The Burning Bush

The Movies


     Thomas Edison invented the light bulb in 1879. Prior to that time, Americans slept 10 hours or more every night. Today, however, that number is down to 6.9 hours on weeknights and 7.5 hours on weekends. A third of the population goes to bed after midnight, and 40% are still in bed after 7 AM.

     The issue is not merely electricity. No one is staying awake to watch an electric bulb shine. The light bulb became (by design, by the way, not by mutation and gradual change by natural forces) a vacuum tube that by design became a radio, which by design and forethought became a television. Edison’s claim to fame must include his moving pictures, which today is the most sophisticated method of conveying images and ideas ever imagined.

     Buildings dedicated to selling popcorn and soft drinks, with multiple darkened auditoriums designed to present (in full-color and stereo sound) one film (one video story) every couple of hours throughout the day (every day), and people line up to get a seat. Love stories, comedy, drama, action, science fiction, fantasy, musicals, horror, you name it, we’ve got it, seven days a week.

     Movie goers also watch movies on TV. They also patronize the video rental stores and watch movies at home on demand. Movie goers are likely to have cable, which adds news channels to the many movie channels.

     I don’t plan to talk much about movies in this blog. Movies appear in the billboard ads outside the theaters without much warning, and they are displayed on the screens for various lengths of time, and then a new film takes its place. Some become well-known, but most do not. So to use any but the really big blockbusters as an illustration of anything is not wise. People will not remember the lesser known films, and the illustration will be lost of them. I find that many if not most people do not remember much even from the hugely successful films like Star Wars; and the truth of the matter is, not everyone saw even a single episode of Star Wars in the theater; and the impact is simply not there on the TV screens below 42 inches, and many have not seen an episode even in that format.

     Interesting, but so what?

     First, God spoke and had the Spirit to see that His verbal message and historical actions were recorded in writing (not in video), capable of being preserved with a high degree of reliability, something to read and re-read, something to be heard by the illiterate, something to be remembered through the ages. Video is a wonderful medium, but God chose writing at least because it is not bound to only one century in human history.


     Second, writing has the unique ability to cause your mind (the mind of the reader or the hearer) to envision the events. Each reader translates the message in a personal way. There are limits as to what a text can mean, but once a movie is made or a picture is painted, the visual imagery overwhelms the understanding, and our minds tend to follow the visual.

     Third, a presentation beyond the verbal translation will often be a misrepresentation of the events. At the nativity, for example, were Magi and Shepherds there at the same time? Most think so because of Christmas card art, not because of anything in the Bible. Did the shepherds see the star? Were the Magi riding camels? Were there three Magi? Were there only three? Our assurance on the right answers to these questions comes from Christmas pageants, popular sermons, and other presentations of the familiar story. None of these matters are specifically addressed in the biblical text (which alone is the infallible Word of God).

     Was the cross on a hill (far away), and was it rugged? The Bible does not say. Was Mary tiny or fat? Was Jesus muscular or thin? Did Jesus have a soft voice? Did he know how to swim? When did he gain full understanding of his divine nature? When performing a miracle, hid he wave his hands like a modern stage magician? Did his feet splash the water when he was walking on the lake?

     It is far better simply to read and reread the biblical stories, seeking deeper insight, than to take someone else’s mental picture of the events, the tone of voice of the presenter, the emotional intensity of the moment, and let that be your understanding of the biblical event. God has spoken clearly and sufficiently. We do not need a movie of the Bible.  The story of Noah is not funny in the Bible, but it almost always is when presented via actors and edited video.

     Fourth, God speaks through dreams, but dreams are at best interactive visions between you and God. Dreams are not constructed realities produced by writers and directors and camera people. Not all dreams are from God, but they are all personal. Movies are the same (frame by frame, scene by scene) for everyone who is paying attention every time the see the movie. In a similar way, Scripture does not change either except where there may be interpretive nuances. But the unchanging text of the Bible is not the same as the unchanging imagery of a movie. A movie can be remastered and re-edited, the scenes can be rearranged, and the stories retold. The Bible is not rightfully subject to such editing. This is what modern criticism tries to do, but modern criticism fails at every point.

     Popular culture has much to teach us if we study it generically. God is still at work in the world. The world is the home of popular culture. From the world we gain ways of understanding those to whom we speak our gospel message. We defend that message in light of the many questions that the world raises. Truth need never fear. Jesus said God’s word is truth.


L. Russ Bush
Director, Center for Faith and Culture
Box 1889
Wake Forest, NC 27588
DirectorCFC@sebts.edu

(image placeholder)

Reading and Misreading the Bible


Odd things pop up in my mail. In a recent issue of a church newsletter (a prominent Baptist church, by the way), I saw a lead article on “Work and Creation.” The point was to teach the congregation that work was already there from creation, not only from the Fall. That is certainly the case, but I am regularly amazed to see good conclusions drawn from poor exegesis.

The scenario as described in the article is that the world begins formless and empty. God then forms and fills the earth. The author’s conclusion is that God brought great order out of chaos (yes, the author used that word), and thus, for this author, work is defined as bringing order out of chaos, and the claim is made that bringing order out of chaos is what human beings are called upon by God to do. That is what work is, according to the article.

It is certainly true that the Father is always working (John 5:17), and it is also true that God is the supreme Ruler, and we, in His image, rule over the earth. The conclusion again was that God is a God who brings order out of chaos, and bringing order out of chaos is what we are called to do. Bringing order from chaos, consciously for God’s glory, makes work a form of worship [an interesting Calvinistic twist there].

That in my view is a wonderful conclusion. We can honor God in all that we do, and we should worship Him through our actions. But somewhere in here I keep finding the logic to be odd. Go back with me for a moment to Genesis 1:1–2. Does formless and void sound like chaos to you? It sounds like utter simplicity to me! Is God the author of chaos out of which He later brings order, and is “order from chaos” the definition of work that results in worship?

The article notices the reference to gold and precious stones in Genesis 3:10–12 and connects that to Exodus 25–40. The woman was formed as a helper, thus enabling true worship. Acting not as a helper hinders worship. [Women take note!]

All of this is very interesting. It is a creative reading of Genesis 1–3, but is it what Genesis is teaching? As I said earlier, God did not begin with chaos. He began with nothing and made something. He made something simple (something formless and void) and brought complexity to it by adding new information and design to the most basic elements of the newly created substances.

To say that all work is worship and that work originates before the Fall has elements of truth, perhaps, but the curse upon the earth changed the nature of human work. Before the Fall, work was caring for and protecting the good and sinless environment of the Garden. After the Fall (which was quite soon, I believe), the work became burdensome (thorns and thistles, working the soil, planting and harvesting, building safe shelters, acquiring clothes, taking care of families, setting up new communities, protecting yourself and your family from violence, developing language, etc.).  Fighting against thorns and weeds does not seem to me to be in and of itself worship.

I do not wish to refute the notion of the dignity of human work. I do believe that work can be dedicated to God and can thus be in some relevant sense an act of worship. But there are two kinds of work. There is preservation of the order God has brought into being (not out of chaos, the evolutionary notion, but out of original simplicity, which has now been filled with information, the creationist view). There is also the effort to restore order where chaos is increasing due to sin and due to thermodynamic processes and other results of the divine curse on the earth. Some work is mere hardship due to the Fall and the resulting curse.

Work of many kinds can be offered as worship, but there is some work that cannot. There is such a thing as sinful work.

Reading the Bible gives some people many creative insights, and they often end up with some good conclusions, but their exegetical basis is at times weak, and they mislead people about what the Bible actually says and teaches. Creation is not “organizing chaos.” Creation is bringing designed purpose out of simplicity. There was no life, but God created life (a highly organized arrangement of simple substances, not chaos, is a necessary precondition for the chemical and physical base on which life can ride).

Human work is not creation in that sense. Human work is taking the complex resources God has given us to make new things (usually simpler than the complex information in the original materials) that allow people to resist the effects of the Fall or allows us to build new things that might improve living conditions. People also sometimes work with God’s natural resources to produce sinful pleasures. People work to destroy one another, they frequently work to destroy the art and culture of another civilization, they develop weapons whose sole purpose is to destroy that which God has created. On the other hand, human work can result in building buildings, improving sanitation, increasing food production, developing medicines, raising the level of education and literacy, better communications, better transportation and many other things. Human work should be thought of as “rule” or “dominion” over the earth, but sin has made the situation much more complex.

Let’s read what the Bible actually says and not suggest that all human work is capable of being presented as worship. I am just not convinced that pornography or pagan temple building or construction of massively destructive weapons are examples of work that can be offered to God as worship.

Where all work will be worship is a description of the Kingdom, perhaps, but that is not our day yet. Clearly the ideals of the kingdom are the ideals of the Christian life. So let’s worship God in all that we do.

L. Russ Bush, Director
Center for Faith and Culture

The Holocaust

Germany still maintains some of the camps for visitors. I saw the cells and grounds myself on a recent trip to East Germany. I saw the pictures. I saw the ovens. It all seems authentic enough.

American soldiers liberated many of the camps and freed the Jews from the grip of the Nazis. Estimates were that Hitler exterminated as many as six million Jewish people in his day. For many Americans at the time, this sounded like wholesale slaughter. It must have been the Great Tribulation, and Christ was surely coming soon.

Christ’s return has seemingly been delayed, but Israel’s presence in the world is more prominent than ever. Radical Islam confronts Israel everywhere. America is disliked not for our way of life (as some claim). America is disliked because we support Israel.

Surrounded by enemies, Israel has fought for territory and its very existence. For most of Christian history, Jewish people were scattered. In our day the Jews have been given a place to live by the post-war Europeans, British, and Americans (that place given is in the Middle East where every clod of dirt is disputed territory). Mostly America and the British guarantee Israel’s right to exist in that location as a free and sovereign nation.

When the Holocaust is doubted, the rationale for a Jewish homeland evaporates, and the political will could shift away from support for Israel. Radical Islam doubts and challenges the reality of the Holocaust as we have understood it. First of all, this shows you how unaware of historical reality these people really are. Remember that Islam is yet a medieval religion. There has been no serious modern reform movement within Islam such as that within Protestantism in the days of the 16th Century Protestant Reformation.

The point is, however, that we are seeing acted out on the slate of modern history the effect of the loss of historical memory (or the effect of isolation from 20th century history). If there is no holocaust, then by what right could Israel be established on Palestinian soil against the wishes of the people living there in 1948? The United Nations knew that there was a real holocaust. It was so horrorific that they supported a special new nation in which Jews could live. The idea was that this could be a land recognized as historic for Jews, that it would be of no final consequence to major Arab nations, and that it would secure the Jewish people from another holocaust and/or from continuing persecution by Europeans and by other nations.

I would not be able to say that it has been a persecution free life for Israel. The bottom line, however, is that if one denies or doubts the holocaust, one can see no good reason for Israel to have been moved from the Jewish Diaspora in Europe to a new European style nation located in the decidedly non-European middle east. Clearly, it is the European-style nation of Israel that exists today, not the ancient middle-eastern style nation which Israel was in the ancient world.

The political values of Western secular humanism that characterize Israel today stand in stark contrast to the life-style of medieval Islam. America stands in the cultural traditions of the west. America knows the holocaust really happened. America supports the secular Israeli socialism. America seeks political updating and democratic values for Islamic nations in the region in order to protect western interests in the region (in particular oil supplies, but other things as well).

This is all mixed up with the eschatologies of some biblical thinkers who often identify
secular Israel (in place today) as being the precursor of a renewed biblical state (such as it was in the days of the prophets and priests of David’s day, perhaps). God may be moving in that direction, but I don’t see it, and most modern Israelis are not self-consciously going there.

The prophecy buffs came out in force during the recent Lebanon conflict and made fools of themselves, as they usually do, when they start predicting the end times. I guess it is a money raising thing for them, I don’t know, but I even heard one predict that Christ was returning in the next ten minutes. Hmmm!

Bottom line, did the holocaust happen? Yes, dear Muslim friends, it did. Could Jewish people legitimately seek relief from the long Diaspora years and ask for a niche of land that was essentially desolate in 1948 (virtually no one living there), and ask if they could once again be a sovereign nation under the rules of the United Nations. The answer was yes, and the UN supported this arrangement, not understanding that the Muslim world would so seriously and lastingly stand adamantly opposed and seek to ultimately eliminate all Jews from the face of the earth, ruthlessly killing many more than died in the Holocaust, all for a small bit of territory that has only third level significance to Islam, far behind Mecca and Medina (which are under no threat from Israel), and Israel’s control of Jerusalem has in no way prevented Muslims from worshiping at the dome of the rock; in fact Israel has secured that area for Muslims, and Jews do not even have access to walk on what they (and I) believe is their old temple location.

Should Islam recognize these facts and give up the foolish annihilation policies once and for all? Yes they should! Border disputes must be negotiated and settled. The land will never go back to the Arab countries, but why should they care. They really never had it; they never occupied it in the past in any significant way. The region is still quite desolate.

Should full religious freedom be guaranteed? Yes, it should. At least there must be fully guaranteed religious toleration. Do I think this is likely anytime soon? Sorry, I have to give you my first “no” here, because only Christ is able to provide what is needed to make this work, and neither Israel nor Islam seem to be willing to tie their destinies to Christ. Thus are both sides doomed.

L. Russ Bush, Director
Center for Faith and Culture
Southeastern Baptist Seminary
Wake Forest, NC 27588

That Single Cell

It is obviously unlikely that a single living cell would under known conditions simply appear on a habitable earth. There has to be water and food and oxygen, or the cell dies immediately. That cell has to have proper nutrition, proper immunity from deadly attacks, a proper cell wall, a useful nucleus, and a suitable environment (protection from deadly radiation, for example, and enough light). The chemicals out of which the cells were made must have been available in sufficient quantity and in viable ratios.

We find life at the deep thermal vents and in the frozen tundra, so we know life is possible in “hostile” environments, but cells living there seem to have adapted to such environments rather than to have originated there. But ignoring that for the moment, we immediately face another problem.

What are the odds that the first mutation would have been a useful one. If it was not, that cell would die. What are the odds of many cells being formed (even through multiplication—a highly complex process). It is far more likely that the first cell (or the first small colony of cells) would die. Single cell creatures are quite vulnerable until they form large colonies. How many chances will early life get? How many cells have to spontaneously evolve in order to get one that will mutate favorably?

A favorable mutation is on all accounts rare in any case. But if it doesn’t happen early on, the original line of multiplying cells would eat up everything in the local area within which they can navigate and thus pollute their environment with waste without adapting to the environment in time, and everything would die.

The odds of multiple original cells are virtually zero because all life today works on the same chemistry, thus suggesting that all life came from a single source, not multiple sources.

So I have an extremely unlikely event producing a life form that somehow survives and successfully mutates in order to establish alternative life forms in case one form becomes extinct. The odds against this scenario are so high that the question is, why is it believed? The answer is, because we are here. Life must have started since it is here now. But could it happen without a template, a plan, without design? Richard Dawkins wants to say yes. It just happened! That is so very unlikely, that I think Dawkins should be ashamed of himself. The scientific odds against the spontaneous generation of life and its continuous development from molecule to man have reached well beyond the point of being scientifically impossible. For sure, it is not a reproducible event in the laboratory. So in the traditional understanding of science, it should be considered an unscientific notion to claim spontaneous generation and exclusively natural evolution from that point forward. In other words, the theory of naturalistic evolution (which is not the same as ideas of environmental adaptations, for example) is (shall I dare say it) a hypothesis, a speculation.

The evolutionary scenario of how life began spontaneously and survived is a theory. The fact that many assume it, never having seen it happen, is an indication of the fact that it is a faith assumption. It is a conclusion, so they think, that is “least offensive” to the scientific enterprise.

To suggest that life seems like a designed system of reality is a far better theory if we are seeking to explain how something might have actually happened. Life gives little evidence that it can be explained by unguided and undesigned processes and forces in nature. Even the chemical components necessary for life would not necessarily be everywhere all the time. The odds against chance spontaneous generation in a protective environment are so high as to be impossible. The odds that a cell thus formed would survive to reproduce successfully would seem to be astronomical. Digestion, reproductive systems, and DNA complexities simply would not happen in the real world all at the same time without a template or a plan to guide the chemical bonds. For that cell to evolve up to a complex religious being who would willingly die for others is simply beyond the pale.

Why do evolutionists believe it? They say it is the only viable “scientific” option (by which they mean “non-theistic” option). So to avoid seeing obvious plan and design, and to avoid having to explain that the scientist cannot fully understand and examine the “accepted” scientific stance on things, the accepted scientific theory simply affirms the impossible, and people buy into it because of their respect for science (which they should have), but so goes rationality. So goes meaning. So goes hope. So goes purpose. Is it worth it to believe a lie?

L. Russ Bush, Director
Center for Faith and Culture
Box 1889
Wake Forest, NC  27588

Design vs Randomness


Adobe computer software is virtually essential for modern computer users. Is there anyone who has not yet installed the Adobe Reader? We are now up to seven point something, and there is almost nothing more we need it to do (famous last words, I know).

Web files are often saved in the Adobe PDF format. It requires the free Adobe Reader to view the file, but the Reader will not let you modify the file. So I feel safe putting materials online for my students and others to read. They can read the material but not change it. This solves what would be a huge issue for academic types, like me. If I put up a syllabus, an essay, or a book report on the web, and somebody could download it, change some information, edit parts of it, and then reload it to its original position or some other place on the web, then, of course, I would not be uploading very many important essays or materials. With Adobe, I feel safe about my intellectual property. Anyone can see what I have posted, but they can’t change it. The Adobe Reader is a free download for any Internet user.

So why write that paragraph?

It is only background for those few who might not recognize the significance of this company. Actually I did not even mention the many other essential products for computer users that Adobe makes. Many are web related and are involved with digital photography and web design. These guys are giants in the software business. They don’t make many mistakes.

So was it a mistake?

My annual Almanac Issue (2006—2007) of the Chronicle of Higher Education came today (August 21, 2006). It was upside down in my box, so what I first saw was the back cover. It was an Adobe advertisement.

There was what looked like a chambered nautilus shell all merged with a spiral staircase (with people walking on it), a carved circular wall near the stairs, and a series of small numbers filling the edges of the three circular levels of the photo, from the chambered shell out to the spiral stairway.

It is hard to describe, but the blending possible with Adobe digital photo software is really fantastic. What grabbed me was the headline:

     What if design
          brought clarity to a mathematical
                         phenomenon?

What was that again? Certain mathematical phenomena are better explained in terms of a pattern, a design? Mathematics, fundamental to all science, best explained in terms of design? On the back cover of the prestigious Chronicle?

The advertising text explains further: “Express complex ideas simply and beautifully. Make sophisticated multimedia creations that can turn even the Fibonacci sequence into something that’s understandable at a glance.”

So does this mean that we understand design when we see it? Are some confusing mathematical ideas explained better by the concept of design rather than by randomness? Right there on the cover of the Chronicle?

All the alphabetic characters in the ad seem to be in the right place (thus rendering the advertising message understandable and meaningful). In random order, there would be no meaning, nothing would be understood. Intelligent design was essential to this Adobe ad. So what if design were to bring clarity to more than just the Fibonacci sequence?


L. Russ Bush, Director
Center for Faith and Culture


Box 1889
Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary
Wake Forest, NC 27588

www.sebts.edu
www.sebts.edu/ap

Bush Saves the Cross by Eminent Domain


That was the headline in the August 21, 2006, National Weekly Edition of the Washington Times p.10. Recently I have expressed concern about the ACLU’s effort to force San Diego to remove the Mount Soledad cross, a well known monument in the city since 1954. I said that I had heard nothing about it lately, so I did not know the outcome of the lawsuit.

Today I was informed that on August 14, 2006, President Bush signed a bill transferring ownership of the property from the city to the federal government. This was based on a bill voted in the House by a 349—74 majority on July 19, and unanimously approved by the Senate on August 1, 2006. This action invalidated the law suits. This was not a hostile take over. The city had voted last year by a 76% majority to allow the city to donate the cross and the property on which it sits to the Federal Government in order to preserve it as a Korean War memorial. Superior Court Justice Patricia Yim Cowett right away ruled the election invalid (can’t let a vote of the people tell the Court what to do) and her ruling was under appeal.

U.S. District Court Judge Gordon Thompson, in 1991, had ordered the city to remove the cross.  The suit apparently had been filed by atheist Philip Paulson. He was claiming that the cross discriminated against non-Christian veterans.

President Bush clearly was not only within his rights to do this, but it was right to do this. Fred Edwards of the American Humanist Association called it an “end run” on the Constitution. That wasn’t surprising, but I really did not expect to see Barry Lynn (of Americans United for Separation of Church and State) jumping in here (maybe I should not be so naive). He was reported as saying that the President’s action was “an unwarranted, heavy-handed maneuver that undercuts the separation of church and state and the integrity of the judicial system.”  May I paraphrase Lynn: I don’t like it that both House and Senate, with only token opposition, voted to authorize this action, and I really don’t like it that Bush signed the bill, and I think that Courts should be allowed to rule anyway they wish, even against the vast majority of informed citizens on an issue such as this, because the Courts ruled according to my peculiar way of understanding Church—State issues, and I wanted the ruling to stand so that we could show everyone who it is that is in charge around here and disabuse all the religious people of our nation of any notion that this is a government of the people and for the people that guarantees free religious expression.

It’s like Israel and Hezbolla. There does not seem to be much common ground on these Church—State issues.

For background, see my previous blog “American Christianity under Attack.”

L. Russ Bush
Wake Forest, NC