theology

Why I Don't Hold to Inerrancy, Part I (and a Bible giveaway)

September 22, 2009 By heather Leave a Comment

For those of you shocked by my title, you may take a minute to
pray for my soul. For those of you who think this is old school and you
don’t care why I don’t hold to it any longer, for heaven’s sake, you’ve
reached that conclusion long ago, you may want to scroll to the bottom
to find out more about a Bible giveaway (apropos, no?).

The
doctrine of inerrancy arose formally at the split of the evangelicals
and liberals then had a revival in the ’70s and ’80s during the
formation of the fundamentalists. At that latter date, some
evangelicals moved to the doctrine of infallibility, to which I hold.
Inerrancy defined first the evangelicals and the fundamentalists.

In his Systematic Theology,
Wayne Grudem defines inerrancy as thus: "The inerrancy of Scripture
means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm
anything that is contrary to fact" (p. 90). Sounds good, no? He goes on
to say that "the Bible always tells the truth, and that it always tells
the truth concerning everything it talks about" (p. 91).

Well, who wouldn’t say that the Bible tells the truth?

But you have to understand what is meant by truth. No, I’m not pulling a Clinton here. Let me reference The Discarded Image
by C.S. Lewis, in which Lewis presents an introduction to Medieval and
Renaissance Literature. Lewis tells us how Medievalists understood
truth. In every culture, we understand truth in light of the questions
we ask. “The character of the evidence depends on the shape of the
examination . . . It determines how much of that total truth will
appear and what pattern it will suggest" (p. 223).

In
Medieval times, they viewed truth as relating the honor of the hero
(i.e. Lancelot and King Arthur), learning the morality of the story
(i.e. Grimm’s Fairy Tales and Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales),
delighting in the beauty. In Modern times, the emphasis moved to
getting the facts right and transferring word for word. Truth is in
“historical accuracy”: what can be proven.

In light of this,
then, what do we mean by truth? Do we mean that the Bible is always
scientifically true? That it is always chronologically accurate? That
it honors the hero (namely, the triune God) or delights in beauty?

And that’s where I’ll end Part I and move to the Bible giveaway (speaking of Scripture).

Tyndale releases their new Mosaic Bible (which uses the New Living translation) today. You can order your copy on Amazon here.
I’m excited about this version (for lack of a better term) because it
organizes weekly readings according to the church calendar. It also
includes ancient and contemporary writings along with the readings. But
here’s the great(est) part: Tyndale is running a one-day contest. You
can enter to win a copy free. If you’re interested in participating,
you can find out the rules on their contest website.

Filed Under: bible, inerrancy, infallibility, Scripture, theology

Movies: The Diving Bell and The Butterfly

September 17, 2009 By heather 5 Comments

The Diving Bell and The Butterfly is based on the memoir of Jean-Dominque Bauby, editor-in-chief of Elle magazine. After suffering a massive stroke, Jean-Dominique lived with locked-in syndrome, meaning that though his mind was active and healthy, his body, except for his eyes and minor head movement, was paralyzed.

A speech therapist devised a system so that Jean-Dominique could communicate by blinking his left eye (his right eye had to be sewn closed because of problems–I can’t stand watching anything related to surgery, needles, or sharp objects and eyes). She repeated each letter of the alphabet (arranged according to popularity rather than in alphabetical order), and he blinked at the correct letter to spell words.

After Jean-Dominique learned the system, he contacted the publisher that had recently signed a contract with him. He wanted to write his memoir.

This movie is some Swiss Family Robinson story. It doesn’t gloss over the ugliness of the disease, making it some beautiful conduit without which Jean-Dominique would have never discovered himself. It is wonderfully acted, directed and filmed, often in a documentary style. When Jean-Dominique first wakes in the hospital after coming out of a coma (and for quite a bit after that), you see everything from his hazy perspective. My husband and I cringed at the blurry, vacillating objects. It’s hard to watch, in other words, attempting to give you a taste of Jean-Dominique’s adjustment.

Jean-Dominique is not suddenly some saint because of his stroke and syndrome. He feels sorry for himself; he doesn’t always treat people well. In fact, at times, he can be an ass (at least in the movie–who knows what’s fictionalized and what’s true to form).

But here’s what amazed me: even at this point, when his body betrays him, when he cannot function as he once did, he responds with creativity and culture. He chooses to use his imagination. This is how integral creating is to humanity. I found myself wondering if he, in fact, acted more fully human than I do watching TV on the couch every night (or in the office crammed together with my husband on the one overstuffed chair, since we no longer have cable and watch TV shows on the Internet). This shamed me. How can I complain about the difficulties of writing? He awoke early in the morning, considered what he wanted to write, memorized it, then dictated it by eye-blinks later that morning for four hours each day. No surprisingly, his book became a bookseller.

But he didn’t have much time to enjoy that. He died ten days after it released.

Writing the book wasn’t about acknowledgement. It was about creating itself and about communicating.

Filed Under: anthropology, creativity, culture making, humanity, imagination, movies, The Diving Bell and The Butterfly, theology

Why We Do the Things We Do

September 15, 2009 By heather 12 Comments

Let me be blunt (again): I don’t understand the over-spiritualization in North America. To clarify: I don’t mean that I believe there are things related to spirituality and things unrelated to spirituality. I mean that we talk about things in a hyped-up manner, using what we call spiritual terms in a manner not found in the Bible.

Side note: I blame this on the so-called Second Great Awakening, my go-to scapegoat for all spiritual things wrong in the United States.

Side note 2: This over-spiritualization somehow combines with and emerged from a prevailing Deist view and value system in the foundations of our country.

To wit: talk about God’s will typically abrogates our lack of responsibility, smoothes over our egos, and undergirds our desires. For example, we say, "I’ll get that promotion if it’s God’s will." I don’t mean to take away from God’s sovereignty or his personal and intimate interaction in his creation, but let’s be honest here. We may not get that promotion because we drink in the gossip at the water cooler or because we turn in reports late or because we fail to work with excellence. Or we may not get that promotion because someone else is better for the job. (Our egos can take rejection better when it’s God’s will. To take this more personally, if I’m called to write, I can better accept the numerous rejections.) Or we say, "It’s God will that I move to Hawaii" or leave such-and-such ministry/job/relationship. Let me also say here that this doesn’t necessarily negate the legitimacy of moving to Hawaii or leaving a certain ministry/job/relationship. But who can argue our decision when it’s God’s will?

But that’s not why I’m here today. I’ve blogged about calling before and about wisdom here, here, here, and here (the series back at the Tapestry blog). Today, I want to externally process some thoughts about balancing ideas of God’s calling, human responsibility, and God’s divine intervention. By externally process, I mean, please addend your thoughts. (Note, at this point in time, I won’t reference the verses from which I glean my thoughts, but I’d be happy to in the comments if someone has questions. Also, some of these may overlap, but I included them for the nuances.) With that in mind . . .

We act

in God’s grace
in prayer
with wisdom
in service to God
for his glory
with love for our neighbor
in freedom
as his image bearers
creatively
in accordance to God’s desires for the world and humanity as revealed in Scripture
doing the good works God has prepared for us
with the gifts, talents and resources he’s given us
with responsibility to our fellow man and to the earth
despite and in our circumstances
as we are transformed and becoming more like Christ (and seeking to have the mind of Christ)
trusting God to use everything for our good and to his purpose
displaying the fruit of the Spirit
with faith, hope and love
in the power of the Holy Spirit, depending on him
and knowing we can’t control the outcome but trusting that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

Filed Under: calling, God's will, humanity, theology, wisdom

Movies and Theology: Up

July 13, 2009 By heather 12 Comments

Most of you know the story: Carl and Ellie dreamed of going to Paradise Lost in South America. They wanted a house at the top of the waterfall. But life doesn’t always happen as we expect or hope. Decades later, after Ellie’s death, Carl vows to fulfill the promise he made her as kids: He’s taking their house to Paradise Lost.

But a stowaway Wilderness Scout brings Carl an unexpected adventure.

This movie with its simple story is one of the best I’ve seen since WALL-E. Of course it is. It’s Pixar. If Pixar took over the world, it might be a better place. With Pixar, we can expect greatness.

I didn’t expect, though, to cry so early on in the film. Oh, I expected to cry. I bawled in WALL-E. Pixar has mastered emotional attachment to cartoon characters.

The colors and attention to detail make this movie visually beautiful. Chris and I saw the 3D version, which I recommend. We don’t often go to the movies anymore, and to shell out the extra $3 per ticket we had to take the hammer to the piggy bank, but it was worth it. Plus, Chris took home his 3D glasses, so he now has an extra coolness factor for that $3. Let me tell you, he looks sexy in those glasses.

Several of the themes in the movie echoed a theology we as Christians can affirm.

Embrace the adventure, even if it means giving up your dreams. We see this theme in Ellie’s life. Life keeps them from their dream, but she never grows bitter. She dances every moment of her life and sees every opportunity as part of the adventure. We also see this in Carl’s journey. He has a choice to make: fulfill his dream and vow to Ellie to get their house to Paradise Lost or to embrace the new adventure to help a hunted exotic bird.
We grow up with ideals of the American Dream, which usually means something bigger and better. Having and working toward goals is good, but how often do we use it as an excuse to neglect those who need us? And how often does the elusive American Dream keep us from enjoying what we have now (a virtue known as contentment). Interestingly enough, Chris and I have some choices to make now that reflect that, although not as drastically as Carl’s choices. We have a dream in life we’ve been working toward. Do we continue pursuing it? Or do we take the new opportunities on the journey?
We need the elderly. Yes, they need us, but even more, we need them. We need them involved in our lives and in the lives of our children.
Side note: I don’t talk politics often on my blog, but I’d like to note that I find the timing of this message interesting with the new healthcare “reform.” This “reform” will most likely affect the elderly first and most. In Europe, which uses the healthcare we’re working toward, often, the powers that be deny the elderly because when “prioritizing,” it’s more important to get care to the younger and stronger.
This is a sanctity of life issue. The elderly are no less valuable than you or I.
Okay, enough of that soap box.
I had a third point, but after that last speech, I’ve forgotten it. Oops.

Pixar has once again made a great film that combines good storytelling, beautiful animation that takes Bugs Bunny to a whole new artform, entertainment, and themes that make us think.

Psst–If you find this post interesting and think others might as well, would you mind taking a minute to stumble it? It would mean a lot to me.

Filed Under: adventure, elderly, movies, the American Dream, theology, Up

"Not all who wander are lost."

May 4, 2009 By heather Leave a Comment

After Logan’s painful, almost fatal surgery (the good thing about a prequel is you know Wolverine doesn’t die!), he runs naked into a barn while the farmowners, driving up to their home, look on. Featured prominently on the back of their truck is a bumper sticker: “Not all who wander are lost.”

This Tolkien quote does two things.

First, it gives us the key to Logan and his search for his background. In the X-Men movie, Logan doesn’t know who he is or from where he comes. While we, as the audience, get to go back in time and discover this, Logan doesn’t. His memory can’t recall more than a small flash back to the surgery. But as he wanders Canada, does that mean he’s truly lost? His character–rough around the edges but tender and heroic–remains the same. He may not remember his first name. He may not remember his family. He may not remember how he came upon the nickname of Wolverine, but Wolverine he is, howling in grief and caring for the weak.

Second, the quote hints that perhaps this elderly couple, who take Logan in and care for him, are Christians. After all, the quote is written by a Christian about Christianity. I appreciate that this film displays this couple, who lost so much of their own and experienced pain and grief, risked their well-being, gave generously, for the sake of kindness and perhaps even of Christ.

Image by plynoi via Flickr

I loved this movie, but I love the X-Men movies, especially Wolverine’s character. I’m not a comic book fan. I didn’t grow up on them, nor have I turned to them in my adult years, but I’ve come to appreciate their movie screen adaptations when they tell good stories (as in the case of Wolverine and the Batman series).

X-Men Origins: Wolverine explores the theme of humanity v. base animal instincts. Through-out the movie, Wolverine is continually presented with the choice: will he act humanly (which means to show mercy and forgiveness) or will he succomb to animal instincts (which they portray as revenge and bloodlust).

His foil is his brother, Victor, who deteriorates in his viciousness and destruction until it can no longer be contained and filtered for “good guys.” (I wonder if there’s a bit of commentary about the United States in his character.)

Here’s what I find interesting in this: the theory of mutants is based on evolution (a philosophy I don’t agree with, to be upfront). Mutants have evolved into the next level of humanity. This evolution is not spiritual or emotional. It is purely physical (I would argue that even the power of mind-control and telepathic abilities require physical abilities to accomplish). Moreover, some of the powers borrow from the animal kingdom (although on steroids). (Why would evolution work that way? It’s not exactly forward momentum for survival, then, as much as “this feature in combination with this would be cool.”) As such, the writers suggest that as some of them take on animal abilities (with a kick), they struggle with animal temptations. But it’s not really an animal nature that tempts them this way. It is their human nature, combined with their abilities that allow them positions of power. (Lest you think this is only a struggle for the mutants, Stryker, who has no mutant abilities, manipulates the mutants for his own agenda and lust for power.)

In other words, though they base X-Men on the theory of evolution, the morality they use is based on mercy and forgiveness (which, I would argue, are qualities that are an intrinsic part of being human because humans are created in the image of the Creator, who is merciful and forgiving), rather than survival of the fittest.

Regarding the production, story, and characterization of this movie: well done. Bravo. I don’t know if there are plans for more X-Men origin movies (to be honest, who’s more interesting than Wolverine with his mysterious beginnings?). I thoroughly enjoyed this movie.

Two things bothered me. One, if Logan is supposedly a bastard child, making him Victor’s brother (don’t worry, that comes out in the first couple minutes of the movie–I’m not spoiling anything), why does he look so much like the father who raised him (played by Hugh Jackman)? Two, if the Gambler character wants Victor dead so badly, why does he interrupt Wolverine in his attempts to kill Victor? That didn’t make logical sense.

But nevertheless, highly entertaining. Good for considering questions about humanity and anthropology. Also, fun to see a couple of Lost actors resurrected, as well as one of the guys from Two Guys, A Girl, and a Pizza Place, a TV show I still miss.

Psst–If you find this post interesting and think others might as well, would you mind taking a minute to stumble it? It would mean a lot to me.

Filed Under: anthropology, humanity, movies, theology, X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Art and Christianity: Interview with Sandra Glahn, Part I

April 6, 2009 By heather Leave a Comment

Sandra Glahn is the author of fiction (including a Christy-nominated
book), nonfiction, and Bible studies. She’s editor of the award-winning
magazine, Kindred Spirit, and adjunct professor at Dallas Theological Seminary.

In this podcast, we talk about how her writing affects her theology.

The podcast is approximately 4:45 minutes.

Filed Under: aesthetics, art, Christianity, podcast, spirituality, theology, video blog, writing

Art and Christianity: An Interview with Dr. Reg Grant, Part VI

February 17, 2009 By heather Leave a Comment

This is the final installment of my interview with Dr. Reg Grant, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, actor, author, and tap dancer. In this podcast, we talk about the artist, depression, and the pursuit of joy.

Filed Under: art, artists, Christianity, depression, joy, podcast, Reg Grant, spirituality, theology, video blog

Tapestry: I Love a Good Myth

February 13, 2009 By heather Leave a Comment

I’m up today at the Tapestry blog: I Love a Good Myth about how we read our Bible.

An excerpt: "The Bible is a story, or a collection of stories, that define a
people, that give the people identity."

Filed Under: bible, hermenuetics, interpretation, Joseph Campbell, myth, story, theology

Crystal

February 12, 2009 By heather 5 Comments

Let me be clear.

Art, whether low art (meaning more readily accessible to the masses) or high art (meaning it requires more education in artistic form, philosophy, and/or theology to understand), is not another way of stating propositional truth. Art embodies truth in a different way. It is something on which to meditate or contemplate. It invites its audience to experience truth in a different way. It may cause the audience to think about something in a new light, or it may provoke an emotional response. It is reflective, but it does not tell.

Bad art (besides exhibiting poor form and craft) forfeits this role or exchanges this role for that of another: a tract for whatever belief you hold (Christian or otherwise).

This means that we as artists have to trust that some will understand our intention, and we have to let go of expectations that all should understand our intention. It means that some will misunderstand our intention, and others will grasp beyond our intention.

Here’s why it amazes me that Christians cannot grasp this: our belief in the Holy Spirit, and the example of Jesus’ parables.

As Christians, we believe that while we have responsibilities in God’s kingdom work, it is his work. We trust the Holy Spirit to go places where we cannot go and foster understanding that we cannot foster.

Yet, with art, we stop trusting that.

As Christians, we have the example of Jesus telling parables that some understood and some did not. And while Jesus some times explained his stories, not all who heard the parable were present for the explanation. He who has ears, Jesus said, or she who has eyes.

Yet, with art, we feel the need to explain to everyone what we’re saying within the art itself.

Just had to get that off my chest.

Filed Under: aethetics, art, high art, low art, philosophy, theology

Art and Christianity: An Interview with Dr. Reg Grant, Part V

February 10, 2009 By heather Leave a Comment

(To enter February’s Artuality on furniture, click here.)

In this podcast, we explore two ideas of being a Christian in the art
world: (1) seeing beauty and truth in art created by Christians and non-Christians alike and (2)
pursuing excellence in our craft because we are Christians.

Theologian Alexander Scmemann said that Christians see Christ everywhere (as quoted in God in the Gallery by Siedell). Because of the Imago Dei and because of God’s desire to reveal his beauty, we can taste it from so many sources–though the sources may come from non-Christians.

But as Christians, and in this case, specifically as artists, we must also take seriously our call to image beauty and truth with excellence. Just because we are Christians does not make our art acceptable. Just as accountants must work to have correct numbers and teachers must work to clearly communicate, artists must pursue their field with excellence. This means both working on the craft itself as well as the theology, philosophy, and ideas of beauty that become art.