“godless” by Dan Barker–An Extended Book Analysis (Part 6): How God Hates the Disabled, and How Jesus Doesn’t Care for the Poor…and He Wants You Castrated! (What?)

Welcome to Part 6 of my extended book analysis of Dan Barker’s godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists. We are currently wading through chapter 10 of his book, in which he is engaging in (my newly coined phrase) “the Barker Bolt” and jumping from decontextualized Bible verse to decontextualized Bible verse to push his agenda that the Bible is absolutely evil and immoral. Let’s just jump right in and see how far we can get. Again, quotes by Barker will be in bold, with my comments after each one.

III. Humans Have No Intrinsic Right to Fairness or Respect

“The bible nowhere states that every human being possesses an inherent right to be treated with respect or fairness.” (171)

Actually, yes it does, in the very first chapter of Genesis, where we are told that human beings are made in God’s image. This term is essentially “idol language.” In the ancient world, “images” were idols, and they were often in the form of beast-like figures. A major biblical teaching is that you become like what you worship. If you worship idols, that are made by human hands and that are in the images of beasts, you will not only become spiritually blind and deaf like those blocks of wood or stone, but you will also become beast-like, violent toward others and enslaved to your own passions and instincts. To worship idols made you and your society less than human.

By contrast, the Bible states that human beings are made by God and are in His image—therefore, worship of the true God made you fully human, and more like God. And since that is the case, the biblical teaching regarding human beings is that they have inherent dignity and worth, precisely because they are made in God’s image. In fact, it was the Hebrews who essentially invented history writing. In the ancient pagan world, they didn’t write histories—they wrote myths (stories about the gods) and royal annals (accounts of kings who were seen as descended from the gods). But histories about the mass of humanity? No way—why bother? Human beings were worthless. But the Hebrews wrote histories and stories about…nomads, shepherds, slaves and peasants—why? Because human beings are made in God’s image and God is involved in history in order to redeem the image-bearers He created.

“There are a few places where God appeared to respect certain key players, such as when the angel asked the Virgin Mary for her permission to be impregnated by the Holy Ghost. But even then her response was submissive rather than egalitarian.” (171)

Let’s just clarify something. The Bible does not say that God, or the Holy Spirit, impregnated Mary. That’s the stuff of Greek mythology and Mormonism.

“It is also historically clear that the true bible believers have little respect for the human rights of anyone outside of their church” (171). He then goes on to reference Native Americans, Jews, American blacks and South-African natives, pagan peoples, Crusades, Spanish Inquisition; militant Christian factions in the Middle East.

Although it is certainly true that have been shameful things that have happened in Church history, Barker is simply painting with much too broad a brush here. In addition, he is pushing some very false narratives. First, ancient paganism died out because is was morally empty and early Christians exposed it for being such by caring for the poor and needy. Christianity didn’t persecute paganism. Paganism died out all on its own. Second, I would heartily recommend Rodney Stark’s The Triumph of Christianity (or a few of my previous posts here, here and here) when it comes to understanding the truth of the Inquisition and Crusades. Finally, in all honesty, what “militant Christian factions in the Middle East” is Barker talking about? Christians are a minority throughout the Middle East and have been the victims of horrible persecution by Muslim extremist groups like ISIS and the Muslim Brotherhood.

IV. Bible Characters are Poor Role Models

One claim Barker makes throughout this chapter is that many of the biblical characters, God included, are poor role models: Noah, Abraham, Lot, Jephthah…the list can go on. I am not going to quote every single instance Barker talks about this, but I will respond with what should be obvious: they are not meant to be seen as role models! Yes, the Bible is filled with deeply flawed people who do horrible things—that’s the point! God has gotten involved in the mud and mess of human history to work with often horrible people to eventually bring about the redemption of His creation.

In addition, Barker goes to tortured lengths to throw as many inflammatory accusations against the God of the Old Testament. He claims that “God discriminated against the disabled” (Leviticus 21:18-23). Those verses, though, are specific rules regarding specific priestly duties. Simply put, the purpose of the sacrificial system was to reconcile human beings to God and to, in essence, restore their humanity. Therefore, the priests who do specific sacrificial duties were not to have any sort of physical defect. Why? Because they were representing the restored humanity that was the purpose of the sacrificial system. To decry that specific regulation regarding priests as somehow as being discriminatory against all disabled people is just laughable.

Barker also quotes passages like Malachi 2:3; I Kings 14:10; Nahum 3:5-6 (which contains some rather vulgar imagery and language) and goes full Church Lady: “God uses language that would never be allowed in church.” My reaction to this is, “So?” In addition, I do find it ironic that even though Barker is now an atheist, he still exhibits the same prudish “Church Lady-like” mentality as he probably had when he was a fundamentalist minister.

Barker also accuses God of using misogynistic language (Isaiah 3:17–the Lord will strike with a scab the heads of the daughters of Zion, and the LORD will lay bare their secret parts), creating evil (Isaiah 45:7–I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity [evil], I am the LORD, who does all these things), being a racist, and being jealous (Exodus 34:14–for you shall worship no other god, for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God).

Let’s address these quickly. First, the “misogynistic language” found throughout the Old Testament more often than not is found in prophecies about YHWH’s coming judgment on Israel for their covenant unfaithfulness. In short, because they break the covenant and oppress the poor, the prophets prophesy that nations like Assyria and Babylon would come and destroy Israel. And the kind of things that the armies of Assyria and Babylon would do were horrific: slaughter, pillaging, and rape. The prophets are not saying these are good things. Now, being monotheists, the prophets held that at some level YHWH was in control of everything. That is why their language involves saying YHWH will do these things. But describing the horror that the Assyrians and Babylonians inflict on conquered peoples is not “misogynist language.” It is describing the actual horror.

Second, the Hebrew word ra has many meanings—sometimes “evil” in the way we understand it; sometimes “disaster” or “calamity.” So, Barker’s accusation is fundamentally based on an ignorance of the Hebrew language. Now, yes, being monotheists, the Hebrews believed that YHWH ultimately is in control of everything, even the forces of evil and destruction, but that doesn’t change the fact that Barker’s accusation is rather ignorant and purposely inflammatory.

Third, how is YHWH racist? Barker says it is because God chose one race of people (the Hebrews). But Barker shows no attempt to understand why YHWH chose the Hebrews. The purpose, indeed, the purpose of the Mosaic covenant, was to choose a people (the Hebrews) to be a light to the nations, so that through them YHWH could redeem all nations and creation itself. Needless to say, Barker’s accusations of God being racist are easily refuted by anyone who knows how to read.

Finally, to the point, to paraphrase Inigo Montoya, “That word, ‘jealous,’ I do not think it means what you think it means.” Contrary to what Barker claims, when YHWH says He is a “jealous” God, He is not saying He is like some sort of obsessive, control-freak lover who stalks his girlfriend. God is “jealous” for Israel in the sense that He is protective of them and wants the best for them, much like in a healthy relationship, how a husband and wife are “jealous” for each other, not of other people. In the context of Exodus 34:14, YHWH is jealous for Israel, and because of that, He doesn’t want them going after the gods of the other nations that will ultimately lead to their subjugation and oppression.

V. What About Jesus?

But it’s is not just the Old Testament Barker has a problem with. Barker also argues that Jesus himself was immoral. Let’s see if his arguments are convincing.

Barker references a parable of Jesus in Luke 12:41-48 which involves a master beating a worthless slave. Barker’s response: “Jesus encouraged the beating of slaves!” (178). It doesn’t matter to Barker that this was a parable. To Barker, that “would be like a politician making an anti-Semitic or black joke and then saying, ‘I wasn’t serious’” (178).  I don’t think I even need to address how ridiculous a comment that is.

Barker complains that Jesus, “the unrivaled moral example,” never spoke out against slavery. He complains that, “Jesus never spoke out against poverty or did anything to eliminate it. Like Mother Teresa, he taught that the poor should accept their lot in life.” When referencing the story in Mark 14:3-9 involving the woman anointing Jesus with precious ointment, Barker remarks, “This is selfish and callous. He offers no plan or hope for eliminating poverty and treats feeding the poor as an optional activity that is not as important as worshipping him—like many modern evangelists who squander contributions from the faithful on lavish lifestyles” (179).

Let’s state a few things that should be blindingly obvious: (1) Jesus was a peasant within the Roman Empire—he wasn’t a government official to even be in the position to address slavery; (2) Jesus was a poor peasant—what does Barker think a poor, itinerant Jewish peasant would be able to do to “eliminate poverty”? And while we’re at it, did Barker really criticize Mother Teresa? Perhaps he should first devote 50 years of his life living in the gutters of Calcutta, ministering to the poor and lepers, before he feels he has the moral authority to criticize Mother Teresa. If that is not a prime example of a Pharisaical moral bigot, I don’t know what is. And finally, did he just equate Jesus with a sleazy, money-hungry televangelist? Someone should tell Barker that Jesus didn’t sport a “lavish lifestyle.” In fact, just a day later, Jesus was hanging on a cross.

Barker accuses Jesus of misogyny because he chose 12 male disciples. He fails to mention that in that culture, both with Jesus himself and the early Church, women were treated with an astounding level of equality and respect unheard of for that time. We’re told that Mary “sat at Jesus feet”—many scholars note that that phrase is used to denote a disciple. Yes, the twelve apostles were men, but the greater following of Jesus’ disciple included women as well.

“Jesus was violent. He cast some devils into swine and ‘the whole herd of swine ran violently down a steep place into the sea and perished in the waters.’ Why not show a little more respect for life?” (179)

One word: “Really?”

“His violence was tempered with irrationality” [as with his cursing of the fig tree]. “Is it kind or rational to destroy a plant that happens to be out of season when you are hungry? Is such behavior indicative of mental health?” (179)

Mark arranges the fig tree story in the following way: (A) Jesus curses the fig tree because it isn’t producing fruit; (B) He goes to the Temple and condemns it; (C) The next day the fig tree is withered. Mark is using a literary technique known as a chaism—the fig tree episode brackets his condemnation of the Temple to make the point that the reason why Jesus condemns the Temple is because it isn’t “bearing fruit” that God wants. To read the episode with such wooden literalism, with no attempt to understand the literary context, is truly shocking.

“In Matthew 19:12, showing his pro-life sensibilities, Jesus encourages castration.” (180)

No…Jesus was not “encouraging castration.”

“The worst of all Jesus’ ideas is the teaching of hell. Hitler’s gas ovens were horrendous, and the suffering was unspeakable, but they did not burn forever. The murdered victims of the Holocaust suffer no more, but the victims of God’s anger will scream forever and ever.” (181)

The topic of the biblical understanding of hell can’t be addressed in a quick response. I wrote a two-part series on this a while back. The links are here and here. But here, I will say this: Barker’s characterization of hell has much more in common with the typical “fire and brimstone” preaching of the most extreme Fundamentalists, and less with the actual biblical understanding. This should not be surprising, though. Barker himself was a Fundamentalist preacher for something like 19 years, and he himself acknowledged that he really didn’t get a good Bible education in college. His whole frame of reference, therefore, is that of the stridency and wooden literalism of 20^th century Fundamentalism.