I think someone may have had a journalistic epiphany on the whole Health and Human Services thing.

But before we go there, stop and, for a moment, join me in contemplating the following journalism puzzle.

The Obama administration's new HHS regulations — click here for a sample of GetReligion coverage — continue to cause an electric buzz here inside the Beltway. At the moment, people continue to focus on the Catholic angle of this story.

That's logical. I get that. I mean, why would a Democratic candidate want to tick off Pope Benedict XVI in what will almost certainly be a tense election year?

Keep thinking. If this battle over the HHS rules is merely a "Catholic" story, it's logical to think that it is essentially a story about birth control. This logic has been leading reporters to another semi-logical conclusion. They're thinking: Most Catholics use birth control. Thus, most Catholics are not going to care about the HHS rules. The pope and the bishops are all just blowing smoke and this story is no big deal — other than to a few crazy Catholics (none in the typical newsroom, naturally) who actually care about church doctrines about sexuality.

However, if this is simply a story about birth control, logical journalists will need to figure out why so many liberal Catholics are currently so upset with the White House for picking this fight at this moment in time.

This leads us to the fact that U.S. bishops and the pope see this as a battle over issues much bigger than birth control. They see these rules as a direct attack on the religious liberty of Catholics and other believers. They see this as a First Amendment story in which the government is forcing religious groups — the institutions, not individual believers — to commit or fund acts that are sinful and evil, according to the doctrines proclaimed by these religious groups.

Seen from this angle, the ruling on birth control is simply the point on a much larger spear. The next thing you know, the U.S. Justice Department will be trying to get involved in decisions about who is hired and fired by religious groups. Wait a minute. That sounds familiar.

Please hear me say that there is no way to cover this story without hitting the birth-control angle and hitting it hard. However, there is no accurate, balanced way to handle this story without covering the larger religious-liberty angle, as well.

I also know that the potential impact of the HHS rules IS HUGE when you look at the Catholic numbers. What percentage of the nation's health care (especially for the poor) is provided by institutions with Catholic roots or ties? Then there is the fact that the nation contains nearly 250 allegedly Catholic colleges and universities. This is big stuff, folks.

The big question for journalists is this: Which angle frames the story? Which drives the coverage?

So stop and think. If this is primarily a story about birth control, then it's safe to say that only pro-Vatican Catholics will be screaming bloody murder these days. But that isn't the case, is it? Instead, leaders in a wide variety of religious groups are mad as hades, because they see the larger legal picture. They are asking: Is America a place in which people have freedom of worship or freedom of religion?

Finally, I think that we have a national-level story that has found a way to frame this story accurately.

Here is the top of religion-beat veteran Rachel Zoll's report for the Associated Press:

The Obama administration's decision requiring church-affiliated employers to cover birth control was bound to cause an uproar among Roman Catholics and members of other faiths, no matter their beliefs on contraception.

The regulation, finalized a week ago, raises a complex and sensitive legal question: Which institutions qualify as religious and can be exempt from the mandate?

For a church, mosque or synagogue, the answer is mostly straightforward. But for the massive network of religious-run social service agencies there is no simple solution. Federal law lays out several criteria for the government to determine which are religious. But in the case of the contraception mandate, critics say Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius chose the narrowest ones. Religious groups that oppose the regulation say it forces people of faith to choose between upholding church doctrine and serving the broader society.

"It's not about preventing women from buying anything themselves, but telling the church what it has to buy, and the potential for that to go further," said Sister Carol Keehan, president of the Catholic Health Association, representing some 600 hospitals.

Keehan's support for the passage of the Obama health care overhaul was critical in the face of intense opposition by the U.S. bishops. She now says the narrowness of the religious exemption in the birth control mandate "has jolted us." She pledged to use a one-year grace period the administration has provided to "pursue a correction."

I am bringing all of this up, again, for a logical reason (or two).

For starters, it will not surprise regular listeners of our "Crossroads" podcast that this issue was the subject of this week's discussion. You can find it at iTunes or simply click here to listen online. However, the main reason we talked this through — again — is that this story is not going away. Instead, it's taking on a life of its own on op-ed pages and in news reports (and not just because GOP types think it's a nice reason to wound the White House).

Oh, we also spent a few minutes discussing that whole GetReligion turns eight thing.

Enjoy the podcast.

Professor Terry Mattingly writes the nationally syndicated On Religion column for the Scripps Howard News Service in Washington, D.C., which is sent to about 350 newspapers in North America. He's also a regular contributor at GetReligion.org and the author of the book Pop Goes Religion: Faith in Popular Culture.

I don’t make new year’s resolutions anymore. After decades of broken promises and disappointed efforts, I started picking a new year’s word to remember and operate from for 12 months. I’ve had some interesting words since starting this, but I never make the conscious choice–the word always comes to me.

One year I was surprised by the word “Genesis.” I saw the theme of “beginning” played out throughout that year in countless ways, and because I was tuned in to the concept, I found a lot of connections that might have otherwise gone unnoticed.

This year my word was slow to emerge, but when it did, I was flabbergasted.

Embrace.

Uh, really?? I questioned the air. Embrace is kind of a lame old-fashioned way of saying “hug” — right? After going through my local dictionary, I found the usual meaning I had expected: to hold or clasp with the arms in affection. I also found some other definitions, but nothing that really stood out as important enough to be my New Year’s word.

Then I heard the still small voice.

“embrace your life”

I started to feel uncomfortable. There is much that is hanging out beyond my reach; dark and scary and pushed away out of my own necessity. It is some of the ugly stuff of life; certainly terrifying, and definitely not embraceable.

I spend a lot of time wishing I was someone else. I wonder what a different existence would look like; what I could be if I had pursued more of my dreams.

“embrace your journey”

My journey?? Well, I have no more journey, I protested. It was chronicled in a book, and then left there.

I knew this was not true. I know that much of my journey has continued after Stumbling Toward Faith. It’s just that I’m afraid of angering people or discouraging people — the journey I’ve been on could be considered heretical or blasphemous.

I worry about that. I worry about people reading my book, and then freezing me as that same person. It’s been eight years since it was written. Things do change, and our journeys do continue.

“embrace yourself”

I snorted. I am often disrespectful and unkind to myself. Care for myself is difficult; why would affection be any easier?

“embrace the now”

This is when I started thinking that this word was doable. I have been studying mindfulness and attending to the present for several years, and I’ve become rather good at it. I am able to stop a situation in the midst of itself, reflect on how/what I can do, and often talk myself through any existing anxiety or frustration. I’m not perfect, and too many times I find that I choose to engage in the negative things rather than momentarily step outside of them.

But dealing with a moment at a time (or even a day) is a good way of being aware–aware to your own self, and to others.

It’s been only a month since the word embrace came to me, but I am discovering chances to live differently as a result. I am a fighter–I am stubborn–and don’t give in easily. Sometimes, trying to embrace feels unbelievably selfish. Sometimes “the now” is so screwed up I can’t even choose it through my feelings of overwhelm, anger, and despair. I grew up learning that I had to push things away in order to survive. I had to fragment things, make divisions; do anything I could just to keep going.

Now I am trying to live at the other end of the spectrum. Now I am acknowledging that there is another way to live, and that this kind of life includes coming close to things I’d rather push away. It’s connective, this embracing, and it involves ruthless trust.

Renée Altson is the author of Stumbling Toward Faith, a photographer, and a web developer. She lives with her husband, daughter, and 2 cats in Southern California. Click here to listen to Renée on Steve Brown Etc.

Oh, the years I spent in spiritual anguish because I'd been taught that I had to earn then keep The Love.

Then the light went on by some Mysterious Hand and revealed to me that there was nothing to be earned. Nothing to be kept. I couldn't be loved any more than I already was.

Love is All.

(Ps: You can check out all my art and cartoons for sale HERE.)

nakedpastor is David Hayward. David is an artist, cartoonist and writer. Go to nakedpastor.com for more cartoons, blog posts, art and insight from a former pastor who's stark naked honest about church life.

This question has become more poignant in the last few years as biochemists, molecular biologists, and origin-of-life researchers make significant strides in their quest to create life in the lab. Attempts to produce artificial life fall under the purview of a new discipline called synthetic biology, a fusion of engineering and the life sciences.

One of synthetic biology’s goals is the design and manufacture of nonnatural life-forms—man-made constructs—unlike anything found in nature. Typically, those interested in creating these artificial organisms focus on engineering novel microbes (bacteria, yeast, etc.) or producing protocells, chemical supersystems that assume many, if not all, of the properties of life.

Among other benefits, these man-made life-forms could potentially provide huge technological advantages. Researchers envision synthetic microbes and protocells as bioreactors that could use inexpensive raw materials and solar energy to generate extremely valuable materials, like biomedicines, vaccines, biofuels, bioplastics, etc. These novel life-forms could also be used to clean up contaminants from the environment and find use in agricultural applications.

Despite such exciting possibilities, the creation of artificial life raises questions, some of a practical nature and others of a more philosophical and theological orientation.

- Will the creation of synthetic life-forms eliminate the need for a Creator? Will synthetic biology make it all the more reasonable to think that life emerged via chemical evolution?

- Is this type of work safe? If artificial cells “leak” from the lab will they cause a disaster of “biblical” proportions?

- Is it ethical to create artificial life?

- Are researchers “playing God”?

I find that many Christians summarily condemn this type of research without thoughtful deliberation. Others simply ignore it, as if by not paying attention to the work, it will “go away.” They bank on the notion that scientists won’t really be able to accomplish their goals. But, as I discuss in my book Creating Life in the Lab, it is just a matter of time before scientists achieve success. In fact, I anticipate that in the next decade researchers will succeed in creating a variety of forms of artificial life, using a number of different approaches.

Whether we like it or not, scientists will create life in the lab. Christians need to wrestle with the questions posed by this endeavor and be a part of the process. Most importantly, we need to develop a framework to help us think through these issues—we need a theology for synthetic biology.

Before I propose such a theology, I would like to address several questions that people typically ask about synthetic biology. My responses serve as an introduction to this new discipline and provide a status report of progress to date.

Can scientists really create life in the lab?

This question comes up whenever I talk about advances in synthetic biology. Many Christians and non-Christians, alike, are skeptical about scientists’ ability to create even the simplest life. In part, this skepticism is fueled by the increasing recognition that even in its most minimal form, life displays astounding complexity.1 Many wonder how scientists could ever replicate such intricacy and elegance?

This is not an unreasonable question. But the fact remains that scientists understand enough about how life’s structure and basic level functions to parlay that insight into genuine advances in synthetic biology.

What have synthetic biologists actually accomplished?

When scientists try to create life in the lab, they employ one of two approaches: the top-down or bottom-up. The top-down strategy involves re-engineering existing microbes (sometimes in radical ways) to generate artificial life. The bottom-up approach focuses on combining relatively simple chemicals into increasingly complex super-chemical systems that assume the properties common to life on Earth.

To date, the greatest progress toward creating artificial life is due to the top-down approach. However, researchers working with the bottom-up method have also made significant advances.2 In the next decade, I believe researchers employing both approaches will have success in making artificial cells and life-like protocells, respectively.

Does the creation of life in the lab eliminate the need for a Creator?

Many Christians view the attempt to create life in the lab as a thoroughly atheistic endeavor. This is because many synthetic biologists and origin-of-life researchers assert that if we can make life in the lab, it will mean life is not special. According to this view, life is merely a physicochemical system. Therefore, we can, in principle, replicate this chemistry and physics in the lab. If this is the case, then a Creator is not needed to explain life’s genesis. Without the need for a Creator, it makes it all the more likely that life emerged on early Earth (or elsewhere) via chemical evolutionary processes.

However, as I demonstrate in Creating Life in the Lab, work in synthetic biology, whether from the bottom-up or top-down, actually leads to the opposite conclusion.

Whether it’s on early Earth or in the lab, life cannot come from non-life or be significantly transformed from one form into another without the direct involvement of intelligent agency. The generation of artificial cells and protocells requires the work of highly trained scientists who rely on several hundred years of scientific advance. In the process, these researchers develop sophisticated strategies and elaborate protocols. These steps are executed carefully in the laboratory, in many instances, with highly sophisticated laboratory instrumentation. In other words, artificial life is intelligently designed.3

The Christian faith has nothing to fear from advances in synthetic biology. God is more necessary than ever before in order to explain the origin of life. But should human beings engage in the creation of artificial life at all? Is it safe? If it is safe, is this an activity that Christians should support? Should we play God?

The scriptural basis for a theology of synthetic biology

I maintain that Genesis 1:26–31 is the most relevant biblical text for a theology of synthetic biology. This familiar passage teaches, first and foremost, that human beings were made in God’s image. The Bible never defines what the image of God entails, but it is clear from Genesis 1 (as well as Genesis 2:19–20 and Psalm 8) that this quality distinguishes humans from the animals.

Because we are image-bearers, God granted us authority (dominion) over the Earth. This gift comes with responsibility. God commanded humans to multiply and fill the Earth so His image covers the entire surface of the planet. He also instructs us to subdue the Earth and tame the wild creation (at the same time, we receive provision from the creation under our control). Finally, God commands us to care for the planet so that all life may benefit. All of these tasks bring glory to the Creator. Because God endowed us with His image, we are able to serve as His viceroys among creation.

Exerting dominion over creation—in the lab

In my view, the attempts to create artificial life can be seen as human beings exerting legitimate dominion over the creation. Conceptually, creating artificial cells and protocells is no different than domesticating plants and animals.

Throughout history, humans have used selective breeding practices to create new plant and animal species—nonnatural, “artificial” organisms with desirable properties that we have exploited for our benefit. Evidently, the Creator has no problem with farming and animal husbandry. Instead of condemning Cain and Abel for cultivating “fruit from the soil” and raising flocks, the Lord implicitly endorsed their activities and even expected a first-fruits offerings from both brothers (Genesis 4:2–5).

With synthetic biology, sophisticated methods of genetic and biochemical engineering replace the cumbersome and crude practices associated with domestication. Still, the outcome (or potential outcome) is the same: human-engineered life-forms with benefit for humanity.

Synthetic biology’s benefits

The creation of artificial life will be a boon for humanity in many ways. In the life sciences, it will help shed light onto life’s fundamental structures and processes and will also provide insight into the very nature of life itself. Synthetic biology will even help scientists define what life is. With this insight, life’s elegant design will become increasingly evident and highlight the Creator’s majesty and glory.

The ability to create novel, nonnatural life-forms from scratch and redesign and re-engineer existing microbes could also represent a revolution in technology. Artificial life-forms will have industrial applications and uses in agriculture and biomedicine that, at this juncture, seem limitless. From a Christian perspective, there is every reason to desire these types of technological advances. It is possible that artificial microbes could produce renewable sources of clean energy. Such advancements would help us to carry out the mandate to care for creation.

Furthermore, the possibility of biomedical advances via artificial life provides the means to “love our neighbors as ourselves” by continuing to strive for better treatments for disease and injuries. Artificial microbes will play a role in finding new treatments and possible cures for sicknesses that, as of now, can’t be effectively treated.

In other words, there are many good reasons for Christians to be excited about the advances that will result from synthetic biology. It would be wise to support efforts to create artificial life—yet there are still legitimate concerns over synthetic biology that need addressing.

Is synthetic biology safe?

When people think of scientists creating life in the lab, images of Frankenstein’s monster likely come to mind. Will scientists make organisms that “turn on their creators”? Will these artificial organisms run amok, causing a disaster of biblical proportions?

On the surface, these are not unreasonable concerns. However, at this point, work in synthetic biology is safe. Furthermore, there is no reason why advances in this field should ever pose a genuine threat to safety.

The protocells developed to date are fragile, metastable systems that cannot survive long even under the most optimal laboratory conditions. As they learn how to develop more robust systems, researchers could potentially design these systems in such a way that they can thrive under controlled conditions, but not outside the lab.

Likewise, the artificial microbes that Dr. Craig Venter and his collaborators are attempting to create from the top-down pose no safety hazard. These cells will be based on the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium, an obligatory parasite incapable of surviving apart from its host. If the genes critical for mediating the host-parasite interaction are removed from M. Genitalium’s genome, then it will not survive outside the manufacturing facility.

The scientific community has a very good track record when it comes to regulating its activity, at least in these types of disciplines. Genetic engineering and recombinant DNA technology were synthetic biology’s forerunners. After some early success in recombinant DNA research, scientists voluntarily placed a moratorium on this work until safety protocols and other guiding principles could be established. (These guidelines and regulations were developed at the Asilomar Conference in 1975, organized by Paul Berg, a pioneer in recombinant DNA technology.) Scientists willingly adhere to these guidelines. To my knowledge, no significant incident involving recombinant DNA technology has occurred over the last 35 years or so.

There is no reason why something like the Asilomar Conference guidelines couldn’t be developed for artificial cells and protocells. With effective regulations in place, work in synthetic biology can be carried out in a safe manner.

Should scientists “play God”?

Christians’ concerns over synthetic biology extend far beyond ethical and safety considerations. They are worried that scientists are trying to usurp God’s role.

From my perspective, however, as human beings we have no choice but to play God—because we are made in His image. Whenever we create, design, invent, etc., we are manifesting the image of God. And we are also mimicking the Creator, albeit imperfectly.

If God is the Creator of life, then it is just a matter of time before we try to create life as well. Our ability to even attempt to create artificial life stems from the image of God. And if our desire is to use synthetic biology to take better care of the planet, to use resources more wisely, to help the sick, to improve the quality of life for people all over the world, then I maintain that there is nothing wrong with playing God.

The problem is not in playing God. The problem occurs when we try to usurp God’s authority. This was the sin committed at the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1–8). As I understand it, the construction of a tower reaching to the heavens, in and of itself, was not the problem. It was the motivation behind it. The builders desired to be like God, to take His place.

Unfortunately, this is the attitude of some—not all—of the scientists who work in synthetic biology. They see their work as pounding another nail in God’s coffin. This arrogance is the reason why Christians need to engage synthetic biology. This is why Christians in science need to become active in this field. If we don’t, we will have capitulated this very important technology into secular hands.

Endnotes:

1. See these articles for more details on life’s complexity: “Biochemists Ask, ‘How Low Can Life Go?’”, “More Complex than Imagined, Part 1 (of 2),” and “More Complex than Imagined, Part 2 (of 2).”

2. Here are two articles that give a good sense of the progress in the quest to make artificial cells: “The Celebrity of Artificial Life” and “Artificial Life: Ready or Not Here It Comes.”

3. See note 2 for articles in support of this conclusion.

Dr. Rana has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and he's the vice president of research and apologetics at Reasons To Believe. Click here to listen to his recent appearance on SBE.

It was a year of populist uprisings, economic downturns, political assassinations, and one scandal after another. But as I point out in this week’s vodcast, on the civil liberties front, things were particularly grim.

(If you're on the front page of the site, click the title of this post to see the video player.)

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of The Change Manifesto. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

John W. Whitehead's weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

Having acknowledged this real problem towards being trendy I retain a deep and growing concern that churches (in general) have very little idea about how much the shifts in values and religious practices have impacted the mission field that we call the United States of America. There can be no serious doubt that the religious makeup of our population is shifting very rapidly. And there can be no serious doubt that most Christians understand very little about what these trends actually mean for the future of mission in America. One of the core values of a missional church is that the whole church will seek to incarnate the whole gospel in ways that serve the people who are their neighbors. The church does not so much do mission as the church IS mission. For this to happen we need to equip people to exegete culture. And this requires us to teach some basic principles of contextualization. I am not suggesting that we need to teach academic courses on mission to the congregation, as I studied such issues in doing a degree in mission in 1973. But I am suggesting that we need to teach people who their neighbors really are and how they really live and think. We do this when people go to a far away land as missionaries but we forget that the same is increasingly needed in America. I was reminded of this by two recent Barna Research Reports about changes in American religious views and practice.

In a November 3 report Barna noted that 15% of Americans say their experiences with religion have caused them to question God, a sentiment most common among 20-somethings, college grads, unmarried adults, non-Christians, and unchurched adults. Similarly, 16% of Americans have been hurt by experiences in churches. This perception is most common among women, Boomers, and divorced adults. This report does not surprise me since I've noticed this through my own ministry over the past five years.

In a November 19 Barna report we learn that 1 in 9 young people who grow up with a Christian background loses their faith in Christianity. 4 in 10 become nomads and wander away from the institutional church. They still call themselves Christians but are far less active in church than they were during high school. Another 2 in 10 young Christians feel lost between the "church culture" and the society they feel called to influence. "I want to be a Christian without separating myself from the world around me" typifies this group. Only about 3 in 10 young people who grow up with a Christian background stay faithful to church and to faith throughout their transitions from the teen years through their twenties. Read that again. Only 3 in 10 young people who grow up in Christian homes stay faithful to the church through the transition years between their teens and twenties, thus our failure to truly disciple our own young people is very evident. Will churches consider these extremely important facts in their plans for ministry to teens and young adults?

John H. Armstrong is founder and president of ACT 3, a ministry for the advancement of the Christian Tradition in the third millennium. He is a former pastor and church-planter, of more than twenty years, the author/editor of eight books, and the author of hundreds of magazine, journal, and Web based articles. John has served as the editor-in-chief of ACT 3 Review: A Journal for Faith, Church and Culture since its origin in 1992. But most importantly, he is our go-to professional religionist.

At this seminar, I found that there were bright and gracious people from most of the major religions of our time. There was a strong representation of Muslims, Jews, and Christians. While other religions such as Buddhism and Hinduism had limited representation, there were enough present that their voices could be heard.

Those at the gathering represented the voices of moderation from these various religious traditions and that was the problem. By the end of the meeting, I had the sense that we could all stand together, holding hands in a circle, and sing “Kum Ba Yah.” There was a good feeling and sense that we were all committed to encouraging a better understanding across religious lines, and also committed to finding ways to work together to create a world marked by peace and harmony, on the one hand, and an end of oppression and poverty, on the other. The unacknowledged elephant in the room was that the problem was not with the various segments of religious communities that were there represented. The problem was (and we are reluctant to talk about it) that in each of these religious traditions there are fundamentalist extremists who will settle for nothing less than the annihilation of those whom they believe to be competitors in the marketplace of religious ideas and forms of worship.

Christianity isn’t the only group that has fundamentalists. We are well aware that in every one of the religious traditions there are extremists groups and little was said as to how to establish communications with these groups so as to facilitate non-destructive modes of behavior that would leave room for deep commitments to the core beliefs of the respective faith traditions, while finding common ground wherein a unified humanity could be established. There was a failure to see that in today’s world, the voices of moderation are becoming fewer and fewer, while extremist groups are growing in size and are flexing more and more political muscle. It should be obvious to those of us who are Christians that the reality is that attendance and membership for mainline churches is in rapid decline, whereas fundamentalist churches are growing in size and significance. It is also obvious that similar tendencies are evident in other religions. It is imperative in a world in which religion is increasingly the basis of militaristic conflict that communication be established with the growing sectors of fundamentalist communities so that a dialogue that creates understanding and respect for those who differ becomes an ongoing reality.

Among the issues that were not discussed, but should have been discussed, is the fact that in several Muslim countries, such as Malaysia, interfaith dialogue has become impossible. Muslims are allowed to share their faith with Christians, but Christians are not allowed to share their faith with Muslims. If Christians dare to do this, they risk their lives. There is even the possibility of capital punishment in sharing one’s beliefs with Muslims. Little was said about what each group of moderates in that room would be able to do to diminish the extremism in their respective religions.

What is especially important is addressing the question of how religion can be enforced through political means and what can be done to create a political environment that, on the one hand, acknowledges the role of religion in society, while on the other hand does not impose one religion on the populace at the expense of all others.

It has been said that people never do evil with more enthusiasm than when they do it in the name of God. Samuel Huntington, the Harvard political scientist, predicted that unless something is done about the problem which I have cited, the 21st century will be marked by religious wars and, because of the instruments of war that are now available, will be the most deadly and ferocious of all time.

I am looking for suggestions on what we can do about extremists within our own society? They cannot be ignored. Edmund Burke once said that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing. It is important that people with deep commitments to their own spiritual traditions figure out ways of connecting with the extremists within their faith orientations and get the discussion going as to what love and justice require for their religious brothers and sisters and those brothers and sisters in other traditions.

Tony Campolo joins us regularly on Steve Brown Etc. He's professor emeritus at Eastern University and the founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education, an organization that develops schools and social programs in various third world countries and in cities across North America. He's the author of over 35 books, blogs regularly at his website, redletterchristians.org, and can also be found on both Facebook and Twitter

But most importantly, Tony is Our Favorite Lib. Click here for Tony's latest appearance on Steve Brown Etc.

There is a lot of faking cheer this season; people looking to fit in, people wanting to “be good,” people unable to feel what is really inside of them, people intentionally distracted by the bells and lights and ribbons and bows.

For decades, I have felt like other people minimize my pain or experience. Every time someone says one of any number of cheery bible quotes, encourages me to “think on the bright side!”, or tells me to “just snap out of it!” I internally foam at the mouth.

My fear and disgust reached a point where even if someone who knew me well, someone who cared about me and knew my story, began to suggest any kind of positive thinking or ideas of gratefulness, I was offended. I felt hurt and minimized, as if they really didn't understand anything. I would spin into a whirlwind of feeling broken and angry and upset. “You just don't get it!” I would say.

Lately, a particular person in my life has been encouraging me to think more positively. I would have flipped him out at one point, but his genuine care and kindness toward me has slowly begun to wear down my rage. He acknowledges my pain and suffering, he does not minimize it, but at the same time encourages me to look for the positives, for the light.

I never realized how angry and defensive I was against positive thinking until this past week. After a conversation, all I could do was sit in my car and seethe. I wanted to run away, to escape the pressure. But somehow my ears finally heard “It does not take away from your experiences, but it enriches your life” sentiment from someone I trusted, and who I know wants what is best for me.

My therapist couldn't say it so that I could hear it. I would sit in the chair across from him and stick my tongue out every time he tried. But he has been wearing down my resistance, also. Slowly, over time, I am learning that it can be okay to be okay. My story is not minimized by my choosing to see some light in the world. Even though many people decide to give this kind of unsolicited advice, I have people invested in my life who give it, as well. With a consistent gentleness that I am finally beginning to hear.

My spiritual exercise this advent has been to seek out the smallest goodness, to revel in it as if it were the only thing in existence, to acknowledge that there are wisps of moments where something may even bring joy. I choose to count my blessings, to imagine joy, to find the good.

As I start to name things, I realize that my internal self rebels. Everyone will think you're all better, it whispers. You won't be able to still be broken, it promises.

I try to name things anyway. I try to choose the positive. I choose to hope, even though the world inside (and outside) of me feels bereft.

Renée Altson is the author of Stumbling Toward Faith, a photographer, and a web developer. She lives with her husband, daughter, and 2 cats in Southern California. Click here to listen to Renée on Steve Brown Etc.

"It's the closest that a man will ever come to experiencing the pain of childbirth," the attending nurse proclaimed with a noticeable glee in her eyes. Her comment only added to my misery as I writhed in pain on a stretcher in the emergency room, waiting to pass a kidney stone.

Mineral deposits such as those that formed in my kidneys develop in one out of ten people during their lifetime and account for nearly ten out of every 1,000 hospital admissions.¹ Stones can result whenever a chemical imbalance occurs in the kidney. The type of stone that forms depends upon the exact nature of the chemical imbalance and reflects different etiologies (causes). Calcium oxalate stones, the most common type, result from dehydration or excess levels of oxalate in the diet. (Oxalate is found in certain vegetables, nuts, berries, chocolate, and tea. ²) Sodium urate stones, a second type, are caused by an inborn error in metabolism that leads to excessive production of uric acid.³

Uric acid is the breakdown product of adenine and guanine (key components of DNA and RNA). As a normal metabolic activity, the cell turns over biomolecules-continually replacing "older" molecules with newly synthesized ones, thereby maintaining structural and functional integrity. The cell recycles most of the adenine and guanine generated from the breakdown of nucleotides (the building blocks of DNA and RNA) through what biochemists call the salvage pathways. Still, the cell targets a significant portion of adenine and guanine for breakdown and secretion in the form of uric acid.⁴

Uric acid possesses low solubility in blood serum, causing it to readily precipitate into the urinary tract if the body dehydrates or generates an excessive amount of the product (which can occur if the enzymes of the salvage pathway are defective).⁵

Except for primates, including human beings, all mammals further metabolize uric acid to a more soluble derivative. Evolutionary biologists suggest that the enzymes responsible for this transformation were lost in the evolutionary process that gave rise to primates (and humans).⁶ For these scientists, the elimination of adenine and guanine in the form of uric acid argues potently for evolution, since it appears to reflect poor design.⁷ Why would an all-powerful and all-knowing Creator put into place an imperfect biochemical process that leaves human beings so susceptible to kidney stones (and other disorders, like gout)? Evolutionists would maintain that the adenine and guanine elimination pathways represent nothing more than an evolutionary "kluge" job, an imperfection that barely gets the job done-not a Creator's perfect handiwork.

This perspective fails to consider, however, uric acid's full range of metabolic properties, some of which are beneficial. This compound is a potent antioxidant that scavenges the chemically corrosive hydroxyl free radical, singlet oxygen, and superoxide anion, all produced by the metabolic pathways that the cell uses to harvest chemical energy.⁸ The high levels of uric acid in the blood serum, though precariously poised to form stones in the urinary tract, also help prevent cancer and contribute to long human life spans. For other mammals, the conversion of uric acid to more soluble forms before elimination deprives them of a key antioxidant and limits their life spans.

When considered more broadly, it turns out that the primate adenine and guanine elimination pathways reflect an elegant, rather than a poor, design that finds an important use for a waste product. Though inborn metabolic error in the salvage pathway enzymes accounts for the less-common type of kidney stone, the more-common type is largely preventable by a balanced diet-which seems a small price to pay for cancer prevention and long life spans.

When the pain-killers finally took effect and I'd had a chance to research and reflect on what happened to me, I was able to muster thanks to God for kidney stones. But I don't think anyone will want me to share my story at the Thanksgiving dinner table this year.

References

1. http://www.yourmedicalsource.com/library/kidneystones/KS_whatis.html
2. http://www.urologychannel.com/kidneystones/index.shtml
3. Lubert Stryer, Biochemistry, 3d ed. (New York: W. H. Freeman, 1988), 619-22.
4. Stryer, 619-22.
5. http://www.urologychannel.com/kidneystones/index/shtml, accessed March 11, 2003.
6. Stryer, 619-22.
7. Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda's Thumb: More Reflections in Natural History (New York: W. W. Norton, 1980), 19-26.
8. Stryer, 619-22.

Dr. Rana has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and he's the vice president of research and apologetics at Reasons To Believe. Click here to listen to his recent appearance on SBE.

(If you're on the front page of the site, click the title of this post to see the video player.)

Time will tell whether the Occupy protests amount to anything more than an expression of discontent on the part of the 99%. However, as I point out in this week's vodcast, what has been made clear, is that the 1% is protected by its own security force—the police—funded ironically enough by the very 99% against whom they are waging war with pepper spray, rubber bullets, tear gas and other instruments of compliance.

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of The Change Manifesto. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

John W. Whitehead's weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

An extremely important part of Christian faith is the hope of triumph over death. It is common to most people, even in other religions and systems, to believe that they will live again after this life is over. There is no evidence that any other creature has such a belief or practice as humans. But what must be continually kept in mind is that there is all the difference in the world between a hope that has reasonable grounds and a hope that is a simply wishful thought. J. B. Phillips said, “In plain sober fact, our hope of passing through death to share in God’s eternal life rests upon Christ’s own demonstration with the enemy, his rising from the dead. It is the crux of the Christian faith.” If Christ was not raised then all his claims are false or irrelevant.

Sooner or later you have to make up your mind. Do you accept as sober historical fact the resurrection of Jesus from the dead? If you think at all you will soon realize there is little basis for your own life after death, and certainly for your own resurrection and the new heavens and new earth (Revelation 21 – 22:4), unless Jesus was truly raised as claimed by the early disciples.

What launched the Christian Church into the ancient world? When I stood in an ancient second century church meeting place in Rome, back in March, I realized in a wholly different and powerful way that these believers gathered in this spot, over the remains of the cult of Mithraism, precisely because they believed Jesus was alive and still with them by the Spirit as he had promised.

John H. Armstrong is founder and president of ACT 3, a ministry for the advancement of the Christian Tradition in the third millennium. He is a former pastor and church-planter, of more than twenty years, the author/editor of eight books, and the author of hundreds of magazine, journal, and Web based articles. John has served as the editor-in-chief of ACT 3 Review: A Journal for Faith, Church and Culture since its origin in 1992. But most importantly, he is our go-to professional religionist.

In Revelation 3, the Lord speaks and refers to those in the church at Laodicea as being neither cold nor hot, but instead so lukewarm that He says, “I will spew thee out of my mouth.” The prophecy preachers not only see the verses about Laodicea in Revelation 3 as referring to a church in the first century, but also see Laodicea as representing the last stage of history prior to the Second Coming.

They point to verse 17 and its reference to the growing materialism that causes people to turn away from God and feel that they are in need of nothing, when in reality, they are “wretched, miserable, poor, blind, and naked.” In summation, there is a consensus among Evangelicals that the world is getting worse and worse and worse until it gets so bad that the trumpet will have to sound and Jesus will then, out of necessity, bring this perverse and disintegrating world to an end with His Second Coming.

The reality is that those prophecy preachers are half right. Evil has never been more evident in the world than it is today. The forces of darkness have never flexed their muscles and threatened the wellbeing of the people of God as they do in this present time. Wars are more devastating; sexual perversity has never been more evident; corruption in the political/economic systems of the world has become so pervasive that there are social scientists who ask whether the political/social systems of this world will be able to last for another generation.

In addition to the prophecy preachers who see only negative things ahead for us, there are also the secular alarmists who declare that we are facing an environmental crisis which will make life on the planet impossible. They tell us that global warming continues. We will be inundated by flooding and such extreme meteorological conditions that people will have to face the possibility of a coming ice age. Some of my friends who are very concerned about nuclear disarmament predict that it’s only a matter of time before the elements for making hydrogen bombs will be in the hands of terrorists with the inevitable results being massive destruction. In short, you don’t have to be religious to be a prophet of gloom and doom.

I believe that we ought to get our vision of the future from Jesus, especially from what He says as recorded in Matthew 13. From verses 24 through 30, Jesus gives His view of historical developments. He makes it clear that the Kingdom of God is like wheat planted in a field and, as it grows, the evil one (i.e., Satan) comes and plants tares (weeds). The wheat and the tares are growing up together and the servants of the Master come to him and say, “What shall we do? Shall we pull out the weeds?” The Master tells them, “You can’t do that without destroying most of the wheat.” The Master goes on to say, “Let the wheat and the tares grow up together until the end. Then shall come the separation of the wheat from the tares.”

Jesus makes it clear in this parable that the tares are representative of the kingdom of evil, and thus He would agree with those persons who see evil on the increase everywhere they look. Indeed, He would affirm those who would declare that the kingdom of evil has never been stronger or more evident than it is in today’s world. However, Jesus goes on to point out that the wheat is also growing, which is to say that the Kingdom of God is also on the increase and will continue to grow and manifest itself in history until the Second Coming of the Lord. That’s the good news—that in the midst of the threatening growth of the kingdom of evil, the glorious growth of the Kingdom of God occurs simultaneously.

To those who say they don’t see the Kingdom of God on the increase, I have to answer, “That’s because you are myopic. You only see what’s going on in North America.” Within the United States and Canada, the Church is in decline. Fewer and fewer people are into the things of God. The breakdown of the family is everywhere evident. Pornography pervades all forms of entertainment, from magazines to movies to television. Corruption in the business sphere seems to be on a greater scale than ever before. Everywhere there is evidence of people turning away from God. All of this is true, and we tend to think that North America represents what’s going on in the rest of the world. It doesn’t. The Church is growing in Africa at such a rate that there are over 50,000 baptisms every week. In Latin America, Evangelicalism is exploding so that this past Sunday there were more people in Evangelical churches than in all other kinds of churches combined. The largest congregation in the world is not Saddleback Church in California, but the church in Korea where there are over a million members and as many as 700,000 in attendance on Sunday morning. Outside of the North American continent, there is an ingathering of converts that exceeds anything hitherto known in human history. Add to that the tremendous social progress that has taken place, especially at the hands of the Church. For instance, 25 years ago, one out of every six persons on the planet had no access to clean drinking water. Today, studies reveal that it is one out of twelve that have no access to clean drinking water. In case you didn’t figure it out, the situation has improved 100 percent and that is largely due to church groups going to developing countries and drilling wells so the people can have clean drinking water.

Extreme poverty has been cut in half since the 1980s. Life expectancy around the world has doubled in the last 100 years. Thirty years ago, 80 percent of the population of the planet was illiterate. Today, statistics reveal that illiteracy rates have dropped to 25 percent of the world’s population.

Decent housing has been provided for a huge portion of the world’s population, and the median income of people around the world has increased dramatically over the last century.

None of those social scientists who have studied this incredible progress will deny that the Church of Jesus Christ has played a major role in these positive developments. So I say that while evil may be on the increase, so is God’s Kingdom. My interpretation of the parable of the wheat and the tares is not simply a subjective interpretation. If you read Matthew 13:36-43, you will discover that I am only restating what Jesus declares as the meaning of the parable.

The good news is that, as strong and as evident as evil proves to be, God is at work in the world through His Church and, as Billy Graham has said, “If you read the Bible, you will discover ‘WE WIN!’”

Contrary to T.S. Eliot’s statement that the world would not end with a bang, but with a whimper, we declare what Scripture says and boldly tell the world, “The kingdoms of this world have become the Kingdom of our God and He shall reign forever and ever!”

Jesus is coming back and, as it says in the first chapter of Philippians, the good work that He began in us, He will complete on the day of His coming. The future is bright because we have the promise of Jesus that His Kingdom will grow until the end, and at the end all that is evil and perverse will be destroyed. His Kingdom will come on earth as it is in Heaven. Faith, as you know, is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen. To be Christian is to have faith and, thus, be people of hope in the midst of a world where evil is all too evident. Missionaries working in Third World countries; churches sharing their resources with the poor and oppressed of developing nations; church growth, seldom seen in North America, is evident around the world. Praise God for what the Church and its missionaries have accomplished in His name and through His power.

Tony Campolo joins us regularly on Steve Brown Etc. He's professor emeritus at Eastern University and the founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education, an organization that develops schools and social programs in various third world countries and in cities across North America. He's the author of over 35 books, blogs regularly at his website, redletterchristians.org, and can also be found on both Facebook and Twitter

But most importantly, Tony is Our Favorite Lib. Click here for Tony's latest appearance on Steve Brown Etc.

"On July 29, 2008, my family and I were terrorized by an errant Prince George's County SWAT team. This unit forced entry into my home without a proper warrant, executed our beloved black Labradors, Payton and Chase, and bound and interrogated my mother-in-law and me for hours as they ransacked our belongings… As I was forced to kneel, bound at gun point on my living room floor, I recall thinking that there had been a terrible mistake. However, as I have learned more, I have come to understand that what my family and I experienced is part of a growing and troubling trend where law enforcement is relying on SWAT teams to perform duties once handled by ordinary police officers."—Maryland Mayor Cheye Calvo in testimony before the Maryland Senate

Insisting that the "damage done by drugs is felt far beyond the millions of Americans with diagnosable substance abuse or dependence problems," President Obama has declared October 2011 to be National Substance Abuse Prevention Month. However, while drug abuse and drug-related crimes have unquestionably taken a toll on American families and communities, the government's own War on Drugs has left indelible scars on the population.

Indeed, although the Obama administration has shied away from using the phrase "War on Drugs," its efforts to crack down on illicit drug use—especially marijuana use—have not abated. Just consider—every 19 seconds, someone in the U.S. is arrested for violating a drug law. Every 30 seconds, someone in the U.S. is arrested for violating a marijuana law, making it the fourth most common cause of arrest in the United States.

So far this year, approximately 1,313,673 individuals have been arrested for drug-related offenses. Police arrested an estimated 858,408 persons for marijuana violations in 2009. Of those charged with marijuana violations, approximately 89 percent were charged with possession only. Moreover, since December 31, 1995, the U.S. prison population has grown an average of 43,266 inmates per year, with about 25 percent sentenced for drug law violations.

The foot soldiers in the government's increasingly fanatical war on drugs, particularly marijuana, are state and local police officers dressed in SWAT gear and armed to the hilt. These SWAT teams carry out roughly 50,000 no-knock raids every year in search of illegal drugs and drug paraphernalia. As author and journalist Radley Balko reports, "The vast majority of these raids are to serve routine drug warrants, many times for crimes no more serious than possession of marijuana… Police have broken down doors, screamed obscenities, and held innocent people at gunpoint only to discover that what they thought were marijuana plants were really sunflowers, hibiscus, ragweed, tomatoes, or elderberry bushes. (It's happened with all five.)"

Take the case of Philip Cobbs, an unassuming 53-year-old African-American man who cares for his blind, deaf 90-year-old mother and lives on a 39-acre tract of land that's been in his family since the 1860s. Cobbs is the latest in a long line of Americans to find themselves swept up in the government's zealous pursuit of marijuana. On July 26, 2011, while spraying the blueberry bushes near his Virginia house, Cobbs noticed a black helicopter circling overhead. After watching the helicopter for several moments, Cobbs went inside to check on his mother. By the time he returned outside, several unmarked police SUVs had driven onto his property, and police in flak jackets, carrying rifles and shouting unintelligibly, had exited the vehicles and were moving toward him.

Although the officers insisted they had sighted marijuana plants growing on Cobbs' property (they claimed to find two spindly plants growing in the wreckage of a fallen oak tree), their real objective was clear—to search Cobbs' little greenhouse, which he had used that spring to start tomato plants, cantaloupes, and watermelons, as well as asters and hollyhocks. The search of the greenhouse turned up nothing more than used tomato seedling containers. Incredibly, police had not even bothered to secure a warrant before embarking on their raid of Cobbs' property—part of a routine sweep of the countryside in search of pot-growing operations that had to cost taxpayers upwards of $25,000, at the very least.

Thankfully for Cobbs, no one was hurt during the warrantless raid on his property. However, that is not the case for many Americans who find themselves on the wrong end of a SWAT team raid in search of marijuana. For example, on May 5, 2011, a SWAT team kicked open the door of ex-Marine Jose Guerena's home during a drug raid and opened fire. Thinking his home was being invaded by criminals, Guerena told his wife and child to hide in a closet, grabbed a gun and waited in the hallway to confront the intruders. He never fired his weapon. In fact, the safety was still on his gun when he was killed. The SWAT officers, however, not as restrained, fired 70 rounds of ammunition at Guerena—23 of those bullets made contact. Guerena had had no prior criminal record, and the police found nothing illegal in his home.

Tragically, Jose Guerena is far from the only innocent casualty in the government's War on Drugs. Botched SWAT team raids have resulted in the loss of countless lives, including children and the elderly. Usually, however, the first to be shot are the family dogs. As Balko reports:

When police in Fremont, California, raided the home of medical marijuana patient Robert Filgo, they shot his pet Akita nine times. Filgo himself was never charged. Last October [2005] police in Alabama raided a home on suspicion of marijuana possession, shot and killed both family dogs, then joked about the kill in front of the family. They seized eight grams of marijuana, equal in weight to a ketchup packet. In January [2006] a cop en route to a drug raid in Tampa, Florida, took a short cut across a neighboring lawn and shot the neighbor's two pooches on his way. And last May [2005], an officer in Syracuse, New York, squeezed off several shots at a family dog during a drug raid, one of which ricocheted and struck a 13-year-old boy in the leg. The boy was handcuffed at gunpoint at the time.

Clearly, something must be done. There was a time when communities would have been up in arms over a botched SWAT team raid resulting in the loss of innocent lives. Unfortunately, today, we are increasingly coming to accept the use of SWAT teams by law enforcement agencies for routine drug policing and the high incidence of error-related casualties that accompanies these raids.

What's more, the government is providing incentives to the SWAT teams carrying out these raids through federal grants such as the Edward Byrne memorial grants and the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants. As David Borden, the Executive Director of Drug Reform Coordination Network (DRCNet), pointed out, "The exact details on how Byrne and COPS grants are distributed has not been studied, at least not to my knowledge, but an examination of grant applications by one of my colleagues found that they overwhelmingly focus on the number of arrests made, particularly drug arrests. Byrne grants also fund the purchase of equipment for SWAT teams."

Unfortunately, while few of these raids even make the news, they are happening more and more frequently. As Borden notes, "In 1980 there were fewer than 3,000 reported SWAT raids. Now, the number is believed to be over 50,000 per year…About 3/4 of these are drug raids, perhaps more by now, the vast majority of them low-level." Balko's research reinforces this phenomenon. Based on more than a year's worth of research and culled only from documented SWAT team incidents, Balko cites "40 cases in which a completely innocent person was killed. There are dozens more in which nonviolent offenders (recreational pot smokers, for example…) or police officers were needlessly killed. There are nearly 150 cases in which innocent families, sometimes with children, were roused from their beds at gunpoint, and subjected to the fright of being apprehended and thoroughly searched at gunpoint. There are other cases in which a SWAT team seems wholly inappropriate, such as the apprehension of medical marijuana patients, many of whom are bedridden."

Despite the government's current fanaticism about marijuana, America has not always been at war over the cannabis plant. In fact, in 1619, all farmers of the Jamestown colony were required to grow cannabis for rope and other military purposes. Over the next 200 years, a variety of laws required hemp harvesting. In some cases, landowners could be imprisoned for neglecting their duty to grow hemp. Oftentimes, a surplus of hemp could be used as legal tender, even for paying taxes. In 1850, there were 8,327 hemp plantations in the U.S.

It was only later, during the early 20th century, that the government embarked on an all-out assault on marijuana, largely due to corporate business considerations that favored the production of cotton over hemp and racist policies that tied Hispanics and blacks to marijuana use. For example, even though blacks only account for 15% of the drug using population (with whites making up a growing part of the market), the vast majority of drug arrests and convictions affect black drug users. Incredibly, more than 70% of prisoners convicted of nonviolent drug offenses are black or Latino.

The time has come to put an end to the government's racially-weighted, militant war on marijuana. It is a failed, costly and misguided program that has cost the country billions. As critics rightly point out, the war on marijuana has also resulted in a massive increase in incarceration rates. According to Joe Klein, writing for Time, "We spend $68 billion per year on corrections, and one-third of those being corrected are serving time for nonviolent drug crimes. We spend about $150 billion on policing and courts, and 47.5% of all drug arrests are marijuana-related."

Worse, the government's War on Drugs seems to have actually exacerbated the drug problems in this country, funding criminal syndicates and failing to restrict its availability or discourage its use. Indeed, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health revealed that as recently as 2005, 58% of the public found marijuana readily available, with 50% of 12 to 17 year olds declaring it easy to get.

A growing number of legal scholars, including Bruce Fein, who served as a high-ranking Justice Department official during the Reagan administration, are calling to end the prohibition on marijuana and treat it like alcohol by regulating and taxing it at the state level. Their rationale is that instead of allowing marijuana to flourish as a profitable black market crop, it should be taxed and regulated in a manner similar to tobacco and alcohol, which many in the medical community believe to be far more harmful than marijuana. Not only would that lessen violent criminal activity associated with the manufacture and sale of marijuana, but it would also provide an economic boost to ailing state and federal coffers. As it now stands, marijuana is the United States' largest cash crop (it brought in an estimated $35 billion in 2005), with a third of this production coming from California where it is the state's largest cash crop.

Recently, over 500 economists led by Nobel Laureate George Akerlof, Daron Acemoglu of MIT, and Howard Margolis of the University of Chicago, signed an open letter to the President, Congress, State Governors, and State Legislatures expounding the immense economic benefits of legalization. They pointed out that if marijuana sales were taxed at the same level as cigarettes and alcohol, the government would make up to $6.2 billion annually. Additionally, a repeal of the prohibition of marijuana would save federal, state, and local governments an estimated $7.7 billion annually by ending the need for enforcement of drug laws.

Acknowledging the medical benefits of marijuana, especially for those who suffer from Alzheimer's, HIV/AIDS, and multiple sclerosis, 16 states as well as the District of Columbia have also legalized it for medicinal purposes. Most recently, the California Medical Association, which represents more than 35,000 physicians statewide, called for the legalization and regulation of the plant.

As always, the special interests have a lot to say in these matters, and it's particularly telling that those lobbying hard to keep the prohibition on marijuana include law enforcement officials and alcoholic beverage producers. However, when the war on drugs—a.k.a. the war on the American people—becomes little more than a thinly veiled attempt to keep SWAT teams employed and special interests appeased, it's time to revisit our drug policies and laws. As Professors Eric Blumenson and Eva Nilson recognize:

During the 25 years of its existence, the "War on Drugs" has transformed the criminal justice system, to the point where the imperatives of drug law enforcement now drive many of the broader legislative, law enforcement, and corrections policies in counterproductive ways. One significant impetus for this transformation has been the enactment of forfeiture laws which allow law enforcement agencies to keep the lion's share of the drug-related assets they seize. Another has been the federal law enforcement aid program, revised a decade ago to focus on assisting state anti-drug efforts. Collectively these financial incentives have left many law enforcement agencies dependent on drug law enforcement to meet their budgetary requirements, at the expense of alternative goals such as the investigation and prosecution of non-drug crimes, crime prevention strategies, and drug education and treatment.

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of The Change Manifesto. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

John W. Whitehead's weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

The goal was to talk about the role that religion did or didn't play in the life and death of Steve Jobs, whose passing was marked with the kind of flood of digital and literal ink that is reserved for the most beloved members of the Baby Boom Generation.

Think about it. How many major editors and producers in this land of ours are 56 or close to it? This was the end of an era for legions of journalists.

Anyway, Wilken asked a question that rather shocked me. He recalled all of the key elements of the famous "Stevenote" addresses that Jobs so famously delivered at Macworld conferences and other media events announcing new products. You have the smooth and witty pitchman, the almost branded everyman clothing, the looming backdrop of iconic images and funny film clips, etc. A host of digital entrepreneurs have started copying this format, but no one pulled it off like Jobs.

But wait, there is another army of professionals who have mastered this method — big-box, multimedia megachurch pastors. The similarities are striking, although it's clear that Jobs came first.

What is really going on in this scenario? Quite frankly, it's a rite built on a kind of sacramental theology. The goal is to consume the product in an attempt to become as cool and successful as the pitchman/preacher. The goal is to be changed, to merge with the image and become a new person — purchase after purchase.

As the Jobs obituaries rolled out, I was fascinated by two major themes related to this. The first was the uncomfortable reality that Jobs was not, in the end, a very nice person or boss. He was so, so, so driven that he often crushed mortals in his path.

The headline on Religion News Service piece that ran in The Washington Post nailed this:

Epitaph for Steve Jobs: Too great to be good?

Here's a key passage in this piece by reporter David Gibson:

So was Steve Jobs a saint or a jerk? Maybe it’s not an either/or scenario. If greatness and goodness are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the history of actual saints (of the canonized variety) offers plenty of tales of holy men and women who were as hard-driving as Jobs and just as brusque.

St. Jerome, for example, the great fourth-century translator of the Bible, was notoriously testy. His disagreement with longtime friend Rufinus over certain points of theology prompted Jerome to say that Rufinus snorted like a pig and walked like a tortoise.

St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, could be withering in his criticism of the men under his command, and St. Catherine of Siena had no qualms about telling off the pope in the strongest terms.

Even Blessed Mother Teresa of Calcutta, the modern touchstone for sanctity, could be a sharp-tongued taskmaster. “Is this not a humiliation for you that I, at my age, can take a regular meal and do a full day’s work — and you live with the name of the poor yet enjoy a lazy life?” she wrote to sisters whom she deemed insufficiently industrious.

Ouch.

“That’s like Steve Jobs telling someone the prototype you presented isn’t up to snuff,” said the Rev. James Martin, a Jesuit priest and author of “My Life with the Saints.”

The second subject that drove many of the Jobs hagiographies was the supposedly Zen-like quality that infused his work, which many journalists connected with the Apple czar's youthful turn toward the East and Zen Buddhism in particular. Once again, this is a man who narrated his life with quotes from The Beatles.

Thus, Jobs made the semi-Sixties pilgrimage to India and, many years later, a Zen master performed his wedding and served as the spiritual adviser to NeXT. That was the semi-successful computer company Jobs founded in between the Apple creation story and then his glorious second coming.

The problem, of course, is that no one knows the degree to which this supposed Buddhist influence played in this ultra-secretive man's life. We may have to wait for the biography (and the movie).

Then there was the actual philosophy that Jobs bluntly articulated as the Big Idea behind his life (cue the Stanford University commencement speech). Here's how I summed up this big question in a column for Scripps Howard:

Critics noted that Jobs was a relentless and abrasive perfectionist who left scores of battered psyches in his wake.

Whatever the doctrinal content of his faith, it seemed to have been a Buddhism that helped him find peace while walking barefoot through offices packed with wealthy, workaholic capitalists.

In his Stanford sermon, Jobs urged his young listeners to “trust in something — your gut, destiny, life, karma, whatever. This approach has never let me down, and it has made all the difference in my life.”

For Jobs, the bottom line was his own bottom line — even when death loomed on the horizon. His ultimate hope was that he, alone, knew what was right.

”Don't be trapped by dogma — which is living with the results of other people's thinking,” he concluded. “Don't let the noise of others' opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition — they somehow already know what you truly want to become. Everything else is secondary.”

Buddhist? Or radical all-American individualist?

Enjoy the podcast.

Professor Terry Mattingly writes the nationally syndicated On Religion column for the Scripps Howard News Service in Washington, D.C., which is sent to about 350 newspapers in North America. He's also a regular contributor at GetReligion.org and the author of the book Pop Goes Religion: Faith in Popular Culture.

This woman called me “evil” and refused to accept (or even consider) that I had any relationship with God as long as I was taking psychiatric medicines. When I told her that I had been on them at the time I wrote the book, she said I should have put a notice on the book regarding that, as I had been “under the influence.”

Even in the midst of this, the woman was telling me how much my book had helped her, how God had dropped it in her lap at just the right time, but that the person I was now had somehow cancelled all that out.

It was a messy conversation, and many of her words were all too familiar. She didn’t realize that she sounded exactly like some of those described in my book as being hurtful and damaging — she had read those words, but in her frustration she was sounding precisely the same way, without even really hearing herself.

I knew that I have been making progress when the words didn’t trigger me. In a not so recent past, those kind of statements would have me curled over on the floor, triggered, feeling guilt, shame and self-loathing.

Instead, I found myself initially furious, and responding that way. As I re-read her words however, my anger turned to compassion, and sadness.

I’m learning that is the difficulty with publishing something. It can’t help but define the writer, even as the book is written, but at the same time, the writer continues living beyond their work. And a life, unfortunately isn’t re-written and edited, it is simply lived.

My book was written 8 years ago, and while it is a piece of me frozen in transport, that’s also exactly what it amounts to.

A lot of things have happened in the past 8 years of my life; all which changed me in some degree or another, all which gave me new insights, new perceptions, new beginnings. Some of them have been very painful, and I have been shaken even more. My struggle has changed, become more complicated, more frustrating.

Do I dare expose these things without losing more people who have high expectations for me? I have been writing things down, trying to lay out my second book, trying to continue the authentic, open writing I am so known for.

I wonder, dear readers, have you considered the frozen flash nature of your favorite books? Someone as our beloved Steve, of course, spends time with his readers and listeners, and therefore, they are a part of his current life. To some extent, though, we can never really cage someone in. They are their own. Other writers, like me, only have facebook or a blog, and many things go unwritten in those places.

A book can only capture part of a story. A writer is deeper and more dimensional than simply one book. There are active lives being lived in between books, in between sentences and fragments and periods. There are many question marks.

If you have a favorite book or author, even, remember to have grace with them. Remember there is much you may not know outside of those marvelous hundreds of pages that changed your life. Remember that we are all human—subject to the whims and difficulties that change us, solidify us, or altogether redefine us. And most of all, please remember that we are all in this together.

Peace, love, patience, and understanding to all.

Renée Altson is the author of Stumbling Toward Faith, a photographer, and a web developer. She lives with her husband, daughter, and 2 cats in Southern California. Click here to listen to Renée on Steve Brown Etc.

Did Adam and Eve exist? A number of evangelical Christian are now arguing that they didn't. But I disagree. I think Adam and Eve did exist, and not just because I believe what is recorded in Scripture. In my opinion, good scientific evidence backs up belief in a literal, historical Adam and Eve.

Recently, a scientist from the University of Auckland in New Zealand used linguistic analysis of language to trace humanity's origin. In doing so, he provided independent confirmation of the Out-of-Africa model for human origins, and with it, support for the biblical creation model.¹

Numerous studies of genetic variability indicate that humanity originated recently (around 100,000 years ago) in east Africa (near where some theologians think the Garden of Eden existed) from a small population. Mitochondrial DNA studies suggest that all humanity traces back to a single woman. In like manner, studies of Y-chromosomal DNA indicate that all men can trace their origin to a single man. (See Who Was Adam?and the New Reasons to Believe e-Zine, pages 4–6, for previous discussions on this topic.)

Anthropologists tend to view these data from an evolutionary perspective (coining the term "Out-of-Africa model"). Yet, the data are provocative from a biblical standpoint. They reveal the type of pattern one would expect if Adam and Eve really existed and gave birth to all human beings.

Phonemics

The sounds of language—vowels, consonants, and tones—are referred to as phonemes. Linguists have discovered that languages spoken by larger populations tend to possess more phonemes than languages spoken by fewer people.

Quentin Atkinson at the University of Auckland wondered if phonemes could be used to study humanity's origin. What further motivated his idea is the phenomenon in genetics known as the serial founder effect. When a subpopulation breaks off of the main population, that smaller group displays much more limited genetic variability than the parent population. If the subpopulation, in turn, spawns another subpopulation, that resulting group of "break-a-ways" will display an even more reduced genetic variability.

When people began to migrate around the world, a small group left the point of humanity's genesis. Serial fracturing of the migrating population took place, consequently generating the serial founder effect. According to Atkinson's hypothesis, this phenomenon should be evident in the phonemes of the world's languages.

The Results: Something to Talk about

Atkinson analyzed 504 languages and discovered that African languages displayed the greatest number of phonemes. (African populations are the most genetically diverse and thought to be the oldest people groups.) He also determined that languages of people groups in South America and Oceania possessed the fewest number of phonemes. (These people groups are believed to be the youngest.) Atkinson also noticed a cline in phonemes (a gradual decrease in phoneme numbers) as the languages moved away from Africa and into Europe and Asia.

The phoneme patterns Atkinson discovered closely match the genetic diversity data, and independently support the Out-of-Africa model. It is encouraging that a number of separate lines of evidence (genetic, archeological, and now linguistic) harmonize with the biblical account of human origins. The scientific case for Adam and Eve is stronger today than it has ever been, in spite of what some evangelicals might think.

Endnotes:

Quentin D. Atkinson, "Phonemic Diversity Supports a Serial Founder Effect Model of Language Expansion from Africa," Science 332 (April 15, 2011): 346–49.

Dr. Rana has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and he's the vice president of research and apologetics at Reasons To Believe. Click here to listen to his recent appearance on SBE.

As technology grows more sophisticated and the American government and its corporate allies further refine their methods of keeping tabs on citizens, those of us who treasure privacy increasingly find ourselves engaged in a struggle to maintain our freedoms in the midst of the modern surveillance state.

The latest attack on our right to anonymity and privacy comes stealthily packaged in the form of so-called job protection legislation. Introduced by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) in June 2011, H.R. 2885 (formerly H.R. 2164), the "Legal Workforce Act," is being marketed as a way to fight illegal immigration and "open up millions of jobs for unemployed Americans and legal immigrants." However, this proposed federal law is really little more than a Trojan horse, a backdoor attempt by the powers-that-be to inflict a de facto National ID card on the American people.

Created under the auspices of securing the borders and preventing illegal immigrants from being hired for "American" jobs, E-Verify challenges the rights of the individual, the rights of labor and the rights of industry. As such, this is not a left or right issue. Anyone who values civil liberties should be alarmed. In fact, E-Verify is being opposed by various civil liberties groups such as the ACLU, American Library Association, The Rutherford Institute, Liberty Coalition and others.

If approved by Congress, this legislation would make the federal government the final authority on who gets hired by American businesses and in the process create a bureaucratic nightmare for already over-burdened and over-regulated small business owners. In a nutshell, H.R. 2885 requires all employers to submit potential employees' names, Social Security numbers and other data to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for authorization before the employees can start work. The data would then be run through E-Verify, a government-run database and employment identification verification system.

In other words, the E-Verify system would require all those wanting to be employed by American companies to register the credentials of their citizenship in a government database. What this means, of course, is that in order to be able to verify an applicant's legitimacy, the government would first have to build a massive database to store the biographical information of the entire working population in the United States–a huge undertaking with numerous pitfalls and security flaws, as we have seen with many other government databases. If you think unemployment is a problem now, just wait until your employment hinges on getting government clearance. Under this legislation, if a worker's information is incorrect in E-Verify, he or she can't work until the problem is resolved.

Furthermore, due to the sensitive information contained in the database, it would be a huge target for hackers and identity thieves, while doing little to curb the flow of illegal immigration or illegal immigrants getting jobs. Indeed, with a stolen or faked identity, anyone could bypass the system and secure employment.

This legislation poses even greater threats to privacy, free speech and free association and potentially hinders Americans' ability to travel freely. Because the E-Verify system would apply to everyone eligible to work in the United States and will grow to include biometrics such as fingerprints, DNA and iris scans, it will be used for a host of other purposes by the intelligence community, law enforcement and corporate America.

Private employers will become extensions of the government in that they will eventually be required to verify whether employees are delinquent in the payment of federal, state or local taxes, in compliance with child support or alimony decrees, on a terrorist watch list or convicted or even accused of a crime. Employers, thus, would be enlisted as de facto law enforcement officers for the federal government. Furthermore, errors in the verification process would be practically immune from timely legal redress in violation of constitutional tenets of due process.

Recently, the prohibition in H.R. 2885 on using the E-Verify database for purposes other than employment verification was replaced with a new section that allows the system to be used to "protect critical infrastructure." That term is broadly defined and it's not clear what this would mean in practice–whether screening air travelers or controlling access to federal facilities–but it clearly signals a huge expansion of the program. In one paragraph in the legislation the government states that E-Verify will not be used just for employment but also can be used for verifying identify for national security. What this means is that American citizens would have to have their information correct in E-Verify not just to get a job but also potentially if they need to access "critical infrastructure"–i.e., any kind of public transportation. Ironically, this language comes right after the paragraph saying there will be no National ID card.

Despite assurances to the contrary, E-Verify will become a de facto National ID system. Such a database with vast pools of personal information directly tied to individuals shared across a multitude of government agencies would give the government an alarming amount of control over the average citizen. If government officials so chose, they could easily track any person who had registered in the E-Verify system for whatever reason.

Not only will government agencies know everything about American citizens, but private corporations will become policemen for this system. The E-Verify system–part of a broader trend in American politics, namely, the collusion of government and corporate interests–will allow government and corporate officials to repress dissidents and suspects simply by restricting their access to basic services. Once all of your information is tied together and placed in one grand database, any government or corporate agency can wreak havoc on your life. You might try to buy groceries only to find that your credit card has been denied. You might apply for a job, at ten, twenty, fifty corporations only to find that, despite your being very qualified, there just isn't any room for you at the company. Without a job, you might be forced to tap into the welfare system, only to find that your application was denied. Your property might be confiscated. When you try to move somewhere else and start anew, you might find you can't board the plane because you're on a no-fly list. Make no mistake, these are the tactics of a totalitarian society.

However, the idea of singling out and "identifying" individuals for the sake of national security is nothing new. National identity cards also carry with them a historic risk of oppression and persecution, as they have been used to identify and track ethnic, racial and religious groups and have facilitated oppression and persecution against these groups. And as recently as the 1990s, identity cards played an instrumental role in one of the worst genocides of the twentieth century, second only perhaps to the Holocaust.

With the introduction of an identity card that contains information such as ethnic origin, government agencies will be able to identify people on the basis of race or religion with considerable ease. For example, in the months following the 9/11 attacks, Muslim men from Arab or South Asian countries were rounded up on the basis of religion and ethnicity and detained indefinitely in the United States, often without access to an attorney or a judge. Imagine how much more far-reaching that government detention program might have been with a National ID in place.

Various laws have been enacted over time to guard against unreasonable intrusions by the government into our private lives. One such law is the Privacy Act, which was passed by Congress in 1974 and prohibits the government from forming a database. However, although the fear was that such a database could constitute an invasion of privacy, the law only prevents the government from creating a database, not accessing an already existing database.

At the time the Privacy Act was passed, Congress had no reason to suspect that private corporations would ever have the desire or means to create such databases. The emergence of data collection corporations, however, has enabled government intelligence and police agencies to circumvent the law and gain information on private citizens with the click of a button. Although such tactics clearly contradict the spirit of privacy laws intended to guard against government abuse, it is technically legal for the government to gain access to these databases. Government officials have taken full advantage of this loophole. Due to the fact that these databases are owned and operated by private corporations, they are relatively unregulated and fall outside the scrutiny of privacy watchdog groups. Reports of security breaches at numerous data brokerage companies only serve to fan concerns about the lack of oversight and regulation.

Rest assured that were Congress to approve this E-Verify legislation, it would constitute the ultimate end-run around the Privacy Act and open the door to a National ID. Thus, we have reached a crossroads. Either we limit the reach and power of the government (often in collusion with corporate power) or privacy as we have known it will become extinct.

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of The Change Manifesto. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

John W. Whitehead's weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

Around that time I heard Tim Keller preach on the issue. He said that contemporary America didn’t really understand the idea of divide judgment, in part because we hadn’t really experienced evil. We lived in the comfort and calm of suburbia. Why would we need divine judgment if we had no heinous evil to be made right? Keller contrasted that to the experience of theologian Miroslav Volf. Volf was Croatian and grew up in a society where people had witnessed entire villages burned to the ground, their daughters raped and their sons’ throats slit open. Try telling a Croat not to take revenge.

After hearing Keller’s lecture and Volf’s comments, I thought to myself: God forbid it, but if Jack ever experience evil, he would plead – even demand – that God make things right; that God judge wrongdoing.

Well, early on the morning of September 11, 2001, Jack woke up early and headed down to a conference, held at Windows on the World: the 116th floor of Tower 1 of the World Trade Center. Jack would later admit that it was only because of God’s grace that he was late, that he missed the stop, that by the time he doubled back and made it to WTC Tower 1, he only got as far as the express elevator when the first plane hit. And that by God’s grace he made it out of the shattered building (others in that elevator were not so fortunate). All of his colleagues made it to the conference on time. They all died. And in fact, some of those in his elevator died.

Jack suffered all kinds of trauma: from reliving the memories to survivor’s guilt to raging at anyone else who dared feel angry about it. Jack was in the building. Only Jack had the right to want justice. But all of America rose up and demanded justice. President George Bush appeared on the television he promised to bring those evildoers to justice. And wasn’t that right? What kind of good God, or leader or society would allow evil to carry on unabated, as if nothing were wrong? The desire to stop evil, be it a terrorist or human trafficking or drug abuse, is a good thing.

But how have our actions fared in the ensuing decade? I hear differing opinions about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Were we freeing captives or securing Iraqi oil fields for Halliburton? Why engage in war abroad when we’ve got plenty of wars at home: poverty, addiction, corporate greed, political acrimony. When bin Laded was killed I felt the same kind of mixed emotions. On one hand, I smiled at a photo of some New York firemen, raising their hands in victory. After all, they lost so many of their own. But then I recoiled at the sight of a bunch of drunken college kids partying outside the White House. College kids? They were eight years old on 9/11. Now they were using bin Laden’s death as an excuse to throw a kegger?

I’ve never seen this level of political mudslinging … and that’s just on facebook. The anger over terrorism and economic collapse is exploited by celebrity news “reporters” who stir up hatred like WWF wrestlers playing into human lust for blood. They probably go home and laugh about it, but their fans believe it’s for real.

And it is for real, this lust for vengeance. But what is the alternative? Do nothing? Pretend evil isn’t evil? What do we do with our longing for justice? Is there such a thing as righteous anger?

I re-listened to Keller’s sermon and sought out his source material, Dr. Volf. In his book, Exclusion and Embrace, Volf lays out a provocative thesis: the practice of non-violence requires a belief in divine vengeance. E and E, pp 303-4 (italics mine)

"My thesis will be unpopular with the man in the West… But imagine speaking to people as I have whose cities and villages have been first plundered, then burned, and leveled to the ground; whose daughters and sisters have been raped, whose fathers and brothers have had their throats slit… Your point to them–we should not retaliate? Why not? I say–the only means of prohibiting violence by us is to insist that violence is only legitimate when it comes from God… Violence thrives today; secretly nourished by the belief that God refuses to take the sword… It takes the quiet of a suburb for the birth of the thesis that human nonviolence is a result of a God who refuses to judge. (But) in a scorched land, soaked in the blood of the innocent, the idea will invariably die, like other pleasant captivities of the liberal mind… if God were NOT angry at injustice and deception and did NOT make a final end of violence, that God would not be worthy of our worship."

This past decade has made two things very clear to me: One, that humans have an innate desire for justice; and Two, that we are incapable of accomplishing it—not in any pure sense, anyway. But pure and complete justice will come when God finally judges the actions of all. And He is a good God to do so.

Jesus Christ, son of the living God, have mercy upon us all.

“We will be satisfied with the justice of God, even if that means strolling the streets of heaven with our persecutors.” Blogger Robert Campbell

Susan Isaacs is a writer, actor, and comedienne with TV and film credits including Planes Trains & Automobiles, Scrooged, Seinfeld, The Drew Carey Show, My Name Is Earl and more. She is an alumnus of The Groundlings Sunday Company and the author of Angry Conversations With God: A Snarky But Authentic Spiritual Memoir.

Click here to listen to Susan's most recent appearance on SBE.

The living truth of the gospel is something that we access through a faith journey, a journey that is antithetical to human certainty. This journey may/will bring us to make clear doctrinal statements but these statements are not the gospel. Remember, you can believe all the right things and not know Jesus. It is only as we step out in faith into the things to which God calls us that we experience God’s faithfulness, but this step is always taken in uncertainty and with a lack of full understanding. Faith is not an irrational leap in the dark but it is not a rational grasp of beliefs either. Faith is not anti-rational but it does transcend reason. The ancient mystics always understood this point. So did the Reformed thinker Jonathan Edwards. But few modern Christians understand it at all.

Most modern religion supplanted this type of spiritual journey and claimed that faith was believing in the truth of certain sacred doctrines. Or faith was hearing these truths and accepting them by the will. But all of this is very different from the kind of faith the gospel calls us to in Jesus. Jesus never associates faith with a belief in sacred doctrines. Instead of doctrinal beliefs that offer certainty, Jesus simply says, “Follow me.” That’s it.

When we follow Jesus we discover a God that is very different from what we had anticipated based upon religion or human/biblical forms of faith. The Jesus that religion and theology present to us is often very different from the Jesus of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. This religious Jesus that we follow is very often a tribal Jesus who shares our values and conforms to our notions of right and wrong. He punishes evildoers and rewards good people who believe the right things and practice the right kind of behavior. (Quite often such good people are those who are most like us since we believe that we have the truth and understand the mystery of true faith! This is why we keep creating new denominations and movements.)

The problem with this is clear. We make Jesus into our likeness and ignore all the things that he says that seem strange and mysterious to our way of religion. We convince ourselves that he did not really mean it when he said we are to turn the other cheek and love our enemies. And we cannot comprehend how the last are really first and the first are actually last so we spiritualize this saying to make it fit our religion. We especially have a hard time believing that God is “kind to the ungrateful and the wicked.” And we fiercely debate how Jesus could speak as true God and pray for his torturers to be forgiven while he was on the cross. This is just too foreign to our human understanding. Consequently, we go on imagining a Jesus who will fit nicely into our fearful and limited understanding. This is so much easier than believing in a Jesus who changes our understanding in order that we might come to know the mystery of God’s mercy.

John H. Armstrong is founder and president of ACT 3, a ministry for the advancement of the Christian Tradition in the third millennium. He is a former pastor and church-planter, of more than twenty years, the author/editor of eight books, and the author of hundreds of magazine, journal, and Web based articles. John has served as the editor-in-chief of ACT 3 Review: A Journal for Faith, Church and Culture since its origin in 1992. But most importantly, he is our go-to professional religionist.

She told Catholics that they should show the same reverence for the poor that they show toward the Eucharist. She taught them that when they touched the poor, they were touching the body of Christ. She revealed to Protestants that Christianity is truly ecumenical and that the essence of the faith lay not in institutional affiliation, but within the expressions of love in the name of Christ.

Whenever she wrote, she spelled ‘poor’ with a capital ‘P’ because to her, the poor were the sacred means through which God comes to all people of all creeds. Her concern was not only for the poor but for all the oppressed people of the world. She taught us much when she said, “Whenever I look into the eyes of a man dying from AIDS, I have the awareness that Jesus is staring back at me!”

The materially rich also saddened her and warranted her love. She was aware that those who have material possessions are often emotionally poor. She claimed that there are none so poor as those who are denied affection from others. Visiting an old folks home in New York City, she looked around and exclaimed, “I have never seen poorer people anywhere in the world.”

Taking care of poor, impoverished India was easy, as far as she was concerned. It only took a piece of bread and some water. But in the United States she saw people whose physical needs were cared for, but who were left emotionally neglected and lonely. These, she believed, were the poorest people on earth.

Mother Teresa was well aware that people who want to give and serve have to do so for the right reasons. Paying a visit to Haiti in the mid-1970s, she met a man who wanted to give money to the Sisters of Charity. When she was handed a huge check by the man she proceeded to tear it up and say, “Instead of giving money to the poor, why don’t you go home and love your wife?” She would not allow giving to the poor to be a means of escaping the guilt that should be felt by those who fail to love those whom God has given them to love.

I know of a woman who went through a divorce and felt very much alone in the world. She wrote to Mother Teresa and asked if it was possible for her to join the Sisters of Charity and minister among the needy. Months went by without an answer. Eventually a hand-addressed envelope came to the home of the woman. Inside the envelope was a simple letter that read, “Find you own Calcutta!” Mother Teresa was all too aware that we have a tendency to look for exotic places to do service for the kingdom of God when, in reality, there are needs all around us that are waiting to be met with Christ’s love. She made us aware that until we are faithful in loving those around us, we ought not to think we will be able to love those who live in some far-off place.

Some have been critical of Mother Teresa. They argue that she never addressed the root causes of poverty, which lay in political and economic structures. But the root cause of poverty is greed. Oppressive social structures are only instruments for expressing that greed. While not dealing with social structures, she certainly called us away from the greediness that gives birth to injustice and the poverty that injustice causes.

Others criticize Mother Teresa because in their eyes, she wasn’t sufficiently evangelistic. Such critics do not understand that she took seriously the admonition of St. Francis of Assisi who said, “We should always preach the gospel, and sometimes we should use words.”

She often quoted Gandhi; “If Christians lived out the message of Jesus, there would be no Hindus left in India!”

Most of all Mother Teresa loved Jesus and trusted in him. When a reporter from the New York Times asked her what would happen to the Sisters of Charity when she was no longer around to raise money and to lend support to the mission, she simply answered, “It’s none of my business!” The work that she did belonged to the Lord, and the Lord will continue to carry out that ministry through the many who have been inspired by her example.

Tony Campolo joins us regularly on Steve Brown Etc. He's professor emeritus at Eastern University and the founder of the Evangelical Association for the Promotion of Education, an organization that develops schools and social programs in various third world countries and in cities across North America. He's the author of over 35 books, blogs regularly at his website, redletterchristians.org, and can also be found on both Facebook and Twitter

But most importantly, Tony is Our Favorite Lib. He'll be joining us next on September 9.

"What we know is that he is right wing and he is a Christian fundamentalist," he said, the morning after the hellish attack on Norway's Labor Party and on the children that were its future.

That was the English version of the quote that jumped into American news reports and wire service stories around the globe.

Breivik was officially a "Christian fundamentalist." He was also a "Christian extremist" in a New York Times headline, a "religious conservative" on an ABC newscast and a "Christian terrorist" in an Associated Press report.

However, the pivotal "fundamentalist" phrase sounded a bit different in the context of the televised Norwegian press conference that ignited this media storm, said the Rev. Arne H. Fjeldstad, a minister in the Church of Norway and a former senior editor at the major Norwegian newspaper Aftenposten. He is also one of my colleagues in the GetReligion.org project to study the mainstream media's coverage of religion news.

Translating from the Norwegian, Fjeldstad said the police claimed that Breivik was part of a "Christian, fundamentalist, extreme-right environment in Norway." The key was his violent opposition to the political policies known as "multiculturalism."

"I am not sure this police official knew what he was saying when he used the word 'fundamentalist,' " said Fjeldstad. "I think he was trying to say that this was a crazy, lunatic, radical guy on the political fringe and he is calling himself a Christian."

It's crucial to know, he added, that "fundamentalist" has literally been pulled into the Norwegian language from English — even if there is very little history of Protestant fundamentalism in Norway.

During debates inside the Church of Norway, said Fjeldstad, the term is primarily used by liberals to describe conservatives who stress the Bible's authority as the "inspired word of God" and who defend traditional Christian doctrines on moral issues. While there are Christian groups in America who identify themselves as "fundamentalists," this is not the case in Norway.

As media around the world quickly reported, Breivik did identify himself as a Christian — period — on his Facebook page. He also added other details about his religious and cultural beliefs in his 1,500-page online manifesto, "2083 — A European Declaration of Independence."

At the age of 15, Breivik apparently chose to be baptized and confirmed into the state church. However, the writings left behind by the 32-year-old radical also stress that he does not hold traditional Christian beliefs or practice the faith. Instead, he carefully identifies himself as a "Christian agnostic" or a "Christian atheist (cultural Christian)." In his manifesto, Breivik emphasizes his identity as a Free Mason, his interest in Odinist Norse traditions and his role as a "Justiciar Knight" in a new crusade against Islam.

"If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian," he wrote, in a passage that found its way into a few media reports. "Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian."

Breivik explicitly separates himself from conservative forms of Christianity, at one point noting: "It is therefore essential to understand the difference between a

'Christian fundamentalist theocracy' (everything we do not want) and a secular European society based on our Christian cultural heritage (what we do want).

"So, no, you don't need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist."

In other words, noted Fjeldstad, for Breivik the "Christian" label is cultural or political — but not a statement of personal faith in his case.

"If you are going to use the word 'fundamentalist' it must be used to describe someone who is a very conservative Christian when he is talking about the Bible and the practice of the faith," he said. Thus, a fundamentalist Christian "would always place a heavy emphasis on having a personal faith in Jesus Christ. …

"So whatever Anders Breivik is, the last thing you can call him is a 'fundamentalist' Christian."

Professor Terry Mattingly writes the nationally syndicated On Religion column for the Scripps Howard News Service in Washington, D.C., which is sent to about 350 newspapers in North America. He's also a regular contributor at GetReligion.org and the author of the book Pop Goes Religion: Faith in Popular Culture.

(If you're on the front page of the site, click the title of this post to see the cartoon.)

Many years ago I was going through a very difficult time as a pastor and was struggling to be a good husband to my lovely wife Lisa. Lisa confronted me with my hypocrisy: everybody thought I was such a great guy and I taught such awesome truths about grace and love, but sometimes I treated her so lovelessly… which made her wonder.

I took a long trip into the woods. I meditated on 1 Corinthians 13… the love chapter. After hours and hours of just sitting in the middle of the forest, it suddenly hit me: the source of all that I do is my heart. It is my heart who loves or my heart who hates. It all comes from there. Love loves indiscriminately. Undivided. If my heart loves this one but despises that one, the problem isn't with that one but with my heart. If my heart gets disturbed and frustrated and acts out lovelessly, it is my heart that is the issue.

I suddenly realized that how I do anything is how I do everything. How I love the littlest thing is how I love the greatest thing.

It percolates down into everything. How I regard my enemy is how I regard my friend. How I treat my adversary is how I will treat my aide. How I talk to my provoker is how I will talk to my encourager. Because it is all my heart. Not the objects of its love.

I knew then I had a life-long commitment to this truth.

Own the original drawing.
Buy a print of this cartoon.

HEY I'M ON EBAY:

nakedpastor is David Hayward. David is an artist, cartoonist and writer. Go to nakedpastor.com for more cartoons, blog posts, art and insight from a former pastor who's stark naked honest about church life.

Well, it looks like some bacteria have taken these ads to heart. A researcher from the University of Iowa has discovered a strain of bacteria  called Pseudomonas putida CBB5 that appears to have evolved the capability to live off caffeine .¹ This strain possesses three enzymes —called N-demethylases—that remove the three methyl groups from caffeine (see figure 1) . The resulting product is then converted to xanthine , a common metabolite found in all organisms. Once this compound is formed, it can be further broken down using existing metabolic pathways.

Figure 1. Chemical structure of caffeine
Image source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Caffeine.svg

As humans have made widespread use of caffeine, this stimulant has "leaked" into the environment as a "pollutant." Caffeine is made up of carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, and oxygen, four elements that all life-forms need to survive. Given caffeine'sabundance in the environment, it is not surprising that P. putida would have acquired the ability to make use of caffeine as a food source.

For many people, discoveries like this convince them that biological evolution must be a fact. After all, seeing is believing and we are observing evolution happening right before our eyes.

But is evidence for the evolution of novel metabolic activity in bacteria evidence for biological evolution? A careful understanding of the various meanings associated with the term evolution as well as insight into the nature of the evolutionary changes taking place in P. putida help address this question.

The Ambiguity of Biological Evolution
The term "evolution" can take on a variety of meanings . Each one reflects a different type of biological transformation (or presumed transformation).

It is true that organisms can change as their environment changes. This occurs through mutations to the genetic material. In rare circumstances, these mutations can create new biochemical and biological traits. If these new traits impart to the organism a greater ability to survive, it will reproduce more effectively than organisms lacking the trait. Over time, this new trait will take hold in the population, causing a transformation of the species.

Evolutionary biologists have proposed that biological changes can take place at three distinct levels. The first is referred to as microevolution. This involves evolutionary variation within a species in response to selection pressures and genetic drift. Examples include the changes in wing color observed for the peppered moth .

The second level of evolutionary change is speciation. In this case, one species evolves to give rise to a closely related sister species. A well-known example is the finches of the Galapagos Islands that evolved from an ancestral species. The primeval finch species made its way to the Islands and then diversified into closely related species that vary in size and beak shape in response to the different ecological niches on the different islands.

Evolutionary biologists and most creationists agree that an abundance of evidence exists for microevolutionary changes and speciation. Biological evolution at these two levels is a fact and is largely noncontroversial.

The controversy centers largely on macroevolution, evolutionary modifications with the creative potential to generate large-scale biological changes. Evolutionary biologists argue that over vast periods of time the processes that generate microevolutionary changes and speciation can yield major transformations (like whales from a raccoon-like creature or birds from dinosaurs).

Creationists and some Intelligent Design proponents disagree. I include myself among those who are skeptical of macroevolution. I argue that organisms have the capacity to adapt to changing environments and other selective pressures, but they cannot evolve in dramatic ways. In other words, a Creator must be responsible for life's origin and history and that biological and biochemical systems must be intelligently designed.

There is another type of biological evolution that doesn't fit into any of these three categories: namely, microbial evolution. These types of transformations involve changes in viruses, bacteria, archaea, and single-celled eukaryotes. Such changes include the acquisition of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, the ability of viruses to hop from one host to another ( e.g., SARS and HIV), and the emergence of drug-resistant strains of the malaria parasites.

Microbial evolution also includes horizontal gene transfer between microbes, which accounts for the evolution of pathogenic bacteria from non-pathogenic strains like E. coli O157:H7. I don't find microbial evolution particularly controversial. A preponderance of evidence exists for it. In a sense, it is not surprising that — given their extremely large population sizes and capacity to take up large pieces of DNA from their surroundings and incorporate it into their genomes—single-celled microbes and viruses can evolve .

The evolution of P. putida's caffeine-consuming capability represents another example of microbial evolution. In that respect, it is nothing remarkable.

It is also not remarkable given that N-demethylase activity has been reported in a number of bacteria. More than likely it already existed in P. putida, and through microevolutionary changes, the N-demethylases adapted to remove methyl groups from caffeine.

It is also worth noting that caffeine is a natural product produced by plants as an insect repellent. As with humans , caffeine stimulates insects' nervous systems . But unlike in humans, caffeine stimulation leads to insects' deaths. (Watch the below video for a description of how caffeine stimulates the nervous system.)

In other words, caffeine was present well before humans began "polluting" the environment with caffeine . It could even be that P. putida has been waking up to it well before humans discovered the early morning benefits of a cup of joe.

For a detailed discussion of this discovery listen to the May 26 edition of Science News Flash .

Endnotes:

Ryan Summers, "A New Caffeine-Eating Bacterium Could Find Several Industrial Uses, Including Production of Green Chemicals and Cheaper Drugs," American Society of Microbiology Meeting, May 21 –24, 2011, New Orleans, LA.

Dr. Rana has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and he's the vice president of research and apologetics at Reasons To Believe. Click here to listen to his recent appearance on SBE.

(If you're on the front page of the site, click the title of this post to see the video player.)

The transition to a police state will not come about with a dramatic coup d'etat, but will creep in softly, one violation at a time. The latest test of our tolerance comes in the form of VIPR (Visible Intermodal Prevention and Response), an omnipresent anti-terrorist task force that, as I argue in this week's vodcast (and in this post), actually serves to reduce the level of protection we receive by the Constitution.

Constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead is founder and president of The Rutherford Institute and author of The Change Manifesto. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. Information about The Rutherford Institute is available at www.rutherford.org.

John W. Whitehead's weekly commentaries are available for publication to newspapers and web publications at no charge. Please contact marketing@rutherford.org to obtain reprint permission.

I never longed to be a mother: no baby hunger, no ticking clock. Growing up I hated babysitting, unless the kids had reached junior high and discovered sarcasm. I could sit them in front of a TV and we could mock commercials that claimed a product could change your life.

I spent my entire adult life pursuing an ephemeral acting career (ironically, booking a lot of TV commercials. Only the sarcastic ones, though). By the time I met my husband, I was 43 and he was 50. We were too old to have children and too exhausted to raise them. Childlessness came as a relief.

I've started to notice something about my friends with children. Parenting has aged them. It's also matured them in a way that my childless freedom never will. I've watched my nieces and nephews becoming their own individual persons. I've seen their parents shepherd and shape them, passing on the terror and promise of the future. All the good, bad and ugly of it. They've got a family. I've got a bunch of YouTube clips.

Larry and I have friends whose children are out of the house. We take vacations with them, but they're not the same without their children. And when the holidays come, they go home to be with their children. We go home to our dogs. Childless freedom gets lonely. Just in case you were wondering.

In 2007 Larry and I began sharing a house with a couple that lived part-time in LA and part-time in Portland. Lori and Ted were in the process of adopting a child from Ethiopia. It's an expensive and nerve-wracking process. You file reams of paperwork and pray to get approved as a parent. If you're approved, you wait for the adoption agency to choose your child (You can request a gender and age; which is more than when you grow you own). They send you a snapshot of a life and say, "This is yours." You wait for and Ethiopian judge to agree. Then you wait for the US Embassy to process your child's passport. You wait to get the call to come. You wait. And you wait.

Through the ulcerative process of waiting, Lori began to blog about their journey. She discovered a network of bloggers who were also adopting from Ethiopia. They shared stories and anxieties and burdens and created a cyber community. I got caught in the stories with her.

One day I came into the kitchen to find Lori reading a blog. She was crying.

The blogger "Matt" and his wife had gone to Addis Ababa to bring home their child. It was their second Ethiopian adoption, so they knew how the week would go. There's a lot more than picking up your child. The adoption agency schedules your week with caseworker and social worker meetings, preparation for your Embassy date. You get some free time to shop, sightsee and get to know your child's culture. To that end the adoption agency takes you to the care center where your infant has been living. You may even meet a caregiver who gave your baby its name. You bring toys and books and candy for the children still waiting. You give away lots of hugs and kisses to remind them they matter. They could easily forget with no parent to remind them.

When the orphans reach grade-school age they're moved to orphanages, where they'll live until they flunk school or reach age 20, when the government ejects them into the world. Children over six are rarely adopted. Once they're 16 the government won't allow it. Not that the cutoff matters – most adoptive parents want babies, not older children with baggage and memories. But the adoption agency takes the parents to the older orphanages as well. Which is what Matt was blogging about that day.

Almost immediately a boy latched onto Matt. The boy spoke no English, but Matt spent the afternoon playing catch and going where the boy led him. Matt bonded with the boy. The boy rarely let go of Matt's hand. At the end of the day it was time to leave. Matt bent down to give this boy one last hug.

"Choose me, " the boy whispered.

Maybe they were the only English words he knew. Maybe he'd whispered them to every American who came through. Maybe he didn't know a child had already been chosen for them. Matt posted the boy's picture on his blog in hopes that someone would want to adopt him. His name was Samson. His face was sad and beautiful and tender. And his face spoke. Choose me.

I could not forget that face.

I logged onto the agency's website to find out more about Samson. He was about 9 years old. He had three older siblings: 19, 15 and 11. His oldest brother was beyond adoptable age, but Samson and his sisters were not. However, the agency would not split up a family group. Some kind (and wealthy) family would have to adopt three siblings together. Samson's chances were nil.

I never wanted a child. I never wanted to adopt. But I wanted to adopt Samson. And I could not. No way could we afford the expenses to adopt three children, let alone one one. But I prayed. I threw out the fleece. Lord, just give me one TV series, one commercial campaign. Nothing glamorous; a generic lab technician with a line a week on CSI. I'll become the spokesperson for Valtrex or Tampax. Is anything too hard for you?

In 2008 Ted and Lori brought Abe home from Ethiopia, and when they were in Los Angeles I got to see Abe every day. I guess every child is extraordinary to his parents, but Abe is extraordinary to me. He was buoyant and happy and curious. The very first word he learned was "kiy," for my cat. I adored Abe. I thought of Samson.

In 2009 Ted and Lori moved to Portland full-time. The hardest thing was not seeing Abe on a regular basis. And thinking of Samson on a regular basis.

My book released in the Spring. That fall I went on a book tour, and Larry came along. One night we stayed with a friend of my manager's: an older couple who were helping a Sudanese refugee get her children out of Africa. When Barbara recounted the story of the woman's escape from Sudan, I raced up to my room. Larry followed.

"Samson," I wept. "Why aren't we doing anything? Why isn't God doing anything? Well if my book sells a buttload, we are going to get Samson. And his siblings!"

Larry gulped. "Okay."

The buttload sales never came. The next summer I shot a movie I hoped might open a career door and a cash truck. It did not. I've been on the brink of success my entire adult life, but it's never gone over the edge. This time I needed it for a reason. Come on God. Isn't nothing too hard for you? Is this too hard?

Lori and I have stayed in touch. She regularly posted Abe's pictures on facebook. Abe's face always made me giggle and miss him and think of Samson. Lori kept me current on other Ethiopian adoptive families. They were all connected.

One day last spring Lori called. She had good news and bad news. The good news was that an Ethiopian adoptive parent was starting a sponsorship program exclusively for orphans. They were setting up shop at Samson's new orphanage, and his profile is available. I could become Samson's sponsor!

"Don't let anyone else sponsor him!" I screamed. "I'll call them right now! What was the bad news?"

"It's his new orphanage," she sighed. "Oh, Susan."
"What?!" I panicked.
"Kolfe … it's a heartbreaking place."

Ted and Lori had visited Kolfe when they went to get Abe. Ethiopia was already economically depressed; imagine the low priority assigned to an older-boy orphanage. Buildings lay in disrepair. Broken windows weren't fixed. Plumbing is bad. The boys live on injera and bean porridge every meal, 24/7/365.

"But this new sponsorship program. That will help things?"

"That's the hope," Lori replied.

I got on the phone, set myself up as Samson's sponsor. And I began to write.

Susan Isaacs is a writer, actor, and comedienne with TV and film credits including Planes Trains & Automobiles, Scrooged, Seinfeld, The Drew Carey Show, My Name Is Earl and more. She is an alumnus of The Groundlings Sunday Company and the author of Angry Conversations With God: A Snarky But Authentic Spiritual Memoir.

Click here to listen to Susan's most recent appearance on SBE.

Several years ago a Barna Study revealed that when asked to choose from a list of their gifts 92% of our pastors did not pick "leader" as one of their gifts. This number astounds me. How anyone could be called to the ministry, to shepherd Christ's flock, and not believe they were gifted to lead is beyond my wildest dreams of explanation. It reveals a crisis in the church. Most of our pastors do not feel called or qualified to lead.

To complicate matters I routinely examine seminary curricula and talk about this when I am with educators from seminaries. I am persuaded that leadership is not taught or understood on the vast majority of seminary campuses in America. We have courses on the subject but we are not training men and women to be gifted, God-called leaders. If this is true then is there any wonder why most churches fail when it comes to leadership? Pastors are given the role and many of those who can lead are relegated to the role of "laity," a concept that is quite foreign to the "priesthood of all believers."

Peter Drucker, an oft quoted writer on leadership and management, for the last four decades, once said, "No institution can possibly survive if it needs geniuses or supermen to manage it. It must be organized in such a way as to be able to get along under a leadership composed of average human beings."

So long as we turn pastors of large churches, with great public skills, into "the ideal leader model" we are doomed at the congregational level of mission in most local churches. The rise of megachurches is not the real problem here. The real problem is the tyranny of the "superman" role model exalted before the rest of us. When this happens the good work doesn't get done and Christ is not truly exalted. Just listen to evangelical programs and read much of what we admire and my point is simply made. Superman is the key to having a great church if our story is believed and practiced.

This reminds me of the elderly African-American woman who used to sit right under the late E. V. Hill's pulpit in Los Angeles. She would begin to talk to her pastor and say, "Get Him up! Get Him up! Preacher, get Him up!" whenever Hill got off the central message of the supremacy of Jesus. If I talked back like that woman I would have to say in many churches, "Preacher, get Him up!" And while you're at it encourage the leadership ministry of all those "average human beings" you've been given by the Holy Spirit to serve as their pastor.

John H. Armstrong is founder and president of ACT 3, a ministry for the advancement of the Christian Tradition in the third millennium. He is a former pastor and church-planter, of more than twenty years, the author/editor of eight books, and the author of hundreds of magazine, journal, and Web based articles. John has served as the editor-in-chief of ACT 3 Review: A Journal for Faith, Church and Culture since its origin in 1992. But most importantly, he is our go-to professional religionist.

In both mainline and evangelical churches, congregations are coming to realize that if the whole gospel is to be lived out, it cannot be a matter of either-or. Instead, it must be both-and.

Unless those who are won to a personal relationship with Christ are incorporated into local congregations, churches will die; and unless these local congregations are also equipping their people to work for justice issues, especially on behalf of any who are poor and oppressed, they are failing to live out biblical mandates, and their religious lives could become narcissistic.

That much seems clear, but how can we establish an organic connection between these two essential parts of the mission of the church so that they are fully integrated? This book seeks to answer that question. We believe that the nexus between evangelism and justice is to be found in the kind of Christian mysticism we are advocating.

We contend that being "fully devoted followers of Christ," a phrase popular with many evangelical churches today, involves commitment to what Jesus was committed to–maintaining a deep, mystical connection to God that empowered him to be compassionately connected to others, particularly the outcasts of society. Jesus wanted all to know God personally and enjoy the benefits of the "full life" that God intends for all people.

Jesus' times alone with God and the Holy Spirit resulted in his being "moved with compassion" toward others. Compassion always led to action. While in the wilderness for 40 days and nights Jesus resisted the devil by quoting scripture. This was not because he had just studied scripture; he had drawn strength and power by having those holy words absorbed into his spirit.

Jesus then "returned in the power of the Spirit" (Luke 4:14); two of his initial acts involved preaching and advocating justice. In Matthew 4:17-19, we learn that Jesus began to preach and also called his disciples to follow him. In Luke 4:18-19, Jesus declared his commitment to justice by proclaiming the year of jubilee–freedom for all, whether poor, oppressed, or captive. This theme of economic justice permeates the gospels, especially the gospel of Luke. As modeled by Jesus, mystical intimacy with God truly empowers our ability to carry out his mission of evangelism and justice.

From the earliest days of Christianity, when a mystical relationship with Jesus Christ was nurtured in accord with biblical guidelines, the result was the church zealously at work winning persons to a transforming relationship with Jesus and, at the same time, passionately pursuing justice. In the New Testament church, there was no disconnect between the two. Each naturally flowed into the other.

—-
This post is an excerpt taken from The God of Intimacy and Action: Reconnecting Ancient Spiritual Practices, Evangelism, and Justice by Tony Campolo and Mary Albert Darling, pg. 15. Copyright(c) 2007 by Jossey Bass.

Click here to listen to Tony and Mary on Steve Brown Etc. talking about the book!

I was deeply struggling with things, having a difficult time with my future, and needing some time in a "safe place." I was in a locked unit with no access to sharp things (not even a pen!) or other dangerous objects, and I was carefully monitored and frequently watched. I was there for two weeks, at one time not considered a lengthy stay, but in these current days, exceptionally long.

My husband and I both found it quite difficult as we tried to explain to other people where I was, and why.

Many people in my life know of my ongoing mental illness (Major Depression (recurring, severe), PTSD, electroshock therapy, etc.) and I worry that when I return to the hospital for more treatment, I'm disappointing them.

It is always such a triumph to be in the hospital and leave, it is treated as a great accomplishment with cheering and songs of joy. Many people don't realize that the patient is not officially "all better," and that there really is no great salvation that works forever. Still, many people see it that way, and are able to "thank God" that we are well.

(Until the next time, when we're not …)

This May visit, I purposely asked my minister to keep the information quiet (which he respectfully did) and when I emerged back into the world, there was no judgment from others in my fellowship. Most of them didn't know, and those that did treated me kindly.

Throughout my long, psychiatric-stained life however, I have received horrible treatment from churches, pastors, and others regarding my mental illness. In fact, I'd say that understanding and supporting those with a mental illness is not even considered important (or even considered at all) in most churches.

Not only is it uncomfortable to talk about, but many people consider it demonic or evil. Others think it is a matter of will power (Remember Job's "friends"?) or because of a negative attitude toward God or Jesus or the Bible. There are a myriad of judgments that are handed out, and each is damaging to the person that it is said to. Each one. Every time.

When someone who is supposed to love God has told me that I am not trying hard enough, or that I am "letting evil into my life," I experience almost unbearable hurt and betrayal. It gives the impression that my illness is happening because of my relationship with God, it implies that God is not merciful, and that I am not respectful.

The reality is that my brain is broken. I was born broken, experienced things that formed shadows and cracks in my head, and am now going to struggle the rest of my life. I would do anything to be well.

But mental illness doesn't work that way. It is a day by day struggle (often minute by minute agonizing work), and progress goes back and forth. There is little consistency, and one never knows what could happen in the next five minutes. Living with and healing a mental illness usually takes the rest of a lifetime, and support from others is imperative in this process. Telling someone, "Trust in God, not your medication," is rarely helpful, and usually wrong.

Some churches have embraced mental illness in some forms. Many youth pastors have been acknowledging the darker side of many adolescents: cutting. Many church members have begun to feel some empathy for the homeless; people who are often mentally ill, but noticed rather for their tent cities and their lack of places to find food. Many churches now talk about sex addiction, and have come up with studies to offer to those who struggle with it.

I respect these ministries, am thankful for them, and hope desperately that the broken, the mentally ill, are somehow acknowledged and seen, not only at the church, but also by its people.

In my book Stumbling Toward Faith, I wrote a bit about all of this, and I received hundreds of responses from others who felt that the church and its dogma often isolated and invalidated them.

Pat answers flourish from the pulpit, from the robotic lips of many members, we cover our confusion and doubt with broad sweeping statements and Hallmark platitudes. These things are almost always harmful to the person hearing them.

As a mentally ill parishioner, I want to know that I am accepted and loved entirely, including my mental illness and my weaknesses. I want to be given kindness, and treated with compassion. I want people to listen. I don't want advice; I get enough of it from my psychiatrist, my psychologist, and my doctor. I want to be human; I want you to not be afraid of me, even when I may say unusual things or act a little bit odd.

This is the way we are called to be. Think of how we treat the physically ill, or those who have been hospitalized for physical reasons. Think of our commandment to love one another, to show compassion for all of humanity.

There are so many hurting, broken people in this world, many hiding amidst our congregations, and we must respond to them in love and kindness and with an acknowledgment and recognition of who they are; created by God, and called good.

Renée Altson is the author of Stumbling Toward Faith, a photographer, and a web developer. She lives with her husband, daughter, and 2 cats in Southern California. Click here to listen to Renée on Steve Brown Etc.

You would not believe the things I've heard. You would not. Simple as that. By Christians in the church. I'm serious. You wouldn't believe it. Things you wish you'd heard with your own ears, as if you were a fly on the wall. This fly's heard them all, and now he's going to share a few of the things he's heard said to me by Christians in the church:

"You and your children are going to die for what you've done, and everyone is going to be happy."

"I asked God about you, and he told me he never knew you."

That's enough for now. Funny now. I laugh now. At the time they were devastating. Not just because of the words but because of what was going on that gave rise to those words. Such as a church split, etc… It took some time to recover from this stuff.

Friends!: I've learned that words have power. I understand and have experienced the power of curses. But I've also learned how to deal with it. To the point to where I can laugh at them now. I take seriously the admonition to speak blessings and not curses.

Get my book of cartoons "Nakedpastor101: Cartoons by David Hayward", from amazon.com. Great for laughs and serious discussion!

nakedpastor is David Hayward. David is an artist, cartoonist and writer. Go to nakedpastor.com for more cartoons, blog posts, art and insight from a former pastor who's stark naked honest about church life.

The same is sometimes true for scientists.

Stanley Miller: Scientific Superstar

Not many scientists achieve superstar status. But occasionally some do. Take Stanley Miller. Even if you don't recognize the name, you've probably heard about his famous experiment; virtually every introductory biology textbook describes the work he performed in the early 1950s. Miller demonstrated in the chemistry lab that early Earth's atmosphere could, in principle, generate amino acids, one of life's key building blocks.

Miller's work was the first experimental validation of the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis and launched origin-of-life studies as an experimental research program.

To test this hypothesis, Miller filled the confines of a carefully assembled glass apparatus with methane, ammonia, and hydrogen. At that time, scientists thought these gases had existed in early Earth's atmosphere. Miller also diligently excluded oxygen from the system. A flask of boiling water connected to the glassware introduced water vapor into the headspace and simulated early Earth's oceans. Miller then passed a continuous electric discharge through the gas mix to replicate lightning. After a few days, organic compounds, including amino acids, formed.

The Road to the Top

Miller conducted his experiment as a young graduate student at the University of Chicago. After hearing Nobel Laureate Harold Urey lecture on the current ideas about the early Earth's atmosphere, Miller approached the eminent scientist and asked if he could join his lab and attempt to verify the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis. Urey initially declined out of concern for Miller's future, viewing the work as too risky for a graduate student to pursue.

But Miller persisted and Urey reluctantly agreed to his request. However, in Miller's best interest, Urey gave him a time limit to show progress on the project. The rest is history. Miller succeeded in generating amino acids and alpha-hydroxy acids from a simple mixture of gases in short order and later determined that the reaction mechanism was closely related to the Strecker Reaction.

In an act of selflessness, Urey insisted that Miller publish the work as the sole author, contrary to standard academic practices. Urey's name rightfully belonged on the paper submitted to Science, but Urey recognized the significance of Miller's work and wanted him to be the full beneficiary. If Urey's name had appeared on the paper, he would have taken all the attention away from Miller.

And what attention Miller received! When published, the results met with instantaneous and worldwide excitement and fanfare. Both the New York Herald Tribune and New York Times wrote about Miller and his discovery on the same day that his paper appeared in Science. A short time later Time, Newsweek, and Life featured articles on Miller. At 23 years of age, Stanley Miller was propelled to worldwide fame.

Most graduate students are drawn to science because of their fascination with nature and a deep desire to understand how it all works. This allure motivates them to work long, hard hours in the laboratory. I am sure this was true for Miller. Still, most young scientists harbor the hope that their research will lead to a breakthrough and propel them to worldwide fame. More often than not, this great expectation is never fulfilled.

Yet Stanley Miller lived the dream, and his success prompted scientists to conduct similar experiments in the quest to discover chemical routes to other critical biomolecules.

But success was fleeting.

The Fall from Grace

Today scientists generally consider the Miller-Urey experiment irrelevant to the origin-of-life question. Current understanding of early Earth's atmosphere differs significantly from the thinking of the 1950s. Most planetary scientists now believe Earth's primeval atmosphere consisted of carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor. Laboratory experiments indicate that this gas mixture is incapable of yielding organic materials in Miller-Urey-type experiments.

In May 2003, origin-of-life researchers Jeffrey Bada and Antonio Lazcano, long-time associates of Miller, wrote an essay for Science commemorating the 50th anniversary of the publication of Miller's initial results.¹ They point out that the Miller-Urey experiment has historical, though not scientific, significance in contemporary origin-of-life thought. Bada and Lazcano wrote:

Is the " prebiotic soup" theory a reasonable explanation for the emergence of life? Contemporary geoscientists tend to doubt that the primitive atmosphere had the highly reducing composition used by Miller in 1953.

In his book Biogenesis, origin-of-life researcher Noam Lahav passes similar judgment:

The prebiotic conditions assumed by Miller and Urey were essentially those of a reducing atmosphere. Under slightly reducing conditions, the Miller-Urey reaction does not produce amino acids, nor does it produce the chemicals that may serve as the predecessors of other important biopolymer building blocks. Thus, by challenging the assumption of a reducing atmosphere, we challenge the very existence of the "prebiotic soup," with its richness of biologically important organic compounds.

In other words, the experiment that appears in biology textbooks as evidence in favor of an evolutionary explanation for the origin of life has no relevance whatsoever.

It is a difficult thing when one's life's work is cast aside. I witnessed the consequences of this first hand at the 2002 meeting of the International Society for the Study of the Origin of Life held in Oaxaca, Mexico. Stanley Miller was confined to a wheelchair at that time and clearly suffering from a debilitating sickness. He appeared feeble and required the constant attention of a caretaker. While other conference participants made their way to the veranda of the conference hotel to enjoy a coffee break or have lunch, Miller remained behind.

During the sessions, a special place was reserved at the front of the room for him. It was sad to see him wheeled in right before each session started, a constant reminder to all in attendance of the struggle he faced. Miller was in the last years of his life.

One particularly heartrending moment came during a session on prebiotic chemistry, when the session chairman pointed out during the introduction that Miller's work was no longer relevant. He was quick to extend respect to Miller and qualified his assessment by emphasizing the work's historical value, but the harm had been done. The painful reality was that Miller had devoted his life to understanding the origin of life and, in the end, his most important contribution was no longer regarded as genuinely significant to the current paradigm.

The Hopes of a Comeback

Miller died late May 2007. Shortly after his death some of his former students and associates discovered old vials leftover from the initial experiments Miller performed in the 1950s. He had apparently saved them all these years in cardboard boxes, carefully labeled to correspond to his laboratory notebooks.

It turns out that Miller actually performed three versions of the spark-discharge experiment. All three permutations yielded amino acids and other organic compounds. Miller decided to focus his efforts, however, on the version that now appears in biology textbooks because he thought that it most closely modeled the atmosphere of early Earth.
Still, Miller held on to cartons of vials containing materials from the other two variations of the spark-discharge experiment along with notebooks that carefully documented the experimental work he performed.

Miller's colleagues decided to reanalyze their contents using state-of-the-art analytical methods not available fifty years ago.¹ To their surprise, they discovered that the "textbook" version of the Miller-Urey experiment wasn't the most successful. The most productive synthesis was one that introduced water into the headspace as a fine mist using an aspirator. This particular experimental rig produced more amino acids with a greater chemical diversity than the textbook experiment.

The design of this forgotten experiment intrigued Miller's collaborators because it models volcanic emissions that could have occurred on early Earth. Accordingly, volcanic lightning would have served as the energy source that generated prebiotic compounds as it passed through gases and steam—assuming that the volcanic emissions on early Earth consisted of reducing gases.

Recently, these researchers extended their analysis of Miller's old vials to include ones from a spark-discharge experiment conducted in 1958.² Miller used hydrogen sulfide in addition to ammonia, methane, and carbon dioxide as gases in the head space for this particular study. It appears that Miller never analyzed the samples from this experiment. When his former students and colleagues examined them over fifty years later, they discovered that this set up generated a large number of amino acids and other compounds, including two sulfur-containing amino acids.

Miller's cohorts now argue that this rediscovery gives new relevance to Miller's old experiment. Perhaps the sources of prebiotic materials on early Earth were volcanic emissions, not chemical reactions taking place in the atmosphere. These emissions could contain compounds like hydrogen sulfide.

Were Volcanoes the Source of Prebiotic Compounds?

The proposal by Miller's former associates is not the first time origin-of-life researchers have appealed to volcanoes as the source of prebiotic compounds. Based on the chemical composition of volcanic emissions today, there doesn't seem to be much hope that prebiotic materials could form in this environment. The gases spewing from volcanoes today consist primarily of water, carbon dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. This is a highly oxidizing mixture of gases that will not generate prebiotic materials in laboratory simulation experiments like the ones that Miller performed.

But were the gaseous emissions of volcanoes on early Earth different? Did they consist of gases like the ones Miller used? Research conducted a few years ago indicates the opposite. It appears as if the gaseous emissions of volcanoes 3.9 billion years ago were identical to the emissions today.³ This result means the conditions of Miller's experiment were not relevant for either early Earth's atmosphere or volcanic environments.

The fact remains: Miller's work is not relevant to the origin of life. Though his work and status as a scientist are fixed in a prominent place in the history of science, it is time for biology textbooks to stop referencing this work as evidence for chemical evolution.

Endnotes:

1. Jeffery L. Bada and Antonio Lazcano, "Prebiotic Soup—Revisiting the Miller Urey Experiment," Science 300 (May 2, 2003): 745–46.

2. Adam P. Johnson et al., "The Miller Volcanic Spark Discharge Experiment," Science 322 (October 17, 2008): 404.

3. Eric T. Parker et al., "Primordial Synthesis of Amines and Amino Acids in a 1958 Miller H2S-Rich Spark Discharge Experiment," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 108 (April 5, 2011): 5526–31.

4. John W. Delano, "Redox History of Earth's Interior since ~3900 Ma: Implications for Prebiotic Molecules," Origins of Life and Evolution of Biospheres 31 (2001): 311–41.

Dr. Rana has a Ph.D. in biochemistry and he's the vice president of research and apologetics at Reasons To Believe. Click here to listen to his recent appearance on SBE.