Beyond Welcome (a book about listening to and learning from immigrants)

I read the book Beyond Welcome: Centering Immigrants in Our Christian Response to Immigration, by Karen González (published 2022).

I really enjoyed this book. It's about how we have to move beyond a viewpoint where "we" are helping "them," as if immigrants are helpless and can't do anything and don't have anything to teach us. Instead, we need to learn from them, value their perspective, read bible passages through the lens of immigration rather than centering a white American point of view, have immigrants in leadership in our churches and our outreach organizations, etc.

---

About the author

González was born in Guatemala and immigrated to the US as a child. There are many places in the book where she talks about her own experiences, her identity as a Latina woman and as an immigrant in the US, her feelings about what it means to be an immigrant, and how those feelings have changed throughout her life. (For example, her ideas about what it means to be a "good" immigrant, and her ideas about assimilation, and how those views have changed.)

---

Assimilation vs integration, in the bible stories of Joseph and Moses

The book discusses many bible passages through the lens of immigration. I think this is great; this is something I want to pay more attention to when I read the bible. I think, in my experience, it's easy to feel like all the bible characters were over there in the desert in the Middle East, as if it's just all one culture. We don't realize the ways that bible characters might have felt out of place when they moved to a different country, the ways they tried to fit in, difficulties with foreign languages, etc. There is a LOT of migration in the bible. There are a lot of interactions between characters from different nations- much of it is conflict and war, but also we have characters like Ruth. She was a Moabite woman who came and lived among the Israelites, and Boaz (an Israelite man) made sure she was allowed to gather food from his field without anybody bothering her, and eventually they got married, and this is a great romantic story that everyone loves, even though God commanded the Israelites not to "intermarry" with other nations.

I think, for white American Christians who have never had the experience of being a minority, feeling out of place in an unfamiliar culture, struggling to understand the language that everyone else is speaking, they often don't even notice when bible characters are in situations like that. Immigrants notice that kind of thing. We need to learn from immigrants when we read the bible.

Here's an example from the book: In Genesis 37 and 39-50, we read the story of Joseph. His brothers sold him as a slave, and he was taken to Egypt. In Egypt, he eventually worked his way up to being second-in-command to Pharaoh, because he had the ability to interpret dreams, and predicted that there would be 7 years of famine, and so Pharaoh wanted him to be in charge of storing food to get ready for this famine. A lot of things happen, I'm just giving a short version here, eventually his hometown is also affected by the famine, so his brothers come to Egypt to buy food, there is some drama, and eventually he reunites with his family.

In Genesis 47, we're in the middle of the famine, and the Egyptian people are desperate because they've already spent all their money to buy food. So they tell Joseph to take their livestock in exchange for food, and he does that. Then, later, they need food again, so they tell him to take their land, and take them as slaves, in exchange for food, and he does that.

(To me this reads not like a true story, but like somebody asked "why is it that Pharaoh owns all the land in Egypt, except for the priests' land?" and then somebody made up this origin story.)

What Joseph did was, uh, kind of messed up. Authoritarian dictator behavior. He exploits the Egyptian people, during the famine, forcing them to give up everything and even sell themselves into slavery. Even though it was their food in the first place, that the government had collected during the 7 years of plenty, that he was then selling back to them.

"Beyond Welcome" asks, why would Joseph do this? Could it be because, even though he had lived in Egypt for a long time, and had basically assimilated, he still felt that he needed to prove his loyalty to Pharaoh, or else people would think he wasn't Egyptian "enough"? As immigrants, there is pressure to fit in, to go along with unjust systems that exist in the country you have immigrated to. You don't want to stand out. You don't want people to see that you're different. So you don't take a stand and challenge things that are clearly wrong.

Then the book contrasts this with the story of Moses (starting in Exodus 2). Moses was an Israelite, born during the time when the Israelites were slaves in Egypt. As a baby, he was saved by the daughter of Pharaoh, who then raised him as an Egyptian. But when he grew up, he saw that his people were suffering, and (okay I'm simplifying the story a little bit) he took action and went to Pharaoh and said "let my people go" and brought them out of slavery.

Moses was not Egyptian, but he grew up in the world of the Egyptians, and totally understood how to navigate that world. But he also maintained his identity as an Israelite, and made the choice to help the Israelites, taking a stand against the oppression of Egypt. This is called "integrating" rather than "assimilating"- learning about the culture of the place where you live, gaining the skills to live in that society, but still valuing your identity, from your place of origin. Don't sacrifice your identity and values just for the sake of "fitting in."

Immigrants can bring this kind of "outsider perspective" - they can see the problems more clearly, because they haven't lived their whole lives with the idea that all of it is "just the way it is."

Both Joseph and Moses lived a significant part of their lives in a culture where they were outsiders. Joseph "assimilated" and participated in the the Egyptian government's oppression of its people. Moses "integrated" and gained skills to navigate Egyptian culture, but also challenged the aspects of Egyptian culture which were wrong.

---

This book had a lot of very insightful things to say. I plan to post some more quotes from the book in future blog posts.

---

Related

"The Case For Open Borders" (book review)

What is a Queer Reading?

Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. A Rickety Closet (July 28, with more discussion here) "If so, some would say that Elliot’s exalted reputation among evangelicals should be reevaluated. I think that they are right, but there is a bigger takeaway here: conservative evangelicals’ own lives testify to the untenability of their teaching. Even their most exalted teachers fail to embody the purity that they themselves demand. And this revelation, quite apart from any one individual’s legacy, is the secret that evangelicals want to keep in their closets."

There is a claim that Elizabeth Elliot (a writer who was very influential in evangelicalism and the purity movement in the 70's and 80's) had some kind of lesbian relationship. We have no way of knowing if this is true, and no details about what exactly happened- but the significant thing is how evangelicals don't want this to be true, don't want anyone to even suggest it or talk about it. 

Part of it is hypocrisy, and part of it is how evangelicals made same-sex relationships such a big huge deal, when they should just be people's own personal business.

2. Olivia Rodrigo - expectations (feat. Chappell Roan) (Official Music Video) (October 16) Hey this is pretty cool, the first verse is straight and the second verse is gay, and it's like, both are treated as normal situations to be in, like it's not a big deal.

3. ‘I’m Not Going to Have Blood on My Hands’ (October 14, via) "A few weeks after my last day, a former coworker sent me a link to ESPN’s website. They had posted an interactive gambling story—a primer on how to gamble on sports. I opened it and it literally made me sick to my stomach. The animations are bouncy and bright; it’s pretty much made for kids."

4. The Most Polarizing Books on Goodreads Aren’t Actually Polarizing (October 20) "A five-star rating can mean “I loved this book.” It can also mean “I love this author,” “I love this series and am excited for the next installment,” or “I support what this book represents.” A one-star rating can mean “This is a terrible book.” But it can also mean “I hate what this author represents,” “I am angry about something the author did,” or even “I am angry that this book isn’t out yet.” A rating, in other words, is not necessarily a rating of the book."

Somewhat related, I wonder a lot about the overall landscape of Patreon and GoFundMe. I bet there is a huge number of Patreons that have $0 worth of subscribers. 

5. Those Democratic fundraising texts you keep getting? They're scams (October 22) Maybe calling them "scams" is taking it too far- they *are* raising money for the campaigns, *but* only a fraction of your donation actually goes to the campaigns. 

Here's their advice on how to donate: "To donate, go to the candidate's campaign site and make your donation directly. That eliminates at least that scam fee. The candidate may ask you to donate to ActBlue: that's a reasonable, not-crooked choice. The candidate may let you donate via a credit card directly, usually through an online card processor like Stripe: If that's available, do that. The processor takes a small fee, on the order of 3-5%, but paying by credit card insulates you from most possible scams."

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. How Trump’s FBI purge saved Lindsey Graham and James Clyburn from a bribery investigation (October 20) "Today, there is no one left to look into Kao’s explosive allegations, as the Trump administration has abandoned any pretense of prosecuting public corruption. The case is dead."

2. A letter from an ICE detention center: A pastor writes from inside (October 14, via) "They are fathers and sons. They are husbands and friends. They are people who are frightened. They are people who make mistakes. They are people who pray. They are people who need lawyers, information, medical care, compassion and sometimes simply another person willing to sit beside them when they believe they cannot keep going. They are human beings."

3. Supreme Court rejects Trump admin’s request to end trans-related care in prison (October 22) Some good news from the Supreme Court, for once.

4. U.S. measles cases more than double what they were last year as outbreak spreads (October 25)

Inspiration and Incarnation: How Many Gods

Ancient artwork depicting Egyptian gods. Image source.

I've been reading the book "Inspiration and Incarnation" by Peter Enns. Right now we're in the middle of chapter 3, which is about how different parts of the bible say different (or even contradictory) things. In this post, we'll talk about whether the bible teaches there is 1 god or many gods.

Basically, there are 2 different perspectives, presented by different passages in the bible:

• There is only 1 god.
• There are many gods, but our God is the most powerful one of them, and you should *only* worship this *one*.

This book is about "enchantment" but is any of it actually *true*?

Book cover for "Hunting Magic Eels"

Hunting Magic Eels: Recovering an Enchanted Faith in a Skeptical Age, by Richard Beck, is a book about "enchantment." It's about how modern people have lost their feeling of "enchantment." Beck is a Christian, and the book is about how Christians should recapture this "enchantment."

My take on this book is, I agree with parts of it, but overall it was such a muddle, with all these different aspects of "enchantment" thrown together and discussed like they were obviously a good thing, without stopping to answer questions like, what's the point of this? is any of this actually true? is it good for Christians to believe in this kind of stuff?

"The Woman They Wanted" by Shannon Harris

Book cover for "The Woman They Wanted"

When I heard that Shannon Harris, ex-wife of Josh Harris, had written a book, I was very interested in reading it. Recently I was able to get ahold of it, and here's my review. The book is The Woman They Wanted: Shattering the Illusion of the Good Christian Wife, published in 2023.

If you don't know who Josh Harris is: In 1997, he published the book "I Kissed Dating Goodbye," which is *the* purity culture book. It says that not only is it bad to have sex before marriage, but dating is *also* bad, and kissing before marriage is *also* bad, and so on. I've never actually read this book, but I was in purity culture long enough that I definitely internalized all of its ideas and also I've seen excerpts.

It's not like Josh Harris *started* purity culture, or anything like that- the cultural trends were already there. But his book became a focal point, and its popularity pushed this "sexual purity" ideology forward, spreading it to more and more churches. Personally I don't blame him, because he was extremely young (late teens or early twenties) and he was just going all-in on what the Christian adults were saying. The blame lies with the whole conservative Christian culture, which picked up a book by a very young, single guy, and trumpeted it like he had found the secrets about how dating is supposed to work. Seriously?

Long long ago, when I had just been through a breakup and I decided I was going to do things "God's way" from now on, I read Josh's second book, "Boy Meets Girl," which is about courtship. Yes, this is a thing in purity culture- dating is bad, and courting is good. [I never used that language myself though- I just called all of it dating, and didn't view "dating" as inherently bad.] Courting means you go about it for the sole purpose of finding someone to marry, under advisement from God and your parents, and basically you should have as little physical contact as possible (no kissing until the wedding day), and try not to have feelings or enjoy yourself. The more you allow yourself to feel feelings of love/attraction to your partner, the more you lose your "emotional purity."

And the book "Boy Meets Girl" is about how to do courting the right way, and how Josh decided to court Shannon, and they followed all of God's rules and therefore they will have a perfect marriage forever.

ANYWAY, 20 years later, Josh Harris made public statements saying he no longer agrees with the things he wrote in "I Kissed Dating Goodbye." And, he is deconstructing and is not a Christian any more. And he and his wife are separating.

There was quite a reaction from the ex-purity-culture community. Some people were very angry at him. I wasn't angry, but I agreed with the criticism that he was making it too much about himself, and he should spend more time really listening to people who were hurt by purity culture.

Anyway I wrote these blog posts back then:

Wishing the Best to Josh Harris and His Ex (2019)

So I Watched Josh Harris's Documentary (2018)

And now we have a book from Shannon, to hear her side of the story.

Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. Rachel and Kristin (and Babs) (September 17) "This uppity woman was asking questions the gatekeepers did not want asked, and she was becoming more popular than they were because she’s nicer than they are." 

I'm super-interested in reading this book, "Live Laugh Love: The Secret History of White Christian Women and the World They Made."

2. Jehovah’s Witnesses just gutted their deadly blood transfusion policy (September 19) "That will almost certainly prevent deaths. But it also raises an important question: How many people suffered or died because the same men previously insisted that accepting those components violated God’s law?"

3. Ms. Rachel has entered her album era, and she is so happy about it (September 18) Oh my toddler will be so excited about this. The other day she was very earnestly telling me all about how Ms. Rachel sings a song that says frogs say "dadi dadi."

"As her audience has grown, so has the public role Ms. Rachel has to take on. She has increasingly used her platform to advocate for children affected by war and humanitarian crises, including in Gaza, Ukraine and Sudan. She said she sees that advocacy as part of the responsibility that comes with reaching millions of children and families."

4. Canada First Nation Leaders Announce They Won’t Comply With Alberta Trans Care Ban (September 12) "'We are asking Canadians, Treaty people, Indigenous Nations, health professionals, human-rights advocates, allies and people around the world to stand with us,' it continued, vowing to be a 'safe haven' for trans youth."

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. Trump’s Kennedy Center tantrum — and the value of Beatty fighting back (September 17) "Trump is seeking to destroy a memorial to a man because that man is not him."

And related: Thousands Protest At Kennedy Center Singing A Song Of Angry Men (September 20)

2. EU offers Canada 'associate member' role; Trump calls it 'laughable' (September 16)

3. Gov. Josh Shapiro calls on CDC to recognize measles-associated deaths in Pa. outbreak (September 17) "Two more people have died in Pennsylvania’s growing measles outbreak, bringing the total number of measles-related deaths to four — but, a public federal dashboard still shows no measles deaths so far this year."

4. ICE agent appears in Minnesota court to face charges in the shooting of a Venezuelan immigrant (September 17) "On Jan. 14, Castro allegedly shot through the front door of a house Sosa-Celis had entered while fleeing. The bullet passed through Sosa-Celis' leg and lodged into the wall of a child's bedroom, state authorities say."

5. U.N.-backed experts cite possible U.S. war crimes in Iran, including a school attack (September 17)

6. Pediatricians raise the alarm on the effect of Trump's immigration crackdown on kids (September 17) "There wasn't room for her on the helicopter. She was told to meet them at the hospital. 'And now I'm wondering whether I will be safe in an Uber. If my whole family drives, what happens if we get stopped. Do ICE agents board public transportation?'"

7. CNN, MS NOW and Politico sue Trump administration over White House access (September 21) "'This ban could not be a more direct assault on the First Amendment nor a more blatant violation of our most fundamental constitutional principles,' the outlets said in their lawsuit, which is asking the court to act immediately to revive their journalists’ access to the White House."

8. Federal immigration agent shoots and injures man in Austin, Texas (September 21) "'We were told that he was at this hospital, so we came back and they have run us off the property,' she said, referring to Dell Seton Medical Center in Austin. 'We have been informed that if he's in ICE custody, they will decline to confirm that he's here. And no one has updated her about his status.'"

9. Trump says his D.C. arch will serve as 'military complex' with snipers and drones (September 20)

Well I believe in God and evolution but I don't call it "theistic evolution"

A group of zebras. Image source.

So I wrote my review of "The Language of God" but I decided to make a whole separate post about theistic evolution because I have a lot to say about it.

--- 

How the book defines theistic evolution

Here's a quote from pages 200-201:

There are many subtle variants of theistic evolution, but a typical version rests upon the following premises:

1. The universe came into being out of nothingness, approximately 14 billion years ago.
2. Despite massive improbabilities, the properties of the universe appear to have been precisely tuned for life.
3. While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time.
4. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required.
5. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes.
6. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.

If one accepts these six premises, then an entirely plausible, intellectually satisfying, and logically consistent synthesis emerges: God, who is not limited in space or time, created the universe and established natural laws the govern it. Seeking to populate this otherwise sterile universe with living creatures, God chose the elegant mechanism of evolution to create microbes, plants, and animals of all sorts. Most remarkably, God intentionally chose the same mechanism to give rise to special creatures who would have intelligence, a knowledge of right and wrong, free will, and a desire to seek fellowship with Him. He also knew these creatures would ultimately choose to disobey the Moral Law.

This view is entirely compatible with everything that science teaches us about the natural world. It is also entirely compatible with the great monotheistic religions of the world. The theistic evolution perspective cannot, of course, prove that God is real, as no logical argument can fully achieve that. Belief in God will always require a leap of faith. But this synthesis has provided for legions of scientist-believers a satisfying, consistent, enriching perspective that allows both the scientific and spiritual worldviews to coexist happily within us. This perspective makes it possible for the scientist-believer to be intellectually fulfilled and spiritually alive, both worshiping God and using the tools of science to uncover some of the awesome mysteries of His creation.

---

BioLogos

In the book, Francis Collins says the name "theistic evolution" isn't that great, and he wants to rebrand it as something different. He calls it BioLogos. "Bio" from "biology", and "Logos" which is a Greek word meaning "word" or "reason." As in, John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Christ is the logos of God. So Collins has invented this word, BioLogos, which combines biology and following God in a logical way.

So as I'm reading this, I'm like, wait a minute, I know a website called BioLogos. I've read articles from this site before. I never really got a sense of what their overall position is- is it theistic evolution? If you asked me to describe the BioLogos site, I would say it's articles about the topics of creation and evolution, from a Christian perspective, and they're pretty good, and very noticeably are *not* the typical creationist talking points.

Well I just did some googling, and here's what it says on the "history" page of BioLogos: 

BioLogos began with Francis Collins, one of the world’s leading scientists.

In 2006, Collins wrote The Language of God (2006), the best-selling book that told the story of his journey from atheism to Christian faith, showing that science is not in conflict with the Bible, but actually enhances faith.

The outpouring of response to the book showed the need for virtual and actual meeting places to ask questions, discuss issues, and learn from the top Christian minds in the sciences and theology.

Wow, I had no idea. Pretty cool that this organization was started by him.

(But again, it goes to show: I've heard plenty of Christians claiming Francis Collins as a symbol, like "oh people say you can't be smart and be a Christian, but look, we have Francis Collins on our side!" Like, score a point for our side as we argue with the atheists. But I have very rarely heard Christians actually being interested in what Collins has to say.)

---

Did God use evolution?

Theistic evolution, as I understand it, is the idea that "God used evolution." I don't buy this. I can't buy this. Evolution is a heartless process that generates more complex and better adapted creatures by ruthlessly letting the less-adapted ones die.

Yeah sure, the book says evolution is "elegant." Okay, it's elegant. Something as simple as natural selection, choosing among variations in a species, producing the amazing variety of life we see in our world today. Yeah it's "elegant," I'll give you that. But what about all the animals that die? What about the species of animals that have a ton of offspring, because that's a good evolutionary strategy, and then the majority of the offspring die very quickly? What about the little baby sea turtles struggling to get to the ocean, being eaten by seagulls? What about the male lions killing other lions' cubs? Did God want it to be this way?

The idea that "God used evolution" makes it sound like everything is just fine, with one's religious beliefs and the reality of evolution. It's not fine! This is basically the same thing as the Problem of Evil. How could a good God allow this? And the claim is not only "God allowed this", but that God chose to use the mechanism of natural selection to create all the animals, including humans. God chose that? Really? Y'all are fine with this?

So my position is like... I believe in a God who is all-powerful and good, and I believe in evolution, and this is a problem. This is a problem! Just like how the Problem of Evil is a problem. It's not just "oh, God used evolution" and that's all there is to say.

---

The last will be first, and the first will be last

The entire point of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection is that love triumphs over power. (Okay, that's my take, but Christians have a lot of different opinions on what's "the entire point of Jesus' life, death, and resurrection.") He came to bring the kingdom of heaven to this earth- a new kind of kingdom where the last will be first, and the first will be last. Blessed are the poor. The meek will inherit the earth.

It might look like power is winning. It might look like the strong can oppress the weak and get away with it. But this is not the end of the story. This is not how God wants it to be. He came preaching a message of love and acceptance, challenging the power structures that existed in society, and He was killed for it. But that is not the end of the story. He lives!

But how can that be the case, if "God used evolution"? Does God want the last to be first, or does God want survival of the fittest? The first will be first. The last get removed from the gene pool. If the last were first, humans never would have evolved.

This heartless process, which is the total opposite of the message of Jesus, is the mechanism God used to create humans? And you all are fine with that?

And this isn't just about Jesus. The Old Testament also talks about how it will be in the kingdom of heaven. The prophet Isaiah said, 

The wolf will live with the lamb,

    the leopard will lie down with the goat,

the calf and the lion and the yearling together;

    and a little child will lead them.

The cow will feed with the bear,

    their young will lie down together,

    and the lion will eat straw like the ox.

The infant will play near the cobra’s den,

    and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

They will neither harm nor destroy

    on all my holy mountain,

for the earth will be filled with the knowledge of the Lord

    as the waters cover the sea.

The wolf will live with the lamb. The cow with the bear. The child will put his hand in the viper's nest. This is how God wants it to be, in the kingdom of heaven. But if wolves and lambs really lived together peacefully, humans would not exist. The struggle between predator and prey is what made animals evolve such amazing and fascinating complexity. 

Joel Duff has a good post which asks the question: in a young-earth creationist worldview, what would we expect animals to look like before the Fall? Young-earth creationists believe that before Adam and Eve sinned, there was no death- not even animal death. What would animals look like, if the threat of death wasn't something that their features needed to adapt to? That link has a rather terrifying photoshopped image of a rabbit with its eyes on the front of its head. Prey animals have eyes on the sides of their heads because of death. Every single interesting trait that any animal has, it's because if they didn't have that, they would be more likely to die. It's because of survival of the fittest. It's because of power. It's because this world is not the kingdom of heaven, that Jesus came to bring.

If you're an atheist, this is fine. Yeah animals and people were produced through natural selection, which is cruel and heartless, but it's not like anyone *wanted* it to be that way. It's not like it's "supposed" to be that way, in any sense. Sure, that's what how the natural world works, but we can choose to live in more moral and altruistic way instead.

But if "God used evolution" and we have signed on to worship that God, well, what then?

---

God changed

If there is an answer to this, it must be something about God changing. Maybe the animal world is meant to be governed by "survival of the fittest," but humans are meant to be different. Or maybe God doesn't value animal lives at all, so it doesn't matter that a huge fraction of them died, in service of the greater good of evolution- but humans bear God's image, and They actually care about that, so now They want to change it and say we have to care for each other and the last will be first. Or maybe God originally used evolution and natural selection, but then changed Their mind and wanted things to be different.

To a large extent, we could say I view the work of Jesus and the message of Christianity as a reaction to the way the world is. Jesus came to preach good news to the poor- but, if God was on their side, then why are they poor in the first place? The God of this kind of religion is not a God who has always been in charge of the whole world, but instead is taking the current state of the world as a starting point, and taking steps to make it better. We hope for the future where God will make everything right- but why do we need to do that? Why didn't God just make it right in the first place? IS IT BECAUSE THEN HUMANS NEVER WOULD HAVE EVOLVED?

Kind of comes across like a religion that isn't true at all, but helps us feel better because we imagine that it means God *will* make things better. But if this was actually true, wouldn't God have already made it better? If religion is about the hope that things will get better- well, what reason is there to think that there would be a significant change, if God has always been totally in charge of the world?

This is why I don't pray. If we really believe that God is gonna intervene and help us in response to our prayers, well why didn't God just intervene earlier and prevent our problems from happening in the first place? Does our world, with all its problems and injustice, look like a world where God is frequently intervening to help people?

And believing the message of Jesus is about bringing the kingdom of heaven to the earth, about our responsibility to do good, right the wrongs, and fight for justice- which is what I believe- doesn't it come across like a religion that's not true at all, and its only value is in inspiring people to do good? God's not actually doing it, so we have to?

(I realize I've just opened a whole can of worms, but yeah there you have it.)

---

I'm a Christian because I really do believe in Jesus. His incarnation, his teachings, his message, his resurrection. But that doesn't mean I think this is all fine and my religious beliefs totally make sense. What does it say about God, that They "used evolution" to create all life on earth? Are we really okay with that?

---

Follow-up post: Letting the Wheat and the Weeds Grow Together (another post about theistic evolution)

Related

"The Language of God" (surprisingly I like this book!)

Animals Screw Over Other Animals and Get Away With It

I used to be a young-earth creationist

Inspiration and Incarnation: The Ten Commandments

The 10 commandments (in English) written on 2 stone tablets. Image source.

I've been blogging about the book "Inspiration and Incarnation" by Peter Enns. We're in the middle of chapter 3 now, and there's a section that talks about the laws given in the bible, and how sometimes they say different or contradictory things. In this post, I'll talk about the Ten Commandments, but there are several other examples in the book, so if you are interested in this, you should buy the book.

The Ten Commandments are listed in 2 different places in the bible: Exodus 20:2-17 and Deuteronomy 5:6-21. Enns points out that most of the wording in these 2 lists is exactly the same, but there are some differences. A few of the differences are along the lines of, something is worded differently but the meaning is the same, *but* the 4th commandment has an interesting difference in what it says about the motivation:

"The Language of God" (surprisingly I like this book!)

Book cover for "The Language of God"

I recently read The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief by Francis S. Collins (published in 2006) and surprisingly, I really liked it! This is a really good book! It gives Collins's perspective, as a scientist and Christian, and it's just very reasonable. It doesn't come across as "let's fight those atheists" or fearful of science. It's about his own reasons for leaving behind atheism and converting to Christianity, and it's about how evolution is just true and Christians should accept that, and creationism and intelligent design just ain't it, and how science and faith are compatible. 

---

Francis Collins

Collins was the director of the Human Genome Project. This was a team that sequenced the entire human genome, billions of DNA base pairs, which is pretty amazing. (The title, "The Language of God" refers to the idea that the DNA base pairs are the "language" that God used to create life.)

I've seen Christians make a big deal about how Collins is a Christian. The argument goes, see, Francis Collins is a Christian, and he's a famous scientist! So, our beliefs *are* legit and compatible with science! The assumption is that Collins holds all the same beliefs that the Christians who claim him as a symbol do. Turns out, this assumption is very wrong! All throughout this book, Collins comes across as thoughtful and reasonable, rather than holding on to dogmatic beliefs that we can't question and we just have to keep saying louder.

Case in point: evolution. A big chunk of this book is about how evolution is true and Christians should accept that. Collins discusses creationism, and talks about why it's wrong. He discusses intelligent design, and why it's wrong. And then he talks about theistic evolution, which is the position he holds.

I was totally surprised. I really had no idea what this book was about; I had no idea that Collins accepts evolution and I had no idea that he was openly advocating for Christians to accept evolution. Really, no idea. All those times that I've heard Christians say "look, Francis Collins" as if that proves that their beliefs are reasonable- wow, I really had no idea that he was out here telling Christians to accept evolution. In the Christian subculture I grew up in, we all knew that of course Christians do not believe in evolution.

Inspiration and Incarnation: Wisdom Literature

Image text: Ecclesiastes 1:2 "Meaningless! Meaningless!" says the Teacher. "Utterly meaningless! Everything is meaningless." Image source.

I've been reading "Inspiration and Incarnation" by Peter Enns. Chapter 3 is called "The Old Testament and Theological Diversity." There are diverse viewpoints within the Old Testament- one passage says one thing, and another passage says another thing which is inconsistent with the first passage. 

There's a lot of fascinating stuff in this chapter, so I'm breaking it down into several blog posts. This post will cover the part about the wisdom literature in the bible. Specifically, the books of Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Job.

---

Proverbs

Proverbs is a book of wise sayings. These are useful guidelines for how to live your life, but it doesn't mean you're *guaranteed* to have good results if you follow them. That's why I never really liked the book of Proverbs when I was evangelical- it's a bunch of generalizations, all of which have exceptions so you can't take them too seriously. Unlike the rest of the bible, which was Absolute Truth [so I thought].

"The Strangest Thing in the Sea" (kids' book review)

Book cover for "The Strangest Thing in the Sea."

Here's a book that my son loves, because it's about weird sea creatures: The Strangest Thing in the Sea by Rachel Poliquin, illustrated by Byron Eggenschwiler.

On every page, it has a little hint on the left side, about what kind of creature it is, plus part of a picture of it. And then the right side page has an artistic representation of what kind of thing it might be. Like what you might imagine it is, just hearing a partial description. And then you flip open the right page and it shows the rest of the picture of what it really looks like, and it has all the information about what it is, what it eats, what kind of ocean environment it lives in, special abilities, etc.

Here's an example. On this page we see part of the creature, and we're told it's like a moon, so the right side page shows an artistic representation of a moon face:

And then you flip it open and you see it's actually an ocean sunfish!

This is really cool- every page is like this. It has an artistic image of what you might imagine it looks like, and then you flip open the page and see what it really is. (Apparently this is called a gatefold.) And there's a good variety of weird sea creatures. My son loves this because he loves weird animals.

---

Related

Reviews of Kids' Books

"Aces Wild" and my thoughts on queer fiction

Book cover for "Aces Wild"

I read Aces Wild: A Heist by Amanda DeWitt, and here's my post about it~

---

Overview

This is a novel about Jack Shannon, whose mom owns a casino in Las Vegas. His mom gets arrested for shady business things, but Jack's take on it is that all the casino owners are doing those kinds of illegal things, and the reason his mom got arrested is that a rival casino owner targeted her. So Jack invites his friends- that he met on an asexual web forum- to come to Las Vegas and help him figure out what's going on/ play illegal blackjack/ etc.

So we have 5 ace characters working together, in this casino-heist-style plot. When we talk about queer fiction, we can say there are 2 kinds: One kind is where the queerness *is* the plot- like, it's about a character figuring out they are queer, or about overcoming obstacles/discrimination related to being queer. The other kind is a plot about something else, where the characters are queer but the story isn't *about* being queer; the queerness is just a background element. "Aces Wild" is the second kind. We need both kinds, so it's good that this exists.

---

My opinion

I found this to be a good story, fun to read. And I liked the asexual elements in the background- for example, having online friends that you feel totally understand you, because they are also ace. Meeting ace people "in real life" and feeling so comfortable with them because they *get* that. I've had that kind of feeling in some queer spaces and ace meetups.

Also the line "sometimes you need five aces to win," in the context of asexuals playing illegal blackjack, is just extremely clever. Love that.

---

But basically I don't know if I'm interested in queer fiction

Or rather, I guess I'm not really the kind of person who likes to read a lot of fiction. 

I read a lot, and my motivation for reading is I want to learn things. When I see a book about some topic and I think "oh I want to learn about that" then I add it to my wishlist. 

Fiction doesn't necessarily fit into that. Fiction *can* be a way to learn things- some authors use fiction as a way of exploring a topic and getting the readers to think deeply about it, and if the author is skilled then this can be more effective than just directly telling you what their point is. But fiction can also be really formulaic, where readers want to have an enjoyable experience by reading a story that follows a known structure. Where it's fun but you don't really learn anything new from it. And that's fine- I'm not saying it's "better" to read to learn things vs reading to experience a plot structure you already know you're going to like. (I mean, I read dozens of "Nancy Drew" books when I was a kid.)

(And also I'm oversimplifying it; there's a wide spectrum between "learning things" and "formulaic", and also, one reader might read a book and not get anything out of it, while another reader reads the same book and finds it really insightful and illuminating. For one reader, it's near the "formulaic" end of the spectrum, and for another reader it's at the "learning things" end.)

Most of the books I read, I choose them because I want to learn things. But sometimes I just want something easy and fun; I don't feel like learning things. There's a place for both kinds of books! But anyway, my point is, I see people on the internet talking about how important it is to have queer fiction and representation, and sure that's great, but it seems it's not really something I'm interested in myself. Maybe sometimes? But also sometimes I'm like, what's the point of this?

Obviously, since fiction exists, there *should* be fiction books with queer characters. And we need more of that! For people who like fiction, there should be a whole range available to them. There should be books where the plot is about being queer and overcoming problems associated with that, and there should be books where the plot is about something else entirely and the characters are queer just because.

Or, maybe nobody likes to read *all* queer fiction; they only like a small subset of the books, and when we make such a big deal about how "queer fiction is so important" and "representation is so important" it means "a wide range of books should exist, because someone will like to read them, but that doesn't mean *I* am going to read them."

So anyway, that's my opinion on that. I enjoyed reading this book, but I don't really feel like it's something I "need" or something that made a big difference and improved my life or whatever. BUT there have been other fictional stories I've read, with queer characters- fanfics- which did make an impact on me and improved my life. So I'm sure for some readers, "Aces Wild" could be meaningful and helpful to them. Different readers, who are at different places in their lives, will feel differently about reading the same book.

---

See also: 

Siggy's review of "Aces Wild"

And this review from Bring On The Pigeons

Related:

Totally Baffled, in an Asexual Way (or, my review of "Let's Talk About Love")

All of My Book Review Posts

Inspiration and Incarnation: An Aside About Apologetics

Noah and the dove. Image source.

I'm been reading "Inspiration and Incarnation" by Peter Enns, and blogging about it. I already wrote my post about chapter 2, but here's another fun little paragraph I want to talk about, from that same chapter.

This is in the section discussing the creation story and flood story from Genesis. They are very similar to myths from other ancient cultures. And the myths from other cultures are older. So, what do we do with that? It looks like the bible stories are just borrowed from other myths, rather than being directly from God, but that can't be right, can it? Page 41 talks about what you would do if you're a Christian in an apologetics argument:

If pressed, one could attempt to mount the argument that the Israelite stories were actually older than all the ancient Near Eastern stories but were only recorded later in Hebrew. Such a theory-- for that is what it is, a theory-- assumes that the biblical stories are the pristine originals and that all the other stories are parodies and perversions of the Israelite original, even though the available evidence would be very difficult to square with such a conclusion. But could it have happened this way? Yes, I suppose one could insist on such a thing, but it would be very difficult for someone holding to such a view to have a meaningful conversation with linguists and historians of the ancient world. To argue in such hypothetical terms can sometimes become an excuse for maintaining a way of thinking that is otherwise unsupportable. It is just such explanations that some readers might find problematic, for these explanations seem motivated by a desire to protect dogmatic commitments rather than to engage the available evidence.

!!! This is so real! This is exactly what it's like, to believe in biblical inerrancy, and to do apologetics. 

It's like... you start with the idea that if you're a Christian, you have to believe all these things about the bible. You have to believe it's inerrant. You have to believe there are no mistakes or contradictions- that it's telling 1 consistent story throughout. You have to believe that Moses wrote the Pentateuch. And that basically every book in the bible was written very close to the time of the events that happened, by whoever seems like the author when you do a very superficial reading of it. Yeah, any talk of "the book of Isaiah was pulled together from multiple authors" or "this was written hundreds of years after these events happened" is bad- you can't even consider that. It would be going against God.

You start with an idea of what the bible is, and then when someone brings up evidence that seems to contradict that, you have to come up with an explanation for why we can totally ignore that evidence and it doesn't matter.

Someone says "other cultures also have flood stories which are similar to the Noah's ark story." You have to say, well, yes, there really *was* a global flood, so that's why there are stories about it. But the Noah's ark story is the truth about it, and all the others are inaccurate. See? Easy. So we can just ignore all those other flood stories, because they're wrong and our version is right. No need to read them or care about what they say.

Someone points out that the 4 gospels don't exactly agree on who saw Jesus and when after the Resurrection. So you have to come up with some convoluted timeline that fits everything in, such that nothing the bible says is *technically* wrong. Even though, if your timeline is the truth, then the biblical writers wrote in a very misleading way, giving their readers an incorrect impression of what actually happened. But, no need to think about that! The important thing is that every isolated statement in the bible is true in some sense. Move along, nothing to see here!

Or any of the other little inconsistencies in the bible. Someone points them out- ugh, probably some internet atheist just looking to cause trouble. You go through and explain why each of these supposed contradictions is actually fine, nothing to see here. You make up all kinds of fan theories for how 2 seemingly-contradictory statements from the bible can both be true at the same time. That's what being a Christian is about, right? (It often goes so far, with Christians taking these fan theories so seriously because they're necessary to uphold the idea of inerrancy, that we don't even realize that they're fan theories and we actually think they are taught by the bible itself.)

And all of your explanations are like... well, it's not *impossible* that it could have happened that way. But if you just look at the evidence we have, other explanations seem far more likely. You're not really engaging with the evidence- you're viewing the evidence as a nuisance, and your task as a good Christian is to find excuses so we can ignore all that evidence.

If you're able to make a case that "it's not impossible" that your beliefs about the bible are right- well, that's good enough! That's what we're going for - "not impossible." You became a Christian for other reasons totally unrelated to biblical inerrancy and apologetics, and then you found out that one of the requirements to be a Christian is to believe certain things about the bible, so you hack a path through the jungle to show it's "not impossible" that those beliefs about the bible are true. There, all done!

But as Enns says, if that's what you're doing, you're not going to be able to have a meaningful conversation with the experts who are actually studying these things. With people who look at the actual evidence and explore the implications of it. People who really take the bible seriously, and spend their careers working to learn more about it. People who ask questions about *why* the biblical writers wrote things which are inconsistencies or mistakes- these are fascinating questions, but of course good Christians who believe in inerrancy are not allowed to ask them.

---

Posts about "Inspiration and Incarnation":

Inspiration and Incarnation: Introduction
Inspiration and Incarnation: Other Ancient Near East Literature
Inspiration and Incarnation: An Aside About Apologetics
Inspiration and Incarnation: Wisdom Literature
Inspiration and Incarnation: The Ten Commandments
Inspiration and Incarnation: How Many Gods

Related

The Bible and the Pixar Theory 

My mind is blown by how cool the Synoptic Problem is

"The Wise Men Came 2 Years After the Shepherds" Is Just a Fan Theory

Adding Incest to the Story of Cain

The Bible Stories As I Read Them Were Never Actually In The Bible

Who Cut Samson's Hair? (a post about reading the bible for what it is)

Children's Bibles and the 2 Creation Stories

Inspiration and Incarnation: Other Ancient Near East Literature

By User:Daderot - File:Tablet in Akkadian language recording court proceedings with seal impressed envelope, Yorgan Tepe, Kingdom of Mittani, 1450-1350 BC, clay - Oriental Institute Museum, University of Chicago - DSC07088.JPG, CC0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=115709323 / Image source.

I've been reading Peter Enns's book, "Inspiration and Incarnation," which is about how the bible was written in the context of ancient Near East culture, and truly fits into that world, and Christians should not view this as a problem, as if it means the bible is not the word of God. Instead, we should view it as God speaking to people in their own culture, in ways they could understand.

In this post, I'll talk about chapter 2, "The Old Testament and Ancient Near Eastern Literature." 

This chapter goes through a bunch of examples of archeological discoveries from ancient Near Eastern cultures similar to ancient Israel. We see that these texts that were discovered are very similar to passages from the bible- so, what does that mean? How should we view those similarities? 

This chapter brings up a lot of really fascinating ancient Near East texts that I had never heard of. I can't fit them all in this blog post, so if you're interested in this topic, you should just go buy the book.

Remember when I said that I don't necessarily care what the bible originally meant in its ancient context? Okay I was wrong, I do care. All the examples from this chapter were incredibly fascinating.

The texts are grouped into 3 categories:

---

"Group 1-- Creation and the Flood: Is Genesis Myth or History?"

"The Purity Myth" (book review)

Book cover for "The Purity Myth"

I'm something of an ex-purity-culture blogger, so I want to read and have opinions on all the books that criticize purity culture. So I read Jessica Valenti's 2010 book, The Purity Myth: How America's Obsession with Virginity Is Hurting Young Women.

Surprisingly, I didn't like it.

Inspiration and Incarnation: Introduction

Book cover for "Inspiration and Incarnation"

I started reading Inspiration and Incarnation: Evangelicals and the Problem of the Old Testament by Peter Enns, and it's so good, I decided to write a blog series on it. This post will cover the preface and chapter 1.

Enns is a biblical scholar. I've read and reviewed 2 of his books before: The Bible Tells Me So (published 2014) and Genesis for Normal People (published 2019). I really enjoyed those and I want to read all of his books. This one, "Inspiration and Incarnation," was originally published in 2005, but I have the 10th-anniversary edition, published in 2015. The writing style of "Inspiration and Incarnation" is more formal and academic than "The Bible Tells Me So" and "Genesis for Normal People"- those two had a lot of [in my opinion] unnecessary pop culture references- I know some readers like that, so, that's fine, but I definitely like the style of "Inspiration and Incarnation" better.

Here's the overall idea of this book: In the past 150 or so years, there has been new evidence uncovered about the civilizations and cultures of the ancient Near East. Archaeologists have found writings from people groups who lived near the ancient Israelites- and these writings have many similarities to what we see in the bible. This is something of a problem for evangelical Christian ideology, because evangelicals believe the bible is inerrant and inspired by God, and so they don't want to believe that it's similar to other ancient writings, that it was influenced by them and it borrowed ideas from them, that it has mistakes and anachronisms, that it follows the genre conventions of ancient Near East writing rather than being absolute truth as we would view it from a modern scientific perspective.

The conservative bible scholars respond to this problem by downplaying the similarities between the bible and other ancient writing. The liberal bible scholars respond to this problem by saying the bible is the same as other ancient writing, and therefore it isn't special or inspired by God. Enns claims that both sides are making an incorrect assumption: that if the bible is similar to other ancient writing, that means it's not really from God. He says that, on the contrary, God gave us a bible which is fully human and also fully divine- just like Jesus was fully human and fully God. God speaks to humans within their own cultures.

Blogaround

Links not related to the antichrist:

1. California judge bans Kars4Kids ads for hiding Orthodox Jewish agenda (May 16) Wow, I never knew that Kars 4 Kids uses the money to promote Orthodox Judaism.

Also from Hemant Mehta: Former "ex-gay" leader Alan Chambers charged with soliciting a minor (May 20)

And: The evangelical Christian hit “Testify to Love” just got a powerful pro-LGBTQ reboot (May 22) Avalon was a Christian band popular in the 90s. We're just finding out now that when one of the singers, Michael Passons, left the band in 2003, actually he was kicked out for being gay. Now here he is, 20-some years later, proud of who he is, singing Avalon's hit song "Testify to Love" as a gay man. I am so here for this.

EDIT: okay that video link no longer works, try this one: TY HERNDON + MICHAEL PASSONS || Testify To Love (feat. Melissa Greene)

"For as long as I shall live, I will testify to love / I'll be a witness in the silences when words are not enough."

See also, Christian drag queen Flamy Grant performing this song at Q Christian Fellowship Conference in 2024:

I was not prepared for @FlamyGrant to lead a “Testify To Love” singalong. And it was perfect. pic.twitter.com/5DybJGD5wP

— Matt Nightingale (@mattnightingale) January 13, 2024

2. Before WeChat, There Were Qiaopi Writers (May 20) "Unable to type or use a smartphone herself, the woman sat beside Jiang and dictated the letter sentence by sentence while he wrote each line down by hand."

3. The Rise and Fall of Misery Memoirs (April 11, via) 2-hour-5-minute video. It's about "misery memoirs" that turned out to be completely fabricated (about the Holocaust, drug addiction, satanic rituals, etc). It's about the McMartin preschool trial, where investigators pressured children into making up stories about satanic abuse and secret tunnels and all kinds of wild things. It's about what kinds of "trauma stories" sell, what audiences want to hear and feel. It's about how scammers make up stories that fit The Template, and how real survivors are pressured to present their stories in a certain way. 

One thing this makes me think of is the feminist slogan "believe the victim." The thinking goes, if you come across a story of someone being raped or abused, you should believe it, because only a tiny percent of rape accusations are false, because victims who come forward are often put through a traumatizing process of interrogation and victim-blaming, because there's nothing to gain from making up a story, and a victim would only put themself through that because they really want the truth to come out. 

But it has to be more nuanced than just "believe the victim." It depends on *where* you're encountering this traumatic story. If it's a friend telling you about something that happened to them, you should give them emotional support and try to help them connect with whatever resources they need (therapy, etc). Within that context, you should just believe them and help them. But if you're a journalist writing a story, you should *not* just "believe the victim." You should only publish a story if there's evidence. And if the victim has a large platform and is making this traumatic story into their whole identity, uhhhh, that is even more suspect.

4. On Grindslop (May 20) "What this reveals is that the wealthiest generation of human beings in the history of our species has become so frightened of being seen as a class so terrified of their position being legible that it has begun performing the lives of people who assemble iPhones in near-slavery conditions in Foxconn plants."

---

Links related to the antichrist:

1. Justice Department announces nearly $1.8B fund to compensate Trump allies in a deal to drop IRS suit (May 19) Wait, what? What on earth? The government is just going to give the antichrist $1.776 billion (that's $1,776,000,000) to give to whatever criminals feel they have been mistreated by being prosecuted for their crimes? 

"'This is one of the single most corrupt acts in American history,' Donald Sherman, the president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, said in a statement."

2. Colorado Supreme Court Rules Hospitals Must Not Comply With Trump, Must Continue Offering Trans Youth Care (May 19) "In Monday’s decision, the court rejected the hospital’s central defense: that it had not discriminated against transgender youth but had simply declined to offer one category of treatment. The justices found that distinction meaningless, noting that the hospital continued to provide the very same medications, puberty blockers and hormone therapy, to cisgender youth while denying them to transgender patients."

3. Trump administration to force foreigners in the U.S. to apply for a green card abroad (May 23) This is absurd. Plenty of immigrants come to the US for education, to work, etc, legally, and then end up building a whole life, maybe even marry a US citizen, and it makes sense for there to be a process for them to get a green card and eventually citizenship. This new policy says they have to uproot their whole life and go to their own country, for who knows how many years, in order to apply for a US green card.

4. US senator says he was pepper-sprayed by federal agents during protest at ICE facility (May 26) "'Some of [the people detained] have been detained more than eight to 12 months,' Ana Paola Pazmiño from Resistencia en Accion New Jersey, a migrant rights organization, claimed, adding: 'The horrible conditions that they’re living in inside are terrible.'"

5. Tennessee judge dismisses federal human smuggling charges against Kilmar Abrego García (May 23) "Abrego Garcia's lawyers argued that the government's criminal case was retaliation because of the embarrassment it caused the Trump administration. After he won his deportation case, he became a sort galvanizing force for critics of the president's hard-line immigration policy. His lawyers asked the court to dismiss the charges under a vindictive prosecution claim." But I think this still isn't over.

6. More people are going hungry now than at the height of the pandemic (May 27) "The New York Fed survey from February found that nationwide, 10% of families reported missing meals for lack of food and nearly 16% relied on food donations."

7. Trump DOJ mass-deletes info on Jan. 6 riot cases, including violent assaults on cops (May 26) "A review by NPR found that the deleted material included information about some of the most serious assaults on law enforcement that occurred that day. NPR maintains the most complete database and visual archive of the Jan. 6 prosecutions."

8. SPLC seeks dismissal of charges, citing Trump admin's "vindictive motive to punish the SPLC" (May 27) 

The Kingdom of Children: Communion and Baptism

Communion cracker and small cup of juice. Image source.

I've been reading R. L. Stollar's book, "The Kingdom of Children." Here's a part of the book that talks about including children in communion. From pages 167-168:

The Kingdom of Children: Theology and Play

A set of toys that teaches kids about the parable of the sower. Image source.

I've been reading "The Kingdom of Children" by R. L. Stollar. In this post I want to talk about the way the book portrays it as a good thing for children to develop their own theology.

I want to know, *why* is it a good thing for children to develop their own theology? Like, my *feeling* when I read this is that I agree it's a good thing, but I want to think through the reasons why. If they're making up their own beliefs about God, aren't most of those beliefs going to be wrong? As an ex-evangelical I can tell you that evangelicals would be very concerned about the idea of children coming up with their own beliefs about God- no, we need to teach them the *correct* beliefs! It's very important! If people don't believe the correct things about God, they will go to hell! They will sin- and every sin hurts God infinitely, this isn't something you can just play around with like it doesn't matter. And if people have incorrect beliefs about God in some areas, even if it's just some minor little error that doesn't seem significant, WELL IT IS- those will lead to even worse incorrect beliefs about God, and worse sins. We have to make sure everyone believes all the correct things!

Yes, it's a very big deal in evangelicalism, that people have to believe the "correct" beliefs, and it would be terrible to just let everyone develop their own theology from their own thoughts and experiences. By contrast, liberation theology is based on the idea that people should make their own theology. It seems like a very key foundational aspect of liberation theology, a point where liberation theology is COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from what I was taught in evangelicalism. I feel like, I agree with it, but I still want an explanation, because coming from an evangelical background, it's not obvious why it would be a good thing to let people figure out their own religious beliefs.

"P is for Passover" (kids' book review)

Book cover for "P is for Passover"

Here's a nice little book about Passover: P is for Passover by Tanya Lee Stone. I read this to my son recently. I think this is a good book for giving kids a basic introduction to what Passover is, and some of the modern traditions associated with it.

We're not Jewish, but I wanted to teach my son about Passover because I'm a Christian and Passover is in the bible, and also it's good for him to learn about different religions. 

This book goes through the letters of the alphabet, and lists something related to Passover for each one of them. Each one is just a short description, so the book is useful as a simple overview of different aspects of it, and my son asked lots of questions, wanting to know more details. 

Some of them are elements of the Exodus story from the bible. ("B is for burning bush / Flames Moses saw / God sent him a message / He listened in awe!") I know this story, so I was able to explain all those ones to him. Some of them are traditions that modern Jewish people have, for celebrating Passover, and most of these I don't know. ("A is for afikomen / The search will be fun / The broken matzah is hidden / And our story's begun!") I had to tell my son "we'll have to google it." I bet the experience of reading this book is different if you're a Jewish family and your kids are already familiar with these traditions.

I guess I should warn you that if you teach your kid about the story of Passover, it means you have to explain slavery to your kid. (Also infanticide...) But I don't think we should avoid it for that reason. It's an important story. 

Anyway, in summary, I recommend this book as a good introduction for kids who don't know about Passover.

---

Related

Reviews of Kids' Books 

Figuring Out What I Believe About "The Prince of Egypt"

Retconning the Old Testament