“Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean the IRS isn’t targeting you.” That’s
the joke making the rounds these days. Except it isn’t a joke to the Tea Party groups and
other conservative action groups who were actually targeted by the Internal Revenue
Service.

That was the admission last week by Lois Lerner, who serves as the IRS Director
of Exempt Organizations.  She acknowledged that the agency flagged groups with the
words “tea party” or “patriot” in their exempt application. She apologized by saying that
it was “absolutely incorrect, it was insensitive and it was inappropriate. That’s not how
we go about selecting cases for further review.”

Her comments contradict previous testimony by the IRS. After all, the additional
scrutiny the IRS gave to these groups has been known for some time and was the subject
of investigation. At a House Ways and Means subcommittee hearing more than a year
ago, IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman assured Congress that there was “absolutely
no targeting. This is the kind of back and forth that happens to people” if they want to get
tax-exempt status.

At the time, these groups were complaining that they were required to fill out
lengthy, intrusive questionnaires. The forms sought information about the member’s
political activities and included questions about what they posted on social networking
sites. They even probed into the family backgrounds of the members of the groups.
It’s also important to remember that this was taking place during the 2012
elections. The targeted groups lost valuable time with what the IRS called “back and
forth.” It also had the effect of stifling political activity.

Senator McConnell called on the White House to conduct a review of the IRS
policies. The House Ways and Means subcommittee on Oversight asked the IRS for
every communication in its records that includes the words “tea party,” or “patriot,” or
“conservative.” I applaud Congress for their investigation. I’m Kerby Anderson, and
that’s my point of view.

A recent article in USA Today warned: “Technology can push our crazy buttons
[and] rewire our brains.” Staying connected with digital media can be both a blessing and
a curse. For many people, checking in with their devices is getting out of hand.

Howard Rheingold, author of Net Smart: How to Thrive Online, recommends a
“mindful use of digital media.” That means we should be aware of what is attracting our
attention. He says you should be making decisions instead of “letting the tweet or the
buzzing of your BlackBerry call your attention.”

Gary Small, a brain researcher at UCLA, has found the digital technology is
changing our brains. Since the human brain changes in response to the environment, our
use of the technology alters our brain pathways. He has documented this through MRIs
and has reported his findings in scientific journals.

Larry Rosen, author of iDisorder: Understanding Our Obsession With
Technology and Overcoming its Hold on Us, says that technology is causing some people
to exhibit various psychological disorders. This would include addiction, depression,
narcissistic personality disorder, and obsessive-compulsive disorder. He is concerned that
we have become too enmeshed with these technologies.

Psychiatrist Steve Daviss of the Baltimore Washington Medical Center says we
get feedback from digital technology: “the retweets and bings and pings that come out of
the phone every time somebody sends us a text message—create a reward system in the
brain that gives us a little squirt of dopamine each time.” For some people, this can lead
to something the looks like addiction as their brains respond to digital technology.

These are just a few experts who are concerned about the effects of digital
technology on our lives. And I am even more concerned about their impact on a younger
generation whose brains are being rewired in ways we can’t even imagine.

Social scientists, marketers, and even pastors have been trying to understand
the values and attitudes of the Millennial generation. So the latest survey of this
year’s incoming freshmen provides another look at these young people. It is safe to
say that the survey results were surprising. [A summary of the survey can be found at
WorldonCampus.com]

Jean Twenge, a psychology professor at San Diego State University, told
Associated Press that she did not expect the findings to turn out the way they did.
Actually she was shocked and had to rethink her belief that “we’re getting through to
people. But at least compared to previous eras, we’re not.”

The researchers found that despite the generation’s reputation for altruism,
the study revealed that these young people are more interested in being wealthy,
less interested in politics, and less interested in protecting the environment than past
generations.

Not everyone was surprised by the results. David Gordon, religion professor at
Grove City College, believes that the Millennial generation as a whole “simply doesn’t
care about much other than its own pleasure and well-being. Self-interest is the mirror
opposite of public-mindedness.”

Gordon attributes much of the generation’s lack of involvement to digital media.
He, like others I have quoted in my previous commentaries, have noticed that digital
media has done just the opposite of what was promised. We were told that it would
expand young people’s horizons and make them a more thoughtful and intelligent
generation. Instead, he believes it has arrested their development. He observes that:
“When they are ‘podded up’ they do not hear adult conversations. When in a room
with adults, they are texting other adolescents who are not present. They are stuck in
childhood, because they have so little acquaintance with adults and adult concerns.”

This survey reminds us that the Millennial generation is different in many ways
from the common perception of them, and this generation has been profoundly influenced
by digital media.

Ten years ago Bernard Goldberg published his book, Bias. It was significant
because he was essentially the first media insider to reveal what many of us suspected
about the background and attitudes of the people who determine what you read, see, and
hear in the media. Certainly there were other studies (like the Lichter-Rothman studies)
that also provided insight. But Bernard Goldberg’s book provided lots of information and
an important perspective.

His perspective was helpful because it set aside the idea that media bias was
part of some liberal conspiracy. He said: “there isn’t a well orchestrated, vast left-wing
conspiracy in America’s newsrooms.” Instead, he said that “the bitter truth” is actually
worse. Essentially what we have in “the mainstream media” is a common worldview that
is promoted in the newsrooms and also promoted in the way news stories are covered.

Various studies of the media elite conclude that the people who determine what is
newsworthy and how it is covered are very different from the rest of the American public.
Let’s look at some examples.

Polling data of political parties shows that the United States is about evenly
divided between Republicans and Democrats. But when you ask journalists to identify
their political party, you only find that 4 percent of them identify themselves as
Republican.

In the general population, about 20 percent of Americans identify themselves as
liberal and about 40 percent identify themselves as conservatives. When journalists were
asked to identify their political orientation, 61 percent said liberal. And only 9 percent
identified themselves as conservative or moderate to conservative.

One study found that members of the media when compared to the public at large
are less likely to get married and have children. They are less likely to own homes. And
they are less likely to go to church or synagogue. How many of the journalists polled
belonged to the American Legion or service organizations like the Rotary Club? The
answer was zero.

Ten years later, Bernard Goldberg’s book still reminds us that the media elite
view the world differently than the average American.

Ten years ago Bernard Goldberg published his book, Bias. It was significant
because he was essentially the first media insider to reveal what many of us suspected
about the background and attitudes of the people who determine what you read, see, and
hear in the media. Certainly there were other studies (like the Lichter-Rothman studies)
that also provided insight. But Bernard Goldberg’s book provided lots of information and
an important perspective.

His perspective was helpful because it set aside the idea that media bias was
part of some liberal conspiracy. He said: “there isn’t a well orchestrated, vast left-wing
conspiracy in America’s newsrooms.” Instead, he said that “the bitter truth” is actually
worse. Essentially what we have in “the mainstream media” is a common worldview that
is promoted in the newsrooms and also promoted in the way news stories are covered.

Various studies of the media elite conclude that the people who determine what is
newsworthy and how it is covered are very different from the rest of the American public.
Let’s look at some examples.

Polling data of political parties shows that the United States is about evenly
divided between Republicans and Democrats. But when you ask journalists to identify
their political party, you only find that 4 percent of them identify themselves as
Republican.

In the general population, about 20 percent of Americans identify themselves as
liberal and about 40 percent identify themselves as conservatives. When journalists were
asked to identify their political orientation, 61 percent said liberal. And only 9 percent
identified themselves as conservative or moderate to conservative.

One study found that members of the media when compared to the public at large
are less likely to get married and have children. They are less likely to own homes. And
they are less likely to go to church or synagogue. How many of the journalists polled
belonged to the American Legion or service organizations like the Rotary Club? The
answer was zero.

Ten years later, Bernard Goldberg’s book still reminds us that the media elite
view the world differently than the average American.

Back in late January, the leadership of the Boy Scouts of America announced
they were considering ending their ban on homosexual members and leaders. We are
now about a week away from that decision when over a thousand voting members meet
and vote.

A century ago, the values of the Boy Scouts were lauded and represented the
values of mainstream America. Today, those values are under attack. The organization
has been the victim of an aggressive and well-funded campaign from homosexual-rights
groups.

First, let’s clear up some misinformation. Most news stories say: the Boy Scouts
“bans gays” or “discriminate against homosexuals.” John Stemberger, president of On
My Honor, says that the Boy Scouts do not discriminate against homosexuals. He points
out that BSA membership application does not even ask about sexual orientation. He
says there are Scouts and adult leaders who have same-sex attractions and are still in
good standing within the program because they conduct themselves appropriately in front
of others.

The pressure on the Boy Scouts today is coming from funding groups and
corporations. At least 50 local United Way groups have dropped funding. An activist
group, Scouting for All, claims that companies like American Airlines, CVS Pharmacy
Stores, Hewlett Packard, IBM, and Levi Strauss have stopped funding the Boy Scouts.

The Supreme Court landmark case in 2000 affirmed that the Boy Scouts have the
right to set their own membership standards. This has protected the organization from
lawsuits from various state and local governments with “non-discrimination” laws.
Many worry that if the organization changes its policies, it will no longer have that legal
protection.

What will various Boy Scout charters do if the policy is changed? More than 70
percent of all Boy Scout troops are chartered with churches or other religious
organizations. It is hard to imagine they will maintain their affiliation if BSA caved to
pressure.

The Boy Scouts are supposedly in “listening mode.” So this would be a good time
for you to speak out.

One reason for the success of the iPhone is its size. Steve Jobs was a student of
ergonomics and understood that a smart phone needed to be large enough to have legible
graphics but small enough to fit in the hand. Apple apparently hit that “sweet spot” in
designing it.

Clive Thompson, writing in the Smithsonian, explains how a similar phenomenon
occurred seventy-five years ago with another American innovator. Robert Fair de Graff
realized he could change the way people read books, by making them smaller. Paperback
books changed America’s reading habits. To understand this, we have to look at the
world before paperback books.

Good fiction and nonfiction books were not that easy to obtain. First, there were
only about 500 bookstores in America, mostly clustered in the big cities. Second, books
back then were expensive. A hardcover book cost $2.50. That is equivalent to paying $40
for a book today.

De Graff changed everything when he got the backing of Simon & Schuster to
launch Pocket Books. These small paperback books not only easily fit in the but they
were much less expensive. They sold for a mere 25 cents.

He also worked on distribution. The Pocket sold in grocery stores, drugstores, and
airport terminals. We take for granted that we can buy books in these venues today, but
that was revolutionary back in his day. This publishing revolution was a great success.
Everyone was reading paperback books. Within two years, Simon & Schuster sold 17
million.

Historian Kenneth C. Davis in his book, Two-Bit Culture, explained that the
publisher “couldn’t keep up with the demand. They tapped into a huge reservoir of
Americans who nobody realized wanted to read.”

Today, of course, Americans read not only printed books but e-books in a variety
of formats. So as we are watching this new electronic revolution in publishing and
reading, we should remember the earlier revolution when paperback books encouraged
more people to read.

The world is a waffle. The U.S. Center for World Missions is using that
illustration to explain the challenges of worldwide missions in the 21st century. “Mission-
minded people have thought for a long time that the world was like a pancake, and the
Gospel was like the syrup. As long as you poured enough syrup, eventually the whole
pancake would be covered with it.”

The assumption seemed sound. Send enough missionaries, preach the gospel to
enough people, and get people saved. Eventually, the Gospel would fill the whole earth.
But it didn’t work out that way.

The U.S. Center for World Missions shows the flaw in the theory by looking at
Africa. The church has been sending missionaries and mission money to that continent
for hundreds of years. Some parts of Africa are full of believers. Other parts are still quite
resistant to the Gospel. Why is that? It’s because the earth is not a pancake but a waffle.

Waffles have pockets and barriers. Syrup can’t go from one to another pocket
easily. That’s a perfect illustration of what’s happening with the Gospel in various parts
of the world. It fills certain areas but isn’t able to cross barriers to reach other people
groups. The nature of these barriers varies. They may be racial, religious, social,
economic, or linguistic.

The U.S. Center for World Missions estimates there are probably 24,000 pockets
of people groups. That is like a square waffle that has 156 pockets on each side.
Moreover, they estimate that about 8,000 of those pockets of people groups have not
been reached with the gospel. This is the great challenge of the 21st century.

We need to get the gospel to each of these pockets with prayer and an effective
ministry strategy. It won’t be easy. Learning how to overcome these barriers will also be
a great challenge in the 21st century. We will need praying hearts and keen minds to
reach the world for Christ.