SEND FAXES with new ad on jobs/immigration‏

A very interesting post from www.numbersusa.com . For more interesting articles like this, follow this blog here.


SEND FAXES with new ad on jobs/immigration‏
Look at our great new jobs ad -- then fax it with your comments to your Members of Congress

WE'VE NEVER BEEN ABLE TO OFFER YOU THIS FAXING OPPORTUNITY BEFORE . . . . We and some of our allies are running full-page ads in the three newspapers that are most read by Congress, Administration officials and Washington staffers. The key message is this: HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN TO 15 MILLION JOBLESS AMERICANS TRYING TO PUT FOOD ON THE TABLE THAT THEIR GOVERNMENT IS STILL ADDING 125,000 FOREIGN WORKERS A MONTH?
STEP 1: Look at this great ad. Maybe you will want to print it to have next to your computer when you write your fax message.
STEP 2: Open up this fax that you are going to send to your 3 Members of Congress.
STEP 3: Choose an opening paragraph from the many we offer you. And then write one or two paragraphs of your own about what you most want your Members of Congress to do or think about the message in the ad.
STEP 4: Click to send the faxes -- as usual, easy and free. Your message on your letterhead will print out on the fax machine of your Members of Congress, and immediately the next page will be a printed copy of the ad. Offices will be flooded with copies of the ad.
This is a chance to force every office on the Hill to confront the ugly facts of our anti-American-worker immigration policy -- many times every hour! When you write your note, think about what you would say to your Congressmen if you could personally hand them a copy of the ad and say a few words about what you most want them to take away from the ad. More than anything, I want them to feel shame about their lack of action -- to feel that they ought to stop importing foreign workers immediately. NOTE: Some of you will find that the fax only goes to your 2 Senators. The reason is that you are among the few who have a U.S. Representative who has co-sponsored Rep. Gingrey's bill to eliminate chain migration (which would mean reducing by a couple hundred thousand a year the number of foreign workers imported). You will find an additional fax on your personalized Action Board that goes to just your Representative, thanking him/her for trying to do something to reduce foreign workers but also urging him/her to become more aggressive in pushing the concept. THANKS FOR SENDING THESE FAXES AND INCREASING THE POWER OF THE ADS A HUNDRED-FOLD,

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach

An interesting take from www.vdare.com about an evangelical view of immigration.

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach
[Peter Brimelow writes: For some reason, it is much easier to get Catholic immigration reformers to write about their faith and their preferred policy, even though it means arguing with their bishops. But recently Jim Antle wrote about Methodists and here Rev. Barnwell offers an Evangelical perspective.]
By Bill Barnwell
The mainstream Christian Right has long been divided on the issue of immigration. Since Evangelical Protestants view the Scriptures as the basis for their worldview, both sides appeal to the Bible to support their position. Christianity Today has run several pieces recently, featuring different angles on the Evangelical response to the immigration crisis. [For example, On Immigration Issue, Big Evangelical Groups Conspicuously Mum, G. Jeffrey Macdonald, January 20, 2006]The debate raises several questions: How do Evangelicals reach their divergent opinions? Is there any hope of a consensus on what the Bible “really” says on this issue for 21st century Americans? Is the Bible even a valid source for evangelical immigration debates?While the Scriptures do not directly address this modern policy debate, there certainly are some overriding Biblical principles that can help a Christian reach a conclusion. I believe that while Christians who support mass immigration may be well-intentioned, they are simply missing the mark by overlooking some key facts both in the Biblical text and in the modern debate.First, it must be pointed out that current political and social conditions are very different than in Biblical times. The nation-state as it exists today does not reflect the ancient kingdoms of Israel or Judah, or the Roman Empire of the New Testament.After the Israelites left Egypt, they settled in the land of Canaan and functioned as a theocracy. There was no king, and most surrounding people groups belonged to what we would basically call “city-states.” Eventually the nations of Israel and Judah became established states with their own kings (the unified kingdom split after Solomon).The book of Deuteronomy makes provisions for the selection of a king (I Deut. 17:14-20). One of the instructions was that the king himself be from the Israelite community. The people were instructed not to put a foreigner over themselves. Likewise, after the Israelites returned to their land from national exile, they were forbidden by their priestly leaders from intermarrying with foreign persons (Ezra 9).The appeal here in the Old Testament is not one of racial purity, but spiritual purity. Foreigners were indeed allowed into the Israelite community. Ruth the Moabite is a prime example of this.These instructions were given when the Israelites were under the Old Testament law and were to be a holy people, set apart. They were not to conform to wicked customs, morals, and religious beliefs of the Canaanites, Hittites, Ammonites, etc. The Israelites were supposed to be a shining city on a hill to which the rest of the world would take notice and ideally worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This was part of the promise to Abraham, the father of Israel, when God told him, “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” ( Gen. 12:3).According to the New Testament, this promise reached its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The first chapter in the New Testament spells this out by showing that Christ was the promised descendant of Abraham and David ( Matthew 1). Therefore, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).So if the emphasis is not, in fact, on race and ethnicity, is there anything here that can be applied to the discussion of immigration? In short, yes.As I’ve shown, the Israelites were supposed to welcome foreigners who believed in their spiritual ideals and wanted to freely become a part of the Israelite community. To speak anachronistically, they were not supposed to welcome foreigners who would come in and burn their flags and sing the national anthem of the Canaanites.Christians, therefore, should be advocating an immigration policy that welcomes those who seek to willingly assimilate and become a part of their national culture and heritage.Foreigners who became a part of the Israelite community were obligated to forsake their old ways and assimilate to their new culture. While for the Israelites this transformation was primarily spiritual, it surely carried many secular connotations as well. Christians should not have a racial focus, but a values focus.However, Christians need to recognize that the purpose of immigration policy is not to invite more potential converts into our churches.But what about highly spiritual illegal immigrants who come to America seeking a better life? Surely they should be welcomed into the American community with open arms, even if they break the law, correct?Well, not so fast.In general, the Bible supports the idea of obeying the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7). However, when the authorities are rebelling against God’s will ( Revelation 13), the Christian has the obligation to “obey God rather than men" ( Acts 5:29). We must ask ourselves then:Is a nation-state protecting its borders and seeking to assimilate its citizens into its culture really engaging in an egregious offense against God?Are these laws so offensive towards God that they permit a Christian to break American laws and thumb their noses at other foreign Christians who are seeking to enter the country legally?Unless it can be proven that the law or authority in question is in direct violation of God’s revealed will, we cannot conclude that illegal immigrants (including Christian ones) are pursuing a righteous cause. Why is it seen as immoral or unfair for America to actually enforce its already lax standards on immigration? Immigration policy certainly does not rise to the level of an offense against God.The biblical verses most commonly used by Christians who support liberal immigration laws appeal to the Israelites to treat fairly the “strangers in the land.” Leviticus 19:33-34 supports this notion: “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”[VDARE.COM note: Or in the King James Version: “If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” This gave John Higham the title of his famous book on nativism, still cited by many who do not realize he subsequently changed his mind.]There are several ways in which these verses are misinterpreted:First of all, these verses were most probably primarily referring to foreigners who sought to become a part of the Israelite community. It certainly cannot be referring to the pagans in the land who sought to lure the Israelites into sin and rebellion against God. Therefore, these passages were certainly not directed towards aliens who were breaking laws and causing mayhem in the community.Second, these passages say nothing about modern democratic nation-states establishing their own guidelines about what is and isn’t the appropriate number of “aliens” living in their lands.Third, is it treating an illegal alien unfairly by punishing him for breaking the law? When our own legal citizens clearly violate the law, are we being unjust as a society by punishing them? No. Rather, it is more unfair to the rest of the society when we ignore the rule of law and turn our heads away from the lawbreakers.It is true that both the Old and New Testaments are very harsh in their assessment of those in God’s supposed community who turn a blind eye to the needy or permit social injustices. However, Christians who support mass immigration usually make two errors of judgment about this:First, they assume that the Christians who want a more controlled immigration policy are the ones who are promoting a more unjust or faulty society.The "injustice" contention has many problems outlined in such books as Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation and Pat Buchanan’s recent State of Emergency. There is plenty of evidence that both illegal immigration and mass legal immigration have created far more problems than benefits in society. This is evidence that some Evangelicals do not want to hear.Secondly, immigration enthusiasts assume that restrictionists do not care about the welfare or well-being of illegal immigrants.That is far from the case. Any person who calls himself a Christian should of course demonstrate love to the less fortunate both in word and deed. But there are other ways to love immigrants than sanctioning their law breaking. It takes more sacrifice for a Christian to do a short-term missions project or to donate financially towards impoverished areas of Mexico than it does for them to cheer on illegal immigration.Rather than just applauding faceless illegals—whom they may never actually meet—Evangelicals would do better to actually meet these people where they are and donate their resources (time, money, etc) to help improve their lots in life. Christians could also support Mexican churches in their efforts to provide relief to their countrymen and women.Whatever route is chosen—and there are plenty of other possibilities—we should not act as if the only way to show love and compassion to immigrants is by promoting or condoning illegal behavior.A grander goal for the global Christian community, and Americans on a whole, is to help impoverished Mexican communities empower themselves to better care for their hurting people. This of course takes more work and sacrifice than just promoting open borders.The Evangelical must ask himself which side in this internal debate ultimately demands more love and sacrifice and is more closely aligned to the Scriptures.It is hard for me to believe the side that promotes law breaking, and ignores the very real social problems and risks this entails, is doing more justice to Scriptural principles. Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor and writer in Michigan. He holds both a Master of Ministry degree and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. Visit his blog at www.billbarnwell.blogspot.com

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach

An interesting take from www.vdare.com about an evangelical view of immigration.

Immigration: An Evangelical Approach

[Peter Brimelow writes: For some reason, it is much easier to get Catholic immigration reformers to write about their faith and their preferred policy, even though it means arguing with their bishops. But recently Jim Antle wrote about Methodists and here Rev. Barnwell offers an Evangelical perspective.]

By Bill Barnwell

The mainstream Christian Right has long been divided on the issue of immigration. Since Evangelical Protestants view the Scriptures as the basis for their worldview, both sides appeal to the Bible to support their position. Christianity Today has run several pieces recently, featuring different angles on the Evangelical response to the immigration crisis. [For example, On Immigration Issue, Big Evangelical Groups Conspicuously Mum, G. Jeffrey Macdonald, January 20, 2006]
The debate raises several questions: How do Evangelicals reach their divergent opinions? Is there any hope of a consensus on what the Bible “really” says on this issue for 21st century Americans? Is the Bible even a valid source for evangelical immigration debates?
While the Scriptures do not directly address this modern policy debate, there certainly are some overriding Biblical principles that can help a Christian reach a conclusion. I believe that while Christians who support mass immigration may be well-intentioned, they are simply missing the mark by overlooking some key facts both in the Biblical text and in the modern debate.
First, it must be pointed out that current political and social conditions are very different than in Biblical times. The nation-state as it exists today does not reflect the ancient kingdoms of Israel or Judah, or the Roman Empire of the New Testament.
After the Israelites left Egypt, they settled in the land of Canaan and functioned as a theocracy. There was no king, and most surrounding people groups belonged to what we would basically call “city-states.” Eventually the nations of Israel and Judah became established states with their own kings (the unified kingdom split after Solomon).

The book of Deuteronomy makes provisions for the selection of a king (I Deut. 17:14-20). One of the instructions was that the king himself be from the Israelite community. The people were instructed not to put a foreigner over themselves.

Likewise, after the Israelites returned to their land from national exile, they were forbidden by their priestly leaders from intermarrying with foreign persons (Ezra 9).
The appeal here in the Old Testament is not one of racial purity, but spiritual purity. Foreigners were indeed allowed into the Israelite community. Ruth the Moabite is a prime example of this.
These instructions were given when the Israelites were under the Old Testament law and were to be a holy people, set apart. They were not to conform to wicked customs, morals, and religious beliefs of the Canaanites, Hittites, Ammonites, etc. The Israelites were supposed to be a shining city on a hill to which the rest of the world would take notice and ideally worship the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This was part of the promise to Abraham, the father of Israel, when God told him, “all peoples on earth will be blessed through you” ( Gen. 12:3).

According to the New Testament, this promise reached its ultimate fulfillment in Jesus Christ. The first chapter in the New Testament spells this out by showing that Christ was the promised descendant of Abraham and David ( Matthew 1). Therefore, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you all are one in Christ Jesus” (Gal. 3:28).
So if the emphasis is not, in fact, on race and ethnicity, is there anything here that can be applied to the discussion of immigration? In short, yes.

As I’ve shown, the Israelites were supposed to welcome foreigners who believed in their spiritual ideals and wanted to freely become a part of the Israelite community. To speak anachronistically, they were not supposed to welcome foreigners who would come in and burn their flags and sing the national anthem of the Canaanites.

Christians, therefore, should be advocating an immigration policy that welcomes those who seek to willingly assimilate and become a part of their national culture and heritage.

Foreigners who became a part of the Israelite community were obligated to forsake their old ways and assimilate to their new culture. While for the Israelites this transformation was primarily spiritual, it surely carried many secular connotations as well. Christians should not have a racial focus, but a values focus.
However, Christians need to recognize that the purpose of immigration policy is not to invite more potential converts into our churches.
But what about highly spiritual illegal immigrants who come to America seeking a better life? Surely they should be welcomed into the American community with open arms, even if they break the law, correct?

Well, not so fast.
In general, the Bible supports the idea of obeying the governing authorities (Romans 13:1-7). However, when the authorities are rebelling against God’s will ( Revelation 13), the Christian has the obligation to “obey God rather than men" ( Acts 5:29). We must ask ourselves then:
Is a nation-state protecting its borders and seeking to assimilate its citizens into its culture really engaging in an egregious offense against God?

Are these laws so offensive towards God that they permit a Christian to break American laws and thumb their noses at other foreign Christians who are seeking to enter the country legally?
Unless it can be proven that the law or authority in question is in direct violation of God’s revealed will, we cannot conclude that illegal immigrants (including Christian ones) are pursuing a righteous cause. Why is it seen as immoral or unfair for America to actually enforce its already lax standards on immigration? Immigration policy certainly does not rise to the level of an offense against God.

The biblical verses most commonly used by Christians who support liberal immigration laws appeal to the Israelites to treat fairly the “strangers in the land.” Leviticus 19:33-34 supports this notion: “When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.”
[VDARE.COM note: Or in the King James Version: “If a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not vex him. But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” This gave John Higham the title of his famous book on nativism, still cited by many who do not realize he subsequently changed his mind.]

There are several ways in which these verses are misinterpreted:
First of all, these verses were most probably primarily referring to foreigners who sought to become a part of the Israelite community. It certainly cannot be referring to the pagans in the land who sought to lure the Israelites into sin and rebellion against God. Therefore, these passages were certainly not directed towards aliens who were breaking laws and causing mayhem in the community.
Second, these passages say nothing about modern democratic nation-states establishing their own guidelines about what is and isn’t the appropriate number of “aliens” living in their lands.
Third, is it treating an illegal alien unfairly by punishing him for breaking the law? When our own legal citizens clearly violate the law, are we being unjust as a society by punishing them? No. Rather, it is more unfair to the rest of the society when we ignore the rule of law and turn our heads away from the lawbreakers.
It is true that both the Old and New Testaments are very harsh in their assessment of those in God’s supposed community who turn a blind eye to the needy or permit social injustices. However, Christians who support mass immigration usually make two errors of judgment about this:
First, they assume that the Christians who want a more controlled immigration policy are the ones who are promoting a more unjust or faulty society.

The "injustice" contention has many problems outlined in such books as Peter Brimelow’s Alien Nation and Pat Buchanan’s recent State of Emergency. There is plenty of evidence that both illegal immigration and mass legal immigration have created far more problems than benefits in society. This is evidence that some Evangelicals do not want to hear.

Secondly, immigration enthusiasts assume that restrictionists do not care about the welfare or well-being of illegal immigrants.
That is far from the case. Any person who calls himself a Christian should of course demonstrate love to the less fortunate both in word and deed. But there are other ways to love immigrants than sanctioning their law breaking. It takes more sacrifice for a Christian to do a short-term missions project or to donate financially towards impoverished areas of Mexico than it does for them to cheer on illegal immigration.
Rather than just applauding faceless illegals—whom they may never actually meet—Evangelicals would do better to actually meet these people where they are and donate their resources (time, money, etc) to help improve their lots in life. Christians could also support Mexican churches in their efforts to provide relief to their countrymen and women.
Whatever route is chosen—and there are plenty of other possibilities—we should not act as if the only way to show love and compassion to immigrants is by promoting or condoning illegal behavior.
A grander goal for the global Christian community, and Americans on a whole, is to help impoverished Mexican communities empower themselves to better care for their hurting people. This of course takes more work and sacrifice than just promoting open borders.
The Evangelical must ask himself which side in this internal debate ultimately demands more love and sacrifice and is more closely aligned to the Scriptures.
It is hard for me to believe the side that promotes law breaking, and ignores the very real social problems and risks this entails, is doing more justice to Scriptural principles.

Bill Barnwell [send him mail] is a pastor and writer in Michigan. He holds both a Master of Ministry degree and a Master of Arts in Theological Studies degree from Bethel College in Mishawaka, Indiana. Visit his blog at www.billbarnwell.blogspot.com

Church Attendance and Avoidance

I wanted to send this article that you might find interesting. In it, the author surveys some of the differences between people who attend church and those that don't. Of course God does have to call someone, but as we know, there are a lot of people who are reading the Good News magazine www.gnmagazine.org , and yet don't attend church with us. I thought you might find this article interesting. There is a book that you can link to mentioned in the article that you can read a review about and then get it from the library or bookstore if you want. Also if you'd like more articles from this source, you can subscribe to his newsletter here http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=Subscribe, and of course, if you don't like it, you can unsubscribe from it later. Anyway, I thought you might find this interesting.


New Statistics on Church Attendance and Avoidance
(Ventura, CA) With Americans pursuing a growing number of "church" options, some of the traditional measures of church health are being redefined. According to a new study released by The Barna Group, which has been studying church participation patterns since 1984, popular measures such as the percentage of people who are "unchurched" - based on attendance at a conventional church service - are out of date. Various new forms of faith community and experience, such as house churches, marketplace ministries and cyberchurches, must be figured into the mix - and make calculating the percentage of Americans who can be counted as "unchurched" more complicated. The fact that millions of people are now involved in multiple faith communities - for instance, attending a conventional church one week, a house church the next, and interacting with an online faith community in-between - has rendered the standard measures of "churched" and "unchurched" much less precise.
The latest national surveys by The Barna Group address these new behavioral patterns and provide a different approach to evaluating church participation.
New Measures
According to Barna, one way of examining people's participation in faith communities is by exploring how they practice their corporate faith engagement. Unveiling a new measurement model, Barna identified the following five segments:
Unattached - people who had attended neither a conventional church nor an organic faith community (e.g., house church, simple church, intentional community) during the past year. Some of these people use religious media, but they have had no personal interaction with a regularly-convened faith community. This segment represents one out of every four adults (23%) in America. About one-third of the segment was people who have never attended a church at any time in their life.
Intermittents - these adults are essentially "under-churched" - i.e., people who have participated in either a conventional church or an organic faith community within the past year, but not during the past month. Such people constitute about one out of every seven adults (15%). About two-thirds of this group had attended at least one church event at some time within the past six months.
Homebodies - people who had not attended a conventional church during the past month, but had attended a meeting of a house church (3%).
Blenders - adults who had attended both a conventional church and a house church during the past month. Most of these people attend a conventional church as their primary church, but many are experimenting with new forms of faith community. In total, Blenders represent 3% of the adult population.
Conventionals - adults who had attended a conventional church (i.e., a congregational-style, local church) during the past month but had not attended a house church. Almost three out of every five adults (56%) fit this description. This participation includes attending any of a wide variety of conventional-church events, such as weekend services, mid-week services, special events, or church-based classes.
Cross-Pollinating the Church
In addition to those five segments, the Barna report revealed that there is a growing degree of ministry crossover in America. When examining the spiritual participation of adults during the past month, the Barna team discovered that more than one out of every five adults had been involved in two or more types of churches: a conventional church, a house church, a marketplace church, a real-time ministry event on the Internet, or a live ministry event in the community.
Demonstrating the complexity of measuring people’s faith commitments, the Barna study identified the nature of people’s overlapping faith practices.
Among adults who were churched (either conventionally or alternatively) 15% had experienced the presence of God or expressed their faith in God through a faith-oriented website within the past month. Half as many (7%) said they had such an experience through a real-time event on the Internet.
One out of every eight churched adults (13%) said they had experienced the presence of God or expressed their faith in God through a ministry that met in the marketplace (e.g., their workplace, athletic event, etc.) during the past month.
Twice as many churched people (28%) said they had experienced the presence of God or expressed their faith in God through their involvement with a special ministry event (such as a worship concert or community service activity).
A majority of the public claimed to have experienced the presence of God or expressed their faith in God through some form of interaction with religious television or radio programs. Reaching the Unattached
The Barna study also identified some of the characteristics of the Unattached that might enable conventional churches or other ministries to more adeptly connect with those people.

Compared to regular churchgoers, the Unattached are:
more likely to feel stressed out
less likely to be concerned about the moral condition of the nation
much less likely to believe that they are making a positive difference in the world
less optimistic about the future
far less likely to believe that the Bible is totally accurate in its principles
substantially more likely to believe that Satan and the Holy Spirit are symbolic figures, but are not real
more likely to believe that Jesus Christ sinned while He was on earth
much more likely to believe that the holy literature of the major faiths all teach the same principles even though they use different stories
less likely to believe that a person can be under demonic influence
more likely to describe their sociopolitical views as "mostly liberal" than "mostly conservative"

A Unique Profile
Six out of ten adults in the Unattached category (59%) consider themselves to be Christian. Even more surprising was the revelation that 17% of the Unattached are born again Christians - defined as people who have made a personal commitment to Jesus Christ that they consider to be very important in their life, and who believe that they will experience Heaven after they die because they have confessed their sins and accepted Christ as their savior.
A significant proportion of the Unattached engages in traditional faith activities during a typical week. For instance, one-fifth (19%) read the Bible and three out of every five (62%) pray to God during a typical week.
The Unattached distinguished themselves from the churched population demographically, too. They are more likely to be single, male, and to have been divorced at some point. They are also less likely to be registered to vote, which is often a sign of people who feel less connected to or influential in society.
Insights into the Unchurched
George Barna, whose book Grow Your Church from the Outside In describes people who are not connected to a church, discussed the larger context of the unchurched.

To read more about George Barna’s book on the unchurched population, click here.

"The numbers consistently point out that those who live without a regular face-to-face faith connection tend to be relatively isolated from the mainstream of society, tend to be non-committal in institutional and personal relationships, and typically revel in their independence. Attempting to get them involved in the life of a church is a real challenge. The best chance of getting them to a church is when someone they know and trust invites them, offers to accompany them, and there is reason to believe that the church event will address one of the issues or needs they are struggling with at that moment."
Barna indicated that if past years are any indication, comparatively few of the Unattached are likely to visit a church during this Easter season, but that a significant number of the Intermittents are likely to return at least once.
About the Research
This report is based upon two nationwide telephone surveys conducted by The Barna Group. One survey was a sample of 1003 adults, age 18 and older, conducted in December 2007 randomly selected from across the continental United States. The maximum margin of sampling error associated with the aggregate sample of adults is ±3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. The other survey was based on a national random sample of 1006 adults interviewed in January 2008, also with a maximum margin of sampling error of ±3.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. In situations in which the identical question was asked in each survey, and the data were combined, the maximum margin of sampling error for the aggregate sample of 2009 adults is ±2.2 percentage points at the 95% confidence level. Statistical weighting was used to calibrate the sample to known population percentages in relation to demographic variables. All interviews in both surveys were conducted via telephone, and multiple callbacks were made to each telephone number to provide a representative sample.
The Barna Group, Ltd. (which includes its research division, The Barna Research Group) conducts primary research, produces media resources pertaining to spiritual development, and facilitates the healthy spiritual growth of leaders, children, families and Christian ministries. Located in Ventura, California, Barna has been conducting and analyzing primary research to understand cultural trends related to values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviors since 1984. If you would like to receive free e-mail notification of the release of each new, bi-monthly update on the latest research findings from The Barna Group, you may subscribe to this free service at the Barna website www.barna.org.

unChristian

I wanted to let you know about this reference that you might find interesting to read. As a church, sometimes it does seem that it is hard to continue to reach the next generation as well as look at the world from their view. This might be an interesting read for you to start looking at this. After you read it, please send me any comments! Of course, after reading the article below, do remember to check out our own site here http://www.verticalthought.org/qa/



click to see larger photo
unChristian: What A New Generation Really Thinks About Christianity ... and Why It Matters
Register to preview Chapter 7 of unChristian http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=316
E-mail address:
Postal Code:
David Kinnaman, The Barna GroupGabe Lyons, Fermi Project
"Every Christian should read this, and it will likely influence the church for years to come."(Publishers Weekly, August 13, 2007)
Do you want to reach the next generation for Christ? Ministry in America may never have been more confusing and complex - or have more opportunites. Yet, to connect young people to Jesus, you have to understand what they think and why. Based upon groundbreaking research among 16- to 29-year-olds, unChristian helps you understand their mindset, their skepticism and their experiences - as well as their points of spiritual openness.
Readers will learn why negative perceptions exist among young people, how to reverse them in Christlike ways, and read about practical examples of how Christians can positively contribute to culture.
You stand to be more effective in your ministry to the next generation by checking out unChristian.
Contributors: The book also includes forward-looking insights from 30 respected Christian leaders, adding their assessment of the problems and their thoughts about how Christians should respond. To see the list of contributors, click here.

http://www.barna.org/FlexPage.aspx?Page=BarnaUpdateNarrowPreview&BarnaUpdateID=316