We now come to Part 3 of Dan Barker’s book godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. Part 3 is entitled, “What’s Wrong with Christianity?” and, quite obviously, is about what Barker feels is wrong with Christianity. In Part 3, which covers chapters 10-16, he focuses on what he feels are the immoral teachings and examples in the Bible, the various contradictions in the Bible, and then he caps it off with entertaining the question regarding whether or not Jesus even existed, and if he did, did he really rise from the dead?
The next few posts in my blog series are going to focus on chapter 10: “The Bible and Morality.” There is a lot that Barker bolts to and fro in this chapter, and there is simply no way I will ever be able to touch upon every point he makes. Nevertheless, there is quite a bit that just cannot remain unanswered. What I first want to do, though, is summarize what I feel are the big over-arching tendencies of Barker in Part 3 has a whole.
The first thing I noticed was Barker’s obsession with morality, a moral code, rules, and a guide for moral behavior. Indeed, this is the underlying mindset and assumption that guides just about everything he writes. His starting assumption of the Bible, thus, is “Fundamentalist” to the core. Namely, it is abundantly clear that he views the Bible as this: a heavenly rule book/guide for morals that you have to obey in order to go to Heaven, and if you don’t then Mr. Angry God will destroy you and send you to burn forever in hell. If you want to know what Barker’s working assumption of the Bible is, that pretty much covers it.
And to be clear, that assumption is, in fact, the working assumption of many “fire and brimstone” Fundamentalist preachers—obviously the kind that Barker himself once was. But let’s be clear: that working assumption is completely wrong. It is hopelessly simplistic and wholly ignorant of, well, just about everything concerning Judaism and the Christian Gospel. Therefore, although Barker is right to rail against such a view, he is utterly wrong in his assumption that such a view is, in fact, the truly biblical and Christian view. To be clear: no OT Jew or early NT Christian held this notion that they had to “obey God’s moral rules in order to get into heaven.”
The second thing I noticed about Barker’s treatment of the Bible was his propensity to cherry pick verses, completely ignore the historical and literary contexts in which those verses are found, and to then lace his comments on those verses with the most inflammatory and ridiculous accusations possible. Again, this sort of treatment of the Bible is eerily similar to the most “ultra” of Ultra-Fundamentalists: no concern or desire to even try to understand context, but instead this, quite frankly, idolatrous notion that “since the Bible is inspired and infallible, I can just make any verse out to mean what I want it to mean in order to further my own agenda.”
The third thing I noticed about Barker’s comments is sort of the flipside to the second thing. While he is at pains to come up with the most outlandish, inflammatory accusations against the Bible, he also goes to great lengths to appeal to many of the current “politically-correct” attitudes of the day to garner favor with his audience. With all that said, let’s jump into Barker’s chapter 10: “The Bible and Morality.” The easiest way to cover so much material will be the following: I will have quotes from Barker in bold, and then my comments will come after.
I. The Bible and Morality
[For believers] “God is moral by definition alone. It doesn’t really matter how God acts: God is good because God said he is good, and we should worship him not because he has earned our admiration but because he has demanded it.” and “Judaism, Christianity and Islam, the ‘revealed’ religions that directly or indirectly share the Jewish Law, pretend to find their answer to morality in a holy book that originates from a mind that exists outside the material world. Their way to be moral is simply stated: obey scripture.” and while we’re at it: “Is the bible a good book? Is the bible an acceptable guide for moral behavior?” (163)
As you can see, Barker has this assumption that the purpose of the Jewish Law (i.e. Torah) was to act as some sort of “universal guide for moral behavior” and that is was just basically a list of rules that God made up on a whim. To the point, that’s not what the Torah was—it wasn’t a “Proper rules for etiquette list” that one had to follow in order to “get saved” or get God to like you.
The Torah was essentially the Bill of Rights and Constitution of ancient Israel. It was their legal code. In Exodus, YHWH had already saved the Hebrews from Egypt and had chosen them to be His people. In return, YHWH wanted them to be a special people who reflected His glory to the surrounding Gentile nations. The Torah, therefore, outlined what a godly society would look like within that culture of the ancient Near East. And that is a key thing to remember. It wasn’t trying to set down some sort of “universal moral code for all time” that was applicable to all societies throughout history. Given the realities of the ANE cultures, how could Israel live in a way that was different and more humane, and thus was a better reflection of the character of God?
Therefore, for example, since slavery was an institution throughout the entire ANE, it shouldn’t surprise us to find slavery as a part of ancient Israel. If you compared the Torah regulations about slavery to that of the surrounding Gentile nations, you’ll find that the Torah was rather unique in that it had laws that protected slaves and regulated the way in which they could be treated. It does no good to say, “Oh my gosh, the Bible condones slavery! How immoral!” because that was simply a reality of the time. The more humane laws in the Torah toward slaves were a step in the right direction. Fast forward to the impact of Christianity on the Greco-Roman world, and how it effectively put an end to that ancient institution. (Modern slavery revived during the colonial period, despite objections from the Catholic Church and condemnations from Protestant leaders). Without the Torah and without the Christian Gospel, we probably never would have gotten to where we are today in our revulsion of slavery.
All that said, the Torah wasn’t seen as “a moral rule book.” It was ancient Israel’s constitution that sought to reflect God’s character (and thus a more moral and humane society) within the given realities of the ANE. It never was seen as some universal list of absolute moral rules. And so, when Barker says, “Some believers assert that these primitive Old Testament laws are no longer relevant and have been superseded by Jesus—but that proves the point! If they use such an argument, they are admitting that at least part of the bible is not acceptable for today’s society” (164), my answer is, “Of course some of it isn’t relevant to us today, we’re not ancient Israelites. But notice, within that statement, there is the inherent assumption that the Torah should be viewed as a universal moral rule book—no, it isn’t. Barker is wrong.
“Those who can look at the bible objectively, who are not handicapped with the requirement that it be worshipped or respected, notice that there are problems with using it as a guide for behavior.” (166)
Notice the recurring obsession with the Bible being a “guide for behavior”? And again, yes, it is true that many extreme Fundamentalists effectively “worship” the Bible, but let’s be clear: nowhere in the Bible is “worship of the Bible” some sort of “requirement.” In addition, I submit that despite his comments, Barker still is effectively “handicapped” in his understanding of the Bible. He is not looking at it objectively. He is, for all practical purposes, still viewing it through the same idolatrous lens of the wooden literalism of a Fundamentalist. Yes, the Bible isn’t some sort of “universal rule book.” That is true. But Barker, instead of saying, “Okay then, what is it? How should it be viewed?” simply turns around and says, “It is a universal guidebook of immoral behavior!” And hence, his fundamental assumption is still the same: the Bible is some sort of decontextualize “guide for behavior.” Only now as an atheist, Barker thinks it is a bad guide.
II. Might Makes Right
“People who believe they are living under the thumb of such a vain and petty lord are not guided by ethics; they are guided by fear. The bible turns out to be not a moral code, but a whip.” (168) And “Most believers have had it drummed into their heads…that the bible is a ‘Good Book.’ They are taught that thinking for yourself is at least woefully inadequate, if not completely evil.” (169)
What do these two quotes reveal? For one, they reveal Barker’s assumption that the God of the Bible is a tyrannical dictator that is obsessed with His followers (you guessed it!) obey his moral rules! And, once again, there is that faulty assumption that Barker thinks the Bible is a moral code…and an evil one at that.
So, let’s once again elaborate a bit on the Torah. Again, the Jews did not view the Torah as a list of moral rules they had to obey in order to appease a maniacal tyrant deity. They viewed the Torah as YHWH’s gift to them. Any honest reading of Psalm 1 (…his delight is in the Torah of YHWH) or 119 (…I delight in your Torah) should convince everyone that the Jews’ view of the Torah was not the way Barker makes it out to be. Yes, they viewed the Torah as a guide—but a guide in how to live a good and flourishing life that reflected God’s goodness; they didn’t view it as “a whip;” they weren’t motivated out of fear; and they certainly didn’t view it as evil. To the point, Barker’s characterization of the Torah is at complete odds with how the Jews viewed the Torah.
“Speaking for myself, if the biblical heaven and hell exist, I would choose hell. Having to spend eternity pretending to worship a petty tyrant who tortures those who insult his authority would be more hellish than baking in eternal flames. There is no way such a bully can earn my admiration.” (170)
Well, that certainly is a provocative statement now, isn’t it? We’ll look at Barker’s mischaracterization of how the Bible depicts hell in a later post, but for now let’s be clear: if Barker’s depiction of the God of the Bible was correct, then sure, that sentiment would be understandable. But of course, it isn’t. That depiction of a petty, violent and maniacal deity is more akin to the pagan gods that the Bible clearly condemns. Such a depiction runs completely contrary to the God of the Bible. That is something, though, we will flesh out in more detail as this book analysis goes on. \lsdpriority
Just a typo: “The more human laws in the Torah toward slaves were a step in the right direction.” You probably meant ‘humane’.
Your observation that Barker continues to labor under his early-accustomed, fundamentalist mindset seems to be an apt summary of how he is so mistaken. It’s a useful shortcut around tediously reasoning each point of error to reducto absurdum. However, in a debate format, the observation probably would come off as ad hominem. Of course, his machine-gun method of attack makes clear, focused reasoning difficult. Please, keep up the good work!
Thanks! And fixed!
What you’ll have to do is undermine Barker’s faulty understanding of Torah. If you can get the audience (and hopefully Barker himself) to understand what Torah really was/is and how it was designed to work, I think you’ll score some major points. If he’d just ask any Jewish rabbi they’d disabuse him of the idea that Torah was designed as a universal human moral code pretty quickly.
You need to emphasize his Bizarro-World reading of Torah and scripture in general, point out that he’s objecting to scripture through the same misguided fundamentalist worldview he claims to no no longer believe in.
Then remind him that if there is no Universal Moral Law he has no basis to criticize Torah on that basis. The most he could say thee is that he, personally doesn’t like it, not that it’s in any way *objectively* evil, because his worldview says that “evil” doesn’t really exist. Which as Nancy Pearcy says in her two latest books, is the problem with the atheist worldview; it wants to have it’s cake (morality is subjective) and eat it too (OT morality is evil). Barker can’t have it both ways. Thus modern atheism forces its adherents to live *contrary*to their stated world-view (morality is relative).
He’ll likely object that he’s met lots of other Christians who have/had the exact same views of Torah he had, that his views at that time were mainstream, so you’ll have to convince the audience that this view wasn’t and isn’t the mainstream view.
When will the debate be by the way? I wanna go
Pax.
Lee..
Thanks! Yeah, he is all over the place. Just wait for some of the doozies coming up. The debate is going to be on April 11th.
The problem I see with your argument about the Torah is that you seem to be saying that God looked at the ANE world, came up with a few improvements to their moral code, and gave that to his people, the Israelites. It would seem to me that if God wanted his people to stand out in the world, he would have given them the absolute best moral code to live by. So, rather than telling his people to treat slaves better than those other ANE cultures, he would have told them that owning other people was anathema and they needed to follow a voluntary employer / employee system. And rather than simply treating women better than the surrounding ANE cultures, the women should be equals in their society.
I just don’t buy the idea that God would hand down a way of living that was less than perfect and would have to modified via a new covenant years later. How can a perfect God give his people a less than perfect covenant?
But what you’re essentially saying is, “Why couldn’t God have taken this ANE people and given them rules that reflect 21st century America. They weren’t 21st century Americans. Or take the “Green New Deal” as an example. We all want a clean planet. We all want to deal with pollution. But if the government was to immediately impose the entire “Green New Deal” at once, right now, our entire economy would collapse overnight, there would be massive unemployment…and homelessness…and food shortages…etc. etc. The fact is you can’t just instantly impose a certain system on a culture that cannot sustain it or is not ready for it.
I think there is a fundmental problem with this obsessesion with “perfection” and a “perfect moral code.” That’s a wrong way to approach understanding the Torah specifically, and the Bible as a whole. The question rather, “Given living in THIS culture or THAT society, what would a godly life look like?” You can lead a godly life in Csarist Russia, or Islamic Iran, or Western Democracies–but you can also lead a wicked life in those societies as well. In the ANE culture, there were certain societal realities of which Israel was a part. So, given all that, the Torah outlined what a YHWH-honoring ANE would look like.
Or put it this way: slavery. Which person/society is more moral: (A) One that has slaves but that also insists they be treated fairly, well-fed, well-provided for, and cared for; or (B) One in which big businesses can screw over communites by moving their business overseas, and leaving entire communities to deal with abject poverty, increased drugs, high crime, and horrible schools? The “moral” part focuses on how one treats other human beings, regardless of cultural norms, be it ANE, or monarchies, or democracies.
But in any case, the idea that the Torah is some sort of universal moral rule book that applies to all cultures and societies across time is simply a misunderstanding of what it is.
There are many Christians who will say something like this, “If God does not exist, there is no objective moral code for us humans to abide by.” It seems to me that you are saying that even with God there is no objective moral code. What is moral is culture and time dependent. Is this correct?
Well, I would say that the basis of morality is not some sort of “absolute law.” Here’s a silly example from the comedian Daniel Tosh. He was commenting on the adage, “It’s never okay to hit a woman.” He said, “Oh really? What if you come home and your wife has drowned your first two kids in the bathtub and is getting ready to drown the third one?” As dark as that is, you get his point. Human beings are relational–what is moral and good depends on the relationship, doesn’t it? If you reduce morality to “universal law,” then that “moral code” actually becomes quite immoral. And that actually is Barker’s point, isn’t it? Hence, his criticism of the way a lot of Fundamentalists present the Bible and talk about morality (i.e. “absolute moral code”) is valid. But what I’m saying is that way of even understanding the Bible and morality is flawed. A culture might not let women vote and might officially teach that wives are the property of their husbands, but if that husband loves his wife as himself–that loving relationship pretty much renders the official cultural norm irrelevant in that couple’s house.