But I Still LIked Roger Ebert's Memoir
I enjoyed Roger Ebert's memoir. I always liked Ebert. He seemed like the more human and personable one of the Siskel-Ebert team-- although I liked Siskel too. I always called them Gene and Roger, as in, "I'd better be going-- it's almost time for Gene and Roger".
There was one thing in the book that rubbed me the wrong way. He used the ancient bit that goes, "When I was a kid I confronted an adult with a theological quandry and they were stumped, and/or they said I have to take certain things by faith." And then it's left at that. No further inquiry needed. Skepticism carries the day. In this case it was his question to his nun/teacher about how God could have no begining and no end-- a problem he stayed awake at night thinking about. It was a hard for young Roger to believe in God for that reason, and of course the nun told him to take it by faith, without really engaging the question.
In other words, he was the kid in the story of the emperor's new clothes, pointing out that there were no clothes.
In stories like this, there are two faulty assumptions. 1) There aren't any better answers out there. 2) If a proposition can't be explained in a way the youngster can understand, it must not be true.
There are plenty of fictional examples out there. In the movie Simon Birch the title character-- a diminuitive boy-- speaks up in church during announcements from the pulpit. The pastor (preist?) has just said something about a church get-together for donuts and coffee. Young Birch asks, "What do donuts have to do with God?" or words to that effect. The pastor is stumped, or says something to put the boy in his place. I forget the exact response. The message? The church is hypocritical and not interested in God because there are no answers for a boy's simple question. But there really is a simple answer to the question. Everything has to do with God. He reigns over everything. Every atom of every donut is held together by his word. The taste of a donut is one of those great things one should set one's mind on because it's good. (Philippians 4:8) Beyond that, and more to the point, the gathering is about relationship, not donuts-- and God is all about relationships.
But wait-- young Birch is actually the character in the movie who believes most strongly in God-- a gnostic God, apparently, for whom things in the material realm, like donuts, hold nothing but repugnance. I get the impression the filmmakers don't really believe in God, but if they did it would be a gnostic version, the kind of god sophisticated people would invent. (Why else would you call it gnosticism?) I also get the impression a lot of people who don't believe in God feel the same way.
The inquiring child vs. the adult authority scenario has been played out in Simpsons episodes-- set in Sunday school classes. I'm sure there are countless versions from real life. There's a certain appeal to the dynamic-- at least if you simply make it about a child artlessly and effortlessly taking some arrogant adult down in general. It has echos of certain Bible stories. David and Goliath. Jesus as a lad discussing theology with the religious leaders in the temple. Then there are verses like 1 Corinthians 1:27: "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong." So really, God invented the bit. It's so good, the dark enchanter stole it and twisted it around backwards for his own purposes.
(If I were the sort to take scripture out of context and make it say something entirely different, I'd say at this juncture, "And a little child shall lead them," which in the original context has nothing to do with children leading adults. Of course a real hint that something is out of context is if it starts out of the blue with "and". But it does sound biblical if you do that. Even Marvel comics used to invent titles to their comic book issues that started with "And..." if they really wanted to sound epic.)
But I suppose Roger Ebert's little story doesn't irk me as much as those from Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem. In that book, Ehrman, noted writer of anti-Christian books, in the role of university professor (and Goliath figure) stumps his young pupils (the Davids) with the theological quandries. It just doesn't pack the same punch when you turn it around like that-- especially when I know I can give much better answers than those supplied by these students. And of course, Ehrman doesn't seem to seek further answers from people his own metaphorical size.
Well, at least Roger Ebert didn't go on to say that because the nun couldn't answer his question, he gave up the faith. There were other factors involved.
And by the way, the Ebert quandry is one of the most feeble excuses for not believing in God I've ever heard. A child could knock it down. I can imagine young Ebert speaking with said child :
"Gee Roger, if God did have a begining, what would have come before that?"
"I dunno Petey. Maybe nothing?"
"So God would have come out of nothing? I thought you couldn't get anything out of nothing. I can't even imagine what nothing is like."
"Well, maybe it's like outer space-- with nothing there."
"But empty space is something, Roger. And anyway, nothing ever suddenly appears in empty space, does it? Besides, if God could stop living, what could kill him? I mean I can't imagine him ever getting sick. Can you?"
"Aww Petey-- let's just go see if my Ma will take us to a movie."
In the midst of writing this post, I got an email from the Focus on the Family website with the subject line: "Roger Ebert's Curious Faith". I avoided opening it. It slightly diminishes my enjoyment in writing this, somehow. Apart from stealing my thunder, which isn't a very logical assesment on my part, it just smacks of Goliath (Focus on the Family) picking on David (Ebert). When I write these things, I'm more like the David figure. But I suppose my curiosity will get the better of me when I'm done here.
There was one thing in the book that rubbed me the wrong way. He used the ancient bit that goes, "When I was a kid I confronted an adult with a theological quandry and they were stumped, and/or they said I have to take certain things by faith." And then it's left at that. No further inquiry needed. Skepticism carries the day. In this case it was his question to his nun/teacher about how God could have no begining and no end-- a problem he stayed awake at night thinking about. It was a hard for young Roger to believe in God for that reason, and of course the nun told him to take it by faith, without really engaging the question.
In other words, he was the kid in the story of the emperor's new clothes, pointing out that there were no clothes.
In stories like this, there are two faulty assumptions. 1) There aren't any better answers out there. 2) If a proposition can't be explained in a way the youngster can understand, it must not be true.
There are plenty of fictional examples out there. In the movie Simon Birch the title character-- a diminuitive boy-- speaks up in church during announcements from the pulpit. The pastor (preist?) has just said something about a church get-together for donuts and coffee. Young Birch asks, "What do donuts have to do with God?" or words to that effect. The pastor is stumped, or says something to put the boy in his place. I forget the exact response. The message? The church is hypocritical and not interested in God because there are no answers for a boy's simple question. But there really is a simple answer to the question. Everything has to do with God. He reigns over everything. Every atom of every donut is held together by his word. The taste of a donut is one of those great things one should set one's mind on because it's good. (Philippians 4:8) Beyond that, and more to the point, the gathering is about relationship, not donuts-- and God is all about relationships.
But wait-- young Birch is actually the character in the movie who believes most strongly in God-- a gnostic God, apparently, for whom things in the material realm, like donuts, hold nothing but repugnance. I get the impression the filmmakers don't really believe in God, but if they did it would be a gnostic version, the kind of god sophisticated people would invent. (Why else would you call it gnosticism?) I also get the impression a lot of people who don't believe in God feel the same way.
The inquiring child vs. the adult authority scenario has been played out in Simpsons episodes-- set in Sunday school classes. I'm sure there are countless versions from real life. There's a certain appeal to the dynamic-- at least if you simply make it about a child artlessly and effortlessly taking some arrogant adult down in general. It has echos of certain Bible stories. David and Goliath. Jesus as a lad discussing theology with the religious leaders in the temple. Then there are verses like 1 Corinthians 1:27: "But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong." So really, God invented the bit. It's so good, the dark enchanter stole it and twisted it around backwards for his own purposes.
(If I were the sort to take scripture out of context and make it say something entirely different, I'd say at this juncture, "And a little child shall lead them," which in the original context has nothing to do with children leading adults. Of course a real hint that something is out of context is if it starts out of the blue with "and". But it does sound biblical if you do that. Even Marvel comics used to invent titles to their comic book issues that started with "And..." if they really wanted to sound epic.)
But I suppose Roger Ebert's little story doesn't irk me as much as those from Bart Ehrman's book God's Problem. In that book, Ehrman, noted writer of anti-Christian books, in the role of university professor (and Goliath figure) stumps his young pupils (the Davids) with the theological quandries. It just doesn't pack the same punch when you turn it around like that-- especially when I know I can give much better answers than those supplied by these students. And of course, Ehrman doesn't seem to seek further answers from people his own metaphorical size.
Well, at least Roger Ebert didn't go on to say that because the nun couldn't answer his question, he gave up the faith. There were other factors involved.
And by the way, the Ebert quandry is one of the most feeble excuses for not believing in God I've ever heard. A child could knock it down. I can imagine young Ebert speaking with said child :
"Gee Roger, if God did have a begining, what would have come before that?"
"I dunno Petey. Maybe nothing?"
"So God would have come out of nothing? I thought you couldn't get anything out of nothing. I can't even imagine what nothing is like."
"Well, maybe it's like outer space-- with nothing there."
"But empty space is something, Roger. And anyway, nothing ever suddenly appears in empty space, does it? Besides, if God could stop living, what could kill him? I mean I can't imagine him ever getting sick. Can you?"
"Aww Petey-- let's just go see if my Ma will take us to a movie."
In the midst of writing this post, I got an email from the Focus on the Family website with the subject line: "Roger Ebert's Curious Faith". I avoided opening it. It slightly diminishes my enjoyment in writing this, somehow. Apart from stealing my thunder, which isn't a very logical assesment on my part, it just smacks of Goliath (Focus on the Family) picking on David (Ebert). When I write these things, I'm more like the David figure. But I suppose my curiosity will get the better of me when I'm done here.
Comments
Post a Comment