A couple of weeks ago I took the kids to the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York. The museum’s collection of encaustic paintings from the Roman period in Egypt caught my fancy. These lifelike paintings were placed over mummies, as was the one in my photo. The man pictured here lived in the first century A.D. Look into his eyes, at his little mustache — he’s a regular guy, just like me. He was as real a man as I am. And yet, he’s been gone from this life for nineteen hundred years. Life is short.
Author: David Opderbeck
The Narnia Movie
Today the family went to see The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe. I’m a huge Narnia fan, so my standards for this film were high. The film didn’t let me down. It is a fabulous, mostly faithful portrayal of the book. The acting and graphics are top-notch, and the characterizations are generally spot-on.
The one place where I felt just a bit — just a bit — let down is in the characterization of Aslan. In the books, Aslan clearly is a picture of Jesus, probably one of the most amazing and deep pictures of Jesus outside the gospels. For the most part, the film captured Aslan’s mix of kingly power and sacrificial love. There is one critical scene, however, where Aslan explains to the children that the White Witch does not know the “deeper magic” of Narnia. In the book, it’s clear that the “deeper magic” isn’t somehow “higher” than Aslan. In that one scene in the film, Aslan almost slips into some kind of panentheism — the “deeper magic” is kind of like “The Force” and Aslan is beholden to it. Later in the film, though, Aslan roars that he was “there when it [the deeper magic] was created,” bringing things more into line with a Christology drawn from John 1.
But that’s just a quibble. Go watch the film, it’s fabulous. And, if you haven’t done so, read the books. They are life changing.
I’m grading exams and don’t have much time to blog just now, but someone brought a fascinating article in the prestigious mainstream science journal Nature to my attention. The article discusses the anthropic principle and the limits of the scientific method. The anthropic principle, in brief, is that the universe appears to be fine-tuned for life as we know it. As the Nature article observes,
if you believe the equations of the world’s leading cosmologists, the probability that the Universe would turn out this way by chance are infinitesimal — one in a very large number. “It’s like you’re throwing darts, and the bullseye is just one part in 10120 of the dart board,” says Leonard Susskind, a string theorist based at Stanford University in California. “It’s just stupid.”
Historically, secular physicists and cosmologists have viewed this as “dumb luck.” Recent proposals relating to string theory, however, suggest that our universe may be one of billions of alternate universes, such that the unlikely anthropic coincidence arose essentially inevitably as a result of the law of large numbers. String theory is hotly debated within scientific circles, however, both for substantive reasons (the math, which I would never pretend to understand, apparently is questionable), and because as the theory presently stands, it is not truly testable — in other words, it isn’t “science.”
Nevertheless, because the multiverse theory at least offers a non-supernatural hypothesis for the anthropic principle, some scientists are reluctant to abandon it as non-science. As one scientist interviewed for the Nature article put it, “It would be very foolish to throw away the right answer on the basis that it doesn’t conform to some criteria for what is or isn’t science.” In light of the discussions lately surrounding theology and science, this sounds familiar.
Because Nature doesn’t have free articles available for hyperlinking, in the spirit of “fair use” under the Copyright Act, I’m including the full text below.
Emerging Church and Epistemology
I’ve been participating in a conversation about the Emerging Church and epsitemology, one of my favorite subjects, at Vos Regnum Dei. The text of the conversation thus far is below. Some good stuff to chew over.
New Years' Resolutions
This is my first post as a proud member of Every Square Inch, a diverse group of faith bloggers who have joined together to share their thoughts and opinions.
I’m not one for New Years’ resolutions. I think this is because I know myself too well. I’m an obsessive-compulsive sort of guy who dives all-guns into something until something else catches my attention. I know that if I resolve to do something now, I might pursue it for a month or so, but I’ll soon lose enthusiasm. I don’t want to cheapen my “resolve” by spending it on things I’m not really resolved to do.
I’ve also lived through too many uncertain circumstances recently to place much value on my own resolve. A few years ago, I was a partner in a major law firm. Through a series of events I never would have predicted or wanted, I left that prestigious job to become a lowly college professor — a job I love, but a job that is dramatically different than what I did as a practicing lawyer. Within the past year, my otherwise healthy little boy began having seizures, and his speech has not developed much beyond babbling. Just two months ago, I was the principal worship leader in a service with over 600 people. Last month, the music director resigned, the ministry was thrown into chaos, and my own role in the ministry has dwindled to almost nothing.
Life moves more swiftly and powerfully than my resolve. I saw a video clip a few days ago from the recent Asian tsunami. There was footage of a man standing on the beach, leaning towards the onrushing wave. He couldn’t do anything at that point but lean forward and brace for impact. With the force of that wave, his resolution certainly did nothing for him, and he undoubtedly died.
Life is like that, even more so if we have some glimmer of the “powers and principalities” with which we contend. None of us has the resolve to stand firm. But the Church will stand, and prevail. The victory of Christ and his bride is sure, even when my resolve falters.
Yes, there are many things I hope to accomplish this year. I hope to continue a reading program in the Church fathers; I hope to gain a more complete, nuanced understanding of issues relating to faith and science, without slacking on either the faith or the science; I hope to write some meaningful music; I hope to find my way into an even richer ministry role than I had before; I hope to love my wife and children passionately; I hope to publish some good academic work; I hope to find my way into another graduate program, maybe a Ph.D.; I hope my writing and blogging will become more meaningful and edifying. But this is deeper than all my resolutions: to cast myself this year upon the Grace of Christ, to take refuge in his Church, and to find my true hope and home in him.
Titus, Purity and Leadership
The Dawn Treader and I started a series on Titus a while ago, which has been proceeding, shall we say, at a leisurely pace. A recent event brought Titus back to my attention.
I learned this week of a leader in a prominent evangelical church who revealed over the holidays that he has been carrying on a secret adulterous affair for many years. (No, it isn’t the guy you’re thinking of, it’s that other guy, and it isn’t the church your thinking of, it’s that other church đŸ˜‰ ). Unfortunately, this is a recurring problem in churches all around the country.
We often are drawn to leaders who are smart, attractive, accomplished in business, wealthy, or “conservative” in appearance and demeanor. The first thing God requires in a leader, however, is purity. In fact, Titus 1:6-9 tells us twice that church leaders must be “blameless”:
An elder must be blameless, the husband of but one wife, a man whose children believe and are not open to the charge of being wild and disobedient. Since an overseer is entrusted with God’s work, he must be blameless—not overbearing, not quick-tempered, not given to drunkenness, not violent, not pursuing dishonest gain. Rather he must be hospitable, one who loves what is good, who is self-controlled, upright, holy and disciplined.
Anyone who seeks to be “blameless” in our culture knows this is difficult. I know from my own perspective as a man how sin constantly assaults us. Sometimes the only thing we can do is follow the example of Joseph when he was tempted by Potiphar’s wife: run. Look away. End the conversation. Terminate the pleasant little fantasy. Close your eyes and pray for help. It’s a lie. Call it a lie and leave it.
I know many men are trapped in addictions that make advice like this sound trite. For those men, this may be trite, and sustained professional help and support is needed. Have the courage to ask for forgiveness and help — you will find it. For those who find themselves wavering, though, the first step is simple: run.
May God keep us blameless and bless His Church and its leaders.
Altschuler Again
Pointer: some more challenging discussion of Kitzmiller by Al Altschuler at U Chicago Law.
I hate to post again about the Kitzmiller case, as I don’t want to become the “intelligent design law blog.” But, I feel it’s necessary to correct some misinformation that’s being spread about the case on some advocacy sites like Panda’s Thumb. The misinformation is that it was “essential” for Judge Jones to provide a detailed explanation of what constitutes “science” in order to decide the establishment clause issues in the case. Judge Jones made reference to this on pages 63-64 of the Opinion where he states:
…we will offer our conclusions on whether ID is science not just because it is essential to our holding that an Establishment Clause violation has occurred, but also in the hope that we it prevent the obvious waste of judicial and other resources which would be occasioned by a second trial involving the precise question which is before us.”
Some uninformed commentators, including those at Panda’s Thumb, have concluded from this comment that case law or practice in the Third Circuit (the federal court circuit in which the Pennsylvania federal trial courts sit) in fact compelled Judge Jones to examine this issue in detail. This is patently wrong.
New Song Draft
Here’s a rough sketch of a new song, Bound for Glory. It’s a Texas two-step using the new country drum loops Santa brought me. Much of it is a complete mess, the ending is a disaster at this point, but I think it’s going to end up being a fun and singable tune.
Just a heads up and a place holder — Al Altschuler at U. Chicago Law has another challenging post about the Kitzmiller decision. Altschuler explores some of the philosophy of science questions that should be the focus of this debate and were largely glossed over by the Kitzmiller court.
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays everyone!