The less we call Pat Robertson a "church leader," the better. I actually think your point, Skye, is true--in many ways American Evangelicals have assumed God will behave the way they want--but I don't think Pat Robertson is a good "case study."

You forgot one option in the final paragraph; 'life without god.' The majority of us do it without trying to persecute religion, so that strikes me, a passive nonbeliever, as a slant. Even New Atheists don't believe in a 'life over god.' They just plain don't believe in god.

Your post raises a lot of ideas for reflection, but I have a hesitation with the idea that evangelicals should be defined by the extremes (your reference to Robertson's loose cannon verbalizing) and the implication that evangelical is equated to those who hold a conservative political stance. Those labeled evangelical should be defined by their theological positioning. Otherwise the rhetoric by Hitchens and Dawkins must be seen as having a greater influence on culture than your post would allow.

The "over/under" seems to be a false dichotomy. Atheists don't place themselves or society "over" God, so much as in the place of God (that is, arbiter of values, source of ultimate meaning, etc). Hitchens doesn't believe God *submits* to him (a'la Benny Hinn), just that God doesn't exist.

Yet the core assertion of the post -- the belief that God will "bless us" if we do the right thing (prosperity gospel) is indeed, to varying degrees, a common confusion in contemporary Christianity, and worth noting. It's a reflex we all have at times (Hey, wasn't I obedient? How come this didn't "work out"?) but, as a theological teaching, it's a minority view, as are the "Constitutional Evangelicals" (who? Wallbuilders? one tiny group?) the author equates with New Atheists.

But I don't get the point of this exercise: "Look! Here's two groups I don't like! They're really a lot like each other, aren't they? How about a third alternative!" (His position, of course -- "with God" -- about which we hear nothing constructive here.)

As the first commenter points out, nobody takes Pat Robertson seriously, why continue to play up such a misleading and atypical characterization as representing a serious contingent of our "leaders" -- just so you can set yourself apart from it?

yeah, nobody takes them seriously...

but the money keeps pouring in...from evangelicals.

And still other evangelicals and credible evangelical leaders do not go above and beyond to distance themselves from Robertson, et. al. OR vehemently repudiate them.

And there's no good reason not too.

unless the dirty secret is that evangelical leaders know that if they too clearly rebuke such nonsense many in their pews will repudiate them.

You can't whine about people not being representative when they clearly are allowed to continue as, well, representatives...

they're still talking...that's not "liberal spin" painting them badly...that's the FACTS of their behavior/rhetoric.

This article begins with a good premise. Atheists have somewhat split into two camps with an older mainline group and a newer group of evangelistic (to use the term as it's now applied in the larger society) or evangelical atheists.

It's actually a very familiar pattern. They learned the "how to" lessons from us.

I agree that some (self-described) Athiests and some Evangelicals are similar in this sense: They both despise the God of the Bible. Now a true Athiest wouldn't be proselityzing as described in this article because they simply would not care what anyone else thinks. If I am convinced that there is no God, I will be completely unconcerned with other people; what they do; what they think; and what they say. I am going for all the gusto I can get in this life and to hell (except there is no such thing) with you.

This group who"...rallies at universities inviting students to exchange their Bibles for pornography, ... are no longer content with a live-and-let-live approach to those adhering to religion. ... are actively trying to convert, or is the word un-convert, the masses." is not, IMHO, atheistic at all but rather a group of people who hate God and are shaking their fist in His face.

Here is where I see a parallel to some who call themselves Evangelical Christians. There are many in very high places of EC who also seem to hate the very God they claim to love. They want to bring things into the church that the God of the Bible abhors. Things like homosexual marriage, pagan practices such as laybrinth walking, Taize, and even claiming that there are other ways to God other than through Jesus Christ and Him cricified. They live like they do not believe in the God of the Bible. What is the difference between saying you don't believe in God and living like you don't believe in God?

I appreciated your point about how many evangelicals (myself included) want to control God with our supposed submission to him. I've noticed the "if you do this, He will do that" mentality.

It's like many of us want God to be a Divine Vending Machine. Insert two prayers & a daily Bible reading, press the button, and wait for God to send down the answer of my choice. Doesn't always work with the Coke machine, and doesn't work with the Sovereign God.

I'm an Atheist and I'm glad that we've started to organize more as a group and be more vocal. The religious wack nuts like robertson,dobson and everybody else with a bible and a mircophone have driven our cultural moral debate way to long. Somebody in one of the comments said something about science? If science was left up to the church the earth would still be flat while the sun rotates around us!!! Christians and Atheist have really nothing in common and hopefully by informing the public with the same passion you share your religion we to can increase our numbers in this country and the world. Unless people know there is not a God and lay down there religion, this world will continue to destroy it's self. I hope you realize this yourself!!

The killing of people in religion against religion is always sad and wrong. However, the number of innocent people killed by atheists just tremendously outweighs the deaths due to Christians or other groups.

Hitler was actually into the occult, and killed both Catholic and Lutheran followers, along with the Jews, etc. Stalin killed like 60 million people, Pol Pot killed many millions. And the list goes on.

On the other hand, how many hospitals and orphanages have been started by atheists? How many atheists are taking care of the victims of natural disasters? Buddhists don't help other Buddhists who come upon calamity, as it is seen as their "karma" and they are not to be interfered with. It is the Christians who establish hospitals, orphanages, the Red Cross, adoption agencies, World Vision and other groups that help support little children throughout the world who need extra money for school supplies, or shoes, etc. Where are the atheists?? They are selfish, keeping to themselves, or killing millions of their fellow citizens to control countries. Can't name a communist country that allows freedom of religion, they kill off anyone openly worshipping. Christians in China, and Asia in general, have to hide to worship in their atheistic societies.

Have evangelicals exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for a Gospel of Morality?

Let's indulge ourselves in reverie on the following fanciful romantic dialogue that may turn the answer to the above question inside out.

Still: Lord, I'm here before you to ask for your answer to my prayer.

God: Have you filled up the jar?

Still: Yes, Lord. Look, it's filled with "Pray X" rocks, "Sacrifice Y" stones, and "Avoid Z" gravel.

God: Oh, really?

Still went off, then, came back.

Still: Look, Lord, I added "Good Works" pebbles to fill the spaces. It's filled up.

God: Oh, really?

Still went off, then, came back.

Still: Look, Lord, I added "Tamed-Tongue Words" sand to fill the spaces between pebbles. It's filled up.

God: Oh, really?

Still went off, then, came back.

Still: Look, Lord, I poured into the jar water of true, noble, right, pure, lovely, admirable, and praiseworthy thoughts to fill the remaining spaces. It's filled up.

God: Oh, really? How about those air bubbles?

Still: Oh my, Lord, how can I fill up those bubbles?

God: You can't. But I expect you, despite of it, to remain faithful to me, whether I will answer your prayer or not.

End of dialogue.

"If we are thrown into the blazing furnace, the God we serve is able to save us from it, and he will rescue us from your hand, O king. But even if he does not, we want you to know, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the image of gold you have set up." Daniel 3:17-18

Question: Have evangelicals exchanged the Gospel of Jesus Christ for a Gospel of Morality?

I don't think so. They only have fallen short of fulfilling the Gospel of Christ.

I find it odd that someone would compare who killed more people, the christians or the Atheist? Murder is Murder whether you do it once or 60 million times. The fact that CHRISTIANS have been involved in mass murders and horrible wars throughout history should be shameful enough from a religion that preaches Love and forgiveness. Religions never like to look at there own sins,rather play the blame game like the catholic church and there love of little boys. Reminds me of my sister growing up shouting at me " well, he pushed me first!"

Yet, christians like to weigh sins like homosexuality verses lying.....or my God is better then your God.Basically the old school yard debate..."my Dad is stronger then your Dad"...remember that one? Sure ya do!!Because your still having this childish debate. This whole who does more good score card your keeping is that really a biblical principal? I thought Jesus did'nt save people from hell by your works but by grace. The fact is Christian society both in Europe and the Americas has been as still is along with your muslim cousins is terribly oppressive. Try reading a book that's more then 2,000 years old to prove your very faulty science.

Religious people and there lack of intellectual curiousity will destroy our planet and continue to be the source of war and terror that you've become so skilled at. I won't bother to rattle the many thousands of organizations "non-religious" that do great things around the world without having to believe in GOD! You can google it and learn something beside another scripture.

Petey, if you are looking for Christians to be perfect, you won't find any. All Christians sin every day. The difference between us is that we are saved from our sins, because Christ, a perfect sacrifice, died for our sins. So, it's not ground breaking news to tell us of sins committed by Christians.

However, we have the Holy Spirit in us, which helps the true believer to live a more Christ-like life. A brand new Christian may still live a life that does not look at all Christ-like. But the Holy Spirit will help change the heart, and it doesn't happen overnight. Also, not all who claim to be Christians, like the JW's and mormons are not Christians, and many sitting in other churches pews every Sunday,further muddying up things. That's why, in reality, only God can judge the heart to know if someone truly believes in Him for their salvation or not. Only the believer and God know for sure.

But in any case, it is the Christians who have built the orphanages, the hospitals, who are helping millions of children and adults throughout the world through groups like World Vision. Christians are the biggest givers, in time and in money, than any other group, this has been well established and isn't in dispute by anybody. I noticed you were unable to come up with any agency established by atheists to help the world's poor and needy. And the fact remains, that the atheists have killed many, many more millions than Christians. But Christians are not perfect, and will not be perfect, until heaven. And even YOU can not judge the heart of others. You know there is a God and you reject Him. I urge you to read the New Testament and read how God loves us and sent His Son to die for our sins so that we may have eternal life. A life with Christ is so much better than without Him. There are so many people who have been able to stop taking drugs, get out of gangs, stop stealing, etc ONLY because the Holy Spirit has been working within them because they BELIEVE.

An atheist puts himself above God by assuming the role of God by defining truth, reality and purpose as relavant, not absolute.

Atheism is a belief systenm.
They believe there is no god.
The Latin word "Credo" means I believe.
The fact that the Atheist believes in a non existing god, means this is his belief system, ergo he is a believer.

Francis,
I'm an evangelical, but know that the typical response of the atheist to your comment is something to this effect, "Atheism simply means lacking a belief in god(s). It does not mean that I believe god(s) do not exist, but simply that I lack a belief that they do." It's a definition game for many of the New Atheists (who honestly haven't thought very deeply about the issues).

By doing this they avoid an incoherency in their own worldview. You see, the majority of atheists are also empiricists. They only believe what they can test. They only believe what is empirically verifiable. The problem is that when they say that they believe God does not exist, they are forced to provide empirical evidence for such a belief to show it to be justified. Most atheists are smart enough to realize that such a position is indefensible, so they redefine atheism. The traditional word meaning "without god" doesn't define them well, so they change the meaning to better suit their position.

A problem is that it runs into the question of, "Well, then what is an agnostic?" Agnostic literally means without knowledge as to whether or not god(s) exist. Agnostics thus "lack a belief in god(s)" and fall under "atheism" in this new definition. That is why most atheists today will tell you that they are "agnostic atheists." They lack a belief in god(s), but are specifically atheistic in regards to the Abrahamic God.

There are two ways to challenge their assertions from within their own worldview: (1) You can show the radical inconsistencies and unproven assertions that underly empiricism. Why do the vast majority of philosophers consider empiricism self defeating as a total epistemology? (2) Argue against their assertion that they lack a belief in god(s) against modern psychology which would say that the very statement shows that they actually have all types of belief structures in relation to the question. Thus, they should ask whether or not they can justify their belief structures?

In the end, after much reflection, many more educated atheists (and almost all atheist philosophers that I'm aware of) will mix and match epistemologies and simply deal with the inconsistencies of such a move.

Honestly though, as an evangelical, I'd rather press them specifically on why they disbelieve in the Christian God. I'm not interested in generic religion or god beliefs, but want to hear whether or not they are justified in their rejection of the only true and living God. Simple platitudes against "religion" won't work in this regard, and thus the majority of New Atheist arguments are undercut dramatically.

While I know it isn't politically correct to believe God would ever judge a nation, a people or a person, He still does. Sorry, guys and gals, but don't turn your belief into an idol. He is the same God in the OT as He is in the NT. Jesus even warns about greater suffering coming on people who don't repent. God desires to save, but does use corrective measures to get people attention when nothng else will do.

The Haitian earthquake has resulted in a awakening of the Christian faith with many practicing voodooists renouncing their satanic religion, repenting, and putting their faith in Christ for salvation. Many people turn to God in times of trial and suffering. The one's that call Him Lord, not just Savior, are the one's that stick.

Atheists choose to be atheists. It is a wholly irrational belief system, even to many who are non-religious. But so is evangelicalism that exults the Constitution above the bible. I know many professed conservative Christians who exchange the God of the bible for a god of politics for the purpose of national morality. When a Pew Report shows that only 3% of all Ameicans have a biblical worldview, and, as a result, aren't living as they ought, rising immorality in culture is the fruit. We've turned "GRACE" into a license for lawlessness, and the New testament is clear about that.

The problem with our nation isn't those outside the covenant of Jesus Christ, but those professing to be under the blood. Judgment begins with His house. He is a jealous God, and will chastise and discipline in love unless we repent of our worldliness, our idolotry, our self-sufficiency, and our self-righteousness. Ultimately, the USA is replaceable - He can raise up nations in a day (IS 66 fulfilled with the restoration of Israel in 1948 - how about that prophecy being fulfilled, my atheist friends?) - it is the souls of men that he purchased with His blood that He desires. Repent, Church, and see atheists, deists, witches, Jews, muslims and all other kinds of belief systems be thrown in the trash heap as they cross over from death to life in Jesus Christ.

Christopher Hitchens Interviewed by Unitarian Minister Marilyn Sewell
Maryiln Sewell: The religion you cite in your book is generally the fundamentalist faith of various kinds. I’m a liberal Christian, and I don’t take the stories from the scripture literally. I don’t believe in the doctrine of atonement (that Jesus died for our sins, for example). Do you make and [sic] distinction between fundamentalist faith and liberal religion?

Christopher Hitchens: I would say that if you don’t believe that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and Messiah, and that he rose again from the dead and by his sacrifice our sins are forgiven, you’re really not in any meaningful sense a Christian.

Well with the recent discovery of Noah's Ark its going to blow Atheists and the Evolution Theory right out the door,

SB, what is a Christian who doesn't believe in the atonement? It's an oxymoron. If this hasn't occurred you and I are still dead our sins, and the good judge God is will have to sentence us righteously to the eternal flames of hell to pay the fine for our crimes. How do you pick and choose what is right and accurate in the bible and what is not? What makes someone like you call yourself a Christian? My friend, you have created an idol and call him Jesus. Right name. Wrong God.

@david jones:

It's not about being politically correct to reject the Pat Robertson theology, it's about being theologically correct. It's about being faithful to the witness of the person and work of Jesus.

the condescending tone with which you express your position is itself a marker (a fruit) of something very sad.

I will pray for you.

I thought this article was excellent, but I'm not sure what the Constitution has to do with the type of legalism the author denounces. If evangelicals really want to abide by the U.S. Constitution, they would seek less government control over individuals rather than seeking to control others in the name of God. Anyone who claims to be a "Constitutional Evangelical" and who seeks to use the power of the state to force people to obey God's laws does not really understand the Constitution or the gospel of Jesus Christ.

I couldn't agree more with this article. I work for a Christian Ministry that interfaces with athiests on a regular basis, and yes, athiests are becoming better equipped at handling the Word of God than most Christians and more fervent in speading their message.

Also, I have the privilege of being a leader in a youth group. All the leaders in our group are working dilligently to undo the damage of previous churches who presented the "God in the magic lamp". You rub the lamp this way, pray that way, go to this camp, and God will give you all your wishes. It's anti-scriptural, and guess what, it takes passionate youth and turns them into jaded, discouraged young adults who then become athiests who loudly proclaim the false sale of prosperity in Christianity.

Our leaders are training these kids to be disciples. Slaves to righteousness. And that His is a Kingdom, not a democracy. In most churches, this would not be a popular message, but the impact that it has made in these kids lives is amazing.

The gist of this very good article captures the essence of the evangelical dilemma. Namely: that a good movement has been taken captive by politicians and big business, both master manipulators, who have convinced many, if not most evangelicals, that health care for the neediest among us is not Christian and that the rapacious greed of money handlers (the banks and Wall street) is somehow God sanctioned. The phrase, "Constitutional Evangelical," an oxymoron if there ever was one, is simply another means of achieving this end. The idea that Christians are "in" the world and not "of" the world was well understood by Christians in Roman times but seems lost on many politico-evangelicals of today.

It seems to me very odd that the basis of many of the 'new atheist's' beliefs lies in the use of logic and reason. Yet many of the them lump together the Taliban, Mother Theresa and everyone else who believes in God. As many of you who may have studied logic know this is the fallacy of 'What is true of the part is true of the whole'. Perhaps we can indeed learn from these 'new atheists' particularly in 'not' how to think and to seek to understand each other before reaching our conclusions.

Atheism is not really a denial of any god. It is a setting up of man in the place of God. The individual or like minded group of individuals is the god of atheism. Since man cannot really do much to change the things he doesn't like about this world, this belief leads to bitterness and nihilism.

Has anyone else noticed how atheists never condemn and rail against Islam and Allah? They don't. The don't make fun of Mohammad the way they make fun of Jesus Christ. I can think of two reasons for this and only one is of this world (the threat of a death fatwa.)

@ T Melrose You may want to more closely look at what the 'New Atheists' are saying about Islam. Islam is one of their their primary targets. Remember it was the events of September 11th that gave rise to this new movement. Extremists within Islam carried it out.

Basil, it's interesting that the media is giving very little play to the atheists' attacks on Islam. Yes, I'm aware that atheists have compared evangelical Christians to Islamic fundamentalists without regard to the logical impossibilities of such a comparison. I have not heard that they have condemned Islam with the same vigor that they condemn Christianity. Perhaps they are and I haven't heard of it. Could you please point me to a media site where this is happening?

Lewis, since when is it "Christian" to use force to compel charity? The new health care bill forces individuals to purchase health insurance, taxes their neighbors to subsidize it, and imposes fines, penalties and jail time on those who are unwilling or unable to comply with the bill's requirements. Is this the kind of "charity" Jesus taught His followers? I don't think so. The Christians who lived during Roman times would have been apalled at the idea of using Roman might to force their fellow citizens to be kind to the poor. They voluntarily shared what they had with those in need, but they never insisted that charity be mandated by force.

Lewis J: that a good movement has been taken captive by politicians and big business, both master manipulators, who have convinced many, if not most evangelicals, that health care for the neediest among us is not Christian...

No: the issue is that many Christians, by their own study of the details (how it works Mass, in the UK, in Canada) that this sort of reform will do more harm than good.

Until you on the left start by at least acknowledging that debate, we'll always be talking at cross purposes, with us trying to talk to you about details and expected results, and you publicly saying what bad people we who disagree are.

Julie D: Is this the kind of "charity" Jesus taught His followers? I don't think so.

I agree, obviously, but there's apparently no room in the left's mind for private charity. Either you're in favor of the government running X, or you're against X altogether. There's simply no getting them to understand we think X will be worse, in the long run, if the government takes over X. Much less a sensible theological point like yours. (Christians demonstrate their goodness by compelling non-believers to carry out the gospel!?!?)

peteypete, I just wanted to respond to your comments that:

"I find it odd that someone would compare who killed more people, the christians or the Atheist? Murder is Murder whether you do it once or 60 million times. "

"If science was left up to the church the earth would still be flat while the sun rotates around us!!!"

With regard to the first, I totally agree that it is absolutely reprehensible that Christians preaching a God of love and forgiveness would murder at all under any circumstances, and most Christians I know are as appalled and repulsed by certain aspects of Church history as those outside it. The difference is we just see ourselves and our sin as the problem, not Christ or His teachings, so we are compelled to try to keep following Him despite our own poor examples. With that in mind, the comparison of the rates of murder by Christian authorities and Atheist governments is useful because it is a statistic that can suggest to us which belief system has the most mitigating effect on the darker human impulses to abuse authority and be willing to annihilate perceived "enemies" and take human lives in the name of some religious or philosophical ideology and the need for control.

With regard to science, along with the negative examples you give are Christians like Pascal, Galileo and Descartes, who, precisely because of their assumption that there was a God Who had instilled order in the universe that might be discerned by careful observation and study, were pioneers in science. The great irony is that if there had been no such assumption rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, there would have been no such attempts at science and we probably would, like the pre-Christian era Greek pagan scientists thought (and whose assumptions the Church initially embraced) still believe the earth was flat and that the sun rotated around it! To this day, there are scientists who believe in God and continue to make significant contributions--among them Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project and author of The Language of God.

Though I am convinced that Jesus Christ is God Incarnate and the only Savior of the world, I would take issue with those Christians of whatever affiliation who draw overly simplified lines between "saved" and "unsaved" based on what someone professes to believe. Christ teaches that God, Who knows all things, will judge everyone according to truth and with mercy and love as the overarching consideration and nature of His judgment, according to the real condition of their hearts, regardless of their professed beliefs. What they have really believed in, in the most meaningful sense, according to the teaching of Christ concerning the Last Judgment in Matthew 25, will be shown not by what they have professed, but by how they lived, what truly motivated them in their heart of hearts, and how they treated others. It is a misreading of Scripture and of the nature of salvation in Christ (from an Orthodox perspective--my Christian affiliation) to say that sin remaining in a professing "Christian's" heart and life at the moment of judgment will be judged in any different way than that in a "non-Christian's" heart and life at the moment of judgment. According to Jesus in Matthew 25, many will be surprised to find themselves in heaven and just as many surprised (though perhaps they will have much less excuse for such surprise!) to find themselves and their actions condemned on that day. As the Scripture says, Man judges according to appearance, but God according to what is truly in the heart. Since not too many Christians I know, nor I, would claim totally pure hearts, that should keep us sobered and humble before God and pleading for forgiveness both before Him and our unbelieving neighbors!

"Either you're in favor of the government running X, or you're against X altogether. There's simply no getting them to understand we think X will be worse, in the long run, if the government takes over X." Great way of putting it, Tim! I am so tired of the old argument that because I am against government-run health care, I am against allowing the poor to have access to health care - or that I am against health care reform. Along with many conservatives and libertarians, I fully support free-market reforms of the health care system, including Ron Paul's bill, which the Democrats very conveniently ignored during the so-called health care "debate." Moreoever, there are Christian doctors and nurses in this country who volunteer their time at free clinics or donate money to such efforts. I wonder how many on the left have done the same thing? Based on their arguments (and the fact that conservatives have been shown to give more to charity), most of those on the left seem to prefer having government take responsibility for being kind to the poor instead of being kind to the poor themselves.

I think we need to strike a balance here and tread lightly on the evangleicals. Is some of it over the top? Certainly. However, is the right to life of the unborn not worth preserving? Is the sanctity of the family not worth the effort?

The point I feel is being neglected is the battle truly is to take place within the context of the church. The new "judge not" mentality applies indeed to the world, as they stand judged already.

Jesus gave direction on keeping our own house clean in Matthew 18:6-20. Where Jesus lays out the formula, the Apostle Paul admonishes the church in Corinth for not following the model (1 Cor 5). Verse 12 is a great wrap up to entire chapter devoted on this subject.

"12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person."

Today's "seeker sensitive" evangelicalism is not sound. Instead of bringing the Gospel to the world, we are bringing the world to the church and sharing a New Gospel. My ears are not itching. I'll stand on the Gospel as written and correctly divided in the early church and Post-Reformation.

Atheists asking people to think for themselves through vocalization is not a form of proselytizing. Some atheists vocalize a little louder than other atheists.
I see no similarity between the religious proselytizing a belief and those wanting all people to question their beliefs by examining the evidence.

Root, originally Christian evangelism was an invitation to examine evidence as well (see 1 John 1:1). Properly understood, it is bearing witness to a reality which one has actually experienced, and an invitation to "Come and see" (John 1:46), not proselytizing.

Fascinating article and discussion. Jethani asserts it's unbiblical to think of God as a cosmic vending machine, yet fails to address the hermeneutical question of how to put aside this notion that finds ample support in the Old Testament (and, to a lesser extent, in the New Testament). Read, for example Deut. 28 and then try to argue against Robertson's theology. To me, the simplest explanation for many of the differences in theology among Bible-believing Christians (e.g., predestination vs. free will, the conditions under which divorce is allowable, etc.) is that the various biblical authors were human individuals, and like all human individuals, held different opinions on different matters.

Atheists, too, hold different opinions on different matters and cannot all be lumped together. One of the posters correctly takes exception to the conflation of Muslims and Christians in many atheist writings. But in the same way that it's unfair to lump all theists together, I take exception to the lumping of all atheists together, without any recognition of their many different political or ethical views.

(Part 2)

Deut 28 is a great example! A gloss reading would imply Robertson's prosperity gospel, but a very basic understanding of Deuteronomy as a whole and in light of its ANE world would show this to be dangerously bad theology, even within the book itself. How does one interpret prosperity theology in light of Deut 7-9? How does Deut 28 work in regards to typical ANE treaty language and how literal are we to take its blessings and curses post-Christ? How does it relate to God's particular covenant relationship with the nation of Israel? The answers to these very simplistic hermeneutical questions should be basic knowledge for any 18 year old that has grown up in the church...unfortunately, he will know much more about generic principles for a happy marriage than about how to interpret Scripture.

Ken,
There was a Part 1 which talked about my thoughts after reading your ebook a few months back, and how I think it was a fine example of how growing up in hyper-evangelicalism does not provide the skills necessary to interpret Scripture properly and how this was evidenced by your simplistic hermeneutic throughout initially engaging your questions. As someone well studied in these topics, your book provided no challenge to my faith, but I would suspect it would be a challenge for many sitting in the pews each week who simply are not trained (due to moralistic churches) to face challenges to the faith.

(Part 3)
As such, in the current atmosphere of evangelicalism, I suspect those challenged in their faith will either (1) ignore the questions completely, (2) live in cognitive dissonance, (3) follow Ken into atheism or (4) study hard to make up for years they lost growing up in evangelicalism before coming to a more robust faith.

Unfortunately, option 4 requires years and years of work that should have come before they faced challenges. It also would require them to live with option 2 until they overcome. Thus, for most evangelicals options 1, 2 and 3 are sadly more likely.

(Part 1) Thanks for your responses, Kyle. I'm not sure how Deut. 7-9 bolsters your case, even if it's the context of a suzerain-vassal treaty. I suppose you wish to highlight a portion of Deut. 9:4, "do not say to yourself, "The LORD has brought me here to take possession of this land because of my righteousness," without recognizing the Robinsonian nature of the remainder of the verse, "No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the LORD is going to drive them out before you." And the references in chapters 7-9 to the obedience-reward and disobedience-punishment theme are too numerous to mention here. Likewise for much of the remainder of the Old Testament, including the Psalms, Proverbs, Kings, and Prophets.

(Part 2) The New Testament, too, repeats this theme: "Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. "Honor your father and mother"—which is the first commandment with a promise— "that it may go well with you and that you may enjoy long life on the earth" (Eph. 6:1-2). However, in general, the NT shifts the consequences of our actions from this life to the next: "For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad" (2 Cor. 5:10). To me, this shift can be most simply explained by the manifest failure of the traditional obedience-reward and disobedience-punishment theme taught in the Old Testament, not as a result of any new divine program. It's the job of theologians to develop a hermeneutic that attempts to make disparate elements throughout the canon to appear as a coherent whole by appealing to context and dispensations and the like. But yes, to those of us not trained in the "correct" hermeneutics or theology, all the differences in the canon can more simply be explained through differences in opinions among the authors.

Hey Ken,
(Part 1) Let me offer a few responses to what you've said, but I don't think you and I are fighting each other as much as we are both opposed to an evangelicalism that overemphasizes a vague moralism and underemphasizes the intellect. I remain a confident Christian and you've become a confident humanist, but we're both opposed to anti-intellectualism.

Furthermore, my summary of part 1 sounds worse than the original which didn't post. I was trying to imply that you didn't have the proper categories for facing these challenges when you first were faced with them (as you make clear in your book). After nearly ten years of moving from a frustrated post-Christian to humanist apologist, I have no doubt that you are able to think more clearly through these issues today. It was not meant to insult your intelligence today.

(Part 2) Fifty years ago, I think that Meredith Kline was on the right track by highlighting the suzerain-vassal treaty aspects of Deuteronomy. Fifty years later, I think there are better ANE comparisons in legal literature, but that's beside the point. Legal literature ended with blessings/curses. Whether you are talking about the greater episode of Exodus 19-Leviticus 26 or the recapitulation in Deuteronomy 6-28, both hold these same qualities. They serve something similar to our modern signatures at the end of contracts in that they show the commitment of the two partners involved. They are functional only in the terms of the previous covenant that is (almost always) thought to be eternally binding.

(Part 3)The heart of the covenant comes in Deut 7-9, because this lays out the nature of everything that follows. God chooses Israel among the nations in spite of their disobedience, small stature among the nations, low population, etc. You encourage me to keep read Deut 9:5, but I encourage you to finish the verse. that shows He will be faithful to previous covenant despite their unrighteousness. He promises to be an indwelling presence, and asks them to remember God even in their prosperity that typically leads to rebellion...but that he will remain faithful regardless.

This section lays out the nature of the covenant and goes against prosperity theology.

(Part 4)In other words, you have to understand Deut in light of itself and in light of the greater ANE context of writing to understand what's going on. This answers your final remark which somehow pits hermeneutic against interpreting the text as itself...you have to have an understanding of the ANE world to interpret the text as itself...therefore hermeneutic is prior...but more on that in Part 5 or 6.

(Part 5)As for the NT, these comments don't allow enough space to discuss the fulfillment of Jesus as the temple, Israel, new covenant, etc. (basically everything Meyer, Wright, Bird and just about everyone else in NT scholarship is saying today) and how Paul's thinking fits these categories. Paul, of all people, does not hold to a prosperity version of the gospel...although taking one or two verses and ripping them out of context could imply that he does (but that makes my point about how evangelicals read the Bible). Mike Bird's little introduction "Introducing Paul" deals with how Paul understood these things in the second temple world.

(Part 6)This is my final comment, and you can have the last word although I don't think we're that far apart but fighting the same anti-intellectualism.

You said, "all the differences in the canon can more simply be explained through differences in opinions among the authors." Remove the words "in opinion" and you are in agreement with me and every other evangelical theologian in America. Goldingay constantly reminds his students to read the Pentateuch with the knowledge that this is not God's final word. The biblical authors were inspired, and God does not err in anything he says...but that doesn't mean all of the books have to be in agreement. Ecclesiastes can emphasize anthropology and this life, Proverbs can emphasize wisdom, Deuteronomy can emphasize God's faithfulness and 1 John can emphasize love. Differences in theological focus are important to understanding God's message throughout. In terms of the OT, Waltke, Goldingay, Chris Wright, Childs, Goldsworthy, etc. all know this...in terms of the NT so do Moo, Carson, Keener, etc. and tens of thousands of other evangelical Ph.D.'s in biblical studies. The problem is that pastors are not filtering the information down to the masses.

(Part 1) Kyle,
Thanks for your irenic response, even if we still differ fundamentally on this issue.
I'm not sure that Deut. 9:5 adds anything new to the mix that 9:4 doesn't already cover. If I may, let me shift our focus from the "prosperity gospel" to the notion that God punishes wickedness and disobedience, since that's what has everyone riled up about Robertson's comments concerning 9/11 and Haiti. In Deuteronomy, as in many other books of the Bible, there is an abundantly clear teaching that wickedness and disobedience lead to punishment. Thus, in 9:5: "It is not because of your righteousness or your integrity that you are going in to take possession of their land; but on account of the wickedness of these nations." This message is unambiguous, and it even applies (at least in this case) to non-covenantal Gentiles: wickedness leads to divine (not just natural) punishment. I haven't made a tally, but I would wager that if you were to count all the references to this theme in Deuteronomy, they would swamp the few references to the "not because of your righteousness" theme, but that's beside the point, which is that there there's no assurance whatsoever in Deuteronomy that wickedness will go unpunished: "Don't mess with God, or else." Given the context, what I understand 9:5 to mean is that Israel had better watch out; they can't rest on the laurels of their presumed righteousness, because if they cross a line, they will be in the same boat as the peoples they were displacing. I do not understand how any PhD theologian, evangelical or otherwise, could make the text say anything other than what it clearly states: God punishes wickedness in this life. If it requires a PhD theologians to sort this out, how does this square with the Reformation doctrine of the perspicacity of the scriptures? Or for that matter, the doctrine that salvation is not by works, since apparently a lot of effort is required to study the scriptures diligently enough to know when the face reading is intended and when it is not, lest we fall prey to apostasy?

(Part 2) The "obey your father and mother" text in the NT was merely the first that came to mind yesterday. Another is 2 Peter 2:1: "But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves." Again, the scriptures are united in proclaiming the doom of the wicked. For some authors, the punishment is limited to this earthly life, while for others, just deserts will be served in the hereafter.
Consider a plausible secular explanation for the changes between the OT and the NT. Before the advent of organized religion, there was always a desire to control the forces of nature through rituals and incantations and dances and sacrifices and magic practices of all sorts. These were intended to be directed at the impersonal forces of nature and were largely mechanistic, like a computer procedure: feed in the correct parameter, obtain the desired result. However, eventually there was only so much tweaking and cajoling that could be done before the people finally lost faith in them. Then, as personal gods entered the picture, expectations could be lowered: if we're calling upon personal deities who have a free will and their own hidden purposes, we can't always expect that by feeding in certain parameters, we can obtain a certain result. But even with these lowered expectations, over the centuries it became apparent again that all the sacrifices, priests, temples, and covenants failed to yield any discernable results. The way out? Assert that divine blessings and punishments happen not in this life but in the next--in other words, render the whole enterprise unfalsifiable. Yet even after the transition, vestiges of the old thinking persisted (e.g., in Pat Robertson and other believers in effectual intercessory prayer), and it then became the job of more sophisticated theologians to make the canon cohere retroactively, to explain why the system of earthly rewards and punishments doesn't mean what it appears to say.

Who really cares what any of the unbelievers say. GOD will have HIS way. He is allowing them to decide their fate just as believers are deciding theirs. GOD is not going to change HIS plans because people believe or don't believe in HIM. What a big joke. Like what they do is so important and earth shattering. Most will be dead in a short time and some really think that what they say for or against GOD will make a difference? My goodness; so sad.

[I discovered this web item - Lee]

"Three R's" a Collector's Item

Journalist/historian Dave MacPherson's controversial book "The Three R's" names and discusses evangelical leaders who have not only heavily plagiarized others but have even been caught quietly using the forbidden world of the occult in order to defend the pretrib rapture view!
MacPherson, the world's authority on the 180-year-old history of the same view which has made millionaires of leading Religious Rightists including Lindsey and LaHaye, has authored the nonfiction bestseller "The Rapture Plot" and many web articles including "Pretrib Rapture Dishonesty."
The plagiarists include J. A. Seiss, E. W. Bullinger, Hal Lindsey, C. C. Carlson, David Jeremiah, Chuck Missler, and even Dallas Seminary professor Merrill Unger!
"The Three R's" (packed with many more discoveries than just the plagiarism and occultism) has been out of print for several years and is now a very rare and pricey item. Check out online bookstores and you will find these typical prices for a USED copy of it: Alibris ($33.94), Amazon ($33.94), Amazon UK ($73.08), and Archives Books ($36.93). They also charge several dollars for shipping.
As the only publisher of this 149-page exposure, we're glad to announce that we've located three small boxes of it. For a $30.00 donation we'll mail you one free copy - or a limit of two free copies for a $50.00 donation. We're a nonprofit corporation and our IRS E.I. number is 74-2420939.
All donors will receive NEW, POSTAGE-PAID, SIGNED (by Dave MacPherson) copies of "The Three R's" along with a valid tax-deductible receipt. Send checks in US funds to:
P.O.S.T. Inc., PO Box 333, Beloit, Kansas 67420 USA.

It truly amazes me how atheists and theists reflect the same faults found in the negative generalizations of the opposing group. Neither side has all the answers, though both claim to. And neither side (usually) claims to be perfect representations of thei religious beliefs, which is good because it is impossible for this to be so.

What really caught my eye about this article was the second topic discussed, being our idea that God is somehow a diefied vending machine, giving us what we ask, assuming we insert the necessary components. It truly is a shame that it is so difficult to read Scripture for the love of better understanding our Creator, praying for the love of talking with our Father, and worshipping for the love of Him. But we expect something in return. I wonder...if this wasn't the case, would we be any more respected by non-believers? If we made it evident that our worship was truly worship, would that be recognized as evidence of the existance of Whom we worship...

I believe that by saying "God does not exist" you have placed your (or human) understanding above the revealed knowledge of God (ie. the Bible, the prophets, Christ's testimony).

This is what is meant by the "over God" worldview. I agree that there are honestly only 2 views: over or under God's authority. To say God defines our right and wrong, or as C.S. Lewis called it our "ought" is to live under God and to say we define it ourselves eliminates God and places ourselves at the top of the chain by default. Thus, this is an "over" God view, whether he is in the priority list or not, He's not number one.