Embedded Files
( - previous issue - )
Apologia Report 19:44 (1,227)
December 17, 2014
Subject: The surprisingly sexist side of the atheist movement
In this issue:
ATHEISM - "Why would women join a movement led by sexists and populated by trolls?"
BIBLICAL CRITICISM - answering contemporary objections
+ has defending Scripture made us "unable to read it?"
SENTIMENTALISM - do the Osteens represent evangelicalism's future?
------
ATHEISM
"Atheists Show Their Sexist Side" -- it seems chauvinism knows no boundaries. Katha Pollitt asks, "What is wrong with the men at the helm of the movement?" She reports that "Rigid, reactionary Christianity may have captured the Republican Party, but it's turned off millions. According to Pew, some 20 percent of Americans have no religious affiliation, including 32 percent of those 18 to 29 - there are more 'nones' than there are white evangelicals. True, only 2.4 percent describe themselves as atheists (up from 1.6 in 2007), but that still means there are more self-identified atheists than there are Jews, Muslims or Mormons. It's the perfect time to put our best godless foot forward...." Instead, "organized atheism is having a sexist tantrum."
Referring to the behavior of three of atheism's "most famous and powerful public figures," Pollitt asks: "Why would women join a movement led by sexists and populated by trolls? If this is atheism, I'm becoming a Catholic." More questions follow, such as "having alienated a huge number of actual and potential members, to whom you sound arrogant, vain, sexist and clueless, look around and wonder, Gee, where are the women? They must be even less rational than we thought! ...
"Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris talk as if their obnoxious fanboys were all that stood between the values of the Enlightenment and the barbarous darkness of feminist fascism. ... Recently [Dawkins] tweeted that it's 'immoral' not to abort a fetus with Down syndrome and told women, 'If you want to be in a position to testify and jail a man, don't get drunk.'"
Not all is dark according to Pollitt. "At the 2013 Women in Secularism conference, Ron Lindsay, CEO of the Center for Inquiry <centerforinquiry.net>, gave what was widely regarded as a condescending lecture to the women in attendance, accusing them of feminist bullying. (After a huge outcry, he apologized. That was good.)" The Nation, Sep 24 '14. <www.ow.ly/FQya7>
---
BIBLICAL CRITICISM
Can We Still Believe the Bible? An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions, by Craig Blomberg [1] -- James Patrick Holding <tektonics.org> describes Blomberg's discovery that "scholarship and research led him to greater confidence in the Bible." The book gives "a survey of some of the ideologies that stand against responsible biblical studies. There are no sacred cows here, as Blomberg designates unsatisfactory approaches ranging from form criticism to King James Onlyism before providing the reader with a summary of the six issues he intends to engage." The issues include textual accuracy (with reference to Bart Ehrman's work), canon formation (how the collection of the Bible's contents was set), Bible translation (covering extremism, cultic translations, and ill-advised conflict regarding gender-inclusive language), ancient practices and inerrancy (which is "misconstrued" on all sides), and miracles (discussing arguments against such claims in Scripture). Christian Research Journal, 37:5 - 2014, pp56-58.
The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It, by Peter Enns [2] -- seems our approach is often wrong. "The Bible isn't a cookbook." Instead, think of it as "eavesdropping on an ancient spiritual journey." At least that's how Enns sees it, according to Christianity Today Sep 29 ’14, web-only) reviewer Andrew Wilson, who isn't firmly pro or con in his assessment of this book: "I find myself somewhat torn. I really like reading Peter Enns. He is creative, scholarly, witty, and at times hilarious. His writing is easy to understand, and he lays out his case clearly. And despite his troubled personal history with conservative evangelicalism, he critiques it without rancor. More important, although the overall message of the book - that the Bible isn't a rulebook - is a somewhat overdone attack on a straw-man, his seven chapters each make important points evangelicals have often missed.
"Those points, in brief: The Bible is, and functions like, an ancient book (chapter 1). God lets his children tell the story, and what they mean isn't always what we assume it means (chapter 2). The Old Testament narrates different stories in different ways, with specific circumstances in mind (chapter 3), and it offers different perspectives on all sorts of things, including the nature of God (chapter 4). Jesus didn't read his Bible in the same way we often do (chapter 5). Paul read the whole Bible afresh, in light of Jesus (chapter 6). And we need to let the Bible be the Bible, rather than what we want it to be (chapter 7).
"Enns also brings some sparkling insights to the table, and the book is strongest when he is illuminating particular books (rather than telling us what the Bible isn't)." Enns "communicates them to a general audience with clarity and verve, and parts of the book are a joy to read.
"Yet the book is also fundamentally imbalanced. Enns is so eager to show how 'messy' and 'weird' the Bible is that he frequently exaggerates difficulties, presents a one-sided picture, or neglects obvious resolutions to the 'contradictions' he puts forward." Examples follow.
"Like Rob Bell, Enns concludes that the Bible is ultimately about 'mystery' and a 'spiritual journey' and 'the thoughts and meditations of ancient pilgrims.'
"But aside from vague phrases like these, it is never clear what it actually means for the Bible to be the Word of God. ...
"Ultimately ... he pushes so hard against the idea that the Bible tells you everything that he leaves you wondering if the Bible actually tells you anything. We are, of course, invited to ask questions of the Word of God. But we are also invited - even summoned - to tremble." <www.ow.ly/FQCUc>
A very upset Enns responds to the above review: <www.ow.ly/G1dM7>
For a detailed critique, see John M. Frame, "Review of Enns’ Inspiration and Incarnation" at <www.ow.ly/G1dDt>.
---
SENTIMENTALISM
"Are the Osteens evangelical outliers?" by Todd M. Brenneman -- begins: "Recently Victoria Osteen, wife of pastor Joel Osteen, made some comments that concerned many Christians <www.ow.ly/G1dVP>. Apparently, she stated that worship was not for God but for the worshiper, [and] that when people obey God, they should do it for themselves (although she later revised some of these comments). ...
"Based on the popular culture of the movement, contemporary evangelicalism isn’t about belief or politics but about feelings. ... the core of popular evangelicalism is found in a type of feeling that says that you as an individual are the most important thing in the world to God. It can be summed up in [Max] Lucado’s words: 'If God had a refrigerator, your picture would be on it.'
"Osteen’s comments characterize the direction evangelicalism has been heading for quite some time. ...
"Evangelicals may assert that the Osteens don’t represent them. They may argue that sentimentality isn’t what the gospel is about. ... Osteen’s comments may be too unbelievable now for some evangelicals, but given evangelical history, future generations will probably find such comments as commonplace. This is the new evangelicalism, and it appears to be here to stay." [Heaven help us all!] Christian Century, Oct 8 '14. <www.ow.ly/FQIcX>
For more pungent commentary, see also Steve Deace, "Joel Osteen: Not the Pastor America Needs, but the Pastor We Deserve" at <www.ow.ly/G1edb>.
-------
SOURCES: Monographs
1 - Can We Still Believe the Bible? An Evangelical Engagement with Contemporary Questions, by Craig Blomberg (Brazos, 2014, paperback, 304 pages) <www.ow.ly/FQAAY>
2 - The Bible Tells Me So: Why Defending Scripture Has Made Us Unable to Read It, by Peter Enns (HarperOne, 2014, hardcover, 288 pages) <www.ow.ly/FQBQ5>
--------
( - next issue - )
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse