Despite an argument from the Italian government that the crucifix is a national symbol of culture, history, identity, tolerance, and secularism, Europe’s court of human rights ruled today that displaying the religious symbol in Italian public schools violates religious and education freedoms and could disturb non-Christian or atheist students. The Italian government plans to appeal immediately, and the Roman Catholic Church was not happy with the ruling, with the Italian Bishop’s Conference issuing a statement: “The multiple significance of the crucifix, which is not just a religious symbol but a cultural sign, has been either ignored or overlooked.”

The court stopped short of ordering the removal of crucifixes but did fine the Italian government €5,000 ($7,390), payable to Soile Lautsi, who brought forth the case after her children’s school refused eight years ago to remove crucifixes from classrooms.

“We believe the ruling is a positive signal from Europe to Italy, which seems to increasingly lose its secularism,” Lautsi’s husband, Massimo Albertin told the ANSA news agency. “The crucifix creates discrimination.”

“The single best indicator of how a person will vote is how he or she worships God,” says pollster Frank Luntz in What Americans Really Want . . . Really. Does Luntz’s insight apply to the way people view healthcare reform?

He notes that there is indeed “a partisan difference in religion,” whereas 60 percent of Republicans attend church on a weekly basis, only 25 percent of Democrats attend worship. “Evangelicals are heavily Republican,” Luntz says, adding that “atheists and agnostics are almost exclusively Democrats.” For the most part, these numbers square with the Pew Forum’s Religious Landscape Survey.

Last week I spoke as a panelist at a healthcare forum sponsored by a Republican organization in an upscale neighborhood of Pittsburgh. Because the forum was advertised as a community event, I assumed there would be a broad spectrum of political views represented in the audience. In other words, I was prepared to take some flak for my conservative views. When a minister opened the program in prayer and almost every head bowed, I thought I might have been on friendly turf, but I still wasn’t sure. Due to the nature of the questions from the 130-person audience it became clear that most of the crowd was opposed to and fearful of Congress’ plans for healthcare reform. I was on friendly turf. But it wasn’t because most people in the audience prayed. Lots of praying people don’t share this Orthodox Presbyterian’s views on what Congress has been doing lately.

Was the room filled primarily with church-going Republicans? Most likely. Does that mean that most supporters of healthcare reform are atheist Democrats? Hardly.

True, most supporters of the current versions of healthcare reform, according to the Pew Forum, are Democrats, while less than one-in-five are conservative, white evangelical Republicans. Yet, as of last March, a large number of Americans supported at least a government guarantee of healthcare insurance. This group included elements of the Christian community, consisting of 48 percent of white evangelicals, 55 percent of Catholics, and 56 percent of mainline Protestants. The Pew Forum also notes that Christian organizations and churches with left-leaning political views are organized and very much in favor of the efforts of Congress. An organization called “Faith for Health,” a coalition of 33 left-leaning Christian organizations and denominations, is running a sophisticated program that includes congregational guides and grassroots informational campaigns for Christians and Jews. Among the coalition are eight large Protestant denominations, including the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, and the United Methodist Church. Meanwhile, the “Freedom Federation,” a coalition of mostly politically active Christian groups represents some Christians from the right.

Is one’s faith the single best indicator of the way Americans feel about congressional efforts for healthcare reform? The Pew Forum claims a person’s political affiliation is more reliable. But evidently denominational affiliation can be a good indicator as well. Clearly, there’s a connection between one’s faith and one’s view of healthcare reform.

“Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is shameful even to speak of the things they do in secret” (Ephesians 5:11-12).

This Bible passage is bound to increasingly have Christian journalists in a bit of a double bind. Which is it—do we expose the works of darkness (verse 11)? Or is it shameful even to mention them (verse 12)?

I’m assuming that since the verses are back to back in the chapter, we need to figure out a way to comply with both somehow. So I will hazard to mention a recent deed of darkness and do it in the least shameful way possible, hoping to expose the act while avoiding the potential prurient pitfalls.

One good thing about not being a TV watcher is that I am impervious to the “frog in the pot syndrome.” Everything shocks me because the last I tuned in was to the 1960’s Bonanza.

So when my friend told me about the Sunday, October 25 episode of HBO’s Curb Your Enthusiasm, I suffered a genuine Alvin Toffler “future shock.” The plotline involves Larry David, who plays a caricature himself on the show, going to the bathroom in the home of a Catholic woman where there is a painting of Jesus on the wall next to the toilet. The David character somehow manages to spray a drop of urine onto the icon, and it lands on Jesus’ cheek, below his eye.

Later the woman emerges from the loo and announces that a miracle has happened: The Jesus picture is crying. The audience has a good laugh at the stupid Christian’s expense.

The German population of the 1930s didn’t wake up one morning and decide to kill Jews. The relentless poisoning of the atmosphere through media softened them up. For instance, Julius Streicher’s Der Sturner magazine ran cartoons featuring characters with large noses, engaged in immoral acts. Ridicule is the passport into the violence to come.

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.

In “What Really Riles Muslim Extremists,” Dinesh D’Souza argues against the idea that theism and belief in an afterlife is the true root cause of terrorism.

Many atheists, and even some believers, would like us to believe that Muslim fanatics are doing this in the hope of going straight to heaven, so that they can enjoy the company of 72 virgins there. Some go as far as saying that religion itself is to blame, because it makes people susceptible to fanaticism, terrorism and violence.

But this accusation against religion is nonsense. Even against Islam it’s questionable. Robert Pape’s study of insurgency and suicide bombing shows that these actions have nothing to do with promises of heavenly reward. Rather, extremists are motivated by more mundane motives: they invaded our country, they stole our land, they raped my sister, and so on.

D’Souza says that when you look throughout history, atheistic leaders have “collectively killed millions more than even Bin Laden could ever dream of orchestrating.”

Beliefs in God and life after death have proven far less dangerous to society than the attempts to establish the God-free utopia. Fine, let’s listen to the atheists who say we need to watch out for heaven-seeking Muslims bent on blowing up civilians and flying planes into buildings. But let’s be just as vigilant against atheist fanatics who are willing to murder millions in order to establish their version of heaven on hearth.

I was lucky to escape childhood alive. I realize that now, as they rapture all the merry-go-rounds from the local parks around here, playground rides I somehow survived in the late 1950s an ’60s. You can never be too careful these days.

In the same spirit of safety first, the redoubtable National Health Service (NHS) in the UK has intervened to save the patients of 54-year-old Shirley Chaplin from her, by decreeing that the career nurse remove the necklace with a silver Cross that she has perilously worn around her neck in the line of duty since she was a nursing student.

The Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Trust Hospital arrived at this decision in spite of the fact that there has never been a recorded incident of patient or staff injury from the wearing of such an article of jewelry. Chapin, a devout Christian, says that no patient has ever complained either.

“Everyone I have ever worked with has clearly known I am a Christian; it is what motivates me to care for others,” she said. “For about 30 years I have worked in the NHS and nursed patients day and night and on no occasion has my Cross caused me or anyone else any injury.”

Meanwhile, the wearing of the hijab, sari, kippah, and mangal sutra continue to be seen in the nursing units “as part of a welcome diversity.” The Berkshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust’s policy is that “A Muslim woman wearing a headscarf would be seen as a requirement of faith and does not cause a health and safety risk for her patients. This nurse’s faith does not require the wearing of a necklace or a crucifix, so our position is that this is not an issue of faith but an issue of health and safety in the work place.”

Not a troublemaker, Chapin asked permission to at least wear the Cross pinned to her lapel (where Security ID badges are allowed), but she was told that the only acceptable place for the Cross was pinned inside her pocket. In the case of the ID badges, security benefit is deemed greater than risk.

Chapin has been reassigned, under duress, to a non-nursing position within the organization, but is filing a claim of discrimination. The barrister appointed for her defense by the Christian Legal Centre (CLC) is Paul Diamond, who also advised Caroline Petrie, the community nurse reprimanded a few months ago by the North Somerset Primary Healthcare Trust for offering to pray for a patient during a home visit.

To hear commentaries by Andrée Seu, click here.

Evangelicals attended a conference a week ago to, in the words of the Washington Post, “search the soul of their movement and find a new way forward.” The “Renewing the Evangelical Mission Conference” at Gordon Conwell Theological Seminary featured speakers like Os Guinness, J.I. Packer, Miroslav Volf and Lauren Winner.

The WaPo account makes it sound a bit disjointed, though. One pastor urged pastors to emphasize repentance more and fulfilling personal potential less. Some pastors emphasized doctrinal purity but others said that being too consumed with doctrinal differences can thwart ecumenical work. Speakers did agree, though, that the evangelical purpose needs renewing and that the church has lost some of its usefulness to society.

Do you agree that the evangelical mission needs renewing, and what can make that happen?

The Vatican senses a rare opportunity to pick up converts:

The Vatican announced surprise plans Tuesday to make it easier for Anglicans to convert, reaching out to those who are disaffected by the election of female and gay bishops to join the Catholic Church’s conservative ranks.

Pope Benedict XVI approved a new church provision that will allow Anglicans to join the Catholic Church while maintaining many of their distinctive spiritual and liturgical traditions, including married priests, Cardinal William Levada, the Vatican’s chief doctrinal official, told a news conference.

On one hand, I believe we are wrong if we do not pray for the unity of the church, even as Jesus did, “that they may all be one” (John 17:20-26).

On the other hand, there is a time for breaking away from a church that no longer rightly bears that name. Anglican capitulation on theological and moral issues leaves precious few options for those seeking to maintain biblical-gospel fidelity. The unity of the church does not come at the expense of her purity.

But, on the other hand (for those counting, that makes three) doesn’t this seem just a little opportunistic for the Vatican?

Besides, do they really think that they have the lowest bar for church membership? If you want a church that is “easier to convert” to, then just about any Evangelical church will do.

I can see the church marketing pitch now — “Looking for the EASIEST church to join? We are here for you!”

Thankfully, there are better discussions – biblically informed discussions – that are taking place all around.

A recent Religion News Service dispatch caught my attention. Under the headline “Missouri Synod Leaders Declare Worship Wars ‘Sinful’” came an article (subscription required) announcing the conservative Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod’s eight-page “Theses on Worship.” The document was adopted unanimously in September by the denomination’s Council of Presidents, which includes its top officials and leaders of its 35 regional districts.

The Theses on Worship took two years to complete, and—according to the RNS report—“describes worship as a command of God but says the Scriptures and doctrinal statements permit ‘considerable freedom’ in choosing the rites and ceremonies used for worship.”

The document itself declares: “The polarization that is affecting the church concerning the issue of forms, rites and ceremonies is sinful and hinders the proclamation of the gospel.”

True enough. These intramural conflicts consume a lot of energy, and to the outside world they can often appear to be irrelevant to the point of silliness. Jesus Himself, near the end of his earthly ministry and during one of his most impassioned and emotional moments, prayed that we, his followers, would “be one,” as he was indeed one with God. Elsewhere in Scripture, we read that it is “good and pleasant” for believers to “dwell in unity.”

But it is important to be clear about one point: A dwelling of unity that is not built on a foundation of truth is nothing more than a house of straw that will blow over with the first strong wind. That’s why it’s important that we realize that many of us on the “traditional” side of the so-called “worship wars” understand that much more is at stake than what style of music we’ll sing on Sunday morning. The worship wars, properly understood, are not about taste, but about theology—and about protecting the core doctrines of the faith.

To get a glimpse into what I mean, consider how modern worship songs make their way into contemporary worship services. The songs generally are first heard and popularized on contemporary Christian radio stations. There’s nothing inherently wrong with that, except that survey after survey shows that at least a third of Christian radio listeners are not Christians. They are overwhelmingly female, and they are mostly in their middle 30s. Again, nothing wrong with any of that; I’m glad there is a radio station for these people.

But what happens next? The popular songs are then promoted relentlessly to “worship leaders,” with sheet music and instrumental tracks pushed in a steady stream of catalogues and advertisements in magazines with titles like Worship Leader. Are the songs theologically solid? Do they teach the core doctrines of the Christian faith, or the specific distinctives of your denomination? Are they the highest and best our generation has to contribute to the great musical tradition of the church? But none of that seems to matter: If they’re a hit on Christian radio this week, they get performed in church the next.

Contrast that to the way music has historically been chosen for the church. The process has involved some of the greatest theologians and musicologists of our denominations who carefully deliberate matters of theology and discipleship. They ask: Does this song reflect our beliefs? Does this song deepen our understanding of poorly understood doctrines? Does this song unite old and young, black and white, or is it so stylistically specific that its attempt to be “relevant” to some alienates everyone else?

Certainly there are limitations to the slow-changing, sometimes bureaucratic way new music has historically made its way into Psalters and hymnals. And I want to be clear that I’m not advocating tradition for tradition’s sake. But let’s get to the point: Christianity is a religion based on history and tradition. The Resurrection is not an idea; it was an historical event. Jesus was not just a great teacher; He was God Incarnate. He chose to reveal Himself to us in history. That’s why when we throw over the highest and best traditions and practices of our faith in the never-ending pursuit of what’s new, what’s relevant, what’s “hip” or “cool,” we inadvertently but no less certainly erode core doctrines of the faith. We say to ourselves and to our children: History doesn’t matter. The testimony of the faithful men and women who came before us doesn’t matter. The highest and best thinking of our greatest minds—well, what was so great about them anyway?

This is cultural arrogance of the worst kind. And, as everyone from the author of Hebrews to George Orwell has made clear, when we cut ourselves off from the lessons of history, we quickly become victims of the worst kinds of intellectual and spiritual fascism.

So, are the “worship wars” unfortunate? Most certainly. But let us not shrink from these battles for the sake of a false and temporary “unity.” Let us instead use them as an opportunity to come to agreement not about how we can be relevant to the culture, but rather about how we can bring what is permanent and eternal to a culture otherwise headed for the trash-bin of history.

“Mom, I’m thinking about becoming Catholic.” For many Protestant parents, this statement is being heard more and more. As long as Protestants continue to devalue tradition, history, and social justice concerns we should expect to hear more and more young evangelicals “going home to Rome.” The combination of family church hoppin’ to find the best children’s and youth programs, combined with the mythology that Protestants embrace sola Scriptura in practice, creates the perfect conditions to usher young adults into Roman Catholicism.

I was recently in a room full of young adults raised in evangelical America. To my surprise, there was not a single person who had been raised in one congregation or denomination—they’d all changed churches at least two or three times. I’m not surprised, then, that we find among this generation a longing for tradition and consistency—especially in a culture of broken families and high levels of geographic mobility. People want to call something “home.”

In the September 2002 edition of the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society, Scot McKnight’s article, “From Wheaton to Rome: Why Evangelicals Become Roman Catholic,” offered good insight regarding the phenomenon of Protestants converting to Catholicism. The list included: (1) a desire for certainty, (2) a desire for history, (3) a desire for unity, and (4) a desire for authority.

A desire for consistency exposes the fact that Protestant theology is wildly divergent on key issues like justification, salvation, grace, marriage, divorce, birth control, social justice, and so on. Moreover, the downplaying of history and distinctiveness among Protestants tend to undermine connection to tradition. If you’re Baptist, Anglican, Presbyterian, Methodist, and so on, your family should know why. Also, no church or denomination really practices sola Scriptura as the only, or final, rule of faith. If your church uses a statement of faith, recites creeds, uses confessions and catechisms, sings from hymnals, and so on, your church has dual authorities—Scripture and tradition. While Scripture has final authority for issues related to salvation and morality, tradition determines who gets ordained, what is taught in Sunday school, what the sacraments mean, who holds what church office, and so on.

A desire for unity exposes grievous bifurcations among Protestants, of which there are over 33,000 different denominations in the world. This does seem consistent with Jesus’ desire for unity expressed in John 17. Of course, the “unity” of Catholic and Orthodox communions is often cosmetic. While Protestants put their disunity on display through church planting and denominations, others disagree off the record. The desire for authority is likely a reaction to being raised by a generation of anti-authoritarian baby boomers not carefully distinguishing between good and bad uses of authority. Trustworthy authority can be good for clarifying questions of theology and life as well as providing wisdom. Some forms of decentralization, however, may not be as helpful as we once believed.

To McKnight’s list I would add a desire for intellectual leadership in public life.  The Catholic Intellectual Tradition is a history of rigorous scholarship coupled with spirituality and ethical teaching toward forming people committed to piety and making the world a better place, especially for the poor. There have been intellectual contributions by Protestants but there is no comparable, consistent intellectual Protestant tradition that applies spiritual and moral formation to making the world a better place.

In the end, and sadly for some, young Protestants are exposing the weaknesses of their upbringing with their feet. Until Protestants recapture some sense of historic unity and mission to enter the world’s cultures, beyond evangelism, this trend will likely continue. McKnight’s observations are cause for much reflection.

TIME reported in June that the Obamas had found a church home at Camp David’s nondenominational Evergreen Chapel, where chaplain Lieut. Carey Cash (yep, great-nephew to Johnny Cash) preaches.

The White House promptly denied that the Obamas were choosing Evergreen as their home church. But the president himself provided a reason earlier this summer for why he hasn’t officially chosen a church:

“We were pretty affected by what happened at Trinity and the controversy surrounding Reverend Wright. That was deeply disturbing to us, and it was disappointing for us personally. It made us very sensitive to the fact that as president, the church we attend can end up being interpreted as speaking for us at all times.”

Today The Washington Post profiles Cash not as the president’s pastor but as “the pastor who has the president’s attention.” Obama said earlier this summer that Cash “delivers as powerful a sermon as I’ve heard in a while. I really think he’s excellent.” The Post doesn’t report how often the Obamas have attended Evergreen (just “from time to time”), which seems sort of important. The piece is still enlightening considering the Post couldn’t get an interview with Cash or anyone in his family.

The article highlights Cash’s “unflattering assessment of Islam” from his book on his deployment in Iraq:

“Sadly, grace is often absent in Islam, which is based upon binding religious law, requiring strenuous adherence to every tenet of the ‘Five Pillars of Allah,’ ” Cash writes. “A religion that emerges from the soil of strict adherence to law as a means of gaining God’s favor will always tend toward extreme self-sacrifice.”

Yes, that is unflattering. I’m not really surprised that Cash, a Southern Baptist, believes grace is better than no grace.