Maher’s ‘Religulous’ is funny but not too complicated

 

Bill Maher’s “Religulous,” a film screed against religion, is very funny and has a lot of truth to it. Religion is pretty screwed up. Maher, who hosts an HBO talk show, grabs at a lot of low-hanging fruit to mock the dysfunctional branches of faith.

Among his targets is a group, called Answers in Genesis, that opine dinosaurs were horses for early man. Other easy targets including a rapping suicide bombing enthusiast, radical Islamics and Jews, and a dimwitted U.S. evangelical senator.

Those are the lazy parts of “Religulous,” where Maher, who is a very intelligent debater, ties his foils into frustrated, rhetorical knots. Of course, he has the advantage — he demands proof. The others rely only on faith. One can’t help but feel that one reason Maher despises faith is that he doesn’t know anyone he would deem as cool who believes.

It would have been interesting had Maher tried to examine faith, and its relationship to theology and religious belief. But “Religulous” won’t tread into the serious. It’s designed to mock those who believe in Christ, virgin births, “magic underwear” or take the Bible seriously … you get the picture. It’s manna for the religion of atheism, of which Maher is a high priest … even if he won’t admit to any “faith.” 

Hey Maher! We know there’s a lot of inconsistencies in religion. How about finding some new ones. I’m tired of seeing Ted Haggard in anti-God screeds. How about examining what Camille Paglia points out, that as the world gets more unstable, more of us turn to God. In “Religulous,” Maher is a reverse Glenn Beck without tears, clucking over those “God-lovers.”

Nevertheless, pop atheism, along the lines of Maher, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, has value. There is a lot wrong with religion today. We have one political party whose members are moving away from it, and another whose members have tried to co-opt it into a political party. In Utah, the LDS faith and the Republican Party have what seems to be an eternal marriage. Maher may enrage in “Religulous” (and there are very blasphemous scenes in the film) but he is taking the time to talk with believers and deconstruct their beliefs. That he wins most of the debates underscores a troubling trend with religion — too many believers can’t defend their beliefs.

Maher’s segment on Mormonism, I’m sorry to say, is a real clunker. Instead of confronting the 21st Century LDS Church, he obviously researched old 19th century speeches that are of dubious value today. It provides punch lines for several doctrines, including a very offensive clip involving Mary and God. The only Mormons Maher talks to are a couple who have left the faith, and there’s the requisite “get kicked off property by LDS security” scene. 

I can think of dozens of Mormon scholars Maher could have interviewed and matched wits with but again, in a pop atheist screed, interesting debate only happens by accident. Maher plays funny but not too complicated. 

In fact, the most interesting parts of “Religulous” are when Maher’s subjects match him in intelligence, or at least common sense. A man who plays Jesus at a cheesy amusement park uses faith to debate on even terms. Even Maher admits he was stumped at one point. There are Christians in a battered truck stop church who ask to pray with Maher. To the host’s credit, he is very respectful of his subjects while interviewing them, although the snarkiness comes out when Maher’s with his crew.

Maher’s conversation with a senior Vatican priest, Father Reginald Foster, is alternately the most rewarding and frustrating part of “Religulous.” Foster, a very candid man, agrees with Maher on many points, including that the authors of the Scriptures can’t be relied on to be in sync with what we know today. Rather than press on and learn something, Maher just basks in the praise of having someone agree with him. How interesting it would have been had he tried to learn why Foster agrees with him and still believes in God. That, apparently, is too much for pop atheism — and Maher — to tackle.

As a close friend said, you can learn more about religion watching “Nacho Libre” than “Religulous.”

Agreed, but “Religulous” is slightly funnier. Watch the trailer here.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published long ago at StandardBlogs

Slim book ‘Talking with Mormons’ makes a lot of sense

On page 38 of theologian Richard J. Mouw’s book, “Talking with Mormons: An Invitation to Evangelicals” (Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co.), the author recounts a telephone call from an LDS man who, 10 years after his baptism, was questioning whether he was a Christian.

Mouw asked the following questions , quoted from the book:

How many Gods are there, I asked.

Well, there is one Godhead, made up from three divine Persons — Father, Son and Holy Spirit, he responded.

Will you ever become a god like them?

Oh no. I hope I’m becoming more Christ-like, but only the three Persons of Godhood are worthy of worship. More like God — yes. To be a God — no way!

What is the basis for your salvation? Do you earn it by your good works?

No, my good works can’t save me. I’m saved by grace, through the atoning work of Christ on the Cross. My good works — those I perform in gratitude to what He has done for me.

Mouw assured the caller he was a Christian, and he also told the man to remain a Mormon, so long as he can give those answers without reproach to his LDS leaders. That anecdote, delivered in this slim, valuable volume, shows the wisdom of the author. There is nothing untruthful in what that man told Mouw.

There are Latter-day Saints who would chastise the man for choosing to become more like God rather than deciding to be like God. And there are evangelicals who will jump all over the man’s statement that the Godhood is comprised of three divine persons. Mouw offers the rational response — why diminish that man’s beautiful testimony of Christ’s atonement?

Mouw, who has angered some evangelicals, is not an apologist for Mormon doctrines that he disagrees with. the book contains, for example, his strong defense of the Nicene Creed. Mormonism’s rejection of that, and its substitution of three separate personages, two with limited form, comprising a Godhood, is the foundation of claims that Mormons are not Christians. Mouw tosses aside this contention by quoting the 19th century scholar Charles Hodge, a prominent Calvinist. Hodge disagreed fervently with an earlier scholar, Friedrich Schleiermacher, who rejected the Bible as infallible and divine. Nevertheless, and this is the important point, Hodge was convinced that the deceased Schleiermacher, who in his lifetime had admired and adored Christ, was with the Savior. Mouw writes: And then Hodge adds this tribute to Schleiermacher: “Can we doubt that he is singing those praises now? To whomever Christ is God, St. John assures us, Christ is a Savior.”

The idea, from any religion that believes in Christ, that one persons’ faith in Christ’s atonement is invalid due to doctrinal disputes, is noxious. Mouw understands that. He’s a remarkable example of religious tolerance, willing to debate long-disputed doctrinal points with Latter-day Saints but willing to concede spiritual equanimity.

Frankly, “Talking with Mormons” should be required reading for LDS missionaries, both full-time and local.

Moux easily dismisses the LDS-is-a-cult argument by pointing out the wide variety of organizations and media that daily engage in debate over Mormon doctrine, as well as the many efforts by LDS leadership to engage in dialogues, whether with other religions or the media. The book contains an account of evangelical apologist Ravi Zacharias, and Mouw, speaking in the Salt Lake City tabernacle, the result of a 2004 invitation from LDS church leaders.

The author takes the time to find related ground between doctrines, such as a latter-day prophet and latter-day scriptures, that are usually points of dispute. This effort to look toward similarities, rather than easily leap to long-repeated, well-rehearsed attacks, is admirable and should be reciprocated by Latter-day Saints when talking with people of other faith.

On the Joseph Smith question, Mouw compares him to other prophets who have allegedly spoke to God and provided scripture. His example is Mohammed. Also, Mouw invites evangelicals to think about Mormons, and others, not as “‘How do we keep them from taking over the world?’ to one that emerges when we ask ‘What is it about their teachings that speaks to what they understand to be their deepest human needs and yearnings?”

Framing the question in that manner invites shared knowledge and increased empathy, rather than the sour faux triumph of hurling a negative. However, it must be again stressed that Mouw’s advice is as much for Mormons and others as it is for evangelicals.

-- Doug Gibson

-- Originally published at StandardBlogs