Dr Paul Allen

There is no more urgent question for Christians than this: What’s wrong with the church and how can its life and ministry be renewed? Virtually everyone agrees something is radically wrong with the church. Inside, there’s more polarization and conflict than ever, leading all sides to agree the church is in deep trouble. Outside, journalists, sociologists, and all other observers bemoan or celebrate the church’s decline numerically, institutionally, and in influence. We must find a new way forward—to spiritual, theological, and institutional renewal—until the Christian church is thriving again, until it’s growing by appealing to and reaching people with truth and serving and changing people with love. The best method for understanding the way forward is to begin by recounting the story of the American church’s decline. Last Flourishing The American church after World War II seemed strong and flourishing. In 1952, a record 75 percent of Americans said religion was “very important” in the...

As a young pastor, Jonathan Edwards yearned for revival — and in time, God was pleased to bring revival, first in 1734, and then into the 1740s as the Great Awakening spread through the Western world. Edwards watched hundreds of formerly apathetic neighbors become earnest seekers of God; he saw evening revelries become gatherings for singing and prayer.  Along the way, however, he also observed many spurious signs of spiritual life. His ministry yields insight into both the spiritual means of revival and the genuine marks of revival and it also gives hope that God might be pleased to bring a similar revival today. The young Jonathan Edwards (1703–1758) longed for nothing more than revival. He viewed special works of the Spirit as special tokens of God’s blessing, and he hoped beyond hope that he would receive some himself. He had moved to Northampton while in his early twenties to assist his aging grandfather, Rev. Solomon Stoddard, at the only church in town.  Stoddard had le...

The definite article (“the”) is a bold choice for the title of Matt Reeves’s new film about Gotham’s fabled caped crusader. A more appropriate title for The Batman would perhaps be A Batman because this latest reboot of the lucrative franchise is just one of many iterations of the comic book world. To declare Robert Pattinson’s version the Batman is to boldly go all-in on this rendering of the familiar story, pitting it against other renderings—Christopher Nolan’s so-serious Dark Knight trilogy (2005–2012), Tim Burton’s and Joel Schumacher’s campy versions in the 80s and 90s, and Ben Affleck’s Batman in the DC Extended Universe films (2016–2021)—to vie for supremacy in cinema lore. Yet this boldness is what I loved most about The Batman. By going all-in on reenvisioning the world of Gotham—and its many colorful characters, textures, and subplots—Reeves captures why franchise reboots are attractive. Even if our memories of previous Gothams are still fresh, there are something captivatin...