I do sympathize with some of the frustrations he has, such as evangelicals refusal to entertain the notion that evolution and conservative Christian faith might actually be compatible. But overall Kurt is just plain uncharitable. This can be seen in the very beginning of his article;
"They wave their Bibles at passersby, screaming
their condemnations of homosexuals. They fall on their knees,
worshipping at the base of granite monuments to the Ten Commandments
while demanding prayer in school. They appeal to God to save America
from their political opponents, mostly Democrats. They gather in
football stadiums by the thousands to pray for the country’s salvation.
They
are God’s frauds, cafeteria Christians who pick and choose which Bible
verses they heed with less care than they exercise in selecting side
orders for lunch. They are joined by religious
rationalizers—fundamentalists who, unable to find Scripture supporting
their biases and beliefs, twist phrases and modify translations to prove
they are honoring the Bible’s words.
This is no longer a
matter of personal or private faith. With politicians, social leaders
and even some clergy invoking a book they seem to have never read and
whose phrases they don’t understand, America is being besieged by
Biblical illiteracy."I mean really, claiming that there is some serious problems in evangelical subculture is one thing, but to commit such blatant ad-hominem like this and then have the audacity to claim that it is evangelicals who are the hateful bigots totally unwilling to see past their own opinions is just downright hypocritical.
Kurt really shows how much nerve he has when he further writes; "Newsweek’s exploration here of the Bible’s history and meaning is not intended to advance a particular theology or debate the existence of God."
Really? So saying evangelical's theology of the Bible is completely wrong and even dangerous to society is NOT itself the promotion of any sort of theology? I think a certain post-modern thinker; Lyotard, would have some important things to say at this point. This article, from the get go, is claiming to be completely unbiased and objective while at the same time clearly promoting an agenda that is equally questionable on an "objective" basis. Kurt is promoting a textbook example of a metanarrative. He is claiming that what he states here is just fact and requires no belief or assent to truth. As a result, evangelicals can be thought of as nothing else than those who would deny reality and reason for their own personal benefit. Well on modernist suppositions this cannot be tolerated! Evangelicalism must be phased, if not whiped out from all intellectual discussion because there is no discussion to be had. Clearly this is the absurdity of modern thinking and it is also why Christians should gladly accept the postmodern critique of modernism.
Moving on then, Kurt now turns to casting doubt on the Biblical text. He points out that all we have of the Bible are copies of copies of copies. If this is true he asks, then how can anyone know what the original Bible actually said? Furthermore he points out, what we know about these copies demonstrates that much has been changed from the originals. He throws out classic examples such as Matthew 7 and Mark 16. But bizarrely he acts as though evangelicals have never heard about these criticisms, let alone given a good response to them.
Here we see two further affects of getting sucked in to these metanarratives, as Lyotard calls them. Firstly, Kurt appears to contradict himself; if we have so many copies that we can track how they have changed from the original, and changed drastically, doesn't it seem to follow that we can construct at least a good amount of what the original probably looked like? It seems that Kurt has guzzled his own kool-aid spiked with "Misquoting Jesus." Secondly, Kurt also reveals himself to be quite disconnected with reality. The fact is virtually every evangelical apologist of the past half century has responded to these kinds of claims. These same evangelical apologists which Kurt claims have had so much of a negative impact on secular society. So much that Kurt has never apparently never bothered to read any of them.
So for those like Kurt here are some good responses to the kinds of arguments brought up in this Newsweek article; http://www.patheos.com/blogs/frankviola/newsweek/, http://michaeljkruger.com/a-christmas-present-from-the-mainstream-media-newsweek-takes-a-desperate-swipe-at-the-integrity-of-the-bible-part-1/, http://www.albertmohler.com/2014/12/29/newsweek-on-the-bible-so-misrepresented-its-a-sin/.
There are further mishaps that are quite hilarious such as Kurts firm belief in the infamous Constantine Conspiracy. You know, the idea that Constantine was really the one who was responsible for forming the New Testament Canon and core Christian doctrines like the Trinity (even though he was an Arian who disagreed with much of what the Councils he organized concluded). None of these sorts of claims are all that new either and have been made and responded to by every skeptic and every defender of the Christian faith.
No comments:
Post a Comment