Musings from Two-Sheds Gomer

My curiosity was officially piqued regarding Shane Claiborne. Now, not so much.

My original interest was two-fold:

1. While fairly conservative politically, I’ve grown quite tired of those who equate Christianity with the Republican party. Laying aside the fact that the 21st-century RNC makes Rosie O’Donnell look like a John Birch president, some of those who still make this equation have gone from political shill to political whore.
2. Some of Claiborne’s harshest critics are of such an ilk that 95% of what they bash should actually be taken seriously (not their bashing; I mean their targets — their bashing should never be taken seriously, even in the 5% of the time when they are right). I have benefited quite a bit from those whom such “discerners” don’t like, some of whom I was not even aware. I guess it’s true that there’s no such thing as bad publicity.

Claiborne struck me as something of a 21st-century version of Tony Campolo. Occasionally Campolo’s political stances seem to overwhelm his spiritual beliefs, but there’s often too much good stuff — that really makes you think — to just ignore him. And some of the advance word on Claiborne has been similar.

Of course, there are the obvious parallels too, as Campolo’s early ministry was to the down-and-out in the Holy Land, er um, Philadelphia, and that’s the location and demographic that Claiborne is working with, too.

Claiborne’s latest book is Jesus for President, and the early word seemed to be that this book would further dismantle the idea that Jesus is a Republican (or a Democrat) and look at what Christianity should look like in light of today’s political climate. From what I had heard, I expected his political stances to sometimes shadow his spiritual beliefs, but I was willing to work around that.

I may still read this book, but I saw a part of it that — to be honest — freaked me out. It’s called “A Litany of Resistance“.

Now before you accuse me of guilty-by-association, I realize that Claiborne did not write this. However, it is appearing in Jesus for President and (if I read some other publications correctly) he strongly affirms this litany and has led others in reciting it at conferences at which he has spoken.

It’s a call-and-response litany. It starts thusly:

One: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world
All: Have mercy on us
One: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world
All: Free us from the bondage of sin and death
One: Lamb of God, you take away the sins of the world
All: Hear our prayer. Grant us peace.

Quite a good start — something of a mix of John the Baptizer and a psalmist. And there are some other truly great parts to this. There are, unfortunately, other parts that sound like something from Air America, having a base of truth, but then over-blown to non-reality. I’m willing to give that a pass, though. Claiborne is young — “youth” and “over-blown” are nearly synonymous at times.

But here’s the freak-out part:

One: To the one who rides a donkey rather than a war-horse
All: We pledge allegiance

The donkey is clearly a reference to the “triumphal entry” that occurred shortly before Christ’s crucifixion. And yes, we certainly ought to pledge allegiance to the incarnational Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, from the first century AD.

Only one problem here, Sparky. The second coming of this same Jesus is spoken of in Revelation:

Now I saw heaven opened, and behold, a white horse. And He who sat on him was called Faithful and True, and in righteousness He judges and makes war.

Now, I don’t think it stretches the Scripture text to assert that THAT’S A WAR-HORSE!!!! And yet, the writers and affirmers of this litany apparently want nothing to do with that Jesus. But they’re both the same person. So, by logical extension, they really want nothing to do with Jesus of Nazareth either.

It is an absolute fallacy — and/or an outright denial of Scripture — to pledge allegiance to Christ’s first coming, but not his second. (And before you war-horse types get the big-head, it’s just as fallacious and/or unbiblical to pledge allegiance to Christ’s second coming, but not his first.)

The first coming and second coming is not an either/or situation. To act as though this were the case is a false dichotomy, and a phenomenal diminishing of one’s view of God (and conversely, a huge exaltation of one’s view of man).

The editor that let this headline through is either an idiot or very cool.

HT: IceMan (no, not Val Kilmer)

This post is a bit old, but if you haven’t seen it yet, who cares?

A good Christianty Today interview with Andrew Adamson, director of Prince Caspian. No fear of spoilers if you’ve seen the first movie (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) and the trailer for Prince Caspian.

HT: Justin Taylor

Here’s a funny and interesting article with tips on what to do on a long flight with nothing to read or watch.

It is a bit frightening, though, when you get to the bottom of the article and see that it was written by the executive editor of Travel magazine.  This guy actually admitted to going on a long trip unprepared.

HT: Challies’ a la carte

Sighted on gMail today:

Is there anyone (outside of the tin foil hat crowd) that doesn’t look upon tin foil hats with derision? And if not, does that mean that gMail is run by the tin foil hat crowd?

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
(2008 — Ben Stein)

(I saw this movie on its opening weekend, but events transpired to keep me from writing this until now. As a result, this post will only partly be review, but moreso will answer some of the issues and criticism surrounding the film.

In the spirit of full disclosure, I’m one of those religious nut-cases who believe in a “young earth” and a literal creation in six consecutive 24-hour periods of time. I also have no beef with those who believe differently. My primary problem with Darwinism and similar theories is when they are hidden behind to deny the existence of God, and man’s responsibilities in light of that existence. One can certainly hold to scientific beliefs different than mine and still hold to theological beliefs that are the same as mine. I know many intelligent people, whom I admire, appreciate, and greatly respect who would be classified thusly.)

The movie is good. The firestorm around it is nothing short of amazing.

Unfortunately, I don’t mean that latter statement in a good way.

Expelled examines the fact that much of science, academia, and the media do not stop short of simply dismissing the concepts of intelligent design (a.k.a. ID), but refuse to allow the topic to even be discussed. Hosted by Ben Stein, the movie starts with some examples of this issue. Stein admits to some early cynicism — that this is all just over-blown hype.

If one is objective, this cynicism is understandable. Many proponents of ID claim the name of Christ, and (unfortunately) many Christians are alarmists, self-made martyrs, and conspiracy theorists that would put Oliver Stone to shame. But sometimes, when the boy cries “wolf”, the sheep really are in danger. In the first 20 minutes or so, Expelled shows us:

• professors and research scientists whose “contracts were not renewed” by their university (read: fired) because they pursued ID theories
• an established journalist who has many of her articles vetted before publication, because she once wrote about ID in a non-dismissive way
• a scientist and journal editor who lost his job simply for publishing an article written by an ID proponent

Sadly, most of the reactions are over-blown hype. Even more sadly, they’re incredibly predictable.

The movie uses the metaphor of the Berlin Wall, its separation of people and ideas, and its shutting out of ideas. This metaphor gets jumped on mindlessly by the film’s critics, somehow taking a metaphor and twisting it to declare that Stein sees an absolute moral equivalence between the hatred and malice that spawned the Wall and the issues that he is trying to discuss. It’s called an illustration, people. You learn about it in the first month of the average high school public-speaking class.

While the film’s main point is not to support ID nor defeat Darwinism, both topics are fairly unavoidable when discussing the latter’s staunch hold and the shutting out of the former. As Stein notes,

In my experience, people who are confident in their ideas are not afraid of criticism.

And so some of the film’s scrutiny does, indeed, fall on Darwinism, and some of its suspect implications — the criticism that Darwinists are allegedly unafraid of.

Expelled notes the fact that there are some parallels between Darwinism and Nazism, quoting some genuinely scary passages written by Charles Darwin and noting that Hitler attributed some of the theories in Mein Kampf to his reading of Darwin. Once again, the film’s critics jump on the non-existent statement of moral equivalence, despite the fact that one of Stein’s interviewees says point-blank that no one is saying that Darwinism leads to Nazism.

Interestingly, I have not read a lot about the one portion of the film that I thought would generate the loudest dissent among the non-thinkers. Some of the afore-mentioned passages of Darwin nearly scream of eugenic theory (particularly when he notes — critically — that the human race generally does not weed out its own “weaker” elements). Stein then goes on to note that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was a staunch eugenicist. Given the sacred status that abortion has been given in our society, I’m surprised that there hasn’t been more outcry.

There is some levity, too, both in the movie and the issues surrounding it. In the interviews that Stein conducted, several Darwinists admitted that Darwinism only “begins” once the first cell has life, and that “no one knows” how that first cell came to life. One scientist (and I use that term loosely) posited the theory that life began on the backs of crystals, conjuring images of Abby O’Neil (Finkelstein) from Dharma & Greg.

Stein also conducted an extensive interview with Richard Dawkins, noted author and staunch atheist. When he wasn’t fumbling for answers to fairly straightforward questions, Dawkins made several convoluted statements. Stein attempted to untangle these by asking, “So, you are willing for the theory to be disseminated that life possibly began by the ’seeding’ of aliens, but you are unwilling to allow for the theory that life was first produced by a god of any nature?” Dawkins seriously affirmed Stein’s summation.

I’m sure that Robin Williams will be happy to know that Mork from Ork is what passes for serious science these days.

Interestingly, Dawkins later claimed not to know who Stein was when he granted the interview, and has stated that he would not have done the interview had he known more about Stein and/or the nature of the film. What a shame that someone who has sold hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of books is too poor to hire a 10-year-old to do a Google search. He must have a really lousy contract with his publishers.

What I find even more fascinating is the criticism that this film has received from people who have not even seen it. And these are not just run-of-the-mill whack jobs blogging in their mom’s basement. Whether it’s the countless slam jobs that the film encountered before it was even shown in private screenings (such as my encounter with John Connell) or even respected journalists writing in respected journals two weeks after the film’s release that they haven’t seen it — and then go on to blather against it for pages — the main point of the movie gets reinforced over and over again. Here is an issue that (theoretically) intelligent people are disinclined to discuss at all.

But let’s be honest — none of what I’ve written is really amazing. Disconcerting? Certainly. Laughable at times? Definitely.

So here’s the truly amazing part — and it’s even noted to some extent in the movie. Many proponents of ID would be classified as members of the religious right. Darwinists and other critics of ID are apparently so desparate to have as many in their camp as possible, that even the staunchest atheists court the religious left, hoping that they will align themselves with the anti-ID crowd simply to further distance themselves from the religious right. Sort of the scientific equivalent to “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”, if you will.

But even among those who I would not consider to be part of the religious left, a good portion of the God-blogosphere is having serious bladder control issues over the articles which are critical of this movie. Intelligent Christians, who happen to believe different than I on this scientific issue, and who are generally strong supporters of open-mindedness are gleeful and holding up as shining examples those who are critical of someone who believes different than them. Apparently, stupidity and hypocrisy know no bounds.

And once again, the point of Expelled is made perfectly.

I’d put that first word of the title in quotes, but I don’t want to look too watchbloggie.

Back in the day, one of Atlanta’s Christian radio stations aired its weekly “heavier than Sandi Patty” Christian rock show from 10 pm to 1 am on Saturday nights. I always though this was a real neat move, as they encouraged teens (their primary target demographic) to stay up late on Saturday night. Then they could be all bleary-eyed when I was trying to teach their Sunday School class the next morning.

I’m not nearly as into the whole Christian music scene as I used to be (especially when writing for TLeM), but I got a note today reminding me that the Dove Awards (the Christian music equivalent of the Grammy) would be airing live tomorrow night on the Gospel Music Channel. Now I don’t get that channel on my cable system (though I do get 39 versions of VH1 and MTV), and I’m not sure that I’d watch even if I did.

But given the fact that many churches have mid-week services on Wednesday night, what exactly were they thinking by encouraging folks to stay home and watch TV instead?

Black or White
John Aubrey Anderson

After a few chapters, I was starting to compare John Aubrey Anderson to early Frank Peretti, as there is definitely some focus on the kinds of spiritual warfare that one sees in This Present Darkness and Piercing the Darkness. And I would certainly mean the comparison as a compliment — especially for a first-time novelist. But in retrospect, that really wouldn’t be a fair comparison, as Anderson finds his own voice very quickly.

Black or White takes place in rural Mississippi in the 1940s and 1950s. Although the story encompasses many characters, the two best friends that are focused on are Missy Parker, a 7-year-old white girl, and Junior Washington, an 11-year-old black boy. The Parkers and Washingtons live near each other, and Junior’s father is employed by Missy’s father at his cotton gin.

The racial differences play very interestingly. Given the time and place of the story, segregation runs pretty rampant in general society, but the Parkers don’t buy into it. If anything, the Washingtons have to remind them occasionally of their “place” in such a society. Sometimes the Parkers don’t care; other times, they understand that they’d be doing more harm than good to their black friends.

Fairly early in the story, we begin seeing the spiritual warfare going on around the lives of these people. As I said, it’s a bit reminiscent of early Peretti, but not derivative. And as the book unfolds, we see that it’s not as pervasive either. Certainly the spiritual issues are in the forefront, but it’s only occasionally that we see past the visible.

I’ll tell ya — Anderson really knows how to keep his readers going. He is able to deliver a tense scene with an unknown outcome stretched out over several chapters without frustrating the reader. And on the flip side, when the action slows, the story is just as interesting as it works as a character study. All in all, this is fabulous depth for a first-timer.

Throughout the story, knowing God and making Him known is the over-riding theme. As the book starts, the Washingtons are actual Christians, whereas the Parkers are good people who go to church because mama went to church. Events unfold such that the Washingtons are able to show the Parkers the difference eventually.

There’s not a whole lot more that I can say about the book without spoiling things. Suffice it to say that Black or White is a great read, and I’m looking forward to the other books in this series.

I just got thanked for attending a mandatory meeting.