Theology for the Masses

I love to read reviews.  I come by this honestly.  Contrary to what some think about grad students, we don’t have all the time in the world to read books.  I therefore must reply on the judgement of reviewers to help me select books for consumption and integration into my life and thought processes. 

Enter Pagan Christianity.  This controversial book by Frank Viola and George Banna suggests that “[m]ost of what present-day Christians do in church each Sunday is rooted not in the New Testament, but in pagan culture and rituals developed long after the death of the apostles.” A very bold claim to make.  I have not read the book (see 1st paragraph), but I have a good friend that has and from talking to him about the book, Pagan Christianity tries to be very careful with the research it utilizes to bolster the bold claims that it makes. 

Last week I happened upon an ongoing review of Pagan Christianity by Ben Witherington (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4).  He is a good biblical scholar who currently teaches at Asbury Theological Seminary, a good school and one at which I am looking for my next stage of studies.  Witherington is in a good position to speak on the specific claims made by Pagan Christianity.  The manner though which I does this is a different matter entirely. 

The strong point of his review is his knowledge of early Christianity and his interpretation of the New Testament on matters of the church as an institution.  As I was telling Scott, the weak point is his almost flippant treatment of the book.  He will at once give the writers and their ideas credit and at the same time dismiss their research and claims in cursory terms.  In addition to this, the very way he refers readers to [his books] is flippant as well.  The way he lists himself as an authority through referencing the fact that he wrote a book on it does not do it for me.  What I want is actual and dispassionate interaction with the claims.  Witherington does this in part, but he often does not and this weakens his review.  He comes off as polemical at times – and polemics only serve to whip up the choir.  With that said, I am not dismissing this review in the least, only saying that it needs to be read with a critical eye.

Typing of which, Witherington’s reviews should not be the last word on the matter.  Jon Zens evaluates and “reviews” Witherington’s review.  He has worked up responses to three of Witherington’s posts and is working on a fourth.  Anyone who is navigating through this book and it’s reviews should take a moment (ok, 20-30 minutes) and digest what Zens is saying there.  There is some healthy criticism of Witherington there. 

What this boils down to is not merely looking to see if Pagan Christianity gets a “TRUTH” checkmark or not, but instead an opportunity to navigate the various positions on how to conduct Church and to evaluate the claims of people with obvious stakes in their positions.

With all of the above said, I look forward to reading Pagan Christianity and then revisiting the above reviews later this summer. 

Should we hold Biblish as sacred? More importantly, do we hold Biblish as sacred? Over at He is Sufficient ElShaddai Edwards takes up this question in response to Kevin P. Edgecomb’s who argued the following in response to John Hobbins talking about the nature of the English used in the CEV and NLT.

Edgecomb argues that “it is the responsibility of the keepers of the tradition of the text” to explain through good exegesis those expressions and phrases that make little sense in the new culture the text finds itself. As such, it is incumbent on translators to keep such phrases as “way of all the earth”, “gathered to his fathers”, and “pearls before swine” in their translations and for pastors and teachers to explain these idioms to the laity.

It is Edwards’ contention that this is foolhardy because it sacrifices the meaning of the text for the artificial divinity of the Hebrew (and I would add the Graeco-Roman) culture. He argues that if the Bible is meant for all nations and all peoples, then why should we translate it “in “sacred language”, set apart from the normal linguistic rules of a receiver’s language?” Edwards concludes his post by claiming the following.

Yet translating the text within the intracultural context of the receiver language doesn’t seem “a dereliction of duty” to me; indeed, it seems an even more sacred presentation of God’s Word that allows the Holy Spirit even more intimacy within those who hear and understand the call and claims of the Cross.

I am inclined to agree with him – and I would include highly theologized terms such as propitiation. The NT was not written in high Greek but instead was written in the common vernacular and should be translated as such.

Its not what you think. I had the privilege of listening to a lecture (audio at the end of the post) given by Dr. Prothero Friday evening. (I know, how exciting is my life?) In it, he discussed his latest book, Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know–And Doesn’t (nutshell).

I could not have been more impressed. Not only does he present a good and plausible solution to fixing American religious illiteracy, he also handles the study of religion the way it should be handled, with care and nuance. As he said in his lecture, the study of religion should not be taught as the doing of religion, where one assumes the absolute truth of a religion. However, the study of religion should also not be done from a position of New Atheism, where one assumes that all religions are absolutely false and are considered a stain on mankind’s nice white shirt, one that desperately needs to be removed. Instead, the study of religion should come from a position that neither affirms not denies the tenants of religion.

He opened with astounding stats on the religious literacy in America. He gave the results of his now famous quiz. They were not good. For instance, some people could name only one gospel, and more than a few named Paul as one of the four.

It was interesting to hear the history side of the lecture as well. He traced our religious illiteracy to not only to the separation clause, but also to the replacement of the Bible as the text people used when learning how to read. This happened not in the “dreaded” 1960’s, but about 100 years earlier when catholics and protestants could not agree on what version to use in schools. He also credits the Great Awakenings and denominationalism. [1] With the Great Awakenings came an emphasis on feeling instead of doctrine. This is the greatest legacy of the New Light Puritans (Jonathan Edwards included, despite his best efforts), Whitefield, etc. Denominationalism placed cooperation ahead of doctrine (rightfully, in my opinion) and this lead to a deemphasis on doctrine.

History aside, he also notes that politicians constantly evoke the Bible not only on the campaign trail, but also in arguments on the floor of the house and senate. Because of this brute fact, the populace should be able to evaluate these arguments. A class on the Bible as literature in high school would go a long way in helping this. He hopes that with increasing literacy in the Bible, politicians would no longer be able to say “The Bible says X on this current issue,” and get away with it.

Given the amount of violent clashes involving religion in the world, having the general populace educated in world religions [2] has obvious benefits similar to the ones in the previous paragraph. So, there is a civic need for religious education. By “religious education” one is referring to the study of religion, not the doing of religion in schools.

He proposes two classes be mandated for study in high schools, one on the Bible as literature and one on the religions of the world.

I appreciated his critique of the New Atheists, such as Hitchens. A part of Prothero’s book review of Hitchens’ God is not Great that was edited out summed it up nicely.

(Prothero talking about the part of the view that was edited out of his review in the Washington Post) “[Hitchens] actually starts the book with a vinette about how he lost his faith at age nine. In the part of the review that was not published, I said that it was unfortunate that his views of religions [also] stopped at age nine. In other words, I think a lot of atheists think, they get fixated on a really stupid understanding of religion and then they spend 300-400 pages bashing it. Where if they had just spoken with any ordinary religious person, the ordinary religious person would have said, “Oh, yeah, of course, I don’t believe that….”

Now, of course Prothero is not arguing for theism or anything, just pointing out one of the problems with New Atheism’s method of arguing. One of Prothero’s most significant claims is while religion is the most destructive force on the planet, it is also the greatestforce for good. So, it makes little sense to write it off as a mere delusion, even though it might be one. It was refreshing to hear a leading figure in the study of religion treat the subject matter with the respect it deserves, while not giving it a pass either.

1. Some people think the second one wasn’t really an “Awakening,” but that is a discussion for another time. [↩]
2. a problematic term, but a necessary one [↩]