In light of my blogs from last week on the XXXChurch, I would like bring your attention to R. Albert Mohler and Russell D. Moore’s blogs. Dr. Mohler investigates “Pornified America—The Culture of Pornography” in a review of a book by Pamela Paul. Dr. Moore’s essay is about “Praying for Porn Stars.”

Today’s Washington Post runs a story on the Intelligent Design (ID) debate titled “In Explaining Life’s Complexity, Darwinists and Doubters Clash.” One opponent of Intelligent Design explains why he thinks ID is unscientific: “One of the rules of science is, no miracles allowed. That’s a fundamental presumption of what we do.” Isn’t it telling that the proponents of Darwinism reject ID based solely on the presumption that ID can’t be right. There’s no serious engagement of the arguments and data cited by ID proponents, just an a priori dismissal. This just goes to show the atheistic naturalism that is at the heart of much of modern science. This God-less presumption…

“. . . and such were some of you” (1 Corinthians 6:11) After two critical posts, it’s time to say something constructive. Even if I can’t agree with the methods of the XXXChurch, I do want to affirm their desire to take the Gospel to every sinner. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is just as much for porn stars and porn addicts as it is for any other sinner on planet earth.

I have had more than one person object to my last post with something like the following: “You cannot come down on these guys for going to the porn convention because they may not have a struggle with lust like most other men do. Besides, we have to take the Gospel to sinners, and sometimes that may mean going to porn conventions.” I want to respond to those objections with a few thoughts.

Christianity Today is running an article on a ministry that reaches out to porn stars and porn addicts. The article is “XXXMinistry: Reaching out to the porn industry.”

R. Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, has posted the second of two articles on married couples who refuse to have children. You ought to take a look at both of them. This most recent article is titled “Deliberate Childlessness Revisited,” and the first is titled “Deliberate Childlessness: Moral Rebellion With a New Face.” Mohler admits that he touched a nerve with the first article—which is no surprise given that he maintains that “deliberate childlessness” is a “moral rebellion” against God.

Peter Leithart comments on a recent study of Evangelicals conducted by Berkeley sociologist Manuel Castells. Leithart’s wit is classic: “[The study found that] ‘doctrinal evangelicals’ are ‘less educated, poorer, more influential among housewives, more often residents of the South, significantly more religious, and 100 percent of them consider the Bible to be inerrant.’ Ignore the shockingly patronizing comment about credulous housewives, and ignore the fact that, actually, we don’t know anything of the kind about the educational levels or economic status of evangelicals. That 100 percent figure is what stands out in high comic relief. I’m no sociologist, but it seems to me that if you select a group defined…