Being a Father to the Fatherless

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

LISTEN NOW: [audio:http://www.thechristianworldview.com/audio/TCW062009pod_hour2.mp3]

Guest: Mike Gottfried

If you had to identify one single contributing factor to the decline of American culture – immorality, crime, divorce, dependency on government, etc. – you could point to the national epidemic of the fatherless home.

While 80% of the “post-war generation” spent their entire childhood with both parents in the home, only 50% will do so today.  Today, about 24 million children live in homes where their natural father does not live.

The results of the fatherless home are staggering – 63% of youth suicides, 85% of behavioral disorders, 71% of high school dropouts, 70% of youth prison inmates, and 85% or all prison inmates come from fatherless homes.

These statistics come from Mike Gottfried’s book, Coach’s Challenge: Faith, Football, and Filling the Fatherhood Gap.  A football coach, ESPN commentator, and my guest this weekend in Hour 2, Mike is president of Team Focus, a community outreach ministry that mentors boys without functional fathers.

A Father’s Counsel to Sons

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

LISTEN NOW: [audio:http://www.thechristianworldview.com/audio/TCW062009pod_hour1.mp3]

Guest: David’s Dad

Father’s Day Weekend is upon us and that means it’s time for the annual Father’s Day program on The Christian Worldview where I interview my 77-year-old father, Bruce Wheaton.

Married for 55 years, the father of four and grandfather to six, my dad has been a stable and wise influence on our family.  A mechanical engineer by trade and a do-it-yourself kind of man, my father, most importantly, has been a follower of Jesus Christ for 50 years.

This Saturday on my wedding day, I will ask my dad about what advice he would give to younger men on a variety of topics – singleness, marriage, fatherhood, career, faith, and more.  I will be listening closely and hope you will too.

Weekend Analysis: War is the Likely Outcome of the Iranian “Elections”

UPDATED MONDAY MORNING: The Supreme Leader of Iran has spoken. It’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad by a “landslide.” This means a major, cataclysmic war is the most likely outcome of the Iranian “elections.” And the battle lines are clear. It’s Netanyahu vs. Ahmadinejad — Bibi vs. Mahmoud — and the big question is: Who will strike first?

This weekend’s events in Iran tell us a lot.

First, the results prove that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei firmly, completely and whole-heartedly supports Ahmadinejad’s End Times beliefs. Khamenei also fully supports Ahmadinejad’s commitment to build nuclear weapons and long-range, high-speed ballistic missiles. What’s more, the Supreme Leader supports Ahmadinejad’s public commitment to destroy Israel and the U.S. to hasten the coming of the Mahdi. There is no daylight between Khamenei and Ahmadinejad on this Radical “eschatology,” or End Times theology, as some analysts and commentators have suggested. These two men are who I have said all along they are – members of an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult. They are kindred spirits. They are two peas in a pod. They are absolutely committed to their cause. They believe the wind is at their backs, that Allah is on their side, and they believe they will soon see complete victory. That’s what makes them so dangerous.

Second, the results prove that the people of Iran never had a real choice. This wasn’t a real election. It was totally and completely rigged by a Radical Muslim mafia, a police state without justice or compassion for those enslaved. The aftermath became, as one Iranian noted over the weekend, a Tehran Tiananmen. Protesters and dissidents were beaten, arrested and tortured. Text messaging was turned off. Facebook was shut down. The internet was down or slowed for vast stretches. All this prevents ordinary citizens from mobilizing their opposition to the government. That said, however, the massive turnout at the polls – and the street demonstrations and violence in Iran over the weekend — showed that even though Iranians didn’t have real Reformer candidates to choose from, the vast Iranians are deeply disgusted with the current regime. They long for true freedom and true democracy. They desperately wanted the elections to be real. They are ABA — anybody but Ahmadinejad. They don’t buy into the regime’s End Times theology. They desperately want someone to liberate them. I feel for them. I want them to be free. Now more than ever. [MOST BIZARRE HEADLINE OF THE DAY: Iran's supreme leader orders probe of vote fraud]

Third, the results prove that the Obama administration’s belief that you can sit down and have a rational discussion with such Radicals — or trust an agreement even if one could be negotiated with them – is absolutely nonsensical. How could we possibly trust the Iranian leadership to keep a promise to stop building nuclear weapons (if such a promise were made), when they steal elections and beat and torture dissidents in front of the whole world? The Obama administration should treat Khamenei and Ahmadinejad as pariahs now. The White House should praise the young people of Iran, the pro-democracy forces in Iran, the forces of freedom in Iran. And the President should condemn the Iranian government has totalitarian theocratic thugs, not offer to engage them. Not offer them concessions. Not reward such evil behavior. Why has the President been silent? Vice President Biden on Meet the Press yesterday at least challenged the legitimacy of the elections. That’s something. But why didn’t he say the weekend’s events in Iran just prove the leadership in Tehran are part of the axis of evil?

Fourth, as for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech, he is right: Iran is the real threat to the region and the world, not Israel’s refusal to make more land for missiles concessions to the Palestinian leadership. Bibi’s assessment of the current Iranian regime is spot on, while the White House’s assessment has been exactly wrong. The real, existential threat to peace in the epicenter is Iran’s death cult leadership and their feverish pursuit of nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them, not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Netanyahu was right to smoke out the real intentions of the Palestinian leadership and the Muslim leadership as a whole in the region. By agreeing that there could be a Palestinian state and then defining one that would truly be peaceful, Netanyahu shrewdly shifted the terms of the debate. He provoked a firestorm of criticism from the Arab and Muslim world, who are denouncing the speech in the harshest of terms. Which makes things crystal clear: Israel’s enemies don’t really want peace with Israel at this time. They don’t really want to recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Thus they don’t really believe in “two states for two peoples.” What’s more, they don’t believe the putative Palestinian state should be demilitarized. Thus, they believe in a Palestinian state that would threaten the very existence of Israel. Why should Israel say “yes” to that? Israel gave land for peace in 2000 — withdrawing from southern Lebanon. What did it get? More than 4,000 rockets and missiles from the Iran-backed Hezbollah. Israel gave land for peace in 2005 — withdrawing from all of Gaza. What did it get? More than 10,000 rockets, missiles and mortars from the Iran-backed Hamas. Israel even offered in 2000 to divide Jerusalem and give the Palestinians about 93% of the West Bank and all of Gaza. What did Israel get in exchange? Arafat’s utter rejection of the offer and a wave of suicide bombers and other terrorist attacks. Upon what basis, then, would Israel be able to trust another land for peace deal in the near future?

Fifth, we need to pray for peace, but prepare for war. Our Joshua Fund board met over the weekend for several days of strategic prayer and planning meetings. At this point, we see our mandate clearly: Do everything we can to educate, awaken and mobilize the followers of Jesus Christ to pray for peace, and do everything we can prepare for war in case the Lord allows a cataclysmic battle ensue between Israel and Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. We are working on building the organizational and financial infrastructure to eventually provide $100 million worth of food, clothing, medical supplies and other relief aid to Israel, and another $20 million to Israel’s immediate neighbors. This will take time and much effort. It’s not clear how quickly we can achieve this goal, but I believe we are moving in the right direction. We’ve expanded our budget this year (In 2006, TJF’s budget was $160,000. This year, it is about $5.7 million.) We’ve increased the size of our staff (from 1 in 2006 to 4 full time employees today). We are actively recruiting several new staff positions. We’re working with our financial services provider to expand their capacity for receiving and processing donations. We’re working to improve our communications to our donors so we can do a still-better job at briefing them on the projects we’re doing and how we’re investing the resources they’ve entrusted to us. We’re recruiting more prayer partners. We’re building more government and civilian allies in Israel and the region. We’re working to build more allies  among evangelical pastors and ministry leaders in North America and beyond. We’re also taking up to 300 evangelical leaders and lay people to Israel in November for a “prayer & vision trip.” And, as the Lord gives us grace, strength and resources, we will do more to help followers of Christ “learn, pray, give and go.” This is a critical moment. The threat is real. The time is short. We would be grateful for your continued prayers and support in the weeks and months ahead. God bless you.

Adventures Among the Twitterati — Why Use Twitter?

Some would argue that Twitter hit the big leagues long ago, but the cover of TIME magazine is the ultimate sign that Twitter has arrived at the forefront of our cultural conversation.  As TIME managing editor Richard Stengel commented, Twitter and other social networks “are changing the way we communicate and live.”

According to recent reports, Twitter may have over 12 million users by year-end.  Facebook, by contrast, has almost 200 million users.  But, like some earlier technologies and platforms, Twitter seems to have reached a transformational moment.  The question seems to have shifted from “Why do you use Twitter?” to “Why not?.”

Most commentary about social media looks like cheerleading.  There is no shortage of voices ready to predict that this or that technology will rule the world and that those who opt out will be — to use a phrase evangelicals will recognize — left behind.

Believe it or not, there are faithful Christians who do not even use a computer.  There are pastors who are still using nothing but books, pencils, pens, and paper.  God love them, they are probably not as distracted as the rest of us.  Hold on, I need to post a Tweet.

Ok, back.  We need to be very careful that we do not become overly enamored with any technology.  As observers like Jacques Ellul and Neil Postman reminded us, our technologies shape our lives perhaps more than we realize.  As followers of Christ, Christians have a special stake in this, for everything must come down to what most honors God and serves the Kingdom.

Can Twitter serve the Kingdom?  Can a technology that limits users to 140 characters be used for anything meaningful?  Is my time well spent reading about what someone had for breakfast?  Is all this an exercise in communal narcissism?  Well, my answer is evident in my own use of Twitter.  I find the advantages to outweigh the dangers by far.

Let’s admit the obvious — much of what we read in Twitter is useless, at least from an informational point of view.  It is not the place to find the deepest moral, theological, and spiritual reflection.  On the other hand, it can be used to point to more substantial offerings on the Web.  Like any medium, it is only as worthy as its users.  There is the potential to do great harm and the responsibility to do great good, but this is true of almost any technology.  The potential to do good or evil did not appear only with the Internet.

Is Twitter just a fad?  The specific platform may change, but TIME’s Steven B. Johnson answers that question quite well:

Social networks are notoriously vulnerable to the fickle tastes of teens and 20-somethings (remember Friendster?), so it’s entirely possible that three or four years from now, we’ll have moved on to some Twitter successor. But the key elements of the Twitter platform — the follower structure, link-sharing, real-time searching — will persevere regardless of Twitter’s fortunes, just as Web conventions like links, posts and feeds have endured over the past decade. In fact, every major channel of information will be Twitterfied in one way or another in the coming years.

We can see this happening already.  In one sense, anyone who can say something meaningful in 140 characters on Twitter can probably learn to use that skill elsewhere.

I use Twitter because I find it to be a powerful (if sometimes perplexing) means of connecting.  I am able to pass things along and make some points to people who I would otherwise never reach.  I hope this makes a Great Commission impact and serves a wholesome Kingdom purpose.  I’ll quickly admit something else — Twitter can be fun.  In a life of serious endeavor, that is no small gift.  I like how technology writer Clive Thompson defines the experience of Twitter –  “ambient awareness.”

Twitter has changed my prayer life.  More than any development in years, Twitter helps me to know what is going on in the lives of many friends and people far beyond.  I have known how to pray in many specific ways.  I have rejoiced with friends and have grieved with others.  Priceless.

I also let folks know what I am doing and thinking as I can.  When I see something interesting that is tweet-worthy, I pass it along.  I appreciate when others do the same. I can let my friends, students, and board members know what is going on in my life and ministry, if they care to follow on Twitter.  Facebook limits that reach to 5,000 — and I struggle with the decisions that forces.  Twitter relieves me of that burden.  Anyone can follow.  All are welcome.

I do not believe that Twitter belongs in worship, but it does belong among the people of God.  Tweet before and after a service of worship.  Every once in a while, take a break.  You really can share a great deal in a tweet.  On the other hand, some things cannot be reduced to 140 characters of text.  So don’t try. Tweet on.

Pondering the Murder of a Murderer

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

LISTEN NOW: [audio:http://www.thechristianworldview.com/audio/TCW061309pod_hour2.mp3]

Dr. George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country who performed abortions in the last three months of a woman’s pregnancy, was recently shot and killed in the foyer of ReformationLutheranChurch in Wichita, Kansas, where he served as an usher.

There has been outrage from the political left and abortion supporters that this act of “terrorism” is an indication of a larger problem of violence and hate from the anti-abortion community.

Condemnation of the murder of Dr. Tiller has also come from evangelical leaders and abortion opponents who say that vigilantism hurts the pro-life cause.

In Hour 2 of The Christian Worldview, we’ll “ponder the murder of a murderer” and take phone calls on your reaction to this recent event.

Lessons from Singleness and Engagement

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

LISTEN NOW: [audio:http://www.thechristianworldview.com/audio/TCW061309pod_hour1.mp3]

Next Saturday, June 20th is my wedding day. Life is always changing but certainly the transition from singleness to marriage is one of the most significant changes in life. During 40 years of singleness, God has been teaching me many things that I needed to know and apply before this next step of marriage. Sometimes I’ve listened and obeyed; sometimes it’s taken me a little longer to “get it.”

In Hour 1 this Saturday on The Christian Worldview, I will share with you the story of how my fiancée Brodie and I went from singleness to engagement and also many of the lessons I have been learning along the way that just might help and encourage those who are navigating the single life.

“Where Do All the Colors Go at Night?” — Children and the Need for Silence

One of the most lamentable aspects of modern life is the disappearance of silence. Throughout most of human history, silence has been a part of life. Many individuals lived a significant portion of their lives in silence, working in solitude and untroubled by the intrusion of constant noise.

Historians often point to the Industrial Revolution as a great turning point in the human experience of environmental sound and constant noise. The arrival of the factory and the concentration of human populations in cities bought a transformation that was accompanied by increased noise and the displaced silence. Today, the problem of noise pollution is a matter of concern to many of us, who find our lives frequently interrupted by unwanted sounds and constant noise.

Our culture now assumes noise and the constant availability of music, electronic chatter, and entertainment. In many homes, there is virtually no silence — at least during waking hours. In some homes, family members live in isolated environments of independent sound, with iPods, televisions, radios, and any number of other technologies providing a customized experience of noise.

All this takes a toll upon the soul. Psychologists argue that the development of individual identity requires extended periods of solitude, reflection, and silence. The Christian tradition has honored silence as a matter of spiritual discipline and an intentional effort to flee the noise of everyday life in order to hear what that noise cannot supply.

If this is true for adults, it is perhaps even more true for children. But today’s children are often subjected to a constant barrage of noise. Many are raised as to the soundtrack of the television or other form of entertainment. Some parents seem to fear silence and do their best to make certain that children are never without some form of sound.

Writing in the June issue of Standpoint, Susan Hill argues that our children are being impoverished by being deprived of silence. We have betrayed children, she asserts, by “confiscating their silence.” As she explains:

But so difficult has it become to find such oases of silence, that many children never experience it. In adapting to constant noise, we seem to have become afraid of silence. Why? Are we afraid of what we will discover when we come face to face with ourselves there? Perhaps there will be nothing but a great void, nothing within us, and nothing outside of us either. Terrifying. Let’s drown our fears out with some noise, quickly.

Most of us will quickly realize the truth contained in her assessment. It seems that many of us are, to a greater or lesser degree, almost afraid of silence. Our children quickly inherit the same fear.

In “Silence, Please,” Susan Hill describes the delights of silence in a way that beautifully captures what so many have lost:

In a quiet library, the turning of a page, the scratch of pencil on paper, are separate, distinctive, sounds. They identify themselves to us, they have a personality. They are beautiful. It is not only natural sounds that gain a richness set in the context of silence — all sounds do. To deprive ourselves and our children of the ability to distinguish such aural detail is to diminish our sensory life.

As Susan Hill acknowledges, complete silence is very difficult to achieve. Her goal is not to see children experience an artificial silence, but instead to see children experience the natural sounds that come as gifts — sounds that require turning off the television to hear.

“Our children are too rarely given that opportunity or taught that the contrast between noise and quietness, like the parallel one between being in company and being alone, is vital to the growth and maturity of the individual,” she explains. This growth and maturity, cultivated by silence, is essential to education — both of the mind and the soul. Reading, writing, analysis, and reflection require some level of silence. Many children, particularly teenagers, are shortchanging their education by developing a dependence on noise, even when studying (or what they call studying).

The life of the mind and the shaping of the soul require the ability to hear, recognize, and understand what would be lost in a cacophony of sound. She expresses this beautifully:

If children do not learn to focus and concentrate in a pool of quietness, their minds become fragmented and their temperaments irritable, their ability to absorb knowledge and sift it, grade it and evaluate it do not develop fully. Reading a book quietly, watching a raindrop slide slowly down a windowpane or a ladybird crawl up a leaf, trying to hear the sound of a cat breathing when it is asleep, asking strange questions, such as, “Where do all the colors go at night?” and speculating about the possible answers — all of these are best done in silence where the imagination can flourish and the intricate minutiae of the world around us can be examined with the greatest concentration.

Where do all the colors go at night? All of us, what ever our age, need the gift of silence so that we can ponder such questions — and hear what constant noise denies us.

What To Watch For During The Iranian Elections Friday

President Obama has launched five major initiatives to reach out to Muslims in general and Iranians in particular since taking office. But disturbing new evidence suggests the President’s strategy is not working. Indeed, a new poll finds America’s favorable ratings among Iranians has actually gone down significantly since Obama took office. “Just 29 percent of Iranians said they have favorable views of the United States in the latest poll, which was conducted last month,” reports the Associated Press. “In a similar survey in February 2008 — nearly a year before Barack Obama became president — 34 percent had positive opinions about the U.S.” What’s more, Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Ayatollah Khamenei, responded to the President’s speech in Cairo last week by noting that Muslims hate the  U.S. from the bottoms of their hearts.

What’s happening? Why were we more popular in Iran when George W. Bush was in office? Because President Bush told the truth. He didn’t kowtow to the Radicals in Tehran. He accurately described them as members of the “axis of evil.” President Obama, by contrast, keeps apologizing about American shortcomings — real and perceived — and keeps beseeching Iran’s Radicals to please, please come to the table and talk to us. Iranians by and large hate their government for lying to them and enslaving them and destroying their economy and their children’s future. They don’t respect Western leaders who legitimize the tyrants who oppress them, plain and simple.

That said, keep your eye on Khamenei this week. When Iranians go to the polls on Friday, the big question will be whether the Supreme Leader believes President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has outlived his usefulness to the regime. Both men share a Radical, apocalptic, genocidal, Shia Muslim world view. Both believe the end of the world is at hand, the Islamic Messiah’s arrival on earth is “imminent,” and that annihilating the U.S. and Israel are central objectives to hastening the Mahdi’s arrival. Up until now, Khamenei has supported Ahmadinejad as the face and voice of such views. Does he still? We’re about to find out. The elections on June 12th are rigged. If Ahmadinejad is reelected, that will be seen as an affirmation that the Persian Hitler known as Ahmadinejad is still the valued “front man” for the Supreme Leader. If someone else wins, we’ll have to watch closely to see if that presages a mere p.r. face lift — Apocalypse Lite — or suggests an actual, fundamental shift away from Radical Shia eschatology. Right now,  I’m expecting Ahmadinejad to win. But I really don’t know how this will play out. Anything is possible. Should be an interesting few days for everyone in the epicenter. Keep praying.

Moral Reasoning in Light of Wichita

[NOTE:   This column ran in The Chicago Tribune in yesterday's edition (read it here). I wrote this editorial column in the aftermath of the murder of Dr. George Tiller. An extended note is found at the end of the column, dealing with the arguments found in the essay.]

The murder of Dr. George Tiller presents America with yet another reminder of the violence that exists within our midst.  This is not the way the pro-life movement wanted Dr. Tiller’s life to end.  Our mission is to convince Americans of the sanctity of every human life—born and unborn.  The murder of Dr. Tiller does not serve that cause.

George Tiller was one of the most recognized abortion doctors in America.  This nation has known few doctors who would perform the late-term abortions for which Dr. Tiller was infamous.  He was known for his willingness to perform almost any abortion—even to abort babies that would safely survive outside the womb.  He saw himself as a champion of women’s rights.  To others, he was an agent of death who was personally responsible for the deaths of thousands of unborn human beings.

The murder of Dr. Tiller was a grotesque denial of the sanctity of human life.  This is not a cause that can be served by violence in any form.  The abortion procedures employed by Dr. Tiller are horribly violent.  Proponents of abortion want to keep the nation’s attention diverted from what abortion really means—and especially from what happens in a late-term abortion.

That violence is what we desperately want to see end.  For this reason, the violence that was murderously deployed in Wichita requires us to be first in line to make clear that violence in the womb will never be overcome by means of violence outside the womb.  Dr. Tiller’s murderer has blood on his hands, and he has bloodied the cause of human life and human dignity.

As many press reports have made clear, the pro-life movement is predominantly Christian, mainly led by committed Catholics and conservative Evangelicals.  The Christian tradition claims a rich tradition of moral reasoning.  The sanctity of human life and our duty to defend the innocent comes within a context of respect for the rule of law and the acknowledgment that it is the duty of government to use its own means to protect life and to serve justice.  Nothing in the Christian moral tradition justifies the act of murdering an abortionist.  There is no justification for taking the law into our own hands and arrogating to ourselves the rightful role of government as exercised through its laws, courts, and institutions of state.

In 1943, Dietrich Bonhoeffer was arrested for his opposition to the Nazi regime.  The Lutheran pastor, a prominent leader in the anti-Nazi Confessing Church, had been involved in espionage and an attempt to assassinate Adolf Hitler.  This pastor and theologian sought to defy the regime that was murdering the Jewish people and destroying human life with homicide on an unprecedented scale.  Bonhoeffer acted in defense of human life, and for this he was executed in the Flossenburg prison camp in the final days of World War II.

Dietrich Bonhoeffer opposed abortion with full force.  In his Ethics he explained:  “The simple fact is that God had certainly intended to create a human being and that this nascent human being has been deprived of his life.  And that is nothing but murder.”

When it came to defying Hitler’s regime, Bonhoeffer saw that several excruciating moral questions were on “the borderland” and could not be settled with absolute certainty.  Eventually, he was convinced that the Nazi regime was beyond moral correction and no longer legitimate.  Christians, he then saw, bore a responsibility to oppose the regime at every level and to seek its demise. He acted in defense of life and was finally willing to use violence to that end.

America is not Nazi Germany.  George Tiller, though bearing the blood of thousands of unborn children on his hands, was not Adolf Hitler.  The murderer of Dr. George Tiller is no Dietrich Bonhoeffer.  Dr. Tiller’s murderer did not serve the cause of life; he assaulted that cause at its moral core.

There is no justification for this murder, and it is the responsibility of everyone who cherishes life and honors human dignity to declare this without equivocation or hesitation.

For years now, this great nation has been engaged in a great and heart-rending debate over abortion.  For the first time since Roe v Wade, polls now indicate that a majority of Americans are pro-life.  This issue is far from settled, but even as the pro-life movement seeks to work within the political process in defense of life, our greater task is to reach hearts and minds toward the goal that no woman would seek an abortion.  The murder in Wichita makes that challenge more difficult.

The horrible lesson of Wichita is this:  Those who would use violence do not serve the Culture of Life.  They are agents of the Culture of Death.

_____________________

NOTE:  I deal with the Bonhoeffer issue in this essay because I have received so many questions about the historical analogy.  So many readers are familiar with Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s decision to take action against Hitler.  Fewer are familiar with the moral and theological reasoning that led Bonhoeffer, quite reluctantly, to this conclusion.  Even then, Bonhoeffer was not certain he was acting rightly.  He felt that this decision, made under extreme moral conditions, was the best he could understand.

Other readers have seen the film “Valkyrie,” and jump to some of the same conclusions.  We must realize that Bonhoeffer did not come to his decision to resort to violence against the regime out of a moral vacuum.  He and his brothers and sisters in the Confessing Church had long before come to the conclusion that they must oppose the Nazi regime in totality, risking imprisonment and far worse.  It is nothing less than embarrassing to see American Christians make arguments citing Bonhoeffer while they fail to engage his moral and theological reasoning — and when arguments are based in sloppy analogies from a position of cultural comfort.

Christians and Muslims: Connection or Collision?

Podcast: Download (8.7MB)

LISTEN NOW: [audio:http://www.thechristianworldview.com/audio/TCW060609pod_hour2.mp3]

President Obama gave a major speech to the Muslim world in Egypt on Thursday where he spoke of the shared values and principles of Islam and America.  A professing Christian, Obama referred to the Muslim religious text as the “Holy Koran” and cited his own extensive personal background with Islam.

In Hour 2 of The Christian Worldview this Saturday, we’ll interpret some of the key passages of Obama’s speech and ask the question: Should a professing Christian commend another religion in an effort to foster national and personal peace and cooperation?  In an effort to evangelize Muslims, should Christians try to find common ground or point out key differences?  And, is there such thing as a “Christian Muslim”?

Next Page »