The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 1

I am starting a series of posts that will run for several weeks, discussing one of the best books I have ever read, The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd. The book has generated no small amount of controversy since it was released back in 2005. Boyd preached a series of sermons in April of 2004 as things begin to heat up for the elections that took place that fall. It is interesting, that as I read this book and start this series that we are in a similar place, with the tensions escalating for the elections that will take place in less than a year.

As Boyd says in his introduction, he had never experienced as much positive feedback or as much negative feedback as he did in the midst of this six week sermon series. In the process, about 1000 people left the church (about 20%). He was called a whole host of names, like "a liberal, a compromiser, wishy-washy, unpatriotic, afraid to take a stand, or simply on the side of Satan" (pg 10).

He goes on to say that he is sympathetic to the dearly held beliefs of those who are particularly aligned politically, either liberal or conservative. To those who are reading the book (or this blog) and already nervous about what he is going to say, and thinking on the outset that some of the names above are true, Boyd humbly says "let me assure you that, for all my shortcomings, I don't believe any of those labels accurately describes me." He then asserts that wrestling with different beliefs is both extremely healthy and extremely rewarding. Above all, he is humbly asking that the reader do one thing:

"I only ask that you hear me out." (pg 11)

And that is what we will do. I encourage you to walk with me as I read through this book again and do my best to summarize the chapters, evaluate them, and offer some of my own thoughts. I will seek to honor the promise made by Scot McKnight about book reviews: That I will be fair to what the author says; I will focus on what he focuses on; I will tell you what I like and what I don;t like; I will not try to find random theological pecadillos and then excoriate him for his theology. "To be fair to a book is to focus on what it focuses on and to see if it is sustained by the argument and evidence and to see if its conclusions are sound and the most probable."

Some rules (challenges) before we start:

1. Try and leave your political allegiances and biases behind. May we use scripture as our guide and seek truth.

2. Let's hang in there until the end. Some may feel the temptation to abandon ship early on. I think it is important to wrestle with this all the way through. May we do as Greg asks and hear him out.

3. Let's not jump to conclusions (as many may have already). Stereotypes assume they know what the outcome is beforehand. May we not assume we know the end from the beginning. This is basically another way of saying, may we hear Greg out.

4. Fourthly, and related to those previously, let's resist the urge to try and categorize Greg. I know that I do it too, that when you see a talking head or hear a soundbite or read a quote, we immediately think "Where is this person coming from? What camp are they in?" Set this kind of thinking aside at the outset, because like jumping to conclusions, it will hinder us hearing what he is really trying to say.

5. Lastly, may we allow this to challenge us. I agree with Greg that there are few things more productive or more rewarding than wrestling with other ideas. May we take this challenge together.

Okay, we will look at the rest of the intro and what exactly the central issues are that Greg is dealing with next time. Until then, here are some resources you may be interested in.

This is the link where you can find the sermons from 2004, that lead to him writing this book.

This is the series that Vanguard Church did on the book a while back. I may be referring to it from time to time.

Christians Saying I'm Sorry

Here is a website that is long overdue. The Think Christian Blog posted the link to a website called Christians Confess, that features Christians simply apologizing to non-Christians for not living and loving like Christ. Here are some examples:

I'm sorry for the times I have challenged, insulted, or condemned you for believing differently than I. Your spirituality is just as valid as mine, even if we disagree on the expression.

--Erin

I'm sorry that so many acts of kindness we bestowed upon you had strings attached.
--Lee

I am sorry that my need to be right made me miss that I should have loved you instead.

--Iggy

I'm sorry for ignoring you in preference to the "God stuff" that I was doing.

--Heather

I'm sorry for the years I spent hiding behind the walls of the church.

--Cindy



Here is the explanation of the purpose for the website from the about section.

When most people hear the word "Christian", they think of a lot of other words--likely all of them negative. Words like "hypocrite", "judgmental", "self-righteous", and--well, you get the idea. For many people, meeting individuals who identify themselves as Christian is also likely to stir up past memories of hurt and pain.

This site was started in order for Christians to acknowledge that we have got it terribly wrong at times, and to apologize for this. We understand that many will feel that words aren't enough. We agree! Though we also admit we don't know what else to do practically about this. If you have any ideas please contact us and let us know how we can show, not only in word, but also in deed, that we're sorry.

The honesty and humility of this is so refreshing to me. It is time for Christians to quit being self righteous and start loving, serving, and humbling ourselves before those we would oppose (or who would oppose us).

Here are a few of my own apologies:

I'm sorry for caring for those outside the church with words only, and not with deeds.

I'm sorry for being critical of others' ideas without fully understanding them.

I'm sorry that, in my low moments, I have found myself thinking I'm better than you.

-Nick

This reminds me of what Donald Miller talks about doing at Reed University in his book Blue Like Jazz.

Thoughts about this site or the topic as a whole?

Top Books of 2007

I hope you guys had a great Christmas.

I thought it would be fun to share the top 5 books I read in 2007. Some are from previous years, but these are ones I have read in the last 12 months. Feel free to offer your own recommendations, the best books you read in the 2007.

Honorable Mention #1: New Light on the Difficult Words of Jesus by David Bivin.
This is a great introduction to the Jewish roots of Jesus that most of us miss. Bivin, who is a Christian who has studied in Palestine for decades, is a good writer who keeps you interested while he offers great insight about the teachings and culture of Jesus.









Honorable Mention #2: The Year of Living Biblically by A.J. Jacobs


I saw this on one of those tables at Barnes and Noble and had to pick it up. A.J. Jacobs, who is a writer and editer for Esquire, does this sort of thing, where he will undertake a mammoth project, and then write a memoir about it. One he wrote before this (that I'm reading now) is called The Know it All where he reads all the way through the Encyclopedia Britannica and writes about it.

The book is hilarious, insightful, informative, and entertaining. Jacobs is a Jew (who doesn't really practice) but is fascinated by the Bible and undertakes to live all of his life by it for an entire year. This includes (and perhaps centers around) the esoteric commands in the Old Testament like not clipping the edges of your beard and wearing tassels on the edge of your garments. He does a good job of combining both the ridiculous and the practical. It is a fun read.

The Top 5 (In no Particular order)

The Myth of a Christian Nation by Greg Boyd


This is one of the best books I have ever read. I got it for Christmas and read it in just a few days. Boyd does a great job of defining the differences between the Kingdom of God and the Kingdom of the World, and then pointing to how our culture (particularly Evangelical Christianity) gets it wrong. There were several times when I would read a sentence and think "I have thought that for years." He says things that need to be said, but have not been.

The entire book was good, but perhaps the highlight for me was chapter 7, called "When Chief Sinners become Moral Guardians." It was one of the best chapters I've read in any book. The book is a must read, but you may also be interested in the sermon series that proceeded the book, that contains much of the same information. You can find those sermons here.

The Shack by William P. Young

I have already written about this here, but suffice it to say it is the best book of its kind I have even come across. A must read and a touching tale.









More Ready Than You Realize by Brian McLaren

I picked this up on a whim at half priced books. I am always looking for good teaching resources on how to better share your faith. What I got was completely different than I had expected, but much better.

I was aware of Brian McLaren and who he was. I had heard and read quotes by him and commentary about him. I have learned that most of his quotes by his critics are taken out of context and twisted to mean something that he is not saying. I am now a huge Brian McLaren fan. He is a great thinker and remarkably relevant to the culture in America. He has a great grasp on the shifts that are taking place in the culture and in Christendom. I have had to add about four more McLaren books to my reading list. I can't wait to read more of him.

Adventures in Missing the Point by Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren

Another Brian McLaren contribution. This came recommended by a friend, and when I was told the idea behind the book (i.e. looking into the ways Christians have missed the point over the years) I had to check it out. They divide up chapters, but take time at the end of each to critique the other. Campolo's chapter on homosexuality alone is worth the price of the book. He has revolutionized the way I think about homosexuality. In addition, the chapters on Evangelism and the Bible by McLaren are very good as well.





Catch Me if You Can by Frank William Abignale

This one is a change of pace. This is the book that spawned the movie by the same name. Frank William Abignale was a con artist who posed as a Pilate, a lawyer, a doctor, a University professor all before his 22nd birthday, all the while writing fraudulent checks to make himself rich. The movie was largely true, but as you can imagine, parts were left out and other parts were embellished. The book offers the true story, from the horse’s mouth.

In addition to it be a very exciting read, the end of the story is great. After Frank's run comes to an end and he spends some time in jail (in several countries), he begins to help catch con artists and stop fraud. He pays back all the money he stole over the years from banks and individuals, and goes on to make 20 times the amount he stole on his books and security consulting business. He thought crime paid, but in reality, going legit paid much more.

Santa Claus: An Engineer's Perspective

This isn't new, but it's funny. Just for fun, it is an engineer's take on Santa. Enjoy, and Merry Christmas.

There are approximately two billion children (persons under 18) in the world. However, since Santa does not visit children of Muslim, Hindu, Jewish, or Buddhist religions, this reduces the workload for Christmas night to 15% of the total, or 378 million (according to the Population Reference Bureau).

At an average (census) rate of 3.5 children per household, that comes to 108 million homes, presuming that there is at least one good child in each. Santa has about 31 hours of Christmas to work with, thanks to the different time zones and the rotation of the earth, assuming he travels east to west (which seems logical). This works out to 967.7 visits per second.

This is to say that for each Christian household with a good child, Santa has 1/1000th of a second to park the sleigh, hop out, jump down the chimney, fill the stockings, distribute the remaining presents under the tree, eat whatever snacks have been left for him, get back up the chimney, jump into the sleigh, and get on to the next house.

Assuming that each of these 108 million stops is evenly distributed around the earth (which, of course, we know to be false, but will accept for the purposes of our calculations), we are now talking about 0.78 miles per household; a total trip of 75.5 million miles, not counting bathroom stops or breaks. This means Santa's sleigh is moving at 650 miles per second, 3,000 times the speed of sound.

For purposes of comparison, the fastest man-made vehicle, the Ulysses space probe, moves at a poky 27.4 miles per second, and a conventional reindeer can run (at best) 15 miles per hour. The payload of the sleigh adds another interesting element. Assuming that each child gets nothing more than a medium sized Lego set (two pounds), the sleigh is carrying over 500,000 tons, not counting Santa himself.

On land, a conventional reindeer can pull no more than 300 pounds. Even granting a "flying" reindeer could pull ten times the normal amount, the job can't be done with eight or even nine of them. Santa would need 360,000 of them. This increases the payload, not counting the weight of the sleigh, another 54,000 tons. 600,000 tons traveling at 650 miles per second creates enormous air resistance.

This would heat up the reindeer in the same fashion as a spacecraft reentering the earth's atmosphere. The lead pair of reindeer would absorb 14.3 quintillion joules of energy per second each. In short, they would bust into flames almost instantaneously, exposing the reindeer behind them and creating deafening sonic booms in their wake. The entire reindeer team would be vaporized within 4.26 thousandths of a second, or right about the time Santa reached the fifth house on his trip.

Not that it matters, however, since Santa, as a result of accelerating from a dead stop to 650 miles per second in .001 seconds, would be subjected to centrifugal forces of 17,500 g's. A 250 pound Santa (which seems ludicrously slim) would be pinned to the back of the sleigh by 4,315,015 pounds of force, instantly crushing his bones and organs, and reducing him to a quivering blob of pink goo.Therefore, if Santa did exist, he's dead now. Merry Christmas!

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation, Part 4

Below is the second half of the conversation j razz and I had almost a year ago. May we continue to involve ourselves in conversations that stretch us.

_________________________________________

Nick said...

Man, these are becoming some long posts, huh?

I appreciate you clarifying some things. I understand that you were not accusing me of anything, but I also think it's clear that I clarify that we do or don’t do certain things.

Now, for some dialogue/commentary:

I am not saying that salvation is not intentional; I am saying though that it is not the primary goal of God.

See, this may be a major point of disagreement with us. I think that since the fall, God has been trying to bring his creation back to him. I think that his ultimate goal is fellowship with his creation, and that cannot happen if his creation is lost. I think he is obsessed with bringing his creation back to him. We will have all eternity to praise (not that it isn’t important now), but we can only win people for a certain time. I think that is God's “MO” and Jesus' when he was on earth: that for this season, God desiring that his people come back to him.

I see that as being a man-centered approach to church, evangelism and the gospel. While I would see myself more in the camp of a God-centered approach. Instead of what can God do for me and how can the gospel benefit me with man’s benefit being the end goal, I would say that scripture is more concerned with glorifying God by glorifying the Son

If you accept the previous premise, than this isn't man centered at all, but seeking to fulfill God's primary purpose. It isn’t asking “what's in it for me?”, because evangelism doesn’t always help out the believer. It would be much more comfortable to make church a social club with nice carpet and not do the work to reach anybody, but that would not be God's will. I agree that scripture is concerned with glorifying God through the son, but the reason seems to be so that "he will draw all men unto him." It goes full circle back to that.

if someone is to be saved they will be saved...because God will save who He wills

When you say this, it seems to hint at Calvinism, predestination etc. I'm not trying to accuse, but if this is your stance, that could be the reason we disagree so much. I am not Calvinistic at all.

We can preach the gospel all day long out of obedience and not see one come to know Christ save for the work of the Holy Spirit...

I agree that the Holy Spirit is involved in salvation (of course). The danger I see is that if we see no one come to Christ, something is wrong. Jesus said we would be fruitful. Why aren't we? We have to answer the pragmatic questions. I don’t mean to be too "business minded", b/c the church is not a business, but the bottom line does count. Souls matter.

To them He uses Hell as a tool to make His point

Thanks for bringing this up. I forgot about the rich man and Lazarus. Although it seems clear that the point is to use Lazarus as a foil for the Pharisees and make a point about position on earth vs the afterlife. Although, I will grant you, Jesus does talk about Hell here, though I would argue that it isn’t the point. Remember I don’t think we should forget about hell, or even avoid talking about it, just that it shouldn’t be the point or focus of our evangelism. I hate the fire and brimstone stuff.

I would rather be told that there is a waterfall less than a mile down the river and unless I pull my raft to the bank I will surely die...

Yeah, this argument is used a lot. My response, like I said, is that I think love is a better motivator than fear. For example, if we did a study and told 100 rafters that there was a waterfall and 26 of them listened, then told the next 100 to pull over and that there were many great things to see on the shore and 54 of them responded, we would be fools not to use the 2nd option. I think that is a closer comparison to the point I am making. I believe in urgency and all that, but I think the truth is that the second way works better; that love is a better motivator. Please forgive the analogy, because I know it isn’t exact, it isn’t that black and white, and it seems to suggest that we are keeping the truth from them. That is not what I am saying (analogies are only so good, you know?). I am simply saying that I am making my point on practicality. The argument against this is that those converted based on love are not real converts, or that they fall away when trouble hits, but I have seen enough examples of people being saved this way to be convinced that that theory is simply not true.

God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there

I would disagree with this as well. I think CS Lewis had it right when he said that on the final day there will be 2 kinds of people: those that say to God "thy will be done" and those to whom God says "thy will be done." People can choose to be their own king and go to hell or to put Jesus as Lord and go to heaven. It is their choice.

Again, I appreciate the dialogue. It is great to have a disagreement where there is mutual respect. Thanks, j razz.

_______________________________________

j razz said...

...this may be a major point of disagreement with us. I think that since the fall, God has been trying to bring his creation back to him. I think that his ultimate goal is fellowship with his creation, and that cannot happen if his creation is lost. I think he is obsessed with bringing his creation back to him.

I think that this is one of our biggest humps to cross. Your foundational element is that God’s primary goal is to attempt to restore as much of creation before His Son returns for the purpose of right fellowship. My foundational element is that God seeks His glory and all of creation’s purpose is to glorify God.

The view I hold is that God cannot and will not fail at anything He seeks to accomplish (He is sovereign). If God supplied a means (Christ’s redemptive work on the cross) then He will see it through to its rightful end (Redeeming a people for Himself). Christ did not die for all to have the opportunity to make it to Heaven (at least I can’t find that in scripture), Christ died for a real, concrete purpose- to save that which was lost (MT. 18.11); He gave Himself for our sins (Gal. 1.4); He gave His life as a ransom for many (MT. 20.28); He gave Himself for us that He might redeem us from all iniquity and purify unto Himself a peculiar people…(Titus 2.14); He loved the church and gave Himself for it… (He even goes on here to explain why He gave Himself for it.)(Eph. 5.25-27). So, if Christ died to fulfill a specific purpose- that being to redeem us, then He either accomplished that goal of redemption on the Cross or He did not. If He didn’t then He failed and would cease to be God and we both would be living and believing a lie. I think you would say that you don’t agree with my premise. I think you would say that Christ died so that all and any may come to Him. (Correct me if I am wrong). I would say that scripture makes it very clear that He died specifically for those that the Father has given Him. If He died for a possibility what do we do with the scripture that says He died for a purpose? Either 1. He died for all of the sins of all people or 2. He died for some of the sins of all people, or 3. He died for all of the sins of some people. If the first, why are people going to Hell? His death and atoning work was effective and wrought redemption; there is power in the blood. If the second, no one would be worthy of being with the Lord as we would still have sin that is un-atoned for. If the third, then Christ’s work on the cross can be said to have merit as it was a means to an end as it brought about the end goal that was established in scripture as mentioned above; redeeming a people unto Himself.

If you accept the previous premise, than this isn't man centered at all, but seeking to fulfill God's primary purpose.

To respond to this, j razz included a lengthy quote from J.I. Packer that you can find here. I have removed it for space purposes.

if someone is to be saved they will be saved...because God will save who He wills

When you say this, it seems to hint at Calvinism, predestination etc. I'm not trying to accuse, but if this is your stance, that could be the reason we disagree so much. I am not Calvinistic at all.


I believe that God is completely sovereign over every thing that is, was and will be. In addition to that, I also believe that man is completely responsible for every action they commit, every thought they think and every word they say. I would say that these two things appear as contradictory statements, but I would say that appearances are deceiving. For more on this read The So-Called Antinomy Between the Sovereignty of God and the Responsibility of Man.

The danger I see is that if we see no one come to Christ, something is wrong. Jesus said we would be fruitful.

What do we do with great Christian men like William Carey who did not see one single convert for years into his ministry to India and all the while his wife and children fell ill and some died? What do we do with men like Jeremiah or Jonas? What do we do with men like Paul who went to the market place and few believed? Unless the Spirit gives them a regenerated heart and ears to hear, the gospel message falls on deaf ears. I agree, if no one comes to Christ, then something is wrong, but our time and our wisdom is not the timing of God nor His wisdom. What we think to be right and good is folly to God.

Remember I don’t think we should forget about hell, or even avoid talking about it, just that it shouldn’t be the point or focus of our evangelism. I hate the fire and brimstone stuff.

I do not think that we should avoid it either. I also do not think that we should over emphasize it either. That was really the point I was making. It has its place and if we leave it out, then we neglect the whole of the message. We need not build up one side to the detriment of the other else we find ourselves being partial and witholding truth.


As for the waterfall argument, my main point is not that I would rather be told about Hell than Heaven, it is that I would rather be told both that Christianity has much to offer as well as Hell is a real place where those who do not believe in Christ will be placed after the judgment. I followed up that paragraph with that statement as I would rather be told the truth than only part of the truth.

God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there

I would disagree with this as well.

If God institutes a certain method that is to bring about a salvific response and that response hinges on the Holy Spirit first regenerating a heart to be able to respond to the gospel message, I would conclude that God is demonstrating His authority over salvation. I would further conclude that man is responsible for what he does with the gospel message whether or not he has a heart to believe as the Gospel is a command, not an option. If the man has no desire to obey the command as he is given over to his own wickedness, he is held accountable for his disobedience. What separates that man from you or me? God’s intervening grace in our lives in that He chose to regenerate our hearts and give us ears to hear the truth of the gospel so that we would respond in obedience to the gospel call. God is not impotent; He does not let man dictate their future to Him. In the same way, God lets no sin go unpunished. If men disobey His gospel command, they stand judged already and will be placed in their appropriate place. If men obey the gospel command, they too will be placed in their rightful place based solely on the merits of Christ.

Nick again, it has been a pleasure. If only all my dialogues could be of this caliber. Have a great day buddy and just for the record, I do give 2 craps :)

j razz

________________________________________

Nick said...

thanks for the comments, j razz. I must say though, I am diducting two points for the lengthy quote :). I thought it was you talking until I got to the end.

I think we have hit a wall. Let me recap what I think we have found that our differences are, and see if you agree.

You hold to a sort of divine election belief, a "no man will be saved unless God chooses him" idea.

vs

I hold to a "whosoever will come, can come" idea.

This is an age old debate the books have literally been written about. Their is honestly biblical evidence for both. I doudt you and I will solve this issue.


You feel that God's purpose is his own glory.

vs

I feel that God's purpose is fellowship with his creation, which can only happen if his creation is being brought back to him, which is the primary purpose of the church.

This is fairly major, but I think what is interesting is how we see each belief playing itself out in practice. That is what originally got us discussing this topic.

You have stated that God actively send those who dont follow him to Hell.

vs

Hell was not meant for people, but for the Devil and his angels, but people choose to go there when they make themselves king over God.

Im not sure how much of this is just semantics, but, again, i think it plays itself out in our practice. Beliefs matter, because they effect us in a myriad of ways.

Does this sound fair, j razz? I am of course better at articulating my side than yours, but I tried to do my best. If you think I'm close, than we can agree to disagree, and walk away from this with a better understanding of the other person's beliefs.

Thanks again, friend.

Nick
___________________________________________


j razz said...

I am diducting to points for the lengthy quote :). I thought it was you talking until I got to the end.

Wow! I am humbled that you think I write like J.I. Packer. You have more than made my weekend! About deducting two points- if you must! He just says it so much better than I.

I will just clarify my position where I think it is necessary and then sign off :)

Divine election vs. Whosoever will...

I would say it is less a vs and more of a both and. Whosoever will come will... because God deemed it so.

I doubt you and I will solve this issue.

Come on Nick, let's give it that old college try :)

God's Glory vs God seeking fellowship with creation

Yes.

God sends people to Hell vs Hell is for Satan and his angels

Yes. I would also add to this that if God never intended Hell to be for the majority of mankind, He would not send them there- he would send them where they belong b/c He is God and He is Sovereign and He never settles b/c He has the means not to.

Nick, this really has been a pleasure and a great example of as iron sharpens iron so one man sharpens another. I think that God has been glorified through this and hopefully whoever stumbles upon this will see how Christians can disagree and still be Christians and still be brothers in Christ.

You have been a gentleman in this and I have gained respect for you.

Enjoy the rest of your weekend!

j razz

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation, Part 3

As we continue to look at how respectful, honest, and fair conversation can be used to help us learn and grow as disciples of Christ, but with those who share our faith and those who do not, I wanted to revisit a post I did back in Febuary and the conversation that flowed from it. My conversation partner was j razz, a dear brother in Christ and a fellow blogger. The first half of our conversation is posted below.

As an intro, here is the basic content of the post. I was thinking about preaching and what my philosophies are on the topic, and wrote the following article.

____________________________________

1. Preach From the Bible

I had a professor that once told my class to always read, quote, and paraphrase the Bible in sermons as much as possible. "That way, when you are done, you know you said something inspired." Well said, Dr. Nunnally. I don't believe every sermon (or even most sermons) needs to be verse by verse expository preaching, but scripture should always be used. How can we get by with not using it?

2. Keep it Practical

My currect senior pastor holds to the idea that sermons should all be very practical. I agree. In a service like ours where we expect to have at least a handfull of newcomers present every week, we should keep it to something they can understand. They don't want hear about why we should boil goats in their mother's milk, but things like parenting, conflict, influencing culture, God's plan for marriage etc. they tend to care about because it speaks to their lives. There is a place for the esoteric studies of fairly insignificant bits of scripture, but that is not a Sunday morning. Another word for this would be relevance. People need something that is going to pertain to their lives.

3. Use Humor/Entertainment

Erwin McManus was once challenged by someone who accused his church of trying too hard to entertain people. His response, in my own words, was basically that to entertain someone was simply keeping their attention. Some people are entertained by hymns, or organ music, or expository preaching, or drama, or humor etc. I think he makes a great point. We are all trying to communicate a timeless message in new, creative ways. Whatever form that communication takes should depend on the audience. In LiveWire Student Ministries we use lots of humor, video, movement etc., because young people (actually, all people) learn in multi-sensory ways. This is not diluting the message, but rather, becoming better at communicating it. Jesus used stories, object lessons, humor etc. in his teaching, so why are we afraid to?

I must say though, that this, like all things, can easily go too far. Making jokes at a time that needs to be serious can lose a crownd quickly. Also, when the goal becomes entertainment, rather than communicating the message, it has gone too far.

4. Be Semi-Normal

Weirdness is not a spiritual gift; neither is it admirable. Some preachers seem to get off on using "insider language" or "preacher voices." Is there anything more annoying? This is the whole problem with the Christian Subculture that has been created. By pulling back and secluding, we have lost the right and the opportunity to speak into the culture. I am going to a conference in 2 weeks where Donald Miller will be giving a talk called "How to Share the Gospel Without Weirding People Out." I think that is a great point.

Now, I say semi-normal, because it is not entirely normal to lay down one's life for a dead criminal, or to simulate eating his body and drinking his blood or lots of other things for that matter. There is a level of percieved weirdness that all outsiders might have for Christians that involve core doctrines that just come with the territorry. But people need a real person. They are very good at spotting the phony.

5. Talk about Jesus

I tend to think that no matter what topic a person is preaching on, they should involve Jesus in the process. It shouldn't be hard, for he is all over the Bible, even in the Old Testament. It seems that the "model" from the book of Acts is just to tell about Jesus and what he did. That seemed to work pretty well. Therefore, we would do well to involve Jesus in our message every time, and to tell the story of the cross regularly.

There it is. It is certainly not perfect nor is it comprehensive, but I have my thoughts down. Feel free to critique, disagree, and call me a heretic if you must, but may we never give up the journey of becoming better communicators of the most important message in the world.

____________________________________________
Here is the conversation that followed from this post.

j razz said...

In a service like ours where we expect to have at least a handfull of newcomers present every week, we should keep it to something they can understand.

Nick,

Not picking I promise.

With this statement, why would it be beneficial to dumb down the message for a handful, when you have a faithful majority (or at least those who would claim to be Christians) that needs to move on from the milk to the meat as the author of Hebrews would say?

Would the corporate worship time not be better suited for building up and encouraging the believer with the truths of scripture no matter how hard? The whole of scripture was given to us so that we may learn from it and the examples within. The non-believers only need to hear the gospel to be saved. The believer needs to hear the whole counsel of God to grow in sanctification. If your Sunday morning services are to be geared towards those who would claim no allegiance to Christ, why then use anything other than the gospel- the good news? After all, scripture does state that the gospel is the only means under Heaven by which a man can be saved.
It really seems out of place that preaching to the non-believers would be the primary focus of a Sunday morning service. If it is though, when do the saints gather together and fellowship fulfill Col. 3.16? I will stop there.

Just some questions for you Nick. I hope you have a great weekend buddy.

j razz

_______________________________________


Nick said...

Thanks for the input, J razz.

I dont mean "to dumb it down", I just mean to make the sermons applicable. Many sermons in churches are about things that the average seeker (or person for that matter) doesnt give 2 craps about. We can preach a sermon that is applicable to a person who isn't "in" yet, as well as move the "faithful majority" as you say, "from milk to meat." We really can dp both. Our Senior pastor just finished a series on conflict...something everyone deals with and could get better at dealing with, but also talked about Christ and how he has called us to handle it and what our responsibility is etc. I think the miskate is when we think we have to sacrifice one for the other.

That being said, we do have other times of more intensive Bible study and small group time where christians have the opportunity to dig deeper.

The other thing is that we need to avoid insider language, like christianity is a club. I dont think you were referring to that here, though.

Just to clarify, preaching to the non-believers is NOT the primary focus of a Sunday morning service, but we do make ourselves aware that some will be present (we hope and pray).

________________________________________

j razz said...

I dont mean to dumb it down, i just mean to make the sermons applicable. Many sermons in churches are about things that the average seeker (or person for that matter) doesnt give 2 craps about.

I think that we would differ on the ideology behind this statement whereas I would say that the Bible is very applicable and sermons should seek to be faithful to the text. 1. I would say that to be anything other than faithful to the text would be arrogant in that we are saying we know better than God in how to reach others for His Kingdom. 2. The original authors who were inspired by God wrote with purpose when composing the New and Old Testaments. Their message meant something then and it means something now. I would say it is the preacher’s responsibility to show what the text meant, what it means and how it is relevant today. After all, the prophets and apostles were not writing for the joy of it. 3. Relevance is not something that man can place on scripture- it is something that God has instilled within it. If people do not understand the weightiness of scripture & the relevance thereof would it not be beneficial for them to sit under teaching which expounds it and points to the urgency to respond to it?

Preaching is not barred by scripture from using any other method than this, but I would dare say that examples are bountiful where this method (expositing/applying) is used over and over again in scripture. If we look at the New Testament’s Pauline epistles and letters, we mainly see instruction/explanation given to the local church dealing with doctrinal issues that leads into application. Paul addresses his readers from truth’s sturdy foundation and then he builds a structure of ethics/application. I think this structure can be found in most any of Paul’s writings, and if he is any example by which we are to learn from, then where is the irrelevance? Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John. It would seem that if the authors of scripture inspired by the Author of scripture wrote the way they did, it was because that is how God deemed it to be so. If we can learn anything from examples, I think it would be their example we would learn most from as I do not know any other men that have been inspired by God to perform the task of building up the church at its very foundation.

I think the miskate is when we think we have to sacrifice one (preaching to unbelievers) for the other(preaching to believers).

Here again, I think that we would differ on the ideology behind this statement as I would agree with the statement on face-value but disagree with some methods of carrying it out. I would say that to make a sermon relevant for non-believers/seekers/atheist/agnostics/pagans, etc. we should look to the examples set forth in scripture. God says in His word that there is no other means under Heaven by which a man can be saved than by hearing and responding accordingly to the gospel. This is relevant to a non-believer. This is also relevant to a believer as we need to be reminded of the gospel regularly. When Paul spoke in the market place to the Greeks, he told them of Christ in a way that they would understand. He went out to them and spoke to them where they were at. But, when Paul wrote letters to the local churches of Philippi, Galatia, Ephesus, etc., he did not make provisions in his letters that spoke to the unbelievers in their mist. He spoke to the church and the local church at that.

Now, if we have unbelievers among us when we worship and hopefully we do, they should be presented with the truth of the gospel message. That truth being: if you do not repent and believe an eternity of Hell awaits you. Christ has already conquered Satan, Sin, and Death and it is just a matter of time before He comes to claim what is rightfully His. It would seem that if a preacher was faithful to the text- preached through its original meaning, its meaning to today’s believers and its application, one application would always be that if you do not repent and believe and obey Christ, then Hell awaits you. This is how I see the prophets worked: God is passing judgment, if you repent that judgment will pass over you, if you do not then you will face that judgment. That is how I see the Gospel message as working: Jesus has done what Adam could not do. Because of this, those who believe on Him for salvation will escape judgment while those who do not will be forced to face judgment for all eternity.

Now, with all that being said, the Bible does not state that a church service must consist of _____. I would be a legalist if I said it did. The Bible does not give us commands as to what is to be done or said, but again, the Bible does give us examples which we can follow. Now whether you follow those examples or not are up to you.

Good conversation Nick, I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to dialogue with me. I hope you have a great week. By the way, I have never heard the phrase 2 craps before, but I laughed hard when I read it…. The whole visual thing.

____________________________________________

Nick said...

Thanks again J razz. This is a fun dialogue.

I would say that to be anything other than faithful to the text would be arrogant in that we are saying we know better than God in how to reach others for His Kingdom

I agree, and notice that my #1 point was to use scripture. Context is equally important.

Relevance is not something that man can place on scripture- it is something that God has instilled within it

I think this is easy to say, and hard to disagree with, but reality is that it is difficult. Communicating this timeless message in a way that is relevant to an ever changing culture is hard. Is scripture relevant? Yes. But we are separated by 2000 years of time and culture (at best), so the job becomes increasingly difficult to communicate the message in a relevant way. I could pick a number of scriptures to speak on, for example, "Bury your refuse with a stick" from Deut, but that is not relevant to the unchurched guy in 2007 whose life is falling apart. Communicating that verse in a way he can understand is hard, and I think we would agree that it is not very relevant or effective. That is an extreme example, of course, but some churches are not far from that, and they never see any new people and they don’t grow as a result. Again, I think we need to consider our effectiveness in every step of this, but never to compromise.

If people do not understand the weightiness of scripture & the relevance thereof would it not be beneficial for them to sit under teaching which expounds it and points to the urgency to respond to it?

The problem is, like I mentioned, they don’t give 2 craps about it and so they don’t "sit under it." If it is touching them and ministering to them, meeting them where they are at, great; then the scripture will change their life. If not, they won’t be around long.

Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John.

If by saying this you are insinuating that we don’t "push people to move on as Christ did" you are wrong. We are actually very effective (I think) at moving seekers from the outside, to repentance and entrance to the family of God, to deep discipleship and growth, to ministry/leadership etc. Not all of that happens on Sunday morning, though. We have many other programs that help facilitate this growth. But to say we keep people at a certain entry level is inaccurate.


I would say that to make a sermon relevant for non-believers/seekers/atheist/agnostics/pagans, etc. we should look to the examples set forth in scripture. God says in His word that there is no other means under Heaven by which a man can be saved than by hearing and responding accordingly to the gospel. This is relevant to a non-believer.

Again, by this are you insinuating that we don’t preach the Gospel? If you are, it is incorrect. We share the Gospel regularly, nearly every Sunday. It seems like this argument is assuming a lot of things to be true that are not. Willow Creek gets a lot of flack for supposedly "watering down" the Gospel by critics who have never been to a service there. The truth is that they give a clearer and better communicated presentation of the Gospel that the majority of churches out there. You are right, the gospel is relevant to both the believer and the non-believer. That is one of the reasons we share it so often (that and the whole obedience thing).

That truth being: if you do not repent and believe an eternity of Hell awaits you.

This is true, but we choose to take a bit of a different route. We don’t make Hell the focus, but the love of God and what he did for us. I think one could make a strong biblical case to back this up. For one, we don’t see Jesus using Hell as a scare tactic to get people to follow him (the one exception is the virgins/talents/sheep and the goats stories, but it seems he was talking to his disciples, per 24:3, where his disciples come to him privately). Rather, he used love, but did not compromise his demands. We also see the disciples in the book of Acts focusing on what Jesus had done, not on Hell. The prophets in the OT are a bit of a different animal. I would argue that they were talking primarily to Jews, who were very religious already, and were just not living out what they knew, which is perhaps different than speaking to unbelievers. Nonetheless, it seems that the early church would be a better comparison to our churches today than the days of the prophets.

However, the reason I choose to share the love message before the Hell message is because I think love is a better motivator than fear. Fear comes close to coercion, whereas love is an invitation. Again, this is an opinion, and a bit off topic, but worth mentioning. This is not to say we don’t believe in Hell or that we don’t talk about it, only that we don’t use it in evangelism.

By the way, I have never heard the phrase 2 craps before, but I laughed hard when I read it…. The whole visual thing.

Use it well and often my friend.

Thanks again J razz. I appreciate you challenging me like this. I think it helps us both.

Have a great week and I look forward to your response.

__________________________________________

j razz said...

"Bury your refuse with a stick" from Deut, but that is not relevant to the unchurched guy in 2007 whose life is falling apart.

It is funny that you should mention this as I wrote a paper on it back in University: Deuteronomy 23.12-13. I did go through and find application to modern day man… with that being said, I understand your point but I still think we can find intended relevance.

The problem is, like I mentioned, they don’t give 2 craps about it and so they don’t "sit under it." If it is touching them and ministering to them, meeting them where they are at, great; then the scripture will change their life. If not, they won’t be around long.

I see your point in what you are saying and I see where you are coming from, but I would have to disagree with the premise. I see that as being a man-centered approach to church, evangelism and the gospel. While I would see myself more in the camp of a God-centered approach. Instead of what can God do for me and how can the gospel benefit me with man’s benefit being the end goal, I would say that scripture is more concerned with glorifying God by glorifying the Son, and that salvation is a welcomed byproduct of Him seeking to glorify Himself. I am not saying that salvation is not intentional; I am saying though that it is not the primary goal of God.
As it relates to them not being around long, I would respond by saying that God has made it clear He is sovereign. In light of that, if someone is to be saved they will be saved. Now, what I am not saying is that we can just all go about and never share the gospel because God will save who He wills. By no means! I am saying that God has given man a tool (the gospel) and a command (share the gospel). If we are disobedient and do not do what is commanded of us, we are in sin. If we do not use the means He ordained for us to share with man, the glory of God, through the gospel, then we sin. My point here is that we are dead in our sin… not sick, dead. We need life and without the Holy Spirit giving us a regenerated heart, we can never believe in something we don’t have the heart for. God must grant us ears to hear and a heart to believe before we can ever do either of those. We are natural enemies of God as Paul would say. If we are faithful to present the truth to them (which is our responsibility) then the Holy Spirit will not fail in His duties to bring glory to God. No means, as a means, is considered as good in itself, but only as conducible to a farther end; it is repugnant to the nature of means, as such, to be considered as good in themselves. – John Owen We cannot bring anyone to salvation. We can preach the gospel all day long out of obedience and not see one come to know Christ save for the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the unregenerate that gives them ears to hear and a regenerated heart that willingly accepts the hard truth of the gospel- we are evil and twisted and in need of a perfect redeemer who died and was buried and was raised on the third day.
So, to summarize all that (I know, I am long winded) I would say that a God-centered gospel message is more biblically aligned than a person-centered gospel message (For supporting information on the above see The Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen with the introductory essay by J. I. Packer) and a person-centered gospel message tends to lean itself towards a thought of “what does this have in it for me?”

Paul did not come to the local churches and say to them, “Because you are still drinking milk it is there you will stay”. No, Paul pushed them to move on as did Christ, as did the author of Hebrews, as did John.

If by saying this you are insinuating that we don’t "push people to move on as Christ did" you are wrong.

I was not insinuating that at all- just making things clear for others who may stumble upon your blog at some point in the future.

Again, by this are you insinuating that we don’t preach the Gospel? If you are, it is incorrect.

Nope. Again, just making things clear for others. I do not know your church nor do I know what is taught or not taught. It would be arrogant of me to presume certain things as facts when in reality I know nothing of the matter. So, don’t take these comments as attacks against you or your church as I have nothing to attack- we are brothers in Christ and I hope that this dialogue shows how brothers in Christ are to carry on talks concerning differences. I hope that you know my character a little better than that just from reading some of my posts on Tim’s blog.

We don’t make Hell the focus, but the love of God and what he did for us. I think one could make a strong biblical case to back this up.

Luke 16.14 & f.f. especially the last five verses of the chapter: "And he said, 'Then I beg you, father, that you send him to my father's house-- for I have five brothers--in order that he may warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.' “But Abraham said, 'They have Moses and the Prophets; let them hear them.' But he said, 'No, father Abraham, but if someone goes to them from the dead, they will repent!' "But he said to him, 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.'"

Here Jesus is speaking to the Pharisees and giving them all they need to see the truth of who He is. To them He uses Hell as a tool to make His point (vs.14). I don’t think that Hell has to be used as a scare tactic, but it is reality and truth told plainly is far better than part of the story. I would rather be told that there is a waterfall less than a mile down the river and unless I pull my raft to the bank I will surely die when I tumble over it than having someone to tell me to please pull over to the side of the river as there are many great things to see along the shore. What is more, I would rather be told both if both are true. If I am in eminent danger, I want to know if the Holy Spirit has enabled me to hear that message and respond to it. If not, I will find myself crashing over the waterfall doomed to my own destruction because I chose not to listen and obey. You can sink thousands of dollars into extravagant Sunday morning services and not a one will be effective unless the Holy Spirit has regenerated hearts and opened ears and the gospel is preached.

I would say that speaking the truth concerning Hell is far from a scare tactic, but it is love to the nth degree. What is more loving, to tell someone here is the blatant truth of the matter or to only focus on one aspect of it? God is both loving and wrathful. God is both merciful and judging. With building up certain aspects of God’s character to the detriment of others, we find we have a different God than the God of the Bible. God does not let people go to Hell, He sends them there. He sends them there because they did not believe in His Son and did not glorify Him by believing in the gospel message. Therefore, if we only tell of the good things of believing in Christ, we do it injustice and do not portray the whole of the gospel. (just for clarification Nick, this is not a critique of your theology in that I think you are doing God an injustice by believing only in parts of His character).

Again, it has been good to dialogue with you. Have a good evening buddy. I hope you take this in the manner in which I wrote it, but in the case that you don’t, I don’t give 2 craps :)

j razz

_________________________________________

The rest of the conversation is posted in the next post to save space and to break it up a bit.

A New Take on The Good Samaritan

Let me say it for the first time publicly: I love Greg Boyd. I subscribed to his podcast a few weeks ago and have found him to be one of the best "preachers" I have ever heard. He is not shy to talk about controversial, important issues and take a Christ-like stance on them. But, he does it in a way that doesn't seem preachy, but comes across as both humble and passionate.

I was listening to a message today on The Good Samaritan. Boyd gives the best message I have ever heard on this great parable. I had thought about this for years, and had struggled to come up with a good modern day version that adequately captures the offense that would have been felt by the hearers in regards to their cultural realities and biases upon hearing this parable. I think Greg has done this. Here is his modern version:

There is this girl walking down the street, and she gets attacked by a bunch of muggers and gets raped and beat up and left for dead. Billy Graham happens to be walking by, but he passes by on the other side of the road. And then Mother Theresa comes, but she passes by on the other side of the road. But then there is this transvestite who is just coming back from one of his transvestite parties and he's singing and dancing down the road and he sees this young girl almost dead and beat up. So he picks her up and carries her to a hospital, and she doesn't have health insurances so he tells the hospital "I'll foot the whole bill." And he sacrifices everything he was doing and everything he owns to help out this young girl. Go, now, and be like the transvestite and not like Billy Graham or Mother Theresa.

Thoughts?

UPDATE: If you would like to listen to the entire sermon, which I hignly reccomend, you can find it here. It is the one called Surprised by the Outcast given on 11/11.

Blessed Are the Meek

D.A. Carson from his book The Sermon on the Mount

It is appalling that meekness does not characterize more of us who claim to be Christians. Both at the personal level, where we are too often concerned with justifying ourselves rather than with edifying our brother, and at the corporate level where we are more successful at organizing rallies, instutuions, and pressure groups than extending the Kingdom of God. Meekness has not been a mark of most Christians for a long time.

Two Common Bible Myths

Here are what I think are the two most pervasive myths when it comes to the Bible. These were first clarified for me in college. I had exposed them as myths for years, but balked a bit when I saw the first one below printed in a book recently, which led me to reexamine. Turns out, they are in fact myths.

"Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Myth: When Jesus said this, he was referring to an actual place in Jerusalem, a gate that was very narrow, where the camel would have to take all of the stuff off its back and crawl through.

Man, I have heard this one for years. I guess it is so pervasive because it is a bit exciting to find out a cultural issue that sheds light on something Jesus said. Unfortunately, it's false.

This is the classic case of interpreting the Bible based on your current surroundings, rather than on the culture and time in which it was written. This myth dates back to 11th century France, when a monk came up with this explanation. The problem is, the gates in the 1st century in this area were big. They did not begin to build elaborate gates with small entrances until centuries later, which would have been observed by the French monk.

Myth: When the High Priest would go into the Most Holy Place in the Temple, he would have a rope tied around his waist, in case he was impure and was killed, they could pull his body out.

This, too, is a myth that dates back to Medieval times. Here is what Dr. Wave Nunnally has to say on this issue:

The earliest text in which it appears is the Zohar, a medieval mystical work that is the basis of Kabbalah. It appears in Emor section 34 (Yom Kippor), line 251, “Rabbi Yitzchak said, ‘A chain was tied to the feet of the High Priest when he entered the Holy of Holies, so that if he dies there they will take him out, since it is forbidden to enter there. How did they know whether he was alive or not? By a crimson colored strap. If its color did not turn white, it was known at that time that the priest was there in sin. And if he came out in peace, it was known and recognized by the crimson strap that turned white. Then there was joy among the higher and lower beings. If not, they were all in sorrow and all knew that their prayer was not accepted.’” Note the modern embellishments of this text that is itself a literary fiction: rope versus chain, ankle or waist versus “feet”, no longer hearing the bells tinkle versus the changing of the color of the crimson strap.

No modern speaker accepts this narrative as true in whole, as you can clearly see in some of the weird elements that are included. (All above references come from Dr. Wave Nunnally, New Testament scholar and Jewish Backgrounds expert).

Until next time, may we eternally seek the truth!

The Shack

I read The Shack by William P. Young last week. It is a story about a man whose young daughter is killed in a shack. A few years after her death, as he is continuing to struggle with the trajedy, he gets a note in the mail he believes to be from God, asking him to meet him at the Shack. What he finds there will change him forever.

This is a great tale about God's love, justice, plan, purpose, and nature. It is a modern day parable that will encourage you and make you think, and sheds profound light on trajedy. I highly reccommend it.

If you have not heard of this book before now, you will begin to hear more in the future. The book is gaining a lot of popularity and plans are already underway to make it into a movie. Again, I highly reccommend this story to you. But, I think there are some things to keep in mind as well.

1. It is a ficticious novel. If you are like me, and heard a guy claiming that he met God in a shack, I would suspect he was crazy. This is not that, but simply a story, a parable, to help grasp some of the characteristics of God in a fresh way.

2. The author was forced to make some judgment calls on certain aspects about God in the book, things like Calvinism vs Arminianism, the Trinity, etc. It is impossible to avoid this. If you happen to disagree with his take on a certain point, it is okay. It would be very petty (though very common for some Christians) to take one aspect from the way God is prtrayed in the book that they disagree with and let that ruin the rest of the story. Don't do that! There is some great stuff in there, but it is almost impossible to agree with the author's take on everything. Maturity means being able to take the good, and leave what you might not be able to grasp.

That's all I got. Read the book. I'm sure you will be as touched by it as I was.

Support for the Virgin Birth

Since it is the Christmas season, it seems appropriate to tackle a question/challenge that was brought up to me a few weeks ago.

There has been some question in the past about the New Testament's attestation of the virgin birth of Jesus. It is said that Matthew translated Isaiah 7:14, he translated the Hebrew word for "young girl" (almah)more explicitly as virgin (parthenos, in Greek), when the Old Testament text was not saying that.

This challenge is true, at least on the surface. So, does it follow that the virgin birth was based on a mistranslation from the Old Testament and that there was no virgin birth?

Here are a few points in evidence for the validity of the virgin birth, by Dr. Wave Nunnally:

1. The Hebrew word almah can definitely have the nuance of “virgin” because young women were expected to be virgins and because in order to be a “sign”, the young woman MUST be a virgin. Otherwise, it would be a matter of nature taking its normal course and no one would recognize the birth as a sign of anything.

2. The Septuagint or LXX, that is, the Greek Translation of the Old Testament, definitely understood it this way because it uses the more specific Greek term parthenos. It is important at this point in the discussion that it be pointed out that the LXX was a PRE-CHRISTIAN, JEWISH production untainted by NT usage. It is also important that there are no textual variants that would suggest that the original reading was something more generic like gunae, which later Christian scribes were able to subvert. If this was the case, there would be manuscripts that didn’t undergo this subversion that would attest to a more “original” generic reading.

3. When Matthew quotes Isa. 7:14 in 1:23, almost all scholars are agreed that he is NOT quoting from the Septuagint. Rather, this is one of the 12 OT quotes within Matthew that scholars have isolated as coming from the “Testamonia” source, which consists of 12 usually messianically-oriented prophetic texts for which a fresh Greek translation is offered in the text of Matthew. This is significant because now we have not one (the LXX) but TWO sets of ancient authors looking at the same Isaiah text and translating it with parthenos because of the context.

4. Luke makes reference to the same textual tradition in 1:27 and 34. In the first passage, Luke uses the term parthenos to describe Mary’s status; in the second passage, Mary describes herself by the same term. Whether this phenomenon can be described as two independent sources can be debated, but that it is a separate tradition from the Matthean tradition is not a subject for debate. This material is classic “L” (content found only in Luke) material not shared by Matthew or the other two gospel writers for that matter. Thus, it is legitimate to conclude that Luke is yet a third ancient textual witness to the interpretation of almah as parthenos.

5. Whether Matthew is “correct” in his interpretation and application of Isaiah or not is a completely separate issue with respect to the question of the historicity of his report of the virginal conception. Therefore, it is logically acceptable to reject Matthew’s interpretation and application of Isaiah 7:14 and still accept the historicity of his assertion that Mary conceived while still a virgin. All Matthew is doing here is asserting that Mary’s virginal conception took place in such a way that it fulfilled prophecy. Interestingly, Luke makes the same historical assertion WITHOUT reference to Isaiah 7:14, which confirms the feasibility of accepting the historicity of the account without the support of the OT passage.

6. The absence of sexual union is explicit in passages such as Matt. 1:18, 20, 23, 25; Luke 1:27 (x2), 34-35; implicit in 2:5; 3:38. So the case for the virgin birth is certainly made apart from this one "mistranslation."

In conclusion, it is generally accepted that Matthew is writing to a Jewish audience, and was interested in making the case that Jesus was the fulfillment of Old Testament prophesy. We see this thread throughout Matthew. This is certainly the purpose for referencing the passage in Isaiah, not to "prove the virgin birth." Thus, it is difficult to discredit the virgin birth based on this reference. In addition, Matthew, a first century Palestinian Jew who spoke several languages, including Hebrew and Greek, certainly has a better grasp on how the language was used in the first century than we do. It is a bit arrogant to assume that we can tell Matthew a thing or two about his native tongue.

Map of Religion in America

This is an interesting map that I saw a couple of weeks ago (I forgot where I first saw it, so I had to just do a google search. sorry to whoever I ripped this off from). I suppose as we would expect that it seems that the highest percentage of people who describe themselves as "religious" is the midwest. Utah is also very dense. Oregon seems to be one of the least religious places.

Anyway, just thought it was interesting. It is from the year 2000, so a bit dated, but interesting nonetheless. Any profound thoughts in response to this?

Is The Golden Compass Partly Right?

There has been no small deal made about the forthcoming release of the movie The Golden Compass, based on the book written by Phillip Pullman. The book as been called an atheist version of The Chronicles of Narnia. The Golden Compass book, the first in the His Dark Materials series, has an anti-Christian message, and reportedly have the lead characters trying to kill God. Pullman has apparently said himself that he was "trying to undermine the basis of Christian belief" in a 2001 interview and "My books are about killing God" in 2003¹.

There has also been discussion among Christians about whether or not they should support this movie. There has been a wide range of opinion, some saying the movie is "poisoning the world" and calling for a boycott and others say that the reaction is "over nothing." Personally, I think that pop culture boycotts never work. They tend to create a buzz around the product that tends to make it more successful. In addition, I think these movies can be good conversation starters for parents to allow their kids to think through important issues. But, there is a wide range of opinion, and I am no authoritative source on this issue, but those are my personal feelings.

The reason for this article is to not debate the appropriate response by Christians. It is to ask some interesting, but maybe tough questions about the nature of the book/movie's claims.

Before I go any further, let me make it abundantly clear that I have not read any of the books or seen the movie. I am new to this topic, and have only known about this issue for a couple of weeks. My comments are based on listening to others who have read the books and can pass along information. But, at best, my knowledge of the material is second hand.

One of the characters in the book reportedly says this: "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling."

As we react to this, I want to consider the approach of Tony Campolo in a book he wrote in the 80's called Partly Right. The book looks at some of the harshest opponents of the Church, like Karl Marx and Friedrich Nietzsche, seeks to understand their points in context, and considers how their critiques might be a valid indictment of a harsh reality. The first step, as mentioned, is to understand. He says this in his preface(pg ix):

Those who would do battle with these cultured despisers of religion should have some idea as to the nature of their arguments. Too often those of us who rant and rage from our pulpits against the materialism of Karl Marx, the sexual preoccupations of Sigmund Freud, and the God-is-dead philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche know almost nothing about these declared enemies of religion.

The second step is having the humility to listen to our opponents and using their outside eyes to try and get better.

A religious group matures and improves only by correcting its flaws, and usually the enemies of that group can help it to see those flaws better than its friends can. The enemies of middle-class religion who are reviewed in this book have provided some of the most brilliant analysis of the failures and weaknesses of our churches and our theology...I hope that by studying the arguments of our enemies we will recognize our sins, confess them, and work to cleanse ourselves of them.

Now, how can we apply that wisdom to The Golden Compass? Obviously the first step is to comment within our knowledge. It is hard to make sweeping, dogmatic statements about a book you have not read or a movie you have not seen. Sure, we can hear reports, but they are out of context. To do this may require a good deal of work. As I mentioned above, I have not read the books or seen the movie, so I have steered clear of saying things about the books that I don't know. I have kept my comments about this in the areas of the way Christians respond to issues like this, parenting, and the nature of pop culture, rather than the content of the books/movie.

The next step, then, is to ask ourselves if the accusation warrants any truth about our failures as a Church. This, too, requires work. We must think through some hard issues, be transparent, and make ourselves vulnerable. To do this is to mature, to avoid the games that the enemy, and by this I mean Satan, would have us wasting our time and energy on, and be willing to learn from a myriad of sources, to admit that others, who we may think are less holy than ourselves, actually have something to teach us.

With that, let's look at this statement made in the book: "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling." Please note that this is in the book. I doubt it will be in the movie. I am also not sure even which of the books in the series this appears in or what the context is. I have not done my homework to appropriately evaluate a statement like this. I do think, though, that there are some introspective questions we can ask ourselves in response, even to this isolated statement. It is certainly easy to disagree with and perhaps even get offended by. It is human nature to reactionarily defend a group that you belong to without considering the validity of the attack. But I think that is the wrong approach. Here are some questions we can ask to evaluate ourselves in response to this statement.

1. First, are we guilty of all of our churches being the same? In one sense, churches are very different. They come in all colors, shapes, and sizes. In a general sense, though, there are some threads that are perhaps too common. Almost every church service involves some combination of singing songs, a sermon, prayer, and fellowship. The prayer and fellowship almost have to be present in some form. But would it be too outside the box to explore other worship forms than music and songs? Certainly some churches are doing this, but it is a small minority. And what about sermons? It seems like we could shack things up in the way we communicate. Our imagination is the limit. It just seems like there should be as many different flavors of church as their are people, and the reality is that most churches are pretty generic.

2. Second, is the Church too hung up on controlling, destroying, and obliterating? I'll admit, that when it seems like the Church could do good by focusing on freeing, building up, and repairing, it seems to focus a lot of attention on controlling, destroying, and obliterating. Could we do a better job at this, and does your local church need to?

3. Lastly, does the Church seem to squash good feelings? Do we put the kibosh on fun? Is your local church tightly wound, or free to laugh and have a good time? What would a visitor say if asked that question about your church? I know that I have certainly been guilty of being too serious and failing to relax in the house of God. Why do we do that?

Remember, from an outsider's perspective, perception is reality. If my local church is really coming across as an organisation that controls, destroys, and obliterates good feelings, just like all the others, maybe I need to consider how we can get creative and fix our flaws, that we may be more like the body that is Christ's dream. Perhaps Pullman is partly right.

May we continue to not get defensive, but actually let criticism challenge us to learn and grow. May we look for truth in all forms, and leave or egos and self righteousness behind. And may we always be walking on the path to maturity.

The Spiritual Discipline of Conversation Continued

I had blogged previously about conversation and the benefit I thought it could bring to the exchange of ideas in the Christian market, and I wanted to share some follow up.

Here is a thought from Brian McLaren in the book he co-authored with Tony Campolo called Adventures in Missing the Point. He is talking about the Bible, and how we can perhaps change the ways in which we relate to it. He offers 10 suggestions on how to "reclaim the Bible for contemporary readers, so we don't miss the point." Here is what he says:

So how about a Bible study or sermon that is successful not because everyone agrees on the preacher's interpretation, but because, when the sermon is over, everyone can't wait to talk about it and read and ponder and discuss it more, because they have become intrigued and mystified and enthralled? How about a congregation who may not have "captured the meaning" of the text, but a text that captured the imagination and curiosity of the congregation?

pg 84

This is the type of communication that encourages and starts conversation. Truth is seldom simple, and it often needs to be talked about and wrestled with before it is owned. This is a major way that we learn; through conversation.

Another author, scholar and professor Scot McKnight, says this in his book Embracing Grace:

It is my conviction that God designed the gospel to be a source of communion for all Christians and not a source of division among them. But this communion can emerge only if we respect one another enough to listen to what the other is saying, and if we go back to the Bible together to see what the gospel really is.

pg xiii

As I said before, one of the keys to this practice is listening. I will mention 2 others.

Respect. Without respect as an under girding agreement between the parties, it is no conversation (at least no healthy conversation) and the communication is doomed to fail. This does not mean that parties must be ever stoic. On the contrary. Passion, excitement, anger, humor etc., these may all be involved in this type of conversation, but they need not usurp the respect. If simple, common practices like not interrupting, not calling the other person names, looking for the others point rather than twisting their words, etc. are in place, they can all help maintain a level of respect. I feel like this is first grade material. I don't mean to insult your maturity or intelligence, but you would be surprised how many conversations don't follow these simple rules.

Thinking Gray. Steven B. Sample, in his book The Contrarians Guide to Leadership, advocates a practice he calls thinking gray. "The essence of thinking gray is this," he says, "don't form an opinion about an important matter until you've heard all the relevant facts and arguments." pg 8 This is an important tactic in conversation. So often do people make snap judgements. Wise decisions, however, come from listening to all the info and not assuming you know exactly what the other is going to say or the totality of what they believe.

May we continue to become good at conversing in a respectful manner, and may we honor God in our quest for greater learning.

Evolution Conversation, Part 6: Conclusion

Here is the final installment of the conversation Chip (the Christian) and Mark (the atheist) had about Evolution. This is a compilation of a few exchanges that are shorter as we wrapped it up and decided to close.

I decided to post 5 and 6 back to back, because I have other topics I'd like to get to. I hope you have enjoyed seeing these guys trad thoughts as much as I have!

No need to add this bit to the debate since Mark deserves to have the last word.

I just want to point out that I stand by my statement that evolution is counterintuitive. If it were not, then there would be no disagreement about it, and it would have a much longer history as an explanation for the diversity of life. I realize that a theory of gravity is also not very old (in terms of human culture), but as Mark pointed out, everyone directly experiences gravity. No one directly experiences evolution.

One other thing. It is somewhat disingenuous to claim that "evolutionists have no problem with the belief that human beings have a divine soul created by God in God's image." What about Carl Sagan's famous dictum that the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever shall be? What about the atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who use evolution to browbeat Christians and portray them as hopeless troglodytes? I can separate the science from the metaphysics, but apparently it is not only Christians who have a problem doing so.

I have to say this has been interesting. I've always been ambivalent about evolution because the science seems so unassailable and yet the objections to it seem also serious. In truth I've actually written on both sides of the issue, trying, I suppose, to justify the arguments of Christians to evolutionists and vice versa. As I said a few posts back, "I do not insist, however, on a particular method for creation." I mean that. I find evolution to be an acceptable explanation for the diversity of life. Having said that, though, I still find it troubling. If I did not, I don't think I could consider myself a thoughtful Christian.

By the way, just because arguments are repeated, does not mean there is anything wrong with them. The arguments I've raised are reasonable. That doesn't mean that they're unassailable. In fact, it would be very strange if I raised arguments no one has thought of before, and with the long history this debate has enjoyed, it's little wonder the arguments have now been tagged, cataloged, and laid out on a Bingo grid. But that does not mean they've all been "soundly debunked."

Thanks for a great conversation! It's rare to hear intelligent argument from anyone instead of name-calling and invective, especially online.



___________________________


"If it were not, then there would be no disagreement about it..."

Chip, it seems evolution is only counterintuitive to conservative Christians and maybe Muslim fundamentalists. Outside of those two groups, there really is no disagreement about evolution anywhere.

"...and it would have a much longer history as an explanation for the diversity of life."

This is irrelevant to the intuitiveness of scientific theories. Continental drift "plate tectonics" is very recent theory and very intuitive. Just look at an atlas and chart where volcanic eruptions and earthquakes occur and you get an outline of where the tectonic plates collide. This wasn't theorized until 1915 and not accepted till the 1950's. It's common knowledge today.

"No one directly experiences evolution."

I don't directly experience your love of Jesus either but I know it's there and is an undeniable fact, right? I know this because there is evidence for it. Same goes for evolution.

What about Carl Sagan's famous dictum that the cosmos is all there is or ever was or ever shall be? What about the atheists such as Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins who use evolution to browbeat Christians and portray them as hopeless troglodytes?

What about them? What do their personal God beliefs have to do with facts like evolution or gravity? You're committing the guilt by association fallacy here, Chip.

Guilt by Association is a fallacy in which a person rejects a claim simply because it is pointed out that people she dislikes accept the claim. This sort f "reasoning" has the following form:

It is pointed out that people person A does not like accept claim P.

Therefore P is false

It is clear that sort of "reasoning" is fallacious. For example the following is obviously a case of poor "reasoning": "You think that 1+1=2. But, Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Joseph Stalin, and Ted Bundy all believed that 1+1=2. So, you shouldn't believe it."

The fallacy draws its power from the fact that people do not like to be associated with people they dislike. Hence, if it is shown that a person shares a belief with people he dislikes he might be influenced into rejecting that belief. In such cases the person will be rejecting the claim based on how he thinks or feels about the people who hold it and because he does not want to be associated with such people. Of course, the fact that someone does not want to be associated with people she dislikes does not justify the rejection of any claim. For example, most wicked and terrible people accept that the earth revolves around the sun and that lead is heavier than helium. No sane person would reject these claims simply because this would put them in the company of people they dislike (or even hate).

"...and with the long history this debate has enjoyed..."

Well, there's really no debate. There hasn't been any for 150 years. The only objections to evolution come from Christians. As I pointed out, they only object because of religious reasons, not for scientific reasons. If there was ANY evidence, ANY evidence at all that could falsify evolution, the lucky Christian would win the Nobel Prize. Chip, you've provided no evidence to support your own views in this debate. All you've done is try to poke holes in what I've provided. That's not really what I'd characterize as a frank exchange of views.

_______________________________

Mark, I think the number of people who disagree about evolution might be somewhat larger than you think. Nearly half of Americans question common ancestry. And in case you didn't notice, I was not claiming that because Carl Sagan, et al. believe evolution, that makes it repugnant. I was claiming that Christians are not the only ones who confuse science and metaphysics. Scientists use evolution to support their own metaphysics, but complain when Christians reject evolution for that very reason. That's not guilt by association. If scientists insist on making metaphysical or religious claims, then they will find themselves in religious debates.

As to a frank exchange of ideas, you haven't answered ANY of my religious objections. You just keep pointing to the science, which I've already conceded.

_______________________________

Mark, I think the number of people who disagree about evolution might be somewhat larger than you think. Nearly half of Americans question common ancestry.

But you've just made my point for me. How does, "it seems evolution is only counterintuitive to conservative Christians and maybe Muslim fundamentalists. Outside of those two groups, there really is no disagreement about evolution anywhere" contradict "Nearly half of Americans question common ancestry" It's no coincidence that it's only conservative religious people who have trouble accepting common ancestry. Common ancestry is just a fact that they have a tough time accepting because of their religion.

"If scientists insist on making metaphysical or religious claims, then they will find themselves in religious debates."

The three scientists you named were atheists and you think "atheism sucks." Hence, when you associate them with evolution it becomes guilt by association. It became obvious when you said, "[Sagan, Dawkins, Harris] use evolution to browbeat Christians and portray them as hopeless troglodytes." I think "hopeless troglodytes" is an exaggeration.

Why didn't you associate evolution with Dr. Francis Collins. He is a conservative Christian evangelical who is the team leader of the Human Genome Project. He is also an evolutionist. How about Ken Miller, who you saw in the NOVA program? He is a Catholic. Their religious views should demonstrate to you that evolution and religion are not mutually exclusive. Certainly Sagan, Dawkins, Harris, et al, have just as much right to claim there is no God as Collins has a right to claim there is. Chip just remember this, the God claims of both groups have nothing to do with the fact that species share genetic traits, common ancestry.

Scientists use evolution to support their own metaphysics...

I say evolution has nothing to do with metaphysics at all. It's like claiming atheist scientists use the theory of gravity to support their own metaphysics. Atheist scientists believe in gravity as a manifestation of space /time therefore the theory of "intelligent falling" (The theory that God makes things fall) is false? Ridiculous!

As to a frank exchange of ideas, you haven't answered ANY of my religious objections.

Fair enough. When you consider the fact I don't believe in the Christian God, provide an example of how you'd want me to answer, instead of pointing to the science. I'll follow your lead.

And with that, it pretty much ended. Mark later told me: "I enjoyed [the] conversation very much and that I hope we can do it again. I had fun doing this." You saw a similar comment by Chip above. As I said at the beginning, the goal was not to come to an agreement and convert the other, but to have a fair, respectful exchange of ideas. I think we have done that. It has given us ample information to check out and think deeply about.

I want to thank Chip and Mark again for participating and for being gentlemen.

So, as we wrap up, any comments on the conversation?

Evolution conversation, Part 5: Morally Neutral Evolution

Part 5 of 6, enjoy!

You keep comparing evolution to gravity, but there are important differences between the two. Gravity is a common experience for everyone and ignorance of it is perilous. But who has observed the operation of evolution? I'm not talking about facts from which evolution can be inferred. I'm talking about direct observation of mutation and natural selection leading to speciation. And who was ever harmed by ignorance (or denial) of evolution? If you deny the operation of gravity, you could die. If you deny the operation of evolution (particularly common ancestry), you might be ostracized by biologists, but you're not likely to come to any harm. In addition, gravity is easy to model and easy to understand. Evolution is much harder. In fact, evolution is counterintuitive.

"I can understand a position of agnosticism in regard to natural selection but common decent [sic] is a fact that can't be reasonably denied."

Are you claiming better evidence and support for common descent than for natural selection? I find this surprising. Natural selection can be tested and observed. Can common descent? Are you claiming that scientists have been able to observe a species evolving into two or more new species? Because if you are, I'd be very interested in the reference. Why shouldn't I be agnostic about a phenomenon that has never been observed to occur?

I am not interested in a "god of the gaps." Such a god is not worthy of worship. It's fine with me if science vigorously pursues the question of the origin of life and discovers a naturalistic, non-supernatural explanation for it. I don't want science to posit a god for the questions it can't answer. What good is such a god? Every advance of science diminishes his domain. Besides, how can science continue to
advance if it stops short whenever it comes up against god's territory? The God I worship is a lot bigger than this "god of the gaps."

The existence of everything in our experience is contingent. It is caused by something else. There are only two rational possibilities: there is an infinite regress of contingencies, which can be explained by universes that explode, expand, and collapse only to do it all again, or there is something that exists outside our experience that is not contingent. It is not rational to suppose that everything came from nothing.


_______________________________________

Do we quit when we start repeating ourselves?

Repetition is inevitable in creationist vs. evolution "debates" because creationists can't accept the facts presented by evolutionists. We've heard Chips arguments over and over again, from others. They've all been soundly debunked. For example, I've been playing "ID/Creationist Bingo." I've checked off the arguments used by Chip so far...

- Irreducible Complexity
- "Watch" "Mousetrap" or "Mt. Rushmore"
- Darwinism responsible for Hitler/Nazis
- Random/Chance
- Confuse Evolution with Abiogenesis
- No morality without God
- We haven't observed evolution

A few more replies from Chip and I'll have, creationist BINGO!

Here is the problem. Christians seem to be under the misconception that accepting evolution means, to a certain extent, rejecting God's word. I'd like to assure them that evolution itself does not preclude Jesus and Christianity. You can be a good Christian and an evolutionist at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive! When Christians like Chip say things like, "It [evolution] is almost always part of a broader world view that is essentially antithetical to Christian beliefs" it's as if they believe accepting evolution means, to a certain extent, rejecting God's word. It needlessly puts them between an existential rock and hard place. That's why the only people who have trouble accepting common ancestry are theists. Evolution is accepted by the rest of the world. Once the evidence is presented, open minded people can see the truth of evolution immediately. But because accepting evolution entails naturalism in the minds of religious people, Christians can't regard evolution without bias. That's sad!

Evolution, like all solid scientific theories, is morally neutral. Evolution simply explains common ancestry. Christians believe evolution is "evil" only because science and evolution present a fact, a truth about reality, that Christian doctrine has a very difficult time dealing with, common descent. Chip, this is the reason you are an "Evolution agnostic." It's not because there is not enough evidence for you to decide if evolution is true or not. It's because you've created this false dichotomy for yourself of evolution vs. God. I just want you to realize that evolutionists have no problem with the belief that human beings have a divine soul created by God in God's image. So, when you say, "They [Christians] wish to assert that humans are more [than animals]", it rings hollow. Why? Because, evolution says nothing about man as the spiritual image of God. But genetically, not spiritually, there is no denying, we share a common ancestry with animals. When Christians deny this, they are using their faith to suppress the logical conclusion the facts would have normally lead them to otherwise.

The fact is, I feel I have failed you, and Nick, and the other creationists reading my words as if they mean nothing. I have failed to explain evolution well enough to convince you that it is how life really works. I spend so much time and effort trying to convince fundamentalist Christians because I honestly feel truth can change their lives for the better, give them a wider view of the world and in the process, make them a little wiser. This is the goal of all teachers. But, I feel like Don Quixote. I do battle with the windmills of ignorance, not knowing or not accepting the fact that it's a futile endeavor. Yet I fight on. The fact of the matter is, if your mind is already made up about evolution, I can't change it. Only you can.

With that hope, I'm going to debunk more of your anti-evolution arguments now.

"But who has observed the operation of evolution? I'm not talking about facts from which evolution can be inferred. I'm talking about direct observation of mutation and natural selection leading to speciation."

"Although information in experimental science is acquired through observation, the observation of a great amount of indirect evidence of a process makes as good a scientific case as the direct observation of a process. As Michael Ruse asks, "[t]he evidence that I have a heart is all indirect, neither I nor anyone else ever seen it, but does anyone really believe that it is not a fact that I have a heart?" (Ruse 1982:58). In the same way, there is sufficient evidence for macroevolution that it can safely be considered a fact without direct observation of the process occurring in our time. We need not, as many unsophisticated creationists put it, observe cats changing into dogs right before our eyes, in order to have a good case for macroevolution." - Mark I. Vuletic

"You keep comparing evolution to gravity, but there are important differences between the two. Gravity is a common experience..."

The experience of gravity is easy to understand. The theory itself, a manifestation of space and time... not so much. You are equivocating BADLY between the effects of gravity and the actual theory.

"In addition, gravity is easy to model and easy to understand."

You mean the effects of gravity, not the theory itself. I think the theory of evolution itself is much more intuitive than the theory of gravity. Nick, this is for you and all other fair minded readers curious about...

How Evolution REALLY Works (in less than 10 minutes)


See? Evolution is very intuitive when explained correctly! Chip, to download the code for the simulation go to: http://files-upload.com/files/621209/Evolution%20Functions.zip

"In fact, evolution is counterintuitive."

Not to anyone else but American Christians, it seems.

"Are you claiming that scientists have been able to observe a species evolving into two or more new species? Because if you are, I'd be very interested in the reference. Why shouldn't I be agnostic about a phenomenon that has never been observed to occur?"

Not true. As one example, in 1964, Dr. D. J. Reish removed 5 or 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving the Woods Hole culture and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory as well. (Weinberg et al. 1992) The young-earth creationist organization Answers in Genesis has completely disavowed this argument.

"I can't imagine the world without God."

From Chip's post, "Atheism Sucks". Chip, "Atticus was right. One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them." - Scout, "To Kill A Mockingbird"

I'd like to finish where I began. Here is a picture showing some shared genetic traits between two species.

Two Peas in a Pod

It's a fact there is only one way for parents to pass genes to their offspring and that's through inheritance. What is the explanation of the shared genes evident in this picture? Common ancestry, of course. If there is an alternative scientific theory that explains HOW species share the same genetic traits, the world hasn't heard it yet. It's an undeniable fact that evolution, like gravity, happens. The theories of gravity and evolution explain how. One sees the effect of gravity when they observe the tide changing. One sees the effect of macroevolution when they observe the genetic similarities between different species.

Creationist's who believe only in microevolution fail to take evolution to it's logical conclusion: that if animals evolve within the Species level, then they also evolve in the Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, and Genus levels as well. It only makes sense.