Biologos - Adam, Eve and Human Population Genetics, Part 3: Language, populations and speciation

Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics

Part 3 -

Language, populations and speciation

http://biologos.org/blog/adam-eve-and-human-population-genetics-part-3-good-butter-and-good-cheese

In this series, we explore the genetic evidence that indicates humans became a separate

species as a substantial population, rather than descending uniquely from an ancestral pair.

by Dennis Venema

December 12, 2014

In yesterday’s post, we drew an extended analogy between genetic change within a population over time, and change within a language over time. While no analogy is perfect, this one is remarkably good – and it will continue to be useful as we now turn to discussing how new species form.

Flags of Friesland and England

With a last name like Venema, it will come as no surprise to many that I have Frisian ancestors. Friesland is a province of the Netherlands with a distinct language, West Frisian, that is one of the most closely-related modern languages to English. My paternal grandparents, immigrants to Canada in the post-World War II era, spoke a delightful hodge-podge of English, Dutch and Frisian to each other, often using mostly Frisian and only reverting to Dutch or English if it happened to have a better word for the concept at hand. As a child, I remember hearing Frisian and noting how similar many of its words were to their English equivalents – far too many similarities, I thought, to be merely coincidence. A well-known sentence will serve as an illustration: it is pronouncedessentially the same in both Frisian and English:

Butter, bread, and green cheese is good English and good Frise.

Bûter, brea, en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk.

Later, I would come to understand the reason for these striking similarities – English and West Frisian are modern descendants of an ancient language – they share a common ancestral population of speakers. As we have seen, languages change over time. In the case of English and West Frisian, the original population, which spoke a language ancestral to both modern-day English and modern-day West Frisian, was divided: some remained on the European continent, and others travelled to what is present-day England. Once separated, each sub-group – which at the point of separation spoke the same language – went on to acquire differences over time that were independent of each other. In due time, the changes that accumulated in both groups rendered them mutually unintelligible to each other: they had become separate languages. The precise point at which they became “different languages” of course is impossible to pin down, since there was no such precise point when it occurred. Both groups changed their language over time incrementally, as a process on a gradient.

Species form through a process much like language development. Should two populations of the same species become separated, they too can accumulate genetic changes that shift their average characteristics over time – changes that are not shared and averaged across the two groups due to their genetic isolation. In many cases, geographic isolation acts as the first genetic barrier – much like the ancestors of the English parting ways with their continental cousins. Once separated, should enough genetic changes accrue between the two populations, eventually they will not recognize each other as members of the same species – which would be analogous to my experience as a modern English speaker in present-day Friesland.

Species, like languages “begin” as populations – and “begin” isn’t the right word

Our language analogy also helps to counter some common misconceptions about how species form. Often when I am speaking about human origins, folks who have heard about modern humans descending from around 10,000 ancestors wonder how on earth those 10,000 people suddenly appeared on the scene without ancestors. Of course, they didn’t suddenly appear – they too have a population that gave rise to them, and so on – stretching back to our shared ancestral populations with other apes and beyond. There is in fact no point in our evolutionary history over the last 18 million years or more where our lineage was reduced below 10,000 individuals – and 18 million years ago our lineage was not even close to “human” in any sense, since this timepredates any hominin (i.e. species more closely related to us than to chimpanzees) in the fossil record. The 10,000 number is simply the smallest population size we have in our history over the last several million years. The lineage leading to modern humans experienced what is known as a population bottleneck, a time when our ancestral population size was reduced to around 10,000 breeding individuals, only to expand again afterwards.

Despite these explanations, it is a common misperception to think that species, should one go back far enough, started off with one ancestral breeding pair “becoming different”. Hopefully our language analogy is useful here. It is of course not reasonable to expect that English or West Frisian got its start when two individuals began speaking a new language. The lineage that led to either modern language did so as a population of speakers – and each generation within both lineages was perfectly intelligible to their parents and their offspring. In the same way, species form as populations shift their average characteristics over time – but always remaining the “same species” as their parents and their offspring. So, to speak of a language or a species “beginning” is to hit up against the limits of language. Neither “begins” in some sort of discontinuous sense – they become, over time, in continuity with what came before.

So, one of the reasons for the common expectation that humans had a discontinuous beginning with a single ancestral couple has nothing to do with Genesis or Judeo-Christian theology: I have met many non-theists who also have this same expectation. We are used to thinking in discontinuous terms – species should have a defined beginning – and we are used to thinking that species therefore begin with a radical change to a single ancestral pair. For evangelical Christians, these incorrect assumptions about how species get their start fit hand in glove with the common view that since species require a discontinuous start, only God can miraculously provide it through an event of special creation. Once one understands how species form as populations over time, however, one is then prepared to investigate the question of how large our population was as we became human – a question we will begin to address in the next post.

For further reading:

“Evolution Basics: Becoming Human, Part 2: Language Evolution and Lines on a Gradient”

“Evolution Basics: From Primate to Human, Part 1”

---

Dennis Venema is professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. He holds a B.Sc. (with Honors) from the University of British Columbia (1996), and received his Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia in 2003. His research is focused on the genetics of pattern formation and signaling using the common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. Dennis is a gifted thinker and writer on matters of science and faith, but also an award-winning biology teacher—he won the 2008 College Biology Teaching Award from the National Association of Biology Teachers. He and his family enjoy numerous outdoor activities that the Canadian Pacific coast region has to offer. Dennis writes regularly for the BioLogos Forum about the biological evidence for evolution.

continue to -

Biologos - Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics, Part 1:

Scripture, science, and defining the issues

Biologos - Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics, Part 2:

A premier on population genetics

Biologos - Adam, Eve and Human Population Genetics, Part 3:

Language, populations and speciation

Biologos - Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics, Part 2: A premier on population genetics

Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics

Part 2 -

A premier on population genetics

http://biologos.org/blog/adam-eve-and-human-population-genetics-part-2-a-primer-on-population-geneti

In this series, we explore the genetic evidence that indicates humans became a separate

species as a substantial population, rather than descending uniquely from an ancestral pair.

by Dennis Venema

December 10, 2014

Evolution as gradual change at the population level

One of the most common misunderstandings about evolution is failing to appreciate that evolution happens topopulations, not individuals. But, you might interject, populations are made up of individuals – so how does that work? The answer is that yes, genetic variation enters a population through mutations in individuals – but that only when such variation accumulates within a population and shifts its average characteristics do we observe its effects.

Perhaps an analogy will help here – one that I have used before, that of language change over time. Languages are like populations – they have a large number of individuals who speak it. While each individual has their own particular quirks (favorite phrases, word preferences, and perhaps even chronic spelling mistakes) any one person cannot, on the whole, cause significant change to their language within their lifetimes. Additionally, any person who does change radically from their language group will effectively be placing themselves outside it – if their changes are large enough to hinder their intelligibility to others. So, language evolution is not an individual affair. Yet languages do change over time, and individuals do contribute to that change. Someone might invent a new word that catches on, for example. Others might be part of the “catching on” – hearing a new word, or new phrase, and repeating it to others. Over time (perhaps generations) a language will slowly adopt new words, new spellings, and new rules of grammar (such as split infinitives in English – to boldly split what no man has split before – but I digress). Yet, such adoptions are gradual. They enter the language as rarities, slowly become more common, and eventually become the “normal” way of doing things (much to the chagrin of English teachers). Thankfully, such changes typically take longer than one generation, sparing those of us who cringe at the novelties of our day. If the English words “there, their and they’re” ever officially collapse into one word determined solely by context or the use of apostrophes to form plurals becomes standard, I’m thankful I won’t be here to see it.

Just as a language has many speakers, a species has many members. They must be genetically compatible – i.e. speak the same language – but they are not all genetically identical – they have their own particular variation within an acceptable range to be in the group. In other words, though populations are a unit (they interbreed) they have genetic variation.

In the terminology of genetics we can understand this in terms of genes and alleles. While all members of the population have the same genes, they do not all have exactly the same version of any given gene. Different versions of a gene are called alleles, and they arise through mutations – that is, copying errors when chromosomes are replicated. For humans, we may have up to two different alleles for any gene – the allele we inherit from our mother, and the allele we inherit from our father. If have two different alleles, we are said to beheterozygous for that particular gene. If we have two identical alleles for a gene, we are homozygous for that gene. While any individual can have up to only two alleles, populations as a whole can have hundreds or even thousands of alleles.

In any given generation, the vast majority of the alleles present in a population were inherited from the previous generation – just like a language group learning from their parents, and picking up the language as a whole, but also some of their particular linguistic quirks. Each generation also can contribute its own novelty to the population in the form of new alleles arising through mutation – just like teenagers coming up with new words or phrases. These new alleles, are rare of course – they are only held by one individual at the beginning. Over many, many generations, however, such new alleles can become more common within a population if they are passed down, progressively, to more and more offspring. In time, the new allele might become the most common one within a population. Many generations later, it might be the only allele present for that gene in the entire population. Combined with the actions of other new alleles of many other genes, over time the average characteristics of the population can change. While it’s challenging to imagine this for genes and alleles, it’s simple to illustrate with language – for example, the change we see in linguistic trajectory towards present-day English in a verse from John’s gospel:

John 1:29, West Saxon Gospels, c. 990

Anothir day Joon say Jhesu comynge to hym, and he seide, Lo! the lomb of God; lo! he that doith awei the synnes of the world. (Wycliffe Bible, 1395)

The nexte daye Iohn sawe Iesus commyge vnto him and sayde: beholde the lambe of God which taketh awaye the synne of the worlde. (Tyndale New Testament, 1525)

The next day Iohn seeth Iesus coming vnto him, and saith, Behold the Lambe of God, which taketh away the sinne of the world. (KJV, 1611)

The next day John seeth Jesus coming unto him, and saith, Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world. (KJV, Cambridge Edition)

The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, “Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!” (NIV, 2011)

Note well that these “forms”, as we see them here, themselves have many gradations between them, of course. These selections are useful for our illustrative purposes, however. Note that the overall shift to the “modern” text is the cumulative result of many individual changes. To return to our analogy, if every word is a gene, we see shifts in alleles over time as follows:

cwæð → seide → sayde → saith → said

synne → synnes → synne → sinne → sin

to hym cumende → comynge to hym → commyge vnto him → coming vnto him → coming unto him

Though the changes in each word contribute to the overall transformation, each word has only a relatively minor effect on its own. Yet the combined actions of changes in many words, over time, can change West Saxon to modern English. There are not, however, large jumps at any point along the way – each generation of speakers could easily understand their parents and their children – but over time, the shifts are large enough that West Saxon and present-day English are not even close to being the same language.

In the next post in this series, we’ll consider how changes in alleles can lead to new species – much like change over time can lead to new languages.

For further reading:

“Evolution Basics: Becoming Human, Part 2: Language Evolution and Lines on a Gradient”

---

Dennis Venema is professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. He holds a B.Sc. (with Honors) from the University of British Columbia (1996), and received his Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia in 2003. His research is focused on the genetics of pattern formation and signaling using the common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. Dennis is a gifted thinker and writer on matters of science and faith, but also an award-winning biology teacher—he won the 2008 College Biology Teaching Award from the National Association of Biology Teachers. He and his family enjoy numerous outdoor activities that the Canadian Pacific coast region has to offer. Dennis writes regularly for the BioLogos Forum about the biological evidence for evolution.

continue to -

Biologos - Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics, Part 1:

Scripture, science, and defining the issues

Biologos - Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics, Part 2:

A premier on population genetics

Biologos - Adam, Eve and Human Population Genetics, Part 3:

Language, populations and speciation

Biologos - Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics, Part 1: Scripture, science, and defining the issues

Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics

Part 1 -

Scripture, science, and defining the issues

http://biologos.org/blog/adam-eve-and-human-population-genetics-part-1-scripture-science-and-definin

In this series, we explore the genetic evidence that indicates humans became a separate

species as a substantial population, rather than descending uniquely from an ancestral pair.

by Dennis Venema

November 12, 2014

Note: In this series, we explore the genetic evidence that indicates humans became a separate species as a substantial population, rather than descending uniquely from an ancestral pair.

Back in 2011, Christianity Today ran a cover article on what was fast becoming a hot-button issue for Evangelicals – the genomic science that indicates humans descend from a large population, rather than from a single couple in the relatively recent past. Since 2011 Evangelicals have become increasingly aware that modern genetic studies of humans support this conclusion; however, there remains a great deal of confusion about exactly how this genetic evidence works, and, not surprisingly, suspicion about its accuracy. In this series, we will explore several lines of genetic evidence that shed light on our species’ past in an attempt to rectify these misunderstandings.

Defining the issues

Part of the challenge this subject generates for Evangelicals is due to confusion over exactly what the science can and cannot say about human origins in general, or the historicity of Adam and Eve in particular. Briefly stated, genetics is well suited to addressing scientific questions such as whether humans share ancestry with other forms of life, and what our population structure looked like as we separated from our evolutionary relatives. And what we see in the genetics of our species is unremarkable for a relatively large-bodied mammal – we do indeed share common ancestry with other species, and we descend from a large population that has never numbered below about 10,000 individuals throughout our evolutionary history. Scientifically speaking, these issues are straightforward and uncontroversial.

In addition to these scientific questions, however, Evangelicals are also strongly interested in the question of Adam and Eve’s historicity: were they a literal couple that lived about 6,000 – 10,000 years ago? Unfortunately, genomic science is not at all equipped to address this question – it simply does not have the ability to establish (or rule out, for that matter) the historicity of any particular individual in the ancient past.

For many Evangelicals (or for that matter atheists), the idea that we are the products of evolution and became human as a large population over time is on its face contradictory to the idea that Adam and Eve may have been historical individuals. The reason, of course, is not a scientific one, but rather an interpretation that the Genesis narratives preclude understanding Adam and Eve as anything other than the first humans, directly created by God without shared ancestry, who are the sole genetic progenitors of the entire human race. This is, of course, a very common evangelical interpretation of Genesis, but it is not the only one – several other options are available that attempt to respect both Scripture and science. After all, Genesis has long been noted to imply that Adam and Eve’s family is part of a larger unrelated population (for example Cain worries about being killed for his sin, leaves to build a city elsewhere, and takes a wife in the process). The fact that Genesis presents these facets of the story without comment or clarification also shows us, in my opinion, that the narrative is simply not concerned with telling the story of our genetic origins, but rather is focused on theological concerns.

So, the decision to equate the historicity of Adam and Eve with the expectation that humans descend uniquely from an ancestral couple is a hermeneutical one, not a scientific one. As such, the historicity question needs to be addressed hermeneutically, not scientifically – it simply lies outside the purview of what genetics can tell us.

Evolution as a population-level phenomenon

Aside from the hermeneutical issues surrounding human evolution and population genetics (which are confusing enough for many of us), there are the scientific issues – which, for many Evangelicals, are similarly fraught with misunderstanding. One of the main misconceptions is failing to understand that evolution is a population-level phenomenon: species form slowly, as populations, due to the accumulation of numerous slight genetic differences that shift the average characteristics of a population over time. All that is required to start this process is to have some sort of genetic barrier between two populations – perhaps a geographic barrier to start. Once two populations of the same species are reproductively isolated, genetic changes in the one population are not shared with the other – and vice versa. Over many, many generations enough changes may accumulate in the two populations that their average characteristics are different enough such that they would no longer recognize each other as members of the same species. At this point, even if the two populations were brought into contact again, these differences (perhaps behavioral or physical) would keep the genetic barrier in place by reducing or preventing interbreeding, and thus prevent the two groups from collapsing back into one large population.

If, on the other hand, one is used to thinking that species form when they are founded by a pair that has undergone a marked genetic change compared to their source population, one is more likely to think that it would have been possible for humans to get their start in such fashion. These sorts of misunderstandings are common among non-scientists, and Evangelicals are not immune to them. For example, even among Christians who accept that we share ancestry with other life, I frequently get asked what “the mutation” was that “made us human”. Sometimes, folks wonder how such a dramatic mutation could have occurred in two individuals at the same time to provide a male and female member of the same (brand new!) species – and speculate that God must have directed it to occur to form Adam and Eve. Their understanding of human speciation is that it was sudden, involved only one couple, and required dramatic genetic change. In reality, speciation is almost always precisely the opposite: it’s slow, takes place in a population, and requires the accumulation of many discrete genetic differences, none of which are particularly dramatic. In the next post in this series, we’ll begin to explore how a population can accumulate genetic changes, and perhaps shift its average characteristics over time – beginning with how genetic diversity arises in the first place.

For further reading

Models for integrating genetics and Adam and Eve

Evidence for common ancestry, including common ancestry for humans

---

Dennis Venema is professor of biology at Trinity Western University in Langley, British Columbia. He holds a B.Sc. (with Honors) from the University of British Columbia (1996), and received his Ph.D. from the University of British Columbia in 2003. His research is focused on the genetics of pattern formation and signaling using the common fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster as a model organism. Dennis is a gifted thinker and writer on matters of science and faith, but also an award-winning biology teacher—he won the 2008 College Biology Teaching Award from the National Association of Biology Teachers. He and his family enjoy numerous outdoor activities that the Canadian Pacific coast region has to offer. Dennis writes regularly for the BioLogos Forum about the biological evidence for evolution.

continue to -

Biologos - Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics, Part 1:

Scripture, science, and defining the issues

Biologos - Adam, Eve, and Human Population Genetics, Part 2:

A premier on population genetics

Biologos - Adam, Eve and Human Population Genetics, Part 3:

Language, populations and speciation

Jeff Cook - How Unlike the Eucharist, Parts 1 & 2

The Celebration of the Christ of the Eucharist

Less for Tech (by Jeff Cook)

Dec 10, 2014 @ 0:05 by Scot McKnight 11 Comments

Jeff Cook lectures on philosophy at the University of Northern Colorado and he is the author of Seven: The Deadly Sins and the Beatitudes(Zondervan 2008) and Everything New (Subversive 2012). He helps pastors Atlas Church in Greeley, Colorado. You can connect with him atwww.everythingnew.org and @jeffvcook

---

Spend Less on Tech, More on Wine (by Jeff Cook)

A wedding at taco bell is clever but lacks some of the holy.

I was baptized in a hot tub. I’m still bummed I didn’t wait for a more celebratory time and space.

I am aware there isn’t a secular/sacred divide (“for the earth is the Lord’s and everything in it”). But as churches across our country spend countless dollars hiring speakers, purchasing the best tech, paying for upgrades to the building and new carpet for the floor–Don’t you think it’s time to move past cheap crackers and plastic thimbles in order to enjoy and receive the body of Christ broken for you?

Intimacy with your spouse ought to be elevated.

“Quality time” with your children deserves first consideration—so too, the sacramental: the physical events, times and symbols God tells us uniquely unveil his nature, love and character.

The quality of the elements churches purchase and offer speak to us all of how highly we view the meal, especially when compared to other events in our gatherings.

It’s no secret that many of us tend to idolize the sermon, to idolize our tradition, idolize the music, idolize the community itself. We have a tendency to idolize our buildings and our programming. If you are a church worker like me responsible for creating a weekly gathering, you will be tempted to spend vastly more time thinking on such things, than on how your community enjoys the Lord’s Supper, how it will be experienced, unpacked and enjoyed.

But “This is Christ’s body broken for you.” And for all your guests, family and enemies. And it should be elevated.

Those who love Jesus, may have come to hear a speaker or lift up their hands to music, but these are secondary, and need to be viewed as secondary by service creators. Is not the experience of Jesus, and that alone, worthy of your community gathering regularly? Are not all other centering events and experiences mere idols in comparison? Should we not embrace the perspective of the Baptist, who, when many came out to him, said: “A man can receive only what is given him from heaven … [Jesus] must become greater; I must become less”?

How can churches elevate communion in their gatherings? How can we transform large church auditoriums with theater seating to showcase the table? What are the most meaningful qualities to your communion experience?

* * * * * * * * * *

Lord’s Supper: Who is Unworthy? (Jeff Cook)

Dec 15, 2014 @ 4:56 by Scot McKnight 48 Comments

Who is Unworthy to Celebrate in Church? (by Jeff Cook)

I went to a large wedding a few years back in which the clergy invited only those who had jumped through the right hoops to come forward and receive the body and blood of Jesus. The leader then asked those of us who had not jumped through their hoops to “pray for the unity of all believers.” Of course, I sat there thinking, “The only thing keeping us disunified are your silly hoops.”

Unfortunately many choose to use the Lord’s Supper to display the in-crowd versus "everyone else". In such “celebrations” the power of the Lord’s Supper is actually inverted—showcasing the division of humanity and unveiling a God whose displays of affection and grace are conditional.

How unlike Jesus.

Christ didn’t give those who came to him a theological quiz before he fed them. Levi didn’t have his theology all lined out when he rose to eat with Jesus. The 5,000 were basically a mob. Some who received the first Lord’s Supper rejected the cross (Matthew 16.21-23)—and still Jesus invited them to the table and said: “This is my body broken for you.” In fact, the Gospel writers go out of their way to call Jesus’ dining companions “the sinners” (Mark 2.16, et al).

For some, communion was where clarity started.

In my previous post, I critiqued churches that have too low a view of Communion. In the next two posts I’d like to critique those who have elevated the Lord’s Supper so high It loses its primary function—the tangible display of God’s grace extend to all.

I would challenge those who reject an open table to answer the following: Where is the boundary marker clearly displayed in the Bible for who may eat the meal Jesus offers? And has God really made it our job to judge who can and cannot commune with the Church?

In a previous conversation, some immediately turned to 1 Corinthians to argue that exclusivity at the table is Biblically required, that if the table were open to everyone some would receive the Eucharist in “an unworthy manner” (1 Cor 11.27). Those arguing this position apparently believed they (or their church) had the authority to tell the rest of us who is unworthy (something lacking in 1 Corinthians 11) and which hoops the guests they exclude have failed to jump through (something also lacking in 1 Corinthians).

Ironically, the purpose of 1 Corinthians 11 is to rebuke those who have excluded others (namely the poor) when gathering for the Eucharist (11.17-22). In response Paul teaches how to receive the elements, not who has the qualifications for feasting. Paul said, “Everyone ought to examine themselves before they eat of the bread and drink of the cup” (v. 28). And again, “If we learn how to judge ourselves, we will not incur judgment” (v.31).

Paul does not say, “Pastors and overseers, ensure that only [enter the description of worthy folks] come to the table.” No. The only person Paul says you have the authority to deem unworthy is yourself.

By making the table exclusive, some churches are ironically telling those they believe most need a transformative encounter with Jesus not to come forward and have a transformative encounter with Jesus. How unlike Christ.

Next time we will push into this and discuss how Jesus’ table fellowship with sinners was prototypical and sets the standard for our practice today.

Peter Enns - Inerrancy, Historical Criticism, and the Slippery Slope

inerrancy, historical criticism, and the slippery slope

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2014/12/inerrancy-historical-criticism-and-the-slippery-slope/

by Peter Enns

December 10, 2014

Comments

In today’s post, Carlos Bovell suggests a visual metaphor that moves beyond the slippery slope, either/or thinking common among inerrantists.

Bovell, a frequent contributor to this blog, is a graduate of Westminster Theological Seminary and The Institute for Christian Studies, Toronto. He is the author of Inerrancy and the Spiritual Formation of Younger Evangelicals (2007), By Good and Necessary Consequence: A Preliminary Genealogy of Biblical Foundationalism (2009), an edited volume, Interdisciplinary Perspectives on the Authority of Scripture (2011), and Rehabilitating Inerrancy in a Culture of Fear (2012).

---

It’s very hard for inerrantists to change their thinking about how their doctrine of scripture is related to the spiritual life.

The problem is that they don’t have an alternate model and so instead of jeopardizing their connection to God (which they see as being established via scripture), they cling to inerrancy and hold out for any argument that gives an inerrant Bible even the slightest possibility of being true.

I trace this to a rhetorically powerful visual metaphor that they use to help conceive of what happens to believers when they begin challenging inerrancy: the slippery slope.

The slippery slope metaphor is what makes some inerrantists think that inerrancy is crucial, even non-negotiable, to faith. In fact, conceiving of scripture as being a central indication of one’s faithfulness to God has such a powerful ideational hold on conservative evangelicalism that even students who genuinely want to do serious research will select courses of study that will make it easier to keep inerrancy intact. They do this as a precaution because by doing so, they believe they’ll keep their faith intact.

What is needed, I would say, is a new visual metaphor for how scripture relates to faithfulness without tying inerrancy to faithfulness as the default starting point. We need a picture that allows inerrancy not only to be directly challenged but also discarded without having people feel like they might end up giving up faith.

As a suggestion toward remedying this, I offer the following illustration (adapted from a popular book on mathematics entitled, How Not to Be Wrong: The Power of Mathematical Thinking).

The old “slippery slope”picture:

The slippery slope picture holds that once you start being critical of inerrancy there is no non-arbitrary way to stop the inexorable slide toward atheism. Put another way, the more historical-critical studies are allowed to inform our reading and understanding of the Bible, the more we’re reading the Bible like atheists. This is why some well-meaning authors feel obliged to characterize otherwise “solid” inerrantist biblical scholars as outright and duplicitous liberals.

But at the same time there are non-inerrantist, evangelical writers who would describe these same, “solid” inerrantist biblical scholars as thinly disguised fundamentalists. In other words, they have not come nearly far enough to meaningfully distinguish them from the more strict inerrantists. How can both dynamics be at work at the same time when people write about the doctrine of scripture?

The fact that both descriptions are being presented at the same time suggests that the slippery slope model is not doing justice to the state of affairs within evangelicalism today. What is needed is a new picture.

A new “maximizing faithfulness” picture:

Notice how this graph does not encourage believers to correlate faithfulness with being wary of historical criticism. Instead, it points believers toward a faithful appropriation of it.

It also does not predispose believers to correlate the appropriation of historical criticism with its most extreme adherents. By replacing the slippery slope picture with a maximizing faithfulness picture, we might takes some positive steps toward becoming less reactionary in our thinking toward historical criticism by jettisoning the either/or thinking that surfaces among inerrantists. We can reflect more carefully on both the importance of faithfulness and historical critical readings of scripture.

Of course, this leaves open such questions as “How much historical criticism is too much (or not enough?)” or “At what point on the curve is inerrancy no longer a viable category or is historical criticism actually not being practiced but only paid lip-service?” These are legitimate questions, but answering them wasn’t the purpose behind wanting to come up with a new picture.

The purpose behind suggesting the new picture is to help inerrantists get out of the slippery slope way of looking at things so that we can all begin thinking more intently about the legitimate place of historical criticism and still honestly believe (and treat each other like we believe) that the other Christians we are talking to, the ones who we so adamantly disagree with, are also trying to maximize faithfulness just as much as we are.

- Carlos

What is Christian "Moralistic Therapeutic Deism" (MTD)?

I am afraid that it is becoming increasingly harder to find the gospel in America.

It is either wrapped so tightly in the flag as to be virtually invisible or relegated to a

footnote to messages about “success in living,” being nice and including everyone.

- Roger Olson

"I am always amazed at how much time we spend removing the hooks from our lives.

Self-made hooks of the flesh, sin, failure, apathy, greed, pride, self-righteousness. Or,

church-wielded hooks of legalism, works righteousness, acts of personal denial, acts of

self-vaunting holiness, mock pride, and so forth. Or even the deeper hooks of harm, 

anger, guilt, uneasy consciences, theft, greed, and hate. We are deeply flawed people

in need of an earthy Savior risen victoriously over the depths of our sin who can provide

the salve of redemption only God may administer within the fabric of our broken lives."

- A Psychology Counselor and past Pastor

What is MTD?

Part 1

What Is a NT Church Anyway?

How does one define "actual historic Christianity?" I would submit there is no such thing as any one, single form of Christianity but only what we might fancy it to be in our mental reconstructions of idealisms and Utopian dreams of a New Testament church community of believers thrown about by sentimental words in place of historic actualities. A mere glimpse into the lives of the Corinthians, Galatians, or Judean churches shows just how non-actualized these first century churches were to the dream of being true, authenticating Christ-filled churches.

And to that end, in the looong sense of Christian history gleaned from the many tomes of gathered church doctrines, exposés, theologies, expositions, biographies, failures and events, do we perhaps even now have at this moment an idea of what might be an "actual historic Christianity" as we would like to exclaim to naive ears about us. The kind that pulpiteering pontiffs and media darlings like to describe as the "New Testament kind" of historic Christianity. A kind that I will wager was as much misunderstood and as rarely discovered then in the days of the Apostles as it is even now in the church of the present tense.

More mundanely is the sense of the term historic. For yes, it is a historical truth that the church then as now - both the New Testament kind, and the modern / post-modern kind - each have had their own lived experiences of God's actualizing power within their midst. For ultimately it is Christ Jesus Himself who is our epitome of faith and living, service and suffering, leadership and partnering, to the world about. Not any one fellowship at a certain time and place that is most pure, most holy, most God-fearing. Nay, that church will be the eschatological church of the future whose people will rest in God from all their labors in the Day of His Coming and not until. This church will then be the fully realized, "actualized" embodiment of all that Christ promised in His historic incarnation and incarnated resurrection and incarnated glorification. And not until then. It will be the church of the Kingdom become the Kingdom of God amongst men.


Introduction to Sin and Sanctification

In fact, I would submit that with every era, millennia, century, decade, and generation of the church the content and conversation of what and how the Christian faith can be described changes from one moment to the next based upon its audience and adherents at the time that it is being discussed.

If we pursue a fluid definition of Christianity within an existential sociological matrix we should find a Christian faith that reflects the mood of its culture, country, community, or social group. The trick is to start with wherever we are at and to allow the God of our Christian faith to move this faith towards Him in whatever way it needs to be moved and away from our conception of what its religion should look like in our own mind's eye and heart.

As such, today's Americanized Christian faith is fraught with consumerism, exceptionalism, entitlement, and self-actualization among other things, and all centered around a "feel good" gospel. But where in the church's vast labyrinths of history has this not been true? We see its enclaves throughout church history (think of the Roman times with its hedonistic excesses) and predominantly today in the 21st century as an outgrowth to the modernism that preceded it in the 20th century.

If anything, the post-modernism of this current era is helping us to understand that we are especially influenced by modernism's hedonisms, excesses, and moment-by-moment need to define ourselves by what we do, consume, spend, and make time for. And if we can recognize a thing than we can do something about those very things that so perversely influence us in the power of God's Holy Spirit. 

But a thing unrecognized is a thing not re-centered into the person of Christ so that we ourselves now inhabit its center by whatever thing we do - whether religious or not. In essence, the gods of this world are not diminished and de-centered should they go unrecognized and not submitted to the cross of Christ. In more simple terms, the New Testament describes this process of re-centering as a way of "putting off the flesh" and "putting on Christ and His work of salvation for us." The church knows it by its doctrinal name of "sanctification."

And yet, even the historic Christian practices of "putting off" and "putting on" can still reflect the cultural products that we have become. Try as we may, even Christian ministries done for Jesus can become an uplifting source of self-redemption before God showing Him just how good we are. Or how He must accept us. Or even act in a way that would redeem us from the guilts and transgressions of our past by our own hands. Trading predominantly God-first activities for me-first activities all the while neglecting the sublime truths that we are already accepted of God, loved, and forgiven as His children redeemed in Christ.

Thus is the power of the old man in our lives so that even when we would do acts of righteousness in God's name sin can still linger on as a residue of self-righteousness, pride, ego, or a host of other vagaries unknown, unrecognized, or unrelented at the time. Whether we do works for ourselves or works for God the old man is always at work to degrade something good and beautiful into ugly, misshapen forms. It is a continual fight and struggle and one best done in the power of the Holy Spirit.

The answer? Examine ourselves and continue as we can. And in the continuing keep to a repentant and confessional mind and heart that worships God, gives Him the glory due His name, and never ceases from daily submission to God as the One who moves us to live Christ-filled lives brought into submission to His mission, ministry, and acclaim of well-done thou good and faithful servant blood-bought by the Lamb of God.

In this life we can never be free of ourselves. Nor, do I think, must we be free of ourselves. It is wisdom to know who we are - and in the knowing to use what gifts God has given to us for His honor and glory. But this is an article for another time. An article emphasizing the positive sense of being and expression, doing and service, behaving and believing.

An Appearance of Righteousness is not True Right-ness

As such, part of what we fight as Christians is a large tendency towards thinking that denying ourselves by acts of deprivation, monkish lifestyles, self-scourgings, and/or various types of religious legalisms (those do's and don'ts the church always is preaching) are approved of God when actually they are replacing Christ's salvation with our own "good works" in place of His divine atonement.

Substituting the one thing for the other may have a semblance of "righteousness" about it when, in fact, we are simply substituting "religion" as we think of it within an enlarged concept of ourselves "saving" ourselves. In essence, we wish to present ourselves to God by our own hands-and-work than by Christ's crucified hands and suffering servanthood.

Hence, however right a religious act may seem, or good it may feel, or godly it may appear, nothing that we can do or say can ever put away or avoid the legalistic nature of our old man. Truly, the only thing our salvation must rest on must be Christ alone and His atoning work. Not our own fleshly works of self-righteousness as substitutionary works in Christ's place.

Man can never be his own saviour though he attempts it in a million different ways. Nor can any mere act of the flesh remove the redeeming work of God through Christ as man's Saviour and Lord. Pride is not the first sin of the bible however much it is quoted. No, our greatest urge - whether unsaved or saved - is to present ourselves as our own embodiment of salvation to God. Otherwise known as legalism in all its many acts of self-approving works righteousness.

Thus and thus it is better to accept ourselves as we are and what we are and to take those reflections and submit them to Christ. To thank God for how He made us and shun as we can the old man of our spiritual life so that we may become in the Holy Spirit's care "jars of clay" whose only value is that of service regardless of the shape, colour, or make of the pot. We each are valuable to God when we bear the good news of His salvation within ourselves and towards others. It matters not our composition or exterior. It matters most our service to Almighty God and Lover of our Souls. Amen.

R.E. Slater

December 15, 2014

What is MTD?

Part 2

Non-Sequitur Arguments

So then, has American Christianity become "moralistic therapeutic deism?" Whether it is or isn't doesn't suggest that moralism or Christ-centered therapy is wrong (notice I have purposely moved the term "therapy" towards a positive reconstruction and not a negative one as implied in the Wikipedia article below). But more a cultural definition that seeks practical Christian living with necessary outcomes.

If dogma is stripped from the church then what would the Christian faith look like? I suggest these elements and more.... That Christianity is a moral faith outwardly focused on others benefits, protection, and justice, and less on oneself. And that it is therapeutic in the sense that the Christian faith will attend to the scars, harms, open wounds, guilts, and inner sufferings and turmoils of the inner man. That the process of Spirit sanctification will occur within the lives of God's children as they re-orient their attitudes and spirits towards God's plans and purposes in their own lives and away from the harms, vengeance, trials, and troubles in this wicked world.

In essence, though Christianity can be broken down into its component parts such as being kind to others, thoughtful, helpful, nourishing of self and others, yet no one of its parts can contain the whole. In other words, no one piece of the puzzle makes the whole puzzle. It must come in all of its component parts to attain the whole. And the whole is more than moralism and more than personal or social therapy. The whole is God Himself through Christ Jesus our Lord and Savior. It is in Christ that any form of social good, reconstruction, or justice may be obtain however much we wish to make it regenerative from ourselves alone. Without the self-regenerating God as its foundation-and-lifeblood there can be no regeneration except a world regenerative in sin and madness.

The Struggle of Faith in Living

However the deistic aspect cannot be central to Christianity though many times it has become this very thing both on a pagan level as well as for strong Calvinist expressions of faith. I mention this latter because such dogma has removed God from the tissue of His incarnate ministry in this life through the Holy Spirit rather than entertain how God has radically infilled this world and our lives through Christ's resurrection.

Discussions focusing on less separateness of God from us (words like holiness and sin) and more presence of God together with us (words like love, forgiveness, fellowship, empowerment) may indicate a more moderate Christian faith less certain of extreme statements and harsh judgementalism towards self, others, and mankind in general.

In fact, this kind of Christian faith may be more willing to reach out to all people without quantifiers, exceptions, or expectations (except for the expectation that Jesus based living and ministry may have its fruits). This type of faith may be moralistic or therapy driven from the harms of this world but it also sees God as seential front-and-center to very life itself through Christ Jesus. And if God is present than it is anything but deistic. (And less the reader becomes confused, holiness and sin are not denied here so much as rearranged within our Christian lexicography).

Lastly, a more proper naming of MTD may be as MTT - that is, a Christian faith that is not so much deistic but theistic. Deism perceives God as unknowable except through logic and reason thinking of God as distant and removed from His creation. Whereas Theism perceives God at all times and in all places as present (whether He is known by logic, reason, perception, or through His very Word, the Bible itself as special revelation). However, the wrinkle is just how present we allow this God to be in our lives. If we think not of God until we need Him than this theistic God is practically become deistic for us, and so on.

Even so, as Christian brothers and sisters, we must bind ourselves together into mutually united enclaves of Christian fellowships urging each onwards into the life of Christ in every thing we say and do. For it is this Christ who is our life and breath even as we are His people whom He loves and adores. Amen

R.E. Slater

December 12, 2014

Exerpts from Wikipedia: MTD

http://reslater.blogspot.com/2011/09/can-there-be-reconciliation-that-may-be.html

Authors' analysis

The authors say the system is "moralistic" because it "is about inculcating a moralistic approach to life. It teaches that central to living a good and happy life is being a good, moral person."[5] The authors describe the system as being "about providing therapeutic benefits to its adherent" as opposed to being about things like "repentance from sin, of keeping the Sabbath, of living as a servant of a sovereign divine, of steadfastly saying one's prayers, of faithfully observing high holy days, of building character through suffering..."[6] and further as "belief in a particular kind of God: one who exists, created the world, and defines our general moral order, but not one who is particularly personally involved in one's affairs—especially affairs in which one would prefer not to have God involved."[7]

The remoteness of God in this kind of theism explains the choice of the term "Deism", even though "the Deism here is revised from its classical eighteenth-century version by the therapeutic qualifier, making the distant God selectively available for taking care of needs." It views God as "something like a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist: he's always on call, takes care of any problems that arise, professionally helps his people to feel better about themselves, and does not become too personally involved in the process."[8]

The authors believe that "a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually only tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian tradition, but has rather substantially morphed into Christianity's misbegotten stepcousin, Christian Moralistic Therapeutic Deism."[9]

CNN online featured an article, "More Teens Becoming Fake Christians" on Kenda Creasy Dean's 2010 book Almost Christian: What the Faith of Our Teenagers is Telling the American Church. (Oxford University Press, 2010). She writes, "The problem does not seem to be that churches are teaching young people badly, but that we are doing an exceedingly good job of teaching youth what we really believe, namely, that Christianity is not a big deal, that God requires little, and the church is a helpful social institution filled with nice people…" She goes on to say that "if churches practice MTD in the name of Christianity, then getting teenagers to church more often is not the solution (conceivably it could make things worse). A more faithful church is the solution…. Maybe the issue is simply that the emperor has no clothes."[10]

Criticism

Deist writers have leveled two criticisms against use of the term Moralistic Therapeutic Deism. First, it has been argued that the word "Deism" has been too radically redefined by the coiners of the phrase. Deism in the classical sense means belief in an intelligent designer arrived at through reason and observation of the natural world. One critic states that, "the 'religion' called Moralistic Therapeutic Deism would be more accurately called Moralistic Therapeutic Theism. There is no reason to invent the phrase Moralistic Therapeutic Deism to begin with—because it is, as has already been stated many times, merely a diluted version of the revealed religion that already exists. In truth, it holds no relationship with Deism as we know it."[11]

A second criticism against use of the term is that it is essentially vacuous since, as the originators of the term even admit, "no teenager would actually use the terminology 'Moralistic Therapeutic Deist' to describe himself or herself,"[5] and since the term is always applied relative to one's own position on a spectrum of adherence to or ignorance of Christian scripture and tradition. As one critic argues, "The case for this can be especially strengthened when you consider the issue of executing disobedient children, as we discussed earlier [referring to Deuteronomy 21:18–21]. Almost no Christians actually follow that part of the Bible. . . . To an extent, then, all Christians fit into the MTD category—the only difference between American teens and the rest of them is that American teens hold the beliefs of MTD to a higher degree, and therefore hold the beliefs of traditional Christianity to a lesser degree."[11]

* * * * * * * * * * * *

American Christianity – Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism

http://prodigalthought.net/2014/05/24/american-christianity-moralistic-therapeutic-deism/

Posted on May 24, 2014

Roger Olson, Professor of Theology at George W. Truett Seminary of Baylor University, recently posted an interesting article in which he engages with the findings of a sociological study of youth religion in the United States. The study was carried out from 2003 to 2005 by sociologist of religion, Christian Smith, and his colleague, Melinda Denton. The study was also recapped in the book Almost Christian, authored by Kenda Creasy Dean, professor of youth culture and ministry at Princeton Theological Seminary.

Read more from Olson here. But I’d like to note some reflections of Princeton professor Kenda Dean in her book Almost Christian:

The religion that is replacing “actual historical Christian religion” in America, especially among young people, is labeled MTD [Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism]. Dean…summarizes MTD with five beliefs: 1) A god exists who created and orders the world and watches over life on earth, 2) God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions, 3) The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself, 4) God is not involved in my life except when I need God to resolve a problem, and 5) Good people go to heaven when they die. (p. 14)

Olson continues in his blog post:

Dean interprets this trend and the prevalence of MTD as accommodation to “the American way” and implies it is the fruition of two centuries of churches adopting that as their real gospel. The goal is “success in life” and the American way of self-actualization and acquisition of goods and being nice to others is the path to the goal.

I would concur that this seems to be the prevailing undercurrent to the Christian faith for at least much of the Bible-belt culture of the southeastern U.S., if not the whole of America. Honestly, at times, I can find it running through my own veins, encapsulated by a couple of major words: entitlement and consumerism.

We, as a community of people, not just individuals, think we’re owed the good, American [Christian] life. And this works its way out in a myriad of practical ways on a daily basis. And we continually approach church with the question: What can you do for me?

I’m here to gain a service, entertain me.

It’s a far cry from Paul’s declaration that the wisdom and power of God is truly seen through the lens of Christ crucified. Counter-cultural, for Rome then and America today, to say the least.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

A Shocking Conclusion about American Christianity

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2014/05/a-shocking-conclusion-about-american-christianity/

A God without wrath

brought men without sin

into a kingdom without judgment

through the ministrations of

a Christ without a cross.”

- H. Richard Niebuhr

by Roger Olson

May 19, 2014

Comments

I’m not an expert in or scholar of “youth ministry,” but many of my students are either doing youth ministry or plan to. For some time now I’ve been hearing a lot about something called “Moralistic, Therapeutic Deism” (MTD for short). From 2003 to 2005 sociologist of religion Christian Smith and his colleague Melinda Denton carried out a massive study of youth religion in the United States. It was called the “National Study of Youth and Religion” (NSYR). They summed up the overall results with this shocking conclusion:

We have come with some confidence to believe that a significant part of Christianity in the United States is actually only tenuously Christian in any sense that is seriously connected to the actual historical Christian religion. … It is not so much that U.S. Christianity is being secularized. Rather, more subtly, Christianity is either degenerating into a pathetic version of itself or, more significantly, Christianity is actively being colonized and displaced by quite a different religious faith. (italics added) (quoted in Kenda Creasy Dean, Almost Christian, p. 3)

This sounds like a “the sky is falling!” doomsday prophecy—only not about what will happen but about what has happened. Of course, neither Smith and Denton nor interpreter Dean thinks this is a total picture; they are talking about a massive trend allowing many exceptions.

The religion that is replacing “actual historical Christian religion” in America, especially among young people, is labeled MTD. Dean, a professor of youth culture and ministry at Princeton Theological Seminary, summarizes MTD with five beliefs:

1) A god exists who created and orders the world and watches over life on earth,

2) God wants people to be good, nice, and fair to each other, as taught in the Bible and by most world religions,

3) The central goal of life is to be happy and to feel good about oneself,

4) God is not involved in my life except when I need God to resolve a problem, and

5) Good people go to heaven when they die. (p. 14)

Dean interprets this trend and the prevalence of MTD as accommodation to “the American way” and implies it is the fruition of two centuries of churches adopting that as their real gospel.

The goal is “success in life” and the American way of self-actualization and acquisition of goods and being nice to others is the path to the goal.

Churches tend to support this, she says.

Years ago sociologist of religion Dean Hoge said much the same thing about American Christianity. Here is what I wrote down then on a three-by-five card. Unfortunately I didn’t write down the source, but I think it was in an article in Christian Century sometime in the 1980s:

For the typical Protestant church member[middle class commitments to family, career, and standard of living] are so strong that church commitment is largely instrumental to them and contingent on whether the church appears to serve them. As a result, many local churches tend to become instruments for achieving middle class interests, whether or not these interests can be defended in New Testament terms. (italics added)

Of course, what’s new (maybe) is the identification of contemporary American Christianity as “MTD.”

So where does that come from? I would suggest the influence of Oprah Winfrey explains much of it. Of course, all the ingredients were already there—Deism, moralism, therapeutic religion.

But the recipe and actual spirituality, such as it is, so I think, is popularized by Winfrey and those she promotes through her books, television show (now in reruns) and cable network. By all accounts Winfrey is one of the most powerful and influential people in American culture. I used to watch her program to try to keep up with popular culture. It didn’t take me long to discern that it was promoting a spirituality of self-actualization and morality of being nice under the guise of a kind of stripped-down, easy to believe and live Christianity. I preferred Phil Donahue because he was openly hostile to traditional Christianity so at least it was apparent to all traditional Christians where he stood.

I have long thought that Smith, Denton and Dean were right—even before I read them. When I read the New Testament and Christian history and put them alongside contemporary American mainline “Christianity” I find the contrast stark and shocking. The only way someone can think most of what goes on in American churches is authentically Christian is not to read the Bible, the church fathers, the reformers, and the great thinkers and evangelists of all denominations.

Even fundamentalist churches are not immune. They may not be into MTD and might even fight against it, but much of what they do is incommensurable with New Testament and historic Christianity.

Recently I attended two self-identified fundamentalist Baptist churches—just to see what they are like. Both advertise themselves and “welcome” visitors. One of them advertises its weekly “concealed weapons safety course.” The same one announces that it requires leaders of the church to wear ties (without designating when or where). The other one dedicated about half of its Sunday morning “worship service” to Mother’s Day. The sermon was about honoring parents but the preacher focused mostly on “beating” kids into submission. (I do not exaggerate; he used the word “beat,” not “spank,” and advocated use of belts for even the most minor infractions.) The sermon bordered on endorsing child abuse with the purpose of “breaking their wills” so that they will become “good citizens obedient to authority.” The American flag was not only hanging on its pole at the back of the “platform” but also hanging above the platform from the ceiling facing the congregation. (Those two churches are in a state where the bumper sticker “God, Guns and Guts” is popular.)

Well, none of that is exactly what Smith, Denton, Dean or Hoge were talking about. My point is that even churches that claim to resist cultural accommodation often fall into it. In fact, I suspect that every church will succumb to cultural accommodation unless it consciously guards against it. (And by “accommodation” here I do not mean contextualization, adapting to the culture for the sake of communication of the gospel; I mean subversion of the gospel by culture’s alien habits, customs, beliefs and practices.)

I am afraid that it is becoming increasingly harder to find the gospel in America. It is either wrapped so tightly in the flag as to be virtually invisible or relegated to a footnote to messages about “success in living,” being nice and including everyone.

Again, this is not a new situation; other countries have experienced it to their shame. A German theologian said that when he goes to church he listens for the gospel but comes away thinking the gospel was what should have been said (or sung) but wasn’t. The German Christians of the 1930s certainly didn’t think they were accommodating the gospel to a culture alien to it; they thought they were discovering new dimensions of the gospel that would bring revival to their churches. How strange, we think. But when I really press my students from other cultures to say what they think of American Christianity they’re generally not very complimentary.

I suspect what we need in American Christianity is to take a step back and consider as dispassionately and objectively as possible how much like New Testament Christianity ours is:

• Where is the tension between our faith and cultural fads that arise from materialism and individualism?

• How much sacrifice is involved in being an American Christian today?

• Why do we not hear or talk about heaven?

• Are we too comfortable here and now?

• Where is conviction for sin?

Is H. Richard Niebuhr’s prophetic quip about liberal Protestantism fitting for even many “evangelical” churches today? (“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”)

Smith’s and Denton’s conclusion is stark and frightening and hopefully extreme. But we American Christians should heed it anyway and consider ourselves in its light: "How like New Testament and historic Christianity is ours? What have we lost?"