Mike Duran's Blog, page 9

Responses to My Article on the Horror Genre Appearing at The Gospel Coalition

My article Why the Popularity of Horror Movies Might Encourage Christians recently appeared at the popular evangelical site The Gospel Coalition. In it, I explore the ongoing appeal of the horror genre (2017 was the highest-grossing year for horror movies in box-office history) and how its continued popularity in culture might reflect “an intuitive, God-given sense of morality, mortality, and our need to ‘kick at the darkness until it bleeds daylight.'”

The topic of horror in religious circles can be touchy. While I received a lot of encouragement and positive private response, there was a sizable amount of pushback, most notably at the TGC Facebook page link.

For example, Meghan wrote that watching “supernatural horror films” is

“…opening up a doorway and giving Satan a foothold. Anything with demons, ghosts, spirits all of that ‘paranormal genre’ is a big NO from me. That’s my conviction and where from lots of caution and discernment I have made that choice. I would definitely challenge all Christians to pray about their stance when it comes to paranormal horror.”

Lots of commenters had a similar response and were careful to delineate that while the decision to not watch certain films was a personal decision, it was still an issue that ALL believers should attend to.

However, some commenters followed the more typical tack of “sin by association” believing that simply to watch anything with horror and/or occult elements was to surrender to darkness. Like Em-Ann who called my article flat-out “deception.”

“How did this article end up here in TGC?!!? What happened to ‘What fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial?’ 2 Cor.6:14,15 and ‘Come out of them and be separate, says the Lord. Touch no unclean thing…’ 2 Cor. 4:17. This is deception!”

Similarly, in her rebuttal, Sanna quoted the litany of Bible verses equating “holiness” with “abstinence” from various cultural commodities, in this case horror films. She writes,

“What part of these horror movies would God sit down and watch with you?

How are these movies upholding the holiness of God ?

I Peter 1:16 ‘For it is written be holy as I am holy’

We are commanded to fill our minds with whatever is good. Phil 4:8 Finally, brothers and sisters, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable–if anything is excellent or praiseworthy–think about such things.

We must not find excuses to justify this genre. …One day when we stand before God it will be a far stretch to justify this as God honouring viewing. We must not forget that God is perfectly holy.

As for the cultural argument .. we are to be in the the world but not be the world. I John 2:15-17

‘Do not love the world, nor the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh and the lust of the eyes and the boastful pride of life, is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away, and also its lusts; but the one who does the will of God abides forever.’

We don’t need horror movies to identify the good and bad in this world .. it is everywhere. Let’s spend more time in the word and we won’t need the world to entertain us.”

No, I wasn’t shocked by these responses. And in some ways, they are understandable and important. However, they’re also rather predictable and subscribe to a notion of “holiness” or “separation” that is potentially unbiblical.

For example, there’s a big difference between what we observe and what we choose to focus on. We have all witnessed evil, ugly, disturbing things. We have seen atrocities and wept over the wreckage of human lives. Verses which tell us to think about things that are “pure” are not telling us to turn away from what is unlovely and impure. Rather, they should not be our focus. In fact, Christians are commanded to NOT turn away from evil, injustice, poverty, hate, bigotry, and pain. Refusing to look upon or acknowledge evil may in fact BE evil.

Yes, we are called to think pure thoughts, meditate on that which is good, and resist the pull of the world. However, that does not mean we should live in denial about the darkness all around us. Nor should we eschew the horrific simply because it is unsettling. In fact, it is this “unsettling” that may make horror stories more efficacious. Prairie romance novels and G-rated feel-good tales should have a place in the Christian catalog, but so should tales of woe. As long as there really is a place like Hell, then horror must inhabit part of the Christian imagination.

The famed Japanese director Akira Kurosawa once said, “The role of the artist is to not look away.” I think this is a good principle for Christians to heed.

Of course, this is not a license to imbibe all horror or to be flippant in our approach to films and novels with occult elements. Like any medium, Christians must use discretion in their consumption. However, Christians, perhaps more than any other, should have the ability to not “look away” from evil. I don’t mean that we should delight in evil, be captivated by the macabre, or celebrate darkness (which is the most common charge against “dark” art), but that our perspective of the human condition should be unflinching and particularly acute. Feel-good story-telling may have its place. But artists — especially Christian artists — who only subscribe to a “feel-good” world have violated an essential artistic law… they have “looked away.”

(I have an entire chapter in my book Christian Horror: On the Compatibility of a Biblical Worldview and the Horror Genre in which I answer most of these common objections to Christians and the horror genre.)

Why Dystopian Stories Have Perennial Appeal

x-men apocalypse, from trailer gallery

The poor reviews of Maze Runner: Death Cure, the final installment in the trilogy, have lead some to ask whether the genre has finally reached maximum entropy. (The film currently has a 44% rating on Rotten Tomatoes.) In Brutal ‘Maze Runner’ Reviews Prove People Are Over YA Dystopias the folks at Inverse seem intent to write the epitaph for the genre.

It’s the end of the ‘end of the world’ stories as we know it, because the dismal reviews for the latest Maze Runner movies might just indicate that the dystopian YA bubble has officially burst. We’re all in the apocalypse now.

Hunger Games, Divergent, and now Maze Runner. Hollywood hasn’t tired of dumping millions into adapting young-adult fiction series to the big screen, but at long last audiences are seemingly over the trend once and for all. The third and final Maze Runner film, The Death Cure, came out on Friday and with it came a slew of overwhelmingly negative reviews.

Apparently, declaring the official bursting of the YA dystopian bubble was a little premature, as the Maze Runner sequel was the number one box office draw this weekend.

So much for doomsday.

The dystopian genre — in both adult and YA — has maintained a fairly perennial appeal. Hulu’s The Handmaid’s Tale, adapted from Margaret Atwood’s cautionary near-future New England, in which a totalitarian, Christian theonomy has overthrown the United States government, recently racked up both Emmy and Golden Globe awards. In late March, Stephen Spielberg’s adaptation of Ernest Cline’s Ready Player One, a YA/dystopian hybrid, releases. And after the 2016 presidential election, George Orwell’s 1984 experienced a surge of re-interest.

There’s been much speculation as to why dystopian tales maintain continued appeal. On the YA front, NPR’s Elissa Nadworny described it in terms of  teen angst. In Why Teens Find The End Of The World So Appealing  she writes,

Teen readers themselves are characters in a strange land. Rules don’t make sense. School doesn’t always make sense. And they don’t have a ton of power.

Whether it’s facing curfews, not being able to drive, or grappling with “ethical grey” areas, teens tend to live in a perpetual dystopia. Even more, “dystopian fiction [is] perfect for the developing adolescent brain.” Referencing Laurence Steinberg, a psychologist at Temple University, Nadworny adds.

“Their brains are very responsive to emotionally arousing stimuli,” [Steinberg] explains. During this time, there are so many new emotions and they are much stronger than those kids experienced when they were younger.

“When teenagers feel sad, what they often do it put themselves in situations where they feel even sadder,” Steinberg says. They listen to sad music — think emo! — they watch melodramatic TV shows. So dystopian novels fit right in, they have all that sadness plus big, emotional ideas: justice, fairness, loyalty and mortality.

So teens gravitate to dystopian tales because they are bleak. The sadness they find in such stories resonates with the emotional landscapes of their own lives.

Others frame the ongoing popularity of dystopian tales in terms of politics. Indeed, the article at Inverse is careful to remind us, “We’re all in the apocalypse now.”

It’s hard to argue with Peter Travers writing for Rolling Stone when he wonders, “why imagine terrible futures when we have Trump to remind us that the end of the world is coming?”

Some called it the “Trump Bump,” writing that Sales of Dystopian Novels Have Been Spiking on Amazon Since the Election. Either way, this isn’t the first time an election has led to gloomsayers bemoaning the inevitable approach of Armageddon (which, of course, could have been averted by voting for THEIR candidate).

There is, however, another possible reason for the ongoing popularity of dystopian stories, one that hearkens to and reinforces a vital biblical theme.

Maybe more than any other genre, dystopian tales  remind us that Man is broken. History and experience bear this out. Dystopia far more accurately reflects the human condition than does utopia.

The Bible does not paint a pretty picture regarding the fate of mankind. Utopia — if Heaven or the New Earth can be called that — only comes about after much travail. If the Book of Revelation is to believed, Earth 1.0 doesn’t End with a whimper, but in blood and fire and plague. All of our diplomacy, peace treaties, technological advances, therapeutic skills, and Kumbaya/We Are the World hand-holding idealism still  lands us in Armageddon. The Fall inevitably leads to a Big Crash.

Perhaps one reason for the perennial popularity of dystopian stories is that we inherently intuit the arc of human history; it is both a rejection of utopia and the notion of inherent human goodness. History and personal experience have shown us, over and over again, that when left to his devices Man fails. Empires collapse. Lovers divorce. Technology glitches.

Dystopia is an admission of depravity, brokenness, and moral malfinction.

Of course, the popularity of the YA dystopian genre may not mine those exact theological points. Nevertheless, the genre as a whole appeals to a nagging sense that no earthly power can save us from ourselves. Thus, we gravitate to stories about bleak futures not because we are pessimists, but because we know our own hearts. And knowing our own hearts renders a utopian future pure fiction.

Novelist Kerry Nietz on the Compatibility of a Biblical Worldview and the Science Fiction Genre

In the process of doing research for a pending project —  Christian Sci-Fi: On the Compatibility of Biblical Worldview and the Science Fiction Genre — I have interviewed several novelist friends about that subject. Why is science fiction written by Christians so sparse? Is science fiction inherently incompatible with a biblical worldview? One of the authors who agreed to discuss the subject was Kerry Nietz, Kerry’s written over a half-dozen novels. The first in his Dark Trench series, A Star Curiously Singing, won the Readers Favorite Gold Medal Award for Christian Science Fiction and has over a hundred 5-star reviews on Amazon. Here’s a few of the questions I lobbed Kerry’s way about the intersection of Christian storytelling and the sci-fi genre.

***

MIKE: Thanks for addressing this topic, Kerry! Some Christians avoid SF on the grounds that it is built on atheistic/materialistic premises, deifies Man/human ingenuity, and promotes relativism, pantheism, transhumanism, etc. How would you counter the suggestion that SF, as a genre, is incompatible with a biblical worldview and that Christians should avoid it or, at the least, read with caution?

KERRY: To start where you ended, I think Christians should read everything with caution—even Christian fiction. In fact, perhaps more attention should be given to literature that claims to be Christian, than literature that doesn’t. No better way to sneak in false theology than under the guise of truth, is there?

That said, I can understand why Christians would be suspicious of science fiction. There are certainly writers in the genre that promote all the things you mention and more. I also know that I’ve been a science fiction reader and fan since childhood. (Which is also when I became a Christian!) SF has presented challenges to my faith at times, sure, but also has encouraged and reinforced it. My earliest memories are of stories by Edgar Rice Burroughs and Ray Bradbury. I never felt my faith attacked or belittled by their works, and they were great imagination expanders. They fully exercised the power of “What if?”

Science and technology belong to Christians as much as anyone, so why not the fiction that delves into their uses and effects?

I don’t find Science Fiction inherently incompatible with a Biblical worldview. No one mandated that it be that way. (Though I’ve heard that some publishing houses now try.) Science and technology belong to Christians as much as anyone, so why not the fiction that delves into their uses and effects?

MIKE: What aspects of the SF genre most resonate or align with a biblical worldview?

KERRY: A large part of Science Fiction is cautionary. Michael Crichton’s Jurassic Park is a perfect example. Who can forget the line spoken by Ian Malcolm, the character Jeff Goldblum played in the movie: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn’t stop to think if they should.” The message there is simple: Science is great, but morals and ethics matter more. What could be more in line with a biblical worldview than that? Scripture is replete with examples of similar statements: Think about what you’re doing! Weigh the costs! Seek a higher calling! As early as Genesis 4 we have the Lord saying to Cain: “If you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door. Its desire is contrary to you, but you must rule over it.”

Ray Bradbury once said “People ask me to predict the future, when all I want to do is prevent it. Better yet, build it. Predicting the future is much too easy, anyway. You look at the people around you, the street you stand on, the visible air you breathe, and predict more of the same. To hell with more. I want better.” 

That’s what we as Christians want too. Not more, but better.

MIKE: What is the most compelling reason you think Christian novelists should use the SF genre as a medium for their storytelling?

Just one reason? Wow.

One of the most compelling reasons to use the SF genre is because it speaks to where our culture is right now. Many of the bestselling series and highest grossing films—from Arrival, to Hunger Games, to the X-men—are science fiction. We’re a culture immersed in possibilities and questions. Why shouldn’t Christians be presenting possibilities and answers of our own? I think people will listen if we aren’t lazy about it.

Crafting science fiction requires more than imagination. It demands a working knowledge of science and culture. Two common misconceptions of Christians are that they a) have disconnected their brain, and b) are at war with science. What better way to show the world we’re not those things than by crafting a plausible and well researched science fiction story?

That’s one thing I delight in with my books—and why they sometimes take longer to write than I might like. I love to pull in actual science where it applies. To give small Astronomy or Physics lessons, or dig into how a biological system might work, even if they are typically non-scientific systems like vampires or zombies.

At the end of the day I hope even the secular reader can say “I may not agree with his message, but I can’t fault his writing or his research. That guy knows his stuff.”

***

You can connect with Kerry Nietz on his website or his other social media platforms.

Real “Resistance” Means Fighting What You Hate

Image StarWars.com

CAUTION: Spoiler Alert for Star Wars: The Last Jedi!

I liked a lot of things about the new Star Wars, but there are some genuinely eye-roll worthy scenes. One of the most dramatic (and most eye-roll worthy, imo) is when Rose Tico, a young Resistance fighter, saves Finn, another Resistance fighter, from death. However, Finn’s impending death is his own decision. He chooses to stop a massive First Order weapon by piloting his craft into the weapon. Finn’s actions are a shocking, but incredibly noble sacrifice.

Until…

…Rose swoops down and crashes her vehicle into Finn’s, driving him from his target, preventing his sacrificial rescue, destroying both crafts, and inevitably killing herself. What follows is a predictable, ham-fisted, quasi-inspirational, quote:

“We’re going to win this war, not by fighting what we hate, but saving what we love.”

And then she expires.

Apparently, many consider it a poignant moment in the film. The phrase has become a call to arms, of sorts and is now oft re-Tweeted, typically cited by those of #TheResistance. Who is this Resistance? Best I can tell, they are those on the political Left — progressives, feminists, activists, pro-abortionists, anti-capitalists, and embittered Democrats. Basically the ragged remnants of the #ImStillWithHer movement. For them, the new Star Wars films speak to our current social and political climate. As a result, they have hijacked the imagery and rhetoric of the films for their own ideological aims. In their story world, the First Order are cisgendered, male, white supremacists, and corporate CEOs, while #TheResistance are the compassionate, tolerant, inclusive, brave, #NeverTrumpers.

I suppose this shouldn’t come as a huge surprise as many of those attached to the re-making of the SW franchise have been vocal about their disdain for Trump and their support of an aggressive diversity agenda. For example, two writers of Rogue One openly attached their left-leaning politics to the film. One, Chris Weitz, tweeted “Please note that the Empire is a white supremacist (human) organization.” Gary Whitta, an original writer for the project, responded similarly: “Opposed by a multi-cultural group led by brave women.” And “brave women” are the order of the day for #TheResistance. The bravest of them all, perhaps, being Vice Admiral Holdo in TLJ (played by Laura Dern) who issued this rousing, none-too-subtle speech to the freedom fighters:

In every corner of the galaxy, the downtrodden and oppressed know our symbol, and they put their hope in it. We are the spark that will light the fire that will restore the Republic. That spark, this Resistance, must survive. That is our mission.

If you’re wondering who the “down-trodden and oppressed” are you need look no further than the filmmakers’ own politics. Indeed, CNN declared that the film “appears to lean into the political fray, from its egalitarian message to a more specific critique of callous plutocrats. …The latest batch of ‘Star Wars’ movies have also made a conspicuous effort to be more inclusive in terms of female and minority characters, after the original film was criticized for its all-white vision of space.” Thus the swing towards a more politically correct galaxy, far, far away.

This is the backdrop upon which Rose’s “inspirational” last words are overlaid.

In both universes — theirs and ours — #TheResistance stands against hate. Conveniently, the objects of that hate take the same form as those of contemporary progressive persuasion. Thus, the “down-trodden and oppressed” in both worlds are strikingly similar — namely they are the marginalized, multicultural, gender fluid, ethnic, immigrant ensemble that is being exploited by white straight males wielding too much power. In this world, the enemy is the Patriarchy, gender-heteronormativity, big government, white guys, and Judeo-Christian morality.

How is such an “enemy” fought?

If you’re looking to Rose for the answer, good luck. Other than providing an inspirational meme or a hashtaggable quote, Rose’s actions provide little more than a muddled conception of both love and war — a hallmark of squishy progressivism.

How can we “save what we love” if we don’t fight what threatens it? In Rose’s (and the Resistance’s case) what threatened them was NOT the death of one fighter (via Finn’s kamikaze tactic). No. What threatened them was that big ass cannon aimed at them. Finn’s actions are more in line with Rose’s inspirational quote than are hers. He was saving what he loved by attacking its enemy. In fact, just moments before that, Rose was doing the same thing! She was attacking their common enemy. What turned her? Her love for Finn? If so, Rose risked BOTH their lives with that maneuver, not to mention the lives of the entire Resistance. Rose’s “success” could have meant that she saved Finn while allowing the First Order to destroy dozens of their friends and comrades.

Spock was right, “The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.” However, according to #ResistanceLogic, it’s just the opposite.

I suppose Rose’s dilemma is reflective of #TheResistance’s at large. After the release of Rogue One, the #StarWarsAgainstHate campaign was begun. What was the “hate” that these noble freedom fighters were resisting? Well, it was basically Donald Trump. Of course, that included a litany of associated evils — racism, sexism, white supremacy, corporate greed, xenophobia, etc.

So does being a freedom fighter mean standing “against hate” or “not fighting what we hate”? In the case of #TheResistance, as long as what you “hate” endorses a liberal cause, it means whatever makes the best meme or hashtag campaign. Hate. Don’t Hate. Love. Fight. Who cares. As long as I get to wear my Resistance pin and feel good afterwards.

Okay, so I still liked the film. It’s just that these philosophically mushy, politically correct resistance campaigns make me want to vomit. My apologies, but real resistance means fighting what you hate. Which means that hating the right things is critical.

AI and the Antichrist — Pt. 1

Shiva statue at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider

Both the Bible and Science predict/envision a Singularity[1], a landmark event that will rock the world and redirect the course of human history forever. While Science’s Singularity is the culmination of technological advance, the melding of Man and Machine in an advanced, autonomous artificial intelligence, Scripture’s Singularity is the culmination of spiritual forces, Man’s rebellion against God, which leads to the rise and/or creation of an entity that will both unite and then deceive the Earth.

The current confluences of forces suggest that both may be true.

One such force is the convergence of physics and metaphysics. Whereas Science was once seen as antithetical to Religion, now an odd synthesis is blossoming. In his show Cosmos, Carl Sagan introduced the idea of an intersection between science and religious mysticism. Sagan is quoted in THIS ARTICLE:

Hindu religion is the only one of the world’s great faiths dedicated to the idea that the cosmos itself undergoes an immense, indeed an infinite number of deaths and rebirths. It is the only religion in which the time scales correspond, no doubt, by accident, to those of modern scientific cosmology. Its cycles run from our ordinary day and night to a day and night of Brahma 8.64 billion years long. Longer than the age of the Earth or the Sun and about half of the time since the Big Bang. And there are much longer time scales still.

Apparently, Hinduism is attracting more interest from scientists lately. Why? In this case, it’s Hinduism’s view of the cosmos, or the cyclic destruction and recreation of matter, that elicits a nod from the normally non-religious scientist. Unlike the Judeo-Christian worldview which sees the world as having a strict “beginning” (Gen. 1:1), Hinduism describes a universe in constant state of “reincarnation.” The Hindu scriptures suggest that the universe is successively born every 4.32 billion years. This position aligns closely with the Oscillating Universe Theory, a theory that was abandoned by cosmologists and is only now seeing a comeback.

Chuck Missler, in his book The Creator Beyond Time and Space describes just why the Oscillating Universe Theory fell out of favor.

The first problem for the Oscillation Model is that there is not enough mass in the Universe to cause it to re-collapse. As the mass of the Universe moves rapidly away from its point of origin, the force of gravity acts upon it to pull it back together. The Oscillation Model proposes that all the mass in the universe will eventually be forced to re-collapse into another Cosmic Egg which explodes again. However, even the most optimistic calculations show that there is not enough mass in the universe to both reverse the expansion and accomplish a re-collapse.

So why are scientists like Sagan inferring viability upon a once defunct cosmological model? Some suggests that it’s simply a way to avoid the notion of an Absolute Beginning. From Scientists Abandon the Oscillating Universe Theory:

According to Princeton physicist Robert Dicke, an infinite number of these cycles of expansion and contraction of the universe would ‘relieve us of the necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time in the past.’ The creation event becomes irrelevant, and our existence could be attributed to one lucky bounce. After all given infinite number of bounces, it is argued that surely one would produce all the conditions necessary to convert particles and atoms into human beings through strictly natural processes.

This embrace of a Reincarnating Universe as a means of avoiding “finite time,” especially when done in the name of Science, is quite fascinating. Essentially, it allows for a synthesis of Science and Religion, Technology and Metaphysics. So whereas Science and Religion were once viewed as ideological opponents,  more recently they can be found cozying up to each other.

Take for example the statue of Shiva, the Hindu god of destruction, erected at CERN. From the aforementioned article:

On June 18, 2004, an unusual new landmark was unveiled at CERN, the European Center for Research in Particle Physics in Geneva – a 2m tall statue of the Indian deity Shiva Nataraja, the Lord of Dance. CERN is Switzerland’s pre-eminent center of research into energy, the world’s largest particle physics laboratory and the place where core technologies of the internet were first conceived. The statue, symbolizing Shiva’s cosmic dance of creation and destruction, was given to CERN by the Indian government to celebrate the research center’s long association with India.

In choosing the image of Shiva Nataraja, the Indian government acknowledged the profound significance of the metaphor of Shiva’s dance for the cosmic dance of subatomic particles, which is observed and analyzed by CERN’s physicists. The parallel between Shiva’s dance and the dance of subatomic particles was first discussed by Fritjof Capra in an article titled “The Dance of Shiva: The Hindu View of Matter in the Light of Modern Physics,” published in Main Currents in Modern Thought in 1972. Shiva’s cosmic dance then became a central metaphor in Capra’s international bestseller The Tao of Physics, first published in 1975 and still in print in over 40 editions around the world.

Shiva and CERN are just one example of this strange new movement, a movement seeking to merge physics and metaphysics, to join some deity’s cosmic dance with “the dance of subatomic particles.”

Nowhere is this merger more fascinating (or ominous!) than in the story of the ex-Google engineer who is creating a “robot god” and its “first church of AI.” The Daily Mail reports:

An ex-Google engineer who has registered the first church of AI says he is ‘raising a god’ that will [take] charge of humans. The robot god will head a religion called Way Of The Future (WOTF), which will eventually have a gospel called ‘The Manual’, rituals and even a physical place of worship. Anthony Levandowski first filed papers with the Internal Revenue Service in May, and named himself as ‘dean’ of WOTF, giving him complete control until his death or resignation. He claims the good will be a ‘billion times smarter than humans’.

Of course, if one could install an entity a ‘billion times smarter than humans’ at society’s helm, why not render obeisance? Especially if the ultimate aim of said AI, according to its maker, is to “contribute to the betterment of society.” Nevertheless, the first church of AI and the idea behind it have not met with universal applause. For example, Stephen Hawking has been vocal about his concerns. From Newsweek:

World-renowned physicist Stephen Hawking has warned that artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to destroy civilization and could be the worst thing that has ever happened to humanity.

Speaking at a technology conference in Lisbon, Portugal, Hawking told attendees that mankind had to find a way to control computers, CNBC reports.

“Computers can, in theory, emulate human intelligence, and exceed it,” he said. “Success in creating effective AI, could be the biggest event in the history of our civilization. Or the worst. We just don’t know. So we cannot know if we will be infinitely helped by AI, or ignored by it and side-lined, or conceivably destroyed by it.”

Despite the warnings, the Singularity appears inevitable. And with its approach, the synthesis of Science and Religion.

A good example of this may be Dan Brown’s latest novel, Origin, which tackles the subject of God and AI, Religion and Science. In this book review — which contains SPOILERS — the author unravels the book’s plot, describing it as “a frontal assault on organized religion.”

…throughout [Brown’s] book you are led to believe that the Catholic Church–more specifically, a very powerful Bishop–has engaged in a holy war to kill a staunch and brilliant atheist named Edmond Kirsch to prevent his “groundbreaking scientific discovery” from going public that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that life evolved entirely on its own (through so-called abiogenesis) and, ultimately, that God does not exist.

For those that are interested, Kirsch makes this discovery by creating a quantum computer, which also gives birth to Winston, that simulates Earth’s initial conditions (the famous Miller-Urey experiment) and shows that, by running the clock forward in time, matter naturally self-organizes into life. The “God of the gaps” has been officially killed, Kirsh proclaims.

Now, there are a lot of twists and turns on how all this plays out (Kirsch is assassinated by a religious zealot before he presents his discovery to the world and the symbologist Robert Langdon must follow the clues to figure everything out) but, throughout the book, the basic message and plot line is to convince the reader of the following: religion is evil and will do anything necessary to preserve its power–whether that be through killing, lying, stealing, destroying people’s lives, etc–all “in the name of God.”

Indeed, Brown has been candid about his belief that AI collective consciousness will replace God:

‘Origin’ was inspired by the question ‘Will God survive science?’, said Brown, adding that this had never happened in the history of humanity. ‘Are we naive today to believe that the gods of the present will survive and be here in a hundred years?’ Brown, 53, told a packed news conference. Brown said technological change and the development of artificial intelligence would transform the concept of the divine. ‘We will start to find our spiritual experiences through our interconnections with each other,’ he said, forecasting the emergence of ‘some form of global consciousness that we perceive and that becomes our divine’. ‘Our need for that exterior god, that sits up there and judges us … will diminish and eventually disappear,’ he added.

Brown answers the question, “Will God survive science?” with an emphatic… sort of. Make no mistake, from the author’s perspective, organized religion and “the gods of the present,” namely the One  “that sits up there and judges us,” will “diminish and eventually disappear.” God and Religion as we know it are dead. However, the spiritual hole created by this technological coup does not result in atheism, according to Brown, but by reverence for a new god. Or as he puts it, “the emergence of ‘some form of global consciousness that we perceive and that becomes our divine.'”

Oddly enough, the biblical Singularity suggests as much. However, the future envisioned in the Book of Revelation is not just the culmination of Man’s (scientific) knowledge reaching an end-game, it also involves the confluence of religion and spirituality. The biblical Singularity finds its culmination in a person, a being, an entity that is deified and worshiped. He/It is typically called the Antichrist. 

Continued in Part 2

***

[1] The technological singularity (also, simply, the singularity) is the hypothesis that the invention of artificial superintelligence will abruptly trigger runaway technological growth, resulting in unfathomable changes to human civilization. According to this hypothesis, an upgradable intelligent agent (such as a computer running software-based artificial general intelligence) would enter a “runaway reaction” of self-improvement cycles, with each new and more intelligent generation appearing more and more rapidly, causing an intelligence explosion and resulting in a powerful superintelligence that would, qualitatively, far surpass all human intelligence. — source, Wikipedia

The Dangers of Christian Mysticism

Photo source: http://www.vedic.com

This summer, at a writer’s conference I attended, popular Christian author Ted Dekker described himself as a “Christian mystic.” During that weekend, both in public sessions and private conversation, Dekker reinforced his claim. For example, his next fictional work is entitled The 49th Mystic. He favorably referenced William Paul Young and Richard Rohr, both whom could fall under the label of “Christian mystic.” In keynote sessions, Dekker referred to the Holy Spirit as our “Mother” and described the physical world as illusory. Again, mystical concepts and language. And in his new course, entitled The Forgotten Way, he appeals to esoteric concepts like “re-discovering” lost knowledge and seeking a new experience of God’s overflowing love.

This promo for The Forgotten Way describes the course thus:

The Forgotten Way Meditations is a journey of re-discovering the radical love, peace, and identity found in Yeshua so you can see and be differently.

Forgotten, because Yeshua’s simple path of awakening to love, peace and power in this life is rarely remembered (or understood) by millions of Christians weighed down with life’s cares and concerns. Way because it is a pathway we walk, not a checklist of rules to follow.

Enter the Way of Yeshua so easily forgotten. Take the journey from hate to love; from fear to faith. The journey from insecurity to complete rest. Here you will find peace in the storms; you will walk on the troubled seas of your life. Love, joy and peace will flow from you as living waters.

Throughout the promo material Dekker makes incredible claims like, “The whole world longs for the Way of Yeshua” and “An awakening is sweeping the world.” Couple this with the employment of mystical concepts and language (like “awaken to truth,” join in the “divine dance,” experience “new power,” etc.) as well as testimonials from initiates that learning this “forgotten way” will revolutionize your life, I couldn’t help but be suspicious.

Which I’m convinced is the appropriate posture to take.

Ted Dekker is not alone in his embrace of Christian mysticism. Evangelical Resources on Mysticism (along with its fairly helpful compilation of sources on the subject from an Evangelical perspective), notes that,

Mysticism exists in a myriad of forms. Within Christianity, it is seen in Roman Catholic teachings, the 20th century Pentecostal and Charismatic traditions, and in the Quakers. In the great three monotheistic religions, it is seen in the practices of the Gnostic Christians, the Sufi Muslims, and the Kabalistic Jews. Outside of monotheism, mysticism expresses itself in the Western New Age movement, as well as the Eastern Buddhism and Hinduism, Yoga, and Native American spirituality. (bold mine)

Because of this, defining mysticism can be somewhat difficult as there are many branches, forms, and syntheses. Catholic theologian Bernard McGinn defines Christian mysticism simply as,

“[T]hat part, or element, of Christian belief and practice that concerns the preparation for, the consciousness of, and the effect of […] a direct and transformative presence of God.”(McGinn, Bernard (2006), The Essential Writings of Christian Mysticism, New York: Modern Library)

This idea of seeking and acquiring an experience of the “direct and transformative presence of God” is foundational for the Christian mystic. It assumes both

a greater knowledge and experience of God/spiritual things is available, and
intentional practices and pursuit of said knowledge and experience is critical for transcendence or living “fully”

Of course, lots of things intersect here. For example, what one believes (or does not believe) about God and Man comes into play. What one believes about the authority of Scripture and the parameters of “enlightenment” are important. Also, the person and work of Christ (His pre-eminence, atonement, and mediatorial work) are extremely important. And this is where one of the great dangers of Christian mysticism comes into play.

Without some boundaries, mysticism can veer into potentially dangerous, unorthodox, even occult areas.

This idea of “boundaries” is what prompted Evangelical blogger, Tim Challies, to write The Boundaries of Evangelicalism, and caution his readers about the “prevalence of mysticism” in the contemporary church.

As I survey the contemporary church, one of my gravest concerns is the power and prevalence of mysticism. It appears in pulpits, books, and conversation. It is at the heart of Sarah Young’s bestselling Jesus Calling, it is in all the much-loved books by John Eldredge, it fills the pages of so many books on spiritual disciplines or spiritual formation, it is almost everywhere you look. Language that was once considered the distinguishing language of mysticism is now commonly used by Evangelicals.

Mysticism was once regarded as an alternative to Evangelical Christianity. You were Evangelical or you were a mystic, you heeded the doctrine of the Reformation and understood it to faithfully describe the doctrine laid out in Scripture or you heeded the doctrine of mysticism. Today, though, mysticism has wormed its way inside Evangelicalism so that the two have become integrated and almost inseparable. In an age of syncretism we fail to spot the contradiction and opposition.

According to Challies, the two main biblical “boundaries” that mysticism potentially challenge are:

the doctrine of Scripture alone (sola scriptura)
the doctrine of faith alone (sola fide)

For example, in a recent Facebook post, I spoke critically of Christians who attempted to incorporate Eastern ideas and practices into a Christian worldview. I bemoaned, “That moment when you follow a ‘Christian’ writer’s FB comment to their personal page and discover they espouse aligning chakras, the power of the ‘divine feminine,’ and astrology. Ugh.” I was somewhat surprised to receive so much pushback from other professing believers. Like the following commenter who concluded, “Don’t knock something until you have opened your mind to it. Know the God of the bible… then go beyond.”

This idea of “going beyond” the Bible is intrinsic to much mystic thought. However, it potentially violates both the doctrine of “Scripture alone” and “faith alone,” opting instead for an experience of God that transcends the typical restraints of Scripture. In such a scenario, the mystic concludes there are no boundaries (or very few) to one’s experience of God. The experience alone is its justification and authority. Thus, you must “Know the God of the bible… then go beyond.”

Similarly, in The Forgotten Way Meditations, Ted Dekker describes the “revelations” which led him to the re-discovery of superior knowledge.

“Then I heard another thought , like a voice but not a voice at the same time. ‘Let go of all you think about Me, so that you can KNOW Me.’ Translation; Let go of your intellectual knowing, so that you can experience my love (to know in a biblical sense.)” (From The Forgotten Way Meditations, p. 22)

This idea of “letting go,” of surrendering “intellectual” knowledge for something deeper, more experiential is foundational to much Christian mystical thought. Often attached to this is the inference that biblical orthodoxy and/or traditional theological strictures are inadequate and must be transcended. Knowing the God of the Bible, according to the Christian mystic, often means going beyond the narrow confines of doctrine and its legalistic imposition.

But what if what we know about God is correct? What if the traditional theological parameters are INTENDED to keep us from going “beyond”? On what grounds can we distinguish the voice of God from the voice in our head, or the voice of the devil for that matter? If experience is the arbiter of truth, how in the world can we determine what is false?! And herein lies the potential problem with Christian mysticism — it swaps doctrine for experience, it subordinates what we know for how we feel.

Now, for the sake of clarity, let me shift gears here. What I am NOT suggesting is that mystical experiences should be shunned and that there are always clean, tight boundaries between doctrine, practice, and experience. I DON’T believe Christian mysticism (depending upon how one defines it, of course) is always inherently evil. I have benefited from some who could be labeled as Christian mystics and have had experiences that have challenged certain theological beliefs of my own.

With much hesitancy, I agree with Donald Miller when he said, “You cannot be a Christian without being a mystic.” Yes, there’s a lot to unpack and qualify there. However, the fact that strange, often unexplainable, weird things fill Scripture and Christian history is beyond dispute.

In my article, Another Perspective on Ghosts, I argue that “paranormal phenomenon does not always fit tightly into our theological framework.” I think the same could be said of mystical experiences.

It is simply too easy to resign all paranormal phenomenon into the category of the demonic. Samuel’s “appearance” [I Sam. 28] was not viewed as demonic, nor was the Transfiguration of Moses and Elijah [Matt. 17]. Furthermore, we have no need to “test the spirits and see whether they are from God” (I Jn. 4:1) if all spirits (or spiritual phenomenon) are categorically evil. So while the Bible cautions us about deceiving spirits, it does not go so far as to say that all “encounters” are necessarily of the “deceptive” order.

I understand that this might trouble some folks. The larger issue, as I see it, is coming to grips with the world we live in. Scripture paints a universe of vast mystery, teeming with intellects (visible and invisible) both good and evil, and phenomenon beyond our wildest imaginings. This is why the Bible contains wondrous stories — stories we often take for granted — about miracles, visions, reviving corpses, warrior angels, talking mules, fiery chariots, demonized swine, tongues and prophecies. We simply live in a supernatural world. The downside—paranormal phenomenon does not always fit tightly into our theological framework. Deal with it.

I think the same can apply to mystical experiences. We live in a weird, wonderful world and shouldn’t expect that all mystical experiences fit tightly into our theological framework. However, the Bible still provides a framework and cautions us about over-stepping its bounds.

In a private, group conversation with Ted Dekker at the aforementioned conference, he suggested that the apostle Paul was one of the great Christian mystics. I had to concede there was truth to that! Paul had many strange experiences of God. He was struck from his horse by God’s light on the Road to Damascus (Acts 9). He used “mystical” language, praying that God would open the eyes of our hearts (Eph. 1:18) and reveling in the fact that believers are seated with Christ in heavenly places (Eph. 2:6). In fact, the apostle Paul was even caught up to the third heaven, unsure whether he was “in the body or out,” and witnessed things that words could not describe (II Cor. 12). We cannot study the apostle Paul’s life without conceding the miraculous, mysterious, and, yes, even the mystical. However, that same apostle warned about “giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils” (I Tim. 4:1) and cursed anyone who would preach a false gospel (Gal. 1:8). In this way, he struck a balance, writing:

“Do not put out the Spirit’s fire; do not treat prophecies with contempt. Test everything. Hold on to the good.” (I Thessalonians 5:19-21 NIV)

I think those words are a fitting framework for how we should approach the issue of Christian mysticism. We are to “test everything” — that means we shouldn’t blindly assume that every voice is the voice of God, or that every experience, no matter how profound, is legit. But in all our testing, we must not “put out the Spirit’s fire.” KJV translates that, “quench not the Holy Spirit.” Test, but don’t quench. Be critical, but not unbelieving.

The wrong thing to do is to embrace ALL mystical claims and experiences. Equally wrong is to reject ALL mystical claims and experiences. Test, but don’t quench. Cling to what is right and true. Maintaining this balance is one of the great challenges and dangers of Christian mysticism. How can we be open to new spiritual experiences and a deeper relationship with God without being driven by our emotions or ensnared by false doctrine? Must we go “beyond” the Bible in order to really know God? Then what good is the Bible if only to lead us to rewrite its boundaries? Is it possible to adhere to sound doctrine yet pursue more esoteric practices or experiences? If so, how do you know when such a doctrinal boundary has been reached?

Chesterton wrote, “The Christian ideal has not been tried and found wanting. It has been found difficult; and left untried.” In realty, it is probably more true to say that the Way has been “found difficult; and left untried” than that it has been “forgotten.”

Which is why I’ve concluded that the best posture toward Christian mysticism and its claims is not indiscriminate embrace, but sober discernment.

Black Friday / Cyber Monday Book Blitz!

Thrilled to be a part of this huge giveaway. This weekend, Requiem 4 is only $0.99 for Kindle. It’s only one of many books offered through the podcast group Lasers, Dragons, and Keyboards for their Black Friday / Cyber Monday sale. Stop by their link to get your hands on some excellent sci-fi, YA, and fantasy tales. Requiem 4 is part of their Sci-Fi promo. Their Sci-Fi page is HERE. Brian Niemeier, Dragon Award winner for best Horror novel of 2016, says this of R4: “A genre-bending tale of true horror. Mike Duran has spun a supernatural tale to terrify even agnostics.” Pick up your own copy of Requiem 4 today!

Writing Rules, Critique Groups, and Literary Inbreeding

I’ve spent the second half of my writing career unlearning what I was taught in the first half.

Like any good novice, it started with “the writing rules.” Now, by “writing rules,” I’m not referring o the Strunk and White type of rules, the standard principles of grammar and composition. There’s “other” rules for contemporary novel writing, formulas for publication which some hold to be just as binding as rules of spelling and punctuation.

Some of those rules are:

Show Don’t Tell — Use action and dialog rather than exposition
POV — Maintain a consistent, realistic narrative point-of-view; don’t “head hop” from one person to the next in the same scene
Avoid Passives — Keep tenses active

Where did these rules originate? Well, as more and more people aspired to be novelists, the need for formal training and advice increased. Thus, the rules were born. The “writing rules” became a convenient template for wannabe novelists. Now, with the rise of democratization, pretty much anyone can be an “expert.” Also, as indie publishing has exploded, so has this circle of “experts.” Today, anyone with a decent canon of accomplishments and a respectable platform can disseminate advice to eager up-and-comers.

But perhaps the biggest contagion of the writing rules are critique groups.

I joined an online critique group, as a newbie, back in 2005. Some of those writers have gone on to have successful writing careers. It was a terrific group of folks, most of whom helped me tremendously, and whom I’m still friends with. But this group was also where I picked up some bad habits. You see, at that time, none of us were published. We were all scrambling to get a foot in the industry door. As such, the writing rules became our mantra. I couldn’t submit a new chapter or a new story without being flailed by the dreaded rules.

“Stop head-hopping!”
“Too many passives!”
“Show don’t tell!”

Like Pavlov’s Dog, just pressing the Submit button instinctively made me wince, knowing that a literary beating would follow.

The problem was, the longer I actually read what was being published, the less important the “writing rules” appeared to be.

It started with Frank Peretti’s, The Oath. The book had sold over one million copies worldwide, so I knew it must be terrific. Besides, it was the recipient of the 1996 ECPA Gold Medallion Book Award for Best Fiction, and one of Peretti’s most critically acclaimed novels. I dug in, not only to be entertained, but to be wowed by his craftsmanship. I read about 50 pages of The Oath before shelving it. Why? The “head-hopping” was driving me nuts! Okay. That was an aberration. Surely Stephen King would not exhibit such literary flagrance. So I took up his classic, The Stand. Alas, one of the takeaways, to my shame, was how often I noticed King violated some of the most basic writing rules. Namely in his use of passives and head-hopping. Lots of jumping from one POV to the next in the same chapter. And then there was the “had been’s” and “was’s.” Good grief! This book would drive some of my old mentors crazy.

Interestingly, however, King’s infractions, his breaking of the writing rules, didn’t keep me from enjoying the story.

It was a huge turning point for me as a writer. Here I’d spent a solid year learning the rules and diligently applying them… only to find that King and Peretti did not do POV’s. So I had to confront the fact that either Stephen King and Frank Peretti were bad writers, or the “writing rules” were not nearly as important to publication as I was being led to believe.

It was creatively liberating.

After that season of legalism, Stephen Koch’s book, The Modern Library Writer’s Workshop, was revelatory. In it, he writes this about POV:

Many teachers of writing will tell you that the way to unify your story and integrate it with its characters is through something called the narrative “point of view.” There are even certain purists who will insist that an “integrated point of view” is the only way a narrative can achieve unity. . .

. . .The academic emphasis on “point of view” in fiction is precisely that — academic. The notion that “the most important thing in fiction is point of view” is a beguiling but vacuous theory that bears only a marginal relation to real practice. And it causes vast amounts of misunderstanding.

. . .Of course, a consistent point of view can indeed be a guide to unity, and of course, you will want your prose to have a coherent texture. But it is a mistake to assume that point of view itself necessarily endows any story with either unity or coherence. Too often, this rather fussy doctrine pointlessly constricts writers’ options and narrows their range. (pp. 88-90, emphasis mine)

After my early indoctrination, I must say it was refreshing to hear the POV rules called, “. . .a beguiling but vacuous theory. . . [a] rather fussy doctrine [that] pointlessly constricts writers’ options and narrows their range.”

And therein lies the danger of writing rules.

If the primary goal of a story is to take us somewhere, then the “writing rules” must be subservient to that end. Much like a map, aesthetics are secondary to functionality. It is required first of the mapmaker to know which way North is. A colorful, good-looking map that has its directions all wrong is about as valuable as a well-written novel that doesn’t take us anywhere. Perhaps this is what we should first teach aspiring novelists — not about passives, POV, and show v. tell, but about how to take readers somewhere.

By over-emphasizing writing rules we unwittingly create a “checklist mentality” that places style above story and “pointlessly constricts writers’ options and narrows their range.” Of course, new writers need to understand the rules (if, at least, to be conversant in their allure). But if we’re not careful, we will turn the creative process into a formula and make literary Pharisees out of our proteges.

And sadly, online critique groups are notorious for perpetuating the mythology of writing rules. Yes. I believe that writing groups can be invaluable. After multiple published novels, short stories, and articles, I’m still in one! However, if we are not cautious, we can perpetuate a type of literary inbreeding in such groups. Especially when there’s a disproportionate ratio of “experts” to “novices.” (It’s why the “mix” and makeup of a writing group can be really important.) New writers should pay more attention to what’s being published and less attention to the echo chamber of their “expert” peers. Conversely, those with publishing cred and earned (or just given) respect, must be careful to not perpetuate “[a] rather fussy doctrine [that] pointlessly constricts writers’ options and narrows their range.”

Some Art News & a Giveaway

As the holidays approach, my art activity typically increases. Last weekend, my son-in-law and I were vendors at the annual Riverside Day of the Dead event. This was a huge venue, attended by thousands. (The picture to the left represents the mash-up of designs we do.) We had a great time and moved lots of merchandise! The remainder of the year, we’ll be appearing at the Festival of Lights, near the historic Mission Inn in Riverside, which is running from November 25, 2017 thru January 6, 2018. While I typically concentrate on making wall crosses, I’ve recently begun crafting paper mache skulls (pictured right). Many of the designs are intended to capture Day of the Dead themes, but I also have found that integrating pop cultural icons (like Darth Maul, Mars Attacks, and lucha libre images) to be popular.

As I’m wanting to expand the range of my art, learning new techniques and attempting new mediums, I’ve recently updated my Art page on this website. There, I expand a bit on the “art journey,” how I started making wall crosses, how you can follow more of my crafting, and purchase various items. I’m hoping to develop a video depicting the process I go through building, painting, and finishing my pieces. You can check out my updated Art Page HERE.

Finally, one way that you can connect with me on social media is through my Facebook Page, Extrinsic Art. I dedicate that page (along with my Instagram Page) to updating completed projects and announcing where I’ll be selling. Occasionally, I do random giveaways there. Which I’m doing now! This week I’m giving away the cross pictured to the left free to one commenter. To enter the giveaway, leave a comment on THIS post (and make sure to Like THIS page) for a chance to win this wall cross. It measures approximately 13 X 10 inches, is assembled from salvaged wood, an original, hand-painted design, sealed with clear acrylic and ready for hanging. I’ll be randomly selecting a winner sometime this weekend and announce the winner on my eXArt Page, so stay tuned. Again, for a chance to win, Like my Page and leave a comment on this post.

‘Wickers Bog’ is Currently FREE for Kindle

My novelette, Wickers Bog: A Tale of Southern Gothic Horror, is currently free for Kindle. What readers are saying about the story:

“…a captivating and creepy tale with substance.” — S. Thomassie

“Quick read that doesn’t skimp on lush imagery and a really good story. I’m a fan of bayou horror, and this does not disappoint.” — Kim Pratt

“You will never look at a swamp the same.” — Alicia Freeman

“If you like gore-free chillers as sticky as the Southern swamps, then Wickers Bog is just your cup of moonshine.” — Mark Carver

This is a limited time offer. You can download your own copy HERE.