Have things really gotten this bad?

This is actually an old complaint of mine, but it has some new twists.

I frequent a local Christian bookstore (Berean Bookstore in Decatur, IL), mostly because I like browsing the music section to see if there are any good releases (and occasionally I find some good deals, like Luna Halo's Shimmer, which I highly recommend). In doing so, I also observe the patterns in Christian media; for instance, not too long after Dan Brown's controversial The DaVinci Code, I found several books dedicated to debunking the rumors that the book contained. This process helps me keep a check on my faith; I mean this not so much as my personal convictions as I do 'keeping up with the Grahams', as it were. Point blank, I want to know how other Christians are portraying themselves and thereby portraying me to the world.

On the day in question, I was in the middle of this activity when I came to the Bible translation racks. Usually, I look for a copy of The Message (which is a nice idea, but a little corny at places; read Psalm 1:1 to see what I mean), maybe see if there's a new translation like "New Intergalactic Translation for the Middle-Aged Extra-Terrestrial". Hey, you never know.

Then I saw it. It absolutely blew my mind.

At first glance, it was a very normal Bible. I mean, it had to be somewhat normal; it was a teen study Bible, and teenagers can be quite picky about what they're seen carrying, even if just to Sunday school and youth groups. And it was made by Zondervan, which claims to (and may) be "the leading Christian communications company in the world". (If you want a better idea, Zondervan is a division of HarperCollins Publishers. That should put things in perspective.)

Its title: Student Bible, New International Version.

But the part that got me was a little sticker on the front with this label:

The Official Bible of the Newsboys

(For those who don't believe me, you can see exactly what I mean here.)

At this point, I was quite disappointed. I mean, is the state of modern Christianity so bad that Christian rock bands have to endorse Bibles to get them to sell?

But this was a while back, maybe even a year or two ago. Is it really that bad anymore?

Oh, no, my friends - it gets much worse.

In order to prove to the ever-ready skeptic that such a Bible does exist, I ran across another Zondervan-Newsboys connection, and this one's fresh off the presses, dated January 4, in the year of our Lord 2005.

Title of article: "Zondervan Announces TNIV Bible Partnership with newsboys"

The cautious observer may first ask: "What's the TNIV Bible?"

Well, I'm glad you asked! The acronym is short for Today's New International Version, which is obviously a slightly updated version of the NIV (or New International Version, first published in the 1973). [Note: I find it funny when considering updated versions of other translations, such as the King James Version and New King James Version. Was "Today's New" more hip than "The Newer International Version" or "Our Most Recent International Version Yet"?] It is currently set to be released "in both Old and New Testaments" on February 4th of this year, allegedly set "in creative, innovative formats to engage the hearts and minds of 18- to 34-year-olds". To support this last claim, the article above cites a national Harris Interactive poll in which "77 percent of them found the TNIV easier to understand than the NIV, and 72 percent of them found the text more readable". [I wonder if they read the entire translation or just the tricky verses...?]

You may be asking, "What's so bad about an updated translation?" There may be nothing 'wrong' with it, per se, but there are inherent flaws with this approach.

Allow me to start with a quote from Peter Furler of the Newsboys:

"The only foundation that will prevail is the one built on God's Word. That's why I'm proud to stand with Zondervan, bringing the Word to today's generation. That's why I believe so strongly in Today's New International Version, the TNIV; a new translation that speaks the timeless truth of God's Word in the language of today." [italicized emphasis mine]

Is it just me, or does that second sentence seem a bit smarmy? I mean, can't you just see the little caption: "Zondervan - Bringing the Word to today's generation!"? It already smacks of corporate whore-ism, and all in the guise of bringing the world a better version of their best product. (The NIV translation is the top selling translation in the world, even given the rampant amount of traditionalists who claim that the King James Version is the only true translation.)

I'd like to be proven wrong on this last point, but, alas, I am not:

"The TNIV will be the biggest Bible translation launch in history, based on the breadth of products offered and the promotion that we intend to do," said Paul Caminiti, publisher and vice president of Bibles at Zondervan. "We know there is a need for this translation and we're thrilled to begin reaching today's generation with God's word in compelling, innovative formats, all supported by a translation that is uncompromisingly accurate and absolutely faithful to the original biblical texts." [emphasis mine]

Whoooo, boy. The 'biggest Bible translation launch in history'? That's a pretty big aspiration!

Okay, it's not, really. Virtually every single translation to come out since the NIV has been released with little fanfare, the closest probably being The Message by Eugene Peterson because of its über-contemporary language.

Again, one could ask: "So what's the big deal about trying to promote something, especially the Bible? Wouldn't that have some good repercussions that aren't necessarily drops in Zondervan's pocketbook?"

And again, I'd agree, to an extent. Good consequences do not intentions make. (My own quote that, thanks.)

Finally, in light of this new release, this new translation is already under fire! However, for this, I will make no comment and will simply let you decide for yourself. (Before I do this, though, you might want to read this to understand what the organization stands for.)

Now, as I go, remember Proverbs 4:23 - "Above all else, guard your heart [and mind], for it is the wellspring of life.

Response to GQ Christian rock article

One of my good friends, Mike Postma (who runs an excellent music site called sweetdisaster; check it out, it's way rad), pointed me in the direction of an article in GQ by John Sullivan that describes the journalist's assignment to cover a Christian rock event (which turns out to be Creation East in Pennsylvania) and also covers the journalist's previous experiences with Christianity. (For those who are interested in reading the article before I go in my rant about it, you may view it here.)

In summation, it is, to say the least, ludicrous in some of the points it makes and incredibly judgmental on the people that Mr. Sullivan interacts with during his time there. He makes mocking statements like his proposed interview question "What do you tell your fans when they ask you why God let Creed break up?" I mean, can we really take this guy seriously after that? (The Creed comment brings up a whole different can of worms altogether, which I may decide to tackle at a later time.) To add insult to injury, he uses terms like "J-school foolishness" (sounds like his battle is with Carman and dcTalk, not the modern Christian rock scene).

Just who are you, John Sullivan, and where did you come from?

I can't even begin to fathom how out of touch this guy is with reality. First, he attempts to solicit rides to his first attempted road trip (to Cross-Over Festival in Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri) on several different forums, including two devoted to our favorite, love-to-hate-'em Canadian pop-punkers Relient K. Then - get this - he's surprised that the only people who respond are, in his words, "tweens", 12-14 yr olds! I mean, not to poke fun at his obvious lack of information about modern Christian rock (forget Petra and Jars of Clay here), but even assuming a little bit based on genre and making observations based on secular groups of the same genre, wouldn't a seasoned journalist put two and two together to figure out that "Hey, a lot of Blink-182 fans are really young; I wonder if their Christian counterparts would be the same way...?"

But that's not all. Then he gets a bad taste in his mouth when, lo and behold, not only is he shunned because he's asking teenagers if they want a ride in his van to a festival without their parents, but his post was deleted by the moderators! His exact words here: "Doubtless at that moment they were faxing alerts to a network of moms." Well, duh. Big surprise, huh? Even the "tweens" knew better than to take rides from a potential "petifile", as one girl put it.

Then this man among man implies that this isn't a very Christian attitude to have.

But I digress, because this poor soul has a grievous past with Christianity, and we should all be sensitive to how he was so involved in Bible studies and Christian rock concerts, then he lost his faith to doubts about rationalizing certain things about Christianity.

Please note that I'm choosing to skip over his mischaracterizations of the Christians he was around intimately during the duration of the festival, simply because I think there are better things to be said without directly attacking the man's integrity any further.

Well, here we go.

When describing his situation (keeping certain people anonymous, of course), he talks about his first real church experience, in which he was brought into a nondenominational church by a charismatic, "artlessly gregarious" friend. His expectations of Christians are shattered, and he says that about his experience around this new group of people:

"I started asking questions, lots of questions. And they loved that, because they had answers. That's one of the ways Evangelicalism works. Your average agnostic doesn't go through life just primed to offer a clear, considered defense of, say, intratextual Scriptural inconsistency. But born-agains train for that chance encounter with the inquisitive stranger."

That fourth sentence floored me: He's saying very concisely that the Christians he talked to knew more about what they were talking about than he did, and he admitted it!

But why is knowing precisely what you believe and being able to defend it a bad thing? Well, I suppose one could postulate that since "Evangelicals" are well trained in what they believe, they can easily overwhelm the unsuspecting agnostics or atheists with raw information that is hard to refute without careful consideration. Okay, fair enough. But a lot of what he has to say is very close to the mark; reading the next section in context will tell you that this guy isn't making up what he's saying at all.

Then he gets to why he left "the fold". His ultimate reason for abandoning Christianity is that of self-realization; he got past his moments of naïveté, found the cracks in the Christian logic, decided that certain things just didn't make sense, and abandoned the whole thing.

Without criticizing his decision (because it was his decision, and he doesn't appear to regret it), I would like, finally, to look at one other point he makes:

"Belief and nonbelief are two giant planets, the orbits of which don't touch. Everything about Christianity can be justified within the context of Christian belief. That is, if you accept its terms. Once you do, your belief starts modifying the data (in ways that are themselves defensible, see?), until eventually the data begin to reinforce belief. The precise moment of illogic can never be isolated and may not exist. Like holding a magnifying glass at arm's length and bringing it toward your eye: Things are upside down, they're upside down, they're right side up. What lay between? If there was something, it passed too quickly to be observed. This is why you can never reason true Christians out of the faith. It's not, as the adage has it, because they were never reasoned into it—many were—it's that faith is a logical door which locks behind you. What looks like a line of thought is steadily warping into a circle, one that closes with you inside." (bold emphasis mine)

Well, congratulations for making it absolutely impossible to try and refute your claims and still seem completely rational at the same time.

Even so, I'm not going to let that stop me. There's a term that was coined in 1790 by a man named Immanuel Kant - "Weltanschauung" - which roughly translates to the English term "worldview". This is defined in its most basic form as the structure of thought based on certain undeniable presuppositions about reality at the simplest level upon one determines actions and ideals. (I learned a much longer definition in Bible college, but that's my own concise wording.)

Keeping an open mind here, I don't really think one can argue that we all function out of our own worldview. We believe certain things are wrong, whether or not we share the same source for our moral codes; those who live in different cultures or with different religions do not share the same presuppositions. For instance, put Stephen Hawking in the same room as a Zen Buddhist monk, and you will have lots of fun. That is, if they would be perfectly frank with each other about what they believe.

As such, anyone and everyone will defend their worldview. They may not criticize other worldviews openly out of respect, but they will guard their own presuppositions like a cherished possession. If I told you that the world did not exist as you saw it but was in fact an illusion which is only in effect because we are not truly unified with the universe, would you believe me without hesitation? Probably not, because if you can't rely on your senses telling you the truth, can you really depend on anything?

Friedrich Nietzche was famed for making a statement along the lines of "If you want to find out how a philosopher thinks, find out what he wants."

Perhaps my entire criticism for this article can be summed up in that.

John Sullivan, what do you want from us?

The answer may be easier than we guessed.

Here's how it's gonna go...

My name is Brody, and I have a mission.

First, though, before I make any attempts at proselytizing, let me say this - I believe I am one of the most opinionated people I know. If I have an opinion on something (and it's not so much an 'if' question as 'when'), anyone and everyone will know about it, and I will be 100% sure that I have good logic behind that opinion, or I will drop it like a bad habit.

That said, this site is my attempt not only to give a public forum to my opinions (if it were solely that, one could say that I am quite vain and egotistical) but also to shine light onto several different subjects that I believe are of the utmost importance, especially to Christians but also to the state of the world as a whole. As such, I believe there are only three categories that the problems of the world can fall into: those caused by interactions of non-Christians to non-Christians, non-Christians to Christians, and Christians within their own subculture. Even so, the only two areas on which to plan an intellectual assault (at least, from my vantage point) have to be external and internal; that is, explain to the rest of the world how we work and why we believe what we believe (and that our beliefs are perfectly rational, in most cases), and to discuss irrational characteristics of the Christian subculture that are causing problems with our brethren of different faiths or predilections.

Keeping that purpose in mind, I open this site to absolutely anyone who wants to post. If anyone wants to become a continuing contributor (in that you will have access to posting freely instead of just commenting to posts), you may contact me to seek out this possibility, or I may enlist your efforts (with your full permission, of course). However, keep in mind that I will be the sole editor; after all, even with a disclaimer of "These ideas do not necessarily represent those of The Christian Cynic", this site is still a direct reflection on me. However, that does not mean that I will limit contributions to Christians; I want a rounded viewpoint, especially of those who look at Christianity and think to themselves, "What a bunch of morons." If those thoughts are ungrounded, then I intend on putting forth the effort to correct as best I can, but if those preconceptions are nothing more than observations of poor character traits, then the right of criticism is fully warranted and I will allow it in its full extent, perhaps even adding to it. (I will warn everyone right now that I do find quite a few problems within Christianity, but they are not so much ideological as they are behavioral issues.)

So, for anyone who would like to post comments or topics, keep these ideas in mind:

1) The law of humility reigns. If you are in any way condescending, make derogatory or inflammatory comments, or just generally act like a pompous jerk, then I reserve the right to edit your posts/comments and eventually to limit posting and commenting to E-mail submissions only.
2) Besides being decent human beings in your language, I also request that all users refrain from using profanity, sexually or racially suggestive slang, and soliciting for other venues (except in cases where I grant it freely).
3) Use the sense you were born with. If I see people behaving like children, I also reserve the right to ask them to act like adults (and this applies to anyone posting, even those who are not yet of the age considered for adulthood).
4) This one is minor: I request that everyone who posts do their very, very best to use correct spellings and grammatical usage. I am incredibly anal retentive about English, and as a result, I think less of the ideas of people who can't express them well in writing. I will do my best to overcome that and consider everyone's ideas equally; in turn, I ask that everyone else try and meet me halfway on this one.

If anyone wants to contact me, you can reach me at thechristiancynic@gmail.com.

I look forward to hearing from everyone.

~Brody, Editor-in-chief