Faith and Flying Objects

The UFO religion of Raëlism claims that humankind was created by a scientifically advanced group of beings from outer space, a theory that is discussed at length in Intelligent Design: Message from the Designers. Journalist and believer Anthony Grey contributed a forward that introduces this text and advocates for its veracity.

In this preface, Grey argues that Raëlism presents a more logical explanation for the creation and development of life on earth than the major world religions or Darwin’s theory of evolution. He claims that Raël “emphasiz[es] that all faiths and their historical traditions and cultures still deserve our respect” but that “they have become outdated” and in fact “testify obscurely to this newly revealed scientific reality” (xii). By describing the ideas of Raëlism as “scientific reality,” Grey already assumes their truth. Furthermore, he goes on to say that the “book sets out our past, present and future on a firm scientific basis” and creates a “new common-sense spirituality” (xii). With these claims, he again seems to be implying that this theory is based in fact and common sense when this does not really appear to be the case throughout the rest of the introduction. Grey later says, “As far as providing proof is concerned, however, Raël quotes the Elohim as saying that they are deliberately withholding any outright physical evidence that would support their revelations” (xvi). While this dictum from the Elohim would explain the lack of evidence for Raël’s assertions, it also seems a particularly convenient way to dismiss the absence of proof. Grey reports that the Elohim also say that “it is very important…that we consider all their final information without proof—the logic and rationality of what they have revealed effectively contains its own hallmark of truth” (xvi).

With this kind of directive, supposedly from the Elohim, I can’t help but think of Hebrews 11:1 and 3.

“Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

[…]

By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.”

Hebrews 11:1, 3 (NRSV)

This New Testament passage asserts the importance of faith, which, in the Christian faith, essentially acts as the believer’s proof of God’s existence and influence on the world. The request of Raëlism to consider the ideas “without proof” ultimately asks the same leap of faith of its followers. Thus, despite its claims of logic, science, and common sense, Raëlism is as without evidence as many other religious beliefs. With these considerations, can Grey really argue for Raëlism’s “firm scientific basis”?

Teaching the Literary Bible

As someone who attended public school in Texas for grades K through 12, it’s interesting to learn about the state mandate to include the Bible in high school education. My district must have been one of those that interpreted this bill by including information about the Bible in existing courses as I can remember, thinking back, learning about events in United States history such as the Great Awakening and comparing the Biblical flood account to that in The Epic of Gilgamesh in world history.

The idea of having elective classes on the Bible or religion in high schools is intriguing, and the potential difficulties and complications these classes could present in regard to the separation of church and state appear endless. However, an aspect of these classes that stuck out to me is how some might be taught as English/language arts electives, focusing on “literary features such as plot, themes, characterization and genre” (6). It could be beneficial to view this text as a piece of literature rather than strictly as a factual account, but at the same time, reading the Bible essentially as a piece of fiction struck me as strange as it seems to have a vastly different function as a text. Compared to the normal subjects of literary studies, the Bible seems to be rather lacking in some literary features, such as characterization. The figures of the Bible may be characterized through their actions, but the text generally doesn’t devote much space to the description of people beyond what they do, making it very plot-heavy.

Although such a class has the potential to explore the Bible in new and interesting ways, it is hard to imagine an entire class focused on these elements—much less a large enough group of high schoolers interested in the topic to make it a worthwhile use of the district’s budget. However, despite the difficulties school districts in Texas have faced in fitting these classes to the secular standards of the state law, it would likely be very beneficial to provide students with an unbiased learning experience over religion and thus worth providing more precise specifications and training for this kind of course.

Keeping up Appearances in Politics and Religion

As we approach the presidential election later this year, it is easier than ever to see the how the Bible influences candidates’ campaigns and voters’ views on the election. Scrolling through my Facebook feed, I saw a friend’s grandmother post an article in support of Ted Cruz, and it had been followed up with a very memorable comment: “I believe that Ted Cruz is the best candidate for the position and be the next president of the United States of America… Why? Because he is a true believer in Christ.” Questionable syntax and reasoning aside, this serves as just one example of how some can be greatly influenced by religion in the political sphere.

In “The Bible in the Presidential Elections,” Jacques Berlinerblau explores some of the ways in which politicians use the Bible but also discusses broader concepts such as the distinction, or lack thereof, between primary scripture and the interpretation of scripture that has become so commonly used in religious circles. Berlinerblau argues that “religious folks typically fail to grasp the difference between their primary scriptures and the millennia of hermeneutical interpretation that…often drowns out the originals” (24). This summation suggests that the interpretation of scripture is being given authority by those in different religious communities, elevating the status of these interpretations, whether intentionally or inadvertently, to something like scripture themselves. In fact, interpretation is already so embedded in the scripture that it is accepted as the true word of God by some groups. Berlinerblau cites a passage that is generally read as a condemnation of homosexuality, explaining that a biblical scholar “would not translate or interpret…these verses as an unambiguous repudiation of same-sex eroticism,” but it has become so commonly seen as such that many accept this interpretation as authoritative (25).

However, this interpretation through translation may be the only interpretation given when scripture is used in a political setting. Berlinerblau goes on to say that “scriptural allusions were almost always the essence of brevity” in attempts to “hurry through or even conceal one’s faith-based pandering” (27, 29). His discussion of this phenomenon makes such references seem insincere, more similar to name-dropping than clarifying meaning or ideas. While this section raises the issue of the legitimacy and sincerity of these references by many politicians, it may also make one wonder what exactly the general public, who has become so used to and reliant upon interpretation, really make of these allusions. With politicians skating over biblical references and not, in reality, applying the ideas they espouse to their politics and audiences accepting rushed quotations as a display of piety without really considering the meaning of the scripture, it appears that the use of the Bible in politics is almost entirely superficial—a show put on both by candidates and voters to put their piety on display.

Critique Through Creation in "Noah"

Darren Aronofsky’s movie Noah adapts the events of Genesis 6-9, a story of just a couple thousand words, into a two and a half hour character-driven narrative about the great Biblical flood. To stretch this well-known story into a major motion picture, the filmmakers clearly had to make some changes and additions to the Bible’s content. Although many changes made in the film rewrite the story of Noah more dramatically, I found the different interpretations of the creation story to be particularly interesting.

The movie opens on an animated sequence that outlines the fall of man, but later on Noah tells the complete creation story, beginning with the separation of light and darkness and the formation of the earth. This scene uses a similar style of animation underneath Russell Crowe’s narration, which very closely follows the story in most versions of Genesis. However, the illustration itself adds a layer of interpretation over the creation story.

Frame by frame, the images on the screen follow the gradual formation of the earth and the appearance of living organisms, and it does so through a sort-of time lapse of images that seem to fit into the theories of the Big Bang and evolution, though Noah’s narration clearly indicates this gradual change is guided by the Creator. The story he tells still defines these periods of creation as days, but the illustration shows the gradual changing of the earth over time, the beginning of life from the dividing of cells, and the development of different creatures over time. While this portrayal of the creation of the world does not explicitly denounce the religious beliefs of many in creationism, it does work to rationalize this belief with modern scientific thinking. This interpretation could simply be an extra layer over the more directly biblical text that helps the story to appeal to a wider audience, but the filmmakers could also be offering this idea as a critique of more strictly creationist views.

Later in the sequence, the audience revisits the fall of Adam and Eve and sees Cain murder his brother Abel—a repetition of the images from the beginning of the movie. At this point, though, the illustration continues, showing how this first murder began all the violence between men. The shadowy images change form, depicting figures and soldiers from different periods carrying different weapons, all doing violence onto others. This addition to the telling of the creation story links this beginning more clearly to a critique on violence.

The creation story is reinterpreted once more in a conversation between Ham and Tubal-cain, the stowaway king. Ham protests his eating of the animals, citing his father’s teachings that men were intended as the keepers of the beasts. Tubal-cain, on the other hand, believes in the primacy of men over other creatures, telling Ham that they were meant to be the servants of men. This provides Ham and the audience with the alternative perspective of a person outside of Noah’s cultishly devout family, but more importantly, it provides an entrance point, through these contrasting views on the creation story, for the film’s environmental message.

Noah retells the biblical flood story with significant creative influence and sometimes in much more striking ways, but the layers of interpretation over Noah’s narration of the creation story provides a venue for several of the movie’s possible critiques. Through these subtle rewritings, the film may even create a seemingly more authoritative perspective with which to consider these ideas.

Rewritten Scripture or Evangelical Fan Fiction?

In Enticed by Eden, Schearing and Ziegler examine some of the ways in which evangelical Christians reinvent the Bible and especially the use of the images of Adam, Eve, and Eden. Although the uses and interpretations of biblical passages in promoting evangelical ideas are varied, a few particularly striking examples come in the chapter, “Someday My Prince Will Come.” Throughout this section, the book quotes several examples of Christian relationship guides, which reinvent the Bible by rewriting scripture to reflect the authors’ beliefs.

To introduce this chapter, the book discusses the popularity of Christian relationship guides, saying “sex and marital manuals have long been a preoccupation for evangelical Christian thinkers” (17). These texts provide interpretations of biblical passages, especially Genesis 1-3, that spin the scripture for the authors’ very specific causes. Among others, Joshua Harris, author of evangelical books such as I Kissed Dating Goodbye and Boy Meets Girl, is frequently quoted to demonstrate how these books reinvent the Bible. His books appear to reflect many of the ideas about relationships that Schearing and Ziegler connect to evangelicals—the hierarchy of men over women and their complementary natures—but they also summarize and paraphrase scripture in a way that rewrites it for the intended audience. For example, Harris is quoted saying, “‘Enjoy pure sex!’ God practically shouts in Proverbs 5:18-19” (21). Although one could argue for this paraphrase, it hardly seems sufficient to condense this short passage in this way. Furthermore, even if one defends this interpretation in part, the concept of purity seems to be inserted somewhat artificially by Harris.

Let your fountain be blessed,
    and rejoice in the wife of your youth,
     a lovely deer, a graceful doe.
May her breasts satisfy you at all times;
    may you be intoxicated always by her love.

Proverbs 5:18-19 (NRSV)

By condensing and simplifying these verses in this way, Harris prescribes a meaning to them, and by placing these words into the mouth of God, he tries to add authority to his interpretation. Harris’ rewriting of scripture continues when he creates “an imaginary conversation between Adam and his great-great-granddaughter Elanna, who wonders how she will find a mate pleasing to God” (21-22). This bit of creative writing appears to be something like biblical fan fiction, once again aimed at pushing his agenda. This creation of new material serves as an example of more radical rewritten scripture—a text that’s only roughly based on biblical figures and ideas.

Given these examples of how these evangelical relationship manuals reinvent the Bible, it becomes clear how much these texts are adapted to fit the needs of the author or sponsoring group. Although certain interpretations of biblical text can be helpful for different audiences, these examples show the importance of reading these texts critically and considering one’s own interpretations alongside those prescribed by others.