The Daily Detour

Off to visit the Queen

Well, Jean and I have been packing for a hop across the pond to visit our British cousins. We're leaving later today for a rather long flight to London. The last time I spoke in England, I told the audience that I was hoping to get back over there as soon as possible. Ten years later, I'm finally making good on that intention. Better late than never, right?

I've been priviliged to be invited over to give a series of lectures for the International Christian Youthworks organization. It is a resourcing organization which partners with Christian ministries throughout the globe who are working with emerging church leaders (and is the only organization of its kind in England). Thus, my role is to bring a perspective on Christian leadership.

Jean's also been asked to share with the female leaders at this conference. So both of us will have some wonderful opportunities to engage with leaders from around the world, and I'm sure, learn much more from them than anything we might bring to the experience.

Aside from the speaking responsibilities, we will also be doing a bit of sight-seeing and visiting with friends (including one of our TDD readers from Germany), so hopefully I can post some pictures later.

For those of you who may want to get a sense of where we'll be, the conference is being held up in the middle of the United Kingdom, near Kidderminster, northwest of London. I can't guarantee how frequently I'll have internet access, so the posts to The Daily Detour may be a bit more infrequent. But I will be updating you all when I can.

In the meantime, I hope all of you, TDD's faithful readers, have a wonderful New Year's celebration. I must say, this will be the first time I've celebrated New Year's Eve 50,000 feet over the Atlantic. If I do happen to wake up sometime during that flight, I'll raise my Diet Coke and peanut butter crackers in your honor. :) Happy New Year to one and all! May this coming year bring you blessings far beyond anything you could ask or imagine. Cheerio!

An open letter to Chris at Flickerbulb re. altruism and evolution

(Friends, neighbors, and anyone else who has just stumbled upon The Daily Detour--This post is considerably longer than most others I put up. My attempt here is to clarify some of the points that Chris (a.k.a. Liberace) had issue with over at Flickerbulb. I would encourage you to read my original post, as well as, his rebuttal in order to have the proper context for this open letter. Hopefully, this exchange will stimulate your thinking and dialogue. So, grab a cup of coffee, your favorite snack, and get comfy. It's gonna take a few minutes to get through it...)

Chris (Liberace),

Normally, I don't take the necessary time to respond directly to lengthy comments post on this blog for a couple of reasons. First of all, it take more time than I usually have, and secondly, my intent is not to get into a sparring match with anyone who chooses to visit this site. Such intellectual pugilism tends to divide rather than unite, and is often counterproductive to the purpose of this blog--namely, the pursuit of Truth. However, this is at least the second lengthy comment you've posted here (and on your blog) that infers conclusions about statements, phrases, and ideas of mine that are less than accurate. Therefore, I decided to provide some grounding for my post, lest the reader be lead astray by my "gross simplifications" and "mad stabs at what unbelief is really like", as you put it. J I want those who visit to be clear about what I really believe.

I hope you don't mind this open letter, but there are just a few points of clarification I want to make in order to provide the proper context with which the observations in my original post were written.

First of all, regarding my observations about the responses of atheists/agnostics to the Barna survey, it is important to consider the question I posed at the end of that paragraph as it was written in my original post: "Shouldn't the percentage of atheists who believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ be 0%?" My point there, was, I think, the same as yours. That while we don't know the actual number of atheists, as differentiated from the agnostics in that combined group, if even 1 atheist out of the 15% designated there believed in the virgin birth, something's amiss. Anyone who holds a basic presupposition against the idea of the supernatural cannot, in the next breath (or survey response), give assent to a supernatural event. But, to your point, the ability to willingly suspend one's disbelief in conflicting ideas covers all demographics.

Secondly, it is apparent to me that my statement "Christianity's founder, Jesus" conveyed a meaning that was not intended. Obviously, in light of your taking issue with that phrase, I should have used different wording so as to keep the focus on the point I was making. Certainly, Jesus did not "found" Christianity in the same sense that Muhammad founded Islam, Joseph Smith founded Mormonism, Siddhartha Gautama founded Buddhism, etc... My intent with that phrasing was merely to convey the idea that without Jesus Christ, there would essentially be no Christianity. And His death for us, His creation, epitomized the very sacrificial essence of Christianity as it is supposed to be lived out. That is why the Bible emphasizes such directives as "Love your neighbor as yourself' (Matthew 22:39), "Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends" (John 15:13), and "This is how we know what love is: Jesus Christ laid down his life for us. And we ought to lay down our lives for our brothers" (1 John 3:16). In fact, the tension between our selfish nature and the selfless example of Christ is summarized in Philippians 2:3-7:

Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. Your attitude should be the same as that of Christ Jesus: Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the very nature of a servant....

It is in this sense that I intended my point. Again, perhaps different phrasing would have better clarified it. By suggesting that sacrificial love for others is an "inherently Christian idea", I am not meaning to say that the idea or example of sacrificial love for others did not exist prior to Christianity's beginnings To imply otherwise demonstrates a short-sighted, revisionist view of history that is both naive and irresponsible. I was simply suggesting that the basis of Christianity, in its inherent nature, is built on the fundamental principle of self-sacrifice for others.

Do all Christians embody this altruistic example? Not nearly as often as we should. And that dismal reality has severely damaged Christianity's credibility in the eyes of many skeptics. They are rightfully asking, "If Christianity is supposed to be so good, then why doesn't it seem to make any difference in the lives of those who embrace it?" Such skeptics have often been treated by many professing Christians in ways that are directly contradictory to the true essence of Christianity and the very person of Jesus Christ. "We don't mind Christ," they say. "It's the Christians we can't stand." And I certainly don't blame anyone who may resonate with that feeling. To treat anybody in a manner unbefitting the example set by Jesus is just plain wrong. And it is in the misapplication of Christianity by many so-called Christians that the true nature of Christianity as a belief system is obscured.

My point was simply that Christianity as a belief system found its beginning in the very nature of Jesus Christ, who willingly wen to the cross for us. My hope would be that we not let the discussion about who "officially" founded the Christian faith distract away from the point I was attempting to make there.

And finally, you were fairly straightforward in your presumptive assessment of my "simplistic understanding of evolution in general, and in survival of the fittest specifically." So, perhaps it's necessary to revisit the point I was making about altruism?

Given that the concept of altruism does exist, then we must ask, "Where did it come from?" You suggested that we human beings developed it in order to perpetuate our species. Given an evolutionary presupposition, that explanation makes sense. Since there is no supernatural reality, then there would have to be a natural cause to explain it.

As you know, the concept of natural selection (which you accuse me of oversimplifying by using the more common phrase, "survival of the fittest") is based on the idea of heritability--namely, the process by which characteristics favorable to our survival increase with succeeding generations, while those unfavorable to our survival decrease over time to the point of extinction.

If this is true, that we are all here as a result of the unguided process of natural selection, then why does altruistic behavior seem to be the exception and not the rule for our interactions with eachother? What I mean is this: If altruism, and not selfishness, is the desired behavior (and presumably the kind of behavior we should emulate), then why does such behavior continue to surprise us? This seems to illuminate its infrequency in our lives. For example, why is our tendency, when we receive something for free, to immediately wonder, "What's the catch?" Or, why do we, when considering a plea for our help, even subconsciously ask ourselves, "What's in it for me?" Whether we want to admit it or not, this "quid pro quo" approach to life shapes the reality of human relationships.

If natural selection has been happening for billions of years (as evolution would suggest), then why isn't altruism (a heritable trait to which we should all aspire) on the increase? Perhaps it's because the idea of selfishness is actually the better means to our survival? The process of natural selection as we see it being lived out in our world seems to lend itself to this explanation. And yet, even evolutionists uphold altruism as a noble idea, one that would presumably make our world a better place.

Therein lies the tension. Certainly, those who hold an evolutionary worldview have their own explanations for altruism, to which you generically alluded to in your comments. But, I must say, your explanations did not satisfy the genuine question I asked in my original post about how a worldview built on the idea of self-preservation through natural selection can simultaneously embrace self-sacrifice (even, at times, to the point of self-extinction)? Again, your focus on my statement "above all else" seemed to divert attention away from the question I was posing.

You suggested that I somehow think that "Beleiving [sic] in evolution is like some magickal [sic] potion...that suddenly makes one selfish to the point of completely disregarding of life and other people's right to it." Pointing out that, "This view is clearly not squaring with reality...." I'm not sure where I have suggested taht evolution means that everyone ultimately makes us selfish to the point of "completely disregarding of life and other people's right to it." If you have read the "Reflections on Morality" series I posted back in July you know that I elaborated on the Christian explanation for how non-Christian people can behave in ways that are compatible with Christianity, while Christians, too, can behave in ways that are inconsistent with their beliefs--namely, the tension between the fallen nature of man (Genesis 3) and the idea that God's laws are written on our hearts (Romans 2:15).

For the record, I can't say for sure whether evolution would make everyone selfish to the point of complete disregard of life. Evolution as a theory does not exist in a isolated laboratory apart from the world it seeks to explain. The reality is that evolution isn't the only explanation for the world in which we live. As such, it has to stand on its own merits (within the bounds of science, logic, history, and experience), just as Christianity does.

Ironically, it was the altruistic act of Jesus' death for us that has had the greatest impact on the world. How do those who believe in evolution explain such a phenonenon, especially apart from the Christian context in which that event happened?

My point is this: In past conversations with you I have heard you conjecture about how altruism can exist within an evolutionary framework--that somehow when we sacrifice for others we are ultimately behaving in a way that promotes the survival of our species in almost a kind of Karmic way. And yet, that explanation does not settle with me. To demonstrate altruism toward our neighbor is to serve them in some way without expecting anything in return. And yet, if we engage in altruistic behavior as a means of pertuating the survival of our species, does that not not cease to be altruism in its true sense?

But, again I go back to what, for me, is one of the most fundamental quandaries concerning this issue, "If altruism is 'one of the main attributes that humans display that has helped us survive and adapt, and yes, evolve, to be the species we are today' then why isn't altruism a dominate heritable characteristic in our human development?" (Is it because we haven't evolved enough yet? And if not, why not?)

Furthermore, if evolutionary theory provides the best explanation for its existence, then where is the tangible evidence to support such a claim? Basic observation of human relationships reveals that altruism is not a dominant heritable characteristic. We are inherently selfish people. (For example, one might argue that if we practiced more self-sacrifice for our spouses, the divorce rate might not be as high as it is today. Likewise, I don't have to teach my children how to be selfish. They are inherent bent in that direction, and my job as the parent is to discipline them in a direction that seeks to put the needs of others ahead of their own.) Within the parameters of natural selection, altruism appears to be more of a receding heritable characteristic that will (and if we embrace natural selection consistently one could argue, should) die out.

I actually think evolution makes a plausible case for explaining why we human beings ultimately tend to "look out for #1". I just wonder where the reality of altruism fits into that theory? It seems that the presuppositions inherent to evolutionary theory make the embracing of pure altruism difficult. You implied that I am "unwilling to face the plain facts." You're making an unfair assumption that is simply not true. I would be very interested in considering those plain facts to which you refer. I believe it is the consideration of the evidence that will help us make the best decisions possible on matters of such critical importance.

Well, this mini-tome has grown larger than I intended. If you're still reading it at this point, thanks for hanging in there and considering this elaboration of my original post. I hope these comments helped to clarify the points that this blog medium does not always allow for. Thank you also, Chris, for your regular visits to the blog. It always makes for interesting reading and thought-provoking consideration. And that's exactly what The Daily Detour was created for. J

A great Christmas present!

Normally, I don't elaborate on my Christmas presents. For anyone who knows me, you can probably guess that much of what I get at Christmas, birthdays, and other assorted holidays, centers around books. And while I am the consummate book nerd, my bookshelves are burgeoning with more books than even I am able to handle (although I am certainly up to the challenge). As I often share with people who ask whether I've read them all, "It's not whether you've read the books, what matters it that they're on your bookshelf." :)

That is why a few months ago I convinced Caleb and Andrew to join me on what we called, "The Great Bookshelf Adventure", where we went "antiquing" all day in pursuit of a bookshelf. After six hours, we happened upon just the right one, which has since found a cozy home right next to my bed. And the best part of "The Great Bookshelf Adventure" for my two little sidekicks? They each got to buy a new Matchbox car to go with the 2,347 they already have. Go figure! (Of course, they thought because everything in the antique store was old, that their still-in-the-box-from-last-year's-Christmas-sale Matchbox cars were just as old. To think that antiquers would prey on innocent little children like that! :)

Anyway, lest I travel much farther down that rabbit trail, my intent is to pass along to you a book recommendation that needs to find its way to your bookshelf. I did receive a Christmas present this year that is one of the best, most helpful, presents I have received since my Daisy BB gun back when I was thirteen. My wonderful wife Jean gave me The Apologetics Study Bible. This particular Bible comes from the Holman Bible Publishers and is written in a updated, and reliable, translation--the Holman Christian Standard Bible.

This Bible not only contains the usual biblical texts with accompanying study notes, but it also is filled with relevant articles on ethics, evolution, cults, archeology, the environment, etc... by many of the leading Christian thinkers of our day--Chuck Colson, J. P. Moreland, Philip Johnson, Ravi Zacharias and others. This Bible also includes a variety of other features that are specifically included to help those of you who are Christians better understand why you believe. It is a phenomenal resource!

For a resource of this caliber, it is also very reasonably priced. (You can get it at any local Christian bookstore, or at Amazon for as little as $26.39.)

I would highly recommend this Bible to anyone (Christian or non-Christian alike) who is interested in knowing more about Christianity--how the Christian worldview addresses the critical issues of our day, and the foundational context it provides for considering all other worldview belief systems. It is a must-have resource for any earnest Christian who is desiring to more effectively engage with the issues of our day. That is why it has not only found a permanent place on my new bookshelf, but it will get a lot of mileage in the years to come.

Who really believes in the virgin birth?

Well, this post was originally slated for posting on Christmas Eve, but the festivities of the evening (and my duties as "Santa", eating Christmas cookies, chewing up carrots, etc...) put blogging on the back burner. Now that the Christmas revelry has died down and we are getting back to some semblance of normalcy, I figured I do a little Christmas wrap-up today.

A recent survey by the Barna Research Group, asked adults what they believed about the virgin birth of Jesus--Was this story literally true or not? Across all demographic spectrums most adults said they did believe in the truth of that biblical story. In fact, 3 out of 4 (75%) of all adults said they believe that Jesus was born to the virgin, Mary.

As one might expect, a large majority of those who do not profess religious faith or belief in God did not believe the story to be true. Only 15% of atheists/agnostics said they believe in the virgin birth as a literal story. But that is what is so particularly surprising, not so much because of the agnostic responses. One can understand a varying set of beliefs based on their "I'm not sure" agnostic perspective. But it was more specifically the responses of the atheists which caught my attention. Shouldn't the percentage of atheists who believe in the virgin birth of Jesus Christ be 0%?

I hesitate to conjecture too much about this, but this inconsistency seems to indicate a desire to "have your cake and eat it too" as it were. I've talked about this in the past as it relates to morality in particular, that those who don't believe in God (and who interpret the world through the lens of evolution) then want to embrace aspects of the world that are desirable, yet inconsistent, with their belief system (e.g. the notion of altruism--that noble idea that one sacrifices him/herself without expecting anything in return). The inherently Christian idea of sacrificial love for others (as epitomized in the death of Christianity's founder, Jesus) is certainly desirable and should be lauded in our society. And indeed it is, by Christians and non-religious people alike. But I still haven't been able to figure out in my own mind how one can embrace this noble idea of sacrifice for the welfare of others while holding to the theory of evolution for the explanation of the world--a worldview which is inherently built on the guiding principle of self-preservation above all else.

On a related note, the responses to this survey raise the other significant question of biblical interpretation. Why would a non-religious person (or even a religious person) believe in the supernatural story of the virgin birth and not, for example, believe in the supernatural story of Jesus resurrection from the dead? On what does a person base his/her interpretation of the Bible? Is it based on solid evidence or personal whim? There are some some critical questions that each person, Christian and non-Christian alike, much ask themselves when considering any biblical passage (and indeed, a particular passage in light of the whole Bible).

Our beliefs about the Bible are a significant indicator of our worldview. The story of Christ's birth could be seen simply as a traditional element of the Christmas season, but we must not overlook the implications of that story in light of the entire Christian worldview. But for the birth of Immanuel ("God with us"), the possibility of salvation and eternity in heaven would always lay well beyond our grasp.

Merry Christmas from Mike Huckabee

GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee is in the news again for his latest TV commercial. Why? Because in it he has the sheer audacity to say that we should remember the reason for the season, namely the birth of Jesus Christ, and that he actually says "Merry Christmas". (Click here to watch this ad. But do proceed with discretionary caution, lest you be tempted to follow his example and bring similar a holiday greeting to friends and family.)

After intense scrutiny of the ad and continued flack for it, Huckabee said he will stand by his "cross" ad. I'm sure his stand had the employees with the Americans for the Separation of Church and State working overtime this Christmas (oops, I mean, "holiday") season.

Hope your Christmas was as good as mine was, catching up with friends and family (and padding my girth for a long winter's nap).

Merry Christmas from The Daily Detour!

Well, this year I had to do a major PR campaign to reprogram Caleb and Andrew that Santa is real. (Somebody let the cat out of the bag :). Now, I certainly understand those of you who may choose to downplay the idea of Santa so as not to overshadow the real reason for this Christmas season. There is considerable merit to this approach. (In fact, one of my favorite ceramic creations is this figurine of Santa, hat in hand, kneeling before the manger of the Christ child.) Each family must make their own decisions about such things.

In our case, I tend to take C. S. Lewis' view that Santa can represent so many wonderful things within the imagination of little children. So the PR effort was necessary and involved having the boys write letters to Santa. Amazingly, Santa sent a letter back in the mail (that, interestingly, was in a handwriting that looked strikingly similar to yours truly). Phase 1 was complete.

Then last night, after a great Christmas evening party with the entire Crane clan (including all of the boys and their cousins--7 kids ages 4 and under), we put Phase 2 into effect. We left the requisite cookies and milk on the table, as well as, a small pile of carrots (D.J. Payne's idea) and little gummy reindeer candies (my 2-year old Andrew's idea) out on the sidewalk in the front yard, so that Santa's reindeer might get a little snack too. And last but not least, Daddy made sure the fire was put out in the fireplace (so Santa wouldn't singe his coat on the way down the chimney) and the stockings were hung by the chimney with care. Then it was off to bed...

Like a scene right of A Christmas Story, Caleb came bounding into our room at 6:45 a.m. (I'm thinking...this can't be happening. "Santa" just got to sleep 5 hours ago.) He could barely contain his excitement! There were presents under the tree, and not only were there only two partially eaten cookies left (of the original 6--No wonder we parents gain that extra poundage over the holidays), but when we went outside to check the front yard, there were only a few gummy reindeer and a smattering of half-eaten carrots left. It was at that point that Caleb literally screamed (enough to wake the neighbors), "He's real!" By this time, the second of the 3 Musketeers woke up, so Caleb and Andrew tooking turns opening each of their presents. And wouldn't you know it, Santa brought just exactly the gifts they had asked for. :)

To see their joy was one of the most-fulfilling feelings I've experienced, even in the midst of suffering through my Santa "hangover". It was upon see the pure pleasure on their faces at the realization of this wonderful story come true that I thought to myself, "This is why I love the idea of Santa." Because just as C. S. Lewis pointed out in his classic story, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, it is the idea of Santa that points to the even more important gift-giver, God Himself.

And that, my friends, it what it's all about. And it must not be overshadowed by Santa or the general mayhem of the Christmas season. No matter where you are here in the States, or around the world, let us never forget that it was that little baby child where God broke into the timeline of human history in order to set in motion the events which would ultimately lead to the possibility of our salvation. There is no greater gift than that!

Before I sign off, and let you get back to the festivities with family and friends, let us also take a moment of special remembrance of our family and friends who are serving in our military this Christmas, whose sacrifices on our behalf makes it impossible for them to be with their families. To those of you who may be reading this, we think of you and are praying for you. God bless you all!

I've prayed and decided to become a Mormon.

At least that's what the earnest young man recently suggested I do in order to allow the Holy Spirit to enlighten me about the truth of the Mormon faith. This is exactly why the study of apologetics is so important. You never know when you'll be put into a position where you have to defend your faith. For this reason the biblical mandate implores us to "always be ready to give answer to everyone who asks you the reason for the hope that you have" (1 Peter 3:15).

For me the opportunity came last (Saturday) night while Jean, the boys, and I were wandering around monument circle in downtown Indianapolis looking at the Christmas lights. While we were waiting to go on a carriage ride, a young Mormon missionary came up and began to chat with me about the Mormon faith. He asked me if I had heard of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints and if I was familiar with the Book of Mormon. I mentioned I was, but I initially kept my cards close to the vest regarding my knowledge of the Mormonism.

After assuring me that Christianity and Mormonism are really the same, and that they believe Jesus is the Son of God, etc...etc..., I began to ask him a few questions of my own.

1. Was Jesus always God, or did He begin on earth as a human being and become God? (Mormons believe the latter and this young man's response was less than clear about their official view of Jesus.)

2. Do we human beings all have the potential to become gods like Jesus? (Which Mormons believe and this missionary did confirm.)

When I asked him more about it, he explained to me that Mormons believe that we all started out in heaven with God and then came to earth, and have the ability to go back to heaven to be with God. I pressed him a bit further on this point, simply asking where he got his information--from the Bible or the Book of Mormon? He assured me that it was in the Bible.

He used the biblical passage which references the idea that we are "dust to dust" (Ecclesiastes 3:20). I asked how this proved we came from heaven, and he switched tactics, referencing instead the passage from Psalm 139 where God says that before He made us, He knew us. Again, I wondered how this proved heaven to be our initial home. When I suggested that God, who is all-knowing, knows me even though I'm not in heaven, he again referenced the book of Ecclesiastes, suggesting that it says our souls go back to heaven. (Interestingly, when I asked him where in Ecclesiastes it said this, he didn't have an answer.)

In fact, it was at this point that the young man began to get a bit defensive. He interjected that he did not want to debate doctrine with me. I probed a bit further, asking him what was wrong with "debating" doctrine? If we can't debate our differing doctrinal beliefs, then they may as well all be the same.

Unfortunately, Jean (who had been waiting in line for the carriage) called to me just then, and my encounter with this dedicated, yet misguided, young man came to an abbreviated end.

But, friends, this encounter highlights a few points: First of all, as I mentioned at the beginning of this post, you never know when you'll be given the opportunity to defend your faith. Are you prepared to do that?

Secondly, the Christian faith is rational, reasonable and defendable because it is centered on Truth (despite what some of my skeptic friends might believe).

And finally, with asking the right kinds of questions you can gently help others recognize the deficiencies of their own belief system. Not with the intent of skewering them in some kind of theological duel, but rather, to ultimately point them to Jesus Christ, the source of Truth and real hope for their life. (These kinds of encounters also serve as a reminder than one can never be too well-versed in the beliefs of other worldview systems. Such knowledge helps one identify the points of difference with Christianity.) As you've heard me stump before, these kinds of exchanges are not merely about the battle for the supremacy of one's ideas. There are very real people involved, whose eternity hangs in the balance. Do not shy away from the opportunity to engage others in such conversations. It could very well be that God has divinely-orchestrated that interaction, as much for your sake as for theirs.

Huckabee's solution to illegal immigration? CHUCK NORRIS!

Greetings from Team Huck and Chuck! If you haven't seen it already, check out this light-hearted ad by GOP presidential candidate Mike Huckabee. (I can tell you, I'd be thinking twice about trying to sneak across the border if I knew there was a Walker Texas Ranger signature roundhouse kick waiting for me. :)

Interestingly, the immigration issue has tripped Huckabee up in the campaign, because his position on immigration isn't as conservative as he hoped we'd believe. We'll be taking a closer look at some of Huckabee's positions in the near future.

Hillary is a "world-class genius"

This was the latest assessment by her husband Bill Clinton regarding her ability to help others. Interestingly, people (even Democrats) are beginning to wonder if Bill is helping or hurting Hillary's campaign.

(In other related news, Obama is even with Hillary in the New Hampshire polls leading up to next month's primary.)

I'll leave the commentary to you all. You be the judge. :)

The Compass is not so Golden after all

Dare I admit it, but my usual attempt to address cultural issues in a timely manner does slip on occasion. Most recently, I had intended to do a brief post on the controversial movie, The Golden Compass. However, since it basically plunged at the box office (with a 65% drop over two weeks for a relatively meager $44 million, compared with Will Smith's $77.2 million opening weekend coup with I Am Legend.), the pressing need to address this movie dissipated somewhat.

Author Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy provides the material behind The Golden Compass movie. His publicly-stated intention with the series is that of "killing God." Further, in an interview he explains, "I'm trying to undermine the basis for Christian belief." Ironically, he has been described by Peter Hitchens as "the one the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed."

Beyond that, in another recent interview he dismissed J. R. R. Tolkien's Lord of the Rings trilogy as "trivial" and "not worth arguing with." Regarding C. S. Lewis' Narnia Chronicles, Pullman admits, "I don't like the answer Lewis comes up with." Such dismissive assessments come from the person who, in the same interview, said about fundamentalists, "You can't communicate with people who know they've got all the answers."

I must confess, this seems highly ironic from where I'm writing. Now, it's understandable that Christians often come across as seeming to believe they have "all the answers" (After all, to have a worldview built on the fundamental idea of Truth is to correspondingly imply that anything which does not correspond to that standard of Truth is wrong.) The irony lies in suggesting that it is Christian "fundamentalists" alone who claim to have "all the answers". The assumption that "I am right and you are not" is a human condition that permeates Christians and non-Christians alike. However, the non-Christian crowd is quite reluctant to acknowledge their own arrogance in this regard.

Some may say that pressure from the Vatican and other conservative groups accounts for the dismal showing at the box office. While such groups certainly have influence, they don't have that much influence. I believe there's a reason The Golden Compass didn't resonate with audiences the same way that C. S. Lewis' Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe did (which is currently ranked number 29th all-time by taking in over $291 million to date). The Golden Compass stands (or in this case, falls) on its own merits.

Of course, maybe those millions of people who didn't go see it on the big screen are simply waiting to rent a copy at their local Blockbuster in order to make up the difference in lost revenue for the New Line Cinema production company? Somehow I doubt it.