduced his personal consumption tax proposal, H.R. 25, also known as the “FairTax,” on the first day of the 109th Congress.
Linder said:

“The time is ripe for fundamental tax reform and a completely new Federal tax regime. I am pleased to reintroduce my Fair Tax proposal today, and look forward to the Congress creating a fairer, simpler tax system that advances our core goals of lower taxes and more freedom for our citizens.”

The only thing as painful as paying taxes is reading about tax codes, theories, and comparative plans. At least that’s the way I feel about it. But this idea is simple to understand and fair to people at all levels of income and stages of life. The Fair Tax eliminates the federal income tax and puts in its place a consumption tax.

Americans for Fair Tax explain:

“Simply put, the FairTax replaces the way we're currently taxed - based on our annual income - with a tax on goods and services. The FairTax is a voluntary “consumption" tax: the more you buy, the more you pay in taxes, the less you buy, the less you pay in taxes.Everyone pays their fair share of taxes, and with the FairTax rebate, spending up to the poverty level is tax free. The Federal government is fully funded, including Social Security and Medicare, and you don't need an expert to determine your Federal taxes.”

Here’s more on the Fair Tax by Linder. Linder and radio host Neal Boortz are wrting a book together on this subject. Should be out soon.

This really should precede the social security issue, but it hasn’t. A total tax overhaul will take enormous political effort, but Linder sees good momentum in Congress. It’s time to get behind this commonsensical tax bill that lives up to its name—“fair tax.”


--James Jewell

Romney Elevates Life Over Self Interest

Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney's decision to oppose stem cell research using embryos created for that purpose is a courageous stand for a politician in the most liberal of states. What is most impressive about Romney's decision, however, is that he has surprised the political establishment by elevating the ethics of life above personal and family interests.
That should cause all of us to take a closer look at the Massachusetts governor as the presidential derby 2008 begins.

Here are the details.

Proponents of a bill that would allow creating embryos for the purpose of conducting "assumed they would have the backing of Mr. Romney, a Republican whose wife, Ann, has multiple sclerosis, a disease that could potentially be helped by the research. Mr. Romney had previously said he supported stem cell research in general, but had not elaborated.

But in an interview on Tuesday, Mr. Romney said that he was strongly against a type of embryonic stem cell research that many scientists consider extremely promising: research that involves creating human embryos specifically for scientific experimentation."
Mitt Romney said:

"My wife has M.S., and we would love for there to be a cure for her disease and for the diseases of others. But there is an ethical boundary that should not be crossed.. . .creation for the purpose of destruction is wrong."

Romney's position runs counter to the actions that many other states are considering. After California's decision last year to invest $3 billion in embryonic stem cell research, at least seven other states, including New York, New Jersey and Connecticut, are considering steps to encourage researchers in the field or provide economic incentives.

He is not totally opposed to embryonic stell cell research, however. He favors the use of embryos that are left over from in-vitro fertilization "if the couples who created the embryos gave written permission, were not paid, and were offered the options of rejecting research in favor of storing the embryos or giving them up for adoption."


--James Jewell

Best Bible Translation for Today is Not the TNIV

The complete Today’s New International Version (TNIV) of the Bible has now been published (the New Testament was released earlier) to mixed reviews that continue the gender neutral controversy that is well documented at BaylyBlog by Tim Bayly, part of the World magazine family. Here is Zondervan’s news release defending the new revision of the NIV.



I recommend that you look elsewhere--to the Holman Christian Standard Bible. Released in 2004, it is the only new translation from the original languages since the original NIV in the early 70’s. We worked on the introduction of the Holman CSB, and I am using it now for both reading and study.



It is as readable, if not more readable, than the NIV, and those who study these things say that it is as accurate as the New American Standard Bible (NASB). Because of its commitment to precise translation, the Holman CSB avoids the current gender neutral controversy.





--James Jewell

Deep Throat May be a Composite of Multiple Sources

As the 30-year-old Deep Throat national office pool heats up again with the release of many of Woodward and Bernstein’s Watergate notes and a column by John Dean in the Los Angeles Times, at least one Nixon White House insider contends that Deep Throat cannot be one person.



The guessing game reignited with the release of the new materials. The Washington Post reports:



Thousands of pages of notes, memos, transcripts and other materials collectively known as the Woodward and Bernstein Watergate Papers open to the public today at the University of Texas, minus the most fascinating detail connected to the demise of the Nixon administration: the identity of Deep Throat. . . .



Attempts to uncover the closely guarded identity of Deep Throat, known only to Woodward, Bernstein and former Post executive editor Ben Bradlee, have been the subject of books and college journalism class projects for years. One book, "In Search of Deep Throat," published in 2000 by former Nixon aide Leonard Garment, speculated that White House colleague John Sears was Deep Throat. Sears and Woodward denied it.In 1999, Bill Gaines, a journalism professor at the University of Illinois and a former investigative reporter for the Chicago Tribune, began a class project to solve the mystery. Four years later, he and his students concluded that Nixon White House deputy counsel Fred Fielding was Deep Throat. Fielding also has denied it.



Nixon White House Counsel John Dean, in a Los Angeles Times op-ed, perked further attention:

“We'll all know one day very soon, however. Bob Woodward, a reporter on the team that covered the Watergate story, has advised his executive editor at the Washington Post that Throat is ill. And Ben Bradlee, former executive editor of the Post and one of the few people to whom Woodward confided his source's identity, has publicly acknowledged that he has written Throat's obituary.”



But Nixon Special Counsel Charles Colson, who like Dean is not on the list of possibilities because they left the White House in 1973, has said consistently over three decades that he believes Deep Throat is not a single person but a device used by Woodward to combine the information he obtained from multiple sources. Colson has said that no one person had access to all of the information that Woodward claimed he received from the secret source.



As recently as 2002:



“Chuck Colson told CNN news that he thinks there is no such person as Deep Throat. Colson said that information Woodward and Bernstein attributed to one person they labeled Deep Throat in their book "All the President's Men" came from several different sources. In other words, Deep Throat may not exist and Woodward and Bernstein may have been lying to us for all these years. In other words, Woodward and Bernstein may be far from ethical journalists who deliberately lie to their readers.”



It is completely credible that Woodward and Bernstein would use what may have been an actual parking garage encounter with a source, which they named Deep Throat, and attributed several other details to that same source, both to simplify the reporting and to protect a number of sources.



Since the creation of the fictional glue necessary to tidy up gaps in his reporting and writing has been a characteristic of Bob Woodward’s work over the years, this twist of the truth in the Deep Throat story is not at all unlikely.





--James Jewell

Glad You’re On The Rooftop. Now Check Stones Cry Out

If you missed the note a week ago, I have joined four others in launching a new collaborative blog called Stones Cry Out. I will continue posting here at The Rooftop Blog, as well. At times I will be cross-posting (contributing the same material to both blogs), and at other times—such as today—the postings are different.



I am extremely pleased with the start up of Stones Cry Out. The four other contributors have good minds, sharp pens, hearts for God, and a good sense of humor.



I hope you keep an eye on both The Rooftop Blog and Stones Cry Out.





--James Jewell

The Granny Brigade

78-year old Miriam Machovec will lead a team of grandmothers to Johannesburg, Pretoria, and Rustenburg, South Africa this spring, taking their grandmotherly love and care with them to spend it on children and babies in refugee camps infected with the HIV virus.



It is an example of what we have called “moral imagination,” the inspiration and sense of moral purpose that can rise up in the hearts of Christian believers.



Working with a ministry called Book of Hope , this group of eleven women--whose average age is 60--will visit an orphanage called the Lighthouse Shelter for Children; “Freedom Park,” a refugee camp of about 25,000 residents from all over Africa; and a squatters village where children live and take care of each other. The parents of the children in these c amps have died of AIDS, and many of the children themselves are infected with the HIV virus. In one case, an HIV-positive child of 12 is taking care of her nine younger siblings by herself.



“These children have no parents and certainly no grandparents to bring them the love a grandmother can,” said Mrs. Machovec. “We can’t cure AIDS, but we can hold and rock and love the children of the world that have AIDS, as only a grandmother can do. And we will!”



Mrs. Machovec traveled to South Africa last year as part of a team with Book of Hope, the Ft. Lauderdale-based organization that brings Scripture books to children in schools and villages around the world. During her visit, she saw AIDS babies who had no parents or grandparents to care for them, children who were suffering alone with this dreadful disease.



“How easy it is for me to hold my own healthy grandchildren – and so many other children in my life – and give them the love they need,” said Mrs. Machovec. “But how much more do these dying children need the human touch and genuine love in their lives, which will be cut short by AIDS?”



Mrs. Machovec immediately saw the need for grandmothers to care for and love these children, and exclaimed to a colleague, “What these children need is a Granny Brigade!” Sharing this vision with Rob Hoskins, Executive Director of Book of Hope, the two saw an opportunity, and determined to meet the challenge.



Upon her return to America, Mrs. Machovec began looking for volunteer grandmothers to make a trip with her to Africa. Upon hearing of this need, Arlene Allen, the National Director of Women’s Ministries for the Assemblies of God church rallied behind her, and together they created the first-ever Granny Brigade.



Mrs. Machovec added: “Our plan is to have this be just the first of many Granny Brigades that travel the world, bringing a grandmother’s love to children in need.”



When Edmund Burke described the “little platoons” that would inspire and provide the backbone of civil society, he very well could have been describing this small brigade of grandmothers who, not content to sit idly by, are traveling to Africa to hug dying children.

Ethical Questions in Habitat's Firing of Millard Fuller

Contrary to headlines prompted by Habitat for Humanity’s board statement, the organization’s founder and president Millard Fuller was fired due to changes in corporate culture, not unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations.



This troubling finding is included in an article that I wrote for Christianity Today, which was posted this afternoon.



Although I am restrained from saying more at this point, because I may do additional reporting on this issue for CT, as is the case in many of the dramas surrounding the interaction of men and women in the workplace, it is unlikely that anyone but the participants will know whether Fuller was inappropriate with the female employee last spring, and others before her, or if the warm and friendly nature of the 70-year-old south Georgian was an uncomfortable fit with the modern era’s climate of sexual politics.



What is certain is that the events that led to the firing reveal the changing culture of the highly successful housing provider, and the inability of its charismatic founder to thrive in the environment he helped create.



The board’s decision to use the allegations in the first paragraph of its announcement demonstrates the rancor between the parties, and raises ethical questions about the board’s handling of information that personally smears one of the Christendom’s fine, hardworking servants.

--James Jewell

Judge Rules Embryo Is A Human

A Chicago judge has ruled that an embryo mistakenly discarded by an Illinois fertility clinic was a 'human' and its parents can sue under the state's wrongful death law (h/t: Freedom of...)





-James Jewell

Judge May Rule on Terry Schaivo's Life This Week

The life of Terry Schaivo in Florida hangs in the balance and a judge may make a decision as early as today.



Tim at Blogicus points to new information that may become important with Terry Schaivo’s fate is in the hands of the Florida judge.



It is not surprising that several pro-life groups say they plan to flood Florida with activists should a local judge set aside the stay that is in place prohibiting Michael Schiavo from starving her to death. Judge George Greer could decide as early as [today] whether to lift the stay. Should he do that, the pro-life groups will bring "scores of people" to the state to "pray, lobby and peacefully intervene on Terri's behalf."



Janet Folger at Faith2Action reports on her site that:



Christian organizations announced [last Thursday] a nationwide campaign to save the life of Terri Schiavo if feeding and hydration tube is removed. Groups will encourage all those who cherish the culture of life to come to Florida and stand in solidarity with Terri and her family should the courts order food and water withheld from her. Organizers hope scores will come from around the nation to pray, lobby and peacefully intervene on Terri's behalf.

--James Jewell

Super Football, Average Commercials

It is always a pleasure when the Super Bowl turns out to be a good, competitive game, which this one was. Just when you thought the Patriots were going to pull away, the Eagles’ goal line defense stiffened, forcing a field goal; and then a long McNabb to Lewis pass closes the gap to three points.



Generally, the game was better than the commercials this year. There weren’t any great ones, but a handful of quite good ones. We viewed the Super Bowl with a group of about a dozen party guests who joined us in also analyzing the commercials.



We rated whatever commercials we watched between refilling our plates and other conversations using four criteria: Overall quality of the advertising spot, creativity, effectiveness in promoting the product (will you just remember the clever commercial or will you remember the product name and attributes), and good taste (not as in “less filling, tastes good,” but where does the spot measure on your scale of appropriate and tasteful inclusion in a family program).

Using these measurements (a scale of 1 to 10 in each of four categories), the spots that best played in Peoria (actually Lawrenceville, Georgia) were the following:



Anheuser-Busch: Thank you to the troops---34

Cadillac: Speeding bullet---33

Heineken: with Brad Pitt---32

Pepsi: Hunky man drawing crowd---32

Bud Light: Bird---32

Federal Express: Burt and the Bear---31

Michelob: Rich (in furniture store)---29

McDonalds: Lincoln in fries---29

CareerBuilder.com: Monkeys---29

Tabasco: sunburn under bikini---28

Mustang: convertible in winter---28



Our focus group yawned at many of the commercials and had a really bad reaction to just one that tried to spoof Janet Jackson: GoDaddy.com’s “wardrobe malfunction” at a Senate hearing. It got the only badly negative ratings on the “taste” scale.



Some reactions: Anaheiser Busch’s tribute to the troops was classy. . .FedEx’s Burt Reynolds and the Bear was really funny…Loved Pepsi’s play on the old Coke commercial with the women following the good looking guy, with one gay fellow joining in. . .McDonalds seeing Abe Lincoln in the French fries was a great parody of the woman seeing Mary in the grilled cheese sandwich and the man selling the fishstick with Jesus’ face on EBay. . . The Cadillac speeding bullet car got a lot of reaction and was one commercial where you could tell what the advertiser was trying to do; in this case help give the car a sportier image. . . The CareerBuilders monkeys worked, but got tiring by the end of the game. . . Really clever idea when Tabasco’s bikinied girl couldn’t stop the skin from burning from the inside . . .Good gag with the hot Subway sandwiches of the two rednecks steaming up the parked car windows.



The best commercials were in the first half, and we could tell why. Our focus group started thinning at halftime. Had to get kids to bed and prepare to return to reality.





--James Jewell

Rating Super Bowl Commercials

“Quick, go get your food before the commercials come back on.”



For millions of Americans, the Super Bowl broadcast has become a time to watch the best Madison Avenue has to offer, and to check in on the last football game of the year, too.

And advertisers are quite interested in what we think of their ads, and this year they want to feel the pulse of the blogosphere. This, from Frank Barnako, of MarketWatch:



“While you watch the Super Bowl, dozens of online-savvy consumers and Web loggers will be watching the Net to see how the game's TV commercials are playing in Peoria. Intelliseek Inc. of Cincinnati and New Media Strategies of Arlington, Va., have lined up dozens of people to surf Web sites, blogs and message boards to get a fast read on the effectiveness and popularity of marketers' commercials. With TV costing as much as $2.4 million for a 30-second spot, companies want to know whether their money was spent wisely.



"Conversations all over the Internet, from message boards to blogs and beyond, now allow us to get a true pulse in real time," said New Media Strategies Chief Executive Pete Snyder in a statement. His firm is doing a similar monitoring process of the entertainment industry and the Oscars contest.”



We’ll play along and poll our Super Bowl Party guests on their opinions of the commercials, rating them on best overall, most creative, most effective in promoting product, and “good taste.” We’ll post the results.





--James Jewell

The Right Kind of Censorship

It's time to talk about decency again as we come to the anniversary of the breast that launched a thousand gasps. This year’s Super Bowl promises to be carefully protected from “wardrobe malfunctions,” and other capers that would further drag our minds and those of our children through the cultural mud.



Censorship is good thing. But it’s only a laudatory response when the government isn’t the institution that must or chooses to engage in censorship.

It is a failure when we turn to the strong arm of the government to bring the arts and media into line with cultural norms.



As a culture we have allowed almost every private or prurient thought to be shown or suggested on television, radio, and certainly the big screen. When someone in the media crosses the few remaining lines, we cry to the FCC. But determining media content is not the true role of government, and it has shown itself to be awkward, ineffective, and uncomfortable at drawing and enforcing the limits of permissible speech or content.



When the breast was bared during a CBS’s Super Bowl half-time show and whena sexually provocative skit was used to lead into a primetime football game, as ABC did several months ago, we turn to government to enforce our outrage. Politicians huff and puff about the drift from decency. But the penalties are laughable—CBS was fined $550,000 for the Super Bowl offense--about 15 seconds of Super Bowl commercial time.



The role belongs to the people; to all of us as viewers and consumers. Media content is a reflection of our cultural mores. Although we blame Hollywood or New York, our attention has to be corporate board rooms. Media content does not endure if it is not supported by advertisers and viewed by those who consume the advertisers’ products.



Of course, our outrage is selective. How much more provovative and deliciously instructive is the surprise hit, Desperate Housewives,than the flash of skin at the Super Bowl. We have come to the point as a culture where the only lines we draw are timetables, not decency or social edification. As long as Johnny or Suzy are probably in bed, roll out the crud.



As decision makers in the entertainment industry continue to push up against and frequently cross the lines of acceptability, the Americans who voted for moral values in the last election will push government to do something. However, the call for action is misdirected. It is for the newly discovered “values coalition” to organize consumer action, not government hand slapping which is both misplaced and ineffective.



So if you’re offended by something you see tomorrow, or any day, call (or organize action against) Chevrolet or Proctor and Gamble, and CBS—not the FCC.

When Ford previewed a Super Bowl truck commercial that mocked a man of the cloth—who looked most like a priest—by making having him lust for a new truck, the relgious community made its disgust known. And Ford pulled the ad.



There are also examples of failure to move the corporate giants on issues of moral content. Yes, the tools we have used thus far have mixed results. But for the interaction of our cultural institutions to be healthy, we must find ways to deal with societal filth and bad taste without forcing the government to be a culture cop.





--James Jewell

Influential Evangelicals

Time Magazine’s list of 25 most influential evangelicals was gratifying for many reasons. Mostly obviously, it is always welcome when a major news outlet treats devout Christians with respect and affords them some recognition. I love lists and horses races, so its fun to see if my favorites are the winners. I am a great admirer of some of the individuals on the list.



(Disclosure: I worked as Chuck Colson’s chief of staff and communications director and then as his public relations consultant over a course of nearly 20 years. I know him well and regard him as, although not perfect, a great and wise man of God. I’m delighted to see him on this list).

Here are a few thoughts:



o No Televangelists: It is gratifying that the flamboyant fundamentalists who used television to argue their cause and alienate much of the nation are not on list. I’m thinking here of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson.



o Too Much Washington: It is good to see some variety of missions, but Time primarily is defining influence as political impact. The selections lean heavily to people who have had an influence e in Washington politics and the measuring stick for clout is an individual’s connections in Washington. This is a myopic view because political influence is just one, and most would argue one of the lesser, roles of the church and leaders in the church.



I understand this “inside the beltway” obsession, having worked in Washington, D.C. and in a politicized arena for 14 years, and I remain involved with Washington clients in my current enterprises. That’s why I recognize it. Judging political influence is the Washington parlor game.

If we measure evangelicals who have had and are having an influence on the church, the church’s biblical faithfulness, the culture’s spiritual tenor, the theological maturity of the nation, and the dissemination of the Gospel around the world, the list woudl be somewhat different.

o Missing Bill Bright: No one has replaced Bill Bright’s passion and persistence to evangelize the world. There are thousands who share his heart on international domestic and international missions, but no one is providing the kind of leadership he did. His death has left a hole. The closest one on this list would be Ralph Winter who, although different, provides the focus on international missions.



o Connections: You can connect the dots between the Fellowship’s Doug Coe, who was in the small group who discipled Chuck Colson after his Watergate-era conversion. Colson hired the current presidential speech writer Michael Gerson right out of Wheaton College to write for him. Richad John Neuhaus and Colson are joined at the ecumenical hip. And James Dobson and Chuck Colson are close friends.



o The Money People: The selection of the Ahmansons is an example of the favoring of those who have Washington influence (big donor to Diane Knippers and her DC group), rather than much more familiar foundations whose funding tends toward evangelism—such as The DeMoss Foundation or the MacClellan Foundation.



o Few Southern Baptists: There are more Roman Catholics on the list than Southern Baptists, by far the largest Protestant denomination. The one prominent Southern Baptist listed is Richard Land, head of the SBC agency that deals with public life and has lots to say on, you guessed it, Washington politics. The Southern Baptist with much broader impact would be Jimmy Draper, who heads the agency, that produces enormous amounts of Christian books, literature, and Sunday school materials, Lifeway.



o The Charismatics: T.D. Jakes, Joyce Meyer, and Steven Strange provide the charismatic balance. I’m relieved that the charismatic-turned-motivational speaker Joel Osteen didn’t make the list.



o The Grahams: Franklin’s influence is derived from the pulpit his father created. But Franklin Graham is doing some good work around the world with Samaritan’s Purse. And his post election comments on the dangers of Christian leaders getting too carried away with political influence were excellent.



o American Worship: Like it or not, Bill Hybels has had more influence than anyone on how the American church conducts its worship, and how to reach those in their neighborhoods who are not coming to church. Rick Warren is also having an influence by changing the way the church thinks and reaches out to others.



o Making Strong Contributions: Stuart Epperson’s Salem Radio is changing Christian radio and making it far more professional. Ted Haggard is bringing the National Association of Evangelicals back from the ashes. Jay Sekulow is an extremely effective barrister on religious freedom.



o Really Smart: Mark Noll and J.I. Packer give the list some additional gravitas. Packer holds up the Reformed end of things. This could have been R.C. Sproul, but Packer is less prickly.



o Left Behind: Never been a big fan of the LaHaye’s or the books.



o Why the Senator?: Rick Santorum is a strong supporter of Christian conservatives, but it seems odd to have this Roman Catholic on a list of evangelicals. Perhaps he’s an evangelical Roman Catholic. A list of influential Roman Catholics friendly to the evangelicals would include Sean Hannity. The Roman Catholic with the most influence on evangelicals in the last year may have been Mel Gibson.



o New To Me: I confess that I’d never heard of David Barton, Luis Cortes, or Brian McLaren.









--James Jewell

Looking at the Heresy of Joel Osteen

Joel Osteen, the pastor of America’s largest church, is preaching about having a better attitude, about being blessed if you’re properly motivated, about doing well financially. There’s one problem. He isn’t preaching about Jesus Christ, and he isn’t preaching the Gospel. Not even a confused Gospel. Sin is never mentioned. Apparently you can attend for weeks without hearing the name Jesus (except as a prayer salutation) from the pulpit.



If half of what Michael Spencer is writing about at Internet Monk is accurate, Osteen is a frightening presence in pop religion. Michael is calling for Osteen to be blogged-out. Check out his research and do some of your own. I know I will.



--James Jewell

Views on the Passion Snub from a Hollywood Insider

In late December, as we considered the events of the year past, I looked at the top ten Christian news trends of 2004. First among them was the success and impact of Mel Gibson’s Passion of the Christ. There was plenty of agreement among analysts who looked at important religious news.



So I was surprised and I suppose dismayed when the Academy Award nominations were released that The Passion was essentially snubbed. It earned three nominations, for cinematography, makeup, and original score. But nothing major.



The Passion had won in the best drama category at the People’s Choice Award. But this was cheapened when it shared top honors with the animated green ogre, Shrek, and the constipated liberal ogre, Michael Moore.



But to be honest, I’m not much of film critic, so I wondered if, perhaps, the movie simply didn’t meet some of the highest standards of the industry. So I asked for the opinion of a long time friend who is one of the most successful evangelical Christian writers and producers in Hollywood (withholding his name because of the politics of Hollywood). He was the producer of one of the most successful television series of the last decade, and has written a number of movies and for many TV programs.



I asked him why he thought The Passion was snubbed by the Academy. He responded:



“A couple of perspectives on the snub.



One, it wasn't completely snubbed. It received 3 nominations, but it definitely was snubbed in the big four categories (writing, directing, acting, best picture).



Two, it would have had to qualify in the foreign film category anyway because it was in a very foreign language, which makes it more difficult to compete for best picture.



Three, the studios engage in incredible gamesmanship to campaign for these nominations. They lobby, they take out expensive, continuous advertisements in the Hollywood trade papers, and they send out free screeners to all members. Mel Gibson made a point of not going out of his way to lobby the industry, and I respect him for it, but I think it cost him some nods. The only thing he did was send out the screeners, but created no profile for the movie in the trades.



There's no doubt that much of the Hollywood community wasn't enamored of the film (except for the studio execs who were blown away by its success), so there was undoubtedly a "protest" non-vote across the board when it came time for nominations, probably fanned by all the anti-Semitism controversy. I personally have met very few people in Hollywood who actually saw the movie. They all just sat back and scratched their heads as the rest of the America turned out in droves.



One thing the film has done in Hollywood is make the money people stand up and take notice. One was Rupert Murdoch at Fox, who called his execs on the carpet and asked them why they passed on "The Passion." They made the excuse that everybody passed and that the movie was a fluke. Murdoch corrected them by saying the audience is not a fluke, and if you build movies for them, they'll come, and he said he wants to see Fox put out more faith-based movies. Fox owns Zondervan, so Murdoch suggested an adaptation of "The Purpose Driven Life," [which is being made].



So, Academy Award or not, Gibson has changed the landscape.”



This friend and former colleague is, by the way, in a small group Bible study with Hugh Hewitt, which should give him some clout here in the blog nation.

--James Jewell

The State of the Union Spectacle

Unlike an inaugural address, it is difficult to make the State of the Union address uplifting and poetic. So when, every four years, the report to the Congress and nation comes so quickly after the Inauguration, the second speech suffers in comparison.



The most interesting elements are the playing out of the spectacle—the performance—and the nuances of human interaction.



Tom Shales, media critic at The Washington Post was watching the speech as a performance, and wrote of the most dramatic moment of the day.



“Bush spoke, inevitably, of the valor of U.S. troops fighting in Iraq with no end in sight, or at least announced, and paid tribute to a fallen Marine from Texas, Sgt. Byron Norwood. Then came the most emotional moment of the evening. Janet and William Norwood, the young man's parents, were also seated in the gallery and stood up to tumultuous and prolonged applause. Janet Norwood hugged the Iraqi voter (one finger purple as a symbol of having voted), and they seemed to get briefly entangled in each other's jewelry as the applause went on.



The president, strikingly, stared up at the balcony with little visible emotion on his face but eyes that appeared to be growing misty. Was this a genuine expression of America appreciating its men and women in uniform, or a shameless political stunt using grief-stricken parents as pawns? As we all know in the age of media moments, it matters less what it was than what it was perceived to be, and to a greater degree than perhaps any other time since he's been in office, Bush appeared to have the perception presidency well in hand.”



The Iraqi citizen emotionally embracing the parents of a fallen deliverer was a powerful symbol of the march of freedom.



The New York Times saw the speech as the launching of George Bush’s two final campaigns:



"One is to persuade Congress and the American people to go along with his plans to remake not just Social Security but also large swaths of other domestic policy along conservative lines through judicial appointments, legislation and executive action. The other is to shape his own place in history as a leader who extended freedom and democracy more broadly into the world even as he unleashed American military might to combat what he had cast as the terrorist threat to those values.”



Of most interest to me were the statements on social morality and the institutions of society:



1. Church and Family as Purveyors of Values

"Our second great responsibility to our children and grandchildren is to honor and to pass along the values that sustain a free society. So many of my generation, after a long journey, have come home to family and faith, and are determined to bring up responsible, moral children. Government is not the source of these values, but government should never undermine them.”



2. The Defense of Marriage

“Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage.”



3. A Culture of Life

"Because a society is measured by how it treats the weak and vulnerable, we must strive to build a culture of life. Medical research can help us reach that goal, by developing treatments and cures that save lives and help people overcome disabilities — and I thank Congress for doubling the funding of the National Institutes of Health. To build a culture of life, we must also ensure that scientific advances always serve human dignity, not take advantage of some lives for the benefit of others. We should all be able to agree on some clear standards. I will work with Congress to ensure that human embryos are not created for experimentation or grown for body parts, and that human life is never bought and sold as a commodity. America will continue to lead the world in medical research that is ambitious, aggressive, and always ethical.”



4. A Conservative Court

“Because courts must always deliver impartial justice, judges have a duty to faithfully interpret the law, not legislate from the bench. As President, I have a constitutional responsibility to nominate men and women who understand the role of courts in our democracy, and are well qualified to serve on the bench — and I have done so. The Constitution also gives the Senate a responsibility: Every judicial nominee deserves an up-or-down vote.”



5. Compassionate Conservatism

“Because one of the deepest values of our country is compassion, we must never turn away from any citizen who feels isolated from the opportunities of America. Our government will continue to support faith-based and community groups that bring hope to harsh places. Now we need to focus on giving young people, especially young men in our cities, better options than apathy, or gangs, or jail. Tonight I propose a three-year initiative to help organizations keep young people out of gangs, and show young men an ideal of manhood that respects women and rejects violence. Taking on gang life will be one part of a broader outreach to at-risk youth, which involves parents and pastors, coaches and community leaders, in programs ranging from literacy to sports. And I am proud that the leader of this nationwide effort will be our First Lady, Laura Bush.”



Mr. Bush is in charge. You could hear in his voice and see in his eyes the recognition that at no other time, except perhaps in the weeks after Sept.11, has he wielded such power to keep alive the American dream.

--James Jewell