Posted on by bak5187

Voldemort and the Pharisees – Mirrors to Ourselves

The Mirror of Erised scenes in Harry Potter and the Sorcerer’s Stone have always captivated me. Not only for what they reveal about Harry, but for what they reveal about us.

With mirrors we can see ourselves visually. But the Mirror of Erised, which plays an integral role in the first book of the series, shows the person their deepest desire. For Ron Weasley, he saw himself as Quidditch Captain and holding the house cup. But for Harry, he saw himself reunited with his parents who were killed when he was an infant.

It’s not too surprising that an orphaned boy would wish for a fix to these absent relationships. In contrast Ron’s deepest desires seem so trivial. But they paint a picture of the wide spectrum of human experience, pain and want. This mirror reflects back an even rawer depiction of who we truly are.

The Mirror of Erised

When Dumbledore found that Harry had discovered the mirror and was spending much time staring into it, he said, “It does not do to dwell on dreams and forget to live.”

Quite a fitting quote from a man who the reader later finds out also suffered significant losses within his own family.

But the scene that I find most compelling surrounding this mirror is the one towards the end of the book when Dumbledore explains how Harry, and not Voldemort, was able to retrieve the Sorcerer’s Stone from it.

“Only one who wanted to find the Stone — find it, but not use it — would be able to get it, otherwise they’d just see themselves making gold or drinking Elixir of Life. But not Harry. Harry, who wanted to find the Stone to stop Voldemort from getting it — who wanted it, but not for himself — was able to get it out of the mirror.”

The Sorcerer’s Stone could provide the ability to prevent aging, via the Elixir of Life and could turn any metal to gold. The stone symbolized the human hunger for immortality and wealth. Setting aside the irrationality of how the magic works, the central premise of this story appears to be getting us to question the unchecked pursuit of wealth and power. The dangers of desiring or longing for control.

This same longing for control, the desire to master life through our own effort, shows up not only in fantasy stories but in the Bible as well.

This dynamic, while not nearly as explicit, seems to undergird much of the Gospels. Very often a stark contrast is drawn between the Pharisees and Jesus, and rightly so, for Jesus is often both directly and implicitly challenging them. Jesus levies his sharpest critiques toward the Pharisees more than any other demographic, even the Roman centurions. I think it’s for this reason that many Christians today, also tend to use the term Pharisee in a derogatory and accusatory manner.

But is it possible that by making the Pharisees out to be solely antagonists and so alien from ourselves, we rob these stories of their power? It would be like only seeing the elements of Harry in ourselves and not seeing how we also might have traces of Voldemort’s motives within ourselves, which is a scary proposition.

Similarly, the Pharisees might be the group that many Christians most closely resemble, and I don’t mean that in a condescending manner. I believe the Pharisees can serve as an excellent mirror to understanding much of ourselves.

The Pharisees lived in difficult circumstances. Under Roman occupation, the Jewish people were a shell of their former selves. It had been several centuries since the last prophet from the Old Testament, Malachi, had prophesied and it felt as though God had turned his face from them and was silent despite their suffering. They had already gone through the exile to Babylon, rebuilt the temple, but now they were hardly in control of their own destinies. It would be understandable if they felt God had forsaken them. Outwardly it certainly appeared that way.

Instead of giving up, they doubled down on trying to live in perfect obedience to God’s laws, seemingly in hope that their righteousness would lead to God’s favor. That favor, one could imagine, would look very different than the circumstances they found themselves within.

In much the same way, we can dwell on our own failings and think that is the cause of God’s seeming disfavor. But this type of thinking often spirals into treating God like a vending machine who will give us what we want if we simply put the figurative quarter in by acting rightly. That if we get our house in order, our circumstances would be guaranteed to improve.

Dumbledore warned that people dwell on these deepest desires and forget to live. In many ways, the Pharisees’ desire for better circumstances by influencing God’s hand via their “perfect” behavior, missed the point altogether.

Life, wealth, autonomy, and the realization of dreams in and of themselves are not bad things. They are good things but cannot be the ultimate thing.

As Jesus says in his Sermon on the Mount, “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things will be given to you as well.” He is addressing our anxieties, worries, and stress about worldly things. Jesus too found himself living under Roman oppression, and was ultimately killed by it. And yet, he said to aim higher, seek God’s kingdom, not in a bartering way to obtain his gifts, but out of selflessness and then, and only then, can you truly live, often despite the outward appearance of life’s circumstances.

If you’re like me, I like to exhaust the limits of my abilities before relinquishing control. It’s hard for me to do that. And I often find myself trying to appease God to be deserving of his favor. But that’s more like the way of the Pharisees, and dare I say Voldemort, still trying to exert control albeit in a more covert way.

No amount of time spent in front of that mirror would have ever brought Harry’s parents back. The mirror can reflect our deepest longings, which are often a void left from our deepest wounds and scars. And we can spend much of our lives dwelling on those, to no avail, and missing the point of life in the process.

Jesus offered a different way. He said suffering and pain was inevitable. But he invited all of us into relationship with him and to have life abundantly. That abundance isn’t often found in money, extended lifetimes, or even necessarily the righting of past wrongs. I would say it’s not even primarily about living forever in heaven, as some Christians often reduce it to.

No, it’s something fuller. Something richer. At its core, that abundance is an abundance of relationships, something that is made starkly evident in the Harry Potter books, and I think is quite evident in the Gospels.

Perhaps real life begins when we step away from the mirror and our attempts to control how our deepest longings will manifest themselves and instead seek first relationship with God and with one another.

Posted on by bak5187

Literally False, Metaphorically True

Two brothers who have made their rounds on podcasts these past several years are Bret and Eric Weinstein, members of the self-named “Intellectual Dark Web.”

The “IDW” (for short) consisted of several counter cultural thinkers (many from academia) who were resisting anti-liberal movements underway on college campuses and within the zeitgeist of western societies more broadly. Their commonly shared beliefs over the preservation of Enlightenment values (with an emphasis on free speech) allowed them to have frank conversations about their conflicting views on a whole host of, what to them seemed to be, secondary issues. Conversations that were often drawing large crowds and filling arenas and theaters and millions of views online.

One of the fascinating developments within this group however is the struggle with how religion is to be handled. Some like Jordan Peterson tried to emphasize its integral role in Western thought. Others like Sam Harris denigrated it as nothing more than a social contagion worth exorcising completely. And then there were a wide range of views in between.

For Eric Weinstein, an avowed atheist as he indicates in his tweet, the notion that these truths we believe to be self-evident – our equality before God as individuals and certain unalienable rights – apparently do not appear to be as evident to the citizenry today as it was to our Founding Fathers and their contemporaries.

Some of these staunch atheists realize that – much like a man sawing off the branch he is sitting on – society appears to be secularizing to the point that maybe we’re detaching from the very root of what gives us our values. As Eric says, these words are “load bearing.”

Cue Eric’s brother Bret, a former evolutionary biology professor, who had this engaging conversation with Jonathan Pageau, an Orthodox Christian and artist.

The contrast of their worldviews becomes very apparent in the final 30 minutes of the conversation. Bret frames religion in the following way: “Literally false, metaphorically true.” The crux of his point is that a religion like Christianity is not accurate in its truth claims about origins, history, science, etc. however, it’s a useful fiction for affording us the values and reigning in the bad behaviors of individuals so as to allow civilization to foster.

He goes on to use the analogy of a tennis player who is told to swing through the ball. In Bret’s opinion, what the racket does following its contact with the ball has no bearing on the ball’s flight path. And yet, coaches often use this as a teaching tool to get a proper swing. “Literally false, but metaphorically true.”

A similar story he uses in other conversations is of a native island tribe who believes in a tsunami god. They pass down stories through the generations of how the tide receding into the ocean is the tsunami god preparing to attack their island. This story affords people who never experienced a tsunami within their lifetime to have the ability to respond appropriately (finding high ground) when the situation eventually arises. In essence, from an evolutionary perspective, the religion, while not conveying a “literally” true explanation of what is occurring, provides benefits for the continuation of entire people groups.

But Bret goes further with his tennis analogy and concludes that if the tennis player starts losing the game, their coaches must find some new teaching tool with which to correct the player’s technique. A teaching method different than the “swing through the ball” advice given by coaches of the past. This is consistent with the more alarmist position he takes regarding the state of western culture more broadly. It also seems to fit his worldview that places an emphasis on change and evolution. In his opinion, the religions of old are inadequate to respond to the challenges of today and therefore a new answer to today’s problems must be found.

Jonathan however takes his analogy and flips it on its head. Is the tennis player possibly losing the game because his coaches started telling him it doesn’t matter if he follows through? Is his abandonment of what worked before what caused him to fall behind in the first place? Is he more likely to succeed if he continues to follow the advice of past generations that has gotten them through trials before?

Maybe the best recent nonreligious example of Bret’s “literally false metaphorically true” theory is public health during COVID. Framed as charitably as possible, we could say that for the sake of encouraging people to make the “right” decisions for collective health of society, some of the literal truthfulness of the public health officials’ claims was abandoned. Inconvenient truths that would have been counter productive for their urgent goals were omitted. To achieve expediency, they were willing to sacrifice honesty about the scientific conclusions (or lack thereof) at the time.

The origin of the virus. The efficacy of the vaccines. Two weeks to stop the spread. Risks to different age groups and demographics. That’s just a few that immediately come to mind. Each of those errors eroded trust. Whether it was malevolence or purely ignorance, it wreaked havoc on the credibility of the public health profession.

So what lessons can be learned from this?

As a parent and as a youth group leader at our church, Bret’s words prompt me to think through what it is I want to pass along to those who come after me. I’m confident that at the very least what Christ’s life and death has afforded to those within the Church is metaphorically true. That if you live as if it’s true (like swinging through with a tennis racket) and not just living for the here and now (YOLO) but for things of eternal value, you wind up producing the best results in the here and now as well.

Maybe nothing can serve as a better example of that is Jesus. He was willing to lay down his own life in pursuit of something of far greater value. We can debate whether or not he accomplished through his crucifixion the eternal salvation of those who trust in him in the life to come. But we cannot deny the incredible power of that act, which has rippled through history and impacted society considerably even if it is only metaphorically true. Even avowed atheists like the Weinstein brothers concede as much.

But then we need to take another step and question the “literally false” part that has the potential to undermine long-term trust, much like public health did in the past few years. As a parent I would not like to hand down to my kids and to the young children something that omits inconvenient truths or outright includes lies just to get a result in the immediate. I want to hand them the best map for navigating life I can, which admittedly will never be perfect.

But maybe that’s where being honest about areas of doubt or exposing kids to the diversity of views on topics that even the church has had debates over throughout history would keep the next generation from questioning the trustworthiness of adults in the long run.

For deconstruction of faith so often happens on the basis or interpretations of topics like Genesis, debates over the church’s stance on social issues, and literary criticism of the Old Testament, all which fall outside the purview of the creeds of the church historically. Maybe it’s worth reflecting on what is and is not included within those commonly shared belief statements. For should one’s entire faith hinge on an interpretation of difficult to read books like Genesis or Revelation? Not that these aren’t profound books of the Bible, but distilling their messages into simple prescriptions or belief statements is impossible.

That being said, I struggle with Bret’s proposition about finding a new answer to today’s challenges. I haven’t seen to date a better alternative to the Christian worldview or something that I could fabricate that better explains who we are, our purpose in life, and how best to live it out. I’m more in the camp of Jonathan asking Bret why we have to abandon what has worked before. Have prior generations not faced difficulty and hardship? It seems intrinsic to the human experience.

I’ll put my trust in the man that was willing to die for others and the power that comes from his name. The downstream effects through western society from his life, death and professed resurrection are apparent. And as we all watch as we saw off the branch we sit on, I’ll continue to suggest that we take a break from cutting and give greater credence to the trunk and roots that hold us up. This worldview and the values it affords aren’t as self-evident as it used to be. And maybe this gives us an opportunity to appreciate it all the more.

Posted on by bak5187

The Cute and Absurd

Chris Pratt in his viral MTV awards acceptance speech from a few years ago outlined nine rules he wanted to share specifically with his young audience. But it was Rule No. 4 that illustrated the framework for his overarching message.

“When giving a dog medicine, put the medicine in a little piece of hamburger and they won’t even know they’re eating medicine.”

Mixed in with some crude potty humor and lots of laughs from the audience were a few surprising heartfelt rules. Rule No. 2 was “You have a soul. Be careful with it.” Rule No. 6 was “God is real. God loves you. God wants the best for you. Believe that, I do.” And Rule No. 8 was just as blunt, “Learn to pray. It’s easy, and it’s so good for your soul.”

Many news articles latched onto and promoted his non-religious rules like how to keep your poop from stinking up the bathroom at a party (“the hamburger”) and as a result unintentionally promoted what Chris intended to be “the medicine” in his message. What an incredibly witty and cleverly constructed award acceptance speech.

This hamburger-medicine approach has been used often, especially with youth. The theory is that if you can cake a moral message in enough entertainment and comedy, you can make it palatable. That no one would willfully choose to accept the medicine on its own.

It’s the model for many church youth groups. The model for Disney movies. The model for children’s stories and TV shows. And it’s a model many parents use with their own kids. Even I instinctively resort to humor often to soften my kids up and make them more open to lessons I try to pass on to them.

But I stumbled upon an interesting quote by the late pastor, professor, and writer Dallas Willard who has had me pondering when this approach may go too far.

He states that today much of our art can be summed up in two words: “cute and absurd.” And the more I’ve pondered it, the more I think he’s correct. We should be cautious of when the pendulum swings too far.

So much of modern TV shows, movies, and books, not just for children, depend on the cute and absurd for almost the entirety of their content in a way that historical storytelling hasn’t required. Is there a historical equivalent of “The Emoji Movie” or “Trolls?” Were kids in past generations reading books inundated with pictures of simply cute or silly things? Did past stories include similar sidekick characters that now seem to be used principally for comic relief and merchandising?

If you cover that medicine in too much hamburger, does it lose its effectiveness? Or maybe by fixating on the hamburger too much, we forget to include the medicine in the first place?

I think Chris Pratt gave a succinct and distilled picture of what this can look like. He could have given nine funny rules for life that would have been discussed in the next news cycle and moved on with his life. But he was willing to put himself out there and add a few doses of some important truths that he wished to impart to others. I can only applaud him for that. If anything, it showed that someone with those values could still find a place in Hollywood and maybe give others confidence to be themselves in environments that seem bereft of people with similar beliefs.

I think it serves as a reminder that seriousness and levity don’t have to be mutually exclusive. The proper mix of both might be the best recipe for us getting the medicine we need.

Posted on by bak5187

Louis C.K. and the Dog

The comedian Louis C.K. told a story during one of his appearances on CONAN about the time his dog ate so much chocolate and the difficulty of trying to save her life. I’ve watched my fair share of comedy bits on YouTube over the years, but this one in particular stuck with me. I think that’s because there’s a deeper lesson that can be derived from it.

Follow me on this quick aside before revisiting the Louis C.K. bit.

There was a debate on the Unbelievable podcast between Ben Shapiro and Alex O’Connor (also known as Cosmic Skeptic) regarding the topic of whether or not religion is good for society. If you’re interested, here it is for reference.

The podcast really does a nice job fostering constructive dialogue between people of opposing worldviews. And I thought this was surprisingly quite a cordial and engaging debate.

But my biggest takeaway from their discussion wasn’t so much on the main question being explored in the debate, but on one of the deeper philosophical questions that arose from the dialogue regarding what we claim we can and cannot know.

Ben Shapiro at several points says that his religious worldview (Judaism) does not require him to give proof of God’s existence and that he concedes there’s “a whole realm” of things he does not know. He proposes however that Alex O’Connor’s naturalistic atheism worldview does require a proof of the negative if he is going to say that everything can be explained away by naturalistic cause and effect and that there definitively is no god.

In essence, O’Connor holds a worldview that everything can be reduced to mechanical, physical, and chemical processes, like mere atoms bouncing off one another. Meaning or the sense of free will to many materialist atheists like O’Connor are illusions. They may be considered helpful illusions, but they are illusions nonetheless.

Ben Shapiro refers to his own line of argumentation as a “giant escape hatch.” That basically he can point to the transcendent, state that he believes it exists, and then just lean on the fact that he is fine with the notion that he does not, and cannot, know everything. This might seem like a slight of hand debate method or, as O’Connor calls it, an “appeal to mystery”. But, this actually demonstrates succinctly the biggest divide between many religious and naturalistic atheist-types.

O’Connor fundamentally holds the view that although he does not currently have an explanation for everything, that in theory, with enough time, we could have an explanation for everything. So often these conversations descend into the stereotypical “God of the gaps” debate that has mired many of these conversations in the past. Religious apologists poke holes in scientific discoveries to try and leave a gap for God, and the atheistic types keep trying to make arguments in a manner to close said gaps. But those arguments often fail to miss the very practical implications that these disparate worldviews have for the individual, which I think is far more important to tease out.

In Louis C.K.’s story, he had knowledge about the dog’s situation that his dog was completely unaware of. One might say, Louis had more information, more capability, and more agency to resolve the dog’s conundrum than the dog itself. And even after saving the dog’s life by getting it to consume the hydrogen peroxide to vomit the chocolate and prevent death from occurring, the dog had no real appreciation or understanding of what it was that its owner had done for it. Louis’ approach, albeit unorthodox and comical, was not truly understood by the dog.

The biggest difference between the traditional religious worldviews and many of the modern atheistic types, is this consideration for other beings with greater agency than ourselves. If we were to consider ourselves as the dog in Louis’ story, is it possible that we’re largely unaware of what might be going on above us? Many of us like to think God would be just like any other person and not operating on a completely different plane of wisdom, knowledge, agency, and capability than any one of us has. So would it be better to view the concept of God through the analogy of a dog’s experience of its owner?

Some naturalistic atheistic types might acknowledge some sense of agency within humans, something that seems to undermine their own worldview, but certainly give no credence to something potentially above us. And yet, recent cultural shifts have more and more of these types of thinkers realizing that their positions are not as iron-clad as they previously thought.

Terms like spirits, egregores, and swarms are coming up more frequently in conversations, even with esteemed cognitive scientists. Much like the function of a beehive, deep thinkers are starting to appreciate that there are clearly immaterial forces at work between and among whole groups of people that cannot be traced to a physical, mechanical, or chemical process. For some of these thinkers the admission that there is matter and “memes” or “information” is the closest they will allow themselves to get to entertaining this phenomenon.

Is it possible that there might be something above us with a type of agency that we can only understand or recognize in part? Something immaterial that causes whole groups of people to move and act in apparent unison? The materialist worldview certainly doesn’t offer explanations for it.

That’s what Ben Shapiro seems to point to. And it’s something Alex O’Connor seems reluctant to consider.

Louis C.K.’s dog, left to its own devices, would likely have died from the consumption of all that chocolate but for the bizarre (from the dog’s perspective), yet caring actions of its owner.

We need to ask ourselves whether we’re willing to admit our own limits in understanding, wisdom and knowledge and in humility ask to receive those things from above.

Shapiro might call it an escape hatch. O’Connor would call it an appeal to mystery. I would call it trust, the bedrock of any relationship, whether it be a dog and its owner or man and his maker.

Posted on by bak5187 · 1 Comment

Self-Control and How to Teach It

“You had one job to do!”

That’s the quote that comes to mind whenever I read this particular verse in Paul’s letter to Titus. It’s a simple verse, but one that causes me to chuckle a bit every time I read it.

“Likewise, urge the younger men to be self-controlled.”

Titus 2:6

HA, Ha, ha…? Wait, what exactly is it that makes this humorous? In fact, it doesn’t seem funny at all.

Well, the humor isn’t exactly evident within the verse itself. But it emerges once the preceding verses are considered.

“But as for you, teach what is consistent with sound doctrine. Tell the older men to be temperate, serious, prudent, and sound in faith, in love, and in endurance.

Likewise, tell the older women to be reverent in behavior, not to be slanderers or slaves to drink; they are to teach what is good, so that they may encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited. Likewise urge young men to be self-controlled.”

Titus 2:1-6

Paul’s letter seems to indicate that while older men and women and younger women are capable of bearing a lengthy list of responsibilities, younger men are to be entrusted with but one.

You have one job to do. Self-control.

Boy, does it hurt to hear that. Does Paul really think that little of guys like myself? Is Paul correct that young men are uniquely susceptible to this one particular error? Is it fair? Is it true?

Men Uniquely Challenged in Self-Control

Having taught a Sunday school class for middle-school-aged boys, I was always shocked how well all the girls stayed in their seats, while the boys ravaged the room like animals. How the girls raised their hands politely while the boys constantly tried to talk over one another. How the girls listened to directions while the boys were tempted constantly to act on every impulse. Personal experience seems to indicate clear differences and that’s why I find this at least a little humorous.

But one can look at trends in our society more broadly and see a dark side to this. Consider the relative struggles for boys in public schools as compared to girls and the admission trends going into college. Or even the overrepresentation of men in prison as well. Sure some may say these disparities are entirely or mostly socially constructed. That it’s only because we raise boys differently than girls that these different outcomes arise.

But maybe Paul’s point shows that this same pattern of behavior is observed across cultures and across times. That something written a couple millennia ago can still have relevance today. For biology really doesn’t change nearly as quickly as our cultures and circumstances do, right?

Why Resist Temptation at All?

So what’s the big deal about self control? Whether it’s food, alcohol, sex, or drugs – just to name a few – our body is prone to these prompts to indulge our most basic cravings. The marketing industry has boomed over the past century or so capitalizing on these subconscious desires. Video games are designed around them. Streaming services do their best to keep you glued to the TV. I’m sure Cheez-Its have a few tricks up their sleeves to make themselves so darn irresistible . And one might ask, why should we even attempt to curb these desires?

As adults many of us have learned that overindulgence or addiction to any of these can be detrimental to our health. There’s a reason we know we shouldn’t let kids eat whatever snacks they want whenever they want or let an addict have unfettered access to their substance of choice. We understand the need for AA and dieting programs.

That even though a person thinks they need to cave to that craving to be fulfilled, there’s a very strong argument to be made that giving in to everything their body longs for is detrimental to their health at the very least the long run and oftentimes the short term as well.

Self-control is the skill that helps us regulate these cravings. Yet we aren’t exactly born with it. In fact, we humans seem quite unique as compared to the animal kingdom in our ability not just to learn how to regulate ourselves but to actually export that restraint to our kids and by domesticating other animals. It is an amazing feat when we can train our dog to sit idly by staring at the juicy steak on the kitchen table and not give in to their innermost desires. If not for our training they would be devouring it like a wild animal.

But how do we best control ourselves and help teach others like our kids how to manage their impulses? And how should it be approached in communities like our schools and churches?

The 3 Typical Approaches to Self-Control

The first is an approach of absolute prohibition or abstinence. Often this is done out of a heightened sense of caution and a belief that it is most effective to establish a consistent and firm boundary that is never to be crossed than possibly concede any ground, especially with kids, by attempting nuance. No alcohol. No candy. No video games. And scare the kids with horror stories of STDs and teenage pregnancies to discourage any sexual deviance. Maybe even threaten that you will show them the door for disobedience. Don’t give them an inch or they’ll take a mile.

The method employed to establish this type of self-control doesn’t really matter as long as the end result occurs. No indulging in these actions whatsoever. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

The second approach is on the opposite end of the spectrum, and is something I think is beginning to occur with more regularity. It’s the habit of choosing to indulge in whatever craving may arise instead of resisting it. That any inhibition to acting on our desires is not living as our “authentic self.” If you want sex, seek it out with whoever through hook-ups or do it privately through porn. Eat as much as you want of whatever you want. Or the constant and steady increase in the prevalence of recreational drugs and alcohol. Why should we limit our desires? “Eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die.”

And the third approach is what I associate with the commonly stated phrase “everything in moderation.” It can be viewed as a middle road option as compared to the first two approaches. That generally speaking, everything is permissible, but you don’t want too much or too little of any given thing.

Yet I don’t think any of these three approaches cut it. At least when teaching middle-school-aged boys none of these worked. The more I’ve pondered these questions as to how and why we are to control ourselves and the verse that prompted them, the more I’ve realized how this challenge to self-control serves as a microcosm of what God wants most for us in this life.

A Biblical Approach to Self-Control

And this exact issue is present in the opening chapters of the Bible.

Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin[and onyx are also there.) The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Ashur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. And the Lord God commanded the man, “You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Genesis 2:8-17

From the very beginning God supplies man with multiple trees with fruit that were good for eating but puts one restriction in place. You must not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Let us consider the three approaches mentioned before and see if this qualifies as any of those. God prohibits the consumption of the fruit from one tree in particular, but not all the others. He doesn’t allow them to indulge in whatever they want to consume. So maybe there’s an element of moderation involved, but he doesn’t necessarily limit how much they eat from the other trees. Hmmm… what’s going on here? Well in the next chapter it gets more interesting.

“Now the serpent was more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made. He said to the woman, “Did God really say, ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden’?”

The woman said to the serpent, “We may eat fruit from the trees in the garden, but God did say, ‘You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden, and you must not touch it, or you will die.’”

“You will not certainly die,” the serpent said to the woman. “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it. Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized they were naked; so they sewed fig leaves together and made coverings for themselves.”

Genesis 3:1-7

While it’s common in modern interpretations to view the serpent as Satan in this passage, it wasn’t initially interpreted that way prior to the introduction of the concept of demons that from my understanding emerged not too long before the events documented in the New Testament. Simply read, early Jewish readers could have interpreted the serpent as the most earthly of all the creatures God had made. It slithered along the ground and in a cosmology that had a heaven and earth dichotomy, the serpent was therefore furthest from the heavens and most earthly or beast-like of all the animals. It had no self-restraint. What it longed for, it acquired.

You can see how in his first question to Eve, he distorts God’s command. “Did God really say ‘You must not eat from any tree in the garden?‘” The answer of course is no. God did not say that. In fact, he said it was permissible to eat of any, including the tree of life, with the exception of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. The serpent insinuates something that God did not in fact say. God did not prohibit them eating from the trees. God does not take the first approach with these earthly desires by prohibiting them in their entirety.

When Eve explains the warning God gave for eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, the serpent responds, “For God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.” Here the serpent is taking the second approach, stating that by actually choosing to consume that which was pleasing to her eye, she would have everything that she could desire. That God, by placing this restriction in place, was holding out on them.

And yet, when she and Adam eat from the fruit, they are immediately filled with shame over their nakedness and wind up outside the garden and unable to enjoy the fruits of the tree of life that God had given them.

John Milton in his book “Paradise Lost” quotes Satan as saying the following, “Better to reign in hell, than to serve in heaven.” This quote, while short, encapsulates the stark difference between these two approaches to life. In many ways, making our desires subservient to the desires of God is an act of service. Similar to the child who chooses to obey their parent even when it goes against their own wishes, our self-control to follow the commands of our God is an act of faith, of love, and of trust.

We could have our own way. We could, as John Milton puts it, reign in hell. But can hell deliver what only heaven provides in both this age and the next?

If the serpent depicted in Genesis 3 and Milton’s version of Satan are correct, God is holding out on us. And it would be incumbent upon us to seek our own pleasure and fulfillment in whatever way we deem appropriate. But is this true? He gave Adam and Eve access to an abundance of trees including the tree of life for their enjoyment. He gives the gift of sex to be enjoyed within the confines of marriage. He turned the water into wine. And he has given us the Lord’s Supper and promises a wedding feast when we will be rejoined with him.

He doesn’t offer absolute prohibitions to most of our longings. He discourages us from the self-affliction of unbridled indulgence. And he doesn’t simply offer moderation as the best road.

He makes all of these natural longings that much more beautiful and fulfilling when they are placed in their proper context. And that is what self-control is about. Trusting God that these longings, when pursued in the right place and the right time, can help us encounter and appreciate God more than ever before. That we are choosing to trust and serve him in the process. And that all the inner turmoil of keeping ourselves in check will all be worth it in the end.

That’s a lesson not just for young men to learn. I think we all need it, myself most certainly included.

Posted on by bak5187

WALL-E and the Prodigal Son

Beyond its charming love story and the adorable personification of a little trash compacting robot, WALL-E gave its viewers much to meditate on. WALL-E truly is a masterpiece in storytelling. Conveying most of the story with so few words, the story is strikingly simplistic and yet filled with incredible depth.

This 2008 Pixar movie has served as a G-rated version of classic stories like Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, asking the audience very similar questions. Can wealth and comfort really provide the security and fulfillment we all long for? What are we giving up by trying to escape the difficult realities we are presented with on earth? What does courage really look like? And what exactly is it that makes this little robot so endearing?

But unlike Brave New World, WALL-E presents us with more lighthearted scenes with WALL-E going back to his home as probably the most memorable. We see the WALL-E trying to find a place for his newly found spork, creating a hat out of a trash can lid, and recognizing the beauty of held hands from a scene of “Hello, Dolly!”. And while that scene gives us a thorough introduction to what motivates this little robot, I don’t think we have to look much further than the first few minutes to get a glimpse into one of the most important and overlooked parts of the story.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that just before zooming in on a trash covered Earth, they were finishing the following lyrics from the song “Put On Your Sunday Clothes.”

” There’s a slick town, Barnaby… Out there. Full of shine and full of sparkle. Close your eyes and see it glisten, Barnaby.”

The stark contrast is immediately drawn between the “shine” and “sparkle” we would envision for an idyllic world and the reality of a trash-covered Earth. Between the world we would all love to live in, like the Axiom ship the humans escape on, and the littered world this fictitious group of people decided to leave behind. Between the world we all would want to leave for future generations and the world this lonely robot is left to inhabit.

And yet, if we were to place ourselves alone in this polluted and toxic world like this, would any of us have the attitude WALL-E has? Would we be listening to music and humming along while working what to many of us would seem like a meaningless job like compacting little cubes of trash all day? Would we be content with such little impact and without praise from others?

Or would we be looking to escape that reality like the humans in the movie? To fill our stomachs to the full? To spend our time binge-watching more TV shows than we could ever watch in a lifetime? Trying to escape reality through whatever food, sex, drugs, alcohol, or virtual realities we can get our hands on?

If this robot was disgruntled, would he have nearly the appeal that he has had on people, or is it in fact his pleasantness in spite of the circumstances that makes him so alluring?

And yet, WALL-E presents us with another conundrum to consider. WALL-E is the only robot in the movie that from the beginning of the story seems to have transcended his programming. And he’s also the only WALL-E robot still functioning on Earth with all others losing functionality after 700+ years of hard work. All other robots are stuck doing routine functions without really giving consideration to why they do what they do. I don’t think this is a coincidence either, but rather an important facet of the story.

WALL-E, by the end of the movie helps both groups realize what they are lacking. He is such a powerful character because he serves as the unassuming savior of the story. A robot going about his business even to the point of his near destruction for love and for purpose. And this story is so poignant and moving because it invites us to ask how do we respond to watching such heroism and courage. And it’s this aspect of the movie that reminds me of one of my favorite passages in the Bible.

The passage is found in Luke 15 and it’s the parable of the prodigal son. So many of us are familiar with the story of the younger son. The younger asks for his share of the father’s inheritance. He essentially asks his father to liquidate half his wealth because he couldn’t wait for his father to pass away and acquire his share of his wealth then. Then he goes and wastes his inheritance on frivolous things only to find himself in trouble when a severe famine occurs.

He returns to his father only hoping that he would be merciful enough to allow him to work in his garden again. He does not expect to be received as his son again after what he did. But expects to be received like an average laborer, to earn a living just so he does not starve. But instead the younger son is welcomed home with open arms from the father and a feast. The story demonstrates that God is always open and ready to receive the repentant sinner. A story that fell therapeutically on the ears of the downtrodden, sinful, lost and forgotten in society both then and today.

But Jesus also continues with the story of the older son, which is often forgotten and discussed far less often. And this part of the story is intended for a second group in his audience. It’s the story of a son who worked in the garden, never asked for his father’s inheritance, and appeared to be doing everything right. Yet he was bitter when the younger son was received by the father so joyfully. The father asks the older son why he would not come inside for the party to celebrate the return of his younger brother, but the older son remained resentful.

“Look! All these years I’ve been slaving for you and never disobeyed your orders. Yet you never gave me even a young goat so I could celebrate with my friends. But when this son of yours who has squandered your property with prostitutes comes home, you kill the fattened calf for him!”

For a son who appeared to be doing everything right, and laboring away for his father, he was quite indignant and certainly not appreciative for the situation he was in. Despite being in the father’s garden, he was not happy, let alone content. Quite an interesting difference presented in these two brothers.

The parable of the prodigal son is an interesting one because it provides two examples of how not to live, but in a way insinuates that there is a third way of living. A life that enjoys working in the Father’s garden and is ready to invite others to join in.

WALL-E captivates me in many of the same ways that Jesus does. To the casual observer WALL-E’s job would appear to be without meaning of significance. He’s a trash collecting robot. There are far more inspiring things one could do for an occupation. And yet, he joyfully goes about his work diligently and when an opportunity arises for him to carry out a significant mission and return the lost plant to Eve, he’s prepared to do it. Through his actions he invites the other humans and robots to step outside of their comforts and their programming to see there are more meaningful things in life to pursue. He helps them transcend who they were to become who they could be.

Jesus lived his life in the very same manner. Whether we have tried to find an escape from the harsh realities of life through the dulling of our senses and the gratification of our fantasies or mustered all our strength to begrudgingly work through life, Jesus has something to offer us. A model of a willfully laborious life given sacrificially, even to the point of death and ridicule, all so that we can see there’s abundant life to be found living in this same manner. That there is a different way to live that may seem counter intuitive to the casual observer, but when acted upon, truly can provide life in its fullest.

We can get up to work each day in a world that is often missing its “shine” and “sparkle” and go about our little jobs even when they appear to have such little meaning. We can labor in the Father’s garden, being joyful for the opportunities that come our way, and excited for the day when others may decide to come back or join us in the labor. And who knows, maybe we find a little rest in the midst of the work. A message maybe as relevant today as it ever has been.

“Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light.” – Matthew 11:28-30 –

So yeah, WALL-E is a beautiful and thought-provoking movie for many good reasons. But in my opinion, what makes it most influential, are the aspects that most echo the gospel. A life lived so radically that it brings life to those around them.

Posted on by bak5187

Can We or Should We Read the Bible “Literally?”

It’s hard to imagine there was a time before books were so widely available. Before we could walk into a Barnes & Nobles, grab a coffee and pastry and peruse the thousands of books available. Before we could download straight to an e-reader within seconds.

But what is probably even more difficult for us to imagine, is a time before we collectively had the literacy we see today. The extent of literacy necessary to produce the need for libraries, bookstores, and e-readers.

According to The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report “How Was Life? Global Well-being since 1820”, literacy levels across the globe have risen drastically in just the last couple hundred years. In 1820, only 12% of the people in the world could read and write. Today however, only 14% of the world population (as of 2016) remained illiterate, an increase from 12% to 86% in literacy across the globe. However, much of that growth occurred just within the last 65 years. During that span the global literacy rate increased by 4% every 5 years from 42% in 1960 to 86% in 2015. Nearly 1% a year!

There are sure to be multiple factors for these developments. Improved quality of life, which I’m sure lead to higher levels of education, and therefore increased literacy rates. But one significant factor that I think is often overlooked is the invention of the printing press. A technology that made it so much more efficient to disseminate literature and publications than ever before. For the first time in history, these writings could be mass-produced. And with mass-production came increased affordability. And with that the incentives were in place to bring about the widespread literacy we see today.

It shouldn’t come as a surprise that the Bible is the most printed book of all time. The printing press has, probably more than any other development in technology, put more Bibles in people’s hands around the globe. Even making their way into seemingly every hotel room’s nightstand drawer.

But with that widespread availability to literature and increased literacy could there have also been unforeseen consequences that maybe we aren’t aware of? With Bibles so widely available today, has there been a seismic shift in how we read and interpret it? I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the Reformation occurred so soon after the introduction of the printing press. For better or for worse, we are on the other side of this pivot point in culture, and it would probably be beneficial for us to assess the consequences.

the problem with the word literal

I can think of few people who use the word “literal” more than those in the church. We cling to this claim of “literal interpretation” often in the faith as a buttress against conflicting ideas and beliefs from within or “attacks” from those outside. One of the most widely known arguments between Christians and non-Christians, and an oft-mentioned reason for leaving the faith, has been waged over the “literal interpretation” of passages like the beginning of Genesis.

There are Christians trying to poke holes in the credibility of carbon dating and the point to the lack of observable transitional species in fossils as evidence disproving evolution. I have heard some even look to passages noting the separation of the waters of the earth and the waters of the sky to justify the long lifetimes experienced by the earliest people documented in Genesis. We have estimated the total years documented in the genealogies in Genesis to justify that the world is only a few thousand years old. Heck, I just saw advertisements on Facebook for an entire children’s show dedicated to alternate versions of geological sciences used to justify the new-earth creationism belief.

In almost all of our arguments today, the issue often boils down to a what is the accurate interpretation of the Bible. And all of this well-intended effort is being made to defend this “literal interpretation” we have of the Bible. Is this really the fight that should be waged? Is this really how the Bible is to be used and read?

the difference between inerrant and literal

We can be quick to reference passages like the following from 2 Timothy and conclude that because the Bible claims that all scripture is inspired by God, that it is therefore inerrant, and therefore meant to be interpreted literally.

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness.” 2 Timothy 3:16

Verses like this are often used as a defense for the faith. An anchor that we hold on to. That we can combat the attacks of our “godless” professors, like was depicted in the movie “God is Not Dead,” with reason and a firm grasp onto the truth contained within the Bible. We focus on the inspiration of the scriptures and that because they are God-breathed, they must be without error. That they must be “literally” true.

And while I would attest to what I believe to be the God-breathed nature of scripture from my own experience, I think we go awry when we take the step of saying, everything must be “literally” true in the Bible. In essence we are saying that the Bible is true in its plainest and most simplistic reading.

I mean, what would a “literal” description of a story even look like? If someone were to ask you to describe your morning “literally”, how would you do it?

You might say that you woke up at 5:45. You stepped out of bed, got a shower, brushed your teeth, and got dressed. You went downstairs and got your coffee brewing. You threw a bagel in the toaster and once your coffee was ready sat down for breakfast. After breakfast, you packed your lunch, grabbed your bag for work, and left the house, locking the door behind you, and hopping into your car to drive to work. Seems like a pretty comprehensive story right?

The problem with the word literal, is that we assume any number of words would be sufficient to exhaust the entirety of the story. For example, why didn’t you say which side you rolled out of bed? Which specific muscles you used? Or how many sheets you had to move to do so? What was the thread count on those sheets? How many steps it took to get to the bathroom, which foot you used first, or the rate at which you were moving? What about the flow rate from the shower head, or the cubic feet of space you had in the shower? The number of bristles on the toothbrush, the flavor of toothpaste you used, the chemicals within the toothpaste that create the sensation you experienced? The number of steps to go downstairs, whether they are hardwood or carpeted, the length of the rise and run for each of them? Do you step on one lighter than the others because it creaks? What flavor of coffee you drank? Was it Starbucks brand, or just Folgers? Out of which mug? Where did you get the mug? How long did you toast the bagel and at what temperature setting? What was the remaining moisture content of the bagel? How many calories were in it? Peanut butter, jelly, cream cheese on top? What are the dimensions of the door, or the finish of the knob and hinges? Are there multiple locks on the door? Which way did you turn the key? What type of car do you drive? Were you parked in a driveway or on the street? How much gas was used on the trip?

If you’re still with me, thank you for persevering through an annoying list of excessive details. Don’t we get frustrated with friends and family that include seemingly irrelevant details in there stories? They are trying to recapture the entirety of what happened, which is impossible, and we all know that and we just want them to get on with the “meaningful” part of the story. Yet, by no means could this list of potential additional details ever be exhausted right? And that’s exactly the point.

Can we ever describe an event literally? Is that first story literally true? What is it that makes it true or untrue? With error, or inerrant?

Likewise, what would Genesis 1 read like if God had intended it to be written to appease our modernist society? I’ll take a quick stab at it.

“In the beginning, approximately 13.799 billion years ago, God took this incredibly dense and high temperature state called the singularity (which you will learn about later), and it expanded at a rate of 72 kilometers per second per megaparsec. Then God said let there be light, and let it travel at a rate of 299,792,458 meters per second…”

The details that one could squeeze into that version of the story would be inexhaustible. And by breaking it down in this way, doesn’t it cease to have any meaning? Lose any ability to inspire awe? Let alone the fact that it would be absolutely useless to people who did not see the world through our modernist lens?

Do we read all types of literature the same way? Do we read a note from a loved one the same way as research paper? Do we read poems the same as a historical account of an event? Do we read a children’s story the same as the front page of the news? Or lyrics to a love song the same as a work email? I think the answer to all of those should be a clear “No.” Language serves as a vehicle for communicating essence or meaning. It always points back to essence and meaning, and adopts different forms depending on the context in which it is used.

Genesis was likely written after the Israelites escaped captivity in Egypt. It wasn’t written as a firsthand account from Adam. It was a story about who this God was and how valuable people were to him. A God that was above all created things when neighboring peoples worshipped things within this world. A God that created man in his image, when they had been treated as worthless slaves for so long. A God that knew he could rest from his work, when all the Israelites knew was that their slave labor was what gave them identity and value. And this story has so much more packed into it beyond that. It’s poetic. It’s meant to contrast the Israelite God from the gods of their neighbors. And while there are cosmic elements to it, I don’t believe that was the author’s primary goal to be communicating in the passage.

As John notes at the end of his gospel, “Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down, I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.” We need to realize that the Bible never claims to be exhaustive. It does not cover everything, nor could it. So how should we read it?

so how do we read the bible?

The Bible is filled with poems, dreams, songs, words of wisdom, letters, myths, stories, historical accounts of events, symbolism, and parables. All of which were written specifically to our ancestors of varying contexts, and they are now available to us today for our benefit. If we are to try to read the Bible as best as we can, trying to see the scriptures from their historical context is of incredible importance and can help us to see past our own interpretive frameworks and biases.

And maybe we should consider reading alongside others as often as we can. Nothing more quickly points out how different we can all interpret passages than by studying alongside others and even reading interpretations of Christians throughout history. People studied the scriptures communally before literacy was so widely held, by one literate person reading to a group of people and sparking conversation and I think for good reason. Increased literacy has allowed for more personal study of the Bible, which I don’t think is entirely a bad thing. But that can quickly turn into one heck of an echo chamber if we don’t bounce our interpretations off of others.

The rest of what Paul wrote in 2 Timothy says, all scriptures are profitable for what? It does not say it is profitable for understanding the details of the origins of the world. Nor does it say it is profitable for subscribing to the denomination that holds the perfect interpretation of the Bible. It says all scriptures are “profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” Let’s get back to reading the Bible with that intent as well. Because I think the scriptures are very well equipped to do just that.