Part 9
Non-Tract: http://www.ffrf.org/nontracts/jesus.php.
Having read this far, two obvious questions may have sprung to your mind. First, why did I write this response? Second, given its obvious defects, why was the non-tract produced in the first place?
The most important answer to the first question has to do with my rational and Christian sensibilities. Badly-formed and badly-informed arguments bother me, whether for or against my personal beliefs. I can live with intelligent discussion of contrary positions that are based on accurate information and thoughtful interpretations of that data, but this document annoyed me so much I had to respond. As previously stated, I first sent a personal note. The ensuing silence led me to conclude that I should try my hand at small-scale apologetics. This leads to a secondary answer. The non-tract is a tiny crabapple of polemic -- flavorful, but easy to chew on. I'm simply reaching for the low-hanging fruit of a middling-sized tree before starting in on the less accessible parts of the orchard. In short, I needed the practice, and I learned quite a bit from the exercise. Finally, I can't dismiss the possibility that I did this as an outlet for my mid-life crisis, having turned 40 shortly after the initial version was completed.
Obviously, I can't answer the second question with any sort of certainty, but some general comments can be made. It is clear that the non-tract exemplifies an entirely deconstructionist view of Scripture, where verses mean what the reader thinks they mean as they're being read, without considering what the author intended them to mean or even what the original audience thought they meant. But, I'm sure that the Freedom From Religion Foundation would not appreciate anyone taking the same view of their own writings. This goes back to "Golden Rule" of interpretation I mentioned earlier. If you believe your intentions and their context are important and would chafe at their being ignored, then you have no right to ignore the intentions and context of what you are reading, as has obviously been done in the non-tract. It is a sign of incompetent scholarship to treat a text, biblical or not, in a manner different than you expect your own text to be treated.
Of course, I have to consider the possibility that any incompetence displayed is on my part. My degree is in Computer Science / Speech-Theatre Arts. I've never served as a pastor. I haven't even taken a missions trip. All I have is a small library, a large vocabulary, a cable modem, a good preacher, and a lot of time spent at church, worshipping and learning. That's partly why I chose this particular document. It's not scholarly and, therefore, does not require a scholarly response. But, I feel I'm on pretty safe theological ground arguing that the Gospels are overwhelmingly in favor of people worshipping and emulating Jesus. Right off the bat, the non-tract builds the windmill at which to tilt by asserting that the Bible proves Jesus is some sort of disturbed scoundrel. It seems to me that I'm arguing the majority position, and the non-tract is making the extraordinary claims (requiring extraordinary evidence) in this case. This is borne out by the fact that I did not need to do very much research to produce my response. The plain text of the Bible itself refuted most of the presented arguments.
The non-tract does us the favor of explicitly identifying its intended audience: "the 'bible believer' who thinks the entire New Testament is inerrant and inspired." It has been shown that this group, 60% of American adults, is the most knowledgeable concerning the Bible and, not surprisingly, holds biblical views more strongly. It seems unreasonable that this text would be aimed at a group which would strongly disagree with the non-tract's assertions, be most able to articulate why, and be most motivated to do so. What seems most reasonable is that the actual intended audience is those who believe unthinkingly, those who say they believe these things without actually having spent any time studying the issue, the low-hanging fruit of the Christian Church. I freely admit that such exist in depressingly large numbers, but that is far from being a solid basis for lumping all inerrantists into one audience. The only people who would or could be convinced by these arguments are those who are unfamiliar with the cited text, unwilling to investigate the truth of these claims, or are already uncommitted or hostile to Christianity. None of these apply to the supposed target audience.
None of this really answers the question of "Why?", though. Could it be that the non-tract was intended to attract the attention of people like me, drawing them out in the open to be netted in a mesh of stronger arguments? Could it be that this is the weak left jab setting us up for the looping right hook? Maybe so, but it could be that the ultimate purpose behind the non-tract is to glorify God, no matter what was originally intended by the author. If you have been edified in any way by reading my response, if your faith has been strengthened the tiniest mite during this exchange, as mine has, then God's purposes have been fulfilled regardless of any human intent. Even as people are running away from Him, they may turn others toward Him. And that, I think, is a very good answer to the question, "Why Jesus?"