One holy catholic Church...

Every Sunday, right before we take communion at my church, we repeat the words of the Apostle’s Creed. I must confess, sometimes I drone through them without really considering what they mean. However, many times lately the words "I believe in… the holy catholic Church…" have stuck in my mind. Believing that the catholic Church (that is, universal Church) is holy is tough, especially when those in the Church hurt me, hurt those I love, or embarrass me; but they are Jesus’ bride and my people, the "holy catholic Church."

Ronald Rolheiser, in his book The Holy Longing, wrote that "to be connected to the church is to be associated with scoundrels, warmongers, fakes, child-molesters, murderers, adulterers, and hypocrites of every description. It also, at the same time, identifies you with saints and the finest persons of heroic soul within every time, country, race, and gender…because the church always looks exactly as it looked at the original crucifixion, God hung among thieves." Most days I am one of those thieves and no one in their right mind would want to confess me as one of their own. There are other days, only by the grace of God, where I show a glimpse of the "heroic soul" that Mr. Rolheiser wrote about and someone might dare to claim me. Jesus, however, claims me and loves me on all those days, which means I need to do the same for the rest of His Church, His bride.

Loving the Church is hard sometimes. All of us know what it is like to be embarrassed or ticked off by someone in our family but they are our family and we love them. Well, the Church is my spiritual family (with whom I will spend eternity) and there are a lot more of them than in a normal family. There are millions, which means many more opportunities to be embarrassed or ticked off. I heard about a Christian congressman in Florida who wanted to make some law that would force all the science books to be rewritten to say that the earth is the center of the solar system. He claimed that the heliocentric model was all a sham and he tried to prove it from a gross misuse of the Bible. That really burns me up, but Jesus claims him as part of His bride so I cannot disown him. Every time I look at Joel Osteen I want to smack that annoying smile off his face and staple his lips shut, but (this may sound radical but I think it is true) he belongs to Jesus so he belongs to me. John Wesley used to really get under my skin (even though he has been dead for more than 200 years) until I started to read his journals and things like, "Everybody who belongs to Jesus belongs to everybody who belongs to Jesus." He is right.

Being connected to the millions of the Church also means many more opportunities to be pleased and encouraged by "heroic souls." I could mention the hundreds of Christian organizations that fight hunger, sex trafficking, and all other sorts of injustice but that would be too obvious. I would rather write about my professor's fourteen-year-old daughters who love to sit and talk with the elderly at their church because his daughters "like to hear them talk about Jesus." That makes me proud. I would rather talk about how my church loves on the marginalized in our city—the men on the street, the addicts, and transgendered, to name a few. That makes me proud. I would rather talk about my hero, Steve Brown, who runs two ministries that could easily take up all his time and yet he still takes the time to mentor young seminarians like me. He gets a lot of flak from many Christians (some in my denomination) because of his radical (biblical) teaching on grace but he does not retaliate (no matter how much he may want to) and practices what he preaches by giving them grace. He makes me proud. I have several missionary friends preaching the gospel in countries where there is civil unrest or it is a capital crime. They make me proud.

Entering into a covenant relationship with Jesus means being a part of His bride, the "holy catholic Church." He is a lot more accepting than I would be if I were Him, but that is why He is God and I am not. I may not always like her but the Church is His bride so I must love her. She is an ugly bride, no doubt, but she is loved dearly by Him and will one day be fully conformed to His likeness. Until then, she is still my people and I can never forget that.

By His Grace,
Taylor

The Hydra of Humility

"During my afternoon 'meditations,'—which I at least attempt quite regularly now—I have found out ludicrous and terrible things about my own character. Sitting by, watching the rising thoughts to break their necks as they pop up, one learns to know the sort of thoughts that do come.
"And, will you believe it, one out of every three is the thought of self-admiration: when everything else fails, having had its neck broken, up comes the thought 'what an admirable fellow I am to have broken their necks!”' I catch myself posturing before the mirror, so to speak, all day long. I pretend I am carefully thinking out what to say to the next pupil (for his good, of course) and then suddenly realize I am really thinking how frightfully clever I'm going to be and how he will admire me...
"And then when you force yourself to stop it, you admire yourself for doing that. It is like fighting the hydra... There seems to be no end to it. Depth under depths of self-love and self-admiration." ~ C. S. Lewis in a letter to his friend Arthur

True humility has always been a struggle of mine. When I say "true humility" I do not mean the attitude where one is always telling everyone how lowly they are. I mean the kind of humility that Tim Keller calls "blessed self-forgetfulness" which is not thinking less of yourself but thinking of yourself less. This subject and quote has been on my mind a lot lately because I just recently I preached a sermon on it at my church, St. Paul's Presbyterian Church. If you are interested in hearing more thoughts on it you can listen to the sermon here (or if you like you can read my transcript here) but if not, I hope the Lewis quote is enough to get you thinking about true humility on your own.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Book Review: "Wired for Intimacy" by William M. Struthers

My normal writing pattern for this blog is to quote a short saying (hence the name) from someone (whether in a written work, an audio recording, or a video) and then give my thoughts on it. I have decided to add another dimension to my blog and start posting book reviews. My hope is that my readers will find them helpful in choosing works to read or recommend to a friend on various subjects.

The first book I have reviewed is Wired for Intimacy: How Pornography Hijacks the Male Brain. I chose to read and review this work for an ethics class that I took at my seminary because pornography has infiltrated our culture and, I would argue, severely damaged it.

It is difficult to deny that pornography is one of the biggest challenges facing Christian men in today’s society. Statistics say that one out of every three men is addicted to pornography and those numbers do not change when only Christian men are considered in the study. Many books have been written on the subject of how deal with this moral issue. Dr. William M. Struthers takes a different approach from the standard in this book. He examines the biological effects that pornography has on the brain and then offers a view of how it can be addressed in the Church while taking into account what neuroscience has revealed. Dr. Struthers “exposes false assumptions and casts a vision for a redeemed masculinity, showing how our sexual longings can actually propel us toward holiness in our bodies.”

Pornography is choking the Church. Men and women, leaders and lay people are all affected by this parasite and many have given up because they do not think there is any hope. Leaders in the church (especially those who focus on men’s ministries) need to learn how to address sexual addiction with wisdom and grace. It needs to be able to be exposed to the light because while hidden, fighting it alone is like fighting a hydra. I believe this book will give men and women alike valuable insight into the biological effects of this ethical issue and connect those to biblical truths about proper sexuality and God-honoring male-female relationships.

Posting my entire review of the book would make for a very long post so I have made it available for reading or download on my Google Documents account here. As a spoiler, here is my final, concluding paragraph:

My overall opinion of this book is very positive. It approaches a subject that has been written on many times in Christian literature and manages to bring many new insights to the conversation. There are some minor disagreements that I have with Dr. Struthers, but they do not affect the overall usefulness of the book. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in a holistic view of pornography and healthy male sexuality but especially to church leaders. Church leaders have the daunting task of counseling men struggling with pornography and I believe this book will give them invaluable insight in that effort. I would make the above recommendations with one caution. I would not recommend that someone struggling with pornography read this book early on in their recovery. Dr. Struthers is very blunt about several things (and rightfully so) and some of what he says could be a major temptation to one still struggling.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Redefining the Chemistry of Life?

"The way I like to think about this organism is that it's an extremophile. They've discovered a new extremophile... This is an organism that they have discovered that would prefer phosphorus but can make use of arsenic if it is present... Just because life exists under extreme conditions doesn't mean that it is more likely to originate under those conditions than more moderate conditions... Whether... high temperature, high acid, high alkalinity, high salinity, or high radiation environments, all those circumstances... will actually disrupt pre-biotic chemistry needed to generate life and this would be the same situation. Just because it exists under high arsenate conditions does not mean it could originate under those conditions." ~ Dr. Fazale "Fuz" Rana

Last month there were a bunch of headlines floating around touting a discovery made by NASA astrobiology research fellow Felisa Wolfe-Simon ("Fe Lisa" or "Iron Lisa") that she and her team published in Science. A few popular headlines were "Arsenic-eating microbe may redefine chemistry of life", "Microbe Finds Arsenic Tasty; Redefines Life", or (my favorite) "Arsenic-Eating Bacteria Opens New Possibilities for Alien Life". A few of you out there have asked me about this privately and I have given some short answers, but I have wanted to write up a more detailed comment on this work for the last month. Because December was so busy, as I am sure it was for all of you, I have not gotten to it until now. Of course, that might be a good thing because I have now had the chance to read the paper and look at some peer criticism of how this was communicated to the public. But, now that I have a little time, here it goes...

Before we get into the actual paper and discovery, I would like to talk a little about the history of thought in chemistry and biology that led to this research and Dr. Wolfe-Simon's discovery. This is going to get a little bit technical but I will do my best to explain it clearly and it is necessary to talk about this discovery.

Life as we know it has six major elements that are crucial for it: carbon, hydrogen, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and sulfur. You might see these abbreviated as CHNOPS because they are commonly talked about as a group in reference to life. These particular elements are among the most abundant in the universe and have unique chemical properties that allow them to assemble into complex, stable molecules that can then further aggregate into complex, stable super-systems (DNA and RNA would be examples of these) to create an organism. Most scientists today believe that life must have these elements to exist. There are, however, a few that believe life could possibly be built on an alternative biochemistry. For example, it has been suggested that silicon could replace carbon or, in the case of this discovery, arsenic could replace phosphorus.

Why these particular replacements? Well that has to do with the chemistry of the elements in the Periodic Table (PT). The PT is one of the greatest achievements of science (I say that even though I am a physicist, not a chemist) and one of the reasons I say that is because of its construction. One can look at the PT and get a lot of information about the elements just by the position of those elements in the table. For example, elements in the same column have similar chemical properties. The closer they are, the more similar the chemistry. That is what is important for our purposes here. Take a look at the cutout from the PT on the left. Carbon's chemical symbol is C, silicon's is Si, and silicon is right below carbon in the PT, which shows us that there are chemically similar. Phosphorus' chemical symbol is P, arsenic's chemical symbol is As, and arsenic is right below phosphorus in the PT, which, again, tells us that they too are chemically similar. Some scientists think that the chemistry may be similar enough to represent possibilities for alternate biochemistries other than CHNOPS. Perhaps one could replace Si for C, thus the biochemistry would be SiHNOPS or perhaps As could replace P creating a CHNOAsS biochemistry. It is this kind of thinking that motivated the study.

Before we go further to the pertinent study, a few words need to be said about phosphorus and arsenic since they are the important elements for this particular discovery. In nature phosphorus primarily exists as phosphates (an ion with four oxygen atoms bound to a phosphorus atom). In this form, phosphorus plays an extremely important role in biochemistry. It is crucial to a number of biochemical functions (like regulating protein activity and the formation of the cell membrane) and biomolecules (like DNA, RNA, and metabolites). It has been generally thought that it is phosphorus' unique qualities that allow it to play an integral role in all of these functions but, as described above, arsenic is chemically very similar to phosphorus. Could arsenates (similar to phosphates) serve the above functions?

Arsenic does form into arsenates (an ion with four oxygen atoms bound to an arsenic atom) but they are toxic. Since arsenates are so similar to phosphates, organisms can incorporate them into biomolecules but since they are different from phosphates, the bonds in those biomolecules created with arsenates (instead of phosphates) will become unstable and break down, creating havoc in the metabolic system of the organism. So arsenate is similar enough to phosphate to be allowed into the cell but dissimilar enough that, once incorporated, the cell starts to break down. If this happens on a large enough scale the organism will die. So, life should not be capable of existing in an arsenate system.

This brings us to this discovery by Dr. Wolfe-Simon and her team. First, I would like to say that this is very impressive work. These scientists should be commended for this discovery and they should be proud of themselves for opening up the door to what will probably be years of fascinating research on this organism and others like it. That being said, the discovery as portrayed to the media and the general public is overblown. This newly discovered organism is not an "arsenic-based" organism, it does not find "arsenic tasty", and it is not really as "alien" as it is made out to be.

So, what did they discover? Well, Dr. Wolfe-Simon and her team went to Mono Lake in CA to search for bacteria that use arsenic. They chose Mono Lake because it has an extraordinarily high phosphorus and arsenic content so any bacteria found there would at least have to be able to deal with arsenic. They discovered a strain of bacteria, that they labeled GFAJ-1, which appears to be able to use arsenates and phosphates to grow. They then wanted to see if it could survive only with arsenates. In order to test this, they took GFAJ-1 from the lake (where the environment has high levels of phosphorus and arsenic) into their lab and put it in an environment with no phosphates and lots of arsenates. They did this to try to force the bacteria to use only arsenates, if it could, since phosphates were not available at all. They found that GFAJ-1 did survive and appeared to be incorporating arsenates into its biochemistry. Now, since the bacteria was formed in the lake with phosphorus and arsenic, they have not yet proven that it can completely substitute arsenates for phosphates because the bacteria still had plenty of phosphates to run critical systems. They did, however, show that it appears that at least some of the cells functions were using arsenates instead of phosphates, which was thought to be impossible. Through a process known as fractionation they found evidence that the arsenates were being used by GFAJ-1 in proteins, nucleic acids (DNA and RNA), and metabolites. The bacteria was even able to grow and reproduce under these conditions. Conventional biochemical knowledge says that GFAJ-1 should have died because the arsenates should have destabilized almost its entire metabolic system. With all this data, however, the conclusion that this bacteria appears to be able to do what was thought impossible--incorporate arsenates into its biochemistry, stabilize the arsenates (through a yet-to-be-determined mechanism), and survive--seems plausible (though it is also possible that this bacteria could simply be strongly resistant to arsenates).

Did they show that this life is "alien" or discover something that "redefines" the chemistry of life? No, they did not. Let me explain why. Assuming they are right that GFAJ-1 really is incorporating arsenates into its biochemistry: 

• First, even though the organism was able to survive under the extreme arsenate-rich and phosphate-poor environment, it was far from thriving like it did in Mono Lake where phosphate was readily available. The bacteria grew very slowly, reproduced at a proverbial snail's pace, and had a very distorted growth morphology. What is going on here is not completely clear yet, but these issues in the growth of the bacteria show that it probably has some kind of machinery in place to stabilize arsenates yet would prefer phosphates. So while the bacteria can survive in an arsenate-rich environment, it certainly prefers phosphates and will only thrive with phosphates.
• Second, there has been no long-term experiment done to see how long this bacteria can survive under these conditions. The bacteria began with phosphates since it was taken from Mono Lake. As it reproduced in the lab those phosphates were divided up to run critical systems. It is highly possible, as some critics has suggested, that colony could die off after it has spread its phosphate supply too thin. 
• Third, this finding is not proof that there is any bacteria naturally doing this. It only shows that it this bacteria seems to have a mechanism that allows it to use arsenate when it has to. It could potentially do it naturally (no one is sure how long it can) but this is certainly not proof that there are lifeforms regularly doing this.
• Fourth, the team had to create an arsenic-rich, phosphorus-poor environment. Finding a natural environment like this where biochemistry would have to be completely redefined is highly unlikely. Why? Because phosphorus is much more abundant in our universe than arsenic. In the earth's crust there is 667 times more phosphorus than arsenic. In the rest of our known universe there is 2500 times for phosphorus than arsenic. These abundances show that it is highly improbable that there would ever be a naturally occurring environment anywhere in the universe with all arsenic and no phosphorus that would cause life's chemistry to be redefined in a way similar to GFAJ-1.

What is the bottom-line? If it is not "alien" and does not "redefine" life's chemistry, what kind of organism is it? As I quoted from Dr. Rana above, it is (at best) an extremophile--organisms that can grow and survive under extreme conditions like high temperatures, high acidity, or, in this case, environments with high amounts of toxic arsenates. To get a little more specific, it could be a facultative arsenophile, which means it seems that it can use arsenic when necessary. Organisms are either obligatory or facultative. The former means they require a particular set of conditions to live. The latter means that the organism can make use of something if it is present under extreme conditions but do not prefer it. For example, e. coli is a facultative anaerobe, meaning that it would prefer an environment with oxygen but can, if necessary, survive in an oxygen-poor environment. In this case, GFAJ-1 being a facultative arsenophile means that it seems to make use of arsenic under extreme conditions. It is not an organism that has a "redefining" biochemistry, it is not an "arsenic-base" organism, it does not find "arsenic tasty;" at best it an extremophile that can possibly make use of arsenic when it is the only thing available in the environment but its preference would be phosphate.

Before I wrap this post up, I want to comment on one more thing that I quoted from Dr. Rana above. It has been suggested that this type of organism could represent an alternate way that life could emerge. Sorry, but this kind of organism does not provide a different possible pathway for life to originate. The reason why Dr. Rana says that, and I agree, is because this type of organism not only has the biochemistry of normal bacteria but has extra mechanisms that allow it to live under the harsh condition of excess arsenic. In short, it is an organism that is significantly more complex than normal bacteria that is based on phosphates alone. Arsenate is unstable, so unless you already have in place mechanisms that could stabilize the arsenates, there is no way life could form with arsenates. Origin of life in an arsenate system (vs. a phosphate system) is a significantly more complex pathway and even more improbable than the existing, phosphate-based origin of life scenarios. The same is true for all extremophiles. In fact, there have been papers written by other biologists arguing this point.

So what has Dr. Wolfe-Simon's done? She and her team have done some excellent research and made a fascinating discovery but they have not redefined anything or discovered something alien. What they have done is open the door for much more research in this area. There are still a lot of questions to be answered about this bacteria. Is GFAJ-1 really using the arsenates or just surviving as best it can in such an environment? If so, how are the arsenates stabilized? What do the molecules that incorporate arsenate look like? Could a DNA molecule with arsenate instead of phosphate be made in the lab?

By His Grace,
Taylor