In past times, this work would have been the subject of a full article, but with the incessant repetition of arguments I now seem to be encountering, in many cases an extensive critical book review will be satisfactory. So it is with The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You to Read, edited by one Tim Leedom, a man of journalistic and political persuasion who has collected a series of essays by those of like mind (very few actually being scholars of the Bible) and peppered them with "gotcha" quotes, mini-articles of dubious critical worth, and photographs and drawings of sometimes marginal quality. This book won't win any awards for technical perfections, at least.
The title naturally plays upon the "forbidden fruit" temptation we all suffer from, although at my own level of spiritual growth this is about as tempting as being invited to snort chimney soot. My own pastor knows well enough what I do on this page and would not care if I read this book, which in any case, it is too late for him to object, since I already have, and I didn't ask his permission first. And what did I find? Let's do a summary presentation of most of what's written. I did NOT find any new objections to my faith, which was rather disappointing. To think that I submitted to this temptation, all for nothing!
An introduction by one Bill Jenkins ("former ABC talk show host"), who has apparently had his sensibilities addled by the experience of family members joining wild cults, makes the usual mention of religion as a cause of war and suffering and offers a hint of an endorsement of Graves' "16 Crucified Saviors" thesis. This is a foreshadowing of two themes to be repeated regularly in this book: On the one hand, we will be presented with grocery lists of the evils of the church through history; you would never know that the French Revolution and the modern Communist regimes together exceeded the body count and violation record of the church quite a few decades ago. As for the latter, the authors of this book are apparently unaware that the "pagan borrowing" thesis was discredited quite some time ago.
William Edelen, a person with no listed qualifications in religious studies whatsoever, makes his case for comparative religious studies programs under the assumption that it will prove just how utterly alike the religions of the world are, and in a daring move alludes to the very discredited idea that Mithraism was a source for Christianity. I agree with Edelen: We need better religious education, and he is living proof of that. Differences in world religions far outweigh the similarities.
Other articles suggest Zoroastrianism, sun worship and astrology as sources for Christian belief. The first article uses as a source a work from 1939! Another article cites the Egyptian Horus as a source for Christ, using as a source a work from 1924. Has anyone told these people what year it is?
There are also some articles on Islam in this book; at least we're not the only target...
A few articles by deceased freethinkers like Jefferson, Paine, and Ingersoll, critics who knew as much about the Bible in its context as they did about nuclear reactors.
A tear-jerking speech by Chief Seattle which, while properly indicting environmental abuses, suffers from such a naive universalism that I almost went into sugar shock.
A reprint of Farrell Till's material on Bible prophecy, where he offers his usual chauvinistic understanding of typology and ancient quotation and exegetical methods.
An item by Howard Teeple, a self-described "former fundamentalist" and one of the few Bible scholars on the rack for this book. Much of his essay rails against "fundamentalist" interpretation of the Bible, with particular focus on the story of Noah's Ark and alleged contradictions within, along with endorsement of the JEDP theory and citations of pagan flood stories. (I would note that Teeple is apparently behind the crowd on chiastic divisions in the text which indicate that it is a unity.)
An item by an early Christ-myther named Remsburg, who also between two essays produces perhaps the largest embarrassment in the book other than the endorsements of various Dead Sea Scrolls conspiracy theories by the likes of Eisenmann and Baigent and Leigh. One of Remsburg's essays is a bile-filled critique of the ethical commands of the Bible. The first four Commandments are dismissed as "simply religious emanations from the corrupt and disordered brain of priestcraft." (The old "mental illness" charge, seldom used today -- "I'm right, and you're obviously mentally ill, because you disagree with me.") Elements of the Sermon on the Mount are dismissed as "false and pernicious." Not one of these charges is justified with any sort of reasoning, much less are the commands understood in their social context. That skeptics continue to cite the likes of Remsburg is, again, a profound embarrassment to their cause. (Remsburg's second article endorses the Christ-myth; he lists 41 writers -- see our fuller critique here -- "who lived and wrote during the time, or within a century after the time" of Jesus, but didn't mention him, never mind whether someone like Quintillian, a rhetoritician who wrote what today would be equated with a how-to book on public speaking, would have mentioned such a person, or any religious figure for that matter; Tacitus is dismissed merely as "disputed" and Josephus of course as "forged" with all the usual arguments presented that have been outdated by Josephan studies for years. One might call all of these works The Books the Writers of this Book Don't Want You to Read.) Another funny comment by Remsburg says of Jesus, "His biography has not been written." -- Poor fellow; he didn't know that the Gospels were ancient biographies.)
Essays also appear by a familiar Rogue's Gallery member, A. J. Mattill. This time he unleashes himself on C. S Lewis' critique of NT scholars who do not study literature, pointing out admittedly valid inconsistencies in Lewis' arguments, but for the most part simply following the line of, "Well, Lewis didn't mention this, ha ha ha!!!!" What Mattill does fail to do is discredit the core of Lewis' case, which is that many NT scholars do not properly understand the NT writings from a literary perspective and instead let their own biases rule their judgments. I have run across many, many NT scholars who are so enamored of their own genius at finding the supposed original sources of the NT and have divided even items as small as Phillipians into tiny bits, where a simple study of ancient rhetorical methods and letter-writing would shatter their preconceptions into tiny shards. Ben Witherington rightly bemoans the distinct lack of classical education today among NT scholars.
A somewhat helpful article by a Biblical scholar named Errico on the subject of the NT's Aramaic background, which deals with the divine claims of Jesus by simply putting them off as creations of the church (with no reason given as to why the church would simply create them). The "Son of Man" title, a topic of immense complexity which I myself have only barely touched upon, is dealt with in a mere two paragraphs by simply alleging that the title is a circumlocution for "I". (Not that this item is worth much, as Errico was a student of the deceiver George Lamsa.)
Off the rack of Bible scholars also: Gerald Larue, with the usual charges of the Gospels as late documents, the usual dismissal of typology, the usual charges of invention of material, and a few (grudging?) concessions that some parts of the NT may be accurate. For the most part, though, Larue rambles on about how modern Christian shrines, locations, and relics are probably not authentic, which won't get a lot of argument from anyone past third-grade Sunday school.
Also on the rack: Morton Smith endorsing his Secret Gospel of Mark.
Back to amateurs: Shmuel Golding, who was used liberally by C. Dennis McKinsey and who we STILL know nothing about in terms of his qualifications, offers up essays endorsing the pagan borrowing thesis and another later on suggesting that Paul borrowed his ideas from Mithraism (see link above -- Golding is responsible for one of the biggest ringers in the set).
A list of several failed prophecies of "the end" by various religious groups; interestingly, although well within the timeline, that "88 Reasons" book published back in '87 is not on the list!
A selection from Herbert Cutner on the alleged unoriginality of the cross symbol -- yep, this is the same material that Dan Barker used.
In the section on doctrine, we are greeted with an incompetent exposition of the Trinity by that eminent theologian and scholar of religion, Robert Ingersoll, who would have been ground to hamburger by the likes of Thomas Morris or even Peter Toon, or by our essay here.
A few pieces are offered up by Austin Miles, notably one on original sin...now you'd suppose for this topic they'd get a Bible scholar, right? Think again: Miles is a former circus ringmaster who used to be part of Jim Bakker's inner circle. Hence, the rampant hostility in his material. Hence, his articles are mostly "argument by outrage" showmanship (with the phrase "innocent little babies" bandied about with the frequency of machine gun fire). Hence the sort of incompetent scholarship that sees contradiction between Gal. 6:2 and 6:5. With this kind of careful exegesis by a former clown director, your church will definitely want you to read this book.
Dan Barker offers his usual "Easter Challenge" complaints about the resurrection narratives and their harmonization.
John Allegro is permitted to vomit forth his "sacred mushroom" theories...are we grasping the desperation of this volume yet, and getting some ideas about the uncritical predilections of our editor?
The largest part of the book by far is devoted to historic crimes of the Church (the Inquisition, etc.), and complaints about modern Christian involvement in politics, which is not surprising, since the skeptics can't win on other grounds. (They don't win much on these grounds, either, but thanks to political correctness and the media, do have undue influence in this area.) In this mix are some amusing miscues; for example, a professor of philosophy, Delos McKown, interprets 1 Cor. 1:20 as "denigrating literacy (!), logic, and learning" -- as we have shown elsewhere, it has nothing to do with any of those things. Also in this section: Steve Allen on abortion, the usual on the treatment of women in the Bible, a helpful item on mail-order degrees (did you know that Madalyn Murray O'Hair was also a minister of the Universal Life Church?), and this comment by Edelen: "It is a historical fact that behind all of the wars and violence of human history, and behind every gun, has been a religious scripture." (395) Really? What chapter and verse did Chairman Mao use?
Finally, a list of famous "freethinkers" that includes Christians on it - Shakespeare and Solzhenitsyn, for example. Maybe they mail-ordered their card from AHA?
Bottom line: This over-thick book, which makes for a Rogue's Gallery in itself, presents nothing that is either new or threatening to the Christian faith. The compilers perhaps want you to read it because they think that the average church member is not informed enough to know how off base they are, but there are many who are. I would prefer to title this work The Book Your Church Would Laugh at Out Loud.
http://www.tektonics.org/TL.BYC_0840389086.html#Summary