It's basic demonic advice, and few of us would need much explanation. Someone ought to add that's there's no good reason to stop at two separate lives. Three, four, five or fifteen separate lives are all possible if you learn the basics of compartmentalizing.

Yes, that's a fifty cent word: compartmentalizing. Taking a whole life, dividing it into sections, putting up walls between those sections and living in each one as a different world that allows you to be a different person.

I'm not talking about multiple personalities. I'm simply saying that Screwtape was wise to point out that we often live in one room- and with the people in that room- as if the other rooms don't exist.

I look at my students, and I realize that we are constantly training them to live in various compartments as different people. Integration, integrity and wholeness in all of life are very difficult. We construct a student's life in such a way that it's extremely easy to imagine that compartmentalization is normal and good.

Activity after activity. Class after class. Different adults. Different peers. Different settings. The person who can move easily from one relationship and experience to another is rewarded. The person who has difficulty adopting these many different roles into one personality is looked at as inferior. We give awards for "versatility."

I've noticed over the years that teenagers and young adults who are successful easily develop a kind of false and movable personality. It's useful, and it's one of the reasons they do well and we like them. But if you listen to their stories, their poetry and their self-reporting, you hear the consistent complaint: I am a false person; I am living a life that is not truly me.

We're very invested in compartmentalizing who we are. It works. It's safe. It keeps us away from what hurts. And, of course, it's disastrous in the long run.

Years ago, I heard that one of my friends had discovered her husband was married and had children with another woman in another community. This was a man who came to our church quite often. He was a successful businessman. He had a good reputation and never seemed the least bit unusual.

He was, however, a man who looked at himself in the morning, realized he was two people, realized he was heading for judgment day with a life full of lies, then he shaved and went to work. He did this over and over, and as far as I know, was very good at what he did.

The compartments in his life were well sealed. Whatever master plan it took to juggle all the various versions of himself, I doubt that he ever laid them all out on the table. No, one lie at a time. One room, one compartment , at a time.

I want to steadfastly refuse this insidious and compromising temptation to build my life as a collection of rooms that have nothing to do with one another. I am watching it in the lives of others, and it's frightening. I've seen it over time in my own life and it's poison.

Do you refuse to take seriously what the Bible actually says and doesn't say? Then build a room where the Bible doesn't matter as much as your general ideas of Christianity. Does your version of Christianity refuse all critiques and evaluations? Then build a room where your religion is flawless. Do you want to conveniently divide the world into the good people who nod and smile and the bad people who ask questions? Then build another room.

Build a room for your money. Build one for your porn addiction. Build one for your flirtations and affairs. Build one for cheating, greed and racism. Build a room where your rudeness, laziness and dishonesty don't matter. Build one for your ambitious, backbiting and betrayals of co-workers. Build a room where you get to see your children the way you want to see them, not the way they are. Build a room that exactly fits your church, then lock the doors. Build a room for your politicians and their worldview. Build a room that controls whatever you want to hear and protects whatever conclusions you are unwilling to ever question.

Screwtape says that those parallel lives are usually best maintained with an aversion to "Puritanism," i.e. religion that actually takes the Gospel seriously, and with a large dose of vanity. In other words, if it feels goods, results in praise, approval and pleasure, let's build a compartment for it. Once built, don't let something like the presence of the Holy Spirit make you feel bad.

Or let me suggest another project. Instead of building more rooms, why not tear some things down? Tear out some walls. Become, as much as possible, one person, in one life, for one audience.

When Jesus calls his disciples to inevitable conflict with family or the authorities of the world, he is inviting us to live one life, and not two or three or fifteen. he is asking us to repent of all the rooms we've build and to make this world- the Lord's "House"- the one room we live in as one person.

The community of Jesus shouldn't promote and encourage our multi-compartmentalized existence, but often it is a primary facilitator of exactly that. I've watched more students learn to have a false persona at church than I care to recall. But they received permission and instruction from a community of adults- including leaders- who were afraid to ever live the same life before everyone in one room.

The stories of what happens to Christians as they flame out in notorious sin or simply break down under the pressure should serve as a warning to us of the short-term consequences of compartmentalization. The long term consequences are more serious. We all might consider those persons who are utterly convinced they've been living in a room with Jesus' approval, and to whom his word is "I never knew you."

Here is the original posting and the comments there.

My Bible classes watch a lot of the "Turner" Bible movies. I've seen them all so many times that I frequently get them confused with scripture itself. Their storylines and scripts are embedded in my mind and I have to, occasionally, sort things out.

For example, in the movie "David," the prophet Nathan tells David, "God makes it difficult to be a king." Scripture never says that (at least not that I know of) but it is appropriate for the story of David and his particular failures.

Nathan is not just sounding prophetic; he's interpreting some of the events and consequences David has brought on himself. It's that mixture of causation that the Bible so easily tosses out from cover to cover: People do things, God does things. We have our purposes, influences and reasons. God has his purposes, motives and outcomes. The two "tracks" run alongside each other, and out there in the distance, they seem to come together. But no matter how far I walk in this life, it seems the two never come together. Beyond the horizon, they merge in God, but I am well on this side of the horizon.

Nathan could be speaking to my life or to yours. I made the choices; the consequences have arrived. I ate the food; I gained the weight. I was angry; people I love were affected. I wasted opportunities; they never returned. I sinned; I experienced the bitter fruit. Life happened; the results are there for all to see, written in my own hand and in God's.

Of course, when you reflect on life, there is much that was beyond your control. Why was I born in America? Why was I the only child of Lee and Dorothy Spencer? Why were we poor? Why did Dad never take me to Little League? Why was dad depressed? Why were they fundamentalist Baptists? Why did I hear about the Bible, God, Jesus and "being saved" from the time I was an infant? And on and on.

"Whys" can put you over the edge of sanity. If you are intelligent and see connections and relationships, it can be overwhelming.

And then there's God's work, not quite as simple to understand or question. God's causes. God's choices. God's purposes. I know that "track" is there. One of the intolerables of atheism for me is I cannot ignore the fact that this life that I cannot understand is still intelligible. It is the same life experience for me and the people in the room with me. If it were chaos without purpose or design, there is no reason experience would be intelligible to any of us. This, among many other reasons, compels me to believe that God has made reality purposeful, and that in ways I am not equipped to see, understand or describe, it makes sense to God.

Scripture speaks of this over and over, in example and affirmation. Does it explain God's purposes? No....and it's a good thing too. Like the brilliance of the sun, the illumination is tolerable; the direct view is not possible, at least not for us mortals.

Instead of direct knowledge, God sends his Word. In nature, reason, scripture and Jesus/Holy Spirit. And this Word is his announcement of his purposeful working in our lives.

"All things work together for good, to those who love God and are called according to his purpose..."

"Then the LORD said to him, "Who has made man's mouth? Who makes him mute, or deaf, or seeing, or blind? Is it not I, the LORD?"

"I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things."

"What gain has the worker from his toil? I have seen the business that God has given to the children of man to be busy with. He has made everything beautiful in its time. Also, he has put eternity into man's heart, yet so that he cannot find out what God has done from the beginning to the end. I perceived that there is nothing better for them than to be joyful and to do good as long as they live; also that everyone should eat and drink and take pleasure in all his toil--this is God's gift to man. I perceived that whatever God does endures forever; nothing can be added to it, nor anything taken from it. God has done it, so that people fear before him. That which is, already has been; that which is to be, already has been; and God seeks what has been driven away."

"The end of the matter; all has been heard. Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole duty of man. For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil."

"Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord or who has been his counselor?" "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory forever. Amen."

The God of the Bible knows what he is doing. His work is, as scripture says, "past finding out." He asks for no advice. He is not holding question and answer press conferences. He is not writing books of ten easy-to-understand bullet pointed explanations. He has spoken, and it is up to me to hear, believe and live accordingly.

And for me, at least, it's difficult. It's difficult knowing that I have failed in so many ways, hurt so many people, brought so many sinful consequences into my relationships...and God is at work- somehow- in all of it.

I want God's purposes to be carried out through what I've done right. I've studied, preached, taught, served, counseled, led, encouraged and lived for the Gospel for more than 35 years. I want God's purposes to be in response to all the sermons I've prepared. I don't want God's purposes to be about my failures, broken promises and abuses of others. I want to put what I want on the table, and I want God to work with that.

I've done a lot of things right, and I'd prefer God publish a list of how all of them are going to be rewarded. But that's not the way it's going to be. God is going to do what he wants to do, for reasons that can fit into a sentence in the Bible, but which are far too mysterious to wrap my mind around.

Sunday night I'm going to preach on "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom." I know what the text means, but I can't read it without thinking that I am, in a way, fearful of what God is up to. I read his ultimate purposes and I try to think of them, but I know that God has purposes now; purposes that involve my failures and the consequences he will not spare. God is not invested in hearing me say what I "need." If he wants to take away, he will take away, and his purpose will be for me to go on without whatever he took away. The same with suffering, obscurity, humiliation and failure. God cannot be manipulated into carrying out my plans with my selected materials. He is about carrying out his plans with whatever materials he chooses.

The answer to encroaching cynicism is, I believe, Christian hedonism. The quest is not for understanding, but is for joy. The promise is not that God will do what he determines, but that he is determined to satisfy me forever with himself. Along the way of living this life, I have many more miles to travel. My heart is often hard, my mind fearful and my vision small. I am guilty of wanting God to make much of me rather than make me into a soul who makes much of him now and forever.

I am far more tempted with cynicism than I am with unbelief. I am far more inclined, as C.S. Lewis said, to see God as the experimenter than as the divine lover and heavenly Father. My prayer, and the prayers I ask for, is that I would trust God by exalting in his love, goodness and grace poured out in Christ and directed invincibly and irresistibly toward me.

There is a reason the book of Ecclesiastes is in the Bible. I have always been bothered by those who easily explained and expounded this book. It is a book that wanders in the same emotions that I have. The author counsels trust in God, but the struggle continues on every page. Over and over, he returns to the affirmation that life under the sun is meaningless and only God makes it meaningful. Only God is our hope in this world.

But Koheleth finds himself trusting a God who is never revealed in intimate loving terms. In Ecclesiastes, God seems sometimes to be more a deity of unavoidable fatalism rather than the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I know something of this God. He gives. He takes away. He does not explain. He asks for faith, and for everything you thought you could never give up.

I do not know God's ways. I can only put my hand over my mouth, look to the Word and the work of the Spirit, and press on. When all my wrestling is over, God remains.

Recently, I received an email from someone who has been a longtime reader of this blog, giving his reasons for being a regular reader and generous supporter.

This particular reader appreciated the writing I've done on the subjects of mental illness, psychiatric medication and emotional health. As this person is a professional in those fields and far beyond me in understanding, I was understandably happy to read that email.

I have received many thousands of emails in the last 8 years of Internet Monk. A sizable portion express appreciation for something that deserves a moment's consideration: that this blog is one of the few places some folks have found where certain points of view can be discussed with relative civility.

I won't attempt a listing, but any regular readers will know that I've made it part of the mission of this blog to be present an alternative view of any number of issues within evangelicalism in particular. I do so with provocative writing if possible, and with active moderation of the discussion. I've done this without expectation of finding there would be thousands of people reading and thinking "SO I'm not the only person who feels this way." In fact, I've expected considerably more hostility and objection than I've received.

Recently, the IM comment threads have started routinely going over 100 comments. Interpret that as you will. In all the time I've done this blog, I have temporarily banned around 20 people, and absolutely banned 2.

Yesterday, a commenter aired the usual complaints at me:

I don't affirm inerrancy.
I'm critical of "my brethren."
I give "Papists and liberals" plenty of space.
I limit conversation.

Of course, as most readers know, I fully affirm the truthfulness of the Bible in the language of the Second London Confession and the Westminster Confession. Ask any of the dozens of advocates of gay marriage and gay ordination how I'm doing on taking the Bible seriously. What I'm not doing is allowing the word "inerrancy" to become a code word for a set of positions I don't believe the Bible teaches. I'm not turning a blind eye to the hypocrisy that the "inerrancy" stampede has foisted on my denomination. Give me a confession made before the word "inerrancy" was invented, and I'm perfectly content.

There are thousands of people who don't buy the kind of flat, literalistic inerrancy that is being sold among conservative evangelicals today, and, sorry to disappoint the gallery, but we don't have to. Being a Baptist doesn't force me to buy the search for the ark, young earth creationism, Hamm/Hovind, complementarianism, homeschooling, conspiracy theories, Dobson's view of politics, bad Christian art, arrogant leaders, bad scholarship or the SBC's view of itself as compared to other denominations.

Yes, I am critical of some of my brethren. I've never lived a day in Protestantism that there wasn't a critical conversation going on. If the memo has gone out that we've stop asking questions and contending for answers, I didn't get it. My blog is one tiny voice in the midst of a massive evangelical self-promotion machine. When I first called for the outing of Osteen as a motivational speaker, what had you heard from anyone in the evangelical establishment about him? (Oh, that's different. Of course it is.)

The animosity some have towards this writer and this space comes simply because I have staked out a different position than they've been led to believe is the only allowable, God-endorsed, position allowed by the Christian worldview. Their orthodoxy, and the God who sponsors it, requires that dissent be quenched as an act of faithfulness. When I express dissent and protect its expression by others, I'm certain to be told by some amateur fundamentalist Freudian there's something psychologically wrong with me. (Friend, if you believe you are the ultimate measure of mental health, please go on a world tour so the rest of us can see what it looks like. But just between you and me, I wouldn't quit my day job on that one.)

The commenting voices at this site give witness to another view. There are Protestants who aren't Catholics and don't hate Catholics. There are Catholics willing to talk with Protestants as fellow Christians. There are Orthodox and mainliners seeking to relate to evangelicalism. There are Lutherans insisting we all know nothing about law and gospel. (That's a joke.) There are Baptists who question the "What we need is more evangelism!" mantra. There are evangelicals who have nuanced views on the issue of abortion, women's ordination, the nature of homosexuality and the Christian view of mental illness. There are people who give "Papists" and "liberals" space to talk just like the other kids in the class. There are many of us lost in the evangelical wilderness trying to find a drink of water and some food.

I don't endorse all these views or their opposites. There are a number of issues where I'm not sure what I think, but I am determined to not be railroaded into being told that I must endorse or bow down to positions that I do not hold, am not required to hold and are not my conviction. I'm just as determined to tell my audience that other views exist as held by REAL PEOPLE.

If you look out in the back yard of the last twenty years of battles in the Southern Baptist Convention, there's a baby in the bathwater. That baby's older name was "soul competency." More recently, he went by the name "priesthood of the believer," but I like the previous name much better. In the "battle for the Bible" in the SBC, the moderate/liberals took those terms and used/abused them, causing conservatives to spend most of two decades bad-mouthing "soul competency" and "priesthood of the believer" as anathema to Bible-believing Christianity. Some of that response was necessary, but some of it has been singularly unfortunate and overblown.

In truth, Baptists have historically stood with the individual in his right to have his/her own convictions in regard to what scripture or a person's own religion teaches. We sided with that principle when it caused us to defend Muslims and atheists. We sided with that conviction as a proper summary of Luther's contention that his conscience about the Bible was adequate defense as to why he stood against the Pope. We defended that principle as essential to the classic definition separation of church and state endorsed religion. We understood that, without embracing all the tenets of anarchic individualism, it was right to protect and hear the minority. We rejected, historically, the tyranny of a class of theological enforcers and their political ambitions. We defended confessionalism, but we did not mindlessly defend all levels of uniformity. We realized, after painful lessons in the civil rights era and beyond, that the majority and their Bibles can be completely wrong.

Today, we live in an evangelicalism that is enamored with numbers and success. And of course, those vast numbers are told they must think, write, worship, vote, educate, live, preach and teach identically to one another because they possess the truth. (Or someone at the home office does...somewhere.) This is the sadness of being ranted at about the "sin" of refusing to use the proscribed word to describe inspiration or of daring to differ with some well-funded, fat cat majority with a mailing list. I may be wrong, but this web site is exercising something Baptist Christians used to care deeply about: dissent. But in today's atmosphere of sheeple following the media and denominational shepherds, we place no value on dissent. It's far more impressive to rant about my failure to appreciate the fact that anyone who waves a Bible around should be free from having anyone actually differ with them. It's now good, conservative sport to tell a dissenting fellow Christian that, as I heard today, my faith is about to collapse and/or I'm going Catholic. All this- ALL- because you have steadfastly decided other views are not worthy of your RESPECTFUL appreciation.

The reason I am unafraid to side with the dissenters and those asking questions that aren't allowed is that history is moving to our side. The manipulators of orthodoxy are in trouble. They've taken our confidence and put the screws to us for the sake of their own power. The celebrity-driven churches are, for the most part, going to be exposed as having no clothes. The laboratories that produce these evangelical clones are shutting down as the experiments seem to have gone horribly wrong. The deluded majority can act as if they have squashed everyone's arguments and rendered all competing opinions foolish, but in fact, quite the opposite is happening. A lot of people are dissenting, even in an atmosphere of intimidation and spiritual abuse. Write all the books and blogs you want. Have a conference and get 3000 men to wring their hands with you. You aren't gong to stop the collapse of the kind of authoritarian fundamentalism that wants to keep all of evangelicalism in a stranglehold. It's over.

Occasionally, I write with the express purpose of sounding a wake up call. I'm provocative and my audience appreciates that in my writing. I am not sounding so much of a call to arms as a literal wake up alarm to the sluggish and the sleepy. We are standing on the brink of momentous changes in the evangelical world. Many Christians brought up in a fundamentalism with all of the answers have discovered things are much different than they would have anticipated. They are exploring this new world, even as the old one is still shifting beneath their feet. Part of that experience is being told you shouldn't speak or write what you feel. The better part of the experience is ignoring that, and speaking exactly what you're thinking, feeling and discovering. "Speak what we feel, not what we ought to say," as Will Shakespeare put it.

In the meantime, I consider IM a public service to people who need to get out of the way before a chunk of crumbling evangelicalism falls on their head. If the house isn't falling where you are, that's wonderful. Make whatever you want out of the reports from my part of the house. That's your privilege as a reader.

I'm a chess player (bad) and a collector of chess sets (good.) Since the TV is gone, I'm taking a second look at the board game situation, and I got interested in learning Chinese Chess, and maybe Go, and so I was poking around some recommended import sites that carry games....

And I came across Yellow Mountain Imports. Their games look outstanding, and the prices are incredible. Take a look at the Chess sets with Chinese and other historic characters. (Not the sets for Chinese Chess. That's another game.) Look at the traditional sets and the other games. Then compare the prices. Shipping is a bit steep on small orders, but basic prices are excellent.

If you like to give unusual games as gifts, this may be a site you'll want to explore. When I get the sets I've ordered, I'll sound an alarm if there are problems, but if you like games life Chess, Go, Backgammon and other imported games, check this out.

Since we're talking about religion and science, let's see what Baptists are up to.

It has to make you feel good that Liberty University- practically a Southern Baptist School and the recipient of thousands of dollars and students from trusting Southern Baptists- has employed its very own Indiana Jones, who is off to do guess what?

Guess. Really. Guess.

Thank you. Find Noah's Ark.

A Kurdish shepherd told the ark hunters that he had seen the ark, and even climbed on top of it, when he was a boy.

The team hypothesizes that the ark is preserved in several pieces beneath a glacier on the mountain, and every so often the glacier recedes, exposing part of the vessel.

"That's when he saw it as a boy," Price said, adding that they had interviewed the shepherd and could find no reason to distrust him.

The shepherd asked for nothing in return, and agreed to lead Bright to the site where he said he had seen the ark.

Bright first climbed to the site in September. Then a team including Price, the shepherd, a mountaineer and several others made a follow-up ascent to 15,000 feet later the same month.

They found the spot, Price said, but it now is covered by an estimated 60-foot-deep pile of boulders. Price believes the landslide may have resulted from attacks against Kurdish rebels on the mountain, or perhaps from explosives that were set off to cover up the ark.

Wow. The chills are going up my spine. Almost like the first time I watched "The Search for Noah's Ark" on tv.

Somewhere in the archives around here is a box of "Bible teaching" material that I've quietly managed to not use. Donated materials. Inherited material. And there's no less than three videos on the "search" for Noah's Ark in that box. There must be a convention somewhere of Ark hunters. The Omaha Holiday Inn? Somewhere.

It's under a glacier. Jimmy Carter may have seen it. A Russian princess wore a piece of it around her neck. One resident climbed on it with his father, and saw stalls. It's been seen by satellites, and pilots. It's petrified. It's in pieces. It's down. It's up. It's in pieces. Every different sighting is different piece. (Bet you didn't know that.)

It's evangelicals' version of Nessie and Sasquatch is what it is. Plus, it's a great way to set your kids up to dump their Christianity as well. Two for the price of one.

My favorite section in bold.

Price estimated that the team needs to raise about $60,000 to pay for permission to use the site, to buy the necessary machinery and to fund about two months of work on location.

Bright said a discovery would "mean so much to so many, many people worldwide."

"Keep your ear to the road, so to speak, this summer," he said. "Because there will be discovery. The only thing that's holding us back is to finance the machinery that we need."

I don't know about keeping your ear to the road, but I'd keep my eye on my wallet. I have a feeling some of that $60,000 may wind up in the local Turkish economy. (If you don't get this, read Bruce Feiller's Walking the Bible and his experiences with the locals on Mt. Ararat.)

What would mean a lot to some people is one more television documentary and one more book for sale to a few thousand evangelicals.

I don't know anyone whose faith journey is waiting for a chunk of wood with "Noah was here" carved on the side to be finally judged as worthwhile.

In fact, this sort of "prove the Bible" mentality does an outright disservice to the discussion of the Bible's truthfulness and authority. If you aren't saying you have to have scientific evidence to judge that the story is truly inspired by God, then what are you saying.

I see that Mr. Price gets a check from the good Baptists at Liberty University as director of their Judaic Studies department. I'm sure Jewish scholars everywhere want to get that address.

Well, to all of those who are willing to donate the $60,000 for Dr. Jones....uh Mr. Price to go Ark hunting, I'd like to suggest you send the money to me. I could actually use the money to relieve my school of my salary, live modestly and allow me to teach the Bible to my students for several years. If you need a piece of Noah's Ark, I can probably come up with something equally impressive as Mr. Price. God may have shown me that some of the old lumber in our barn came from the Ark. Or was it the temple? I forget.

It's good to know that Liberty University is continuing the quality of evangelical scholarship we've come to expect from Baptist fundamentalists. Who says America's conservative Bible believers haven't created a great university?

This week we will be celebrating the 200th anniversary of the birth of Charles Darwin, one of Britain's most extraordinary scientists. His theory of evolution, one of the greatest discoveries of all time, gives us a way of understanding the connectedness of all life and the uniqueness of human life within it. Together with other branches of scientific exploration, evolution begins to unfold and illuminate the interplay of forces that make our universe such an extraordinary dynamic reality. In this sense, science is itself a journey of learning and exploration. This I find exciting and humbling.

Towards the end of his life Darwin wrote: "It seems to me absurd to doubt that a man may be an ardent Theist and an evolutionist." The science opens me not only to puzzles and to questions about the world I live in; it leads me to marvel at its complexity. Here, I find science is a good friend to my faith. It also calls me to a journey of learning and understanding. One of the things that mars our culture is the fracture between faith and science. It impoverishes our inquiry into the realities that make up our life and world. This is a false opposition.

Apart from whatever I may think, it will do all evangelicals good to read what a Cardinal of the Roman Church has to say on an issue that, frankly, drives evangelicals nuts.

I've never quite figured out how the Catholic position on science is so progressive, but when it comes to Marian dogmas and how Mary's house wound up in Italy, Catholics sound like Baptist fundamentalists protesting that the Creation Museum is too liberal, but I don't have to understand hard things. I just like everyone to see that you don't have to keep hitting yourself in the head over these issues of faith and science.

I'd also like to know if there are any creationist evangelicals who have converted to the RCC and embraced this view of science, evolution and origins.

In a few days, we're getting rid of it. Dish TV will unhook the Dish, and we won't have any television reception. It will be gone for good.

Yes, we know what Hulu is, so we'll still watch House M.D., the one show we watch together. Yes, we're thoroughly wired and know where the music, news and podcasts are found. I'm keeping an eye on Boxee. I've thought about Apple TV, but I don't see it at this point.

The biggest sacrifice is that watching Reds baseball has been a huge part of my life; for me, it's a major mental health oasis. Everyone likes me better when I can watch baseball.

Yes, I've already bought a year on MLB.com. Hello, tiny computer picture. And I still know what a radio is, both internet and the real thing.

I was born in 1956, so I grew up with television. It's been a background to my entire life. I've seen historic moments and lived in the stream of popular culture, courtesy of television. I've had dozens of favorite shows. I've watched a lot of sports. Listened to a lot of news. Laughed at some incredibly funny people. I've got a lot of memories that involve television.

In a few days, I'm going to have Netflix and my DVD collection. That will be it.

The personal computer has radically altered my television habits. In the last few years, Denise and I have watched less and less tv. Denise is very "monastic" in her temperament and habits, so time for television is low on her list of priorities. If she never watched it again she'd hardly miss it. (We do have regular movie nights to watch Netflix and other things.)

I'm a bit different. I'm ADD or a great multi-tasker, take your pick. I like to have several things going at once. As I type this, Friendbar is updating Twitter and Facebook. I'm listening to American Routes off the APM page. Soon I'll be listening to adult rock on WUKY. I may chat with someone on Facebook at any time. In a few minutes, I'll go to bed listening to 3 Chords and the Truth while reading a book on Russian Chess. I'll have a notebook nearby in case I get a sermon illustration idea in the night.

But I still like to come in from school, or to take a break from work, and plop down on the couch with a cold drink and turn on the TV. Ten minutes or an hour of channel surfing, or watching this and that. CNN. MSNBC. EWTN. The local news. Local weather. Crazy religious channels. Political talk. Booknotes. And so on.

Sometimes, when there is a Reds game or other sporting event on, I just turn it on while I'm working on other things. When I'm home alone, TV is usually on.

In other words, it's always been there. In a few days, it won't be there. And I can already feel a little bit of the crazies coming on. My brain has figured out what's up. Who told?

What am I gonna do when I want to have the TV on? It's been- let's be honest- a distraction; a drug; a sedative. I'm going to jones for it.

Talk about confessing what a stupid American media addict you've become. Sheesh. It's shameful. But that's me. And it's the only me I know. I'm not monastic. Too much silence creeps me out. This summer when I was on sabbatical, I tried a week at the monastery at St. Meinrad. I've been there for overnights many times. After 3 days, I checked out and headed to my hometown to hang out with my friends. So much for Into Great Silence: The iMonk Chapter.

I've never been one to quibble about pleasures. God isn't into flagellation and petty martyrdom. I'm not a ascetic. I like my stuff. I like entertainment. I like culture, news, events and mental stimulation.

I keep asking myself if this is really worth it in order to put $720 a year back into the budget? (Approximately $60 a month) Without doing any in-depth research, the answer's easy: It is significant for us. Like many people in ministry, 2009 is going to mean finding ways to cut back expenditures, and this is an easy place to start. Denise will barely know its gone, and I can adjust.

I can adjust. I can adjust. I can adjust. I can. I really can.

There will be moments, maybe hours, that I'm going to feel this change. It's going to feel weird. I won't want to read or write. I won't want to listen to music. I'll want the mental and spiritual wallpaper that's been there with television.

Then I'll say: "Spencer, listen. No more Keith Oberman. No more commercials. No more O'Reilley. No more MTV/VH1 reality programs. No more TBN. No more local religious television. No more hyping the weather. No more food porn. No more pretty much might as well be real porn."

I bought all five seasons of The Wire. Time to face the void bravely.

[Discussion: What sacrifices are you considering in the current financial situation? Those of you without TV, what's your experience? Especially those who recently gave it up? What are your thoughts on the effect of TV on your personality? Sense of security? Is it a problem to be "out of touch" with culture?]

Trevin calls this the pinnacle of wickedness, and no rational, morally sensitive person would disagree. But we don't live in a rational or morally coherent age.

In the very same week, the President said, at the National Prayer Breakfast, that no one believes in a God who approves of the death of the innocent. Plenty of commentators have pointed out the irony of that statement as well.

But I'm increasingly frustrated by my fellow Christians on this issue. Let me tell you why.

1) There are massive amounts of talk. Constant, never ending talk on radio, blogs and television. But it's not persuasive talk. It's the speech of moral outrage, and that is appropriate at times. But it is not the talk of cultural change, mind-changing or policy change. It is the kind of talk that convinces the already convinced, but which makes the unconvinced feel cornered and yelled at.

2) There is an increasing undertone of of "anything goes" in the rhetoric of many Christians. Certainly, this issue will bring about a lot of emotion and strong feelings. But does "anything go?" Can you say anything and do anything without regard for boundaries and restraint? What's our ethical responsibility when we respond?

3) The endless escalation of this issue will result in violence, either verbal or physical. Unstable people, angered by outrageous acts that inflame their emotions over their reason, will perpetuate a cycle of violence. Christians bear responsibility, in my view, to find a way to focus without creating the beginnings of a cycle of vengeance and revenge in the minds of those for whom violence is justified in this cause.

4) The civil rights struggle should be a great teacher for Christians who are pro-life, but I see little evidence of it. Dr. King and others had a sophisticated response to a deeply ingrained culture of hate: they out-loved, out-risked, and out-suffered them. Yes, there was rhetoric. Yes, there were speeches. But the civil rights struggle was a personal struggle won by people putting themselves on the line and saying "we will quietly, stubbornly, lovingly, sacrificially defeat this evil." I don't see leaders emulating or imitating this model. It's just more and more and more outrage, and little conversion.

5) The Amish school tragedy has haunted many Christians. Are we prepared to respond to moral outrage and violence with greater love and greater forgiveness? Do we even have it in us? If such an act had happened in Christian schools, would there have been angry mobs outside the jails demanding a violent revenge? The lessons in the pro-life struggle are obvious: can we love those who perpetuate this evil? I can take you to blogs right now that will say we should not love them and that we have no responsibility to love them. Our response, according to these discernabloggers, should be hate and retaliation in the name of protecting the innocent.

6) Do we want a fight, or do we want to save lives? Do we want a fight, or do we want to persuade? Do we want a fight, or do we want to humble ourselves as a Christian community and admit how many of those abortions are our daughters? How many are of women living within shouting distance of our churches?

7) Is there a consistent pro-life response among American Christians? Are we outraged by children starving in Africa? Are we outraged by the innocents suffering in war? Are we outraged by child soldiers and the trafficking in sex slaves? Are we outraged by child abuse, sexual abuse and preventable disease? Are we willing to think in terms beyond the clear, outrageously evil stories such as the throw-a-way baby in Florida to see the pro-life issues all around us?

8] Is there a response to the pro-life cause that pays the bills? Writes legislation that makes slow, compromising progress? Is there a response that creates alternatives for women likely to seek abortion? Is there a willingness to risk family embarrassment to deal with our daughters' pregnancies in ways other than a quick procedure? Can Christians, pastors, churches and ministries make a response that is practical, on the ground and real world, or is the main appeal here the opportunity to be outraged, angry and to keep on shouting?

My students and fellow adult Christians are almost universally pro-life. Some may have marched or answered phones in a crisis pregnancy clinic. I don't know. Most of what I see is a lot of anger. Shocking pictures. An almost visceral, emotional ranting to release frustration, but little actual engagement or even understanding of the issue beyond what they emotionally hate.

I want to see more. I want a deeper, more effective response. I don't want to just be angry. I want to see the problem addressed, minds changed, dialogue happen, truth told and people loved. I want to see progress by slow compromise if that is all we can get for now. I want to see Christians consistently applying the pro-life position to all of life.

The scripture says that the anger of man doesn't create the righteousness of God. The way of love is far more difficult, but it is not optional for the follower of Jesus.

Finding God in the Shack by Roger Olson (IVP). Olson is one of the most vigorous theological authors willing to take on the reformed intelligensia, as can be seen in his books Arminian Theology and Reformed and Always Reforming. In this book, Olson takes a measured, but overall positive view of William Young's theological novel. Olson's book is already garnering negative reviews from those who are convinced The Shack is a theological threat to Christians who aren't paying sufficient attention to the Bible's prohibitions on creative writing. (I assume C.S. Lewis's Great Divorce is in for a beat down in the near future.) Where does Olson come out? A balanced, moderate, intelligent, appreciative and overall positive view. Don't start a ministry on it. Don't confuse imagery with heresy. Appreciate the personal core of the story that is touching so many. (Olson collates Young's story of Mack with his own struggles with a pastor father.) Use it as a discussion starter. Be fair and realistic about the overall effect of the book. A fine response to the three-alarm fires that have dominated the internet.

Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ, by Robert M. Bowman, Jr., J. Ed Komoszewski. Bowman and Komoszewski are solid, apologetically oriented scholars, and this book is a comprehensive contribution to the resources available to present the biblical case for the deity of Jesus Christ. What's the point? Clearly, the authors are responding to some of the assertions made by the radical Jesus scholars. The overwhelming Biblical evidence for Jesus as God has been obscured in many quarters, and this resource gives an encyclopedic, yet readable digestion of the entire Biblical witness. It's also a resource that is appropriate for comparative religious research, where Jesus is claimed by Muslims, New Agers and every other religion. Included are comprehensive indices, helpful charts and vast amounts of scripture. A beginning apologist would especially appreciate this, as would anyone whose ministry or evangelistic efforts include answering the claim that Christians have promoted Jesus far beyond what is warranted. Don't mistake this for a scholarly tome; it's exceedingly readable and usable. Is this material available elsewhere? Not in this kind of presentation and with this amount of focused evidence on a single issue. Combine this with a book like The Case for Christ, and a layperson is well equipped for the current atmosphere of questioning all things Jesus.

The Great Emergence by Phyllis Tickle. I appreciate Phyllis Tickle as a post-evangelical. Her books of the Hours are wonderful resources. I find her "historical/cultural/theological rummage sale" idea interesting, the way a lot of bright people can see things and turn them into a book or a seminar. At 172 pages, there's not a lot of ink here, and most of it is spent on that description. Tickle says we're in the Great Emergence and living through it to something new and Spirit-inspired. Which means.....? Which means, I think, that Tickle is quite impressed- as a left of center Episcopalian interested in spiritual formation- with the Brian Mclaren style emerging church phenomenon, and believes that we're all headed for a "centering" of post-Protestant, happy ecumenical Christianity in non-traditional churches and on the internet. Readers of this space will know immediately that I am not this optimistic about what liberal white people in coffeeshops and web sites are going to contribute to the post-evangelical future. I believe what's left of the emerging church will be right there with TEC and PCUSA when it's all over. Instead of a great centering, I'm looking for a great collapse and a lot of people retaining some sort of de-churched spirituality. Yes, they will talk about Jesus, but will their Jesus shaped spirituality move into real community beyond Facebook? I'm very, very doubtful. But if you want your evangelical megashift more of the optimistic, liberal, Jefferts Schori variety, this book will cheer you up. I liked the rummage sale, but I'm not buying that "mainline liberal leftovers win out" line just yet.

Patrol editor David Sessions takes on my "Coming Evangelical Collapse" in a sizable column. You'll find his responses articulate and provocative. I'm honored by his attention to my prognostications.

I think David and his commenters miss a few things, particularly in what exactly I am predicting. (I am NOT predicting the END of evangelicalism,) but it's quality work. Take your time and take it in.

Blessings and peace on David and crew.

A subject comes up; for example, marriage. People share their stories, their thoughts, their accumulated wisdom.

After a moment, one of the Christians present begins to speak. He speaks longer. His tone is different. He's quoting verses...and more verses.

There's a sense of finality and authority to this talk. You can sense a reaction, even before anyone says anything.

Some present are annoyed. Some are angry. Some want to move on to a topic as far away from the Bible as possible.

Then another Christian speaks. This person validates that the quoted verses are crucial and important for Christians to understand. But this person raises questions. She interacts with the scripture AND with the comments of the other participants. From ideas in the verses- like submission, for instance- she asks the group to explore what submission might mean in a non-abusive context?

The room relaxes a bit. This Christian wasn't authoritative. She wasn't ending the discussion. She was continuing it. She was curious. She didn't have all the answers, but still had questions. She wanted to listen to others; to hear their insights and experiences.

Somehow, this second Christian seemed to think Christianly, but to think differently. The scripture was the beginning of her thought process; a place to launch out from, not just a place to stop.

Of course, when the evening is over and everyone is walking out to their car, the first Christian stops the second, reads her more verses and suggests she may not be a Christian.

(I know....that was ugly. I'm sorry.)

Here's my thought. It seems that for some people, the Bible is the end of the thinking/exploring process, while for others it is not the end, but a place from which to continue learning, thinking and exploring. For one the Bible is a very short anchor; for the other, a kind of map.

One kind of Christian seems to feel that the Christian life is "lived" by accumulating Bible passages and talking about them frequently and loudly. (Yes, blogs were made for this kind of person.) This is called "honoring" the Word of God and "living the Godly life." As a long-time observer, this looks less like living the Christian life and more like turning it into a particular kind of activity that bookish, obsessive, aggressive types are very good at.

The other kind of Christian arrives at the Bible, gains bearings, affirms truth, then launches out into the many different worlds that are part of human experience. They aren't accumulating verses or listing them in long diatribes, but they are living in such a way that the meaning of the Bible's message is put into practice.

The other day, a young earth creationist challenged me, as they have done many, many times before. The challenge is always the same: why don't I take the Bible as seriously as they do? (I'm an old earth/old universe guy.)

Now, by "taking the Bible seriously," they mean get to the answers by getting to the verses, establish the meaning of the verses and stop there. If you go any further, you've abandoned the authority of the Bible and are making a dangerous mistake.

But what if the creation passages are a starting place for my own encounter with the world? Can I study science and still say I believe those passages? Can I believe them if the record of God's creation leads me to believe in an old universe? Does a person have to stop with the Biblical material at its most literal and then only affirm science that affirms those verses?

I don't think so. I believe that thinking and living Biblically is far more than stopping at passages and saying "this far and no more." I prefer to say "This is my map of what matters most in creation, and from here I will read the record of creation and rejoice in what God has made."

I'm not going to worry if a conclusion seems to bring me to more questions or to a need for more study and more light. I won't make my faith and my experience into an "either/or" where I have to ignore my mind to believe God's Word. I'm not going to act like I have arrived ahead of everyone else because I believe Genesis 1-3.

I especially won't believe that God wants me to know the Bible, but not know literature, relationships, beauty, work, sacrifice, science, art and service. I will approach all those things as a Biblically thinking Christian, with a grid of God and the Gospel giving cohesion and hope to all I experience and encounter.

I want to suggest that "Bible study" that amounts to an obsessive concern with what the Bible says and no more is not the way we live the Christian life. If we know God and the Gospel, we should raise our sails in the winds of human experience, creativity and discovery, expecting God's truth to be there as well.

I experience this frequently. I will teach a poem or story and realize I am in the Biblical world. I will sense in human brokenness the Biblical story. In a thousand ways I see the face and compassion of Jesus. In explorations and discoveries I see the marvel of God's power and detail in creation.

None of these thing take the Bible away from me. I take the Bible with me into these parts of my life. I take the Bible, its "map" of reality and truth, its message of hope and most of all, its Gospel of redemption, resurrection and a new world begun in Christ.

Is the Bible a stopping place or a starting place for Christian thinking?

1. I don't believe gay marriage is the biggest threat to the family. Not by anything approaching a long shot. I've worked with thousands of students in my life, and the messed up kids were messed up by divorce, absentee parents, sex, substance abuse and greed. I've met maybe 10 students in my life who were affected by anyone's homosexuality.

2. I don't believe America is a Christian nation. I actually don't believe there is such a thing, and if there were, America wouldn't be one. Not on paper, not from the founders and not now. We're a secular republic and I like it that way.

3. I believe that Christian publishing does a lot of good, but I also think it does a lot of harm. All in all, we'd have to say that for all the good done, we still have a monstrous collection of lame, dangerous and outright perverse results from the various money-making adventures of the people who publish gems like "The Prayer of Jabez." Without Christian publishing making a lot of nut jobs legitimate, things in evangelicalism would be a lot less wacky.

4. I don't like or use the word inerrancy. In my context of working with non-Christian internationals, it's simply too complicated to teach the complicated special definition of "no errors" that goes along with this view. The Bible truly tells us what we need to know. It has the authority of God. (Plus, I'm tired of seeing people like Peter Enns labeled as weak on scripture.)

5. Sunday night and Wednesday night church services ought to be against the law.

6. I actually believe the NLT is a really fine translation. I use it more and more all the time.

7. I don't believe that thinking Biblically means you are an expert on every detail in the Bible. No...overdosing on Bible study can make you pretty useless in many situations.

8. I believe the exalting of "verse by verse" preaching is a lot of flag waving. There's a much better case for preaching large segments of scripture- like chapters and entire books- and for topical preaching.

9. I believe it's God's Word, but I really struggle with some of the crazy stuff in Leviticus, especially when it's done to women.

10. I have no problem with female preachers or pastors. The relevant passages are in the category of cultural accommodation (i.e. similar to the passages on slavery), and I'm nowhere close to being convinced by the arguments for male primacy some come up with from Genesis.

11. I'm going to be in trouble now: I believe the blindness towards the general bias against women and the actual mistreatment of women is a failure in evangelicalism that far outweighs the issue of racism. Evangelicalism has a lot of men who respect and love women as Christ did, but it also has a massive amount of men who don't like women, disrespect and mistreat them.

12. I don't believe there's all that much good about institutional Christianity. It exists, has to exist and always will exist, but Jesus started a movement, not an institution. (And definitely not a business or a club.) Christianity is a cross-cultural, evangelistic, church planting movement. It's all about taking the Gospel to individuals and cultures first, then practicing what it means to be Christians in whatever context we live. I can be pretty annoying about this.

13. I'd like everyone- infant baptizers and children baptizers- to own up to the fact that evangelism has badly suffered because we baptize children. Even if you believe it's right, you still have to contend with the effect all of this has had on evangelism. (In fact, refusing to own up to our lack of evangelistic focus is a primary problem with theological types.) And no, it doesn't have to be that way, but you figure it out.

14. I believe in an educated ministry, but I don't see much reason for traditional seminary. It's expensive and inefficient to a fault. We need mentoring, apprenticing, church-centered programs, etc. The seminary product is about to become the buggy whip of evangelicalism.

15. I believe people who have left the faith have a lot of useful things to say to us, and we need to listen. We also ought to apologize and make a lot of things right. We've heard and driven off millions of people, and then we've mostly blamed them.

16. I believe too much technology has screwed up preaching to the point of a three alarm fire. We need Bible preachers with very basic communication skills, not cool guys with gadgets. We have been stupidly naive about how much technology has helped us communicate the Gospel. Remember "the medium is the message?" Well....that's apparently quite true. I don't believe that the world's technogeeks and marketers have the wisdom we need for preaching, teaching and applying the Gospel. The Gospel is not about a product or a brand. Carson on I Corinthians. That's what I'm talking about.

17. I believe evangelicals have a fetish of wanting preachers to know everything and to tell them what to do. In fact, when the Washington Post said, years ago, that evangelicals were "...easily led," they were more right than wrong. I'm not into the Roman Catholic view of church authority, but among what group of Christians are you more likely to be told during the sermon what to think about politics, economics, child-raising, science, psychology, literature, entertainment and education? Who's more likely to have a series of 300 Life Principles that tell you everything including where to buy your vitamins? Yeah, that's right. Everyone say "Baaa."

18. I believe in creation by God, but I'm not a young earth creationist. I'd really rather you try to sell me Amway or insurance than try to change my mind on that one.

19. I believe that while Protestants are right on the issue of grace in salvation, at the level of how we practice the faith we're actually far more sympathetic to the other team than we admit, and if we actually advertised what the reformers cooked up in the Reformation, a lot of Protestants would take the bus back to Rome in the morning. The grace of God in the Gospel is radical, revolutionary and not at all compatible with entrenched religious interests and power plays. If its control of a system you want, Gospel grace is going to blow up your lab.

20. I believe the Biblical position is the pro-life position, but endless proclamations of abortion rhetoric make me wonder what's actually going on here? Without backing off my pro-life convictions at all, I can't honestly say that evangelicals are consistently and practically pro-life on all the issues where the sacredness of life is at stake. If pro-life is the Word, then be a doer, not just a hearer, writer or talker.

21. Moralistic busy-bodies, censors and bullies don't impress me as actually having anything to do with Christianity.

22. I don't believe Christians are supposed to keep a Sabbath day.

23. I believe tithing was old covenant and really has no place in the teaching of Christian stewardship today.

24. The whole concept of revival seems like a confused mess to me. A bit of truth in there, but mostly it's a lot of tradition and manipulation.

25. I don't believe anything in the field of sensational Biblical archaeology: chariot wheels in the Red Sea, for example. I'm big on archaeology, but after I fell for the James Ossuary, I'm very skeptical.

What he's asking of churches is.....it's.....well.........

In these times when the church has the opportunity to show great film clips, debate homosexuality, have a kickin' band and Comedy Central in the pulpit, Archbishop Rowan is suggesting....that.....

I can't say it. It's simply unthinkable in this day and age. With leadership like this, what is going to happen to the Church of England?

Thank God that evangelicals have leaders that are far ahead of this sort of insulting and out-of-touch thinking.

Our wonderful friend Amy Welborn's husband Michael Dubruiel died suddenly this morning (2/3/09). Pray for Amy and her children, who range from adults to very young. Michael and Amy had just moved to Birmingham to work with the diocese of Birmingham.

Words are completely inappropriate. Pray, then pray some more and pray tomorrow.

Amy, the IM family loves you and can only grieve a fraction of what you are feeling. God be with you. Thanks be to God for the hope and faith in Jesus in which Michael lived and died.

Internet Monk.com is extremely honored to have Christine Wicker in the house for the IM interview segment today. Christine is the author of the book that blew my mind for at least two weeks, Fall of the Evangelical Nation. She is also currently is working on adapting some of her other books for television and planning a conference on literature and ethics.

Many of you have read Christine's book and find her research interesting and provocative as I do. It's great to have her at IM for a few questions. After snacks served by the gracious Van Til, we got to the interview.

1. Thank you, Christine, for doing this interview. You made it clear in your book that you grew up among evangelicals, but are no longer an evangelical or part of the Christian community. Can you tell us a little bit about your own faith journey and what were the significant contributing experiences to where you are now?

I wrote a book called "God Knows My Heart" in which I tried to figure all that out while covering religion for The Dallas Morning News. I was pretty devout as a kid and even in college.

Why did I leave? I once replied off the cuff that I wanted a world bigger than the Baptist Student Union. That might sum it up.

But leaving church and leaving Jesus are quite different. The first is easier. I sometimes suspect Jesus is not all that impressed with my belief or lack of belief, which fluctuates.

I say that because he continues to be a daily influence in how I conduct my life, the most important guide for how to behave. Sometimes he is also a presence. He shows up in all of my books, no matter the subject and whether or not I'm looking for him.

2. I'm imagining a person happily enjoying the programs of an evangelical megachurch would find your contention that the evangelical nation is facing its demise to be hilariously inaccurate. What's the credible evidence that the "evangelical nation" is falling?

The evidence comes entirely from evangelicals themselves. When I talk about demise, I'm talking about numbers, growth, attitudes and behavior. The preachers often say that the culture has had more impact on the church than the church has had on the culture.

That's completely true. Some people decry that. Others think that's a good thing.

I use the Southern Baptist Convention and the National Association of Evangelicals as my two greatest examples. I also figured in non-denominational evangelicals. Anyone who wants numbers can find them on my website, www.christinewicker.com.

3. Your book puts a lot of emphasis on the end of evangelical political dominance, but many younger evangelicals are just as political as before, they just aren't sold out to the Republican party. Do you see the politics of more left-leaning evangelicals like Brian Mclaren, Jim Wallis and Shane Claiborne playing a significant role in the evangelical future?

I'd say Rick Warren is a better example of where the bulk of evangelicals are going. He's quite conservative religiously but independent on other matters. My sense is that he's positioning himself as the new Billy Graham, not the new Jerry Falwell/ Pat Robertson.

Wallis calls for engagement of a kind that would be radically different for many evangelicals. McLaren does too, and he breaks down some of the barriers that evangelicals have traditionally used to define themselves as God's people.

I suspect that the notion of a God who is punishing but who also generally supports the American status quo will continue to appeal to many evangelicals. In fact, anything else seems ungodly to them.

I'm most interested right now in how Obama may change religious thinking and behavior.

4. Is the prosperity Gospel a cancer killing evangelicalism or is it a drug keeping the patient medicated and alive?

I'd go for the second option if I had to pick. For me judging prosperity gospel depends on whom the prosperity gospel is being preached to. Poor people need powerful promises to help them believe they can overcome all the obstacles in their way.

And isn't prayer often about imploring God to give us something? Why is asking for health, which is far more valuable than money, more holy than asking for wealth, which allows us to be safe, to be fed, to be educated, to be treated by hospitals when we're sick, and even to help others?

Certainly it would be more noble to serve God with no expectation of return, but promises of Divine favor, which seem plentiful in the Bible, help humans feel hopeful and comforted and not so alone in our troubles.

Those are great benefits. Are they are a drug? Marx thought so, but who listens to him anymore?

5. Why has James Dobson's method of moving from counseling and teaching family life to promoting high-powered political involvement been so effective among evangelicals? Is Dobson's day as the "big gorilla" in evangelicalism over?

He got his credibility from his base as a counselor and teacher. His legitimacy as a family-values defender was higher than many other leaders' because he approached the topic so broadly and in such a useful, knowledgeable way. Since the Religious Right was so successful in taking over the idea of family values, his transition was a natural one. People learned to trust him in one role, and it wasn't hard for them to follow him into a wider sphere.

Is his day over? I don't know. He didn't do too well in this election. But America is full of second acts, and third acts, and fourth acts. I wouldn't even be sure Ted Haggard's day is over.

6. Despite enormous compromises on the pragmatic front, Evangelicalism continues to stand strongly against the culture on issues related to gender and sexuality. Does this surprise you?

It doesn't surprise me that the leaders stand so strongly or that their congregations do the same in opinion polls and voting. If nothing else, that kind of stand provides comfort during a time of threatening changes. And we need comfort.

What worries me is that the split between evangelical ideals and evangelical actions may be getting wider. Not because evangelicals are comfortable being hypocrites but because societal pressures are more intense.

For instance, I'm told that many evangelical kids and single adults come to church on Sunday and are regularly sleeping around or living with people they aren't married to. Why? Because waiting until you're married to have sex means that you are very likely never to get married and never to have sex either. Those are the "facts on the ground."

Do you expect this to change?

I think the conservative evangelical stand on gay rights will change because science is going to demonstrate more and more convincingly that sexuality isn't a choice. Also, normalization of homosexuality becomes more complete every year, and that's what really changes attitudes.

I suspect the stand on abortion rights won't change. Once again because of science, which I suspect has become our true god.

Science has already bolstered the anti-abortion argument with sonograms and by keeping babies alive earlier and earlier. Now it is providing private ways to abort so early that the woman doesn't even know if she was pregnant. No knowledge, no guilt. So public abortions will be less needed and easier to condemn as something only stupid, careless, immoral women need.

7. For the first time, numbers of "non-religious" are growing faster than the any version of Christianity. The growth is coming from significant numbers of people brought up in Christianity. Have we turned a corner?

I'm afraid we have turned a corner. We could turn back. A great revival might occur.

But the truth about those "non-religious" people is that many of them aren't "non-religious." They are "spiritual but not religious." They have their own ideas about God and life. They're making it up as they go, so to speak. They feel in touch and empowered by God or the Universe or Spirit. And they don't think they need the church. They have their own "bibles." Their own leaders. And lots of company.

What are the major issues contributing to this shift?

Science, of course. I also mention in my book that Alcoholics Anonymous has shifted the concept of God enormously. It uses Christian principles. It rests on community. It gets results. But the God of AA has no attributes. He can be anything you want him to be.

That's a threat to traditional Christian faith because the "AA God of your own understanding" has enormous power to change lives. So why convert to the Christian brand and take orders from some preacher?

8. One of your most provocative contentions could be summarized as something like this: When you send your kid to a good school like Wheaton and bring them up to be a tolerant, educated, non-fundamentalist, you're probably contributing to the demise of evangelicalism.

I guess my answer would be another question: How ignorant and intolerant do you have to keep them to preserve religious beliefs? And is that really the best strategy?

But I didn't quite mean to say what you've described. My chapter on family is meant to point out that child rearing has changed enormously in the last 30 years. Traditional evangelical faith is grounded in authority. The Bible says it. God wills it. The preacher leads, the congregation follows.

Faith requires a leap. God desires that you make that leap. If you don't, you go to hell.

Traditional child rearing was also grounded in authority. So the two bolstered each other. I think that's why conservative evangelicals sometimes allow their children to be paddled at school. Authority must be obeyed or punishment follows. Boundaries are essential to traditional evangelical faith. Child rearing once widely reinforced boundaries in action, speech and thought.

I argue that today's children who are encouraged from their earliest days to question and contend with authority are less likely to accept religious ideas based on authority. And that parents have made this shift from supporting authority (their own first of all) because the pace of change demands that they prepare their children by teaching them flexibility and questioning.

Was evangelicalism wrong from the outset to believe that it could reject a fundamentalist posture and succeed as a movement?

I think the shifts evangelicals and other Christians are making may be painful and confusing, but they are also the hope of American Christianity.

These "new" evangelicals put following God above their own interests, above traditions, above certainties. They ask themselves hard questions and hold themselves to high standards of faith and reasoning. More than any great deed or sacrifice, certainly more than any political positions, the pure essence of who they are and who they hope to be speaks for their beliefs.

Will they still be evangelicals as they continue to question and change? Not as they have been defined by the Religious Right. But Southern Baptists, for instance, have always believed in the priesthood of the believer. So the changes rest on very traditional evangelical ideas.

9. I want to ask about your reaction/response to my two primary assertions regarding the demise of evangelicalism. A) Evangelicalism has failed to develop a real Christian spirituality that shapes and defines "What is a Christian?" Instead, we have culture war zealots, consumers, fans of various celebrities, and so forth. If asked to name a great Christian, most evangelicals would name a celebrity, not a saint.

I'd agree. American evangelical faith has become so identified with the Republican Party that the two were, until recently, thought of as one. Perhaps not what Jesus had in mind.

And certainly not what mainstream America thinks of as Christ-like behavior. So that has hurt the evangelical witness.

I'm hopeful that the growing evangelical focus on helping others will turn that image around.

B) Evangelicalism has deconstructed everything in Christianity in the name of numerical growth/church growth/relevance. So we have a church that isn't really a church, worship that isn't worship, pastors who don't pastor, sermons that aren't the Bible, Christians who aren't particularly like Christ and so on. The end of this, as Louis Bouyer predicted half a century ago about Protestantism, is self-destruction.

I would have to beg off on this one. As you know, I grew up as a Southern Baptist. I've never experienced any other kind of Christianity. I've heard about Christianity that isn't as you've described it, and sometimes seen it. But I wonder if that's too extreme for most Americans.

The kind of evangelicalism we have now suits them very well. Can is convert others? Usually not.

10. It's been a delight to have you here at the IM interview. One last question:]]> Mon, 02 Feb 2009 23:21:43 -0800 http://virb.com/michaelspencer/posts/text/1067204