Bible Idolatry and Idiot Politics

Thomas Sowell

A few days ago, I came across the following quote from conservative economist Thomas Sowell: “One of the painfully sobering realizations that come from reading history is the utter incompetence that is possible among leaders of whole nations and empires – and the blind faith that such leaders can nevertheless inspire among the people who are enthralled by their words or their posturing.”

Given the current state of American politics, no truer words can be said. Watch any congressional hearing on anything, watch any presidential address, or watch your typical presidential primaries debate, one thing should be blatantly and obviously clear: Most politicians are complete and utter morons. They are idiots. They are fools. It is shocking to see how they behavior. Just the other day, a certain congressman pulled the fire alarm at the Capitol in order to try to delay a vote. At the same time, politicians are incredibly manipulative…why? Because we, the voting public, let ourselves be manipulated by their mind-numbing propaganda and rhetoric. Take that particular congressman as an example. He issued an “apology” on Twitter, saying he didn’t realize it was a fire alarm—he was just trying to unlock a door. I guarantee you, those who voted him in probably read the Tweet and nodded in approval.

That’s quite an opening salvo for a blog post, isn’t it? But we all know it’s true. The problem, though, is far too many people think it is true…but only when it comes to one side of the political aisle—namely the side they don’t like. What I want to address in this post, though, is not “people” who do this in general. I want to focus my comments to those who claim to be Christians, who are guilty of this very thing, and who have the audacity to use cherry-picked verses from the Bible to justify their blind political allegiance. It is something that irritates me to no end.

Back in the Day in Evangelicalism…
Growing up in 80’s Evangelicalism (and it has continued to this day), cherry-picking certain verses to justify one’s political stances was considered acceptable exegesis. Are you against abortion? Slap Jeremiah 1:5 on a poster or quote it in an online meme: “Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you…” Are you against homosexuality or gay marriage? There’s always Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a man as with a woman. It is an abomination,” or I Corinthians 6:9-10: “Don’t be deceived! Fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, male prostitutes, sodomites…none of these will inherit the Kingdom of God,” or Romans 1:26-27: “For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural, and in the same way also the men, giving up natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one another.”

There was little to no attempt to actually try to understand those verses within the larger context of those given passages. And there was no recognition that perhaps the particular social setting or issue that prompted the biblical authors to pen those verses was not quite the same as our particular modern social setting or issue. It was just an emotional appeal combined with biblical authority to shame anyone who might dare to say, “But what about…?” No, the verse says what it says. It’s true…ALWAYS…especially in the way I am claiming it is true today!

Jerry Falwell of the Moral Majority

To be clear, simply because I am pointing out that cherry-picking verses like those is irresponsible and wrong does not mean I am “pro-abortion” or “pro-gay marriage.” For that matter, my objection to how those verses have been cherry-picked should not give you any real clue regarding my stances on those particular issues. All I am trying to emphasize is that in the real world, when Christians try to apply verses and passages in the Bible that were written to address issues in a different time and social setting to our modern time and setting—doing so calls for wisdom and insight. By contrast, treating the Bible like an omnipotent rule book that one can use as “inspiration” for bumper-sticker slogans that fall along obvious political lines smacks of Bible idolatry, which is just a cheap veneer for one’s true religion—partisan politics.

Meanwhile, in Progressive Christian Circles…
Over the past 5-10 years, the number of “ex-Evangelicals” and “progressive” Christians who have left their conservative Evangelical roots has been steadily rising. The reasons for the mass exodus are plenty: perceived hypocrisy, the Evangelical vote going for Trump, cruelty towards homosexuals, mistreatment of women, etc. Fair enough—in many cases, those things are true. Still, it bothers me to see progressives and ex-Evangelicals accuse and paint with such a broad brush.

Ironically, it is the same kind of thing that caused me to make my way from Evangelicalism to Orthodoxy—those oversimplistic, broad-brushed accusations of “the other,” meaning “anyone in the other political party.” In the 80-90s, if some celebrity pastor like Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson called for an Evangelical crusade against “godless Democrats” over some issue like abortion, you knew what social/political issues the Evangelical world would be concerned about in the upcoming election. And the depth of understanding of that given issue was almost always boiled down to, you guessed it, a Bible verse or two plastered on a posterboard or TV ad. To be blunt, conservative and Evangelical leaders manipulated them to bark like seals on command and to be terrified and suspicious of anyone “on the other side.”

Fast forward to today, and here’s what I have seen with a lot of progressive and ex-Evangelicals, particularly on social media—the same type of thing, only with the guns and ammo pointed in the other direction. Let me just give one pressing social issue today—the crisis at the southern border. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen memes and posts quoting passages like Leviticus 19:33: “When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them,” Zechariah 7:10, “Do not oppress the widow or the fatherless, the foreigner or the poor. Do not plot evil against each other,” along with a comment about how if Evangelicals or conservative Christians really loved Jesus, they wouldn’t object to letting immigrants into the country. Once again, it is an emotional appeal combined with biblical authority to shame anyone who might dare to say, “But what about…?”

If you don’t see what is wrong with that kind of post, let me just say this. Like so many other social issues, immigration and the southern border is a very complex and difficult issue. To reduce it to a few cherry-picked verses has the exact same corrosive effect on possible discussion about the issue as the cherry-picked verses used against abortion and homosexuality have had. It ignores the real world difficulties surrounding the issue and it treats the Bible like an “inspired rule book” that can be easily applied to the political view of your choice.

Not only that, but let’s be brutally honest. People who use the Bible in that way are doing so in order to parade their own sense of self-righteousness before others. Such an act is telling the public, “Those people over there are bad and icky because they don’t agree with me on this issue, not that I’ve actually considered the complexities of the issue! I just want to let every know how good and righteous I am without having to actually think through and wrestle with this issue! Bow down to the truth of my meme!”

Let’s be clear, those Bible verses about not oppressing the foreigner or alien were addressed to a very different time and culture with very different dynamics. And let’s be clear, those verses are not saying, “Yeah America, have a completely open border that allows the drug cartels and human traffickers to prey upon the innocent, rape women and children, and funnel drugs into the country that end up killing thousands of people every year!”

The fact is, a country needs to have a clear and enforceable border policy so that it can help and welcome foreigners who are truly in need. When a country refuses to enforce its border policy, the result is a lot more rape, drugs, and death of countless foreigners who really are in need. Wanting the government to enforce its border policy isn’t “anti-immigrant.” Turning a blind eye to the humanitarian crisis at the border is. And what makes it more sickening to me is when cherry-picked Bible verses are used to justify ignoring the devastation that is going on.

I’m sorry if this offends anyone, but as far as I’m concerned, a progressive “ex-Evangelical” who cherry-picks Bible verses over the issue of the southern border crisis is no different than a conservative Evangelical who cherry-picks verses over the issue of abortion. Nine times out of ten, those who do that (A) are really just trying to show everyone how righteous they are, (B) are refusing to see the complexities and challenges wrapped up in those issues, and (C) would never lift a finger to actually help…a pregnant unwed mother or an actual immigrant in need.

I don’t have easy answers to those difficult issues. I have my thoughts and I occasionally share what I think can be done, but I’ll never embrace or applaud anyone who pushes such an idolatrous use of the Bible to serve their own simplistic political ends. I’m sorry, but those who do such things are either idiot leaders or lemmings who keep voting for or following those idiot leaders and whose real religion is their politics.

8 Comments

  1. Joel, have you ever gotten any comments sent to you about how Nazareth didn’t exist? On a Facebook group called Atheist vs. Theist debates, a guy named Dale Bigford posted this:

    NAZARETH DID NOT EXIST IN THE 1ST CENTURY CE.
    For any “fresh eyes” here.
    NOTE: I am not remotely interested in apologists who will appeal to “Big Christianity” or the Israeli Antiquities Authority (which is comfortably in bed with the tourism department on this) insisting it was there. I know every “biblical archaeologist” who ever dug there and 99% of them wore priest collars.
    You will address the massive LACK of historical evidence for its existence. Which is overwhelming.
    -The New Testament is quite clear it was supposedly a “CITY”. Not a hamlet, not a village or a town but a city. A city large enough to have a synagogue.
    – No one in history ever seems to have been from Nazareth. Not one person, not one comment of rebels, statesmen, thinker or writer, no workmen or slaves coming from there or sent there. not one event took place there or near there in thousands of years to warrant a mention. No riot, no celebration, no civil conflict nothing. No goods come from there or are shipped there.
    -The Old Testament never mentions Nazareth once.
    -No Jewish sage, thinker or historian ever mentions Nazareth in their writings. Not once.
    -The Assyrians who conquered and ruled the region do not mention it.
    -The Babylonians who conquered and ruled the region do not mention it.
    -The Persians who controlled the region do not mention it.
    -No Greeks under Alexander who took and ruled the region mention it.
    -No Seleucid kingship mentions it.
    -No Herodian kingship mentions it
    -No Roman historian/cartographer/general/governor mentions Nazareth.
    *Perhaps most tellingly of all: No tax collector/assessor of any regime in any time period ever mentions it.
    -General Josephus commanding the Galilean defense from the city of Yodfat against Rome in 67 CE does not mention it though he mentions towns and cities all around its supposed location. Yodfat was 40 miles from the supposed location of Nazareth.
    -No Roman commander, Vespasian or Titus mention taking the city in the Galilean campaign. Roman commanders always listed their conquests because military victories equated to political clout and prestige.
    -Origen, the mentor of Eusebius living in Caesarea mentions he has no idea where Nazareth could be. It is 40 miles east from Caesarea. Had it existed he would know its location.
    -A Medieval copy of a 4th (possibly even 5th) century Roman empire road system map. Believed to have been first drafted under Augustus with additions made as late as the 5th century. The oldest information goes back to at least before 79CE since Pompeii is indicated. Other temporal indications can be drawn from Jerusalem which is named Aelia Capitolina, name given in 132 AD and from Constantinople, the name commonly used since the 5th century for Byzantium.
    Triangulating from:
    Caesarea (6)
    Tiberias (3)
    Ptolemais/Acre (5)
    Scythopolis/Beit She’an (4)
    We see there was no city on the site where it now stands as late as the 5th century CE.

    1. Hi JB,
      I actually haven’t. But from what you showed from this Bigford guy, he gets a number of things wrong off the bat. First, there is archaeological evidence for Nazareth in the first century. Even Bart Ehrman acknowledges Nazareth existed then. Second, no one claims it was a “big city.” Every Biblical scholar I’m aware of acknowledges Nazareth was a small village of no more than 500 people, near the larger city of Sephoris. And all that is needed for a Jewish meeting/synagogue is for to have a Jewish population of at least ten men. Third, we do have documents from the first century that mention Nazareth: Mark (60s), Matthew and Luke/Acts (70s-80s), and John (90s).

      It seems like this guy’s major claim is that major empire records don’t mention a rincky-dink village in the backwater of Galilee. Okay. But there is archeological and textual testimony for it. And the fact he immediately is wrong about the city and synagogue claim (which are REALLY basic things anyone truly knowledgeable about first century Judaism/NT studies would know) tells me he isn’t someone to be taken seriously.

      1. Also, why would we have surviving records of it?
        Most of these mythicists don’t get how much ancient literature has been lost. For a metric of the level of loss, we have the “Bibliotheca”, a collection of reviews of c.280 books in the library of Photios, a 9th century bishop of Constantinople. Around 65% of those books are now lost. And since his library consisted of literature, and not bureaucratic or court records, and many books had probably already been lost by the 9th century AD, this is a *very conservative* estimate of ancient writing loss.
        Also “I know every “biblical archaeologist” who ever dug there and 99% of them wore priest collars” is laughable; most of the archaeologists there are Jews who have zero or actively negative interest in defending Christianity.

        1. Good points. As you can see, there is a lot of anti-intellectualism in these Facebook groups. They are supposed to be for atheists and theists alike, but it seems like atheists dominate these groups. I was on another one, and they don’t seem to acknowledge any evidence that is against their claims (when I showed them links).

          In addition, this guy (Dale Bigford) also believes that Joseph of Arimathea didn’t exist, either.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.