Thinking Christian

One wants to say something about a tragedy like the one in Myanmar. But what can be said, other than to express grief, to pray for the survivors, and to try to help, at least from a distance. For those on the scene there have been barriers beyond logistics, however.

A U.N. official says the World Food Program is suspending cyclone aid to Myanmar because its government seized supplies flown into the country.
He says the WFP has no choice but to suspend the shipments until the matter is resolved.

God help them; God help us all.

Posted by Tom Gilson under Unfiled | Tags: Myanmar — | No Comments »

Book Review

The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Revised and Expanded Edition), by Philip Jenkins

Philip Jenkins is Distinguished Professor of History and Religious Studies at Penn State; the book is published by Oxford University Press. With that set of credentials it’s hard simply to sweep aside the rather astonishing central theses of his book:

“The era of Western Christianity has passed within our lifetimes, and the day of Southern Christianity is dawning. The fact of change is itself undeniable: it has happened, and will continue to happen.”

There is a worldwide sociological shift going on virtually unnoticed even by Christian historians and observers. It is perhaps most strikingly highlighted by:

The theological coloring of the most successful new churches reminds us once more of the massive gap in most Western listings of the major trends of the last century, which rightly devoted much space to political movements such as fascism and communism but ignored such vital religious currents as Pentecostalism. Yet today, fascists or Nazis are not easy to find, and communists are becoming an endangered species, while Pentecostals are flourishing around the globe. Since there were only a handful of Pentecostals in 1900, and several hundred million today, is it not reasonable to identify this as perhaps the most successful social movement of the past century? According to current projections, the number of Pentecostal believers should cross the one billion mark before 2050.

But the book is not entirely about Pentecostals, and it is not entirely about the movement of Christianity south from Europe and North America. Jenkins explains how Christianity is in many ways returning to its homeland. Founded in the ancient near east, its earliest reach was greater toward the south and east than northwest into Europe. Jenkins’s definition of Christianity is broad, encompassing notional believers (i.e., “Christians” ranging from genuine believers to those whose claim to Christian connections is merely traditional or cultural) in the Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, Coptic, and Ethiopian traditions, and even Indian churches tracing their roots to the apostle Thomas, and heretical branches like the Nestorians.

It’s a broad perspective, yet this is still a surprise:

On balance, I would argue that at the time of the Magna Carta or the Crusades if we imagine a typical Christian, we should still be thinking not of a French artisan but of a Syrian peasant or Mesopotamian town-dweller, an Asian not a European.

Which leads to the provocative suggestion,

A powerful social movement has demeanded that the West and specifically the churches apologize for the medieval crusading movement. In this view the Crusades represented aggression, pure and simple, against the Muslim world…. An equally good case could be made that the medieval MIddle East was no more inevitably Muslim than other regions conquered by Islam and subsequently liberated, such as Spain and Hungary…. Westerners have simply forgotten the once-great Christian communities of the Eastern world.

To which I plead guilty, in spite of having studied church history in school and having read Latourette’s 2-volume history of Christianity. In fact, all through this book I was confronted with completely new information, to a most humbling extent. I work in a mission agency–mostly on the U.S. side of the work, but I still get worldwide reports. Yet I still have had nothing at all like a true conception of what God is doing all over the world.

Bearing in mind Jenkins’s broad definition of Christianity, here is the picture as it was in 2005 and is projected to be in 2025 (based on figures on page 2):

The figures total 2.1 billion Christians in 2005, and some 2.6 billion about 17 years from now. North America and Europe already comprise only 38% of Christians; in a few years that will drop to 34%. Europe is now the most populous Christian continent, but it is also infamously the most nominal Christian region of the world. A count of those who consider themselves Christian by more than cultural heritage would drop their percentage by 80% to 90%. Latin America, Asia, and Africa, on the other hand, are relatively thriving.

Southern Christianity tends to be considerably more conservative theologically than northern. This, at least, has hit the major media, as African Anglican Church leaders have made their opposition to liberal social practices strongly felt. They are far more likely to be Pentecostal. They expect God to work in signs, wonders, and visions–and they see it happening. Latin America is becoming more Pentecostal than Catholic. They are sending missionaries north and west. The largest church in London today is led by a Nigerian pastor. They are struggling for elbow room with Muslims, and often, as in Darfur and previously in Rwanda, suffering incredible persecution. They are the face of Christianity, far more so than one like me.

This can only be heartening for those of us who have dreamed of and devoted our lives to sharing the message of Jesus Christ with everyone around the world. Heartening–and humbling. God is at work. Those of us standing far out on the fringes of Christianity–like myself, in here in the virtual Bible Belt area of Virginia,U.S.A.–hardly have a clue.

The Next Christendom: The Coming of Global Christianity (Revised and Expanded Edition), by Philip Jenkins. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. 261 pages plus 45 pages of endnotes, plus index. Amazon Price US$14.95

Posted by Tom Gilson under 21st Century Faith | Tags: Book Review, Global Christianity, Philip Jenkins — | No Comments »

Jeff Laird answers this question with a nicely convenient list of scientists who didn’t think so.

Part 1

Part 2

Posted by Tom Gilson under Origins and Science | 2 Comments »

Before now, the one topic that has drawn forth the most anger on this blog has been homosexuality. Not any more. About 2 1/2 weeks ago I wrote about why the Darwin-Hitler link is so sensitive. I’ve been learning, since then, just how sensitive it really is. But that’s not all I’ve been learning. Today’s post is my reflection on that process, and it’s not so much about Darwin or Hitler as it is about us.

Many of us have very deep feelings on this matter. I have not personally heard from Holocaust victims’ family members, but we know this is still grievous to you. Others of us, even without that personal connection, remain aghast at it all. This has obviously touched a sore spot.

The reaction I’ve received here has not mostly been grief, though; it has been anger and astonishment. There were several readers who just couldn’t believe that anyone would draw the link from Darwin to Hitler. Some thought we were laying the whole blame on Darwin, though this is clearly a distortion of what I and others have been saying. Others had a more measured reaction but were still upset that we (myself, and the commenters who have supported this position) would find ethical fault in evolutionary theory. To me, it remains clear that there is an ethical fault in naturalistic evolution. It’s certainly not the kind of error that entails a Holocaust; instead, its failure is that it eliminates any strong ethical corrective to someone like a Hitler. (If you wish to continue discussing whether my analysis on that is accurate, please do so on the original thread.)

The philosophical link from Darwin to Hitler is nowhere near as strong as the historical link. I had said that it appears to be a plain historical fact that German Darwinian scientists were highly influential in establishing the kind of national ethos that could permit a Holocaust. Three different kinds of questions were raised regarding that assertion:

• There was no historical link, and how could you even say so?
• If there was any historical link between Darwin and Hitler, how should we evaluate it in light of all the other historical influences on Hitler?
• The historical linkage from Darwin to Hitler was based on contemporary misunderstandings of Darwin. Why should mistaken views on Darwin be taken as a mark against him or his work?

The first one has been well discussed already. From Darwin to Haeckel to an entire set of German intellectual elites and their widely-selling books and pamphlets, there was an historical train of ideas and events that ended up with individual and racial eugenics being promoted.

The second one goes far out of my expertise and became a learning experience for me. Let me put this in context, especially for readers who do not run your own blog. I have another name for this business: it’s white-water writing. It’s quick, and there are rocks around the next curve. There’s no river guide (editor) other than your own judgment. I adhere strongly to the principle that I will not blog on a topic that I do not know well enough to field questions and challenges on it. This time I entered in without anticipating the question.

The fact that there were multiple influences does not negate the significance of any single one of them. The Darwin-to-Nazism historical linkage remains well supported by evidence already presented. How strong was it among other influences, though? I yield the question. I do not know.

There’s yet another name for blogging like this: it’s learn-as-you-go-in-public. Which means sometimes stumbling in public. It’s not for the timid.

The third question came from Tony Hoffman, and it’s a good one. It’s parallel to one Christians face all the time. If someone claiming to be a Christian commits some atrocity, does that mean Jesus Christ should be blamed? Does it disprove the Christian faith? If someone like Haeckel claiming to follow Darwin’s theory concludes that Papuan humans are more closely related to simians than to Europeans, is that Darwin’s (or Darwinism’s) fault? If others following Haeckel advocate racial eugenics, is that either Darwin’s or Haeckel’s fault?

It took me several days of reflection before I felt ready to answer.

Somewhere along the way Charlie Scott showed us that the basis of the question is not as clear as we thought it was. Properly understood, evolutionary theory provides no true basis for Haeckel’s racism. On the other hand, as Charlie revealed,

[Haeckel] wrote that Darwin was his inspiration, that Darwin was the originator of “struggle to exist” and that he, Haeckel, studied natural selection every day. Darwin wrote back that he was greatly influenced by Haeckel and that Haeckel, among few, truly understood natural selection.

Darwin’s endorsement of Haeckel complicates the matter considerably (please see Charlie’s comment for the source of his information). Did Haeckel really get evolution so wrong after all? In hindsight he did, but what did Darwin himself think? Like almost everything else in this matter, there is ambiguity here.

Anyway, not everyone was satisfied with my answer to Tony, which I need not repeat here. That’s no surprise. It’s a complex issue. Frankly, I’m not completely satisfied with it myself. I’m still wrestling with it in my mind, still trying to learn as I go.

This topic raised considerable anger, as I’ve already said. I’ve been called names this week like never before, here and on other blogs. Why is it so upsetting to suggest this linkage existed in history? Why did it draw forth such emotion when I said there is no proper philosophical link from Darwinism to Hitlerian ethics, yet naturalistic Darwinism also eliminates good correctives for such ethics? These are just facts.

So I’m inviting another learning opportunity. What is it that has made this so anger-producing?

Someone emailed me and asked how I would feel if they wrote a history showing that 9/11 was massively influenced by Christian thinking. Actually, that’s not such an academic question. Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris have virtually done that. They say that religion caused 9/11, and that all fundamentalist belief is fundamentally flawed in pretty much the same way. I don’t know of any Christians who have gone over the top with anger at them. More recently it was suggested here that Luther was as much to blame as Darwin for the Holocaust. None of us Christians got angry over the suggestion.

I’m going to speculate on why it’s different for the Darwin-Hitler issue. This may turn out to be another white-water learning process, for I run a real risk of being wrong. (Understand, please, that I put this forth very tentatively.) I think this may have become a focal point for a large reservoir of anger against Intelligent Design in general. Expelled put it to powerful rhetorical use, which made it even more volatile. Evolution proponents have been wishing Intelligent Design would go away, and it hasn’t; in fact, Expelled put it out before the public more than ever before. It must be really frustrating. Add that to all the questions and all the historic grief and anger surrounding the Holocaust, and this is the result you get.

If that’s anywhere near the right analysis, I can see why this would have come out the way it has. It’s more sensitive than I realized before, in a post I wrote before most of us had seen the movie, including myself. At this point, I’m going to ask for readers’ awareness of the position I’ve been taking: trying to help Christians and/or ID proponents handle this kind of topic responsibly and sensitively. Whether I succeeded with that encouragement, or whether I succeeded even in following my own advice, is not for me to judge. I’ve been trying to do the best I could do.

So for what it’s worth, which may be nothing at all, that’s my reflection on the process we’ve been involved in here. I would ask that if you have further thoughts on the substantive issues involved in this topic, please continue those discussions on the threads where they have already been in progress. It’s just less confusing that way. Comments here will be open for your reflections on my reflections. I’m sure some of you have completely different perspectives, and we’ll be interested to hear them.

Posted by Tom Gilson under Arts and Culture & Origins and Science | Tags: Darwin, Evolution, Hitler, Nazism — | 2 Comments »

Blog entry deleted: see here.

Posted by Tom Gilson under Origins and Science | Tags: Creationism, Evolution, Intelligent Design — | 49 Comments »

Homosexual activists rudely shouted down an academic lecture, because they didn’t agree. That’s no more impressive than the bullies here.

And my wife just reminded me how similar this is to P.Z. Myers on this phone call. Is there a pattern here?

Posted by Tom Gilson under Life and Choices | Tags: Bullies — | 4 Comments »

He’s big–really big–on YouTube right now: 13-year-old Andrew Johnston, on Britain’s Got Talent. Here’s one of the clips:

Simon liked his singing–a lot. (So do I.) He said in the introduction that he had been bullied for his singing. Well, the comments on YouTube are right in line with that. They’re piling on with profanity, all because he sings high and he sings well, and maybe because he doesn’t carry himself with obvious confidence.

Maybe by the time you read this YouTube will have done something to stop it from coming the way it has been today. I hope so. There’s serious profanity in at least 20% of the comments now, and other forms of ridicule in many others.

Our kids have been bullied at about that age. I won’t go into the details; suffice it to say that we’ve had opportunity to get to know their schools’ administrations very, very well. In some cases they’ve handled it well, and it has improved. I won’t speak of the contrasting situation we also faced. I will say that seeing Andrew succeed this way has given us real joy.

But what about the way he’s been treated, at school and on YouTube? Why do people do this? Why do people find it attractive to cuss out a teenager? What’s the motivation? What’s the payoff?

Posted by Tom Gilson under Arts and Culture | Tags: Andrew Johnston — | 2 Comments »

Paul, frequent commenter here, sent me this link by email: Overcoming Bias: Zombies: The Movie. Some excerpts:

DOCTOR: David! David Chalmers! Can you hear me?

CHALMERS: Yes.

NURSE: It’s no use, doctor.

CHALMERS: I’m perfectly fine. I’ve been introspecting on my consciousness, and I can’t detect any difference. I know I would be expected to say that, but -

The DOCTOR turns away from the glass screen in horror.

DOCTOR: His words, they… they don’t mean anything.

…

OFFICER 1: State your business here.

MAN: Is this where you’re keeping David Chalmers?

OFFICER 2: What’s it to you? You a friend of his?

MAN: Can’t say I am. But even zombies have rights.

OFFICER 1: All right, buddy, let’s see your qualia.

MAN: I don’t have any.

Paul is right–if you’ve read anything on mind and brain, this is hilarious!

Posted by Tom Gilson under Just For Fun | Tags: Consciousness, Humor, Mind — | No Comments »

And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we have seen his glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.–John 1:14

Jesus–referred to here as “the Word”–came with glory reflecting his Father in heaven. Part of that reflection was in the grace and truth he expressed. Henry Cloud (previously referenced here) was the one who showed me how these work together, through his book Changes That Heal.

There is a productive, fruitful dynamic tension between grace and truth. Truth is the standard; grace is more relationship and freedom oriented. They are complementary, though, not contradictory.

Jesus lived out truth first by being true, by his utter integrity. He spoke truth in confrontation, he spoke truth in teaching, and he lived what he spoke. He lived out truth by setting the standard and living up to it. He is (as the verse quoted above hints) the Word, the expression of God, and a true representation of God’s character.

Truth in at least one sense is a hard, unyielding kind of thing. You can’t get it to change its mind, nor can you persuade it to be something other than what it is. Reality is what it is. Cloud clarifies* the importance of facing reality for what it is, including

• The truth about ourselves: our strengths, weaknesses, successes, failures, opportunities, and limitations.
• The truth about the world, that it is what it is and we can’t magically change it.
• The truth about God, that he is Creator and King, and has a claim on us

To dwell on the obvious, truth is a good thing. It gives solidity to reality. But it can also produce pain when we collide with it–especially when the truth we slam into is the truth of our own inadequacies and failures.

Grace is relationship-oriented. It opens the door for forgiveness, for acceptance in spite of faults. It is what can soften the blows of reality and truth. Yet it cannot stand without truth; it would be like trying to erect a skyscraper out of jellyfish skeletons.

It would not be quite right to say Jesus balanced the two. Better to say he expressed them both fully. One great example is his extended encounter with the woman at the well in John 4. He pointed out her sins quite frankly. She must have been embarrassed. Actually, though, before that point she must have been somewhat confused at his willingness even to talk to her. There were cultural and racial barriers in that day that normally would have prevented such a conversation even from beginning. Thus Jesus demonstrated his orientation toward caring relationship, even while he was insisting on dealing with the realities of her life. By the end of their conversation she understood that he was the one who could free her from her sin, and could show her (and her people) how to worship God truly.

Grace and truth were both expressed on the cross: sin had to be paid for, and it was; but he took our payment upon himself.

I have two very quick applications to draw from this. First, we ought to express grace and truth in our relationships with each other. That means recognizing the truth about ourselves, and being open to what others have to tell us about it. It’s often easy to hide from our own realities. It also means helping others see what is true and deal with it squarely. At the same time, grace impels us to remember that we’re all in the same condition: we need help, we need love, we need forgiveness; sometimes we just need to be given a break!

Especially if I have a difficult issue to work through, I’m going to look for counsel from someone who lives out both grace and truth: truth so I can see the realities I’m dealing with, and grace to help me with the walk through them.

Second application: thank God for his truth! What kind of world would it be without some solidity to it? And thank him for his grace, too, for we who cannot meet God’s true and just standards on our own must rely on his grace in order to have any hope at all.

*Oxymoron intended

Posted by Tom Gilson under Worshiping Christian | Tags: Grace, Jesus Christ, Truth, Worshiping Christian — | 7 Comments »

Posted at Brain Cramps for God.

Posted by Tom Gilson under Miscellanea | No Comments »