Super-Freak Christians!

I have been struggling with my identity as a Christian. Not so much if I am a Christian (I think I am, I think I am, I think I am…), but more what kind of Christian I am. Here are some options that are before me:

Progressive Christian

Liberal Christian

Conservative Christian

Fundamentalist Christian

Bible Believing Christian

Evangelical Christian

Progressive Evangelical Christian

Emerging Progressive Evangelical Christian

Orthodox Christians

Neo-Orthodox Christians

Annoying Christians

Shouting, Annoying Christians

Etc…

As you can see there are a lot of options before me. The struggle is that I don’t feel like fully I identify with any of these labels. I come out of a progressive background but I have eschewed much of that tradition (but not all so don’t freak out). I am part of a traditionally evangelical movement, but I’m not welcome in many of those circles unless I do not mention certain things (guess what those things might be). The emergent folks make me feel squeamish, self-conscious, and a little to gimmicky. Plus I never like a worship service where you might be asked to take off your shoes and worship in your socks or barefoot .

Fellow theologian (although he is a professional!) and friend Scott Paeth posted this comment on the Facebook recently

So my question is: If I no longer feel at home among "normal" mainline Christians, and I can't take self-identified evangelicals, where's the church for the freaks?

For me Scott hit the nail on the head – where is the church for the freaks?

I have recently been listening to some HomebrewedChristianity podcasts which are ok and which also have piqued my thoughts and struggles on the topic of identity. They offer a podcast that claims to be for progressive Christians but overall something seems to be amiss. It may be the flagrant use (and misuse) of culture. For example, I heard that there will be a show about how pirates can offer us a good example of discipleship because they were working class folks rising up against the rich. Maybe, but they were also robbers, murderers, and overall troublemakers. This is an example of letting culture guide one’s theology to one’s determent. Or it is because there is such an effort to shock people with ideas that really aren’t very shocking, or to critique tried and true tropes of mainline Christianity which seem to be tired. Honestly I can’t say just what it is, but something jars me.

It feels like sloppy theology.

I think this is what bothers me; sloppy theology. I guess that is why I have taken the name “theosnob” for this blog. My experience of progressive Christians is that the theology is based primarily on experience, on making sure no one’s feelings are hurt, and thus the theology is sloppy. On the other hand, I can’t find a place to belong with the conservative’s theology – it may not be sloppy, it is just wrong (can I say that? Sure, it is my blog after all). So I’m with Dr. Scott looking for the freaks – the people who believe the gospel is for everyone, who believe that God’s love is for everyone, and at the same time want to be sure to have a well thought out, consistent theology that does not sacrifice core understandings of Christianity for the sake of inclusivity (for example holding to the ideas that means all roads do not lead to the same God, that all religions are not basically the same, and that the Trinity is an important, basic part of Christian faith and doctrine).

Something like this may emerge in different ways – these are our freak flags. Many like to embrace the high-church traditions and rituals. I don’t think we have to become a church that gets all prettied up with liturgical garb unless that is your freak flag. Mine is an evangelical language with a broader, non-atonement focused theology than one might normally find in an evangelical church. That is my freak flag so far. I am calling all other freak Christians to speak out, to say who they are without apology and to be articulate and clear without holding back.

Its time to let our freak flags fly!

With Those Prices He Must Be Insane!

I'm contemplating a different kind of evangelism than what I am doing now. Let me explain my brilliant, aggressive evangelism that I am currently involved with. I sit and work at coffee shops, I don't tell people that I am a pastor unless they ask, and then I don't push any ideas or extend any kind of invitation. If someone actually wants to ask me a question I answer but don't engage for further conversation. This is good, solid New England evangelism that produces maybe 1 person a year to the church (with a margin of error of 3). 

I have been contemplating a different kind of evangelism because I don't think what I am doing is working. Sure, a lot of people know who I am, but I don't know if folks feel comfortable approaching me with "religious stuff."

I saw an article on Facebook a couple of weeks ago about some Episcopalians who stand in front of their church and offer to pray with people on the street. Sorry, I don't have the link, so take my word for it.

Here is what I am thinking. Putting up a sign that says:

Free Prayers - Written or Spoken

My hope is folks will be interested in such a sign and might ask a question or engage in some way or another. On the other hand, I may end up in a conversation with a crazy, conservative, fundamentalist nut. Or, people may see me as a crazy, conservative, fundamentalist nut. This would not be good.

Christianity is supposed to have a presence in the world; in part that is why the buildings look different than the rest of "normal" architecture. This does not mean I should go around with my arms over my head pretending to be a steeple. Instead, there is something about engaging the world and at the same time holding onto your identity as odd as that may look.

I am very much in the world, but I don't know if I am interjecting into the world in a way that lets people know who I am. Plus, who wouldn't want a free prayer?

So those of you in Rhode Island, keep an eye out for someone who might be offering free prayers - I wonder if this would reduce worship attendance if people did not have to attend church to receive prayers?

I Like Everybody (As Long as They are Just Like Me)

This morning I woke up with a strong sense of determination to write a post for my blog. Yet I did not know what to write. Everything I'm reading is a little too esoteric (meaning I can't understand what I am reading), and I haven't seen enough to grab my attention. Luckily I came across the following article on the NPR website:

Fears About Shariah Law Take Hold in Tennessee

Wow! It is like an answer to my prayers, if I ever really found myself praying to God for a blog post inspiration  There are so many things to say about this story.

First, the dentist and anti-Shariah law activist Lee Douglas points to a Muslim woman being hired by the governor as evidence of an "infiltration" of Islam into the Tennessee government. Douglas claims that Islam is directly opposed to his faith (which I am assuming is Christian). Here is the kicker quote from Douglas:

"I don't want anybody to persecute any religion including Islam, but we have a duty as Americans to understand that they intend to take us over and compel us to become Islamic."

Douglas claims that, "government is showing a deference and is accommodating one single religion - Islam, Shariah." According to the NPR article, Douglas continued to say that deference should be shown to the religion of the country's Founding Fathers.

Wow. And again I say, Wow. There are so many things to say about just this one person's thoughts and ideas. First, I would never want him to be my dentist. Not because he is Christian or conservative, but mostly because he is an idiot.

Let's start with the constitution and the idea of deference. Just in case you weren't aware the First Amendment states:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…" (for the full text see the following link)

I may be missing something, but I don't see anything in there about showing "deference" to any religion. The point of the clause is that the government will not favor one religion over another. Thus the government should not be showing deference to the "religion of the country's Founding Fathers." For this post I'm not going to get into the question of the what the Founding Fathers faith might be considering the diversity of the religious backgrounds of the Founding Fathers (Quaker, Catholic, Baptist, Anglican, Diest, Methodist, etc., along with a strong backing of a Jewish congregation). 

Second, allowing someone to build a place of worship is not showing deference to that group.

Third is the gem of the quote that Douglass made, "I don't want anybody to persecute any religions…" and at the same time criticize the governor just because he hired a Muslim woman. So Douglass is ok with Muslims as long as they do not have a place to worship and they are not allowed to hold any government jobs. Seems rational, right?

Douglas also believe that Islam is "diametrically opposed to his faith." Islam, a Monotheistic faith finding its roots in the Hebrew scriptures, specifically Abraham is diametrically opposed to Christianity, a monotheistic faith finding its roots in the Hebrew scriptures, including Abraham.

Maybe Douglas doesn't understanding the meaning of words like "diametrically opposed," and "persecution."

One other reflection from the article. Further on in the article we read how Rep. Diane Black was pressured to show her toughness against Shariah law. She states:

"I understand the devastation that Shariah law could mean here in our country, and I'm a sponsor of a bill that will once again say that the United States Constitution is our law and that it is the supreme law." It is that phrase, "supreme law," that bothers me.

If you are not a religious person, then such a phrase should not cause any problems, but if you are a believer of some kind and practice with some kind of tradition then you should be a worried about such a statement. The phrase "supreme law" suggests that it is above any and all other laws. This means it is above any religious laws including scripture. If you are really a Christian, and I wonder if these people who make such claims really are, then you would want at least the two great commandments to be the "supreme law"

Love the Lord you God with all your heart, mind, and soul

Love your neighbor as yourself (Mark 12:29-31)

Secular, constitutional law is good to have as a law of the land but not the "supreme law." Constitutional law is a law that people of various faith traditions can find agreement, but it is not the "supreme law."

I think I might push for a law that states that all people who push a law against Shariah law be forced to take lessons in grammar, world religions, and vocabulary.

 And they can't be dentists.

Down With Bumperstickers!

I hate bumper stickers. I hate the in-your-face way they try to push or say something, the way they show that the driver has "attitude" or "morals" or "a sense of appropriate balance between quilting and not taking quilting too seriously." These aspects of bumperstickers are annoying but not what I hate the most about bumper stickers. What I hate most is the idea that a short statement is all one needs to express one's belief, faith, ideals, or position with an argument. It is as if all arguments occur via bumper stickers:

Christ Saves!

Darwin will eat the Christian Fish

The Truth of Christ will eat Darwin

Why can't we all "CoExist"

Warning, in case of rapture the car will lose its driver

Do you see the argument in that?

Stickers like, "Guns don't kill people, people kill people," "End(less) War," "Let's Take our Nation Back," and "Abortion Kills" states broad, general statements that miss some important, key aspects of any debate:

NUANCE!

(if you put something in all caps then I'm yelling, and what better way to get across the idea of nuance then to yell it.)

If you think about it, none of these bumpersticker statements really say anything; they make broad, absurd claims that need to be unpacked to be understood. I would love to stop someone who has a "Jesus Saves" bumper sticker and ask, "Saves what? What does it mean to be saved? Who is Jesus? How do you know? Why should I care?" and so on. Obviously this goes for the political rhetoric as well. 

I have recently been reading The Meeting of East and West by F.S.C. Northrop (1946). While it is a book that is older than my parents there are some great statements concerning politics in there. In the interest of nuance I would like to state them:

Democracy… if it is to function and preserve itself must be accompanied by two conditions. The first of these was emphasized by its founders and is one of the highest fruits of democratic cultures. .. The first requirement is universal education. The second is that this education must concern itself not merely with applied science and literature and art and practical matters but also with man's [sic] basic beliefs concerning the nature of himself and his universe.

Northrop continues:

For if the inquiry with respect to the latter matters is not pursued, it is inevitable, as the increase in man's scientific knowledge alters the traditional scientific and philosophical doctrines concerning the nature of man and his universe,… that the people will be left without any knowledge or appreciation of the importance of these [politics, morality, religion, etc.] matters.

Finally:

Then emphasis upon the traditional, outmoded, moral, religious, and political sentiments will become a positive menace, preventing man from making the reconstruction in his sense of values…

(Meeting of East and West, 1946, p.101)

Naturally I had to cut a lot, so there is even more nuance missing. If you didn't feel like reading the three sections, the bumper sticker summary would be:

Learn to read long, complicated, nuanced passages!

So please, lay off the bumper stickers dealing with faith, theology, politics, philosophy, etc. Let's try to actually talk to each other, listen, and take the time to understand the varieties of different positions.

In other words: Down with bumper stickers! 

I think I'll put that on my car.

The Movie was Better than the Book

I haven’t ranted about a book in a while and I don’t want people to think I am not reading any more. I just finished Irving Singer’s book, Cinematic Mythmaking: Philosophy in Film. I got into the book with a friend of mine hoping to find some profound, radical philosophical ideas and thoughts in film. Maybe Singer would point out how Kant’s categorical imperative shows up as a norm of ethics in more movies than many have realized. Or maybe he would consider Nietzsche’s übermensch as a major them/model for the protagonist. Or, considering the title of the book, he would look at some of the cultural anthropologists like Eliade, Frazer, or Weber and how symbols/themes/structures are used to convey certain myths of our society through film. This is what I was hoping.

Unfortunately this is not what I found. I won’t say Singer’s work is bad or weak, but I won’t say that it is a strong work either. Most of the work seemed to analyze scenes of the films discussed, symbolism and the like. When he spoke of mythology it was more of creating a reality in the film and inviting the audience into that reality. This is just a technique of film, not really mythmaking.

Perhaps it would have been helpful if Singer explained what he meant by “myth,” which he never did. In my understanding, a myth is a story or an explanation that speaks to a certain held truth of a community. A myth need not be a false or made up story, although at times it is. When we think of myths our collective imagination usually turns to the Greek and Roman deity stories. These are stories that speak to a collectively shared truth of the community. An example of a myth that pervades today might be:

All politicians are lying, selfish individuals who do not care about making things better.

This isn’t true, not all politicians are like this, yet it speaks to a shared truth of our culture. We have a shared distrust of politicians as well as a shared cynicism towards the political system. Rather than speaking to each and every experience that may lead someone to such distrust and cynicism we tell a story about politicians to ground our “truth.” They are all crooked. This is the myth. It may be true or it may not, but it speaks to a shared truth.

Singer could have made this point, and could have argued that the movies speak to the transformation of a person from one point in their life to another. There is a lot of fertile ground to be found in such a premise. The myth may be something like:

“A significant life-experience can lead to a change wherein the individual will be different and yet maintain essential aspects of his or her character after the fact.”

Nice and convoluted, huh. The movies that Singer discusses speak to such a change and to a degree speak to such a myth. We could consider existential philosophers such as Camus, or Kierkegaard, or others.

This could have been a good book, but in the end it was so-so. In other words, “meh.”

Here is a list of the major movies discussed in the book:

The Lady Eve

My Fair Lady

Pygmalion

Vertigo

The Heiress

Washington Square

La Belle et la Bete

The Testament of Orpheus

2001: A Space Odyssey

8 ^½ 

DCY2 - The Summary?

I have failed as a blogger for this week. One week in Washington D.C. and only two posts to show for it. On the bright side, I have posted a number of pictures on Facebook in “realtime” giving people the illusion that they are experiencing the journey with us.

Part of the reason for the dearth of posts was the dynamics of the youth group this year. We had a larger group which called for more energy and attention in the evening. It is difficult to write brilliant musings when people constantly ask questions like:

Can we go to ‘fro-yo’?

What are we doing for supper?

Can we go to Target?

Should we change our clothes?

When the museums close?

Can we go to fro-yo?

How long until we leave?

Where are we going to eat tonight?

Can we go to fro-yo?

As you can see, these questions are tantalizing, profound, and thought provoking. I don’t think it would be possible for anyone to have cogent, lucid thoughts when considering such important existential questions.

Since I am currently on the train on the way home and only have to deal with the wonderful antics of four adolescents sitting across from me I should be able to focus and write something profound.

Overall I would say it was a very good week. Everyone worked hard, were very responsible, and I am glad to say that I am proud of the youth. The dynamics of the kids was very different. The staff was together, organized, and it showed. The kids were much easier to work with. One of the many observations that I made was concerning unchurched children. I was teaching about Jesus and the idea of life-giving water and the kids (ages 10-12) were having a difficult time understanding what Jesus was talking about. Again and again the kids thought Jesus had some kind of water that would quench any thirst and would keep anyone from ever being thirsty again. I tried to explain in the little time I had about forgiveness and the grace of God through Jesus but it was something that was not connecting with the kids. First, the kids were convinced that they did not do something wrong every day. They told me, in all sincerity, that there were days when they would do nothing wrong. How am I supposed to explain the life-giving water of Christ when the do not even think that they are thirsty? This does beg the question – maybe they aren’t thirsty at all, maybe I am pushing a sense of guilt on them that doesn’t necessarily exist. I think this is a good and realistic question to ask and one that we should ask ourselves.

I only got to spend a week with the kids, so I can’t say if any of them are or are not perfect. I can say that just about all of them were “scolded” in one way or another every day. I also can safely say that everyone I know, including myself, screws up in one way or another every day. It may be about desiring forgiveness (or at least wanting to do better) that leads to a thirst. Regardless, it is not easy to try to introduce Christ to kids who have no community connection at all.

With all that said, everything went well. Kids were doing flips in the pool and no one was hurt. We ran backwards races and no one fell or stepped on dog poop. Kids were given knives to help cook and no one lost an appendage. It was a good week.

Maybe we will go back next year, but first I need to survive this train ride. Is it possible to leave a youth in New Haven CT?

Enjoy some pictures:

DCY2 - The Saga Continues... in Good Spirit?

I’m sure many are looking at this blog and wondering, “what happened to the DC team?” I have not been able to write any  posts in two whole days, and I am sure people are beginning to worry. Well, let me assuage your fears – we did not get abducted by the CIA or the FBI, nor were we carried off by angry, giant cockroaches (we gave the cockroaches the children first). We have been active, very active, and it has been good.

Monday is normally the worst day of every camp that I have done because people are getting used to each other, learning the ropes, seeing what does and does not work, etc. I have to say that this Monday things went well. Everyone from the youth group fit into their role, found a way to help, and kept the program going smoothly. The summer staff has been doing a great job because it is clear that the kids know what they can and cannot do, what is expected to them, etc. It went very well. Now I am expecting that things get worse and worse because I can only assume that the kids put up a front to relax our defenses. Then, when we least expect it – bang! – bad behavior reigns (isn’t that similar to what the Trojans did?).

Tuesday people went to the zoo (I didn’t go to the zoo because I was needed to play Candy Land, lose at Horse, and heat up sandwiches). Those who went to the zoo got to observe kids in their natural habitat – walking uphill – and heard their defensive cries of whining and complaining. Fascinating!

After the day was over we went to see a bunch of monuments, got separated, and walked the distance of two marathons (at least it felt that way).

So far everyone is doing very well. I’m very proud of our youth – they are wonderful with the kids. Today, however, we are going bowling which includes a 45 minute train ride with the kids. I hope one is injured on this trip (intentionally or unintentionally); I will be amazed. I guess you would say a trip with no incidents would be a “hole in one”!

There are some pictures on the church facebook page.

DC Year 2 - The Arrival!

We came back! As hard as it is to believe we returned for another round of working with kids and having fun at the National Memorial BaptistChurch. There are some returning from the previous year and others for whom this is their first year, so we have a nice mix of kids.

So far things have gone fairly well. The train ride went smoothly. Well, actually it was very bumpy, but there were not any problems. For the first time I had the great opportunity to enjoy Wi-Fi on the train, and then I got the opportunity to complain about the slow Wi-Fi on the train. How quickly we get a sense of entitlement.

Once again a group of us took the subway from the train station to the church, but this time all of the escalators were working and we knew where we were going, so we did not have any problems. Maybe next time.

There is a different feel with the group this time. We are a little larger, and we have some people with what we will call frenetic energy. I don’t think this is a good or a bad thing, just different and it is something I am going to have to adjust to.

I have already noticed how the veterans have a desire to reclaim and recreate the experience from the previous year (myself included). To some degree this is good, but it is not a habit that I think we should embrace. Those who are new bring new ideas, new vision, and a different kind of energy which can be good. So I will have to work to create a space where this new and different energy can be shared and can take a part in shaping the group. New and different can be good.

I bet there is some kind of lesson for churches embedded somewhere in this reflection. If I just squint and look closely at the screen, then maybe I’ll be able to see it.

Life Will Go On

I’m trying to write a deep, profound blog-post in one of my coffee shops, but the television behind me is blearing the recent news about the NCAA sanction of Penn State. It is a lot of whining and crying about how it isn’t fair, how we don’t know the whole story, etc., etc. I am also hearing a lot of crying about how this is going to drastically hurt the football program at Penn State.

What about the people who were abused – I’m sure it will take more than four years for them to recover, if they ever do.

I just heard that they really “destroyed” the program. Again, think of the victims and how they have been destroyed.

What I think we are finding out is that we are dealing with humans who have been made more than human. I don’t mean only Paterno although he had his own part to play in this mess. I mean the institution itself. The mighty Penn State institution screwed up and needs to be responsible for that mess. The NCAA screwed up and needs to be responsible for that mess. Our society has screwed up and needs to take some responsibility for that mess. Unfortunately I don’t think we will make any progress on the fault of society – we will continue to idolize the sports franchise and create a culture where such atrocities can occur.

The reaction speaks to the lack of progress that we will have as a society. The NCAA and Penn State are trying to do what they can to change things so such a scandal will never happen again, but people are crying out that their beloved ritual and religion will be hurt, scarred, and “destroyed.” Come on, people, it is only a game.

I'm Free to be Me, You're Not

United States Council of Catholic Bishops is crying “foul” when itcomes to religious liberty.

How the worm turns.

Perhaps that isn’t the best way to start, perhaps it isn’t fair, but I find it so very ironic that the U.S. Conference of Bishops is having a fast/vigil for the sake of religious freedom. Wasn’t the Roman Catholic Church the very institution that argued, fought, died, and killed so that countries would be only Catholic (like Spain, France, Italy, and other places). It was Catholicism (along with others) who argued that the crazy American experiment of separation between church and state would be dangerous because then people would be running around in loincloths kissing trees, shaking hands with monkeys, and treating indigenous people with respect. The representatives of this very institution is now crying out that it’s religious liberty is under attack. Maybe that isn’t very fair. It has not been a long time since those days of religious conquest, 200 years. In the scope of 2,000 years that is not a long time.

Catholicism did not embrace religious liberty quickly. It was only in the 1960s when John Courtney Murry (a Jesuit) was the sittingexpert in Vatican II for matters of Religious Liberty and was very instrumental in penning Dignitatis Humanae. Even then his ideas were not well liked by many in the hierarchy.

John F. Kennedy had to convince the American people that if elected president he would not be a puppet for the Pope (a Pope Puppet… buy it now!).

Roman Catholicism does not have a long, rich, history of being involved with religious liberty. Now the U.S. bishops are crying oppression and I would argue that they are crying foul wrongly. Yet maybe because they are still new with this religious liberty thing they can be understood for their errors.

This issue is over a health care mandate requiring employers to offer coverage for contraception and other sexual things – gasp! Note, the issue is not coverage for Viagra or any other ED drug but those things that the woman would use. They are hard and fast about this (pun intended).

Ok, the Bishops don’t like talking or thinking about lady parts and don’t want to cover those things with insurance (and they are following the bizarre encyclical Humanae vitae). Even though Catholic institutions stand in the pernicious place of being both a secular and religious institution, muddying up the issue, the Obama administration compromised. They offered to change the mandate for religious institutions and instead require that the insurance companies offer the coverage. Still the Bishops cry out that they are oppressed.

No, they aren’t. They do not have to cover the icky stuff any more so there is not any infringement of religious freedom. On the other hand, if Catholic institutions were to restrict women’s access to birth control and such then we do have an issue of oppression. Yet in this case it is the Church oppressing the individual. We would have a lack of freedom from religion.

Again, they are new at this so I can understand the Bishop’s confusion and misunderstanding of religious freedom under the disestablishment clause. However, if they are the ones who are supposed to be telling everyone else what to do, what to think, and how to pray, then perhaps they should take a moment, step off the politically shaped conservative platform, and try to reclaim what it means to be a religious institution.

It is a good thing not all American Catholics are as misguided as the USCB and that the Bishops do not speak for all Catholics in America. Right?

La, La, La, I Can't Hear You!

I recently watched this video about a Creationist Museum. Feel free to take the time to watch and enjoy:

Just in case you didn't watch (the pyrotechnics aren't as good as you would think), it is about an actual scientist (complete with British accent) going to a creationist museum in Kentucky. What I found interesting was the host's conversation with the "scientist" on staff at the museum. This is someone who has a PhD in something (we never find out where he got the PhD) who says he believes science until it goes against the bible. Thus even though all the signs and data of science suggest that the earth is billions of years old (or is it millions?) he believes the earth is about 6,000 years old and was created in six days because that is what the bible says. Obviously, according to him, we are missing something with our science.

So we have someone who chooses to "believe" science and at the same time to "believe" in a literal reading of scripture. My first reaction is to shout at this young upstart and say, "pick something because you can't have both!" Either he should be in the camp of science or the camp of biblical literalism, but not in both (note that I am not equating biblical literalism with Christianity... please, please, please note this).

Yet I ascribe to the tenets of science, as much as I understand them, while ascribing to an idea that there is a creator who is separate from us, who is concerned about us, etc. Scientifically, my faith is not logical and many would wonder if it is possible to hold both views together.

Yet my stance allows for the two to stand together in their own right. Granted some scientists would argue otherwise pointing to the illogic belief in a creator, but that is their stance and their issue. Such a stubborn, atheists stance is akin to the biblical literalist stance. For me science is just below faith (as it is for the creationist scientist), but my faith does not contradict or constrict science. The nice thing about faith, as I practice it, is that no matter what science says I can always posit a prime mover/creator a priori. There is always room for God.

The creationist, on the other hand, will restrict science when it goes against a literalist reading of scripture. His approach does not allow for both to stand together because one forces the other. Science is not free, nor is faith (because everything has to occur exactly as it is written in scripture).

If we want to stand in two worlds at the same time, I would argue that we need to find a way to do just that while allowing each to exist as freely as possible. That would make for good science and good theology.

Unfortunately the creationist is offering a stubborn, closed-minded view of scripture that offers neither good science or good theology.