Rob Bell: What People Talk About When They Talk About God



Toco Toucan, Pantanal Matogrossense National Park, Brazil



Rob Bell's newest book debuted yesterday at my church, Mars Hill, to a lot of hype and adulation, without any further word from Rob as to its contents. Rather than wearing his basic Johnny Cash black, Rob wore a silky California grey suit buttoned stylishly in the middle, complete with a white shirt and no tie, underneath a greasy mop of wavy auburn hair and shod in whitish-tan docksiders. He looked healthy, rested, restored, refreshed, and especially excited about his upcoming book tour for this next month. It was good to see him again, and especially good to hear of his future plans for a Christian talk show, more books, more hip-pastoral conferences, and more road tours (perhaps he'll use these to take his TV show on the road someday as Christianity's newest Jay Leno late night figurehead).

My prayer for Rob is that he is successful. Not in this world's sense of monies and riches - for Lord knows he's already got that compared to our simple Grand Rapids lifestyles here in Michigan. But that he is spiritually successful both in his own life, with his kids and family, and in his urban ministries wherever they may be. That God would protect Rob from the sin and harms of this world while allowing him to share Jesus with a world questioning all-things Christian. Certainly Rob's brand of Christianity will provoke, prod, rebuke, and reprove Christians about their faith and good works. As well it should. But I suspect it will also bring a magnitude of spiritual blessings and help to many who have been discouraged in their faith outlook about God, the church, by Christian friends and fellow-workers, to a degree that will be enlightening, absorbing, convicting, steadying. If anything, these past many years at Mars has been a testimony to the many fractured, broken lives that have found wholeness in Jesus against unhelpful religious upbringing, education, knowledge, worship, and self-imposed cynicisms. To me, that has always been the mark of a spiritually healthy church. Is Jesus preached? And, are people finding love and forgiveness?

So I got to wondering, in a Robbish-sort of way, about Toucans, and what they would talk about if they were to talk about the Jungle. Not being a Toucanologist I can only speculate if when a Toucan talks whether they talk about the latest sources of food supply, its quantity or quality, variety, and location. If whether they talk about water supply, its hazards or protection, its coolness or dank infested waters. If predators are in the area, perhaps from the air, or on the ground. And if they are knowledgeable about what can make them sick. If a certain source of tree(s) or bushes are available with fruits and nuts. Whether their plumage is colorful enough to attract the latest female of their interest. Whether their beaks are bright enough, long enough, large enough, strong enough. And whether in all this Toucan talk they enjoy the beauty of resident sunsets, the smells of the cool morning Jungle air, its liveliness and stream of avian consciousness.

Similarly, when we talk about God just what is it that we wish to know about God when we talk about God? I suspect I would like to know if God is real like the jungle-experience of the toucan. If He is present in my life or simply unconcerned with anything I do, how I feel, my troubles and woes. If He loves and cares for His creation, and especially me and my family, my friends, and all mankind like He says He does. Or, like History channel's recent movie about "The Bible," simply goes about killing women and children, beasts and burden with lasse-faire disdain, hardness, austerity, and holy zeal in religious wont and fervor. Using Ninja-like angels to mop up the blooded fields of urban battle and warfare against any who do not fear and worship Him. If whether my life actually matters to God in my dark loneliness and brokenness, questions and hazards. Or if God understands my heartaches, lies and deceit, and through them all still yearns to make Himself everywhere present in my toils and failures. And whether this God of the Bible, and of the Church, is the actual God of the universe and cosmos, or some misconceived, misplaced product of religious zeal, ego, pride, inward legalism, self-righteousness, and proud academic learning, that I, and others, have had to endure along with legions of other mind-numbed, cauterized penitents who only wish to gather around His forbidden, holy temple ushering freedom's joys amid man's grand, spiritual restrictions. And if, within this bonded servitude of ours to Christ, my heart is pained, wronged, angry, or despairing. Or whether this burden can be made right in Jesus - that He'll forgive me for my many faults and sins - and help me find His humility, modesty, divine favour and fellowship within this precious life that we live?

Hence, I suspect that Rob will be asking very similar question in only the way that he can ask them, because, as you can tell, I've yet to buy the book or read it (with, or without, Rob's requisite authorial signature, which I'm told makes reading his book all the more valuable to his ardent followers). I suspect I'll disagree with some things he says (as I have in the past); that I may wish he turn a phrase or a word one direction or another than he does; that I may make less harsh, accusational comments towards fellow brethren already beaten up within their church traditions; perhaps allow readers a little more grace against God's gathering convictions in their benighted lives. Being younger than myself (as Rob always has been to me), and growing in God's grace and glory, I've watched Rob learn about life as a young man, and now as an aging father of young children; as a maturing husband; and, as a tortured public figure that has sometimes been self-imposed if not relished. At times Rob says things that I can relate to, and at other times, he is learning things that I have already been through (without as high a public cost or its summary notorious consequences). As such, not everything may be as relevant, or as meaningful to me, as it is to him as he grows and learns, matures and learns humility before the hand of man and of God (sic, he reminds me at times of a modern-day version of the biblical "Job"). Nonetheless, I pray for his spiritual health and well-being against the religious onslaught that is surely to come from the world, Satan, sin's temptations, and even the church itself.

That overall, my prayer is that this world's success is disdained by Rob. And that its Hollywood allures and glories not go the way of so many other would-be public figures in Christian life. I really don't want to see his spiritual train-wreck should it happen. I rather would like to see Jesus preached against Christianity's many religious detours and non-sequitors. For in Christianity we worship God come in the flesh in the person of Jesus. However, we do not worship the church, its pulpiteers, its servants, nor its many letters and doctrines. But God himself. Unfortunately, it is inescapable to not make a religion out of Christianity like so many other sects and faiths have done with their beliefs. I suspect its part of the sinful fabric of mankind to want to put on an altar anything-and-everything that has to do with God. The wisdom here is that within Christianity is a religion that has at its faith center a person - Jesus. Not a tradition nor an institution. And this is where Rob comes in to help us with the task of keeping faith, and not a religion. By questioning us about ourselves, our wants, our needs, prides, ego, accomplishments, sin and disbelief. A good preacher is hard to listen to when the Spirit of God is upon him. And Rob is a good preacher. Quirky. Not quite my cup of tea at all times. But a steady preacher as a servant of Christ. Who convicts many with God's word, even to the point of exasperation at times. So then, let us give him his due, neither praising nor worshipping him, but together with him, seeking the God of the Bible who wishes to come to the hearts of man. Serving in the name of Jesus, the Son of God come in the flesh to mankind, who was risen as the divine Son of Man unto the right hand of God on high. And empowered by that self-same Spirit of God as Jesus was abundantly empowered. For we have now become fellow servants together in this postmodern age of faith and witness, service and solitude. And by these things may the God of grace and mercy, forgiveness and hope, redemption and salvation, be glorified and embraced until the end of mankind's illustrious days of sin and woe, bright choices and foul deeds. Amen.

R.E. Slater

March 11, 2013
edited August 22, 2013

 

 



May this light be you... however humble, however small



 

 

 

Join Rob Bell via USTREAM for the launch of What We Talk About When We Talk About God -- LIVE from powerHouse Arena in Brooklyn, NY on Tuesday, March 12, 2013 at 4:00 pm PST / 7:00pm EST. To watch the live event from your computer or other device click here: http://www.robbelllive.com/.

 

 

 

The Imcompatibility of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act with the U.S. Constitution

March 8, 2013

 

Why Bill Clinton Signed the Defense of Marriage Act

 

Posted by Richard Socarides

 



Bill Clinton shakes hands with members of gay-rights groups after a speech in 1992. Douglas C. Pizac/AP.



It is extremely rare for former Presidents to admit mistakes made in office, and rarer still for one to disavow a major piece of legislation. That’s partly why Bill Clinton’s op-ed in the Washington Post calling the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act—a law that he signed—“incompatible with our Constitution,” and asking the Supreme Court to overturn it, is so important.

 

The essay, a Clinton associate told me, was Clinton’s own idea; he wrote it out himself in longhand on a legal pad. As his former White House adviser on gay-rights, I was not surprised by the message. But Clinton’s willingness, just twenty days before two gay-rights cases go to the Supreme Court, to publicly call DOMA discriminatory is a big step, even if his comments stopped short of the full apology some have asked for.

 

But the op-ed leaves a political mystery intact. Clinton, though clearly unhappy with the law today, does not really explain why he signed it, other than to say “it was a very different time.” Perhaps that is explanation enough. Still, how was it that Bill Clinton, the first President to champion gay rights, put his name on one of the most discriminatory anti-gay statutes in American history?

 

The simple answer is that he got boxed in by his political opponents, and that his campaign positions on gay rights ran ahead of public opinion. But there was another important factor: a failure to imagine how quickly gay rights would evolve, and how difficult it would be to undo the damage that DOMA did.

 

When Bill Clinton first ran for President over twenty years ago, he was the first candidate for national office to seek and receive support from an organized gay political community, which was itself new to Presidential politics. In 1992, after twelve years of Republican control of the White House, the federal government had neglected funding the battle against the quickly burgeoning AIDS epidemic. Clinton was sympathetic; because of his interest in civil rights generally, and long friendships with gay and AIDS activists, he was then one of the national politicians most conversant on gay-equality issues.

 

During that campaign, in May of 1992, as governor of Arkansas, Clinton spoke at the first large-scale Presidential campaign event for gay and lesbian supporters, in West Hollywood, California. He gave an emotional speech largely focussed on the AIDS crisis, in which he spoke of the moral costs to the country of ignoring those suffering from the disease. Gay men with AIDS had been dying at a stunningly rapid rate. Their families, friends, and caretakers had, in many cases, shunned them, and so had national leaders. In contrast, Clinton said, “I want to give you my thanks for that struggle…,” and concluded, “I have a vision and you’re a part of it. I believe we’re all a part of the same community and we’d better start behaving as if we are.”

 

Clinton won the enthusiastic support of gays and lesbians in the 1992 election. For the first time, contributions from gay Americans factored significantly in campaign fundraising. Gays and lesbians finally had a President who included them rhetorically in the national policy debate.

 

But soon after Clinton took office, in 1993, it was apparent that his tenure was off to a rocky beginning. The early days of the Administration were marred by opposition within the military and the Democratic Party itself to Clinton’s idea of gays and lesbians serving openly in the uniformed armed forces. The White House was unprepared to shepherd a major social-policy change through Congress. The Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sam Nunn, a Democrat from Georgia, led opposition to Clinton’s gay-rights policy, working behind the scenes with General Colin Powell, who was a Bush-holdover as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The so-called Don’t Ask Don’t Tell compromise was born: gays and lesbians would be allowed to serve so long as they kept their sexual orientation secret. Gay-rights advocates were outraged that Clinton had agreed to a bad compromise, but at this point, in the spring of 1993, it was clear that the President was going to lose this battle. (Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, in fact, turned out to be a policy and personnel disaster.)

 

After what was regarded as a fiasco on gays in the military, the Administration entered a phase of deep reluctance to tackle substantive gay-rights issues on the national stage. Although Clinton made a number of first-ever, high-profile appointments of gay leaders to his team (I was one of the minor ones), any kind of gay-rights policy agenda seemed stalled as a result of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell hangover.

 

As Republicans prepared for the 1996 Presidential election, they came up with what they thought was an extremely clever strategy. A gay-rights lawsuit in Hawaii was gaining press coverage as an initial series of preliminary court rulings suggested that gay marriage might be legally conceivable there. Clinton was on the record opposing marriage equality. But Republicans in Congress believed that he would still veto legislation banning federal recognition of otherwise valid same-sex marriages, giving them a campaign issue: the defense of marriage.

 

What Republicans had not counted on, though, was just how adverse the Administration had become, especially in an election year, to getting ahead of public opinion on gay rights after having had to backtrack on open military service.

 

On May 23, 1996, as DOMA began its rapid journey through Congress, the New York Times reported:

George Stephanopoulos, a senior Presidential adviser who has overseen the issue, said: “It’s wrong for people to use this issue to demonize gays and lesbians and it’s pretty clear that that was the intent in trying to create a buzz on this issue. But the fact remains that if the legislation is in accord with the President’s stated position, he would have no choice but to sign it.

That was a bit of a bombshell, but it laid an intentional marker. The columnist Frank Rich, then writing for the Times, wrote that, “The bill also forces Mr. Clinton, who says he opposes both same-sex marriage and anti-gay discrimination, into a corner…. He’s presumably praying it will never reach his desk.”

 

Inside the White House, there was a genuine belief that if the President vetoed the Defense of Marriage Act, his reëlection could be in jeopardy. There was a heated debate about whether this was a realistic assessment, but it became clear that the President’s chief political advisers were not willing to take any chances. Some in the White House pointed out that DOMA, once enacted, would have no immediate practical effect on anyone—there were no state-sanctioned same-sex marriages then for the federal government to ignore. I remember a Presidential adviser saying that he was not about to risk a second term on a veto, however noble, that wouldn’t change a single thing nor make a single person’s life better.

 

What we didn’t fully comprehend was that, sooner than anyone imagined, there would be thousands of families who would be harmed by DOMA—denied federal benefits, recognition, and security, or kept apart by immigration laws.

 

During the campaign season, Clinton would sometimes complain publicly about how the Republicans were using the marriage issue against him. He said, derisively, that it was “hardly a problem that is sweeping the country” and his press secretary called it “gay baiting, pure and simple.” And that September, when the Defense of Marriage Act was passed, President Clinton signed it.

 

There are no pictures of this occasion—no pens that were saved. My advice to the people who arranged for these things was to get it done and out of the way as quickly as possible; he signed it late at night one evening after returning from a day-long campaign trip.

 

The Defense of Marriage Act became law, and President Clinton was reëlected, again with overwhelming support from gay Americans. He was enthusiastically endorsed by the nation’s leading gay political group, the Human Rights Campaign, which had urged him to veto the legislation. They had called DOMA“a Bob Dole for President publicity stunt.” (There was a small dustup during the later stages of the campaign when a Clinton-related committee ran a radio ad in the South, heralding the enactment of the legislation. The ad was quickly pulled.)

 

Was it realistic to think that a Presidential veto of DOMA would have put Clinton’s reëlection in jeopardy? At the time I thought not. But in 1996 less than thirty per cent of Americans supported gay marriage, and even eight years after that, in 2004, President George W. Bush used gay marriage extremely effectively as a wedge issue against John Kerry, who at the time only supported civil unions. In fact, many believe that it was the Bush campaign’s very strategic placement of anti-gay-marriage state constitutional ballot initiatives throughout moderate and conservative leaning states (like Ohio) which brought out conservative Bush voters and carried the day for him in that election. Could similar tactics have been used with the same effectiveness in 1996? Obviously, we will never know.

 

Had there been a President Dole, none of the advances President Clinton accomplished in his second term for gay equality would have been possible. Funding for H.I.V. and AIDS would have no doubt been cut. A DOMA veto would likely have been overridden anyway, and so even if President Clinton had been reëlected, we would still have had the Defense of Marriage Act.

 

After his reëlection, President Clinton became considerably bolder on gay-rights issues. He became the first President in history to endorse gay-rights legislation by announcing his support for a new federal hate-crimes statute that included sexual orientation. He supported legislation banning employment discrimination against gays. He continued, and even stepped up, appointments of openly gay Americans to important Administration positions, including the recess appointment of James Hormel as the first openly gay Ambassador. He signed an executive order banning sexual-orientation discrimination in the federal civilian workforce, leading the way for much of corporate America to follow.

 

A decade later, in 2009, when Clinton finally endorsed same-sex marriage, he commented, in an interview with Anderson Cooper, “So I said, you know, I realized that I was over sixty years old, I grew up at a different time, and I was hung up about the word. I had all these gay friends, I had all these gay couple friends, and I was hung up about it. And I decided I was wrong…. I had an untenable position.”

 

What are the lessons of the Defense of Marriage Act? Perhaps the clearest one is that if you compromise on principle, on the assumption that the world will never catch up with your ideals, you will likely come to regret it. Marriage equality was not some completely far-off vision; it was something that could be achieved. Clinton never believed that the federal government had the right to discriminate. The harder question is this: When is winning the most important thing? Would a veto, in retrospect, have been worth the risk?

 

Richard Socarides is an attorney, political strategist, writer, and longtime gay-rights advocate. He served as White House Special Assistant and Senior Adviser during the Clinton Administration.

 

 

 

Who Is the God of the OT? Is the Jesus of the NT that same God?

 

  

I continue to be interested in the topic of whether we have a dipolar God of the bible who is harsh and judgmental in the OT, or loving and forgiving in the NT. Some have answered that this is a problem between cultures and societies - that humanity is progressing steadily forwards in its apprehension and understanding of divine redemption and forgiveness (sic, David Webb's "Redemptive Movement" hermeneutic). While others suggest that it is the biblical authors themselves who allowed their nationalized perspectives to overrule their descriptions of God (re the creation of the composition of the bible during the Jewish second temple period when collating Israel's ancient, oral legacies and stories). Some, like Richard Dawkins, simply give up trying to understand the God of the OT altogether and throw both God, and the bible, out as imperfect representations of the true God of the universe, recreated by zealous, religious bodies of believers. And then there are charges of a less-than-sublime bible that cannot be authoritative nor infallible if it isn't also inerrant and literal. Which subject we have declared null-and-void in previous discussions pertaining to all things salvific and redemptive, as versus literature that is genre-based (poetry, songs, psalms, hymns, etc) and comparatively written to the cultural beliefs of ancient Near-Eastern societies of the day.

 

 

 

 

So that it seems to me that the issue of discovering who the God of the bible is, is one that has been percolating within the ranks-and-files of the church for awhile now. On the one side, we see wild acclamation for the unbelievable and unsupportable in films like History channel's recent depiction of "The Bible" supporting the stoutest of evangelical doctrines delivered in the best of the American imagination. And in years past, we have beheld Discovery channel's many interpretive depictions of the bible and its characters swinging from conservative beliefs to liberal charges of incredibility and inaccuracy. So that battle lines are drawn up between the faithful and the heathen, and no one seems to be able to civilly discuss their charges without delivering one-line zingers from one side to the other in smug propositionalism and fracturous impunity.

However, the better course of action is to attempt to provide civil answers to these topics rather than denigrations about fellow rivals by honestly allowing legitimacy of the problems pertinent in each area while working towards resolution without the necessity of having to form complete answers. That is, to live in the tension and mystery of the bible where-and-when it must reside, while at other times declaring what we think we do know couched within whatever working paradigm we are coming from. And in this case, when looking at the seeming differences between the God of the OT and the God of the NT, asking ourselves just what area does this discussion fall within.... Is it Theology Proper - the study of God Himself? Is it in the field of biblical interpretation and hermeneutics? Is it within our frame of modernism's scientific enlightenment and forced syllogisms? Or is it within postmodernism's frame of tension and narrative? Does it delve from questions of Sovereignty, or the Divine Character of love and holiness - touching then upon the several theosophical areas of Classical Theism, Relational Theism, Process Thought, and Open Theology? Is it one of human subjectivism based upon our closed epistemologies and personal existential needs of the moment?

Accordingly, this broad base of anomalous biblical study is made even broader and more complex so that we find ourselves sucked into the vortex of a black hole of theologic discussion causing us to flail around its turbulent center unable grasp onto anything solid enough without losing hold to drown even deeper within its violent philosopohic whirlpools and eddies. Ultimately to give up and say its too complex, or to determine within ourselves our own subjective declarations and pejorative judgments regardless of fact or reason, creates in essence our own revisionistic fiction and mitigating group beliefs.

However, theologians, historians, sociologists, psychologists, academicians, ethicists, and so on, each are asking, like Eric Siebert himself, who this God of the OT is when we see Him so brightly portrayed again in the NT by its many biblical authors and descriptive stories. And to that extent we need answers, not calls to be more "zealous and faithful" to the Bible. Part of the answer lies in not separating out the Actual God of the bible from the Textual God of the bible, which can be fraught with redactive subjectivity and cultural impingement. But in sublimely discerning that Jesus identified the YHWH (God) of the OT as His God, who was present in Himself fully, who was Himself YHWH, become Incarnate amongst His creation, in the NT.

Thus, we know the God of the OT through Jesus who necessarily redefines Yahweh by His incarnate life and ministry. And apparently this needed to be done because by the time Jesus appears in Jewish history the templed priests and hierarchy were speaking of a God of merciless law judgment rather than of one who ruled by divine love and example. So that when Jesus corrects these representatives of the Old Covenant He is crucified for His heretical teachings and rejected for His example. Leaving with us the gnawing feeling that those who study only the OT cannot know God's true mind and heart without the Christ of the NT. Such is the legalism found within religious man's prideful heart. A legalism no less found in the church today as it was 2000 years ago.

Henceforth, for guide and guidance we must start with a Jesus-centered bible and move both backwards in time, and forwards in mission, with Jesus at the center of all things present, historical, and teleological. For it is in Jesus that we have a fuller understanding of God whose image is all the poorer and murkier without Jesus. In Jesus Yahweh becomes One. Not less. Not two. Not idealized nor idolized. But one in revelation by divine incarnation. It is the grand mystery that Christianity must spin around less we become flung from orbit around the very God we proclaim and vouchsafe.
 

And it is here then that we have a baseline to begin with. A baseline that Siebert mentions many articles earlier as a possible answer to the charges of a dipolar (ethical) God. One which he says that the Jesus of the NT is the exact representation of the YHWH of the OT - an OT God who doesn't simply judge, but loves, and loves intensely. Just as the Jesus of the NT not only loves, but judges intensely (ultimately, Himself, upon the Cross, for our sins). Charges that may transcend mere human editorial in the OT and NT, towards discovering a consistency between the God portrayed in both Testaments, singularly and alone.

 

That said, we might then begin  with Scott McKnight's review of David Lamb's book, "God Behaving Badly," and see if we cannot discover another line of thought alongside the several that Eric Siebert has helpfully proposed. Thus transitioning this discussion from one of biblical interpretation to that of "theology proper" (e.g., "the study of God"). To begin here first before moving forward to all other areas. And more than that, to the study of Jesus, the incarnate Yahweh, come to men.

R.E. Slater
March 9, 2013

 

God has a bad reputation. Many think of God as wrathful and angry, smiting people right and left for no apparent reason. The Old Testament in particular seems at times to portray God as capricious and malevolent, wiping out armies and nations, punishing enemies with extreme prejudice.But wait. The story is more complicated than that. Alongside troubling passages of God's punishment and judgment are pictures of God's love, forgiveness, goodness and slowness to anger. How do we make sense of the seeming contradiction? Can God be trusted or not?

 

David Lamb unpacks the complexity of the Old Testament to explore the character of God. He provides historical and cultural background to shed light on problematic passages and to bring underlying themes to the fore. Without minimizing the sometimes harsh realities of the biblical record, Lamb assembles an overall portrait that gives coherence to our understanding of God in both the Old and New Testaments.

 

- Amazon book description, "God Behaving Badly"

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

Articles by Scot McKnight

May-June, 2011

 

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 1

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 2

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 3

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 4

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 5

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 6

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 7

 

God Behaving Badly, Part 8

 

 

 

Suggested further study

 

How God Became King, by NT Wright

Book Review: How God Became King, by Scot McKnight

 

 

 

Interpreting the Violence of the OT, by R.E. Slater

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Southern Baptist Call for Siebert's Removal re "Violence in the OT"

More Bullying by the Southern Baptists: but this time someone crossed the line
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/03/more-bullying-by-the-southern-baptists-but-this-time-someone-crossed-the-line/

by Pete Enns
March 7, 2013
Comments

Recently, Southern Baptist Theological Seminary broadcast another “panel discussion,” this one taking to task Eric Seibert for his views on God’s violence in the Old Testament. Seibert posted a three part series on my blog, the first of which is here, and has written two books on the subject, The Violence of Scripture and Disturbing Divine Behavior.

 

In brief, Seibert argues, “At times the Bible endorses values we should reject, praises acts we must condemn, and portrays God in ways we cannot accept. Rather than seeing this as a sign of disrespect, we should regard engaging in an ethical and theological critique of what we read in the Bible as an act of profound faithfulness.” (from the above linked blog post)

 

The panel, consisting of Al Mohler, Phillip Bethancourt, Denny Burke, and Owen Strachan (more on Strachen below), were predictably alarmed about Seibert’s handling of the issue of God’s violence. Seibert’s position is certainly outside of their universe of theological discourse, and they felt strongly enough to record their hour long session and post it. There is nothing at all wrong about that.

 

As for the content of the discussion, the panel’s position amounted to a marginalizing, if not dismissal, of the moral and theological difficulties with Yahweh acting like every other tribal deity of the ancient world. [In their estimation,] since the Bible is God’s Word, whatever it says holds as valid and binding, the standard by which our sinful human hearts are to be searched and tried rather than that which must be judged by sinful humans. God says it, and that’s that. Disagreement on that point is an attack on the Bible and God himself. [Hence,] they are welcome to publicize their position to any and all who would listen.

 

I won’t take the time here to rehearse the arguments themselves. They are transparently driven by the need to protect perceived theological non-negotiables, and they have been raised and answered many times. If they do not feel the need to engage their critics, their arguments are not worthy of serious attention.

 

What concerned me more than the content of the discussion was the calculating manner in which Seibert was set up not only for failure but demonization. I don’t know how else to interpret Mohler’s opening where he juxtaposed Psalm 106 (“the Lord is good, his steadfast love endures forever”) to–and here I was waiting for a good old genocide passage like Deuteronomy 20, but instead Mohler read a rather inflammatory excerpt from Richard Dawkins about the God of the Old Testament being a moral monster.

 

Apart from the fact that Psalm 106 speaks to God’s steadfast love for the Israelites and is therefore 100% irrelevant for the discussion of violence toward outsiders like Canaanites, the implication of the juxtaposition is quite clear: Battle lines must be drawn, and Seibert and others who wish to discuss how to rethink God are on the wrong side of the Psalm 106/Richard Dawkins divide.

 

Mohler is stacking the deck, but I think alert readers won’t be taken in by it.

 

Next, the specter of Marcion was raised (2nd century heretic who called for a dismissal of the Old Testament and significant portions of the New Testament that made God sound too–well–Old Testament like). The rhetorical stab being made here was that Seibert’s rethinking of the God of the Old Testament because of things like the violence God is nothing more than a repetition of old heresies. It’s all been said before.

 

I might have asked the panel to speak to the Orthodox tradition that saw these same violent portrayals of God as incompatible with the nature of God and so allegorized these portions of the Old Testament, but I would venture to guess that the tradition of Orthodoxy would not carry much weight at SBTS. Regardless, rather than juxtapose Seibert to Marcion, perhaps an acknowledgment that the violence of God has been a perennial theological conundrum in Church History would have been a more noble way of setting up the discussion.

 

Elsewhere the panelists juxtaposed Seibert to Nietzsche and then repeating the accusation of Seibert’s “postmodern reading strategy.” I think an objective observer would be able to recognize quickly the use of scare words, and so engaging Seibert’s thinking was not the primary focus of the meeting.

 

I feel that both the content and the rhetoric displayed by the panel are unbecoming of learned Christian discourse, but we all have our blind sides and those factors alone are not motivating me to respond. I am far more alarmed by an episode involving Owen Strachan, Assistant Professor of Christian Theology and Church History at Boyce College.

 

When Seibert’s first post came out, Strachan quickly registered his shock. Of course, it’s Strachan’s blog and if he wants to be shocked he can, and if he wants to rail against Seibert and warn others of him, that is fine, too. But what he does next is not fine, but reprehensible, and something of which I feel he needs to repent publicly.

 

Strachan apparently felt that he was serving Christ and furthering his kingdom by driving home what he considered to be the incompatibility of Seibert’s views with those of Seibert's employer, Messiah College. I was incredulous as I read the following, and I feel I must quote Strachan at length (my emphasis):

 

[Seibert] is subverting the faith of his readers and, I assume, his students. I don’t know what could be more problematic for a biblical studies professor than this. Remember–these aren’t my interpretations. I’m pulling direct quotations from his piece. He’s put his argument out there in public on a widely-read evangelical blog. He’s invited engagement; his unbiblical and spiritually dangerous argument deserves it.

 

It will be interesting to see how Messiah College responds to this. Will it take its own statement of faith seriously, as Steffan and Christianity Today pointed out? Or will it treat its confession as unimportant? Do professors at Christian schools need to abide by their doctrinal statements, or not? Is a statement of faith just a piece of paper with some well-intended but ultimately inconsequential thoughts, or does it shape the life and health of the students entrusted to the school by God?

 

Confessions aren’t for policing. They are for health. Doctrinal statements aren’t designed to punish, though that should happen if needed. They are intended to lead people to flourishing. In this doctrine, a school or a church says, you find the core of biblical teaching. This is what will give you life. This is what will bless you and lead your feet on sure paths. We offer this to you to guard you, protect you, and keep you. We will answer to God in some sense for your soul, and we are doing our utmost to shepherd you to glory.

 

It is therefore good and right and gracious when a school upholds its own standards and protects its students so that Satan cannot destroy them. And it is devastating when a school allows it standards to grow lax.

 

**Will Messiah College leadership allow this to happen? We’re all watching and waiting to see.**

 

With many others, I am praying that good will come from this, that error will be corrected, that the truth will be vindicated, that God’s Word will not be attacked but will be seen as right and true and without error and loving and good and life-giving.

 

And that students, young men and women who are put in the care of professors by their parents and churches, will thrive in Jesus Christ, triumphing over darkness and doubt and sin.

 

This is not a veiled comment. Strachan is publicly challenging Messiah College to terminate Seibert–which is to say he feels both called upon and competent to insinuate himself into a matter that, if I may be blunt, is none of his business. I cannot fathom the level of either self-delusion or a confused sense of spirituality that would lead a Christian professor to do such a thing.

 

What complicates the matter is the Christianity Today article Strachan mentions. The author, Melissa Steffan, in what strikes me as an incendiary piece of journalism, for some reason raised the specter of Seibert’s fitness to teach at Messiah, though hardly as confidently as Strachan. But, in what appears to be nothing more than a dig, Steffan felt it was of high priority–while writing under a strict word count–to cite a critical comment by Scot McKnight from his blog when Seibert’s Disturbing Divine Behavior was being discussed.

 

The use of the quote strikes me clearly as an attempt to cast Seibert in a bad light rather than simply report a story of interest. I know McKnight and contacted him, and, although he was clear he disagrees with Seibert’s position, he was not pleased with how his quote–in the midst of a lengthy vetting of the book–was used.

 

Far more disturbing was the deliberate use McKnight’s name in the title of the Facebook link to the article–thus giving the impression that the core of the CT piece and Strachan blog was McKnight condemning Seibert. The link has since been reworded after McKnight contacted Strachan.

 

All this is bad enough, and I was hoping that the issue would be raised in the panel discussion and that Strachan might give some account of his actions. Mohler did raise the issue, and Strachan justified his actions thus: ”I wanted to look at Seibert’s argument in light of his school’s confession of faith.”

 

Really? Why? Just because? And after “looking,” Strachan made it the core element of his post. Again, why? The lengthy quote above makes clear why. Strachan wanted to nail Seibert and get him fired--for the good of the kingdom so that Satan could no longer destroy Messiah college students.

 

But Strachan had more to say. He next relayed anecdotes of students he has known who entered Messiah with a strong faith and left with a weak faith. As Strachan put it, the pieces fell into place, knowing now what Seibert teaches there. (Apparently Strachan is unaware that all schools, including his own, have all sorts of anecdotes.)

 

Strachan’s use of anecdotes in a public forum to build a case against a professor, a department, and a school is at the very least unwise, and at worst borders on immaturity. Such rhetoric will safely be ignored by wiser heads, but, to mimic Strachan’s words, “Will Boyce College leadership allow this this type of public display? We’re all watching and waiting to see.”

 

Without any disrespect intended, in my opinion the position of the panel on divine violence is theologically and hermeneutically naive and untenable, and their rhetoric unfair to Seibert. But neither should cause us to lose sleep because these things can be ignored. But Strachan crosses a line.

In exercising zeal to maintain sound doctrine, Strachan and others should also remember the biblical admonition to lives lives that reflect that doctrine (Titus 2:1). As a Christian college professor myself, that is something Christian college students need modeled for them, not public personal attacks [yes, it IS personal when someone is gunning for your job] against Christian brothers with whom you have a theological disagreement.

 

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

 

 

Scott McKnight, Disturbing Divine Behavior

http://blog.beliefnet.com/jesuscreed/2010/01/disturbing-divine-behavior.html

it is not uncommon for an innocent Bible reader to read a text like the flood of Noah or the death of the firstborn in Egypt and wonder how in the world God can be involved in such actions, and then to ask what such acts would inform the Bible believer about what God is like.

Some just tell such folks to knock it off or to silence such critical thoughts or they offer thoroughly unacceptable theories, but others want to ponder such texts and to do so within the faith and within some kind of traditional view of the Bible. One such scholar is Eric Seibert at Messiah College, and his new book is called Disturbing Divine Behavior: Troubling Old Testament Images of God.

 

After sketching the principle passages, Seiberts makes a few suggestions, and I want to call your attention to three and see what you think:

 

1. The God who really is and the God who is sketched in the Bible, that is, the Textual God vs. the Actual God, must be distinguished. And here he is saying that the Bible’s depictions of God are from a human point of view and reflect Ancient Near Eastern views of God that are not modified.

 

2. The God of the Bible, he says, must be judged by God in Jesus or Jesus as God so that what conforms to Jesus is the Actual God and what doesn’t may be the Textual God.

 

3. And he argues that the Bible’s inspiration is “general” instead of “comprehensive.” He doesn’t care for accommodation theories and finds the traditional evangelical view of plenary inspiration too problematic so he concludes that inspiration is general instead of comprehensive.

 

Thoughts?

- Peter Enns

To be Continued -

Who Is the God of the OT? Is the Jesus of the NT that same God?

 

 

 

 

Repost: Thinking Through an Emergent Christianity, by R.E. Slater

In my spare time this past year-and-a-half I have been working through a newer form of theology to help deepen the poems I wish to someday bring to life. Under the web blog title, relevancy22, I have taken both an academic and contemporary approach to the issues of the day that have unnecessarily narrowed the Christianity I grew up in; and, have tried to give newer life-and-breadth by reconsidering non-apropos issues which friends and family have lately been taught to criticize, or not consider, by this past generation of overly-conservative theologs and hasty pulpiteers. It is known as emergent Christianity, which in its own way is a more moderate (or is it progressive?) form of evangelical Christianity become politically unbalanced by the rightist issues of today. And consequently, has limited the gospel of Jesus to our postmodern, 21st Century, pluralistic, and multi-cultural societies. Societies that we as humanity apparently struggle to live within given the many incidents of civil warfare and terroristic atrocities witnessed globally between religious, ethnic, and ideological temperaments rather than seeing the good, the beautiful, the helpful within our human differences.

For myself, I don't pretend to live in the failed eras of yesteryear, nor to pursue the enlightened, late-modernism issues of the 50s and 60s by revisionistic historical practices (from either side of the political aisle). Mostly because I firmly believe that today's Christian faith can be as vital now as it was fifty years ago without having to artificially create invasive thought-barriers and protective screens to shield the faithful from the dialectic events occurring around us in contemporary society. That the life of Jesus was one of action combined with a broadening-out of Jewish theology, itself become constricted and divisive in His day of revelatory illumination. That our actions count as much as our words. That seeing the value of human life is more important than clinging to the traditions of a rich, and faithful, church heritage become insular to the criticisms and needs of the 21st Century. That the human faith must allow for the majesty and mystery of God while doubting the foibles and wisdom of man. Especially as considering God's love as the prime motivator in our Creator-Redeemer's communion with man (and the cosmos) in everything He has done - and is now doing - within our expanding worlds of knowledge and industry and societal evolution.

Consequently, I have spent many recent days and nights digesting the current affairs of Christian theology and practice, and have re-positioned those issues alongside the thoughts and actions of fellow Christian contemporaries excited by the same possibilities as myself of a newer, more gracious form of faith than presently being discovered or practiced. Along the way I have contributed what articles I could to this emerging discussion through personal insight and experience to help lend vocal support to those fellow "miscreant" theologs that my conservative branch of Christianity has purposely flagellated, or worse, ignored, in its struggle to update itself and embrace the unknown, the feared, the obvious and the unavoidable. So that in my first six months of blogging I began unsure of myself, but passionate to the burden placed upon me, by adopting the pseudonym skinhead (which in hindsight more probably indicated mine own personal deconstruction at the time) until feeling surer of myself to hazard my name to that signatory list of evolving practitioners and writers, elocutioners and philosophers, poets and minstrels. I find that I write best in prose but have attempted during that same time to duplicate the more pedantic form of my brethren to help readers along who are likewise investigating the root forms, and basal energies, of their faith. What poetry I attempt (and in truth it has been very limited) is written hastily to match the temperament of the article of that day's contribution or edition. And usually, I save my best prose for the concluding portions of the posting trusting the reader to better appreciate its words when having first read through the opening structures of the ensuing proposition and juxtaposed teaching.

Overall, I have not so much personally blogged as to try to create more of a timeless biblical index to what I consider an emerging form of theology and practice in need of definition, sorting-out, and topical discussion. One that can appreciate the contributions of the church's past creeds and confessions, beliefs and practices of yesteryear, but is willing to move beyond any current mis-conceptions or mis-representations of the bible. Or even the faith of the faithful seeking cultural acclamations rather than the biblical charter and precedence shown to us by the prophets of earlier times struggling with their generation of well-meaning religious priests and temple guardians. An emerging faith which has come to understand that "the human language is both a problem and a gift" - a problem because we wish to make it so mathematic-like. So precise and formal when it is anything but that (credit the Enlightenment for this effort of definitive syllogism and logistical precision found in Evangelical Christianity's popularly acclaimed systematic theologies of today!). And a gift, because through it we may use all the forms of human language and human presence to speak of God - whether poetically, or musically; in chants or in liturgical practice; or even non-verbally by our actions, body-language, and symbolic usage (art, film, etc).

To understand that "last year's words belong to last year's language, and next year's words are awaiting another voice" and by that mean that each generation has its own concerns and frames of reference that must be addressed. That if we don't learn to speak to one another between our generations - from old to young, and young to old - that we instead will speak past one another. To be aware that the Christian faith is meant to be expanded and stretched past any previous thought categories and semantic definitions into newer thought forms and meanings (Jesus showed us that in the Gospels, even as His disciples and the old guard of Judaism struggled with the same). This is because language itself can be both time-bound to the generation it lives within, as well as timeless to the generations to come. To recognize that human language bears a fluidity, or metamorphosing ability, which allows for its continual reconstitution and reconfiguration through the many eras and societies of mankind. So that we may use this uniqueness of human communication that it might breathe and find new lands of discovery and settlement amongst a wider variety of human habitat and mental conception. That how we might "think" in our people groups may be different from how other societies and generations "think" in their regional (and era-specific) people groups. That one is neither wrong nor right in their Christian thoughts and language. And that by this process we learn to communicate with one another from within our differing philosophical reference points without feeling threatened that our Christian faith is under attack every time we do. For me, Emergent Christianity is just this. No more and nor less. And because it is a different animal from Evangelical Christianity it gets undeservedly bad press by its different look and feel when it is simply learning to speak to the younger generations more attuned to their own issues and needs of their era.

Or, in another sense, we might say "it is of no use to going back to yesterday's voice (or being) because I was a different person then." And by this learn to appreciate and recognize the epistemologic and existential (e/e) growth of a person as experience catches up with the age of our time-worn souls and personhood. As example, I began life within a pre-modern enclave of farming families carrying on the deep traditions of their remembered past (from the mid- to late- 1800s) even as they were trying to absorb the industrial, World War 1 and 2 eras of the early- to mid- 1900s. They began as homesteading families to the wilderness areas of West Michigan when black bear and aboriginal natives were still common to the land. My brothers and I were the sixth generation of a farming lifestyle quickly going out of existence (as well as inheritors to a Scandinavian heritage newly come to America from the "Old Country"). And with it, all the ingrained traditions and agrarian practices of the past. We were left "out-of-time and out-of-place" with a modern day era of public schooling, gas and electricity, TV, music and an encroaching urban lifestyle far more diverse than our own. And when entering university during the upheaval of the Vietnam War era with its civil unrest, angry riots, peace sit-ins, LSD drug experimentation, and societal turmoils, I struggled to "adopt" this strange new land I found myself within which later caused me to enter into a bible school environment which held closer life values to my own remembered background. And yet, over the years I have learned to wean myself away from this (e/e) dependency and to finally make the leap these past dozen years or so towards a more metropolitan way of thinking. So that in a way, its been my third revision of myself, though more probably, my older soul still lives deep down inside of my fractured being even though I am more accepting of contemporary change. And by nature, am predisposed to understand the change I am confronted with, not being content to simply allow it to haunt my pysche without pursuing its causes, permutations, and dissatisfactions.

And yet, this gives me hope that through personal adjustments, whether small or great (however personally painful or disorientating these can be), our God may arightly affect both ourselves and succeeding generations to become fuller participants to this precious life we have been given and seem daily seem to fail to embrace as completely as it could be. To receive each day with thanksgiving. And to learn to behave ourselves more wisely with one another through the service of our gifts and talents, strengths and weaknesses. And at the last, to allow for the mystery and majesty of life itself through Jesus our Lord and Saviour. That language can be a problem, but it can also be a gift, as we accept the fact that we must grow in our communicational strengths with those different from ourselves. And by this communication allow it to bind us into a stronger, healthier society of men and women that celebrates our differences and sees those differences as the key to a brighter future not fraught with warfare, hate, fear, and distrust. May this then be our prayer. Our practice. Our desire. And in all things may we learn to share the grace of God with one another. To allow God's grace to become a vital part of our language with one another... and even within our very selves matriculating with age and experience to adopt God's love and forgiveness within our own lives and livelihood. Family structures and friends. Communities, churches, and workplace. Amen.

R. E. Slater

October 13, 2012

reposted from "the poetry of r.e.slater"

 

 

 

 

Relevancy22 - Emergent Thoughts and Observations

by R.E. Slater

 

 

http://relevancy22.blogspot.com/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Adam" Just Got Older - And So Did the Regional Variance in Modern Mankind

 

Human sex-determining chromosomes:

X chromosome (left) and the much smaller Y chromosome.

 

Geneticists Discover the Oldest Known Genetic Branch of the Human Y Chromosome

http://scitechdaily.com/geneticists-discover-the-oldest-known-genetic-branch-of-the-human-y-chromosome/

 

March 7, 2013 by Staff 

 

Geneticists at the University of Arizona have discovered an African American Y chromosome with lineage that diverged from previously known Y chromosomes about 338,000 ago, pushing back the time the last common Y chromosome ancestor lived by almost 70 percent.

 

UA geneticists have discovered the oldest known genetic branch of the human Y chromosome – the hereditary factor determining male sex.

 

The new divergent lineage, which was found in an individual who submitted his DNA to Family Tree DNA, a company specializing in DNA analysis to trace family roots, branched from the Y chromosome tree before the first appearance of anatomically modern humans in the fossil record.

 

The results are published in the American Journal of Human Genetics.

 

“Our analysis indicates this lineage diverged from previously known Y chromosomes about 338,000 ago, a time when anatomically modern humans had not yet evolved,” said Michael Hammer, an associate professor in the University of Arizona’s department of ecology and evolutionary biology and a research scientist at the UA’s Arizona Research Labs. “This pushes back the time the last common Y chromosome ancestor lived by almost 70 percent.”

 

Unlike the other human chromosomes, the majority of the Y chromosome does not exchange genetic material with other chromosomes, which makes it simpler to trace ancestral relationships among contemporary lineages. If two Y chromosomes carry the same mutation, it is because they share a common paternal ancestor at some point in the past. The more mutations that differ between two Y chromosomes the farther back in time the common ancestor lived.

 

Originally, a DNA sample obtained from an African American living in South Carolina was submitted to the National Geographic Genographic Project. When none of the genetic markers used to assign lineages to known Y chromosome groupings were found, the DNA sample was sent to Family Tree DNA for sequencing. Fernando Mendez, a postdoctoral researcher in Hammer’s lab, led the effort to analyze the DNA sequence, which included more than 240,000 base pairs of the Y chromosome.

 

Hammer said “the most striking feature of this research is that a consumer genetic testing company identified a lineage that didn’t fit anywhere on the existing Y chromosome tree, even though the tree had been constructed based on perhaps a half-million individuals or more. Nobody expected to find anything like this.”

 

About 300,000 years ago - the time the Neanderthals are believed to have split from the ancestral human lineage. It was not until more than 100,000 years later that anatomically modern humans appear in the fossil record. They differ from the more archaic forms by a more lightly built skeleton, a smaller face tucked under a high forehead, the absence of a cranial ridge and smaller chins.

 

Hammer said the newly discovered Y chromosome variation is extremely rare. Through large database searches, his team eventually was able to find a similar chromosome in the Mbo, a population living in a tiny area of western Cameroon in sub-Saharan Africa.

 

“This was surprising because previously the most diverged branches of the Y chromosome were found in traditional hunter-gatherer populations such as Pygmies and the click-speaking KhoeSan, who are considered to be the most diverged human populations living today.”

 

“Instead, the sample matched the Y chromosome DNA of 11 men, who all came from a very small region of western Cameroon,” Hammer said. “And the sequences of those individuals are variable, so it’s not like they all descended from the same grandfather.”

 

Hammer cautions against popular concepts of “mitochondrial Eve” or “Y- hromosome Adam” that suggest all of humankind descended from exactly one pair of humans that lived at a certain point in human evolution.

 

“There has been too much emphasis on this in the past,” he said. “It is a misconception that the genealogy of a single genetic region reflects population divergence. Instead, our results suggest that there are pockets of genetically isolated communities that together preserve a great deal of human diversity.”

 

Still, Hammer said, “It is likely that other divergent lineages will be found, whether in Africa or among African-Americans in the U.S. and that some of these may further increase the age of the Y chromosome tree.”

 

He added: “There has been a lot of hype with people trying to trace their Y chromosome to different tribes, but this individual from South Carolina can say he did it.”

 

The study came about by combined efforts of a private business, Family Tree DNA, the efforts of a citizen scientist, Bonnie Schrack, and the research capabilities at the UA.

 

Publication: Fernando L. Mendez, et al., “An African American Paternal Lineage Adds an Extremely Ancient Root to the Human Y Chromosome Phylogenetic Tree,” The American Journal of Human Genetics, 28 February 2013; doi:10.1016/j.ajhg.2013.02.002

 

Source: Daniel Stolte, Univeristy of Arizona News

 

Image: Univeristy of Arizona News 

 

 

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

 

 

Y-chromosomal Adam

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-chromosomal_Adam

 

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Y chromosome in descendants of one human male

In human genetics, Y-chromosomal Adam (Y-MRCA) is the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) from whom all living people are descended patrilineally (tracing back only along the paternal (male) lines of their family tree). Recent studies report that Y-chromosomal Adam lived as early as around 142,000 years ago.[1] Older studies estimated Y-MRCA as recent as 60,000 years ago.[2]

All living humans are also descended matrilineally from Mitochondrial Eve who is thought to have lived earlier, about 190,000–200,000 years ago. Y-chromosomal Adam and Mitochondrial Eve need not have lived at the same time nor at the same place. A 2013 paper reported that a previously unknown lineage had been found, which pushed the estimated Y-MRCA back to 338,000 years ago.^[3]

Nomenclature

Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the biblical Adam. This may lead to a misconception that he was the only human male alive during his time, even though he co-existed with other human males,[4] including, perhaps, his own father who was not the "most recent". However, unlike himself and his paternal line, each of his male contemporaries failed to produce a direct unbroken male line to all males living today.

 

Hypothesis

 

The existence of a Y-chromosomal Adam was determined by applying the theories of molecular evolution to the Y chromosome. Unlike the autosomes, the human Y chromosome does not recombine with the X chromosome but is transferred intact from father to son. Mutations periodically occur within the Y chromosome and these mutations are passed on to males in subsequent generations. These mutations can be used as markers to identify shared patrilineal relationships. Y chromosomes that share a specific mutation are referred to as haplogroups. Y chromosomes within a specific haplogroup share a common patrilineal ancestor who was the first to carry the defining mutation. A family tree of Y chromosomes can be constructed, with the mutations serving as branching points along lineages. Y-chromosomal Adam is positioned at the root of the family tree as the Y chromosomes of all living males are descended from his Y chromosome.

 

Researchers can reconstruct ancestral Y chromosome DNA sequences by reversing mutated DNA segments to their original condition. The most likely original or ancestral state of a DNA sequence is determined by comparing human DNA sequences with those of a closely related species, usually non-human primates such as chimpanzees and gorillas. By reversing known mutations in a Y-chromosome lineage, a hypothetical ancestral sequence for the MRCA, Y-chromosomal Adam, can be inferred.

 

Determining Y-chromosomal Adam's DNA sequence, and the time when he lived, involves identifying the human Y-chromosome lineages that are most divergent from each other—the lineages that share the least unique mutations with each other when compared to a non-human primate sequence in a phylogenetic tree. The common ancestor of the most divergent lineages is therefore the common ancestor of all lineages.

 

The existence of Y-chromosomal Adam was confirmed by a worldwide sample of Y chromosomes that included individuals from all continents. A number of Y-chromosome lineages, or haplogroups, from Africa were found to be the most divergent from each other, and non-African lineages were determined to be subsets of a few lineages found in Africa. This suggested Africa was the most likely home of Y-chromosomal Adam.



Different MRCA's



Variable Adam

 

The title "Y-chromosomal Adam" is not permanently fixed on a single individual. Because knowledge of human Y chromosomes is still incomplete, Y-chromosomal Adam's DNA sequence, his position in the family tree, the time when lived, and his place of origin, are all subject to future revisions. In addition, demographic changes during the course of human evolution would have frequently caused the title of Y-chromosomal Adam to change hands.[5] The following events would change the individual designated Y-chromosomal Adam:

• Further sampling of Y chromosomes could uncover previously unknown divergent lineages. If this happens, Y-chromosome lineages would converge on an individual who lived further back in time.
• The discovery of additional deep rooting mutations in known lineages could lead to a rearrangement of the family tree.
• When deep rooting haplogroups are permanently lost from the world's population, living human Y chromosomes converge on a more recent common ancestor. A Y-chromosome lineage is halted when a male dies without leaving any male offspring (although this individual may or may not have had daughters). Phenomena such as bottlenecks and genetic drift during human evolution would have caused the total extinction of several basal haplogroups. Because of these factors, the title "Y-chromosomal Adam" has changed hands numerous times.^[5]



The revised y-chromosome family tree by Cruciani et al. 2011 compared with the family tree from Karafet et al. 2008



Family tree

Y-chromosomal Adam had at least two sons and two of his sons have unbroken lineages that have survived to the present day. Initial sequencing of the human Y chromosome suggested that two most basal Y-chromosome lineages were Haplogroup A and Haplogroup BT. Haplogroup A is found at low frequencies in parts of Africa, but is common among certain hunter-gatherer groups. Haplogroup BT lineages represent the majority of African Y-chromosome lineages and virtually all non-African lineages.[6] Y-chromosomal Adam was represented as the root of these two lineages. Haplogroup A and Haplogroup BT represented the lineages of the two sons of Y-chromosomal Adam.

 

However, a recent paper^[1] places this event around 142,000 years ago. Cruciani et al. 2011, determined that the deepest split in the Y-chromosome tree is found between two previously reported subclades of Haplogroup A, rather than between Haplogroup A and Haplogroup BT. Subclades A1b and A1a-T, now descend directly from the root of the tree and now represent the lineages of Y-chromosomal Adam's two sons. The rearrangement of the Y-chromosome family tree implies that lineages classified as Haplogroup A do not necessarily form a monophyletic clade.^[7] Haplogroup A therefore refers to a collection of lineages that do not possess the markers that define Haplogroup BT, though Haplogroup A includes the most distantly related Y chromosomes.

 

The M91 and P97 mutations distinguish Haplogroup A from Haplogroup BT. Within Haplogroup A chromosomes, the M91 marker consists of a stretch of 8 T nucleobase units. In Haplogroup BT and chimpanzee chromosomes, this marker consists of 9 T nucleobase units. This pattern suggested that the 9T stretch of Haplogroup BT was the ancestral version and that Haplogroup A was formed by the deletion of one nucleobase. Haplogroups A1b and A1a were considered subclades of Haplogroup A as they both possessed the M91 with 8Ts.^[6][7]

 

But according to Cruciani et al. 2011, the region surrounding the M91 marker is a mutational hotspot prone to recurrent mutations. It is therefore possible that the 8T stretch of Haplogroup A may be the ancestral state of M91 and the 9T of Haplogroup BT may be the derived state that arose by an insertion of 1T. This would explain why subclades A1b and A1a-T, the deepest branches of Haplogroup A, both possess the same version of M91 with 8Ts. Furthermore Cruciani et al. 2011 determined that the P97 marker, which is also used to identify Haplogroup A, possessed the ancestral state in Haplogroup A but the derived state in Haplogroup BT.^[7]

 

Origin

 

Initial studies implicated East Africa and Southern Africa as the likely sources of human Y-chromosome diversity. This was because the basal lineages, Haplogroup A and Haplogroup B achieve their highest frequencies in these regions. But according to Cruciani et al. 2011, the most basal lineages have been detected in West, Northwest and Central Africa. In a sample of 2204 African Y-chromosomes, 8 chromosomes belonged to either haplogroup A1b or A1a. Haplogroup A1a was identified in two Moroccan Berbers, one Fulbe and one Tuareg from Niger. Haplogroup A1b was identified in three Bakola pygmies from Southern Cameroon and one Algerian Berber. Cruciani et al. 2011 suggest a Y-chromosomal Adam, living somewhere in Central-Northwest Africa, fits well with the data.^[7]

 

In November 2012, a new study by Scozzari et al. reinforced "the hypothesis of an origin in the north-western quadrant of the African continent for the A1b haplogroup, and, together with recent findings of ancient Y-lineages in central-western Africa, provide new evidence regarding the geographical origin of human MSY diversity".^[8]

 

Time frame

 

The time when Y-chromosomal Adam lived is determined by applying a molecular clock to human Y-chromosomes. In contrast to mitochondrial DNA, which has a short sequence of 16,000 base pairs, and mutates frequently, the Y chromosome is significantly longer at 60 million base pairs, and has a lower mutation rate. These features of the Y chromosome have slowed down the identification of its polymorphisms and as a consequence, reduced the accuracy of Y-chromosome mutation rate estimates.^[9] Initial studies, such as Thomson et al. 2000,^[9] proposed that Y-chromosomal Adam lived about 59,000 years ago. This date suggested that Y-chromosomal Adam lived tens of thousands of years after his female counterpart Mitochondrial Eve, who lived 150,000–200,000 years ago.^[10] This date also meant that Y-chromosomal Adam lived at a time very close to, and possibly after, the migration from Africa which is believed to have taken place 50,000–80,000 years ago.

 

One explanation given for this discrepancy in the dates of Adam and Eve was that females have a better chance of reproducing than males due to the practice of polygyny. When a male individual has several wives, he has effectively prevented other males in the community from reproducing and passing on their Y chromosomes to subsequent generations. On the other hand, polygyny doesn't prevent most females in a community from passing on their mitochondrial DNA to subsequent generations. This differential reproductive success of males and females can lead to fewer male lineages relative to female lineages persisting into the future. These fewer male lineages are more sensitive to drift and would most likely coalesce on a more recent common ancestor. This would potentially explain the more recent dates associated with Y-chromosomal Adam.^[11][12]

 

The 2011 study by Cruciani et al. found that Y-chromosomal Adam lived about 142,000 years ago, significantly earlier than previous estimates, such as the 59,000 years ago estimate proposed by Thomson et al. 2000. The older TMRCA was due to the discovery of additional mutations and the rearrangement of the backbone of the y-chromosome phylogeny following the resequencing of Haplogroup A lineages. According to the study, determining the precise date when Y-chromosomal Adam lived depends on the accuracy of the mutation rate used. But the repositioning of the MRCA from the root of Haplogroups A and BT to the root of Haplogroups A1b and A1a still entails that Y-chromosomal Adam is older than previously thought. According to Cruciani et al., the much older date is easier to reconcile with models of human origins.^[7]

 

Current Research

 

A 2013 paper reported that a previously unknown very distinct Y chromosome had been found, which changed the estimated Y-MRCA to 338,000 years ago (237-581 kya with 95% confidence).^[3]

 

The discovery emerged when a relative of Albert Perry, an African American man with ancestry in the Mbo-speaking region in Cameroon^[3], submitted his DNA for commercial genealogical analysis by Family Tree DNA.^[13]. Perry's Y-chromosome haplogroup was named by the researchers as the A00 haplogroup (so named as it separated from other extant lineages prior to A0's separation), and later testing in Cameroon found this haplogroup also included a small number of Mbo males, though Perry's Y-chromosome was the most genetically distinct in terms of number of mutations.^[3] The age of Adam was estimated from the mutations within the Y-chromosome genome (based on known mutation rates), and was found to be in excess of the estimated age of the current Mitochondrial Eve and the oldest known fossils of anatomically modern humans.^[3]

 

 

 For Further Reference

 

Genomic Observations About Adam and Eve