AMISH LATTER DAY SAINTS

Much to Ponder

THE APOSTATE'S GREED

 

There was a bit of a kerfuffle a while back at the funeral of President George H.W. Bush.  President Trump and Melania declined to read along with the recitation of the Apostles' Creed while all of the other former Presidents and First Ladies joined in.  I thought it a bit odd at the time, and awaited to see what the responses might be.  I expected the hard-core, evangelical right wingers would be quick to give a pass, and I was not let down.

Franklin Graham compared Trump’s failure to recite the creed (which declares belief in God the Father, Christ, and the Holy Spirit) to his own unwillingness to sing in church.

Robert Jeffress opined "There are times in my own church services when I fail to sing the hymns or recite the Scripture because I’m distracted by my own thoughts. I imagine the leader of the free world has a few things on his mind, as well."

Good old boy Ted Nugent claimed "The president participated in a public ceremony in his capacity as head of state, not as a Presbyterian.  As such, he has no obligation to declare those theological truths, or any others, aloud in public."

And Jesse Lee Peterson, a far-right radio host and Christian pastor, has a defense for Trump’s seemingly un-Christian characteristics. According to Peterson, the Creed is a “phony act” that is not a “Christian thing to be reciting.”

But the video below takes the cake.  It's worth watching the whole thing, but is essence, Melania has recruited The Donald to join the Remnant Catholic Church who claim to be the only true Christians. And as such, they cannot participate in any church rituals other than of the Remnant Church.

CHRISTIANITY TODAY?

This poem may rankle some folks, but I found it to be thought-provoking and truthful in many ways. The poem and comments can be found here.

THE EXODUS

by

Dave Barnhart

I have seen your religion, and I hate it.
I have heard your doctrine, and I loathe it.
Take away your empty praise songs,
your vacuous worshiptainment.
Your mouth is full of religious words,
but your proverbs are salted manure.


“The sick deserve to be sick.
The poor deserve to be poor.
The rich deserve to be rich.
The imprisoned deserve to be imprisoned.”
Because you never saw him sick, or poor, or in prison.


“If he had followed police instructions,
if he had minded the company he keeps,
he would not have been killed,”
You say in the hearing
of a man hanging on a cross
between two thieves.


“People who live good lives
do not have pre-existing conditions,” you say,
carving these words over the hospital door:
“Who sinned, this man or his parents,
that he was born blind?”


“It is the church’s job, not the government’s,”
say you fat sheep,
defending your fat shepherds,
shoving and butting with shoulders and horns,
while you foul the water,
grass,
and air,
and scatter the hungry sheep.


You watch the melting glaciers and say to the waves of the sea,
“this far shall you come, and no farther,”
as if your will could change the weather,
as if your will could be done in the heavens as it is on this earth,
as if you could drill the sky the way you drill the soil.


In your telling,
in the story of the starving of the five thousand,
there are not twelve baskets collected of left-over food;
In your story, God’s abundance becomes scarcity,
and the crowds devour each other.
“Send them into the villages to buy food,”
and let the Invisible Hand’s miracle of the free market sort them out,
the worthy from the unworthy,
while you eat the two fish and five pieces of bread
volunteered by a child.
These ungrateful poor,
the welfare queens
with their anchor babies,
stop before your disciples’ raised palms;
they hear you say,
“The Master cannot be bothered to bless your children.”


You see Hannah drunk,
and you jail her for fetal endangerment.


Like Haman, you hide behind the skirts of the king;
you make laws and pay bribes
that allow vigilante violence
and private discrimination
against those you hate,
sheltering underneath plausible deniability.
“It’s not a Muslim ban,” you say one day.
“It’s about religious liberty,” you say another.


This Bible you wave, this word you claim,
it is sharper than any two-edged sword.
You wield it poorly; it slices you on the backstroke.
You know neither the scriptures nor the power of God.
You tie up heavy yokes for others
whose burdens you do not bear,
but you will not lift a finger to help them.
To some you say, “Do not marry, but burn.”
You lock them out of the kingdom of God.
You cross sea and land for your missionary work,
and teach others to be as hateful as you.


Your kingdom is not the public park of Zechariah,
where children play in the streets
and old men and women lean on their canes for very age.
It is not the land where every fearless household
has its own vine and fig tree,
their own means of production and shade for their rest.
It is not the land where everyone has a home.
Your kingdom is the one with gates,
where homeless beggars have their sores licked by dogs,
where people who have the audacity to grow old
pay a premium for their insolence.
Like Ahab, you covet all the vines, all the fig trees,
letting your domain stretch as far as your eye can see,
adding house to house and field to field
until, in your gentrified land
there is room for no one but you and yours.
Like Pharaoh, you call those who refuse you “Lazy, lazy.”
You build walls, and walls, and walls, and walls,
and you stuff your ears to the sound of protest songs
that will shake those walls down.


I have seen your christ, and he is my antichrist.
He is the herald of a violent god,
a god of fertility but not fruitfulness,
a god of embryos but not emancipation, pro-birth and anti-life,
a god of war and retribution but not of justice,
a god of order but not of peace,
a god of might but not of mercy,
a god of marriage but not of love,
a god of sex but not of pleasure,
a god of platitudes but not of wisdom,
a god of work but not of sabbath,
a god who demands sacrifice from the poor but luxury and reward for Pharaoh.


Your religion is the religion of pyramids pointed heavenwards,
towers built to reach the heavens.
Supported by their flat base, built by slave labor,
they are stable monuments to wealth and death.
You fill their secret rooms with gold so that
in the afterlife,
you may cross to paradise
on the backs of the oppressed,
and live in forgetful pleasure for eternity.
Your gilded gospel is rusty ruin.


You are why the ancient Hebrews
seldom talked about an afterlife,
weary as they were of working
for Egypt’s dead heaven.
Your idols and your religion
are why those slaves left the yoke of heaven,
the land of binding,
for a wide wilderness,
for a nameless, faceless God
who told them they—even they—
were made in God’s image.
You are why your churches are empty
of those who love and believe in freedom.
You are why the Gentiles blaspheme the name of God.
You are the reason for the Exodus.


And if you pursue, may God throw you into the sea.
And the horse you rode in on.


References:
Amos 5:21-24
Luke 14:34-35
Matthew 25:31-46
Luke 23:33
John 9:1-12
Ezekiel 34
Job 38:11
Matthew 13:14-21
Matthew 19:13-15
1 Samuel 1:12-20
Esther 3:8-11
Hebrews 4:12
Matthew 22:9
Matthew 23:13-26
1 Corinthians 7:9
Zechariah 8:4
Micah 4:4
Isaiah 65:21-25
Luke 16:19-31
1 Kings 21
Isaiah 5:8
Exodus 5:17
Joshua 6
Genesis 11:1-9
Exodus 15:21

ISLAMOPHOBIA?

I think not.  What most of us worry about are the crazies of any stripe who believe that it is their duty to kill those who do not believe as they do or disobey their "law".  And it seems clear to me that Islam has a much higher percentage of adherents who believe that murder is their calling, bringing honor and glory to their prophet, god and themselves.  I copy below a recent comment by reader BES, and simply say hear, hear.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

UPDATE:

Since this string of postings, we've seen sustained, if not elevated European terror attacks, now being met with sympathy for the nation of islam and fears that it may be offended by any accusatory remarks. “Islamaphobia” is suddenly part of the auto-response lexicon.

This, in spite of the fact that the islamic state claims responsibility for these actions. Tons of hypocrisy outpouring from every corner, including elitist celebrities who espouse "peace, love and no walls" spewed from...behind fortified walls.

Bear in mind that 90% of terrorism is muslim on muslim. But that ranks up there with the ubiquitous Vietnam body counts we heard on the CBS nightly news. I have tried, unsuccessfully in the past, to engage any muslims on their rank and file silence over the wholesale slaughter of non-believers. Crickets.

My college roommate, also a journalist by trade, recently did a Ted Talk on what we’re all really selling these days: Hope and Fear. Hope for something better, vs. Fearing something worse. In the case of islam, it’s entirely fear based. Fear of not going to heaven. Fear of irking allah. Fear of being stoned, beheaded or maimed for the slightest infraction. The irony of putting Saudi Arabia on the human rights panel at the UN does not escape me.

Is it any wonder that a handful of ruthless barbarians, barely armed, can blow into any sandbox on abandoned American military vehicles, terrorize the populace into submission, leave and return only to find them just as submissive? That is fear at the cult level. Is islam nothing more than a deranged cult?

My fear is that when we finally wake up and realize religion is not a race and we’re not racists for opposing a fear based cult that has openly and repeatedly declared war on all non-believers, it will be too late. Orlandos and San Bernardinos will be our new normal. Those events were just the demo. The full feature is due out any moment.

We were told decades ago who the enemy is and advised to prepare. But we didn’t. Too distracted by bread and circuses. And marshaled forward on decades of bad and failed foreign policy. Also, the irony of refugees fleeing bombed out cities and countries, seeking better conditions…would only appear to be more savages seeking intact buildings and fresh victims to destroy. Any guesses as to why a significant portion of refugees seem to be men of fighting age, 18-34?

Good fences make good neighbors. Just like solid doors make restful nights.
 

BETTER WATCH WHAT YOU EAT

I will admit that I like to have a bit of fun with folks who hold that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and must be read literally [translation - you must read it like I read it 😊].  So, just to make sure that your diet complies with the rules, here is a list of clean things that you can eat, and unclean things that you must avoid - eating the latter makes you unclean and thus worthy of punishment! Note the final word of caution.  I will confess to breaking some of these rules, but not repent!!!!

A General List of Biblically Clean Meat:

Antelope
Bison
Buffalo
Caribou
Cattle
[Beef, Veal]
Deer
Reindeer
Gazelle
Giraffe
Goat
Hart
Ibex
Lamb
Hogget
Mutton
Moose
Ox
Roebuck
Sheep

A General List of Biblically Unclean Meat:

Alligator
Armadillo
Badger
Bat
Bear
Panda
Beaver
Caiman
Camel
Cats
Cheetah
Cougar
Jaguar
Leopard
Lion
Panther
Tiger
Crocodile
Dogs
Coyote
Fox
Hyena
Jackal
Wolf
Elephant
Frog
Gorilla
Groundhog
Hippopotamus
Horses
Donkey/Ass
Mule
Onager
Zebra
Kangaroo
Llama
Lizards
Mice
Mole
Monkey
Baboon
Chimpanzee
Muskrat
Newt
Porcupine
Possums
Rabbit
Raccoon
Rats
Rhinoceros
Salamander
Skunks
Snakes
Spiders
Squirrels
Swine
Boar
Hog
Pig
Peccary
[Bacon, Pork, Pork-sausage, Ham, Lard]
Toad
Turtle
Wallaby
Weasel
Wolverine

A General List of Biblically Clean Fish: (with Fins and Scales)

Albacore
or Crevalle
or Horse Mackerel
or Jack
Alewives
or Branch Herring
or River Herring
Anchovies
Black Drum
Bluebacks
or Glut Herrings
Bluebill Sunfish
Bluefish
Blue Runner
or Hardtail
Bonitos
Boston Bluefish
or Pollock
Bowfin
Buffalofish
Butterfish
Carp
Chubs
Bloater
Longjaw
Blackfin
Cod
Common Sucker
or Fresh Water Mullet
or White Sucker
Crappies
or Black Crappies
or White Crappies
Flounder
Dab
Gray Sole
Lemon Sole
Summer Flounder
Winter Flounder
Yellow Tail
Frost Fish
or Ice Fish
or Smelt
Groupers
Black Grouper
Gag
Nassau Grouper
Red Grouper
Yellowfish Grouper
Grunts
White Grunts
Yellow Grunts
Gulf Pike
or Robalo
or Snook
or Sergeant
Haddock
Hake
Halibut
Herring
Lake Herring
Sea Herring
Kingfish
Long Nose Sucker
or Northern Sucker
or Red Striped Sucker
Mackerel
Menhaden
Mullet
Muskeilunge
or Jacks
Pickerels
or Jacks
Pig Fish
Pikes
or Jacks
Pompano
Porgy
Scup
Red Drum
Redfish
Red Horse Sucker
Redfin
Red Snapper
Salmon
Chum
Coho
King
Pink
Red
Sardine
or Pilchards
Sea Bass
Shad
Sheepshead
Silver Hake
or Whiting
Silversides
Spanish Mackerel
Striped Bass
Trouts
Gray Sea Trouts
Weakfish
Lake Trout
Sand Sea Trout
White Sea Trout
Spotted SeaTrout
Tunas
Bluefin
Yellowfin
Skipjack
White Fish
Yellow Perch

A General List of Biblically Unclean "Fish & Sea Foods": (without Fins and Scales)

Abalones
Bullheads
Catfish
Clams
Conch
Crabs
Crayfish
Crawfish
Crawdad
Cuttlefish
Dolphin
Otter
Eel
Jellyfish
Limpet
Lobster
Marlin
Mussel
Octopus
Oysters
Paddlefish
Porpoise
Scallop
Seal
Shark
Shrimp
Snails
Squid (Calamari)
Stickleback
Sturgeon
Swordfish
Walrus
Whale

A General List of Biblically Clean Fowl:

Chicken
Dove
Duck
Goose
Grouse
Guinea Fowl
Partridge
Peafowl
Pheasant
Pigeon
Prairie Chicken
Ptarmigan
Quail
Sagehen
Sparrow
Teal
Turkey
And Other Song Birds

A General List of Biblically Unclean Fowl:

Albatross
Bittern
Buzzard
Condor
Coot
Cormorant
Crane
Crow
Cuckoo
Eagle
Flamingo Grebe
Grosbeak
Gull
Hawk
Heron
Kite
Lapwing
Loon
Magpie
Osprey
Ostrich
Owl
Parrot
Pelican
Penguin
Plover
Rail
Raven
Roadrunner
Sandpiper
Seagull
Stork
Swallow
Swift
Vulture
Water hen
Woodpecker
All others not specifically listed as clean.

A General List of Biblically Clean Insects:


Crickets
Grasshoppers
Katydid
Locusts

(Most insects except a few in the locust family are unclean)

Note:
Animal Shortening, Gelatin, Jello, Marshmallows, etc. (usually contain pork-based gelatin), any saltine cracker that states it uses animal shortening (usually lard), and anything else that states it uses animal shortening.

IF IN DOUBT, AVOID ANYTHING NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED AS CLEAN!

PS by me - I note that eating other humans is not mentioned

THE TEMPLETON TWO-STEP

Or maybe the Templeton Tango, or the Templeton Run-Around or the Templeton One Step Forward Two Steps Back. Regardless, this is a rather lengthy account of my interactions with the Templeton Foundation's funding bureaucracy. It was neither particularly pleasant nor fruitful, but it was enlightening. At the time of the saga, thought was given to writing an exposé on the experience but my colleagues and I decided to cool off for a while. Occasionally during the past several years, thought was once again given about writing it up, but I never got around to it. Having recently received some encouragement to put 'pen to paper', here it is. Many of you regulars here may want to hang it up now - this will be fairly long, and like many of my posts, interesting to me and uninteresting to most - thus you have been warned!!

Prologue - this all got started with some fairly random personal associations. Me - [not this guy or this guy] biology professor retired from research and teaching [Los Alamos National Lab, MD Anderson, and the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs] to enjoy some time on the Southern California beaches; serendipitously employed for several years by Pepperdine University in Malibu. Joe - neighbor in Colorado Springs [not a friendly place to teach or discuss evolution], good friend and colleague; formerly the Director of the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, an independent publisher of biology textbooks that make evolution the organizing principle [Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. Theodosius Dobzhansky]. Francis - friend and colleague of Joe, mainly via their expertise in genetics and education; high-profile physician/scientist; Francis established BioLogos. Darrel - friend of Francis, initially via the books that they wrote; Francis' The Language of God and Darrel's Coming to Peace with Science. Darrel was a biology professor at Point Loma, and soon became deeply involved with BioLogos, serving as President for several years. Pete was brought in to BioLogos as the resident Biblical Scholar, likely because his edgy scholarship fit fairly well with the concept of theistic evolution/evolutionary creationism. Lastly, a quick overview of our perspectives on Christianity: Me - Marginal Mennonite; Joe - Staunch Ex-Catholic; Francis - adult acceptance of the evangelical Christian faith; Darrel - evangelical Christian in the Nazarene tradition; Pete - hard for me to classify - maybe you can figure it out from his website.
Of course each of these folks has their own opinion regarding the JTF, and thus it should be noted that this narrative is solely mine.

STEP ONE - FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU

After we all figured out how we knew each other, we decided that perhaps there could be a collaborative project concerning evolution and faith, specifically a project to help evangelical students come to grips with the incontrovertible reality of evolution. The John Templeton Foundation had funded the establishment of BioLogos, and the organization was looking for projects and programs for possible additional funding by the JTF. After considerable discussion, the group decided to focus on the fact that that the vast majority of university biology professors were not well prepared for dealing with students and parents who did not accept evolution because of their young-earth creationist beliefs. Thus, the project would basically assemble easily-accessible resources for faculty to use for directing students to various thoughtful perspectives on science and faith. Title - “Integrating Evolution and Faith: Resources for College Biology Professors”.

Granting agencies often request a pre-proposal to determine if a project fits their funding goals. We did that and were invited to submit a full proposal. In addition to the usual narrative of a project [rationale, scope of work, expected results, etc.], the Foundation required a considerable amount of supporting information such as "Cost Effectiveness," "Theory of Change," "Benchmarks of Success," "Audience and Dissemination Strategies," "Enduring Impact," and a potpourri of additional information that is not a part of the typical NIH or NSF type of proposal. Completion of the proposal took a fair amount of time and effort, but the result was what we believed to be a reasonable three-year project with a total budget of a modest $260,303 to support the part-time efforts of me, Joe, and Darrel, with Francis as a consultant. Because the four of us were at different institutions, we concluded that either Pepperdine or Point Loma would be a reasonable host institution for grant submission. Ultimately we chose Pepperdine, primarily because Darrel's book had caused quite a ruckus at Point Loma, and in fact nearly cost him his job.

As one would expect, the Foundation took several months to complete their internal and external reviews. We received the following correspondence.

Thank you for the opportunity to review your proposal Integrating Evolution and Faith: Resources for College Biology Professors. We have completed the expert review phase of our process. In general, reviewers were supportive of the project. However, before we render a decision, we request your responses to several concerns and constructive comments raised by reviewers. These comments are on the pages to follow and also include a selection of the endorsements.

We would appreciate your response to these comments and look forward to hearing further from you regarding this interesting project. You are welcome to respond with a point-by-point response to each critical or constructive comment (or clusters of comments). Naturally, due to the nature of our review process, we cannot guarantee any particular outcome at this time. But we can say that we remain very interested in this project.

The "Selected Reviewer Comments" were quite detailed. This comment was fairly representative of the positive reviews, some of which explicitly recommended funding:

“My enthusiasm for this idea, which is so clearly explained and thoughtfully conceived, comes from the following aspects of the proposal. First, the authors have identified a genuine need; they have defined it precisely and given the right reasons for its significance. Their analysis of the actual classroom situation, relative to evangelical students, is highly accurate, and they understand one of the important things that needs to be done to help those students be more receptive to evolution. Second, I cannot conceive of people more qualified to carry out this particular plan."

This particular comment was fairly representative of the 'concerns':

"This project is built on a speculation—namely that biology profs are willing to put in efforts to learn how to overcome objections that their students have to learning evolution. Supposedly, if materials are readily available, these profs will learn how to use them and incorporate them into their teaching. I think this speculation is reasonable, but I wish the proposal had something resembling an incentive for these busy profs to take advantage of the new materials."

The group decided that as suggested, we would prepare a point-by-point response to the criticisms and concerns. However, at this juncture, there was a departure from the standard granting process that Joe and I were familiar with, e.g. submit a grant, receive reviews, address concerns, get secondary reviews, receive a funding priority score and wait to see if the score qualifies for funding. Because Francis/Biologos had an established relationship with the JTF, Francis had a chat with Foundation representatives about the proposal and was told that there was great interest in funding the project and that perhaps some of the concerns could be addressed by including some teacher training/incentives. Thus, in addition to preparing a nine-point, four-page response, we included the suggested component, and revised the budget upward to $499,166 for the three year period. This prompted the following response from the JTF:

"We have a few questions about the new elements you added to the project. We are still generally supportive, but have some questions about some of the project changes that you have added in response to the expert reviewer comments."

So - we now had to prepare a Response II to address the added proposal activities and the associated budget increases. We submitted that, and then received this:

Yesterday, the John Templeton Foundation announced some important news about a year-long initiative to restructure our grant-making system, with key changes in our deadlines and calendar. The overarching objective of this initiative is to align our grant-making system more fully with the Foundation’s long-range strategies.

I am writing today to assure you that our restructuring initiative will have no effect on the review of your funding requestor [sic] on our ultimate decision whether to fund this project. The Foundation is still committed to a careful, thorough review of your proposal, including, in most cases, asking experts in the fields related to your request to review the merits of your proposal.

As the time dragged out, Joe wrote:

In the old days, before one received grant scores and decisions via grants.gov, NSF and NIH sent out rejection letters before grant letters, so no news was good news, at least in the short run. I'm not sure how it works with Templeton. In my experience it's unlikely that any granting agency would put an applicant through two rounds of questions -- program and budget -- and then deny funding.

Joe is seldom wrong. But there was yet another round coming. We had phone conversations with Templeton folks to discuss the project, particularly the budget. We were told that the JTF reorganization and significant fiscal restraints had put our project in the purgatory known as approved but not yet funded, but would be evaluated by a parallel Templeton foundation. Then after more waiting for a response, we received yet another letter requesting that we address five more issues.

The Grants and Programs Committee of the Templeton World Charity Foundation has now discussed your proposal Integrating Evolution and Faith: Resources for College Biology Professors. They have highlighted some addition information that will be very important as they work toward a final decision on the proposal at their next meeting, scheduled for early June.

Joe quipped that this process was certainly a roller coaster experience, but he remained optimistic as did Darrel. I was growing tired of responding, but respond we did, and the nature of the requests meant that the response required a fair amount of work. The JTF letter suggested that we add new components, which affected the budget; three year total was now $699,543. We sent in all of the material and again waited and waited. Then, we got this:

On behalf of the John Templeton Foundation and the Templeton World Charities Foundation, thank you for the opportunity to review your request for support of the project entitled, Integrating Evolution and Faith: Resources for College Biology Professors.

After careful consideration and analysis led by our Executive Staff, and ultimately by the Trustees of the Templeton World Charities Foundation, I regret to inform you that we will not be able to fund your proposed project.

The letter went on and on about "why" but I really didn't care what they had to say. I responded with a one word email: Astonishing. Darrel pretty much felt the same. But Joe expressed what I was thinking:

This is among the worst processes I have experienced in more than 30 years of seeking funding from a wide variety of public and private agencies. It reminds me of the old joke about the game-show host who says to the contestant, "For $1M: I'm thinking of a color. What is it?" The contestant responds, "White." The host says, "Actually, I was thinking of an off-white." It seems to me that they don't know what they're doing so far as a coherent review process is concerned. I would be very cautious in applying to the TF again. This was really a pathetic process -- and more than a little offensive. Have a beer for me....

While Joe and I were discussing our interest or lack thereof in assisting Francis, Darrel and Karl with other BioLogos projects, I received this email from the JTF:

Dear Doug,

I would venture to guess that your experience with the Foundation has left a sour taste in your month. This is probably too little, too late, but I do want you to know that as we dive into our restructuring this summer – re-evaluating every aspect about how we receive proposals, review them and communicate decisions – your experience will be one of several case studies guiding our thinking about things we need to improve. As a result, we are committed to making sure that if you choose to pursue grant support from the Foundation in the future, it will be a better experience for you.

Cheers,

Well, ya. Case Study?  More like autopsy.  Feeling obliged to respond, I simply said

I sincerely believe that a unique opportunity was missed, and that the confluence of experience, interest, and expertise presented in the proposal will not pass this way again.

Buscaremos la luz. Buscaremos la paz. Danos nuevos ojos par ver el mundo.

STEP TWO - FOOL ME TWICE, SHAME ON ME

Joe and I were quite certain that we did not want to deal with the JTF, but we did feel that we were still willing to assist BioLogos with projects that supported the teaching of accepted science, particularly evolution, in the context of evangelical Christianity. We knew that would be a tough task, but we might develop some generalized guidance that could help others if we could find ways to convince evangelicals to re-examine their theological positions in the face of scientific facts. We had had a good experience working with Darrel, and felt that we wanted to help him if we could. Francis and Darrel once again had conversations with the presumed Templeton poobahs, and were convinced that the Foundation was very interested in biology education in private Christian high schools and Christian home school settings. Darrel had secured some funding from another foundation, and thus,
with non-Templeton money, BioLogos was able to organize several focus group meetings with Christian school teachers and administrators and with home school-parents. Joe and I agreed to assist.

At the time of these discussions and activities, three significant things were going on. First, it was becoming clear that President Obama was going to nominate Francis to head the NIH. That appointment would necessarily remove the most prominent person at BioLogos [an aside - the JTF apparently has a proclivity for funding high-profile persons/institutions. One well-known person in the science/religion arena told me regarding our initial experience "If you all were from Harvard, or Yale, or Oxford and not Pepperdine, you would likely have been funded."] Second, the leadership of BioLogos was being transferred from Francis to Darrel and Karl. And third, Pete was becoming an integral part of the BioLogos team.

Again, considerable time and effort went in to collecting and organizing the responses of the focus groups, determining the problems that the biology teachers face, and formulating strategies to overcome the barriers to teaching good biology to fundamentalists.

Now - I am going to skip over many of the details of preparing a pre-proposal, a full proposal, reviews and responses, and so on. Just re-read FIRST STEP - FOOL ME ONCE, SHAME ON YOU and you will understand what went on. Although the total three-year budget for "Curriculum Resources for Biology Education at Christian Schools"was $1,133,100, the JTF's underlying concerns were not about the dollars.  A confounding issue was that non-JTF funding was also being pursued which added another explanatory section to the JTF application.  Darrel and I actually made a trip to the Foundation headquarters to make sure that this proposal was not going to go down the same path as the first one.

As Joe and I worked and re-worked the proposal with Darrel and Pete, it became ever more clear to Joe and me that the barriers that teachers encounter in the Christian-education setting are not related to biology, but rather are dominated by theology. Indeed, we found that many teachers were using standard textbooks such as Biology by Miller and Levine. Very few teachers were using the noxious curricula published by Bob Jones University Press or A Beka Books although a fair number of home-schoolers used the young-earth creationist A Beka Book biology text. And virtually all of the teachers were anxious to have resources that addressed the interface of evolutionary science and Christian faith.

Because Joe and I were firm in our position that the emphasis of the project should be on theology, clearly not our specialty, we suggested that the time commitments and thus the budget reflect the primary activities of the project personnel. Joe and I wrote a very extensive memo to BioLogos outlining issues that we felt had to be addressed, stating that we understood that BioLogos was "in a state of flux, practically and philosophically." We detailed the reasons for the proposed emphasis on theology. Pete added thoughtful commentary to our memo, especially regarding how to engage evangelicals in rethinking their theology in light of conflicting science. Joe and I recommended that we scale back our involvement and that Pete become the Project Leader. Pete found this acceptable. This approach became a basic component of our revised proposal [surprise - another revision]. Our first indication that this was going to be problematic was embedded in this request from the JTF:

Information Requested: In our December correspondence, requesting the revised proposal which we are currently reviewing, we asked you to consider the "theological credibility" of the program. The revised proposal offers some hints as to where that credibilty [sic] will come into play, specifically the advisory boards, but it does not name any individuals or institutions who might offer that additional credibility. Therefore, we would ask for greater detail as to who you would like to make up the various advisory boards for the project (or any other specific partnerships or plans you have to establish greater 'theological credibility'). Please note that we do not expect that you will have secured committments [sic] for this role, but if you have, please indicate as much. For any whom you have not secured, or not even asked, please simply provide the names of the top candidate or two you would ask to fill those roles if your grant application is successful. Please keep in mind that we are referring to scholars with credibility in the community you are seeking to reach, a group of people often too ready to dismiss good work as too “liberal” or whatever. Our concern is not about the intellectual quality of the project in itself, but about the likelihood it will be used extensively by your target audience.

In retrospect, this should have been translated as "Pete needs both guidance and a leash." Pete would likely admit that he is not the most diplomatic person, and often uses challenging and controversial ideas to generate meaningful discussions about important topics. The titles of his books indicate his positions: The Bible Tells Me So - Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable To Read It; The Evolution Of Adam - What The Bible Does And Doesn't Say About Human Origins; The Sin Of Certainty - Why God Desires Our Trust More Than Our "Correct" Beliefs. I think that it would be safe to say that these are not the types of things that many fundamentalist Christians want to hear, and certainly would not be inclined to accept; hence the Foundation's fixation on 'theological credibility.'

Also, in retrospect, it seems quite clear that JTF personnel had privately conveyed concern to BioLogos about how the details of Theist Evolution /Evolutionary Creation were going to be presented in a pastoral manner to the targeted evangelical community. Note my emphasis on 'pastoral'. The target community needed more pastoring than biblical scholarship, especially if that scholarship accepts the scientific evidence for human origins, not a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of the creation of Adam and Eve. To accommodate this perceived need, the JTF proposed that we add personnel to the proposal to address the pastoral component, and that Pete's time and effort be cut back. Understandably, Pete was not pleased. The implicit message was that targeted evangelicals would likely not be particularly receptive to Pete's Old Testament scholarship regarding creation and Adam and Eve. As one Templeton official said: "They need an Adam and Eve."

This is when Joe and I said "Nope". We agreed that this is not how projects should be developed, reviewed, funded and managed. We had established a good working relationship with Pete and respected his theological positions in relationship to what we biologists accept as established science. We were not interested in being funded by an organization that appeared to be involved with micromanagement, control, and influence.  It seemed clear to Joe and me that the JTF had a  literalist/creationist bias regarding the project and its expected outcomes, e.g., many evangelicals need a real Adam and an Eve; thus promote any data and any experts that support such a notion.  Not possible from my and Joe's perspective. 

End of story regarding Joe and me. Darrel and Francis expressed their disappointment re our decision. As far as I know, the proposal was withdrawn, and BioLogos pursued other projects funded by the JTF. And as many know, when Pete's contract with BioLogos was up for renewal, it was not renewed.

Well, end of story is not quite accurate for me because there was one last bit of irony:

Dear Dr. Swartzendruber

As part of the John Templeton Foundation’s proposal review process, we typically solicit outside expert opinions to help us evaluate funding requests.

You have been identified as someone who could provide valuable feedback on a proposal we have received from xx entitled, "Science, faith and professional development in new teachers". We would greatly appreciate your input regarding this work.

In order for the Foundation to meet its promise to applicants of a timely decision of all Full Proposals, we need your completed review submitted back to us by xx. As compensation for your work, we will pay you an honorarium of $300.00 for your timely completion of an electronic review in accordance with the instructions and terms provided by the Foundation.

Epilogue:

The Evolution of BioLogos - it is interesting to postulate what BioLogos might look like today if Francis had remained as President, Karl and Darrel as Vice-Presidents and Pete as Biblical Scholar.  I believe that it would be quite a bit different, particularly considering that Calvinists  and Calvin College folks now have considerable influence including holding the Presidency.  Among the myriad Protestant theologies, I find Calvinism particularly noisome.  But that's the subject of another post....

The Evolution of The John Templeton Foundation - I am no expert here, but I do believe that there was a significant shift in vision when Sir John died and his physician-son Jack became President.  As noted in this blurb, Sir John was nearly new-age in his views of religions, cultures and philosophies. He died in 2008, and Jack took over.  Necessarily the Foundation's bio of Jack is complementary, but others noted his right-wing, Republican brand of evangelical Christianity.   I happened to see Jack in action once in Heidelberg, and I think that it is safe to say that Jack's perspective influenced the Templeton staff who were responsible for vetting proposals before he had a look.  Jack died in 2015, and the current President is Jack's daughter Heather Templeton Dill, whose primary qualification seems to be that she is the daughter of Jack and grand-daughter of Sir John.  It would appear to be business as usual at the JTF, at least for the time being.

People - me; I remain mostly retired, teaching a course now and then, writing here about things that interest me and a few other folks, and keeping track of retired CU faculty; catch up with Joe here; Darrel is also mostly retired, but remains a Senior Advisor for Dialogue at BioLogos; Pete is a faculty member at Eastern University, Karl is affiliated with Stonehill College, and Francis is still the Director of the NIH - we will see what President Trump has to say about that!

Addendum - Over at WEIT, Jerry Coyne has written about this post.

SCIENCE AND RELIGION

From one of my favorite comic strips, Non Sequitur:

Just some observations from the more-editorial-than-comic:
     The Abrahamic Religions are not contributing
     They have their backs toward the board, and thus do not know what is going on
     They are holding tight to their particular source of truth
     The scientist is having to 'work around' the faith leaders

FEAR OF ISLAM?

Islamophobia is term that is thrown around a lot, with many folks claiming that being fearful of Islam is unjustified, biased, bigoted, and lots of other accusatory terms. But take a look at the data published by the Pew Foundation here, some of which are copied below. It seems to me that the data indicate there are justifiable reasons for being very wary of Islam. It also appears to be that the peaceful moderates are very much in the minority. A phobia is an unreasonable fear, but being aware and concerned about the negatives of any situation is not unreasonable. These data represent hundreds of millions of Muslims, and thus I find that using the term 'radical Islam' to describe a small minority is disingenuous. It would seem to me that moderate Islam is the minority position. In all fairness, I would also say the moderate Christianity is also a minority position.

THE DOCTRINE OF DISCOVERY

 

Raise your hand if you are familiar with the Doctrine of Discovery, and add a comment about when you learned about it.  I am almost 70 and am pretty sure that I never learned about this in school.  We all learned the story of Custer's Last Stand, but we certainly did not learn about the Trail of Tears, Wounded Knee or Sand Creek.  After over 500 years of this immense injustice, I will join the call to have the Doctrine repudiated.  There is no way to make compensation or to reverse past injustices, but certainly we can acknowledge the travesties that grew out of the doctrine and try to head down a more just path.

The graphics will begin with a bit of commentary and then move on to a few examples of the results of the Doctrine of Discovery.

 

 

MENNONITES LEAVING THE CHACO

 

For a long time, I have been aware of the Mennonites who migrated to Mexico to live and farm in The Chaco and elsewhere.  A nice summary is here.  Locations shown below.

Mennonite/Anabaptists have a long history of migration, generally to avoid conflict and religious persecution, but also to find new land for farming and family living.  The New York Times recently had a lengthy article about the Mennonites in Mexico, and of the conflicts there, and once again, looking to move on after many decades in Mexico.

Read the article given in the link, most of which is copied below:

 RIVA PALACIO, Mexico — On the edge of a high plain fringed by craggy sandstone hills, Johan Friesen’s small farm is a testament to the rural providence of his Mennonite people.

Neat fields of onion, soybean and yellow corn stretch behind his concrete and adobe house. In the farmyard, a few dozen cows stand in a corral, ready for milking, and a canary-colored reaper awaits repair. But beneath this valley of orderly farms in the center of Chihuahua State, the picture is less than serene, officials and farmers say.

Underground reservoirs have been drained by thirsty crops, like corn, that are the mainstay of the Mennonites’ success, they say. Competition for groundwater — which officials have warned could run out in 20 years — has strained relations between the pacifist, Low German-speaking Mennonites and other farmers and, on occasion, incited violence.

In Chihuahua, nearly a century after the Anabaptist Mennonites migrated from Canada and transformed this valley into a lush carpet of crops, hundreds are trading the land they call home for one where land is cheaper and water is more plentiful.

“People say the water is going to run out,” said Mr. Friesen, 44, who in the spring will join 25 Mennonite families who have begun a new colony in central Argentina. “Without water you can’t grow anything.”

Santa Rita, in Mexico’s Mennonite heartland, is a colony of one-story, pitched-roofed homes, clipped lawns and straight roads — a world away from a typical Mexican village.

On a recent Saturday, perhaps the loudest noise was that of a lawn mower, steered by a young woman wearing a long dress and a straw hat.

For all their good husbandry, though, Mennonite farmers have been prodigal consumers of groundwater, experts said.

“Water has been a source of wealth in Chihuahua, and while that wealth lasts, people are not thinking about how much they are using,” said Arturo Puente González, an agricultural economist.

Still, it was “very unfair” to blame the region’s water problems on the Mennonites, said Kamel Athié Flores, the head of the Chihuahua branch of the National Water Commission, known as Conagua, which regulates supply. He pointed to city dwellers and big non-Mennonite farms that produce apples and pecans — also thirsty crops.

Cornelius Banman, a farmer from the Manitoba colony, about 50 miles south of Santa Rita, said nobody complained about the pecan farmers because they were of Mexican descent and, unlike Mennonites, who do not vote, had political clout.

 “They look on us as foreigners,” he said.

The Mennonites live apart in their colonies and rarely marry outside, though they pay workers above-average wages. The most conservative eschew electricity and other devices that would link them to the outside world.

Others use WhatsApp, a messaging application, and research land prices on the Internet, but they discourage distractions like Facebook.

The women speak little Spanish, and children are raised for a “wholesome” rural life, attending Mennonite schools until eighth grade.

The Mennonites began digging wells for irrigation in the 1980s, said Víctor Quintana Silveyra, a sociologist and politician in Chihuahua City who has studied local water use. As their population grew — they estimate their number at 60,000 — they used credit from Mennonite banks to buy land in the desert and to install irrigation systems. Since 2000, irrigated land in Chihuahua has doubled, to about 1.3 million acres, and farmers are pumping water at an “exploitative” rate, Mr. Quintana said.

Farmers said wells had to be dug three times deeper today than they were 20 years ago, a process some cannot afford. To slow extraction, the government in 2013 ruled that all new wells require a permit.

“I can see a point, in my lifetime, when the water here is finished,” said Luís Armando Portillo, a farmer who is the president of the Technical Committee of Groundwater in Ciudad Cuauhtémoc.

A group of activists known as El Barzón has campaigned to shut down illegal wells and break dams on Mennonite land. Joaquín Solorio, a Barzón activist whose parents had to sell their cattle after their well, next to a Mennonite farm, dried up, said the group had lodged complaints about illegal water use. “It’s not just Mennonites,” he said.

Defending water rights can be deadly in Chihuahua, where links between organized crime, mining and farming are murky. Alberto Almeida Fernández, a former politician who protested against illegal wells and against a Canadian mining project, died after he was shot in February. Two other activists, Mr. Solorio’s brother and sister-in-law, were killed in 2012. The police have yet to solve the crimes, and members of Barzón — three of whom have state police escorts — discard a Mennonite connection. But the deaths have added to tensions.

“You think about buying land, and then you think, ‘I don’t want problems,’ ” said Johan Rempel, a leader of the Manitoba colony who is looking for land overseas for about 100 families.

In some ways, the Mennonites’ migration is another turn of history. Those who moved to Mexico from Canada had fled persecution in Russia. Over the years, some settled in other parts of Mexico, and conservative groups broke from the Mexican colonies and moved to Bolivia, Paraguay and Belize.

But with younger farmers facing new pressures — difficulty getting permits for wells, and soaring costs for irrigated land — some predict that they will look to find land elsewhere.

About 50 of the 300 families in Mr. Friesen’s colony, Santa Rita, will move to San Luis Province in Argentina, said Abraham Wiebe Klassen, the head of the colony. Other colonies have looked at land in Russia and Colombia.

The perception that Mennonites are more attached to their culture than to their country irks other farmers.

“Their world is everywhere,” Mr. Portillo said. “They arrive, they work the earth and when they need more, they move on.”

“This is my land,” he added. “My dead lie here. I won’t leave.”

Abraham Wiebe Wiebe, who was preparing to leave for Argentina with his wife and children, disagreed. “I’m 100 percent Mexican,” he said.

Sitting in his kitchen as his wife rolled out cookies, Mr. Wiebe, 49, said he had “lost a lot of sleep” over leaving. “But our children have no future here,” he said.

 Several Mennonite farmers said they were skeptical that Chihuahua would run dry. Water was God-given, one farmer said, and only God could take it away.

 

“Doesn’t water go in a cycle?” Mr. Wiebe asked. “You pull it from the ground, and then it rains from the sky.”

Others are less sanguine. Nicolas Wall, a Mennonite who farms 700 acres of corn with his brother, worries that there will not be enough water for his children to farm.

“I think there’ll be an end to it sometime,” Mr. Wall said. “But when?”

The real problem lies with the government, farmers and experts said. The water commission is a “den of corruption,” Mr. Klassen said, a place where officials take years to process paperwork and sell well permits for thousands of dollars.

Mr. Athié did not deny corruption, but said the problem was “older than Christ.”

Mr. Puente said Mexico needed to start a national conversation. People are turning to other energy sources, he said, adding: “But there is no alternative to water. Water is water.”

Mr. Friesen will trade such worries for the challenge of starting a new life on the 250 acres he bought in Argentina. Those already there have built some houses and bought cattle, he said. Three babies have been born.

Hard as it would be to leave “the homeland,” Mr. Friesen said, his five children would “put down roots” in a new place. Standing in the dairy barn as his wife, Gertruda, milked cows, he smiled.

“We’re going to create exactly the same world there that we built here,” he said.

COLORADO EVANGELICAL MESSAGE TO REPUBLICAN CANDIDATES

 Unless you have been living in a cave, you likely know that the Republican candidates for POTUS gathered in Boulder on Wednesday for their third debate.  CU touted it as a great opportunity for the students, but not surprisingly, CNBC limited the number of tickets to students at about 100, and allowed an audience of only 1000 in a venue that seats 11,000 plus.  Like everyone else in the nation, the CU students had to decide whether or not to watch the debate on TV.  On the morning of the debate, there was an interesting full-page ad in the Boulder Daily Camera - blurb below from here:

BOULDER, Colo. — In an open letter published Wednesday as a full-page ad in the Boulder Daily Camera, 63 Colorado pastors and other evangelical leaders call on GOP presidential candidates to craft respectful, solutions-based messages on immigration.

In a key state for 2016, the letter counters harsh rhetoric toward immigrants from some presidential candidates and other political leaders.

“The immigrant community and our community are one and the same,” the letter states. “Together, for several years we have diligently worked to create space to dialogue and learn from one another about how the broken immigration system has affected our communities, keeping us divided. And, we have come to this shared conclusion: Immigrants are vital in our communities, and we must treat them with respect and dignity. Our laws must reflect that conclusion.”

“So many of us feel that we need to do something to stand up to the negativity around the immigration debate,” said Michelle Warren, an Evangelical Immigration Table leader in Colorado.

 “We are desperate for a conversation that welcomes immigrants with compassion.”

FULL LETTER - slightly better viewed in link as PDFsole Mennonite signator was Vern Remple.

GOD'S BLESSINGS

Bizzy suggested that if I write about The Donald, there would be many comments. But, writing about religion might generate even more responses and opinions! So, time for a bit of a rant:

I must admit that I often shake my head in disagreement when I hear or see people thanking their God for a blessing that in my opinion is nothing more than dumb luck, serendipitous circumstance, or privilege. Let me run through some examples:

** I know people who believe that God is blessing them when they find a parking place, or don't run out of gas, or some other trifling thing - no, you were just lucky.  Similarly, if they are well-off financially, it is claimed to be a blessing - no, most likely privilege played an important part.  I find the prosperity gospel reprehensible.

** LeBron James [and countless other athletes] - "I was blessed with a God-given talent..."  No, LeBron, you are basically a genetic anomaly [I will avoid saying a freak of nature].  Walk down the street in Anywhere USA and tell me how many 6'8" 249 pound fellows with an incredible physique you see.  James won a genetic lottery that highly rewards over-sized people with basic coordination.  Admittedly James has skills, but so do I - if I had been 10 inches taller, I believe that I too could have been a basketball star - I blame it on short Ed and short Mary!

** And speaking of countless athletes, how many times do we see baseball players point to the heavens, thanking God for the home run or the winning hit.  Duh - if you think that God blessed you with such a fundamentally useless happening, what does it say about God and the pitcher?  It seems logical that God must have cursed the pitcher if he blessed the batter.  Does God really bless the winners?  Blessing one winner and abandoning countless losers does not seem very God-like.

** And what the hell do people mean when they say/sing God Bless America?  I think that most folks who mouth this really mean, make us prosperous, keep us safe from the foreign hoards, make sure that my version of Christianity prevails, etc.

** This is the one that bothers me the most:  "God blessed me for surviving this tragedy" [pick your tragedy].  Examples are abundant - plane crashes, theater shootings, tornadoes, ad infinitum.  If survival is a blessing, then it follows that all who died were not blessed.  Again, doesn't seem particularly God-like.

So, you are now possibly asking, so what is a blessing from God?  Nothing material, IMHO.  Here is my non-all-inclusive list - unconditional love, grace, forgiveness, reconciliation, justice, mercy, truth, fairness, knowledge, wisdom, joy - hopefully you get my point.

Blessings   :-)

NIMRODS IN NIMRUD

It has been a little while since the barbaric ISIS/Daesh [the Nimrods] destroyed many antiquities in Nimrud, Iraq, but the phrase used in the title of this post kept coming to mind.  Most of you likely know the story, but accounts can be read here in the Guardian and a good CNN report including video is here.  This is just one more example of bad religion, or religion gone bad - take your pick.  The Daesh claim is that the cultural cleansing is required because the antiquities promote idolatry, but my bet is that they are carrying off a lot of the stuff to sell on the black market.  Here is a brief video from the Guardian link:

Yesiree - this really promotes idolatry!!

 

We can only wish this fate for the Daesh Nimrods

Carved Nimrud ivory of lion attacking Nubian circa 850-750BC. Source: News Corp Australia

"I'M NO THEOLOGIAN" - TODD STARNES

Well Starnes gets no argument from me - seems obvious if you listen to this exposé

My friend and colleague Peter Enns is a theologian, well biblical scholar to be precise, and here is what Pete has to say:

Word is making its way around the blogosphere that Fox News is doubling as a theological think tank.

I don’t like picking on Fox News when they talk religion of any sort, including Christianity. It’s too easy and it gets boring.

But I can’t help myself here
.
According to the Fox News website, Michael Moore–who really hates this movie, I mean really, really hates it–tweeted about how inconsistent this movie is for Christian faith–hardly a sign of Moore’s Paul-like blinding light conversion, but more a dig.

Fox News took the bait. Correspondent Todd Starnes, after telling us twice that he’s “no theologian,” nevertheless makes a rather hefty theological claim in response to Moore: Jesus would be saying “well done thou good and faithful servant” to snipers plucking off Muslims, thus sending them to hell where they belong.

I think Starnes is mistaking Jesus for…well…not Jesus. Jesus had plenty of chances to wage war on people he didn’t like, and he had his enemies, but he preferred his sniping to remain verbal.
At least according to the Bible. Which I’ve read. More than once.

If anything, Jesus would have stepped in front of the target and taken the bullet.

“You mean, even for someone from the wrong religion?”

Yes. That’s how Jesus rolls. Jesus came to save, not condemn. And certainly not to reward snipers for killing the enemy.

I understand that the realities of modern warfare are such that snipers aren’t going anywhere–and dare I suggest they are a necessary evil? But what do I know? I’ve never seen war.

But rather than thinking of Jesus as giving a sniper a good ol’ boy slap on the back, maybe Jesus would have compassion on him when PTSD sets in and the burden on his conscience got too heavy for him to bear. That’s sounds more like the Jesus I’ve read about.

Maybe Jesus wouldn’t pick sides. Maybe Jesus isn’t American. Maybe Jesus would have compassion on the Muslim, too. That’s not too hard to imagine–if you’ve read the New Testament, even just parts of it.

The real problem here isn’t the spat between Moore and Starnes, and whatever, who cares. It isn’t Starnes’s cluelessness about Jesus 101. It’s not even that Starnes–like so many others–confuses his own nationalistic agenda’s for Gods.

It’s that, in the public eye, such extremist rhetoric is seen as an acceptable form of Christianity–if not its normal expression.

I’m tired of people like Starnes who for some unknown reason have access to a microphone, a camera, and get paid to talk.

I’m tired because letting people like Starnes talk about Jesus without adult supervision is like letting Justin Bieber discourse on Bach.

I’m tired because I have to explain to people that, even if they think Starnes is wrong, this is the kind of smug character Christianity seems to produce.

I’m tired–and angry–that many people will listen to Starnes and not conclude as they should, “What a complete fool; why is he talking?,” but “Wow, there goes another Christian.”

This isn’t personal. I don’t know Starnes and I can’t judge his deep motives. Maybe it’s all just about viewers. But don’t drag Jesus into it.

And when you have to preface a comment about Jesus by saying, “I’m no theologian,” you should probably trust that instinct and zip it or at least check for journalistic accuracy. Although at Fox, since when….Oh forget it.

Maybe people like Starnes give me job security.

Well done, good and faithful servant Pete.

THE RADICALS

When the Radical Amish have serious disagreements with their brethren, they cut off the beards of their adversaries.  Our society convicts the offending Amish of hate crimes.

When the Radical Muslims have disagreements with anyone who does not believe as they do, they cut off the heads of their adversaries.  Much of the Muslim world either remains silent or lauds the pernicious murderers.  

However, as Harvey Yoder over at Harvspot points out, beheadings by religious fundamentalists are not new.  The early anabaptists were also know as The Radicals for their anti-establishment beliefs in the separation of church and state, adult baptism, non-violence, etc.  Below is Harvey's blogspot post:  

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Anabaptist Wolfgang Binder beheaded 1571

My wife's ancestor Hans Landis, one of the last known Anabaptists martyrs in western Europe, was executed in the year 1614, just 400 years ago.

Landis was one of thousands who were martyred for advocating for a free church, one completely independent of state control and free of all forms of coercion or violence.

One of the more common means of killing such dissidents in the time of the Protestant Reformation was beheading, next only to deaths by drowning or by burning at the stake. All of these brutalities against Anabaptists (adult baptizers) were carried out in the name of God by Catholic, Lutheran and Reformed jurisdictions alike.

Today we are shocked by similar forms of terrorism on the part of ISIL extremists. But even they have not even begun to decapitate as many people as were killed in this way by religiously controlled authorities in Christian-dominated Europe just centuries ago.

This suggests that brutal forms of torture and killing cannot be associated with any one religion, but with religious fundamentalists of any faith. Sadly, it took hundreds of years for so-called Christians to stop executing unbelievers, members of other faiths and even people of different Christian beliefs.

Maybe one day followers of Jesus will just get out of the killing business altogether.

Posted by Harvey Yoder

THE TREE OF RELIGION

This likely will not expand here - so to see the details visit this site.

It would have been nice to have the current numbers linked to each group. 

 

THE GUNGOR HERESY by ALAN BEAN

Al Mohler has adapted nicely to our twenty-first century media revolution.  He even does podcasts.
Al isn’t hip.  Not even a little bit.  But he talks about hip people, albeit with disapproval.

I can’t imagine the venerable Roy Lee Honeycutt or Duke McCall (Al’s predecessors at the helm of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky) dissecting the theological errors of pop artists, but Al is willing to have a go.

Take Gungor, for instance.

Who, or what, is “Gungor” you ask.

First, Gungor is a guy (Michael Gungor) and second, Gungor is the musical ensemble Michael formed with his wife, Lisa, and a few others.  The couple moved to Denver in 2007 and started a church for creative types like themselves.  If you want a taste of their music, here’s a taste:

According to Wikipedia, the album and the song “Beautiful things” (released in 2011) “were nominated for the Grammy categories Best Rock or Rap Gospel Album and Best Gospel Song, respectively.”  Relevant, a magazine for hip young Christians, has produced a number of YouTube videos if you want to hear more.


The lyrics to “Beautiful Things,” reveals the wistful, longing, questing tone of Gungor’s music.

All this pain
I wonder if I’ll ever find my way
I wonder if my life could really change at all
All this earth
Could all that is lost ever be found
Could a garden come up from this ground at all
You make beautiful things
You make beautiful things out of the dust
You make beautiful things
You make beautiful things out of us

Michael Gungor is an evangelical Christian . . . of sorts.  He loves Jesus and doesn’t think it’s much of a stretch to believe that Jesus turned water into wine or healed the sick.  In other words, he’s no hard-science rationalist.

But, like millions of young, educated Christians his age (he was born in 1980), Michael Gungor has thought long and hard about the Bible and has reached some tough conclusions.

Specifically, he doesn’t think he can hold onto Jesus without relaxing his grip on some of the Bible’s nasty bits.  You know, the smitings and blood-soaked massacres that God commands, or the notion that the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ would sweep away thousands of innocent people in a flood that covered the highest mountains.

It isn’t just that Noah’s flood is hard to reconcile with the universal consensus of the scientific community; it’s also hard to square with the compassion and infinite forgiveness of Jesus.  If the man from Nazareth truly is the human face of God, there’s a disconnect here.

And then there’s the fact that the early chapters of the Bible (what C.S .Lewis called “the parables of Genesis”) read like ancient folk tales or “myths”.  They aren’t mythical in the sense that they aren’t so; but they are much closer to poetry than prose.

When Gungor sings “you make beautiful things, you make beautiful things out of dust,” he is affirming the God of the Apostle’s Creed: the “Maker of heaven and earth.”

But if you ask how God made the world and all that dwells therein, Gungor would direct you to the scientists (who are making shocking discoveries about the wonders of God’s creation on a daily basis) and to poets who reckon with the wonder the rocks and skeletons reveal.

Al Mohler action figure

Al Mohler is not impressed.  There is a biblical worldview and a scientific world view, he says, and we must decide which has the upper hand.  Mohler isn’t anti-science, but when scientific consensus and the revealed, inerrant, infallible Word of God are at odds, Christians go with the Good Book.

Every time.  Simple as that.

We know the Bible is true, Al says, because it is the very Word of God, and God doesn’t lie.  We know the Bible is the Word of God because the Bible itself says so.

When Michael Gungor accepts the miracles of Jesus while questioning the historicity (and the ethical implications) of Noah’s flood, Mohler accuses him of arbitrary and illogical thinking.  Dispense with an inerrant Bible, Al says, and you have no philosophical foundation for accepting anything the Bible says.

All or nothing at all.

Mohler doesn’t argue that the Biblical worldview is demonstrably superior to the scientific alternative.  He’s a “presuppositionalist” who believes our fundamental, a priori assumptions predetermine our conclusions.  Start with God’s word and you get a biblical worldview; start with science, and you get a scientific worldview. Small wonder that the God of the Bible and the men in lab coats sometimes disagree, and when they do, eternal destiny hangs in the balance.

Mohler doesn’t argue with scientists, or the vast majority of theologians and biblical scholars who claim to be cool with science.  These people don’t pay his bills.  Al’s bills are paid by simple folk who love God and have never been forced to grapple with the theological implications of the scientific method.

A quarter of the American population believes the sun revolves around the earth, so Al has a considerable constituency.

I’m not saying that Al Mohler is simple, or that he’s a con man sayin’ what he knows ain’t so.  His theology is what happens when you spend a quarter century in an environment where no one is allowed to consider alternatives to “the biblical worldview”.

Most of us don’t live in that world.  Like Michael Gungor, we want it all: the Bible, the poets, and the best science our little minds can grasp.

Like Gungor’s song, our pendulum swings between “Could a garden come up from this ground at all?” and “you make things beautiful!”  We want  to hold the anguished question and the ringing affirmation in holy tension.

If Al Mohler’s logic works for you, that’s fine. If you are young, restless and reformed, go for it.  By all means.

But millions of young people aren’t prepared to choose between secular scholarship and the Bible.  The crisis might come in high school, or it may wait until college; but sooner or later, our sons and daughters confront questions about God, faith and the Bible that never came up in Sunday School and were never addressed from the pulpit.  Convinced that the Church has no answers, they are walking away, millions of them, and they’re not coming back.

Al Mohler has nothing to say to these kids; he might as well be speaking in tongues.
But some of them will listen to Gungor.

I hope they do.  But pop singers, however gifted, can’t do the heavy theological lifting for the church.
Al Mohler has a point, after all.   It isn’t hard to find churches that have abandoned their erstwhile allegiance to an inerrant Bible and Four-Spiritual-Laws evangelism, but what do they offer as a substitute?

Thin gruel, mostly.

Typically, denominational training materials avoid hard questions that easily translate into controversy and cancelled orders.

The adult Sunday school classes created for the rebels and eggheads drift from “The Gnostic Gospels”, to “Zealot: the Life and Times of Jesus of Nazareth”, to the latest self-help guide for the spiritually inclined.

It’s all great fun, but such classes rarely coalesce around a gospel consensus; a few hearty conclusions about how Jesus impacts life in the real world.   The traditional language of faith no longer speaks to us and we have little to put in its place.

And Al Mohler is right about the need to make fundamental choices.  But the question isn’t whether or not we take the scientists seriously.  God wants to know if we take Jesus seriously.

Do we?

We need a new orthodoxy
. . . that begins and ends with Jesus and the kingdom he proclaimed
. . . that values truth wherever it is found
. . . that is simple, honest and humble.

Michael Gungor may not have all the answers we seek; but he shows us how to ask the right questions.

Alan Bean - Friends of Justice