Why The Surprise?

Sunday's New York Times had an article on some churches' use of Halo during youth group activities that left me disappointed. It was the standard article on violence in video games with a religious twist thrown in to give it some flavor, but the end result turned out to be just as bland as ever. The one thing that struck me, however, was the author's apparent surprise that evangelicals would tolerate violence in their entertainment.

In my mind, this surprise permeates the subtext of the article. To begin with, the lede itself sounds like an opening to an opinion piece critiquing a behavior inconsistent with church doctrine: "First the percussive sounds of sniper fire and the thrill of the kill. Then the gospel of peace." Even the headline sounds out a caustic rebuke: "Thou Shalt Not Kill, Except in a Popular Video Game at Church." The rest of the article continues in a more neutral manner with quotes from both sides of the argument, but even here I felt like his bias was showing as the only argument he found for using violent video games all seemed to boil down to "The end justifies the means." Implicit in these "the end justifies the means" quotes is the possibility that the means are actually wrong.

But why this surprise at finding evangelicals supporting entertainment that has a heavy dose of violence? Since when have evangelicals been completely opposed to violence in every way, shape and form? Was not the success of The Passion of the Christ due to evangelical Christian support? There's a movie filled with violence, brutality, and gore. Of course, there was a point to the violence, so maybe the violence in Halo lacks meaning or purpose. However, the author points out that "the hero’s chief antagonists belong to the Covenant, a fervent religious group that welcomes the destruction of Earth as the path to their ascension." In other words, the purpose of the violence in Halo is wrapped up in a war for survival. Well, then no need to be surprised here that evangelicals see nothing wrong with the violence in Halo. The New York Times itself has repeatedly pointed to evangelical support for the "War on Terror" in Iraq and Afghanistan. Now I know one version of Halo's multiplayer game involves the heroes shooting each other, but I'm not seeing how this is anything other than a virtual game of paintball. The guys in my church youth group would often get together to go paintballing, and there's no cry of outrage over that. Again, my purpose is not to put together a defense of playing Halo at church but merely to question why one would be surprised based solely on the grounds that it contains violence.

Searching Science For Meaning

On Oct. 3, 2007 a debate took place between noted atheist Richard Dawkins and Christian mathematician John Lennox. This reflection comes after having only listed to the start of that debate when both men gave a brief biographical account. Professor Dawkins made a statement that intrigued me: "I wanted to know why we're all here, what is the meaning of life, why does the universe exist, why does life exists? That's what drew me to science."

I wonder how those questions could have drawn him to science, or at least how science could have sustained such an attraction after a cursory introduction. They seem better suited for philosophy or theology rather than scientific inquiry. Proponents of Evolutionary Theory often state that science grants understanding of how life and the universe came into existence, but not necessarily why. Using this claim they denounce Intelligent Design saying that it answers the why question and not the how and is therefore not scientific. The question "why", as it relates to finding meaning within life and the universe, implies a reason or purpose which in turn requires some sort of being/agent behind it all, a primary mover if you will. Of course if there is no meaning to life, no reason why the universe exists, then the possibility that God does not exist opens up. However, if one is looking for meaning — that presupposes a creator with a purpose.

I have not finished the whole debate, nor have I read any of Professor Dawkins's books, but from the little of the debate I have heard, he has not given up on finding the meaning of life or knowledge of why the universe exists. He seems to think that science still holds these answers, and that, while not everything has been fully accounted for, science has made great strides in answering these questions using natural explanations. I am wondering how this is so given the previous paragraph. Science may have given us natural explanations on how the universe developed and came into existence, but I can't see how it can give us a reason for why it came into existence.

If science, or any discipline for that matter, is to even speculate at the reason behind the existence of the universe it is left with two broad options: 1) There is no reason. 2) For whatever reason its creator had. Either option does not present an obstacle to science. If there is a creator who created the universe with a purpose in mind, science can still try and investigate how that process worked. The scientific theory of evolution poses no problems for proponents of this second option. In other words Evolutionary Theory and Intelligent Design Theory can be both held at the same time, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Please not that I have refrained from plotting my own position on the continuum running from Theistic Young-Earth Creationism to Atheistic Evolutionism. That debate must be left for another blog and another time.

New Look, New Determination

So, it's been two years and two days since my last post, and yet I've decided to give it another go.  The first thing I did was completely revamp the look of the site as it looked dreadfully like it was created in 1999.  I'm fully aware this means this site has looked outdated since it's conception, but as Blogger's capabilities have grown, so have my CSS skills.  The new design is much more satisfying to me, but I will probably continue to tweak it for some time to get every last detail right.  Please feel free to leave suggestions in this post's comments section on how I can improve the site.

The second thing I did was decide that I will post a minimum of once a week.  This will, I hope, attract actual readers and produce meaningful dialogue.  Suggestions for topics are always welcome, but I have turned on comment moderation because I wish to maintain a high level of respect and decorum on this blog.  With all this in mind, I hope to have my first real post up in the next few days.

Judges 2:6-3:6

Continuing with our Judges series, the next section sets the stage for the rest of the book (and possible the rest of Israelite history). The text says that after the last of those who had been brought out of wandering had died, a generation of Israelites arose that did not know the LORD or what He had done and were wicked, serving Baal and Ashtoreth. In His anger, God sends raiders to plunder and enslave them. Later, God sends judges to save them, but the Israelites do not listen to the judges, continuing to serve other gods, and after the judges die, the Israelites become even more wicked then before.

Seems to set the stage for a recurring pattern:

1. The Israelites failed to keep the covenant
2. The Lord leaves Canaanites around to test them
3. The Israelites forsake God and He is angry
4. God subjects Israelites to their enemies
5. God raises up a judge to deliver and fight for Israel
6. All is good until the judge dies
7. After judge's death, the people are more wicked.
8. Goto 3

There are a couple of interesting things to note. First, by breaking the covenant and worshiping other gods, the Israelites "provoked the LORD to anger" and the LORD, in His anger allows their enemies to plunder, enslave, and defeat them "just as he had sworn to them" (Judges 2:12-15, emphasis mine). Here, it does not seem like the motive for handing the Israelites over to defeat was anger, but keeping his promises. Anger may have been part of the motivation, but the question is whether "in his anger" means "because he was angry" or just simply "while he was angry." Either way, it is clear that the judgement being passed on Israel was precisely what God promised would pass if they broke the covenant. So, because God is just, and possibly because he is angry, the Israelites are oppressed by their enemies.

The second thing to note is that God decides not to drive out all the Canaanites, but to leave some behind to teach and to test Israel. The Israelites disobeyed, so God will not drive out the Canaanites, but the text gives two other reasons for leaving the Canaanites: 1) To teach the Israelites warfare, and 2) To test the Israelites' (continual?) obedience.

Now I come to the "so what?" of my discourse, and I must admit I'm at a loss. The author of Judges seems to be setting us up with a general picture for how the rest of the book will play out. Maybe it is in the specific histories of each of the cycles that there is a message the author is trying to convey. I don't think the author of Judges is just writing history for history's sake, and I think there is more to it than just a general warning to keep God's commandments, there's more to it than that.


[[Update]]

Oppression in the Promised Land.

The Israelites had finally made it to the land God had promised to give to them and their descendants. They go forth to conquer the land, just as God had told them, and they have some great success. Then they begin to have some terrific failures. Some of disobeyed God, and now God was no longer going to help them drive out all the Canaanites from the Promised Land. The Canaanites would, at times, be a thorn in their side, or at other times, their ruler or oppressor. The Israelites are finally in the Promised Land, but life is not going swimmingly all the time. There is trouble in paradise and what we have a a picture of the life of a people with only partially fulfilled promises. The land is mostly theirs, but they can't continually enjoy it. Something is wrong, the covenant has been broken, but is there still hope that it will be renewed and fulfilled? What is Israel's purpose? Is the kingship suppose to be the future hope of Israel?