Epigenetics and Original Sin

We tend to think of genetics as set in stone.  Harmful behaviors like smoking or overeating might give us cancer or heart disease, it won't change our DNA.  Our bad behavior will hurt us, but it won't harm our children or grandchildren.  Any change in DNA takes generations.  It's  a comforting thought, and it was the scientific consensus until last year. 

Along comes epigenetics.   Though scientists have know about epigenetic markers since the seventies, recent research suggests that epigenetics maybe as important as DNA. Scientists have discovered that chemical markers that act as switches to turn on certain genes and turn off others are directly affected by our behavior. Using the analogy of a computer, DNA is the hardware, and epigenetic markers are the software.  And we can hack the software. We have long known that our bad behavior can affect our life span, but it seems that our bad behavior can affect our grandchildren through epigenetic mechanisms.

When I read the Time article on epigenetics I immediately thought of the Doctrine of Original Sin.  Is it possible that epigenetics can cause the "sins of the fathers to be visited on the son." Chesterton stated that Original Sin was the only doctrine that was empirically verifiable. Epigenetics shows that the actions of our parents and grandparents are literally stored as chemical information and give us a propensity toward certain disease and possibly behaviors. Maybe science is in agreement with the master of Paradox. 

Can epigenetics enhance our understanding of humanities fallen state and propensity to sin or is this too much speculation?  How do we read the book of nature and the book of scripture together?

The Great Dickens Christmas Fair and Ritual Space

Yesterday Jude and I went to the Dickens Fair at the Cow Palace.  We danced, ate bangers and mash, and Fagan offered to take the young lad off my hands.  It was a jolly good time, and it stimulated thoughts on ritual space and our desire to participate in a collective story.

Aside from the actors, the crowd was a mix of steam punks, neo-Victorians, Dickens fanatics, and families who were looking to have a good time on a Saturday afternoon.  As we entered into Victorian London, each group was given a ritual space to enact their different sub-cultural identities.  Steam punks could visit the legion fantastique. The neo-Victorians could meet the queen herself. While the dickens fans took photos with Pip, Mr. Pickwick, and The Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come, families took their children to meet father Christmas, and enjoyed hot apple cider. 

Each group sub-cultural narrative was incorporated into a larger narrative through the division of space. Together these groups created a an imagined version of Victorian London.  Ultimately we want to maintain our individual identities and participate in and even enact a larger story. The Dickens fair allowed those who attended to do just that. 

Two questions for the church:  1. Can we make use of ritual space help individuals become participants in the larger story of the missio Dei, while maintaining their own identities? Have you come across any creative attempts at this?  2.  What role can narrative theology (particularly the idea of theodrama ) play in interpreting other enacted communities (from comic-con to biker rallies)? In other words can a theology be deducted from the performance of identity?

Saints and Celebrities

I recently read an article discussing the origin of celebrity. The author argues that the first great awakening was not only the birth of evangelicalism in America, but also the birth of celebrity (Jonathan Edwards and George Whitefield as celebrity). Although academics debate the origin of celebrity as a socio-cultural cateogory, it is clear that evangelical leaders have adopted the model of celebrity.Pastors and speakers manage PR machines, or outsource their public personae to firms like WDC Media. Just check the websites of a few evangelical leaders to see how Christian self-promotion functions.*

Conversely, Celebrity can be viewed in continuity with the traditional category of Saint. In Cult of the Saints Peter Brown argues that saints were a physical connection with the divine, even in death (relics). Saints were famous in life, and even more famous in death. People visited their tombs in search of healing and connection to God. Saints served as exemplary figures, and their hagiographies were wildly popular.

When I heard about the masses that came to Strawberry Fields in Central Park to commemorate the thirtieth anniversary of John Lennon's death, the connection between celebrity and sainthood was unavoidable. Celebrities function as physical connections to the gods of vapid materialism and fame.

Can we borrow either of these categories to think about evangelical leaders? How could they be useful in critically examining our leadership practices? What alternative ways are there to understand how leaders function in our market driven, image obsessed culture?

*N.B I chose these links because I respect and identify with all three leaders, have read their books, and am familiar with their fruitful lives.  I am not questioning their effectiveness, I simply want to examine the way in which the social category celebrity works in the evangelical microcosm.

Why am I blogging?

I'm posting this while my leftover pizza is heating in the oven, so this will be short and sweet. I need to get down to the business of stuffing myself with delicious cheese, sauce and bread. To answer my own question, I am blogging because I need an outlet for all of my thoughts other than my wife, and my two year old son. They get tired of hearing about things that I find interesting or intriguing and want me to pawn off my thoughts on a faceless public. It's odd to say that I am blogging because others find me confusing, boring, and otherwise uninteresting, but this appears to be the case.

The blog will focus primarily on theology, sociology, and current events with a religious element. However, I am terribly undisciplined, easily distracted, fascinated by almost everything and form incisive opinions about subjects on which I know very little. In other words I will write about whatever I am reading about, thinking about, or am interested in when I sit down to type.

Enjoy.