Posting the Ten Commandments in Louisiana Schools Is Idolatry
by Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton (OH) – which is an American Baptist Church – for 13 years, after which he served as interim pastor of ABC USA churches in Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania. He is now a full-time writer, and lives in Louisiana. His seventh book, Good and Evil in the Garden of Democracy, has recently been published. And book #8, Dancing with Metaphors in the Pulpit, will appear soon.
Louisiana has an irrevocable commitment to the petro-chemical industry, a leading cause of global warming. Global warming is the most dangerous issue facing our planet. Yet, Louisiana has passed a law making abortion medication a dangerous drug. Our chemical plants spread cancer, and our legislature, in its infinite wisdom, makes abortion medication illegal.
Louisiana has also voted to make castration of sexual offenders a legal sentence after conviction.
Now, Louisiana has voted to require the posting of the Ten Commandments in every classroom in the state. There seems no end to what good Christians can legislate once they have the taste of power.
A poster of the Ten Commandments gives the picture of putting a patch on the wall to ward off wickedness, evil, and manifold transgressions. While some patches have positive impacts (think NicoDerm for smokers), the Ten Commandments patch is a joke. .
The Louisiana Legislature, members of the least credible profession in the nation, wants to put a patch on the wall containing the Ten Commandments. These are the same Ten commandments from the Hebrew Bible that many politicians routinely disobey. See Donald Trump (darling of the Christian Right), who blew through the 10 Commandments as if they were an obstacle course keeping him from lying, cheating, and bullying his way to the top.
But it’s not just Trump. One loses count of the number of politicians “caught” in adultery, convicted of taking bribes, lying to the FBI, making stock purchases with insider information, and worshiping at the idol of power. Sticking to Louisiana, a New Orleans Times-Picayune headline shouted, “71 Louisiana politicians who were sentenced to prison or probation.” And a New York Times headline: “Louisiana Has a Long Line of Jailed Officials.” From fudging their expense accounts to outright theft to extortion and racketeering, Louisiana politicians could fill an entire wing at Angola State Prison.
The Ten Commandments belong in the home, synagogue, and church. For example, if you attend a local Episcopal Church, during the Season of Lent, each Sunday the congregation stands to recite in unison The Decalogue (The Ten Commandments). Democrat state Senator Royce Duplessis had the good sense to say, “As I said on the Senate floor, if you want your kids to learn the Ten Commandments, you can take them to church.”
Yet undeterred by common sense, the First Amendment to the Constitution, or a basic understanding of our nation’s laws, the bill’s sponsor, GOP state representative Dodie Horton, argued that the Ten Commandments are the basis of all laws in Louisiana. She said, “I hope and pray that Louisiana is the first state to allow moral code to be place back in the classrooms.” She then added, with absolutely no self-awareness, “Since I was in kindergarten [at a private school], it was always on the wall. I learned there was a god, and I knew to honor him and his laws.”
Ms. Horton has imbibed too much North Louisiana fundamentalism. She talks as if she has been indoctrinated by the fake historian and political hack, David Barton. Barton teaches people the First Amendment is the work of the devil. He came up with the demonstrably false conclusion that ACT scores fell in schools after the Supreme Court ruled on prayer in schools. He routinely makes up “sayings of the Fathers” and repeats his lies at rallies across the country. The Speaker of the House, Mike Johnson, an avowed Barton disciple and Christian Nationalist, is from Mr. Barton’s “neck of the woods.” Baptist fundamentalism is in the water in North Louisiana.
Ms. Horton mistakenly believes that posting the Ten Commandments on the walls will place “the moral code” back in classrooms. Doesn’t she know our laws are a statement of our values and morals? It is a silly argument to say you are putting back something that has never left the building. It’s like saying, “Make America Great Again.”
Elections may be won with slogans, but posting the Ten Commandments on the wall will have zero impact on the power of evil in our culture. The act of posting the Ten Commandments violates the First Commandment. The act itself is idolatry because it reduces the Ten Commandments to a talisman.
Instead of relying on Christian faith, Louisiana’s legislature has decided to practice apotropaic magic (from Greek αποτρέπειν “to ward off”) to turn away harm or evil influences, as in deflecting misfortune or averting the evil eye. Apotropaic observances may also be practiced out of superstition or out of tradition, as in good luck charms (perhaps some token on a charm bracelet), amulets, or in gestures such as crossed fingers or knocking on wood. Many different objects and charms have been used for protection throughout history.
In the movie Bull Durham, there’s a scene where Millie surveys team prospects sitting on the bench, one of the superstitious players Jose (Rick Marzan) was rubbing his bat with a string of chicken bones – a voodoo practice that he believed would improve his hitting: “Chicken bone cross. Takes the curse off the bat that brings me hits.” He called himself “a switch-hitting witch.” Desperate team-member Bobby (in a batting slump), wondered if it would improve his game too, and begged to spread the magic to his bat.
Treating the Ten Commandments like Voodoo “chicken bones,” the Egyptian “Eye of Horus” and the ankh, the “Triple Goddess”, the “Horned God,” and “Hecate’s wheel”, or amulets of the Norse god Thor’s hammer, “Mjolnir,” is – simply stated – idolatry.
These good people can’t get it through their minds the reality of God’s omnipresence. As Christians they supposedly believe God is always everywhere. They supposedly accept Paul’s expression “in God we move and have our being.” Yet they have the gumption to claim God has been kicked out of public schools. Exactly how does one go about kicking God out of schools or anywhere else?
The Ten Commandments poster ploy is of the same cloth as previous battles over prayer, Bible classes, praying before graduation ceremonies and football games, and allowing nativity scenes in malls. It’s all there in a neat emotional package – fake issues eliciting fake outrage in an attempt to fool people.
If our politicians are interested in the Ten Commandments, let them stop bearing false witness against one another. Let them agree not to commit adultery. Let them give up stealing through insider trading, and backroom deals, and taking bribes.
Maybe we could get politicians to give up idolatry – the idolatry of wealth, power, and success. And while we are cleaning up our moral behavior, our legislators can make capital punishment illegal in honor of “Thou shalt not kill.”
Book Review: Who Am I? Solving the Identity Puzzle, by Martyn Iles, Executive CEO of Answers in Genesis
by Paul Braterman
Paul Braterman is Professor Emeritus in Chemistry, University of North Texas, and Honorary Research Fellow (formerly Reader) at the University of Glasgow. His research has involved topics related to the early Earth and the origins of life, and received support from NSF, NASA, Sandia National Labs, and Scripps Institution of Oceanography. He is now interested in sharing scientific ideas with the widest possible audience, and was involved in successful campaigns to persuade both the English and the Scottish Governments to keep creationism out of the science classroom. He is a regular contributor to 3 Quarks Daily, and blogs at Primate’s Progress, paulbraterman.wordpress.com.
Martyn Iles, as many readers will know, was managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby until sacked by the Board in February 2023, was appointed Chief Ministry Officer of Answers in Genesis in May of that year, and in November was promoted to Executive CEO, working alongside Ken Ham, who remains as Founding CEO.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
There is one important difference in style between Iles and Ham. Ham, in the tradition of Henry Morris and, before him, George McCready Price, argues that science supports his version of Bible-based Young Earth Creationism. Iles, however, does not even condescend to discuss such mere details. As he posted on Facebook in October 2022, “Truth is in the [biblical] word itself. Other things are true insofar as they conform to it.” Moreover, Iles is clear in his own mind that his understanding of the Bible, however far-fetched, is the correct one. So when he tells us what it means, he is speaking for God.
On his appointment, Iles wrote,
Just as evolutionary naturalism has threatened the faith of so many, postmodernism and new critical theories threaten the faith of a new generation.
Given his position at the head of the world’s leading Young Earth Creationist organization, we need to know what he has in mind by this laconic statement, and we can gain some insight into this from the book under discussion here.
The book itself, like others from the same publisher, appears to be directed at young adults. It is an easy read, with large clear print, and the text is liberally illustrated by silhouettes of young people, generating a warm and welcoming impression at odds with the fundamentally dictatorial nature of the content.
. . . . . . . . . .
Iles begins by deploring what he sees as the modern emphasis on the self:
Actually, I didn’t realize you could use it [self-] as a prefix quite so much until I started my research. Self-ideation, self-love, self-discovery, self-definition, self-perception, self-determination, self-narrative, self-image, self-concept, self-esteem … All of these I have encountered in contemporary works on identity. This word has brought with it the age of the inward turn — the looking at the self.
Notably absent from this list: self-knowledge.
He goes on to build up an enormous superstructure on a very narrow theological base. He makes extensive use of a handful of verses from the opening chapters of Genesis:
Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth. (Genesis 1:28)
Increase greatly on the earth and multiply in it. (Genesis 9:7)
While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease. (Genesis 8:22)
From this he infers that there cannot be an overpopulation problem, that it is a duty of fertile couples to have children, and that concerns about such large-scale matters as climate change are fundamentally misplaced, since these things are in the hands of God and, to use his expression, when we imagine that we can affect them we are “getting too big for our boots.” This is the sin of pride, and pride is a very serious sin indeed. Climate alarmism (his expression) is only one example of such pride, part of a list that includes
abortion, transgenderism, queer sexuality [sic], critical race theory, feminism, family breakdown, …, childlessness, cultural Marxism, post-modernism, and all that stuff. The common thread is this: all of them seek to usurp God’s authority as Creator by redefining what He has already defined. All of them seek to do His job for Him, only better.
He accepts unquestioningly the interpretation of Genesis 3:15:
And I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your offspring and her offspring; he shall bruise your head, and you shall bruise his heel.
as the very first prophesy of the coming of Jesus. In this interpretation, which goes back to the 2nd Century CE, the serpent is identified with Satan, the woman’s offspring is Jesus, born of a woman, the bruising of his heel is the agony of the crucifixion, and the bruising of Satan’s head is Christ’s triumph over evil.
From this he infers that the highest vocation of woman is motherhood, and that Satan bears special enmity towards pregnant women and babies. Satan is very prominent in Iles’s view of the world, and is mentioned 11 times in this short book.
Male and female roles were spelled out at the creation. God decides to create woman because:
It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him. (Genesis 2:18)
And Adam is duly appreciative:
This at last1 is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Genesis 2:23).
Thus, according to Iles,
woman was made with such care and purpose that she perfectly complemented and completed him [man]. She too was not made to be alone. The two became one.
One, but different:
The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Genesis 2:15)
Iles draws our attention to two words, which define a man’s God-given purpose; first, to “work,” and second to “keep.” The reference to “the garden” directs attention to his external responsibilities. And so, he tells us, men are called to industry and must beware the sin of idleness.
Why, Iles asks, was it Adam that God addressed by name after the Fall:
Adam, where art thou? (Genesis 3:17, KJV)
This although Eve and the serpent were also present at the scene, the serpent was the primary initiator of the sin, and Eve was the first to eat of the forbidden fruit. The reason for singling out Adam is that, as a man, he had primary responsibility for what had happened in the garden that had been entrusted to his care. Responsibility is a male prerogative.
Of women, Iles says
The woman was at her best when making another person their best. That was her commission. And it spills over into her motherhood too. Only women are mothers, and this is a good and beautiful thing indeed — a commission from God, for which she is designed biologically, psychologically, and spiritually.
Iles goes on to mentions meekness as part of woman’s special virtue, and uses the word “meek” with reference to women on seven separate occasions.
In a passage worth quoting in full, he compares the different ways in which men and women go about getting their own way when not entitled to:
While men might prefer to exercise illegitimate control through brutishness, force, and cruelty, women tend to use different methods. They play games. They manipulate circumstances. They might even get their girlfriends involved to “make” things happen or drop ideas, seeds, and prompts through third parties. Their minds are always storyboarding, working out what people are thinking, how they’re feeling, and preempting next moves. They operate in the realm of the emotional, subjective, and interpersonal. To use such powers of discernment to manipulate circumstances and control outcomes is ultimately an abuse of those feminine giftings. They were given to be exercised selflessly and meekly, without the taint of self-will and premeditated outcomes. There is a difference between godly help and controlling “femcraft.”
And when challenged as to what the besetting sin of woman might be, as compared to idleness in men, he answers “Control.” As he put it on Facebook (6 June 2023):
A word like “independent” is a direct assault on God’s design for women… A woman who prizes strength in independence is a woman rebelling against her nature.
There you have it. You and I may think that our identity is a puzzle, but the book promises in its title to solve it for us, and does so. We may even have imagined that there are many possible solutions, but Iles knows God’s design, and there’s the end of it.
The rest of the book is devoted to theological questions, with heavy emphasis on our sinful nature, but since I have no special insight to offer on such matters, I will leave it there.2
- “At last” because in between the two verses cited, we have the creation of the animals, and their being brought to Adam as potential partners and found wanting for that purpose. But if you include this in your materials, you will find yourself with something far more interesting than Iles’s blinkered moralizing. ↩︎
- This review originally appeared at Panda’s Thumb; for the full review, see here. ↩︎
Undergraduate Insights on Ark Encounter
Compiled by Susan Trollinger
This spring, I taught a class in which we devoted a unit to studying the arguments and visual/material rhetorics of Protestant fundamentalism. We enjoyed the wisdom of scholars of fundamentalism who visited us in person or via Zoom, including William Trollinger, Jr, Jason Hentschel, and Sean Martin. At the end of that unit, we made a trip to Ark Encounter, or the Ark Park, in Kentucky that features a life-size re-creation of the Ark described in Genesis. And the class period after that visit, I asked my students to reflect on their experiences. Below, you will read some of the very insightful comments they shared. They know that I am putting together this post. I offered anonymity to anyone who wanted that. None requested it. So, I am using their first names. I have arranged their responses topically.
First Impressions
“I was surprised that I got my tiny purse checked by a security guard, and he joked: ‘Are you hiding a Glock in here?’ I was also surprised how expensive the tickets were and that they were selling season passes.” Gabriella
“I am a little confused by the message AiG wants to send, because they market the Ark as a place of entertainment rather than a museum where you can learn their truth. Maybe that’s so you feel like you can lower your guard so you ask fewer question about their exhibits.” Kate
“As soon as we pulled into the parking lot, the Ark was visible through a gap between trees, which I think was intentional. Its size is shocking itself, but the way it is positioned to be seen from the parking lot make the Ark almost seem holy and hugely important.” Megan
Deck One
“I think the purpose of Deck 1 is to build tension within the visitors. When I first walked in, I was bombarded with the sheer amount of sound that they were playing over speakers. The sounds of waves and raging storms created anxiety in me, and hearing the squeaks of animals solidified a feeling of dread in me. I think they wanted to place visitors in emotional vulnerability, which is easily achieved through fear and tension.” Rachel
“As for the exhibits on Deck 1 themselves, it was hilarious to me that all of the non-existent creatures were labeled as ‘presumed extinct’ instead of extinct, implying that these animals could still exist somewhere humans have not found.” Alex
Noah
Ava wrote about a short film in which Adah, a woman skeptical of Noah’s prediction of the Flood and his building of the Ark, interrogates Noah.
The ethos of Noah is an ethos of a good moral character, industrious, and empathetic. Above all, he is a character driven by his belief in God. . . . I am a skeptic, and one who is in a class that is specifically focused on examining Protestant fundamentalist rhetoric. So, I cannot see this as an effective representation of Noah. I am only led to wonder why Noah is depicted in this way, and why the sinners surrounding him seem to be more caricatures than characters.
Exhibit on Noah’s Ark Children’s Books
“This display is intended to discredit the children’s literature that paints Noah’s Ark as lighthearted. AiG claims such retellings of the Ark are not harmless . . . .One mother remarked to her son, ‘as you can see, people think the Ark was a great thing, but it was a monstrous event that we all should have gone through.’ I had to ask myself, ‘isn’t Ark Encounter an attraction and fairy tale?’ With every floor came a gift shop, souvenir cups to purchase, donation links on posters, and concession stands.” Alexandria
The Door
“I found it interesting that an exhibit displaying a woman [one of Noah’s daughters-in-law] having an existential crisis, pondering the cruelty and implications of her reality, was also next to a fun tourism picture site (the Door]. Other parts of the museum stress the importance of depicting the severity of the Flood, so it was jarring to see them do the exact opposite in this scene. I can’t imagine believing in the story of the Flood and being like, ‘this is the door that separates everything on the Ark from everything drowning and dying outside—let’s get a picture!’” Maya
“I think the Keepsake Photo site with the Ark’s door is totally indoctrinating propaganda meant to argue that the YEC Christian Right is divinely ordained and has supreme authority. The photo is literally meant to instill a sense of confidence in the museumgoer that they are on the right side of history, that God backs them up, and that everyone else is drowning in a flood. . . . this exhibit is meant to say ‘God killed them all because they were sinners! But you’re not a sinner! Get a photo . . . to prove that God loves you and you would have been saved if you lived back when the Flood happened.’” Matthew
“The door seemed like something designed to strengthen people’s beliefs, like a prize of the visit. The large door with the cross on it may represent a doorway or wall between many worlds or states of existence, perhaps alluded to by themes of exclusion, safety, or salvation.” Dylan
Living Quarters
“If the living quarters were as nice as they are made out to be at Ark Encounter, that would stand in strong contrast to the rest of the Ark, which is cramped, dimly lit, noisy and probably smelly. One has to wonder why God would subject all the animals . . . to cramped cages with no room to roam, and grant Noah and his family a nice living area where they can walk freely.” Ava
“Something that really struck me was how their living quarters seemed so modern. These living quarters did not appear to be those of someone that lived over 4,000 years ago.” Natalie
“Building on the claustrophobia of Deck I, Deck 3 was almost luxurious, almost as if it was trying to present Noah’s family as rewarded for being worthy of boarding the Ark. It almost felt narcissistic that the humans get so much attention to what they would be doing on the Ark compared to the rest of the species.” Ian
Artistic License
“I was intrigued by the multitude of placards entitled ‘Artistic License’ as a justification for AiG to take liberties and bend the story from the original Genesis narrative. AiG heavily addresses a literal interpretation of the Bible. Who are we as sinners to enhance and add to the word of God that they believe has no errors?” Alexandria
Visitors
“The most interesting behavior that I noted was between young children and their parents. The children that I heard talking, for the most part, were pretty bored and skeptical of the whole affair. They asked a lot of questions about this and that, or just complained about the place as a whole.” Ava
“I saw a lot of elderly couples and families with young children. The families often explained exhibits to their children. Everyone was taking pictures. I wondered what they would do with the pictures of all the placards. Also, the shirts that said “Need an Ark? I Noah guy.” Gabriella
Final Thoughts
“For a place so focused on biblical inerrancy, there were so many plaques about artistic interpretations of stories of the Bible. This plays into the ideals of patching the holes of the Bible that fundamentalists try to suppress. This Ark is a place that is meant to act as a wow factor. With a majestic size, impressive architecture, and striking exhibits, this encounter is meant to be memorable even if one does not believe or support the message.” Caleb
“Overall, the experience at Ark Encounter left me with malaise. It was an incredibly educational experience but quite unsettling. The devotion to these ideas on paper is different from seeing them in person. Specifically, the number of young families just left me a gross feeling because these ideas will continue to be perpetuated.” John
It’s easy to imagine that young adults from the ages of 18 to 22 (or thereabouts) have a lot to learn. And perhaps they do. They are also incredibly insightful. I am grateful to all of them for sharing with me their observations and interpretations of Ark Encounter. I hope you found them interesting too!
I thank the College of Arts and Sciences, the Core program at UD, the English Department, and a grant from ELIFF (that supports experiential learning at UD) for making it possible for these students to experience Protestant fundamentalism in 3D. Their insights may tell us a lot about why the White Christian Right is worried about attrition among young adults.
Being Anti-Gay Is Not “Because the Bible Tells Me So”
by Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton (OH) – which is an American Baptist Church – for 13 years, after which he served as interim pastor of ABC USA churches in Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania. He is now a full-time writer. His seventh book, Good and Evil in the Garden of Democracy, has recently been published. And book #8, Dancing with Metaphors in the Pulpit, will appear soon.
Cal Thomas has written a scurrilous, sloppy screed attacking the United Methodist Church. He accuses the Methodists (and other mainline denominations) of losing their prophetic voice because they voted to accept the ordination of gays.
Here’ a quote from Thomas’s piece:
To put things on a secular level, most businesses that lose customers would change their way of doing business to win them back. Not the Methodists, Episcopalians, United Presbyterians, and a branch of Lutherans among others. They are doubling down. Strongly evangelical churches that believe and preach Scripture are growing. Heresy is a bad “business model” for the church.
Interesting, Cal, that you failed to mention the Southern Baptists, who are in a membership freefall? What is the heresy they need to expunge? Would it be their tolerance of sexual abuse? Would it be their antipathy to women pastors?
Anyway, Thomas’ self-righteous presumption that he is right about human sexuality is exactly that – a presumption. I’m not sure what motivated Thomas, because he doesn’t seem to “have a horse in this race.” He was not a delegate to the General Conference of the United Methodist Church. But he does put in popular language the basic understanding of conservatives about human sexuality.
I am “triggered” by Thomas’ use of Scripture to defend the anti-gay stance of conservatives. In response, I make this audacious claim: being anti-gay is not about being faithful to the Bible. To suggest that anti-gay supporters are not being biblical will strike many as absurd. They may assume I am being hyperbolic. Is it not the constant claim of conservatives that the Bible completely condemns homosexuality? Yes, but I am not convinced by the pitiful little six verses so often thrown out in defense of being homophobic. But of course, using the Bible, like using God to approve a nation’s propensity for war, is not a new strategy.
Christian conservatives in major mainline denominations – the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian USA Church, and the United Methodist Church – have now all split over gay rights, the focus being issues of ordination and marriage. And there’s much more to it than the Bible.
Identity
The real issue is identity. Why do conservatives feel threatened and morally outraged when gay couples are married, or a lesbian is ordained as a pastor? The explanation has nothing to do with the Bible. There can be no gays in the conservative realm. The presence of married and ordained gays is a threat to the legitimacy of the world conservatives have created. Marriage and ordination are not the real issues. The Bible is not the real issue; the real issue is identity.
Conservatives left the United Methodist Church even though they were on a long winning streak of maintaining the language of “incompatibility” in the Book of Discipline in relation to homosexuals. They left the UMC even though they had won every argument about homosexuality at every General Conference since 1976.
An army doesn’t desert the field of battle when it is winning. A football team doesn’t go to the locker room when leading 60 – 40 in the third quarter. Conservatives were unwilling to make accommodations for those who dissented from the severe anti-gay stance. Even one gay bishop was enough to drive them away from a denomination they otherwise controlled. The issue: identity. The conservatives did not want the UMC to have an identity as accepting of gay clergy.
For the conservatives, The Book of Discipline was being disobeyed, and disobedience can’t be allowed in the conservative worldview. The conservative point of view is concerned with authority, with obedience, with discipline, with punishment. In the new Global Methodist Church, authority, obedience, discipline, and punishment, organized in a package. The issue is identity.
The Theory of Essences
Why did homosexuality become the deciding issue? Why not divorce and remarriage? Mainline Christians have never all been of one accord on all matters of doctrine, but there are almost no debates at general conferences and synods about divorce and remarriage. Only one issue has been selected as the proverbial line in the sand: gayness. In this one case, conservatives have decided there must be an absolute right and wrong, and the category of human sexuality must be absolute.
George Lakoff offers an explanation: If category lines are fuzzy, it could be hard to tell if a rule or a law was broken. Absolute categorization requires essences, properties that define absolute categories. Though it took Aristotle to spell out how the theory of essences worked, he was simply noticing the everyday version in the cognitive unconscious. There is an unconscious but pervasive folk theory of essences, in which essences define strict categories. Essences in this folk theory are inherent, don’t change over time, and are the causal sources of natural behavior.
The logic of essences dominates conservative thought. In human sexuality, if a baby has the if essence of a heterosexual being at birth, then they had the essence of a heterosexual before birth… all the way back to conception. The folk theory of essence is not conscious. It just defines intuitive “common sense.”
In other words, “folk common sense” has more influence on conservative ideas about gays than the Bible. Essences existed long before the appearance of Christianity. As such, the theory of essences has more of a pagan origin than a Christian one.
The theory of essences has gradually evolved into an American belief in “common sense.” Stanley Hauerwas argues we are “trained to believe we are capable of reading the Bible without spiritual and moral transformation.” We “read the Bible not as Christians, but as democratic citizens who think our ‘common sense’ is sufficient for ‘understanding’ the Scripture.”
The reduction of interpreting the Bible according to “common sense” occurs in every conservative flagship issue from creationism to nativism. Absolutes are good companions for “common sense.” American evangelicals possess an unshakable faith in common sense. I think this attitude can be traced to the political philosophy of fundamentalism. One sees in particular Francis Bacon’s influential inductive reasoning and Scottish “common sense” philosophy. Bacon is as necessary to fundamentalism as eggs to breakfast. But I will not attempt to make that case in any detail here.
In contrast, mainline denominations have not been defined by absolutes. What preachers believe and preach has been an odd assortment of beliefs ranging from one end of the theological spectrum to the other.
For evangelicals to insist the Bible is the only guide for decisions on human sexuality opens the door to a bewildering array of sexual ideas, beliefs, and behaviors within the Bible itself. The Bible doesn’t have a developed theology of sexuality. But the reality is that conservatives can’t stand to be told that other Christians have as much epistemic and hermeneutical right as they do when it comes to the Bible.
For example, conservatives would never tolerate the interpretative principles offered by Old Testament scholar Ellen Davis, which she develops in her seminal article, “Critical Traditioning: Seeking an Inner Biblical Hermeneutic.” Davis says:
- First, the text is difficult — that is, it presents ethical difficulties for its interpreters.
- Second, the difficult text is worthy of charity from its interpreters.
- Third, ethical consciousness, informed by prayerful life within the faith community, is a legitimate hermeneutical tool.
- Fourth, the validity of a given interpretation does not depend on the interpreter’s proximity to the authorial source, since an authoritative text is one authorized for repeated rereading and reinterpretation within the faith community.
But mainline Protestants and other Christians now live under the suspicion, held by many conservatives, that we do not take the Bible seriously as a guide for faith and life. And that is because conservative Christians assume they have all the religious “experience” they need to know exactly what the Bible says.
The conservative argument here borders on the absurd. Claiming total epistemic control of the Bible, they cry: “The Bible as we read it – love it or leave it.” “Obey what we say the Bible means, or leave it.” That is to say, the issue is one of obedience, not biblical content. And love of the Bible is never to be equated with blind obedience to fundamentalist dictates.
When evangelicals shake the Bible in our faces and claim we no longer believe the Bible, I have to stifle a laugh. It may actually come as a shock to some conservatives how seriously liberals take the Scripture. We take the Bible seriously, but not literally. To assume otherwise can only mean conservatives have completely ignored the rich contributions of biblical and theological scholars to the faith over the last one hundred years.
Lacking the copyright, the patent to the Holy Word of God, conservatives don’t have the right to cut off the biblical readings and interpretations of other Christians. But I argue this is the exact move they have attempted to pull off. In their view, they are the true defenders of the Bible. The rest of us are unbiblical and most likely no longer even Christians.
This reaches the nub of the issue. Conservatives insist on reading the Bible within the frame of Aristotle’s “essences.” No other reading is allowed. The conservative love for Scripture and reason has crashed right into and up against a limit: a lover of truth and reason doesn’t have the right to deny epistemic status to other readers.
Essences and a monarchical epistemic attitude – these are the twin pillars of the conservative onslaught against gays.
The tragedy here is that both sides in this Christian dispute have had a basic resource at their disposal – a resource provided by the people who gave birth to Christianity – the Jews. Christians, imprisoned by Descartes’ insistence that if two people are disagreed, one must be wrong, have not noticed that such dualism is ineffective.
What if when two people disagree, both may have reason on their side? What should be done with members of a community disagree? How should the conflict be adjudicated? What sources of authority should be privileged?
There’s a rich irony at play here. Conservatives, the group most likely to be anti-scientific, have embraced a Cartesian dualism that defines reason in scientific and mathematical terms and assumed that there was only one right answer to a given question.
Let me offer an alternative from the teachings of the rabbis. Talmudic reason is plural, revealing many answers to the same question.
A historical example is the conflict between the schools of Hillel and Shammai. As David Frank has pointed out,
The school of Hillel very often tended to allow what the school of Shammai forbade. One controversy lasted three years, each school claiming that the Law conformed to its teachings. The Talmud tells what Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Samuel says. The latter addressed himself to Heaven to know the truth; from on high a voice responded that both interpretations expressed the word of the living God. The two diametrically opposed interpretations command equal respect because they express thoughtful and recognized ways of thinking and in this they are both reasonable.
As Frank goes on to say,
The schools of Hillel and Shammai held opposing views, but both revealed dimensions of a truth that could not be expressed in one opinion, contained in one ideology, or owned by one school …. In the Jewish tradition, the search for truth was seen as contested and elusive.”
The story of the Oven of Akhani is a famous Jewish tale. Rabbi Eliezer claimed the Oven of Akhnai was pure. The majority of the Rabbis disagreed and held that the Oven was impure. In defense of his position, Rabbi Eliezer called on heaven for proof. And heaven responded to his plea as a tree was uprooted and thrown one hundred ells; the current of a stream was reversed; and the walls of the academy started to fall. The other Rabbis were not persuaded by these miracles. So Rabbi Eliezer appealed to God and the Divine Voice declared Rabbi Eliezer in the right. Rabbi Josue, speaking for the majority, said, “The Torah is not in heaven.”
The story teaches us that decisions about what is pure and impure are to be made by the human community. The choice is between humans and is not the affair of God. Chaim Perelman reminds us that “Jewish law authorizes the creation of actions which are tailored to the needs of the moment.” This may include “adding flexibility to the texts by resorting to general principles and every to fictions.”
Majority and minority points of view are emphasized and sanctified. Majority rule, while privileged, was held in check by dissenting voices that could at some future point move the community, through persuasion, in a different direction.
Conservative Christians, impatient at the difficulty of the democratic processes of debate, argument, consensus, and dissent, have put down the epistemic hammer and declared an end to the discussion.
In the conclusion of the story of the Oven of Akhani, God is asked what God thought when Rabbi Josue declared “The Torah is not in heaven.” God responds with laughter and joy, declaring, “My Children have defeated me, my children have defeated me.”
Identity, common sense, and essences turn out to be less than admirable defenses for the anti-gay Christians. Let those who have ears to hear, hear what the Jewish masters have taught.
A Virtual Presentation: From Creationism to QAnon
Please join us Thursday evening for our virtual presentation for the Bay Area Skeptics! Our host is the remarkable Eugenie Scott, who was the long-time director of the National Center for Science Education, and who is the inventor of the term “Gish Gallop” (Gish being young Earth creationist Duane Gish), which refers to the creationist technique of piling on so many weak arguments that debaters are not able to rebut the entire argument.
This event begins at 7pm PDT/10pm EDT. (Ok, we may be taking a short nap before we present!) All are welcome, and there will be opportunities to comment and ask questions.
And here’s the thesis of the talk: “At Answers in Genesis all these conspiracy theories – climate change denialism, COVID/anti-vaxx, QAnon, young Earth creationism – are wrapped into one tight conspiratorial package.”
Perspectives on Christian Nationalism
by Terry Defoe
Educated at Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, British Columbia (BA, Sociology, 1978), Lutheran Theological Seminary, Saskatoon Saskatchewan (M.Div., 1982), and the Open Learning University, Burnaby British Columbia (BA, Psychology, 2003). Defoe served as a chaplain at the University of British Columbia and Simon Fraser University. Terry has been interested in the science / faith dialog for more than 30 years. His intellectual journey has taken him from young earth creationism to an evolutionary perspective. Shortly after he retired, Terry published Evolving Certainties: Resolving Conflict at the Intersection of Faith and Science, which received endorsements from scientists affiliated with the BioLogos Association. Recent research shows that many young people consider the evangelical church to be out of touch with scientific reality. Enhancing scientific literacy among evangelicals is, in Defoe’s opinion, critically important, as is re-establishing trust between science and religion.
INTRODUCTION
We really live, folks, in two worlds. There are two worlds. We live in two universes. One universe is a lie. One universe is an entire lie. Everything run, dominated, and controlled by the left here and around the world is a lie. The other universe is where we are, it’s where reality reigns supreme and we deal with it. And seldom do these two universes overlap. The four corners of deceit are Government, Academia, Science, and Media. Those institutions are now corrupt and exist by virtue of deceit. That’s how they promulgate themselves; it’s how they prosper. — Rush Limbaugh
U.S. evangelicalism is at a crossroads. Many American evangelicals favor Christian Nationalism, a form of theocracy in which the U.S. government would be based on a religious philosophy, rather than by a diverse collection of people from many religious (or secular) backgrounds. Much of evangelicalism in the U.S. has become thoroughly politicized and seriously divided. Trust is in short supply. Previously stable social and governmental institutions (the judiciary, for example) have been destabilized as trust has slowly eroded. A good portion of the evangelical church has allowed politics to dominate (and often obscure) faith issues.
It wasn’t always this way. In the past, U.S. evangelicalism was a respected social institution. Evangelicals were people of the Bible – widely perceived as people of integrity. Its theological underpinnings can be traced back to the Protestant Reformation of the 16th century. In the U.S., evangelicalism took root in the mid-18th century in the context of Pietism and Puritanism. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, evangelicals were strong advocates for reform, involved in movements such as temperance and the abolition of slavery. Evangelicals have traditionally been concerned with social ministries, with support for the poor, the marginalized and the immigrant.
In the last half of the 20th century, evangelicals were confronted by massive social change: the sexual revolution, pornography, feminism, gay rights, and abortion.. And, in 1962, the Supreme Court ruled against school-led prayer. In response to these and other similar changes, the Moral Majority, brainchild of Baptist minister Jerry Falwell, was formed in the late 1970’s. Falwell understood the power of television which allowed him to bring his message — an amalgam of fundamentalist Christian faith and Republican politics — into the homes of millions of people each week. The Moral Majority brought many evangelicals into the Republican Party and introduced them to a politicized gospel.
A LONG DECLINE
In 1990, approximately 90% of the U.S. population identified as Christian. By 2010, only 20 years later, it had fallen to 63% — a 27-point drop in just 20 years. Significantly, the number of people who describe themselves as having “no religion” increased from 19 to 29% in the last decade. The change was greatest among Protestants.
At a time when the church is declining – in numbers and influence – it seems odd that evangelicalism would turn people away from the church with its unhealthy sense of superiority and entitlement. But U.S. evangelicalism has been an active participant in, and has been an initiator of, some of the contentious issues polarizing the nation. Christian nationalism is one of those contentious issues. Evangelicalism has, to use the language of the book of Revelation, lost its first love. Its commitment to the Lord and to his church has turned lukewarm as the idol of politics has taken precedence for many. Preaching the gospel of Christ has been set aside by a good number of evangelicals, replaced by political maneuvering designed to make Christianity the state religion and Donald Trump its de facto leader.
AMERICAN CARNAGE
In November 2016, Donald J. Trump was elected President of the United States. Eighty percent of evangelicals voted for Trump (four years later 84% of evangelicals voted for him). Trump’s 2017 inauguration speech set the tone for his presidency. The speech was dark and dystopian. He described American reality as “American Carnage.” The speech seemed to be directed only to his supporters. Almost immediately, some of his supporters began to say that Trump was sent by God (despite the fact that he managed only the thinnest veneer of religiosity).
Trump never missed an opportunity to curry favor with evangelicals. His promises included restoring Christmas, moving the U.S. embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, and overturning Roe v. Wade. He also vowed to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court with card-carrying evangelicals.
Pastor Robert Jeffress, lead pastor of a Baptist congregation in Dallas, Texas, one of the largest Baptist congregations in the United States, said “God intervened in our election and put Donald Trump in the Oval Office for a great purpose.” Franklin Graham, son of legendary evangelist Billy Graham, turned out to be one of Donald Trump’s most loyal supporters. Graham said, “Never in my lifetime have we had a President of the United States willing to take such a strong outspoken stand for the Christian faith like Donald Trump..” It is quite ironic that Franklin’s father had a radically different view: “The hard right has no interest in religion except to manipulate it.”
EXCURSUS: KING CYRUS
King Cyrus was a Persian ruler who, according to the Bible (Ezra 1) liberated the Jews from Babylonian captivity. Similarly, some evangelicals saw Trump as a flawed vessel chosen by God to achieve specific purposes even though his personal life and behavior diverged significantly from traditional piety. Lance Wallnau, a business consultant and self-styled doctor, was among the first to make the Trump-Cyrus connection. He claimed that the Lord spoke to him during the election period, leading him to draw this comparison. The association with Cyrus allowed evangelicals to justify their support for Trump, despite his unconventional lifestyle and political controversies. Just as Cyrus played a crucial role in Jewish history, some believed that Trump could serve as a vehicle for advancing their priorities.
A CHRISTIAN NATION
A theocracy is a political system where divine authority or religious leaders play a central role in governing the state. Christian nationalism has been a popular idea in parts of the evangelical church for a very long time. Many evangelicals would like the U.S. to be an explicitly Christian country, guided by Christian principles, with Christian leaders. Republicans are more than twice as likely as independents and three times as likely as Democrats to hold Christian nationalist views. Christian nationalism is a response by a subset of evangelicals to America’s growing racial and religious diversity. Many evangelicals, based on fears engendered by Fox News and the like, are convinced that Christian nationalism is a viable alternative for such a time as this.
Christian nationalists are typically in favor of restricting the immigration of non-Christian people to the U.S. They want government funding for private schools. Christian nationalism is an ideology of exclusion. Love of country has morphed into hostility to others – from community building to exclusion. It is opposed to policies of diversity, equity, and inclusion, while advocating a proprietary interpretation of scripture. Most of its devotees do not have a problem with Christianity being a qualification for political office, which we have already seen during Trump’s years in the White House.
Christian nationalism is a serious threat to the church and to the nation.
MEDIA MATTERS
Early in his presidency, Donald Trump criticized CNN for what he said was biased coverage. He often referred to the network as “fake news.” Trump sometimes refused to take questions from CNN reporters, and when he did, he would say things like, “That’s a nasty question,” or “You’re a nasty person.” He did that sort of thing during his presidency, and carried on with the same attitude after he left office. All of this appears to have been a deliberate strategy, the goal being to discourage his followers from accessing news from mainstream news sources, instead encouraging them to access outlets like Fox News, which went out of their way to present him in a positive light. This is straight out of the authoritarian playbook, where governments routinely make generous use of disinformation to control their message. And Fox News specializes in fomenting fears for political advantage. Its audience marinates in those fears hour after hour, day after day, week after week.
THE OUTRAGE MACHINE
In times of great duress, evangelicals are drawn to apocalyptic scriptures such as Daniel in the Old Testament or the Book of Revelation in the New. Fearful individuals gravitate towards authoritarian leaders. Too many individuals, and not just evangelicals by any means, are willing to let others do their thinking for them. Magical thinking, conspiracy theories, science denial, openness to authoritarianism all come together in Christian nationalism.
Adding right-wing news to an uncritical population and further adding strong social pressures not to leave conservatism under any circumstances is a recipe for the kind of political reality we see in the U.S. currently. And social media is a gift to propagandists. It is currently the wild, wild west for attitude manipulators. Social media platforms have a great deal of influence over the news that many people receive every day. Social media supercharges the worst parts of political discourse. The use of inflammatory language and moral outrage increases the number of shares, likes and followers. Research has shown that content on social media that arouses strong emotions spreads further, faster and more broadly than other news.
The most divisive posts are likely to garner the most attention. On social media people can say almost anything and spread all kinds of lies far and wide. A false story reaches 1,500 people six times quicker than a true story. Two types of information that catches our attention, given the way we’re built psychologically, are both novel and negative threats. The truth may have a running start, but inaccuracies more often than not win the race.
CONSPIRACIES: STORIES ON STEROIDS
Conspiracies are essentially speculative explanations as to the causes of things, typically attributing them to covert plotting by malevolent parties. Conspiracies typically dispute the official narrative provided by authoritative sources, suggesting that powerful entities are covertly manipulating events for their own benefit. Conspiracy theories may provide a rationale for atypical behaviors such as refusing to wear a mask during a pandemic. During periods of crisis, conspiracies proliferate. Conspiracies are most effective when individuals refuse to fact check their claims.
COVID-19 kicked the conspiracy ecosystem into high gear, with folks claiming that masks, vaccinations, and the like were part of a vast government conspiracy to persecute the church. During the pandemic, science denial became more than an academic, ivory tower concern. People were literally dying because they had chosen to listen to ideologues as opposed to scientific expertise. And the Trump White House briefings on the pandemic were cringeworthy, as scientific experts stood side by side with science deniers.
CONCLUSION
In the last few years, the evangelical church has incurred a huge hit to its reputation. Evangelical wounds, unfortunately, are mostly self-inflicted. For many years, evangelicals condemned idolatry. That has changed, as increasing numbers of evangelicals worship at the altar of political expediency. During the Trump presidency, the U.S. had a live preview of what Christian nationalism looks like. Electing Trump as president exposed a sickness that needs to be healed in the nation and also in evangelicalism.
Christian nationalism proposes the establishment of a religion-based kingdom. But when Pontius Pilate asked Jesus about his kingdom, Jesus left no doubt: “My kingdom is not of this world” (John 18:36). Recently, twenty-four thousand national church leaders signed a statement condemning Christian nationalism as a distortion of the gospel (Burnett, 2022). Evangelicalism need not jettison its foundational principles but apply them in creative new ways. Mark Galli, senior editor of Christianity Today, an organization founded by Billy Graham, said this to fellow evangelicals:
Remember who you are and whom you serve. Consider how your justification of Mr. Trump influences your witness to your Lord and Savior. Consider what an unbelieving world will say if you continue to brush off Mr. Trump’s immoral words and behavior in the cause of political expediency.
Payday Someday for Evangelicals (Ahab) and Trump (Jezebel)
by Rodney Kennedy
Rodney Kennedy has his M.Div from New Orleans Theological Seminary and his Ph.D. in Rhetoric from Louisiana State University. He pastored the First Baptist Church of Dayton (OH) – which is an American Baptist Church – for 13 years, after which he served as interim pastor of ABC USA churches in Illinois, Kansas, New York, and Pennsylvania. He is now a full-time writer. His seventh book, Good and Evil in the Garden of Democracy, has recently been published. And book #8, Dancing with Metaphors in the Pulpit, will appear soon.
Some evangelical leaders enjoy pretending Donald Trump is the second coming of a biblical character. They have dubbed him Cyrus, God’s anointed. Lance Wallnau made this connection explicit, telling the Christian Broadcasting Network that God told him directly that “Isaiah 45 will be the 45th president … Isaiah 45 is Cyrus.”
Other evangelicals have compared Trump to Samson, David, even Esther. The most recent spate of comparisons has Donald Trump as Jesus – a persecuted and suffering man, who is taking the place of his devoted followers. What a sick political substitutionary atonement scam. I listened to a young couple explaining how Trump was taking on all their suffering to be their savior. My heart broke; my mind shifted into neutral, and I stared at my computer screen in disbelief at the blasphemy.
Anyone with a rudimentary biblical knowledge can play this game with the evangelicals. Here’s my entry. Trump is Jezebel, and evangelicals are her spineless husband Ahab.
Like Ahab, evangelicals whine and whine about not being allowed to say what they please, do what they please, and have whatever they want. They pretend to be victims even as they live as privileged people. And when they are denied, they go to their room and pout. They go into isolation and sulk. They fit the description of Ahab in I Kings 21: “Ahab went home resentful and sullen because of what Naboth the Jezreelite had said to him; for he had said, ‘I will not give you my ancestral inheritance.’ He lay down on his bed, turned away his face, and would not eat.”
But Jezebel – a fervent devotee of the Canaanite deity Baal – told Ahab: “Get up, eat some food, and be cheerful; I will give you the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.” So she did, and the methods she used were frighteningly Trumpian.
She wrote letters in Ahab’s name and sealed them with his seal; she sent the letters to the elders and the nobles who lived with Naboth in his city. She wrote in the letters, “Proclaim a fast, and seat Naboth at the head of the assembly; seat two scoundrels opposite him, and have them bring a charge against him, saying, ‘You have cursed God and the king.’ Then take him out, and stone him to death.”
The elders and the nobles who lived in his city did as Jezebel commanded. They proclaimed a fast and seated Naboth at the head of the assembly. The two scoundrels came in and sat opposite him. In the presence of the people these false witnesses proclaimed that “Naboth cursed God and the king.” So the people took him outside the city, and stoned him to death. Then they sent a message to Jezebel: “Naboth has been stoned; he is dead.”
Justice was destroyed. Case closed.
Transactional, greedy, and evil, Jezebel and Trump act the same way. Both will say anything and do anything to get what they want.
There’s a famous Southern Baptist sermon on Jezebel and Ahab called, “Payday Someday.” The author of the sermon, Rev. R. G. Lee calls Jezebel the “the evil genius at once of her dynasty and of her country.” And then there is Ahab, “the vile human toad who squatted upon the throne of his nation — the worst of Israel’s kings.”
“Payday Someday” is the perfect title for this sermon. And evangelicals and Trump have a payday coming – a judgment they will not be able to bear. Like Jezebel and Ahab, Trump and the evangelicals are scoundrels and villains. They spread crooked speech, wink the eyes, shuffle the feet, point the fingers, with perverted minds devising evil and sowing discord.
There’s no joy or satisfaction in my heart making this harsh accusation against my evangelical brothers and sisters. But I feel called of God, demanded by God, to make this appeal. Recently I received an email from Dr. Robert L. Ivie, who wrote:
Somehow between now and the November election we have to assemble the scattered democratic majority in sufficient number to prevail over the immediate threat. The storm clouds are dark and angry. I trust your work in the pulpit on ground zero will help folks to regain a positive perspective on democracy and its values. The public has lost its democratic aspirations, but hopefully they can be renewed.
I am not Elijah; I am unworthy to carry his mantle, but I can speak with the courage of Elijah, and in the hope that God will prepare an Elijah for our modern Jezebel and Ahab. Because I believe in my heart there’s a payday coming for evangelicals and Trump. You can’t engage in the “bastardization of religion” in such dastardly ways and come away unscathed.
The current manifestation of Jezebel and Ahab reminds me of the conservatives of the Roaring 20’s who sent our nation into the spiral of a Great Depression. They were blind to reality, truth, and consequences. Tennessee Williams stated well the idea that there are costs to self-delusion and immoderation. As Tom Wingfield, the narrator in The Glass Menagerie (1945), put it:
That quaint period, the thirties, when the huge middle class of America was matriculating in a school for the blind. Their eyes had failed them, or they had failed their eyes, and so they were having their fingers pressed forcibly down on the fiery Braille alphabet of a dissolving economy.
This is the judgment. Evangelicals and Trump will have their fingers pressed forcibly down on the fiery Braille alphabet of a dissolving religious zeal riddled in hypocrisy.
Evangelicals and Trump will face the very judgment they have preached for so long. I’m not talking hell, fire, and damnation. I’m talking here and now, earthly, material, bodily judgment: Loss of power, dignity, self-respect, standing in the larger community of faith. The judgment of God will take all this from them.
Evangelicals will protest by calling me names: “Idiot,” “Liar,” “Delusional preacher.” But that doesn’t stop the judgment.
They will cry “Lord, Lord,” but the Lord of the universe has observed them bowing the knee to Trump.
They will object, “Lord, when were we unfaithful to you? Lord, we were only trying to protect you and save our nation.” And the Lord will say, “Depart from me, you workers of iniquity.”
The judgment evangelicals have thrown in our faces will now be theirs to bear forever.
The Ark and The Darkness: A Review
by Amanda Harpold
Amanda Harpold is a Ph.D. student at the University of Dayton. Her research interests have included patristic studies, as well as the practical theology of funeral homilies on evangelicals’ understanding of Heaven and Jesus’ second coming. She is currently researching the historiographical impact of “Red Letter Bibles” on the American Protestant Church. She continues to identify as an Evangelical Protestant despite feeling the theological tension associated with the title. For those who are interested, she is not a Young Earth Creationist.
The Ark and the Darkness, a documentary which serves as an apologetic for a global flood, held a special, two-day theater showing in Dayton on March 20 and 21 (an additional showing has been added for April 1st). It was produced and directed by Ralph Strean, who also directed Genesis: Paradise Lost, a 2017 documentary shot in a similar vein to prove the Bible’s account of creation (or, better stated, a specific interpretation of the Bible’s account of creation).
The Ark and the Darkness presents the “greatest evidence” God has left for a global flood from a group of Ph.D.-level specialists in multiple research fields – geophysics, microbiology, genetics, paleontology, theology, mechanical engineering, and geology. These men and one woman are associated with Liberty University (Drs. John Baumgardner, Randall Price, and Mark Horstemeyer), Answers in Genesis (Drs. Terry Mortensen, Tim Chaffey, Gabriela Haynes, and Andrew Snelling), and a few independent specialists from creationist organizations (Drs. Charles Jackson, John Sanford, and Andrew Fabich).
Their explicit goal is to link belief in a global flood with belief in the Bible and, therefore, belief in the eschatological perspective of Jesus’ imminent return.
The film opens with the narrator, Jerren Lewis, asking the question, “Why don’t people believe?” As I sat in a sold-out theater in Dayton (with the next day sold out as well), it struck me that the producers of this documentary do not think people need the Holy Spirit to believe in God’s revealed Truth as found in Scripture. Rather, they need access to “true science.” Their univocal claims promulgated to a lay crowd with many only completing a high school training created a compelling apologetic. A person in said crowd could easily (and most likely will) walk away thinking it would be unintelligent to believe in anything else! Who needs faith in light of such obvious evidence?
The movie traverses through Genesis 1-11, with arguments by creation specialists supported by well-crafted scenes of pre- and post-flood earth. The film becomes a mix of a Discovery Channel documentary and Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park. As your eyes take in a fallen world where man now must fear and be feared by animals (an interesting scene occurs with men collaring a smaller dinosaur while also hunting larger dinosaurs with spears), your ears hear how the “real” science of a global flood has been covered up. God has left discoverable and observable evidence, such as genetic entropy, post-flood lifespans’ decay curve, catastrophic plate tectonics creating multiple tsunamis, or collagen in dinosaur fossils. That the science of Antonio Snider-Pellegrini, Mary Schweitzer, and Mark Armitage has been squelched and silenced proves that the evil scientists of secular humanism do not want the “true” science of the flood to come out.
If that is not explicit enough, the film includes a graphic with the “Holy Bible – King James Version” on one side, and “secular humanism” on the other. For the producers of this film, the choice is one or the other. They drive this dichotomy home with multiple sequences of the ark’s doors closing, with the viewer’s position being safe inside.
The eschatological bent of the film is rooted in the verse, “As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man” (Matt 24:37, NIV). For the specialists and the production team creating the sprawling land shots, “as in the days of Noah” has to do with the sin and corruption occurring in the world; this perspective pans to a crowd already brought into a premillennial dispensation of the coming tribulation.
As the movie ends with a triumphal shot of the cross being raised high into the air, the screen goes black and John 3:16 comes up. Their proof of a global flood thus becomes the foundation for believing the rest of the Bible, specifically Jesus’ life, death, resurrection, and, most importantly, His return.
I cannot speak to the science they presented or the potential flaws or even falsehoods held within those views. But as an evangelical Christian, I can speak to their use of the Scriptures. Their apologetic technique is to build confidence that the Bible is more scientific than that of the “worldly” scientists. Their specialists repeat again and again that God, in His infinite wisdom, left the greatest evidence of a global flood so that we can be confident in His other promises, namely Jesus’ return.
And yet, the Bible has already spoken to the observable evidence left on the earth of Jesus’ life: our unity. “ I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me” (John 17:23, NIV).
Tourists on the Road to Salvation
Below is an excerpt from Steve Burgess’ forthcoming book, Reservations: The Pleasures and Perils of Travel, which will be published by Douglas and McIntyre, and which is scheduled for release on April 27. As regards the quotes regarding the Creation Museum, they come from a November 2022 interview Sue did with Burgess. And here’s a link to the original article, which was published by The Tyee, a magazine out of British Columbia.
[Editor’s note: This is excerpted from ‘Reservations: The Pleasures and Perils of Travel’ by Steve Burgess, contributing editor of The Tyee. Slated for April 27 release by Douglas & McIntyre, the book mixes memoir with deep dives into ethical aspects of modern travel to deliver what Andrew Coyne calls ‘a sparkling, provocative inquiry.’ You can pre-order.]
Back in the 1970s, the highway served the function now provided by the internet — a place for teenagers to meet strangers. One summer my friend Bob and I hitchhiked from Brandon out to Vancouver and then down the coast to San Francisco. Coming back up the California coast, we got a ride in a Volkswagen Beetle with two young women named Ann and Dorothy. They were born-again Christians on their way to visit a commune near Eureka, California, called Lighthouse Ranch.
They took pains not to proselytize to us. In fact, the great revelation they introduced us to, sheltered prairie lads that we were, was the joy of bagels and cream cheese. They promised to take us farther north after their visit if we would join them in a visit to the commune. We agreed.
Lighthouse Ranch was quite a place. Perched on a bluff overlooking a wide stretch of Pacific beach, it was largely populated by people who were then known as Jesus freaks, a mix of one-time hippies, seekers and reformed speed addicts, repositioning and reprogramming themselves as devout believers. Many seemed eager for that moment when the corrupt world would slide away and leave them triumphant, rewarded for backing the right horse.
They were not a particularly fun group. There was a game of Frisbee where my comment about a gust of wind drew the response, “That’s just the Lord throwing your pride back down at you.”
One camper waylaid Bob and me as we attempted to sneak down the bluff to the beach.
“What good is that gathering,” the camper asked, pointing down at a family barbecue, “when they have lust in their hearts?”
One young man was on the lam from the law and argued with his fellow campers. “God wants you to turn yourself in,” someone insisted.
“God wants me to go to Mexico,” he replied.
When at last the four of us headed north into Oregon, our benefactors were sorely disappointed. Pure of heart and sincere of belief, Ann and Dorothy had hoped to find like-minded souls to celebrate a new life in Christ. Instead they had found Jesus variously running the Anti-Barbecue League, smuggling fugitives to Tijuana and reveling in that old-time told-you-so religion that would be revealed in the fullness of time when the righteous were high-fiving above a roiling stew of human agony.
Lighthouse Ranch was not exactly a tourist destination. But it exerted a pull for Ann and Dorothy, who sought Christian soulmates.
Decades later a similar pull is drawing crowds to Petersburg, Kentucky. An unincorporated community with an official population of about 620, it sits by Interstate 275, the ring road that allows motorists to bypass Cincinnati, Ohio. The little town is home to the Creation Museum. An hour away in Williamstown is its companion attraction, the Ark Encounter.
The Creation Museum is a $27-million, 75,000-square-foot facility that purports to offer evidence supporting YEC (young-Earth creationism). The museum grounds are about 75 kilometres northwest of Williamstown and the Ark Encounter, a reconstruction (let’s not quibble) of Noah’s ark from the Book of Genesis.
If nothing else, Selling the Amish author Susan Trollinger says, the big boat is an impressive sight. “The Ark is stunning, physically, just walking up to the thing,” she says. “And the biggest argument the Ark makes is just by its size, that it makes sense to say that this story actually happened, that you could actually get that many animals on this thing and float around for a year.”
Trollinger and her husband, William Vance Trollinger Jr., wrote the book Righting America at the Creation Museum. Operated by a company called Answers in Genesis, the museum posits an intriguing theory known as “flood geology,” drawing heavily on The Genesis Flood by Henry M. Morris and John C. Whitcomb. “The book argues that Noah’s flood created all the geological formations that we see that make the world look old,” Trollinger says, “and did it all in a year. The Grand Canyon, produced in a year, don’t worry about it.”
“If you’re going to read Genesis literally,” she says, “go through the genealogies. You’ve got Adam and Eve, historical figures, who have descendants, and you add up all those years, and the universe can’t be more than 10,000 years old. So you have to explain that. And flood geology was this scientific intervention that explained it.”
Count Trollinger and her husband among the unconvinced. “We walked through the Creation Museum for the first time,” she says, “and we passed through the flood geology room. There’s very little science. We analyzed every placard and video. Only two per cent of the placards would count as science, even by their own definitions.”
Not that there are no worthwhile exhibits. “They have an incredible skeleton of a dinosaur, really impressive,” Trollinger says. “So OK, how does this dinosaur skeleton prove a young Earth, or flood geology? They argue that because this dinosaur was found on the side of a hill, obviously the dinosaur was running up the hill to escape the rising flood waters. But then the poor dinosaur drowned and that’s why the skeleton was found on the side of a hill.”
The Creation Museum opened in 2007 and exceeded its annual attendance projections in only five months. It has since expanded twice, added the Williamstown ark attraction and welcomed over 10 million visitors.
Why has the Creation Museum been a hit? You might call it validation tourism.
“Evangelicals and fundamentalists have felt very much on the margins of U.S. society since the Scopes trial,” says Trollinger, referring to the 1925 prosecution of a Tennessee high school teacher who taught the theory of evolution. “They won the case but they lost in public opinion. They were constructed, by journalists especially, as backwater idiots. They don’t know anything, they don’t do science, they’re stupid. And what the Creation Museum and Ark Encounter offer evangelicals and fundamentalists is this ‘science,’ flood geology, that justifies an ultra-literal reading of Genesis. And it says, ‘Look at you! You’re legit! You’ve got yourself a big-ass Ark and a Creation Museum with animatronic dinosaurs. So cutting edge!’”
In 2014 the Creation Museum invited TV personality Bill Nye, a.k.a. Bill Nye the Science Guy, to debate Answers in Genesis CEO Ken Ham on the topic of young-Earth creationism. It was popular — tickets sold out almost instantly, it was livestreamed, and later broadcast on C‑SPAN.
“When Ken Ham did his debate with Bill Nye,” Trollinger says, “he mentioned science multiple times more often than Nye did.” Still, Ham declared in his opening statement that science “has been taken over by secularists.” The debate, moderated by CNN’s Tom Foreman, probably changed few minds. But it did have an effect. Ham credited publicity from the debate for generating some of the funds to help build the $73-million Ark Encounter, which opened in 2016.
The event also provided a preview of another debate that would soon take centre stage in American politics, courtesy of Donald Trump: whether or not engaging in public arguments over unsupported claims simply helps to boost the credibility and dissemination of those baseless claims.
Many a joke has been made about what sort of reading material would be contained in a Donald Trump presidential library — perhaps stolen documents, Big Mac wrappers and shelves of clearance-priced copies of Trump: The Art of the Deal. But whatever else it may mean, the success of the Creation Museum suggests that a Trump library would probably be a big draw. In a politically and culturally polarized country, there is considerable appeal in an attraction that simply lets you gather with fellow believers.
Then again, as has become a mantra, “everything Trump touches dies.” Religious-themed sites can self-destruct. In 1978 evangelists Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker, televangelists and founders of the PTL (Praise the Lord) Club, opened Heritage USA in Fort Mill, South Carolina. It covered 2,300 acres and eventually drew an average of six million visitors per year, surpassed only by Disney World in Orlando and Disneyland in Anaheim, making it America’s No. 1 non-rodent-related theme park. Alas, a veritable rat’s nest of charges would surface in 1987 as former employee Jessica Hahn alleged she had been drugged and raped by Bakker and another preacher.
Heritage USA then transitioned from Bible verses to Chapter 11. In a final display of divine displeasure, Hurricane Hugo slammed into the theme park in 1989. It closed shortly after, a victim in part of the particular PR vulnerability that comes with religious marketing.
The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory: American Evangelicals in an Age of Extremism: A Review
By Andrew J. McNeely
Andrew McNeely is a Ph.D. student in Theology at the University of Dayton. McNeely’s research interests include 19th and 20th century fundamentalism and evangelicalism at the intersections of theology, education, history, politics, and American culture. His dissertation research focuses on the 20th century Christian Day School movement and its contributions to contemporary American evangelicalism and the formation of the Christian Right.
In his recent book, The Kingdom, the Power, and the Glory, Tim Alberta apprises his readers of the characteristic evangelical he discovered on his journey into the bloated underbelly of American evangelicalism:
“Whether it was a big urban church or a small rural church, a mainstream event with respected headliners or a sideshow circus featuring professional grifters, I kept running into people like Jim Wright” (p. 174).
Who is Jim Wright? He is just one among a multitude of evangelical-turned-Trump-fanatics that have betrayed the truth of the Gospel for the perpetuation of myth telling in the age of conspiracy and political extremism. Chronicling the evangelical ecosystem that has nurtured folks like Jim Wright into believing that Covid-19 vaccines carry “baby parts,” Alberta illustrates what evangelicalism actually looks like on the other side of total depravity. The once great Billy Graham crusades to save souls have now been replaced by crusades to slay imaginary beasts lurking in the deep state. Zealous alter calls for the beleaguered and downtrodden no longer hold sway over radical calls to “drain the swamp” of an evil cabal of politicians. What Alberta renders is a monstrous-like evangelicalism akin to Nietzsche’s famous dictum: “He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.”
In Alberta’s telling, evangelicalism has not only fallen into Nietzsche’s abyss, but it’s emerged a monster.
The son of an evangelical pastor, an established journalist, and the author of a critical book about Donald Trump’s ascendancy to the Oval Office, Alberta knows firsthand what it’s like to encounter the monster. After the unexpected passing of his father, Alberta was met with cold stares and angry confrontations at the viewing held in his hometown church of Brighton, Michigan (the very church his father pastored for twenty-six years) – “All while [his] Dad was in a box a hundred feet away” (p. 7). The reason? Rush Limbaugh had recently lampooned Alberta on his talk show for the critical remarks made in his first book regarding Trump.
Jarring as it was bizarre, the experience precipitated Alberta’s descent into the wild inferno of the politico-evangelical machine that has, in recent years, become an incubation station for the cult of Trump. Sojourning nationwide events at churches, conferences, and rallies, including the fundamentalist empire of Liberty University, Alberta documents the slapdash quackery and slipshod antics of bad faith actors exploiting the eccentric dynamics of contemporary evangelicalism. Starting his account with an investigation of his father’s church–having recently transitioned to a new senior pastor–Alberta maps what might be considered a blueprint model of underlying fault lines that countless churches experienced in the rupture of pandemic church attendance fallout.
Distress during the pandemic seldom occasioned concern over a contagion that took the lives of manifold people, ushering in, instead, a new wave of paranoia over government power. In an effort to mitigate Covid-19 spread, limitations exercised by state authorities over in-person church services harkened back to a Cold War evangelical pastime: fighting government elites who are out to get you. The tools in this fight, conspiracy and panic, are familiar. “Some in [the] congregation swore that the virus was a hoax cooked up by globalist elites who wanted to control the population,” Alberta tells us, while others demanded that the church staff speak out against Black Lives Matter and the fake election results of Joe Biden. After one staff member was fired for QAnon proselytizing, many longstanding members were fed up, leading a mass exodus out of the church.
But Alberta doesn’t allow his readers to brush this single occurrence off as an oddity unique to Paula White’s holy roller Christianity or to Rushdoony buffoonery: “This belief wasn’t limited to Pentecostals and their so-called charismatic spiritual practices, or to fringe fundamentalists, or to Dominionists, the nascent hardliners who seek to merge church and state under biblical law.” To the contrary, “this was accepted dogma for conservative Christians of every tribe and affiliation” (p. 20).
It’s here that Alberta stakes the major claim of his book that “what these groups shared was a prophetic certainty, promulgated by the evangelical movement for decades, that godless Democrats would one day launch a frontal assault on Christianity in America” (p. 20). However, an uneasy tension sits at the center of Alberta’s analysis. It remains unclear whether or not what Alberta depicts throughout his account represents an evangelicalism that chiefly shares a continuity with the past or a discontinuity activated by the recent turn toward Trumpian allegiance. On the one hand, as just quoted above, Alberta recognizes the current trends as having historical precedence, but, on the other hand, he refers to new impulses within the movement: “Something was happening on the religious right, something more menacing and extreme than anything that preceded it. This was no longer about winning elections and preserving culture. This was about destroying enemies and dominating the country by any means necessary” (p. 258). Alberta never fully untangles this knot, but those who have studied the history of 20th century fundamentalism know that there is ample continuity, for example, between the theology and politics of early fundamentalists such as William Bell Riley and contemporary evangelical preachers such as Greg Locke.
This aside, Alberta does make clear that what is currently being witnessed isn’t fringe, nor is it a one-off. Rather, it’s the outworking of an evangelical framework that evinces a Manichean vision of a contested cosmos between good and evil, primarily manifested in the cultural and political spheres. What’s so fascinating in Alberta’s telling of these current dynamics is how his subjects transpose spiritual struggle against the “cosmic powers of this present darkness” into the fantasizing of subversion and violence against “flesh and blood.” Again, Jim Wright: “The Bible says we don’t wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the powers of the air. But those powers of the air are becoming more physical, more flesh and blood…We’re seeing it every day” (p. 173). Not only does this counter Paul’s teaching, but it would likely make Frank Peretti blush.
Nowhere was the evangelical grassroots mania more palpable than the ReAwaken America Tour in Branson, Missouri. Alberta uncovers a plethora of zany “hucksters and spin doctors and straight-up sociopaths,” each, in turn, “preying on the anxious masses of Missouri.” Shopping booths were organized in rows under a wide tent, selling knick-knacks, books, paintings, apparel, and other oddities sold by countless swindlers. “Here, people panicked about Big Pharma’s trickery were toting around boxes of unregulated vitamins” (p. 265). This was “the hottest ticket in the underworld of right-wing evangelicalism” (p. 263). Opening speakers espoused conspiracies that landed somewhere between New Age mysticism and Hal Lindsey’s apocalypticism. The two architects of the Tour, Michael Flynn and Clay Clark, warned “that globalists had weaponized the Covid-19 pandemic to push lockdowns that would give them control of the world population.” Flynn and Clark further whipped up panic by indicating that the “World Economic Forum” sought to conduct a “Great Reset,” which purportedly “would result in a secular, tyrannical one-world government.” Seeing through the enemy’s schemes, the two informed the audience that their mission was to resurrect a “Christian supremacy” in addition to an “American sovereignty” in their restoring of a Christian America (p. 264).
Alberta balances his account of the populist persuasion and grassroots politicking by also investigating evangelical related institutions and institutional figureheads who refuse to bow out. Equally spoiling for a fight, social media influencers like Charlie Kirk, political activists like Ralph Reed, conservative authors like Eric Metaxas, and pseudo-historians like David Barton, repeatedly exploit the fears and anxieties of an evangelical movement that has, for decades, operated under the assumption that their traditional conservative values are being seized and taken captive. Liberty University, under the leadership of Jerry Falwell Jr., teamed up with Kirk in establishing the “Falkirk Center”–a right-wing think tank–to counter leftist subterfuge. Throughout his presidency, Falwell dissolved the philosophy department, censored student newspapers critical of Trump’s politics, and “turned the school into a satellite location for the Conservative Political Action Conference, disseminating ad hominem insults and deranged conspiracy theories throughout campus” (p. 80). Liberty quickly became a bastion of Trumpian craze.
And in case Alberta’s readers consider Falwell’s charlatanry low hanging fruit, then consider Robert Jeffress, lead Pastor of First Baptist Dallas, once a church home to Billy Graham, and a current influential force in the Southern Baptist Convention. Jeffress’ starstruck admiration for Trump is well documented, but what Alberta exposes is a pastor who has betrayed the Gospel for the golden calf of political power and powerful connections. “Jeffress never allowed one beam of daylight between himself and the forty-fifth president”:
“It paid off…Attendance at First Baptist Dallas boomed during Trump’s four years. Money poured into the church. Jeffress’ salary jumped. Fox News gave him more and more airtime. His phone book bulged with A-list Republicans. He became a regular at the White House. Yet all the while, Jeffress was laying his spiritual authority on the line, his service to Jesus Christ largely indistinguishable from his servitude to Donald Trump” (p. 108).
Dissenters of extremist evangelicalism also feature prominently in Alberta’s account. Russell Moore, while president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, traded in his SBC credentials after years of witnessing all kinds of cover-ups from the denomination’s leadership. Moore’s personal story and resignation attests to how deep Alberta’s account of extremist evangelicalism has insinuated itself in the interstices of the SBC. Attorney and sexual abuse survivor, Rachel Denhollander, has proven effective in exposing sexual abuse cover-ups in the SBC and challenging the denomination to implement preventative structures and stronger protocols for sex abuse, despite pushback from extremist evangelicals both in the denomination and beyond. If there is a bright spot in Alberta’s account, it’s the courage and strength of dissenter evangelicals like Moore and Denhollander.
Inclusion of dissenting voices strengthens Alberta’s overall account, signaling a pocket of resistance from within extremist evangelicalism. Yet, on one level, it can also be misleading insofar as it depicts a dichotomy at play in evangelicalism between radical right-wingers and non-right wingers. But this is far from the case. The dissenters acknowledged in Alberta’s account are nevertheless firmly set within a broader, albeit tamer, political and theological conservative evangelicalism. What’s actually on display in Alberta’s telling is radical evangelical right-wingers versus evangelical right-wingers. Moderate and Progressive evangelicals, increasingly becoming marginal in today’s political and religious climate, remain absent from Alberta’s account. What hope do these voices, in addition to Moore’s and Denhollander’s, offer for the future of evangelicalism?
Yet, one can’t help but feel a deep ambivalence toward the question of whether there is any hope for the movement’s future. In one conversation Alberta shared with Yale theologian, Miroslav Volf, the latter worried that evangelicalism had been so “captured by nationalist ideals” that Christian Nationalism was now “the predominant form of evangelical Christianity.” Even more concerning, when pressed on what ought to be done, Volf exclaimed that he “‘frankly had no idea’ what to do about it” (p. 240).
This is now the urgent theological task of those who claim the dissenting evangelical moniker. But can these dissenters embody what has been otherwise unintuitive for the movement as a whole while flourishing as evangelicals? Can they decenter their voices, make progress toward racial and gender equality, accompany wayward seekers, reject biblicism, repudiate partisan politics, and eschew economic systems that continually crush the underserved? The negation of these commitments have made the conditions possible for the cross-fertilization between a broader cultural conservatism and the making of extremist American evangelicalism.
To move in a positive trajectory by integrating these into an ecclesial way of life would go a long way in undermining all that is wrong with the evangelical monster. Time will tell–but I won’t hold my breath.
