Better Living Through Zoology: Bernice Goes To School

Bernice in her "work clothes"

Starting one week ago, Jeni has been taking Bernice to school as her counseling partner. Bernice wears the little vest, complete with ID badge, pictured above.

If you aren't familiar with "animal-assisted therapy" it's pretty awesome. It is a fact that people of all ages calm down and become more open when a friendly animal is around; in this case a big, friendly dog.

Jeni has already seen non-verbal kids get more verbal with Bernice, kids who need help with social skills get to practice on a dog, and kids with behavior problems work harder so that they can spend time with Bernice as a reward, and an unexpected benefit - Bernice reduces stress for teachers, too! Maybe most important, Jeni gets to work with one of her best friends.

For the kids who are afraid of dogs (very few) Jeni takes her whole arm and puts it in Bernice's mouth. A little slobber is a small price to pay for calming a child.

Bernice comes home pretty tired, but she appears to be having a great time. She especially liked Valentine's Day parties. Small children + cupcakes = lots of cupcake crumbs on the floor. She came home that day with icing on her face.

I am proud of my wife and my dog - co-counselors!

Movie Moment: "Conservative" Movies?

I came across an item yesterday that I couldn’t pass by without commenting on. It’s the National Review Online’s reader suggested, editor ranked list of the "25 best conservative movies of the past 25 years."

I’ll lay my cards out on the table right here at the beginning. If you pinned me down and made me declare a political position, I’d tell you “moderate.” I’m not a moderate because I can’t make up my mind, however. I’m a moderate because my standard for what would make good public policy cuts across Republican, Democrat, and other party lines. I won’t go into the details here, but my goal, for reasons of faith, is to let the Bible inform how I vote on issues. And no current or past political party has created what I would call an ideal platform.

So, I try not talk about politics much. But I do talk about movies a lot. And some of the interpretations of the movies in this list are…odd. This is not intended to be a post about bashing conservatives. I am one on some issues, after all. It is intended to be about something else, which I will reveal at the end. I will restrict my comments to movies I have seen, and to reviewer comments (each entry is by a different reviewer) that struck me as strange. Some of the reviews are actual reviews, while others appear to be manifestos disguised as reviews. Of those, I think they say a lot more about the reviewer than about the movie.

Starting at the beginning, the introduction states: “We do not claim that the writers, directors, producers, gaffers, and key grips involved with these films are conservative. We certainly make no such assertion about the actors. Yet the results are indisputable…”
This is spectacular. The guys who hold the microphones, the actors, the directors, and the writers may have accidentally made conservative movies. This sentence alone was worth the price of admission. It also provides an important clue…

“Conservatives enjoy these films because they are great movies that offer compelling messages about freedom, families, patriotism, traditions, and more.” This is an honest question: does this sentence insinuate that people who do not classify themselves as conservative dislike freedom, families, patriotism, and traditions, or movies about the same? We’ll come back to this…

Now starting at the bottom:

“Also-Rans” – Thank You For Smoking – Really? If you consider yourself a conservative, and you liked this movie, can you tell me why?

Amazing Grace - Abolitionists, whether here or in England, were without a doubt considered dangerous liberals in their day.

25. Gran Torino (2008) – “Clint Eastwood directs and stars in the ultimate family movie unsuitable for the family. He plays Walt Kowalski, a caricature of an old-school, dying-breed, Polish-American racist male, replete with post-traumatic stress disorder from having served in the Korean War. Kowalski comes to realize that his exotic Hmong neighbors embody traditional social values more than his own disaster of a Caucasian nuclear family. Dirty Harry blows away political correctness, takes on the bad guys, and turns a boy into a man in the process. He even encourages the cultural assimilation of immigrants.”

This movie is too recent for me to explain why this review may have missed something extremely important about this movie. And it is a great movie, primarily as a direct result of what this reviewer missed. I guess you can email me if you want to know what I think that thing is.

24. Team America: World Police (2004) – If you are offended by anything, DO NOT see this movie. It made the list because of its scathing take on politically active Hollywood types. It also apparently made the list because the reviewer didn’t realize that half the jokes in the movie, including the title, were about conservatives.

20. Gattaca (1997)– “The movie is a cautionary tale about the progressive fantasy of a eugenically correct world — the road to which is paved by the abortion of Down babies, research into human cloning, and “transhumanist” dreams of fabricating a “post-human species.”

That sentence is correct up until the dash, at which point, I’m not sure we saw the same movie. The movie I saw was about people being excluded because of genetics like near-sightedness and the propensity for heart disease. I’m not saying the things listed are not deplorable – but I don’t think you can just start listing things you hate into a movie review if the movie isn’t at all about those things. Speaking of which…

17. The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe (2005)– This review just made me sad. I won’t even quote it. I will say it mentions hating Santa Claus, compares the White Witch to Kim Jong Il, criticizes land-for-peace swaps, and mentions the redemptive death of Jesus primarily as an excuse to criticize “leftists,” all in four sentences. Would this reviewer have been pleased to see Edmund and Mr. Tumnus imprisoned or killed as traitors? I suspect C.S. Lewis and the filmmakers were going for more.

16. Master and Commander (2003) – This review I actually agree with. I also liked this movie a lot.

13. Braveheart (1995) – “Braveheart taught that freedom is not just worth dying for, but also worth killing for, in defense of hearth and homeland. Six years later, amid the ruins of the Twin Towers, Gibson’s message resonated with a generation of American youth who signed up to fight terrorists, instead of inviting them to join a ‘constructive dialogue.’”

I'm going to try and tread very carefully here. I don’t think this review is saying that Braveheart directly inspired soldiers to volunteer after 9/11, though it could be construed that way. I think it is saying that movie Braveheart embodies the spirit of those who volunteered. However, I think that trivializes the volunteers by boiling their motivation to fight for their country down to one sentence in a movie review.

On a separate note, a friend of mine proposed another “American” interpretation of this film – a native people, seen by their neighbors as barbarians, are betrayed, slaughtered, and oppressed. In other words, the American hero most like William Wallace might be Crazy Horse.

Here’s a favorite line from another Mel Gibson movie, Maverick. “Oh, I hate Indians. I try to kill at least one a day. I figure it’s their fault for being on our land before we got here.”

Now, I’m not saying Braveheart is about Native Americans. I’m saying metaphors are tricky.

12. The Dark Knight (2008) - "This film gives us a portrait of the hero as a man reviled. In his fight against the terrorist Joker, Batman has to devise new means of surveillance, push the limits of the law, and accept the hatred of the press and public."

Wow, just, wow. Where to start? Batman is an anti-death-penalty activist, as well as a strict enforcer of gun control laws. (Batman and I go way back.)

The best scene in the movie, to me, was when the Joker offered two ferry-boats the chance to blow the other up – one filled with criminals, one with normal folks. A healthy debate ensues. Perhaps you remember how it turned out – Batman tells the Joker, “Not everyone is like you.”

Batman agrees to use his super-surveillance just once, provided it is used by the most trustworthy man in the movie, after which it is destroyed forever, because it is “too much power for one man.”

This movie as a whole is about escalation, as set up in the last three minutes of Batman Begins. It is about how fighting evil draws one perilously close to the edge of evil, and how much personal cost is involved even in a righteous battle. Not just the cost to one's reputation, but to one's loved ones.

11. The Lord of the Rings (2001-2003) - Author J. R. R. Tolkien was deeply conservative, so it’s no surprise that the trilogy of movies based on his masterwork is as well.

I can only assume the anti-industrialization and anti-deforestation message of the books and the films slipped past this reviewer.

When Frodo sighs, “I wish none of this had happened,” Gandalf’s response speaks to us, too: “So do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given to us.”

That is a great dialogue, and I agree with the reviewer that it speaks to us. So does the one about two minutes before that, when Frodo says, “It’s a pity Bilbo didn’t kill him [Gollum] when he had the chance.” To which Gandalf replies, “Pity? It was pity that stayed Bilbo’s hand. There are many who live who deserve death, and many who die who deserve life. Can you give it them? Do not be so quick to deal out death and judgment.”

7. The Pursuit of Happyness (2006) - Gardner never succumbs to self-pity, even when he and his young son take refuge in a homeless shelter. They’re black, but there’s no racial undertone or subtext.

Again, this is an honest question: It’s ok for the actors to be black, but if they talk about it, and how it affects others’ perceptions of them or their perception of themselves, that’s not ok?

4. Forrest Gump (1994) - "Tom Hanks plays the title character, an amiable dunce who is far too smart to embrace the lethal values of the 1960s."

Like racism. He is a Congressional Medal earning veteran, and the keynote speaker at an anti-Vietnam War rally. I think you could make a good case that this film’s take on American history allows for some moral ambiguity.

But this is the one that really got me:

1. The Lives of Others (2007) – I saw this movie this weekend, and it is a truly remarkable film.

"It chronicles life under a totalitarian regime as the Stasi [East Germany’s secret police] secretly monitors the activities of a playwright who is suspected of harboring doubts about Communism."

Oh, but it’s about so much more. You need to see this movie.

The thing that absolutely floored me about this movie’s inclusion in this list, and at the #1 spot no less, is that apparently nobody realized that one of the things this movie is about is the effect things like domestic wire-tapping, inhumane interrogation techniques, widespread paranoia, imprisonment without trial, and a culture of suspicion toward one’s neighbors and co-workers have on the people living in such a system.

So, the number one pick is a good example of what this post is really about – people often see what they want to see in art, and movies apparently are no exception. In fact, I think truly great art, and truly great movies, allow for a variety of interpretations. And everyone goes to the movies with their lens preset, so to speak. I tend to watch movies primarily through the filter of my faith. I see meaning when someone dies in a cruciform posture (which happens a lot in movies). My supposition is that good filmmakers include things like that on purpose. Others appear to primarily watch movies through the filter of a specific political agenda, and may assume that elements which fit that filter are there by accident. I don’t think any of the filmmakers involved with the films in this list accidentally made conservative movies. I do suspect that some people may have accidentally watched them as conservative movies. Or put another way, some people took values which are embodied in these movies in an “indisputable” way, values which were probably intended to be portrayed as universal – values like freedom, family, patriotism, tradition - and put a label of “conservatism” on those values, and thus on the movies.

Bible Verses That Freak Me Out #22 - "Every careless word" - Matthew 12:36

“I say to you that people will have to give account on the day of judgment for every careless word they have spoken.” – Matthew 12:36

Well, yikes. This is one of those times that I hope that Jesus is kidding, or exaggerating for emphasis. Every careless word? That could take awhile…

I ran across this verse in of those “coincidental” occurrences that sometimes happen in life. I had been stewing over some words that were spoken to me recently. Have you ever had the experience of doing something you were proud of, and receiving a dozen or so compliments concerning that thing, and one negative or snarky comment? And which one sounds out over and over in your mind? Exactly – the negative one.

But running across this verse also reminded of the times I have said something I wished later that I could take back. And that’s just the careless words that I remember. It disturbs me sometimes to think that my careless words may have haunted people in the way others’ careless words have haunted me – causing doubt, anger, shame, or frustration.

The context in which Jesus speaks these words is also disturbing. He is condemning the Pharisees, those experts in external righteousness. He says two verses earlier, “Out of the overflow of the heart the mouth speaks.”

Richard Foster, in his introduction to the classic “Celebration of Discipline,” comments on this verse:

“It is not that we plan to be this way. We have no intention of exploding with anger or parading a sticky arrogance, but when we are with people, what we are comes out. Though we may try with all our might to hide these things, we are betrayed by our eyes, our tongue, our chin, our hands, our whole body language. Willpower has no defense against the careless word, the unguarded moment. The will has the same deficiency as the law – it can only deal with externals. It is incapable of bringing about the necessary transformation of the inner spirit.”

Foster is suggesting that the only way to eliminate the careless word is to make sure that your heart is overflowing with the fruits of the Spirit. And the only way to do that is present ourselves regularly – with discipline – before God and ask that he transform us from the inside out.

In other words, the only way to keep from being haunted by careless words, or haunting others with our words, is to be haunted by the Holy Ghost.

Movie Moment: Belated Valentine’s Day Thought – The Movies and Married Love

I am little late getting on the Valentine’s Day bandwagon, but that is actually appropriate for the content of this post. Here’s a question to scratch your head over: what is your favorite movie that portrays love in the context of marriage?

My premise is that most movies that portray “love” are primarily concerned with the pursuit of love – love’s starting point. The overwhelming majority of romantic movies are concerned with “boy meets girl.” Very few movies follow up on “boy marries girl, has three children, etc.” Think about your favorite romantic movies (or for guys, your wife’s favorites). I’ll bet you a dollar that the movie ends with 1) a wedding, or the very likely prospect of one, or less often, 2) the death of one or both of the leads.

There are probably two main reasons for this. One is the necessity of movie plot mechanics. You need three acts in a typical romantic movie (or any movie). Act One: Boy Meets Girl. Act Two: Complication – Boy and Girl Separated. Act Three: Resolution, happy or otherwise. Think about your favorites (or your significant others’.) This applies to all of them. I think it’s easier for screenwriters to portray “the pursuit,” or courtship, or “falling in love,” or what have you, in the span of two hours than it is to portray “married love” in the same span, and with the same kind of plot structure.

The other reason I think movies primarily deal with courtship is because of a more general societal definition of love. When we think of romantic love, whether we are trying to or not, we usually think of the feelings involved in “falling in love.”

Not that there’s anything wrong with falling in love! Falling in love is great! But – what does that say about our definition of love if the popular portrayal of love “ends” with marriage. We see a wedding in a movie and this is movie shorthand for “and they lived happily ever after.” But that feeds into the belief that all love always feels like falling in love. And anybody who’s been married for more than a month or two will tell you that isn’t always what love feels like.

For more on this idea I recommend with my most heart-felt recommendation “Sacred Marriage” by Gary Thomas. The subtitle of the book is “What if God designed marriage to make us holy, more than to make us happy?” A counselor friend of mine suggests that the key to a successful marriage is that it requires both parties to become more mature people. Thomas says in the first chapter, appropriately titled “The Greatest Challenge in the World:”

“Romantic love has no elasticity to it. It can never be stretched; it simply shatters. Mature love, the kind demanded of a good marriage, must stretch…Any mature spiritually sensitive view of marriage must be built on the foundation of mature love rather than romanticism. But this immediately casts us into a countercultural pursuit.”

I don’t think that it is the fault of movies that our general perception of love is limited to the romantic, “falling in love” sort of love – but I do think movies perpetuate this idea. So, what are some “countercultural” movies? Which ones show a different side of love than the pursuit? I thought of these:

It’s a Wonderful Life (1946) – Jimmy Stewart, Donna Reed. Gets me every time…I am always surprised at how many people haven’t seen it, or haven’t seen all of it. You need to see all of it.

The Family Man (2000) – A sort of reverse “It’s A Wonderful Life.” In fact, I’m sure that’s how it was pitched to the producers. Still a good movie, though.

The Bishop’s Wife(1947) Cary Grant/The Preacher’s Wife – The original, and the 1996 remake with Denzel Washington and Whitney Houston.

The Notebook (2004) – Not my favorite, but I will admit that it portrays married love beautifully – the bulk of the movie, though, is flashbacks to “the pursuit.”

The Quiet Man (1952) – A great movie! John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara. Guys, if you’re patient, you get to see one of the longest fist-fights in movie history.

Jerry Maguire (1996)– Maybe you’ve heard of this one.

A lot of these movies are centered around Christmas – interesting.

All of these follow the same three-act structure mentioned above – but in all of these films the major conflict for love comes after the marriage. These movies require their characters to do more than “fall in love.” They are required to stay in love – which is quite a different kettle of fish - a different set of emotions, a different kind of commitment, than the emotions and commitments that come with falling in love.

So, back to the original question. What’s your favorite movie that portrays love in the context of marriage?

Happy 200th Birthday!

Today is the 200th birthday of Abraham Lincoln, and Charles Darwin.

A few years back Jeni and I got to visit London, and discovered some interesting statuary.



This statue of Abraham Lincoln stands in Parliament Square. It's an exact replica of the one that stands in Lincoln Park in Chicago. I thought that was pretty cool.

In visiting Westminster Abbey, we saw this:



Charles Darwin is (as far we know) the only agnostic buried at Westminster Abbey. He shares space with people like Isaac Newton, William Wilberforce (who led the abolition of slavery in England), a whole lot of kings, queens, earls, writers, and poets.

Anyway, happy birthday to both of them!

Can of Worms: Evolution

Tomorrow is the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin! Seems like a good day to talk about a controversial topic! I am a little nervous because I’m taking a risk here – the last time I brought up a controversial topic, I simply quoted someone else to help define the problem. This time, I’m going to venture some opinion of my own. Some of you are going to disagree with me. Also, fair warning, it’s going to be a long post, because, well, it’s a can of worms.

Depending on who you are, when you think of Charles Darwin, you might think:
1)The father of modern evolutionary theory, and a leading light in scientific history
2)A name you vaguely remember from science class – something about a Beagle?
3)A name you saw on a bumper sticker inside a fish with legs on it this one time
4)The guy who ruined the world

If you are person number 2 or 3, you’re probably not going to care about this post. If you’re either of the other two, read on.

A Personal History
First, a little biographical record of things I have thought about the creation of the world. I spent my childhood and youth as a Biblical literalist, as far as Genesis was concerned, but learned about evolution in public school. I really didn’t think much about the dissonance between the two. I was somewhat confused, but tended to go with flow depending on the environment.

As I continued my religious education, I learned there is more than one way to skin a cat, in relation to reading the first few chapters of Genesis – more on this later. I became even more confused. I would occasionally wander wistfully through the Christian bookstore, look at the multiplicity of titles on the shelf seeking to explain it all to me, get overwhelmed, heave a sigh and wander away again.

At some point in the past few years, I became…a theistic evolutionist. Which is to say, I believe God created the universe, and that evolution is the process by which the variety of species on earth derived from a common ancestor, including all the humans who we all know and love so much. I was a secret theistic evolutionist, because people tended to get upset whenever we talked about such things. If you are upset right now, for example, please ask yourself, “Why am I upset right now?” Stop reading if you can’t come up with an answer that doesn’t allow you to keep reading without emotions like rage or deep and utter disappointment. Once you get there, keep reading.

Anyway, I was a secret theistic evolutionist. Then the youth group started asking uncomfortable questions, like, “What about the dinosaurs?” So, I figured I had to come clean, and tackle the question with them. And now, here I am talking about it on the blogosphere. Keep an open mind blogosphere, and hear me out!

Who Cares?
I don’t know this from personal experience, necessarily, but I know there are some people who would say, “Why even bother with the question?” From a faith standpoint, what you believe about evolution doesn’t necessarily affect whether you are a Christian or not, so why bother even broaching the topic?

I think it’s important for a couple of reasons. One is that God gave us brains, and if we have the capability to understand something (like the Bible, or the origin of the universe, or the world around us), we have a responsibility to try and do so.

Here’s another one, as presented by our friend St. Augustine:
“Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world, about the motion and orbit of the stars, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience.

Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show a vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of the faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.

If they find a Christian mistaken in a field which they themselves know well and hear him maintaining his foolish opinions about our books, how are they going to believe those books and matters concerning the resurrection of the dead, the hope of eternal life, and the kingdom of heaven, when they think their pages are full of falsehoods on facts which they themselves have learned from experience in the light of reason?”

Augustine said this in the 4th century. I think it still applies today. For example, I had a next-door neighbor who was a Ph.D. student in neuroscience. He couldn’t fathom why anyone wouldn’t believe in evolution when, in his estimation, he could literally see its results everyday in the lab. From his perspective, if Christians couldn’t believe what he could see with his own eyes, why should he believe what Christians proclaim that couldn’t be seen?

One of the things that makes the discussion of evolution convoluted is the fear of hidden agendas. So let me be frank: my agenda is to get people to meet Jesus, and to receive salvation from Him. The current state of discussion on evolution in our country is more often than not an obstacle to getting people to meet Jesus. In looking for a way forward, I found out that the debate wasn’t as simple as evolution vs. creationism. There was another way. I found it best expressed in Francis Collins’ book “The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.” Collins is one of the world’s most distinguished scientists – the former head of the Human Genome Project, and a researcher in gene therapy for cystic fibrosis. He is also an adult convert to Christianity. In the book he takes on the difficult task of defending faith to scientists, defending evolution to Christians, and portraying a middle way. And he manages to do it in less than 300 pages. Not bad. A lot of this entry, including the Augustine quote above, comes from things in his book.

The last reason to talk about evolution is the circumstance I mentioned above. People like me who have jobs that require them to 1) read the Bible, and 2) teach people stuff, need to have answers to questions like, “What about the dinosaurs?” I want to make sure I have clear (if not concise) answers to their questions.

"What about me?!"


On Evolution
I started with the youth by setting out the options – the things people believe about the origin of the universe, and of humanity in particular. Creationism, Evolution, Theistic Evolution. I asked them why scientists believe in evolution. Their answer: “Because they hate God!”

I think they were telling me what they thought I wanted to hear. But, in case you believe the same, I can tell you with fairly good confidence that “hating God” is not the reason most scientists believe in evolution. The reason they believe it is that (so far) it is the best explanation that has been proposed for the origin of the variety of biological life we see around us. The preponderance of evidence is pretty convincing to a lot of people, especially when you consider genetic evidence (something I won’t even attempt to summarize here).

Further debunking the “scientists hate God” belief is the fact that there are a lot of scientists like Francis Collins, who believe in God and in evolution. Collins’ cites the following survey - in 1916 a sampling of biologists, physicists, and mathematicians were asked whether they believed in a God who actively communicates with humankind and to whom one may pray in the expectation of receiving an answer. 40% of those polled said yes. In 1997 the survey was repeated, and this time, the percentage was ---- 40%.

The belief that evolution is part of a secular materialist agenda on the part of scientists to eradicate the belief in God is simply not true. Certainly, there are noteworthy examples of this kind of agenda, but they in no way speak for the majority of scientists.

If you are one of the people who thinks Darwin ruined the world, it’s probably because you think that he started the secular materialist agenda, and that a necessary result of accepting evolution then became rejecting faith entirely. I don’t think history bears this out. In fact, I think it is more likely that hard-line Christian rejection of evolutionary theory since the time of Darwin has led people like my former neighbor into the arms of whatever secular materialist agenda actually exists. In other words, it wasn’t evolution or the enlightenment that brought belief in God crashing down, as much as it has been the inability of the church to engage the enlightenment and reasonably discuss evolutionary theory that leads people to see faith as backward and outdated.

As a historical precedent, consider the sad case of Galileo. The church of the day said his belief that the earth revolves around the sun was blasphemous and would lead to widespread apostasy. The Bible very clearly states that “the world is firmly established, it will not be moved.” (Psalm 93:1) This was a strange place to draw the line, frankly, and these days everyone admits that the church was wrong, and Galileo was right. But the issue for the church at that time revolved around (ba dum bum!) biblical interpretation, which we’ll get to in a second.


"I can't get no respect!" - Galileo

First though, in case you feel like Christian acceptance of evolutionary theory is new, let’s hear from some old Christians:

“For long centuries, God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumb could be applied to each of the fingers, and jaws and teeth and throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all the material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed in this state for ages before it became man: it may even have been clever enough to make things which a modern archaeologist would accept as proof of humanity. But it was only an animal because all its physical and psychical processes were directed to purely material and natural ends. Then, in the fullness of time, God caused to descend upon this organism, both on its psychology and its physiology, a new kind of consciousness which could say, "I" and "me", which could look upon itself as an object, which knew God, which could make judgments of truth, beauty, and goodness, and which was so far above time that it could perceive time flowing past. We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state. But sooner or later they fell. Someone or something whispered that they could be gods.” – C.S. Lewis

“If evolution simply means that a positive thing called an ape turned very slowly into a positive thing called a man, then it is stingless for the most orthodox; for a personal God might just as well do things slowly as quickly - especially if, like the Christian God, He were outside time.” – G.K. Chesterton

Let me venture one more word on this sub-topic, to clear up a common misunderstanding about evolution. There are two definitions for the word “theory.”

1. a speculative or conjectural view of something; ex. I have a theory that peanut butter and chocolate taste great together.

2. fundamental principles underlying a science, art, etc.: i.e. music theory, theory of equations

When science-types use the term “theory of evolution,” they mean definition #2. Francis Collins again, “The primary utility of a theory is not just to look back but to look forward. A viable scientific theory predicts other findings and suggests approaches for further experimental verification.” That’s why scientists like the theory of evolution.

On Genesis
If you know me or read the blog regularly, you know I take the Bible and my faith very seriously. And when it came to evolution, the big bang theory, etc., I, like many evangelicals had a hard time reconciling this with what I believe God has revealed in the Old Testament.

The pro-Biblical, anti-evolution part of the argument usually starts with, “If you don’t believe part of the Bible, how can you believe any of the Bible?” It may also include the sentiment, “God wouldn’t lie to me.”

I whole-heartedly agree that the entire Bible is to be believed, and that God wouldn’t lie to us. I think the issue here is one of interpretation.

Let’s start with the verse poor Galileo had to contend with as an example. “The world is firmly established, it shall not be moved.” There are two ways to interpret this verse:
1)The earth is the literal center of the universe and does not move at all
2)This is a poetic representation of God’s sovereignty over creation

I think there’s pretty good evidence for option 2 because:

1)Scientific evidence shows that the earth is not the center of the universe and does move quite a bit

2)That verse is in a poem

So, if I believe option 2, I still believe the Bible to be true, and that God Has not lied to me, I just interpret the verse differently, based on the context and its original intent.

Now, here are our options for Genesis chapters 1-3, the passages that most directly impact the evolution debate:

1)God created the earth in six days (with some interpretive leeway here), and all the species on earth separately according to their kinds, including humans

2)This is a poetic representation of God’s purposeful action in creating the universe, and His special relationship with human beings

Some indicators for a poetic reading of Genesis 1-3:

1)The pattern in chapter 1
-Day 1 – Light - Day 4 – Sun/Moon/Stars
-Day 2 – Sky/Water - Day 5 – Birds/Fish
-Day 3 – Ground/Plants - Day 6 – Animals/Humans

2)The content of chapters 2 and 3
-A tree whose fruit grants eternal life
-A tree whose fruit grants the knowledge of good and evil
-A talking snake (not portrayed in the story itself as demonic)
-A moral rule given to people who, according to the story, do not know the difference between good and evil
-A different sequence of events for creation than in chapter 1
-No historical context for this story – its setting is before any recorded history

This idea may be way, way foreign to some of you, and it freaked me out real bad the first time I heard it, too. Here’s how I learned to relax – there are other parts of the Bible that tell us the truth without giving us a literal sequence of events. Psalms, a huge portion of the Prophets, even the parables of Jesus are all “true” without being literal because they teach us true things about ourselves and about God. What if Genesis 1-3 falls into that category?

Here are some true things we can learn from a poetic reading of Genesis:
-God created everything, He did it on purpose, and He did it from nothing
-Humans are unique creations of God, able to interact with Him in a way unlike any other creature, and able to participate in creation themselves
-Humans have a responsibility to care for creation
-The relationship of humans with the world, with God, and with each other used to better and we (humans) screwed it up
-God sets the boundaries of good and evil
-God provides the covering for our shame when we overstep the boundaries
None of those truths depend on a literal reading of Genesis. None of those truths are incompatible with the currently accepted scientific theory of how the universe began or how life on earth began and has culminated in humanity.

I don’t think God lied to us, and don’t think God gave us an account of creation to confuse us. I think He gave us a story of creation that told us the truth about Himself, the world, our place in it, and our relationship with Him, in a way no other kind of story could. There isn’t a good word in English for this kind of literature. If we call it the same thing we call non-Biblical creation stories – a myth – that insinuates that it is untrue. One of the synonyms for “myth” is “falsehood.” But as we have seen, even if read non-literally, it teaches us things that are true. It’s truth does not depend on being a literal record of sequential events. It’s a lot more like Revelation than Ruth, in other words. This is not a new approach to this scripture – ancient Hebrew commentators have a wide variety of interpretations of these passages, many of them non-literal.

Augustine again: “In matters that are so obscure and far beyond our vision, we find in Holy Scripture passages which can be interpreted in very different ways without prejudice to the faith we have received. In such cases, we should not rush in headlong and so firmly take our stand that, if further progress in the search for truth justly undermines this position, we too fall with it.”

I think the power of the story is illustrated in that, whatever logical objections could be raised to a literal reading of the story, no one ever says, “Well that doesn’t sound like humans at all!” It resonates because it sounds exactly like what we ourselves would do in such a situation – be given a Paradise to live in, get one rule – just one! – break the one rule, and then blame your spouse.

The power of the truth of the story stands out even more when you compare Genesis’ “First Story” to other creation accounts from other cultures. Almost any other origin story features gods and goddesses fighting monsters or each other, having sex with one another, or both. The violence and lust of humanity is projected into the heavens in Greek, Babylonian, Egyptian, and even Chinese stories of creation. Often humans are created as a sort of afterthought to serve the gods. But the Hebrew story is about a God who creates everything from nothing – like a musician, a poet, an artist. He doesn’t need to fight primordial dragons or have a divine consort. He creates, and it is good. And his triumphant creation, humanity, is created not to serve Him, but to live in His image, and commune with Him. Quite a different kind of story.

The objection to this kind of interpretation is often raised, “If you don’t take the first chapters of the Bible at their word, how can we know what we are supposed to take literally or not?” I think the context of Biblical writings makes that clear. The story of Abraham, or Moses, or David, and especially Jesus, are tied by their writers to specific times and places, to other notable historical figures, and are clearly intended to be historical accounts. We know the life of Jesus isn’t an allegory because of the way his story is written. I think the “First Story” in Genesis, though, has all the hallmarks of being a different kind of literature. It is not and was not intended to be the final word on astronomy, biology, genetics, and anthropology. It always was intended to be the first word on theology.

Someone once asked me, “Why are you trying to apply evolution to the Bible?” The answer is, I’m not. I’m trying to apply the Bible to the world. Currently, most of the educated world (except America) overwhelmingly accepts the theory of evolution. There are plenty of other places where the Bible stands in judgment over the popular theories of the world, but I don't think the process of creation is one of those places, and we do ourselves and people who are not believers a disservice by trying to fight a battle we don't have to fight.

Why Can’t We Talk Without Yelling?
Some Christians believe evolution is a bunch of hooey. Some believe in a literal 6 day creation, a 6000 year old earth, etc. Some Christians believe God created the universe and all life on earth, and He used evolution and genetics to do it.

Both groups are made up of people who love Jesus and want other people to meet Him. There is no reason the conversation between Christians should be as shrill as it has been, and especially no reason the conversation between Christians and non-believers should be as contentious as it has.

You have every right to disagree with me, just as I have the right to disagree with you. Neither of us, however, have the right to bash each other. Just make sure that if you disagree with me, you do so for good reason, and you do so in love. If you have read this far, you deserve a special award. Go get yourself a Dr. Pepper!

The Diary of Hagar the Egyptian

The Casting Out of Hagar and Ishmael - Gustav Dore

Tanis, Egypt - 1925 B.C.
Dear Diary,
So many matters of import have befallen me in such a very short span of time that I scarce know where to begin. I suppose I must start with the arrival of a perfectly wretched family of Chaldean shepherds into the city a few weeks past. A Mr. Abram, an elderly gentleman lately of Haran, but whose ancestral home is the great city of Ur, arrived seeking water and fodder for his flocks due to the recent drought to the north. Ordinarily the arrival of such desert-dwelling drifters would scarcely be noticed in a great city like Tanis, but one member of Mr. Abram’s party changed that in an instant. A woman of uncanny loveliness, whose striking features belie her advanced age, in the midst of this passel of migrant goat-herders, incited no less a cataract of conversation than would have the discovery of the god Ra himself living in slave’s quarters on the banks of the Nile. Great Pharaoh immediately sought out this astonishing beauty, a Miss Sarai (or so it was claimed), and was informed that she was Mr. Abram’s younger sister. Mr. Abram accepted Great Pharaoh’s offer of an immense wealth in slaves and a wide variety of livestock, which such uncivilized nomads esteem the most worthy of possessions. As one might have surmised, I was one of the unfortunate slaves given to Mr. Abram. I have no pretension of my worth in the sight of such a mighty man as Great Pharaoh, and if he should trade me and many more like me for another beauty for his harem, such is my fate, and well would I bear it. But to be given into the service of a barbaric Chaldean! And a dweller in tents! To know it was my fate to leave my family, my home, the life-giving Nile, and the care of the sustaining gods, to live in the wild and waste places of the world in the midst of foreigners and their dark, demonic idols, was almost too much for me! All I could imagine was dying in the desert, far from the Nile and from the gods who would bless me in the afterlife.

But this was not the worst. Shortly after Miss Sarai had joined Great Pharaoh’s harem, a most horrid wave of illness struck the royal household. It was determined in short order that the new foreigner must have brought uncleanness into the divine presence of Great Pharaoh’s house, and an official inquiry soon revealed deception as can scarce be believed. “Miss Sarai” is none other than Mrs. Abram! One expects a certain disreputable nature from Chaldeans, to say nothing of shepherds, but the unscrupulous and corrupt nature of this act is scarce to be believed. To lie in the very face of Great Pharaoh, in whom dwells deity itself, would be enough, but to trade one’s own wife for personal gain – not the lowest slave in Egypt would commit such an act! Great Pharaoh told Mr. Abram in no uncertain terms to leave the country at once, and sent an armed guard to escort his bleating rabble to the border. In my estimation, this exile is far too lenient a punishment. Yet it is far the worse for me – for I am exiled as well – a pitiable slave in the household of this base liar and brigand, this vagabond plunderer of great kings.

My one consolation, if one could call it such, is that I am to be handmaid to Mrs. Abram, and not the awful man himself. As the wronged party in this horrible matter, I feel I shall be able to sympathize with her plight to be married to such a beastly husband. And yet - I sometimes wonder, in the darker hours of the day, when melancholy for my lost homeland overtakes me – was there a reason (apart from greed) that Mr. Abram was so ready to relinquish his wife?

Great Ma’at, goddess of justice! Let your arm be long in reaching to protect your lowly servant Hagar, a captive in a caravan of cutthroats and deceivers!

Hebron, Canaan, 1920 B.C.
Dear Diary,
As I reflect back on the past five years of servitude in the household of Mr. Abram, I find myself surprised at the amount of sympathy that I have gained for ones whom I first took to be irredeemable criminals. I have seen Mr. Abram display great magnanimity toward his nephew Mr. Lot by giving him the choicest pastures, in spite of his own seniority. And I have seen Mr. Abram show incredible bravery, for when Mr. Lot and his entire household were kidnapped by a coalition of northern kings, Mr. Abram, at the ripe old age of 80, organized and personally led a night-time rescue party! It is said that Sekhmet, goddess of war, favors the bold, and in this case it is inarguably true. One result of this action was the visit by the fabled Melchizedek, king of Salem, who some claim to be immortal. I confess my estimation for Mr. Abram increased greatly after this incident.

And yet in other ways I have found Mr. and Mrs. Abram to be the most pitiable of persons. It is spoken of by the household slaves that Mr. Abram came to Canaan and took on the nomadic lifestyle at the behest of mysterious god who promised him land, offspring, and fabulous wealth. They say also that this puzzling deity has again promised Mr. Abram a son to be the foundation of a great nation. I confess with great emotion that I have scarcely heard anything so sad. This “god” has never appeared to Mr. Abram, never spoken in miracles or signs, has no priests, no temple, no constellation, no divine consort, no nation to protect, or even an image to call his own. This “god” is a far cry from Isis, Osiris, Horus, and Ra, whose glory in spoken of throughout the whole earth. Even the name of this supposed god is a conundrum. I have been able to learn a great deal of the barbaric language of these nomads during my time here, and the name of their god seems to be something like “I Exist” or “Being.” It all seems a bit too – insistent, I suppose, to really be believable.

Poor Mr. Abram claims to have spoken to his god in visions and dreams – yet his god has never spoken to anyone else! I fear that the “god” of Mr. Abram is nothing more than the voice of his own tired and hopeless dreams – the desires of an old man speaking to himself in the night.

Hebron, Canaan, 1915 B.C. - Spring
Dear Diary,
Something marvelous has happened, a blessing I could scarcely have hoped for. I, born a lowly slave, am to be married to a free man, and granted all the accompanying rights and privileges! My mistress has arranged it all. Apparently I have served her well enough to earn this honor, as it was she who approached Mr. Abram with the offer of marriage. And Mr. Abram has agreed! I am deemed worthy to live alongside them as a free person, to bear his children – not children of slavery or of concubinage, but as a true and favored wife!

Thanks be to Ma’at, goddess of justice, for hearing my prayer and raising me from my lowly status!

Hebron, Canaan, 1915 B.C. – Fall
Dear Diary,
I have been a fool. A most miserable and colossal fool. All that I thought was gain for me has turned to bitterness and ash. I have been married to Mr. Abram these past 6 months, and in that time have conceived a child. Why could I not see what would inevitably result?! Why did it not occur to me that it was not Mr. Abram who was to blame for the barrenness of his family, but Sarai? Was it not she who brought a plague on Great Pharaoh’s house as soon as she stepped foot in the door? And mustn’t it be that it has been she who has cursed Mr. Abram’s house, to prevent children being born here?

When I found that I was in the family way, I confess that all of this insight came upon me in a flash. I confess also that it was nearly impossible for me to look at Sarai without a look of pity or of horror. What if her curse should fall upon my baby or me? I sought to avoid her, without giving evidence of doing so, but this proved impossible, and she took great offense at discovering the truth.

But the unkindest cut of all is that the new status and great gift I thought had been granted me was a damnable lie. My first impression of these nomads so many years past was absolutely right! As soon as Mr. Abram and I were married, I ceased to call Sarai “Mrs. Abram” – for was I not also Mrs. Abram? She took some small offense to that, but I was consoled at least that Mr. Abram would treat me as an equal, and not the slave I once was.

But alas, all has collapsed! All is ruined! Sarai has gone to Mr. Abram and said that I have insulted and despised her. And she called me “slave” again, and spoke of my union with Mr. Abram in the coarsest terms, as though I were a base chattel! And the worst – oh, it is nearly too difficult for words – Mr. Abram has all but disowned me! He too called me “slave,” and gave all decision for my fate and future to Sarai! I, the mother of his child! He, the one who has been waiting all his life for a child, has thrown the mother of his child to the she-wolf his first wife. Mr. Abram has stood before kings, battled great armies, and claims to speak directly with a god – why will he not stand up to his wife?

Now Sarai has repaid all my service to her with the most vindictive and awful behavior. I have not a moment’s peace from her spite, her ceaseless orders, her overall terrible treatment of me. I am treated again as a slave, the lowest sort of slave, am given more work than any other, and never receive a day of rest or a kind word from anyone. The other slaves keep their distance for fear of incurring the mistress’ wrath. I do not know what to do! If I stay here and endure this duress and oppression, I fear I shall lose the child within me. But where would I go? And if I should be caught, it would mean death – both for me and the child.

Great gods of Egypt, where are you? Ma’at, goddess of justice – where is your strength? Taweret, the Great One, you who protect the bearers of children – where is your provision for me and my child? Great gods – whatever shall I do?

Wilderness of Shur, 1915 B.C.
Dear Diary,
I resolved to flee from my suffering and return to Egypt, my home that I had not seen for ten years. I journeyed on foot, alone, and carrying an unborn child. For days and weeks I walked, avoiding the roads, keeping to the wilderness, fearful of beasts, of bandits, and of dying of thirst and exposure. I wandered for days on end through the desert of Shur, until I collapsed by a spring. The events which then transpired were like a dream. I am still unsure quite what has happened to me. I will endeavor to relate the circumstances as best I can.

A being appeared to me. He had the shape of a man, and yet, I knew immediately he was no man. There was something – foreign about him, and I felt instinctively that this being was divine. He called me by name – (it had been so long since someone called me by anything other than “slave”) – and asked me where I came from and where I was going. In my distress I realized I only knew the answer to the first question, and I answered, “I am fleeing from the presence of my mistress Sarai.” He said, “Return to her and submit to her authority.” At this moment I was seized by a terrible fear. It is well known that the desert is the dwelling place of demons, and I felt that this one was trying to deceive me and cause me harm. If I returned, would I not surely be killed for escaping my servitude? I answered him nothing.

Then, he told me that my descendants would be multiplied till there were too many to count. Again, I answered nothing. Then, he sang a song over me. It was something like this:

"Look you have conceived and will bear a son
And you will call his name 'God Hears'
For "I AM' has heard your suffering"

Now, demons do many things – but they do not sing. And there in the song was the name of Abram’s God. The God Who Is. At that moment I knew the being I had spoken to was a Messenger, an agent of this God – that I had seen Him, and stood in His presence and lived. I do not quite know what came over me to utter such a thing, but I felt compelled to give Abram’s God a name. I called Him “The God Who Sees Me.”

It is exceedingly strange – all these many years I have cried out to the gods of my homeland, and they have not heard. All these long years I have looked for them, and I have not seen them, nor have they seen me. I never once cried out to Abram’s God, but He heard me, and named my son (a son!) “God Hears.” I was not looking for Abram’s God – but He was looking for me.

I will return to Abram’s house, and be Sarai’s slave once more. God Who Hears and God Who Sees Me, I put myself into Your hand.

Hebron, Canaan, 1914 B.C.
Dear Diary,
Just as The Messenger said, I have given birth to a son. Yes, Mr. Abram accepted me back into his house. Sarai grudgingly accepted me back into her service, and Mr. Abram made clear that I was not to be treated contemptuously.

And though I again am slave and not wife, I have retained the one, best privilege of a wife – it was I who gave the name to my son, and not Abram or Sarai. When I told Mr. Abram his name would be “Ishmael - God Hears” he nodded and said, “Yes. Yes I believe He does.”

Gerar, Negev Desert, 1901 B.C.
Dear Diary,
If I had not been privy to the entire event, I would not have believed it for anything. The past year has seen its share of shocking events, what with the institution of circumcision for every male in the household, including Ishmael, at which time, Mr. Abram informed the household that he was to be referred to as Mr. Abraham, and Mrs. Abram was now “Sarah.” The snickering among the slaves can be imagined at such pomposity and putting on of airs. Suppose I changed my name to Hagarah! Besides this, there were rumors of angels coming to visit, and that awful business with those deplorable cities Sodom and Gomorrah. But this latest scandal is nothing short of outrageous.

In visiting Gerar, ruled by King Abimelech, Mr. Abraham has perpetrated the exact same deception that he did over twenty years ago in Egypt! It was all I could do not to faint dead away when I was told to report to any and all inquiries that Mrs. Abraham was Mr. Abraham’s sister. Of course, once again, the matter was discovered, and Mr. Abraham again confronted by an angry king. This time the old rogue had the cheek to inform everyone that Mrs. Abraham is in fact his half sister! I have been a part of the household for two decades, and this outrageous little tidbit of information had never before surfaced!

I do confess that my first impression of Mrs. Abraham was wrong – it was not she who contaminated Pharaoh’s house so many years ago, it was the God Who Sees Me acting to protect and preserve her for His own purposes. Though why He has waited so long is thoroughly opaque to me.

I also sometimes wonder what The God Who Sees Me is about, associating with such an irresolute and undependable family in the first place. I fear that if He does keep His promise and make a great nation from these rapscallions that He will most certainly have His hands full for a good long time.

Beersheba, Canaan, 1900 B.C.
Dear Diary,
I am absolutely convinced that the whirlwind that has been my life reached its critical point in this moment in time. I will venture to explain, in order, with as little emotion as possible, for I feel that if I once again open the gate to re-experience the trial I have recently faced, it will be next to impossible to recover.

It began with the birth of Mr. and Mrs. Abraham’s son, Isaac. Though the boy’s name is “Laughter,” all laughter in the household at the ridiculousness of a 90 year old new mother was accompanied by an awed wonder. If the nothing else, Mr. Abraham’s God’s delay in fulfilling His promise created quite the denouement when finally enacted.

But it was not long before the name of this new son took on a sinister meaning for me and for Ishmael. Just as many years before, when I felt as though I had achieved favored status when I became a wife who was able to bear children, so Ishmael now recognized that not only was he a son, but a firstborn son.

And just as my joy so many years ago incited Mrs. Abraham’s anger, so did Ishmael’s laughter incite Sarah’s rage. Again, she approached Mr. Abraham, and this time her order was unequivocal – send them away. And again, she called me slave, and Ishmael only “her son.” Is that all he is to her? “The slave girl’s son?” If I live a thousand years I will never -

Enough. I must restrain myself from such thoughts, or I will not complete this account. To his credit, this time Mr. Abraham did not immediately acquiesce. He seemed truly distressed – even if the cause of his distress was not my fate, but the fate of his son, it is commendable that he at least did not think of Ishmael as “the slave-girl’s son,” but as his own.

But, delay or not, he sent us away. He said his God promised to care for us, but at that moment I felt only rage that he would invoke His name to do injustice to his son and the mother of his son. What God would do such a thing? I rejected the God whose “prophet” had rejected me and rejected my son. With bread and water, my son and I set out - but to where? To whom? I could not set out to return to Egypt this time. The gods of the Nile had abandoned me long ago, and now it seemed so too had my new God. We walked in the desert until we could not walk anymore, utterly exhausted, despondent, and thirsty to the point of death. And I did pray then, for one specific thing. That I would not see my son die. And I wept, wept that my life would end in the desert, just I had feared when I was a girl. Wept without tears, for there was no water left in my eyes.

Again, God heard. But this time - God heard my son. And in doing so He answered my prayer. I would not see my son die. His Messenger returned and he told me not to be afraid, he repeated the promise he had made me so many years ago, and he opened my eyes to see the well of water in the desert. Just like the last time, it was as though I were reminiscing about a dream, like living inside a memory – like living out a dream that keeps happening to me. God saw me.

So, let the second-born of Abraham have his inheritance. Let the children of Ishmael live in the desert, and the children of Isaac in the land of promise. Both of Abraham’s children have received the blessing of God.



Notes:
·Hagar is the first person in the Bible to converse with an angel
·Hagar is one of the very few people in the Bible to give a name to God (it’s usually the other way around)
·Hagar is the only woman to receive a promise that her child will be a great nation – making her a sort of female patriarch
·Genesis 25 records that Ishmael had 12 sons, much like another patriarch
·Some Jewish families in Israel who seek reconciliation with Palestinians name their daughters Hagar
·The Koran says that when Sarah ordered Hagar and Ishmael driven out, Abraham took them personally to Mecca, where Hagar wandered back and forth seven times between two mountains – Muslims on the pilgrimage to Mecca repeat this journey as part of the haj
·Suggested reading: “The Five Books of Moses: A Translation with Commentary” by Robert Alter; “Abraham: A Journey to the Heart of Three Faiths” by Bruce Feiler
·Tawaret is the Egyptian goddess who protected pregnant women – she had the head of a hippo(!)