Will Going to Church Make You Rich?

I’ve got no patience for the health and wealth gospel peddled by some televangelists. But this article from the Economist is rather intriguing.

Excerpt:

“Some of the occasional churchgoers must wonder whether they might benefit from turning up more often. If they did so, they could gain more than spiritual nourishment. Jonathan Gruber, an economist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, claims that regular religious participation leads to better education, higher income and a lower chance of divorce.”

I’ll be back. Just going to check my bank balance.

What if Christmas Never Happened?

No Christmas means no Christianity. And without Christianity, Western Civilization would have turned out very differently (assuming such a thing as Western Civilization would have existed at all beyond the time of the Roman Empire). Rodney Stark of Baylor University has written a new book: The Victory of Reason: How Christianity Led to Freedom, Capitalism, and Western Success (Random House), where he puts forward the thesis that only in the crucible of Christian Europe could science and capitalism have been produced, with the result that the technological advancements we have today, as wrought by science and capitalism, are being enjoyed by many.

This essay is an adaptation of his book.

Stark writes:

“The success of the West, including the rise of science, rested entirely on religious foundations, and the people who brought it about were devout Christians.”

“For the past several centuries, far too many of us have been misled by the incredible fiction that, from the fall of Rome until about the 15th century, Europe was submerged in the Dark Ages — centuries of ignorance, superstition, and misery — from which it was suddenly, almost miraculously, rescued; first by the Renaissance and then by the Enlightenment. But, as even dictionaries and encyclopedias recently have begun to acknowledge, it was all a lie!”

“It was during the so-called Dark Ages that European technology and science overtook and surpassed the rest of the world. Some of that involved original inventions and discoveries; some of it came from Asia. But what was so remarkable was the way that the full capacities of new technologies were recognized and widely adopted. By the 10th century Europe already was far ahead in terms of farming equipment and techniques, had unmatched capacities in the use of water and wind power, and possessed superior military equipment and tactics. Not to be overlooked in all that medieval progress was the invention of a whole new way to organize and operate commerce and industry: capitalism.”

“Through all prior recorded history, slavery was universal — Christianity began in a world where as much as half the population was in bondage. But by the seventh century, Christianity had become the only major world religion to formulate specific theological opposition to slavery, and, by no later than the 11th century, the church had expelled the dreadful institution from Europe. That it later reappeared in the New World is another matter, although there, too, slavery was vigorously condemned by popes and all of the eventual abolition movements were of religious origins.”

(via Arts and Letters Daily)

Still laughing...

...over this picture.

Bible Translations

New Testament scholar Ben Witherington III has posted some bible recommendations on his blog, although his dislike of the English Standard Version triggered some disagreement in the comments section. His main concern seems to be the issue of gender inclusiveness. And Wayne Leman continues the discussion on his blog.

Alan Jacobs on Lewis

Leave it to Alan Jacobs to write the most interesting article on C.S. Lewis I've read this past week. (via CT Weblog)

Interesting Narnia article

Peter Chattaway has written this article, "The Paganism of Narnia".

Is the hype worth it?

As Sunday’s church bulletin was given to me I could not ignore the front cover: an image from the new Narnia film. At that point I knew something was afoot. I already knew the sermon was going to be Narnia-related. That I have no problem with. Referring to and quoting Lewis, with his many insights into the Christian faith, can be helpful in bringing out a theological point. But with the publication of this bulletin, our church (and I suspect many others) has officially become an arm of the marketing division of the Walt Disney Corporation. The copyright on the back cover (in small print) tells it all. Is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is the effort to hype this film as a ‘Christian story’ missing the point? Hard to say. In the book The Pilgrim’s Guide, Christopher Mitchell, theology professor at Wheaton College and director of the Marion Wade Center, writes:

“The vividness with which Lewis perceived the potential eternal destinies of every man and woman compelled him to direct a greater part of his energies toward the saving of souls. Lewis perceived evangelism to be his lay vocation, and the means by which he expressed this evangelistic impulse were his writing and speaking….Lewis said without qualification that ‘the salvation of a single soul is more important than the production or preservation of all the epics and tragedies in the world’….the idea struck him that the gospel could be ‘smuggled into people’s minds’ by means of fiction….in answer to the question…’Would you say that the aim of…your own writing is to bring about an encounter of the reader with Jesus Christ?’, he replied, ‘That is not my language yet it is the purpose I have in view.’” (pp.3-5)

So, at its core, Narnia seems to be evangelistic work. But, any subtlety that Lewis used in his fictional works is being obliterated by the campaign by churches to get non-Christian friends and relatives into the cineplex. The great thing about his fiction is the way that one could enjoy the story without being aware of the Christian themes in them. Some themes are obvious, some less so. Lewis probably cared more that a good story was being experienced, and if the reader could make a connection with the religious elements, then fine. If not, then too bad. I view all this preaching about the film to be similar to when a writer makes a point in poetry and then is forced to explain herself, in prose, what each line in the poem means. It’s all just so, well, obvious.

On the other hand, I guess one could say, “Who cares?”, or as the Apostle Paul might say, “But what does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, whether from false motives or true, Christ is preached. And because of this I rejoice.”

Anne Rice

In case anyone missed this, Interview with the Vampire author Anne Rice has become a Christian (or at least has returned to her childhood religious beliefs). The thing that impresses me is the careful thinking she did before returning to the Church. She even read a few evangelical scholars and in particular speaks very highly of N.T. Wright.

In Defense of Narnia

In response to the scathing attacks by His Dark Materials author Philip Pullman, Michael Nelson, professor of political science at Rhodes College, has written a brilliant defense of C.S. Lewis and The Chronicles of Narnia by pointing out that neither Lewis nor his stories are racist, sexist, or warmongering. (originally linked at Arts and Letters Daily)

Sermons on Narnia

It turns out that even my pastor has caught Narnia fever. He’s going to do three sermons on C.S. Lewis in December. I suppose it’s easy to have a bandwagon mentality considering the vast coverage that the film is receiving in not only Christian magazines and journals but also in the mainstream media. Unfortunately, one can only do so much in a sermon on a Sunday morning. I would recommend reading the following Hollywood Jesus blog, especially for the analyses of all seven books. And with regard to the life and works of Lewis, one of the best sites is C.S. Lewis: 20th-Century Knight. One could spend a lot of time following all the links to papers and other Lewis sites. Of course, although Lewis is probably my favourite writer (if he isn’t he’s definitely in the top three), there are others who deserve attention. Dostoyevsky, for example. Once you read The Brothers Karamazov you may wonder why you wasted your time on all the pap and fluff that usually passes by one’s eyes. The great mysteries of life are often best explored in works of fiction. Lewis and Dostoyevsky provide some of the best of those works.

Women in the Church

This CT article reminded me of the nasty battles that occur in Christian circles regarding the role of women in the Church as well as in the home. There are two main views: complementarianism and egalitarianism. I pitch my tent in the egalitarian camp. In my view, women can hold any office in the church hierarchy including senior pastor and moderator of the General Assembly. And in the home I don’t think the biblical data supports the concept of male “headship” as it is commonly thought of. Two books I’d recommend (and there are many being published these days by evangelical presses) are Good News for Women: A Biblical Picture of Gender Equality by Rebecca Merrill Groothuis and Women in the Church: A Biblical Theology of Women in Ministry by Stanley Grenz and Denise Kjesbo.

For an excellent online examination, check out this series at the Christian-Thinktank. It’s a bit lengthy so I’d especially recommend reading section 4-Women in the NT and the Early Church, and especially the fourth article, Paul and Women which looks at the controversial passages such as 1 Cor. 11, 1 Cor. 14, 1 Tim. 2, Eph. 5.

Why Bother with Harry Potter

One response that we can expect from certain Christians whenever a new Harry Potter book or film is released is a good old fashioned book burning. Another response is the attempt to ban the book in public or school libraries. Obviously, parents have a right to impose reading restrictions on their own children as they see fit. Other Christians, however, see value in reading the books and viewing the films.

This article from CTMovies provides a brief look at why Christians of all people ought to read the Potter series.

Also worth reading is this First Things article by Alan Jacobs of Wheaton College.

And one of the best websites that looks at the Christian and redemptive themes in the books and films is HogwartsProfessor.com.

Who Made God? Pt.3

Third, one could appeal to the scientific evidence and ask the question, “The universe hasn’t always existed. Where did it come from?” Big bang cosmology tells us that our incredibly fine-tuned universe, all matter, energy and space, had a beginning to its existence. In other words, there was a creation event. Anything that begins to exist has a cause. Therefore, the universe had a cause (and God seems to be the best candidate). We also know that time itself, as Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose discovered around 35 years ago, had a finite beginning concurrent with the big bang. Since space and time are created entities, then whatever, or whomever, created them is not just another spatio-temporal being but would exist outside space and time.

Now, time is the dimension where cause and effect take place, and it is linear. The universe is confined to a single dimension of time moving in only one direction. Anything that begins to exist (such as the universe) has a starting point along this time dimension and is caused by something else. The law of causality tells us that effects follow their causes. But since God created time and is not limited to it, he can operate outside of our time dimension and not be subject to the law of causality. Consequently, if God is not subject to the law of cause and effect, He has no cause or beginning. This means that He has always existed. This is in concord with the traditional concepts of God. He must be eternal and necessary. He depends on nothing else for his existence. Non-theists who object should remember that they have always said that the universe was eternal and uncaused. Unfortunately, the scientific evidence has shown this position to be unacceptable. (Slight digression: And those who appeal to the existence of infinite universes to explain the fine-tuning of our universe are themselves stuck with the question of origins, to wit, where did all those universes come from?)

All three responses to the question of God’s origin, taken together, make for a cumulative case for God as the uncreated, Creator of the universe (Of course, I’ve presented only a short, lay-person written summary. I suggest reading the linked books for more detail). Even if not everybody is satisfied with what I’ve presented, that’s fine. I’m just trying to point out that when it comes to the existence of God and His nature, the realm of science and philosophy is still very much occupied.

Who Made God? Pt.2

Second, one could appeal to the fact that everything in the universe requires, right at this moment, a cause for its existence. Norman Geisler frames the argument like this: 1) Every part of the universe is dependent. 2) If every part of the universe is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent. 3) Therefore, the whole universe is dependent for existence right now on some independent being. (Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 277)

Philosopher William Davis puts it this way: "1) There are contingent things (at least some things might not have existed). 2) All contingent things are dependent (at least for their coming into existence) on something else. 3) Not everything can be dependent on something else. (Even if the chain of dependence looped back on itself, the entire chain would still be dependent, and thus something outside the chain would be needed.) 4) Thus, a nondependent (necessary) thing exists (which explains dependent things). (And for those already familiar with God on the basis of revelation, it is not hard to give a name to this necessary being.)" (Reason for the Hope Within, p.24).

Let’s say that your existence, right now, depends on some other dependent thing. But that dependent thing also is dependent on something else for its existence and so on. This chain of dependency cannot go on forever. An infinite regress is impossible. In Reason and Religious Belief, the authors write, “There cannot be an actually infinite set of anything in reality. Although in mathematics we can speak about actual infinities, mathematical infinities concern only the ideal world of mathematics. If they are applied to the real world, absurdities result. For example, if we had an infinite number of books, this would include all the books beginning with the letter A. Suppose that we also have an infinite number of books that begin with A. Then, though the first set contains the second set and more, both sets have the same number of books. But one would expect that if one set is the subset of the other, the subset would be less than the set. Now if the actual infinite cannot exist, then one cannot appeal to an actual infinite of present causal conditions to explain the existence of any given contingent being. Hence, the causal conditions must contain at least one noncontingent [ie. necessary] causal condition.” (p. 78)

A person could reply by objecting to the second premise of Geisler’s argument: If every part of the universe is dependent, then the whole universe must also be dependent. But, the objector might say, just because every part is dependent that doesn’t necessarily mean the entire universe is dependent. For example, if every player on a basketball team is a good player, that doesn’t necessarily mean the team will be good. So, if the whole is greater than its parts, then the universe need not be dependent even if every part of the universe is dependent; in other words, the universe itself could be a necessary being and, therefore, no creator is required.

In response, it could be pointed out that if every single particle making up the universe suddenly disappeared, it seems reasonable to conclude that the universe itself would also disappear. A counter example would be: if every tile of a floor is blue, then the entire floor will be blue. There are cases where it is legitimate to argue from parts to the whole. And the universe is one of those cases.

Third,...

Who Made God? Pt.1

In an otherwise standard letter about Intelligent Design printed in one of our national newspapers, a philosophy professor (in his support for the teaching of evolution in public schools) ended his letter with:

“Lastly, the appeal to some ‘unmoved mover’ or ‘first cause’ is inherently unsatisfactory since it raises the question of the origin of such an entity. Here we leave the realm of science and philosophy and enter the domain of faith.”

I’ve got no argument with evolutionary biology. I’ll let the scientific community deal with the reliability of the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution.

But the writer’s claim that the question of God’s origin “leaves the realm of science and philosophy to enter the domain of faith” is, I think, somewhat incorrect. Both science and philosophy can tell us something about God. I’m not trying to suggest that science and philosophy can prove with absolute certainty that God exists and is uncaused, only that they can make it more reasonable to believe this than believing its denial. And, it seems that he considers faith as “blind”, that is, believing in what your common sense tells you may be false, or believing in something based not on evidence but on some vague inner feeling. I don’t know how other religions view faith, but the Christian conception of faith is trusting in what one has good reason to believe is true. The reasons for believing can be evidential, though they don’t have to be. They can also be experiential. And the experience can be as clear and convincing as any logical argument or piece of empirical evidence.

In addition, the question “Who made God?” is often intended to be a conversation stopper, as if the questioner has asked the unanswerable. And since there is no answer, there’s no reason to believe in God. I think there are three responses that can be given to the question of who made God. (As usual, my lack of philosophical training makes me prone to making mistakes in logic, so take this for what it’s worth).

First, God, by definition, is a necessary being (ie. is not dependent on anything else for His existence), the uncreated Creator of everything that was created. To ask the question is to make a category mistake. It would be like asking what the note G# tasted like. Notes do not have taste. And an uncreated being cannot be created.

Although I think this first response true, I can see how someone might not be satisfied with it. There is the appearance of rhetorical hand-waving. One could define anything they want and then just refer to the definition. But, there are things in this world that are definitionally described. For example, a bachelor is, by definition, an unmarried man. And the biblical God, if He exists at all, is what theists have always defined as an uncaused necessary being.

Second,...

More C.S. Lewis

C.S. Lewis’ books are selling better now than they ever have. But when I talk to other Christians, very few of them have actually read his works. They may mention The Screwtape Letters or The Chronicles of Narnia (though not all seven volumes). A few have read Mere Christianity. No one I’ve talked to has read Christian Reflections or The Weight of Glory or Miracles or The Pilgrim’s Regress. And this is a shame because Lewis represents the best of what a bridge writer should be. He takes the thoughts of theologians and philosophers and translates them for a lay audience, allowing the passing of a normally unpassable river of arcana with dry feet. Now, I certainly haven’t read all of his works. This will be a lifelong endeavour. I’m making it my goal to read everything Lewis ever wrote (or, at the very least, as much as possible).

Stories about Lewis, such as this one from Newsweek, are all over the place now thanks to the upcoming Narnia film. It’s interesting that he is embraced by Christians from all across the theological spectrum, but especially by evangelicals. The fact that many of his papers and even some of his furniture are housed at the Marion E. Wade Center at evangelical Wheaton College is a testament to Lewis’ influence on evangelicalism. The irony is that this Irish-born, Anglican, pipe-smoking, beer drinking Oxbridge scholar would not, in his day, have been allowed to teach at Wheaton.

On the reading of verses

Every so often I see a personal message (on a birthday card, for example) that ends with Genesis 31:49: “May the LORD keep watch between you and me when we are away from each other.” The message writer presumably is trying to convey the hope that God keeps her and the reader safe during their time apart. The sentiment is nice. Unfortunately, that’s not what the verse means.

In Genesis 31, Jacob has taken his wives, children, servants, and flocks (and unbeknownst to him, Laban’s household idols) and left Laban’s estate to go back to his father’s land. Laban believes that Jacob has been cheating him: “Jacob heard that Laban’s sons were saying, ‘Jacob has taken everything our father owned and has gained all this wealth from what belonged to our father.’” (v.2) According to Jacob, he’s endured living under the deceitfulness of Laban for many years: “…your father has cheated me by changing my wages ten times…” (v.6) Laban, having learned what has happened, goes after them. After some verbal wrangling they make a covenant and mark the boundary between Laban’s territory and Jacob’s.

Then Laban says, “May the LORD keep watch between you and me when we are away from each other.” Given what has happened so far in the narrative, the meaning is obvious. He is basically saying, “Jacob, you’re a dirty, rotten, lying, thieving scoundrel. Since I don’t have eyes in the back of my head, I’ll have to rely on God to keep me safe from you.” Verse 50 ought to tell us that verse 49 is not the nice sentiment that people think it is: “If you mistreat my daughters or if you take any wives besides my daughters, even though no one is with us, remember that God is a witness between you and me.” Laban mistrusts Jacob and Jacob mistrusts Laban.

So when you’re writing a birthday card to your, say, grandmother, and you quote Genesis 31:49, you’re effectively saying, “Grandma, you’re a dirty, rotten, lying, thieving, scoundrel. xoxoxox Happy Birthday!” Now, you could just quote the verse and leave out the scripture reference, thereby making the sentence just a general statement of your wish that God keeps watch over the both of you. But, since many Christians know the verse, this would make little difference. They would know that you’re quoting Gen. 31:49.

Another verse I find less problematic though just as curious is Jeremiah 29:11: “For I know the plans I have for you, declares the LORD, plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.” This verse and the entire passage it is in is written to the Jewish exiles returning from Babylon. Now, since God certainly does have a plan for our lives, I guess one could quote the verse and draw the general principle of God’s having a plan for our lives from it without too much of a problem (though I wouldn’t do it myself). The curious thing to me is why people only quote this verse. Why does no one ever quote verses 17 & 18? “yes, this is what the LORD Almighty says: ‘I will send the sword, famine and plague against them and I will make them like poor figs that are so bad they cannot be eaten. I will pursue them with the sword, famine and plague and will make them abhorrent to all the kingdoms of the earth and an object of cursing and horror, or scorn and reproach, among all the nations where I drive them.” These verses are in the same passage as verse 11.

One answer that comes to mind is that we live in a therapeutic culture and Christians have the tendency to carry that mindset into their religious life. People are so fixated on their feelings and the desire to avoid adversity at all cost (as I do). But Christianity is not a feel good religion. It is a truth seeking religion. Neil Postman has pointed out that Christianity is a serious and demanding religion. And C.S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, writes: “In religion, as in war and everything else, comfort is the one thing you cannot get by looking for it. If you look for truth, you may find comfort in the end: If you look for comfort you will not get either comfort or truth – only soft soap and wishful thinking to begin with and, in the end, despair. Most of us have got over the prewar wishful thinking about international politics. It is time we did the same about religion.” (Book I, Ch. 5).

Greg Koukl at Stand to Reason has some simple advice: “Never read a bible verse”. Always read it in the context of at least a paragraph, preferably a chapter or two or three. This doesn’t mean that you can’t quote a bible verse. Just make sure you know what it means first.

Are Computers Bad for Students?

According to this Orion Online article, computers may be bad for students. This would be in contrast to the conventional wisdom that says that the introduction and implementation of new technology in the classroom is what is needed to give children the best education possible.

The article quotes Stanford professor Larry Cuban who, citing recent research, says that, “there have been no advances over the past decade that can be confidently attributed to broader access to computers…the link between test-score improvements and computer availability and use is even more contested." Even more surprising is the indication that “students who frequently use computers perform worse academically than those who use them rarely or not at all.”

The writer of the article goes on to say:
“I think we will see that educational computing is neither a revolution nor a passing fad, but a Faustian bargain. Children gain unprecedented power to control their external world, but at the cost of internal growth. During the two decades that I taught young people with and about digital technology, I came to realize that the power of computers can lead children into deadened, alienated, and manipulative relationships with the world, that children's increasingly pervasive use of computers jeopardizes their ability to belong fully to human and biological communities—ultimately jeopardizing the communities themselves.”

and

“unlike reading, virtual adventures leave almost nothing to, and therefore require almost nothing of, the imagination. In experiencing the virtual world, the student cannot, as philosopher Steve Talbott has put it, "connect to [her] inner essence…On the contrary, she is exposed to a simulated world that tends to deaden her encounters with the real one.”

“I repeatedly found that after engaging in Internet projects, students came back down to the Earth of their immediate surroundings with boredom and disinterest—and a desire to get back online. This phenomenon was so pronounced that I started kidding my students about being BEJs: Big Event Junkies. Sadly, many readily admitted that, in general, their classes had to be conducted with the multimedia sensationalism of MTV just to keep them engaged. Having watched Discovery Channel and worked with computer simulations that severely compress both time and space, children are typically disappointed when they first approach a pond or stream: the fish aren't jumping, the frogs aren't croaking, the deer aren't drinking, the otters aren't playing, and the raccoons (not to mention bears) aren't fishing. Their electronic experiences have led them to expect to see these things happening—all at once and with no effort on their part. This distortion can also result from a diet of television and movies, but the computer's powerful interactive capabilities greatly accelerate it. And the phenomenon affects more than just experiences with the natural world. It leaves students apathetic and impatient in any number of settings—from class discussions to science experiments. The result is that the child becomes less animated and less capable of appreciating what it means to be alive, what it means to belong in the world as a biological, social being.”

And this telling statement:

“As the computer has amplified our youths' ability to virtually 'go anywhere, at any time,' it has eroded their sense of belonging anywhere, at any time, to anybody, or for any reason. How does a child growing up in Kansas gain a sense of belonging when her school encourages virtual learning about Afghanistan more than firsthand learning about her hometown? How does she relate to the world while spending most of her time engaging with computer-mediated text, images, and sounds that are oddly devoid of place, texture, depth, weight, odor, or taste—empty of life? Can she still cultivate the qualities of responsibility and reverence that are the foundation of belonging to real human or biological communities?”

Perhaps the crucial thing for school aged students is learning how to learn. Once they acquire this ability the use of technology acts simply as an accelerator to the attainment of specific information useful for the student’s current needs. Apparently, computers impede this ability to learn by making it seem that they’ve learned something when they really haven’t. The usefulness of knowing how to learn can be seen in career moves. I’ve heard it said that most people will change careers six or seven times during their working lives (this seems a rather high figure, but I’ll assume it’s true). If a pastry chef wanted to become a computer programmer, he would have to learn a whole new set of technical knowledge; but if he is accustomed to good methods of learning, the technical stuff will fall into place. The same goes for people advancing up through a company. I think I read that promotions are based as much on one’s emotional quotient as one’s technical knowledge. A good learner will pick up on the technical knowledge quickly enough.

Of course, there are those who probably would disagree with this bleak assessment of computer use in the classroom. In any case, the article brings up some good points for educators to ponder.

Finding Neverland

I’m an amateur when it comes to film criticism. Actually I’m an amateur in most things (except for being an amateur. This is where I excel). There’s a guy I know in the movie industry. Whenever I bring up what I think is a cool shot or moment in a film, he just says, “Oh, yeah, that’s fairly standard stuff. We do those types of things all the time.” Alrighty then.

Disclaimer:
In addition, I’m usually anywhere from six months to three years behind everyone else when it comes to watching movies because I don’t watch them in theaters. I either wait for the DVD or when they play on television. With that in mind, anything I say here will probably have been said already (and said much better, undoubtedly).

J.M. Barrie’s life as portrayed in Finding Neverland seems to have been one typical of writers. He gets up, goes to the park to sit, reads, and writes notes in a journal. Every so often he produces a play, an occurrence that fills him with nervousness and perhaps self-doubt. As good a life as he appears to have he’s limited. Limited by his wife’s lack of interest, not in his work, but in the process of his work. Limited by his social class. Limited by his producer’s concern over his financial health. Limited in many and sundry ways as we all are whether by illness, divorce, and ultimately death.

But whether you’re a professional writer or a kid dreaming of the future, imagination can lift you up out of your limitations and allows you to soar above the mundane and land in a realm of treasures. In one line, when Barrie brings the play to the Davies’ home, he states that some compromises had to be made to fit the production in the small space and that “much of it will have to be imagined.” At this, Peter quips, “As it should be.”

There are a number of interesting shots and enhancements of scenes. Barrie’s maid clips out a bad review from the newspaper. When he opens up the paper, the review is missing but through the empty space he sees the Davies family, the inspiration for his next, and greatest, work. The Barrie home is elegant but dark. Everything is in formal browns and blacks, a cheerless setting housing a moribund marriage. In contrast, Barrie plays with the kids in the Davies’ backyard garden, in the park, and at his wife’s cottage. When they first approach the cottage, the scenery is bright and cheery, the colours vibrant. When they leave under an emotional cloud, the scenery is dull and dismal, tinted blue and grey. And my favourite shot is where, in the play, Wendy is carried off by the tail of a kite and the camera swirls around the theater for a few seconds before landing on Peter Davies’ face, lit with a knowing expression. (Another interesting fact I discovered from the credits is that Wendy is played by Kate Maberly, the girl from The Secret Garden)

At the end of the film, after Peter asks Barrie why his mother had to die, Barrie responds, “She went to Neverland and you can visit her anytime you like, if you just go there yourself.” “How?”, Peter asks. “By believing, Peter”, Barrie replies. “Just believe.” The final shot shows both Barrie and Peter fading from the scene, presumably entering Neverland, since both Barrie’s hat and umbrella are still on the bench.

And here one can start to comment on the significance of Neverland. There are two possible ways of looking at it. First, is Neverland a metaphor for heaven? In this case this would be a positive metaphor. Or is Neverland just a delusion, with the desire to go there being the desire to go to a place that doesn’t exist? This would be a negative metaphor. Whichever metaphor one would like to use will depend on one’s view of reality and the afterlife.

Atheists will probably choose the negative metaphor. Neverland (or heaven) may be nice
to think about but let’s not fool ourselves. It’s probably best to just gird up our loins and face the real world: there’s just this life so make the best of it.

Theists will choose the positive metaphor. Heaven is a real place and there are clues all around us, giving us glimpses of eternity. C.S. Lewis’ argument from desire gives us one. We have many desires for which their fulfillment is available on earth. Are we hungry? There is food. Are we thirsty? There’s water. Do we have sexual desire? There is sex. If, however, “I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world.” (Mere Christianty, Book III, Ch.10) And those who have eyes to see can catch those glimpses of heaven here on earth. Barrie and Sylvia’s children, except for Peter, see it through most of the movie. Even the rigid grandmother sees it eventually. And Peter as well sees it in the end.

So, assuming heaven is real, the second issue to address is this: is belief the only thing required to enter Neverland? That is, will anyone who sincerely believes get into heaven? Here the film’s message (assuming any such message was intended – I may be reading too much into the film here) doesn’t satisfy. The traditional Christian belief is that only faith in Jesus Christ allows a person into heaven. Some may think this unfair. However, why think that God is obligated to give us any good thing at all, never mind heaven? Now, one can be sincere in his belief that he’s going to heaven, but sincerity is not enough. One must also have a true belief about heaven. Is sincerity enough for other areas in life such as science or finance? If you go to your bank and ask to withdraw $10,000 dollars from your account, how far will you get if the account only contains $12.53? Try and answer, “But I sincerely believe there’s $10,000 dollars in my account” and see what happens. Sincerity is necessary of course, but sincerity alone is not sufficient. Do you want your mechanic or accountant to merely be sincere? Don’t you want them to actually know the truth of what the situation is? If religious belief has anything at all to do with objective truth about reality, then sincerity is not enough. As philosopher Peter Kreeft points out, you need more than sincerity; you need a Saviour.

Different people (and faith traditions) have different beliefs about different non-religious things in life. And yet everyone thinks he or she is going to heaven (or their particular conception of the afterlife, whatever that may be). Why should all these differences in non-religious areas of life suddenly be put aside when it comes to the question of heaven?

In the play, Peter Pan cries, “To die will be an awfully big adventure.” He’s right. Our life in heaven is the greatest adventure we’ll ever embark on. We’ll be going, in Lewis’ words, further up and further in. Heaven will truly make earth seem like the “shadowlands”.

That final scene in the film is pretty lip-tremblingly sentimental. The kid playing Peter is probably one of the best criers since Henry Thomas in E.T. This is one movie I’ll be watching again. I won’t put Finding Neverland on my favourite movies list. But it’s pretty close.

Drive-by Pedantry

Pedantry can be a popular activity. A recent case is found in this news story about a physicist in England who chastised Katie Melua over the lyrics in one of her songs. Her crime? Saying the edge of the universe was 12 billion light years away when the correct number is apparently 13.7 billion. In addition, the physicist took grave offense at her claim that this number is just a guess.

This display of pedantry seems a bit too ostentatious for me. I prefer to keep my pedantry local and somewhat covert. For example, say you’re in a grocery story and hear someone say, “I’m chomping at the bit…”, you could just silently sidle up next to him and utter, “That’s champing, not chomping” and then quickly walk away. Or if someone says, “I have less dollars…”, you can, as you walk by, let out, “that’s fewer dollars, not less”. And you could do this for any subject matter at all. If someone, for example, refers to the recent NHL work stoppage as a strike, you can, as you glide by effortlessly, whisper, “It was a lockout, not a strike”. They’ll never know what hit them.

Mind you, I’m more likely to be a victim of an act of drive-by pedantry (or, my inner pedant inquires, "is that pedanticism?") than a perpetrator. I’m not smart enough to be a pedant (though I’d sure like to be).

Thankful for everything?

During this past Sunday’s service the congregation was encouraged to write what they were thankful for on a paper leaf and then hang it on a tree at the front of the sanctuary. Nice idea. As I was hanging my leaf, I caught what was written on one of the leaves: “For Everything”. It’s a nice sentiment, but is it true? Or does “for everything” really mean “for all the good things only?” I’m sure this person is thankful for the good things whether good health, good job, good home, good family, etc. Is this person thankful also for the bad things such as illness, job loss, financial problems, family problems? Has this person never experienced these bad things so that he/she could say “For everything”? Or has s/he gone through difficult times and still believes “for everything” sums up his/her gratefulness? Obviously, it is not wrong to be thankful for the good things in your life. Quite the opposite. Any Christian who wasn’t thankful for the good things would be rather amazingly obtuse regarding from where all the good things actually come.

Are people really thankful for being cut off in traffic, injuries, being bad-mouthed behind one’s back, etc.? We are, however, in no position to know the consequences or final outcomes of such occurrences. We would, in fact, need to be close to omniscient to know how all the bad things in life play out. It is perfectly reasonable to think that God has a purpose in all of these sorts of things, just as in the case of Joseph’s experience in Egypt: “As for you, you meant evil against me, but God meant it for good in order to bring about this present result, to preserve many people alive.” Perhaps these are tests to help one become more patient and self-controlled. In that case these would be things to be thankful for. Most people will admit that personal growth occurs more readily in the midst of trials than when life is easy.

I guess I need to keep in tension the fact that “every good and perfect gift is from above, coming from the Father of the heavenly lights” and that “the LORD gave and the LORD has taken away; may the name of the LORD be praised.”

This raises an important question for myself: Am I a thankful person? I’ve got my share of problems. Have these problems made me a better person? Well, I hope God grades on a curve. In any case, I guess I agree with that particular leaf scribbler. Thank God for everything (even the stuff I think I could do without).

Early Narnia review

Screenwriter Barbara Nicolosi has given an early review of The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe here. She writes: “the tone of LW&W is as close to the book as probably could have been achieved. All the lines the Christians are worrying about are in there. All the scenes you want to see are here and lovingly rendered.” I think she likes it.

Briefly on marriage

I keep hearing from or about people I know or have known who are getting married or have recently gotten married. Chances are I won’t be getting married (have you seen pictures of Marshwiggles? Not a pretty sight), because while I could probably give a list of women I might like to marry, I wouldn’t be able to provide a list of women who would want to marry me (there’s the rub). But let’s say if the planets all align aright, if the infinitesimal probabilities can be overcome and I meet her, then there are three essential qualities that she would have to possess. First, an intelligent mind. Second, a kind and forgiving heart. Third, good moral character. These three are essential because, well, I figure one of us ought to have those qualities. If neither of us had these qualities there could be trouble, especially for me. And it’s all about me. Which is the biggest reason why I probably won’t get married.

Are Christians Intolerant? (continued)

…This feeble attempt of a letter.

The paper actually printed it but edited out a good portion of it. So, if anyone happens to see it in print, avert your eyes. Read this version instead (though, even that may not be a good idea. I may have overreached a bit on a few statements. But he who has short arms must reach further…farther…whatever).

“It is commonly said that humans are feeling beings who happen to think rather than thinking beings who happen to feel. But think we must. When Christians stop thinking, dire consequences can result. The Presbyterian theologian and Princeton Seminary professor J. Gresham Machen wrote back in 1913(!) that 'one of the greatest problems that have agitated the Church is the problem of the relation between knowledge and piety, between culture and Christianity….The problem is made for us the more difficult of solution because we are unprepared for it. Our whole system of school and college education is so constituted as to keep religion and culture as far apart as possible and ignore the question of the relationship between them.' The sad truth, according to Machen, is that 'the chief obstacle to the Christian religion today lies in the sphere of the intellect….The Church is perishing today through the lack of thinking, not through an excess of it.' (Christianity and Culture, published in the Princeton Theological Review, Vol.11, 1913).

The fact that young Christians today are virtually indistinguishable from their non-Christian peers when it comes to embracing relativism is a sad commentary on the state of the Church. Yes, people are having their spiritual needs met, and yes, people are finding peace and contentment in a community of like-minded brothers and sisters. But where is the cultural and intellectual engagement that characterized much of the history of the Church? Today most of that engagement by Christians is happening either in academia or in parachurch organizations. In contrast the local church, by and large, has abdicated the life of the mind to secular culture. As a result, evangelical Christians are struggling to make any progress influencing the culture for Christ. One thinks of the same-sex marriage debate where many Christians, when asked why they opposed gay marriage, could only answer with “It’s against my religious beliefs”. In addition, many Christians are unable to “make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is within you” (1 Peter 3:15). If anyone thinks this is an overstatement, read Frank Stirk’s cover story again and then ask some Christians in your church some questions of basic biblical and theological knowledge (make sure you include your pastor and elders).

It’s rather remarkable that otherwise intelligent people, people who have spent years of study and lots of money achieving success in their profession, have no more than a Sunday School knowledge of their faith. It should be no surprise then that the children of these Christians also lack knowledge of their own faith. Surely though, if a relationship with the living Lord of the universe is the most important thing in their lives they should spend some time reading serious Christian books (of which there are plenty. Check out the Regent College Bookstore for confirmation of this fact.) If they object that it’s too hard, then it could be pointed out that it’s also hard to study to become a doctor, nurse, engineer, architect, economist, auto technician, skilled tradesperson, etc. Worthwhile things take some effort..

The Church needs Christians who are characterized by both spiritual devotion to our Lord and intellectual prowess. We ought to emulate Jesus who was the most loving and kind person to ever live and also, as Dallas Willard has put it, the smartest man who ever lived. (It’s tempting to exempt myself from my own admonition since I’m neither kind nor intelligent; however, with God’s help…)

The Fundamentalist withdrawal from culture during the early twentieth century basically removed many of God’s people from the center of the battle for minds, allowing secular forms of thought to become dominant in the universities and bastions of cultural influence such as newspapers and television. Unless evangelicals choose to enter the fray of the intellectual battles all around us, it will make evangelism and discipleship even more difficult in the twenty-first century than it was in the twentieth.”

I think I’ll be more forgiving of letters to the editor whose ideas appear somewhat disjointed and the prose a bit jarring, because I’ll know that the writer was the victim (er, recipient) of the big editorial red pen. (What my excuse is, though, I’m not sure.)

Meet the Jolly Blogger

The Jolly Blogger is one of the more well known Christian bloggers. This post The Moral of the Plops is probably the funniest one I’ve read all week. And be sure to follow the link to “How to have a Christlike argument”.

Are Christians Intolerant?

One of our Christian newspapers recently ran this story. According to one university professor, Christian students are “not convinced that there is such a thing as objective moral truth….they’re not convinced that Jesus is the only way. They’re not convinced, really, that other religions aren’t also ways to God.” He goes on to say, “It just seems somehow to many young people wrong and abrasive to simply look across at someone else’s way of looking at the world, and way of coming to God – and call it wrong.”

The concern of some (perhaps many?) Christian students of being ‘intolerant’ seems to be overriding another more important concern, that is, asking ‘what is the truth?’ The reluctance to think other religious people wrong overlooks one little point; namely, that those who hold those non-Christian religious beliefs also think that Christians are wrong!

Ask any non-Christian whether he or she believes that Jesus is the only way to God. The answer is usually either ‘no’, or Jesus is ‘one of many ways’. This is in disagreement with the Christian belief that Jesus is the only way.


In addition, those who call themselves religious pluralists (that is, those who believe that all religions are legitimate paths to knowing God or the ultimate reality) also think that Christians are wrong (for being intolerant of other religious beliefs). But the charge of intolerance, if one can be made at all, goes both ways. If Christians are intolerant because they reject certain beliefs of other religions, then adherents of those other religions are just as intolerant for thinking that Christians are wrong when they assert the truth of certain doctrinal beliefs. And religious pluralists who like to make the claim of being inclusive, are not so inclusive. They obviously reject the notion that only one religion can be true (and the usual suspect is Christianity). They are actually just as exclusive as Christians are since religious pluralists claim that their belief (i.e. pluralism) is exclusively true while the Christian who thinks her beliefs are exclusively true is wrong.

Addressing the objection that Christians are arrogant for believing Christianity is the only way to God, philosopher Timothy O’ Connor, in chapter 7 of Reason for the Hope Within writes the following:

“[A]s Peter van Inwagen has remarked, the pluralist who presses this kind of objection to traditional Christian belief is likely to ‘find himself surrounded by a lot of broken domestic glass.’ Why? Because the central idea behind the arrogance objection is one the pluralist is obliged to apply to nonreligious beliefs as well. Perhaps the following best captures this central idea:

For any belief of yours, once you become aware (a) that others disagree with it and (b) that you have no argument on its behalf that is likely to convince all or most of the reasonable, good-intentioned people who disagree with you, then it would be arrogant of you to continue holding that belief.

Now let’s think about this principle in light of the pluralist’s own views. He embraces this principle while surely aware that many others think it is false….But then, to be consistent, the pluralist should abandon this very principle. Believing the principle in the face of informed disagreement, as the pluralist does, violates the principle. The moral here is that pluralism is no way of escape from the charge of arrogance….[T]he fact that one cannot…defend this claim without falling prey to one’s own principle should lead us to reject this pluralist argument.” (pp. 171-172)

Religious pluralists, it seems, are hoist by their own petard.

In response to the story I wrote….

Is Religion Bad for Society?

I saw this (London) Times story linked on the CTMag Weblog.

It states that:
“Religious belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.”

“According to the study, belief and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems”

My first reaction was to ask the following questions:

1) Who’s actually committing the crimes? I’m assuming the study takes a macro look at societies without looking at the finer details. It’s not as if everyone in even the most religious society is a religious believer .

2) Even if the people committing the crimes were to say they were Christians, their actions in fact belie their profession of faith. Belief in the Christian God is of little help to societies if you don’t follow his commands. This showcases the problem of the nominal nature of religious belief. Many people say they’re Christians (because they were baptized in a particular church, for example) when they really are not. In other words, these folks don’t accept the historic and orthodox beliefs that all Christians have held for the past two thousand years (e.g. the authority of the Bible, the incarnation, the atonement, the resurrection). They are free to not believe these things, of course, but the honest thing on their part would be to stop calling themselves Christians.

3) Are these problems specifically a result of greater religious belief or something else? Could not one come to a different conclusion, namely, that a decline in religious (specifically Christian) belief over the past fifty years or so has been a greater factor in influencing these results? Notwithstanding all the media attention towards American evangelicalism, are there in fact more bible believing Christians in the U.S. than before? In addition, what impact does relativistic thinking within the church (and the consequent vitiation of her ability to make an impact on the surrounding culture) have on these results?

4) Could it be that a strong and vocal non-religious minority within the religious society is having an inordinately large influence on the citizens resulting in those less grounded in good (general) morals to gravitate towards crime and other deleterious behaviours?

Those were my initial thoughts. It’s well known that journalists haven’t much idea of how to report statistics found in various studies. We’re all familiar with how the media over simplifies, for example, health studies. They’re quick to say that a certain food or supplement or pharmaceutical drug is bad or good for you when the study they’re citing is far more nuanced and circumspect about it. So I recommend reading the analysis of this statistician. He takes a look at the evidence in the original study and finds it wanting.And in a follow-up he finds more problems.

Narnia Interview

As most people probably know, the film adaptation of The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe will be opening this December. Here’s an interview with Michael Flaherty, president of Walden Media, the production company putting Lewis’ classic on the big screen.

Lewis on Reading

After reading The Canterbury Tales a while back, I also read C.S. Lewis’ essay “On the Reading of Old Books”. Chaucer’s stories capture human emotions and the human predicament very well, all the highs and lows of human experience. Greed, lust, love, benevolence, hatred all get the chance to show their wares in the lives of the characters. It would benefit everyone, I think, to read as many old books as possible, if for no other reason than to understand that the problems people face and the desires that they have haven’t changed a bit over the course of human history (I suppose you could also get the same understanding by listening to operas but I don’t really enjoy operatic singing.)

Lewis wrote: “Naturally, since I myself am a writer, I do not wish the ordinary reader to read no modern books. But if he must read only the new or only the old, I would advise him to read the old. And I would give him this advice precisely because he is an amateur and therefore much less protected than the expert against the dangers of an exclusive contemporary diet. A new book is still on its trial and the amateur is not in a good position to judge it. It has to be tested against the great body of Christian thought down the ages, and all its hidden implications (often unsuspected by the author himself) have to be brought to light. Often it cannot be fully understood without the knowledge of other modern books. If you join at eleven o’clock a conversation which began at eight you will often not see the real bearing of what is said. Remarks which seem to you very ordinary will produce laughter or irritation and you will not see why – the reason, of course, being that the earlier stages of the conversation have given them a special point. In the same way sentences in a modern book which look quite ordinary may be directed ‘at’ some other book; in this way you may be led to accept what you would have indignantly rejected if you knew its real significance. The only safety is to have a standard of plain, central Christianity (‘mere Christianity’ as Baxter called it) which puts the controversies of the moment in their proper perspective. Such a standard can be acquired only from the old books. It is a good rule, after reading a new book, never to allow yourself another new one till you have read an old one in between. If that is too much for you, you should at least read one old one to every three new ones. Every age has its own outlook. It is specially good at seeing certain truths and specially liable to make certain mistakes. We all, therefore, need the books that will correct the characteristic mistakes of our own period. And that means the old books.” (from On the Reading of Old Books in God in the Dock).

It’s a bit tough trying to keep that advice, but in keeping with Lewis’ suggestion I’m attempting to read Plato’s Republic, one of the foundational documents of western civilization. There’s much to take in and digest from the discussions about the ideal state and the nature of reality; but a curious statement about a just man in Book II grabbed my attention:

“They will say that the just man, as we have pictured him, will be scourged, tortured, and imprisoned, his eyes will be put out, and after enduring every humiliation he will be crucified, and learn at last that one should want not to be, but to seem just.”

Now, does that sound familiar? It’s probably not wise to read too much into this passage. I just found it curious that this is exactly what happened to the one Just Man who ever lived (except for the eyes being put out).

I’m also reading the complete works of Shakespeare, using the Norton Shakespeare. I feel smarter just holding it. It might be because of the increased oxygen requirement for keeping it aloft. This sucker is heavy. Hardback with 3420 pages of sheer reading pleasure.

It has some of the best helps of any Shakespeare edition I’ve seen (which is good because I’m not a serious student of Shakespeare, just a very interested fan. I simply enjoy the aesthetic quality of that Elizabethan prose and poetry). The general introduction (by Stephen Greenblatt) and the individual introductions for each play are comprehensive and informative without assuming the reader already has a certain amount of background knowledge (in contrast to some Arden Shakespeares that I found more difficult). They are extremely helpful in guiding the reader to a better understanding of Shakespeare’s place in history and the plays and sonnets themselves.

The glosses are in the margin on the same line as the text instead of at the bottom of the page, making the eye-travel less jolting.
And the footnotes that are there provide a lot of helpful information.

For example, from Two Gentlemen of Verona:

What’s here?
‘Silvia, this night I will enfranchise thee’?
‘Tis so, and here’s the ladder for the purpose.
Why, Phaeton (7), for thou art Merops’ son
Wilt thou aspire to guide the heavenly car,
And with thy daring folly burn the world?
(3.1.150-155)

The note for Phaeton reads: “Famous in Greek myth for his reckless ambition, Phaeton set the world on fire when he tried to drive the chariot of his father, Helios, the sun god. Phaeton’s mother, Clymene, was married to Merops, not Helios, making Phaeton illegitimate. The rest of the line, naming Merops as Phaeton’s father, may question Phaeton’s status as the son of Helios (and so his ability to drive the sun god’s chariot) or may be an ironic means of calling attention to his illegitimacy.”

How many people know who Phaeton is? Now, I could have looked in my copy of Robert Graves’ The Greek Myths to see who Phaeton was but the footnote gives me the relevant information to grasp this passage (plus I’d have to get up and walk all five feet to my bookshelf.)

Another example from Antony and Cleopatra:

Nay, but this dotage of our General’s
O’erflows the measure (1). Those his goodly eyes,
That o’er the files and musters of the war
Have glowed like plated Mars, now bend, now turn
The office and devotion of their view
Upon a tawny front (2). His captain’s heart,
Which in the scuffles of great fights hath burst
The buckles on his breast, reneges all temper (3),
And is become the bellows and the fan
To cool a gipsy’s lust.

Look where they come.
Take but good note, and you shall see in him
The triple pillar of the world (4) transformed
Into a strumpet’s fool. Behold and see.
(1.1.1-13)

Footnote (1): Goes beyond the suitable limit.
Footnote (2): A face or forehead of dark complexion (referring to Cleopatra…); military “front,” or battle line.
Footnote (3): Abandons all temperance (“temper” is also the hardness of tempered steel).
Footnote (4): Antony, Octavius Caesar, and Lepidus were the three triumvirs ruling the Roman Empire (most of the known world, for Romans)

Footnotes rule!

Though not an old book, Greenblatt’s book Will in the World is also one I’ve briefly and partly skimmed through. It’s written with a light touch and obviously intended for a general audience. His concern seems to be more for accessibility than for a show of unabashed erudition (erudite though his scholarship is). Some might be concerned that he manages to weave whole episodes of Shakespeare’s life out of the scantiest of evidence (the first chapter begins with “Let us imagine…”), such as the annotations in some unknown person’s notebook. But in the intro, he points out that nothing of Shakespeare’s life can be known with absolute certainty.

Based on what I saw his intent seems to be a fusing of commentary with biography, finding points of contact with Shakespeare’s life and his plays (or certain parts of his plays). One example is where Greenblatt attributes Will’s familiarity with leather, gloves and glove making (and the many references of such in the plays) to his exposure and probable work experience in his father’s glove making business. Another is where he makes comments on both Will’s apparently loveless and lifeless marriage to Anne Hathaway and some of Will’s different dramatic portrayals of married couples.

And in a bibliographical note, Greenblatt, in this book about my second favourite British writer, makes reference to my favourite British writer. He writes:

“On the whole scope of literary production in this period, C.S. Lewis’s brilliant and opinionated English Literature in the Sixteenth Century, Excluding Drama (Oxford: Clarendon, 1954) remains indispensable.”

So, it looks like an interesting book. (I might find it even more interesting if I ever get around to reading the whole thing).

In addition, I’m certain the Bible counts as one of the old books. According to this L.A. Times story educators in the U.S. are going to (or at least try to) introduce the Bible into public schools by emphasizing its role in influencing much of Western literature. One quote:

“An overwhelming majority of the nation's students are biblically illiterate, educators say. Yet, they add, knowledge of the Bible, its characters and references is essential in understanding Western literature, art, music and history even for students who come from other religious traditions, are agnostics or are atheists.”

So as Krusty says, Give a hoot. Read a book.

Some thoughts about Church

Are there any social structures or communities where children (and young folk in general) can get together and interact with seniors who are not also their relatives (or possibly teachers)? Not that many I’m afraid (I’m sure as soon as I post this someone will write in to tell me of a few). This separation of the generations, while comfortable for those who don’t want to spend much time around people who aren’t their age, may not be beneficial if we value societal stability. I’m not suggesting that society will collapse or anything like that, but when certain people don’t understand other people, when one generation cannot learn something from another generation, I think our lives become impoverished and our experiences less than what they could be.

I bring this up upon reflecting on my life (that clicking noise you hear is the back button). I can honestly count the number of close friends I’ve had on the fingers of one hand. This paucity of friends is likely the symptom of my being a socially inept loner (hey, what do you expect when you voluntarily hole up at home all day). My two closest friends now (and the two closest I’ve ever had) are a married couple both in their mid-80s, both former schoolteachers, and both hospitality personified. And where did I meet them? In church. I’m hard pressed to think of any other venue where I could have met them and then become friends. The funny thing is that I drove past their backyard for nearly ten years never knowing who lived there.

The church is one place where people of different generations can meet, not simply to, say, be entertained (movie, concert, or whatever) but to fellowship, have fun and learn from each other.

The greatest benefit of this meeting of generations is the conveyance of wisdom.
Wisdom can be defined as “the sum of learning through the ages” or “accumulated knowledge”
Wisdom doesn’t just come out of thin air. It is the result of lived experience. It has weathered many of life’s storms. It overlooks offenses and seeks to make things better. Now, to be honest some seniors are not wise, and some youth are not that unwise. But as a general rule, there is no substitute for wisdom bought with a lifetime of being acquainted with all of the struggles life throws at you. I’ve been fascinated with and have learned quite a bit from the seniors in my church through, for example, their stories of war-time experiences, lessons in how to take care of a garden, instructions in cooking, exemplifications of perseverance through difficult circumstances (like poor health).

It seems role models are in scarce supply these days. Next time you’re sitting in church look in the pews around you. There may be one sitting next to you.

Now, in addition to this, there is also a second way to attain wisdom (since I'm not wise, I need additional help)…

Addendum to the last post

I saw this article after I posted the previous entry. It lays out some of the ethical complexities of ESCR.

Some thoughts on embryos

BC Christian News ran a story on embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) back in May. Trinity Western University philosopher Paul Chamberlain is quoted as follows:

“’Using stem cells which would otherwise be destroyed – either by us or by waiting – doesn’t seem prudent,’ responds Paul Chamberlain, professor of apologetics at Trinity Western University. Despite his caution, however, he adds: ‘I can see no moral obligation why we shouldn’t use them if there is a very good purpose that can come about from stem cell research.’ Chamberlain admits that he has ‘struggled with [the issue] pretty hard.’ ‘I am also aware that, by using the excess embryos, we may continue to create a demand by people who would not have the same moral restraints and would not object to creating embryonic stem cells simply for the purpose of research. I would really stand against that.’ The other options, he says, are to either discard or store embryos – or to utilize them for beneficial purposes. ‘If we have an opportunity to use [them] for some other human, who has the same value as the embryo, that may well be morally permissible…The other two options seem to be worse. Unless someone is willing to adopt them – by all means, go ahead. That would be the ultimate. It’s hard to agree that doing nothing is better than doing good… We need to have a high regard for human life.’”

I agree with Chamberlain regarding the ethical problem of creating embryos specifically for research. He seems, however, to open the door for research on frozen embryos left over from in vitro fertilization procedures. I wrote a version of the following letter to the editor (sensible people that they are, they didn’t print it):

“Paul Chamberlain, in expressing his ambivalence over the fate of frozen embryos, seems to be saying that it may be permissible to use embryos to help alleviate suffering. If that is in fact his position, then I must respectfully disagree, though I’m certainly not unsympathetic to his concerns.

While we have an obligation to relieve suffering, such obligation can only be adhered to where it is ethically feasible. We are not obligated to relieve suffering where it is not ethically feasible, and taking the life of an embryo certainly presents some serious ethical difficulties. The argument that embryos, if left in a frozen state, will eventually die and be of use to nobody, overlooks the fact that they are placed in that state by a third party through no fault of their own. These embryos are purposely being prevented from developing in the normal manner.

Now, if such embryos are not human beings then there should be no moral hand-wringing about the matter. But the facts point otherwise. A human embryo is a complete human organism (albeit an immature one). It (in fact, she or he) possesses a complete and unique human genetic code. If placed in the proper environment (her mother’s womb), she will eventually develop and grow into a newborn infant. All such development and growth is directed and controlled not by the mother but by the embryo herself. The facts tell us that the embryo is a human being and, therefore, in possession of intrinsic moral worth. The problem with using embryos for research is that such research treats the embryo as though she is of worth only if she has instrumental value, that is, if she can offer any usefulness to the rest of human society. Jesus’ attitude towards the lame and blind, the "useless" of first century Judea, ought to inform our actions here.

I believe that a frozen embryo, a full member of the human family, should be treated in the same way that a comatose person should be treated. I think most Christians would agree that a person in a coma should not be killed and his organs used for the benefit of others. A defenseless human being should not be used in this way. We care for a comatose person and if he dies then we commit him to his Creator. Where some embryos are not adopted, the same ought to be done for them as well.”

In an article in Time magazine a few years ago, Michael Kinsley asked (referring to a photgraph of a 4 or 5 day old embryo) “Is this a human being? My memory is a bit fuzzy. He may have asked “Does this look like a human being?” In either case, the answer is yes. A 4 day old embryo is a human being. The embryo is alive, contains human DNA, is genetically distinct from its mother or father, and undergoes metabolism,. And does that clump of cells look human? Actually, that is what all humans look like several days after conception.

This website stemcellresearch.org gives details about the promise and effectiveness of adult and umbilical cord stem cell research which, I think, offers the best that stem cells can offer without the attendant ethical problems.

What if God didn't exist?

The purpose of apologetics is to provide reasons to support the rationality of Christian belief. There are many ways of doing this. If the God of the bible has truly created this universe we inhabit, then his fingerprints ought to be all over the place. But if one’s vision is blurry, those clues may not seem so evident. So, one needs to don the proper set of glasses. Now, I don’t pretend to be an expert in these matters. These are just a few desultory thoughts.

It seems that most apologists start with arguments for the existence of God. I wonder if this is the best approach. Most people already believe in God (or a god of some sort). There is probably not a general apologetics book around that doesn’t have a chapter on God’s existence.

I think the problem of God’s non-existence might be a better place to start. Imagine if God doesn’t exist. Or, let’s say the atheist disproofs of God are pretty airtight. What follows from that fact? There would be no after-life (and no heaven). There would be no resurrection of the body (contra the Nicene Creed not to mention the Bible). There would also be no beauty. No objective moral standards. No reason to get up in the morning.

Non-theists may not agree. God’s non-existence (or at least our non-acknowledgement of his existence) actually frees us from stifling beliefs and allows the expansion of our minds to new and exciting areas of thought. Why confine ourselves to the old ways and old patterns when a new horizon of possibilities awaits us, one free of the despotic rule of a cosmic overlord?

Two writers who have given me some mental fodder to chew on in this matter are C.S. Lewis and William Lane Craig.

Lewis gives what’s commonly called the Argument from Reason. It says that if there is no God, then naturalism (the view that all that exists is nature/matter) is true. If naturalism is true, then everything in the universe is the result of blind matter in motion and non-rational forces, including our thoughts about the universe. This puts us in the peculiar position of saying that our thoughts are rational while at the same time professing that these thoughts are the result of non-rational forces. But if our thoughts are the product of blind matter in motion, do we really have any good reason to trust our thoughts about anything, including those thoughts about rationality? It seems more reasonable to believe that more than just matter exists, and that our intelligent, rational minds are themselves the products of intelligence, namely God. A detailed discussion can be found in his book Miracles.

Craig gives a case for the absurdity of life without God. He claims that if God does not exist then humans are just the accidental by-product of natural processes. As a result, there can be no ultimate meaning in life, no ultimate value, and no ultimate purpose. If God does not exist, there is no objective moral law, no right and wrong. All that’s left is personal, subjective judgements. For those who say that we can create our own meaning and purpose, the only response that can be given is, “So what?” Scientists tell us that the universe will continue to expand forever. Billions of years from now nothing will exist but the cold, lifeless shards of a universe that used to be our home. Humanity is racing towards extinction and utter ruin. He puts it this way: “Man cannot live consistently and happily as though life were ultimately without meaning, value, or purpose. If we try to live consistently within the atheistic world view, we shall find ourselves profoundly unhappy. If instead we manage to live happily, it is only by giving the lie to our world view.” Any meaning or purpose we create is ultimately meaningless and purposeless. We could do no better, it seems, than to follow Bertrand Russell’s advice to build our lives on the firm foundation of unyielding despair. Listen to a presentation that Craig gives here

An aesthetic argument for God goes: There is the music of Bach, the literature of Shakespeare, the art of Rembrandt. Therefore, there must be a God.
But if there is no God, one could only ask, even of Bach, Shakespeare, and Rembrandt (or insert your own favourite artists): Is that all there is?

Life without God brings to the fore the irrationality of claiming that we are rational, intelligent beings, and the absurdity that life has any meaning or purpose. Only if God exists can we claim these things. Now, this doesn’t necessarily mean that God actually exists (maybe life really is meaningless), but it can prompt an investigation into the matter; for, after all, can anyone really live as if her life lacked meaning or that her thoughts were nothing but non-rational gibberish?

On books

Of the reading of books there is no end. I don’t own that many books, fewer than 80. With only this many books, my personal library does not qualify as one belonging to a serious reader. I could own a lot more books, but I think I’m too cheap (okay, I know I’m too cheap). This may be why the public library is my favourite public place. And with interlibrary loans I can get books from all over the country, from small libraries in rural towns to large public university libraries holding over a million titles. Plus, I can also borrow books from other people. I’ve read books ranging from short biographies of missionaries to long anthologies of 17th century poetry simply by asking people if they have any books they can lend.

I wish, though, that I could be more like Erasmus: “When I have a little money, I buy books- if any is left, I buy food and clothes.”

Time waits for no man

He stares at his comb

One, two, five, ten, twelve…

Strands of virility cling harmlessly to plastic

He’s thin in the wrong place

A look in the full-length mirror reveals all

Youth has turned its back as time looks toward an end

The clock on his desk ticks like a middle-aged heart

Behold the man

Built for greatness; grasping at survival

He thinks he needs a stiff drink

Perhaps he needs something else.

God and hurricanes pt.4

One more thing about hurricanes (see Sept. 21 entry). If in fact the increase in hurricane activity and intensity is a result of global warming, then we have a situation where both free will and natural law interact to produce painful results. Human activity is the main culprit for global warming. If hurricanes are needed to reduce the amount of heat in the oceans, then perhaps we should lay part of the blame on ourselves. This kind of situation is similar to when deforestation causes massive mudslides. The mudslide would not have occurred if enough trees were in place to stabilize the soil. In the case of New Orleans, human inaction resulted in a levee system that was inadequate for a category 4 or 5 hurricane. In addition, the human response after a natural disaster can cause a lot of trouble, such as looting, price gouging, sluggish government action. In the case of famines in, say Africa, there is usually enough food. It just isn’t getting through to the people in need due to civil wars or corrupt politicians or genocidal politicians.

Anyway, while there are no easy answers to the question of natural disasters, as a Christian, I think the best answer to all type of suffering is Jesus Christ. If the Creator of the universe was willing to enter into dirty, gross, ugly humanity because He loves us, then that speaks volumes more than any theodicy. A God who shares our pain is the kind of god I want to follow (although my wanting and my doing are often at cross purposes).

Veritas lectures

I’m spending way too much time on the internet listening to lectures. I wouldn’t say I’m addicted (yet) but I’m falling behind in my reading. (It would be nice if I could just download all that information directly into my brain just like, say, Keanu Reeves in Johnny Mnemonic, or just like, say, Keanu Reeves in The Matrix. Of course, they’d probably have to do a little bit of drilling through the skull…better stick to reading.)

Anyway, here are some pretty good presentations by speakers at various Veritas Forums (Fora?). Check them out here.

To find out the purpose of the Veritas Forum check out this page. I also recommend reading the book, Finding God at Harvard edited by Kelly Monroe, which gives more details on how the whole thing got underway. The book is a collection of a number of thoughtful essays on faith and life in the halls of higher learning (Ivy League style).

The First Church of Fenway

I didn’t realize that my favourite baseball team, the Red Sox, had so many Christians on it. The only indication I had of this was when I heard Curt Schilling mention God a couple of times during last year’s playoffs. This Boston Globe article spells out the details.

There seems to be a level of disapprobation among some when athletes give credit to God for their success. Maybe it’s just because some Christian athletes are so showy in expressing their beliefs. Regardless of whether you’re an athlete or not, being loud and proud can be a detriment to effective Christian witness when you’ve really got nothing useful or good to say (saying something loudly doesn’t make it more palatable). I find myself perturbed especially at certain football players who make a big show of “praising God for that winning touchdown”. On the other hand, we shouldn’t neglect thanking God. So, where’s the line between appropriate and inappropriate God-talk in the locker room? Tough question, I think.

But I hope athletes don’t just thank Him when they win; it’s just as helpful to thank Him when they lose. God can work through both wins and losses. And I hope they don’t think that being the best of all is necessarily best for them (though it could be). If God has given a tennis player, for example, the ability to be no better than the number 17 player in the world, then he ought to play to the best of his ability and be content at #17 (though if he can improve to #16, then by all means try). I think God is more concerned that people use their abilities to the fullest, regardless of the outcome. Winning can sometimes ruin a person. Losing can sometimes make a person better. The trick is in knowing the difference between a bad win and a good loss.

And I think the Red Sox faithful have the right idea:

“The evangelicals in the Sox clubhouse say they believe God wants them to glorify him by performing at their highest possible level. The rest, they say, is in the Lord's hands.”

Well, as long as they finish ahead of the Evil Empire, er, the Yankees.

No Fly Zone

Today’s JetBlue incident underscores why I hate flying and have no intention of flying any time soon. The last time I hopped a ride on a jet, we almost crashed (well that’s what it felt like). We were approaching O’Hare when the pilot came on the intercom to tell us that it would take a bit longer before we could land since we had to fly around a severe thunderstorm. When I see seasoned flight attendants looking pretty worried (I was sitting right next to one of their stations), I get worried. Just three words: Worst…turbulence…ever. And it just kept going on and on. It was like bucking a bronco. A 200 ton metal bronco. I prefer to take Kasey Kasem’s advice: Keep your feet on the ground…(I forget how the rest of that goes.)

God and hurricanes pt.3

Now, one might object by asking: "Couldn’t God intervene whenever a major disaster is about to hit?” They might also ask: “Couldn’t God have created different physical laws, ones that wouldn’t result in so much devastation?”

To the first question we could respond that God would have to intervene in so widespread a manner that it would result in the suspension of the natural order with all its regularity of physical laws. But this would jeopardize responsible human action.

To the second question we could respond that the person asking the question simply has no idea what such a world would look like. If God were to modify one part of the natural system to prevent, say, earthquakes, for all we know He’d have to modify some other part of the natural system that may produce even more unpleasant results. Philosopher Ronald Nash points out that a “natural order is a system; even an apparently minor change in one part of the order would have to have repercussions throughout the system.”

The answers provided by the free will and natural law theodicies pave the way for the Soul-Making theodicy. In order to grow and become virtuous people, we must face certain challenges. Growth is difficult, if not impossible, in an environment that is free of any risk, danger or disappointment.

Some, maybe many, people won't be very satisfied with this response. Fair enough. But it's at least worth thinking about.

I’m certainly not qualified to write much more than this about this topic. For a fuller treatment, I recommend Part 4 of Ronald Nash’s book Faith and Reason: Searching for a Rational Faith (Zondervan, 1988).

Also worth a look is this article by William Lane Craig.

I honestly hope I do not ever go through a natural disaster. Like a lot of people, I’ve witnessed my share of suffering (family members dying of cancer or stroke or pneumonia, and family members being subjected to a repressive and deadly Communist regime). That's about all I can handle (and I wasn't even the one doing much of the suffering). The best that I can do is to trust that God has got it all under control (even if it seems like He doesn't). And to give to the Red Cross and Salvation Army.

God and hurricanes pt.2

Hurricanes, tsunamis and other serious natural disaster always bring up the question of why God, who is all good and all powerful, would allow this kind of suffering, commonly called natural evil.

My own take is that we can provide models for how it might be possible for a good and powerful God to allow evil, without going to the point of saying that the model explains with absolute certainty how God would allow evil. Perhaps the models are not completely accurate, but if we mere, finite humans can come up with possible reasons for why God would allow various types of evil, then surely god himself has a reason. These models are commonly called theodicies. A theodicy is any justification of God’s goodness and power in the face of evil.

Most people are familiar with the Free Will theodicy, namely, human beings freely make certain choices, some of which result in evil, commonly called moral evil. God’s purpose in allowing moral evil to exist is to bring about certain greater goods. These would include the existence of moral goods like love, generosity, compassion. Free moral agents are needed for moral good.

I don’t know if philosophers use the term theodicy to express the idea that we know exactly how God would allow evil. If so that seems a bit presumptuous. I think I prefer the term Free Will Response to the problem of evil. But I’ll just use the term theodicy for now.

The natural law theodicy says that an orderly created world is necessary for moral agents to act responsibly. Moral order requires physical order. If natural objects were to behave unpredictably, deliberate action by humans would be made difficult, if not impossible. We need to know what the effects of our actions will be, and for this we need nature to behave in regular ways.

For example, we need to know that pushing your little brother off the fifth floor balcony, or that pushing your little brother’s head underwater for too long, or pointing a loaded gun at someone and firing has serious consequences. Our knowledge of the predictable effects of gravity, for example, keep us (or at least should keep us) from acting in irresponsible ways.

These same physical laws are the things that cause hurricanes, earthquakes, and other natural disasters. And these laws are capable of producing both harmful and beneficial effects. The water you drink is the same water that can drown you. The knife you use to cut your food is the same knife that can seriously hurt you.

Though it’s difficult to accept if you’ve gone through one of these disasters, scientists point out that hurricanes and earthquakes are required for life to exist on earth. Christian physicist Hugh Ross (in Facts & Faith, 1998, vol.12, No.4) points out that:

“[H]urricanes…play a vital role in sustaining the right range of temperatures for life. On the one hand, they counterbalance the ocean's tendency to leach carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. This leaching, if unchecked, would result in a catastrophic cooling of the planet. On the other hand, hurricanes prevent the oceans from trapping too much of the sun's heat. They help circulate greenhouse gases globally as they shade the ocean (reflecting solar radiation) locally, preventing heat from building up too dramatically for the safety of certain sea creatures. During the summer of 1995, three hurricanes over the Sargasso Sea increased the flow of carbon dioxide from the water to the atmosphere by more than fifty percent. At the same time, each hurricane cooled the sea water (near the surface) by 7°F (4°C) for two to three weeks at a time.

Meteorologists affirm that too many or too few hurricanes would spell disaster for advanced life on Earth. The fact that their frequency and intensity fall into precisely the right range for life support provides one more piece of evidence that God carefully designed Earth with the necessities of life in mind.”

Elsewhere he write:

“The apologetics question about earthquakes I hear most often is "Why would a loving God allow us to experience the horrors of earthquakes?" I can give one answer from my limited human understanding, and that has to do with His provision for man's food needs.
Without earthquakes, nutrients essential for land life would erode off the continents and accumulate in the oceans. In a relatively brief time, land creatures, at least the advanced species, would starve. But, thanks to tectonic plate movements (the movements that generate earthquakes), nutrients eroded into the oceans are recycled back to the continents.
If the number and intensity of earthquakes on planet Earth were any smaller, the rate of nutrient recycling would be insufficient to support land-based life.

If the number and intensity of earthquakes were any greater, human civilization, certainly, urbanization, would be impossible. The rate of earthquake activity is just right. The next time you feel an earthquake, try thanking God for His perfect providence.

In the case of other disasters, too, such as hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, and blizzards, you may be comforted to learn that here again the number and intensity are ideal for sustaining the best conditions for life on Earth. Though it is painful to suffer or see others suffer through these disasters, we can acknowledge that they are, on a grand scale, a manifestation of God's care.”

God and hurricanes pt.1

Recent natural disasters have focused attention on the relationship between evil, pain and suffering, and an all-powerful, loving God. Some Christians say that God is punishing people for their sins and saying it unlovingly and unintelligently (see this Richard Roeper column, for example)

Others, while not going that far, acknowledge that natural calamities are generally related somehow to a sinful, fallen world.

For example, this article quotes Al Mohler:

“According to Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Kentucky, people who focus on God's loving and powerful qualities have an incomplete understanding of who God is. ‘The one thing that is often missing from that picture, in terms of how people think about God, is that He is also just,’ Reverend Mohler says. ‘That means that we know that one of the reasons the world experiences earthquakes and tsunamis and hurricanes and tornados is because of sin, and the fact that this is a fallen world. It is not like Eden, as God had intended from the beginning.’ A hurricane happens, in other words, because the balance that God intended for this world has been upset by sin.”

The same article quotes a Catholic theologian:

“Nevertheless, the idea that human sin is responsible for something like a urricane is completely foreign to Catholics, according to Sister Elizabeth Johnson, who teaches Theology at Fordham University, a Jesuit school. She says in Catholic theology, hurricanes and earthquakes are caused not by God and not by sin, but by Natural Law. ‘God is the cause of all causes. God is the primary cause,’ she says. ‘Catholic theology teaches that God set the world up with its own integrity as a creature. It has its own natural laws, it has its own internal ways of working. You have an undersea earthquake, and you get a tsunami,’ Professor Johnson says. ‘God didn't cause that. That's the actual working of the planet that keeps it fertile and refreshed and so on. And hurricanes are in the same boat.’

Now, I agree with Mohler that we live in a fallen world. But is sin the specific reason that Hurricane Katrina hit the Gulf states, or that the tsunami hit southeast Asia? I prefer the Catholic approach.

Now, there is a difference between the philosophical or theoretical response to evil, and the pastoral or emotional response. What I want to try to present is a very brief summary of the theoretical response. This is important, I think, because even though most people suffering from evil probably don’t give a rip about the intellectual problem in the midst of the ongoing trials and pains, later on, while reflecting on the question, they may want to look for some answer to the question of why God allows suffering.