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?

---

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

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

The Kingdom of Children: Eschatology

Image text: "Every valley shall be raised up, every mountain and hill made low. Isaiah 40:4A" Image source.

I've been reading "The Kingdom of Children: A Liberation Theology" by R. L. Stollar. Here's a section about "eschatology."

From pages 113-114:

In this chapter, we will look at what theologians call eschatology. This is the study of the future, the study of how the kingdom of God breaks into our right-here and right-now and creates profound changes to our lives. In liberation theology, eschatology is the focus on how powers around us-- our churches, our government, our economic order-- need to be redeemed. They need to be redeemed because they are set up in a way that makes it harder for us to love our neighbors as ourselves. They need to be redeemed because they do not place the first last and the last first. Liberation theologians want us to think about how the kingdom of God should disrupt these powers around us. "Hope in the future seeks roots in the present."

Child liberation theology raises the same issues, but with regard to children. Child liberation theology also engages eschatology by asking how we can better realize the kingdom of God in the right-here and right-now for children. The path to doing this involves taking Jesus seriously when he said in Mark 9:37, "Whoever welcomes one of these little children in my name welcomes me; and whoever welcomes me does not welcome me but the one who sent me." What I am going to argue might seem too audacious or maybe even sacrilegious. Part of realizing the kingdom of God in the right-here and right-now is seeing children as God-to-us. Children are not simply representatives or servants or mouthpieces of God. They are, in a profound and real sense, God's chosen and royal substitutes. They serve as God-to-us in our right-here and right-now.

Now before you discard this book, let me tell you what I am not saying: I am not saying that children are gods. I am not saying that we should worship children. And I am not saying that children are substitutes for God in the sense that we no longer need God. What I am saying is that Jesus called us to see children as God-to-us in our right-here and right-now. They are the neighbors who we are supposed to love as ourselves. And just as the commandment to love our neighbors is rooted in the greatest commandment to love God (Matt. 22:36-40), loving children is similarly rooted in loving God. This makes loving children an act of worship.

Eschatology? As far as I know, eschatology is about heaven and hell and the end of the world- the complete opposite of the "right-here and right-now" Stollar is talking about. He says, "This is the study of the future, the study of how the kingdom of God breaks into our right-here and right-now and creates profound changes to our lives." The grammar of the sentence suggests that those are 2 different ways of saying the same thing, but, what on earth, "the future" is totally different from "how the kingdom of God breaks into our right-here and right-now." Right?

Even so, I'm like, really into this. I'm very excited about the idea that our beliefs about heaven and hell and the end of the world should have a profound effect on the way we live now- in particular, that it means the kingdom of God breaks into our world now, and we fight for liberation for everyone.

When I was evangelical, I believed that people go to heaven or hell based on whether they are "saved"- ie, whether they believed in Jesus and "prayed the prayer" to commit their lives to him, with the appropriate amount of emotional sincerity. Heaven and hell last for eternity; everything we do here on earth is meaningless in comparison. Our actions in this life only matter to the extent that they nudge people closer to "getting saved," to falling on the correct side of that binary.

In evangelical land, it's easy to have the attitude "well, I'm saved, so there's nothing else I need to be doing now. Just waiting till I go to heaven." Or, "why should we give food to hungry people? If we're not also telling them about Jesus, it's pointless."

In evangelical land, it always felt like there was this big divide between the eternity of heaven and hell, and the normal lives we're living right now. Like getting people saved to get to heaven is the most important thing, and the time we spend just living our normal lives outside of that is just busywork. 

But now my beliefs are completely different. Now I believe that we are supposed to bring the kingdom of heaven to the earth, as Jesus taught us to pray. Heaven is not some faraway unreachable thing; heaven is going to come to this earth, and we should do the work to make it happen. As Martin Luther King Jr said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice." That's heaven- and it ain't gonna bend itself. We have to do it.

So we look forward to heaven by doing the work to fight for justice on this earth. It's so profoundly and viscerally connected- not like the "pie in the sky when you die" and "fire insurance" of evangelicalism. I love it.

And that's what Stollar is talking about here. Eschatology is not this faraway future thing- it's about how the kingdom of God comes into our world right now. It's about the systems and powers in this world, and how they need to be redeemed and transformed, every valley raised up and mountain made low.

(Suggested background music for this post is Belinda Carlisle's "Heaven is a Place on Earth.")

So... it strikes me as strange that Stollar uses the word "eschatology" for this, but also, I love it. I think this a good way to think about heaven and hell. (And maybe this *is* how "eschatology" is used in liberation theology?) Let's do the work right now on this earth. That's heaven and hell.

And it makes me think, maybe religious beliefs should be understood as projections that inform our thinking about what we should do right now. Just like a complex 3-dimensional object projects a 2D shadow- religious beliefs are that shadow, and we live our lives in the shape of a 3D object that could make that shadow. Maybe heaven and hell are not real, but whatever you believe about them makes a real difference in how you live. Maybe religion is not actually true, but it's about the power of a story. Sure, you could make a list of behaviors that people should do or not do, but people respond better to stories. A big grand story about what the world is, and how God wants us to live, and the way that filters down into our very concrete actions in the here-and-now.

(And, to clarify, I'm not saying being religious is better than being non-religious. There's a wide range of different ways that people map their religious beliefs [or lack thereof] onto questions of morality/purpose/how we should live our lives, and I would not say that religious people's mappings are better than non-religious people's.)

I wouldn't regret it, if I lived my life in an effort to bring heaven to this earth, and then it turned out heaven didn't exist. Even if heaven is not real, there's something about this that *is* real. Something about... helping people is the right thing to do, even if there's no God rewarding you for it. That's real. It's a religious belief- because how can you prove it? what would it even mean to prove it? It's a religious belief that feels even deeper than my religion, somehow. 

My religion is "I don't know how to explain to you that you should care about other people."

The kingdom of heaven is not far away. As Jesus said, the kingdom of heaven is at hand.

---

Follow-up post: Faith, Fruit, and "Do you actually believe your religion?"

Posts about "The Kingdom of Children":

"The Kingdom of Children" (a book about child liberation theology)
The Kingdom of Children: Comparing Religions
The Kingdom of Children: Eschatology
The Kingdom of Children: Theology and Play
The Kingdom of Children: Communion and Baptism

Related 

The Prayer That Jesus Taught Us To Pray

I don't believe in a literal "Jesus coming back." But, be ready.

"Muppet Christmas Carol" Is My Religion

On Christianity and Waiting

The Kingdom of Children: Comparing Religions

Symbols of different religions. Image source.

Chapter 6 of "The Kingdom of Children: A Liberation Theology," by R. L. Stollar, starts out with this quote:

Unquestionably, the central Christian assertion about the identity of Jesus Christ has been that he is both fully human and fully divine. This characterization is unique among world religions.

- Kristin Johnston Largen

I involuntarily rolled my eyes.

It's not that I think this statement is false. I wasn't even thinking about that. The reason I cringed away from this statement is that I have lots of experience listening to Christians' descriptions of other religions and why those other religions are all nonsensical and bad and shallow, not like our faith which is super meaningful and reasonable and powerful.

So any time I come across a Christian saying "here's why our religion is different from all the others, and is better", ugh. Most of the time, it's a total misrepresentation of what other religions teach. It's spreading misinformation. It's a caricature, meant to show how silly those people are who believe differently than us, haha, how silly and misguided they are, believing things that are so obviously wrong. It's just mindlessly repeating talking points that we heard from other Christians, rather than actually listening to people from other religions, to genuinely understand what they believe.

Okay, but, turns out Stollar actually shares my feelings on this. From pages 98-99:

Growing up, I was always interested in other religions. I accepted Jesus into my heart as a young child, yet I was nonetheless fascinated by faiths not my own. Some of my favorite books were the D'Aulaires' books for children on Greek and Norse mythology. I loved the fantastical stories they contained. The images of gods and goddesses fighting and playing filled my imagination with wonder and inspiration.

But the conservative evangelical world I grew up in did not encourage me to pursue my interest in other religions. As I grew older, the only context in which I studied them was to learn how to attack them-- allegedly for the sake of Jesus. When I attended summer worldview camps as a teenager, for example, I was taught flimsy, cardboard caricatures of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Islam. And even then, I was only taught those caricatures of other faiths in order to memorize catchphrases with which I could supposedly refute them.

Now that I am an adult, I have a greater appreciation for world religions. Part of my journey toward this appreciation was getting a master's in Eastern Classics at St. John's College, where I studied religions from China, India, and Japan. For the first time in my life, I appreciated freely religions other than my own. No one was telling me what was "wrong" with them. No one was interrupting my train of thought by insisting, "But Jesus!" I simply learned what other people and cultures think about the world.

I encourage you to give the children in your family, faith community, or religious organization the opportunity to learn about other religions. As I have argued throughout this chapter, learning about other religions is essential to teasing out both the very real differences and similarities between them. This pursuit helps us understand and embody our own faith that much more deeply.

This is so real. "Learning" about other religions, in a conservative Christian context, just to memorize arguments about why those other religions are obviously wrong.

So Stollar understands that, and that's not what he's doing in this chapter. What is he doing in this chapter, then? Well, it's about child gods- ie, religions that have a god character who is a child. Comparing these stories to the Christian story of Jesus being fully god and being born into this world as a human child- and pointing out aspects of these where the Jesus story is "better" than the stories from other religions. (For example, the Jesus story is "better" than the stories where the god had the appearance of a child but still had the mind and powers of a god- Jesus was an actual child, really, going through all the developmental stages. And the Jesus story is "better" than the stories where it is prophesied that the child will *someday* be the savior- Jesus was *already* the savior, even as a child.) I don't think the book actually uses the word "better" but that's how I'm summing this up.

It seems like we *should* be able to talk about this, right? I'm just really skittish here, as an ex-evangelical, ex-apologetics-nerd. But it seems like there should be a way to talk about, hey, I'm a Christian, so logically that means I believe there are aspects of Christianity which are "better" than other religions, there are things about Christianity which are true while other religions are false... ugh... I'm just... I just cringe so hard at this line of thinking. This sounds like an apologetics argument, and I don't do apologetics arguments any more.

I enjoyed reading this chapter of "The Kingdom of Children"- it does seem to be coming from a place of thoughtfully and respectfully seeking to understand the beliefs of other religions. And the parts where it talks about why the Jesus story is "better"- I guess we should read that as "well, this author is a Christian, so of course he believes the Jesus story is better than the other religions' stories, and these are his opinions about why" rather than reading it like... like he's saying you're not allowed to believe in these other religions because it's so obvious that Christianity is better.

Maybe I could try to write something like that. Maybe there is some way I could frame it which doesn't feel like a dishonest apologetics argument. Make it about why I'm a Christian, without making it about why you should be a Christian.

---

Posts about "The Kingdom of Children":

"The Kingdom of Children" (a book about child liberation theology)
The Kingdom of Children: Comparing Religions
The Kingdom of Children: Eschatology
The Kingdom of Children: Theology and Play
The Kingdom of Children: Communion and Baptism

Related:

Taking My Kid To Church: "The Belief That Baffled the Best of the Buddhists" 

What is the purpose of apologetics?

All of My Book Review Posts

Books. Image source.

I've written a lot of blog posts about books, and I want to post all the links so they're easy to find.

First of all, kids' book reviews are here:

Reviews of Christian Children's Books

Reviews of Kids' Books

And here are all the grown-up books:

Bible:

Inspiration and Incarnation by Peter Enns
Womanist Midrash by Wilda C. Gafney
Genesis for Normal People by Peter Enns and Jared Byas
Inspired by Rachel Held Evans
Text, Image, & Otherness in Children's Bibles edited by Caroline Vander Stichele and Hugh S. Pyper
The Red Tent by Anita Diamant
The Bible Tells Me So by Peter Enns
Slaves, Women & Homosexuals by William J. Webb
The Year of Living Biblically by A. J. Jacobs

Purity culture:

The Great Sex Rescue by Sheila Wray Gregoire, Rebecca Gregoire Lindenbach, and Joanna Sawatsy
Pure by Linda Key Klein
Damaged Goods by D. Anderson
The Purity Myth by Jessica Valenti

Christianity and feminism:

Jesus Feminist by Sarah Bessey

Christianity and LGBTQ issues:

Transforming by Austen Hartke
Radical Love by Patrick S. Cheng
Torn by Justin Lee
One Coin Found by Emmy Kegler
Washed and Waiting by Wesley Hill

Black Christian theology:

The Cross and the Lynching Tree by James Cone

Christianity and children:

The Kingdom of Children by R. L. Stollar

Christian apologetics:

The Language of God by Francis Collins
The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel

Christian missions:

Runaway Radical by Amy Hollingsworth and Jonathan Hollingsworth

Evangelicalism:

The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind by Mark Noll
When We Were on Fire by Addie Zierman

Heaven and hell:

Love Wins by Rob Bell

Pregnancy:

Queer Conception by Kristin L. Kali
Expecting Better by Emily Oster
Give Birth Like a Feminist by Milli Hill

Abortion:

Life's Work by Dr. Willie Parker

Asexuality:

The Invisible Orientation by Julie Sondra Decker

Sex: 

Girls & Sex by Peggy Orenstein
Come As You Are by Emily Nagoski

Relationships:

Boundaries in Dating by Dr. Henry Cloud and Dr. John Townsend

Emotional health:

Daring Greatly by Brené Brown

Feminism:

Fair Play by Eve Rodsky

Racism:

The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander

Parenting:

Raising Mixed Race by Sharon H. Chang
Parenting Forward by Cindy Wang Brandt
Afraid of the Doctor by Meghan L. Marsac and Melissa J. Hogan

Autism:

Color Taste Texture by Matthew Broberg-Moffitt
Asperger's on the Job by Rudy Simone

Immigration:

The Case For Open Borders by John Washington

Global poverty:

Portfolios of the Poor by Daryl Collins, Jonathan Morduch, Stuart Rutherford, and Orlanda Ruthven
When Helping Hurts by Steve Corbett and Brian Fikkert
Winners Take All by Anand Giridharadas

Evolution:

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins
The Greatest Show on Earth by Richard Dawkins

Queer fiction:

Let's Talk About Love by Claire Kann
Aces Wild by Amanda DeWitt

Other fiction:

Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen
The Three-Body Problem by Liu Cixin