Dinosaurs in the Ark: Beyond Fundamentalism, Creationism and the Divine Logos

On Memorial Day, 2007, The Creation Museum opened its doors in Petersburg, Kentucky. Unlike previous attempts at such a museum, this is no shanty operation, costing approximately 28 million dollars to complete. It covers 70,000 square feet, and includes a planetarium and a petting zoo. This is not an ordinary science museum. Although it uses the aura, language, and even aesthetics of a modern science museum, it rather asserts a literal interpretation of young earth creation, believing that the earth was created by God in six 24-hour days. The exhibits of the museum include lush, jungle-like dioramas of Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, as well as human children playing with dinosaurs. (The museum explains that dinosaurs were part of the creation, but died off in the flood some 4,000 years ago. It sights medieval legends of dragons as evidence that humans and dinosaurs once co-existed.)

 

The museum is created by Ken Ham, founder of the non-profit group Answers in Genesis. The mission of this organization is to promote the scriptural inerrancy of the Bible. Where people may have questions about the origin of life in the universe, AiG provides the answers to the mysteries of being. It is currently popular among evangelical Christians in the “Bible Belt,” and they have expanded it to include a full scale model of the Ark itself, complete with a petting zoo. But, the Creation Museum has its critics as well, from scientists as well as mainstream culture, who deride it as ideological propaganda, and an insult to science and responsible pedagogy. Despite the influence of a scientific age, this “museum” persists as a bizarre artifact of an antiquated worldview. Like a contrarian backlash against Modernity, it maintains that a few lines of poetic scripture in the Book of Genesis are taken to imply the entire course of creation and history. And in projects like the Creation Museum artifact utilize modern artistry, language, and aesthetics of science to subvert the modern worldview with a pre-modern, medieval understanding of history.

 

Here I will argue that recent efforts of creationism are an effort to restore not only an anachronistic worldview, but represent a quixotic attempt to corral all meaning into the parameters of an authoritative text. The awkward insistence on textual authority and Biblical inerrancy enact a cultural regression that is indicative of a reactive culture and a failure of expanding notions of faith that Christian ethicists desire. The regression to text shows not only a castrated failure of faith, but exposes the failure of text itself, and finally, the failure of the logocentric cosmos of Abrahamic faiths. Here I consider this phenomenon in three steps. First, I will consider creationism as a sociological phenomenon of American fundamentalism, and show how it struggles with Modernity. Then I will show how its insistence on biblical inerrancy has its roots in book culture and the typographic mind. Then, I will look at this phenomenon mythically from the viewpoint of heroic Biblical Logos in the creation myth, revealing how the Bible itself is an errant, crippled, and incomplete picture of creation that has haunted Abrahamic faiths since their postlapsarian inception. It is a bad myth that engenders and replicates bad faith and a pitiable understanding of reality; a pity reified in the Creation Museum.

 

noahs-ark-kentucky-106

 

***

Inside the Creation Museum

What is most apparent about the museum is that it not a museum. It merely uses the aura and façade of science for ulterior motives. For fundamentalists, the museum is not primarily about science, but about good and evil. Jandos Rothstein’s essay “Graphic Displays of Faith”:

In the exhibit “Culture in Crisis,” a fake street shows a church being destroyed by a wrecking ball that symbolizes evolution. Through a window, a boy can be seen surfing internet porn, and a teenage girl holds a positive pregnancy test and a pamphlet about abortion. ‘It’s not so much about evolution as it is a way of thinking, says (museum design director Patrick) Marsh. “Morality is not something that evolves. Biblical morality is unchangeable.” (96)

 

Indeed, the museum’s main aim is not scientific education, but salvation. Museum docents are planted around the exhibits ready to assist visitors to bear witness and testimony. Each exhibit section ends with a presentation of the gospel, and an invitation to commit one’s self to faith. (Byassee, “Dinosaurs in the Garden”).

 

The museum takes much time to point at perceived flaws in Darwinian Theory, and blames secular modernity for war and suffering. The suggestion is that with a reassured Biblical creation, human morality will rise to moral standards. The museum takes much effort to portray science and secularity as evil, signs that “man is rebelling against his creator [sic].” The museum depicts evolutionists as well through in a museum video. As the actor speaks of evolution, he takes on nefarious expressions, likening onto a satanic plot. Elsewhere, a high school science teacher teaching evolution is presented as an elitist tyrant who is closed minded to creationism. The doctrine of evolution is presented as secular propaganda spread by confused, doctrinaire fools; contrasting greatly with the innocent free inquiry of creationism.

 

adam_eve

The Museum has its foundations in the deliberate doctrine of American fundamentalism. Fundamentalism was not even a word until 1910, when two devout brothers, Milton and Lyman Stewart, SoCal entrepreneurs, commissioned an anthology from conservative theologians in an effort to combat secular modernity and liberal theology with a marketable product. Making their money near the same Hollywood dream factory that gave form to the Creation Museum, the five volume The Fundamentals asserted revivalist Reformation theology, centered around the inerrancy of Biblical history; including the dogmas of creation, the literal virgin birth, death and resurrection of Christ, and that Christ will return in an apocalyptic struggle with the Anti-Christ. Creation is integral to the Biblical story, as the key dogma that begins the story of the moral universe. Reverend Dyson Hague contributed a key paper in The Fundamentals which became the basis of modern creationism:

 

The Book of Genesis is the foundation on which the superstructure of the Scripture rests. ….The Bible teaches that the universe was not causa sui or a mere passive evolution of His nature, nor a mere transition from one form of being to another, from non-being to being, but that it was a direct creation of the personal, living, working God, who created all things out of nothing, but the fiat of His will, and the instrumentality of the eternal Logos. … The first verse of the Bible is a proof that the Book is of God. (“The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis,” internet resource)

 

The tenor of this statement captures the spirit of anti-evolution fervor at the time. The famous orator and American statesman William Jennings Bryan was in the decline of his career when he performed the role of prosecuting attorney in the Scopes Monkey Trial of 1925. (John Scopes was a Tennessee science teacher placed on trial for teaching evolution; then outlawed as pedagogical debasement. He was convicted by the jury, and fined 100 dollars.) Bryan’s view from the prosecution was that “All the ills from which America suffers can be traced back to the teaching of evolution. It would be better to destroy every other book ever written and save just the first three verses of Genesis” (Ruthven, Fundamentalism 19). Fundamentalists believe that Biblical truth, based on Genesis 1:1, is the healing balm for social ills. Such is Henry Morris, founder of “Creation science” and founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research, “Evolution is the root of atheism, of communism, nazism [sic], anarchism, behaviorism, racism, economic imperialism, militarism, libertinism, anarchism [sic], and all manner of anti-Christian systems of belief and practice” (Ruthven, Fundamentalism 19).

 

dinosaursontheark

 

Fundamentalists perceive evolution as tantamount to moral relativism, and repeatedly reject the notion that man [sic] is an animal. They presume man [sic] has supernatural origin, elevating the spiritual and intellectual over the instinctual or beastly properties physiology suggests. Perceiving man [sic] as animal is a threat to the divine Logos, and a threat to the moral, soteriological, teleological and eschatological intentions implied by the Biblical historicism. It threatens fundamental notions of spiritual purity, and threatens the purity of the Logos. Man is not subject to nature, but is subject to original sin in a morally-driven universe, created by the Divine Authority ex nihilo. Evolution, in this moral universe, is unclean, confusing, and animalistic, which the Fundamentalists respond with moral indignation. Again, Rev. Hague colorfully states:

 

Man was created, not evolved. That is, he did not come from protoplasmic mud-mass, or sea ooze bathybian, or by descent from fish or frog, or horse, or ape; but at once, direct, full made, did man come forth from God. When you read what some writers, professedly religious, say about man and his bestial origin your shoulders unconsciously droop; your head hangs down; your heart feels sick. Your self-respect has received a blow. When you read Genesis, your shoulders straighten, your chest emerges. You feel proud to be that thing that is called man. Up goes your heart, up goes your head. (“The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis,” internet resource)

 

The purifying indignation of the fundamentalist imagination is aimed at a restoration of culture through revising history along theosophical paradigms. Their political rhetoric is replete with references to an imagined idyllic past, articulated as a utopian past of a pure Christian state. Fundamentalists believe, for instance, that the United States was founded on Biblical principles, and that the country has strayed from the moral centeredness of these absolutes. The reality is that the Constitutional framers were highly suspicious of religion and attempted to divorce secular governance from church life. Key among them was Thomas Jefferson, who wrote a version of the gospels commonly called “The Jeffersonian Bible,” which edited out all references to miracles or the supernatural.

 

Paradoxically, while claiming it is against Modernity, fundamentalism, like the Reformation theology it derives from, is a product of Modernity. In his book, Fundamentalism, sociologist Steve Bruce defines “fundamentalism (as) a rational response of traditionally religious peoples to social, political and economic changes that downgrade and constrain the role of religion in the public world” (117). This would indicate that fundamentalism is a form of reactionary blowback to cultural anxiety in the name of an idyllic past, and a cultural shell in which to preserve codified traditional beliefs. Two other observers noted that:

 

Fundamentalism is a truly modern phenomenon – modern in the sense that the movement is always seeking original solutions to new, pressing problems. Leaders are not merely constructing more rigid orthodoxies in the name of defending old mythical orthodoxies. In the process of undertaking “restoration” within contemporary demographic/technological centers, are new social orders actually being promulgated.” (Shupe and Haddon, “Is there such a thing as global fundamentalism?” 112)

 

Despite its manifest struggle with Modernity, however, this brand of theology does not offer a conscious or adult way to deal with the malaise of the modern. Rather, it is more like a symptom of that malaise sharing with Enlightenment the common perspective of modern Cartesian subjectivity which posits the individual as separate from a completely objective, disenchanted world. Utilitarian science and creationism both view the world as something alien and objective. Both believe monolithically in single universal truths. Both are interested in facts, not interpretations. As such, both could be faulted for doctrinaire logocentrism, where the flight to objectivity conveys a longing for security against the perceived chaos of material being. And both can be faulted for categorical melding, as scientists step into the realm of religion to proselytize atheistic positivism, (with the likes of Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins), and religious types who step into the realm of science, (like Ken Ham and Answers in Genesis). Both are awkward treading in alien waters, and both perspectives have common origins in Enlightenment subjectivity, both portraying an uneasiness from within Enlightenment culture. That is to say, fundamentalism and scientism are distant cousins with shared phallogocentric roots. Robert Jay Lifton writes that, “as in many other ways, fundamentalism is attracted to what it opposes. In pursuing this “modern anti-modernism,” fundamentalism seeks to replace history with doctrine, to view all experience through the lens of Scripture” (The Protean Self 161).

 

Fundamentalism is in the position to adapt along with modernity, keeping step with it as a kind of mutated offshoot. It positions itself as a fugue of secular and technological progress, harkening to reactionary social retrenchment against a transforming world. Malise Ruthven defines fundamentalism as a “’religious way of being’ that manifests itself in a strategy by which beleaguered believers attempt to preserve their distinctive identity as a people or group in the face of modernity and secularization” (Fundamentalism 8). It is the changing “protean” world fundamentalism functions as a purifying shield against. Robert Jay Lifton writes that the “totalistic or fundamentalist response is a reaction to proteanism and to the fear of chaos. While proteanism is able to function in a world of uncertainty and ambiguity, fundamentalism wants to wipe out that world in favor of a claim to definitive truth and unalterable moral certainty” (The Protean Self 11).

 

Against Lifton’s thesis, however, I would modify the notion of fundamentalism as not completely unalterable and has a two handed approach. As an ideology, it changes tactics, adopts new language, new technologies. It is not just the appearance of science with the Creation Museum, but it freely appropriates secularism and funnels it through a scriptural paradigm. In a postmodern humanistic West, as the Bible loses its epistemological hold on consciousness, the fundamentalist fringe becomes a movement retrenched in dogma, yet having to mimic the authoritative voice of the secular world. Evangelical megachurches are beginning to look like their own townships, with postmodern architecture, Christian rock music, clothing shops, craft bazaars, and coffee bars. There is even an evangelical theme park called “Holy Land” in Orlando, and the aforementioned Creation Museum. Evangelicals are even promoting stimulating sexuality, selling sex toys from websites like book22.com (named after the “Song of Solomon”). The look, appearance, and even speech of secular society is appropriated, and stamped with a trademark © (Christian), to give the aura that all these things are now okay to engage in because they have been approved of by the ideological Authority, preserving its phallogocentric function.

 

creationmuseum064

 

***

The Book of books, the Author of authors

I have so far considered the anthropology of fundamentalism, but some deeper consideration has to be paid to the Divine Authority itself. As evangelical Christians are engaging with secular society, and now adopting the church to modern society, it is a wonder yet why there is such a concerted effort to buttress a defeated worldview with new language. Why do individuals and communities undergo the pretense of revitalizing scriptural historical authority in a modern world, such that the Creation Museum still attracts more than half a million visitors a year? The drama centers on preserving the aurora of the scripture.

 

The answer is that the power of God is in the power of His Book. The Bible is the Book of books, not just bound to history, but invents History. As the church became decentralized, no longer containing the faith of the individual, Luther’s answer was to devalue the church and its mythology, and re-focus faith as an individual quest for salvation in relation to the Bible and the Authority of the revealed word. The Bible is the Logos, and He is its Creator. The book does not change, it is written [sic]. Had Christianity been based on an oral tradition, it may have been more adaptable and malleable than the implacable authority of the revealed word. It is through the Word alone that God is present. Derrida writes:

 

The stage is theological for as long as its structure, following the entirety of tradition, comports the following elements: an author-creator who, absent and from afar, is armed with a text and keeps watch over, assembles, regulates the time or meaning of representation, letting this latter represent him as concerns what is called the content of his thought, his intentions, his ideas. He lets representation represent them through representatives, directors or actors, enslaved interpreters who represent characters who, primarily through what they say, more or less directly represent the thought of the “creator.” Interpretive slaves who faithfully execute the providential designs of the “master.” (Writing and Difference 235)

 

The divine Authority of the Book implies its own enforcement. As monotheism, it carries its own inertia because the integrity of God, of the Book, relies upon the integrity of History. Postmodern theologian Mark C. Taylor writes, “From the perspective of traditional Christianity, history is always a story. Events are not merely chronic or simply successive; they are plotted along a line that has an unambiguous beginning, middle, and end. The Christian drama consists of five acts: Creation, Fall, Incarnation, Crucifixion/Resurrection and Redemption” (Erring 65). In the Christian History, nothing has a loose end. Each act needs the other acts to make sense for the central mid-point of the “Christ event.” “Christ, in other words, is the logos that discloses the logic and rationale of time as a whole” (Erring 65).

 

tumblr_m0sgneqefj1r7uuj5o1_500

From the view of deconstructive theology’s focus on the Logos of History, the role of evangelicals comes into focus. They are actors, interpretive slaves to the most literal of interpretations. It is not so much a choice driven out of existential insecurity and epistemological doubt, but a simple mimicry of divine history, like monolithic drone enforcers of the alpha and the omega. These are not the ideas of individuals because they reject their own subjectivity in favor of the prescribed Logos. Here, it is useful to think of the Logos of Christian historicism as a kind of autonomous complex in the collective psyche. It carries a personality and thinking of its own. And like a complex, it is simplistic in its aims – it simply insists upon its own being. It is without textuality, defiant of hermeneutics, a self-authenticating authority. As such, it attempts to colonize history, incorporating books into its Book. As such, the monolith is an imperialistic construction. As the museum is a modern imperialist construction, appropriating and relativizing the Other behind their preserved glass cases, so the Creation Museum appropriates the idea of Museum itself, colonizing the colonizer, insisting on its Divine Logos and ontological supremacy.

 

Only the appropriation is now rife with inner contradiction, and reeks with insecurity. The Creation Museum is a relic of a dying worldview, a loosening structure feebled by its ill execution, lack of basic data, and insistence on simple binaries. It is a monument to ecological trauma, and an insecurity and a reversion to a simplistic crippled faith. Creationism is replete with contradictory thinking and defensive platitudes, suggesting the loosening of Authority as much as it does the enfeeblement of evangelical faith.

 

Faith need not be reactionary, however. A changing world could be a call to deepening faith rather than retreating to a caricatured cartoon of its elements. The loss of Divine form could be viewed as an opportunity to deepen faith with a non-ideological religious experience. Psychologist and theologian James Fowler suggested in Stages of Faith that faith developed in six stages. Literal fundamentalism falls mostly in Fowler’s Faith Stage 2 – a “Mythic-Literal” faith that is common in school children. Children this age, according to Fowler, believe in the justice and reciprocity of the universe, and their deities tend to be anthropomorphic. Fundamentalist communities also have tendencies to Stage 3, a “Synthetic-Conventional” faith found mostly in adolescents that characterize conformity. For Fowler, faith appropriately developed would hinge on the pivotal Stage 4, the “Individuative-Reflective” faith, whereby a person has to take personal responsibility for beliefs and feelings. Stage 5 faith revolves around a “Conjunctive” faith in which the individual is able to acknowledge paradox and the transcendence of reality communicated through symbolic meanings. Fundamentalism is a house of stunted growth, and on the contrary to religion, demonstrates a lack of faith and a lack of true religious feeling. Only when the Logos is subverted can an individual move from merely mimicking Biblical historicity to engaging in a poiesis, and a creative-imaginative faith.

***

Biblical Errancy

So far I have discussed how the anthropology of fundamentalism and the authority of the Book work together to form an entrenched, literalizing historicism based on the Divine Word. This doctrine is upheld today in fundamentalist communities, and in the fusion of modern and anti-modern worldviews in the Creation Museum artifact. A maturing of Christian faith requires a more sophisticated hermeneutic of myth and symbol, the province of the humanities. However, some mythical archeology has to be performed in order to reconstruct the context in which Genesis was written.

 

Genesis was one of the first texts written to formulate a Hebrew creation epic. This epic was to be the cosmogenesis of a Hebrew polemic in which to found the race and identity of a people in distinction from the Others (the Assyrians, Babylonians, Hittites, and Egyptians, et al) of the Ancient Near East. Genesis was not causa sui, rather it was copied off of primarily Bablyonian creation myths that predated the Hebrews by thousands of years.  Jungian analyst Henry Straw suggested that the Biblical cosmogonic myth was left incomplete as it copied Babylonian lore. In the Babylonian myth, Marduk, the cosmogonic hero deity, fashioned the world out of Tiamat, a kind of primordial dragon that represented the prima materia of creation. Similar myths abound in different traditions that propose that in the beginning there was an undifferentiated wholeness to being. Consciousness, in the form of the cosmogonic hero, created differentiation. Straw writes:

 

The first chapter of Genesis focuses on the moment when Marduk and Tiamat meet in combat, when wind meets water.

 

In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth, the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters. Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light. (Genesis 1:1-3)

 

The Hebrew word tehom, translated “the deep,” is derived from “Tiamat”. God is the Marduk function, the divider. There is no mention of an original whole from which the creator and the formless void emerge. This moment of victory over the formless is taken out of its original context of ideas. It is no longer a moment in a narrative explaining how one becomes many. It is no longer a picture of the surface and depth of being. Genesis 1, the official cosmogony in the Bible, is not a complete cosmogony. It is that moment when differentiation dominates completeness. It does not imagine a primordial whole of being. It imagines only the fragmentation of being (6-7).

 

The mistake of Genesis creates history with this anti-mythical stroke. Primordial fullness, the divinity of matter, the so-called divine feminine is excised from Abrahamic faiths. This is the origin of the metaphysical problem of creatio ex nihilo. Furthermore, God takes a vicarious position with the world, a theological problem called deus absconditus. Genesis maintains that people are considered special creations rather than manifestations of this primordial unity. And as for God, he takes on further and further remoteness, first from the Garden, and then his authority is lessened by Modernity, confined then marduk-tiamatonly to the gaps of cosmogonic explanation. This is all so because the creation itself initially implies distanciation from God in an inherently meaningless material world. And God, in the metaphysical imagination, watches from a great distance, concerns himself only with justice rather than being. In the beginning, as in the end, there is His Word, the solar project of Divine historicism.

 

Perhaps the problem with creationism is the book itself and its claim of textual supremacy over the particulars of life. There is a certain biophobia in these beliefs, a kind of hygienic worldview always at a remove from life. One can only imagine how a Babylonian cosmogony would have viewed the theory of evolution. I imagine that it would have gotten along just fine with modernity because it could focus its vision on the primordial unity of all living things, view nature as something sacred, and see animals as distant cousins to human beings.. This cosmogony would have lent itself to an ecological worldview, and less atomistic and vicarious than the Abrahamic cosmogony. It presages Lynn Margulies’s Gaia hypothesis by ten thousand years, and is itself a descendent of a much older Gaian-inflected faith. And that is to say that all life is interrelated in an intricate network of being.

 

***

In the fundamentalist worldview, everything is about maintaining certainty, about clamping down, shutting off flows of libido, desire, and making everything refer to the rigid boundaries of text. It is an ethical claim that is the hallmark of phallogocentric culture, and the main block on the way to a holistic cosmogony and resuscitated ethic – both socially and ecologically. Feminist philosopher Luce Irigaray calls for such an ethic that escapes textual representation and its phallic anaesthesis, a mode of unalienated and unmediated desire escaping the boundaries of textual ossification; of an Eros that escapes, slipping through language. Phallogocentric textual reality is replete with fissures, breaks, inconsistencies that break down its formal idealism. Only the most doctrinaire people rationalize away these breaks in a tireless quest to make life fit the book. But in the breakdown, a more immediate sense of reality makes itself known, and presents an opportunity to enter into a more interesting field of relations. Environmental ethicist Mick Smith writes:

 

Beyond the margins and beneath the surface of modernity, overlooked or dismissed, there remains an excess that escapes containment, an undercurrent that flows around and through the bounds of the masculine/instrumental symbolic order: a “physical reality that continues to resist adequate symbolization and/or that signifies the powerlessness of logic to incorporate in its writing the characteristic features of nature.” (Irigaray) … The modern and the masculine tries to, but cannot, take into account and make tangible that which is least amenable and most alien to its own order of things – the emotional excess that transcends self-interest in its unequal and unfathomable responsiveness to others. The ethical marks a refusal to force others to comply, to make them fit into the categories of one’s own symbolic order to see them fit into the categories of one’s own symbolic order or to see them as someone exactly like us. In this way Irigaray suggests that we might yet experience a return of this repressed, of the “other(’s)” side of the symbolic order; of the feminine rather than masculine, of nature rather than culture, of a mechanics of fluids rather than solids, of ethics rather than economics.” (An Ethics of Place 173)

 

I claim that this other, more complete picture of reality gives a more complete picture of the self and of nature. It is a reality that has been suppressed by textual supremacy and representation that has resulted in this awkward, tyrannical cosmogony that is, at its worst, a fundamentalist reactive cartoon of reality. But in this cartoon, this ridiculous caricature reified in the Creation Museum, we see not a misguided delusion from the goodness textual authority, but on the contrary, the precise meaning of the text is revealed. But it is a mistake to blame this on emotionally crippled adults. The fault is in our heritage of cultural attitudes about text. The fault is in a culture with no sense for poesis, with no intelligence for an embodied knowing about our place, with no cosmogony that can give a coherent meaning for its circular, systemic being. It is in this zone that James Fowler’s Stages of Faith provides a coherent sixth category called Universalizing, one that he calls exceedingly rare. But it is a form that has in some respect moved past understanding text as a symbolic form and into a new, unmediated sense of connected well being. Fowler describes stage six Universalizers as having:

 

… generated faith compositions in which their felt sense of an ultimate environment is inclusive of all being. They have become incarnators and actualizers of the spirit of an inclusive and fulfilled human community. They are “contagious” in the sense that they create zones of liberation from the social, political, economic and ideological shackles we place and endure on human futurity. Living with felt participation in a power that unifies and transforms the world, Universalizers are often experienced as subversive of the structures (including religious structures) by which we sustain our individual and corporate survival, security and significance. (200-201)

 

There is a sense where this kind of belief needs no book or museum or shackles of ideological inculcation, just a sympathetic overflow of relatedness. And it is this affectual-creative sense which is the true home and origin of an earthly cosmogony.

 

This is a long way from dinosaurs on the ark. But the existence of that “museum” begs for considerable ridicule, as all fundamentalisms must be ridiculed, lest it take monopolistic claim on faith. Ironically, yet appropriately, it is a high form of faith that mocks these obscene cartoons. Evolution is a startling idea that calls for a greater understanding of nature. It is a notion that calls for wonder, calls for an understanding of how things interact systematically, calling for relationship. Text has its limits, and must be written with limits in mind, or else society is apt to reproduce itself in a desiccated and crippled form alienated from reality. This is not to say that language is useless either, but that concepts and ideas have to have a self understanding of their place. In other words, life must not serve text, text must serve life. The word does not make flesh, but flesh makes words. In this proper role, a greater, more interesting, embodied sense of reality awaits.

***

WORKS CITED

Bruce, Steve. Fundamentalism. New York: Wiley-Blackwell. 2000. Print.

Byassee, Jason. “Dinosaurs in the Garden.” In Christian Century. 2/12/08, Vol. 125. Issue 3, pp 22-26.

Derrida, Jacques. Writing and Difference. Translated by A. Bass. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1978. Print.

Fowler, James W. Stages of Faith: The Psychology of Human Development and the Quest for Meaning. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981. Print.

Hague, Dyson. “The Doctrinal Value of the First Chapters of Genesis.” In The Fundamentals. Vol. 1, Ch. XIV. Internet resource.

Lifton, Robert Jay. The Protean Self: Human Resilience in an Age of Fragmentation. New York: Harper Collins. 1993. Print.

Rothstein, Jandos. “Graphic Displays of Faith.” In Print. Feb. 2008. Vol. 62, Issue 1. pp 96-101.

Ruthven, Malise. Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning. New York: Oxford University Press. 2004. Print.

Shupe, Anson and Jeffrey K. Haddon. “Is there such a thing as global fundamentalism?” In Anson Shupe and Jeffrey K. Haddon (Eds.), Secularization and Fundamentalism Reconsidered. New York: Paragon House. 1989.

Smith, Mick. An Ethics of Place: Radical Ecology, Postmodernity, and Social Theory. Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001. Print.

Straw, Henry F. Turn Around. Unpublished manuscript. 2009.

Taylor, Mark C. Erring: A Postmodern A/Theology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 1984. Print.

 

***

Reposted from my archive at Green Fissures in an Otherwise Pristine Robot, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s