R.C. Sproul interviews Ben Stein about his documentary, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
You can watch it by clicking here. (It’s about 28 minutes long)
All of the basic philisophical questions come up.
At one point, Stein is impressed with Sproul’s breadth of knowledge. (at approx. 26:30, if you want to skip to that part)
Warning: The following will most likely offend somebody. Even my wife has her reservations about this idea. She tells me I must “lighten-up.” (I had her permission to write those two lines). But my intent is not to make anybody mad, defensive, or destroy any DVDs. I simply want to raise some questions that we should work through as believers. In essence, I am asking: “What do you think?”
Recently, I posted a short article about Anglican vicar Rev. Harrison who recently released a new book, Must Know Stories, in which he re-tells the major stories of the bible, while spicing up already dysfunctional characters with even more dysfunction and fantastic embellishments. His work reflects the PoMo notion that truth only communicates principle, and mythical approximation can just-as-well communicate the “point” of the bible.
Now, it’s easy for me to make my point when somebody starts making our historical stories even more graphic and clearly perverts the original. But let’s go the other way. What if someone embellishes the truth, changes the characters, removes the graphic parts, and adds age-appropriate parallels? The product would be cute, cuddly, family-friendly, and, yet, very much fictional. Would you have a problem with that? If you don’t, you have an overwhelming evangelical consensus at your back. American Christians (across various denominations) love their Veggie Tales.
Truth in blogging journalism: we have a row of VT DVDs in our movie collection—and I am not exactly sprinting to throw them out. Guilty of ownership, your honor. My point is not to stop watching the VT, or even destroy our current collection.
My point: Even “cuteness” should be held to a high standard. Simply being cute doesn’t give us greater latitude with the truth. Cuteness should be accurate. Our critical filters should be activated when we watch wholesome-looking cartoon characters, just as much as when we watch every art film de jour.
My wife let me know of a good approach to viewing the VT videos. She would have her kindergarten class watch the VT episode, read the real Bible story, and then discuss its similarities and differences. She said they did a fantastic job of dissecting them. It would seem that this approach would equip our kids to be critical thinkers, without dismissing the merits of any form of media.
Now, the VT episodes are shown on Saturday morning with all the other cartoons. They have had to edit out all references to the Bible, resulting in a sweet, moral lesson detached from the historical and overall redemptive story of our “Sacred History”. And if that’s the case, VT is just Aesop reincarnated.
So, it’s been a while since I’ve done one of these posts. One of the reasons for my reticence has been a fear that I just won’t be able to control my thinly veiled glee at what’s transpiring on the Dem side of the aisle. What a fantastic time to be a Republican! We may yet lose, but we’re going to have MONTHS with a spectacular view of the Dems twisting in the wind.
On the one hand, there’s Obama and his spiritual mentor, the race-hate spewing Jeremiah Wright. If you reverse the races involved, any person saying such things would be rightly condemned and ostracized from polite society, like David Duke. Everyone knows that, and yet, somehow Obama’s trying to avoid doing that, which brings me to his speech.
I have often lamented the downfall of the teaching of formal logic. Obama’s speech would be a wonderful place to have a logic lesson. He said that, while condemning Wright, he could no more disown him than his own white grandmother. Haven’t we all known folks who, for good reason or bad, disowned a relative? He could have disowned either his pastor or his grandmother. Certainly it should seem an easier task to disown the pastor, to whom he wasn’t related, than the grandmother. But, more to the point, consider this hypothetical: if any pastor at Riverwood had said the things that Wright said, over and over, from the pulpit, how many of us would have sat idly by?
Today, Barack was on The View, and suggested that Wright has apologized:
Had the reverend not retired, and had he not acknowledged that what he had said had deeply offended people and were inappropriate and mischaracterized what I believe is the greatness of this country, for all its flaws, then I wouldn’t have felt comfortable staying at the church…
Um, did I miss this? When did the apology to the offended happen? Surely this would have been front page news, no? This is Clintonian double-speak at its finest: just say it enough, and it’ll be true. No wonder he and Hillary are at each other’s throats - they’re cut from the same cloth.
Oh, yes, and it has now come out that Wright is building a 10,000 square foot house in a suburb of Chicago. Perhaps the “white greed” that Wright railed against in one of his sermons (acknowledged and recounted in Obama’s own book - see here) isn’t so racially limited after all.
So where does this leave the race? Contrary to what had been predicted by the MSM’s fawning coverage of Obama’s speech, Obama’s negatives are now almost as high as HRC’s. Here are the latest Rasmussen polling numbers (favorable rating first, then unfavorable):
| Obama | Clinton | McCain | |
|---|---|---|---|
| March 13 | 51%-46% | 48%-50% | 51%-45% |
| March 18 | 52%-44% | 47%-50% | 53%-43% |
| March 24 | 46%-52% | 42%-55% | 55%-42% |
Note the tank in BHO’s favorable’s and rise in unfavorables. Anyone care to take bets on whether HRC is leaking out one damaging Wright revelation every few days? What of HRC anyway, will she bow out gracefully for the sake of the party? Consider her words to Greta Van Susteren:
VAN SUSTEREN: And if he says, no, I won’t do it, that leaves Michigan and Florida out. And does that leave you out?CLINTON: No. Not at all, because we are going to make sure those votes get counted, one way or another.
VAN SUSTEREN: How?
CLINTON: Well, you know, you can always go to the convention. That is what credential fights are for. You know, let’s have the Democratic Party go on record against seating the Michigan and Florida delegations three months before the general election? I don’t think that will happen. I think they will be seated. So that is where we are headed if we don’t get this worked out.
If a credentials fight erupts at the Dem convention in August, I will be GLUED to the TV. I may even live-blog it, for the sheer joy it will bring to me as a Republican.
Meanwhile, John McCain has been traveling to Iraq and the middle east looking and sounding, uh, presidential.
Enjoy this while it lasts, folks.
An Anglican vicar, the right Reverend Robert Harrison has just released his new book, Must Know Stories. He retells all of the major biblical stories while updating them “to create more interest.” Goliath is now a drunk, and Eve is now a sex-crazed man-eater. You can read all about it here.
As if the Bible needed more graphic stories of sinful people doing sinful things.
It’s not that these characters are/are not guilty of his revisions, it’s that they are revised and presented as the truth.
Here is the most fantastic PoMo quote from the article:
“It’s better to tell the story controversially than not at all.”
Do you know what we call this genre? Fiction. Let’s not call it the Bible.
In George Will’s column today he offers up some fascinating data. (Washington Post, March 27, 2008, “Conservatives More Liberal Givers”) You can read it in its entirety here:
Here are some tidbits:
• “Although liberal families’ incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227). “
• “People who reject the idea that “government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality” give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition. “
I don’t think there is room for any conservative to heave a self-contented sigh, but I think it is very interesting to examine the self-perceptions of both camps. By virtue of my calling and denominational affiliation, most Americans would view me as a “conservative.” Yet, I would not feel that my charitable giving was “excellent” or “good,” even. Contrast that to the “liberals” in Will’s article who would have a generally positive view of their charitable giving. Where is the disconnect? George Will alludes to it at the conclusion of his article.
Clay recently blogged about the California judicial case regarding who may or may not be allowed to homeschool. There is an update today.
From the Home School Legal Defense Association’s Newsletter:
Court of Appeal Grants Petition for Re-hearing
On March 25, the California Court of Appeal granted a motion for rehearing in the ‘In re Rachel L.’ case—the controversial decision which purported to ban all homeschooling in that state unless the parents held a teaching license qualifying them to teach in public schools.
The automatic effect of granting this motion is that the prior opinion is vacated and is no longer binding on any one, including the parties in the case.
Complete info HERE
There is more info in the letter about different people/groups filing amicus briefs, etc., but the fact that this motion was granted is a very important step toward (hopefully) protecting parents’ rights.
Last night’s Riverwood Movie Night featured the movie, Amazing Grace. It depicted the life of William Wilburforce and the ending of the British slave trade. The movie was very thought provoking, and the issues raised by the film resonate with Christians today. Below are listed some potential questions and issues raised by the film. Give us your thoughts on these, and any others that come to mind.
• After the conversion of Wilburforce, he struggles with a choice as to whether to devote his life to God in Christian service or to enter politics and fight for the abolition of the slave trade. Is there a sense in which this is two versions of the same choice? At one point, Wilburforce is told to “be in the world, not of the world.” How does this relate, if at all, to the previous question?
• John Newton, after his conversion, became a popular and successful minister of a London church. He was very happily married, and his wife was obviously a large part of his life. In the movie, he is shown as guilt ridden, monkish, virtually alone, and filled with remorse. Is this the message of the hymn, Amazing Grace? Should, or even can, this be the true situation of the converted Christian?
• The lines of dialogue spoken by the Newton character; “I remember two things: I am a very great sinner and Christ is a very great Savior” were actually written by Newton. How can these be applied to the character as portrayed in the movie?
• Barbara Spooner tells Wilburforce that, as a young girl, she told her father that the sugar he gave her “had slave blood in it.” Can a comparison be made with third world labor in our day? In what ways are the issues the same and in what ways are they different?
• Wilburforce overcame an opium addiction that was fairly common in those days since it was an often prescribed pain medication (remember the poet, William Taylor Coleridge.) The movie indicates three sources for his victory over the drug: the cause he fought for, the support and love of Barbara, and his faith. Was this victory overplayed? Underplayed? Was it realistic?
• For a time, William Pitt dropped his support for the abolitionist cause due to his national responsibilities in the Napoleonic Wars. Should moral issues be set aside because of national issues? Would a French victory have impacted the cause of abolition positively or negatively? Do these type issues arise today? Is patriotism, or the perceived lack thereof, still evoked in today’s issues? You may want to consider the discussions about the previous movie, Hotel Rwanda as you consider this. Did Wilburforce accept Pitt’s decision?
• One of the stronger portrayals in the film was that of Charles Fox. He was shown as a crusty, effective politician who still had a heart for right. Are such types still around? How pervasive is the corrupting influence of power now? Is this related to a diminishing of Christian influence? Was Christianity the driving force for Fox as portrayed in the film?
• The British Empire’s economic dependence on the slave trade is a significant part of the dynamics of this movie. Are answers given in the movie to the money/politics conundrum? As in America’s “Great Depression,” was war the only answer to resolve the economic issues?
• Wilburforce was truly a committed Christian totally apart from the slavery issue and wrote several books on Christianity. These were not referred to in the movie. Was this lesser focus on Christianity necessary for dramatic continuity in the movie? Would giving his faith a greater part in the movie helped or hindered the theme and message? Did you feel that the Faith was well served in the movie?
• Many of the characters portrayed in the movie would be considered “dangerous liberals” in America’s current evangelical climate. Is there a sense in which true liberalism has changed? Is there a sense in which evangelistic Christianity has changed? Have both changed to a degree, and how?
Recently, a church leader in Birmingham said that young PCA guys were a bunch of “iconoclasts”— always wanting to smash down all kinds of idols— be they traditionally venerated or obvious. Ok, I admit, I fit the description.
In reflection upon that this morning, I stumbled across this thought:
What do I run to when I am openly rebelling against God? Answer: An obvious idol that should give me great pause.
But the next question reveals something just as insidious: What do I run to when I want to feel close to God, again? Answer: A not-so-obvious idol, but an idol nonetheless, if it is anything less than Christ.
Barack’s pastor(actually, former pastor), Jeremiah Wright, lays it down:
Watch and discuss.
Unconvinced of the prevalence of good old-fashioned sin, the Vatican has released its new beta-model of The Seven Deadly Sins. Apparently, these new 7 are even deadlier due to the spectre of globalization: The article is here:
For your convenience, I’ve summarized the changes below. Discussion point: Don’t you think “accumulating excessive wealth” may stem from “greed?” Ok, actually that was a rhetorical question.
About three weeks ago, I posted on the current desire/need to be a victim in modern American culture. I ran across a quote today from Tim Rutten in the LA TImes that I consider profound:
“In the United States and, increasingly, in parts of Western Europe, the only unchallenged moral authority has become that of victims.”
Think about that for a minute.
The modern day left LOATHES homeschooling. Kimberly and I have started watching Boston Legal, which I probably shouldn’t be confessing here, but nonetheless, we’ve noticed that every time they portray homeschoolers, it’s done in a way to paint the homeschoolers as kooks, weirdos, subversives, or even criminals. I ascribe this loathing to two facts: first, that most homeschoolers are evangelical Christian, and second that those children will not be available for the social engineering that liberals like to try through the public schools (e.g., sex ed).
So, on Drudge today, there’s a link to an interesting case from California. Apparently an appellate court in California has held that, unless the parents doing the homeschooling are state-credentialed teachers, they must enroll their children in a public or private full-time school. The homeschooling parent’s being supervised by a church, private, or charter school is insufficient for the court, it seems.
The ruling has caught the homeschoolers in California completely off guard. They’re promising an appeal to the California Supreme Court. If that’s not successful, then the vast majority of homeschool parents can be arrested for truancy and charged with “educational neglect” - whatever that is. Predictably, the teachers’ union pronounced itself “happy” with the ruling.
I don’t think the homeschoolers will go down without a fight, though:
Homeschooling parent Debbie Schwarzer of Los Altos said she’s ready for a fight. Schwarzer runs Oak Hill Academy out of her Santa Clara County home. It is a state-registered private school with two students, she said, noting they are her own children, ages 10 and 12. She does not have a teaching credential, but she does have a law degree. “I’m kind of hoping some truancy officer shows up on my doorstep,” she said. “I’m ready. I have damn good arguments.” She opted to teach her children at home to better meet their needs. The ruling, Schwarzer said, “stinks.”
Seems as though the gloves are coming off on both sides…..
Deep down, I’ve always suspected that Moses was a stoner. Tell the truth, now - haven’t you? I mean, really, what else could possibly explain how he got the 10 Commandments? Benny Shanon, a professor of cognitive psychology at Hebrew University in Jerusalem is now calling him out:
“As far Moses on Mount Sinai is concerned, it was either a supernatural cosmic event, which I don’t believe, or a legend, which I don’t believe either, or finally, and this is very probable, an event that joined Moses and the people of Israel under the effect of narcotics,” Shanon told Israeli public radio on Tuesday. “Moses was probably also on drugs when he saw the “burning bush,” suggested Shanon, who said he himself has dabbled with such substances.
I think that last line explains a lot.