For example, these are four different Gospel articulations that I’ve used repeatedly in speaking and teaching. They are not definitions or creeds. They articulations that summarize and balance the content of the Gospel as I understand it. It’s language I want my hearers to hear frequently. Sometimes in phrases. Sometimes in whole sermons or lessons.

Announcement: The Gospel is the glad announcement that God himself, through Jesus, has done everything necessary to rescue his broken world and save its broken people from judgment and ruin. All persons are invited to believe this glad announcement, to be forgiven and to become a disciple of Jesus who is King and Lord.

God: In the Gospel, God shows us that he is the loving and gracious Father revealed in Jesus Christ his Son. This is the face of God that the Christian will look upon for all of eternity. In our Father, there is no condemnation or rejection for his Son or those who belong to God in him. Everything the Bible says about God is true, but for the Christian, God is Jesus in our experience. The Glory of God is the majesty and Glory of Jesus in the incarnation, his sufferings/resurrection and the scriptures.

Jesus: Jesus is our salvation. We say with Simeon: “My eyes have seen your salvation” as he held the infant Christ. Jesus is the one mediator between God and man. He lived a life we could not live and and died a death in our place. He was raised to make us right with God and give us life in God’s Kingdom. By his life, death and resurrection, Jesus has defeated the power of Satan, evil and condemnation. Jesus rules the universe today as the one true King and will return to rule over a new heaven and a new earth. Jesus commands all persons to repent and believe in him.

Kingdom: The Kingdom of God was announced and established by Jesus and it continues in human history by his authority and power. Salvation comes into history as the Kingdom of God takes root in the world. The Kingdom of God is the beginning of the new heaven and the new earth where God’s righteousness lives and salvation is experienced. Jesus invited all persons to come into this Kingdom, to live in its new realities and to work for its inevitable triumph.

This is some of the “foundational content” that should underlie whatever applications we make and whatever we say that reflects on the Gospel.

It doesn’t seem that it would be particularly difficult to put the Gospel in a place where, for example, if we talk about God without Jesus or the culture war without reference to the Kingdom or salvation without reference to the person of Christ, it would sound wrong.

So why doesn’t it?

(By the way, I’m not offering these articulations for theological autopsy. This is how I talk and unless you are an ordination committee I’m seeking to get past, don’t treat me like my articulations are up for theological pinata practice.)

When I deal with this chapter, I try to show that the parts of the chapter that are easily understood plainly give us instructions on what we are to be doing and not doing. Hope this message is helpful for you. I didn’t read all of the chapter but that would be helpful for you as you listen.

Preaching for Grown-ups is my lectionary preaching at a small Presbyterian Church where I am privileged to supply. It’s the one time during the week I’m not preaching to mostly or exclusively teenagers, hence the name.

Listen to: “Mark 13: What to do While the World Falls Apart.”

As October 31st looms, it’s time for true confessions.

I grew up among Southern Baptist fundamentalist Baptists. The KJV-only, women can’t wear pants, twenty verses of “Just As I Am,” Jerry Falwell, Jack Chick, twice a year revival kind of fundamentalist Baptists.

We were serious about things like beer. By sheer quantity of attention in sermons, drinking beer was the most evil act one could describe. We were serious about movies, cards, and something called “mixed bathing,” which normal people would call “swimming.”

We were serious about the Bible, Sunday School, suits and ties, and walking the aisle to get saved.

And we were big time into Halloween.

No, that’s not a typo. I said we were big time into Halloween.

From the late sixties into the early seventies, the churches I attended and worked for–all fundamentalist Baptists–were all over Halloween like ants on jam. It was a major social activity time in every youth group I was part of from elementary school through high school graduation in 1974.

We had haunted houses. Haunted hikes. Scary movies. (All the old Vincent Price duds.) As a youth minister in the mid to late seventies and early eighties, I created some haunted houses in church education buildings that would win stagecraft awards.

The kids loved it. The parents loved it. The pastors approved. The church paid for it!

No, this wasn’t “Judgment House” or “Hell House” or whatever else evangelicals have done with a similar skill set today. It was fun. Simple, old-fashioned, fun. No one tried to fly a broom or talk to the dead. Everyone tried to have fun. Innocent play in the name of an American custom.

And then, things changed.

Mike Warnke convinced evangelicals that participating in Halloween was worshiping the devil. Later, when we learned that Warnke may have been one of the most skillful of evangelical con-artists, lying about his entire Satanic high priest schtick, the faithful still believed his stories.

Evangelical media began to latch onto Halloween as some form of Satanism or witchcraft, and good Christians were warned that nothing made the other team happier than all those kids going door to door collecting M&Ms.

Evangelical parents decided that their own harmless and fun Halloween experiences were a fluke, and if their kid dressed up as a vampire, he’d probably try to become one. If there was a pumpkin on the porch, you were inviting demons into your home, just like it says in Hezekiah.

A general fear of the occult, manifesting itself in Satanic ritual abuse mythology, crept into evangelicalism and took a deep hold on many churches.

Occult ministries exploited these fears, and ministries like Bob Larson found it was profitable and powerful to make rock music, drug use, occult worship and Halloween one big package.

Today, if you want to split your church, divide your singles group, get a fight started with parents or see the youth minister fired, just find some way to have an old-fashioned Halloween event in your church.

In the ministry where I serve, we can’t have fall festivals. Putting out a pumpkin is risky. Any costume other than dressing up like Billy Graham is taboo.

Halloween experts have proliferated in evangelicalism. Where did these people learn all this stuff? Oh yes, The Onion. That’s right.

Those great, fun, harmless, safe, nostalgic, exciting, slightly scary and completely un-demonic Halloweens of the past? Gone, gone, gone with the evangelical hot air.

Does it bother me? You bet it does. It bothers me that we fall for such lame, ridiculous manipulators as the crowd that made all of those Halloweens past into satanic events.

It bothers me that any lie, exaggeration or fiction will find thousands of eager believers to pass it along.

It bothers me that the Biblical message about Satan would be co-opted by the fear-mongering and manipulation of the hucksters. (Read The Screwtape Letters for some real Satanism.)

It bothers me that such a wonderful part of my childhood and of American life has been turned into an example of evangelical paranoia and gullibility. We ruined something good, and everyone knows it but us.

I know all about the sophisticated responses thoughtful Christians have about Reformation day and All Saints Day. That’s fine, but it’s not the same. I just want my grandkids to be able to dress up in cute outfits and trick or treat without the local church designating them for exorcism.

Shame on those of us–evangelicals–who allowed Halloween to be taken away from families and many communities, all because we prefer to believe that life is a Frank Paretti novel.

Boo. I hope I scared you.
___________________

Michael Spencer, aka The Internet Monk (www.internetmonk.com), is a campus minister, communicator and inexplicably successful blogger living in Kentucky. When he was a kid, he would go trick or treating as a scarecrow, but now he wants to dress up like Steve Brown.

Welcome to IM’s popular feature, “The Liturgical Gangstas,” a panel discussion among different liturgical traditions represented in the Internet Monk audience.

Who are the Gangstas?

Father Ernesto Obregon is an Eastern Orthodox priest.
Rev. Joe Boysel is an Anglican (AMiA) priest and professor of Bible at Ohio Christian University in Circleville, Ohio. (Ask him about famous alumni.)
Dr. Wyman Richardson is a pastor of a First Baptist Church (SBC) and director of Walking Together Ministries, a resource on church discipline.
Alan Creech is a Roman Catholic with background in the Emerging church and spiritual direction.
Rev. Matthew Johnson is a United Methodist pastor.
Rev. William Cwirla is a Lutheran pastor (LCMS) and one of the hosts of The God Whisperers, which is a podcast nearly as good as Internet Monk Radio.
Eric Landry is the editor of Modern Reformation Magazine. In addition, he is a PCA church planter in southern California.

Here’s this week’s question: How does the theme and practice of spiritual warfare relate to ministry in your tradition? Where are the boundaries of your own “comfort zones” in the practice of spiritual warfare?

Father Ernesto/Orthodox: The Orthodox have a strong belief in spiritual warfare. Before we baptize someone, we do three exorcisms on a person (or baby) and they are clearly called exorcisms. The first one begins, “The Lord layeth thee under ban, O Devil . . .” During the third exorcism we pray, “. . . Rebuke the unclean spirits and expel them . . .” Later the one being baptized, or the sponsors of an infant, are called to renounce Satan three times. This is not mere ritual, it is the recognition that no one can serve two masters, and thus one of them needs to be renounced, rebuked, and restrained. We are truly and honestly doing an exorcism of the one being baptized because that one has been under the influence of the rulers, the authorities, and the powers of this dark world (Ephesians 6:12).

During the annual blessing of the homes, part of the prayer is to rebuke and expel any unclean spirits. Once a year we have the Service of Holy Unction during Holy Week. There one of the prayers says, “. . . having been cleansed of the blood of demons through the Blood that mercifully flowed from thy side.” So, between the blessing of the homes and the Service of Unction, faithful Orthodox have demons rebuked from them at least twice a year. This is not mere ritual, it is the recognition that we are the Church Militant which is involved in serious and unremitting warfare against the devil, and that in that warfare the enemy can counterattack and gain a foothold in us.

I have been involved in more than one exorcism and I can guarantee you that demons are real. The Orthodox have a firm and sound belief in the existence of the evil and the demonic, and take that into account in our prayers, in our liturgies, and in our lives. Nevertheless, that is not the sum total of what we think of when we speak of spiritual warfare. When we speak of spiritual warfare, we are speaking in broader terms of our fight against: the world, the flesh, and the devil. If we have a criticism of those who speak frequently of spiritual warfare, it is that all too often those who speak of it limit it to dramatic, visible, and public actions against only the devil.

But, in order to truly live out the Christian life, the Christian must fight a war on three fronts, the battle against the world, the battle against the flesh, and the battle against the devil. The Orthodox discipline of fasting, the prayers, and the reading of Scripture are all our response to the flesh. We fast in order to teach the flesh that it shall not have charge over us. It, along with prayers and the reading of Scripture, are a way to gain control over our passions that would push us to a life of dissolution. This is not as exciting and dramatic as exorcisms and sprinklings with Holy Water. But, this is one of the key battles against the evil one. Saint James says, “Where do wars and fights come from among you? Do they not come from your desires for pleasure that war in your members? You lust and do not have. You murder and covet and cannot obtain. You fight and war. . . Resist the devil and he will flee from you.” We war with ourselves in order to prevent us from warring with others. This, too, is spiritual warfare. As Saint Paul said, “I find then a law, that evil is present with me, the one who wills to do good. For I delight in the law of God according to the inward man. But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members. O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? I thank God—through Jesus Christ our Lord! . . .” We war in order that our inward man’s desire to follow the law of God may come closer to becoming a reality.

The final bit of the war is against the world. Saint James says, “Pure and undefiled religion before God and the Father is this: to visit orphans and widows in their trouble, and to keep oneself unspotted from the world.” When we do not show partiality–as Saint James says–when we reach out to our neighbors in practical works of mercy, we are warring with the world. “What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute of daily food, and one of you says to them, ‘Depart in peace, be warmed and filled,’ but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body, what does it profit?” Our definition of profit is different than the world’s definition of profit. We fight against the world when, by our actions and giving, we clearly show that our profit does not come from greed, from our striving to simply maximize our personal wealth. Our profit comes from God when we give away what is ours–our time, our money, our selves–in the service of others.

Where does the Gospel fit in? It fits into all three categories: the world, the flesh, and the devil. We are to have our feet shod in the Gospel of Peace, as Saint Paul says. It is the fact that we now have God within us that makes us able to have powers over the very demons of hell. It is as we pray that we receive the peace of God which passes all understanding and keeps our minds and our hearts safe as we fight ourselves in order to conquer our passions. And it is the Good News of Jesus Christ that gives us what we say and what we do as we approach those who have been losing that warfare against the world, the flesh, and the devil. It is that Good News that gives them the way out of their situation.

So, yes, I do believe in spiritual warfare. Nevertheless, I do have limits. The Orthodox do not, by and large, get involved in some of the practices of spiritual warfare that are not backed by Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition. Thus, some of the prayers against “generational” demons and other oddities are not things we tend to do. The idea of going around claiming grounds and cities for the Lord–and even buildings–in the way in which some in the spiritual warfare movement do it seems to be a mistaken emphasis. There may be rare times when that is appropriate, but it is not the regular way of spiritual warfare.

Matthew Johnson/United Methodist: I don’t know that there is a theme or a practice of spiritual warfare in my tradition. We Methodists tend to be dispassionate when it comes to spiritual warfare. We do have some charismatic people and groups within our denomination, but my experience as a cradle Methodist is that the general attitude toward spiritual warfare can be summed up this way: “Meh”.

In my experience, United Methodists rarely talk about spiritual warfare and even fewer practice the more popularized versions of spiritual warfare. There is very, very little literature about spiritual warfare in our denomination both currently and historically. I had to skim through our Doctrinal Standards to see what I could find because I couldn’t remember. I thought, “Surely there is something about Satan in there.” In the Articles of Religion and Confession of Faith (two of our doctrinal standards) there is nothing about Satan, angels, demons, or anything else related to spiritual warfare. Even the one of Wesley’s 52 Standard Sermons that would appear to talk about spiritual warfare (Spirit of Bondage and Adoption) has to do with human sin and justification. If I had the time, I’d scan through Wesley’s notes on the New Testament to look at the temptation of Jesus (Matthew 4). As I try to search around (and, admittedly, my Works of Wesley are not nearby), I find one sermon, number 72, that deals with what we might call spiritual warfare.

Of Evil Angels begins with Ephesians 6:12 “We wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against wicked spirits in heavenly places.” Far from a Dan Brown novel, Wesley biblically recognized that the fight we wage as followers of Jesus exists in a realm beyond what is seen. Wesley writes:

But whether or no particular men are attended by particular evil spirits, we know that Satan and all his angels are continually warring against us, and watching over every child of man. They are ever watching to see whose outward or inward circumstances, whose prosperity or adversity, whose health or sickness, whose friends or enemies, whose youth or age, whose knowledge or ignorance, whose blindness or idleness, whose joy or sorrow, may lay them open to temptation. And they are perpetually ready to make the utmost advantage of every circumstance. These skillful wrestlers espy the smallest slip we make, and avail themselves of it immediately; as they also are “about our bed, and about our path, and spy out all our ways.” Indeed each of them “walketh about as a roaring lion, seeking whom he may devour,” or whom he may “beguile through his subtlety, as the serpent beguiled Eve.” Yea, and in order to do this the more effectually, they transform themselves into angels of light.

As a pastor in a pretty diverse denomination I recognize that many other United Methodists would scoff and others would shout “AMEN!” to Wesley’s words. When looking at the part of the question about the boundaries of my own comfort zones in practice, I lean toward the “AMEN!” corner which is odd because I’m a skeptical person. I’m not a fan of Neil Anderson’s stuff. I cringed when I listened to Mark Driscoll’s teaching on spiritual warfare. However, as a pastor who sees things, who experiences life with my people, there is no way I can possibly deny that there is a war going on against powers and principalities.

My boundaries are pretty tight. You’ll never hear me asking God to “bind” anything. You might hear me praying that God will drive Satan and his influences out of our midst. I will lay hands on people and ask God to silence the lies that this person is hearing, recognizing that Satan is the “father of lies” (John 8:44). I think talk of incubi and succubi is ridiculous. I think attributing every kind of mistake or misfortune to Satan and his minions is ridiculous. However, I would be biblically remiss not to recognize that there are powers, there are principalities, there is a reality beyond my senses that is gruesome and violent in which there are beings who would love nothing more than to see the church and the members of the body of Christ fail. Jesus conquered evil and kicked Satan’s butt in the resurrection and while every problem, mistake, and calamity didn’t suddenly go away when I began to follow him, my eyes are fixed on him and I trust that Jesus conquered, is conquering, and will conquer evil in all of it’s form so I take his side in all these matters.

Wyman Richardson/Southern Baptist: “Spiritual warfare” is certainly part of the language of Southern Baptist Christians, but it is often spoken of tentatively or with qualifications. I should likely just come right out with it and say that many Southern Baptists – rightly or wrongly – are very concerned that our understanding of “spiritual warfare” not be confused with some of the more bizarre antics and actions of certain extreme charismatic and/or pentecostal groups.

Yet, most Southern Baptists I know are aware (at least in principle) of C.S. Lewis’ cautions about the devil in his introduction to The Screwtape Letters that giving the devil too much attention is dangerous, but so is giving him too little. (I personally prefer Chesterton’s observation in Orthodoxy that ancient people saw the devil behind every tree…but modern people deny the existence of the tree!)

Anyway, it is a regrettable trait of much Southern Baptist life that a good deal of our conversations about this or that issue in the Christian life is spent on explaining how “we” don’t think of it the way “they” think of it. Yet, it must be admitted that a great deal of bad thinking, weird practices, and general freakishness has been bandied about in the name of spiritual warfare, so one does want to be careful.

My experience as a Southern Baptist minister is that most ministers and laypeople alike in my tradition indeed believe in the traditional idea of the Devil (I will not hesitate to say that I do!) and believe that he prowls about like a lion seeking whom he can devour. On the main, it is held that there is spiritual warfare going on all around us in ways both visible and unvisible. I will hazard to guess that the average Southern Baptist believes in angels and demons. Most believe in demonic possesion of the lost and demonic oppression of the saved.

I think it is safe to say that most Southern Baptist ministers and laypeople see the name and person of Jesus Christ as a mighty and unassailable fortress. We believe that the Christian life is one of victory, but it is a victory in process. We struggle and fight against the devil every day, but only victoriously in the name of the risen Christ. The life of the church provides a kind of spiritual protection, of course, but I do regretfully report that most Southern Baptists have such a diminished ecclesiology that the idea of “the spiritual protection of the church” would be assented to but likely a bit puzzling in our context.

I do sincerely regret to say that most Southern Baptists (again, I generalize) do not have a high enough view of the sacraments to be terribly comfortable with the idea of the Lord’s Supper and baptism being weapons against the devil, but I also hasten to add that most would not actually disagree with the thought. It’s just not the normal way we talk. For instance, I’ve often wanted to borrow a page from the Fathers (was it Hippolytus?) and ask baptismal candidates in front of the church if they renounce the devil and all his pomp! I think that is helpful and good language.

One area in particular may illustrate Southern Baptist beliefs in spiritual warfare: the rise of “prayer walking” as a valid form of missions and ministry. It is almost commonplace now to see churches embark on prayer walking missions: walking around schools and towns praying for a loosening of spiritual bonds and for the salvation of souls. This is very interesting to me, and I remain a bit noncommitted on the whole issue, but it does give a helpful insight into Southern Baptist ideas concerning spiritual warfare.

We grow uncomfortable, I believe, with an overemphasis on demonic possession and some of the more Frank Perreti-esque notions. It is interesting to me how Southern Baptists gobbled Perreti up, but I do suspect that many who enjoyed the novel would be a bit uncomfortable if I spoke like Perrett from the pulpit.

I also wonder what the response of my congregation would be if a person came forward for an exorcism in the service. I’m in a county-seat First Baptist Church, and I suspect that while nobody would actually say it was wrong to pray for release from possession, it would likely raise some seriously sanctified eyebrows if done in a service!

So, on the whole, I would not suggest that Southern Baptists have anything like a bankrupt concept of spiritual warfare. Our understanding strives to be biblical in content. This makes us suspicious of and uncomfortable with some of the more novel offerings of some who traffic heavily in spiritual warfare. Practically speaking, it’s probably true that most Southern Baptists are more theoretical in their understanding of spiritual warfare. We do like to hear missionaries from Africa talk about great and grand visible displays of spiritual warfare spilling over into the tangible world…and we generally believe them. But one does sense that many Southern Baptists aren’t terribly unpleased when these dear saints take their stories back to Africa!

Yet, at the end of the day, I have heard fervent and strident prayers from Southern Baptist Christians in the name of Jesus seeking to combat the devil and his demonic forces, and I have heartily joined in these prayers myself!

William Cwirla/Lutheran: “Spiritual warfare” isn’t part of the Lutheran lexicon, at least traditionally speaking. However, we do tend to speak of the “church militant,” that is, durong the time between Jesus’ first appearing in humility and His second appearing in glory, the church remains at church at war.

Our warfare is not against flesh and blood; we are not contending with our fellow human beings but against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms (Eph 6:12). In his exposition of the Our Father, Luther noted the “unholy trinity” – the devil, the world, and our sinful flesh – that would not hallow God’s Name, have His kingdom come, or desire that His will be done. Spiritual warfare is waged both externally with the devil and the unbelieving world and internally with the old Adamic man.

The struggle is over the Gospel and true faith in Christ. This is not a war to see who’s in control, for Christ is already the victorious and reigning King of kings and Lord of lords. This is rather a contention for the Gospel in the world, the proclamation of the justification of the ungodly by grace through faith for Christ’s sake. For Lutherans, spiritual warfare is not about claiming the culture or the nation for Jesus, but ensuring that the Gospel of Jesus, the free forgiveness of sins for Christ’s sake, have free course and be preached to the world. The weapons of spiritual warfare are the “whole armor” of God given to His baptized believers: truth, righteousness, the Gospel of peace, faith, salvation, the Word of God, and prayer (Eph 6:13-18). With these, the church militant defends the peace that Christ has won by His dying and rising.

Perhaps the best way to get a bead on the Lutheran perspective on “spiritual warfare” is to survey the “church militant” section of our hymnal. The foremost fight song, of course, is Luther’s A Mighty Fortress:

Though devils all the world should fill
All eager to devour us
We tremble not, we fear no ill;
They shall not overpower us.
This world’s prince my still
Scowl fierce as he will,
He can harm us none.
He’s judged; the deed is done;
One little word can fell him.

(Lutheran Service Book #656)

(By the way, the “little word” that can fell the devil, according to Luther himself in a table talk, is “liar.” To name the devil the liar that he is is to render him powerless.)

This hymn from Luther originally named both the Pope and the Turk (Muslim) as enemies of the Gospel. We have it in a somewhat more sanitized version:

Lord, keep us steadfast in Your Word;
Curb those who by deceit or sword
Would wrest the kingdom from Your Son
And bring to naught all He has done.

(Lutheran Service Book #655)

Rise! To arms! With prayer employ you,
O Christians, lest the foe destroy you;
For Satan has designed your fall.
Wield God’s Word, the weapon glorious;
Against all foes be thus victorious,
For God protects you from them all.
Fear not the hordes of hell,
Here is Emmanuel.
Hail the Savior! The strong foes yield
To Christ, our Shield.
And we, the victors, hold the field.

(Lutheran Service Book #668)

Eric Landry, PCA Presbyterian: I groaned a little when I saw this question. It brought back painful memories: the small group study in the mid-80s when the host told everyone to get rid of their ceramic frogs because they were portals to Satanic activity in their homes, the Christian school production in the park in the early 90s when the principal prayed against the demons of stage fright, every book by Frank Peretti, the list could go on and on. But as I thought about the question, I realized that it opened up a larger chapter in my own theological development. At one point, I had been in danger of lapsing into a rationalistic faith because of the abuses I had witnessed by otherwise well-intentioned people. I had heard too many people quote Frank Peretti as if he was a systematic theologian rather than a fiction writer–I could have easily adopted a sort of deistic attitude toward the spiritual world, but then I became a pastor and all that changed.

I still rate Frank Peretti below Dan Brown in terms of realism, and I’ve intentionally bought several ceramic frogs to place around the house (just out of spite, I guess), but I am far more aware of the day by day practice of spiritual warfare when it comes to the ministry to which God has called me. Within the Reformed tradition generally and within my own experience specifically, spiritual warfare is not understood as “a legion of demons versus a one faithful individual” enterprise. It is the story of the kingdom of God set against the kingdom of darkness. As those who live between Christ’s comings, we live in the day and age when the strong man has been bound, when Satan is chained, and when the Gospel is free to go forth in all its saving power. Any discussion of spiritual warfare that doesn’t start here is off on the wrong foot.

So, our practice of spiritual warfare is very much related to the practice of Gospel extension (both to unbelievers and believers). The Gospel rescues those who are in bondage; it redeems those who have sold themselves over to Satan; it transforms those who seem to be completely lost. This is Paul’s emphasis in Ephesians 6, when he asks for prayer to boldly proclaim the mystery of the Gospel and it should be our emphasis too; for putting on the armor of God is nothing less than reckoning ourselves according to the new man, to putting on Christ, to believing the Gospel again.

This isn’t sexy, but the Reformed never promised to bring sexy back. Instead, we can see day by day the ravages of sin and Satan as the world, the flesh, and the devil conspire against us. And day by day, week by week, the best defense we have is a good offense: proclaiming agin the power of God’s saving grace. I’ve got weird stories like a lot of people do; and though they go over well at pastors’ conferences, they aren’t the news that my people need to hear. Nor is it what I need to hear. So, in our practice of spiritual warfare, I’m going to take us back to the cross where the head of the serpent was crushed and where God’s people were free to live again.

You can find the entire Mosaic Blog tour schedule here. Check out the various sites and all the questions and answers that have been published. The NLT Mosaic web site is a great resource. (Want a Christian year calendar for your Google Calendar?) You can buy the Mosaic Bible at Amazon. You’ll find all these links and resources behind the clickable ad on the sidebar.

So let’s get down to some of the questions contributed by IM readers for Keith and his answers.

How will the Mosaic Bible help someone coming from a Free-Church background (ie, Baptist) who is completely unfamiliar with the Christian Year as well as other elements of liturgical worship connect with broader Christian tradition and incorporate them in his or her devotional life?
I grew up in an independent Bible church that had virtually no connection to the church year or liturgical worship, and in fact I had very little exposure to the church calendar until 2003, when my wife and I were attending a church that incorporated some aspects of the church calendar in their worship. But in 2005, my wife joined the staff at a Lutheran church, complete with robes, lectionary preaching, liturgical reading and singing, Scripture lessons, standing and sitting, acolytes, and everything. I jumped into the church year with both feet, and had an amazing experience in the seasons of Lent and Easter, particularly throughout the Holy Week services. Since then the church calendar has had a prominent role in my spiritual life, even as we have moved on to an independent Baptist church.

This being my experience, one of my greatest hopes for Holy Bible: Mosaic is that it will help people from free-church backgrounds who have little or no exposure to the church calendar to get a taste of what it is like to orient your life to the rhythms of God’s activity in the world rather than letting the world of nature, education, or fiscal calendars dictate what time of year it is. Mosaic is a “soft” entry to the church year and lectionary; it doesn’t contain any of the complexities of the Book of Common Prayer cycles or the three-year Revised Common Lectionary system. Rather, we created a system that can be used in any year while still following the seasons of the church year and providing lectionary readings that were drawn from these traditional sources. Hopefully, this will help avoid some of the confusion that someone from a free-church background might experience if they were told that this week is RCL B-Proper 24 (29).

Considering that this version of the Bible is a paraphrase of the original text, why is it being used so heavily for study? Does this interfere with interpretation of scripture to the extent of impacting doctrine or major differences between traditions?
Bible translation is not simple, and there is quite a bit of misunderstanding and disinformation out there. We should be clear about one thing right up front: The NLT is a translation, not a paraphrase. A team of qualified, Christian scholars has worked diligently for 20 years to create a clear, understandable translation directly from the original languages into English. As such, the NLT is perfectly suitable for Bible study.

Different principles of translation are used for the NLT than those that were used for the ESV (for example), but those differences don’t make one “good” and the other “bad.” They don’t even make one good for in-depth Bible study and the other only good for devotional reading. The differences in English Bible translations simply offer English-speaking Christians with a God-given opportunity to have multiple entry points to his Word in their native language. That is something to celebrate, and it shouldn’t be used as an opportunity to criticize one translation over another.

What’s the difference between the NLT and NLTse? I had assumed the NLTse overrode the NLT.
The NLT was originally published in 1996, but the Bible Translation Committee, the body of scholars responsible for the translation, did not stop their work then. Over the next couple of years, it became clear that the committee wanted to make a number of significant changes to the translation—more than just a few changes here and there. For example, they wanted poetic sections to be set as poetry rather than in paragraphed form. So, a thorough revision process ensued, and in 2004 the revised text was released. This is often referred to as the NLTse (second edition), but in fact it is simply the NLT. The 1996 version of the text is no longer being published, so any new NLT since 2004 is the second edition. Another minor batch of updates were integrated into the text in 2007, but at this point we anticipate the text being stable for quite some time.

The first edition of the NLT had a version which included the Apocrypha. The second edition does not. Are there any plans to make avaliable a version of NLT 2 with the Apocrypha?
This is something that we have talked about more than once at Tyndale. While there are no actual plans to create a new edition with the apocrypha, there aren’t any philosophical objections to making one.

The arrangement of the Mosaic Bible is obviously influenced by the more liturgical church traditions such as Anglicanism and Lutheranism, however the NLT’s primary readership seems to be highest among more low-church evangelicals. What do you hope the Mosaic’s inclusion of church calendar-based devotions, art, and perspectives from ancient and modern thinkers will bring to the typical evangelical reader not accustomed to such?

I have great hopes that Mosaic will help orient low-church evangelicals to the church calendar, as my story above indicates. But I think that Mosaic has something to offer to Christians from every stripe. The art and quotes throughout are drawn from all over the map, literally and figuratively. So Christians from any tradition will find that the readings and art are drawn from a broader set of sources than they are used to. Hopefully this will lead to all of us learning to celebrate our unity as Christians while appreciating the diversity that can stretch our view of God and our shared faith. I wrote a bit about this on an earlier guest post in the blog tour here (http://www.katagraphais.com/index.php/2009/10/05/guest-post-keith-williams-on-christian-unity-and-the-holy-biblemosaic/).

As a pastor, WHY is the NLT a better choice for use at my church (pulpit, studies, etc.) than other translations (i.e. the ESV)?
I am convinced that the NLT would be an excellent choice for use as a primary church Bible for preaching, public Scripture readings, and private study as well as devotional reading. The NLT is clear and accurate, and is well supported by a growing line of reference tools like the Cornerstone Biblical Commentary series. Anyone who doubts the level of scholarship behind the NLT should take a closer look at the Hebrew and Greek word study tool in Mosaic (also in the NLT Study Bible and our new center column reference Bibles) as a taste of more to come on tying the English of the NLT to the original languages. As for advising pastors that the NLT is a “better choice” than another particular translation, I can’t in good conscience give that blanket advice. I believe all of the major English Bible translations are valuable, and every church is unique. But I would definitely encourage any pastor to consider the NLT—or reconsider it if they haven’t looked at it closely since before the 2004 revisions.

I have a NLT. I don’t really want to buy *another* Bible, but I’m always into other study guides. Are there any thoughts of just releasing the accompanying study guide?
There aren’t any specific plans at this point to publish the entirety of the Mosaic material as a study guide, but we have already produced two smaller pieces as standalone devotionals. Devotions for Advent (ISBN 978-1414335780) is already available and Devotions for Lent (ISBN 978-1414335810) will be available around the turn of the year. These devotionals are smaller in size and contain the complete content of their respective season from Mosaic plus Scripture portions covering the lectionary readings for each week. They are also very reasonably priced at $1.99 and $2.99 respectively, so they are a great gift or small group discussion guide.
_____________
Keith will be monitoring comments here today. Feel free to offer a question or comment below and he will respond if he’s able. Thanks Keith and readers.

Most formal worship spaces, even simple ones, will have a baptistry or baptismal font. In those churches where the baptistry/font is a permanent part of worship architecture, there is a constant reminder of the place of baptism in the Christian life.

In my tradition, faith unites us to Christ, but baptism is the “confession” of Christ before men that initiates participation in the gathered people of God. The baptistry/font is frequently a part of worship as baptisms are performed and confessions of faith given in the waters of baptism.

Because baptism does not have a place in the “regular” liturgy of worship similar to the Lord’s Supper/Eucharist, the inclusion of baptism and baptismal liturgy in worship may often be at the beginning or end of a worship service. This is not a rule, of course, and baptism can be placed at any place where the minister wants to emphasize the Gospel through baptism.

It is important that, in the credobaptist tradition, the one being baptized make a confession of faith prior to being baptized. Many churches have found these testimonies to be some of the most powerful moments of worship throughout the year.

A baptismal liturgy should bring out the meaning of baptism and give all present encouragement to renew their baptismal confession.

While churches baptizing infants will not have confessions or testimonies of conversion, they can incorporate testimonies of the meaning of baptism within their tradition.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful to say the creed with the candidates for baptism there, in the water, and to baptize them as they affirm the faith?

Some churches baptize only once a year, but I would encourage those who can to baptize as often as possible to incorporate baptismal themes from the larger liturgy and the Christian year into worship.

The variety of baptismal theologies should have little impact on the place of baptism in liturgical life or in the use of baptism as a theme for corporate worship.

For example, Trinity Sunday has obvious baptismal connections as does Lent and Advent. The “new creation” that is born out of baptism points to both evangelism and discipleship. Of most importance is the fact that baptism is “the Gospel in water” in some way in every tradition.

The celebration of baptism and the Lord’s Supper together is a special and memorable time in worship. I have only experienced this a few times in my life. I’d like to do so more often.

It has to be said that some evangelical churches have done nothing less than bring embarrassment to the Biblical teaching on baptism by placing it in contexts that were questionable and in using innovations that are unwise and without authority. I won’t illustrate, but let’s be conservative with the liturgical and practical aspects of baptism, making its meaning and place one of real honor and connection to Jesus.

As a credobaptist, I lament the decline of baptismal theology and practice in our tradition and hope that baptism and the Lord’s Supper will find themselves at a center of liturgical renewal among Protestant evangelicals.

(A study of the early church and baptism would be helpful to everyone. See Everett Ferguson, Baptism in the New Testament.)

Her name is Niki. (Not her real name.) She’s a Japanese student who lived with an American family for a year and attended a Christian school. She took a year of Bible. She attended worship and heard lots of preaching. The Gospel was explained to her many times. She was well liked and sociable.

A very smart girl. A great student, much advanced over the average American student. She made A’s in everything, including Bible.

She left America after graduation and went back to Japan.

She came to America an atheist and she returned to Japan an atheist, and very aware that she had rejected Christianity.

Before she left, she talked with one of her teachers.

“I am an atheist because I believe in evolution. When people here explained to me what they must believe as Christians, I always ask them about evolution, and they say “You cannot be a Christian and believe in evolution.” So I cannot be a Christian, because I believe that evolution is true.”

No doubt, Niki has met many Christians who told her that she could not be a Christian and “believe” in evolution. No doubt, few, if any, of those Christians took the time to explain what they meant by evolution. Most probably meant that the Bible teaches that the earth is 10,000 years young, that no biological death of any kind happened before sin and the major Creationist ministries such as AIG have all the answers to the hard questions of physics, astronomy and science. (”Were you there?”)

No doubt, Niki was told that science is mostly an arrogant attempt to explain questions without reference to the Bible and should be approached with great caution. Christians, she was probably told, are quick to refuse to believe the phony “evidence” science is so good at making up.

No doubt, Niki was told that the same Bible that tells us Jesus is the one who saves a broken world and sinful people is also the Bible that tells us a completely scientific picture of the origin of the universe, the earth and human beings; a view that depends, ironically, on rejecting most of what science says about those origins. No doubt, Niki was told that since both these things- the Gospel and real scientific answers- are from the same Bible, we cannot reject one without rejecting the other.

So she heard it: you cannot be a Christian and “believe in” evolution.

Niki heard, as a matter of routine, that the phrase “big bang” means “there is no God and the universe is an accident. (I’ve been listening to that reaction to the term Bib Bang for almost 20 years, despite being able to recite the names of 25 evangelical Christians who accept the old universe and the Big Bang.)

Was Niki ever told about the the thousands of Christians in the sciences who believe the “Big Bang” is evidence for creation by God? No, she wasn’t. Was she told of the many conversions to Christianity among scientists who have been moved by the evidence for God as creator now available in astrophysics? No, because that would complicate the views of Creationism she was told were non-negotiable.

Was Niki ever told that the vast majority of Christians on planet earth don’t believe now and haven’t ever believed science and Christianity answer the same questions in the same way? No, she wasn’t.

Was Niki told that millions of Christians believe in some form of evolution? (For Catholics, it’s in the Catechism!) Some form of an old earth? That millions of Christians do not accept the claims of the Creationist ministries as representing the Bible accurately or correctly? No, she wasn’t.

Was Niki told that even atheists are largely agreed that evolution does not equal atheism, and atheists like Dawkins are wrong to claim that is the case?

So Niki, who heard the Gospel message of God’s love, life and forgiveness in Jesus, also heard that non-Christian science mostly can’t be believed, most scientists are atheistic conspirators in a plot to eliminate God from our culture and real Christians renounce any belief in the conclusions of secular scientists and embrace Creationism.

Niki, who heard about Jesus for weeks and weeks in her Bible class, could not bring herself to believe in creationism, so she cannot be a Christian.

Did Niki meet anyone who believes the Bible is true, but didn’t believe that science is a vast conspiracy? That the answers aren’t all to be found in the Creationist movement? That you are not forced into the “either/or” choices between Jesus and science that so many Christians insist on? No one knows, but if she did, they were few.

Did Niki receive any encouragement from someone who had managed to answer these questions and still survive as a scientist in the evangelical community? Did she meet anyone in the sciences who still believed in Jesus and the Gospel? Did she meet anyone who was a professing Christian and also a person who worked in mainstream scientific fields of research or academics?

So Niki has gone back to Japan as an atheist. The seeds were sown and perhaps they will take root and bear fruit. Perhaps one day Niki will write and say that she has placed her faith in Jesus and has abandoned her confidence in the usual scientific models of the origin of the earth and human beings. Perhaps Niki will tell us she found a church and has given up her beliefs in science so she could embrace believing in Jesus.

If Niki goes to MIT, or works for NASA or cures cancer or AIDS, will she remember her journey among evangelical Christians as an encouragement to be a great scientist?

Or perhaps Niki will go on being an atheist.

For many Christians, that will continue to be an acceptable outcome.

I was delighted to discover that I was right, and that Pr. Zahl was the minister preaching and leading the service.

Holy Cross has two worship centers. The smaller one where this service was held is a beautiful chapel that seats approximately a hundred. I was one of approximately 15 worshipers, all adults and mostly older than me. We did the Eucharistic liturgy Rite I from the Book of Common prayer, minus music. (Interesting, there was no music in either of the services I attended this week.)

When you’ve been to a Catholic Church and then come to a Protestant chapel, both liturgical of course, the differences make an immediate impression. The absence of statuary, immediately. The absence of the stations of the cross. The more accessible worship books. The liturgy without the Catholic elements. And the presence of the preaching pulpit.

My wife attended two services at the Catholic church and I attended one with her. In both, the “sermon,” amounted to a brief encyclopedia-type description of the particular subject of the day, in the first case the angel Michael’s three traditional responsibilities, and the second a very brief description of the significance of St. Jerome. The priest was erudite and eloquent, but this would not be recognized as preaching by most Protestants. It would be more accurately categorized as footnotes to the particular aspect of tradition presented in the calendar or in the readings. They were appropriate, but the homily is not the sermon in a Protestant sense. That’s been apparent in all my visiting of masses.

The chapel at Holy Cross had a large, elevated preaching pulpit, close to the congregation and at some distance from the altar. The architectural presence of both a large altar and a large pulpit is significant. When the lessons are concluded, Pr. Zahl preached for 20 minutes on the theme of the Old Testament and Gospel readings.

I enjoyed the sermon immensely, in no small measure because Pr. Zahl has his father Paul Zahl’s voice, cadence and approach to a text. Paul Zahl is an unusual preacher who is unafraid to be vulnerable, humorous and highly personal in application. John does all three as well as his father (and I say that as a compliment to him in making his father’s strengths his own unique strengths as a preacher.)

I was truly ministered to by the message and, of course, the following Eucharist. It seems that traditionalism is alive and well in Charleston, as the altar was placed ad orientum and Pr. Zahl stood/knelt with the congregation facing the altar for much of the service.

I identified myself to Pr. Zahl and he was surprised he knew me so well. Good ol IM family. Always amazing. He was very gracious in what he had to say to me and to others about me. I hope I can see him in the future and spend some time together. He understands what I am doing here at IM and I feel a real kinship with these Gospel-centered, application loving Episcopalians.

Please sit down, have a cup of tea or coffee…and listen.

I see that you’ve responded to some of us who are pilgrims in the evangelical community and who are on a journey within and perhaps beyond evangelicalism. You’ve offered up some “help” in the form of advice, comments, explanations and so forth.

If possible, I’d like to encourage you to consider a few matters that could prove useful to our shared ultimate goal of knowing the Trinitarian God and following Jesus.

1. It’s possible you may be able to claim a few of us for your particular church by arguing with us over the specifics of doctrine. There are some among us who are in the mood to be convinced. But you are making a mistake, in my view, in regard to most of us with this approach. Your assumption that we need to be battered with the clubs of better logic and more knowledge is not the pleasant experience you apparently remember it to be. Let us have a process that operates under our terms and with our perception of the leadership of the Holy Spirit. If this is an episode of Bounty Hunter, tell us.

2. If you are delighted to have laid down all your doubts and questions at the feed of the LCMS, the RCC or EO, that’s wonderful. Again, don’t assume that’s our journey or will be. There are many ways for persons like ourselves to appropriate and experience your tradition without joining. There is considerable evidence that a continual trail of “joining,” is not what many of us are looking for at all, as we have seen that in more than a few of our number, with less than impressive results.

3. Many of us share a suspicion that the submission of mind and curiosity to a specific authority or tradition may not be as easy for us as it has been for you. It is not a characteristic we all share when it comes to human traditions and institutions. Many of us can safely say we will never pray to Mary, believe in purgatory or practice closed communion. But that doesn’t mean we aren’t still on this journey. Louder announcements of circular authority claims have a similar problem. Your (or our) decisions to accept claims of a “pure Gospel” or an “infallible authority” don’t qualify as “pure” or “infallible” for many of us.

4. Our heroes in this journey are not always converts. They are often evangelicals who remained evangelicals or pilgrims who kept moving and never settled. We may find a “half-way house” in Anglicanism or the ELCA and stay there. We are not as interested in being the trophies of a tradition as we are in seeing some aspect of Christ that we can only see through something your tradition has preserved for us.

5. We are not fools when it comes to the Eucharist (or baptism.) We’re not looking at the obvious and refusing to see. Explain us as you wish, but we see what we see (and vice versa) for reasons that are a mixture of influence, environment, authority, education, exposure and consideration. There is nothing quite so frustrating as to be read, for the 500th time for many of us, the plain statements of scripture that have divided Christians for centuries, and to do so as if we’ve just never actually paid attention to what Jesus says in John 6. It’s a habit that should never appear in a discussion among friends. Take it for granted that we have examined the scriptures many, many times and will continue to do so.

6. Answer our questions as real questions, not as invitations to evangelize us.

7. Should we be wrong about your tradition in some statement we make, correct us with grace and a recognition that we are understandably at a disadvantage.

8. What was the answer to your journey is not going to be the answer to our own. If you send us a collection of convert essays to create conversion envy, or if you take a small move on our part as a sign that we are ready to sign up, you’ve misjudged.

9. What we value as good in our tradition- evangelism, missions, church-planting, preaching, singing, etc.- we are not likely to abandon for your version of the same thing without some lamentation and complaint. Whatever we take from you, realize that those of us who value where we’ve been and what God has done in our life in the past respect what formed us.

10. I learned long ago that two people may fight one another, but attack one of them and both will turn on you. We may be severe on our own evangelical tradition, but don’t assume that means we are ready to join you in your criticism of the same. That may be unfair, but it’s very human.

Thanks for listening,

Michael

Who are the Gangstas?

Father Ernesto Obregon is an Eastern Orthodox priest.
Rev. Joe Boysel is an Anglican (AMiA) priest and professor of Bible at Ohio Christian University in Circleville, Ohio. (Ask him about famous alumni.)
Dr. Wyman Richardson is a pastor of a First Baptist Church (SBC) and director of Walking Together Ministries, a resource on church discipline.
Alan Creech is a Roman Catholic with background in the Emerging church and spiritual direction.
Rev. Matthew Johnson is a United Methodist pastor.
Rev. William Cwirla is a Lutheran pastor (LCMS) and one of the hosts of The God Whisperers, which is a podcast nearly as good as Internet Monk Radio.
And we have a new gangsta! Eric Landry is the editor of Modern Reformation Magazine. In addition, he is a PCA church planter in southern California.

Here’s this week’s question: A pre-med college student in your congregation comes to you and says “I’ve been learning about evolution at school, and I can’t recall the subject ever being discussed or talked about here at church. I’ve never really asked if there was a conflict between evolution and being a Christian. Can I believe what I’m being taught, or do I have to oppose it because I am a Christian?

Father Ernesto/Orthodox: What would I tell that young pre-med student? Here is what I would say, let me just call her Deb for simplicity’s sake.

Deb, the subject of evolution and what Christians believe about the Creation has become so distorted in both the news media and people’s minds that it is doubtful that you can have any type of reasonable discussion in a college setting. So, I recommend staying away from this type of discussion because not only will it fail to lead people to Christ, but it may actually close them off to listening to you when you speak to them about what God has to say to them on other important subjects.

I can give you some leads to helpful resources that will let you read about the different possible Christian viewpoints so that you can make up your own mind. But, here is what is important for you to know. As Christians we need to believe and proclaim that God has created the heavens and the earth. That is what our creed says, “We believe in God, the Father Almighty, Creator of heaven and earth.” We need to believe that there was a time when there was nothing but God, and that God chose to create. And, we need to believe that God continues to work within his Creation in a very active way.

But, Deb, it is also important for you to know that there were strong discussions between the Church Fathers over how the creation was accomplished and over whether the first few chapters of Genesis were to be taken as literal or as an allegory or as a poem. You are not required to believe in a particular process for how the Creation was accomplished.

Deb, I, myself, see little conflict between many of the scientific findings with regards to evolution and our belief that God created. However, please realize that there are many who try to say that one must believe in evolution without a God or one is not being scientific. And there are many who try to say that one must believe that creation was in six literal days or one is destroying the unity of the Bible. These are the extremes that I talked to you about earlier. But, there are many fine Christian scientists in the areas of physics, cosmology, astronomy, mathematics, and genetics who believe that God created and is behind the evolutionary developments and see no contradiction between the two.

My favorite interpretation of Genesis 1 is to see it as a parallel poem, in which the story of the first three days is repeated with more details in the next three days. This means that day 1 and day 4 are one movement of creation, day 2 and day 5 are another, and day 3 and day 6 are the final movements. If this is so, then in the first movement the light is divided out from the darkness then lights take form in the heavens, the stars, our sun, and the moon. In the second movement, waters and an atmosphere appear on earth, while living creatures appear first in the waters and then in the airs. In the final movement, life appears on the earth then all kinds of animals and finally man. If you look at that sequence, other than the flying creatures in the second movement, what I have just described fully agrees with the line of development postulated by evolution.

So, Deb, let’s keep talking and I will give you the resources you need to make up your own mind as to which particular form of God created you wish to believe in. But, do make sure to keep believing that God, the Father Almighty, created heaven and earth, and that He continues to be active among us to this day.

Matthew Johnson/United Methodist: I’d first point the pre-med college student to what the United Methodist Book of Discipline (2008) says in our Social Principles under I. The Natural World:

F) Science and Technology – We recognize science as a legitimate interpretation of God’s natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world. We affirm the validity of the claims of science in describing the natural world and in determining what is scientific. We preclude science from making authoritative claims about theological issues and theology from making authoritative claims about scientific issues. We find that science’s descriptions of cosmological, geological, and biological evolution are not in conflict with theology…

In acknowledging the important roles of science and technology, however, we also believe that theological understandings of human experience are crucial to a full understanding of the place of humanity in the universe. Science and theology are complementary rather than mutually incompatible. We therefore encourage dialogue between the scientific and theological communities and seek the kind of participation what will enable humanity to sustain life on earth and, by God’s grace, increase the quality of our common lives together.

Now, while that paragraph is as clear as mud it does state a couple of things that, as a pastor, I’m happy to agree with. One, science and theology are not mutually incompatible and, two, we encourage dialogue between the two. When I took biology in college, we had a mandatory lab. On the first day of our lab, the GA leading the lab asked us for our basic information on a 3×5 card and then asked us to write on the back what we thought about evolution. His PhD work was in evolution and he was interested. I honestly wrote my thoughts as a pre-seminary English major at a public university. I stated my skepticism about the interpretation of the data of evolution from one genus to another but that I was enthralled by adaptations. I wish I could remember this GA’s name but he was very kind, courteous, and honest about his own skepticism while maintaining a strong support of the evidence for evolution. I wish I could thank him today (he was a GA at the University of Arkansas and did a lab in the fall of 1998 if he happens to read this).

The reason I wish I could thank him is because he really fostered an environment of learning and humility. He promoted the dialogue our Book of Discipline encourages and I can’t appreciate enough how he helped me grow as a person.

I would tell that pre-med student this story in order to say, none of us, science or faith, has all the answers. I’m fine being skeptical of some aspects of evolution and find my acceptance of other aspects in no way conflicts with my complete and utter belief and experience with the Triune Creator who has fully revealed himself in Jesus Christ, crucified and resurrected. I hope that our church wouldn’t be an obstacle to honest pursuit of truth either theologically or scientifically. I also hope that the student would find an avenue within the church to ask questions, discuss, and grow as a disciple of Jesus Christ in his or her pursuit of truth no matter what.

Joe Boysel/Anglican: I am a pastor and a theologian, not a biologist. As such, I could not debate the individual claims of natural science on the merits of each, because I lack the resources to do so. I do, however, have enough insight into the discipline to say that there remains a lot of speculative work in evolutionary science. And, since there are credible scientists who question the suppositions of the mainstream evolutionists, it seems reasonable to me that my parishioner should – at the very least – approach the discipline with a well-defined hermeneutic of suspicion. Indeed, that is exactly the advice the biologist would (and should) give my parishioner if the tables were turned.

Eventually, I would urge my parishioner not to lose too much sleep over the matter. Scripture does not seek to provide an historical or biological account of human origins; rather it provides a theological framework for understanding humanity (and the universe) as the handiwork of God. On this point honest evolutionists will agree: natural selection does not disprove the existence of God. In other words, there is no need to harmonize science and Scripture on the point of human origins because they have different aims and different claims. Where I would most readily part company with the biologists, however, lies in the notion that discussions of God remain irrelevant to the study of human beings.

My pastoral advice, then, would be first to tread carefully. The student should respect, listen, and evaluate the teachings of her professors regardless of the discipline. As Aristotle said, “the mark of an educated mind is the ability to entertain an idea without accepting it.” Second, she should realize that not having a response to a questionable teaching does not mean the proposed premise is true. Keep digging and keep thinking. Third, I would remind her to remember what she’s studying medicine for: namely, to bring health to people. To the extent that evolutionary science assists in that endeavor, embrace it; at least until a better explanation comes along.

Alan Creech/Roman Catholic: Well, there are sort of two different questions here, and hence two different answers. “Can I believe what I’m being taught?” and “Do I have to oppose evolution (implied) because I’m a Christian?” Short answers: To a degree and No.

If the scientists and teachers of science who are teaching you stick to their science guns and don’t wander off track into the realm of philosophy, then you’re probably fine with what you’re being taught. We’re talking about evidence and theories derived from that evidence here – not a problem from a Catholic Christian perspective. Even when we get into the theory of evolution, that life forms adapt to their environments over time, that the earth is perhaps billions of years old and yes, that even the human life form has perhaps evolved from a less complex life form. Scientifically, not a huge issue.

The issue begins when philosophical leaps are made by “scientists” and conclusions are drawn, e.g., life has evolved in this way; therefore it was all by chance; therefore, there cannot be a God. Uh, no. The scientist who makes such a leap has ceased to be a scientist and is making statements he cannot make using the scientific method. So, don’t trust that kind of thing if that’s what you’re being taught. Our faith should trump these kinds of ill-drawn conclusions.

One can be a faithful, committed Christian and believe that evolution is very likely scientifically true. You can be a Christian and believe that God perhaps intentionally set the path of life on its evolutionary path, that He intentionally drew human beings out of the line, breathed His Spirit into us and made us in His Image. Some people call this “theistic evolution” – as opposed to “naturalistic evolution,” which I described in the previous paragraph. It’s not about a huge cosmic accident, but rather, about God doing exactly what He wanted how He wanted to do it. Believing this does not necessarily need to conflict with a belief in God, Jesus or even in the Truth of the Bible as God’s Word.

As Catholic Christians, we understand the Bible to be just that, God’s Word – that He, in a very real sense, is its Author through the work of His Holy Spirit. We do not, though, believe that necessitates a very literal reading of all of Scripture. Genesis can be True and not be literal. God can have said exactly what He wanted to say to us, and “7 days” not literally mean 7 24 hour days. That doesn’t mean to say that the Catholic Church teaches definitively one way or the other on the matter of theistic evolution – just that it holds the possibility open.

Definitely, we should believe God created the world and all that is in it, that He did so on-purpose, and that He spoke the truth about it in His written Word. Just how all that happened, in a sense, isn’t that important. We can study and scientifically theorize to our heart’s content, all the time realizing that the ultimate knowledge about these things is in God’s mind alone. One day we will know. Until then, have fun thinking about it, but keep first things first, understand the caveats, and you’ll be fine.

Wyman Richardson/Southern Baptist: I’m going to have to begin my answer with a bit of a confessional preface: I’ve kind of instinctively distanced myself from the issue of evolution a bit because (a) I’m often embarrased by my fellow pastors who try to speak on the subject as if they’re scientists, (b) I’m often irritated by the mindless fundamentalism of pro-evolution advocates and, (c) I’ve heard and read so many conflicting variations from scientists and non-scientists alike on the philosophical and theological implications of evolution that I’ve put it on the backburner a bit instead of jumping into what seems to be a hopelessly muddled morass of shouting.

I don’t say that’s noble of me, just that that’s the truth.

As for the question itself, though, I think I would say this: “I believe that all truth is God’s truth and that, at heart, science does not conflict with what Scripture asserts. Some of the greatest founding scientists throughout history have said the same. Scripture asserts that man is created in the image of God. Scripture asserts that creation itself is the handiwork of God and that we are not here by chance. Scripture asserts that there is a qualitative difference between man and animals. Scripture asserts that there is a reason and purpose for creation and that history has a purposed trajectory. Finally, Scripture asserts that God reigns over the natural order from beginning to end and that nature is not subject to processes that are detached from God’s will. Now, some people say you can hold to all of these biblical tenets and hold to evolutionary theory as well. As I understand evolution, that’s problematic, but I admit to you that I have not studied evolution in depth so I am speaking from a perspective of relative ignorance on the issue itself. But I am not speaking from ignorance concerning God’s word, which is truth, and which has been verified to you through your walk with Christ and the many proofs both within and outside of scripture that you know and can see. So I would encourage you to know the truths of God and to study the sciences deeply…certainly more than I have. I will further say that one can accept and acknowledge certain scientific theories without buying the purported philsophical and theological implications advanced by advocates of those theories wholesale. We see but a part, but what God has allowed us to see we really do see!”

I do regret that I do not have more scientific acumen, but I do not apologize for seeing the biblical assertions concerning creation as solid, trustworthy, and unassailable in any convincing way.

Now, I’ll sit back and watch your readers tee-off on this!

William Cwirla/Lutheran: I’m sure we all wish that Rev. Cwirla was with us on this one, but the LCMS position is available.

Rev. Cwirla is taking a break on this question and will be back with us next week.

It’s possible he’s gone to that church in Tulsa to ask the pastor where all that smoke is coming from.

Eric Landry, PCA Presbyterian: There’s a short answer and a long answer to your question. I’ll start with the easiest answer: No, you need not oppose what you are being taught in school simply because you are a Christian. When I was a freshman in high school, I got my name and picture splashed across the front page of the local newspaper for debating my biology teacher. The school district had a policy in those days to allow students to skip portions of classes that dealt with objectionable material (like evolution, I guess) but I stayed and made a nuisance of myself, which generated a bit of news in our small town. The teacher wrote me a very nice note at the end of the school year and said that she hoped her children would have the same dedication to their beliefs that I had to mine. I hope she was being facetious because I never want my children to be as arrogant and simplistic as I proved myself to be in her class. It would have been far better for me to have played the part of a student and learned what my teacher had to say, asked questions in a respectful manner, and not been frightened by what I heard.

I believe that all truth is God’s truth and that you need not fear learning that truth even from those who may not share our common Faith. But, of course, this is where the answer gets a little longer and a little more complicated. Everyone comes at “facts” and truth claims with certain presuppositions. So, while you need not oppose what you are being taught, I don’t think you can believe something uncritically just because it is being taught in a respected school by a respected professor. In much the same way, I hope that you don’t accept unthinkingly everything that I say from the pulpit, either! Ask questions: what implications does this have for core Christian doctrines like God as Creator, Adam and Eve as historical figures, the Fall, the imputation of Adam’s sin and the corresponding doctrine of the imputation of Christ’s righteousness? Is the professor keeping within the bounds of science or is he or she trying to use evolution as a meta-theory to explain everything that we think, feel, or do? Sometimes even well-meaning scientists trip across the boundary between science and philosophy.

At the same time, realize that you are just starting down the learning path of a very complex subject and one one which, frankly, there is still much debate and development. So, one challenge for you will be to hold ideas in tension until you know more. At some point you may also have to be willing to say along with the best scholars on either side of the faith divide that we just don’t know everything there is to know! The error of simplistic thinking can be committed by both fundamentalists and skeptics: each rushing to claim a certainty that is illegitimate.

If you’d like, I can help you find some books written by believing scientists who have wrestled with some of the same questions you are now facing. We could also look through some books written by those who might take a different point of view on this than what I’m saying. At either end of this argument are those with absolute certainty. One on side you have those who believe that science does in fact stand against and/or ultimately disprove Christianity. And on the other side are those who believe that Christianity necessitates a rejection of certain scientific ideas. It is also important to go back to the primary texts in the Bible’s account of Creation and make sure that you really understand what they say and why they say it. You may be surprised by finding that the Bible doesn’t give us as much detail as we might hope!

There is no silver bullet here. This life will be filled with experiences and ideas that seem to contradict not just generic belief in God, but also specific belief in God’s promises. In God’s providence, he hasn’t given us all the answers that we think we need when faced with these questions. But I’m happy to help you think through the questions as you seek to be both a faithful disciple of Jesus and the best student (eventually the best doctor!) that God has called you to be.