"The Big Picture Story Bible"

"The Big Picture Story Bible" was one of the gifts we received when Cora was born. While I am not privy to the many children's bibles that exist, I must say that this is an excellent one. It gives a broad sweep of God's plan of redemption. This children's bible properly maintains the centrality of Christ to redemptive history and captures the drama of many of the OT stories by keeping little ears alert to Christ's relationship to these great OT characters. There is even a chapter that explains how Christ fulfilled the promises of the OT. This book brings the bible together in a way that I did not understand until seminary.

Sarah and I are already reading the bible to Cora because, at the suggestion of a former pastor, we do not want Cora to remember a time when we did not read scripture with her. For parents looking for a children's bible, I highly recommend this one. My only quibble is that the illustrator put too many white people in the pictures. I am not sure that the Ancient Middle East had too many redheads running around--although Esau was "red." Otherwise, I really enjoy the illustrator's artwork, especially the sly fox that seems to always make an appearance.

More on "Expelled"

I don't want to devote this blog to all things "Expelled," but I ran across the most helpful review yet. Thanks again to Justin Taylor.

"Expelled"

(Note: When I refer to "Darwinists," I am referring to the atheist variety. There are many theists that support Darwinism.)

Lots of mudslinging and name-calling has accompanied the release of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. Having followed some of the reviews, blogs, and message boards, I have heard deafening barks, but little bite.

Many comments suggest that Expelled is trying to sneak faith (or God) into science. Regarding this charge, the narrator, Ben Stein, tactfully nudged the Darwinian interviewees back to their faith commitments, pressuring them until they spewed out beliefs in crystals and aliens "seeding" our planet. The point was clear: All have faith commitments. Whether one believes in God, aliens, or crystals, all are exercising faith. And these scientists are allowing this faith to inform their science. They are not opposed to faith (e.g. crystals and aliens work) but faith of a particular kind.

Another criticism came from a New York Times review of the film, which called the documentary one of the "sleaziest" in a long time. The reviewer states that the film ignores "the vital distinction between social and scientific Darwinism." The reviewer is referring to the film's suggestion that Darwinism had a part to play in legitimating the Holocaust. It seems to me that to make a sharp distinction between scientific and social Darwinism, as this reviewer does, is to undermine scientific Darwinism. If naturalistic, Darwinian evolution is true (and if we are intellectually honest) then its implications should be pushed to every aspect of life, including society. The film is not saying that all Darwinian proponents are bloodthirsty Nazis. It is suggesting that Darwinian science provides a compelling justification for genocide. And Nazi rhetoric was undoubtedly laced with Darwinian ideas. The person that divorces scientific Darwinism from social Darwinism is being inconsistent. They are, in other words, employing the fact/value split (see below). Rather than call the link between the Holocaust and Darwinism unfair, even preposterous, what I'd like to see a cogent critique of genocide from a Darwinian position.

These are just a couple of challenges or charges I have encountered while following the film’s release. Ironically, the vehement criticism over this film gives clout to its main point: a bullying majority refuses to allow other voices to be heard. This majority refuses to even allow debate over Intelligent Design because they are allowing their presuppositions (philosophical materialism) to tape-off the boundaries of what counts as science. This is not science. And I wonder how much this suppression is stymieing the progress of science. Also, the palpable anger over Expelled leads one to wonder whether this issue is really about science, as many Darwinists insist. Instead, it seems this debate is about deeply entrenched faith commitments.

Justin Taylor has pointed out two reviews of the film worth reading, one by Michael Patton and the other by Douglas Groothuis.

Oklahoma City Bison?

Sounds like the Seattle Sonics are coming to OKC. Great news for Okies who do not currently have a pro-team, but proved they could support one when the exiled Hornets came to town.

There's been talk about what to name OKC's team. Perhaps the worst suggestion I've heard is the Vipers. My personal favorite is the Oklahoma City Bison. This animal is amazing. Its an American icon emblematic of brute strength and speed. It is also region-appropriate.

The Fact/Value Split

I am currently teaching a class at our church based on Nancy Pearcey’s Total Truth. One of the key issues Pearcey discusses is the insidious fact/value split. The world we (i.e. Americans) inhabit tends to filter everything through this fact/value grid. Religion is one of the subjects lumped into the value category. A subject like science, on the other hand, falls into the fact category. It is assumed that values, like religion, are fine for the private realm but not fit for the public realm. Instead, the public realm is open for discussions on matters of fact.

This fact/value division became very clear to me while assisting at an elementary school a couple of years ago. I was sitting in on a fifth grade science class that was learning about the origin of the universe. One of the students asked about God. I was intrigued. How would this teacher respond? The teacher’s response was that the “God” question is a matter of opinion and something that the student needed to discuss at home with their parents. Here was the fact/value division rearing its ugly head and, in the process, communicating to a classroom of fifth graders that the question of God, unlike issues of science, was an opinion to be handled in the privacy of one’s home.

This fact/value assumption is also a way in which Christians are tuned out. Consider the ’04 presidential debate. One of the questions came from a Catholic lady in the audience who wanted to know why Kerry supported the killing of unborn babies. Kerry’s response was something like: ‘I understand and respect your position, but…’ I don’t recall exactly how Kerry affirmed abortion after the “but,” but that doesn’t really matter. What matters is that with this “but” Kerry was nullifying the comments of this lady and subtly sliding them into the value realm. Essentially, Kerry relied on this fact/value split in order to avert this lady’s question. Kerry said that the lady had a fine opinion, a fine value but it was just that—a value. Interestingly, no one seemed to question this sleight of hand.

Be on the lookout for this fact/value division. In the coming months, as the presidential race thickens, this divide will surface. During a debate this last week there was irritation from the Obama camp over the "irrelevant" questions bombarding Barack. Some questions included issues related to his pastor, Jeremiah Wright. All the chagrin over the questions' relevancy are perhaps rooted in this fact/value division. We assume that these types of questions--mostly related to "private" life (value)--are irrelevant to public life (fact). Bridge the chasm and many of these questions become entirely appropriate.

I wonder, too, whether a culture that treats religion like a beverage or ice cream flavor (i.e. preference/value) will be adept enough to grapple with the global, religious issues that have elbowed their way into public life. Like it or not, the value became fact following 9/11. Of course, its immediate effects were devastating. Its long-term effects, however, are still playing out. And it will be interesting to see how well this fact/value split will hold-up in our post-9/11 age.

Gov. Henry veto

Oklahoma is passing a bill that would require anyone having an abortion to also have an ultrasound prior to the procedure. Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry vetoed the bill (Okla. legislature later overrode Henry’s veto) because, Henry says, “By forcing the victims of such horrific acts (i.e. cases of rape and incest) to undergo and view ultrasounds after they have made such a difficult and heartbreaking decision, the state victimizes the victim for a second time. It would be unconscionable to subject victims of rape and incest to such treatment. Because of this critical flaw, I cannot in good conscience sign this legislation.”

Looking at the message boards for this story, it is clear that a lot of abortion supporters are strongly opposed to this bill. I believe abortion is wrong. Humans beget humans, not blobs. The fetus is a human even though it might not look human. Historically, Americans have struggled with this. For much of American history blacks were considered less than human—chattel property—because they looked different than whites (Stand to Reason resources alerted me to this connection). If the unborn baby is human, then to take its life is to kill a human. That seems pretty straightforward. (For a concise, lucid pro-life appeal, read Sherif Girgis' letter to Barack Obama).

Putting these convictions aside for a moment, the opposition to this bill seems suspicious. Why would abortion advocates oppose a bill giving pregnant women all the information possible? Always be wary of one who seeks to hide information from you. That is what many abortion proponents wish to do by opposing this bill. It reminds me of fast food places wanting to resist divulging their nutritional information to the public. Why? Because if we knew the inordinate amount of calories and heart attack-inducing cholesterol contained in just one bite of their burgers we’d probably avoid them.

I do not want to be blithe about the trauma that accompanies women considering abortion. We, Christians, would do well to apply the same zeal we have for the unborn to their hurting mothers. Amidst this turmoil, however, I believe the answer is not destruction but redemption. It seems odd that either side of the debate would oppose a bill helping one understand the reality of the situation more clearly.

Cultural Engagement

Gordon-Conwell alum and pastor of Austin City Life, Jonathan Dodson, has written a good article on cultural engagement. Well worth the reading.

A Freudian Slip

Life without God is difficult to sustain. I was reminded of this when re-reading a section of The Question of God: C.S. Lewis and Sigmund Freud Debate God, Love, Sex, and the Meaning of Life by Armand M. Nicholi, Jr. In this book, Nicholi pits the thinking of Lewis (the theist) against Freud (the atheist) and comes up with a fascinating debate.

One of the more interesting moments in the book is when Nicholi brings to light some of Freud's letters. Curiously, these letters are laced with references to God. Here are excerpts from Freud's letters that Nicholi provides:

'I passed my examinations with God's help'; 'if God so wills'; 'the good Lord'; 'until after the Resurrection'; 'science seems to demand the existence of God'; 'God's judement'; 'God's will'; 'God's grace'; 'God above'; 'if someday we meet above'; 'in the next world'; 'my secret prayer.' In a letter to Oskar Pfitser, Freud writes that Pfister was 'a true servant of God' and 'was in the fortunate position to lead (others) to God.' (51)

Huh? Odd words coming from an atheist. Nicholi continues:

Can we not dismiss all this as merely figures of speech--common in English as well as in German? Yes, if it were anyone but Freud. But Freud insisted that even a slip of the tongue had meaning. (51)

Oops.

These glaring examples underscore the difficulty of maintaining a purely materialistic view of the world. This is because life without God sucks the humanity out of us. When we lose God, we lose ourselves. For the atheist, maintaining one's humanity means becoming a bundle of contradictions. I will close with another excerpt from Nicholi's book. Lewis says regarding his atheist days:

I was at this time living, like so many atheists...in a whirl of contradictions. I maintained that God did not exist. I was also very angry with God for not existing. I was also equally angry with Him for creating a world...why should creatures have the burden of existence forced on them without their consent? (51)

Two Books

I ran across two books that would be worth checking out:

1) Conceiving Parenthood: American Protestantism and the Spirit of Reproduction, by Amy Laura Hall. Biotechnology has made the "designer baby" possible. Hall looks at the role of mainline Protestantism in fueling our desire for uber-children. Sounds intriguing.

2) The Courage to Be Protestant: Truth-Lovers, Marketers, and Emergents in the Postmodern World, by David F. Wells. It sounds like this may cap Wells' corpus on evangelicalism and contemporary culture (But I thought Above All Earthly Pow'rs did, so who knows). I thoroughly enjoy Wells' writing. Like bubblegum, his books take years to digest. Unlike bubblegum, the pilgrim wearied by life in the modern (purportedly postmodern) world can find sustenance with Wells' writing.

"Shout to the Lord" on Idol

I confess: I watch American Idol. And it is extremely entertaining for me. I did not, however, see the “Idol Gives Back” episode Wednesday but learned Thursday that the Idol crew sang an evangelical favorite, “Shout to the Lord.” Admittedly, I was a bit bumfuzzled. What are we to make of this? I know that it strikes a chord with folks when a bouncing or swaying Gospel choir sings spiritual-sounding songs. But this seemed different. This song clearly establishes the Lordship of Christ and seems more explicit than many other spiritual favorites that have enjoyed the big stage. And this song is relatively new, unlike “Amazing Grace” (a wonderful hymn), which often gets a hearing at these types of events.

I think Vincent Miller’s Consuming Religion might shed some light on this enigma. For Miller, commodification is the end result of a consumer culture. Those enveloped in consumption tend to commodify things. For example, Miller would say that when we buy a banana we do not see the banana in its context. To us, the thing seems to have fallen from the sky and magically landed on the appropriate aisle of the grocery store. We fail to realize the rich web of events that got that banana to the store, that is, the environment, politics, and the very lives that gave us this banana. In other words, the banana has been abstracted from its embeddedness in a wider, more complex context. That is what Miller means by commodification. The interpretative habits that we acquire from this culture of consumption tend to spill over into other spheres, like religion—which is Miller’s primary concern.

I think our tendency to commodify things is what made “Shout to the Lord” work on Idol. It is a moving song, never mind what the song is actually saying. That does not matter. What matters is that the lighting was right, the music was moving, the choir swaying, the Idols’ arms locked, and millions of goose bumps where rising. We wanted a feeling, a moment. Like good consumers, many of the viewers (and performers) that night readily dislodged the song from its theological roots and commodified it in order to spawn a feeling. It was reappropriated a million different ways by a million different hearers. This, of course, has always been a temptation. It is only heightened in our consumption-oriented culture.

What is frightening is the ease with which a worshipful setting was created at Idol. It did not take belief in Jesus to spawn what appeared to be worshippers of Jesus. Applied to the Church, we must be careful that we are truly worshipping the Lord Jesus and not one of the myriad of competing idols.

Note: I recently learned that the song was edited to make it less Christocentric. See also Josh Harris' post on the subject.

"I'm blogging. I'm blogging"

“I’m blogging. I'm blogging.” (think Bill Murray, What About Bob?). This is the start of what will hopefully be a good practice for me. One of our former pastors in Cambridge spoke of worship being rhythmic, likening it to breathing. We exhale (i.e. sing, confess, pray, maybe even teach a Sunday school class). We inhale (i.e. take the Lord's Supper, receive the Word, maybe even sit-in on a Sunday school class). The same can be said of life outside the church walls. Think of this blog as my opportunity to exhale. And hopefully it might provide any cyber-drifters that stumble upon it a breath of fresh, clean cyber-air.

It is called “Fitting the Pieces.” My hope and prayer is that I would cultivate a decidedly Christian consciousness. This blog will assist in this, being a space where I can muse over a variety of things. This blog, in other words, seeks to “fit the pieces” (news, music, movies, child-rearing, politics, art, sports, etc.).