Francis Collins on Evolution

Scot Mcknight had an interesting link to an interview with Francis Collins, a Christian who is an evolutionist. Funny, isn't it, how that statement isn't as out of place as it would have been ten years ago?

Anyway, the interviewer, Karl Gilbertson, does a great job in asking the right questions, the hard questions that many creationists would ask. He takes Collins to task with the questions like "Isn't evolution just a scientific conspiracy to mask the truth?" and others that you hear fundamentalists asking, but you never really hear dialogue about. Collins responds beautifully, in my opinion.

If you've read this blog at all in the past, you probably know that I am extremely interested in this discussion. And the word discussion is key, though I may want to call it dialogue instead. Until the last few years there was not much dialogue between creationists and evolutionists. They would just throw stones at each other which would ignite the fray, and sadly, but perhaps not surprisingly the Christians were often the ones who were the most immature in this battle. That is why this interview is such a breath of fresh air to me.

By the way, the number of scientists like Francis Collins who are Christians and evolutionists is growing. There are a number of books available that talk of the Bible and evolution going hand in hand (including the interviewer Gilbertson's book Saving Darwin: How to Be a Christian and Believe in Evolution). The ideas are no longer mutually exclusive. That is refreshing to me.

Here or some high points from the interview, but note: it is really best if you read the whole thing for yourself. Thanks for stopping by!

(Gilbertson is in bold, Collins in regular font).

Heliocentricity is so well-established that educated people simply can't oppose it any longer, of course. What about common ancestry and evolution in general? How compelling is the evidence at this point?


The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more so almost by the day, especially because we can now use DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin's theory has played out over the course of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory—he didn't know about DNA. Evolution is now profoundly well-documented from multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that makes it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics.

Evolution is this gigantic, complicated tapestry of interwoven bits of explanatory power. But this big tapestry of evolution is filled with holes. It still hangs together, of course, but it does have holes. For example, evolution requires the invocation of common ancestors that we don't have any fossil record for; we don't really know anything about them, other than indirect dna inferences. A layperson is understandably skeptical when they are told that there's this tree of life going back to a common ancestor and all these life-forms are on the tree but we have no direct evidence for most of them and we have to infer them hypothetically. Doesn't it bother you that there are so many missing pieces in the puzzle?


Should people doubt the existence of electrons because they've never seen one? A lot of what we know to be true about physics is also inferred. I know it bothers people who are not really convinced yet about the consistency of evolutionary theory, but the much-emphasized gaps do not represent any real threat to the overall framework. And is the absence of a fossil representation of a specific organism all that troubling when you realize that fossilization is extremely unlikely to have happened?

Based on the DNA sequences of many mammals, we can now predict the genome sequence of the common mammalian ancestor. And it's breathtaking that you can actually look now at the dna sequence, which is a fossil record of its own, of an organism that is long since gone, but that we and all other mammals are descended from.

Evolution may seem from the outside to have a lot of complexities, and certainly there are lots of details we haven't worked out—and for anybody to say there are no arguments would be a total mistake. But nearly all scientists agree upon descent from a common ancestor, gradual change over a long period of time, and natural selection operating to produce the diversity of living species. There is no question that those are correct. Evolution is not a theory that is going to be discarded next week or next year or a hundred thousand years from now. It is true.

There is a remarkable claim being made today by anti-evolutionists that runs exactly counter to this. This is the claim that evolution is based on a big deception, that there isn't any solid basis at all for the theory, and that scientists are gradually abandoning evolution. Are there evolutionists jumping ship?

I haven't met any of these people. And I think I would hear about it, if it were true, as I have identified myself as a believer interested in studying biological evolution. No, I think those claims are completely without evidence.

Stating this is a convenient way to float the idea that evolution is a conspiracy that is about to be exposed. That's the idea behind the movie Expelled, which tries to make that same case—that there is a conspiracy to squash the truth. That viewpoint totally misunderstands the nature of science. Anybody who has lived within the scientific community would immediately—regardless of their worldview—rebel against the idea that science would be able to sustain such a conspiracy. Scientists are all about upsetting and overturning things. And if you're the one who's discovered how to overturn evolution, you're going to win the Nobel Prize!

The position that people on the outside of science—like the creationists and the people in the id camp—have adopted, that such a conspiracy could actually exist for more than thirty seconds, completely flies in the face of the realities of the sociology of the field of science. It's an insult.

We are all part of social groups, and people we trust tell us things. I believe in evolution because people like you that I trust have told me it's true. I've never done a genome sequence; I've never done a fossil dig. So what do I—Karl Giberson—really know about evolution? All I know is that people I trust say it's true and people that I have less confidence in say it is not. But how are people outside the scientific community supposed to navigate this complex web of social authority, to try and figure out which voices they should listen to, and which voices they shouldn't?

Consider credentials. On paper the credentials of the better creationists and id people are like yours and mine. Take you and Michael Behe. You both have PhDs. You have both done research and published articles. So if somebody wants to put Behe up against Collins and say, "Well, here's a guy and I like what he says. And here's another guy and I don't like what he says. And you're asking me to follow Collins over Behe? Well, why should I do that?"
Well, that is a fundamental problem we're facing in our culture, especially in the United States. It's why we have such a mismatch between what the scientific data would suggest and what many people believe about things like the age of the Earth and about whether evolution is true or not.

If you ask about data-driven questions, about what is true and what is the evidence to support it—you would want to go to the people who are the professionals who spend their lives trying to answer those questions and ask, "Is there a consensus view?" So you ask, "What is the age of the Earth?" Well, who does that work? It is the geologist and the cosmologists and the people who do radiocarbon dating. It is the fossil record people and so on. So you ask, "Is this an unanswered question?" And the answer you would get is that the issue is settled. The age of the earth is 4.55 billion years.

How have people in fundamentalist churches responded to you, when you have spoken there?

I've had people get up and walk out! And I've had people come to the microphone clearly very upset, and imply that I am under the influence of the devil. I also get some fairly unpleasant emails from the atheistic scientific community, but the nastiest ones come from believers who are infuriated that someone who claims to be a believer could say these things about the truth of the evolutionary process. To them, I am clearly a wolf in sheep's clothing, and I'm allied with the devil. I've even been excommunicated a couple of times, though I'm not Catholic!

Doug Pagitt on ACWB, Videos 6 and 7

It has been a while since I posted one of these, but here are the next two in this series of videos that Doug is using to promote his book. Doug listed these as videos 7 and 8, but I'm pretty sure they are numbers 6 and 7. The topics are "Jesus" and "Heaven".


Video 6



Video 7

The Blue Parakeet: A Much Needed Lesson on Reading the Bible

Scot McKnight has written a new book due out in November called The Blue Parakeet: Rethinking How You Read the Bible. I read an advance copy this week, and let me say this: I can't say it is Scot's best book, but it is definitely the best one that I've read.

The title of the book is a metaphor based on an actual experience that Scot had while bird-watching in his back yard. A "Blue Parakeet" is, in my own words, something that is outside one's bandwidth, outside his or her paradigm or worldview. To be specific, Scot says that there are certain biblical passages that many of us miss because they don't fit within our theological systems. Most of us either ignore them completely ("I never knew THAT was in the Bible") or we dismiss them for another reason ("that verse REALLY means..."). Scot argues that in order to be good students of scripture and faithful readers of the text, we need to examine and deal with the "Blue Parakeet" passages. This is the metaphor that drives the book.

This is such a needed indictment! How many of us claim to purely and objectively read the Bible (yeah right!), when in reality there are entire streams of faith that are clearly addressed in scripture that we do not pay attention to because they are outside of our theological spectrum? On one occasion several years ago, a colleague of mine was asked how a bigger church in our area could do so well while ignoring a certain practice that "our church" stressed. His response was "I guess they just think they can ignore that part of the Bible." It hit me like a ton of bricks. I wanted to shout "We all do that! We all ignore parts! We are just as guilty as they are!" And that is the point, isn't it? We all have blind spots in our theology. Scot's book does a great job of making us see this.

The book starts off by Scot explaining his faith background and spiritual upbringing, followed by the story behind the title (chapters 1 and 2, which serve as introductions). Both are great. He says, "I began to see that Christians read the Bible differently and I began to see that no one group seemed to get it all right." (pg 18). Next, Scot begins to unpack how Christians read the Bible, starting with the wrong ways (inkblot method, puzzle method etc.). He then moves to explaining what the Bible is (a wiki-story). This section, where he is explaining what the Bible is and is not, in my opinion, is the best part of the book. Scot is drawing on his experience of working with college students and diagnosing the inappropriate reading habits of those who read the Bible. As he says, "We need twenty-first-century Christians living out the biblical gospel in twenty-first-century ways" (pg 28).

From here, he moves on to sections titled "Listening: What Do I Do With the Bible?" and "Discerning: How Do I Benefit From the Bible?". Here Scot lays out his method for reading, interpreting, and relating to both God and the Bible. "The biblical way is the ongoing adoption of the past and adaptation to new conditions and to do this in a way that is consistent with and faithful to the Bible" (pg 29), he says. That would be, in its simplest form, Scot method: adopt and adapt. He continues later, saying, "We dare not ignore what God has said to the church through the ages...nor dare we fossilize past interpretations into traditionalism" (pg 34). The highlight for me in these sections was chapter 10 titled "Finding the Pattern of Discernment," and, specifically pages 131-144 where Scot gives a number of examples of putting the interpretation into practice, including circumcision, tongues, and divorce.

Scot finishes the book with five chapters of practical application, using the example of women in ministry as way to demonstrate how to appropriately interpret scripture. It is helpful to have this practical example at the end, with significant space alloted to it, even if you have already dealt with and come to terms with the issue he is addressing.

The Blue Parakeet is definitely one to put on your must read list. Whether you know it or not, you have blind spots, and we could all use a friendly diagnosis from Dr. Scot. But as you read, remember that all of our reading and studying is worthless if it does not lead us closer to God and help us live more like Jesus. As Scot says, "Any reading and any interpretation that does not lead to good works, both as the practical application and as the behavioral result, aborts what the Bible is designed to produce" (pg 111).

I am Currently Reading...

...several books that you may be interested in hearing about.

1. The Fire That Consumes is a historic work written in the 1970's dealing with the doctrine of final punishment. I have posted previously about conditionalism and have even communicated with the author, Edward W. Fudge, a bit. This is the mammoth work on conditionalism (the idea that immortality is conditional, the righteous go onto everlasting life, whereas the wicked parish and are no more). This work deal with every passage, Old Testament, New Testament, Apocrypha, Pseudopigrapha, Early Church and more that talks about final punishment. I'm about 200 pages through the 500 page work and loving it.

2. Preaching Re-Imagined is another of Doug Pagitt's books. In it he shares a new vision for what the "word" or simply the communication element in communities of faith. He distinguishes between "speeching", which is one voice doing all the talking, and preaching, which he thinks should involve many voices. I'm not too far into it, but so far it is classic Doug Pagitt: insightful and controversial.

3. A is for Abductive is written as an "A-to-Z" manual on the terms used in postmodern, emerging culture. Really though, it is a book about the transition between modernity and postmodernity, which is perhaps my favorite topic to read about right now. If I was writing a dissertation, that would be central to the topic. i'm about halfway through and already it seems brilliant. It offers great commentary on postmodern terms like abductive (i.e. the form of preaching that is story and narrative based), deconstruction, and others.


4. The Blue Parakeet is the book that put the other three on hold. This is a book that Scot McKnight and Zondervan gave me an advance copy to review for you here on Nick's Musings. When something like that happens, you give it priority. I'm only through the introduction, but so far I'm impressed. You can expect a full review in the next week or so.

So, what are you reading?

Doug Pagitt on ACWB, Video 5

ACWB, Video 4

Here is the 4th video that Doug Pagitt is posting to promote his new book A Christianity Worth Believing (which you can find my review of here).



We will be having an interview with Doug about the book here on Nicksmusings.com in the next couple weeks. So, stay tuned, and buy the book.

Doug Pagitt on ACWB, Video 3

Doug Pagitt has posted the third video promoting his new book A Christianity Worth Believing (which you can find my review of here). This video points to my favorite part of the book, chapter 2 titled "Passion Play", which tells the story of Doug's conversion. If you haven't ordered this book yet, you should definitely do so soon. The third video is below, or you can watch a High Definition version here.



Thoughts?

Doug Pagitt on ACWB, Video 2

This is the second promo video for A Christianity Worth Believing by Doug Pagitt. Please consider reading the book. This promo raises the question that becomes one of the main points in the book: Is God "up and out" or "down and in"?



These videos are so well made. I love the music setting the mood. Thoughts?

Doug Pagitt on ACWB

This is a great video where Doug Pagitt gives an introduction to his new book A Christianity Worth Believing. I previously reviewed the book here. You should definitely read it.



So, what do you think?

There should be more to follow.

The Reading Rundown

I've been reading a lot of Brian McLaren in the last month. I appreciate his mind and his outlook, not to mention his remarkable grace in writing and dealing with sensitive matters. Let me give you a quick blurb of my opinions about the books I've recently read of his.

A New Kind of Christian

I read this a few months ago, but I should really start with this to pave the way for the rest of what I'm going to talk about. This was a cutting edge book written right at the time the Emerging ChurchMovement was being born. The book is about the shift from modernity to postmodernity.

I should mention, each of the books in this series is written in narrative form. I've read other books like this too, where it is written in narrative but the point is the material the characters talk about rather than the story itself. This method can tend to be really dry and cheesy as far as the story goes, showing very obviously that the narrative needs to get out of the way for the "material" that the author wants to share. This trilogy is not like that at all. McLaren is very good at writing story and makes the story important. He pulls you into the characters and their lives, emotions, and feelings.

In A New kind of Christian, a pastor (Dan Poole) is fed up with the ministry and the fundamentalist, simplistic rut that his church is stuck in. He starts making plans to quit and get another job, when he meets a guy who goes by the nickname "Neo", who begins to help him see a shift that is starting to happen in the world and in the church. The book is the story of several months in Dan's life as he goes on this mental and philosophical journey with Neo. It is a great book. It is one of those I want to reread sometime soon.

The Story We Find Ourselves In

About a month ago, I jumped back into the series and read this, book two in the New Kind of Christian Trilogy. It involves telling the story of God in the Bible and how he works in our lives. It deals with evolution (how a person can be a Christian and embrace evolution) among other topics. It is my least favorite of the trilogy, but still worth reading.

The Last Word and the Word After That

The last in the series, but a very good book. The book is primarily about Hell, but dabbles a bit in talking about homosexuality as well. It involves the same characters (Dan, Neo, and others), and Dan's search to find out what he really believes about Hell, and whether Hell is the point. There is a great look at the history of the different beliefs about Hell predating Jesus, and what Jesus' audience would have had as a context when he talks about Hell. It is a very interesting study.

In addition, the narrative part of the series really hits a fever pitch in this volume. You go on a very hard, emotional ride with Dan in this book. I don't like this quite as much as A New Kind of Christian, but it is definitely a close second.

Generous Orthodoxy

In Generous Orthodoxy, you see Brian for who he is. After reading the trilogy above, it was nice to have him just come out and say it, if you know what I mean.

I love the idea of the book, that we should embrace all of these different streams of Christianity for the good that they bring to the table, rather than fight about the differences. The book is good, but the primary arch, this theme that he continues throughout, is the greatest contribution that the book makes. After establishing this point and telling a bit of his testimony, Brian begins going through a number of movements one by one, taking out what he admires about each one (streams like liberal/conservative, protestant/catholic, Calvinist, Emergent, unfinished, etc.).

It is a pretty good read, worth a purchase.

Next on my plate is They Like Jesus But Not the Church by Dan Kimball and Exclusion and Embrace by Miroslav Volf. In a few months I may go back to McLaren, and if so the next in line would be The Secret Message of Jesus followed by Everything Must Change. Anybody read any of these?

Celebrating Easter with the Historical Jesus

In college I took a class called "Jesus in the Gospels," a seminar class with Dr. Bob Berg that was one of my favorite classes in my time at EU. One of the topics we talked quite a bit about in the class was the idea of "the historical Jesus," that is, the Jesus we know existed from history, removed from all of the faith claims of resurrection, God incarnate, and others (Note: searching for the historical Jesus is not denying the faith claims, it is just not concerning itself with answering the faith questions in the search.)

Anyway, one of the optional texts in the class was A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus by John P. Meier. I had asked for this three volume work on a Christmas list before, but apparently they came in the mail a few weeks after Christmas, so my mom just gave them to me for Easter. I was excited!

It is a three volume work (volumes 1 & 2 are here, 3 is on the way) of about 1500 pages, so needless to say I haven't finished them yet. It is actually more of a reference source than a cover to cover read. Nonetheless, it has some very interesting content, I am finding as I plow through it.









The approach Meier (a Catholic scholar, shown here holding volumes 1 & 2) uses is this:

Suppose that a Catholic, a Protestant, a Jew, and an agnostic--all honest historians cognizant of 1st-century religious movements--were locked up in the bowels of the Harvard Divinity School library, put on a spartan diet, and not allowed to emerge until they had hammered out consensus document on who Jesus of Nazareth was and what he intended in his own time and place. An essential requirement of this document would be that it be based on purely historical sources and arguments.

pg 1

An interesting quest, to say the least. That is what Meier is attempting for in this work. I'll let you know as I come across more interesting nuggets.

The New Christians

Tony Jones, the national coordinator of Emergent Village has a new book out called The New Christians: Dispatches From the Emergent Frontier. I picked it up at Barnes and Noble 2 weeks ago and didn't expect to read it right away. I had other books ranking higher on the priority list. but then I made the mistake of starting it. I found that I couldn't put it down and few days later I was done.

The book is part history, part theology, part memoir. Tony starts by telling the story (at least, his take of the story) of how the emergent conversation began. The initial meetings, the conferences, the people involved, Tony gives you a broad look at the emergence of emergent 10 years ago. Chapters 3-5 look more at what the emergent churches are, their DNA, what makes them unique. Chapter 3 attempts to answer the question "Who are the Emergent Christians?" and includes 3 characteristics of emergents based on a number of interviews Tony conducted himself. Chapter 4 is about theology, and how emergents relate to theology. Chapter 5 is about truth, and how the EC relates to truth.

Chapter 6, the last chapter in the book, is an interesting look at 4 emergent churches, each different and unique, to give the reader some concrete examples of emergent churches. He also takes a closer look at some of the elements, including a look into "Wikichurch", which is so interesting that it is alone worth the price of the book.

I have said before that if one wants to be inteligible about the Emergent conversation, s/he must read and be familiar with the ideas presented in Scot McKnight's article on the topic. I must now amend that statement, and add that The New Christians also belongs on that list. All future writing on the Emergent conversation will have to take this book into account. It is a great read, regardless of what you think of the emergent movement, and will inspire you to think while setting the record strait regarding what you have heard about it.

NOTE: Scot McKnight has used the term "Emerging" to refer to the movement as a whole and "Emergent" to refer to those who identify with Emergent Village. I asked Tony which of these groups he was writing about, and he says that he rejects the difference in language and uses "Emergent" to refer to the whole movement. Thus, the book is about the movement as a whole, not only Emergent Village.

That being said, let me offer a scattering of quotes to wet your appetite.

"The soil of that growth is deep and complex, a melange that includes the advent of "new media" (blogs, email, social networking sites, podcasts, webcams, instant messaging, and so on) dissatisfaction with politics as usual, the postmodern turn in philosophy, and cracks in the foundations of mainline and evangelical Christianity. Emergents--and I consider myself one--think that this movement is but one manifestation of the coming dramatic shift in what it means to be Christian." pg XVIII

"We are not becoming less religious, as some people argue. We are becoming differently religious." pg 2

"The emergent church cannot be separated from the postmodern situation in which it was born." pg 38

"Emergents are unwilling to blindly accept the underlying assumptions of the stories they've been given." pg 40

"There is no ideological requirement to join, just a shared commitment to robust, theological dialogue about issues that matter." pg 82

"[E]mergents have pursued a faith that spurns easy answers." pg109

7 Most Important Qualities for a President

I'm no political affeccionado, but I came across the Tim Russert Show the other night and he was speaking with the always interesting presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin about the most important qualities for a president to have. They tend to be based on history (i.e. the best presidents did these things, Lincoln, FDR etc.), and they are pretty generic (i.e. nonpartisan and not based on morals or anything like that). I thought It'd be interesting to share. Let me know what you think.

1. Withstand Adversity
2. Diverse Perspectives
3. Loyalty
4. Admit Mistakes
5. Emotion
6. Define Goals
7. Relax

When talking about diverse perspectives, Goodwin uses the example of Lincoln appointing his fiercest opponents to his cabinet. He apparently go ridiculed for it and basically said, "Hey, they are the best minds in the country. I need them on my side right now." A very interesting insight in light of our current political situation. She writes about this and other stories from Lincoln's presidency in her book that I want to read called Team of Rivals.

What do you think of this list? Which is the most important? Least? What would you add?

Emerging Chart

Hello friends.

So I have been wanting to post this for awhile, but have been limited due to my html deficiencies. I am reading An Emergent Manifesto of Hope, a great book by the way, which is a collection of essays from around the emergent world. One particular essay is written by Tim Conder called "The Existing Church/Emerging Church Matrix: Collision, Credibility, Missional Collaboration, and Generative Friendship." As the title suggests, Tim is talking about the ways in which the emerging church and the existing church can work together and communicate. In the chapter, Tim has created a fantastic chart to encapsulate the differences between these two organisms he is comparing. I have tried with little success to recreate that chart in html form for you here. The result is too big to fit on my page (and there are some other issues as well. I welcome html advice). Suffice it to say, I am left to articulate the chart in mere words, imprecisely placed (what's the point, right?). So, here goes (ho hum).

The chart has two columns, labeled Existing/Modern and Emergent/Postmodern, followed by rows representing a number of categories. Here it is, and hopefully it makes some shadow of sense.

Existing/Modern VS Emergent/Postmodern.
Ethics: abstract/absolute/transcendent vs corporate/contextual
Epistemology: abstract/absolute/transcendent vs corporate/contextual
Theology: systematic/propositional vs narrative/missional
Gospel: eternal salvation vs present reign of God in this world
Mission: defined by personal, spiritual needs vs defined by God's redemptive agenda
Biblical Interpretation: propositional/dependent on theological systems vs contextual/narrative
Leadership:positional/hierarchical vs relational egalitarian
Spiritual Formation: linear/cognitive/personal vs nonlinear/holistic/communal
Basis of Community Formation: boundaries formed by doctrine/confession vs boundaries shaped by ethical and missional commitments

I'm not sure about you, but I think better when I have a visual, an organized framework to help me mentally absorb info. Does it help you? What are your responses to the chart? Would you agree with Tim's assessment?

Here are my responses:

1. The first one, ethics, is bound to make fundamentalists squirm. To suggest that ethics are anything other than absolute and never changing is heresy to some. However, it is undeniable that at least some (most?) ethics are contextual or corporate. Jesus even hints at this when talking of the early church ("binding and loosing" is thought to mean allow or disallow, "when two or three gather in my name" is in the context of church discipline, and these suggest that the early Christians are contextually and communally deciding the ethics of their community). Now this can certainly get dangerous if taken to an extreme, but let us not make it say something it is not or jump to extreme conclusions.

2. Spiritual Formation as communal is also a breath of fresh air as I've noticed it in the emerging church. I spent my first years as a Christian in the largely individualistic evangelical "community." I am a fan of "sharing faith" with others in community, and I'm glad to see that becoming stressed more and more. By the way, I think the small groups movement in evangelicalism is, at least in part, a longing of Christians to be less individual and more communal. However, to truly transform, some major shifts in how evangelicals view spiritual formation need to happen.

3. I love the Basis of Community Formation. Emergents embrace the reality that we cannot agree on all of the minor (or even the major) points of theology. But, perhaps we can all agree in certain elements of practice (i.e. social justice, reducing poverty, communion, prayer, mission etc.).

Jesus For President

Shane Claiborne is out with his 2nd book. You may have read his first called The Irresistible Revolution. If you haven't, you should. His new one is called Jesus for President: Politics for Ordinary Radicals.

The book is divided into four parts, with a number of headings and subsections in each part. Let me give you a quick overview before I get into my thoughts.

Part 1 (called "Before there were kings and presidents") is a retelling of the story of the Israelites in the Hebrew Bible. From Genesis 1 through the prophets, Shane offers his telling of the story and traces the work of God throughout (with his commentary thrown in), and the original plan to not have a king, but God giving in and allowing it based on the continued grumbling of the people.

Part 2 (called "A new kind of commander-in-chief") is a deeply contextual look at Palestine in the time right before, during, and after Jesus. The politics. Rome. The oppression etc. One of the neatest things in this section is a look at many of the terms that Jesus used or were applied to him, like kingdom, gospel, savior etc. and compares them to what the terms meant from the perspective of the Roman Empire. The result is a really cool chart on pages 67-69.

Part 3 (called "when the empire got baptized") is where Shane hits his stride. If you were not offended by the first two parts, this one will probably get you (particularly if you have connections to the military or are rich). It is in part 3 where I think you see Shane in the role that fits him, calling out injustice, national sins and the like. I think Shane is most closely identified with the prophets in the Old Testament (though not in the prediction way). He is living a very radical, alternative life. He is a prophetic voice calling out to the followers of Jesus. That is his role. But, he does it in love. He is not into guilt, he is into truth. He doesn't play games or coerce, he tells stories and mimics Jesus and loves.

Part 4 (called "A peculiar party") is mostly a collection of stories from the community Shane is a part of, or from letters he gets from soldiers etc. A good chunk of these stories appeared in his first book.

Here are some overall thoughts.

1. Shane's second book is not nearly as good as his first.

That isn't really a slam on this one as much as it is a testament to the first. His first included a lot of his own personal story and testimony, which is one of a kind. That is hard to beat. Make sure you read The Irresistible Revolution before reading this one.

2. The book is an experience.

This is one of the most visually unique books I've ever read. It is filled with art, marginal notes, creatively written quotes, pictures, and other stuff you just have to see. It is a great feature. It makes the book come alive a bit more. you experience it, rather than just read it. If nothing else, next time you are at a book store, page through it briefly and you will see what I'm talking about.

3. The book pulls from a myriad of other sources in compiling the book.

I think this is a great feature. Shane has placed countless quotes, blockquotes, excerpts, etc. in the text. It goes a long way in showing that his ideas, though revolutionary, are not new. It also creates a great opportunity for readers to continue research on the subjects covered.

Is it worth reading? Definitely. It is the kind of book that each of us should read every so often to stir us up about things that stir God up. Will you agree with every word? No, but do you ever agree with every word in any book? (If so, you need to expand your reading horizons and stretch yourself).

Pick it up. You'll be glad you did.

Here are some quotes from JFP as I leave you:

"Jesus taught a third way. Here we see a Jesus who abhors both passivity and violence, who carves out a third way that is neither submission nor assault, neither fight nor flight." pg 94

"The young church lived within the messy collision of kingdoms. The more the early Christians reflected on the life and message of their rabbi-messiah, and the more they tried to live the way of the way of the gospel, the harder they collided with the state and its hopes and dreams, militaries and markets." pg 141

"The history of the church has been largely a history of "believers" refusing to believe in the way of the crucified Nazerine and instead giving in to the very temptations he resisted--power, relevancy, spectacle." pg 166

"The bloodstained pages of history are filled with people doing terrible wrong out of a deep sense of right." pg 203

"Perhaps there is no more dangerous place for a Christian to be than in safety and comfort, detached from the suffering of others." pg 292

The Myth of A Christian Nation, Q&A

I told you once we finished to book that I was going to be emailing Greg with some questions that came up from my second reading of the text. I have done that and he has answered. Here is what he had to say:

1. You refer several time to the ways of the Kingdom of God being simple. Could you expound a bit on that? It seems that with they myriad of opinions on every topic under the sun, that it is anything but simple, or, at the very least, that man has made it not simple.

It's simple in that it always looks like Jesus and thus reflects a Calvary type of love.

2. Some (friendly) critics have said that Colossians 1 contradicts your thesis a bit:

"I sincerely believe that Christ seeks to redeem everything. I believe what is written in Colossians—"For by him (Christ)all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him…For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross." (Col 1:16, 19-20)."

Most scholars grant that the Powers referred to here are not earthly powers and thrones, but spiritual entities. As such, I don't see how it affects my thesis.


3. We hear stories of heroic acts like the passengers on flight 93, who used violence/power over to subvert the terrorists and save lives. what would your comment be on a situation like this? I know it is a bit unfair to throw extreme exceptions into the fray, but I'm just curious.

AS with many acts of violence throughout history, the violence on flight 93 was good and heroic. But the Kingdom is not about being good or heroic. It's about imitating Jesus. Now, this mightnot rule out using a minimal ammount of force to restrain the high jackers, but it would mean, at the very least, refusing to kill them. Ideally, however, I think a Jesus follower would try to communicate God's love to them, non-stop, even if they killed them to get them to shut up.

4. Can you tell us a bit about the next book you have coming out?

It's called REvolting Beauty: A Theology and Practical Guide for Kingdom Revolutionaries. The central thesis is that followers of Jesus are called to manifest the beauty of God's reign and revolt against everything in the world -- and against the Powers -- that stand against it. This always looks like Jesus. So I explore Jesus' life and suggest ways his followers can manifest the beauty of God's reign by revolting against such things as * idolatry * judgment * religion *secularism *individualism *nationalism * racism * classicism * poverty * violence * sexual immorality * sickness * demonization and * earth abuse. (each of these has a separate chapter). It's due in 3 weeks and should be out late fall or next spiring.

This concludes our series. I hope it has caused us to think in this election year. Thanks for tuning in.

Book List

Some friends were asking me what I had read recently and as I was telling them the said, "If you put a book list together, Nick, I'd read through it." Being one who rarely backs down from such a challenge, I thought it would be good to make a list of "must reads." (If you are regular reader, you may have seen me drone on about these already. Pardon my redundancy.) To be on the list, they had to meet a few requirements:

1) It has to be a very good book. Perhaps this goes without saying, but it is the first requirement.

2) It has to be challenging and cutting edge. We don't want any biographies or walks in the park here. Only books that make you think, challenge your paradigms, and rock your world. Those are the best books.

3) It has to be somewhat mainline. No esoteric works here, please. It has to be written in such a way that it can benefit everyone.

With that being said, here is my short list of five must reads, with a few other optional ones thrown in.

Searching for God Knows What by Donald Miller

Perhaps my favorite book of all time. Miller wrestles with the issue of identity like no one else that I've ever seen. It is funny, artistic, profound, and brilliant.

The Irresistable Revolution by Shane Claiborne

Perhaps the most challenging book I've ever read. shane has an amazing story, and challenges "American Christianity"in a unique way. You won;t agree with everything he says (like in any book), but his heart and his radical movement will inspire and challenge you.

The Shack by William P. Young

A very good fiction work about a man who suffers the loss of his 5 year old daughter, which greatly effects his relationship with God. He ends up getting a letter in the mail from God asking to meet with him. What ensues will rock your world.

I have blogged about it here.

The Myth of A Christian Nation by Greg Boyd

A great "recalibrator" when it comes to politics. Boyd is non-partisan, and encourages us not to violate the purity of the Kingdom of God by mixing it with politics. I just finished a 14 part series on the book if you want to read more.

Adventures in Missing the Point by Tony Campolo and Brian McLaren

Two of my favorite thinkers team up in this work to cover a myriad of topics and the new ways Christians are thinking about them. Campolo's chapter on homosexuality is mind blowing, and McLaren chapter on scripture is good too. The cool thing about this book is that they critique and respond to one another, so it is more like a conversation that you get to observe than a normal book.

Others not in the top 5:

Velvet Elvis by Rob Bell

This is a great book about the way we think of church.

A New Kind of Christian by Brian McLaren

This is more for church leaders, but it is perhaps the key text for the emerging movement.

The Judgement by Chart Korpjitti

This is a Thai novel that you would probably have to borrow from me if you want to read it (though you can buy it online). It is a great story of religion and judgement in social settings.

Thanks for considering. If I inspire you to read any of these let me know. If you have read any of these, I welcome your comments. What other book would you add to the "must read list"?

A Christianity Worth Believing

Doug Pagitt was nice enough to give me an advance copy of his forthcoming book called A Christianity Worth Believing (due out in May). I finished reading it and I thought I would offer some thoughts.

First, a disclaimer: DO NOT READ THIS BOOK IF YOU ARE NARROW. As is normal in emergent writing, Doug challenges some "sacred cows" that will really make fundamentalists mad. If that is you, if you can't handle controversy, if you can't handle wrestling with new ideas, ideas different than your own, if you think you have God figured out, do not read this book.

To Everyone else, I think it is a terrific book.

One of the main themes in the book is something that I had been thinking about for about a year. I heard a speaker talking about Islam say, "Islam is essentially 7th century Arabian culture put into the form of a religion." Now, I realize that is overly simplistic, but it makes a good point. It explains a lot of the details of the religion, the suppression of women, the outfits etc. Now, my thinking led me to this thought: We would be naive to think that culture has not been codified in the Bible. And, in fact, much culture is in the Bible, and at least some of what the Bible says we take as culture and no more. From the brutality of the Old Testament Law to Paul telling women not to wear jewelry, we all agree that there are elements of culture in scripture that we don't take as "absolute truth" or even as theology, but as the innerworkings of a culture that is thousands of years old and very different from ours. There is another ring of this reality where i would say most of us agree, but not all, namely the roles of women (i.e. Paul writing to Timothy). Many (perhaps most) of us take these statements to be cultural demands, not truth once and for all.

My questioning in the last year led me to think of just how much of our New Testament is culture, specifically tailored for the first century, and how much is true once and for all? One of Doug's main themes in the book deals with this very issue. More pointedly, Doug looks into the Greek influences, not so much in scripture, but in the first few centuries when our primary creeds, theologies, and beliefs about God were being formed.

For example, Doug eventually arrives at this question:

Is it necessary to convert to a particular worldview in order to hold the Christian faith? Or in this case, does a person have to be a fifth - century Augustinian in order to be a follower of Jesus? The answer, of course, is no...I believe that it is the tradition of our faith to constantly renew, rethink, and reformulate our ideas about what it means to follow God.

pg 49

And also, about those who worry about the faith being distorted over time,

Maybe they worry that the essentials will be lost over time and we will one day be left with a distorted, watered - down story that bears no resemblance to the one with which we started. But I think we have the opposite problem. The issue Christianity faces today is not that the stories are watered down; it's that they've been set in stone — often leading to the very distortion we fear.

pg 31

The first eight chapters or so are Doug sharing personal stories from his own conversion as well as a critique of modern Christianity (it is more than that, but I'm being general). The rest of the book presents new ways of looking at some age old thinking in the Christian movement. Doug challenges long held metaphors and offers some new ones on topics like sin, humanity, the Bible and others. Here are a few snapshots of what he says about different topics.

On church and state:

History has proved the idea of a state religion to be a rather troubling development in the Christian story — the institutionalization and coercion that come with empire are not really compatible with the gospel message.

pg 43

On the dangers of using the Bible as a weapon:

So much of what I've come to believe about God and humanity and Jesus and the way we are to live comes from the Bible. For me, it is a living thing. It is a member of my community and a vital source of wisdom and truth. But it's rarely used that way. Which is why I often cringe when I hear someone getting ready to use the Bible.

In my years of being a Christian, I have witnessed the most brutal fights over the Bible. I know families where some members no longer speak to one another because of disagreements over the Bible. I have heard stories of people losing their jobs because they disagree with someone about a biblical principle. Entire denominations have split over disagreements about the “proper” interpretation of the Bible. I have witnessed people saying and doing heinous things with the justification that the Bible made them do it.

pg 54

And on rethinking sin:

Sin isn't a legal problem with God; it's a relationship problem with us. In the garden, Adam and Eve were perfectly integrated with God. But when they ate from the tree, they acted outside their partnership with God and began to experience the disintegration of their relationship with God. And that's what sin is — disintegration. We were created for integration, partnering, connection with God. Sin irritates; it destabilizes. It causes us to come unraveled from the life we have with God.

pg 159


Even if you disagreed with every point he makes, it is at the very least a healthy walkthrough for rethinking some key elements of the Christian faith, which is always good. He is a great thinker and a great story teller. If you want Doug's take on rethinking some of the elements of Christianity and his vision for the Jesus story played out in today's world to challenge and inspire you, I doubt you will be disappointed.

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 13

Well, we have come to the end of our series on Myth... and I hope you have enjoyed it. I hope this series is not an end, but that I inspired you to read the book, listen to the sermon series, or, at the very least, to continue to think on these matters. I hope to do an interview with Greg about this to post at some point, so there may be more coming (if you have a question you'd like me to ask him, fire it my way!).

As we close this out, though, I want to make a few statements that I think are the primary contributions of this book.

1. It encourages us to act like Jesus

Greg continually points back to Jesus as the example. He is not encouraging us to act Republican, or Democrat, but to act like Jesus. Greg does a great job of majoring on the main thing.

2. It challenges some long standing myths about America and Christianity

Perhaps most obvious, and the reason the book sold so many copies, Greg takes on some "sacred cows" that American Evangelicals have. Unfortunately, we live in a world where even asking some of the questions he asks is cause for some to write him off as a liberal from the start. What a shame. He has some great things to say that challenge us all on and to commit the sin of lumping him into a group and judging him prematurely is unfortunate.

3. It challenges the moralistic judging that has become commonplace among evangelicals

More to the point, Greg challenges the moralization of the world that is so typical of Evangelical Christians. As I said in the review, I think that is one of the best points he makes.

4. It challenges the idea that "(insert political stance/candidate here) is the Christian stance/candidate."


Greg challenges the idea that a specific candidate or view is "the Christian" candidate or view. Or worse still, the idea that to not vote a certain way makes one not a Christian. So many people need to hear that.

5. It creates discussion

Lastly, and I think this is one of the main features of any good book, it make you think and creates discussion. If we can continue to have meaningful conversations on topics that matter, we go far in growing in maturity.

Thanks for staying tuned. I realize I stayed on this topic for a long time, but I only do that when I think a book is so good it needs it. This was such a book. Send me in some questions for Greg!

The Myth of a Christian Nation, Part 12

The last chapter of Myth... is Greg simply responding to the 5 most common questions he gets in response to these ideas. Bob over at Vanguard Church has done such a great job of capsulizing Greg's answers by compiling quotes that I'm choosing to completely steal his work. The quoted sections below are completely Bob's (and Greg's) genius and not my own.

Before we do that, though, I should offer Greg's disclaimer. Greg ends the book by acknowledging there is always going to be ambiguity and disagreement in this life. "The goal of this book has not been to provide the 'right' answer to ambiguous ethical questions but to help kingdom people appreciate the urgency of preserving the unique kingdom-of-God perspective on all questions and on life as a whole...What follows is my own wrestling with five of the questions I have most frequently been asked whenever I've publicly presented the perspective articulated in this book." (pg 162)

As with anything, even if we can agree on the broad perspectives, the specifics are where the waters can get murky. So, take the following as Greg's perspective and with a grain of salt. Though it may not be clear from the wuotes below, the larger context of this chapter shows that Greg is still wrestling with these issues himself. For the record, I think that is great. I don't want to listen to someone who isn't still wrestling, who think he (or she) has it all figured out, who had God in their little box. Here we go.

1. What about self-defense?

(A Kingdom person) would have cultivated a kind of character and wisdom that wouldn’t automatically default to self-protective violence. Because he would genuinely love his enemy, he would have the desire to look for, and the wisdom to see, any nonviolent alternative to stopping his family’s attacker if one was available. He would want to do good to his attacker.

2. What about Christians in the military?

Do you know—can you know—the myriad of personal, social, political, and historical factors that have led to any particular conflict and that bear upon whether or not it (the war) is justified?...Out of their cultural conditioning, most blindly assume their authorities are trustworthy, that their cause is justified, and that each person they are told to kill is a justified killing…So, while I respect the sincerity and courage of Christians who may disagree and feel it their duty to defend their country with violence, I honestly see no way to condone a Christian’s decision to kill on behalf of any country—or for any other reason.

3. Haven’t some wars resulted in good things?

While military victories tend to be celebrated, nonviolent victories seem to pass without notice. Most knew about Gandhi and Martin Luther king Jr., but the nonviolent revolutions that ended various unjust dictatorships and brought increased freedom for more than three million people in the twentieth century are hardly ever discussed. Consequently, we are conditioned to think violence is the only viable approach to resolving conflict…(As kingdom people), we are called to show by our life that, while violence sometimes brings about positive results, violence is never inevitable—if only kingdom people will live out their unique kingdom call.

4. Don’t your ideas lead to passivity?

We now find ourselves in a version of Christianity where protecting ourselves is one of the main things we stand for—“in Jesus’ name”! In the name of the one who surrendered his rights and died for sinners, we fight against sinners for our rights!...Our call is to simply live in sacrificial love and trust the sovereign God will use our love to further his kingdom, as he did with the love of Jesus expressed to us and all people on Calvary.

5. Don’t we best serve the oppressed by overthrowing their oppressors?

The kingdom person is to remember that it’s still a ‘Good Friday’ world. We are to have faith that things will look different when Easter morning arrives. The ultimate hope of the world is not found in achieving victory now. The ultimate hope of the world is the resurrection, when all things shall be reconciled to God (Col. 1:20). Then we will see that no act of kingdom love has ever been wasted.