The last part of chapter 10 in Dan Barker’s book, godless—How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists, Barker attempts to make the case (primarily by looking at the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes) that the Bible is a bad and immoral rule book for life. The more I read his work, the more I am convinced that this is a key point to understand in regard to the way in which Barker approaches the Bible, and how he still is a Fundamentalist at heart. Essentially, the standard Fundamentalist way of viewing the Bible is that it is a divinely inspired moral rule book and guide for life: do what it says and you’ll go to heaven. That is what Fundamentalist minister Dan Barker used to think and that, sadly, is how a lot of Christians today tend to view the Bible.
Atheist Dan Barker no longer believes that, though. Instead, he now believes that the Bible is a positively immoral rule book and horrible guide for life: it threatens you will judgment and hellfire if you don’t keep its rules. The problem with that view, though, is that it still shares the same outlook and assumptions about the Bible as Fundamentalism, namely: that the Bible purports to be some sort of universal moral rule book dropped out of heaven. But because Barker still assumes that is the case, virtually all of his criticisms are rooted in a false view of Scripture. To put it another way, instead of addressing what the Bible actually is, Barker is attacking a strawman and caricature of the Bible, which sadly is an idolatrous view that many religious people have of the Bible. Keep that in mind as we wade back into chapter 10 once again.
VI. Many Moral Precepts of the Bible are Unacceptable
“The United States of America is a proudly rebellious nation. We fought a revolution to kick the lord and master out of our affairs.” [On the issues of Jesus saying, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, but to God what is God’s] “But what about the individual? What about democracy? Jesus considered that human beings are cogs in someone else’s machine, be it God’s or Caesar’s. This goes against the grain of modern representative society.” (184)
I found this quote to be particularly odd. As can be seen throughout his book, although Barker decries the Bible as being an immoral “moral code,” the standard by which he makes such a judgment is that of 21st century American democracy. Granted, I think democracy is a great thing, but that system in and off itself is not automatically “moral.” In fact, it only works if both leaders and the citizenry are morally-rooted. In any case, Barker’s real beef (as he says in numerous places) is the idea of having a “lord” or “master.” In any case, I find it peculiar that Barker is condemning Jesus for not supporting 21st century representative society. Well, okay, but I think it is kind of silly to say that Jesus was an immoral person because he didn’t sign the Declaration of Independence.
VII. What About the Good Teachings of the Bible?
When talking about a debate he had with Dr. Walter Lowe, professor of systematic theology at Candler School of Theology at Emory University, Barker took issue with the claim that a certain amount of education about ancient history and Biblical Studies was needed to properly understand the Bible: “I hear this criticism a lot. If we freethinkers were mature and sophisticated enough to study the scriptures as they should be studied (higher criticism, context, metaphor, cultural elements, and so on), then we would have fewer problems understanding them. But this is nothing more than saying, ‘If you held my point of view, then you would hold my point of view.’” And then: “If god is trying to get his message across to the masses of humanity, why did he do it in such a way that the only people qualified to grasp its true significance are those with doctorates in biblical studies?” (185).
These statements are eerily similar to the kinds of statements I often hear from young earth creationists like Ken Ham and his followers when they are told that they really need to read Genesis 1-11 within its historical and literary contexts. Let’s be clear: that sentiment is anti-intellectual, anti-educational, and an insistence on remaining in a state of ignorance. It is a decidedly Fundamentalist mentality that say, “I don’t need no learnin’! I can read the Bible plainly in English!”
In addition, in regard to that second statement, let me ask a simple question: What would that look like? Seriously, what kind of communication is possible that immediately and unambiguously speaks directly to all people at all times throughout history, somehow about to override and supersede all the various languages, cultures, and societies? When you think of it, that claim made by Barker is astoundingly inane. What he is actually saying is this, “If there really was God, He should be able to just be able to go ‘POOF!’ and make everything clear for everyone, everywhere, at all times!” Reality simply doesn’t work that way. The biblical claim is that God has revealed Himself in history and has communicated within history, with all the normal limitations that communication in history entails. To say that if God really communicated in history, He should be able to do it in an unhistorical way is absurd.
VIII. The Ten Commandments
For brevity’s sake, I want to share a snippet or quote from Barker regarding each of the Ten Commandments, and then follow that with a few general comments.
Commandment 1—No other gods before Me: “This is the equivalent of establishing the nation of Israel, not the United States of America.” (186)
Commandment 2–Against Idolatry: “As law, it would violate free speech. At face value, it rules out all art!” (187)
Commandment 3: Name in Vain: “This would be like prohibiting criticism of the president or other public officials.” (187)
Commandment 4: Keep the Sabbath: “According to the biblical application of this law, millions of Americans deserve capital punishment.” (187)
Commandment 5: Honor your Father/Mother: “How do you ‘honor’ a father who commits incest? Notice also that the rationale ‘that thy days may be long’ is an appeal to self-interest, not to the value of parents as human beings.” (187)
Commandment 6: Do not Murder: “Does this mean that capital punishment is wrong? What about self-defense? What about war? What about euthanasia requested by the terminally ill? The drawback of this law is its absoluteness—good laws make distinctions.” (188) “It is not as if the human race never would have figured out that it is wrong to kill without some tablets coming down from a mountain.” (188)
Commandment 7: Do not Commit Adultery: “It hardly merits the death penalty.” (188) “Although adultery is important, does it rate the Big Ten?” (188)
Commandment 8: Do not Steal: “But what about exceptions? The Ten Commandments, couched in absolute terms, allow no situational dilemmas.” (189)
Commandment 9: Do not bear False Witness: “…a generally good principle, but there is no universal law in America against telling lies.” Lying to save woman being abused by her husband?
Commandment 10. Do not Covet: A wife is like property. “How can you command someone not to covet?” (189)
So, what should we make of Barker’s analysis of the Ten Commandments? Let’s start off with his wrong assumption that the Ten Commandments (and the Torah as a whole) are to be taken as some sort of universal moral rule book for all people throughout all time. Let’s be clear: the Torah was the law code of ancient Israel.
Secondly, Barker’s take on the prohibition against idolatry is woefully ignorant. As he says in other places in the book, he presents this as if God was a Baptist and He didn’t want anyone going to a Methodist church. Barker apparently has absolutely no idea was ancient idolatry consisted of: forced prostitution and sex slavery women, girls and boys, and child sacrifice in some instances, just to name two horrendous things. Call me crazy but telling people not to engage in sex slavery and the murder of children is probably a good thing to do.
Thirdly, no, the Torah didn’t prohibit art. Within Exodus alone, there is a detailed account of the artistic work that went into building the tabernacle. The same goes for the later construction of the temple in Jerusalem.
Fourthly, concerning parents committing incest, or the danger of having an “absolute laws” like “don’t murder,” or “don’t steal” or “don’t bear false witness”—believe it or not, the Torah consists of much more than just these ten laws—and many of those other laws go into detail as to how to apply these general laws. Besides, there are always going to be exceptions to virtually everything. No law code spells everything out in minute detail. And let’s be honest—does anyone actually think the Torah is advocating for incest? There is only one reason Barker brings that extreme issue up: to imply that it does. Well, it doesn’t.
Finally, in regard to “don’t murder,” the Hebrew word is specifically “murder,” not the general “kill.” So Barker’s comments regarding “What about self-defense, war, euthanasia, etc.” are irrelevant. This particular law is pretty specific as it is. As C.S. Lewis said, “All killing is not murder, just as all sex isn’t adultery.” More can probably be said about Barker’s comments here, but it is already quite obvious such comments are rather flawed.
Incidentally, there is something else I’ve notice about much of Barker’s book: how utterly inane much of it is. Many of his comments are just plain silly and sophomoric. Take for instance this one about Moses breaking the two stone tablets: “Wow. If I were carrying an original hand-written document from God, I would take better care of it than that” (190). Someone might want to tell Barker that it wasn’t like Moses dropped them! The breaking of the tablets symbolized the breaking of the covenant. And this is the point of Exodus 32-34. As soon as YHWH establishes His covenant with the Hebrews, they immediately worship the golden calf and engage in a pagan orgy. So when Moses broke the tablets, that was signaling that the covenant was already broken. And when, in Exodus 34, YHWH fashions two new tablets, He prefaces them with what we find in Exodus 34:6-7: “YHWH, YHWH, a God merciful and gracious, slow to anger, and abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness…” That word for “steadfast love” is hesed, and it better translated “covenant love.” YHWH was making it clear: even though the Hebrews had broken the covenant, He was giving them another chance because He was a God who was faithful to the covenant, even though they weren’t.
Barker, of course, shows no indication that he even cares to try to understand what is going on in Exodus 32-34. He is just looking for things for which he can make silly and inane comments. And so, when he says, “If I were still a Christian, I would be embarrassed that the God I thought I admired could be so forgetful and so petty and so downright weird” (192), I want to say, “It seems weird to you because you haven’t taken the time to actually learn anything about the original historical and literary contexts.”
I will need one more post to get through the rest of chapter 10. I promise, it will be a doozy. Barker takes on Jesus and the Beatitudes and attempts to show just how immoral those Beatitudes are! That’s right, if you want to know how “Blessed are the peacemakers” can be construed as immoral, you’ll have to come back for the next post!
