Wednesday, August 24, 2011

Bowdlerizing the Bible


Rauser offers a selective, deflective response:


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?

10 comments:

  1. Apparently Rauser objects to stories that are told in age-appropriate ways.

    Perhaps he applies this same standard to conversations with his own child and presents "the unvarnished truth" replete with all of the "gory details". If so I would say that he is indeed a rare individual.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Wow! Rauser gets chided for throwing a red-herring, yet that was quite an ad hominem job if I've ever seen one.

    As someone who adheres to a historical-grammatical interpretation of the Bible (literal, inerrant, inspired, etc), I find that the validity of the conservative position flies right out the window, and at near or equal speed to the caustic venom dripping from the tongue aimed squarely at Randal. In Rauser's defence, I really think he is trying to reconcile intuitional moral absolutes (ie: Genocide is wrong at all times always) with the Reformed (and Orthodox/conservative) "Omni's" (ie: God is omnibenevolent)

    Why the highschool posturing about choosing genders and cross dressing? Does that help the discussion any?

    Will a single, solitary doubter, agnostic, or atheist be swayed by such intransigent arguments? Is this the witness we wish to be remembered for?

    Will a single conservative Christian be intellectually edified by this Dawkins-like discourse, and have their apologetic tool belts further equipped?

    There's probably alot more of your argument I could agree with, however, it gets lost in the wash.

    I'm sure you are also presenting Christianity as a credible worldview to outsiders when we are acting in such a manner to our own brethren.

    Religion of Love indeed

    ReplyDelete
  3. APOCALYPTIC PETE SAID:

    “In Rauser's defence, I really think he is trying to reconcile intuitional moral absolutes (ie: Genocide is wrong at all times always)…”

    How can that be an “intuitional moral absolute” if OT writers didn’t share that intuition?

    “…with the Reformed (and Orthodox/conservative) ‘Omni's’ (ie: God is omnibenevolent)…”

    To my knowledge, “omnibenevolence” is not a traditional divine attribute in Reformed and/or orthodox/conservative theology. Rather, the attachment of the “omni-” prefix to divine benevolence seems to be a more recent development. Cf.

    http://branemrys.blogspot.com/2011/07/omnibenevolence.html

    As well as Paul Helm’s “Can God Love the World?” in chap. 8 of:

    http://tinyurl.com/3o9z3oz

    ReplyDelete
  4. Apocalyptic Pete said...

    "I'm sure you are also presenting Christianity as a credible worldview to outsiders when we are acting in such a manner to our own brethren."

    Rauser is not my brother. Rauser is an enemy of the faith. The enemy within.

    ReplyDelete
  5. APOCALYPTIC PETE SAID:

    “In Rauser's defence..."

    Your efforts would be better spent defending the Bible against Rauser rather than defending Rauser against the Bible.

    ReplyDelete
  6. It’s always amusing to me how folks like you complain about the allegedly immature tone of a post, and how that will allegedly drive readers away. But the only readers it would drive away are readers who are too immature to see past the allegedly immature tone of the post.

    If readers have such a totally emotional reaction to a post that they are too offended by the tone to appreciate the substance, then what does that say about the maturity (or lack thereof) of the offended reader?

    So your complaint is quite self-incriminating.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I like the collective blowback.

    Well then, I guess if the aim is to alienate all other opinions and groupthink is the name of the game, then fill your boots.

    The man has something called "a difference of opinion", and allows for people with doubts to not be lambasted.

    I think its quite a ridiculous leap to say that he is an enemy of faith.

    But if that is what passes for discourse here then so be it. I'll try not to desecrate such purity with my charity for others whose views differ then mine.

    And Steve:

    "self-incriminating"?

    What crime would that be? Being open to someone else's view.

    I don't agree with Randal on all of his hermeneutic approaches, but if soul-winning is your goal (Matthew 28), then "Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander." (1 Peter 3:15-16)


    Good luck with the discourse and your individual witness.

    Pete

    ReplyDelete
  8. Steve:

    I also liked your "folks like you" comment.

    Unless you have some sort of crystal ball (in which I would have to accuse you of divination), then you don't know me.

    If you did, you might offer a little less polemic, and a little more openness to a loving yet important rebuke.

    None of us have an exclusive market on "the Truth", none have the infinite knowledge that God alone possesses.

    While the Bible is THE ultimate source we folks in 2011 can turn to for his divne revelation and will for his people, when we start hating our BROTHERS (I don't know wheter you have met Randal or not), 1 John 4:20 rings a bell.

    I have met Randal, and he is a brother.


    I've said enough. God Bless.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Apocalyptic Pete,

    I'll just note two quick things:

    1. While you're raging against Steve for ad hominem, you yourself have used ad hominem.

    2. You say: "I have met Randal, and he is a brother."

    Let's say Gandhi were still alive and I had met Gandhi. I say: "I have met Gandhi, and he is a brother."

    But why should a third party take my opinion on Gandhi as anything more than one person's opinion? For example, it could be that I lack discernment in adjudicating who is or who isn't a brother.

    Rather wouldn't it better to adjudicate Gandhi's "brotherliness" based on things like what Gandhi teaches and preaches and how Gandhi lives his life, and compare these things to what the Bible teaches?

    ReplyDelete
  10. APOCALYPTIC PETE SAID:

    “Well then, I guess if the aim is to alienate all other opinions and groupthink is the name of the game, then fill your boots.”

    Rauser reflects liberal groupthink.

    “The man has something called ‘a difference of opinion’, and allows for people with doubts to not be lambasted.”

    That’s a nice euphemism.

    “I think its quite a ridiculous leap to say that he is an enemy of faith.”

    He has quite a paper trail.

    “I'll try not to desecrate such purity with my charity for others whose views differ then mine.”

    St. Paul and the Judaizers simply had a difference of opinion.

    “I don't agree with Randal on all of his hermeneutic approaches, but if soul-winning is your goal (Matthew 28), then ‘Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander’ (1 Peter 3:15-16).”

    Nice way to systematically misapply the text. To begin with, Rauser is hardly equivalent to a 1C Gentile with no knowledge of the Christian faith. In addition, Rauser’s isn’t asking me why I’m a Christian. Rather, Rauser is equivalent to NT false teachers.

    “Good luck with the discourse and your individual witness.”

    Try reading Jude (to take one example), and see how Jude characterizes false teachers.

    “Unless you have some sort of crystal ball (in which I would have to accuse you of divination), then you don't know me.”

    You’ve typecast yourself by your stereotypical objections.

    “None of us have an exclusive market on ‘the Truth’, none have the infinite knowledge that God alone possesses.”

    Which doesn’t stop you from being very judgmental and censorious in your own right.

    “While the Bible is THE ultimate source we folks in 2011 can turn to for his divne revelation and will for his people…”

    That’s not Rauser’s ultimate source. By his own admission, “axiomatic moral intuitions” are his ultimate source.

    “When we start hating our BROTHERS (I don't know wheter you have met Randal or not), 1 John 4:20 rings a bell.”

    If Rauser attended one of John’s churches in Asia Minor, St. John would excommunicate him for blaspheming Yahweh. Just imagine the reaction if Rauser told the Apostle John that Scripture is riddled with moral and historical errors.

    “I have met Randal, and he is a brother.”

    You and he may well share the same spiritual pedigree. The question is who fathered you.

    ReplyDelete