This morning I listened to a critique of the Oscar acceptance speech of Joaquim Phoenix.
The critique was done by Dr. Albert Mohler, President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary.
Mr. Phoenix’s speech was a defense of justice. He is a vegan, so part of his story was a kindness to animals. He had the courage to state that humans, at their most inventive and meaningful, are a collective of loving people.
Dr. Mohler seemed to wince at the notion, in its’ simplest form, of the equality of animals.
His trouble was based upon the creation story in Genesis and the notion of the Bible as infallible because it is inspired by God.
The creation story in Genesis most certainly states the fishes of the sea and the birds of the sky were created for human use/pleasure.
His critique drew my interest because I do not understand how humans can make themselves more important than any other living (or for that matter non-living) things.
My belief in this ‘living thing’ equality is based upon a great deal of thought… and living experience with animals.
The entire discussion also brings up the broader question on the nature of the Bible.
The Bible is a document. It was written by humans. It was written with numerous objectives – report on important events, delve into religious/philosophical/epistemological ideas, serve as a platform for creative writing, etc.
It’s a wonderful collection. I feel certain it is perhaps the most important book in human history (do not know the actual statistics).
It also can be extremely complicated and contradictory (so can life!) –particularly when you consider both Old and New Testament.
Dr. Mohler would contend it is ‘the word of God’.
At this point I begin to have questions:
Did God intend for the Bible to be ‘it’ with respect to ‘the word of God’?
Given the original language of the Bible, and its’ numerous translations, how do we accommodate for interpretation if the words are ‘infallible’?
In the last 2000 years have we humans not had any ‘Bible worthy’ inspiration? If no, why? If yes, how do we identify it?
Where does the new knowledge of science fit into this discussion?
Would God make a ‘static’ epistemology?
How do human prophetic voices fit into this long history of ‘the word of God’?
If God is open to redemptive behavior (and change) can we add to the Bible?
I listened to Mr. Phoenix’s speech. He obviously feels deeply about what he said. He obviously was asking for human affection. He obviously feels more human affection will lead to holy works by humans.
I agree.
Richard Pace 