Unclean? Quarantine!

Please read Leviticus 13:1-4, 45-46; 14:1-9 in your Bible.

Unclean_ QuarantineImage by James Best, (C) 2020, https://www.behance.net/gallery/90621713/Sermon-Illustrations-2020

I want to begin with an abridged version of an article appearing on the website “The Hill” last Sunday, written by Justine Coleman.

“Maryville Baptist Church in Louisville and its pastor Jack Roberts filed a lawsuit against Kentucky[‘s governor] for allegedly targeting churchgoers with the enforcement of a stay-at-home order on Easter Sunday.

“The lawsuit asserts that [the governor] violated the residents’ religious freedom by instructing Kentucky State Police to give criminal sanctions to all vehicles in the church’s parking lot on the Christian holiday, including vehicles participating in drive-in services.

“The police recorded congregants’ license plates and provided notices for 14-day mandatory quarantines. The notices informed churchgoers that they were required to report their temperatures daily and avoid public places and transportation.

“Liberty Counsel criticized the governor’s alleged selective enforcement in a release, saying nearby Kroger, Wal-Mart, liquor stores and other parking lots were ‘packed with cars’ and ‘jammed with people,’ but they didn’t receive quarantine notices.

“The governor’s office warned that attending church gatherings on the holiday weekend would classify as a misdemeanor violation, in a press release two days before Easter.

“Churches across the country are challenging stay-at-home orders that ban them from meeting in-person. Some states have designated worship services as essential, while others have not.”

This is an example of the tension in our nation – probably around the world – between social distancing and personal freedom/economic necessity.  It is not my purpose to rehash those arguments.  Instead, I felt lead to see what the Bible had to say about the issue.  As usual, I asked God to reveal principles that are just as true in our situation even though our situation is different from the situation of the Bible writers.  Whenever we seek wisdom from the Bible we must first understand its words in light of the world as it was when the words were first written or spoken.  Then we express that truth in the form of eternal principles; revelation from God that is applicable in all times and places.  The third step is to apply those principles to our situation.  Today’s message is an exercise of that process.

CONTEXT: When reading through the Bible, the book of Leviticus can be tough sledding.  I only have two sermons in the Leviticus file in my office.  However, by faith we recognize that God’s law expressed God’s will.  Whether we have wisdom to see it or not every law of God is given for the benefit of His people.  Understanding is optional; obedience is mandatory.

God’s Law required separation from the community in the case of some illnesses.

  1. The Law.

Notes on Leviticus 13:1-4, 45-46 taught separation was required while suffering an infectious disease and when suspected of suffering an infectious disease. While this chapter deals with skin diseases, the important point (v. 2) is that the disease in question is an INFECTIOUS one.  (There is discussion among scholars whether or not the term “leprosy” is similar to our modern use of that term.  The Hebrew word is more general; describing different skin diseases that may have included leprosy as we know it today.

In verses three and four we read A PRIEST was the one to examine the patient.  This was their only medical function.  The priest’s examination was to conclude whether or not the disease was serious enough to PRONOUNCE the patient CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN.  There were two possible outcomes: clean or unclean.

If the patient was declared CLEAN, then a week’s separation from the camp was required as a precaution (v. 4).  After the week had passed, the patient’s condition was re-evaluated (v. 5-8). Now there were three possible outcomes: another week might be required, or the person declared cured and clean, or declared UNCLEAN.  Might this be a biblical precedent for social distancing?

This was not a “shelter-in-place” order.  The patient could not stay with family, for that might expose them too; the patient was required to live outside the camp. This was the policy for all the conditions that made a person CEREMONIALLY UNCLEAN.

In verse 45 we read the steps the person suffering from the disease was to practice as an ancient form of social distancing.  They were commanded to wear torn clothing and keep an unkempt appearance.  These two thing might also denote grief or fasting, so the third item of a partially covered face were all visual cues of an unclean status.  This is like the masks we wear or see others wearing in public places.  Additionally, the person was to cry out a warning of “UNCLEAN! UNCLEAN!” UNCLEAN status could be transmitted by touch, so the sick person was supposed to protect the healthy in these ways. The practice of separation was to last as long as the disease continued.

In Leviticus 14:1-32 we read that restoration was required after getting over the disease.  (We don’t have space to consider all 32 verses, so we’ll look at the first nine as an example.)

As verse two states, these instructions were for CEREMONIAL CLEANSING: “ceremonial” referring to the person’s status as part of the worshiping community.

The priest’s role was to verify that the person was actually healed of the infectious disease (v. 3).  Notice the priest was to GO OUTSIDE THE CAMP to make this determination; the safety of the camp was not put at risk by an unverified claim to healing.

If the claim is verified, a sacrifice is made for the person’s CEREMONIAL CLEASING (vs. 3-7).  For the sake of context, allow me to explain of the practice of sacrifices in the Old Testament Law.  Animal sacrifices were made to atone for sin; the deadly consequence of sin was cancelled by the life of the animal; by its blood, in particular.

Now an explanation of this particular sacrifice.  This offering closely resembles the sacrifice of a red heifer in Numbers 19:6 and the cleansing of a house here in Leviticus 14, verses 49-53.

TWO CLEAN BIRDS were needed. Deuteronomy 14:11-18 lists all the unclean birds (including bats). This is not a scientific list, so there’s no reason to expect all the birds to be of a single type.

CEDAR WOOD was regarded by the Jews as a symbol of pride.  This may imply that the person’s pride in themselves was restored with their health.

SCARLET YARN (“scarlet stuff of a worm”) was a Jewish symbol of humility.  Scarlet thread and rope are mentioned elsewhere in the Old Testament.

HYSSOP is connected with cleansing in Psalm 51:7.  This may be in reference to the first Passover, when a hyssop branch was to be used to paint the doorposts with lamb’s blood.

The former patient was to be sprinkled SEVEN times with the blood and water solution.  In the Old Testament, blood was used to sanctify things and biblically the number seven is the symbol of completeness; divine perfection.

The surviving bird was released to symbolize the person’s new status as clean and a restored member of the community.  It is the similar to sending the scapegoat into the wilderness as directed on the Day of Atonement (16:21). This is a symbol of the person being forgiven of their sin.

Verses 8-9 detail the person’s own steps in demonstrating their CLEANSING on to the community.

They were to wear clean clothes.  Shaving all body hair emphasized their unblemished skin and being entirely shaved avoided concealing any other skin blemishes. The patient spent one week inside the camp but outside his home.

We must note that Jesus followed the Law of Moses in general and in this specific case.  When He healed ten lepers, he instructed them to go and show themselves to the priest (Luke 5:12-15).

  1. The principles behind the Law.

The practice of medicine and the practice of faith are inseparable.  I am not saying that our society should require doctors to be pastors or pastors to be doctors.  I am simply observing that for followers of Jesus, science and faith are not separate things: they are both perspectives on truth and as such, both must be founded upon God.  We don’t turn over part of our lives to science and another part to theology.  These are aspects of knowledge that should inform and shape one another as they did before natural science was separated from theology.

Personal separation serves the faith community in instances of disease and sin.  In times of disease we separate ourselves from others to avoid spreading the disease and to facilitate our recovery.  In times of rebellion against God, unrepentant sinners need to be separated from the community of faith to preserve the integrity and reputation of the community and to facilitate the repentance of the sinner.

Disease is a serious matter; sin is more serious.  Think back to all the ceremony that people were supposed to undergo when they recovered from an infectious disease, the passages we looked at earlier.  If nothing else, doesn’t that prove that God took all this seriously and that His people were to take it seriously too?

Look at the expense, effort, and good will that creative people have poured into coping with the coronavirus.  It is a serious matter and needs the attention it has been getting.  This kind of sacrifice is excellent and praiseworthy in the sight of all people when it is given voluntarily and not compelled by civil authorities.

But we are misusing this precious time if we fail to attend to our spiritual life and particularly the disease of sin.  I do not believe COVID-19 is God’s punishment of sin any more than familiar illnesses are.  But this situation has so disrupted the usual conduct of our lives, it is irresponsible for us to not spend more time in prayer, Scripture, and in service to God.

  1. Applying the principles to our situation.

Prioritize faith in God over faith in science or politics or any other worldly thing.  From my very amateur perspective, I believe the science of COVID-19 is still waiting to be discovered.  Claims to have figured out the coronavirus need to be met with healthy skepticism and vigorous testing.  Not every action that has been undertaken in the name of thwarting the virus has been scientifically necessary.  Even when the science of the coronavirus becomes more certain, what needs to have priority is faith.  Our trust is in God, not science.

We need to recognize the necessity of separation for our most vulnerable people and preserving the freedom of those not at risk.  What’s new here is not so much the virus itself, but the way we are reacting to it.  History holds examples of other infectious diseases that were not understood in their time.  What is unique historically is our practice of quarantining undiagnosed persons.

God’s Law required separation from the community in the case of some illnesses.

As we conclude, I want to remind you we did not come to God’s word searching for sanctions of any particular public health policy.  Instead, we came searching for some eternal principles that we might apply to our situation as followers of Jesus.

What we discovered along the way was God’s care for His people manifest in laws intended to promote both health and holiness.  Our modern culture is too prone to separate health from holiness; that is not a biblical model.

We discovered separation is a measure God sanctioned in the case of physical illness and unrepentant sin.  The individual must sometimes suffer separation for the good of the faith-community.  This is yet another example of how individual rights do not trump the good of the community but instead are subordinate to it.

The coronavirus has been called an “unprecedented situation,” but of course that’s not true; history is darkened with accounts of plagues.  For example, in the 14th century the bubonic plague killed about a quarter of Europe’s population.  At that time it was known that whole villages moved away, leaving those stricken behind.  What’s a little bit unique about this situation is the heavy hand government has taken to poor science turned into unlegislated laws.  History also makes clear that a crisis is construed as an opportunity to enlarge government at the loss of freedom.  Once governments gain power they never relinquish it willingly.

Each one of us needs to make careful decisions about our accommodations to the coronavirus, seeing the wisdom and truth in what we’re being told while avoiding overreactions and the overreaching some persons have perpetrated.  This is not an easy time because it is an unfamiliar problem compounded by an unfamiliar solution.  Trust in God first and foremost, seeking the spiritual cleansing He has provided us in Jesus Christ.

 

RESOURCES:

https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/493593-church-pastor-accuse-kentucky-governor-of-targeting-churchgoers-on

Zondervan Bible Commentary, “Leviticus,” Robert P. Gordon

The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, Vol. 2, “Leviticus,” R. Laird Harris

Right from the Beginning – #4

Please read Genesis 1:24-2:25 in your Bible.  I used the NIV to prepare these remarks.

“Taxonomy” is the science of classifying plants and animals into various groupings.  If I were to ask you which animal you think of that defies scientific classification, what might you say?  Would you mention the duckbill platypus as an example?

The point simply is this; science has its own challenges.  There are plants and animals that overlap different categories and/or have exceptional features; classifying them can be difficult.

In studying Genesis one and two, we face a similar problem.  If we study the creation account with the intent of systematizing it, we are going to be thwarted by details that overreach our system or do not fit it precisely.

And yet, we – by faith – understand that there is a unity present, a coherent system of thought with a message God has intended for us to receive.  So we start with the fewest preconceptions possible and do the careful work of allowing the text to have its own voice first.   After we have heard Genesis as it original listeners (and readers) received it, then we adapt our preconceptions to fit what we have learned.

For example, we retain the preconception that God created.  It is, after all, a central tenet of our faith.  What we pitch is that the Bible and science have to agree.  We set aside the notion that “Creationism” must be proven (with all the politico-social baggage accumulated by that movement) and learn what we can from the text about God’s creation of the world.  We accept that the “How?” question will never be as important as the “Who?” question, and less important than the “Why?” question.

REVIEW

  1. Before creation: Only God existed (1:1-2).
  2. Creation, Day One: Separating day and night (1:3-5).
  3. Day Two: Separating sky and sea (1:6-8).
  4. Day Three: Separating the sea and the land; growing plants on the land (1:9-13).
  5. Day Four: Creating heavenly lights (1:14-19).
  6. Day Five: Creating animals for the sea & sky (1:20-23).

NEW

  1. Creation, Day Six: Creating life on the land (1:24-2:25).

First, creating animal life on the land (1:24-25).  Verse 24 reads; LET THE LAND PRODUCE LIVING CREATURES, just as it said that THE LAND produced plant life in v. 15.  That sentence made a lot more sense in verse fifteen as we all know plants grow out of the ground (generally speaking), but we’ve never planted a dog and had puppies grow in the spot.  But – look ahead – what did God use as raw material for the man?  Dirt.  Also, as science informs us, animal bodies are, chemically, minerals and water.  As we noted previously, the term LIVING CREATURES includes all animal life, whether its habitat is land, air, or water.

ACCORDING TO THEIR KINDS (24+25) develops this thought a bit.  As is usual in this passage, these three divisions of animal kind is a functional one.

– LIVESTOCK = domesticated animals.

– CREATURES THAT MOVE ALONG THE GROUND = undomesticated animals that are prey.

– WILD ANIMALS = undomesticated animals that are predators.

Second, we come to the real focus of the creation narrative: creating human life on the land (1:26-2:25).  The text relates eight important truths about the human race.

#1 = We were created in God’s image (1:26).  The Heb word for IMAGE was defined as a physical representation of something that had no physical form. This was contrary to idol-worshippers who believed superstitiously that their idols not only represented the physical form of their gods, but also contained some of their spiritual essence.

As with the rest of the Genesis account, the emphasis is on function; the function of the IMAGE is for us to represent God in creation.  God is a spirit and wants to be present in creation in a physical way, a way tangible to the five senses He gave us.  So, being created in the IMAGE OF GOD means that you and I were created to represent God in our bodies.  We are to reproduce, in daily life, the character and nature of God.

Theologians have haggled over the exact meaning of this word.  (For example, In Genesis 5:3, Adam’s son Seth is described as the IMAGE and LIKENESS of his father.  Since this is said about Seth at birth, this must refer to a physical resemblance; any similarity of character or personality would not be known for several years.  Does this assert that the IMAGE is a physical resemblance?)  I believe it’s not necessary to be specific or precise in or definition of this term any qualities that human beings possess but the rest of creation does not may be considered part of the IMAGE OF GOD.

The IMAGE is God’s intention that human beings be the part of creation that represents the Creator.  Isn’t that enough of a responsibility?  Paul linked the IMAGE with the “new self,” the life of a believer, and saw it as our responsibility to make God known.

– Epehsians 4:24 = …put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.

– Colossians 3:10 = …put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator.

#2 = We were created to exercise dominion over creation (1:26, 28-30).  This is a delegated authority.  We do not, by virtue of being human, have any “rights” that make us rulers of creation.  Like everything else, this is a gift from God.  Though it has been misused by some people, being given RULE over creation is not an excuse for mismanaging it.  Instead, it puts us in a managerial position, responsible for taking g0od care of the environment.

The blessing “BE FRUITFUL AND MULTIPLY” is pronounced on all LIVING CREATURES, not just the human race.  God blessed all the creatures he put on Earth; His plan was for the prosperity of all creation.

#3 = We were created from dust (2:7) and from a rib (2:18, 21-2).

The man was created from DUST.  This Hebrew word refers to dry dirt; the loose, granular stuff you and I would call “topsoil.”  It may seem contradictory that something given the honor of bearing God’s IMAGE should come from such humble beginnings: mere dirt.  I should think that’s exactly the point.

However, this “earthen vessel” was not alive in that instant.  The text tells us that the man became alive as God put His BREATH OF LIFE into it.  This phrase always refers to the breathing that all living people do, implying what God did with Adam is not just a one-time event, but is how God bestows life to all of us.

The woman was created out of Adam’s rib.  The Hebrew word for RIB is not anatomically precise.  It can refer to a single rib, the entire rib cage, or a hunk of flesh and bone from the upper torso.  Fortunately, we don’t need it to be precise because we’re not writing a book of anatomy.  The point is that part of the man’s body was used to fashion the woman.  As we will see, the stress is on their similarity, not their difference.

#4 = We were created to live in paradise (2:4-6, 10-14).  The word translated as GARDEN is used to refer to a paradise.  In our culture, the word “park” would be a more accurate translation; it is a place set aside for trees and other landscaping to create a peaceful nature refuge. The most prominent feature of any park is the trees and this one has two tree identified as being special.  We’ll talk about them next month.

In the ancient world, kings spared no expense in creating these kinds of spaces.  In fact, the Hanging Gardens of Babylon were one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World.

The name EDEN is more than a point of geography; it means “abundant” and modifies the word GARDEN in the sense of “a garden of abundance.” The fact that the GARDEN is well-watered by four rivers that flowed out of EDEN is the explanation of its abundance.  What we’re to learn here is God put the man in an ideal place; of all the places on the surface of the earth, this was the best habitat possible.

#5 = We were created to work (2:15, 19-20).  Adam was not to just live in the GARDEN, he was to work in it.  He is God’s partner in nurturing the life of the GARDEN, both plants and animals.  This is evidence that it has always been God’s plan that work is central to human life.  God didn’t simply provide for the man; Adam was active, working to grow and collect his own food.  God commissioned Adam to name the animals.  This served several purposes, one of which is to show that not all work is manual labor.  God created us to do mental and manual work.

The Hebrew word for WORK is most often used in connection with labor done in service to God; in fact, some commentators would rather see this word translated as “worship.”  We need to remember that we’re all created to work and that nearly all work can be a form of service to God.  In our culture, we split work and discipleship, which often leads to a double standard; we have one set of behaviors for the workplace and another set for the church.  This distinction is somewhat false and does not express God’s plan.

#6 = We were created to choose to obey God (2:16-17). God created people with the ability to choose; “free will.”  This is also a delegated authority and the responsibility that goes with it is to choose to obey God.

We won’t go into any detail here, but will note only that God gave the man commands about work/worship and about one tree in particular; he commanded the man to leave it alone.  This was not a complicated set of commands to keep.  God’s plan was not to leave His people alone and let them figure things out for themselves.  He identified obedience as the thing that leads to life. Jesus taught that obedience is the way we demonstrate our love for God (see John 14:15, 23-24).

# 7 = We were created for companionship (2:18-25).  Another purpose God had in giving Adam the job of naming the animals was he would see that there were a male and female of each.  But the text says twice for Adam THERE WAS NO SUITABLE HELPER to be found.  The phrase “suitable helper” is one of those details I warned you about.  It is hard to interpret as it is found only here in the Bible.  The task has been complicated by centuries of misuse by persons trying to prove a paternalistic world view.

However the word HELPER is found repeatedly by itself in the Bible and is most often used in reference to God as our HELPER.  Obviously, there is no diminished status associated with this word.  A HELPER is not a second-class person.  The word SUITABLE actually means “opposite.”

So a SUITABLE HELPER in this case, is the opposite sex.  As all the animals had male and female genders, Adam needed a counterpart, a female, to be a completed species. This is true biologically, emotionally, and spiritually.  The text give a rare commentary in verse 24 when the writer sums up God’s purpose in making Eve as a counterpart for Adam: THAT IS WHY A MAN LEAVES HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND IS UNITED TO HIS WIFE, AND THEY BECOME ONE FLESH.

In case we miss the fact that God created both male and female people, the text makes it perfectly obvious in 1:27, SO GOD CREATED MAN IN HIS OWN IMAGE, IN THE IMAGE OF GOD HE CREATED HIM, MALE AND FEMALE HE CREATED THEM.  Both men and women bear the all-important IMAGE OF GOD.  In this detail alone, but also in all of the creation account, the book of Genesis shows far more respect for women than the creation myths recounted in other ancient cultures.  God wants us to know right from the beginning that male and female people are two sides of the same race.

Adam affirms this truth in v. 23.  First, he emphasized the similarity of the sexes when he said Eve was BONE OF MY BONE AND FLESH OF MY FLESH.  Second, he approved her suitability as his counterpart: SHE SHALL BE CALLED ‘WOMAN,’ FOR SHE WAS TAKEN OUT OF MAN.  Of course there are differences between men and women that continue to this day; we’re not aiming at being so “PC” that we deny what is obvious.  But those differences are matters of degree, not destiny.  Men and women are to manage creation together.

#8 = We were created pure, without any reason to be ashamed.  No less than four times (2:25; 3:7, 10-11) the account mentions Adam and even being NAKED.

In chapter two, Adam and Eve were NAKED but without shame.  The point here is their innocence.  As we observe with innocent children, nakedness is not a cause for shame.

In chapter three, Adam and Eve became ashamed of their nakedness after they chose to disobey God.  The first sin brought the first sense of shame along with it.

Different Hebrew words are used in chapters two and three.  In chapter three, the word used for NAKED is elsewhere used as a punishment, a sign of being abandoned, a penalty for sin.  Of course, that comes after the disobedience of Adam and Eve and implies that their nudity was no longer a sign of inn0cence, but something they despised and felt was a punishment; a shameful thing.

The account of Adam and Eve speaks to our personal lives.  Their experience is a symbol for what all of us experience as we grow up, the loss of innocence as we deliberately choose to do what we know is wrong.

Finally, the text revisits the creation of plant life on the land, elaborating that it was created to be food for the LIVING CREATURES (1:29-30: 2:5-6). Yes, I suppose this does imply that all animals and humans were vegetarians in the beginning.  But be of good cheer – God later approved meat for our diet (see Acts 9:9-16)!

The GARDEN depicted in today’s text was a literal place that carried a function similar to that of the tabernacle, temple, and church; it was a place to meet God.  It was a sanctuary where God’s people could go to worship Him.  In fact, what’s clear in this creation account is that the human race is the primary part of creation.  The details we’ve examined all week show that God created with human beings in mind.

God made people to take care of that sacred space and to dwell with Him there.  God said that creation was GOOD and He blessed all the LIVING CREATURES He created to live in the world.

The one thing about it that was NOT GOOD was for the man to live alone in the GARDEN.  God fixed that with the creation of the woman and everything was fine until sin entered the picture in the form of the willful disobedience of Adam and Eve.

Let’s not get ahead of the text.  The second chapter ends with the affirmation that the week of creation ended with God’s plan perfectly in place.  All was prepared for creation to work as a habitation for people.  Adam and Eve lived and worked and served God, all without any SHAME.

PREVIEW

  1. Creation, Day Seven: Instituting the Sabbath (2:1-4).

Forget the Movies: READ “Jurassic Park,” Don’t Watch It

Crichton’s Message in “Jurassic Park”

Forget all of the movies based on Crichton’s dinosaur books. (In fact, forget all movies made from Michael Crichton’s books. Film media has simply never done justice to the man’s brilliant authorship. Crichton said as much himself, and I agree.)

I have recently re-read Jurassic Park for the third or fourth time, and finally got the point. In all of Crichton’s books there are passages where one of the characters preaches. Where he or she delivers what must be Crichton’s message. I do not believe he wrote merely to entertain. Crichton’s prose and research were aimed at delivering a message to his readers. (As it took me multiple readings, I must be a slow study!)

About three-quarters of the way through Jurassic Park (p. 305+ of my version), the infamous raconteur-cum-mathematician, Dr. Ian Malcolm, has been injured by the T-rex and is under the influence of morphine, but it hasn’t slowed his brain a bit. He is arguing with John Hammond, the showman whose vision has driven Jurassic Park to completion. They’ve exhausted chaos theory as a topic of debate and Hammond has just muttered about how his vision had been so simple and now it was unraveling. Malcolm took exception to the word simple. He goes on to explain his umbrage.

“‘You know what’s wrong with scientific power?’ Malcolm said. “It’s a form of inherited wealth. And you know what assholes congenitally rich people are. It never fails.’

“Hammond said, ‘What is he talking about?’

“Harding made a sign, indicating delirium. Malcolm cocked his eye.

“‘I will tell you what I am talking about,’ he said. ‘ Most kinds of power require a substantial sacrifice by whoever wants the power. There is an apprenticeship, a discipline lasting many years. Whatever kind of power you want. President of the company. Black belt in karate. Spiritual guru. Whatever it is you seek, you have to put in the time, the practice, the effort. You must give up a lot to get it. It has to be very important to you. And once you have attained it, it is your power. It can’t be given away: it resides in you. It is literally the result of your discipline.

“‘Now what is interesting about this process is that, by the time someone has acquired the ability to kill with his bare hands, he has also matured to the point where he won’t use it unwisely. So that kind of power has a built-in control. The discipline of getting the power changes you so that you won’t abuse it.

“‘But scientific power is like inherited wealth attained without discipline. You read what others have done, and you take the next step. You can do it very young. You can make progress very fast. There is no discipline lasting many decades. there is no mastery: old scientists are ignored. There is no humility before nature. There is only a get-rich-quick [the Gennaro and Nedry characters], make-a-name-for-yourself-fast philosophy [the Wu and Hammond characters]. Cheat, lie, falsify – it doesn’t matter. Not to you, or to your colleagues. No one will criticize you. No one has any standards. They are all trying to do the same thing: to do something big, and do it fast.'”

There’s more in the same vein. And, when you read Jurassic Park in this light, it’s all over the book. The whole park project is a paroxysm of greed with science in harness.

At one point later in the book, Hammond confesses his worry that the dinosaurs will get loose and destroy the world. Malcolm scoffs at this notion, noting that the world has been through a lot worse than humanity and will survive long after we don’t. For an even more deliberate stick in the eye of the “climate change” community, read Crichton’s State of Fear. That book is even more polemical than Jurassic Park.

The point here is that scientists are ill-suited to be the high priests of the religion of secularism. Modernism insisted that scientists would create a better day. That we could find out all we needed to know to control our world, our lives, each other, if we just studied hard enough. We placed this authority in the hands of “scientists.” (Regardless of how murky the qualifications for that title have become.) The truth is, they are not pure devotees to knowledge. With the power liberal society entrusts to them, with the money that follows, scientists are shown to have the same human nature as the rest of us. They can be just as shallow, conniving, greedy, and manipulative to suit their own ends.

Take, for example, the joker who announced he’d discovered the “gay gene.” (I haven’t bothered to remember his name and won’t be bothered to look it up.) When his science was proven false, he defended himself by saying something like this; “I want so strongly to believe that people are born gay that I won’t rest until I find evidence that it’s true.” A liar and a cheat with a degree and an agenda attempted to mislead the world.  And, given half a chance, he will try to do so again.

In case I haven’t made this clear, let me say it again. I enjoy Jurassic Park as a work of fiction. I read it at least twice before I discovered the message Crichton put in this well-written bottle. There is no reason for me to read something in the pages of the book that is not there. I challenge you to read the book with the knowledge of the theme and you will see that this message is not just on Ian Malcolm’s lips, it is inherent in the motivations of most of the main characters, and is, in fact, the engine that drives the plot.

It is a message that is finding more traction in our post-Modern culture. Science is not an alternative religion. Scientists are not alternative priests. Progressivist notions that place our social trust in these institutions are half-baked, inadequate, untrustworthy.

May I suggest we hear Crichton’s message? That might be a good place to start hearing some of the voices of antiquity? To read the findings of men and women who exercised due diligence, who exerted wisdom, and had patience to seek the truth for the truth’s sake? Though I guess Crichton might disagree on this specific point, let me suggest secularism and modernism receive a quick burial and we turn to the Bible as our source of authoritative truth, moral wisdom, and intellectual honesty. By going backward in time we can better go forward in our shared future.