Last year, I reviewed Matt Mikalatos' first book, Imaginary Jesus, which I absolutely loved, particularly from a perspective of the psychological dimensions of faith. He recently released a second book, Night of the Living Dead Christians through Tyndale House Publishers. Here is a great video interview with Matt (who happens to be a Star Trek fan, too, which makes him awesome in my book):
I've been long looking forward to reading this book, but since I've been overworking, my wife has graciously agreed to review it at this time:
The other day as I walked around Barnes and Noble, I was amazed at the sheer amount of "monster mania." It seemed like almost every single book in the fiction section featured vampire after vampire, werewolves, and zombies. There's no doubt about it, monsters are "in." And I'll admit, I do enjoy a good vampire/werewolf novel! But it seems like the genre has been...well, a little overdone.
I was a little skeptical at first that Matt Mikalatos' new book, Night of the Living Dead Christian, would be anything new. I even wondered if it might take the annoying tone of so many other Christian books, denouncing how evil a fascination with creatures might be (a.k.a. "anyone who reads Twilight is on the path to hell!") So I was pleasantly surprised to find out how much FUN this book is! You can tell that the author is a bit of a scifi/movie geek, and I mean that in a good way...there's a definite fondness for all things monster coming through the writing.
Mikalatos takes on the classic movie monsters with a great sense of humor and irreverence, playing up the stereotypes in a unique and clever way and relating them to cliched Christianity (for example, I loved the fact that the zombies were stuffing flyers praising their fearless church leader into doors around town, on a mindless mission to convert brains rather than eat them). It reads like a humorous novel, and never feels "preachy," yet grapples with some big questions and issues about our faith in an insightful way. At one point, when asked about why the werewolf doesn't consider himself a Christian, he replies "If claiming to be a Christian meant personal transformation, the world would be a far different place. As it is, I know far too many Christians who are worse men as Christians than they were as pagans." So true!
I also found interesting the way that Mikalatos inserts himself as the main character, something I have rarely if ever seen done in literature. It seems to break many of the "rules" of writing, and that's part of what makes it so awesome. It doesn't seem to be done in an arrogant way, but rather shows a snarky, self-depricating wit that is a lot of fun to share in.
All in all, this book is an enjoyable ride, and will fit nicely into any monster lover's bookshelf. I'd definitely recommend it to all my fellow "doomed to hell" Christian Twihards. ;)
Laci Morgan
I have a certificate for a free copy of the book to give away here on the blog. In order to enter, leave a comment saying why you would like a copy. You can get additional entries by (1) following me on Twitter, (2) retweeting my Tweet about this post, and (3) subscribing to my blog by email or RSS. Leave a comment on the blog letting me know you did these (if you already follow me on Twitter or subscribe to my blog, that counts). The contest will close on Sunday at midnight. I will need a way to contact you, so either leave your email address, subscribe to the comments feed, or check back here.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Thursday, December 8, 2011
The Gospel According to Dickens @christianaudio
I haven't read any of Charles Dickens' original writings since probably middle school. At that point, I know I never really appreciated the beauty of his work and words. I recently listened to christianaudio's version of A Christmas Carol, which is one of their best audiobooks yet. Simon Vance's narration was excellent, with an engaging dramatization.
At a recent Bible study, someone brought up how A Christmas Carol was particularly a message about caring for our neighbors. While most of us have heard the story many times, hearing Dickens' original words really sent the message about the power and importance of loving our neighbor. While God was never explicitly mentioned, the Gospel is written all over this classic.
While it is a short book that can be easily found for free, christian audio is also offering it for free for this month!
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
At a recent Bible study, someone brought up how A Christmas Carol was particularly a message about caring for our neighbors. While most of us have heard the story many times, hearing Dickens' original words really sent the message about the power and importance of loving our neighbor. While God was never explicitly mentioned, the Gospel is written all over this classic.
While it is a short book that can be easily found for free, christian audio is also offering it for free for this month!
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
When the Bottom Drops Out @PastorRobBugh @christianaudio
I had high hopes for Robert Bugh's When the Bottom Drops Out, which explores the challenges to life and spirituality when we face the deepest pains. Bugh's personal experiences definitely lend credibility to his encouragement to find faith in the darkest of circumstances. Unfortunately, the book can be frequently disjointed, moving between anecdotes, theologizing, and references stories of pain in the Bible.
Bugh's books shone brightly when he validated the emotional pain involved when the bottom of life drops out. However, just when the recognition of the reality of the situation was becoming strong, Bugh would switch to abstract theologizing. This would turn the book into more of a cognitive intervention to an emotional problem that served more to invalidate than help encourage.
The book was not bad, it just seemed like Bugh was trying too hard to provide a profound theology and reflection on the pain of life.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Bugh's books shone brightly when he validated the emotional pain involved when the bottom of life drops out. However, just when the recognition of the reality of the situation was becoming strong, Bugh would switch to abstract theologizing. This would turn the book into more of a cognitive intervention to an emotional problem that served more to invalidate than help encourage.
The book was not bad, it just seemed like Bugh was trying too hard to provide a profound theology and reflection on the pain of life.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Thursday, November 3, 2011
The Poor Tactics of #180movie @TBBMediaGroup @audrajennings
I was intrigued by the marketing related to Ray Comfort's documentary 180, claiming to instantly change people's minds about abortion through one question.
The film is short and available for free online through their website and on YouTube. While I am quite pro-life (that's another subject for another time and more complex than any politicos want to make it), I actually disliked this documentary and found it ineffective with fallacious arguments.
Are there similarities between abortion, the Holocaust, and murder? Depending on one's view, sure, there could be. However, how we make those comparisons are central.
Comfort jumps from one topic to another in quick-fire succession, not really allowing his interviewees time to think and consider his arguments (not all of which are good or fair by any means). Also, even though he says people changed their minds (and admittedly, they said they did), we need to remember some principles of social psychology. When you have someone in your face who is aggressively interrogating you and you know they won't leave you alone until you agree with them, especially if you don't have a good argument in contrast, then you, too, might simply agree to get out of a situation. While some of the participants seemed truly moved, others seemed to be more annoyed.
I would be more curious to interview them months later to see if it stuck.
He also demonstrated a stereotypic proselytizing that is quite aggressive, emphasizing that someone will go to hell because they are a lying thief. Besides the fact that he does not define blasphemy accurately, this sort of approach has consistently been shown to not lead to lasting change. It's great for the moment to make a decision based on fear, but there is no presence of an individual being drawn to the amazing love of Christ.
Rather, Jesus is simply presented as a really good lawyer. We like to have them around us and on retainer, but we're not likely to be good friends with them...
What I would like to see in drawing people toward Christ and toward the reduction of abortions is not fear tactics and shame-based polarities, but rather toward love and appreciation for life in all forms and situations. It's about improving the world, not just avoiding sin.
The film is short and available for free online through their website and on YouTube. While I am quite pro-life (that's another subject for another time and more complex than any politicos want to make it), I actually disliked this documentary and found it ineffective with fallacious arguments.
Are there similarities between abortion, the Holocaust, and murder? Depending on one's view, sure, there could be. However, how we make those comparisons are central.
Comfort jumps from one topic to another in quick-fire succession, not really allowing his interviewees time to think and consider his arguments (not all of which are good or fair by any means). Also, even though he says people changed their minds (and admittedly, they said they did), we need to remember some principles of social psychology. When you have someone in your face who is aggressively interrogating you and you know they won't leave you alone until you agree with them, especially if you don't have a good argument in contrast, then you, too, might simply agree to get out of a situation. While some of the participants seemed truly moved, others seemed to be more annoyed.
I would be more curious to interview them months later to see if it stuck.
He also demonstrated a stereotypic proselytizing that is quite aggressive, emphasizing that someone will go to hell because they are a lying thief. Besides the fact that he does not define blasphemy accurately, this sort of approach has consistently been shown to not lead to lasting change. It's great for the moment to make a decision based on fear, but there is no presence of an individual being drawn to the amazing love of Christ.
Rather, Jesus is simply presented as a really good lawyer. We like to have them around us and on retainer, but we're not likely to be good friends with them...
What I would like to see in drawing people toward Christ and toward the reduction of abortions is not fear tactics and shame-based polarities, but rather toward love and appreciation for life in all forms and situations. It's about improving the world, not just avoiding sin.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Viewing the Bible Through Life Expectancy and Neurodevelopment
I was recently reading a book for a class I'm teaching. Part of it explored the changing life expectancy globally. Most people know that we have a much longer life expectancy now than ever before. What I think we often forget is how short it really used to be (and still is in certain parts of the world).
Here's a couple of stats from 1998 of life expectancy: Andorra: 83.47, Canada 79.56, Nigeria 41.00, Sierra Leone 37.00. That's a big of a discrepancy if I've ever seen one.
But this post isn't about public policy and public health. What I find interesting is looking at the life expectancy in years past. For the US, 77.2 was expected in 2001, 59.7 in 1930, and only 35.0 in 1789. That's a huge jump.
But then think about how life was in Jesus' time. I highly doubt medical care and lifestyle were better than 1789. I saw somewhere that 35ish was about the life expectancy is Jesus' time period.
The first thing this should impact is artistic depictions of Jesus and his disciples. They often appear to be in their 40s and 50s. I doubt it, just from the fact of life expectancy. Plus, biblical scholarship puts them far younger anyway.
And then Jesus dying at 33 doesn't make him seem so young, honestly. Not that that didn't minimize the sacrifice. These types of executions contributed to the lower expectancy.
However, beyond all of this, there are always questions about violence in the Bible. If we take life expectancy seriously, then we should pay attention to average ages. In 1800, the average American was 16 years old. He or she was 36.5 in 2000.
Let's see. Would the world be different being run by 16 year olds versus 36 year olds?
Plus, it is commonly known that the frontal lobes are not fully developed until around age 25. If you don't know the frontal lobes are responsible for executive functioning, like planning, judgment, self-control, etc.
So let's look back at the Bible in context. God is not talking to the modern American with the same education and amount of time to develop (and I'm not trying to imply we're better than those people in biblical times, by the way). God is talking to a people who are predominantly young with non-fully-developed brains. Suddenly, it makes a lot more sense to provide stricter, black-and-white rules that leave no room for ambiguity.
Laws needed to be quite directive because they were acting as the people's frontal lobes. We give our kids very absolute rules in order to protect them. As they get older, we nuance them more because they can handle it. Why do we view the Bible and God's rules any differently?
Here's a couple of stats from 1998 of life expectancy: Andorra: 83.47, Canada 79.56, Nigeria 41.00, Sierra Leone 37.00. That's a big of a discrepancy if I've ever seen one.
But this post isn't about public policy and public health. What I find interesting is looking at the life expectancy in years past. For the US, 77.2 was expected in 2001, 59.7 in 1930, and only 35.0 in 1789. That's a huge jump.
But then think about how life was in Jesus' time. I highly doubt medical care and lifestyle were better than 1789. I saw somewhere that 35ish was about the life expectancy is Jesus' time period.
The first thing this should impact is artistic depictions of Jesus and his disciples. They often appear to be in their 40s and 50s. I doubt it, just from the fact of life expectancy. Plus, biblical scholarship puts them far younger anyway.
And then Jesus dying at 33 doesn't make him seem so young, honestly. Not that that didn't minimize the sacrifice. These types of executions contributed to the lower expectancy.
However, beyond all of this, there are always questions about violence in the Bible. If we take life expectancy seriously, then we should pay attention to average ages. In 1800, the average American was 16 years old. He or she was 36.5 in 2000.
Let's see. Would the world be different being run by 16 year olds versus 36 year olds?
Plus, it is commonly known that the frontal lobes are not fully developed until around age 25. If you don't know the frontal lobes are responsible for executive functioning, like planning, judgment, self-control, etc.
So let's look back at the Bible in context. God is not talking to the modern American with the same education and amount of time to develop (and I'm not trying to imply we're better than those people in biblical times, by the way). God is talking to a people who are predominantly young with non-fully-developed brains. Suddenly, it makes a lot more sense to provide stricter, black-and-white rules that leave no room for ambiguity.
Laws needed to be quite directive because they were acting as the people's frontal lobes. We give our kids very absolute rules in order to protect them. As they get older, we nuance them more because they can handle it. Why do we view the Bible and God's rules any differently?
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
The Utter Absurdity of Inerrency @JohnPiper
On October 15, I saw someone retweet something John Piper tweeted: "The prophets give no evidence of ever using "um" or "ah". These are weak, learned fillers and can be unlearned for Christ."
Now, I'm hoping this was satirical, but I don't know. I haven't seen anyone else write about this post, so maybe it was humorous. However, I'm sure someone somewhere believes it. And it demonstrates the absurdity of an extreme inerrency model of the Bible.
For those unfamiliar with interpretation terms, inerrency is the view that the Bible is completely true in every word. The pure form of inerrency holds that it was dictated from God. Therefore, each word (in the original texts) is holy.
If the words really were dictated by God, then this makes sense. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this nor does it even make sense why God would approach Scripture this way.
In contrast, infallibility holds that the message of the Scriptures is true, while certain elements, like exact history or science, do not have to be completely accurate.
Of course, these are gross generalizations of each form, but for summary purposes, there you are.
Back to Piper's tweet. It takes the idea of the Bible being dictated absolutely literally. If it's dictated, and the prophets are the voice of God at the time, then the lack of "um" or "ah" would indicate they were not used by these holy people. However, there are a few problems with this. Most of the writings about the prophets are clearly not meant to be transcripts of their prophecies. Further, even modern transcripts, which would likely be more accurate than ancient ones just due to our ability to record and listen again, rarely include filler words and sounds. The transcript can be accurate and still leave things out.
And then just the judgment that they are weak is absurd. Since Moses had a speech problem, did that make him weak?
When we start worshiping the Bible rather than the Living God, we very quickly lose sight of the message of the Scripture and focus on debating such worthless things as filler words. And dedicate whole blog posts to them...
Now, I'm hoping this was satirical, but I don't know. I haven't seen anyone else write about this post, so maybe it was humorous. However, I'm sure someone somewhere believes it. And it demonstrates the absurdity of an extreme inerrency model of the Bible.
For those unfamiliar with interpretation terms, inerrency is the view that the Bible is completely true in every word. The pure form of inerrency holds that it was dictated from God. Therefore, each word (in the original texts) is holy.
If the words really were dictated by God, then this makes sense. However, there is absolutely no evidence of this nor does it even make sense why God would approach Scripture this way.
In contrast, infallibility holds that the message of the Scriptures is true, while certain elements, like exact history or science, do not have to be completely accurate.
Of course, these are gross generalizations of each form, but for summary purposes, there you are.
Back to Piper's tweet. It takes the idea of the Bible being dictated absolutely literally. If it's dictated, and the prophets are the voice of God at the time, then the lack of "um" or "ah" would indicate they were not used by these holy people. However, there are a few problems with this. Most of the writings about the prophets are clearly not meant to be transcripts of their prophecies. Further, even modern transcripts, which would likely be more accurate than ancient ones just due to our ability to record and listen again, rarely include filler words and sounds. The transcript can be accurate and still leave things out.
And then just the judgment that they are weak is absurd. Since Moses had a speech problem, did that make him weak?
When we start worshiping the Bible rather than the Living God, we very quickly lose sight of the message of the Scripture and focus on debating such worthless things as filler words. And dedicate whole blog posts to them...
Monday, October 24, 2011
My New Favorite Bible Translation @CommonEngBible @TBBMediaGroup @audrajennings
Ever since I got the Mosaic Bible two years ago, I have been a big fan of the NLT. However, the recently released Common English Bible has made me betray my beloved NLT and use the CEB primarily.
A lot has been written about the benefits of the CEB (and its downsides). Much of this has been written by scholars with much more education on the topic of translation than I have, so I'll direct toward those. However, what I can say is that it is quite useful. What I loved about the NLT was that it was easy to read while maintaining what I considered appropriate fidelity to the original texts. The CEB takes this a step further, really making the language accessible to people. While it is easy to read, it is also quite easy to listen to. It has been the primary translation used in our church for the last few months, and it has been quite appropriate for lectionary readings both as a group or individually.
Besides its pragmatic benefits, I like a lot of the philosophy behind the CEB. The fact that it was first released digitally (and free through YouVersion) shows that the publishers are really trying to interact with modern culture and also are not necessarily as focused on making a profit.
I like how it was developed interdenominationally and with laity through reading focus groups of people who approached it not only theologically but practically. Those who follow translations know that a very literally accurate translation may be quite unreadable to the modern English speaker...
The aspect of the CEB I appreciate the most is its break with using particular words all the time. As has been discussed elsewhere in the blogosphere and academia, language can lose meaning over time as we become numb to the power of particular words, especially religious words. Sometimes changing the word makes us pay attention to the passage and the meaning again. The CEB does this, not without controversy. However, I have found it to be helpful to re-engage the text and really explore what the Scriptures actually mean rather than what I assume them to mean based on preconceived notions of certain language.
If you haven't explored the CEB yet, I highly recommend you do. The physical Bibles themselves are pretty cheap, although again, it can be found for free digitally in some markets.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
A lot has been written about the benefits of the CEB (and its downsides). Much of this has been written by scholars with much more education on the topic of translation than I have, so I'll direct toward those. However, what I can say is that it is quite useful. What I loved about the NLT was that it was easy to read while maintaining what I considered appropriate fidelity to the original texts. The CEB takes this a step further, really making the language accessible to people. While it is easy to read, it is also quite easy to listen to. It has been the primary translation used in our church for the last few months, and it has been quite appropriate for lectionary readings both as a group or individually.
Besides its pragmatic benefits, I like a lot of the philosophy behind the CEB. The fact that it was first released digitally (and free through YouVersion) shows that the publishers are really trying to interact with modern culture and also are not necessarily as focused on making a profit.
I like how it was developed interdenominationally and with laity through reading focus groups of people who approached it not only theologically but practically. Those who follow translations know that a very literally accurate translation may be quite unreadable to the modern English speaker...
The aspect of the CEB I appreciate the most is its break with using particular words all the time. As has been discussed elsewhere in the blogosphere and academia, language can lose meaning over time as we become numb to the power of particular words, especially religious words. Sometimes changing the word makes us pay attention to the passage and the meaning again. The CEB does this, not without controversy. However, I have found it to be helpful to re-engage the text and really explore what the Scriptures actually mean rather than what I assume them to mean based on preconceived notions of certain language.
If you haven't explored the CEB yet, I highly recommend you do. The physical Bibles themselves are pretty cheap, although again, it can be found for free digitally in some markets.
Disclosure of Material Connection: I received this book free from the publisher. I was not required to write a positive review. The opinions I have expressed are my own. I am disclosing this in accordance with the Federal Trade Commission’s 16 CFR, Part 255: “Guides Concerning the Use of Endorsements and Testimonials in Advertising.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Questions?
