Seminary CM7: A Culture Map

This is the seventh post on the Contexts of Ministry in my Seminary in a Nutshell series. See the bottom for the previous posts in this unit, "The Person and Contexts of a Minister." I have completed one other unit in this series, The Pastor as Leader.
___________________
1. In this post I largely want to summarize the ideas of a book by Erin Meyer called The Culture Map. Although the book was written for businesses, it gives some helpful models by which to categorize and understand various cultures around the world.

There have been some in the past who have reacted negatively to terms like "cultural relativity" and "contextualization." Some of this reaction is based in an "all or nothing" mentality. The fact that some aspects of Christian faith are contextual does not mean that all are. That is to say, relativity on some things does not mean relativity on all things!

Romans 14 makes the point. In this chapter, Paul is basically saying that different Christians have different convictions on some issues, and that is okay as long as they hold their convictions with faith. In other words, Paul is saying that--on some issues--right and wrong is relative to the convictions of the individual. Obviously this is not true of murder or adultery!

The same goes with culture. There is no culture were is it okay to murder innocent people from a Christian perspective. The kingdom core of an earlier post applies to all cultures.

But there are also aspects of morality that play out differently in different places. In fact, all morality has to play out in a cultural context because, as we have seen, all humans live in culture. So the gospel always involved contextualization. It is sheer ignorance that some American Christians of the past have unthinkingly assumed that their Christianity was not incarnated in culture just like everyone else's.

"When you are in and of a culture--as fish are in and of water--it is often difficult or even impossible to see that culture" (25).

On the 8 scales that follow, there is no right or wrong. There is just different from my culture.

2. Communicating--High vs. Low Context
The United States is the most "low context" culture on the planet currently. This means that we assume those with whom we are speaking have no context against which to understand our meaning. "Say what you mean and mean what you say." "Tell us what you're going to say. Say it. Then tell us what you've said."

Accordingly, all other cultures in the world are more indirect in their information. You have to read between the lines. In Japanese culture, this is called "reading the air." There will be an assumption that you mean more than you say and a Japanese person will expect you to be able to read between the lines, so to speak. In China there is intentional beating around the bush. In French there is the "underneath understanding."

I find the description "explicit versus implicit communication" a clearer way of expressing this dynamic of different cultures.

3. Evaluating--Direct Negative Feedback vs. Indirect Negative Feedback
Interestingly, how explicit a culture is about information does not correlate exactly with how you give negative feedback. French culture, for example, is not very explicit in general when communicating, except when it comes to negative feedback (see also #8 below). The French, German, Dutch, Russian, etc. are very direct when it comes to sharing negative feedback.

However, United States culture is much more hesitant to give negative feedback bluntly. When it reaches that point, a person tends to be in serious trouble. A French person may not realize how serious the situation is, because negative feedback is readily given in French culture, while positive feedback is rarely given. By contrast, it is customary to say something nice in the United States before giving negative feedback.

4. Persuading--Principles First vs. Applications First
Those from the US tend to be practical and pragmatic--we are perhaps the most pragmatic culture in the whole world. We are most convinced by "how" arguments and inductive arguments. By contrast, many parts of the world (France, Russia, Germany) are "why" cultures in which you give the principles and the background first, then deduce from there.

This section was interesting for me in terms of the academy. For example, Wesley Seminary was founded to be an inductive, problem based learning, pragmatic style learning culture. But professors are almost always trained to be principles first, "why" thinkers. Let's just say the original vision is not likely to last.

If you want to convince someone from Germany, you have to give them the philosophical basis before going for the throat. But in US business, we want you to "cut to the chase." We want to know the bottom line. I've wondered if this gives us an advantage in war.

Meyer puts Asian cultures in a different category she calls "holistic" thinking. This approach sees the interconnectedness of everything. This approach needs the big picture before understanding the specifics.

I experienced some inner conflict in some of these sections because of intra-American debates that reflect these cultural differences. Analytical versus phenomenological approaches to philosophy map to the difference between British and continental cultures. In American theology, there are the presuppositionalists of the Reformed tradition and the Charles Finney types that tend to be more "American" in their approach to evangelism.

I take sides on these issues, but this book is suggesting we are in part talking cultural conflict here.

5. Leading--Egalitarian vs. Hierarchical
Some cultures clearly pay more attention to hierarchy than others. For example, can you skip lines on the organizational chart? Can a janitor have lunch with the president? Do you contact the person on the same level as you?

Again, I've seen some of these issues in the university where I work. Some bosses I've had have been very open to skipping people on the org chart. If you need information from a certain person, you contact that person directly.

Others have been insistent on following the chain of command. If you need information from x but you are on the same level as y, you contact y and he or she contacts x for you. It would seem that there is no absolute answer here but it is a matter of culture and personality.

It does seem to me--a matter of some inner conflict as I worked through this book--that some models accomplish certain goals better (and I realize my American task orientation is at work here). I thus had values in conflict as I read. On the one hand, I want to affirm that there generally aren't right and wrong cultures. Yet it seems that certain cultural approaches are more effective in certain areas than others.

6. Deciding--Consensual vs. Top-Down
Interestingly, even though some cultures like the Dutch or Scandinavian are very egalitarian--the boss is one of the gang, referred to by first name, rides a bike to work like everyone else--how decisions are made can be a quite different thing. While US businesses tend to be more egalitarian, for example, bosses tend to make decisions.

In Germany, by contrast, the team makes the decisions and consensus is important. In the US, the boss may make an unpopular decision, but everyone knows she is the boss. That's what bosses do. This is experienced as very heavy-handed in other cultures. By contrast, while Japanese culture is very hierarchical, decisions tend to be made by consensus.

So hierarchy and decision-making do not always map directly to each other, although they often do.

[More inner conflict. I prefer to be a consensus leader, but recognize that sometimes a leader has to make a decision or at least should. Otherwise you can languish on forever in indecision, which can do more damage than simply making a decision and moving on.]

Another element is how easily a decision is changed once it is made. This relates to the principles-first versus applications-first distinction. In Germany, once a decision is made it is made. But in the US, if new information surfaces, the decision can be altered. Meyer distinguishes between "big D" decision making and "small d" decision making.

Again, this gets at some of my pet-peeves even in US organizational culture. The principles-first approach seems to me philosophically inferior and, in our current climate, just as likely to run your organization out of business in changing times. It certainly seems likely to lose you a war.

7. Trusting--Task-Based vs. Relationship Based
This is the distinction between "peach" and "coconut" cultures. Americans tend to share a lot of information with complete strangers until you get to a certain point, the peach seed. We tend to be task-based in our business relationships. This relates to the principles-first versus applications-first issue.

Other cultures are more like a coconut. A gruff exterior means nothing. It takes relational work to get beneath the shell. Once you are there, however, there is deep relationship. If you want to make a business deal, you had better build a relationship. Spending time together eating is not a waste of time but an essential part of the process in these cultures.

8. Disagreeing--Confrontational vs. Avoids Confrontation
If I were writing this book, I might have put this section right after the one on negative feedback. Some cultures are very aggressive when it comes to confrontation, but it does not mean what it means in US culture. Two French individuals may be very negative and confrontational toward each other and yet hold hands walking out of the room.

For the US, however, this level of confrontation tends to break relationships. In Asian culture, there is also a strong need to "save face" in public. In the US, we confront individuals in private.

9. Scheduling--Linear-Time vs. Flexible Time
Many of us will know the stereotypes of hot versus cold cultures and how time in some cultures is much less of a thing than it is in others. In US military and business culture, "on time is late." But when my sister was a missionary to the Philippines, we used to talk about "by and by" time. "We'll get there when we get there."

There's a tendency to put a moral judgment on such things. "Being on time is a sign of virtue." But this is not true in many cultures.

10. A very interesting book. Very eye-opening, yet also difficult. It seems to me that there are some betters and worse to achieving certain goals in certain contexts (that is my American task-orientation speaking) yet I also want to affirm that these are not moral evaluations. Different cultures are just different.

What I had attributed to personality differences in an organization now face the complication of possibly being cultural level differences.

Next Sunday: Culture 8: Two-Thirds World Christianity

The Calling of a Minister

• The Domains of Ministry
• The Calling of a Minister
• Ministerial Calling in Scripture
• Ministerial Calling in History
• God can call anyone he wants into ministry.
• A Theology of Calling

The Person of a Pastor

• Intro to the Pastor as Person
• Personal Strengths and Weaknesses
• Sacred Pathways
• Individual Spiritual Disciplines
• Corporate Spiritual Disciplines
• Some Formational Reading

Contexts of Ministry

• Kinds of Context
• The Making of Meaning
• How Culture Works
• The Cultures of the Bible
• The Kingdom Core
• The Church and Culture

9.4 Inductive Reactance

This is the fourth week of Module 9, "Relationships of Current, Counter EMF, and Voltage in LR Circuits." These modules are part of the Navy Basic Electricity and Electronics series from the 1970s. The fourth section of this module is titled, "Inductive Reactance."

9.1 Rise and Decay of Current and Voltage
9.2 LR Time Constant
9.3 Universal Time Constant Chart

1. The book thus far has only considered counter-EMF with a direct current (DC) source and a coil. With such a source, opposition to a change in current stopped once five time constants passed and the current reached a maximum or zeroed out.

But when the current has an AC (alternating current) source, the situation is different. A counter-EMF will constantly be in play from a coil and there will always be an opposition to the current, known as reactance. Reactance is symbolized by the letter X and with an inductive cause, X_L.

Because reactance is opposition to current flow, it is measured in ohms (Ω) just like resistance is. But while resistance is a permanent feature to a circuit based on its physical features, reactance changes based on the frequency of AC or the inductance of the circuit.

2. Reactance in a circuit caused by inductance is called, "inductive reactance." Its value is X_L = 2πfL, where f is the frequency in Hertz (cycles per second) and L is the inductance in henrys (volts per 1 amp change of current per second) .

Increased frequency means a greater rate of change and therefore a greater reactance.

Similarly, if the inductance is increased by increasing the number of turns in the coil, the size of the cross-section, or the permeability of the core, then the reactance to changing current increases as well.

So when inductance goes up, the reactance goes up.

Friday Science: Adam and the Genome 5

On to chapter 3 of a book by Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight called, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science.

Previous posts
Personal Preface
Forward and Introduction
1. Evolution as a Scientific Theory
2. Genomes as Language, Genomes as Books

Chapter 3
1. Chapter 3 is titled, "Adam's Last Stand?" In it, Dennis Venema presents the genetic arguments for the claim that humanity as we know descended from a pool of some 10,000 individuals. That is to say, humanity does not descend from two individuals but from a population of several thousand.

McKnight will process this claim theologically in the second half of the book. Venema's purpose is to get the current understanding of genetics on the page. His assessment of the creationist response is worded very strongly: "There does not appear to be anyone in the antievolutionary camp at present with the necessary training to properly understand the evidence, much less offer a compelling case against it" (65).

2. The gist of the arguments relate to the fact that the number of variants present in a population seems to connect to the size of the population. Venema uses the example of the Tasmanian Devil as an example. The TD has a profound lack of genetic variability because at some point in the recent past it experienced a genetic bottleneck.

At some point in the last few hundred years, the population was so drastically reduced, that most TDs have exactly the same alleles (genetic options). This now includes a fatal cancer that TD immune systems do not recognize as harmful. In humans, an organ from another human is inevitably genetically different enough that it provokes a strong immune reaction. In Devils, the genetic material is so similar that a cancer does not.

3. So I counted five separate arguments from genetics in the chapter that all independently point to the same conclusion. "We descend from a population that has never dipped below about 10,000 individuals" (48).

• First, if you take the human mutation rate. Then take the mathematical probability of new mutations spreading in a population or being lost. Then look at how many alleles (genetic variations) are currently present. This calculation suggests that at least 10,000 humans would be necessary to generate that many alleles at a particular point in the past.
• linkage disequilibrium - When two genes are located close to each other on the same chromosome, the alleles present at both locations tend to be inherited together. It takes some time for "cross-overs" to happen in a population in relation to closely located genes. After crunching the data, it suggests a parent population of about 10,000 individuals.
• A snapshot of genes not near each other at a point in the past can suggest a minimum population at that point in the past. If we choose around 200,000BC (when homo sapiens is alleged to have emerged), the pool is about 7,000 in Sub-Saharan Africa and about 3000 human ancestors elsewhere, which adds to 10,000.
• Another approach using mutation frequency and many pairs of genes suggests a human bottleneck of about 1,200 between 40,000 and 20,000 years outside of sub-Saharan Africa, with a bottleneck in Africa of about 5,700 some 50,000 years ago. This adds up to about 6,900 in our total human ancestral pool.
• Looking at more distant ancestors between humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas, we see that humans and gorillas can share some variants that did not survive in chimpanzees. This is called "incomplete lineage sorting" (ILS). The data suggests that about 50,000 common ancestors would be necessary to account for the genetic material of current humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas.

He concludes: "To date, every genetic analysis estimating ancestral population sizes has agreed that we descend from a population of thousands, not a single ancestral couple" (55).

Venema is basically arguing that if we assume that Adam and Eve are meant to be taken literally rather than literary expressions of the human condition, they were part of a larger population rather than the sole parents of humanity.

4. Much of the rest of the chapter is given to the current state of fossil research. Perhaps I have not yet conveyed Venema's correction of the idea that evolution happens in a straight line. Rather, he would say, you have a collection of variations in a population. Over time the average genetic characteristics of the population change in a certain direction, which is not a straight line.

Similarly, it is not likely that we have fossils that are in a direct line. Instead, we find distant cousins from other branches.

So the current composite theory is that homo sapiens arose in Africa about 200,000 years ago. About 50,000 years ago, significant numbers of humans left Africa (at least 1200). As they left, they encountered other "hominin" species like Neanderthals in Europe and Denisovans in Asia (who themselves may have earlier encountered homo erectus there).

Those descended directly from Africa have none of these other hominins in their genes. Those descended from Europeans have 1-4 percent Neanderthal in their genes. Those in Asia have some Neanderthal and 3-5 percent Denisovan. The Denisovan genome may incorporate some homo erectus genetics as well. All these hominins share a common ancestry that goes back to about 800,000 years ago in Africa.

5. One last thing of interest in the chapter is his explanation of "Mitochondrial Eve" and "Y Chromosome Adam." The Y gene is only passed down through males. If a man has only female offspring, then no genetics unique to the father's Y gene is passed down. Similarly, mitochondrial genes are only passed down through eggs. If a mother only has sons, her unique mitochondrial genes come to an end.

So all living beings are said to descend from a common "mitochondrial Eve" who lived in Africa somewhere between 100,000 and 150,000 years ago. Similarly, all men are said to descend from a common male who lived in Africa somewhere between 200,000 and 300,000 years ago. These two individuals are just two separate genetic lines for different aspects of human genetics. They are unrelated to each other (that is, they were not a couple), and they are different from the population from which our regular chromosomal DNA is said to emerge.

In short, "all humans can descend from one Mitochondrial Eve for our mitochondrial DNA, one Y-Chromosome Adam for our Y chromosomes, and 10,000 other ancestors for our regular chromosomal DNA" (64).

Very interested to see what McKnight does with all this!

Gen Eds LC2: Culture Classification

This is the second post in a series called, "World Language and Culture." This is the fourth series in an overall project called Gen Eds in a Nutshell. The other series so far include 1) philosophy, 2) world history, and 3) a math and science series, which is a little over half-way.

Thus far in this current series are:

• World Language and Culture Overview

1. Today's goal is to provide a framework for describing the various cultures of the world. The series on world history was primarily "diachronic." That is to say, it looked back in time and focused on cause-effect relationships over time. This series is primarily "synchronic." It aims to look at the current languages and cultures of the world at this present moment. [1]

Meaning is a function of minds. The world knows matter and energy, cause and effect. But significance is for God and humanity.

We share many things in common as humans, which suggests that there will be some matters of common significance among all people across time. Some of these include love, justice, loyalty, ambition, pleasure, and family. Christians believe that God has assigned a significance to these for all the universe.

On the other end of the spectrum is individual personality. Among us are extroverts and introverts. There are those who act more on their intuitions or on what they can see. There are some who act more on what makes sense to them and others who do more what they feel. Finally, there are those who like to leave things open-ended and those who delight in finishing what they start.

There is no right and wrong when it comes to these personality preferences. A person is not better because they prefer to be around other people, versus those who need time along. Each personality has its strengths and weaknesses.

2. Culture is like the personality of a group of people as a whole in a particular place and time. Again, there is no right or wrong culture, although no doubt each has its strengths and weaknesses. To say this is not at all to say that there is no right and wrong. It is to say that there are a lot of variations among cultures that are not a matter of right and wrong. [2]

In this series I propose to use seven categories in order to categorize the different cultures of the world. These categories are:

1. Language--what are the dominant languages of a particular culture 
2. Identifying stories, symbols, and rituals, and beliefs. N. T. Wright calls these the four components of a worldview.
3. Social structure--I am going to pack into this category a number of features, such as ethics and/or racial composition, class systems, and whether a culture tends to be more hierarchical or egalitarian.
4. Group structure--In this category I will cover family structure, as well as whether a culture tends to be more individualistic or collectivist. Also, how is gender and age treated?
5. Economic structure--how does a culture handle money and resources
6. Communication--Is a culture more implicit or explicit in its communication? Does it tend to give principles or the big picture first or the details and concrete specifics?
7. Operating mode--This gets at some of the hot versus cold culture dynamics. Is a culture more relationship or task oriented? Is it more linear and time-conscious or flexible and laid back? Is it focused more on being or doing?
8. Moral focus--Here I am applying Jonathan Haidt's six moral categories in The Righteous Mind. These include a) care/harm, b) fairness/injustice, c) loyalty/betrayal, d) authority/subversion, e) sanctity/defilement, and f) liberty/oppression. [3]

3. It is important to recognize that the meaning of many actions and words is completely cultural. To raise a middle finger is quite significant in the United States, and we have exported this action around the world. However, there are still places in the world where this action has no meaning whatsoever.

What is considered modest is extremely cultural and sometimes even subcultural. A woman without a veil would be immodest in a number of Arab countries, while a woman without a top might not be considered immodest in some parts of the world. It is hard for us to imagine that such values could differ because they are so fundamental to our culture, but these are learned values, not innate.

Living in another person's shoes is one path on the road to enlightenment. This is true both of people in our own culture and people in other cultures. Hopefully this series will help us on this journey to see ourselves more clearly because we can see ourselves as we appear to others outside our context.

Next Week: The Languages of the World

[1] See another attempt to present how culture works here.

[2] Most of the rhetoric on absolutism and relativism is very superficial. On the one hand, people often blur epistemological absolutes (which have to do with truth) and moral absolutes (which have to do with ethics). Additionally, a false alternative is typically posed between either believing in truth (absolutes) or not believing in truth (relativism).

Absolutism, properly defined, means no exceptions. By contrast, most moral norms are universal with exceptions, which is neither relativism nor absolutism. All people consider some matters of morality relative (we used to call them "convictions"). Nihilism is the proper term for a disbelief in morality altogether.

All that is to say is that most of the tired rhetoric you hear on this subject is overly simplistic and generally a mess of bad thinking.

[3] This last one actually is distributed among the others, but I thought it was worth singling out.

19. The Reichstag Fire

Once Hitler became Chancellor, it begins to unravel. Democracy is dead in the name of the people and the nation.This week is chapter 22 of Konrad Heiden's 1944 book, Der Fuehrer.  See the bottom for previous posts.

1. I post this on July 4, making today's post a stern warning of the unraveling of democracy in the supposed name of the good of the people and the nation. There are some significant differences of course. Hitler had stormtroopers, the SA, scattered throughout Germany. They were at hand to immediately "supplement" the legitimate police. The democracy in Germany at that time was much shorter lived and very fragile.

The decisive moment was the setting of the Reichstag on fire. Looking back, it seems to have been part of Hitler's plan to take control. Although Hitler and his men talked of communist conspiracies and discovering documents (which they never produced), they established their alibis well enough on the night of the fire, seeming to be completely uninterested in the event until it was definitively over and a stooge arrested to blame.

Now Hitler has the pretext. The Communists must be stopped because they are plotting against us. This is the tactic. Accuse some fall-guy of heinous crimes and then use it as an excuse to exert oppression on your enemies. Use it as an excuse to gain emergency powers.

Did most Germans believe him? Probably not. But Hitler had a dedicated minority. Some 44% voted for him in the election he had set. "The majority did not want Hitler, but it wanted nothing else" (564).

2. Of course by this point the SA had arrested, beat, and killed a mass of the Nazi's enemies. "Crime was openly ruling Germany; none of these men [leaders in the Reichstag] believed that the Communists had set the fire" (562).

The SA begin a reign of terror. Göring is not even the head of the police in Germany, but he had already armed them prior to the fire. "This was the decisive revolutionary act of the National Socialists" (549). The SA arrested whoever they wanted for whatever reason they wanted. "From now on the police was almost uncontested master over the German people" (561).

3. Ironically, the Communists had thought Hitler was the path to a classless society. They thought the forces of history would bring about their ideal stateless state. They were essential to Hitler's rise to power, and then Hitler immediately disposed of them. When the Communists did not rise up on their own, Hitler framed them.

They clung to a preposterous ideology to its demoralizing end. From Hindenburg, Hitler received the power to curb free speech and a free press. Meanwhile, the publications of the crazy were given free reign. The intelligent, free press became the fake news, and the stupids were given free rein to propagandize. Because of the SA and SS, most who were not put in concentration camps (the beginning of such) became really careful about what they said.

"This was the beginning of an artificial intellectual tornado" (572).

The power was still within the hands of the Center (catholic) and the Social Democrats to stop Hitler from getting dictator powers. No longer were they talking of a year but of four years. Hitler promised the Center assurances, said they were written down. "Oh I forgot them, but they are signed." Lie, lie, lie and everyone knows it deep down, but still they vote for him to have dictatorial power.

Hitler renounces his salary. Then when it is clear he needs to take it, he donates it. What a generous fellow.

"To destroy Communism, the Nazis had to smash democracy" (561), but of course this is all just a game. Most know it is. His supporters know it is but do not care. "When the Communist danger is eliminated, the normal order of things will return" (562). Right.

"The will of an imprisoned mass must first be broken by the most loathsome cruelty" (565). In these concentration camps for communists and opponents to Hitler, "many who may have been good-natured human beings when they began their service in the concentration camps were gradually turned into torturers and murderers by the routine" (565).

Many were "shot while trying to escape." Others "committed suicide" by jumping out of windows. An English newspaper wrote, "The habit of jumping out of the window in an unguarded moment has cost many political prisoners in Germany their lives in the past weeks" (565).

4. Meanwhile, "it is strange how little the old routine politicians on both sides understood the hour" (567). "Men who had hitherto regarded themselves as powerful began to fear the new masters" (571). The constitution was forgotten.

Hitler spoke of the importance of Christianity in Germany. "It was the compliment of an atheist who admits the usefulness of Christianity" (577).

And here was equality before the law for Hitler: "Theoretical equality before the law cannot lead us to tolerate those who despise the law as a matter of principle... Equality before the law will be granted to all those who stand behind the nation and do not deny the government their support. But those who deny the government their support have... no rights whatsoever" (578).

Take Aways

• Those seeking to suspend the rule of law may create a fake crisis, blame it on their enemies, and then try to take emergency autocratic powers on that pretext. Autocrats try to gain power in the name of protection and nationalism.
• Don't ever think you will get power back from a dictator. Once he has it, he will burn everything to the ground before he gives it up. Autocrats cannot be controlled once their power is secured.
• Autocrats require a police or military force to hold control, which is why presidents and their cabinets are not supposed to be recently active in the military.
• Freedom of speech and the press are essential to democracy. Expect an autocrat to try to suppress them. Rounding up enemies, keeping them from voting, these are all the tactics of a dictator want-to-be.

Previously on Hitler:

• How to Take Over the World
• Bands of Restless Men
• Hitler was a Loser
• Rallies with the Rabid
• Waging War against His People
• The Art of Propaganda
• His Brand Is Crisis
• Big Words for a Coward
• Prophecies of the Antichrist
• Germany's Return from Despair
• Fatherland Security
• Hitler's Philosophy
• Destroying Democracy with Democracy
• He's Horrible to Work With
• Putting on a Show
• Maneuvering Toward Power
• Narrow Misses With Hitler
• Hitler Becomes Chancellor (chap 21)

Paul Novel 4:3: Private Meeting Jerusalem

continued from last time
______________________
Barnabas arranged for a time to meet with the "pillars" of the Jerusalem church. Since they believed the temple had been defiled by corrupt leadership, the earliest church had come to think of four Jerusalem leaders as the four pillars in the new temple. Until such time as the physical temple was cleansed, they represented the true dwelling of God in the land.

Peter was the first pillar, the first of the disciples to whom Jesus appeared. James the brother of Jesus was the second, the leader of the Jerusalem church. Then James and John, the sons of Zebedee were the third and fourth pillar. Of course James of Zebedee had been killed by Herod Agrippa I by this time, leaving only three of the pillars.

At first Barnabas suggested they eat a meal with Paul, Titus, and him. Peter was happy to do it but James clearly wasn't excited about the idea. Barnabas didn't ask why because he knew it was the idea of eating with a Gentile--and maybe even Paul himself. Barnabas wouldn't tell Paul about that part of the conversation.

So at the appropriate time, Barnabas and Paul met with them, with Titus nearby. Paul knew well enough to let Barnabas do most of the talking. Barnabas first told of their visit to Cyprus and how surprised they were for the Roman governor himself to believe.

"He will find it difficult to follow the Way in such a position of wealth and power," James said. "As my brother said while he was with us, 'It is easier for a camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.'"

"Perhaps so," Paul finally said. "But our God can do all things through Christ who strengthens us."

"I hope the Gentiles can be saved, Barnabas," John chimed in. "But it is still very important for you and Paul to keep the Law, since you are Israelites."

"We are diligent to do so," Barnabas said. Paul kept silent. He basically still kept the Law. But if it ever seemed like the Law might stand in the way of the mission, the mission pretty much came first...

Friday Science: Adam and the Genome 4

Here's chapter 2 of a new book by Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight called, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science. Both are men of faith. Chapter 2 is titled, "Genomes as Language, Genomes as Books."

Previous posts
Personal Preface
Forward and Introduction
Evolution as a Scientific Theory

1. 1. In chapter 2, Dennis Venema gives a basic explanation of how genes replicate themselves and activate proteins. It is actually a quite impressive simplification of genetic science. In the process, he gives us a small taste of the genomic evidence for evolution. At the end of the chapter, he says, “It is no exaggeration to say that (the very, very few) trained biologists who reject common ancestry do so because of prior religious commitments, not for scientific reasons” (40).

He actually quotes from a blog post of one of the them. Todd Wood is a young earth creationist by faith. He is quite clear, however, about how the evidence looks. “Evolution is not a theory in crisis… There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution… I say these things not because… I’ve ‘converted’ to evolution… Creation students, listen to me very carefully… evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn’t make it ultimately true… It is my own faith choice to reject evolution” (41).

I am just a beginner when it comes to such things, but my guess is that the situation is this. We could suppose, by faith, that God created in an instant the genomic map of all organisms to look as if they could have gradually evolved following processes we now can observe on a small scale. But the most natural explanation, if we had no prior commitments to go either way, would be to conclude that there has been a gradual development from simpler to more complex organisms over millions of years.

2. Some of the chapter consists of some basic genetics. Most of us have heard of DNA. DNA exists in a double spiral. Sections of DNA are called “genes,” and sections of genes are called “chromosomes.” Humans have 46 chromosomes, 23 from our father and 23 from our mother. Women have two “X” chromosomes. Men have an X and a Y chromosome. In children, women always contribute an X chromosome, while men contribute either an X (making it a girl) or a Y (making it a boy). So Henry VIII should have had himself executed for not having a boy.

There are only four basic building blocks in DNA, chemicals called cytosine, guanine, adenine, and thymine. Cytosine only bonds with guanine, and adenine only bond with thymine. So you can replicate a strand by breaking it in half and then making all these “nucleotides” available. The right ones will find the right plug-ins and bond. In fact, this is how our cells reproduce.

It is also how our DNA puts into motion our physical characteristics. Something called “messenger RNA” duplicates one of the DNA strands, takes that information off and uses it to produce a variety of proteins, which in turn activate things like our eye color or hair color or nose length, etc.

There is apparently a lot of dead space in our genes, stuff that doesn’t do much of anything. In fact, only about 5 to 6 percent of our genome are the actual genes. Three genes make a codon, which collectively code for the production of a particular protein.

3. Errors and mutations do happen. Perhaps a nucleotide doesn’t bond to the right corresponding nucleotide. Perhaps a “stop” mutation cuts off the gene so that it doesn’t finish giving complete information. Perhaps there is a deletion mutation, which throws off the three codon pattern.

For a parent-child generation, of the some 3 billion pairs of nucleotides in our DNA, there might be about 100 mutations, most if not all of which will go completely unnoticed.

4. None of the above is particularly controversial. What is controversial is how to interpret what we observe when we set the genome of humans alongside chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans, even chicken, dogs, and whales. Venema gives the example of insulin in dogs and humans. The gene sequence has a great deal in common.

In fact, it has enough in common that dog insulin would work in a human. Apparently, there is a lot of wasted space in DNA so that there can be quite a bit of variety and it all still work. This is not how a German would design it—too much unneeded and irrelevant space. But you can imagine that if a process was wandering somewhat randomly, it would be convenient if you only had to randomly come close for something to work.

Then he puts the sequence of chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans alongside as well. Even closer agreement to the human sequence. Chimpanzees and gorillas are slightly closer to humans in sequence than orangutans.

Later in the chapter, he looks that the olfactory sequence for primates. It turns out that there are the remnants of genes that do not function that are present in, say, wolves. Humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans all have a certain stopped gene that is complete in wolves. This is a shortened gene that doesn’t do anything. Humans, chimpanzees, and gorillas all have a certain gene deleted that wolves have and orangutans still have. Humans and chimpanzees have a deletion that the gorillas and orangutans still have. Meanwhile, each of these primates have a mutation in this sequence that none of the others have.

So this could all be God having fun, knowing that in the early 2000s humans would be able to unlock these codes. Wait for it, Gabriel, Francis Collins is almost ready for that joke we planned 6000 years ago. But if we were just going on the evidence alone, we might hypothesize that orangutan split off from a common ancestor first, then gorillas, then lastly chimpanzees and humans. This explains why some still have functioning genes that wolves and others still have working and why others have the same traces of earlier mutations.

Similarly, the stretch of human genes that corresponds to the part of the chicken gene that codes for an egg shell has a large number of nucleotides in the same sequence. It’s just that the key genes to make a shell are missing in humans. But there is a lot of junk in that stretch of human DNA that corresponds to a stretch of chicken DNA that works.

5. I found his opening to the chapter brilliant, since I love languages. First, he compared genomes to languages. He has a background in West Frisian in the Netherlands and put two sentences up next to each other, Apparently they sound much the same:

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

West Frisian: “Bûter, brea, en griene tsiis is goed Ingelsk en goed Frysk.

By implication, the young earth creationist would have to say that God created these two languages to look and sound very similar, but he created them this way from the very beginning. He created them to be very, very similar but there would be no historical relationship between them.

If we had no prior assumptions, however, we would more naturally conclude that at some point, perhaps in the 600s AD, a common group of Anglo-Saxons split, some going to the island of England and others staying nearby on the continent. Over time, little variations arose in the way they wrote and pronounced certain words. Today, you can see a common ancestry, but the isolation of the two has resulted in some interesting “mutations.”

He shows the same in English translations of John 14:6 from the 1300s to today. Wycliffe spelled truth, “treuthe.” Tyndale in the 1500s spelled it “truthe.” The original 1611 KJV said “trueth.” And the 1769 edition of the KJV says “truth.” Same word, variations over time.

If I wrote a commentary on Hebrews...

... how would I lay it out? Just day-dreaming here. If you're a publisher, this would have the characteristic of a book Hebrews scholars and commentators buy because it's so unique and they need to footnote it in disagreement. :-)

I. Overview of Hebrews

• Literary Survey of Hebrews in paragraph form (with a visual outline also). What are the main divisions of Hebrews as a book? How do the parts of Hebrews interrelate with each other? What are the primary themes that run throughout the book? 
• A key feature would be dialog with the main "players" in Hebrews research right now. So there would be a beefy page long text box in this section engaging George Guthrie and Cynthia Long Westfall.
• Purpose of Hebrews. Why was it written? In an attempt not to bias the interpretation too much, I would sketch out the main possibilities and present the scenario toward which I lean, but the other options would be given their space both here and in the commentary
• This would include a look at the genre. A dialog partner on genre is Gabriel Gelardini. I lean toward sermon.
• The question of dating is crucial here. A Tale of Two Datings. I lean toward soon after the temple was destroyed.
• Destination. I lean toward Rome. Significant. Point of origin less significant (Ephesus?)
• Audience. I lean toward Gentile. Significant.
• Author. We don't know. I think someone in contact with the Pauline circle. Male. Apollos fits but it would be perilous to say so.
• Many will know my favored scenario, a sermon sent to a predominantly Gentile church in Rome ahead of the author to encourage them in the wake of the temple's destruction and an ensuing crisis of confidence.

II. The Commentary

• The commentary would proceed as normal, according to the outline (largely Walter Uberlacker's): chapters 1-2 as a kind of narratio, with chapter 1 as a celebratory introduction. chapters 3-10:18 as the argumentatio with frequent hortatory interruptions (a la Guthrie). 10:19-12 as a peroratio, the practical take-aways. Chapter 13 as a letter conclusion to a sermon.
• The commentary would continue to have interruptions with beefy text boxes engaging key Hebrews scholars of the day and excursuses that engage key questions like Christology, cosmology, Middle-Platonism, apocalypticism, word studies, etc.
• Another key feature would be my engagement with the development of Christian thinking in the early church. Here you would have unique hypotheses on topics like the development of early Christian worship, soteriology, the pre-existence of Christ, afterlife. 
• For Christian readers, there would also be textboxes and/or excursuses with "canonical" and theological readings of key passages. How do (and have) Christians read key passages? 
• Basically, all the weird ideas that people associate with me would be on pretty full display.

III. Reflections

• The goal would be to create a commentary that could be read from beginning to end in a process of discovery, perhaps in a somewhat casual style. It is thus appropriate to stop and reflect at the end to see how the tentative hypotheses of the beginning ended up playing out.

Gen Eds LC1: World Language and Culture Overview

1. A little over a year ago, I started a series called, Gen Eds in a Nutshell. To be honest, it has been a humbling series, to realize how much I don't know. It didn't take me too long to wander through philosophy, because I've written a philosophy textbook and taught philosophy for years.

I started a Friday math and science series. I'm over half-way through it. I've decided to take my time in the home stretch and read some books I've been wanting to read as I finish it. I'm trying to come to grips with having a 50 year old brain. It's not pretty.

Then last week I finished a world history series. It was far more challenging than I thought it was going to be.

So I'm a little surprised to find myself starting this post at 10 at night. I had read material from another book thinking I would be posting some summaries from it. But it lifted my spirits to make this post instead.

2. The next topic I had in mind for the series is "World Language and Culture." Part of a general education is usually some sort of intercultural experience. Although it is often not practical, an ideal liberal arts education would involve learning another language. The purpose of such learning in large part is to become more aware of yourself.

Americans in particular tend to be incredibly culturally ignorant. We assume we are smarter and better than everyone else in the world. We assume not only that other cultures do things the wrong way but that people who are different from us in our own country are stupid. At worst, we dub our cultural blindspots "Christian" and then assign a negative spiritual connotation to other cultures for not being like we are.

We go on a mission trip for a few days and think we have mastered another culture. Maybe we live on a base in another country and think we therefore know a culture we only encountered on our own terms and in our own language. While people in other cultures in the world often know several languages, we can hardly speak English correctly. Little do we know how those elsewhere often joke about much we think we know about them when we know almost nothing about them.

When I lived in England for three years, there were constant jokes about how shallow (and loud) Americans were. When my family was in Germany, an Ethiopian asked my wife at a laundromat, "Why is it that I know so much about your country, and you know almost nothing about mine?" Of course these jokes slowed down considerably after Bush invaded Iraq.

Basically, we would do well to be forced to live somewhere else for a year, be forced to learn their language and do things their way. It would end a lot of the foolishness going on in politics right now. I won't be able to capture the benefit of knowing world languages and cultures here. But I'll do what I can.

3. In the other series, I've tried to capture the subject in ten general headings. Here's my map for at least the next 10 weeks. With history, these ended up expanding to multiple posts on each. I have arranged them somewhat in order of my familiarity (meaning I'll have to study more the further down the list we go). Chinese is actually the language spoken by most people on the planet, so if I went in that order, it would be much closer to the top. Similarly, three languages in the Indian region are in the top ten languages spoken in the world.

Here is my outline for the next weeks:

• Culture Classification
• Mapping World Languages
• English-Speaking Cultures
• Spanish-Speaking Cultures
• European Language Cultures
• Russian and Slavic Language Cultures
• Semitic Language Cultures
• Indian Language Cultures
• Asian Language Cultures
• African Language Cultures

18. Hitler Becomes Chancellor

This week I read chapter 21 of Konrad Heiden's 1944 book, Der Fuehrer. This is the turning point. This is the beginning of the end.

1. A few things impressed me about this chapter. I suppose the biggest one is what Camus called the "theater of the absurd." Hitler coming to power was not inevitable. In fact, it seems to come on almost unexpectedly. It is as if he has tried and tried and tried and tried to come to power. Finally, the vastly more prudent powers around him give in. They make him promise he won't do all the things they know deep down he will do.

Hindenburg doesn't want him as Chancellor. But the guy he had as Chancellor, Schleicher, offended Hindenburg with straight talk. "The fickle old man felt the weight of Schleicher's domination and shook it off when it became just a fraction of an ounce too much" (534). Hindenburg refuses to see Hitler unless he comes with someone else. Hitler swears he will submit to every conceivable restriction Hindenburg comes up with.

Schleicher himself could have taken the reigns of government and ruled as a dictator until things settled down. But he didn't want to go against the constitution, and he didn't want to rule as a dictator with so little support from the people. He had some honor, so hands the chancellorship over to Hitler in effect, because Hitler does represent a substantial part of the people. Hitler would have him murdered a year later.

Hitler has been teetering on the edge of bankruptcy now for some time but he is bailed out by industry that think he won't impose socialism.

Hitler sides with the Communists to oust Schleicher. These same people that he will soon kill vote with him because of stubbornness and the expediency of the moment. Two weeks earlier Schleicher thought Hitler was through. "The game which the National Socialists played with the Communists in the last months of their fight for power will always be remembered as a masterpiece of political strategy" (526).

2. There were forces causing unrest among the populace. A mild winter in early 1933 meant that the coal miners were in trouble. A mammoth harvest meant that the farmers were in trouble because it would drive the price of grain down. Danish butter was forced out of England and poured into Germany, causing butter prices to fall because of too much supply.

At the same time that the Nazis were partnering with the Communist in the Reichstag, they were destroying the peace on the streets. Schleicher's final fatal decision was to stop the Communists from marching in Berlin while not stopping the Nazis. The show of strength made Hitler seem the clear person with authority over the people.

The various forces in the Reichstag seem exhausted. "The misery of the nation, the disintegration of society, destroyed the confidence and energy of most men; cynicism, herald of all world twilights, had a greater share in the political commissions and omissions of the day than any calculation or lust for power.

3. Hitler promised everyone everything. His people told Jewish businessmen that Hitler had outgrown the anti-Semitism of his earlier days. "The party has become more realistic," they told the powers that be (520). Hitler renounced the blood baths (that were still taking place). He will let others work with industry policy. "I won't take emergency powers," he assures them.

Again, they think that because he is brainless he can be controlled. "Over and over again the idea that National Socialism was rich in demonic force, but poor in brains, beguiled this upper-class type into the arrogant experiment of 'curbing' and 'sifting.'" Those around Hitler act as if, "We don't trust you, but say something satisfactory and you shall have a satisfactory answer" (541).

The Nazis do maneuver well in the second half of January 1933. Hitler acknowledges to his people that he has made some mistakes in the past. "I too can go wrong and make mistakes. But what counts is who makes the most mistakes" (525).

The leaders of lesser parties work with Hitler because they think they can save the constitution. Schleicher won't take dictatorship power because that would destroy the constitution. They appoint a cabinet with only three Nazis on it, with Hitler as chancellor. They think they have the right people in place to keep him from going crazy or destroying the whole thing.

So you have a Reichstag that is functioning. You have a leader as Chancellor, Hitler, who commands significant popularity among the people. You have Hindenburg as ultimate authority. And you have a cabinet with good representation. It looks like a tenuous solution to Germany's instability.

4. Now Hitler is Chancellor. What will he do? He calls an election and dissolves the Reichstag. He is currently popular. Those who have compromised on him to form a cabinet may not find themselves with as many seats. "Don't worry," Hitler assures them. "I'll make sure everyone is back in the cabinet."

Yeah right.

We can see the mistakes in hindsight:

• Never underestimate an idiot.
• Someone with the heart of a dictator will always end up ruling like a dictator because that is who they are.
• Liars will promise everyone everything, but don't get upset when they break every promise.
• You can't control the winds. A feather can turn the tide. You can only be paranoid well in advance.

Previously on Hitler:

• How to Take Over the World
• Bands of Restless Men
• Hitler was a Loser
• Rallies with the Rabid
• Waging War against His People
• The Art of Propaganda
• His Brand Is Crisis
• Big Words for a Coward
• Prophecies of the Antichrist
• Germany's Return from Despair
• Fatherland Security
• Hitler's Philosophy
• Destroying Democracy with Democracy
• He's Horrible to Work With
• Putting on a Show
• Maneuvering Toward Power
• Narrow Misses With Hitler

Paul Novel 4.2: Down to Jerusalem

Continued from last week. Previous chapters now archived
______________________
So after a few weeks back in Antioch, Paul and Barnabas were ready to go up to Jerusalem to share what God had done in Cyprus and Galatia. They had kept their eyes out for a Gentile convert who was full of the Holy Spirit and who embodied good news for the whole world, not just Jews. It did not take long for them to agree on Titus. In fact they both thought of him independently of each other. They took this fact as a sign that the Holy Spirit was behind the idea.

Titus was a young man, almost eighteen. Paul saw in him not only a good example of what God was doing among the Gentiles, but a potential replacement for John Mark on their next missionary journey. Titus' parents had been God-fearers in the synagogue, and they had believed in Jesus the Christ the very first time they heard about him. [1]

Baptism quickly became the central ritual for a Gentile becoming part of God's people. And so Titus' father had his whole household baptized, including Titus. It was not long before Titus himself had fully embraced his new family in Christ. [2]

It was over a two week journey south to Jerusalem, but by now Paul and Barnabas were well used to such travel. On the other hand, Titus had never been outside the city of Antioch. He was a very serious young man, and very responsible. In just the weeks Paul had known him, he had won Paul's complete confidence.

Peter greeted Barnabas warmly when they arrived. James, the half-brother of Jesus, was a little more formal. John Mark had that hesitancy around Paul that betrayed a little sense of guilt for having talked about someone behind their back...

[1] We do not know the details of Titus' background. It is reasonable to assume that he was a relatively young man. Although he is never mentioned in Acts, he is with Paul and Barnabas in Antioch around the year 49 (See Galatians 2). So either they picked him up in Galatia, perhaps as a replacement for John Mark, or he was a convert from Antioch.

[2] Acts may give us a somewhat idealized picture of the early church, so it is not entirely certain how quickly baptism became a universal practice among Jesus-followers. Paul seems rather casual about it in 1 Corinthians 1:14-16. We can imagine that baptism was very important for Apollos at Corinth, since he was a follower of the teachings of John the Baptist long before he became a Jesus follower (cf. Acts 18:25).

In other words, it is entirely plausible that baptism was a whole lot more central to Apollos' teaching than it was for Paul at this point.

Acts suggests that Gentile converts may have baptized their whole households (cf. Acts 16:15, 34). This is what we would expect in a group culture. As Western individualists, we find it hard to believe that a parent would have made such a decision for a child, but this is exactly what we would expect of the ancient Mediterranean world.

Seminary CM6: The Church and Culture

This is the sixth post on the Contexts of Ministry in my Seminary in a Nutshell series. See the bottom for the previous posts in this unit, "The Person and Contexts of a Minister." I have completed one other unit in this series, The Pastor as Leader.
___________________
1. In 1951, H. Richard Niebuhr published what soon became a classic work of theology and mission, Christ and Culture. In this book, Niebuhr suggested that the various ways in which Christianity interacts with culture can be captured in five basic approaches.

1. Christ against culture
The first is Christianity in opposition to the surrounding culture. Those with this approach typically try to withdraw from culture as much as possible. Culture is seen as antithetical to Christianity.

2. Christ of culture
A second approach virtually assimilates Christianity to the culture. The values of the culture become the values of Christianity. This approach blurs into whatever the surrounding culture is and does not have a clear or distinctive Christian identity.

The other three approaches are mixtures of the first two and are together categorized by Niebuhr as "Christ above culture."

3. Christ and culture 
Niebuhr calls this one a synthesis of Christ and culture, so we might call it Christ and culture. It tries to combine Christ and culture in some way that considers them both valid in various ways. I have often thought of the American impulse to "civil religion" as an example of this sort of synthesis--baseball, hot dogs, and Jesus waving an American flag.

4. Christ and culture in paradox
The opposite impulse toward a synthesis is to keep Christ and culture separate without trying to synthesize them. Perhaps one is Christian in church but Christless the rest of the week. We are both sinner and saint at the same time.

5. Christ the transformer of culture
For Niebuhr, this is a "conversionist" approach. We accept in culture whatever we can accept and then work to transform the rest to conform to Christianity.

2. Understandably, these categories--and Niebuhr's implementation of them, have been substantially critiqued over the last fifty years. For example, it is impossible for someone to remove him or herself from culture. All human existence is enculturated, "incarnated," as it were. The question of withdrawal is one of degree of removal and the question of assimilation is one of degree of assimilation.

So the Amish are not completely removed from the surrounding culture. In many respects, they have simply locked themselves into a past time when they were more acculturated. That is to say, they tried to stop changing with where culture was at in a previous point in history, at which time they were far more acculturated than they are now. Some holiness groups have followed a similar path, locking themselves into the dress standards of an earlier era in the early to mid-1900s. At that time, however, they were more acculturated in their clothing.

In this respect, Christianity at any time and place is always on some level a synthesis of the kingdom core with the surrounding culture.

3. A second observation is that different times and places call for different stances toward the world around us. "For everything there is a season" (Eccl. 3:1). You could argue that we are always in exile because the world stands under the power of Sin and thus we are always "strangers and exiles on the earth" (Heb. 11:13). Similarly, you could argue that we are always meant to be a force for good in the world, both in spreading the good news (Matt. 28:19) and in just plain doing good (Gal. 6:10).

But the degree to which we engage or withdraw will differ from time to time and place to place. There is a time to mostly blend in (1 Peter times) and there may be a time to conquer the land (Joshua times). In this respect, there is probably not a single stance that the church will take toward culture in every time and place.

4. Let me suggest some of the different stances toward culture that Christians may be called to take at various places and times.

1. Cultural Take-Over
There certainly have been times and places where Christians have taken over the culture or at least tried. [1] In ancient Israel, Joshua was commanded to take over the land of Canaan, and throughout the monarchy, Israel was in control of its land. After Constantine and Theodosius in the 300s AD, Christianity became the dominant force in the Roman Empire, and Christianity dominated the culture of Europe from then till the present.

In Geneva, Switzerland, John Calvin made his understanding of Christianity the law of the city. Similarly, in Puritan, New England, the Puritan understanding of right and wrong was the law of the land. Many fundamentalist Christians in the United States are zealous to see American law mirror various elements of their moral understanding.

There's an important caution here. Since true Christians are strangers and aliens on the earth, since narrow is the way and only a minority finds it (Matt. 7:14), it seems unlikely that the true people of God were never coterminous with Israel, Geneva, New England, or American fundamentalism today. That is to say, only a minority of Israelites were truly the people of God. Only some of those in Geneva and New England were true Christians. And we must reckon with the likelihood that most of those who have called themselves Christians in America probably are not. The rise of the "nones" today may in part simply be a peeling away of those who were never true believers in the first place.

Most of those who to take over a culture probably do not really represent God. When any religion takes over a culture, oppression is usually close behind. Whether it be sharia law in Muslim contexts or fundamentalist law in America, these impulses largely amount to power-hungry human beings using religion as a tool to control others.

God does not rule the world in this way at this time. When people reject him currently, he "lets them go" (Rom. 1:24, 26). The very fact that most in the world are not Christians proves that God does not rule this world with an iron fist at this time. Those Muslim extremists who use terrorism to exact destruction on the world are missing a fundamental fact--if God was as they think he is, he would not need their help. If God wanted to take over the world, he would. The fact that he lets evil continue shows that his way is not at this time to force the world to follow him. The same observation follows for fundamentalists whose agenda is to make US law mirror their understanding of the Bible.

On the other hand, when we see others being oppressed or others are in danger, this can be a time to step into culture and intervene. When the abolitionist movement tried to put an end to slavery, that was arguably an appropriate time for Christians to work for change. When Christians work to end abortion, this is arguably an example of Christians acting to protect others from harm. Even in these cases, though, there are different ways Christians can go about working for change.

2. Extreme Assimilation
You could argue that complete assimilation to the culture ceases to be Christian at all. "Liberalism" is sometimes painted into this category because "conservatism" and fundamentalism resist cultural change. But you might just as well say that conservatism mistakes the culture of the past for Christianity, that it is just as much an assimilation but to the culture of the past rather than the culture of the future.

In truth, liberalism and conservatism often both are emphasizing core Christian values--they are just emphasizing different ones. Those who emphasized the fundamentals in the early 1900s were emphasizing Christian values, namely, those of orthodox belief. But those who preached the social gospel--helping those in need--were also emphasizing a Christian value.

So it is today. Republican Christians tend to emphasize God's justice, God's stance for life, and for a biblical sense of family. Democratic Christians tend to emphasize God's love and his concern for the needy and marginalized. Both at least think that they are standing true to the essence of Scripture.

I would argue that it is actually the "Christ and culture in paradox" perspective that reflects the real assimilation danger. This is when a person says Christian things on Sunday, but it has no impact on his or her life during the week. This person may say the right things in church, may even see themselves as a defender of ideas. But when it comes to the kingdom core, it isn't present in their lives.

3. Principled Assimilation
1 Peter represents a different kind of assimilation situation. 1 Peter was written at a time of Christian suffering. Rome is pictured as "Babylon," that foreign power that once destroyed Jerusalem (5:13). The suffering was so bad that Peter talks of the judgment having begun with the house of God (4:17). The key verse of the letter instructs its "strangers and exiles" to live good lives among the nations in this time of suffering (2:11-12).

Accordingly, 1 Peter is a kind of defensive strategy. [2] It instructs slaves to endure unjust masters. It instructs wives of unbelieving husbands to be good first century wives. That is to say, Peter instructs Christians to assimilate to the culture of the first century without compromising their faith.

There is no sense of changing the culture to the kingdom ideal. That simply wasn't in the cards. Rather they assimilate in a principled way.

4. Separation ("In but not of")
The situation was not that dire when Paul wrote his letters. Nor were matters at a flash point when Jesus was ministering in Galilee. Yet Paul and Jesus had no agenda to take over the secular powers of their context either. Both of them modeled what we might call an "in the world but not of the world" approach.

Paul saw matters of the church and matters of the world as two separate worlds but he only really belonged to one of them. His citizenship was in heaven (Phil. 3:20) even though he was a Roman citizen. It was his job as an apostle to exercise authority on his churches, even to participate in judgment, but it was God's job to judge the world at this point in time (e.g., 1 Cor. 5:12-13).

Paul thus does not try to stop sexual immorality in the world. He does not try to get the Romans to enact laws against divorce or homosexual practice. But he insists on stopping sexual immorality within the church.

Jesus similarly divides the earth into two kingdoms. "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" (Mark 12:17). Jesus is not legitimating the Roman empire. He is simply pointing out that its parallel world has nothing to do with the kingdom. It is a different world. Followers live in both worlds but really only belong to one of them.

5. Withdrawal
Some of course take the separation in identity of #4 and take it to a physical withdrawal. The Shakers, the Oneida colony, other Christian groups have removed themselves physically from the surrounding culture.

In the Bible, Israel itself is an example of this withdrawal, in a way. This is what the conquering of the land was about. This is what the food laws were probably about. Not eating pork was not probably about hygiene, but about distinguishing Israel from the Philistines and their gods.

It seems that this option is rarely open for believers, although there may be a place and time for it. If we are to be witnesses to Christ in the world, it is hard to see how this option fulfills that task very well.

6. Influence
At all times and places, Christians are thus witnesses. We should not often try to take over the culture. We should never assimilate ourselves into oblivion. We are never "of the world" even though we are in it. We should not often completely withdraw.

But we should always be witnesses. We should always be trying to lead others into the kingdom of God. We should always stand against oppression. We should always be a positive influence on the cultures we are in, whether they are hostile to us or threaten to allure us with their comfort.

Next Sunday: Culture 7: Our Global Context

[1] My category here is an extreme version of Niebuhr's conversionist "Christ transformer of culture."

[2] Scot McKnight, 1 Peter. NIV Application Commentary.

The Calling of a Minister

• The Domains of Ministry
• The Calling of a Minister
• Ministerial Calling in Scripture
• Ministerial Calling in History
• God can call anyone he wants into ministry.
• A Theology of Calling

The Person of a Pastor

• Intro to the Pastor as Person
• Personal Strengths and Weaknesses
• Sacred Pathways
• Individual Spiritual Disciplines
• Corporate Spiritual Disciplines
• Some Formational Reading

Contexts of Ministry

• Kinds of Context
• The Making of Meaning
• How Culture Works
• The Cultures of the Bible
• The Kingdom Core

9.3 The Universal Time Constant Chart

This is the third week of Module 9, "Relationships of Current, Counter EMF, and Voltage in LR Circuits." These modules are part of the Navy Basic Electricity and Electronics series from the 1970s. The third section of this module is titled, "Using the Universal Time Constant Chart."

9.1 Rise and Decay of Current and Voltage
9.2 LR Time Constant

The so called universal time chart gives the percentages of maximum I (current) or E (voltage) for each of the five time constants it takes for a circuit with an inductor in it to reach the maximum when powering up or to reach zero if powering down. The chart is to the right.

The time constant, as we learned in the previous section, is calculated by dividing the inductance by the resistance. So you can see on the chart that TC1, TC2, TC3, and so forth are expressed as L/R, 2L/R, 3L/R and so forth.

The line that starts at zero and increases to 100% is the powering up line. So at one TC (time constant), the voltage or current will be at 63.2% of its maximum value. At T2, it will have reached 86.5% of its maximum value, and so forth.

The line that starts at 100% and decreases to 0 is the counter-EMF coming from the inductor as the circuit powers down (E_L). It has the percentages opposite the percentages on curve A. So at one time constant interval, the circuit will still have 36.8% of what its maximum voltage was. At T2, voltage will be down to 13.5%. At T3 it will be at 5%. At T4 you will have 2% left. Then final at T5 the circuit will have completely powered down.

Friday Science: Adam and the Genome 3

Hit and run this morning with a new book by Dennis Venema and Scot McKnight called, Adam and the Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science. Both are men of strong faith.

Previous posts
Personal Preface
Forward and Introduction

1. Now quickly chapter 1. Chapter 1 is titled, "Evolution as a Scientific Theory." Venema gives a bit of his personal story. Grew up against evolution. Didn't agree with it even through his PhD program. He now teaches biology at Trinity Western University

He spends a section of the first chapter correcting the sense that scientific theories are guesses or conjectures. A hypothesis in science does get to be called a theory until it has produced an extensive body of results that fit with it. In common language, we might say, "It's just a theory." But that is not how theories work in science. "A hypothesis that is not rejected after many, many predictions and tests eventually becomes a broad explanatory framework that has withstood repeated experimentation and that makes accurate predictions about the natural world: in other words, a theory" (4).

He then dismisses the often referenced studies on diet and health. Most of this is not good science. It is rather sensational journalism and people trying to sell you stuff. Don't mistake the fake science from the long, painstaking real stuff.

2. He has a long quote from John Edwards dismissing the idea that the earth goes around the sun. Edwards gives both theological and scientific arguments against it. One argument against it, the absence of a stellar paradox, Venema indicates was shown to be present two hundred years later. His point is that what seems difficult for Christian belief today might not seem difficult to a later generation. And sometimes it takes a little time to show what at first seems counterintuitive.

The latter part of this chapter gives an example. The idea that mammals descended from fish seems odd to say the least, as does the idea that tetrapods came out of the water to land and then that some of them returned to the sea as whales. Darwin suggested the latter and was soundly laughed to scorn for it.

Venema then gives evidence that, while not proving these hypotheses, has made them more plausible and has failed to disprove the theories. Lungfish are an example of a fish that to this day has the breathing apparatus both of water and air. They also have bones in their fins. Paleontological work in this time period has also found fossils of several species that blur the distinction between fish and tetrapod.

Finally, he speaks of fossils of species found around the Indian Ocean that have features that are suitable for water but that are still tetrapods. He follows up with the embryology of whales, which shows that the embryos begin toward developing back legs but then call it off in later development.

These fossils do not prove the hypothesis, but they support it and "fail to reject" it upon further experimentation.

Here endeth the first chapter.

Jamestown 2

From last week
______________
4. In December of 1606, three ships set sail from Blackwall, at that time just outside of London to the east, on the north side of the River Thames. These were the Susan Constant, the Godspeed, and the Discovery. Christopher Newport captained the largest of the ships, the Susan Constant. Captain John Smith was also on board. John Ratcliffe captained captained the Discovery.

Captain John Smith was one of those personalities who did not do well as a subordinate. Maybe he was smarter than everyone else or maybe he was not, but he certainly found himself repeatedly in trouble with his superiors. He was jailed on the trip over for mutiny, and scheduled to be hanged upon arrival. But when they arrived, instructions from Virginia Company were opened, and Smith was to be on the governing council.

Throughout his time he would repeatedly clash with the leadership of the colony. He probably also was a key player in keeping the colony alive, as opposed to the earlier attempt at Roanoke Island in 1587. When Governor John White returned in 1590, the colony was gone, leaving only the word "Croatoan." Many think the colony moved and, perhaps, blended into some of the surrounding native American groups.

On those first three ships to Jamestown, there were some 105 passengers and 39 crew, all men. Only 38 men were still alive when Captain Newport returned again from England with the "First Supply" in 1608.

5. The three ships made their "first landing" in what they called "Cape Henry" after the son of King James, April 26, 1607. Chaplain Robert Hunt offered a prayer and they set up a cross. He would be dead the next year. His remains have been found on the site of the first church in Jamestown, the first one to be buried in the new church--no coffin, only in a shroud.

On May 4, 1607. they settled on the spot up the "James River" that would become "Jamestown," both named after King James. They had the original triangular fort up and built by June 15.

Gen Eds 11: The First Humans

The end of my world history posts! And only after ten months.

This is part of my "General Education in a Nutshell" series. The series consists of ten subjects you might study in a general education or "liberal arts" core at a university or college. The first topic in the overall series was philosophy. This is the final post in the world history part:

• World History Overview
• From 9-11 to the Present
• From the Cold War to the Millennium
• From Waterloo to World War II
• 5a. The French Revolution
• 5b. The Enlightenment to the American Revolution
• 5c. From Cromwell to the First Industrial Revolution
• 6a. Reformation and Scientific Revolution 
• 6b. The Renaissance and a New World
• 7a. Church Schisms in the Middle Ages
• 7b. Kings Rising in the Middle Ages
• 7c. Medieval Arabia, India, China, and South America
• 8a. The Roman Empire
• 8b. The Roman Republic
• 9a. Greeks and the Hellenistic Age
• 9b. Assyrians, Babylonians, Persians
• 10a. Ancient India
• 10b. Ancient China
• 10c. Ancient Egypt
• 10d. Ancient Mesopotamia

___________________________
1. The last post began to delve into some sensitive waters. An Archbishop named James Ussher in 1650 suggested that God created the world in 4004BC. This date fits with a fairly literal reading of the chronologies in Genesis.

However, in my last post I gave some dates from mainstream archaeology that go back further than 4000BC. Archaeologists date the walled city of Jericho back as far as 8500BC and Çatalhöyük as far back as 7000BC. These dates would require at the very least for the genealogies of Genesis to be significantly incomplete.

2. On the one hand, the fingerprints of history in Genesis coincide extremely well with the history of Mesopotamia from the previous post. We have Abraham at the time of Hammurabi. We trace him back to Ur in Sumer. And in the area of Sumer we have the beginnings of civilization. This is the area from which the ziggurat arose, like the Tower of Babel. There is evidence of a devastating flood in this area. Even Genesis points to the Garden of Eden being in the area of the Tigris and Euphrates (Gen. 2:14).

These breadcrumbs point back to about the same time as Ussher in the right region. The birth of human history is exactly where Genesis locates it--in Mesopotamia around the fourth millennium BC.

3. According to our previous post, human "history" began with the beginning of writing in the late 3000s BC in the area of Sumer. However, the current state of archaeology wants us to push back further, back to an "agricultural revolution" around 10,000BC. The current state of paleontology, which goes back beyond that point, wants to push back even further. How are we to fit these dates with the Bible?

In the last two decades, genetics has caused us even more problems. The mapping of the human genome, according to the current state of research, suggests that a common female and common male ancestor might have lived somewhere between 120,000 and 150,000 years ago in Africa. But not at the same time. [1] The current estimate is that "The DNA in current humans could not have come from a pool of fewer than approximately 10,000 humans." [2]

These theories of course are probably not in anything like their final form. We are in a dialog between Scripture and science, between possible interpretations of the Bible and possible interpretations of science. For example, John Walton's proposition is that perhaps Adam and Eve were royal representatives for a community of early humanity at some point in our early history. [3]

According to one theory, all humanity can be traced to East Africa about 70,000 years ago. According to current theory, Homo sapiens left Africa about then. So following Walton's theory, we might speculate that Adam and Eve ruled the Homo sapiens of East Africa some time before 70,000 years ago.

This of course is speculation, a discussion that hasn't hardly even started. For many, it is a conversation that should never start.

4. My goal in the rest of this post is simply to sketch out what seems to be the current dominant timeline for humanity among experts in this area at large, to do with as you will. My dates are based on Yuval Noah Harari's book, Sapiens: A Brief History of Humankind. It is a clearly secular book.

According to the current theory, a female ape had two daughters 6 million years ago. One would become the progenitor of all chimpanzees The other would become the mother of all humanity.

In this theory, about 2.5 million years ago, the genus Homo originated. This is not Homo sapiens or human beings as we are. These were animals in our genus, just as a lion and a tiger are in the same genus Panthera. According to the theory, this new genus Homo emerged from a genus of apes called Australopithecus.

Again, the current theory sees Homo sapiens emerging as a new species in Africa about 150,000 years ago. There were other "humans" around in the world at that time: Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalensis, Homo denisova. According to DNA, about 1-4 percent of Middle Eastern and European DNA is Neanderthal, and about six percent of Aboriginal Australian is Denisovan DNA.

So these "humans" would have intermingled a little, perhaps until as recently as 50,000 years ago. Neanderthals may have lasted until 30,000 years ago.

The success of these broader humans was the use of fire, going back as far as 300,000BC according to the current theory. Because humans could cook their food, they could eat all the needed food for a day in an hour, as opposed to the five hours of chewing raw food that chimpanzees need to do a day.

They were not particularly spectacular in comparison to other predators out there. In fact, some speculate that tools may have developed so that humans could break into bone to eat after the more skilled predators were done eating off all the meat from a kill.

There are no longer any other humans other than Homo sapiens. We apparently eliminated the others, according to the "Replacement" theory.

5. Some then suggest that the real point of origin for humanity as we know it took place about 70,000 years ago in East Africa. Yuval Harari calls this moment the "Cognitive Revolution." According to the current theory, some Homo sapiens had left Africa about 100,000BC for the Middle East, but they had not managed to compete against the Neanderthals, who actually had bigger brains.

But something changes in between 70,000 and 30,000BC, on this theory. Harari calls this chapter, "The Tree of Knowledge." Unlike Neanderthals, so the conjecture goes, Sapiens trade over long distances. Sapiens can coordinate with larger groups than small bands. Most importantly, Sapiens can imagine--they can construct realities like founding stories and legal fictions. They can not only talk about what is. They can talk about what could be.

6. In this theory, these Sapiens were all hunter-gatherers. They did not live in any one fixed location. They traveled to find food where they could. They ate on the spot what they could.

The next revolution, according to Harari, is the "Agricultural Revolution." This is when Sapiens transitioned from being a mostly hunter-gatherer species to becoming a farming species. In one place he mentions 12,000BC, but in another he suggests 9500-8500BC.

"Wheat and goats were domesticated by approximately 9000BC; peas and lentils around 8000BC; olive trees by 5000BC; horses by 4000BC; and gravevines in 3500BC" (77). "By 3500 BC the main wave of domestication was over" (77-78). "By the first century AD the vast majority of people throughout most of the world were agriculturalists" (78).

The rest is history. Agriculture tied down people to locations. Locations prepared the way for cities. Cities expanded the number of people in one place. Once the number moves into the hundreds, we need writing. We need bureaucracy. We need administration. We need collective imagination. We need to control violence. We need to organize warfare.

Here endeth world history.

Next Week: Chapters 1-8 of Sapiens

[1] E.g., Sequencing Y Chromosomes Resolves Discrepancy in Time to Common Ancestor of Males versus Females

[2] Both Tremper Longman III (vi) and Scot McKnight pass this idea along (xi) in Adam and Genome: Reading Scripture after Genetic Science. These are faith-filled biblical scholars who believe in the inspiration of Scripture but also feel the need to take science seriously in the name of truth. See also the faith-filled scientist, Francis Collins, The Language of God.

[3] The Lost World of Adam and Eve: Genesis 2-3 and the Human Origins Debate.