Page 2975 – Christianity Today (2024)

Mark Driscoll looks no different than he does any other day. He's wearing the hip pastor uniform—blue jeans and an untucked shirt with the top two buttons undone. Yet he speaks in a subdued tone that hints at wear and tear.

He begins his talk about lessons learned as a church planter with common-sense advice about how pastors can blow off steam. Driscoll, 36, plays T-ball with his three sons or feeds ducks with his two daughters. Hardly the stuff that provokes raging blog debates and church pickets. As Driscoll's Mars Hill Church in Seattle has grown to 6,000 members in 11 years, quiet moments like this with his family have preserved some of his sanity.

"I'm playing hurt right now," Driscoll confesses to prospective church planters at a March meeting of Acts 29, his network of 170 churches around the world. "I wore out my adrenal glands at the end of last year, just living off adrenaline too much. My sleep has been really jacked up for some months."

Those glands must have a little something left in the tank, because Driscoll warms up when he recounts the history of Mars Hill.

"My first core group was single indie and punk rockers committed to anarchy," he says. "Needless to say, they didn't naturally organize themselves or give generously. If I would have said, 'Everybody tithe,' it would have been in cigarettes."

Driscoll can't stand in front of a crowd for long without stirring things up. That's what you get from a pastor who learned how to preach by watching comedian Chris Rock. Before long, he has the audience going. "If you're going to be a fundamentalist or moralist … pick things like bathing with your wife to be legalistic about," Driscoll says in his distinct, gravelly voice. "Don't pick something stupid like, 'Don't listen to rock music.' I don't know who's choosing all the legalisms, but they picked the worst ones. Eat meat, bathe together, and nap—those would be my legalisms. Those are things I can do."

Driscoll "comes off as a smart-aleck former frat boy," according to The Seattle Times. Guilty as charged. If he hasn't offended you, you've never read his books or listened to his sermons. On any given Sunday at Mars Hill, it's possible that a visiting fire marshal will get saved. But it's just as likely that a guest will flip him off before walking out.

The spectrum of response speaks to his sharp tongue—his greatest strength and his glaring weakness. But Driscoll also disturbs many fellow evangelicals because he straddles the borders that divide us. His unflinching Reformed theology grates on the church-growth crowd. His plan to grow a large church strikes postmoderns as arrogant. His roots in the emerging church worry Calvinists. No one group can claim him. Maybe that's why they all turn their guns on him.

Different Stories

Driscoll gave me a hearty hug when we met at his beautiful new home, tucked in a pleasant Seattle neighborhood where you might not expect to see this pastor with a "bad boy" reputation. His forehead looked normal, not sloped. He wasn't drunk, either. And if he packed a firearm, I couldn't see it. So much for the stereotypes Driscoll said Christianity Today readers might have about him.

Driscoll first picked up his reputation when thousands met him in Donald Miller's Blue Like Jazz as Mark the Cussing Pastor. Yet his background pegs Driscoll not as a rebel, but as an overachiever. High-school classmates in Seattle elected him student-body president. He also captained the baseball team and edited the school newspaper. He didn't read the Bible until college at Washington State, when he flipped open a copy of the niv given to him by a pastor's attractive daughter. At first, Driscoll sided with the Pharisees, because he admired their self-control. But God soon revealed to Driscoll that Jesus was the true hero. Driscoll also heard from God that he should marry that pastor's daughter, now his wife, Grace.

After college, Driscoll returned to Seattle and worked with college students for a year on the staff of Antioch Bible Church, one of the area's few large churches. Less than 10 percent of Seattle's residents identify as evangelical, and fewer still worship in mainline Protestant or Roman Catholic churches. In 1996, Driscoll founded Mars Hill, because he didn't see a church in Seattle that shared his missional vision.

Driscoll now uses Sunday services to equip church members to be missionaries in Seattle. The approach requires a high degree of cultural assimilation, a trait he shares with other emerging leaders. For instance, Mars Hill has made contact with many Seattle residents through the Paradox, a concert venue owned by the church that hosts bands with no Christian ties. And an early, outdoor Bible study that Driscoll used to grow the church allowed smoking.

In Mars Hill's early days, Driscoll struggled to find the right balance between unchanging orthodox theology and flexible methods of outreach.

"I also did not explain in written form that we were theologically conservative and culturally liberal, which caused great confusion because half of the church was angry that the other half was smoking, while the other half was angry that I taught from the Bible," Driscoll writes in Confessions of a Reformission Rev.

The church's unconventional look and feel has earned Mars Hill abundant local attention, some of it positive. The main campus meets in a former Napa Auto Parts store in Ballard, an industrial district giving way to urban hipsters. The simple, spacious building seats 1,200 in a dark auditorium. Young couples quickly fill the church's abundant nursery space.

Anticipation builds well before Sunday services begin, giving the worship a concert feel. Though I arrive more than half an hour early for the 9 a.m. service, college students quickly surround me and save seats up front for their friends. The music takes an indie-rock flavor. Two bouncers flank the stage. With tight, black T-shirts and folded arms that accentuate their biceps, they stare down the congregation. Earpieces connect them with Mars Hill's extensive security presence. Just inside one church entrance is the security headquarters, dubbed the "war room." All this seems a bit much—until you hear the stories.

Last fall, a man wielding a knife stormed the stage. Security sacked him before he could reach Driscoll. On occasion, Driscoll has preached in a bulletproof vest following death threats. As Driscoll would say, that's life in a city where nude bicyclists ride past a statue of Lenin.

Driscoll, while still emerging, no longer belongs to Emergent. Starting in 1995, Driscoll traveled around the country speaking for events hosted by Leadership Network, out of which grew Emergent Village in 2001. That's when Driscoll split. He began to suspect that Emergent leaders wanted to revise Christian orthodoxy. Since then, Emergent Village has advocated an experimental, open approach to theology. Emergent Village coordinator Tony Jones has not sat down and talked with Driscoll in five years, Jones told me. Though they have sparred over theology, Jones spoke highly of Driscoll's leadership gifts.

"He is uncommonly intelligent," Jones said. "He is uncommonly articulate and humorous. He could have been a stand-up comedian. He could have been a great actor probably."

But Driscoll seems to have tired of debates about the relationship of theology to postmodernism. Knowing his erstwhile Emergent friends will not be persuaded, Driscoll nevertheless references 641 Bible verses supporting his view in just 14 pages of Listening to the Beliefs of Emerging Churches: Five Perspectives. Doug Pagitt, pastor of Solomon's Porch in Minneapolis, gets it right when he responds, "I think much of our difference comes from the fact that in many ways we are telling different stories of Christianity."

Strategic Offender

Driscoll offers a decidedly un-Emergent list of evangelical leaders when asked who has influenced him. He cites giants such as John Stott, Francis Schaeffer, J. I. Packer, Charles Colson, and Billy Graham. From a somewhat younger set, John Piper and theologians D. A. Carson and Wayne Grudem make his list. Asked about megachurch pastors Rick Warren and Bill Hybels, Driscoll says he has never heard them preach, though he does offer appreciative words about their methods. For all you can learn from Packer and Schaeffer, they will not teach you how to shepherd 6,000 church members.

For Driscoll, 6,000 is just a mile marker on the road to 20,000 and beyond. Gerry Breshears remembers Driscoll talking about a strategic growth plan in 2002. Driscoll didn't immediately impress Breshears, chair of theological and biblical studies at Western Seminary in Portland, Oregon. Driscoll dripped with brash sarcasm, Breshears recalls. Driscoll had visited Western Seminary looking for help pursuing advanced study, since he hadn't attended seminary before planting Mars Hill. Once Breshears got past Driscoll's sarcasm, he observed a deep commitment to Scripture and Bible-based theology.

"Since then, I've come to realize that Mark is a blinking genius," Breshears says. "He is a first-rank intellect. A lot of his success comes from his amazing intellect and entrepreneurial ability that's one in a million."

Working together since 1999, Breshears observes that Driscoll now spends less time criticizing others and more time speaking positively about the church's mission to love Seattle. Even so, Driscoll has hardly become less controversial over that time. Driscoll told me that he has learned much from Ed Stetzer, a missiologist who works for the Southern Baptist Convention's North American Mission Board (NAMB). Stetzer directs the Center for Missional Research, which studies culture and evaluates church effectiveness. However, NAMB declined to make Stetzer, a member of the Acts 29 board, available for this profile. Spokesman Mike Ebert told me that the denomination has "controversial differences" with some of Driscoll's "views and practices."

Indeed, according to Breshears, "he offends everybody." "[Driscoll's approach is,] 'If Jesus says it, I'm gonna stick it in your face. Get used to it,'" Breshears says. "But that's part of what people respond to. Here's a guy who stands up, opens his Bible, and says, 'Dude, this is it.' When he says, 'Dude,' he turns off a whole lot of folks. And when he says, 'this is it,' he turns off a lot of folks."

Beautiful Rebuke

All the debate Driscoll stirs up over his edgy preaching and his style of evangelism pales compared to reactions when he talks about women.

"If I could change one part of the Bible," Driscoll told The Seattle Times about Paul's writings on gender roles, "that would be the part, just so I could be left alone."

Mars Hill teaches that only men can serve as church elders and that fathers should lead their homes. But Driscoll frequently turns his sights on "men who cheat on their wives, beat their kids, look at p*rn, get divorced." Driscoll grew up behind a strip club in a rough neighborhood. He's still brawling today.

"I see that the world is filled with bad men, and the only way to protect women is to be tougher than they are," he explains. "I'm not talking about being a thug, a bully, or a jerk. But I'm saying when a thug, a bully, or a jerk shows up at the playground and starts picking on kids, somebody's got to get in his face, and somebody's got to shove him down."

Driscoll would have been wise last fall to take his own advice and stick to men's issues when he commented on Ted Haggard's resignation from the National Association of Evangelicals. Writing on his blog, Driscoll offered helpful, practical advice for young pastors who might struggle to ward off sexual temptation. But one comment stood out.

"It is not uncommon to meet pastors' wives who really let themselves go; they sometimes feel that because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness," Driscoll wrote. "A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband's sin, but she may not be helping him either."

Though not directed at Haggard's wife, the comments understandably drew rebuke. A Seattle group called People Against Fundamentalism emerged with plans to picket Mars Hill Church. However, Driscoll preempted the protest by apologizing on his blog and sitting down with the protest organizers for an extended meeting.

Driscoll admits that he did not carefully articulate his point: Christians should not have a false sense of security about their spouses' fidelity. He also confesses to poor judgment with the timing.

The Haggard comment did not surprise Driscoll's critics, who say his efforts to protect women actually devalue them. Jennifer McKinney, director of the women's studies program at Seattle Pacific University, says she started teaching about the sociology of gender in part because of issues raised at nearby Mars Hill. She notices that many female students who attend Mars Hill abandon career ambitions as social workers or youth pastors. Instead, they prepare to become wives and mothers.

"I can't say that folks who go to this church are not active, thinking beings," McKinney says. "But the perception on campus is that these women completely change."

Driscoll and Mars Hill shrug off such criticism. One reason is that single women compose the largest demographic group at Mars Hill. Plus, one expects a pastor would be happy to know that people in his church really change. That's especially true of Mars Hill, which traces 40 percent of its growth to conversions. And controversy doesn't appear to have hurt the church—at least not in the long run. Before last Christmas, more than a month after Driscoll's comments about Haggard, the church had fallen $400,000 behind budget. The church laid off staff for the first time. But once church members learned of the need, giving exploded. In January alone, church attendance grew by 1,000.

Still, exposure to criticism does not make church leaders immune to it. Wendy Alsup, the Mars Hill deacon responsible for women's theology and training, shook with emotion as we sat down in the "war room" and talked about Driscoll. She said that Mars Hill will "always be open to criticism, because God has grown us faster than we can handle." Alsup defended Driscoll with evident passion.

"He asks forgiveness more than any pastor I have ever seen," she said. "He publicly confesses sin. He's such a great example to young, idealistic, confident, inexperienced, immature pastors that you have to say you're wrong when you're wrong. And he does it to women. I know. He has apologized in times when he has gotten things wrong, and I'm thankful he doesn't apologize for the things he hasn't said wrong."

Jonathan MacIntosh was one of those young, confident, immature pastors. As a new church planter in 2004, he showed up for an Acts 29 boot camp looking for guidance and funding. His church had struggled to grow past 40, despite strong lay leadership. Driscoll asked him why. MacIntosh blamed his over-churched town in Mississippi. Driscoll didn't buy it.

"Then he looked at my wife and said, 'Ashley, honey, you tell me what's going on in your opinion. I want you to be honest with me. Look me in the eyes and tell me the truth,'" MacIntosh recounts. "At first she gave stock answers. But then she completely broke right there. 'My husband is off doing this church-planting thing. I'm stuck in this job I hate, slaving away to support us. People are in and out of our apartment at all hours of the night. I'm losing my husband to this thing. I'm miserable. It's sapping my joy for life, my love for God, and my respect for my husband.'"

At that point, MacIntosh was pretty sure Acts 29 would not subsidize his church. Then Driscoll unloaded on him. "You're a good-looking, eloquent, hip, Bible-teaching, Jesus-loving [wimp]." MacIntosh remembers Driscoll telling him. "You think you can lead and love God's bride when you can't lead and love your own bride? The issue with your church is you and your marriage. Everyone knows it. You're photocopying your marriage. That's your church, and that's why it's jacked up. How dare you."

"Man, it was beautiful," MacIntosh says.

Driscoll told MacIntosh to take his wife to a nice restaurant, find a hotel room, and send him the bill. Now MacIntosh works for Acts 29 and evaluates church planters. When we met at Driscoll's home, he opened his wallet and showed me a picture of his baby daughter.

"God used that day and that encounter to save my marriage," he says. "It was a wake-up call from Jesus."

Throwing Rocks

Even among those who share his views on gender roles and his concern about the emerging church, Driscoll is scarcely less controversial. John Piper says no other speaker at his Desiring God conference has caused such a stir. Some Calvinists do not fully trust Driscoll because it took time for his Reformed theology to solidify. Preaching through Exodus early in his career, Driscoll was struck by God's sovereignty over Pharaoh. He saw how God acted to deliver his people. The Book of Romans eliminated any remaining doubt about Reformed theology, which he summarizes this way: "People suck, and God saves us from ourselves."

Venerable Reformed expositor John MacArthur has complimented Driscoll's soteriology. He is thankful that Driscoll stresses substitutionary atonement and justification by faith alone. But that doesn't make up for his "infatuation with the vulgar aspects of contemporary society," MacArthur wrote last December in Pulpit magazine.

"[T]he lifestyle he models—especially his easygoing familiarity with all this world's filthy fads—practically guarantees that [his disciples] will make little progress toward authentic sanctification."

The evidence seems to belie MacArthur's criticism. Alsup likens Mars Hill to an emergency room triage, with so many new believers working through so many horrible problems. Before the service I attended, I talked with Lynette Palmer, who became a Christian a few years ago at the University of Washington. Her family has endured lots of physical and emotional abuse. In the last few years, her mother and three sisters have come to faith and begun attending Mars Hill. But her father spent eight years in jail—for raping one of Lynette's sisters. Driscoll's sermons have helped bring healing to Palmer.

"Once I started looking at what God says about his sovereignty," Palmer said, "I realized that Satan has no power to destroy people."

Driscoll relates many stories of God's transforming power in his Confessions book. Still, Driscoll says receiving MacArthur's criticism is "like a frat guy getting paddled. It doesn't feel good, but I guess it means you're in." As a new Christian, Driscoll picked up hundreds of tapes to learn from MacArthur's preaching. He regrets that MacArthur chose a public forum for criticism, when he would have gladly flown to Los Angeles to hear MacArthur's advice.

Without directly implicating MacArthur, Driscoll distinguishes between missionaries who study culture and fundamentalists who try to avoid culture.

"Fundamentalism is really losing the war, and I think it is in part responsible for the rise of what we know as the more liberal end of the emerging church," Driscoll says. "Because a lot of what is fueling the left end of the emerging church is fatigue with hardcore fundamentalism that throws rocks at culture. But culture is the house that people live in, and it just seems really mean to keep throwing rocks at somebody's house."

Few but Driscoll's friends come to his defense, because no one else can peg him. That's fine with Driscoll, so long as his band of acculturated missionaries sticks to their tasks. Hundreds of young ministers planting churches around the world, they understand him. They cut him slack as he searches for the balance between provocative and sensitive.

"You can't escape your upbringing," says Darrin Patrick, vice president of Acts 29. "Mark is a street fighter."

And even the Good Shepherd had to fight off wolves.

Collin Hansen is a CT associate editor. His book on the rise of Reformed theology among young evangelicals will be published by Crossway in 2008.

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related Elsewhere:

Mark Driscoll blogs at TheResurgence.com and Acts 29.

Salon, Pacific Northwest, and Evangelical Right: The Internet's Home for Sinners Destined to Be Left Behind published profiles of Driscoll.

Mars Hill Church has audio clips of Driscoll's sermons and other media resources.

Driscoll is a council member of the Gospel Coalition and founder of the Paradox Theater.

Adrian Warnock interviewed Driscoll and a deacon from his church.

Other relevant Christianity Today articles include:

What's Next: Local Church | We asked 114 leaders from 11 ministry spheres about evangelical priorities for the next 50 years. First up: Fresh basics for the local church. (October 2, 2006)

Young, Restless, Reformed | Calvinism is making a comeback—and shaking up the church. (September 22, 2006)

Men Are from Mars Hill | Mark Driscoll praises Jesus, blasts mega-churches, and extols Reformed theology. (July 4, 2006)

New York Times headline today:

Monks in Myanmar Protest for Third Day

It’s nineteen sixty-something. Jude (a charismatic Jim Sturgess) is a blue-collar dockworker cum artist from Liverpool who’s sailed to America to find the ex-GI father who doesn’t know he exists. Max (Joe Anderson) is a good-natured rascal who ditches his pampered life at Princeton for the chaotic energy of New York City. Jude and Max become the best of friends; Max even seems to approve when his luminous sister Lucy (Rachel Evan Wood) meets Jude and the two fall hopelessly in love.

Jude, Max and Lucy join a merry band of tie-dyed musicians, artists, and vagabonds in a Greenwich Village apartment full of smoke and beads and heady idealism. If it weren’t for the Vietnam War, everything would be perfect. But when Max is drafted and Lucy becomes embroiled in anti-war activism, complications ensue.

If the names Jude, Max(well) and Lucy (as well as those of supporting characters like Sadie, JoJo and Prudence) seem more than a little familiar, welcome to the “spot the Beatles reference” game that makes Across the Universe a good-natured (if sometimes enthusiastic to the point of corniness) romp. The film is inspired and propelled by 33 Beatles tunes, 31 of which are unabashedly sung—character to character, character to camera, or character dreamily off to the distance—throughout the film. (The other two songs are used instrumentally.) In fact, more of the dialogue is sung than is spoken.

Uber-creative director Julie Taymor (best known for her wildly successful adaptation of The Lion King for Broadway, as well as for critically acclaimed, visually inventive films like Frida and Titus) has cooked up just enough story to move us from song to song. Plot and character development are merely necessary devices to get us to the good stuff—a dazzling array of eye and ear candy that will delight those willing to forgo normal cinematic meat and potatoes for something a little sweeter.

Across the Universe moves without apology (and often without explanation) back and forth between realistic settings and surrealistic tableaus. Much of the inventive film editing (and effects like Warhol-esque solarization color treatments) is genuinely eye-popping. Dance-laden production numbers involving theatrical masks and life-size puppets are, depending on your tolerance for that sort of thing, mortifying or brilliant (or maybe both). Some of the most fun is had courtesy of several over-the-top cameos, including Bono as the counter-culture guru Dr. Roberts (singing “I Am The Walrus”), Joe co*cker as a panhandler, a pimp, and a street performer (all of whom sing a wicked version of “Come Together”), and Eddie Izzard as the “Mr. Kite,” who leads the movie’s most psychedelic scenes.

The music is used in quite literal ways (Prudence really does come in through the bathroom window, and Jude has a bowl of actual strawberries when he sings “Strawberry Fields Forever”) to mostly good effect. The singing itself is outstanding. Reportedly, the majority of the vocals were captured live on set (rather than pre-recorded in the studio and lip-synced), and the approach gives the performances an exceptional realism. The music’s producers (including the always impeccable T Bone Burnett, as well as Taymor’s partner Elliot Goldenthal) wisely keep the arrangements generally low-key, with a few twists here and there (“I Want To Hold Your Hand” is rendered a tender ballad, for example). As familiar as the Beatles’ melodies are, they still astonish with their beauty, making the almost-a cappella moments (Lucy’s “If I Fell”, Jude’s “Girl”) spine-tingling.

In many ways, Across the Universe is like nothing you’ve seen before, defying genre expectations and playing with visuals elements with reckless abandon. There are some breathtaking moments, like a scene in which T.V. Carpio’s Prudence walks in slow motion through a football scrimmage without being touched, the athletes performing a kind of “football ballet” around her.

But in other ways, Across the Universe is like everything you’ve seen before. A scene that uses basketball moves as dance elements would have been inventive if High School Musical hadn’t done it first. (Anyone with kids between the ages of 8 and 14 knows what I mean; the athletes at Prudence’s high school are even called “Wildcats”!) The film’s incorporation of historical events (Martin Luther King’s assassination, the Detroit Riot) as a kind of cultural shorthand feels decidedly Forrest Gump-ian. There’s nothing too fresh about the plotline involving Sadie, a Joplin-esque blues singer (played—and sung—very well by Dana Fuchs) fighting with her record company to keep her bandmates from being replaced by session musicians. A rooftop concert scene is a fun riff on iconic Beatles history, but has been evoked so often over the past thirty years it just seems a little passé. And even the primary love story between Jude and Lucy—winsome as it is—follows a predictable arc.

For a movie about war, protest, sexual revolution, drugs and rock and roll, Across the Universe is oddly naï ve. Gritty elements are used for theatrical effect and then glossed over rather glibly. Drug use, for example, facilitates swirling, colorful scenes of psychedelia, and then seems to leave everyone involved perfectly functional and ready for work the next morning. Sadie’s strongly implied alcoholism gives her a bluesy edge, but doesn’t appear to interfere in any way with her career or love life. The film cuts from Jude and Lucy’s first kiss to Max’s bemused discovery of them in bed together the next morning—the characters (and the film itself) are utterly blasé about what might be considered a momentous event in the previously virginal Lucy’s life. Prudence’s lesbianism is used for surprise and sometimes humor, and then her story is dropped. And while the darkest elements of the film (Max’s conscription to a controversial war, as well as Lucy’s involvement in a protest movement that eventually turns on itself) seem to be building toward some sort of commentary or insight, eventually they just fizzle out into rather conventional (and simplistic) romantic resolve.

The cartoonist Scott Adams once said: “Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep.” Across the Universe is more creative than it is artful. But there’s a lot to be said for creativity. And there are worse ways to spend a couple of hours than listening to some of the finest pop tunes ever written and watching a group of talented young actors and their visionary director play together and see what they can make.

Across the Universe is flawed on a number of levels. But I can’t wait to see it again.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. Lucy responded to what she perceived as injustice by becoming an activist. Jude responded by making art. Is one response more valid than another? Is there such a thing as “revolution”?
2. What parallels (if any) do you see between the Vietnam War and current U.S. military action? What should your response be?
3. The film’s ultimate conclusion is that “all you need is love.” Is that true? If so, how would you define that “love”? What does it “look” like?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

Across the Universe is rated PG-13 for some drug content, nudity, sexuality, violence and language. Other than the (frequent) depiction of alcohol and nicotine consumption, drug use is more implied than depicted (although there is a scene in which a group of college boys smoke “imaginary” joints.) Most of the war violence is surreal; there is some gritty and realistic protest violence. Much of the nudity is stylized (James Bond-esque naked silhouettes, for example), but there is an extended scene in which Jude works on drawing a sleeping Lucy’s exposed breast. Add in some profane language and some decidedly sexual themes (including one character’s strongly and sympathetically implied lesbianism), and this one’s not for the kids.

Photos © Copyright Columbia Pictures

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

What other Christian critics are saying:

• Plugged In
• Crosswalk
• Catholic News Service
• Past the Popcorn

There are many films that try to raise awareness of real-life atrocities, both past and present, and most of these films tend to be somewhat earnest. They might have a few “Hollywood” elements—they might be love stories or action movies—but they generally keep things safely serious and dramatic. Not so The Hunting Party.

The film, written and directed by Richard Shepard—whose last film, The Matador, starred Pierce Brosnan as a hit man with a mid-life crisis—concerns three journalists who go searching for a war criminal in Bosnia, and while it does have moments of suspense and melancholy, much of the film plays like a comedy. Indeed, an opening title card tells us that “only the most ridiculous parts of this story are true.”

It’s a daring approach, and one that has some worthy precedents. Of all the movies about nuclear warfare produced at the height of the Cold War, the one everyone remembers is Dr. Strangelove, Stanley Kubrick’s way-over-the-top satire of détente gone wrong (which, incidentally, was based on a serious novel). Shepard, however, is no Kubrick, and he mixes the absurdist truth with some rather dull clichés.

In reality, there were five journalists who went looking for a war criminal and ended up being mistaken for a C.I.A. hit squad; one of them, Scott K. Anderson, later wrote about the experience for Esquire magazine. The film, on the other hand, features three journalists instead, each of whom is an easily recognizable archetype.

First, there is Simon Hunt (Richard Gere), the adventurous TV reporter who covered the Bosnian conflict until the day he “snapped” and began ranting, rather than reporting, during a live broadcast. His reputation in ruins, he now works freelance, travelling to all the world’s miserable spots and hoping someone will buy his stories.

Second, there is Duck (Terrence Howard), the cameraman who toured all the world’s conflict zones with Simon, up until the day Simon “snapped”, and who has since been promoted to a life of comforts back home. No longer dodging bullets in strange, hostile corners of the world, Duck now hangs with the social elite, working the cameras at formal press conferences and bedding attractive women.

And third, there is Benjamin (The Squid and the Whale‘s Jesse Eisenberg), a recent graduate of Harvard’s journalism school who studied Simon’s breakdown in class, and whose dad happens to be a vice-president at the network that Duck works for. He’s a neurotic kid, but he’s eager to impress the more experienced guys.

You can feel the Screenwriting 101 gears clicking into place already, right? Simon is the glib guy with a serious side, the loser who needs to redeem himself. Duck is the guy who has forgotten how to “keep it real” like Simon does. And Benjamin is the callow youth who learns there is more to life than they teach you in class.

The three characters come together in Sarajevo, at an event commemorating the fifth anniversary of the conflict there. Simon pays Duck a surprise visit and proposes tracking down the region’s most wanted war criminal, “The Fox” (Ljubomir Kerekes), for an exclusive interview—and perhaps for the reward money as well. Benjamin, who can sense that something is up, insists on joining them, and so he does.

It soon becomes apparent that the authorities patrolling the area outside Sarajevo under the auspices of the United Nations are not particularly interested in capturing “The Fox,” and indeed, some of them are keen to believe that the journalists are actually American secret agents who have come to do the dirty work.

Simon and his friends aren’t sure whether their new reputation is helpful or harmful to their goal. The lax attitude of the authorities might mean “The Fox” is easier to find, because he doesn’t have to try so hard to hide; but if everyone thinks Simon and his friends are assassins, it would make getting an interview with “The Fox” difficult, to say the least. At any rate, Simon and company find they have to dodge other dangers first, including rifle-toting waiters and drug-dealing midgets.

The Hunting Party was shot on location in Sarajevo and the Balkans, and the setting lends the film a certain feeling of authenticity. It is also quite easy to believe that things really are as crazy in that part of the world as the movie suggests. (The closing credits complicate things further by pointing out which details were factual and which details were invented for the movie. You may be surprised.)

But the three fictitious journalists through whose eyes we encounter this world don’t ring true at all. They all feel like the sort of people we have seen in movie after movie, and despite the best efforts of the actors involved, the three characters are all pretty shallow, to boot. Duck, in particular, has a girlfriend waiting for him in Greece, and if there is anything more to her than a sexy body and a bathing suit, we never see it. Do we care if she dumps him for staying in Bosnia? Does he care?

To the film’s credit, it draws attention to a part of the world that may have fallen off the radar for some of us, and to some of the unresolved issues there. And it does feature some fine performances, particularly by Gere and Howard—even if they are made to recite tired old lines like, “Putting your life in danger is living, the rest is television.” But the constant shifts in tone—and the strange mix of bizarre fact and banal fiction—make for a less than satisfying experience in the theatre.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. Benjamin suggests early on that it would be “unethical” for journalists to kidnap a wanted war criminal, instead of merely interviewing him. Do you agree? Is the neutrality of the media possible? Desirable?
2. What motives do you think are most important to Simon? Is there an element of revenge here? What about the last scene with “The Fox”? Do you think Simon and his friends do the right thing? Why or why not? What would you have done?
3. Do you think it is possible, or desirable, to make a comedy set during a war (or a genocide) and its aftermath? Why or why not? Does this film cross the line anywhere? Point to specific examples.

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

The Hunting Party is rated R for strong language (about 50 four-letter words, plus a few names taken in vain) and some violent content (shots fired, threats of torture, the discovery of dead bodies in a war zone). There are also a few brief glimpses of naked breasts in scenes that underscore the shallowness of material success.

Photos © Copyright New Line Cinema

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

What other Christian critics are saying:

• Plugged In
• Crosswalk
• Catholic News Service
• Past the Popcorn

I keep thinking I saw this movie before, except that then it starred Shirley Temple. A lovely young person appears and touches the lives of people from all walks of life, bringing them a little bit of sunshine, and guilelessly showing the way to a better life. But in the other movie there wasn’t a close-up of maggots crawling through a moose carcass. Not that I remember, anyway.

Into the Wild is a pretty infuriating movie, because it insists on treating the central character as an escapee from Godspell. In Jon Krakauer’s slim, fascinating, and disturbing book by the same title, Christopher McCandless is an ambivalent and somewhat pitiable figure. The son of a high-achieving couple, he did well at Emory University, but dwelt on courses concerning apartheid and the African food crisis. Chris became increasingly agitated by the gap between rich and poor, and revolted at his parents’ hard-earned success, as well as their hopes for his life. In a letter to his sister Carine, Chris told how their offer of a new car as a graduation present outraged him. (Chris had significant problems with his father, as Krakauer had with his own father, all of this contributing to the power of the book.)

The verb “to drop out” isn’t heard much these days, but that’s what Chris decided to do. He would disappear after graduation and travel around the country, living on as little as possible, a resistor to the conformity machine. He abandoned his car, burned his cash, and dined on nuts and berries. The impact on the African food crisis has not yet been reported.

Chris also determined to make his escape in a way that would unmistakably shut his parents out. He arranged that the letters they sent him all summer (in lieu of calling; he had no phone) would be held until August 1, then returned-to-sender in bulk. At that point the trail would be cold: Chris had taken off two months previously. His parents would never hear from him again.

When Chris’ body was found in a bus near Alaska’s Denali National Park, people began to come forward who recalled meeting him on his travels. A middle-aged hippie couple named Jan and Bob (in the movie, Bob’s name is changed to Rainey) picked him up hitchhiking, and Jan tried to talk him into contacting his parents. In the book, Jan has fond memories of Chris (who by this time was using the name “Alexander Supertramp”). But in the movie, Jan is pulling away from Rainey and silently brooding over something; we see her walking away down a stretch of beach. Chris tells Rainey that he is afraid of water, but has to start getting used to it sometime. He runs down the beach and playfully urges Jan into the waves, where the two of them leap and play. That evening we glimpse Rainey and Jan having a heart-to-heart in their tent. It worked!

Ron Franz, an octogenarian who also gave Chris a ride, gets the same treatment. In the book, Chris lectures Ron that he too should sell all his belongings and live on the road—youthful ardor both touching and amusing. But in the movie, when Ron asks Chris, “What are you running from?” Chris shoots back, “I could ask you the same,” and brings Ron to a breakthrough regarding his own retreat from life.

In the movie, Chris’ only flaw is idealism. Even his parents’ grief is a fruit of Chris’ heroism. His sister Carine (Jena Malone) notes in voiceover that “What Chris was saying had to be said,” and that, if Mom and Dad were becoming better people, it was thanks to the hard lesson he had taught. When she felt pity for them, she had to remember that Chris would not, that “these are not the parents he grew up with, but people softened by the forced reflection of their loss.”

So why give the movie three (out of four) stars? Mostly, because of the stars. Despite the gripes above, this is a terrific movie. It’s a gripping story, played out in visually astonishing places (brace yourself for some rough images, though). But it’s the acting that deserves the most praise. Into the Wild was directed by an actor, Sean Penn, and he knows how to make the most of an actor. Catherine Keener is just right as Jan, conveying a mysterious backstory in every cheery-yet-weary glance. William Hurt, as Chris’s dad, preserves a numb, stony face throughout, only to crumple it exquisitely into tears in a fleeting but powerful moment near the end. Non-actor Brian Dierker, given an opportunity to play Rainey, creates an affable, scene-stealing character.

All of this means that Emile Hirsch, just 22 years old, has to share the screen with many venerable performers; but he holds his own, in a role that made extraordinary physical demands (he dieted precipitously for the starvation scenes, dipping below 115 pounds). Just about every performer here deserves similar praise, and there’s well-deserved Oscar talk going around. Into the Wild has great acting, great scenery, and a great story, and any viewer will be awed. It would have been just that much better if it had given us to see the real, flawed Chris McCandless, rather than a version made over into Shirley Temple.

Talk About It

Discussion starters

1. Chris’ journey was a decidedly solitary one. Yet toward the end, it seems to have dawned on him that (in a passage he underlined in Tolstoy) it was necessary “to be used to do good to people.” He noted in the margin of another book, “Happiness only real when shared.” If he had been able to return to civilization, how might his life have changed?
2. There is an impulse to blame Chris for his own death (Krakauer reports getting a great deal of negative mail, particularly from Alaskans). Yet he was prepared and cautious enough to survive for a long time, and was not at fault for getting “trapped in the wild.” Why do we look for someone to take the blame for a disaster? Why do we prefer to think it can be explained by stupidity?
3. Some surprisingly positive Christian notes pop up in the movie. Ron tells Chris, “When you forgive, you love, and when you love, God’s light shines on you”—at which point the clouds part and they are hit by a beam of light. Real-life desert evangelist Leonard Knight, the artist-caretaker of Salvation Mountain, tells Chris, “This is a love story [for] everyone in the whole world.” Chris’ last message is “I have had a happy life and thank the Lord. Goodbye and may God bless all.” If you had met Chris on his wanderings, what would you have wanted to tell him?

The Family Corner

For parents to consider

Into the Wild is rated R for language and some nudity. In addition to coarse language, partial nudity, and a brief glimpse of a couple having sex, there are some stomach-turning scenes involving the butchering of a moose. Chris’ tragic descent toward starvation is also realistically depicted; the actor dropped below 115 pounds for this part of the story. Take the R-rating seriously.

Photos © Copyright Paramount Vantage

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

What other Christian critics are saying:

• Plugged In
• Crosswalk
• Catholic News Service
• Past the Popcorn

“What prompts us to seek God, to speak and hope he hears us? Perhaps we think it is the emptiness of our lives without him, that God-shaped vacuum in our souls, our desire for meaning and significance. Okay, yes. But where does our desire for God come from? Are we seeking or responding? Do we start the conversation or does God?” (from Listen: Finding God in the Story of Your Life)

This month, let’s consider the spiritual practice of prayer. Prayer not as ritual but as a means to relationship; as conversation initiated by the Holy Spirit, in which our primary role is to listen.

In her excellent book Soul Feast, Marjorie Thompson writes: “Like the spiritual life itself, prayer is initiated by God. No matter what we think about the origin of our prayers, they are all a response to the hidden workings of the spirit within. God’s desire for us ignites the spark of our desire for God.”

In Listen, I add: “When I feel a desire to pray, it is God’s spirit that stirs up that desire in the first place. Thank about that: God initiates and seeks you out. … God cares enough about me to initiate conversation and relationship. I am the beloved. I am not just the seeker, I am the sought. I am the object of God’s affection. It’s a truth that demands a response.”

Of course, sometimes we say to ourselves “I really should pray,” or “I really ought to pray.” The guilt-inducing “should” and “ought” are dysfunctions. God gives pure desires, the desires of the Spirit—not the shame-based desires. Have you ever spent time with someone who was with you because they thought they “should” be? How fun was that for you? How do you suppose God feels when you are with him only out of obligation?

When I led a spiritual retreat on the topic of listening to God, I received this question from one of the participants: “In your book Listen, you say we should let God call us to pray. We’ve been used to going to God when we’re ready. Explain more.”

Okay, I’ll explain.

It’s really a matter of perspective. God, who knows all and continually searches the earth that he may strongly support those whose hearts are fully his (2 Chronicles 16:9), can stir like a gentle breeze in our souls. When we think we’re about to go to God when we’re ready, it’s really our souls responding to divine whispers and stirrings. We respond in the context of a relationship of trust.

We can see an example of this type of love in the relationships we have with the children we love and lead. A parent or teacher, by being loving and consistent, inspires a child to desire his or her comforting presence; in times of fear or uncertainty—or during times of great joy. The relationship is built on communication and trust, so that the child cannot wait to tell us of some exciting experience or challenging situation.

In the context of this relationship, that child wants to be with this parent, teacher, or caregiver because that person has shown themselves to be trustworthy, loving, and kind.

You are the object of God’s affection. In the context of that relationship, you will develop a desire to run to him.

Sometimes, though, we respond too quickly to the stirrings in our soul, hence misreading them. We feel needy, we feel desire, and we mistakenly feed that desire with food, or drink, or entertainment. But if we were to wait—to pay attention to the longing—we would eventually discover that what we truly hunger for is more of God.

If we think prayer is all our idea, we have made God too small and ourselves too big.

Still, we need not wait around for God to call. If we desire communication with God, we can trust that God put that desire in our hearts. The relationship of love is fertile soil, and our desire for our beloved grows freely there. And we can act on it by boldly approaching the throne of grace.

In his classic book Life of the Beloved, Henri Nouwen wrote that the essence of the spiritual life is “being the Beloved,” that is, realizing the extent of God’s amazing and unconditional love for us, so that it affects not just what we know but who we are.

“What is required is to become the Beloved in the commonplaces of my daily existence and bit by bit, to close the gap that exists between what I know myself to be and the countless specific realities of everyday life,” Nouwen wrote.

“Prayer is where I allow God access to the ‘commonplaces of my daily existence’ and listen to his guidance and advice on those areas. By listening, I transform myself from someone who just has a nice idea that keeps me a little hopeful, to actually embracing my identity as one who is not just loved, but is the beloved.” (read more in Listen)

What is it that makes you want to pray? What do you think of the idea that your desire for prayer is actually initiated by the object of those prayers?

And what could you do to go deeper, to find the hunger for God hidden beneath all your other longings and desires?

Copyright © 2007 Promiseland.

You may think writing a sermon every week is challenging work, but imagine writing speeches everyday for the leader of the free world. That was Michael Gerson’s job for six years under President George W. Bush. Last night I attended a benefit dinner in Chicago where Gerson was the keynote speaker. Prior to the dinner I participated in a small roundtable discussion with Gerson about his time in the White House and his perception of current challenges – domestic and international – facing the country.

Much of the conversation focused on Gerson’s responsibility in crafting the President’s response in the days following 9/11. Leading a nation in shock and grief is not easy, but simultaneously showing strength and resolve is a challenge few presidential speechwriters have faced. Gerson was almost universally praised for shaping Bush’s tone in a way that comforted the nation and rallied the world. The President’s address at the National Cathedral, which Gerson and his team wrote with less than one day’s notice, has been celebrated as one of the finest moments of the Bush presidency.

A theology grad from Wheaton College, Gerson’s faith has been a factor both in Bush’s speeches and policy. U2’s Bono, a friend of Gerson’s, has said, “Mike is known as a ?moral compass’ at the White House.” As a senior policy advisor to Bush, Gerson was instrumental in the push to triple aid to Africa, and he’s filled the President’s remarks with passionate rhetoric about compassion, the spread of democracy, and the God-ordained dignity of freedom for all people. But at Thursday night’s gathering Gerson was critical of the administration’s execution of these ideals.

Gerson said his worst day at the White House was when the Abu Ghraib prison story hit the wires. The criminal actions of a handful of US soldiers were graphically displayed for the world to see. One of Gerson’s speechwriting colleagues at the White House commented that Abu Ghraib, “undid everything we’ve done.” The President’s rhetoric was contradicted by the images coming from Iraq.

Similarly, Gerson believes the administration’s policy of detaining enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay has become an obstacle throughout the world. He said virtually everywhere administration official travel to advance the President’s ideals of democracy and freedom they are assaulted with questions about Guantanamo Bay. Critics believe the holding of enemy combatants without access to legal representation or oversight by multinational agreements (the Geneva Convention) contradicts the President’s desire to bring democratic liberties to the Middle East. Once again, the rhetoric doesn’t match reality.

This was the thrust of Gerson’s remarks. As a speechwriter for the most powerful political figure on Earth, he takes seriously the impact and transforming power of words. But he says, “The facts on the ground always trump words.” It has been the administration’s inability to translate its rhetoric into reality that has led to the President’s unpopularity both at home and abroad. Nonetheless, Gerson is proud of the major advances made by this White House in humanitarian efforts, and he still believes strongly in the President’s agenda to spread democracy as a way of securing peace for future generations.

As a pastor, not a politician, I realized Michael Gerson was reminding us of a basic truth – we’ve got to practice what we preach. Eloquent sermons, well-composed articles, and even popular podcasts are not enough. Ultimately our credibility as communicators of the gospel is displayed by the content of our characters – the fruit of our lives. In an age when pastors are becoming increasingly isolated from their flocks – whether by the enormity of our sanctuaries or the psuedo-intimacy of video preaching – the temptation to separate rhetoric from reality is more seductive than ever before.

For the last week, I have been tracking my junk mail. In five days I received:

• Four credit card offers (two pre-approved—woo hoo!)
• 20% off at a large retailer (for a limited time only)
• An offer to pay my mortgage off five years early (although I do the paying)
• A fund update from Fidelity (well, guess I won’t be paying that mortgage early)
• Three assorted letters from my church (hope the communications department doesn’t read this article)
• A Home Depot offer touting no payments for a year (which I hid from my husband because we need to afford our mortgage)
• A “personal” letter from a dentist welcoming me to the neighborhood (I moved in a year ago and floss regularly to avoid dental bills that rival our mortgage)
• And many other pieces much less memorable

I live in a condo building built in the 70’s with small mailboxes. If my husband and I don’t check our mail every day, it literally overflows to the point where the postman can no longer close our mail slot. Yet despite the constant influx of mail, I receive very few genuine pieces of communication worth my time to read. In fact, I am the master of weeding through my mail on the way from my mailbox back to my front door (about 20 feet) and throwing away nearly everything—still unopened. No piling up on the counter for me!

Sadly, such is the typical American experience.

To begin, recognize reality. Mail, email, e-news, special offers, taglines, hurry now because this ends soon, and can’t miss opportunities—it seems communication has become over saturated, watered down, and down right futile. So what hope exists for those of us in ministry with something important to say?

Plenty—when you communicate with purpose. Or you can call it common sense communication. Based on my experience as communications director for our children’s ministry, I’ve learned five key lessons:

1. Over communication is the kiss of death. Eventually—and maybe quickly—people will see your return address and immediately discount whatever is inside.
2. Plain letters are boring—no matter what the letterhead looks like.
3. Only communicate when you have something to say. And blatantly state how and why the information you share is relevant to the audience.
4. Alternate between mailing a communications piece and handing materials out in your ministry—variety is good!
5. How and what you communicate is a critical factor in defining the reputation and culture of your ministry.

Over the last 18 months, our ministry dedicated ourselves to better communication channels with families in order to satisfy three goals:

1. To build a relationship with parents so that they see our ministry as a valuable partner to support their child’s spiritual development.
2. To relay relevant, important information that parents will appreciate.
3. To inspire, encourage, and challenge parents.

While we don’t have it all figured out and certainly haven’t revolutionized the world of communication, our focus seems to have resulted in a stronger partnership with parents—as evidenced by positive comments and less confusion.

What did this communication look like?

Let’s take a look. Please keep in mind the three goals and the five new learnings mentioned earlier. While you do, check out the following major parent communications pieces we produced this year—and my “journal entries” for the what and why and how that existed for each.

SPRING 2006- It’s a New Day in Promiseland

Our spring piece was created to share upcoming dates and information. This piece served as our first venture into the world of creatively designing our communication. We could have shared this information just as easily in a standard letter—which would have been largely ignored. However, by using a graphic designer and putting creativity into the information, it was not only widely read but highly complimented as well. This piece was mailed home to every family.

[Click here to view It’s a New Day in Promiseland]

SUMMER 2006- Promiseland Summer Calendar

Last summer, we tried something new in our programming and curriculum department. We decided not to have a theme for the summer. What? Okay, “no theme” served as our theme. Our summer took on a popsicle box metaphor with the idea that a box of popsicles comes with a variety of fun flavors—and definitely communicates “summer fun.” In Promiseland, each weekend had a different theme to keep kids excited and looking forward to something new. Our summer calendar captured all 11 weekend topics in a captivating way through bright colors and quick quips that served as enticing explanation for the weekend. This piece was passed out to all families of kids fours years of age and older. It was also available on literature racks throughout our ministry during the entire summer.

[Click hereto view the Promiseland Summer Calendar 2006]

FALL- Promiseland Fall 2006… Let the journey begin

We launched our new ministry year in late August 2006. As the beginning of a new season, we used this piece to give a vision for what parents and Promiseland can do together. The highlight of this piece was unveiling four milestones of the journey kids are on in our ministry. We distributed this piece to all families on weekends and placed it on literature racks from August through November.

[Click hereto view Promiseland Fall 2006… Let the journey begin]

WINTER 2006- Christmas Unwrapped

I know favoritism in ministry is a generally frowned upon concept but, I must admit, our Christmas piece has been my favorite so far. I love the cover, the way the piece opened down the center, the way the red bow popped off any rack or table I laid it out on. When this piece came out, it was then that I knew our communication really worked! We distributed this piece to families on weekends and made it available throughout December on literature racks.

[Click hereto view Christmas Unwrapped]

SPRING 2007- Promiseland in High Definition

I can’t believe how quickly spring came this year. Although Chicago had one of coldest, longest winters I can remember in a long time, spring still seemed to come around fast. Wow, it has been a year since we started our new communication plan. So far, we have had nothing but positive, thankful responses from parents. Everyone seems to love hearing from us now—they even ask for it! Who knew it could be like this?

For our spring piece we choose to use the theme from our 2007 children’s ministry conference— High Definition. Along with great information about upcoming events and what kids will learn in Promiseland, we decided to use this piece to reiterate to parents those all-important milestones we unveiled to them in the fall. Since we laid out the vision for the whole year in the fall, this was a perfect opportunity to remind and challenge parents of the journey we are on together. This piece was mailed to all families and was available on literature racks throughout the spring.

[Click hereto view Promiseland in High Definition]

SUMMER 2007- SOAKED!

Summer… think hot weather, school’s out, pools, water fights, playing with the sprinklers in the back yard… think Promiseland SOAKED! Our theme this summer is entirely water-based, thus the name SOAKED! We are going to use our summer weekends to soak up God’s word in Promiseland. This may be one of our most fun communications yet.

[Click hereto view SOAKED!]

ALL YEAR LONG – Welcome Kits

To help kids and parents learn how each of ministry’s rooms work, we developed a welcome kit that contains room-specific information. Our goal is to share enough helpful information with parents so that they feel knowledgeable and comfortable—because then they can confidently help their children feel comfortable. Under-informed parents lead to anxious kids. So in each welcome kit, parents find information about key leaders (with pictures), check-in/check-out and other safety procedures, bathroom policies, details about how services run, answers to frequently asked questions, and ways to learn more about kids of specific ages. We share welcome kits with all new families, and with parents of children who will graduate into a new room.

[Click hereto view Welcome Kit]

So here’s my challenge to you: take a close look at your mailbox. Pay attention to your initial reactions when you sort through all the clutter you receive on daily basis. Use your personal experience to influence how you communicate for your ministry. When you communicate well, you will see families develop a new appreciate for your ministry and eager anticipation for upcoming news.

Even if you don’t offer to pay off their mortgage early!

Ashley Cornelius serves as the director of group life, volunteerism, and communications for Promiseland, the children’s ministry of Willow Creek Community Church in Illinois.

Copyright © 2007 Promiseland.

Planned Parenthood, the nation’s largest abortion provider, is attempting to open a humongous, 22,000-square-feet abortion clinic in Aurora, Illinois, a Chicago suburb. No problem, right? Abortion’s legal and all that.

Well, not so fast. Today U.S. District Judge Charles Norgle denied the organization’s request for a preliminary injunction that would have allowed the clinic to open. It seems that PP didn’t disclose to city fathers that it owned the building–after applying for permits under another name–nor that abortions would be performed there. Not only is the clinic’s opening delayed, now the county’s states attorney is looking into whether any laws were violated.

Abortion-rights supporters, such as Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn, applaud what PP did–calling it “creative subterfuge”–to sneak a “reproductive health clinic” into Aurora. Zorn writes:

Well of course Planned Parenthood representatives didn’t tell the truth to Aurora city officials while they were building a new clinic in the western suburb.

They hid behind the name of a subsidiary company, Gemini Office Development, and were misleadingly vague when asked along the way about the identity of prospective tenants for the $7.5 million facility.

Their goal was straightforward: To open a reproductive-health clinic on land zoned for such purpose.

But they had to use a certain amount of stealth because abortion is one of the services Planned Parenthood offers. And foes of abortion rights, longtime losers in the battle for public opinion, traditionally raise all kinds of rukus [sic] when Planned Parenthood comes into a community.

The foes not only picket construction sites, but they also send picketers out to harass subcontractors at their homes and businesses, try to spread alarm and disgust in the immediate neighborhoods and attempt to browbeat civic officials into implementing just the sort of craven, politically motivated delays we’re now seeing in Aurora.

Then when Planned Parenthood is revealed to have tried to prevent such pressure tactics by using a little creative subterfuge, the opponents of abortion-rights carry on indignantly, as though the deceptions were an effort to skirt the law.

Let me see if I have his reasoning down correctly: (1) the ends justify the means, if the ends are to promote abortion; and (2) it’s all the fault of pro-lifers, anyway.

Such situational relativism may work on “24,” but it doesn’t work in the real world, Eric. Also, if you pro-choicers have really won in the court of public opinion, why do you have to resort to deception to get a clinic without the public’s knowledge?

And what would you say if pro-lifers engaged in a little “creative subterfuge” of their own? It seems to me that they have been (unfairly) pilloried by abortion supporters because they don’t advertise the fact that their crisis pregnancy centers don’t offer abortions. They are criticized for not advertising a service they don’t offer. Of course, who does? But in this instance, PP is not advertising a service they do offer. I wonder why?

This whole episode highlights a persistent problem for abortion-rights advocates: an aversion to telling the truth about abortion, which has taken the lives of 50 million unborn children since 1973.

Craig is the finest apologist to come on the scene in 50 years, and this is his classic work for a thoughtful, general audience. It starts with the case for God and moves to the case for Christ. For folks who want a first-rate treatment, there is none better.

A treasure trove of short, powerful entries that cover the gamut of apologetic topics. If you need to get your hands on a quick treatment of a specific issue, this is the place.

An extremely readable, engaging volume. An interested layperson can benefit from it, yet you can confidently give it to a sophisticated, skeptical scientist.

Articles about Jonathan Wells’ work include:

The Peppered Myth | Of moths and men: An evolutionary tale. Also see “Moths and Men Revisited.” (Jonathan Wells, Books & Culture, September 1, 2001)

What’s New? | Two biologists claim to close a “major gap in Darwin’s theory” of evolution. (Jonathan Wells, Books & Culture, September/October 2006)

Were the Darwinists Wrong? | National Geographic stacks the deck. (November 11, 2004)

The Art of Debating Darwin | How to intelligently design a winning case for God’s role in creation. (September 1, 2004)

Intelligently Designed Films | The youthful ID movement flexes its muscles in two documentaries. (March 1, 2003)

Weighing in at a hernia-inducing 653 pages, this is the most comprehensive treatment available of philosophical issues central to a defense of the faith, if I do say so myself. It’s not an easy read, but it repays careful study.

More about Craig and Moreland’s work includes:

Masters of Philosophy | How Biola University is making inroads in the larger philosophical world (June 1, 2003)

Thinking Straighter | Why the world’s most famous atheist now believes in God. (September 9, 2007)

This is Strobel’s seminal work. If I had to pick one book that presents the case for the historicity of the New Testament, this would be it. Buy a case as Christmas presents, and don’t leave home without it.

Our coverage includes:

Inside CT: A Six-Pack of Strobel’s | I just discovered a six-pack I can endorse—and probably the only one available at your local Christian bookstore. (February 8, 1999)

Copyright © 2007 Christianity Today. Click for reprint information.

Related elsewhere:

More book reviews and articles on apologetics are available on our site.