"(I)t is also possible that there is no way for Ark Encounter to bring the Bible to life without demeaning or cheapening the very things it is intending to exalt."
“Far from being a counter to modernity, American fundamentalism often embraces it with far greater enthusiasm and finesse than its mainline competition.”
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
I know I was wondering…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_M._McClay
or
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Wilfred+McClay
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_M._McClay
or
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Wilfred+McClay
Greg Linscott
Marshall, MN
The flannel graph they use in Jr. Church doesn’t measure up to the real thing either…but it has successfully put into childrens minds biblical events for generations.
So put up a big sign in front of Ark Encounter that says “This is not the real thing” for those who can’t figure it out.
So put up a big sign in front of Ark Encounter that says “This is not the real thing” for those who can’t figure it out.
[Ken Woodard]…flannel graph…has successfully put into childrens minds biblical events for generations.I’m not willing to argue this with you, but I’ll bet you can’t really prove it either. But to belabor, how many testimonies have you heard that went, “it was when I saw the flannelgraph woman at the well that I realized my true condition before the Lord…” :bigsmile:
Anyway, the images represented by flannel graph resided in the imagination (inspired [you know what I mean] by the biblical words) before they were physically constructed as flannel graph. Why is the imagination not enough?
Noah’s ark used to be a REAL stumblingblock for me when I was going through my LONG journey from a very rationalistic (or at least I fancied myself as being rationalistic and in other ways much smarter than I actually am) Sam Harris/Christopher Hitchens/Richard Dawkins wannabe to a Christian, because not being able to accept the Noah’s ark narrative as literally true was causing me to reject the rest of the Bible with it. What helped me get over it? Reading Rose’s http://www.amazon.com/Rose-Book-Bible-Charts-Lines/dp/1596360224] Bible Charts and Timelines and seeing their entry on the ark. Once I did, my response was “well, yeah, that’s plausible.” Then I moved on to Jonah and the whale, until I heard the radio show of Gary Hedrick (Messianic Jewish pastor) describing incidents of people having been swallowed whole by sperm whales and living to tell the story. Hedrick’s information in his radio sermon http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/hub/A449345] was confirmed as fact by a mainstream news media story (and an outlet that is hostile to Christians no less).
“But it is also possible that there is no way for Ark Encounter to bring the Bible to life without demeaning or cheapening the very things it is intending to exalt.”
If that were the case, then no movie depicting Jesus Christ should ever be made. Not only is it impossible to make such a movie without omitting details (even the 3 hour long version of “The Gospel of John” had to excise some scriptures), but even depicting a human actor as Jesus Christ can be accused of violating the 2nd commandment, at least according to http://www.thebereancall.org/node/393] this ministry anyway.
Ironically, a main difference between items like “creation museums” and “Holy Land Experience” theme parks and this effort and movies on Jesus Christ among Christians is that we embrace the latter while rejecting the former because secular mainstream culture makes one ok while rejecting the other. Movies about and depicting Jesus Christ -including blasphemous projects that deny His sinlessness, deity, atoning death and resurrection - have been done by secular Hollywood for decades, so that makes it “OK” in the eyes of people like this Wilfred McClay. (Incidentally, McClay is Roman Catholic, and so quite naturally would have real problems suffering a bunch of wild-eyed Protestant fundamentalists who not only reject Catholic tradition and the pope in favor of sola scriptura, but are doing their level best to confront everybody with what the Bible says at every turn. Catholics have long preferred the company of mainline Protestant and other liberal “Christians” who have the same disdain for the Bible - rejecting it for morals, ethics, civil religion etc. - as they … folks who - again like Catholics - can theologically and institutionally maintain enough separation from the Bible so as to not having to worry about being bothered with what it actually says, which means that they don’t have to be publicly embarrassed by it … this guy prefers a politically conservative “Christianity” that is too “sophisticated” to worry about things in the Bible that embarrass them in front of polite society). But because mainstream society scoffs at things like creationism and a literal interpretation of Noah’s ark and other Bible truths, he uses “ironic fundamentalist modernism” and “demeaning and cheapening” arguments because he wants to separate himself from “backwoods Bible believers that are making a Georgetown/Saint Johns/Johns Hopkins intellectual like me look bad.”
The bottom line is that whenever the Wall Street Journal - or a Roman Catholic - criticizes a fundamentalist Christian for matters that have nothing to do with scandal or propriety, just take a step back and A) remember what side you’re on and B) ask yourself their motivation. For instance, does the WSJ crowd want to be associated with young earth creationists and Noah’s ark enthusiasts when they are negotiating business deals with Ted Turner, George Soros and the Chinese, or are they concerned that stuff like this “makes Christians look bad” in front of the people with money and power?
Also, I want to know why an article like this by a Roman Catholic in the Wall Street Journal gets taken far more seriously than if it were by an atheist, Muslim or liberal “Christian” in the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, etc. The Wall Street Journal and Fox News may have a politically conservative editorial stance, but they are still secular mainstream media outlets. So while they may be more polite, accommodating and even supportive of Christians in some areas, where it really counts, when it is about the offense of the cross and the other Biblical truths that the world rejects, WSJ, Fox News and other conservative organizations that get their money and power from the world are going to line up against actual Christians just like everybody else.
If a person is absolutely, 100% unashamedly believes before the public that the Noah’s ark story is true (and no, I am not talking about people who hide behind “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” cliches and sloganeering, but rather people willing and able to examine, articulate and defend Biblical truth in the face of mockers and doubters) this project shouldn’t cause this person any more second thought than does a lot of things that goes on and is accepted in contemporary Christianity (i.e. electioneering from the pulpit in support of very questionable candidates and movements … would that the money and effort that’s best wasted on the past 30 years of religious right politics had been dedicated to building Noah’s ark replicas instead … we’d be a lot better off).
It isn’t the people who believe the Noah’s ark narrative and are willing to build a theme park to try to convince - and strengthen - others who should be ashamed. It’s the people who believe in evolution, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-…] the people who believe that the natural universe somehow created itself , who should be ashamed. Well, they’re not. And we don’t see opeds from Roman Catholics in the Wall Street Journal telling them that they should be. Incidentally, similar to the mainline and liberal Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic Church made accommodations to evolution theory decades ago, so that their members could be more “respectable” in polite society and among intellectuals. So, we have reached a situation where a Roman Catholic who believes in evolution and lacks a terminal degree of any sort, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/44-21.0.html Dinesh D’Souza , is permitted to lead an evangelical Christian college in New York that is largely funded by Campus Crusade for Christ. Of course, if you are waiting for a Roman Catholic like McClay - or for the Wall Street Journal, who has long supported D’Souza’s conservative political activism - to protest that this development “demeans” or “cheapens” Protestant Christianity in any way … well you are in for a long wait.
“But it is also possible that there is no way for Ark Encounter to bring the Bible to life without demeaning or cheapening the very things it is intending to exalt.”
If that were the case, then no movie depicting Jesus Christ should ever be made. Not only is it impossible to make such a movie without omitting details (even the 3 hour long version of “The Gospel of John” had to excise some scriptures), but even depicting a human actor as Jesus Christ can be accused of violating the 2nd commandment, at least according to http://www.thebereancall.org/node/393] this ministry anyway.
Ironically, a main difference between items like “creation museums” and “Holy Land Experience” theme parks and this effort and movies on Jesus Christ among Christians is that we embrace the latter while rejecting the former because secular mainstream culture makes one ok while rejecting the other. Movies about and depicting Jesus Christ -including blasphemous projects that deny His sinlessness, deity, atoning death and resurrection - have been done by secular Hollywood for decades, so that makes it “OK” in the eyes of people like this Wilfred McClay. (Incidentally, McClay is Roman Catholic, and so quite naturally would have real problems suffering a bunch of wild-eyed Protestant fundamentalists who not only reject Catholic tradition and the pope in favor of sola scriptura, but are doing their level best to confront everybody with what the Bible says at every turn. Catholics have long preferred the company of mainline Protestant and other liberal “Christians” who have the same disdain for the Bible - rejecting it for morals, ethics, civil religion etc. - as they … folks who - again like Catholics - can theologically and institutionally maintain enough separation from the Bible so as to not having to worry about being bothered with what it actually says, which means that they don’t have to be publicly embarrassed by it … this guy prefers a politically conservative “Christianity” that is too “sophisticated” to worry about things in the Bible that embarrass them in front of polite society). But because mainstream society scoffs at things like creationism and a literal interpretation of Noah’s ark and other Bible truths, he uses “ironic fundamentalist modernism” and “demeaning and cheapening” arguments because he wants to separate himself from “backwoods Bible believers that are making a Georgetown/Saint Johns/Johns Hopkins intellectual like me look bad.”
The bottom line is that whenever the Wall Street Journal - or a Roman Catholic - criticizes a fundamentalist Christian for matters that have nothing to do with scandal or propriety, just take a step back and A) remember what side you’re on and B) ask yourself their motivation. For instance, does the WSJ crowd want to be associated with young earth creationists and Noah’s ark enthusiasts when they are negotiating business deals with Ted Turner, George Soros and the Chinese, or are they concerned that stuff like this “makes Christians look bad” in front of the people with money and power?
Also, I want to know why an article like this by a Roman Catholic in the Wall Street Journal gets taken far more seriously than if it were by an atheist, Muslim or liberal “Christian” in the New York Times, L.A. Times, Washington Post, etc. The Wall Street Journal and Fox News may have a politically conservative editorial stance, but they are still secular mainstream media outlets. So while they may be more polite, accommodating and even supportive of Christians in some areas, where it really counts, when it is about the offense of the cross and the other Biblical truths that the world rejects, WSJ, Fox News and other conservative organizations that get their money and power from the world are going to line up against actual Christians just like everybody else.
If a person is absolutely, 100% unashamedly believes before the public that the Noah’s ark story is true (and no, I am not talking about people who hide behind “the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it” cliches and sloganeering, but rather people willing and able to examine, articulate and defend Biblical truth in the face of mockers and doubters) this project shouldn’t cause this person any more second thought than does a lot of things that goes on and is accepted in contemporary Christianity (i.e. electioneering from the pulpit in support of very questionable candidates and movements … would that the money and effort that’s best wasted on the past 30 years of religious right politics had been dedicated to building Noah’s ark replicas instead … we’d be a lot better off).
It isn’t the people who believe the Noah’s ark narrative and are willing to build a theme park to try to convince - and strengthen - others who should be ashamed. It’s the people who believe in evolution, http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/02/stephen-hawking-big-bang-…] the people who believe that the natural universe somehow created itself , who should be ashamed. Well, they’re not. And we don’t see opeds from Roman Catholics in the Wall Street Journal telling them that they should be. Incidentally, similar to the mainline and liberal Protestant denominations, the Roman Catholic Church made accommodations to evolution theory decades ago, so that their members could be more “respectable” in polite society and among intellectuals. So, we have reached a situation where a Roman Catholic who believes in evolution and lacks a terminal degree of any sort, http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2010/augustweb-only/44-21.0.html Dinesh D’Souza , is permitted to lead an evangelical Christian college in New York that is largely funded by Campus Crusade for Christ. Of course, if you are waiting for a Roman Catholic like McClay - or for the Wall Street Journal, who has long supported D’Souza’s conservative political activism - to protest that this development “demeans” or “cheapens” Protestant Christianity in any way … well you are in for a long wait.
Solo Christo, Soli Deo Gloria, Sola Fide, Sola Gratia, Sola Scriptura http://healtheland.wordpress.com
[DavidO]Jesus used many object lessons.[Ken Woodard]…flannel graph…has successfully put into childrens minds biblical events for generations.I’m not willing to argue this with you, but I’ll bet you can’t really prove it either. But to belabor, how many testimonies have you heard that went, “it was when I saw the flannelgraph woman at the well that I realized my true condition before the Lord…” :bigsmile:
Anyway, the images represented by flannel graph resided in the imagination (inspired [you know what I mean] by the biblical words) before they were physically constructed as flannel graph. Why is the imagination not enough?
“This is my body which is broken for you” is the most well known object lesson. But most people don’t think of it as an object lesson.
Discussion