On Potter, Twilight, and the rest of the lot...

It is sadly apparent that Lewis and his creative tall tales have been taken as an open license to endorse any canon that has the remotest semblance to THE redemptive retelling of Christ. What we produce is a slew of coffeehouse college-age theologians with nothing better to do than to attempt to justify their wanting library of literature as valuable in the eyes of faith, DESPITE it's atrociously glaring deficiencies and contradictions to explicit doctrine.

SO, when your soft-hearted child is endorsing things that are contrary to ideal faith, you can thank people who prefer good story telling over wisdom's scrutiny. You can see where your deficiency of caution has opened the flood-gates of near blasphemy; because we are so desperate for entertainment, we'll make room for it in the meeting halls of our churches and cathedrals, then stare quizzically out the doorways wondering why we seem just so similar to those strolling happily by. 

In sum, what you put in, is what you get out. At least acknowledge the contrary aspects of what you watch and read, instead of salving the burn left by personal entertainment choices that make obvious the tragedy of spiritual dichotomy in your life. The sad part is, many of us are so dulled by popular culture, we don't even see the contradictions, and so, all I have just written is of little or no consequence to you.

(In an effort to add the context you've lacked in the former paragraphs, I'll add the following:

We're using Harry Potter to explain Christian Doctrine, but the law of affiliation demands that Potter and his canon be at least somewhat justified in any contradictions to Biblical models. All this to say, the use of witchcraft and wizardry,  the fantastic intertwining of the powers for good and evil, and the impossible righteousness of one group of men over another: all these things must be justified before we throw them into the Christian thought-life as examples of godliness. It can't be done, so we should throw it out. Instead, we elevate Potter to the level of a Christ figure, we glorify sorcery as make-believe fun, which if you think that, you may as well explain away the Holy Spirit.

I don't intend to demand all Rowling's good writing be burned, I am not in the business of book burning, though there are a good number that should be burned. What I am disturbed by is the lazy theologians of our age using ungodly tools to explain Christian Doctrine, with not a caveat to be found that even begins to acknowledge dichotomy exists between the world of magic and the spiritual reality of our faith. At least adding a mention here and there pointing out discrepancies would be encouraging. ANY  Proof that someone has done some critical thinking about the mess of these horribly wanting examples would be of some comfort. If you find these tales so worth your time to be placed in your biblical message, at least draw a line in the sand as to where the stories match redemption and where they part ways.)

By this point, having come out and named names, you're probably all in a huff over my belligerent ignorance. How dare I suggest that your opinion is unthoughtful and your use of these models in your theological thought-life very near heretical? But I beg you, dear reader, give me the benefit of the doubt! Please consider our savage and fleshly nature before you run off in a mental tiff. Think on where God stands and where the content of these tales stand. I don't want you to reject a 'good read' outright, but I think the Spirit in you might be pleased that you can discern between things of darkness and things of light as you read.

I'll leave you with this final thought: John 1:5, "The light shines in the darkness but the darkness has not understood it." Tell me then, in a world where forces for good and evil both cast spells with whimsical wands, wielding powers drawn from the same source... which is light and which is darkness? Potter too, can whisper the wicked words avada kedavra. The whole premise of fantastical novels is that magic is neutral. But we know that light and dark, good and evil, must be distinct from one another. "Truly, God doesn't practice wickedness and the Almighty doesn't pervert Justice" (Job 34:12) Light and darkness only coexist easily in Eastern worldviews. Such a premise is ill suited to a Christian one. To argue otherwise is to bite off more than you can chew.

"The Clockwork Universe"

I stumbled across this thought while reading about Sir Isaac Newton and the Royal Society: The Clockwork Universe, by Edward Dolnick. It is an engaging historical review of the seventeenth century, and the minds which forever shaped the world we now live in.

First, I should let those of you reading this in on a little secret: In my own sensibility, a well structured and clever title, is as commendable as any number of more commonplace achievements. In fact, I find myself, as a past-time, titling my opinions and reflections before they're fully written or formed. Even mix Cd's are not spared the scrutiny. A book may very well be forgiven it's cover. But it's title, is more than a face, it is the first step taken in its journey with the audience. Alas,  we'll suffice it to say that the further I embark on my journey with the topics surveyed in "The Clockwork Universe" by Mr. Edward Dolnick, the more i grin at his decision in the naming of his summary.

Indeed, Clockwork, we'll call it, has outdone itself in two facets of the historical realm. First, its anecdotes are succinct and memorable, due in large part to it's plucking of tales from the numerous and intriguing figures of the era it covers. Secondly,  Dolnick's effort to introduce real-time "clockwork" perspectives into our culture of thought (long departed from what I consider it's more noble roots), are tangible and thus far, as neutral as any to be found in contemporary authorship. So neutral in fact, that not knowing a thing about the author's philosophy, one might venture to guess that his lack of vehemence in treating the religious facets of this era is akin to proclaiming his own agnosticism. (I'm sure that's not the case but readers have a habit of longing for the authors they enjoy to fall in line with them on all the beliefs they hold as foundationally true.)  I for one won't trip up on that desire. Mr Dolnick seems a good enough sort of man but let's get to the meat of the issue:

Chapter Twenty: The Parade of the Horribles, page 27: (I've added emphasis to bring out a couple items of note)

"Two centuries passed between Newton's theory of gravity and Darwin's theory of evolution. How could that be? Newton's work bristled with mathematics and focused on remote, unfamiliar objects like planets and comets. Darwin's theory of evolution dealt in ordinary words with ordinary things like pigeons and barnacles. "How extremely stupid not to have thought of that!" Thomas Huxley famously grumbled after first reading Darwin's Origin of Species.No one ever scolded himself for not beating Newton to the Princpia.

The "easier" theory proved harder to find because it required abandoning the idea of God the designer. Newton and his contemporaries never for  a moment considered rejecting the notion of design. The premise at the heart of evolution is that living creatures have inborn random differences; some of those random variations happen to provide an advantage in the struggle for life, and nature favors those variations. That focus on randomness was unthinkable in the seventeenth century...

Newton blinded by his faith in intelligent design, argued in the same vein. In a world where randomness was a possibility he scoffed, we'd be beset with every variety of jury-rigged, misshapen creature...

...Two related beliefs helped rule out any possibility of a seventeenth-century Darwin. The first was the assumption that every feature of the world had been put there for man's benefit,....

...The second assumption that blinded Newton and his contemporaries to evolution was the idea that the universe was almost brand-new.  The Bible put creation at a mere six thousand years in the past. Even if someone had conceived of a evolving natural world, that tiny span of time would not have offered enough elbow room...

Two hundred years later, scientists still clung to the same idea. In the words of Louis Agassiz, Darwin's great Victorian rival, each species was a thought of God. 

Let's be clear, this is the first time the subject of Evolution has been given any real stage in the text. 128 pages into a sub 400 page book. But when it is introduced I noted some sad and wonderful things.

Foremost is the acknowledgment that all conclusions are a production not only of data but the presuppositions with which data is interpreted. (I am not a scientist, I find the trials and challenges of such topics dull and uninviting.) I would venture to guess that those who study evidence, for that is what all science is in its most basic sense,are aware of the suppositions which accompany them into a review of the pertinent data. In fact, I should say it is those suppositions which in part assist in guessing exactly what data is pertinent to the given inquiry.

The author notes this remarkable trip in the assumptions of a given theory. I only desire to make one distinction: God and a rational worldview of evolution are incongruent entities. You cannot have your God and have evolved too.

Now the more astute of you will be blubbering to yourselves perhaps that I have overlooked the very statements I emphasized  "How dare he! There it is, plain as day, you can't have God the designer, but still a man might have his God!" furthermore you exclaim "It was Newton's reliance on intelligent design which might have hung him up; but surely his faith could overcome such ancient and foolhardy notions of the Divine!"

Suffice it to say, the thought had crossed my mind. It was I am glad to say, promptly followed by a second thought: what sort of god would this non-designing, mythic tale-telling god be? Not much of a god I should say. Now I could waste my breath pointing out conclusions, endorsements and overall common-sense (those of you who read the book would chuckle at that last bit) of leaving God where he belongs, rather than choking down some new take on an old mystery which comes out different with any presupposition. But I won't. The fact of the matter is Newton and his contemporaries were infallibly correct in leading their investigations by the light of consistent suppositions about the world they lived in. Without those blinders, they very well may have ended up doing nothing worth noting at all. Especially when one considers the motive of the Royal Society was at it's root, to explore the world in search of convicting evidence of the Almighty's handiwork.

Through the lens of their faith they did just that. I bemoan that men whose overbearing worldview was so agreeable to me have long since left our forums of thought and science. I grant you their characters and suppositions had some failings that ultimately would facilitate our current disillusionment with all things Faith. But I wonder if I wouldn't consider all the failings of their presumptions a small trouble in comparison with my current setting. A world so filled with prideful arrogance, so determined to aim it's arsenal against a genuinely awe inspiring Creator, that it would make up a Multi-verse, rather than allow it's ambitions, it's comprehension, and it's accomplishments to be aimed by His will.

Perhaps one day I'll trouble you with a long and comma riddled explanation of those faults in presumption. (Hint, they hinge upon the first anti-Darwinian supposition , mentioned in the above quote.) Until then, think for yourself.. But do remember, should you be a doubter: that God could care less for, and exist regardless of, your opinion of His existence, or what you might think of His relevance in your life. I'm sorry to break that to you.