Graduate school doesn’t leave much time for pleasure-reading. But when a book like Rapture Ready comes across my radar, I make exceptions.
With a subtitle like “Adventures in the Parallel Universe of Christian Pop Culture,” you might expect a sort of intellectual voyeurism. The “Look at those crazy people!” type of snark. But turns out that Daniel Radosh, a secular Jew and well-written journalist, took a much more nuanced (and thought-provoking path).
As someone who spent quality time within the evangelical movement, I was familiar with some of the cultural touchstones Radosh highlighted. I have read books by Ted Dekker and Frank Peretti. I have witnessed, and participated, in the feeding frenzy of the evangelical Bible industry. I still own albums by dc Talk, and I have seen (painfully over-the-top) Carman music videos. None of this was news to me. Though I’m no longer in that camp, I understand where a lot of the pop-culture flourishes. I’ve been there.
So I was more than pleased that, in the conclusion of the book, Radosh really plumbed the depths of his material. He was even-handed throughout, and insightful with a touch of wit. But that insight really came to a head late, best put by the author himself:
“The recent vogue for neoatheism nonwithstanding, nontheistic rationalists are grossly outnumbered and outgunned.”
True. We make up, at best, 1 in 10 Americans. There’s some arguments about who’s growing, who’s shrinking, who self-identifies, and who is “in” the scope of nontheistic rationalism. But regardless, we’re in the minority.
“Picking a fight with fundamentalists may be emotionally satisfying, and morally and academically correct, but we’re going to get our teeth kicked in.”
Also true, in my estimation. Trying to go toe-to-toe with the social impacts of evangelical Christianity (opposition to government recognition of gay marriages, for instance) as secularists vs. evangelicals will have one result: bolstering the evangelical cause(s). Though a noble stand, it’s tough to see our much more meagre resources winning over hearts and minds.
Which is why, in Radosh’s estimation, secularists must tread a different path. Specifically:
“Moderate Christians, however, have a fighting chance at quelling fundamentalism, and at least as much at stake in doing so.”
It’s one of the big reasons I work in interfaith circles. The biggest goals I have in my own work–social liberty, economic changes, and freedom of religious expression in the public sphere–are shared by secularists and moderate Christians alike, including a large swath of more moderate evangelicals. There’s danger in the religion vs. secularism narrative, as it makes an unfair dichotomy within those important issues. Religious individuals become the enemy, even though so many of them are fighting for the same things.
As a humanist, those are my goals. Economic relief, social liberalization. I could care less about the rise and fall of religion in general. Religion has far too many facets and forms, and I don’t find all of them harmful. Does that make me any less of an atheist? No. Does that impede my goal to develop viable secular community? No. But it helps me decide what I can do for good or ill, and who the sometimes surprising allies might be.
Rapture Ready brings some great musings to the table regarding the How of this transformation, but that’s far too much for this space. Suffice to say, I like where Daniel Radosh went with his findings. Instead of pointing and laughing, he felt out the quiet unease many evangelicals have with politically-compromised, commercial, and exclusionary currents in the evangelical movement, and saw room for secular and religious groups to exact real change. With any luck, we’ll accept allies in the most unlikely of corners, and learn a thing or two in the process.
Your article reminds me of the Duke Methodist Chaplain’s similar question to Richard Dawkins when Dawkins was here on campus earlier this semester. Dawkins brushed her off and said, “Sure we can be friends!” But ignored her concern about his nasty anti-religious and polemical rhetoric. Sounds like you also have some folks here on State of Formation interested in exploring some of these issues!
Come now – “nasty anti-religious rhetoric”? Dawkins is tame – a BUNNY – in comparison to many mainstream evangelical figures. This is evidence of the grotesque double-standard which privileges religious expression over secular expression and calls quite literally any expression of criticism against religious beliefs, practices and individuals “over-the-top”, “fundamentalist” or, as here, “nasty”.
There are still people defending the POPE from criticism, for goodness sake. Let’s get our priorities straight!
It’s really nice to hear a rational atheist voice on the topic of religion. I find that the big names of neoatheism tend to spend most of their time denigrating religion and the religious in general (i.e. how stupid are you to believe such thing…), which I view as completely counterproductive to what should be our shared goal of improving the lives of those who call this planet home. Why do we care what someone believes? Aren’t their actions so much more important?
This is a such a great article, Joshua. I think I will respond to part of it through another post I am working on. Thank you for providing such a balanced perspective.
Also, I am totally there with your trip down memory lane (dc talk, especially.)
I agree with much of this, Joshua, but I want to push on something. You say:
“As a humanist, those are my goals. Economic relief, social liberalization. I could care less about the rise and fall of religion in general.”
Elizabeth expresses a similar sentiment when she says:
“Why do we care what someone believes? Aren’t their actions so much more important?”
Do you think it truly immaterial what people believe? It seems to me that since people’s beliefs undergird their actions we can take a legitimate interest in others’ beliefs. It also seems to me, as an educator, that having defensible beliefs is important whatever their impact on actions. I’d be interested in your views on this, and have a post on the topic forthcoming.
I feel like you’re conflating Elizabeth’s and my own comment, James. To say that I could care less about the rise and fall of religion can’t be equated with finding beliefs “immaterial.”
I do have a legitimate interest in the religious belief of others, in that my own understanding of the world contradicts many religious worldviews. And there’s no way I could ignore that fact.
But, I do care much more about beliefs that impact the here-and-now. If your belief in the infallibility of the New Testament leads you to demean women in the public sphere, the gloves are off. But there are many religious beliefs without this kind of negative impact.
Some might (will) say that the entire thought process of religious beliefs is the problem: irrational, unfounded, and so on. Maybe. But how it impacts your life is much more important to me. I do think you know a tree by its fruits. And if I say I’m concerned with human beings in the here-and-now above all else, my actions should back it up.
If a religious belief positively impacts humans in the here-and-now, then I have less to quarrel with. There’s always room for conversation here, but I want to pick my battles.
Fair enough – I think I may have misread you. When you say “I could care less about the rise and fall of religion in general” I assumed you meant the more common “I COULDN’T care less…”.
If you mean you actually DO care about the rise and fall of religion in general, as this reply seems to suggest, but that you care MORE about beliefs that drive people’s actions toward inhuman ends, then I don’t think we have a disagreement. This doesn’t seem to be quite the thrust of the quote I presented or the paragraph that follows it – I am glad for the clarification.
I do want to quote Thomas Becket, through the mouth of TS Eliot:
“The last temptation is the greatest treason, to do the right thing for the wrong reason”
Can this be (rather ironically) applied here?
Thanks for your assessment. I too read Radosh’s book and, as a progressive evangelical, found myself cringing at the ridiculous religious sub-culture that has emerged from, in my opinion, lowest-common-denominator evangelical Christianity. Yet there is a critical mass of evangelicals with which I identify who share this viewpoint, and may be further along than “unease” in the process of dialogue with members of other religions, as well as with secularists. I refer you to Miroslav Volf, Jim Wallis and the Sojourners community (www.sojo.net) and Tony Campolo’s Red Letter Christian Movement (www.redletterchristians.org), to name a few. It is tempting to think of evangelicals as a monolith, especially because some pretty vitriolic people have some pretty big microphones and claim to speak for the entire movement. However, a significant segment of evangelicalism has been playing the thankless role of prophet for quite some time.