One of the things my now-atheist son asked me to read concerning his new-found beliefs is a small, slim book entitled A Letter To A Christian Nation, by Sam Harris, published in 2006 by Alfred Knopf.
The book came to him from a friend, but clearly it had belonged at one point to the University of Central Oklahoma Library . . . the book itself is rather small, and short, but well-worn. It has the characteristic curve of having spent considerable time in someone's pocket.
I read it, as my son asked, with a critical eye toward the book and its contents and what it alleges. (I had done something similar earlier this year with Muscle And A Shovel, a book my grandmother bought for me. In that book, I found many good concepts, good facts, but the logic was a little shaky here and there; maybe I'll post something about that one sometime soon.)
Before we start, let me say something about my own views. I am a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), coming from a family background that stretches between the Disciples and the United Church of Christ. Historically, these two denominations share a common origin, in the American Restoration movement of the early 1800's, and that origin traces back to (primarily) the Presbyterian Church, though they split from them for many reasons. One of the key characteristics of the Disciples is that we are very limited in our doctrine: 1) that Christ is the Savior of all mankind and salvation comes from faith in Christ, along with baptism by immersion (though if you come to us from another church with a different baptism tradition, that's fine; we'll re-baptize you if you want--generally--but it's not a requirement); 2) the complete sufficiency of the Bible; and 3) the unity of all believers in Christ (i.e., you don't have to believe exactly like we do in order to be saved, and that all churches and denominations ought to work together). We have a congregational polity, meaning each church owns its own property and each congregation chooses its own minister(s), but we also have higher-level organizations that can suggest things to the individual congregations, but not force anything. It makes for a very open and accepting (generally) body, though there can be widely differing aspects of worship services and teaching (there's even a neo-Sufist Disciples congregation in Washington state--if it weren't so far I'd like to go participate in their services). When it comes down to it, Disciples churches expect their members to read the Bible for themselves, and draw their own conclusions; we (generally) won't tell you what you MUST believe (some members may, but the church doesn't). Oh, and on that, we have an open communion; we serve communion (Eucharist for the more traditional) every Sunday, and all who believe in Christ as the Savior are welcome to partake; no tests or creeds or what have you are required. And that's my standpoint on all that.
So, here goes:
First off, let me say that I object to the author's insistence of treating all Christians as if they were all alike. Furthermore, we don't all fit into neat little categories of 'conservative', 'moderate', 'liberal', 'enlightened', 'progressive', or what have you--in many ways, it's like a lot of people's political views.
In his introduction, the author points out that since publication of his earlier work (The End of Faith),
he's found that of the thousands who've written to tell him how wrong he was, the most hostile have come from Christians; "The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ's love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism", he writes. Well, I can certainly understand his point of view; there are many Christians who are intolerant of those who do not share their beliefs. In response I can only say that we're not all like that (and that phrase, Not All Like That, has in itself become a rallying cry among some Christians who support LGBT equality, which in and of itself is at odds with the mainstream perception of Christianity in America.)
The author seems to seek to wall off Christians, to define them as narrowly as possible, and in what to me is an unfair manner. He equates those who believe in intelligent design with those who believe in a strict creationist interpretation of the first parts of Genesis. In fact, it has always seemed to me that intelligent design is an attempt to distance believers 'in good faith' from a literal word-for-word inerrant interpretation of the creation story as described in Genesis.
The more one studies Genesis chapter 1 through chapter 11 (up until the start of the story of Abraham), and gets further in depth and studies them critically, the one more can begin to see that what these are, are stories the ancient Hebrews told each other around a campfire for many generations, until someone picked up a quill and some papyrus and wrote them down. For example, the name 'Adam' means, simply, 'man'; it's just an ordinary word. It's as if I had named my son, 'Boy', instead of William.
However, does that negate the entire Bible? I do not believe so, which admittedly puts me at odds with a considerable number of Christians (who are also considerably vocal about those beliefs, sometimes to the point of vitriolically denouncing those who do not agree that the entire Bible must be inerrant).
And furthermore, it is in no way an acceptance, or at least a wholesale acceptance, of evolution. Intelligent design points out that the possibilities of so many very, very long odds occurrences all coming together to create everything in the universe strains credulity beyond its breaking point. For example, take the design of your eye. A collection of very specialized cells that accept and convert incoming light, of various wavelengths but only a very small segment of the electromagnetic spectrum, into electrical impulses which are then re-sorted and resolved into an image inside the brain. And let us not forget that the various cat species, cephalopods (squids and octopi), insects, and arachnids all have eyes that are different from our own. How could such an incredible collection of diverse cells all randomly occur and group together in the right place, even given billions of years in which to do so?
Or another example--spiders. What sort of random mutation resulted in some sort of new gland that secreted some strange new fluid, not in any way a waste product, that when dry would have higher mechanical properties than high-strength steel and also be sticky enough to entrap the spider's prey? Has any scientist ever observed a random mutation in any species, anywhere, that added some entirely new gland? Spiderman is a comic book character, nothing more.
We do have evolution; witness the rise of MRSA and other anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria. The bacteria are adapting to something new in their environment. It's that evolution could not possibly be responsible for all of the incredible diversity of life on this planet--at least not without some sort of intelligent designer behind it in some as-yet-unknown way.
Moving on, the author continues with several statistics, among which are that 44% of Americans believe in the Second Coming of Christ, and that will occur within the next 50 years. I've not verified the accuracy of this (personally, I'd not shed a tear if the Second Coming were tomorrow--I think we've made a perfect mess of the infinitesimal portion of the entire Creation, enough to prove that we are not competent to be stewards of what we've been entrusted with). But then the author tries to say that these 44% of Americans would "see a silver lining" if New York City were vaporized, based on his Second Coming statistic, presumably because this could be a herald of that Second Coming. This then supposes a complete and willful disregard for the suffering of our fellow humans (not to mention the Christians in New York City) in favor of some catastrophe that's clearly not what has been foretold as to the events of the Second Coming.
"You believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that only those who place their faith in Jesus will find salvation after death." Granted. This is fundamental to Christianity. "We agree that to be a true Christian is to believe that all other faiths are mistaken, and profoundly so." Well, many of us do make sort of an exception for Jews, as God's chosen people, even if they do reject the Messiah, due to the promises God made Abraham. But other than that . . . yes, that's correct. We may seek common ground, peace and understanding with those of other faiths, but when you come down to it, there is a fundamental difference between Christianity and other faiths. One can be very blunt to the point of being uncharitable and say that all the rest are wrong and that their believers are condemning themselves to eternal damnation, but most of us chose not to word things so strongly--it can get in the way of evangelism, which demands an open mind as a starting point.
The author next brings up 'religious liberals' or 'religious moderates': "There are Christians who consider other faiths to be equally valid paths to salvation." Yes, I've heard of this, and have even heard it taught in Disciples churches, but it is wrong. Even a passing familiarity with the Gospels confirms this. John 3:16 is probably the most well-known verse in the Bible, at least in the English-speaking world; "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever shall believeth in Him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life." If there were other paths to salvation, then Christ's sacrifice on the cross was unnecessary, as those 'other paths' would fit the bill. If those other paths did lead to salvation, Christ, as the Son of God, would not have needed to come to earth in human form. But Christ did come to earth, and did die on the cross as the Son of God. Those other paths, other religions, do not lead to salvation; therefore, Christ's sacrifice was necessary in order to re-unite humanity with God.
"Either the Bible is just an ordinary book, written by mortals, or it isn't. Either Christ was divine, or He was not. If the Bible is an ordinary book, and Christ an ordinary man, the basic doctrine of Christianity is false . . . the history of Christian theology is the story of bookish men parsing a collective delusion." The author here, in his mind, is setting up his argument--that both conditions must be met: the Bible must be of divine origin, from cover to cover, the literal Word of God, AND Christ must also be divine; in his reasoning one cannot be true by itself.
AND that God's Word must be inerrant, totally beyond reproach in every aspect. Otherwise the game's over, then and there.
This is an easy argument to 'win', provided both sides agree to this dual requirement (Inerrant Bible/Divine Christ). And the Bible has a number of noted errors, only some of which the author touches on. The one I remember most is an error in the listing of the kings of Israel and Judah, in 1st and 2nd Kings, and in 1st and 2nd Chronicles (the two sets cover roughly the same time period in Jewish history). Another that the author points out is in Matthew 27:9-10, where the apostle talks about the death and burial of Judas Iscariot; it incorrectly points out the origin of the prophecy as in Jeremiah, when in fact it's Zechariah 11:12-13. The author also goes on to mention errors in mathematics, such as a very poor, inaccurate valuation for pi, in 1 Kings 7:23-26, though this is (as is all too frequently found in the Bible) open to interpretation.
Well, so much for inerrancy, and if you buy into how Harris has chosen to define success, it's all over.
But do those errors change the fundamental nature of what the Bible is? Not in the slightest.
So what is the Bible? Well, there's literal definitions, about its having 66 books, written in three languages, on three different continents, and so on and so forth. I think a better definition is that it is the account of God's actions in the world and His purpose in all creation, at least for Christians; it is all about the fall and the redemption of all mankind. Does that mean that this account must be completely and utterly true in every aspect? I do not think so. It was written by humans, who despite their best efforts are prone to errors. (For a book that is held to have a completely divine origin for its text, see the Koran or the Book of Mormon.) Does it need to be completely accurate and trustworthy as to His purpose with the entire creation? Yes, I think it does, and it is, and that these are two entirely separate requirements. (This then begs the question: What is God's purpose with all creation? But this is a question for another time.)
So we are left, then, with the divine (or not) nature of Christ as the heart of the matter.
The book came to him from a friend, but clearly it had belonged at one point to the University of Central Oklahoma Library . . . the book itself is rather small, and short, but well-worn. It has the characteristic curve of having spent considerable time in someone's pocket.
I read it, as my son asked, with a critical eye toward the book and its contents and what it alleges. (I had done something similar earlier this year with Muscle And A Shovel, a book my grandmother bought for me. In that book, I found many good concepts, good facts, but the logic was a little shaky here and there; maybe I'll post something about that one sometime soon.)
Before we start, let me say something about my own views. I am a member of the Christian Church (Disciples of Christ), coming from a family background that stretches between the Disciples and the United Church of Christ. Historically, these two denominations share a common origin, in the American Restoration movement of the early 1800's, and that origin traces back to (primarily) the Presbyterian Church, though they split from them for many reasons. One of the key characteristics of the Disciples is that we are very limited in our doctrine: 1) that Christ is the Savior of all mankind and salvation comes from faith in Christ, along with baptism by immersion (though if you come to us from another church with a different baptism tradition, that's fine; we'll re-baptize you if you want--generally--but it's not a requirement); 2) the complete sufficiency of the Bible; and 3) the unity of all believers in Christ (i.e., you don't have to believe exactly like we do in order to be saved, and that all churches and denominations ought to work together). We have a congregational polity, meaning each church owns its own property and each congregation chooses its own minister(s), but we also have higher-level organizations that can suggest things to the individual congregations, but not force anything. It makes for a very open and accepting (generally) body, though there can be widely differing aspects of worship services and teaching (there's even a neo-Sufist Disciples congregation in Washington state--if it weren't so far I'd like to go participate in their services). When it comes down to it, Disciples churches expect their members to read the Bible for themselves, and draw their own conclusions; we (generally) won't tell you what you MUST believe (some members may, but the church doesn't). Oh, and on that, we have an open communion; we serve communion (Eucharist for the more traditional) every Sunday, and all who believe in Christ as the Savior are welcome to partake; no tests or creeds or what have you are required. And that's my standpoint on all that.
So, here goes:
First off, let me say that I object to the author's insistence of treating all Christians as if they were all alike. Furthermore, we don't all fit into neat little categories of 'conservative', 'moderate', 'liberal', 'enlightened', 'progressive', or what have you--in many ways, it's like a lot of people's political views.
In his introduction, the author points out that since publication of his earlier work (The End of Faith),
he's found that of the thousands who've written to tell him how wrong he was, the most hostile have come from Christians; "The truth is that many who claim to be transformed by Christ's love are deeply, even murderously, intolerant of criticism", he writes. Well, I can certainly understand his point of view; there are many Christians who are intolerant of those who do not share their beliefs. In response I can only say that we're not all like that (and that phrase, Not All Like That, has in itself become a rallying cry among some Christians who support LGBT equality, which in and of itself is at odds with the mainstream perception of Christianity in America.)
The author seems to seek to wall off Christians, to define them as narrowly as possible, and in what to me is an unfair manner. He equates those who believe in intelligent design with those who believe in a strict creationist interpretation of the first parts of Genesis. In fact, it has always seemed to me that intelligent design is an attempt to distance believers 'in good faith' from a literal word-for-word inerrant interpretation of the creation story as described in Genesis.
The more one studies Genesis chapter 1 through chapter 11 (up until the start of the story of Abraham), and gets further in depth and studies them critically, the one more can begin to see that what these are, are stories the ancient Hebrews told each other around a campfire for many generations, until someone picked up a quill and some papyrus and wrote them down. For example, the name 'Adam' means, simply, 'man'; it's just an ordinary word. It's as if I had named my son, 'Boy', instead of William.
However, does that negate the entire Bible? I do not believe so, which admittedly puts me at odds with a considerable number of Christians (who are also considerably vocal about those beliefs, sometimes to the point of vitriolically denouncing those who do not agree that the entire Bible must be inerrant).
And furthermore, it is in no way an acceptance, or at least a wholesale acceptance, of evolution. Intelligent design points out that the possibilities of so many very, very long odds occurrences all coming together to create everything in the universe strains credulity beyond its breaking point. For example, take the design of your eye. A collection of very specialized cells that accept and convert incoming light, of various wavelengths but only a very small segment of the electromagnetic spectrum, into electrical impulses which are then re-sorted and resolved into an image inside the brain. And let us not forget that the various cat species, cephalopods (squids and octopi), insects, and arachnids all have eyes that are different from our own. How could such an incredible collection of diverse cells all randomly occur and group together in the right place, even given billions of years in which to do so?
Or another example--spiders. What sort of random mutation resulted in some sort of new gland that secreted some strange new fluid, not in any way a waste product, that when dry would have higher mechanical properties than high-strength steel and also be sticky enough to entrap the spider's prey? Has any scientist ever observed a random mutation in any species, anywhere, that added some entirely new gland? Spiderman is a comic book character, nothing more.
We do have evolution; witness the rise of MRSA and other anti-biotic resistant strains of bacteria. The bacteria are adapting to something new in their environment. It's that evolution could not possibly be responsible for all of the incredible diversity of life on this planet--at least not without some sort of intelligent designer behind it in some as-yet-unknown way.
Moving on, the author continues with several statistics, among which are that 44% of Americans believe in the Second Coming of Christ, and that will occur within the next 50 years. I've not verified the accuracy of this (personally, I'd not shed a tear if the Second Coming were tomorrow--I think we've made a perfect mess of the infinitesimal portion of the entire Creation, enough to prove that we are not competent to be stewards of what we've been entrusted with). But then the author tries to say that these 44% of Americans would "see a silver lining" if New York City were vaporized, based on his Second Coming statistic, presumably because this could be a herald of that Second Coming. This then supposes a complete and willful disregard for the suffering of our fellow humans (not to mention the Christians in New York City) in favor of some catastrophe that's clearly not what has been foretold as to the events of the Second Coming.
"You believe that the Bible is the word of God, that Jesus is the Son of God, and that only those who place their faith in Jesus will find salvation after death." Granted. This is fundamental to Christianity. "We agree that to be a true Christian is to believe that all other faiths are mistaken, and profoundly so." Well, many of us do make sort of an exception for Jews, as God's chosen people, even if they do reject the Messiah, due to the promises God made Abraham. But other than that . . . yes, that's correct. We may seek common ground, peace and understanding with those of other faiths, but when you come down to it, there is a fundamental difference between Christianity and other faiths. One can be very blunt to the point of being uncharitable and say that all the rest are wrong and that their believers are condemning themselves to eternal damnation, but most of us chose not to word things so strongly--it can get in the way of evangelism, which demands an open mind as a starting point.
The author next brings up 'religious liberals' or 'religious moderates': "There are Christians who consider other faiths to be equally valid paths to salvation." Yes, I've heard of this, and have even heard it taught in Disciples churches, but it is wrong. Even a passing familiarity with the Gospels confirms this. John 3:16 is probably the most well-known verse in the Bible, at least in the English-speaking world; "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever shall believeth in Him shall not perish, but shall have everlasting life." If there were other paths to salvation, then Christ's sacrifice on the cross was unnecessary, as those 'other paths' would fit the bill. If those other paths did lead to salvation, Christ, as the Son of God, would not have needed to come to earth in human form. But Christ did come to earth, and did die on the cross as the Son of God. Those other paths, other religions, do not lead to salvation; therefore, Christ's sacrifice was necessary in order to re-unite humanity with God.
"Either the Bible is just an ordinary book, written by mortals, or it isn't. Either Christ was divine, or He was not. If the Bible is an ordinary book, and Christ an ordinary man, the basic doctrine of Christianity is false . . . the history of Christian theology is the story of bookish men parsing a collective delusion." The author here, in his mind, is setting up his argument--that both conditions must be met: the Bible must be of divine origin, from cover to cover, the literal Word of God, AND Christ must also be divine; in his reasoning one cannot be true by itself.
AND that God's Word must be inerrant, totally beyond reproach in every aspect. Otherwise the game's over, then and there.
This is an easy argument to 'win', provided both sides agree to this dual requirement (Inerrant Bible/Divine Christ). And the Bible has a number of noted errors, only some of which the author touches on. The one I remember most is an error in the listing of the kings of Israel and Judah, in 1st and 2nd Kings, and in 1st and 2nd Chronicles (the two sets cover roughly the same time period in Jewish history). Another that the author points out is in Matthew 27:9-10, where the apostle talks about the death and burial of Judas Iscariot; it incorrectly points out the origin of the prophecy as in Jeremiah, when in fact it's Zechariah 11:12-13. The author also goes on to mention errors in mathematics, such as a very poor, inaccurate valuation for pi, in 1 Kings 7:23-26, though this is (as is all too frequently found in the Bible) open to interpretation.
Well, so much for inerrancy, and if you buy into how Harris has chosen to define success, it's all over.
But do those errors change the fundamental nature of what the Bible is? Not in the slightest.
So what is the Bible? Well, there's literal definitions, about its having 66 books, written in three languages, on three different continents, and so on and so forth. I think a better definition is that it is the account of God's actions in the world and His purpose in all creation, at least for Christians; it is all about the fall and the redemption of all mankind. Does that mean that this account must be completely and utterly true in every aspect? I do not think so. It was written by humans, who despite their best efforts are prone to errors. (For a book that is held to have a completely divine origin for its text, see the Koran or the Book of Mormon.) Does it need to be completely accurate and trustworthy as to His purpose with the entire creation? Yes, I think it does, and it is, and that these are two entirely separate requirements. (This then begs the question: What is God's purpose with all creation? But this is a question for another time.)
So we are left, then, with the divine (or not) nature of Christ as the heart of the matter.
