Evangelicals reading to learn?!
Edit* Thom Stark has written a post clarifying his position on John Loftus’ post, as well as his own motives, which you can find at his site http://thomstark.net/?p=1580. Stark clarifies himself as follows:
With that said, THAT IS NOT TRUE OF ALL EVANGELICALS. The term “evangelical” encompasses a wide variety of Christians, and many evangelicals are not guilty of the accusations Loftus has brought against them. I think he knows this too, but he likes the polemics, and that’s fine with me. I’m not writing to condemn what he’s said, but just to clarify what I say.
I have no interest in converting people away from their brand of evangelicalism. I oppose fundamentalism, and I make criticisms of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy, but I do not oppose faith. I wrote my book to try to help Christians who are struggling with the Bible and with fundamentalism to figure out a way to be Christian without compromising their struggle or abandoning the faith altogether.
I know plenty of evangelicals who read very widely, and plenty who are very sympathetic to many of the arguments made by critics of evangelicalism. My book is not an attack on Christianity, but on a specific brand of fundamentalist evangelicalism that I do not believe can be sustained after an honest look at the data. That said, I am not calling those who disagree with me “dishonest.” I am merely saying that the only honest conclusion I could come to was to reject that brand of fundamentalist evangelicalism.
I certainly hope no one reading this post or Loftus’ has come away thinking Stark agrees with what Loftus has said (I don’t believe this is apparent in Loftus’ post, nor did I say such in mine). My only aim here was to criticize Loftus and his polemics, and provide an short reason (with example) of why I don’t give equal weight to all writers. It was not to group Stark together with Loftus. It seems to me a bit of a shame that Loftus has promoted Stark’s book but has also included the thought that follows, and that I criticize. Hopefully it does not unfairly implicate Stark as agreeing wholly with Loftus.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
John Loftus said:
“The only reason evangelicals still exist is because most of them simply do not read. Those who do read don’t read works like his. The few who do read works like his don’t do so to learn anything”
‘Works like his’ refers to the yet-to-be-released book by Thom Stark, The Human Faces of God: What Scripture Reveals When It Gets God Wrong. Ignoring the specifics of the book, this comment by Loftus is one of the reasons why I simply can’t take people — such as John Loftus — as seriously as they would perhaps like, or want. I wonder what it would look like if John Loftus were writing a survey:
1. Are you an evangelical who reads?
If no, stop — you’re a normal evangelical. If yes, continue to step two.
2. Are you an evangelical who reads skeptical books.
If no, stop — you’re a normal evangelical. If yes, continue to step three.
3. Are you an evangelical who reads skeptical books to learn from them?
If no, stop — you’re a normal evangelical. If yes, you don’t exist or are lying / deluded.
There may exist after-all evangelicals who (1) read, (2) read skeptical books and (3) read skeptical books to learn from them (i.e. me). But perhaps Loftus means something like the following when he says ‘the few who do read works like his don’t do so to learn anything’: if an honest evangelical read a book, such as Thom Stark’s, to learn, he would as a result become convinced of the illegitimacy of his belief. If, however, said “honest” evangelical does not become convinced as a result of reading Stark’s book, then our evangelical is neither (1) honest or (2) interested in learning. The expectation seems to be that the end-result of ‘learning’ (in this respect) is the rejection of faith. If one does not reject their faith, they have not learned — therefore, they aren’t interested in learning. I don’t see any reason to accept this line of thought. This hidden premise should be rejected: not all those who read books written by skeptics, and do so honestly, become themselves skeptics. Insisting that there is some reason — all of which involve intellectual dishonesty, as far as I can tell — why such people aren’t convinced into rejecting ‘the faith’ is simply an unwillingness to deal with the data. It’s a denial of the ‘fact of the matter’.
The question, then, is where does that leave someone like me, the sort of person Loftus has aimed his sights at? Would he acknowledge that there are some evangelicals who read (skeptics) to learn, or would he insist on his original thought? Either way, this sort of thinking (i.e. polemics) acts only as insulation, and isn’t conducive to honest discussion.
Related posts:
For the record, I do not concur with Loftus’s statement about Evangelicals. Also, what Loftus hopes my book achieves and what I hope it achieves are two different things. I am making an argument against fundamentalist Christianity but not against Christianity itself or against faith at all. If you’ll read Frank Schaeffer’s endorsement of my book, Frank believes that Christians will come away with “a better and stronger faith” after having read it. That may or may not be true, but the pertinent point is, contrary to Loftus, I hope it’s true.
I just wrote a post clarifying my motives vis-a-vis Loftus’s agenda. http://thomstark.net/?p=1580
Thanks for updating your post, Jeremy! Very kind of you indeed.
Hopefully I haven’t made it seem as if you do agree with him; in that sense it seems a bit of a shame that his plug of your book (which was a nice thing to do) came attached to his usual polemic. I look forward to the book. No problem with updating the post
Just too bad about those Triablogue guys…
Thanks again, Jeremy. Like I said in my post, I consider John a friend so despite my disagreement with his polemics, I am glad to have his endorsement. (After all, Norm Geisler endorsed Loftus’s book!)
Did you see my response to Steve Hays?
http://thomstark.net/?p=1597
I’m not entirely sure what to think of Hays, so I’ll have to reserve judgment of his character (not that this was what you were asking). His writing is another story, however, and in this case it seems that Hays has confused Loftus’ hopes for the book, and yours (a worry you express in your first comment).
In my opinion Hays should — ought — defer commenting on the book until he’s read it. It shouldn’t come as a surprise to most people, especially Hays, that a lot of the ideas ‘peddled’ today are re-packaged and re-stated ideas of the past (not saying this is necessarily the case with your book). That some times it takes that re-packaging to give new legitimacy to what may have been once disregarded (the idea may have come too soon, or originally lacked the support it now has).
Either way, Hays is unjustified as of yet — but does it make for good publicity?
Any press is good press, of course.
I don’t claim to have made the ultimate argument. I just tried to display what caused me to change my mind. It began as a blog series (no longer available), and several people told me they found it very helpful. So I turned it into a book in the hopes that it would be helpful to others. I don’t have any notion that it will be liked by many or persuasive to die-hard inerrantists. Nor do I have any pretensions that it’s the definitive word. I just wanted to write about the issues that were important in my biblical studies—the ones that caused me to reevaluate the character of my faith.
As good a reason to write as any, I figure (perhaps one of the better reasons to write). If it helps people to think about their faith and examine themselves (as the Socratic motto goes), then you’ve got something good on your hands, regardless of how well it’s received.
Couldn’t agree more, Jeremy. I sure do appreciate your reasonable perspective and careful, moderate, mediating spirit.
The best to you!
Thank you — I fear I am not always so, not nearly as much as I would like to be, though I do make an effort.