velvetpage (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
velvetpage) wrote2008-03-14 10:22 am
velvetpage) wrote2008-03-14 10:22 am
Entry tags:
Religious tracts in supermarkets
Last Saturday, as soon as my friends collected me from the airport, we all drove over to Wild Oats, an organic/health food supermarket with a nice deli and eating area. While there, Q picked up a tract to show me. I snagged it to blog about, and briefly considered going back and snagging all the tracts on the rack so as to limit their exposure for a bit, but I didn't.
On to the snark!
The tract starts out with an imposing title: "ARE YOU LIKE MOST PEOPLE?"
The answer is presumably supposed to be yes, but since I have a pathological aversion to being considered normal, my immediate response was, "Of course not." Thus I was quite relieved upon reading the next line: "If so, you're going to HELL."
But my chortle of relief was stopped in its tracts (pun intended) by the next line: "Don't laugh, it's not a joke." Oh, okay. I stopped laughing and started reading with an eye to refutation. Exactly what arguments were they going to try to use to convince me that most people living in the Bible Belt of Tennessee (we were in Memphis at the time) under the shadow of a church my friends had dubbed "Fort God," were in fact going to HELL?
The first argument is known to debaters as an appeal to authority - in this case, the authority of the Bible, specifically the King James. (More on that later.) The tract reads, "You've heard that Jesus said "wide is the gate; and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat;" but, "narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Mt:7:13 & 14). In modern English, what that says is, "The road to Hell is like a major freeway that is packed with cars; but the road to Heaven is like a little side road that hardly anyone takes." Ah, so that's how it works. Most people are taking the freeway, because, well, it's faster and less inclined to leave chips in the paint of your car, and there are fewer water-filled ditches. (This is the Mississippi valley. Ditches are always full.) Leaving aside the fact that they used an archaic translation and then translated it for a modern audience, I noticed that they didn't bother to give a reason why we should believe this particular authority. After all, that's what an appeal to authority usually entails: "This person is so smart, and so knowledgeable about his topic, that we should believe everything he says. He clearly knows better than we do." But the tract didn't say that. I read on, looking for it. I didn't have to read far.
The next paragraph reads, "In Luke chapter 13, when He was asked, "Lord, are there few that be saved?" Jesus answered, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able." In other words, "Yes, very few will be saved, most people will try to get to Heaven but won't make it."" This is just another section of the appeal to authority above, no new information, except that it directs the tract towards people who already consider themselves Christians. I find it intriguing that the people writing the tract clearly consider themselves to be authorities, and by extension, to be among the saved, and I have to wonder where that surety comes from if their mostly-Christian audience can't also be sure of their salvation.
But now we get to the real kicker: the reason why you should trust the authority they're offering. The next line reads, "If you don't believe that, you're not alone. Most people don't!" I would love to see their stats on that, especially for Bible-Belt Memphis, but they didn't offer any stats so I can't comment on them, except to say that I think they're wrong; I suspect most people, that is, more than fifty percent, of the population of Memphis are in fact churchgoing Christians. But when your worldview requires you to see the depraved around every corner, and to try to save them, of course you're going to have to convince people that they're more depraved than they think they are. Otherwise you're going to have to go to a place that actually needs preachers, and that involves an awful lot of work. Directing tracts at nominal Christians in a grocery store in your own city is much easier, and provides that nice glow of having done something good for the Lord.
The title under the unsupported assertion that most people don't believe they're going to hell even if they're trying not to, reads, "Noah's Ark." Then the paragraph: "Most people didn't believe they were going to die in a flood but they did! (I'd add a couple of commas to that sentence if I were the editor, but that's nitpicky so it's my last grammar comment. Really.) Noah warned them but it just seemed too far out for most people to believe back in Noah's time either. Only eight people boarded Noah's Ark and were saved from the destruction of the flood. What happened to the several billion other people who were on the earth at that time? God drowned every one of them!" First, we've got an appeal to the same authority as before - the Bible - without any reason why we should trust the Bible as an authority. That says to me that their target audience is people who already accept the authority of the Bible - or people who aren't educated/smart enough to see through an appeal to authority without support of that authority's credentials. Second, we've got some very Old Testament theology there, though the tract is theoretically Christian and Christianity is supposed to supplant the Old Testament. The God of Christianity doesn't smite whole peoples. He sends his Son to save them. They've missed a key evolution in Christian theology. Their version, unfortunately, is central to Fundamentalist teachings, and very, very wrong.
There's a paragraph about how no one draws pictures about the terrified people and bloated bodies during the flood. Can we say hyperbole? How about scare tactic? Following that is another Old Testament story, this time about Sodom and Gomorrah, with a reference to how homosexuality is just another form of love, but they were wrong about that. Apparently you can still smell the fire and brimstone in the air at the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah. Really? I didn't think archaeologists had found Sodom and Gomorrah! *checks Wikipedia* Nope, no consensus as to where they were or what happened to them. I doubt you'd be able to smell anything some four thousand years after the event, unless of course the two infamous cities happened to be sitting on top of an active volcano. Actually, that would explain a lot. Bottom line: more unsupported assertions, graphic readings of disputed texts, and appeals to an unsupported authority.
We finally get to the reason after that - we're at the middle panel of the fold-out tract now, by the way. Apparently, most people are going to Hell simply because they don't believe it will happen to them. Further down, under the heading, "Hell", the tract says that the reason Jesus talked about Hell more than anyone else was because he created it. And here I thought it was because Jesus was schooled in the apolcalyptic traditions of Daniel and a few other prophets that didn't make it into our Bible, and was teaching their view of things. It's the same viewpoint that saturates Revelation, depending on how you interpret that book. But I digress. The next bit is interesting: "That's why He came to save us from Hell. You've probably heard of John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Perish means "spend eternity in Hell!"" That seems like an extrapolation to me - last I checked, "perish" simply meant "die."
We get into another debate technique next - the personal appeal. It says, "Friend, I didn't write the Bible, I'm just telling you what it says. You will have to make up your own mind about whether or not you want to believe it, but just remember that your beliefs will not change reality." Oh, so he's not going to bother to support his authority. It is what it is, and if you don't believe it, it's your funeral. In fact, that's almost verbatim from the next section, which talks about funerals all over the world happening right now for people whose souls are crying out for mercy in Hell. It's too late for them, but not for us! Then there's the appeal to accept Jesus' free gift of Salvation, which he's waiting on baited breath to give you.
The next part is the fun part. It's titled, "No Accident." It reads, "This literature (that word in this context made me wince) did not come into your hands by accident. Jesus knew when and where you would receive it. He had it brought to you now because He is calling you now." Apparently, God directs the lives of believers and unbelievers alike to the point where it is HIS will, not our own, that has us glancing towards a rack of tracts and picking one up. Isn't this directly contradicted by the idea that God's will doesn't control us - our will controls us - as stated two paragraphs later? It's magical thinking at its absolute best.
There's a bit about not delaying, and then there's a prayer that you can pray to make yourself right with God. It has far too few commas. (Sorry. I said I wouldn't do that. But it really does.) The section after that is about taking up the cross, and includes a lot of imagery about spiritual warfare that always made me a little uncomfortable. (Yes, I grew up in the Salvation Army. That means I heard it a lot. That means I was uncomfortable a lot.)
It's the last section, however, that is the absolute gem of the whole tract. It is titled, "The Best Bible," and reads, "The King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate English translation. All of the others, although they claim to be easier to read and understand, have watered down God's Word to one degree or another. Most of these modern versions were translated by unbelievers and sinners and should not be trusted." Let's see, here. The modern translations have watered down God's word? What was the author of this tract doing when he quoted the King James and then reinterpreted it for a modern audience? Do I sense some hypocrisy? Furthermore, the modern translations were translated by unbelievers and sinners. Isn't everyone a sinner? Or just the people who believe differently from the author? He quoted the correct verse himself: "all have sinned," and "the wages of sin is death." (The comma that should be after the "and" is missing because the tract left it out, and I would not presume to interpret their meaning by putting it back in. Oh, wait.)
All in all, an entertaining read. I charge you, my loyal readers, with this task: every time you stumble across a tract written and published by "Oil For Your Lamp" Ministries (the quotation marks are theirs, not mine) please grab them all, take them home, and shred them. Or use them to fertilize your garden. They're worth a little less than their weight in cow manure for that purpose, but I'm sure they'd be better off there than in some poor unthinking sod's hands.
On to the snark!
The tract starts out with an imposing title: "ARE YOU LIKE MOST PEOPLE?"
The answer is presumably supposed to be yes, but since I have a pathological aversion to being considered normal, my immediate response was, "Of course not." Thus I was quite relieved upon reading the next line: "If so, you're going to HELL."
But my chortle of relief was stopped in its tracts (pun intended) by the next line: "Don't laugh, it's not a joke." Oh, okay. I stopped laughing and started reading with an eye to refutation. Exactly what arguments were they going to try to use to convince me that most people living in the Bible Belt of Tennessee (we were in Memphis at the time) under the shadow of a church my friends had dubbed "Fort God," were in fact going to HELL?
The first argument is known to debaters as an appeal to authority - in this case, the authority of the Bible, specifically the King James. (More on that later.) The tract reads, "You've heard that Jesus said "wide is the gate; and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat;" but, "narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it" (Mt:7:13 & 14). In modern English, what that says is, "The road to Hell is like a major freeway that is packed with cars; but the road to Heaven is like a little side road that hardly anyone takes." Ah, so that's how it works. Most people are taking the freeway, because, well, it's faster and less inclined to leave chips in the paint of your car, and there are fewer water-filled ditches. (This is the Mississippi valley. Ditches are always full.) Leaving aside the fact that they used an archaic translation and then translated it for a modern audience, I noticed that they didn't bother to give a reason why we should believe this particular authority. After all, that's what an appeal to authority usually entails: "This person is so smart, and so knowledgeable about his topic, that we should believe everything he says. He clearly knows better than we do." But the tract didn't say that. I read on, looking for it. I didn't have to read far.
The next paragraph reads, "In Luke chapter 13, when He was asked, "Lord, are there few that be saved?" Jesus answered, "Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in and shall not be able." In other words, "Yes, very few will be saved, most people will try to get to Heaven but won't make it."" This is just another section of the appeal to authority above, no new information, except that it directs the tract towards people who already consider themselves Christians. I find it intriguing that the people writing the tract clearly consider themselves to be authorities, and by extension, to be among the saved, and I have to wonder where that surety comes from if their mostly-Christian audience can't also be sure of their salvation.
But now we get to the real kicker: the reason why you should trust the authority they're offering. The next line reads, "If you don't believe that, you're not alone. Most people don't!" I would love to see their stats on that, especially for Bible-Belt Memphis, but they didn't offer any stats so I can't comment on them, except to say that I think they're wrong; I suspect most people, that is, more than fifty percent, of the population of Memphis are in fact churchgoing Christians. But when your worldview requires you to see the depraved around every corner, and to try to save them, of course you're going to have to convince people that they're more depraved than they think they are. Otherwise you're going to have to go to a place that actually needs preachers, and that involves an awful lot of work. Directing tracts at nominal Christians in a grocery store in your own city is much easier, and provides that nice glow of having done something good for the Lord.
The title under the unsupported assertion that most people don't believe they're going to hell even if they're trying not to, reads, "Noah's Ark." Then the paragraph: "Most people didn't believe they were going to die in a flood but they did! (I'd add a couple of commas to that sentence if I were the editor, but that's nitpicky so it's my last grammar comment. Really.) Noah warned them but it just seemed too far out for most people to believe back in Noah's time either. Only eight people boarded Noah's Ark and were saved from the destruction of the flood. What happened to the several billion other people who were on the earth at that time? God drowned every one of them!" First, we've got an appeal to the same authority as before - the Bible - without any reason why we should trust the Bible as an authority. That says to me that their target audience is people who already accept the authority of the Bible - or people who aren't educated/smart enough to see through an appeal to authority without support of that authority's credentials. Second, we've got some very Old Testament theology there, though the tract is theoretically Christian and Christianity is supposed to supplant the Old Testament. The God of Christianity doesn't smite whole peoples. He sends his Son to save them. They've missed a key evolution in Christian theology. Their version, unfortunately, is central to Fundamentalist teachings, and very, very wrong.
There's a paragraph about how no one draws pictures about the terrified people and bloated bodies during the flood. Can we say hyperbole? How about scare tactic? Following that is another Old Testament story, this time about Sodom and Gomorrah, with a reference to how homosexuality is just another form of love, but they were wrong about that. Apparently you can still smell the fire and brimstone in the air at the ruins of Sodom and Gomorrah. Really? I didn't think archaeologists had found Sodom and Gomorrah! *checks Wikipedia* Nope, no consensus as to where they were or what happened to them. I doubt you'd be able to smell anything some four thousand years after the event, unless of course the two infamous cities happened to be sitting on top of an active volcano. Actually, that would explain a lot. Bottom line: more unsupported assertions, graphic readings of disputed texts, and appeals to an unsupported authority.
We finally get to the reason after that - we're at the middle panel of the fold-out tract now, by the way. Apparently, most people are going to Hell simply because they don't believe it will happen to them. Further down, under the heading, "Hell", the tract says that the reason Jesus talked about Hell more than anyone else was because he created it. And here I thought it was because Jesus was schooled in the apolcalyptic traditions of Daniel and a few other prophets that didn't make it into our Bible, and was teaching their view of things. It's the same viewpoint that saturates Revelation, depending on how you interpret that book. But I digress. The next bit is interesting: "That's why He came to save us from Hell. You've probably heard of John 3:16, "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Perish means "spend eternity in Hell!"" That seems like an extrapolation to me - last I checked, "perish" simply meant "die."
We get into another debate technique next - the personal appeal. It says, "Friend, I didn't write the Bible, I'm just telling you what it says. You will have to make up your own mind about whether or not you want to believe it, but just remember that your beliefs will not change reality." Oh, so he's not going to bother to support his authority. It is what it is, and if you don't believe it, it's your funeral. In fact, that's almost verbatim from the next section, which talks about funerals all over the world happening right now for people whose souls are crying out for mercy in Hell. It's too late for them, but not for us! Then there's the appeal to accept Jesus' free gift of Salvation, which he's waiting on baited breath to give you.
The next part is the fun part. It's titled, "No Accident." It reads, "This literature (that word in this context made me wince) did not come into your hands by accident. Jesus knew when and where you would receive it. He had it brought to you now because He is calling you now." Apparently, God directs the lives of believers and unbelievers alike to the point where it is HIS will, not our own, that has us glancing towards a rack of tracts and picking one up. Isn't this directly contradicted by the idea that God's will doesn't control us - our will controls us - as stated two paragraphs later? It's magical thinking at its absolute best.
There's a bit about not delaying, and then there's a prayer that you can pray to make yourself right with God. It has far too few commas. (Sorry. I said I wouldn't do that. But it really does.) The section after that is about taking up the cross, and includes a lot of imagery about spiritual warfare that always made me a little uncomfortable. (Yes, I grew up in the Salvation Army. That means I heard it a lot. That means I was uncomfortable a lot.)
It's the last section, however, that is the absolute gem of the whole tract. It is titled, "The Best Bible," and reads, "The King James Version of the Bible is the most accurate English translation. All of the others, although they claim to be easier to read and understand, have watered down God's Word to one degree or another. Most of these modern versions were translated by unbelievers and sinners and should not be trusted." Let's see, here. The modern translations have watered down God's word? What was the author of this tract doing when he quoted the King James and then reinterpreted it for a modern audience? Do I sense some hypocrisy? Furthermore, the modern translations were translated by unbelievers and sinners. Isn't everyone a sinner? Or just the people who believe differently from the author? He quoted the correct verse himself: "all have sinned," and "the wages of sin is death." (The comma that should be after the "and" is missing because the tract left it out, and I would not presume to interpret their meaning by putting it back in. Oh, wait.)
All in all, an entertaining read. I charge you, my loyal readers, with this task: every time you stumble across a tract written and published by "Oil For Your Lamp" Ministries (the quotation marks are theirs, not mine) please grab them all, take them home, and shred them. Or use them to fertilize your garden. They're worth a little less than their weight in cow manure for that purpose, but I'm sure they'd be better off there than in some poor unthinking sod's hands.