Migrating my blog

While I will keep this blog here, I will be migrating over to Wordpress. www.popchrist.wordpress.com

Please follow me there. 

I also have a new blog called Where the Sidewalks End about my experiences as a father with a special needs child.

Ken Ham's Humean Skepticism or Hey, Ham Your Enlightened Roots are Showing

In a recent post, Dr. Elizabeth Mitchell does what Ken Ham and AIG do in the majority of their posts. She responds to a recent scientific publication in which researchers write about something related to the theory of evolution or the age of the universe. Then she and the team at AIG attempt to offer an alternative explanation of the same evidence. Their explanation is supposed to undermine the conclusions and assumptions of the researchers and validate (or conform) to the texts of Genesis 1-11 which they interpret scientifically.

As title of Mitchell's article suggests, Mitchell and the AIG see the problem as stemming from differing world-views or presuppositions. The presupposition of the so-called "secular" scientists is that the universe is billions of years old, the presupposition of AIG (which they base on their interpretation of the Bible) is that the earth is less than 7,000 years old and that the catastrophic flood described in Genesis 6-9 was a global flood and occured around 4,300 years ago. Like AIG, I do think there is a clash of world-views and presuppositions going on in this "debate" (it cannot be called a dialogue) but it is not the clash identified by Ken Ham and AIG. The clash is between the implicit skepticism of AIG and the Christian tradition. The unacknowledged skepticism of Ken Ham and his followers is evident in their radical distrust of human reason and their claims about our access to knowledge about the past. Statements about the past in AIG articles are strikingly similar to enlightenment philospher David Hume's radical skepticism with respect to the idea of causation.

The battle of presuppostions as defined by Ken Ham and AIG are introduced to begin Mitchell's refutation of the researchers. These are not presented as competing hypotheses but competing prejudices and the final arbiter is God because God was there. The Bible offers an eyewitness account of the circumstances that led to the relevant data, according to Ken Ham and the team at AIG. Mitchell writes,

What kind of catastrophe could have deposited all that material over such a huge region? We know of no comparable event happening today, so the present is not the key to the past. We must therefore either deduce how these geologic layers came to be in light of the historical record—God’s eyewitness account in the Bible—or else assume, as this group of scientists has done, that the layers accumulated over millions of years.

The scientists studying the region are studying these beautiful rock formations and fossils in the present. They have collected a great deal of observable information about the mudstones, the fossilized pollen grains, plants and animals buried in them there, and the charcoal and carbonate nodules in these rock units. They catalogued the kinds of pollen, plants, and animals preserved in these rock layers. They obtained reflectance measurements on pieces of charcoal and isotopic ratios on carbonate nodules. But that is where the observable data in their study ends. The rest of the study consists of interpretation, extrapolating from the observable, testable data to the unobservable, untestable past. [emphasis in the original]

Notice how Mitchell emphasizes the seemingly obvious claim that we do not have immediate access to the events of the past. We only have access to observable, testable data and everything else is intepretation and speculation.  But the presuppositions of AIG go further, as fallible human beings, we cannot be trusted to infer the historical causes of the data in front of us. Therefore, our only access to the past is through what AIG calls "historical science" which amounts to eyewitness testimony (God's eyewitness testimony -- human beings are fallible after all).* As Joel Anderson has pointed out, Ken Ham and AIG are remarkably inconsistent in practice. That is, human testimony or "speculation" in favour of old earth or evolutionary theories is frequently discounted by AIG because of its fallible source. However, AIG accepts testimony when it is in favour of their position or supports their claims. (See the reference to Mt. St. Helen's in this article and their recent post on "selected" Church Fathers.) The logic mus be something like this: "Of course, I may reference Martin Luther on the age of the earth because he is obviously merely reporting the eyewitness report of Scripture and not relying on fallible human reason on this point.

Like David Hume, AIG places a great deal of emphasis on our immediate sensory experience in contrast to our "extrapolations" (or inferences) about the causes of what we see. In the above quote, we do not even seem to be able to extrapolate (infer) from localized disasters to a large scale catastrophe (by which they mean the flood). Such skepticism seems to call into question anything done in a lab. The radical skepticism of their position is further clarified in what follows:

The authors of the study collected a great deal of data. But what did they actually see? All they saw were rock layers containing carbonate nodules and fossils of animals, pollen, and plants, and pieces of wood and charcoal. They measured isotopic compositions and the light reflectance of the charcoal. They identified and inventoried the dead plants and animals buried in those rock layers. They did not, however, see any wildfires. They did not see the flora and fauna living in the region. They did not even see any ancient soil. They did not measure the atmospheric carbon dioxide content of a long ago place. They did not measure the temperatures of wildfires. All their conclusions about the conditions of the place and time that produced these rock layers depend wholly on their belief that the layers were deposited over millions of years and reflect the local environment.

WARNING WHAT FOLLOWS IS SELF INDULGENT HUMOR

Take that CSI. I would not want anyone from AIG on my investigative team. But, if I were on trial for murder and there were no eye-witnesses, I would want my jury filled with people from AIG. Their criteria for reasonable doubt is extremely low. "Members of the jury, we have shown that the evidence presented by the prosecution as evidence of murder, can also be explained by a global catastrophe. Unless you doubt the eyewitness testimony of God, you must acquit the defendant. If the flood fits, you must acquit." Self indulgence complete.

As you can see, Mitchell, Ham, and the folks at AIG, in their emphasis on our present sensory experience (aka observable, testable data), demonstrate a palpable skepticism with respect to our abilit to infer causes from their observable effects. The researchers only had charcoal. They did not have fire.

WARNING: SELF INDULGENT HUMOR 2

I would love to be Ken Ham's child. I can hear it, now.

Ham: Son, who broke the vase?

Ham Jr.: I don't know.

Ham: It wasn't broken when your mother and I left and you were home alone. Isn't that your baseball?

Ham Jr.: Dad, there are many other possible explanations for why a vase might be broken and why my baseball might be lying in the shards. You are extrapolating based on your fallible human reason and your beliefs about the nature of boys and a belief that baseballs break vases. Have you ever seen a baseball break a vase?

Ham: Well, know I haven't, Son. However, when I was a boy, I broke a window playing cricket.

Ham Jr.: Dad, a window is not a vase. All you have is shards of vase and a baseball that looks very similar to my baseball, and I may not even be the same boy that you left here this morning.

Ham: Son, did you . . . 

Ham Jr.: Dad, let me finish. If there is one thing that you have taught me, its that the past is the past and when there is more than one possible explanation for the evidence, no matter how implausible, then we must turn from observational science to historical science. Dad, did you see me break the vase?

Ham: No, son, I didn't.

Ham Jr.: Does it say anywhere in the Bible that I broke the vase?

Ham: No, son, it doesn't.

Ham Jr.: Then Dad, I think we've learned all we can here. Let's leave this mess for Mom to clean up. We have an Ark to build.

Self Indulgence Complete. Return to Serious Argument.

In his influential work An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, David Hume argues that all our ideas come from our sensory experience our sense impressions. The idea of causal connection or necessary connection is not one of these impressions, it is not something we see.  Rather, it is something that we feel to be true based on our customary (habitual) and frequent association of two or more sense impressions that tend to follow each other.

In other words, when we say that "thing 1" causes "thing 2", it would be more correct to say that we have the habit of thinking "thing 2" after "thing 1." Their may or not be any real connection between the two things. We cannot know either way because we do not have direct access to the world outside our minds. According to Hume, if I speak of the smell of a rose, upon self-examination, we come to understand it is more accurate to say that the impressions of a certain flower shape, the colour red, and a particular fragrance often accompany each other.

Hume uses the examples of billiard balls and a vibrating string. He writes, "We say, for instance, that the vibration of this string is the cause of this particular sound. But what do we mean by that affirmation? We either mean, that this vibration is followed by the sound and that all similar vibrations have been followed by similar sounds: Or, that this vibration is followed by the sound ,and that upon the appearance of one, the mind anticipates the senses, and forms immediately an idea of the other. We may consider the relation of cause and effect in either of these two lights; but beyond these, we have no idea of it." (Hume, Enquiry, Oxford University Press, 1999, 146) In other words, Hume is skeptical about our ability to say anything definitive about cause and effect in the external world.

Hume's skepticism is radical. Some might argue, and this is my understanding of his argument, that Hume is skeptical about our minds having any real relation to our own bodies. (Think "mind in a vat" from Philosophy 101.)

Now, I am not suggesting that Ken Ham is so committed to skepticism that he would suggest that the mind has no real connection to our body. Indeed, I doubt that Ham sees himself as a skeptic at all. However, the barrier he erects between our present experience and our knowledge of the past is akin to Hume's skepticism with respect to causal relations. Mitchell, in accord with Ham and AIG, states that because we do not have present access to a global flood, our present experience is of no help to us. Interestingly, in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume employs a similar argument to discount miracles (and I suspect global catastrophes). That is, since Hume (and assumes most his contemporaries) does not see miracles today, then it is highly improbable that they occurred in the past. It seems to me that Ham differs from Hume primarily in his belief that the Bible offers infallible scientific data about the past and in his inconsistency. As I suggested, I do not think Ham and Mitchell are aware that they are skeptics and would likely refute the charge and, as a result, they are inconsistent in their practices. Hume takes his skepticism to its logical conclusiong.

In conclusion, I would like to point out the sad irony of Hamean skepticism. In the name of defending God, the Bible, Creation, the Church and young minds, Ham's radical distrust of our ability to reason, his radical skepticism about our access to the past, and his self-serving definitions of "observable" and so-called "historical science", run counter to the Christian tradition which he claims to defend.

Far from being radically distrustful of the human capacity to reason, many (likely most) theologians, up to and beyond the Protestant Reformation, saw in this faculty our "likeness" to God. Indeed, some went so far as to suggest that our ability to reason and think God's thoughts after Him (by which they often meant seek to understand and discover the world God made) constituted what in Genesis 1 is called "the image of God in man." Moreover, it was assumed that the created order could be grasped by reason. We can never come to understand God by mere reason alone but we as part of creation, as being's made in God's image, and endowed with minds that reason can fathom what God has made. We can infer causes from effects. We can extrapolate. We can theorize. We can change our minds based on new evidence. We can dialogue. Some historians of science argue that it this Christian perspective, the perspective that has a basic trust of the human ability to reason and assumes that world is rationally ordered, that gave rise to what we now refer to as the modern scientific method.

If we follow Ham's method, we lose our access to the past, we lose our ability to reasonably infer cause from effect, we lose our trust of human testimony, and, in the end, we may even lose our minds.

"Answer a fool according to his folly, don't answer a fool according to his folly, you will regret it either way."

Why Seven Days? Heavenly Bodies, Ancient Gods, and 24 Hour Tangents

The number 7 plays a significant structural role both in the writings and practices of ancient Israel. Is there something ontologically (bound with the very nature of existence) significant about the number? Is the number 7 something like the c in e=mc2? Maybe, I don't know. Ask a physicist.

(I am sure somebody somewhere has written a book with the spurious claim that the number 7 is the key to unlocking the universe and used the Jewish and Christian Scripture to "prove" it.)

Why is the number 7 significant? Why do we have a 7 day week?

Some are so eager to make a huge deal about the 7 days of Genesis 1 that they have never stop to ask more basic questions?

In homeschooling my children, I am trying to teach them that better questions lead to better answers. So, sometimes I ask them to tell me what is wrong with a question and how a more basic question might lead to a better answer. Here is one that I have used more than once:

"How many times a day does the sun go around the earth?"

While they are tempted to say once (and this would accord with the perspective of the authors of the Bible), they have learned to pause and think about what is, perhaps, wrong with a question.

Hey, wait a minute. The sun doesn't go around the earth. So, a more basic question might be, "Does the sun go around the earth?" Which might lead to the better question? "How many times does the earth spin on its axis in a day?"

So, where do we get the number 7 from and why was it the measure of days for so many of the world's cultures. In many languages (at least European languages), the hint is in the names of the days of the week. It helps to know a couple of languages. English is a bastard language -- ask anyone who has tried to learn it. What I mean is modern English is born of a hodgepodge of Latin, Greek, French, German, and, I suspect, Danish (and other Scandinavian languages). So, we seem to get the names of the days of the week from a variety of roots. However, some are still obvious.

Sunday, Monday (or moonday), Thursday (is it derived from Thor's day), Saturday (Saturn-day) -- noticing a pattern?

French: Lundi (lune), Mardi (Mars), Mercredi (Mercury), Jeudi (Jupiter?), Vendredi (Venus?)

We have seven days in a week because in the Ancient world looking at the skies not at a watch or cell phone told you what time it was. You did not need a calendar, if you could see the stars at night. Now, looking at the night sky, many in the Ancient world could see that five heavenly bodies behaved differently than the majority of their heavenly companions (the heavenly host). These 7 heavenly bodies moved and changed.

These are the sun, the moon, and the five planets that are on a clear night visible to the naked eye. Mercury, Mars, Venus, Jupiter and Saturn.

Now, in the ancient world, and as the names suggest, each of these celestial bodies was associated with a god. The gods moved the stars and the gods controlled the times and the seasons. The celestial bodies were even worshipped as gods in many ancient cultures.

When the author of Genesis 1 chose to poetically structure his account of creation according to the 7 days, it is my conviction (and the conviction of many Biblical scholars -- Christian and non-Christian) that, in doing so, he is making a theological statement about the God of Israel. Over against the surrounding pagan cultures, he was saying that there is only one God who creates and only one God who orders the time and the seasons. That is why the celestial bodies are only created on the fourth day and placed into the realm the Creator God had made for them on the first day. If their are other "gods", they were made by and serve the Most High God, Elohim, the Lord of Hosts (heavenly bodies/angel armies).

The focus on and defense of days as 24 hour periods (or otherwise attempting to discern their duration) is tangential and distracts from the fundamental interests of the biblical author and his (and Israel's) truly radical and countercultural claims. As a Christian theologian, I am open to learning about God's good creation through the excellent work of skilled physicists, chemists, and biologists regardless of their philosophy. Just as the author of Genesis 1 looked at the same sky as his pagan neigbours, but came to different conclusions about God (n.b. He did not argue that pagans were wrong about the number of celestial bodies orbiting the sun or the physical nature of those bodies.), so I can come to some understanding of the Big Bang, Blackholes, the origin of species and come to a different conclusion about who is ultimately responsible for our little cosmos.

*****

On this topic I cannot help but once again recommend John Walton's excellent book and Rikk Watts talk.

Making Sense of Genesis 1 (MP3 or CD)

Also, understanding Biblical Theology is an aid to this kind of Christian thinking. Try one or more of the following:

Regent Audio:

Rikk Watts: Biblical Theology for Contemporary Christians
Bruce Waltke (and Gordon Fee): Biblical Theology of Origins: Genesis 1-11, Biblical Theology Old and New Testaments*

*N.B. While I higly recommend Waltke's "Biblical Theology" and his exegesis, I come to a different conclusion about the roles of men and women based on his exegesis. But, then again, so does Gordon Fee with whom he co-taught. That is, the nature of Regent College and real conversation -- genuine disagreement in a loving community that encourages ongoing dialogue.

Books:

A Quick Google Searh for the Truth? Chuck Missler, Little Grey Men, andthe Christian Reader

I served a customer the other day who was looking for books by Chuck Missler. We do not stock his books. So, he asked if I would special order one his books. "If you would like," I said.

Now, having special ordered a book by this author in the past, I knew that I could not recommend him to my customer.

I asked the customer if he knew that Missler was writing books about aliens in our Bibles. The customer responded that I must have the wrong Chuck Missler because his other books are, "Right on."

I pulled up Missler's website and showed the customer. He remained where he was (in denial).

The customer placed his special order and later came back to buy his book. The logic behind his decision to go ahead and buy Missler's book was that he is a very popular Christian author.

The customer I served earlier also dismissed his wackier ideas because he is a popular author whom she had heard recommended on the radio.

So, popularity and media recommendations are assurances of Christian orthodoxy.

Anyway, we sold them their books.

*This post was originally published on my other blog about seven years ago. I have re-posted it because Joel Anderson mentioned it in his blog resurrecting orthodoxy.

#popchrist #chuckmissler

New Jerusalem or the Borg?*

When Star Trek: First Contact was in theatres, my friends at Regent College noticed the similarity between the design of the Borg ship and the shape of the New Jerusalem. We came up with our own Christian Borg slogan, "Resistance is futile. You will be resurrected."

We laughed but maybe we were not so far off. For a quick Google search will reveal that indeed there are aliens in our Bibles. You simply have to read the Bible with the correct interpretive lens. Thanks to Orson Welles' 1938 presentation of War of the Worlds, alien invasion was injected deep into the American psyche. In the Cold War World, the myth of the Little Green Men spread. As reports of sightings, abductions and other close encounters proliferate, the myth has taken a strong foothold in our cultural imagination. From these reports, we now "know" that these Visitors are not Green but Grey. The verdict is still out whether these Visitors are benevolent or more like us.

So, how do I find them in my Bible? Well, once you believe the reports and have an encyclopaedic view of scripture, then getting the aliens into the Bible is a simple matter. Any being that tries to teach or communicate a message to the human race from "the heavens" that doesn't specifically point to Jesus Christ is a demon, especially, if they promise world peace. Hocus Pocus! Aliens are really demons. Tada!

One of the arguments I have read is that only demons would have the technology that aliens seem to possess. Well, if aliens are demons. Then what is God. Is the New Jerusalem which comes down from the heavens, a huge cubical alien spacecraft? Or is someone misreading their Bible with a wacky hermeneutic?

The Fundamentalist and Dispensationalist approaches to scripture tend to import current culture into the Bible and then these beliefs come out as the inspired, infallible word of God. That is, if we read aliens into the Bible, then the Bible affirms the existence of "little grey men" and who are we as Christians to argue with God. There is no room left to say, perhaps these are demonic or psychological experiences but aliens are not visiting the earth.

The irony is that this approach to scripture often ends up supporting the worldviews which evoked the reaction.

People who believe in aliens are deceived and spreading lies.
Demons spread lies.
Demons come from the heavens.
Aliens come from the heavens.
Ergo, Aliens are demons.
People who believe in aliens are having genuine experience with otheworldly creatures.
Aliens exist and the Bible says so.

Is this really a phenomena or am I creating a straw man?
Hal Lindsey on Aliens as Fallen Angels
Chuck Missler reads Aliens into Revelations Old Testament Allusions

I am sure a quick google search for the "truth" will reveal more examples. See my post "A Quick Google Search for the Truth" for a demonstration of how these authors continue to make money despite their whacky claims.

*This post was originally published on my other blog about seven years ago. I have re-posted it because Joel Anderson mentioned it in his blog resurrecting orthodoxy.

Here is a link to one of Joel's post on Ken Ham's take on Aliens. Holy Ham, Ken? E.T. is an Atheist!
#popchrist #HalLindsey #ChuckMissler #aliensinbible

Ham-Handed Hermeneutics 1: Reading the Church Father I -- Origen of Alexandria (ca. 184 - ca.254)

Currently, on Ken Ham's website Answers in Genesis, there is a presentation of the Church Fathers' reading of Genesis 1 by James R. Mook. The claim of Mook and the people at AIG is that up until the Enlightenment the standard interpretation of Genesis 1 is in keeping with and supports the claims of Young Earth Creationism. That is, the universe is less than 7,000 years old and that the reference to a day in Genesis 1 is to be taken as a concrete or literal 24 hour period.

The alternative is to read the days as figurative, metaphorical, or poetic as many contemporary biblical scholars do. The reference to days is poetic structure that says more about who God is than how God did it. In other words, the days function like the seals, trumpets, and bowls in Revelation and the alphabet in Lamentations and Psalm 119. (See John Walton's excellent book The Lost World of Genesis One [link below] or if you don't have time to read listen to Rikk Watts's Making Sense of Genesis 1.)

In the next little while, both out of personal curiousity and to investigate the claims of Ken Ham, Mook, and the AIG, I will see what the Church Fathers (Early Christian Writers) have to say about Genesis 1. How do they understand a day? How old do they think the earth is? Are they open to alternative interpretations? Are they open to new interpretations based on new information? etc.

In a moment, I will turn to Origen's influential work On First Principles. However, at this point, I want to make a comment on Ham's inconsistent approach to extra-biblical evidence. Whenever scholars whether they are biblical scholars (including Evangelical Christians) or scientists reference exta-biblical evidence, Ham responds with the trope are you going to trust the witness of "fallible man" or the infallible God. Yet, here AIG is appealing to the Church Fathers and church tradition to support Ham's thesis that Genesis 1 was interpreted literally up until the Enlightenment. Is this a case of counting the hits and ignoring the misses? Isn't this approach to history and extra-biblical evidence akin to practicing astrology, interpreting Nostradomus (where is he now -- he was popular in the eighties), and some readings of Revelation? Even my children are learning that sometimes we focus only on what we want to be true and ignore any evidence to the contrary. Even the Church Fathers, for the most part, will agree that they too are fallible human beings.

Okay, let's turn to Origen perhaps the most influential Ante-Nicene (that is, he lived and wrote before the Council of Nicaea) Church Father. Writing in the the third century, Origen was critical of those who read all scripture literally. Indeed, Origen insists that while all srcipture has a spiritual (metaphorical, allegorical) meaning not all scripture has a bodily (literal/concrete) meaning. To illustrate this point at its most basic level, let us take the biblical phrase, "God is a Rock." If we take this phrase in its bodily or literal sense, then we wrongly interpret this to mean that "God is a piece of granite or obsidian." Yet, most of us know that the biblical authors did not mean that we should figure out whether God formed through volcanic or sedimentary processes but that God has rock-like qualities, i.e. God is unchanging, God is a firm foundation (uh oh, another metaphor).

Let's take something a little more complicated with both a bodily and a spiritual meaning. Origen, Ham, and I would agree that David literally killed Goliath with a slingshot. The literal meaning is that a young Israelite man (not a talking Asparagus) killed a large Philistine soldier with a stone. Now, Origen and I (and I expect Ham would agree with me, on this one) would say that is not all that is meant by the story. The meaning of the story goes beyond the mere concrete facts and that meaning can be expanded beyond the mere facts. Level 1: God is with Israel over against her enemies the Philistines. Level 2: God is with Israel over against all her human enemies. Level 3: God is with his people over against all her enemies including the invisible or demonic forces that oppose her. Level 4: God is with Christ against Satan and his forces. Level 5: God is with me as I battle my personal demons. Should I go on or do you get the point?

So, what does Origen say about Genesis 1? To give you an idea, read the following:

"Now what man [or woman, and Origen did teach women] of intelligence will believe that the first and the second and the third day, and the evening and the morning existed with the sun and moon and stars? And that the first day, if we may so call it, was even without a heaven? And who is so silly as to believe that God, after the manner of a farmer, 'planted a paradise eastward of Eden', and set in it a visible and palpable 'tree of life', of such a sort that anyone who tasted its fruit with his bodily teeth would gain life; and again that one could partake of 'good and evil' by masticating the fruit taken from the tree of that name? . . . " (Origen, On First Principles, Book IV.3.i -- Harper & Row, 1973)

Moreover, in Chapter 4 of Book I, Origen speculates that creation could be eternal. For Origen and other Church Fathers, the age of the universe (the cosmos) did not matter nearly as much as the relationship of God to the Creation. That is, God is the Creator of all that is not God and God has no origin outside of God. "If then particular things which are 'under the sun' have already existed in the ages which were before us -- since 'there is nothing new under the sun' -- undoubtedly all genera and species have for ever existed, and some would say even individual things; but either way, the fact that God did not begin at a certain time to be Creator, when he had not been such before."

So, in at least one Church Father, and an influential one at that, we find an author who thinks a literal reading of the days in Genesis 1 is "silly" and who feels free to speculate that creation is eternal so long as we say it is the work of God. Similar thinking about origins will later help theologians articulate the doctrine of the Trinity.

Now, in anticipation of a possible response to my using Origen as an example, many of Origen's ideas were later deemed heretical. However, while not all Ante-Nicene Fathers would be labelled Heretics, read in light of Nicaea most of them will say something that is in retrospect will sound heretical. It is in part Origen's substantial influence that made him a particular target. (For a succint consideration of the problem of Origen see this article by Doyle Baxter.

N.B. I know enough about Patristics to know that I am no expert on the Church Fathers. I would welcome the comments or indeed contributions of my Pastristically minded friends and colleagues. If you know a particular Church Father's view on Genesis 1 and Creation related stuff, then please write blog style entry and I will post it, even if they think the universe is less than 7,000 years old.

The Lost World of Genesis One: Ancient Cosmology and the Origins Debate

Damn Right I've Got the Gospel

Sometimes, the good news is found in unexpectd places. In my own life, I first learned of redemption from the final scenes of Return of the Jedi. But when I was dragged to a church, I was told that God was nothing like the force in Star Wars. Too bad, the force is way cool. I learned about the nature of sin and the propensity of human beings to cross the boundaries that God has set for us from Stephen King's Pet Semetary. King's books were forbidden in my home. So, of course, I got them from my sister.

In my youth, Christians told me not to read The Lord of the Rings because it was demonic -- it has Sauron, monsters and magic in it and leads to D&D (like the response to Harry Potter and Pokemon). I was even told not to read C.S. Lewis's The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe because it has a witch. Keep in mind, I was not a Christian at the time when I was warned away from all these Christian authors.

This year, I took a trip to Alabama with two of my sons. Since we were in the neighborhood, I planned a trip to Fame Studios. I also stocked iTunes with songs recorded at Fame Studios. This included a few songs by The Rolling Stones. While I have always been a fan of sixties music (The Beatles, The Yardbirds, Led Zeppelin, The Doors, Cream, The Mamas & The Papas, etc. etc.), I had never really listened to the Stones beyond the more popular tunes, i.e. "Satisfaction", "Get Off of My Cloud", "You Can't Alway Get What You Want." Yet, the raw and bluesy nature of the Fame Studios recordings drew me to dig a little deeper.

While looking at other titles and listening to snippets on iTunes, I came across a song called "The Prodigal Son" on the album Beggar's Banquet. I have been suggesting to Christian musicians for years that we need a Blues album based on the Psalms. Here, I found an amazing blues rendition of the parable of the prodigal son by The Rolling Stones. (Although, I am pictured with a guitar. I only started learning last year.

Now, I am not suggesting in any way that the Stones are another U2 or that Mick Jagger and Keith Richards are any type of role model. (Then again, the Bible has Judah and Tamar, the rape of Dinah, David, Bathsheba & Uriah, etc. and U2 doesn't get airplay on Christian radio stations.) However, people who would not step foot in a church or pick up a Bible might just encounter the Gospel in a very unexpected place.

Interestingly, "The Prodigal Son" is on the same album as "Sympathy for the Devil" which has often been set forth as evidence of the Stones Satanic bent. That some people think that "Sympathy for the Devil" is somehow a pro-Satan song only demonstrates that they either never listened to the lyrics or that they are poor interpreters of poetry. (Of course, Christians ought to be excellent intepreters of poetry since a large proportion of the Bible is poetry and a key element in Christian worship is singing poetry. Sadly, most Christians are not.) Instead of a reactionary approach to the word "Devil" in a song title, the two songs on this album and other songs like "Gimme Shelter" could be the beginning of a conversation.

So could Led Zeppelin's version of "In My Time of Dying" and "Nobody's Fault But Mine" or The Cure's   "Open" or Green Day's "Boulevard of Broken Dreams" or . . . the list can go on.

While I am only a novice musician, I think Christian musicians can learn a few things from these enduring artists and their gospel roots (listen to Mavis Staple's We'll Never Turn Back or her Dad's Father, Father). Or read the Psalms.

The rest of us need to learn how to become better interpreters of poetry and be listening for where the Spirit is already at work.

Shofar, So Good?

There is a growing (and, shall I add, disturbing) trend of blowing shofars (ram's horns) as a Christian worship practice. I have been aware for some time that some Christians have been incorporating the symbols of Judaism into their corporate worship. For the most part, these practices seem to be taking root in congregations of Dispensationalist and/or Charismatic persuasion. For instance, the first time I saw this syncretistic worship was when I happened upon a John Hagee broadcast. Gentiles (that is non-Jews) were wearing yarmulkes and utilizing prayer shawls in Christian worship.

Now, trying to be charitable toward my fellow Christians, I assume that at least in part the rationale behind adopting Jewish symbols and practices into Christian worship is a misguided attempt to recognize the historical roots of Christianity and to express a sense of solidarity with Jews, in general, and likely with Israel, in particular, given the role of the modern nation-state in Dispensationalist biblical interpretation. I sincerely believe that most Christians engaging in these syncretistic practices of appropriating bar mitzahs, seder meals, prayer shawls, and, now, shofarot have little to no awareness that their practices are more likely to cause offense than to express solidarity and respect. On this point, see this excellent short article by Jean Gerber, "Be Wary of Christians Wearing Kippahs" .

So, not only is the appropriation of Jewish practices and symbols into Christian worship likely sending the opposite message than the one intended by these Christians, the supposedly spiritual rationale behind the use of some of these rituals and the shofar, in particular, is suspect at best and pagan at worst. It is not like having a guest cellist join your band or an Australian grooving on the didgeridoo for sheer novelty. The use of shofarot in supposedly Christian worship amounts to something akin to sympathetic magic. That is, the shofar are being blown not just because it makes an awesome and unforgettable sound but because it is believed by some (and promulgated by those selling "authentic" shofars to Christians) to effect changes in the invisible (spirit) realm. I have heard this view from a practitioner but just do a google search yourself for examples, if you need more evidence. (See for instance, Shofar Call International )

The blowing of the shofar is supposed to strengthen (or wake-up) the LORD's angels in order that they might defeat the demons at work in our churches and cities. Now, I believe in angels and demons (which, of course, will make it difficult for some readers to distinguish between my credulity and those I am critiquing here -- but I cannot help that at the moment) but I see nowhere in Scripture where such a view of the shofar and its effect is condoned or set forth.

Most of the websites that comment on the use of the shofar recognize its military use in Israel's history and its (not unrelated) use in worship in the Temple of the LORD of Hosts (angel armies) but the practitioners seem to derive a magical use from this liturgical use. So, I would suggest that this particular and peculiar use of the shofar is neither Jewish nor Christian. So, I think Christians should stop these syncretistic practices and dig deeper into the rich history of Christianity to revitalize their worship and influence on the world.

Simply put, "Toot your own horn!"

*******************

The following are links to some titles that may help Christians dig more deeply into the rich traditions of Christian worship:

If you have any other book recommendations on this topic, please feel free to include them in your comments. IP

Mad Science, Bad Science and the Cure for Everything

The polemic against religion seems to depend on an assumption concerning the makeup of the world. A popular assumption seems to be that there are three basic realms the political, the religious and the scientific. Depending on one's personal preference, one establishes an "if only." For instance, those of us with a religious affiliation might say, "If only Constantine had never got involved with the Church, then Christianity would not be tarred with all this political corruption." For any one of the supposed realms, one of the others can be used as a scapegoat for the evils of the world. Here is the advantage for those who favor the notion of a pure scientific realm. Laying the blame for corruption and evil at the foot of religious or political institutions is easier than blaming scientists for the evil of the world. Nevertheless, in popular movies and fiction, there is the image of the mad scientist alone in his laboratory unleashing evil into the world through his unholy experimentation. (See I am Legend for a recent version of this narrative and the interaction of the three realms.)

The advantage of anti-religious polemicists over those who find themselves firmly entrenched in politics or religion may be an advantage of perspective. If we think of the three realms in terms of their relation to time, the religious realm has a tendency to be married to the past (especially the Jewish and Christian traditions which are tied to historical events), the political realm is primarily concerned with the present and the crises of the moment, while the scientific realm has the future as its target. In this way, anti-religion polemicists can pit religious past against the scientific future. They lay claim to all the positive discoveries of the past and all those as yet undiscovered. For instance, the scientific realm can lay claim to both contemporary treatments for cancer and finding the cure for cancer without, of course, taking responsibility for the development of chemicals, devices, and circumstances which increase the risk of cancer.

Yet, when the history of the world is told in a way that pits science against religion, the scientific realm has the advantage of having no living history, no tradition. That is, the anti-religion polemicist can divorce himself from the errors and atrocities of the past in a way that neither the politicians or the religious can. The scientist can forget the practice of bleeding as a cure for fever in a way that the Church cannot divorce herself from the Spanish Inquisition. Since science is concerned with a certain type of knowledge and technological development, all mistakes of the past can be presented as "We now know..." or "If only, they had known..."

What if we wrote a history of science that focussed only on the "bad" science? Would science fair so well? If we focussed our attention on such things as bleeding, Thalidomide (or other modern birth related experiments), the disparaging and persecution of midwives, DDT, the atomic bomb, machine guns, biological and chemical weapons, racial profiling etc or focussed only on evils done in the name of science like vivisection or profiled only figures like Joseph Mengele, then would science lose some of its shiny veneer. Yet, scientific history has a way of dissociating itself from its errors (experiments) and faulty assumptions because in many ways the ends justify the means. The discovery of insulin by Banting and Best through experimentation on dogs would be one sided if we only focussed on the rights of the animals without due attention to the incalculable benefits to diabetics.

Many people tend to accept that evils done in the name of science were "bad" science and so don't really belong to the history of science. Yet, when Christians claim that evils done in the name of Christ are "bad" religion, the same acceptance is not so forthcoming. For Joseph Mengele was not doing science, he was doing Nazi politics and, of course, we all are supposed to know that Hitler was a Christian and his religion was the source of his anti-semitism. The advantage of the scientific realm with its future orientation is that the future remains pure. The future is not muddied by politics and religion. That is, the future is not muddied by reality. Scientific errors of the past can be shifted onto the backs of politicians and priests and science herself can remain pure and free from sin.

The truth is while these realms exist they have never been and can never be separated. There is no pure science that stands outside religion and politics. Science cannot be performed in a vacuum. Christianity has always taught that sin poisons everything. So, that the Church and State are corruptible does not come as a surprise to most Christians nor is the reality that scientific knowledge can be used for good or evil.

For those who are interested in reading about the relation of religion and science and the rise of the religion versus science myth, I would recommend either the short chapter in Christianity on Trial: Arguments Against Anti-Religious Bigotry by Vincent Carroll or for a more in depth academic treatment of this subject with lots of footnotes see Rodney Stark's For the Glory of God: How Monotheism Led to Reformations, Science, Witch-Hunts, and the End of Slavery. Stark also tackles the questions of Christianity's relation to the Inquisition, Witch-hunts and Slavery. Carroll grapples with many of the popular arguments against Christianity including the Inquistion, Nazism, and the environment.

The Skeptical Christian

Since my previous blog entry did not refer to any books in particular, perhaps, it should have been posted in my other more general blog Where the Sidewalks End. However, the content was inspired some years ago by an issue of Skeptic Magazine with the title "The God Question," published sometime in the 1990s. At least, the editors of Skeptic Magazine approached the topic as a "question." Nevertheless, the same arguments come out every few years in bestsellers. Most recently, one could look at Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion or Christopher Hitchens's God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. For a punchy four-part critique of Hitchens see biblical scholar J. Edmund Anderson's blog Resurrected Orthodoxy. As Dr. Anderson suggests, one needs only a little knowledge of church history and biblical scholarship to find that the portrait of religion that the Dawkins and Hitchens paint is cartoonish.

Now, I can empathize with the Dawkins and Hitchens of the world. In my youth and much to the frustration of my parents, I enjoyed inviting Latter Day Saints and Jehovah's Witnesses into our home to debate. The JWs were especially eager to engage me in debates concerning evolution and creation and returned for more. Further, I seemed to have an innate animosity toward organized religion. It seems that I imbibed the messages of popular Canadian culture at a young age.

To my surprise and out of the ordinary course of things, I was born-again in my first year of University. The ordinary course of things is that Christians lose their faith in college when they are confronted with "hard questions" that challenge their received tradition. On the other hand, I was quickly disillusioned of my notion that the University was a higher place of learning. In my orientation and first week of classes, I discovered that my fellow students were not concerned with "hard questions" but hard liquor.

Further, I discovered that my chosen field of Psychology was the wrong discipline to develop what I saw as a fundamental question with respect to understanding human beings. "Is there a spirit realm, do gods exist or do most human beings suffer from a delusion?" At the time, this hypothesis was open ended. Further, I wondered, if there are no gods, then has belief in a spirit realm served some positive evolutionary function? These questions still seem quite simple to me and relevant to Psychology but Psychology being a rather "young" science is trying very hard to play with the big boys like the physicists and biologists. So, the human being is reduced to numbers. Methodology is reduced to quantifiable questionnaires rather than probing questions.

While I learned some fascinating information about human development and sense perception (N.B. both these topics could fall under biology), I found that the films I viewed in my film courses and the novels I read in my literature course offered more insight into human nature than my psychology textbooks. Further, I noticed that the more I read the Bible (that backward, primitive book full of archaic rules and bizarre tales), the better I understood the literature I was reading. Whether it was Franz Kafka, Margaret Atwood or Stephen King, biblical literacy was not a hinderance to my intellectual life but an advantage. Further, I discovered that the biblical authors were not afraid to ask the "hard questions" about human existence and even encouraged the moderate consumption of hard liquor. So, once again out of the ordinary course of things, my faith in Christ led me to enjoy the occasional beer with my fellow students.

If only Qohelet had thought to write Ecclesiastes in the form of a survey. On a scale of one to ten (one being gathering stones and ten being scattering stones) which best describes your current state. Do the same with the following pairs: loving:hating, living:dying, silent:speaking. . . Instead, what did he write?

"A man can do nothing better than to eat and drink and find satisfaction in his work. This too, I see, is from the hand of God, for without him, who can eat or find enjoyment? To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is mist, a chasing after the wind." Ecclesiastes 2:24-26

Do Atheists Form Communes?

I believe it is safe to say that materialists tend to accept the basic claims of Evolutionary Theory. Are there any who don't? Is it possible to be an atheist and reject evolutionary theory? Further, I think many of us are familiar with the basic claim that a world shed of archaic, primitive and backward belief in a spirit realm would be a better place. The planet earth would be more peaceful because religion and violence are irrevocably linked. Our collective health will improve because we won't waste our time on prayer and our money on tithing. Instead, we can spend our money and energy on finding cures through scientific research.

Let us, for the sake of argument, grant the basic assumption that there is no spirit realm. There is no god. There are no gods, angels or demons. Let us also grant the basic claims of Evolutionary Theory.

Okay, now I am for this blog entry an atheist who also accepts the basic claims of theory of evolution. Wow! I feel better already. Anyway, do I now promote my new world view with as much vigor as those religious types? Will the truth set the world free? Hold on a moment.

Given that human beings evolved, why is it that homo religious outnumbers homo atheist? Is there some evolutionary benefit to believing in a spirit realm? That is, if there once were "pre-theistic" human beings, then what happened to them? Did the more violent theistic human beings wipe them out? We don't know. All we know is that "theist" human beings have dominated and continue to dominate.

Now, as an atheist (for the sake of this blog entry) and a human being, I find myself (for entirely instinctive reasons) concerned for the survival of human beings. However, given the record, I suggest that it might be detrimental to the survival of human beings to know the truth about the material nature of the universe. That is, we atheists don't seem to have a good survival rate.

Moreover, what evidence do we have that we can educate people out of their religion, anyway? Given that our "pre-theist" ancestors didn't fair so well for the sake of the human race, perhaps, we atheists ought to keep quiet. Perhaps, atheism is a quick road to extinction. Therefore, let's not be too hasty in our proselytism.

Instead, we can test our hypothesis. I suggest that in the "spirit" of scientific research and the good of humanity that atheists put their claims to the test. We can take a page from homo religious and gather ourselves together in an attempt to form a utopian community like the Puritans, the Benedictines or the Branch Davidians. We can find a plot of land or someone can donate an island to us. I am sure I could find a wealthy theist who would pay to have all atheists shipped to an island. On our island, we can demonstrate living together in atheistic harmony. In the unfortunate event that someone develops theistic tendencies, we can peacefully return them to their own kind (not burn them like those theists). Alternatively, we can ask them to volunteer to argue with us to see if indeed they can be returned to the fold. Once the world sees how well we get along, how advanced our technology is and how healthy we are surely our kind will grow in number.

Now, as I imbibe the spirit and once again become a theist, I can't wait to see what atheists have to say when they no longer have to waste their energies on those of us who are under the god delusion. I hope it's pithy.

Good luck, atheists.

New Christians

The New Christians has a few good moments in the middle. Nevertheless, there remains an overall tone of "superiority". Yet, what does one expect from The New Christians. That is, whenever we hear or read New... we could easily insert "and improved."
Now, it may be that something is new and improved. For instance who can argue that new methods of anesthetizing are not an improvement over a belt of scotch followed by biting down on a handkerchief. Yet, I am not convinced that three blades on my razor while new is an actual improvement over the straight-razor. Not only is it more expensive and disposable but it lacks cinematic value. No battered housewife is going to find a safety razor a ready weapon against her demented, unrelenting spouse.

With respect to the Emergent community, the term New as in A New Kind of Christian seems to against the grain of the movement. That is, Tony Jones continuously asserts that the Emergent community strives to be non-judgmental but the term New implies a judgement, a judgement on the Old. In McLaren's book, the dialogue tries to soften this judgement. We are not saying we are better, just "New."
Anyway, I can't wait to see how this new Emergent "denomination" matures. As for me, if I want good liturgy, I'll head off to an Anglican compline. If I want good music, I'll put in a CD...maybe, a little Zeppelin or Mahalia Jackson. If I want to go to a church where a different person leads communion every week, I'll keep going to the Brethren rooted church I attend here in Vancouver.

If the Emergent movement wants to borrow from all the old institutions and claim they are doing something New. They might want to look at the fate of the New Coke.

Still, if you want to read a brief history of the Emergent church and get a feel for the movement and its adherents. The New Christians by Tony Jones is a good place to start and a relatively quick read. Yet, in the end, like most apologetic works, Tony Jones has written a book for Emergent people that won't be particularly persuasive to those of us who get It but don't really want It.

IP:ip

The New Christians and the Death of the Church

I picked up The New Christians by Tony Jones because of the title. Yes, it is reminiscent of Brian McLaren's A New Kind of Christian and intentionally so. Tony Jones begins by giving us the background of the Emergent movement. It is a bit of an Acts of the Emergent Apostles according to Tony Jones. Frankly, it reads a bit like The Celestine Prophecy as Tony Jones and the other Apostles come to terms with this strange new understanding they have and other don't seem to get. "Does he get it?" If he doesn't get it, he is not part of the conversation they are having about it.

The Emergent Christians are The New Christians. They are the hot lava that breaks through the old hardened crust of the earth aka prior church structures and denomationalism. The Emergent people are on the frontiers and the front lines while the rest of the Christians are defending old ground. Emergents according to Tony Jones are postmodern and post-foundationalist.

As I read through this book, while there is some understanding of the modern period and problems in the church, the author and the movement seem to lack a real sense of the history of the church. The author praises the open forum of one small gathering that allows anyone to speak. He seems to think this is an innovation but it sounds like the Brethren (except that women can speak as well.)

At the beginning of the book, Tony Jones claims victory over those who claimed God is dead. Instead, he suggests that the Church is dead. As one of my colleagues said, "If you read the New Testament, doesn't that amount to the same thing."
While I find myself resonating with much of what Tony Jones claims for the Emergent movement, there seems to be a self congratulatory spirit and naivete that comes with youth (and by that I mean a new movement) that needs to be checked.

As for me and my house, we don't mind being a bit crusty. After all, the crust of the earth is the place where people live. Lava is not good for much until it hardens and starts producing vegetation and that takes awhile.

Google Search: Hypocrisy?

I published this post on www.Christdot.org after an interview with the Vancouver Sun.


An Open Letter from The Alleged ''book banning left behind bashing liberal
Posted by Nathan on Monday, April 12 @ 15:36:10 EDT
The original headline in the Vancouver Sun read "Apocalypse No: Religious bookstore refuses novel." The headline was abbreviated by Ekklesia to read, "Bookshop bans Christian best-seller." Notice how this second headline is more alliterative than the first. Look at all the b-words. Christdot picked up this headline. It now reads "New 'Left Behind' Book Banned From Bookstore." Notice that by introducing the title of the novel another b-word has appeared.

These headlines are a little misleading. For the record, I clearly expressed to the journalist that while the bookstore does not regularly stock the Left Behind novels, we will and have special ordered them for customers upon request. I bought my own copy from the Regent College Bookstore. For those of you who are concerned with freedom of speech, this information should set your hearts at ease.
Still, we do not regularly stock these books. So, how does a conversation with a journalist become a front-page headline? Well, in order for this story to reach the front page the stars must be in proper alignment. First, we must have an otherwise slow news day. Check. We have a Wednesday with no murders or political scandals. Second, we must spin the story in such a way that it becomes controversial. Controversy is exciting and sells papers. (I bought one.) Are all the elements for a good controversy present? Check. We have the appropriate elements for controversy religion, politics, censorship and money. "Sex, sex, sex. We must get sex into it." So, the headline becomes a combination of religion and literary censure.

The article placed four sentences in quotation marks and attributed this quote to me. Now, I am not denying that I spoke these words or at least something akin to them. In the article, the quote reads, "The book is very American-centric. It says the United States is successful because it has supported the state of Israel. It portrays the Anti-Christ as a Russian who has risen up to take over the United Nations. It also paints the European Union as entirely demonic."

This quote is, in fact, a summary of twenty minutes of conversation. Only one of these sentences was a direct reference to the Left Behind novels. Two of the sentences were references to dispensational theology in general. The other statement is about another book entirely.

The comments about "American-centrism" and the European Union were about dispensational theology in general. The second sentence concerning the relationship between the U.S. and Israel was a reference to Broadman & Holman's new non-fiction book Two Nations Under God. I used this book as an example of the way in which America and Israel are linked in this branch of theology. The only sentence that in this article that referred directly to Left Behind is the one about the Anti-Christ. I actually said he was "from Russia or something like that." I did not remember that he was Romanian in the novels. I could only remember the actor's Russian-Irish accent from the movie.

For those of you who were concerned that describing something as "Americancentric" sounds anti-American, I will attempt to lessen though not eliminate that concern. I am, after all, Canadian. If you consider the very American concept of the separation of church and state, then you will see that my comment expresses an American ideal. The problem is that current political situations are being read into the Bible and coming out the other end as the word of God.

Once current political activities and policies are given scriptural authority or are viewed as the inevitable fulfillment of prophecy, then, like other biblical doctrines, they cease to be open for debate. Thus, in the case of America's relationship with Israel, if Israel must exist as a nation in preparation for Christ's return, then, to speed Christ's return, we ought to support Israel. Since, Armageddon is a condition of the fulfillment of God's ultimate plan, then peace in the Middle East cannot be our goal because war is inevitable. Like Jerry Falwell, Tim LaHaye has political pull.

While my specific comment on America and Israel was a reference to Two Nations Under God, a friend of mine showed me this comment by Tim LaHaye expressing a similar sentiment, "We need to be steadfast in our defense of Israel and the national policy of aid to that beleaguered country. As Americans we can be proud of the fact that were it not for our country, the state of Israel would not exist...It is no accident that we are the nation in history of the world that has most supported Israel, and thus we are also the most blessed nation in the world.No nation in history has ever been blessed like America. Were we to change our policy of humanitarianism to Israel, we would lose the blessing of God."# I find this call for unquestioning support of Israel based on prophetic texts fascinating considering that the Hebrew prophets themselves spend most of their time critiquing Israel and ultimately announce her destruction.

Please do not mistake these comments as Anti-American or Anti-Israel or Pro-Palestinian or whatever. No nation, including Canada, is above reproach with respect to divine or even human standards. Since dispensational theology views the world heading in a downward spiral of sin, LaHaye himself certainly would not perceive America as being above criticism. However, when theological focus is the end of the world and the imminent return of Christ rather than "loving your neighbour" and caring for the "widow and the orphan", then social reform and peace plans take a back seat to short sighted foreign policy. Also, cataclysmic political events like September 11th are seen as inevitable and the result of moral (that is, sexual) decay in America. This perspective is like learning your mother has cancer and kicking your neighbour's dog.

Finally, to the person who wrote, "Of course, who's to say that profit isn't a part of this. Getting your store mentioned in a news article is certainly a good way to drum up business." In truth, I was shocked to see that my conversation with this journalist had been transformed into a front-page story. I would gladly pay for advertising where I control the content rather than having my ideas and words presented in such a way that they could do as much harm as good for the college. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to vent a little. The appearance of this article has caused a little stress and no venue for putting my words into context.


Yours truly,
Ian W. Panth

P.S.
As things happen in the Kingdom, I found myself in the same room with Jerry Jenkins (the coauthor of Left Behind). As we had been brought into collision through this media event, I thought it important to introduce myself. We had a brief but Christianly significant conversation. That is, while the world takes pleasure in Christians fighting amongst themselves, Jerry Jenkins and I were able reconcile, agree that we had a difference of opinions and part brothers in Christ. The Spirit has a way of bringing about such wonderful moments.

P.P.S.
If you watch the movies for fun, as I do. Those of you with a little knowledge of Hebrew will get a kick out the sign posted at the 'Wailing Wall' in Left Behind II: Tribulation Force. Remember, read right to left and think 'Hooked on phonics.' Sound it out!

Joel Osteen or Matthew Robert Short?

I have watched Joel Osteen's show a few times. When I watch him I can't help but wonder about cloning and transmigration of the soul. Think about it. Splice Martin Short and Matthew McConaughey and infuse with Robert Schuller.

A Christian sermon should be the gospel, the good news. The centre of the good news is Jesus Christ. So, Jesus Christ ought to be the centre of the Christian sermon. The centre of Joel Osteen's talks is not Christ Jesus but Joel Osteen. His talks are full of good advice much of it useful but rarely is it particularly Christian. Joel Osteen is full of good advice, if you want to be like Joel Osteen. The typical model is humorous and "encouraging" anecdotes (usually involving CEOs), a Bible quote, a joke about his marriage (so, the camera has reason to be on his wife) and common sense.

Jabez vs. Harry Potter

Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone by J.K. Rowling and The Prayer of Jabez by Bruce Wilkinson both hit the bookstores at the dawn of the new millenium (2000 A.D.). Both books were brought to the attention of Christians. One, The Prayer of Jabez was heartily endorsed. That year, The Christian Booksellers Association was decorated with Jabez banners. I still have souvenirs with the phrase 'Got Jabez?' on them. Harry Potter on the other hand was attacked as writing from the pit of hell. Rowling was leading children to depths of evil where only Pokemon had gone before.

The Regent College Bookstore, my employer, stocks both of these books. We are a Christian bookstore. We sold plenty of Jabez and took plenty of heat for selling Harry Potter. I read both of these books. I read Jabez because of the number of copies we were selling. I read Harry Potter because of the controversy. Could I recommend Jabez to customers? Could I defend our decision to carry Harry?

After reading both books, I was struck by the irony of the popular Christian response to Harry Potter in light of what The Prayer of Jabez was asking me to do.

Now, as everyone knows, Harry Potter is a wizard. Therefore, the story takes place in a world of magic and makes magic seem fun. For Christians, the practice of magic is forbidden. Magic is forbidden because magic is essentially a means of manipulating the spirit world. God, the Father of Jesus Christ, will not be so moved. The spirits who will appear to be manipulated are demons. So, of course anything that promotes magic is to be shunned.

Now, having read Harry Potter and having had some experience of modern magic in its various New Age forms. I remain convinced that few children who have read Harry Potter will have the patience for actual magical practices. By analogy, few children born in the age of e-mail will have the patience to correspond by mail. Practical magic is not the point and click of Harry Potter but the continued repetition of actions, phrases and rituals.

Practical magic requires patience and endurance. For instance, one might repeat an incantation over and over again in the hopes that the spirit world will respond and the desired effect will come to pass in this world. "As above, so below."

In other words, magic looks alot like The Prayer of Jabez. Pray this prayer for 30 days and see the results. The irony of the attitude toward Harry Potter and the phenomenal sales of The Prayer of Jabez struck me then as it does now.

Harry Potter lived because someone loved him and died for him. If praying Jabez's prayer did not improve your life and increase your evangelistic conquests, it was because of some sin in your life that needs to be rooted out. Now, one of these books reflects Christian theology. And now we know where Harry's story ends...