Bowdlerizing the Bible

Rauser offers a selective, deflective response:

http://randalrauser.com/2011/08/if-the-bible-is-not-a-childrens-book-then-why-do-we-have-childrens-bibles/

Steve Hays of Triablogue wrote a response to my discussion of teaching biblical genocide to children called “Scout’s Honor!” It includes all the hallmarks of Hays’s critical analysis (or lack thereof) including the claim that I accept the UN as my “moral authority”. (How’s that supposed to work exactly?! “Hmm, has the UN addressed whether I can cheat on my taxes? No? Then I guess I’m good to go!”)

He took the position that the UN trumps the Bible on POWs.

So how does Hays explain the fact that the market is flooded with “children’s Bibles” which include the R-rated bits but attempt to obscure the horror with things like talking parrots? Isn’t his quibble with Zondervan rather than me?

i) I don’t have to explain that fact since that does nothing to refute my contention. That does nothing to show that I’m either inconsistent or mistaken. That's a red herring. 

I assume children’s Bibles are published because there’s a market for that demographic niche. It’s profitable.

ii) Moreover, his counterexample makes no sense even on his own terms since he immediately qualifies his counterexample by saying children’s Bibles present a bowdlerized version of events. But if that’s the case, then publishers don’t think everything in Scripture is suitable for children. They don’t give kids the straight skinny.

iii) Does Rauser think the Bible was written to or for children? Does he think Romans was addressed to 5-year-old? Was Hebrews, Lamentations, or the Song of Solomon written for children? Was that the implied reader? Is that the intended audience?

And the fact is that kids in Sunday school are fed all sorts of R-rated Bible stories. It is just that they are airbrushed to the point of egregious distortion. The drowning of millions of people and animals in a mass flood becomes a playful bedtime story in which animals march onto a big boat two by two, driven by a jovial Santa Claus with sandals and staff. David killing and decapitating Goliath becomes the equivalent of giving the bully a knockout punch at the bike racks. The genocide of Jericho is taught with a joyful ditty that makes it sound like we’re cheering on our favorite basketball team: “Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, Jericho, Jericho….” And all depictions of the atonement — understood as a human sacrifice to appease the wrathful deity — is rendered as bloodless as the death of Aslan in a certain big budget, family friendly film.

So how does that disprove my point?

I can understand that Hays would think these are not age appropriate stories. So does he believe we shouldn’t teach children about Noah and the flood, David and Goliath, Joshua and Jericho or Jesus and the cross?

And if you think we should teach these stories, how do you do so in a way that is age appropriate without hopelessly distorting the R-rated realities that they convey?

i) I didn’t single out any particular instance. I merely made a general observation. If you want some concrete examples, I don’t think children need to read stories about incest (Gen 19:30-38), prostitution (Gen 38), dismemberment and gang-rape (Judges 19), or war brides (Deut 21:10-14).

That’s not because it’s wrong for the Bible to record these incidents or have regulations mitigating the fate of wartime widows. But it’s not relevant to children. It’s not something they need to know about.

ii) As to what’s appropriate, I’d draw a broad distinction between boys and girls. As a boy, I used to play cops and robbers, cowboys and Indians–with other boys. We had toy cap guns. But what’s suitable for boys might not be suitable for the average girl (unless she’s a Tomboy).

Of course, given his radical chic ideology, Rauser would probably disagree. If he fathered a son, Rauser might wait to let his son choose his/her gender–or transgender. Dress him in a frilly pink skirt. Let him play with dolls instead of cap guns.

Speaking for myself, both boys and girls should be taught the metanarrative of Scripture. Both boys and girls should learn about the life of Christ–including the Crucifixion.

Children have an instinctive understanding of penal substitution. Indeed, they grasp that better than Bible-haters like Randal Rauser, Thom Stark, James McGrath et al.

In the meantime, Rauser dodges the larger issue I raised. Why does he believe in God if Yahweh is unbelievable? Why not be an atheist?

When the Bible attributes something to God that Rauser finds too repugnant to believe, he relegates that story to the realm of fiction. That never happened. Whew! What a relief!

That’s his way of domesticating the Bible. Making it safe for his flower power faith. Insulating his flower power faith from abrasive truths. So he has his own way of bowdlerizing the Bible.

Yet all sorts of equally horrible things happen outside the Bible. And unlike the Bible, he doesn’t have the luxury of salvaging God’s reputation by relegating these events to the realm of fiction.

He doesn’t believe any children really perished in Noah’s flood. That’s fictitious. Yet he believes many children perish in coastal flooding from tsunamis.

He doesn’t believe women and children really died in Jericho, or Sodom and Gomorrah. Yet he believes real women and children die in aerial bombardments.

Why is God believable outside the Bible, but unbelievable inside the Bible?