When Cute Little Bunnies Talk Theology

Though himself neither cute nor a bunny, my friend James McGrath over at Exploring Our Matrix has posted this ever-so-cute response to creationism by the two ever-so-cutest stuffed bunnies you’ll ever want to see.

Of course, the point of this bunny dialogue is applicable not just to creationism but to other issues of theological disagreement where the familiarity and safety of an “authoritative tradition” collides with thoughtful and needed exploration that challenges that authority.

And, no, I’m not saying tradition is always wrong and exploration is always right. Sheesh. I’m saying that, well, gosh….if I have to explain, you’re the bunny in the dress and you wouldn’t get it any way.

With that, I give you…..the bunnies.

 

  • Klasie Kraalogies

    Just brilliant. Ever so brilliant. I’m sharing it….

  • Tyler

    It applies to any situation where people want to shut down dialogue because they already know what’s true.

    • http://byzantium.wordpress.com Kullervo

      Yep.

  • http://craigvick.wordpress.com Craig Vick

    Note the many places where the two bunnies seem to agree. They both think there’s only one way to assemble the pieces and that, once complete, a picture (meta narrative?) should appear. Those are pretty good assumptions for jigsaw puzzles.

    • Marshall

      [like]

      … as noted elsewhere, isn’t it nice how the pants-wearing bunny nicely explains thing to the nice-but-confused skirt-wearing bunny. “If you’re the one wearing the dress, you wouldn’t get it anyway.”

  • Larry

    This is what happens when you trust puzzles to bunnies. If you trust instead in chipmunks, then the puzzle comes out as a duck.

  • Randy

    That is why I don’t trust bunnies working on puzzles. I trust the inspired, inerrant Word of God.

  • Beau Quilter

    I have to take issue with your assertion, here!

    As biblical scholars go, James McGrath is very cute!

  • James

    In literary terms, never judge a book by its cover. So when we read Holy Bible on the cover, we may be in for a surprised when we leaf through the pages; it may be The Book of Mormon. Kidding! When we read carefully, we become aware of our misconceptions about both cover and contents. Still, we may refuse to kill the sacred cows we depend on. But the analogy breaks down in real life. There is enough mystery to sink a battleship when we wade into the relation between heaven and earth, God’s initiative and our response. So let us treat kindly the little puzzlers for we are puzzlers ourselves.

  • Matthew D

    Irenaeus approves.

  • Michael Straight

    “Actually, that looks more like a duck than Winnie the Pooh to me.”

    “Well all of us say it looks like Winnie the Pooh!”

    “Well, I guess. If I squint at it the right way, I can sorta see Winnie the Pooh. But it really looks more like a duck.”

    “No, really. This part is Winnie’s head. And over here are his paws. That’s his nose.”

    “Yeah, I see see how it sorta looks like that, but…the duck is still right there!”

    • Michael Straight

      …which is my experience of trying to look at the claims of source criticism.

      I don’t believe the Bible is necessarily inerrant or infallible. I’m not threatened by the idea that the creation story in Genesis is a myth. But whenever I try to dip into scholarship about the Bible, the criteria seem weirdly subjective. It’s like this cartoon. People just point and say, “Look, can’t you see the patterns here? This part comes from one source because it uses this vocabulary and is interested in these topic, and this part comes from another source because it uses different vocabulary and covers other topics. Everyone else agrees that these patterns are real.” And it all just seems unfalsifiable.

  • Jack

    To take the analogy in another direction: The scientistic/atheistic “box” is notable for what’s not there – no God. But not many theists claim they have 100% proof for the existence of God.
    So dress-bunny is joe-scientist ( cf Sean Carroll); bunny in pants is, say, Tielhard de Chardin or (for the conservative types) CS Lewis. The puzzle pieces, instead of bits of the natural world, are bits of philosophy, wisdom, myths and traditions, common sense.


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X