Over the weekend, Glenn Beck held a rally on the National Mall at the steps of the Lincoln Memorial. The political left, of course, hated every minute of it. Russell Moore, Dean of the School of Theology and Senior Vice-President for Academic Administration at The Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, though, was unimpressed for other reasons and posted this very thought-provoking article on the event. It’s so chock full of great quotes that if I tried to sample them, I’d likely end up pasting the entire article, so head over to russellmoore.com and read the entire article yourself. I will, though, at the risk of “ruining” it for you, quote his closer, because it’s a good one:

It’s sad to see so many Christians confusing Mormon politics or American nationalism with the gospel of Jesus Christ. But, don’t get me wrong, I’m not pessimistic. Jesus will build his church, and he will build it on the gospel. He doesn’t need American Christianity to do it. Vibrant, loving, orthodox Christianity will flourish, perhaps among the poor of Haiti or the persecuted of Sudan or the outlawed of China, but it will flourish.

And there will be a new generation, in America and elsewhere, who will be ready for a gospel that is more than just Fox News at prayer.

Feel free to comment below.

Maggie Gallagher, a tireless defender of traditional (or, shall we say, real) marriage, has a post by that title in response to Ben Smith’s assertion that it is. For the impatient, she says it is not for these reasons:

1. Nothing is inevitable.
2. Young people are not as unanimous as most people think.
3. The argument from despair is bait and switch.
4. Progressives are often wrong about the future.
5. Demography could be destiny.
6. Change is inevitable.
7. Newsflash: 18-year-olds can be wrong.
8. New York’s highest court was right.

Read the whole post here for the details.

Mike Adams has a great piece on an often controversial topic: what to wear to church: Sunday’s Breast.

I hate to link to a gossip article, but in a recent article in the gossip section of the NY Daily News, Brad Pitt, when asked if he believes in a “higher power” emphatically, says “no.” Here’s the quote from the article:

I’m probably 20 percent atheist and 80 percent agnostic. I don’t think anyone really knows. You’ll either find out or not when you get there, until then there’s no point thinking about it.

His last sentence strikes as a very dangerous stance to take. If he’s right, and there is no God, then he dies, his consciousness ends, and he’s OK. If he’s wrong, though, then he’s going to come face to face with a god of some sort. Or many, for the sake of argument. If this god (or gods) judges on actions, then perhaps he’ll be fine. Maybe this deity doesn’t really care, say, and sends him back in another body, then, again, perhaps he’s OK. But, if we Christians are right, that there is a God, that sin is a real problem, that God will judge and punish sin, that Jesus paid that penalty for us on the cross and that we must place our faith in Him, then Pitt is in real trouble. He won’t be able to point to all the children he and the woman that’s not his wife that he lives adopted. He won’t be able to point to any charity work he’s done. As with everyone else, The Lord will look only at how Pitt stands in relation to Jesus Christ. If there’s no relationship there, then there will be no mercy, and Brad Pitt will be held culpable for his sins.

If all of that’s true, and I’m convinced it is, then the time to worry about is now. Post-modern, wishy-washy thoughts on the existence of God are worthless when you’re standing at the judgment seat, so, Mr. Pitt, with all due respect, now is the perfect time to think about the existence of God.

In a recent speech on the floor of the US Senate, Senator Jim DeMint (R, SC) made a great, principle speech on why the GIVE Act (HR 1388). While there are many great, political reasons to oppose this boondoggle, one of the provisions of the bill that bothers me the most is this:

SEC. 1304. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
Section 125 (42 U.S.C. 12575) is amended to read as follows:
SEC. 125. PROHIBITED ACTIVITIES AND INELIGIBLE ORGANIZATIONS.
(a) Prohibited Activities- A participant in an approved national service position under this subtitle may not engage in the following activities:
[SNIP!]
(7) Engaging in religious instruction, conducting worship services, providing instruction as part of a program that includes mandatory religious instruction or worship, constructing or operating facilities devoted to religious instruction or worship, maintaining facilities primarily or inherently devoted to religious instruction or worship, or engaging in any form of religious proselytization.

The way I understand that is this: If, say, your son gets a federally subsidized student loan, he will be compelled to enter a period of public service. However (above and beyond Senator DeMint’s excellent case against government-mandated volunteerism), your son will not be able to choose as his service anything that might spring from his personal faith. Want to help out at your local denomination-sponsored boys’ home? Too bad. If the name of Jesus (or Jehovah, Allah, etc, to be fair) happens to be mentioned by the group you’d like to serve, they are enjoined from receiving any GIVE help. The message, then, is that you can help, but only if you’re humanistic or atheistic in whom you want to help. To force someone to “volunteer” is bad enough¹, but then to deny them their rights of free speech and exercise of religion is beyond the pale.

The government intrusion into private life and the erosion of personal rights continues apace, and the band plays on.

(h/t Michelle Malkin)

¹ The “volunteering” here is, indeed, forced. I can think of no other instance where one gets a loan and is forced to perform some sort of service. I certainly don’t pull weeds for my mortgage company.

Peter Jones recently attended the National Pastors’ Conference, sponsored by Zondervan and Intervarsity Press. In a brief report filed at truthXchange, he describes what Michael Horton (whom he mentions in post) so aptly dubs “Christless Christianity¹.” The report is not a good one.

(Hat tip to Brandon Dutcher)

¹ Dr. Horton uses the term “Christless Christianity” to describe that “flavor” of Christianity that likes to talk about being nice to people, etc., but avoids discussion of Christ, who he was, why he came, why we need him, etc. It’s a nice, catchy phrase that embodies the rebirth of the Social Gospel, in which salvation through Christ has been all but completely removed (and in some cases, no longer “all but”) from any teachings and we focus on making people like us. Dr. Horton probably has a better description of his term, but that’s my take on it from what I’ve heard him say. Dr. Horton podcasts regularly at the White Horse Inn if you’d like to hear more.

Interesting article on National Review Online today. It begins:

“For the first time since Jimmy Carter ran for the White House in 1976, large numbers of evangelical and Catholic voters pulled the Democratic lever in a presidential election. Last week, Pres. Barack Obama decided to reverse a policy that prohibits U.S. tax dollars from funding abortion providers overseas.”

“How to square the two? Some younger Christians probably saw it coming: Obama’s campaign emphasized social-justice issues like overcoming racism, combating poverty, and tackling global issues like AIDS, and for them, this agenda trumped abortion. For others, however, the new policy is a betrayal: While courting the evangelical and Catholic vote on the campaign trail, Obama also promised to reduce the number of abortions.”

Though I chose to start out neutral and/or favorable to him, this one major policy switch (and the disloyalty to his campaign rhetoric it represents) is why I cannot in good conscience approve of the job Obama is doing. Read more of the piece here.

President-elect Barack Obama ignited a firestorm of controversy with some by allowing Rick Warren to voice a prayer during his inauguration. More controversial, I think, though certainly less-covered, is a similar selection of homosexual Episcopal priest Gene Robinson. Matt Barber, director of cultural affairs with Liberty Counsel and associate dean with Liberty University School of Law, discusses this selection in his short but poignant column, “Obama betrays Christian voters.” He makes a really good point, with some really good zingers (“After that comment, I wonder if he heard a rooster crow.”). It’s a short piece, so I’d encourage you to read it, and by all means, pray for our next president, and pray for Gene Robinson.

In a not quite accurately titled article (I would expect the top pro-abortion moment to be Obama’s election ; ), American Life League has an interesting, if not depressing, run down of some the more appalling quotes from pro-abortion advocates in 2008. You can see the whole list here, but I’d like to point one out in particular:

Comedian Doug Stanhope

These are not empty words. I, Doug Stanhope, am offering you, Bristol Palin, the sum of $25,000 so that you can abort your child and move out of that draconian home. I have also set up a PayPal link so that others around the world can help increase this amount to ease the burden of starting out on your own at such an early age.

While it’s a pretty despicable comment, what I find interesting is how he phrased things: “..abort your unborn child…” In making the statement, he seems to be implicitly accepting the pro-life stance that the unborn is indeed a human child, but still offers to pay to kill it. Pretty chilling.

As you’ve likely heard by now, John McCain has chosen a running mate, Alaska Governor Sarah Palin.  You’ve also likely heard that she has several children, the youngest of which, Trig Palin, has Down’s Syndrome.  Have you heard, though, the new depths to which the main stream media (MSM) have gone to tear down Gov. Palin?  James Taranto has, and he’s not happy:

Fowler uses Palin’s motherhood to disparage her accomplishments, an obvious betrayal of the principle of women’s equality. And although proponents of permissive abortion laws nearly always claim to support not abortion but “a woman’s right to choose,” here we have three of them rebuking Palin for choosing not to abort her baby.

So a woman has the right to choose, as long as she chooses to abort her baby.  Their true colors finally shine.