Human Evolution. How Does it Fit with the Recent Discovery of the genus, "Homo Naledi?"

Growing up as a conservative evangelical Christian I had been taught to consider the story of human evolution as spurious to the Word of God. Over the decades I have reconsidered all the arguments for special creation and against evolutionary creation and now deem my earlier education misdirected. That I may now rightly hold to progressive creationism (as opposed to immediate creationism) and consider it "divinely supernatural and special."

That the Creator God of the universe had supernaturally decreed creation's possibility using the operands of randomness and chaos and be ruled by the teleological principle of life as "always tilting towards biologic struggle and survival" regardless of the (toxic) eco-environments this struggle might occur within. As example, oxygen was a deadly toxin to evolutionary life at one time. As such, at all times the equation of "life" will be tilted towards the principles of creative "freedom" within a weak entropic system (which posits ultimate chaos) against a strong entropic system (which posits ultimate determinism) thus allowing for an evolutionary progression whereby the Sovereign Creator may have fellowship of a kind with His creation.

This then is the scientific teleology of evolution by the decree of its Creator God as proceeding from His very being and essence of love. A chaotic system always tilted towards life of some form. To the Christian, this teleology might take its ultimate form in a chaotic cosmic/natural system driving towards biotic enrichment, thriving biotas, and creative imagining. This may also be known as the Christian hope, which is a kind of theological eschatalogy coupled with Jesus' rule (I prefer the idea of divine participation) of love and goodwill with mankind and creation itself. Thus, evoloution's teleology can unfold toward the Christian hope of loving fellowship between, within, without, and everywhere about, all things (what the process theologian might know as panentheism's complex of driving relationships).

Once realizing this, I have lately, in recent years, worked towards describing how this progressive evolutionary creation may exist both on a doctrinal level as well as on a scientific one without going beyond the bounds of modern science (excepting, of course, that I write of it from a theologic and not an agnostic, or a/theistic, viewpoint).

And so, in today's posting, I wish to further explore the idea of human evolution through its taxonomical graphs and charts of recent discoveries of the 2.8 million year old homo naledi (star) species. A remarkable discovery found in an ancient graveyard deep underground by a nimble anthropological team of spelunking women who made this phenomenal discovery happen.

Question 1. Why is the chimpanzee closer to the homo genus than the gorilla? And where do orangutans fit in to this zoological chart?

The homo genus has been characterised exclusively as a genus of "bipedal apes" commonly known as "homo erectus" from which the word "humans" derive but differing from the chimpanzee (pan group) which half walks using both legs and all four limbs to travel. The larger family of apes from which humans have descended, such as the gorilla, or orangutan, primarily use all four limbs to travel while occassionally utilizing bi-pedal motion much less of the time than the chimpanzee genus.

Though all come from the superfamily of hominoidea - as can be seen from the taxonomical charts pictured above - as the species continued to evolve it became separated by zoological classifications from tree dwelling apes (gibbons), to partially tree-dwelling apes (orangutans), to ground/tree dwelling apes (gorillas), to ground/tree dwelling semi-bipedal apes (bonobos, chimpanzees), to exclusively ground dwelling bipedal apes (man).

The chart consequently shows how the chimpanzee genus is further removed from the gorilla genus and is more closely linked to the human genus. This is also supported by evolutionary genetic studies. As a result, the common chimpanzee and the bonobo (pygmy or dwarf chimp) of the genus Pan are the closest living evolutionary relatives to humans, sharing a common ancestry with humans from about four to seven million years ago."

At the perspective of a time-scale, this elapsed period of time also evidences the divergence of humans from chimpanzees. More specifically, the final separation of the Homo genus from the Pan genus is approxiamately 2.8 million years old thus showing us of the importance of the recent "Homo Naledi" cave discovery in August of 2015 in South Africa's Star Cave system.

What does this mean theologically?

In evolutionary terms it is pretty plain how human creation evolved from anthropological studies of the ape. And in theological terms, the passages in Genesis provide an ancient (Hebrew) tribal explanation to creation in non-evolutionary terms as this anthropology was unknown then. However, many well-meaning, Christians have attempted to show a 1:1 correlation between Genesis 1 with either progressive or immediate "theistic evolution" which would be an interpretive error both from a cultural standpoint as well as from a scientific one. At this time ancient man, such as the Semetic and Hebraic tribes, had no knowledge of either science or evolution. Moreover, the implication by theologians of insinuating human guidance by divine authorship supra-intending over a culture's era-specific ignorance is also a conjectural error to the surmise of textual formation.

The take away? Rather than getting hung up on a literal reading or correlation of the Genesis creation stories we may be confident that creation derives from a Creator who crafted an unusually complex method of creation by using all the ingredients of evolution to obtain the current results we are biologically familiar with. And that its testimony in Genesis is simply a literary account by the ancients using mythological description to describe this very same event in their own lay terms and knowledge of their day.

What does this mean? That God is neither denied nor mocked. That He is still Creator-Redeemer and shown to be intimately involved with His creation from whatever direction it came. Similarly, the bible is brought back down to reality, it is no longer made a mystical nor irrelevant collection of ancient manuscripts, and that we might rightly "divide / interpret" it more attuned or appropriately to its times and cultures. Which also means that this same Creator-Redeemer God then is active in our societies and cosmos today as much as He was beforetimes. We have lost nothing except our mistaken impulses to defend or mock our Creator. He needs no defense because He is. And any mockery but shows our deep shallowness to the everyday realities about us.

Too, we must now come to understand that evolution is always occurring - both in our present day as well as in the future beyond us. That it is a process which never stops. That underneath life itself is the continuing titanic struggle of biologic life to always exist despite the (toxic) eco-environments now present or occurring in the future.

This is the marvel of God's creation and the cosmic/biologic equation He has set in place so that at any present moment we, as homo sapiens (human beings), might have fellowship with our Creator-Redeemer, or any derivations of ourselves in ages future. But as humans, we cannot assume we are in exclusive communication with our Creator alone. Even the Psalmists and Prophets have written of the mountains and valleys, seas and skies, trees and fields, and all the living things on earth, as having a "form of communication" with its Creator. That it "delights" in His fellowship, "dances," "sings for joy," and "claps its hands" in response to His Almighty voice. Nay, we are not alone in our praise and dependence upon our Creator God who loves His creation and draws us toward Him into divine fellowship with one-and-all.

And though I do not encourage any form of "supernatural mystical communication" with the trees and mountains, birds and bees, still we find in the poetry and essays of human journals the deep realization that all things are connected and in communication with itself and its Creator God. What I might describe as a form of (process) panpsychism; but again, without getting all crazy and mystical about this observation. As we walk creation's fields and meadows, swim its streams and dive below its waters, we sense God's almighty hand of authorship in its templed majesties and shrouded veils of glory. The godfathers of ecology, John Muir, Henry David Thoreau, and Aldo Leopold, each in their own way reveled in this divine communion connecting humanity's existence even to the original American Indians who sensed the same in their animistic Spirit stories of creational connectedness and sacred fellowship.

Conclusion

To read Genesis then is to read it NOT in an evolutionary context but as (i) an ancient composition set within a paleo-creational understanding of a Creator-God named for His creational activity and perceived by the ancient's supernaturally curious wonder of life's many complex spheres of divine / human / creational interactions; (ii) that into creation's holy charters came creational indeterminacy and sentient freewill struggling between goodness and evil, order and disorder, each redefining the other in terms of fellowship and holiness; (iii) an immediate communion and fellowship with the Creator God and what it may mean for creation and mankind; (iv) that within this communion of struggle, of obedience, and willfulness, both creation and humanity came to be pitted against its God, each other, and themselves; (v) which is then described in terms of "life and death, light and darkness" within the hallowed altars of holy communion; (vi) that with death came the promise of God to be not only "Creator" but "Redeemer" - not only to mankind but to His holy creation as well; and finally, (vii) this holy redemption would come by grace and mercy, forgiveness and resurrection. This then is the fuller story of Genesis when read apart from its more popular classical or literal understanding rejecting evolution. It was what the ancients saw then of God's promise and what we need to see now in our dilemma between science, anthropology, and faith.

To this marvel of God's complex creation we may only bow our heads and utter, "Thank you O blessed Redeemer for your promise of life in the midst of death. Praise you for your wisdom and goodness and grace. For the majesty of your name and the councils of your justice when all things will be made new, and good, and holy, once more. Amen."

R.E. Slater

September 13, 2015
edited September 26, 2015; March 17, 2020

* * * * * * * * * * *

Hominini

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominini

Not to be confused with Hominoidea, Hominidae, Homininae, or Hominina.

The Hominini is a tribe of the subfamily Homininae; it comprises three subtribes: Hominina, with its one genus Homo; Australopithecina, comprising several extinct genera (see taxobox); and Panina, with its one genus Pan, the chimpanzees (see the evolutionary tree below).[3][4] Members of the human clade, that is, the Hominini, including Homo and those species of theaustralopithecines that arose after the split from the chimpanzees, are called hominins; cf. Hominidae; terms "hominids" and hominins).

The subtribe Hominina is the "human" branch; that is, it contains the genus Homo exclusively. Researchers proposed the taxon Hominini on the basis that the least similar species of atrichotomy should be separated from the other two. The common chimpanzee and the bonobo of the genus Pan are the closest living evolutionary relatives to humans, sharing a common ancestor with humans about four to seven million years ago.[5] Research by Mary-Claire King in 1973 found 99% identical DNA between human beings and chimpanzees;[6] later research modified that finding to about 94% commonality, with some of the difference occurring in noncoding DNA.[7]

Sahelanthropus tchadensis is an extinct hominid species that lived 7 million years ago, very close to the time of the chimpanzee–human divergence. It is unclear whether or not it may be classed as hominin—that is, whether it rose after the split from the chimpanzees, or not.

A source of confusion in determining the exact age of the Pan–Homo split is evidence of a complex speciation process rather than a clean split between the two lineages. Different chromosomes appear to have split at different times, possibly over as much as a 4-million-year period, indicating a long and drawn out speciation process with large-scale hybridization events between the two emerging lineages as late as 6.3 to 5.4 million years ago according to Patterson et al. (2006).[8] The assumption of late hybridization was in particular based on the similarity of the X chromosome in humans and chimpanzees, suggesting a divergence as late as some 4 million years ago. This conclusion was rejected as unwarranted by Wakeley (2008), who suggested alternative explanations, including selection pressure on the X chromosome in the populations ancestral to the chimpanzee–human last common ancestor (CHLCA).[9]

All the extinct genera listed in the taxobox are ancestral to, or offshoots of, Homo. Few fossil specimens on the Pan side of the split have been found—the first discovery of a fossil chimpanzee was published in 2005;[10] it was from Kenya's East African Rift Valley and dated to between 545 thousand years, radiometric, (kyr) and 284 kyr (via argon–argon dating). However, both Orrorin and Sahelanthropus existed around the time of the split, and so may be ancestral to both Pan and Homo.

In the proposal of Mann and Weiss (1996),[11] the tribe Hominini includes Pan as well as Homo, but within separate subtribes. Homo and (by inference) all bipedal apes are referred to the subtribe Hominina, while Pan is assigned to the subtribe Panina. Wood (2010) discusses the different views of this taxonomy.[12]

* * * * * * * * * * *

Lee R. Berger, a professor of human evolution studies at the University of

the Witwatersrand  in Johannesburg, unveiled a previously unidentified species

of the early human lineage — Homo naledi. By REUTERS on Publish Date

Homo Naledi, New Species in Human Lineage, Is Found in South African Cave

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/science/south-africa-fossils-new-species-human-ancestor-homo-naledi.html?_r=0

by John Noble Wildord

September 10, 2015

Acting on a tip from spelunkers two years ago, scientists in South Africadiscovered what the cavers had only dimly glimpsed through a crack in a limestone wall deep in the Rising Star Cave: lots and lots of old bones.

The remains covered the earthen floor beyond the narrow opening. This was, the scientists concluded, a large, dark chamber for the dead of a previously unidentified species of the early human lineage — Homo naledi.

The new hominin species was announced on Thursday by an international team of more than 60 scientists led by Lee R. Berger, an American paleoanthropologist who is a professor of human evolution studies at the University of the Witwatersrand in Johannesburg. The species name, H. naledi, refers to the cave where the bones lay undisturbed for so long; “naledi” means “star” in the local Sesotho language.

In two papers published this week in the open-access journal eLife, the researchers said that the more than 1,550 fossil elements documenting the discovery constituted the largest sample for any hominin species in a single African site, and one of the largest anywhere in the world. Further, the scientists said, that sample is probably a small fraction of the fossils yet to be recovered from the chamber. So far the team has recovered parts of at least 15 individuals.

“With almost every bone in the body represented multiple times, Homo naledi is already practically the best-known fossil member of our lineage,” Dr. Berger said.

The finding, like so many others in science, was the result of pure luck followed by considerable effort.

Two local cavers, Rick Hunter and Steven Tucker, found the narrow entrance to the chamber, measuring no more than seven and a half inches wide. They were skinny enough to squeeze through, and in the light of their headlamps they saw the bones all around them. When they showed the fossil pictures to Pedro Boshoff, a caver who is also a geologist, he alerted Dr. Berger, who organized an investigation.

"Just getting into the chamber and bringing out samples proved to be a huge challenge.

The narrow opening was the only way in." - Lee Burger

Paul Dirks, a geologist at James Cook University in Australia, who was lead author of the journal paper describing the chamber, said the investigators first had a steep climb up a stone block called the Dragon’s Back and then a drop down to the entrance passage — all of this in the total absence of natural light.

For the two extended investigations of the chamber in 2013 and 2014, Dr. Berger rounded up the international team of scientists and then recruited six excavating scientists through notices on social media. One special requirement: They had to be slender enough to crawl through that crack in the wall.

One of the six, who were all women and were called “underground astronauts,” was Marina Elliott of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia. She said the collection and removal of the fossils involved “some of the most difficult and dangerous conditions ever encountered in the search for human origins.”

Photo by the New York Times

Besides introducing a new member of the prehuman family, the discovery suggests that some early hominins intentionally deposited bodies of their dead in a remote and largely inaccessible cave chamber, a behavior previously considered limited to modern humans. Some of the scientists referred to the practice as a ritualized treatment of their dead, but by “ritual” they said they meant a deliberate and repeated practice, not necessarily a kind of religious rite.

Pieces of a skeleton of Homo naledi, a newly discovered human species.

CreditJohn Hawks/University of Wisconsin-Madison, via European Pressphoto Agency

“It’s very, very fascinating,” said Ian Tattersall, an authority on human evolution at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who was not involved in the research.

“No question there’s at least one new species here,” he added, “but there may be debate over the Homo designation, though the species is quite different from anything else we have seen.”

A colleague of Dr. Tattersall’s at the museum, Eric Delson, who is a professor at Lehman College of the City University of New York, was also impressed, saying, “Berger does it again!”

Dr. Delson was referring to Dr. Berger’s previous headline discovery, published in 2010, also involving cave deposits near Johannesburg. He found many fewer fossils that time, but enough to conclude that he was looking at a new species, which he named Australopithecus sediba. Geologists said the individuals lived 1.78 million to 1.95 million years ago, when australopithecines and early species of Homo were contemporaries.

Lee R. Berger, leader of a research team, in the Rising Star Cave near Johannesburg,

where over 1,550 fossil elements were found. CreditNaashon Zalk for The New York Times

* * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * *

An expert all-women team of anthropologists dared the suffocating passages
of the South African Star Cave system. Kudos!

A Mighty Girl

https://www.facebook.com/amightygirl/photos/a.360833590619627.72897.316489315054055/901760099860304/?type=1&fref=nf&pnref=story

September 11, 2015

The discovery of a new hominin species is making headlines around the world this week but what many people don't realize is that the excavation team that uncovered this historic find was made up of six daring women scientists! The fossils were found at the bottom of a cave system in South Africa; one of the scientists, Marina Elliott, said that their collection and removal involved "some of the most difficult and dangerous conditions ever encountered in the search for human origins.” Thanks to the dedication of these six women, people everywhere will have the opportunity to gain new insight into the development of our species.

Palaeoanthropologist Lee Berger learned about the fossils in Rising Star Cave in October 2013 -- as well as their location, at the bottom of a 36 foot long shaft that gets as narrow as 7 inches across. He put up an ad on Facebook seeking scientists with a background in archaeology or paleontology, but with a catch: “the person must be skinny and preferably small. They must not be claustrophobic, they must be fit, they should have some caving experience, climbing experience would be a bonus.” He remembers thinking that “maybe there were three or four people in the world who would fit that criteria”, but within days he had 60 qualified applicants from around the world. He narrowed those down to six: Marina Elliott from Canada, Elen Feuerriegel from Australia, and K. Lindsay Eaves, Alia Gurtov, Hannah Morris, and Becca Peixotto from the United States.

Elliott, who was finishing a Ph.D. at Simon Fraser University when she saw the ad, was first on the scene. “I was predisposed to extreme environments,” she says. “Telling me that I’d have to do climbing, that it would be underground, and that it would be strange and potentially dangerous… it appealed.” Even still, she vividly recalls her first sight of the chute: “It’s a long crack, punctuated by shark-teeth protrusions. I remember looking down and thinking: I’m not sure I made the right decision." Given the difficulty and potential danger of the climb, Berger nicknamed the team “underground astronauts.”

During the 21-day excavation of the Rising Star cave, the team had to work carefully: “There was so much material and it was friable and delicate,” Elliott says. “And every day, we realized that we were pulling out another 40 or 60 fragments of this thing that was going to be incredible.” She and her five caving teammates excavated a nearly unheard of collection of hominin fossils: 1,550 fragments from at least 15 skeletons, representing a mix of male and female individuals. In the words of Ed Yong of The Atlantic, “To find one complete skeleton of a new hominin would be hitting the paleoanthropological jackpot. To find 15, and perhaps more, is like nuking the jackpot from orbit.”

Debate about Homo naledi’s age and importance in human prehistory, as well as the intriguing possibility that the bones are in the cave as a form of burial ritual, will be ongoing for years, but no one doubts that it represents an extraordinary find. Elliott has remained on the ground in South Africa where she is now directing the field operation and leading expeditions into other caves, eager to discover what else is out there. As she says, “We’re just scratching the surface."

You can read more about the all-female team of “underground astronauts” and this historic find on The Atlantic at http://theatln.tc/1Fzdsxh

To learn about more trailblazing women of science from around the world, we highly recommend the new book "Headstrong: 52 Women Who Changed Science -- And The World," for teen and adult readers, ages 13 and up, at http://www.amightygirl.com/headstrong-52-women

To introduce children to one of the world’s first paleontologists, Mary Anning, we recommend "Mary Anning and The Sea Dragon" for ages 5 to 8 (http://www.amightygirl.com/mary-anning-and-the-sea-dragon), “Stone Girl, Bone Girl” for ages 4 to 8 (http://www.amightygirl.com/stone-girl) and “The Fossil Girl” for ages 5 to 9 (http://www.amightygirl.com/the-fossil-girl)

For a wonderful book about six remarkable women whose curiosity about nature fueled a passion to steadfastly overcome obstacles to careers in traditionally men-only occupations, we recommend "Girls Who Looked Under Rocks: The Lives of Six Pioneering Naturalists" for ages 10 and up at http://www.amightygirl.com/girls-who-looked-under-rocks

If your kids would like to try an excavation of their own, check out the Crystal Mining Kit for ages 5 to 10 (http://www.amightygirl.com/crystal-mining-kit), the Treasures of the Earth Excavation Set for ages 5 to 9 (http://www.amightygirl.com/treasures-of-the-earth), and Smithsonian’s Diggin’ Up Dinos: T-Rex Kit for ages 7 to 12 (http://www.amightygirl.com/diggin-up-dinos-t-rex).

For more of our favorite science toys for igniting your children's curiosity about the natural world, visit our "Science Toys" section at http://www.amightygirl.com/toys/toys-games/science-math

And, if you have a Mighty Girl in your life who won't let any anyone tell her she can't do something because she's a girl, check out the "Though She Be But Little She Is Fierce" t-shirt -- available in a variety of styles and colors for all ages at http://www.amightygirl.com/fierce-t-shirt.

Welcoming Refugees into Your Country

Why Now is The Church's Moment &

It Will Take All of Us Not to Miss It

#WeWelcomeRefugees

5 Ways To Stand Up & Be The Church in

The World’s Worst Refugee Crisis Since World War II

http://www.aholyexperience.com/2015/09/5-ways-to-stand-up-be-the-church-in-the-worlds-worst-refugee-crisis-since-world-war-ii/

by A HOLY EXPERIENCE

September 5, 2015

1. Be Moved

AFP/Getty Images

• QUICK FACTS TO UNDERSTAND THE CRISIS: –> One Stop to Understand it All

• THE WORLD IS IN THE WORST REFUGEE CRISIS SINCE WORLD WAR II.

• AND SYRIA’S CIVIL WAR AND THE RISING OF ISIS IS THE WORST HUMANITARIAN DISASTER OF OUR TIME.

• THE NUMBER OF INNOCENT CIVILIANS SUFFERING: MORE THAN 11 MILLION PEOPLE ARE DISPLACED.

• HALF OF THOSE 11 MILLION REFUGEES ARE UNDER THE AGE OF 18. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS OTHER PEOPLE’S CHILDREN. THEY ARE ALL OF OUR CHILDREN.

• WHY ARE THEY COMING? –> You Must Read this.

They are risking everything, — because these families consider themselves dead already..

Right now Syrians consider themselves dead.

Maybe not physically, but psychologically and socially [a Syrian] is a destroyed human being, he’s reached the point of death.” –> Experience the risk of desperate journey for yourself

–> Tweet a photo of yourself holding a sign saying “Refugees Welcome” and tag your government and or your government representative #refugeecrisis; #refugeeswelcomehere

2. Each One … Do Just One Thing:

Daniel Etter/The New York Times

Mauricio Lima/The New York Times

CHOOSE ONE OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS:

DO FOR ONE WHAT YOU WANT TO DO FOR ALL

–> Mennonite Central Committee

–> World Relief (donate to provide backpacks for resettled children here)

–> World Vision

–> Samaritan’s Purse

–> Doctors Without Borders: Has three rescue ships in the Mediterranean, on Tuesday alone they rescued 1,658 people

–> UNICEF

–> Hand in Hand for Syria: Working within Syrian borders to provide aid. Donations are made via British currency but these are easily converted from US donations during the transaction.

SUPPORT GRASSROOTS EFFORTS

–> Migrant Offshore Aid Station:

Watch how One Family Is Saving the Lives of Thousands of Migrants — Help them?

(More of their unforgettable story here: American Family Use Assets To Save Refugees Headed For Europe)

–> International Rescue Committee

–> Lending a Hand in Hungary for refugees (volunteers bring food, clothing, and emotional support to refugees)

–>Refugees Welcome (for UK and Europe)

3. PURCHASE SPECIFIC NEEDED ITEMS

Bernadett Szabo/Reuters

Alkis Konstantinidis/Reuters

If you’d like to help Syrian refugees stranded on the Greek Island of Lesvos,

see the list below, and mail to:

Hellenic Postal Office of Mythymna

℅ The Captain’s Table

Molyvos 81108, Lesvos, Greece

ITEMS TO SEND for SYRIAN REFUGEES on GREEK ISLAND OF LESVOS:

• Sneakers, gym shoes for men, women and children (all sizes) are a HIGH PRIORITY
• Sweatpants of all sizes.
• Briefs/underwear for men, women and children (all sizes)
• Men’s trousers (small, medium and large) and shoes
• Baby powder milk
• Any non-perishables like nut butters or other long-lasting foods.
• Diapers
• Feminine products
• Sleeping bags
• Plastic to cover the floor/for shade
• Tents/tarpaulin
• Mats (camping or yoga mats)
• Hats and caps for sunshade (adults and children/light colours because of the sun)
• Electric Plug for multiple devices (european voltage)

4. SIGN A PETITION CALLING FOR ACTION

Vassil Donev/EPA

Valdrin Xhemaj/EPA)

Sign the Petition to the White House to Help

Petition Canadian government to welcome the refugees

Petition to the UK to welcome asylum seekers

Petition for Australia to create asylum seeker policies

5. SPONSOR A REFUGEE

picture alliance / dpa

Petros Giannakouris/Associated Press

Attila Kisbenedek/AFP/Getty Images

–> Americans, sign home to a Christian refugee family fleeing from ISIS 

–> Canadians, sponsor a Syrian refugee family to come to Canada through Missionary Christian Alliance

Canadians, sponsor a Syrian refugee family to come to Canada through MCC

–> Americans, Use this US map to find an agency near you and offer to support a newly arrived refugee family. There are 9 Voluntary Agencies in the US that sponsor refugees to come the the United States and build their own local networks to resettle refugees — where is one close to you?

–>Help someone in Germany cover costs in opening up their homes to more than 800,000 refugees

–> Americans, help RefugeeOne meet needs of refugees already settled who may have seasonal needs, etc.

Rebecca Trotter - The Genuis and Challenge of Christianity

The Genuis and Challenge of Christianity

http://theupsidedownworld.com/2014/04/02/the-genuis-and-challenge-of-christianity/

by Rebecca Trotter

April 24, 2014

Comments

The genius of Christianity is that it demands you give mental agreement to all sorts of things you don’t actually agree with. Love your enemies. Every man is your neighbor. You’ll be judged by how well you showed love to the least attractive, least moral, least appealing, most repulsive people you meet. Don’t judge. All those beatitudes about the meek and the suffering and the pure of heart.

We don’t believe any of that stuff. We say we do, but we don’t really. Yet if we want to call ourselves Christians, we must affirm that we agree with these teachings of Jesus. Which creates mental dissonance. How we handle this gap between what we actually believe and what we profess to believe determines how successful we can become as Christians.

The typical way to handle cognitive dissonance is to go into denial. You continue following your gut level support of cultural norms and personal preference and just call that love. If the people you love complain that you’re actually hurting them, you dismiss it as their problem, their flaw or their lack of understanding. Some people are so committed to their denial, that they will devote a lot of time and energy to creating and promoting high-minded ideals about human nature, God’s ways and church philosophy all in service of ignoring and justifying the suffering of others.

These people will often become very involved in tertiary issues which do not have a great deal of bearing on Jesus’ teachings. Maybe they attend a lot of church or go on missions trips or memorize and quote scripture a lot. Maybe they sign lots of petitions and pass on scary stories about bad people. Maybe the adopt a strict moral code that guides where they shop, what sort of entertainment they consume and where to draw the boundaries between themselves and others.

Some people in ministry do almost nothing but help others find ways to think of themselves as Christians despite disagreeing with everything Jesus ever said.

Except the part where Jesus got angry and turned over tables and when he told that skanky woman to stop sinning. Those are often beloved parts of Jesus’ story for a Christian in denial. Not for the meaning Jesus was conveying with them. Just because they already agree with being angry and confrontational and telling sinners to knock it off.

It scares me to think of how many Christians go their whole lives practicing the faith this way. And I think it all comes from a fear of being wrong. We can’t admit we are wrong because we equate being wrong with being shamed. So we can go our whole lives, being wrong as wrong can be, and never really open ourselves up to learning all the mysteries contained in Jesus’ ridiculous, outrageous teachings. That none of us actually agree with.

The way of the Christian is to avoid retreating into denial. We may know in our head, at some level, that what Jesus says is true. But in truth, what Jesus taught is the end goal of following him. When we have been trained and tested, we will see, understand and agree with Jesus’ teachings. But we have to be trained and tested before we can get to that point.

If we are ever to be corrected, we must be willing to try, test and challenge Jesus’ teachings. Sometimes this starts by simply admitting, “this teaching is the most ridiculous, absurd, self-evidently wrong thing I’ve ever heard.” God already knows that’s what we think. He’s never been particularly impressed with our attempts at denying it. But he has shown himself more than willing to meet us right where we are. And he’s promised never to put us to shame. It’s perfectly fine to admit you don’t agree with him. Just follow up, like a man once did with Jesus, “I believe, please help me with my unbelief”.

The Story of Pets in Our Lives

Chip husking corn with the girls

Today's blog will be a light-hearted affair drawn from Scientific America's September issue. Over the year's it seems that I've cared for almost every animal available at a pet store, except for the exotic, cold-blooded kind. In my youth we lived on a farm and had lots of hunting dogs and barnyard cats which I would play with by the hour. My own dog was a collie I named "Pal" who was both my friend and playmate until he died at the start of my sophomore year in high school. It broke my heart.

When married, my wife and I had no kids for a long while and to help blunt the trauma of this experience I bought a miniature Shetland Collie from a litter of seven, tied an oversized red ribbon around its neck, and surprised her one Christmas morning. We affectionately named our small doggie "Bear." My wife was thrilled with the snuggly puppy and for many years he filled the gap in our hearts where kids could not. We found ourselves content serving together in lay ministry to college/carreer and single adults, at work, going to graduate school, and simply enjoying life as always with friends, family, travels, and what not.

And then, a most unexpected thing happened. We had a son who became our miracle child in many ways. We had learned years earlier from an infertility specialist that we would never have kids in life. But, per God's grand surprises in life, not only did we have a son but two years later we also had a daughter to care for. Since then, both have moved out, gone to college, were married last fall, and have begun their own lives. Our daughter lives in town nearby while our son lives on the far side of the state whom we occasionally get to visit one way or the other.

We grew up as a close family, went to family parties together, camped, and played sports together. I even had the great privilege to coach both our kids in a number of different sports all the way up into their high school years. And through those years, we raised a number of different critters. From "pinchy" hermit crabs to several varieties of tropical fish, hamsters, parakeets, ducks, chickens, and even a stray cat (which now lives my daughter). We also had a couple of miniature dachshunds - you know, the "Toy Story" kind - to love and care for.

Moreover, each pet has had its own story in our lives. The fish kept us busy cleaning the large tanks and changing their water as they swam about without a care in the world. Our hamsters liked to prattle about in the wee hours of the night running round-and-round on their spinning wheels while keeping us light-sleepers up. The stray cat was soon discovered days later in my daughter's room stashed away where we wouldn't discover it (the urine gave it away; plus by allergies!). And the bright parakeets sang gaily in the mornings, chirped at suppertime, and were finally abandoned to a dear friend with a house better fitted for the distraction.

Another adventure was the caretake of baby chickens so cute when little. My daughter liked the silky kinds but she also had an eye for the unusual. Anyway, those "baby peeps" soon grew up and required a 2-story coop fully roofed, vented, and heated, which we built one long weekend from scrap lumber, wire, paint and roofing shingles. Early on we learned not to let our chickens run loose in the backyard where the hawks soon found innocent prey to feast upon. Afterwards, we were more careful to "watched over" our flock (sans a departed brother or sister) when they ran "free" outside. And, of course, we had one very pretty chicken dubbed "the dragon" or "monster." He was a bantam rooster with sharp talons and a short temper. He didn't like being fussed over and preferred to be left alone. Consequently it became my responsibility to "handle" it in the evenings because it was so "scary." But then again, dear dad was consigned all those "icky" jobs - from killing spiders to picking up poop - as our family grew up.

Since we live in Michigan the weather is very cold and snowy... even in the fall. So when coming home one night from work my daughter said her "fighting bantam rooster" was still outside in the cold dark. That she was too scared to catch it. And even her big, tall, boyfriend was "chicken."

"Horrors!"I thought. "It had been rainy and snowing all day and it must be near dead." So out into the weather I went. No coat. No gloves. Just me searching for a bedraggled "fighter" whom I found roosted up on one of the fence lines shivering in the dark. I carefully picked him up and he went completely limp in my cold, wet hands. I quickly took it back and tucked him away in the coop we had built underneath a warming lamp and there kept careful watch on it all through the night. By morning our little fighter had revived a little and eventually won his life back to return to his ornery ways.

On another day, a much sadder one, my heart was broken again when our daughter returned from her middle school trip out East to hug and hold her dachshund she had missed so greatly. But she never had the chance. As we were carrying her luggage upstairs to her bedroom I noticed dear "Chipper" racing carefree around the front yard unleashed. I also noticed from out the window a young woman walking her dog on the street. Immediately I dropped everything and raced down the stairs. But I wasn't fast enough as Chip had launched himself into the street to confront the big dog. In doing so a very large van ran over him and squashed his lower back and body. The pain and yowls were horrible to listen to and nothing could be done but put him down. So instead of our daughter hugging her dog she rode in the back seat in tears holding his broken body in her lap as I drove us to the Pet ER Clinic on the far side of town. The drive seemed to last for an eternity. Once there, we said goodbye through more tears and heavy hearts, as Chip was put to sleep to go where all good doggies go up to doggy heaven. That was a particularly hard day.

Today, my wife and I are alone again with our memories, jobs, and daily routines. We have a new dachshund named "Jackson" ("Jack" for short) who is no longer young when purchased long years ago as a replacement for Chip. He's my wife's dog and deigns to ignore me most days as I pick up his poop from the yard (or sometimes the house), feed him, take him to the vet for his shoots, the groomer for his baths, and buy the occasional doggy toy and dental bone for him. Still, he adores my wife, unlike Chip, and my collie Pal, who loved me. The story of the pets in our lives has been a story of life made all the fuller when we open up our hearts to new experiences, events, and lessons.

Peace,

R.E. Slater

Edited September 3, 2015

* * * * * * * * * *

What Your Pet Reveals about You

Is there a typical cat person or snake owner? The jury is still out

By Karen Schrock Simring | Sep 1, 2015

Most of us think our pets say a lot about who we are. Why else would we proudly proclaim our loyalty on T-shirts and in online profile pictures? Yet few scientists have rigorously investigated whether our choice of pet reveals anything about our personality, beliefs or lifestyle. Scientific American MIND rounded up the smattering of available research and highlighted some of the more interesting findings in the infographic that starts below and continues on the next pages. Some information comes from peer-reviewed studies, but the bulk of the data derives from huge market surveys undertaken by interested parties in the pet industry, such as the American Veterinary Medical Association, which tracks pet populations, owner demographics and expenditures to follow how pet ownership in the U.S. changes over time. As you will see, these surveys reveal interesting things about people and the pets they love.

And Now a Few Words from Pet Owners

Scientific American MIND recently asked its readers to weigh in on their own pet predilections. More than 2,000 people responded to the online survey, and some results differed quite a bit from the data shown on the preceding pages. This is not surprising. Big surveys of many thousands of pet owners will show, for instance, that dog owners (on average) are somewhat more extroverted than cat owners (on average), but the individual differences within each group are greater than the differences between them. Thus, there are plenty of boisterous cat owners and reserved dog owners. In addition, many people have more than one type of pet and cannot be strictly labeled as partial to one particular creature.

Our survey drives home the fact—supported by several studies—that our animal companions are integral to how we see ourselves. For instance, men who like being seen as tough may get a tough-looking dog to help them project that image. Some people are proud rabbit or poodle owners because having those pets is a family tradition. Other folks might keep less popular critters, such as spiders or snakes, because they feel these animals are misunderstood, much like themselves.

Below, at the left, we provide some intriguing findings from readers who admire or have more than one type of pet and some data on how owners of specific animals describe themselves. At the right is a sampling of the hundreds of passionate responses we got to the question: What makes you a dog person, a cat person, neither or both? Visit our Web site (www.ScientificAmerican.com/Mind/pet-survey) for more survey results.

The God Who Is Unlike Us, Our Thoughts, or the Images We Make of Him

Though I would've worded today's Huff Post blog article (below) a little differently, still the point of it is the kind of God Calvinism gets itself into with its absolute power and control themes of its ruling God. 

Non-Calvinistic Christians reject this kind of God by asking WWJD? (What Would Jesus Do?) as a NT emphasis of God as seen through Jesus. It's not that we have two Gods in the Bible - one OT and the other NT or, a dipolar God (not a bi-polar God) - but that we have constructed the wrong view of God altogether through our hermeneutics and doctrines making of Him what He is not.

I have written about this a lot at www.Relevancy22.blogspot.com over the years to help show what the upsides are when this incorrect graven image of God is finally released from all its "power" images. and metaphors.

This kind of imagery is the idol in our speech, our society, our faith, that is too often used indiscriminately in our churches and society. And it is this kind of imagery which must be crucified on the altar of human suffering lest it continues human suffering in yet another form of itself. A militant, crusading form of religious conquest, terror, and oppression as evidence through the ages of the church.

In other words, "we have a Sovereign God who is powerful but not a powerful God who is Sovereign." Yes, a poor illustration, I know, but the kind of illustration that is trying to point out that our words describing God as powerful can lead to other words that fill dogmas with hate, discrimination, inhumility, and judgmentalism upon everything-and-everyone unlike ourselves.

And if this kind of doctrinal thinking is not distinguished it can then lead to more bad theology and unrighteous acts committed by a church which should rather be ear marked with love, grace, mercy, peace, and servitude.

More than that, we have a Sovereign God who is first and foremost loving and forgiving. Who exalts weakness over power. Whose death was His greatest example of power and sovereignty used aright.

His resurrection is His greatest testimony as to His choice of serving and not controlling creation; loving and not enforcing His holy will; dying and not abandoning His decrees of who He really is.

The Cross of Jesus' atonement is the ultimate display of God's choice to allow sin its results while putting it to his own death by submitting Himself to humanity's evil such that in this act of divine submission the world has a powerful illustration of atonement. An atonement ungained by sword or by a harsh divine will.

The Cross is the kind of curiosity we don't understand. Don't like. And refuse to follow. But it is the kind of cross-faith that will serve others over self-wants, lusts for power, and cravings for a neat-and-tidy theology asking for God to be in control of everything.

Its the kind of weak theology that displays God as unlike any God we would naturally describe, or even, ascribe too. To worship a submitting God looking to serve humanity with His last breath by yielding to its evil.

It is the kind of thing that is a paradox, a mystery, an enigma which we have trouble putting into words-and-actions in souls ruled by sin, and needs, and idols.

It is the kind of thing that makes God "God" and ever the more powerful for it; the more omnipotent for it. A God who rules in wisdom by leading out with His greatest attribute to which all other divine attributes must follow. That of love, gracy, and mercy.

R.E. Slater

August 28, 2015

* * * * * * * * * *

Josh Duggar speaking

Divorcing Josh Duggar's Monster God

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zach-j-hoag/divorcing-josh-duggars-monster-god_b_8037704.html

by Zach J. Hoag

August 26, 2015

In the recent Ashley Madison hack, Josh Duggar was outed as having a paid account for seeking adulterous affairs.

After the leak, he admitted to cheating on his wife, and to porn addiction.

This, of course, came on the heels of the recent horrific revelations that he molested his sisters as a teen.

And, perhaps not surprisingly, reports are now surfacing that Anna Duggar, Josh's wife, will not consider divorcing him as an option. In fact, she may even be accepting some of the blame for his recent behavior. Both are said to be turning to their faith and praying together as the solution to these issues.

Josh's statement(s) similarly used spiritualized language to communicate his wrongdoing, putting it in categories of sin, reproach, Jesus, forgiveness, prayer, etc.

Michelle and Jim Bob are also praying and trusting in God.But I have to ask - what kind of God are the Duggars praying to and trusting in?

///

It is well known by now that the Duggar family, conservative quiverfull-type Christians slash reality TV stars, are followers of Bill Gothard and the Institute in Basic Life Principles. It's also well known that Gothard has recently been outed for alleged sexual misbehavior of his own -- in his case, years of allegedly grooming young women (some underage) in order to sexually harass and assault them. Gothard is unmarried and is yet viewed by his followers as the foremost guru on chaste courtship before marriage, male headship within marriage, and unhindered childbearing for the duration of marriage.

Hence those 19 Kids and Counting.

The Duggars are a household name by and large because of their adherence to Gothard's teachings; and they are caught up in a hurricane of scandal for the very same reason.

So again, I ask, what kind of God are Gothard and the Duggars praying to - and promoting?

///

In situations like these, it is common for religious leaders caught in some offense to make it clear that their actions occurred despite their faith and belief, not because of it. Duggar has done the same, calling himself "the biggest hypocrite ever" and worrying for the reproach he has brought to Christ. And that seems reasonable, on the surface. We have all betrayed our values and ideals to some degree.

That's why the best response to the Josh Duggar situation (and any of the others caught in this hack, which is already claiming lives) is certainly not to thumb our moralistic noses and join the indulgent Internet shame parade.

Yet, it is not as simple as saying Josh Duggar (and the man Josh likely worshiped his entire life as a religious hero) simply acted in contradiction to his belief, in fits of passion or pits of addiction. In fact, I believe the root cause of Josh's behavior isunequivocally linked to his faith and belief. It's true that different-looking fruit may come from that same root, and Jim Bob's patriarchal sins are not identical to his son's; but Jim Bob prays to the same God who necessarily and with regularity molds men that molest, harass, abuse, and cheat.

In short, a Monster God.

This Monster God promoted by both Gothard and the Duggars is a God for whom absolute power is the ultimate good - power that is uniquely delegated to men, to be especially wielded over women. In a manner similar to common Calvinistic teachings, Gothard's God is one that exercises power with no accountability (not even to his own character or nature) and may just as soon hate, torture, and murder as love and forgive. His unpredictable whim is divine law. In fact, this God's "forgiveness" is less about love and more about submission to his power. To submit without any concern for oneself is to be forgiven. Likewise, forgiving others (like cheaters or abusers or molesters) while blaming oneself is the logical requirement of this "forgiving" God.

Josh Duggar's God is one that has lifted a man, Duggar, above women to represent his power (goodness). The superficial moral restraint of courtship merely encodes this power from the start; Jim Bob controls the courtship just as Josh controls Anna. She will exist to submit to Josh, and that is her ultimate good. Real morality matters little.

The public apology with its language of repentance, then, is a charade, a bit of well-meaning theater, a play act, because the natural consequences for actions in the real world do not apply here. Sure, there is scandal and job loss (and the Duggars have often lamented "the media" for this). But with Josh Duggar, like Bill Gothard, everything is forgivable because these men embody the absolute power of God, the ultimate good.

And for Anna, divorce is unforgivable because she must embody absolute submission as the ultimate good.

Josh Duggar and Bill Gothard's Monster God makes men into monsters as they live out the natural implications of their prayerful belief in him.

///

In response to this unfolding scandal, I submit to you that joining the shame parade is an unhelpful response that misses an important opportunity.

The opportunity for the church, for followers of Jesus, for all of us, is to divorce this Monster God once and for all.

An unaccountable God whose unpredictable whim is the omnipotent law and the ultimate good that we worship, pray to, and promote should be promptly served divorce papers, because our freedom and true goodness is to be found beyond the bonds of that unholy marriage.

And in his place, let us join ourselves again to the One True God who is completely accountable to his own character, which is really and truly good, defined by the very character of Jesus and the fruit of Jesus's Spirit.

Let us put away the Monster God who harms, molests, and enslaves with his power (even the ones to whom his power is granted), and marry again the God who looks like Jesus, whose law is always love and whose gospel is always peace.

And let's pray to that God and trust that God for real deliverance and liberation for Anna Duggar and the whole Duggar family.

* * * * * * * * * *

Roger Olson - Churches I Would Recommend

My List of “Approved Denominations”

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/rogereolson/2012/11/my-list-of-approved-denominations/

by Roger Olson

November 6, 2012

Comments

Very frequently I receive e-mails from individuals (and some have asked here) for help finding a church. Often what they mean is–a denomination. I can hardly help them find a church in a geographical area I’m not familiar with (without spending a lot of time on the project). So I find it helpful to mention denominations to them–ones that I have reason to believe exist in their area.

So, here I am going to do what I have never done before and hope it is helpful to church seekers.

There are inherent risks in this, of course. First, I will inevitably omit some denominations because I don’t know enough about them. (Although I have been an unpaid consultant for the Handbook of Denominations in the United States and mentioned by the editor in the introduction. Denominations has long been a kind of hobby of mine.) Second, I may recommend a denomination that includes individual churches I would NOT recommend. Third, I may omit a denomination that includes very good individual churches that, if I knew about them, I would recommend. Fourth, in some cases I may be recommending a denomination based on their own information and it might not be completely reliable. I will do my best to work around those risks and avoid them, but I can’t guarantee anything.

What I suggest is that if a person reading my list is intrigued by a denomination, he or she look at its web site and ask the local church questions about doctrines, practices, etc. What I’m doing here is excluding many without naming them. Of course, that’s not to say that any denomination not named in my list is “bad.” It may just mean I don’t know enough about it to recommend it.

What are my criteria for inclusion?

First, the denomination has to be trinitarian. Second, it has to be broadly evangelical (and Protestant), not sectarian or rigidly fundamentalist, or primarily liberal (pluralistic, inclusive). Third, it has to be at least open to Arminians. That is, I will not recommend it if it is, as a denomination, confessionally Calvinist, such that an Arminian cannot teach or serve or hold office. Calvinists have other resources for finding a good church for them. There are numerous Calvinist bloggers who will be happy, I’m sure, to help them locate a good church. I know of few Arminian bloggers who are knowledgeable about denominations who will help those with an Arminian orientation find one. (I hear from such people often enough to know this to be the case!)

Please note: I am not including so-called “mainline Protestant” denominations here. These include some evangelical congregations, but they are not denominations I could say to an inquirer “Find a church of this denomination and it’s probably evangelical and friendly to Arminians.” Of course, if I know of an evangelical and Arminian-friendly congregation where the person lives I’ll recommend they check it out. Overall and in general, however, the so-called “mainline Protestant” denominations are not noted for being evangelical.

So here is my list, for what it’s worth:

Anabaptist and Quaker

Fellowship of Evangelical Churches, Mennonite Church, U.S.A., Missionary Church, Evangelical Friends International. (These I would recomend if the person inquiring was pacifist or seeking a “peace church” congregation to affiliate with. I would only recommend a Friends or Quaker church if the person could find some other way to participate in baptism and the Lord’s Supper.)

Brethren and Pietist

Brethren Church (Ashland), Brethren in Christ Church, Church of the United Brethren in Christ, Evangelical Congregational Church, Evangelical Covenant Church, Evangelical Free Church of America.

Baptist

American Baptist Churches, U.S.A. (many are evangelical, and the denomination as a whole calls itself evangelical), Baptist General Convention of Texas, Conservative Baptist Association of America (CBAmerica), Baptist General Conference/Converge Worldwide, Cooperative Baptist Fellowship (some are evangelical, some are more liberal), General Association of General Baptists, National Association of Free Will Baptists, National Baptist Convention (some are evangelical, some are more liberal), National Baptist Convention, U.S.A. (same as the NBC), North American Baptist Conference, Original Free Will Baptist Convention, United American Free Will Baptist Church.

Methodist

African Methodist Episcopal Church, African Methodist Episcopal Zion Church, Christian Methodist Episcopal Church, Congregational Methodist Church, Evangelical Church of North America, Evangelical Methodist Church, The Salvation Army. (Note: I would only recommend The Salvation Army with the caveat that the person needs to find some way to participate in baptism and the Lord’s Supper.)

Holiness (these are mostly offshoots of the Methodist tradition)

The Christian and Missionary Alliance, Church of Christ, Holiness, Church of God (Anderson, Indiana), Church of God (Holiness), Church of the Nazarene, Churches of Christ in Christian Union, Churches of God, General Conference (Winebrenner), The Free Methodist Church of North America, The Wesleyan Church.

Christian and Restorationist Churches (Stone-Campbellite Tradition)

Independent Christian Churches and Churches of Christ, Christian Congregation, Inc.

Adventist

Advent Christian Church General Conference, Grace Communion International (formerly the Worldwide Church of God).

Pentecostal

Assemblies of God, International Fellowship of Christian Assemblies, Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee), Church of God in Christ, Congregational Holiness Church, Elim Fellowship, Fire Baptized Holiness Church of God, Independent Assemblies of God, Fellowship of Christian Assemblies, International Church of the Foursquare Gospel, International Pentecostal Holiness Church, Open Bible Churches, Pentecostal Church of God, Pentecostal Free Will Baptist Church, United Holy Church of God, Vineyard Churches International. (Note: I would only recommend one of these denominations if the person were seeking a Pentecostal-Charismatic type of church or were open to it.)

Now, a word about some other denominations and networks of churches

Lutheran

There may be some Lutheran churches that are open to Arminianism that are not liberal/inclusive. The Evangelical Lutheran Church of American includes some large, growing, very evangelical congregations such as Lutheran Church of Hope (West Des Moines, Iowa). Some are charismatic. Most of these are probably open to Arminians even though Arminianism is not historically part of the Lutheran theological tradition. Some conservative, evangelical Lutheran denominations that are not sectarian or fundamentalist that may be open to Arminians include The American Association of Lutheran Churches, The Association of Free Lutheran Congregations, Church of the Lutheran Brethren of America.

The United Methodist Church

This is a large, “mainline” denomination that includes many evangelical congregations such as The Woodlands United Methodist Church in suburban Houston, Texas. However, many UMC churches are liberal/inclusive. All Methodist churches and offshoots are open to Arminianism now that the Calvinist Methodist Church has merged into a Reformed denomination.

Congregational and Reformed Churches

Most are Calvinist in orientation and would not allow Arminians to teach or hold church offices. However, the Cumberland Presbyterian Church, although not Arminian, is more open to Arminian sensibilities than other Presbyterian denominations. (The Presbyterian Church, U.S.A. is a large, “mainline” denomination that is largely liberal/inclusivist but includes many evangelical congregations. Some of them may be open to Arminians, but, generally speaking, they adhere to the Westminister Confession of Faith which is contrary to Arminian belief.) The Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC) is evangelical and not as rigidly Calvinist as most Reformed churches.

Calvary Chapels are conservative, evangelical and, for the most part Arminian.

There are several relatively new Anglican and Episcopal denominations that are evangelical and amenable to Arminian theology. I am not familiar enough with any of them to name them here.

I have met and interacted with and worshiped with Seventh Day Adventists who are evangelical and Arminian. However, the SDA denomination is not usually considered “evangelical” in the historic American “movement” sense of the word. Nevertheless, I see it moving in that direction.

What about the Southern Baptist Convention?

It is the largest Protestant denomination in the U.S. Among its churches one can find almost anything, but the overall drift of the denomination has been to the conservative side in recent decades. Most of its churches, however, are “mainstream” evangelical in terms of ethos. Some are fundamentalist; few are liberal. (Nearly all, if not all, of the liberal or progressive ones left the SBC to join one of the several offshoots such as the Alliance of Baptists.) Many are open to Arminians (so long as they do not oppose the “security of the believer”) although Arminianism is not a term widely embraced among Southern Baptists. The common Southern Baptist ethos is compatible with Arminianism, but there is a surge of Calvinism among its churches and in some of its seminaries. It is very difficult to generalize about “Southern Baptists,” so I don’t include the denomination in my list of “approved denominations.” My advice to inquirers about Southern Baptist churches is to check each one out individually and watch out for fundamentalism (e.g., elevation of secondary doctrines to dogmas) and Calvinism.

---

A note to potential commenters: I will not post comments that include negative comments about specific denominations by name. Feel free to argue that I have omitted one that fits my criteria.