Genetic Mutation: Problems in Eden, Part 2

In order to be able to pass on his vocal chord gene, chimpman would have to find a chimpwoman humanzee who had experienced the same genetic mutation (Would they be able to mate if he was vocal and she was bi-pedal?). Otherwise, he would be the first and last of his kind. Further, the best case scenario for propagation of the new humanzee species would have to be lots and lots of these humanzees. Otherwise, in-breeding would occur, and that probably would be bad. Who knows, a genetic mutation might occur and a humanzee would be born who was quadri-pedal, and had no vocal chords (Would that be classified as evolution?)

Beyond the difficulties with vocal chords, bi-pedalism would present its own set of challenges. Chimps use their knuckles for walking, and, thus, have entirely different kinds of hands and musculature than humans. Have you ever tried "walking on all-fours," using your knuckles as opposed to your palms or extended fingers?

How about trying to hang from a vine for a while? Chimps do that all the time; they can hang for a long time without any problem. Humans just do not have the right muscles for vine hanging. Male humans, having significantly more upper body strength than female humans, might get by for a while, but not for long. Neither sex, though, would get very far using their knuckles for walking.

So, when junior was born able to walk upright instead of on all fours, he was also born with a newly configured musculature. He also would have to have been born with a new neural system. Nerves that made the muscles and bones work for quadri-pedal movement would not work for bi-pedalism (Have you ever noticed how chimps of any age walking upright remind you of a small child learning to walk? They never get any better; babies do.). He would have required new kinds of joints, ligaments, muscles, and blood flow. Oh, and that strange looking big toe would have to go. What’s good for four feet is not what is required for two.

A different kind of balance is required, which four-footed chimps do not share with two-footed humans. Human equilibrium is a complex interaction which requires correct input from three sensory receptors — the inner ear, vision, and somatosensory, which is our contact with the earth as perceived by our feet, ankles, muscles and joints. All three signals must then be correctly received by our central nervous system. Then the cerebellum which is the motor control portion of the brain must execute the correct movement of our musculoskeletal system, so that we may maintain our center of gravity. If any one or several components of this complicated system do not work properly, then we will have a loss of surefootedness or movement coordination.

So, while junior was incubating and that mutation was taking place, not just one, but a whole host of genetic changes would have had to have occurred at one time. We might consider, by the way, that bi-pedalism implies changes other that genetic. For instance, diet would change. Since junior is now able to walk upright, he can get to fruit in some trees mom and dad chimp cannot reach. Also, he can go places to get food he could not go before. Perhaps, sadly, he’ll not be able to get to some food he’s enjoyed before, since walking upright limits his mobility in some cases.

But, can he eat all these new foods (Will his chimp digestive system accept new foods?)? Will he like raw food anymore? Will grubs loose their culinary attraction? How about cooking with fire? But, he’d have to kill some of his distant relatives in order to have a barbecue. Then, he might burn himself, and what would he do then?

If junior cuts himself badly, or is injured in other ways, what does he do? There are no chimp hospitals, no chimp doctors, no chimp first-aid. Of course, that’s why the life expectancy of chimps in the wild is only 35-40 years. In captivity, chimps might live to 60. In the "wild," human life expectancy is not much better than chimps. But, we don’t go into captivity to improve our life-expectancy, we develop more civilized, technologically advanced communities. As far as chimp "society" goes, sticks, twigs, and stones are the historical and present-day level of their technology. I am old enough to remember party-line telephone systems where calls were placed by an operator; then came dial phones; then touch-tone; now, cell phones.

In our highly advanced cultures, we use language to communicate, and we work together on a host of complex issues, thus, being able to improve life immeasurably. A minor burn or broken limb is generally not fatal for humans. A broken limb or other wound for a chimp can be and most likely would be fatal. Not only would infection lead to death, but neglect as well. Chimps don’t do well at caring for the sick. Ultimately, sick and injured chimpanzees are left to die. No neosporin.

In the same way, a chimp who all of a sudden stood upright all the time, or spoke instead of grunted, who had little body hair (Would he/she shave or perm what he/she did have? Would nudity produce embarrassment?), and who was not comfortable climbing vines and branches, indeed, lacked the muscles to do so, would be an outcast. He would have been left on his own, as soon as the mutations began to be expressed. He would have been a chimp no longer.

Dinah Washington sang, "What a difference a day makes." And, she was right. But, boy, what a difference 4 percentage points make in a genetic day.

Genetic Mutation: Problems in Eden, Part 1

A fundamental assumption of evolutionary theory is that genetic changes have occurred in one species that have led to the formation of new species. For instance, one might argue as an evolutionist that a group of chimpanzees once existed among whom some genetic mutations occurred that gave rise to early humans. How defensible is such an argument? Many would argue, on the basis of shared genes, that such a scenario is quite plausible. Well, what is the possibility, we might ask?

In the on-line National Geographic News article (August 31, 2005 )"Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds," Stefan Lovgren reported that "Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species. . . To map the chimp genome, researchers used DNA from the blood of a male common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) named Clint, who lived at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center in Atlanta. Clint died last year from heart failure at the relatively young age of 24. . . A comparison of Clint's genetic blueprints with that of the human genome shows that our closest living relatives share 96 percent of our DNA. The number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is ten times smaller than that between mice and rats."

Seemingly, based on genetic evidence, chimps and humans should be considered as part of the same family, right? Wrong! But, you argue, science shows we are close genetically. Our DNA is almost the same. The difference is only a mere 4 percent. Are we so different?

Let’s consider a few points. First of all, the idea that our genetic closeness proves anything is a false argument. Chimps are quadri-pedal knuckle walkers, have no vocal chords, do not have opposable thumbs, and are covered in thick body hair. Humans are bi-pedal, can speak, have opposable thumbs, and none of us have full body hair.

So, what is the big deal? Give a chimp a PC and see what happens. Or, better yet, give him a flat-head and a phillips screwdriver and tell him to take the cover off the PC. He wouldn’t understand the instructions; he’d not be able to figure out which screwdriver to use; and, he’d have a hard time manipulating the screwdriver if he were lucky enough to match the right one to the screws.

The lack of fine motor skills and language and speech capability underscore the problem for genetic mutation theorists. To over-simplify, mother chimp had a baby one day. She and a long line of mama chimps had grown frustrated in getting junior to behave. The frustration ultimately produced a mutation, and low and behold, a chimp was born with vocal chords (A firm "Stop that!" is so much better than an angry grunt.).

The problem with the simplification above is that if such a development had occurred, a host of other changes would have been required in order to make the modification work. For instance, do not vocal chords require a different kind of lung action and breathing technique, lip and tongue coordination, and psychological predispositions than grunting chimps commonly use? So, one change requires many others to occur simultaneously in order for the change to be meaningful.

Let’s say, though, that junior chimp (Now chimpman who is a humanzee.), did have those vocal chords. Who would teach him language? Specific languages are not genetic, but learned. The physical and psychological skills required for language are inborn, but language itself must be taught by someone who has mastered that language already. Parents teach children to speak; other babies cannot. So, what use are vocal chords if you have no language? Why speak when grunting gets the job done?

We might also raise the question as to what would have happened to a chimp who was born with vocal chords. Not only would his parents have been unable to teach him language, he would not have grunted any longer in the same manner as old mama chimp. Almost from the outset, he would have been a social outcast. Looks to me like a genetic disaster.

What if chimpman had been born bi-pedal in addition to or instead of having vocal chords? As soon as he walked on his hind legs, he would appear to his chimp family as a freak. Chimps can walk on their hind legs, but doing so is not "natural." Chimps are predisposed to walking on all four limbs, using their knuckles to cushion their hands as they walk. Humans can take only a few steps on "four-feet," but using their knuckles in the process is impossible. Our hands are not designed for walking. As with speaking, walking upright would mark junior as a social outcast.

What does junior do with himself, being all alone? Well, if he’s lucky, all throughout chimp-dom, genetic mutations would be occurring exactly the same as his. A lot of them would have to happen, because being genetically different, he’d probably be unable to breed with other chimps, no longer being a chimp, but a humazee. In trying to find a mate, would he use romantic talk? And, who would listen? Most likely, being able to walk and talk would turn off the really pretty chimp chicks. If he could mate, though, his vocal chord or bi-pedal gene would be recessive, and that would be the end of the line, so to speak.

Thus, the problems mount for chimpman.

Obama, evangelicals, and AIDS

I just read an article on NewsMax* about an HIV/AIDS awareness event hosted by Rick Warren and his congregation, Saddleback Valley Community Church. I had earlier received a mailing from Warren promoting the event.

Warren observed that the evangelical response to AIDS up to now has been negative, but that has changed. He noted, "It is the church that needs to take the lead on HIV/AIDS." The Saddleback church says the aim of the conference was to encourage millions of Christians in the United States and around the world to become care-givers, use churches as centers for help and campaign to prevent AIDS at home and in Africa.

Democrat Senator Barak Obama was a participant in the event, which caused some opposition among Warren’s fellow evangelicals. Obama told the conference of some 2,000 Christians, AIDS organizations and church leaders from 18 countries that AIDS required a "change in hearts and minds, in cultures and attitudes. AIDS is a challenge not only of our willingness to respond but of our ability to look past the artificial divisions and debates that have often shaped that response," said Obama, winning a standing ovation from the audience. Obama said he respectfully disagreed with people who oppose condom use as a means of HIV/AIDS prevention because they believe it encourages promiscuity. "I do not accept the notion that those who make mistakes in their lives should be given an effective death sentence," he said.

In a bid to reduce the stigma of AIDS testing, Obama, Warren and Brownback each took a mouth swab test for the disease during a news conference. The results, back in 20 minutes, were negative for all three.

I have several responses to the event itself, Obama’s appearance, and the AIDS swab test Warren, Obama, and Senator Brownback took during a news conference. First, the event itself. What was accomplished? Did the conference heighten anyone’s awareness of the AIDS crisis in the world? I doubt it. Were any substantive solutions proposed? No. AIDS will not be prevented by passing out condoms. Did the participants dance around the real issue? Like they were doing a Viennese waltz. Sadly, Warren and Saddleback failed to give the real biblical answer to AIDS.

Fundamentally, AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease. No one gets it from a toilet seat, from shaking hands with an infected patient, or breathing contaminated air. The vast majority of AIDS cases in the world result from sexual promiscuity. Until the world comes to grips with that fact, no real and effective solution will ever be put forth. Only those who participate in unhealthy sexual lifestyles, or share needles from IV drug use, get or pass on HIV. Those who do not know their partners are HIV positive are the real victims. Only a fool would have sex with someone with AIDS.

Second, Obama’s appearance. Regardless of what anyone says, Warren’s event was a real photo-op for someone with serious presidential aspirations. Obama may really have been serious about his participation, but he was there primarily as a politician. One day, he will use the HIV/AIDS conference at Saddleback in a political ad. That’s what politicians do.

As far as what he had to say, we might search for some meaning, but, regretfully, come away empty-handed. Obama’s statements that got him a standing ovation are meaningless. What exactly did he mean when he said we must, "look past the artificial divisions and debates that have often shaped that response" Did he mean that we should not address the real issue: the sexual practices that introduced AIDS into the world and perpetuate its existence? Further, is he opposed to abstinenceas an effective approach to AIDS prevention? Obviously, condoms figure heavily in his AIDS prevention program.

After over twenty years of dealing with the disease, condoms have had no effect. So, we must conclude that any sex education program aimed at those in danger of contracting AIDS that relies on condom use has been and remains a failure. One wonders if Sen. Obama, who hopes to one day be President Obama, is ready to propose the hard solutions.

Last, the swab test. Nothing is more trivializing than when one persons panders to another. The only reason Warren, Obama, and Brownback took the tests was because they knew they were not HIV positive. We can safely assume they each have practiced sexual discipline in their lives and have been faithful to their wives. Are we to feel that somehow, the swab test gave these men some kind of new sensitivity to those who are HIV positive? Would the rest of us benefit if we did the same?

One of the more foolish proposals in modern preventative medicine is that universal AIDS testing be done. Why should my two grandchildren be required to take an AIDS test before starting school. Their parents are faithful to one another. What’s the point? The real point is that if we make everyone think that we are all threatened by AIDS, supposedly, AIDS will be seen in a different light. Well, I’ll never get AIDS. My wife and I have been faithful to one another for over thirty years and will remain that way as long as we live. What do we have to fear?

While speaking at the summit, the recently sworn-in U.S. Global AIDS Coordinator, Mark Dybul, a homosexual, seemingly the only person with the courage to address honestly the issue, outlined the Bush administration's approach to fighting the global AIDS epidemic. In his remarks, he surprised some by stating that the only 100 percent effective way to avoid HIV infection is to abstain or be faithful to an HIV-negative partner. Was anyone listening?

AIDS awareness conferences, condoms, and swab tests are not the answer to the AIDS crisis. The "change in hearts and minds, in cultures and attitudes" must begin with those who are involved in sexual lifestyles, heterosexual and homosexual, in which HIV/AIDS is spread. Until all those who are HIV positive refrain from all sexual activity, we will have no solution.

*"Sen. Obama Joins Evangelicals in AIDS Fight"
NewsMax.com WiresSaturday, Dec. 2, 2006

Ten Words

One name for the Ten Commandments is the Decalogue, or the Ten Words. The reasoning is that in early Hebrew, the Ten Commandments were expressed in ten, simple words. A short, concise version of the Decalogue is:

* You shall have no other gods besides Me
* You shall not make for yourself an idol
* You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain
* Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
* Honor your father and your mother
* You shall not murder
* You shall not commit adultery
* You shall not steal.
* You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
* You shall not covet

This set of principles, so marvelously simple and direct, yet so comprehensive in scope, has inspired thoughtful dialogue for centuries. In fact, those who penned the American Constitution drew from the Decalogue directly and indirectly. Further, the high ethical standards of the Ten Commandments have defined the limits of acceptable behavior for American society for most of its history.

Yet, we sadly must speak of the Decalogue and its place in the public and political life of America in the past tense. Speaking of God in the public square often gets one shouted down; the very nature of marriage and the family is being rethought completely; murder of innocents has become a choice; and, what one does in the privacy of his own home is sacred (which should be the case), but such private actions are no longer informed by any absolute standard of good.

Some have problems with what is viewed as the narrow, severe, and unchangeable character of the Ten Commandments. In fact, such is the case. These Laws are narrow in that they clearly define the boundary between right and wrong, good and evil. The Laws are severe in that they refused to be changed. The definition of good and evil embodied in this Code remains the same today as they were when given by God to Moses, despite modern America’s relativizing ways.

In the modern era, many describe the Constitution as a "living" document, one that is every evolving. Ironically, the historical document remains unchanged. The nation, through a very demanding process, has at times amended the Constitution. Basically, though, the amendments clarified the freedoms and responsibilities of the citizens of America, and enhanced the nature of the document without changing the essential nature of the Constitution. Like the Decalogue, the Constitution is itself somewhat narrow, severe, and unchangeable.

In the Ten Commandments, most of the commands are stated in the negative. Clarifying the "no’s" is far simpler than defining all the "yeses." When Paul wrote the Epistle to the Galatians, he included a list of character traits called the Fruit of the Spirit (Gal. 5.22-23). After that catalogue of positive virtues, the Apostle stated, "against such there is no law." In other words, no limits exist on doing good; only bad behavior needs to be controlled.

Our Constitution is devoted, in part, to controlling bad behavior (laws against murder, stealing, bearing false witness, etc.). Other parts of the Constitution insure that some things are available to all (the right to worship, speak freely, assemble, etc.). Ironically, some abuse these rights and freedoms, yet, their right to do so is defended.

The three branches of the Federal Government have a vested interest in guarding the civic, social, and political boundaries defined by the Constitution. Society is both protected and perpetuated as constitutional safeguards are upheld. Churches have an even greater responsibility to uphold the ethical standards found in the Ten Commandments. In so doing, informed and free citizens can function responsibly in a constitutional society. When the government fails, freedoms are eroded. When the church fails, free people become undisciplined people.

In modern America, too often the government has redefined the boundaries for fear of offending some smaller segment of the larger community. And the church? Too many times, churches and Christian denominations have themselves redefined the demands of the Law. Consequently, some are confused and frustrated, while others indulge their wants, no longer restrained by constitutional or biblical principles.

The writer of Proverbs, perhaps anticipating such a condition, stated, "Where there is no vision, the people perish." When the "vision" of right and wrong disappears, the people, society, does perish.

Old Landmarks

In his book, Old Landmarkism What Is It?, written in 1880, J. R. Graves sought to explain the appellation given to the strict view of the church he espoused, Landmarkism. He pointed out that J. M. Pendleton, in the tract "An Old Landmark Reset," had stated that the name came from Proverbs 22.28, and was intended as a term of opprobrium, not one of approbation.

Graves’s narrow ecclesiology does not have widespread appeal today. Yet, while we might not accept his definition of church, we still can appreciate his attempt to clarify the concept. Graves was involved in his day’s debate over the nature of Baptist life. He attempted to make sense of the changes of his day.

Baptists have been changing, or growing, since the birth of the movement in 17th century England. As alsays has been the case, some in Baptist life have viewed change with great fear; others have adopted overwhelmingly any and every change. Most wonder how to make sense of all that takes place in their time.

The key, as most recognize, is found in understanding historical Baptist principles. As Baptist life has grown and developed, certain truths have provided the foundation for the changes. If the principles are changed, then a new entity comes into existence, a kind of hybrid being. Again, some reject the new growth, others embrace it.

For those, such as I, who wish to preserve the name Baptist and the truths such name represents, some changes are unacceptable. We ask the question, "How far can one go in adopting new beliefs without moving past the boundaries that define Baptist life?"

In a current series of sermons, I have presented a broad view of Baptist history as a prelude to several sermons on Baptist biblical and theological distinctives. The first message on theology was entitled, "Bible Freedom or a Distinctive Authority." (Among other resources, I am using Stan Norman’s More Than Just a Name, and Walter Shurden’s The Baptist Identity.) Historically, what Baptists have believed has been firmly rooted in Scripture.

The second message had the title "Soul Competency or Soul Freedom." In this message in particular, I sought to show the tension that exists among Baptists today over how to understand this important tenet of our denominational life.

One writer, in an on-line article, defined his own view of this doctrine. For him, soul competency means that each individual should be able to interpret Scripture "according to the dictates of conscience and the guidance of the Holy Spirit."

The question raised in my mind by that assertion is whether conscience should inform our understanding of the Bible, or the Bible set the standard for our conscience. One must legitimately ask if this "conscience standard" is a traditional Baptist distinctive, or a new one.

From the earliest days of Baptist life, matters of conscience, whether about infant baptism or relations with the state, were first and foremost matters of Scripture. Early Baptists arrived at new understandings of church practices based on their studies of the Bible. So, the truth of Scripture informed the consciences of those early Baptists. Had they first had an informed conscience about state interference in religion, why would those early dissenters have needed a Bible?

So, we must raise the question of competence. Let’s say that a Muslim is converted to Christianity. How competent is this new believer to interpret Scripture, based on the dictates of his conscience? Scripture itself recognizes the limits of human competence, and freedom, by the way, to interpret the Bible "for oneself." While a person might make an individual decision to trust in Jesus, nevertheless, he immediately is placed into a vital corporate relationship within a body of believers. In that context, under the tutelage of pastors and teachers called by God, individual believers, under the authority of a local congregation, learn how to understand the Bible.

If a person becomes a part of a Baptist congregation, he will learn how Baptists understand the Bible, and how Baptists are distinguished from other groups. Thereafter, if he retains his Baptist character, that believer will exercise his competency, and limit his freedom, within the boundaries of Baptist life. To not do so is to become something other than a Baptist.

Where uninformed, untrained conscience is the arbiter biblical truth, one quickly ceases to be Baptist.

Crossing the Border

So, will illegal immigrants, old westerns, or exotic vacations be discussed today? No, no, and no. Actually, the course of American culture is the topic. Why borders, then?

Sociologists have long recognized that every culture is defined by boundaries. In fact, without boundaries, a culture would lack definition and would therefore be indistinguishable from other cultures and societies. Thus, lacking unique traits, such a culture would be no culture at all.

In the field of New Testament studies, a new approach emerged in the 80s known as the social-scientific method. One aspect of this area of study has been the attempt to find the defining cultural structures of the 1st century Mediterranean-basin world. The question has been whether or not boundaries or markers existed that gave commonality to the Greco-Roman world that existed around the Mediterranean Sea. Many believe such defining boundaries did exist. Some remain in place today.

Can similar social structures be found in America? Most assuredly so. Many of the boundaries that have set limits on what is and is not American are rooted in the Judeo-Christian ethic. More to the point, many are biblically-based.

Take marriage. Even though polygamy was practiced in the Old Testament era by some of the notable characters from Israel’s past, monogamy was the accepted standard for marital relationships. As well, in the Roman world, monogamy was the standard.

In both the Jewish world (including early Christianity) and Greco-Roman society, homosexuality was rejected as an acceptable form of human sexuality. While found more in the Roman world than in the Jewish, homosexuality never gained widespread acceptance in either.

Some would suggest a more accepting attitude regarding homosexuality existed in Rome. Consider, though, the views of Juvenal, one of the fathers of Latin Satire. Curiously, Juvenal’s Second Satire was devoted to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. According to Leland D. Peterson in New Oxford Review, an on-line news service, "Juvenal recognized in the secularized, godless Rome of his day, same-sex ‘marriage’ [was] not merely a crime against Nature and a corruption of marriage and the family, not merely a symptom of moral decline, but a function of a morally sick society . . ." Juvenal’s satirical treatise on noted homosexuals of his day was scathing and bitter.

The Roman historian Suetonius (70-130 AD) presented another view of the moral decline of the empire. He wrote Lives of the Twelve Caesars during the reign of Hadrian as a compilation of the biographies of Rome’s leading emperors. Many were described in all of their immoral glory. A special case was Nero. Nero "married" Sporus, a young Roman boy, whom Nero dressed as a woman and had castrated. Later, Nero himself was married to his freedman Doryphorus (Nero played the woman’s role in that "marriage").

By the time of Nero, Roman society was in a state of decline, out of which she never climbed. Both Suetonius and Juvenal decried the loss of morality in the Roman Empire, and especially in the city of Rome itself. As the boundaries that characterized Roman society were crossed, they were lost to the past. Progressively, Rome ceased being Rome. Ultimately, Rome fell.

America cannot continue moving and redefining her cultural boundaries. By devaluing and obscuring the markers that set our society apart from all others, our nation will move relentlessly to a place where America will cease being America.

One of the saddest debates in our history has been over marriage. Why should we need to argue for the primacy of monogamous, heterosexual marriage in the first place? Are we unable to see the uniqueness of that relationship and the unequaled contribution made by heterosexual marriage?

Dare we continue crossing the borders? Do we not see the danger of going to a land in which our concepts of right and wrong will be turned on their heads? If we lose marriage, we will lose ultimately our whole representative democracy. Rome was not defeated by a greater military force from beyond its borders. Rome fell when her cultural boundaries were destroyed from within. Will America share the same fate?

Cooler Temps Redux

The issue of global warming just will not go away. Recently, a group of evangelical Christians signed on to the environmental debate by siding with those who see man as the problem, predict catastrophic climate changes in the future, and propose solutions that would have an equally severe economic impact on America.

Two questions insinuated themselves into my thought processes.

First of all, does a consensus view prevail on the issue of global warming? Second, what should be the response of Christians and churches with regard to global warming? How one answers the first question determines the answer to the second.

A recent article posted on the online version of National Review magazine offered a dissenting view of the popularly held position of human-induced global climatic change. The author, Kenneth Green, pointed out that "some establishment scientists seem to be getting the message that they may have overplayed their hands and become more parody than prophet. In just the last few weeks, two studies in major journals (Nature and Geophysical Research Letters) dump cold water on the high-end horror-story estimates coming out from modelers seeking ever higher-end scenarios to publicize."

He furthered stated that "other scientists seem to have figured out that there’s more than one way to skin a cat. One used to hear near unanimity among the scientists beating the drum of climate alarmism. There was, invariably, only one possible course of action supported by ‘the consensus of scientists’: reducing greenhouse-gas emissions immediately, even if it meant the collapse of national economies. Not any more. On April 18, a group of 90 scientists wrote an open letter to Canada’s prime minister observing that ‘advances in climate science . . . have provided more evidence supporting the need for action and development of a strategy for adaptation for projected changes." The group goes on to emphasize that as ‘mitigation measures will become effective only after many years . . . adaptive strategies are essential and must begin now.’"

In other words, human beings, organized under governmental and scientific institutions, have enough sense to prepare for the changes to come in ways other than those that would devastate the national economies of industrialized nations. Human societies, especially modern ones in the western world, have shown remarkable skill in correcting their problems in creative and effective ways.

Now, question two: what about Christians and the environment? Personally speaking, groups who are radically committed to an issue engender in me a degree of mistrust. I am suspicious of anyone who is so ardent in their views as to suggest that all of life’s ills have a single cause and can be solved by their solution alone. Thus, I remain unconvinced that global warming is all that some would have us believe.

Further, I am intensely suspicious of any issue modern mass media promote from only one perspective. When was the last time a major print or broadcast news source gave even the slightest nod to the notion that global warming might be a natural process, and be one we humans cannot change? You can count the times on one hand and have five fingers left.

So, what about Christians? Believers should be wary of hitching their wagon to any movement founded on principles in conflict with biblical Christianity, as are many radical environmental groups. As hard as any group might try to avoid the stigma, the movement of which it is a part will define said group. Christians who, naively I believe, enter the global warming debate will marginalize themselves in the greater task of biblical Christianity.

Sadly, just when the debate has changed significantly, a group of evangelical leaders jump into the argument. At a time when respected experts in the field of climate and environment are questioning seriously the underlying assumptions of the global warming issue, we might encourage responsible stewardship of creation without aligning ourselves with those who appear to be wholly antagonistic to traditional Christianity.

If we humans are the problem, we cannot be the answer to the problem. If we have created the problem, or some part of it, we then can and should provide a range of solutions. From the standpoint of the Bible, all human beings have a problem, namely, sin. God has invited us to be a part of the solution. Christians often must do a balancing act so as to not compromise our integrity and reputation. Buying into popular issues may tilt us in the wrong direction. Thus, we limit our effectiveness as heralds of the gospel.

The Prayer of DaVinci

No, I do not have a copy of a cryptic prayer offered by Leonardo to whatever god or goddess he believed in. What I do have are questions about the reaction to The DaVinci Code by the Christian community at large. Can a precedent be found that would enable us to understand a little better how we are handling the current debate engendered by Brown’s book and the upcoming film, based on The DaVinci Code (starring no less a cinema giant than Tom Hanks - surely, that makes the movie believable)?

A contemporary literary phenomenon, albeit with the opposite effect of Brown’s book, that shows how Christians are suckered by hype is The Prayer of Jabez, by Bruce Wilkinson. I have two observations about Jabez that have a parallel in DaVinci (aside from the fact that both books have really nifty titles). First of all, a look at the content of Wilkinson’s book reveals the same kind of poor research and faulty theology as one finds in Brown’s work. Although not to the same degree as Brown, Wilkinson based his book on popular theology, not real biblical theology.

Wilkinson proposed that if one prays Jabez’s prayer everyday, God will bless him in a variety of ways. Number one, prayer is not a way of making God "work." Such an approach to prayer falls into the realm of pagan mysticism and magic. Regardless of what we do, God is not required to act in any particular manner. In other words, God is not like a coke machine: you don’t insert 60¢ and automatically get what you want.

Second, Wilkinson totally misrepresented the nature of blessing. The Bible never uses the word blessing or any of its derivatives in the way Wilkinson did in The Prayer of Jabez. According to Wilkinson, blessings are material things or incidents that one receives only because he asks. Well, how about Ephesians 1.3? Paul stated that God has "blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places." Or, take Galatians 3.9, where Paul wrote that "those who are of faith are blessed with Abraham, the believer." So, do we need to ask for what is already ours? Further, does Wilkinson’s view of blessing match up with Paul’s? I think not. Yet, millions of readers uncritically accepted Wilkinson’s views.

Another similarity between Jabez and DaVinci is the amount of money made off both the books. Further, stacks of books, truckloads of trinkets, and gigabytes of data on CDs and DVDs have been generated by these two books. Millions and millions of dollars have made in one case by what is, essentially, a lie masquerading as the truth. In the other, well-intentioned, but mistaken interpretations of Scripture were promoted as binding truth. In both cases, many believers and unbelievers alike were caught up in the frenzies. Just as with DaVinci, Jabez made tons of money, and no one ever questioned the rightness of such an endeavor. Ironically, few pray the prayer of Jabez any longer, and all the cute Jabez novelties gather dust or waste away in the local landfill. So, too, will be the case with The DaVinci Code and its associated products.

In response to The DaVinci Code, as with the reaction to The Prayer of Jabez, believers have responded in a manner opposite to what should have been. Rightly, we have reacted negatively to Brown; yet, the reaction has been way over the line. To hear some, you would think a stake was driven through the heart of Christianity by Dan Brown. Rightfully, many have questioned Brown’s assumptions and and conclusions. Sadly, some of the works written in response to The DaVinci Code, such as one book I read, are as poorly written as Brown’s book.

Even more ironical was the response to Jabez. Because Bruce Wilkinson has the stature he does among evangelicals, none were willing to take him to task over his book. Mainly, few criticized The Prayer of Jabez because, some argued, the book was "doing so much good for so many people." How can poor theology and shoddy biblicism help anyone? Wilkinson surely was well-intentioned, but still was guilty of misunderstanding the Bible’s teachings.

I think that in six months or so, no one will be talking about The DaVinci Code. Most will have moved on to the next literary fad. Just as The Prayer of Jabez faded away into anonymity, so, too, will The DaVinci Code. The true biblical message will never fade away. We are faced daily with life’s challenges. We need to know how to maneuver through the ethical mine fields of today’s world. Only the Truth of Scripture can give us the guidance we need.

Perhaps, if we Christians show more consistency between what we say and do, and if strive for greater biblical accuracy in what we teach, a lesser need will exist to combat fad theologies. Rest assured, we will be confronted by another popular book that will espouse some biblically inaccurate point of view. Will we be ready?