I
was recently perusing my Facebook page, like so many of us seem to do these
days, when I was tagged in a post by, would you believe it, a Facebook friend
that I have never met in person? The
post was about an author who was giving books away free with the stipulation
that you do a review of the book. The
book title caught my attention: Confessions of a Bible Thumper. This sounded like a book that I might
actually write at some point and with me being too lazy to actually write a
book of my own it sounded like an opportunity that I could not pass up—I mean
really, if you are too lazy to write a book of your own why not criticize those
with a better work ethic than yourself?
My thanks go out to Michael Camp for the giveaway and the better work
ethic.
I am at a quandary as to refer to the book as Camp’s book or Michael’s
book. Using his last name seems more
polite; however, since the story of the book centers on a conversation among
friends at a pub in the Seattle area, it seems natural to stay with the
relationally friendly narrative and moreover think that Michael might actually
take offense if I referred to his book as Camp’s book so Michael it is.
Michael
shares twelve confessions in his book and alternates his story-telling between
a present-day conversation in a pub and reflections on his past experiences with
Evangelicalism. He touches on topics such as pre-marital sex, the inerrancy of
scripture, abortion, Christian Universalism, evolution, homosexuality,
evangelism as well as other topics with a rather impressive amount of research
and integrity.
I
have read a number of books written from the perspective of having become frustrated
with the Evangelical movement in the West.
By and large, I have found little that I disagree with in those books. Michael’s book, however, was a roller-coaster
of emotions for me. There were things
that I wholeheartedly agreed with, things that I disagreed with and other
things that were paradigm shifters for me.
In other words, Michael raises some things that I had never really
considered. All of this made for what I
would consider my most enjoyable read of the summer. So with that lets share a bit of the meat or
perhaps better stated let’s sit down to a micro-brew sampler.
Michael’s
fourth confession is his investigation of the inerrancy of Scripture. Michael
writes: “To a ‘real Christian,’ the Bible was more than a human book. It was the inspired word of God; it spoke
individually to people; it was a guide for daily living. We were to look to the Bible to develop a
grid for decision-making” (Pg. 70). Of
course Michael is critical of this assertion.
We find a quote in the epigraph to this chapter from L. William
Countryman: “The Bible says not a word about its supposed infallibility” (Pg.
69). This happens to be one of the
points that Michael makes that I really related to in my own spiritual
journey. One thing that he shared that
was new to me was “If the Bible were entirely free from historical errors, it
would actually harm the cause for historicity, not help it. Historians and legal experts will tell you
that when eyewitness accounts are identical, that is evidence that there was
collaboration. In other words, minor discrepancies in the accounts of the
gospels could be evidence that the writers are not guilty of collusion. People see things from variant perspectives
and recall things differently, including getting factual details wrong” (Pg.
80-81).
There
was one chapter/confession in particular that I really struggled with. This was Confession 9: The Sex God. I should start this criticism with my own
confession that my wife and I actually share our sexual story regularly with a
marital preparation group with our church where we encourage folks to wait for
marriage for sex. I was rather surprised
to hear that Michael would tend to disagree with this approach and I was also
surprised at some of the interpretations he has taken with Scripture regarding
sex. That said, Michael makes some
really excellent points with Scripture regarding sex. For example, polygamy is an accepted
practice, Sarah actually encourages one of their servants, Hagai, to sleep with
Isaac so that they can have offspring and this is not condemned. Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines and
this is not frowned upon. While
Leviticus states that men should not have sexual relations with other men it
says nothing about women having sexual relations with other women. Moreover, it was expected that women be
virgins at birth but there is no mention that this is a requirement for men. Promiscuity is viewed from a supportive
stance in the book of Esther. On Pg.
211: Camp mentions many of these practices and while I will not deny that this
exists in the Bible I would contend that just because these practices are
accepted in Biblical culture it did not make them right then and it does not
make them right now. No rational person
today would contend that slavery is acceptable in our society and culture yet
slavery is often mentioned in the Bible and yet it is never condemned in the
Bible.
On
pages 211-212 Michael writes: “When I completed reading the whole Bible, the
overall impression I got was that the regulations for sexual practices are
confusing, complicated, and often overkill…There was the
obvious and disconcerting double standard against women, especially in the Old
Testament. Men had more freedom than
women in sex. On the other hand, Jesus
openly promoted women’s rights and generally treated women as equals.” I agree with this. However, Michael would also go on to
deconstruct Jesus statement that “If you look at a woman with lust you have already
committed adultery in your heart.”
Michael states that the Greek for woman here can mean wife and therefore
allows one to turn this verse into the sin of envy since woman were considered
property in Jesus day.” While the word
in Greek for the word woman here can be defined as wife and also can clearly be
defined as woman--Gune (woman): short definition: a woman, wife, my lady (which
does show possession)—it is more generally defined: universally, a woman of any age, whether a
virgin, or married, or a widow and I would contend that this is the
definition that Christ intends. And here
is why: In Michael’s words: “…in the Old
Testament, a man only committed adultery if he had sex with another man’s
wife. If he had sex with a slave,
prostitute, concubine, or one of his other wives…oh, or a divorced or widowed
woman, it was not considered adultery.
This was the case because those relationships didn’t jeopardize family
lineage. However, a woman committed
adultery when she had sex with anyone outside of marriage, because a man’s and
a family’s lineage was at stake. This
was why the woman was considered property of the husband and the husband’s
family” (Pg. 231). Going once again to Jesus’
quote that “if a man who looks at a woman with lust…” I ask Michael, since
Jesus treated women as equals, couldn’t this statement be a searing criticism
of the double standard that existed for men and women at the time and that the
word used for lust is exactly the intention of the original Greek and the Greek
used for woman is exactly that, a woman and not wife? I see Jesus completely
leveling the playing field here putting women on the same level as man! If
Jesus treated women as equals I find it doubtful that he would continue to work
in the paradigm of a woman as property.
While
it may be a bit of hyperbole to state that the Creation/Evolution debate
continues to rage in our society it also far from extinct. Creation versus Intelligent Design is perhaps
the more up-to-date term. Michael spends
another confession discussing his take on another hot-button issue with
Evangelicalism. Michael writes, “…the
Bible was never meant to be the source of precise scientific assertions” (Pg.
266). That is an observation that I
could not agree with more. However,
beyond this Michael makes the observation that there is fundamentalist thought
on both sides of this divide—atheists are also not immune from rigid
closed-minded dogma. Furthermore, there
is bridge-building also taking place within the idea of intelligent design,
that is, it has its supporters from both the Evangelical side as well as the
Agnostic side. Michael demonstrates with
tact and grace that living in gray areas can be fruitful and that goes for the
book as the whole not just this chapter.
Besides
my disagreement on matters sexual, and that is not so much a matter of
criticism but a difference of opinion that could make for great conversation
over a beer, my one criticism of the book is that Michael goes a bit overboard
in throwing stones at Evangelicals without giving us much of an alternative
Christ that is worthy to follow. There
are shades of a Christ worthy to be followed in the last several chapters but I
really would have liked to read more about the carpenter who became a
revolutionary without the use of weapons.
Still, that would not hold me back from handing this book off to
friends—it is worthy of being read!
