J.W. Wartick

Star Wars: The Force Awakens- a Christian perspective 

I have read over 100 Star Wars books and watched all the movies dozens of times (probably well over 100 for each of the original trilogy). In other words, I’m a Star Wars fan. I absolutely loved The Force Awakens. It was fantastic. It was wonderful. It was Star Wars. I’m also a devout Christian. Here, I will evaluate the movie from a Christian perspective.

SPOILER WARNING: There will be SPOILERS in what follows. I want to make that as clear as possible. Read no further if you don’t want to read SPOILERS. I’m serious. Big ones. Are we clear? Read on if you have seen the movie, or don’t care about spoilers. I’m sure the comments will also have spoilers.

The Force

One of the most pervasive images of the Star Wars universe is that of the Force. Wait, imagery? Of the Force? Well, you can’t see the Force!

Yep, that’s right. We can see Jedi or Sith using the Force. We can see the effects it has on people, and its power. But we cannot see the Force. One might say it’s just a bunch of hokey religions (thanks, Han). But in The Force Awakens, Han Solo admits what he has known for a while: the Force is real.

What is interesting about this admission is how much people of all varieties have been attracted to the notion of the Force and the Star Wars universe in general. In reality, the Force is a metaphysical concept. It goes beyond the mundane, physical universe and reaches for something more. The drive for that “something more” is pervasive in humanity, I think. Inwardly, we know that the world is not limited to those things we can see through direct observation. Thus, we are drawn to even fictional portrayals of a deeper reality such as the Force. Like Han, we may talk the talk, but when push comes to shove, there is more to our world than meets the eye.

Family, Darkness, and Natural Consequences

Exodus 34:7 reads, in part, “[God] does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation” (NIV).

Many see this as a kind of vindictive verse. In fact, it is an example of human choices bringing about consequences. One of the things I have learned since becoming a parent (and I’m still learning) is that natural consequences are the most effective way to teach my son. If he stands on a chair, he gets removed from the chair until he is willing to sit instead of stand. The verse above shows how our actions and choices have natural consequences.

Anakin Skywalker’s choices have impacted his family in profound, terrible ways. Sure, he saved Luke at the end of Return of the Jedi, and he was reunited with the Force. But think about what his choices visited upon his children: they had to be separated at birth and whisked into hiding. Vader even cut off his son’s hand!

In The Force Awakens, we see those consequences being visited upon the next generation as well. Kylo Ren, Han and Leia’s son, appears to be trying to follow his grandfather’s footsteps. But instead of trying to follow them back towards the Light side of the Force, he is attempting to complete the Dark work of his grandfather’s alter ego, Darth Vader. Can a more poignant reminder of the punishment that can be carried on from generation to generation be given?

In the world we live in, we can see these same systems of injustice bringing punishment on one generation after another. World War II was, in part, brought about by crippling economic hardships imposed after World War I. Systemic racism continues in the United States, demeaning not just those against whom racism is directed, but also bringing darkness onto those who engage in it.

The passage from Exodus above can be read simplistically, but when taken in perspective like this, it is immensely profound. The poignancy of that statement: that the actions we take now can bring about punishment on our children, and their children… should lead us to consider what it is we are doing. Kylo Ren wasn’t created in a vacuum.

Redemption

The Force Awakens also points ahead to a hopeful reality, one which resonates with the Christian worldview. Han and Leia each believe that there remains good in Kylo Ren–Ben–still. Han risks his life on that evaluation and even sacrifices himself for it. Though we don’t see this coming to fruition, the seeds of hope are there. Will Ren follow his grandfather’s Dark choices to a logical end, or will he be brought back to the Light?

The movie ends with Luke Skywalker and Rey on a remote planet. This guru-like setting is also reminiscent of the Desert Fathers of the ancient Christian church (though ironically in a very watery setting!). Will redemption and hope be brought forth once more through Rey? That remains to be seen, but the seeds have been planted. Han’s willingness to believe in goodness in his son is the same kind of willingness we need to have when we confront evil. Yes, we need to be prepared to stand up against evil, but we also need to realize that we were yet sinners when Christ saved us. The “other” is like we were, lost to sin and in need of redemption.

Conclusion

Go see The Force Awakens. Be prepared to celebrate the joys of Star Wars again, but also to think. It’s a fun, delightful movie that is overlaid with much darkness. Yet, in the midst of all that darkness there is hope.

Let me know your own thoughts on the movie in the comments. I’d love to hear what you thought of the film.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Read more movie reflections (scroll down for more).

Eclectic Theist– Follow my “other interests” blog for discussion of sci fi, fantasy, movies, sports, food, and much, much more.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “Expository Apologetics” by Voddie Baucham, Jr.

Expository Apologetics by Voddie Baucham, Jr. puts forward an apologetics methodology that is largely presuppositional in its approach. The core of Baucham’s approach is the use of biblical texts in engaging with those who do not believe.

A central aspect of Baucham’s methodology is the notion that the problem of unbelieve is not a lack of information but rather sin. He bases this claim on an interpretation of Romans 1 that is very much in line with that of other presuppositional apologists (see my post on the topic here). Because of this, Baucham alleges, apologetic approaches which approach others with information (such as an argument for the existence of God) rather than the Gospel (i.e. direct exposition of the Bible) fail.

Baucham also appeals to Scripture throughout the book, noting that the use of God’s word ought to be central to our lives as Christians and therefore central to our witness. He argues rightly that every single Christian ought to be engaged in apologetics; it is not something merely for experts.

Chapter 5, which emphasized learning apologetics through the use of historical creeds, confessions, and catechisms, was an excellent piece of advice for apologists. This was a breath of fresh air as too often Christians ignore the historical definitions of faith which are full of the richness of Christian thinkers throughout time. Baucham notes that anyone who attempts to dismiss a creedal tradition by saying “No creed but the Bible” has already made their own creed to which they adhere.

The book has many applicable insights into doing apologetics. This is worth taking note of, because often introductory apologetics books claim to present a method, but then never show that method in action. This makes it difficult to actually understand how to do apologetics or what is even meant by all the discussion about method. Baucham, however, continually uses examples that have direct practical application. Chapter 9 “Preaching and Teaching Like an Expository Apologist” is full of practical insights for apologists trained and untrained. Chapter 8 applied various ways to answer objections to a number of different situations. I appreciated how much practical advice is found throughout the book. It should be noted that a primary target for these practical engagements is same-sex marriage. It would have been nice to have the focus be on atheism rather than on specific moral issues, but the practical advice given can be applied to other situations as well.

A serious question might be raised about the audience of the book. Baucham claims that it is for “everyone” but then goes on to outline the audiences he intends. “The first audience is the heathen” (Kindle location 293). Surely, the use of this term will prejudice those who do not believe towards the book immediately. Heathen has come to be understood as very pejorative, and it is difficult to see why it was chosen. Moreover, he adopts the biblical use of the term “fool” not just in its technical sense, but also throughout the book to refer to those who do not believe. One wonders whetherthose who are described as heathen fools would be willing to read the book.

Another difficulty with the book is Baucham’s suggestion that children are basically little unbelievers. This stands in contrast to the notion of having faith like a child (which suggests that children have faith). Elsewhere, Baucham discusses the question one of his children asked him and how it demonstrated this child had not come to faith in Christ yet. But of course children ask questions about all kinds of things, and this does not entail they don’t believe in them. Indeed, Baucham’s continual assertion that unbelief is a problem of sin rather than information suggests that he is going against his own advice here. He treats his own children’s information problem as though this proves they are atheistic. This kind of theology is deeply troubling, and it cuts against the grain of Jesus’ own words about little children coming to him and having faith such as those little children.

The critique of other apologetic methods is also off base. For example, Baucham is highly critical of any method which does not use Scripture throughout the whole process. He cites a number of verses that speak of the power of God’s word, as well as other presuppositional thinkers like Sye Ten Bruggencate to forcefully admonish those apologists who use other forms of apologetics. However, such a critique is fundamentally flawed, for despite presuppositionalists’ commitment to realizing the epistemic effects of sin, they maintain this critique despite the fact that atheists often immediately shut down conversation–whether by refusing to continue, mocking, or the like–when the Christian cites Scripture. Baucham allows for this in some fashion by coming sidelong with Scriptural principles rather than direct citations, but if that is his position, then his whole critique is misguided to begin with! After all, a Scriptural principle is surely that God exists. Ergo, an apologist seeking to prove that God exists without explicitly citing Scripture is permitted to do so on Baucham’s own view, despite his critique of that very same apologist.

For some reason, Baucham also clings to using male pronouns for everything throughout the book, referring to humanity as “man,” and talking about all believers as “men.” Interestingly, the only female pronoun I noticed being used generically in the whole book was for an atheist “interlocutor.” When portions of the book refer to not needing to be seen as wise by “men” and or needing to be thought of well by “men,” one wonders whether Baucham simply dismisses women’s opinions entirely.

Expository Apologetics is an ultimately uneven ride introducing presuppositional apologetics to a broad audience. There is much applicable knowledge here, to be sure. However, it is alongside some poor arguments against other apologetic methods, questionable use of terminology, and some disturbing theological conclusions. It’s worth the read for the applicable knowledge, but there are many pitfalls to be found.

The Good

+Emphasizes the notion that every Christian should be an apologist
+Creeds seen as major point to drive apologetics
+Good amount of practical application to apologetics

The Bad

-Poor use of terminology
-Suggests children are to be treated as unbelievers
-Consistently uses male pronouns and “man” instead of gender inclusive language
-Dismisses other forms of apologetics

Disclaimer: I was provided with a copy of this book for review by the publisher. I was not required to write any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Source

Voddie Baucham, Jr. Expository Apologetics (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015).

Links

The Unbeliever Knows God: Presuppositional Apologetics and Atheism– I write about the notion that all people have knowledge of God whether that is acknowledged or not. This has great implications for apologetics of all methods.

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Eclectic Theist– My other interests site is full of science fiction, fantasy, food, sports, and more random thoughts. Come on by and check it out!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Book Review: “The Love of God” by John C. Peckham

There are many different views about what it means to say “God is love” or “God is loving.” Is God’s love like ours? Does God’s love mean God changes? Does God’s love mean God has potential rather than being pure act? How can God be loving? How is the love of God reconciled with justice and election? John C. Peckham’s work, The Love of God, is an attempt to answer many of these questions.

The book is organized topically, with each chapter focusing on a different aspect of divine-world relationship. These include the semantics of divine love, volitional and evaluative aspects of love, whether divine love can be emotional or foreconditioned, and whether that love is reciprocal. Other topics are addressed in addition to these, including the debate over various ways divine-world relationship may be portrayed.

Peckham surveys an enormous number of biblical passages as he analyzes these questions. Unfortunately, only rarely is much time spent on drawing out how these various citations are directly relevant to the points being made. Thus, readers are left to look up the many passages themselves to see whether they concur with the evaluation provided. Peckham largely sides with a perspective that favors human freedom. He also stands against the notion that God is completely immutable or changeless.

The latter point, however, is well-nuanced. Drawing on the work of Rob Lister, who affirms God’s impassibility alongside God’s capability of being impassioned, Peckham qualifies his concept of divine love and its relationship with the doctrine of impassibility. Effectively, he argues that God’s love is reciprocal but does not necessarily rule out the possibility of immutability. He does, however, seem to favor a perspective in which God at least partially changes in response to prayer and love.

Peckham’s perspective in the introduction appears to be quite broad-minded, allowing for concessions to those on either side of (and in between) debates like Calvinism-Arminianism, Thomism-other views, Augustinianism-other perspectives. However, as the book goes on, it becomes apparent that apart from a few places wherein there is some nuance (as noted above with immutability), Peckham draws conclusions with some certainty, while effectively setting aside the opposing view.

The value one gets out of The Love of God, then, largely depends on the amount of work one is willing to put into it. If one takes the time to look up the many, many biblical references, compare them back to the text, and examine the counter-arguments that Peckham offers, this is a book that is well worth the time spent. By contrast, those not willing to put in that time will at least get an idea of what the various major questions are regarding God-world relations and love, but will only be given one perspective on those questions in most cases. The questions are not left as open as many of them seem to require.

The Good

+Provides much insight into biblical teaching on various aspects of love
+Many citations to allow for further study

The Bad

-Not as broad-minded as it initially appears
-Occasionally dismissive of counter-arguments and rival positions

Disclaimer: I received a review copy of this book from the publisher. I was not obligated to write any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Source

John C. Peckham, The Love of God (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015).

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Sunday Quote!- The Quest for the Star of Bethlehem

Every Sunday, I will share a quote from something I’ve been reading. The hope is for you, dear reader, to share your thoughts on the quote and related issues and perhaps pick up some reading material along the way!

The Quest for the Star of Bethlehem

I was excited to dive into The Great Christ Comet by Colin Nicholl. Not only is it seasonally appropriate as a read for Advent, but it also is a topic that I believe has much untapped theological and apologetic value. The topic has surely captured the popular imagination, as many renditions and references can attest to. There are many different lines of theological and astronomy that Nicholl draws on to make his point, however the biblical narrative, he argues, ought to be central to the quest for the Star of Bethlehem:

It should surely go without saying that any quest for the historical Star must be built firmly on the foundation of a rigorous analysis of Matthew 1:18-2:18. Only when this text has been mastered and the profile of the Star fully laid out can one realistically hope to deduce the precise astronomical phenomenon in view. (Kindle Location 563)

Nicholl does an admirable job showing how the biblical narrative of the Star ought to be central to research, and he forms his own theory around the biblical data. The Great Christ Comet is an exciting read on a topic that is little-explored. If you are interested in learning more about this fascinating topic, I know of no other work as thorough as this one. Check out my review of the book.

Source

Colin Nicholl, The Great Christ Comet (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015).

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Review: “The Great Christ Comet” by Colin Nicholl– I review the book and provide some more background into its subject and contents.

Sunday Quote– If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other blog for my writings on science fiction, history, fantasy movies, and more!

SDG.

Really Recommended Posts 12/11/15- Jesus’ Wife?, Polemical Apologetics, and more!

Another week brings you another round of reads from around the web, courtesy yours truly. This week we have a report in on the “Gospel” of Jesus’ Wife, a look at “Guy Secrets revealed” (a common trap for our thoughts–making gender binaries), polemics in apologetics, our attitudes over Christmas/Advent, and a response to some arguments against the conclusions of the recent book, The Great Christ Comet.

Whatever Happened to Jesus’ Wife?– Well? Notice that the media uproar over the alleged “Gospel” of Jesus’ wife has effectively disappeared? There’s a good reason for that.

Response to an Amazon Review of “The Great Christ Comet”– Colin Nicholl, author of The Great Christ Comet, responds to a highly critical Amazon review of the book. The review argues that supernatural explanation best fits the Star of Bethlehem, while Nicholl holds it was a comet that was providentially ordered. See my review of the book here.

Guy Secrets Revealed?– Here’s an analysis of a book that claims to reveal “guy secrets.” The post provides much needed correction for the whole movement that seeks to identify the alleged inherent differences in preferences, mentality, and the like between men and women.

Polemics in Apologetics– The use of polemics in Christian apologetics is a necessary endeavor, but it requires some caution. Here is a great post putting forward how to balance the use of polemics in defending the faith.

A Note from Auntie Screwtape– If you’re not familiar with C.S. Lewis’s Screwtape Letters, I suggest you get acquainted with it ASAP. The concept is a set of letters written from a demon to another regarding temptation. Here is a post in that style about temptations this Christmas season.

Book Review: “The Great Christ Comet” by Colin Nicholl

There are few biblical images which capture the imagination as much as the Star of Bethlehem. Its prominent portrayal in films featuring the Nativity, in popular renditions of a Nativity scene, and its place in many Christmas carols demonstrates its continuing popularity. Colin Nicholl’s work, The Great Christ Comet is a significant contribution to scholarship about the nature of the Star of Bethlehem. Nicholl approaches the topic from both the standpoint of theology and astronomy.

Nicholl’s analysis of the biblical data is extensive and interesting. Early in the book, he establishes that the exegetical evidence is important to anyone–including astronomers–who would like to pinpoint what the Star of Bethlehem may have been.

As I read through the theological portions of the book, I found myself opening up my running Bible commentary document to add several notes as Nicholl provide insight into the text and argued for specifics about the narrative. In addition to interpreting the passage, he also sheds light on it from extrabiblical sources, particularly in regards to the Magi and Herod. Regarding the former, he discusses the practice and likely origin of the Magi, noting they were likely astrologer/astronomers from Babylon. Regarding the latter, he shows how the Massacre of the Innocents would not be so out of place for Herod, and why he would have been so willing to go to the depths of evil action that he did. There were many more times I found Nicholl’s exegesis enlightening on various passages–including prophetic ones in Numbers and Isaiah and others in Revelation.

The interpretation offered by Nicholl related to the movement of the Christ Comet is different than any I have read. Nicholl delves into Revelation 12:1-5a in order to argue that this passage describes a literal astronomical phenomenon with the celestial movements of Virgo, a comet, and a meteor storm in view. It was in this section that my confidence in his conclusions wavered. He makes a convincing argument for showing that the comet could have moved and shined in the way he believes is described in this passage, but I am less convinced by the simple connection of Revelation to Matthew in this literal, astronomical way. The infancy narrative of Matthew and the description in Revelation are both referencing the birth of Christ, but I’m not convinced John in Revelation is attempting to give a full explanation of a cosmic event that occurred here. Regardless of my reservations, however, Nicholl does establish that this is a possible, if not probable, reading of the text while also laying out in extensive detail how a comet could have engaged in this “cosmic drama.”

I am not an expert in astronomy, so my comments on that regard are that of an interested lay person. Nicholl gave significant background into astronomy before he delved into some of the data and the competing theories regarding the Star of Bethlehem. This included extensive discussion of the nature of different kinds of comets and how they move throughout. At many points these details are accompanied by historical drawings or artistic renditions of the aspects discussed. Nicholl’s theory is outlined in intricate detail, and it includes a kind of procession of the comet throughout various astrological signs to the point that it reaches Virgo. At this point, the Magi were convinced by the movement of the comet that a significant birth was occurring and they headed west. Nicholl draws upon the words of the Magi as well as Matthew and Luke’s infancy narrative, in addition to Revelation 12 to show that his theory corresponds to literal readings of the various passages and allows a real astronomical event to lie behind the explanation of the comet. This, however, does not mean that the comet is a purely naturalistic phenomenon, as Nicholl argues that the one-of-a-kind, astounding nature of this comet and its performance–down to marking the very location of Jesus’s home in Bethlehem–point to divine intent.

One significant difficulty with the book is the overall feeling of “assured results” found throughout. A search for “certainly” shows up 66 results; 9 for “unquestionably” (each used in context of conclusions drawn). Other words like “undoubtedly” (11 results) show up throughout as well. While it is admirable to have confidence in one’s own position, at times I wondered whether the arguments presented could yield such levels of confidence. The very existence of such continuing debate over the nature of the Star of Bethlehem calls into question any interpretation which comes along and offers certainty across the board, whether it is the refutation of other theories or the interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

So much is invested in the relation of Revelation 12 to the infancy narratives that if one remains unconvinced by his exegesis there, one may not find his overall theory convincing. However, this is not necessarily the case. The argument he presented for a great comet being the origin of the Star of Bethlehem was quite convincing to me, despite my not being fully sold on the Revelation 12 theory. One does not have to accept Nicholl’s view of how the comet played across the sky to accept that the comet is the best explanation.

As far as substantive critique of Nicholl, on the astronomical part I admit I don’t have the knowledge to offer much. Both theologically and astronomically, it seems Nicholl’s proposal is airtight and stunning. Frankly, that is probably where my suspicion comes from: I tend to be a bit suspicious of anything that is such a perfect fit. The Bible is a complex work, and the debate over the Star of Bethlehem is entrenched with many differing positions. Could it really be so simple (in the sense of having this be the answer)? I would like to say yes. I want to. But I’m not sure I can be fully on board. Nicholl has convinced me that the Star was a great comet, and the movement he describes seem possible, but it is perhaps only a personal feeling of reservation that holds me back from embracing the whole picture. This does say something for the strength of Nicholl’s argument, of course, for it suggests that it is really this personal reservation that holds me back rather than significant criticisms.

Nicholl’s concluding thoughts about the Christ Comet deserve to be quoted:

What the Great Christ Comet did… was extraordinary and merits wide telling. People of all disciplines… must come to grips with its story. In an era when science is often viewed as the enemy of religion, the Christ Comet suggests that science may be the best friend of religion. In a period when the claims of Christ are commonly disregarded, the Star callse upon all to give his claims a fresh reappraisal… (Kindle Location 7343).

Whatever one thinks about certain aspects of Nicholl’s argument, the book as a whole presents a comprehensive, deep case for the Star of Bethlehem being a great comet. The Great Christ Comet is a fantastic, deep read that will expose readers to a variety of topics in a fresh way. The amazing intricacy of the movement of the comet and its correspondence to the readings Nicholl presents in the book would be, if true, a monumentally powerful testament to the power of God and the truth of the Gospels. I enjoyed it immensely, even though I may not be fully convinced of every detail.

The Good

+Extensive look at the Biblical data
+Fascinating topic
+Provides background for astronomical analysis
+Massive scope with in-depth discussion

The Bad

-Overstates case at points
-Exegesis of some passages uncertain

Disclaimer: I received a copy of this book for review purposes from the publisher. I was not required to provide any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Source

Colin Nicholl, The Great Christ Comet (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2015).

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Eclectic Theist– Check out my other interests site for posts on science fiction, fantasy, television, and more!

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

“The Masterpiece Society”- Star Trek: The Next Generation and Genetics, Eugenics, and Ethical Quandaries

Star Trek: The Next Generation is one of my all-time favorite shows. I have been watching through the series with my wife from the beginning and recently watched “The Mastepiece Society” from Season 5. The episode is a fascinating look into the moral issues of a society that wishes to control breeding. Here, we will examine some of these questions. For a plot summary, see here. There will be SPOILERS in what follows.

Eugenics/Genetics

The “Masterpiece” society is one in which they have actively worked to use genetic enhancement and therapy [see my post on genetic enhancement and therapy to get some background into this debate; see a differing opinion here] to try to create a perfect society. Diseases are genetically selected against; other alleged defects are also screened before birth (euphemistically referencing the termination of pregnancy); and other methods are hinted at.

One of the most poignant scenes is when Geordi La Forge, the Chief Engineer, is sitting down with Hannah Bates and they talk about his blindness. He challenges her on the notion that he would have been terminated before birth:

“It was the wish of our founders that no one have to suffer a life of disabilities.” – Bates
“Who gave them the right to decide whether or not I might have something to contribute?” – La Forge

After this brief discussion, it turns out in an ironic twist that Geordi’s visor that helps him see actually is the solution to saving the colony. This emphasizes his point: he does have much to contribute.

One can’t help but wonder about the echo that those unborn who are killed each and every day through abortion would raise. What contributions have we stolen from our society through the desire for convenience or other reasons for abortions?

Free Will

Suppose we were able to create a society in which we could select genetically the features we deemed best-suited for specific roles. What would this due to free will and the right to choose one’s own destiny? Jean-Luc Picard, the captain of the Enterprise, asks this very question.

It sounds like something wonderful: we can have sure and certain knowledge of what we’re going to do. There is no uncertainty; no worrying about a job. The society has been built around having you in the exact place you are to occupy based on your genetics.

Is there, in any sense, a right for children to not have their genetic qualities selected for them? I’ve discussed this very issue elsewhere, but I think this episode raises it fairly poignantly. Suppose someone was bred to be a leader in the society, but they felt they would rather be a construction worker? The society, it seems, would suffer in the sense that they now lack a leader; but perhaps someone else who would want to be a leader could step up to the task. Of course, as in the episode, one fears a kind of cascade effect in which people who would be perfect, allegedly, for the tasks they are destined to be assigned instead opt for tasks they can only “imperfectly” perform.

This, then, leads to questions of what it means to be “perfect” for a task. Are we merely genetically determined creatures, or does our freedom to choose transcend the genetic history we have been dealt? What benefits or costs might there be to a society in which you are trained from birth to occupy a specific role?

Conclusion

Star Trek frequently raises ethical issues, and “The Masterpiece Society” was particularly thoughtful. I’d recommend watching it and then reflecting on the worldview-level issues it raises. How much are we currently missing out on because of the system we have in place? What might we do ethically to improve our society without restricting the freedom of the individual? Is this latter question even important?

From a Christian perspective, it seems clear that it is impermissible to terminate humans simply because they are blind or have some genetic impairment. Here, it seems, the Christian perspective can also demonstrate its practical utility, for as Geordi demonstrated, we may miss out on quite a bit if we decide to allow such things to occur.

Regarding genetic enhancement, however, the issue is much more difficult. My perspective has shifted a bit, but I am still fairly wary of the notion. I admit this might purely be some kind of bias on my part that doesn’t have as much a rational foundation as I’d like to think. The post I shared earlier from a friend has some pretty strong arguments in the direction of genetic enhancement even from a Christian perspective. I recommend reading his post, and checking out my older post (about 2 years old) that I edited as I wrote this one.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Genetics and Bioethics: Enhancement or Therapy?– I go over a number of key ethical issues related to genetic enhancement and therapy.

“The Measure of a Man”- Star Trek: The Next Generation and Personhood– I discuss matters of “personhood,” using the character Data from Star Trek as a foil.

Why You Should Genetically Engineer Your Children– An argument that differs from my perspective on genetic enhancement. What are your thoughts on this post in favor of it?

The photo in this episode was a screenshot capture of the episode. I claim no rights to it and use it under fair use.

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.

Sunday Quote!- Suspense Author Dean Koontz on Evil and Satan

Every Sunday I offer a quote from something I’ve read recently. It’s usually from a book, but here I’m highlighting a quote from an interview. Be sure to check out the other Sunday Quotes and let me know your thoughts.

Suspense Author Dean Koontz on Evil and Satan

Anthony Weber’s excellent look at Saint Odd, the final book in the Odd Thomas series, got me back into reading Koontz after I hadn’t read anything from him in a while. Weber also shared a quote from an interview with Dean Koontz. I read the rest of the interview and I felt what he had to say about evil and its portrayal is worth taking the time to share and consider:

I don’t shy away from having violent things happen, but I don’t dwell on it. I feel, as a Christian, writing books that have a moral purpose to them, it’s actually incumbent upon me to write about evil, because this kingdom is Satan’s and he is the prince of the world. It’s here and it’s among us.

My villains are pathetic. I never glorify a villain. I couldn’t write something like Hannibal because there’s something there that makes the villain the most glamorous person in the piece. I can’t write that. I don’t find evil glamorous. You’ll never find it that way in my books…

Evil walks among us. We don’t always see it. Each of us, in our daily lives, encounters evil; we are tempted to evil every day of our lives. If we don’t want to read about it or think about it, I don’t think that’s a truly Christian point of view. We have to acknowledge it, face it and defeat it. That’s what each of my books is about. (Cited here; original here)

I think Koontz’s comments are well-worth considering. Evil is something that is foreign to this world. Satan and other spiritual powers are working to perpetuate evil in this world. We must not close our eyes to it, but rather, “acknwoledge it, face it, and defeat it” by the power of Christ.

I recommend Koontz’s works to you.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Sunday Quote– If you want to read more Sunday Quotes and join the discussion, check them out! (Scroll down for more)

Chatting with Koontz About Faith– You can read the whole interview here. It is worth the time.

Saint Odd– Read Anthony Weber’s post about the final book in the Odd Thomas series.

SDG.

Really Recommended Posts 12/4/15- Star Wars theology, women in the early church, and more!

We have already made it to December! Can you believe it? I can’t. That doesn’t mean I won’t keep delivering the goods, however! This week we have posts on women in the early church, dinosaurs and young earth creationism, an evil god?, the theology of Star Wars, and the Planned Parenthood shooting. As always, let me know what you think–and be sure to let the authors know as well. Also, because it’s already snowed a couple times, we’re switching back to the snowy owl to bring our post, Hogwarts style.

A Theology of Star Wars– Star Wars Episode VII comes out soon. I bet that’s news to you! I may or may not have my tickets to an early showing. The world will never know. Anyway, here’s a free e-book (sign up to newsletter required) on Star Wars and Christian theology. I haven’t gotten through the whole thing yet, but I’ve enjoyed what I’ve read so far.

Four Myths about Women in the Early Church– The topic of women in the early church is quite interesting. I’ve only read one book on the topic, but I’d like to explore further. This post highlights some myths about women in the early church that are largely taken as givens. In the debate over women in the church and home, it is important to get our facts straight.

Is an Evil God as likely as an All-Good God?– Edward Feser analyzes Stephen Law’s (in)famous “evil God challenge,” in which Law alleges that the evidence for the existence of God cannot bring us to a good God, so an evil God is just as likely. I have analyzed Law’s argument myself, and I believe I demonstrate that the assumptions behind his argument would yield radical skepticism if held consistently.

Why Pro-Life Advocates are not responsible for the Planned Parenthood Shooting– Some have alleged that the recent, horrific attack on a Planned Parenthood building can be blamed on the pro-life movement. Here is an analysis of that ad hominem attack vs. pro-life advocates that gets at the heart of the issue.

Where did all the Dinosaurs go? Ken Ham’s Climate and Human Induced Dinosaur extinction hypothesis– Young earth creationists must deal with the evidence we have about dinosaurs and their lives. Here is an analysis of Ken Ham’s hypothesis regarding what happened to all the dinosaurs after they purportedly survived a global flood alongside humans.

Book Review: “Scripture and Cosmology” by Kyle Greenwood

Kyle Greenwood’s Scripture and Cosmology might initially seem to be just another introduction to the study of Ancient Near Eastern (ANE) cosmology related to the Bible, but it is not. It is much more than that. Greenwood, in his excellent book, relates not just ANE cosmology to the Bible, but also reflects on how theologians dealt with changes in the prevailing views of cosmology throughout Christian history. That is, Scripture and Cosmology provides a means for readers to explore in brief the history of Christian thought on Scripture and, well, cosmology of different times.

The book is organized around three parts: Scripture and Cosmos in Cultural Context (which explores the ANE background of the Bible and finding that cosmology in Scripture), Cosmology and Scripture in Historical Context (which examines the cosmology of Scripture alongside Aristotelian and Copernican Cosmology, along with how Christians read the Bible in these periods), and Scripture and Science (which ties together the previous two sections along with discussing how we should consider the findings therein).

Greenwood frankly notes that the Bible’s view of cosmology is situated directly within the ANE background of the text and the understanding of people groups surrounding Israel. He challenges some of the modern revisionist attempts to take texts about, for example, the land floating as an example of Earth in space (Job 26:7). His counter is to show that such a writing would fit nicely within the ANE understanding of a cosmic ocean rather than favoring a modern attempt to fit it into Big Bang cosmology.

The chapters on Copernicanism and Aristotelianism show that Christians have historically adjusted their readings of Scripture in light of modern cosmology. He cites several interpreters, including Aquinas, Augustine, Calvin, and Luther to show how some of the greatest minds in the history of Christianity have been shaped by their own contemporary views of cosmology and Scripture.

The book ends with a pair of chapters on interpretation of the Bible and the authority of Scripture in light of Greenwood’s findings. These are invaluable tools for those wishing to take the Bible’s text as it stands. Greenwood argues that divine accommodation is one of the acceptable ways to reconcile scriptural authority and the ancient cosmology found therein. The last chapter addresses various avenues for research and science and how a proper understanding of cosmology in Scripture will help to reconcile these issues.

I was particularly interested in the findings which compared Aristotelian cosmology to biblical cosmology. It is important to see that Christians have constantly been part of their own cultural understandings of the Bible and the cosmos, and that we are no less victim to the short-sightedness that can come from equating our understanding with ultimate truth. We must be aware that our own understanding is incomplete and that we should not try to make the Bible read how we think it should.

Scripture and Cosmology is a superb book that is enlightening and challenging on many different topics. As someone who has read extensively on science-faith issues, I still found many new avenues to explore in this book and much valuable insight. It was exciting to see a work that addressed not only the ANE context of the Bible but also how Christians have interacted with more modern views of cosmology throughout time. I very highly recommend this book.

The Good

+Demonstrates the relationship between the Bible and ANE Cosmology
+Shows history of Christian interaction with their own understandings of cosmology and the Bible
+Provides means for readers to explore questions of relating Cosmology and Scripture
+Several solid insights into exploring related issues
+Opens avenues for further research

The Bad

-Feels a bit rushed towards the end

I received a review copy of this book from the publisher. I was not obligated to write any specific kind of feedback whatsoever.

Links

Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more!

Book Reviews– There are plenty more book reviews to read! Read like crazy! (Scroll down for more, and click at bottom for even more!)

Source

Kyle Greenwood, Scripture and Cosmology (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 2015).

SDG.

——

The preceding post is the property of J.W. Wartick (apart from quotations, which are the property of their respective owners, and works of art as credited; images are often freely available to the public and J.W. Wartick makes no claims of owning rights to the images unless he makes that explicit) and should not be reproduced in part or in whole without the expressed consent of the author. All content on this site is the property of J.W. Wartick and is made available for individual and personal usage. If you cite from these documents, whether for personal or professional purposes, please give appropriate citation with both the name of the author (J.W. Wartick) and a link to the original URL. If you’d like to repost a post, you may do so, provided you show less than half of the original post on your own site and link to the original post for the rest. You must also appropriately cite the post as noted above. This blog is protected by Creative Commons licensing. By viewing any part of this site, you are agreeing to this usage policy.