I read (or rather listened to the audio) because the description of the book called it the "centrist's answer to the Purpose Driven Life." I have heard from my fellow conservatives about liberal theologies, and decided I'd like to get it from the proverbial horse's mouth rather than more 3rd party. Ironically, I think there is correlation between 10 Things and Purpose: they are both very shallow. Don't get me wrong, Purpose Driven Life is a very good primer on living a life of faith, but it is actually sad that it was so big as that really reveals how shallow Christianity was. Likewise 10 Yhings really is probably a good primer of liberal theology, but rather than providing solid support for what it proclaims it simply makes statements.
The book opens criticizing "fundamentalists" (which he misues interchangeably with conservative and evangelical) for their poor exegesis, or selective use of scripture as he says, and their caricatures of those who disagree with them. With great irony I quickly realized most positions espoused by the author came from very selective use of scriptures and refutations came via straw-man arguments and caricatures. "Kettle, this is pot, you are black."
What follows the introduction is a series of statements about either questionable exegesis or historical/philosophical theories that are of some question. For example, Daniel was written in the 2nd century and the "4 Kingdoms" were Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Apparently, Daniel is totally ignorant of his own history since there was no Media empire, and he even contradicts himself in his own book since he ties the two together. Now, this is not an uncommon theory, but it is based upon secular idea of anti-supernatural bias against foretelling. No alternative is even mentioned, rather this theory is stated as fact. Likewise, Israel did not cross the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds (more a tidal bog really). What is the argument for this? We're left to wonder, it is just stated as true.
Another interesting is his proposition that homosexual monogamy is biblically blessed, only loose living for either sex and child molestation is condemned. Now, he quite right I believe, points out flaws in citing biblical texts against homosexuality. After all, its hard to argue from one verse that is in the midst of others about stoning people for working on the sabbath and for wearing mixed fabrics (at the moment I have a cotton/polyester blend shirt on). However, he then takes a creative run-around on 1 Corinthians' citation about men who have turned their unnatural desires to other men. Apparent, the first man means Roman patrician, and the second man means "slave boy." So, it's really written against a not uncommon practice of Roman rich taking slave boys for sexual pleasure. Except for two things. 1) He mentions men, not boys, slaves, or rich men. 2) This is corinth, and THE city of the time for sexual misconduct, including homosexuality between consenting men, not Rome where boy sex slaves were the practice.
Another mistake he takes is called scientific/theological parallelism. Theology and science are two different worlds, and they do not overlap. The problem is, there are definite areas of overlap, and to deny such is intellectual dishonesty. Yet, he blissfully asserts that science and theology have no meeting points, so we can be happy being a theist and naturalist, because even those two are mutually exclusive, they're from different realms so it doesn't matter.
Overall, I would say it is a decent primer to some liberal ideas, but it is a very weak book when it comes to justifying its position. It might persuade those with a very weak sunday school education, but any serious student of the bible will find some very obvious flaws in his arguments. The danger is, because his arguments are so flawed, a conservative might become more confident than is justified. A more serious study of liberal theologies perhaps may be found elsewhere, but this does give a loose index of some ideas.
edit: Addendum to all that, having been a minister and been very good friends with other minsters, I can tell you his list is pretty bad. There are much more vital things church goers should know, and the pastor is afraid to tell them about. How to handle disputes with leadership for instance. How to leave a church.
The book opens criticizing "fundamentalists" (which he misues interchangeably with conservative and evangelical) for their poor exegesis, or selective use of scripture as he says, and their caricatures of those who disagree with them. With great irony I quickly realized most positions espoused by the author came from very selective use of scriptures and refutations came via straw-man arguments and caricatures. "Kettle, this is pot, you are black."
What follows the introduction is a series of statements about either questionable exegesis or historical/philosophical theories that are of some question. For example, Daniel was written in the 2nd century and the "4 Kingdoms" were Babylon, Media, Persia, and Greece. Apparently, Daniel is totally ignorant of his own history since there was no Media empire, and he even contradicts himself in his own book since he ties the two together. Now, this is not an uncommon theory, but it is based upon secular idea of anti-supernatural bias against foretelling. No alternative is even mentioned, rather this theory is stated as fact. Likewise, Israel did not cross the Red Sea, but the Sea of Reeds (more a tidal bog really). What is the argument for this? We're left to wonder, it is just stated as true.
Another interesting is his proposition that homosexual monogamy is biblically blessed, only loose living for either sex and child molestation is condemned. Now, he quite right I believe, points out flaws in citing biblical texts against homosexuality. After all, its hard to argue from one verse that is in the midst of others about stoning people for working on the sabbath and for wearing mixed fabrics (at the moment I have a cotton/polyester blend shirt on). However, he then takes a creative run-around on 1 Corinthians' citation about men who have turned their unnatural desires to other men. Apparent, the first man means Roman patrician, and the second man means "slave boy." So, it's really written against a not uncommon practice of Roman rich taking slave boys for sexual pleasure. Except for two things. 1) He mentions men, not boys, slaves, or rich men. 2) This is corinth, and THE city of the time for sexual misconduct, including homosexuality between consenting men, not Rome where boy sex slaves were the practice.
Another mistake he takes is called scientific/theological parallelism. Theology and science are two different worlds, and they do not overlap. The problem is, there are definite areas of overlap, and to deny such is intellectual dishonesty. Yet, he blissfully asserts that science and theology have no meeting points, so we can be happy being a theist and naturalist, because even those two are mutually exclusive, they're from different realms so it doesn't matter.
Overall, I would say it is a decent primer to some liberal ideas, but it is a very weak book when it comes to justifying its position. It might persuade those with a very weak sunday school education, but any serious student of the bible will find some very obvious flaws in his arguments. The danger is, because his arguments are so flawed, a conservative might become more confident than is justified. A more serious study of liberal theologies perhaps may be found elsewhere, but this does give a loose index of some ideas.
edit: Addendum to all that, having been a minister and been very good friends with other minsters, I can tell you his list is pretty bad. There are much more vital things church goers should know, and the pastor is afraid to tell them about. How to handle disputes with leadership for instance. How to leave a church.
No comments:
Post a Comment