A Hell of a Review

Last updated on: January 2, 2013 at 2:08 am by Leah Libresco

A Hell of a Review 2013-01-02T02:08:45-05:00 Leah Libresco

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

I received a review copy of Tripp York’s book (The Devil Wears Nada) free of charge, but I made no agreements about the substance of the review with him or anyone else.

The Devil Wears Nada turned out to be a little out of my wheelhouse, since Tripp York is mainly addressing evangelical protestant conceptions of Satan, but I found it to be a mostly enjoyable read. Atheists or anyone else trying to pick fights over this aspect of theology will find this to be a useful rundown of the arguments and common responses. However, because Yorke includes frequent mocking asides (sometimes in footnotes, sometimes in the text itself), a devout conservative Christian would probably find an excuse to write it off. (Edward Feser’s The Last Superstition had the exact same problem, but going the other way). That’s the essence of my thoughts on the thesis of this book, so now on to riffs on whatever happened to interest me most:

Who can’t tolerate the tolerant?
Unitarians don’t have many beliefs about Satan (and certainly no orthodox teachings) so I was confused that York had interviewed a Unitarian minister on the topic. This conversation turned out to be one of my favorite parts of the book, since York was targeting a hobby horse of mine: the incoherence of non-creedal religion. York points out that most religions would be quite upset by the compromise position the Unitarians have settled on. Jews don’t believe they are a chosen people and that they serve a jealous G-d who is also very pleased that some people have found peace in Shinto. Most Christians don’t think that no one comes to the Father except through Christ except maybe through neo-Norse paganism.

These religions make conflicting claims, and you’re not doing them a favor by papering over their differences. Unitarians and others want to mix and match from religious traditions without admitting that this act is itself a radical rebuke of the foundational claims of these faiths. They remind me of Thomas Friendman’s wearisome pleas for a third-party candidate that will pick and choose the policies from both parties that Thomas Friedman likes best. He forgets that these policies spring from divergent political philosophies and he never bothers to explain what theory of the polity would undergird his hypothetical candidate’s smorgasboard of positions.

On Becoming Anathema
In his discussion with the Universalist minister, York pressed his sparring partner on the boundaries of membership in the Unitarian church. York said that if he committed adultery, he would no longer be a Mennonite – he would have excommunicated himself. He wanted to know if Unitarians had any equivalent acts. I was really surprised he thought the dividing line between people in a particular religious tradition and heathens was their acts. With my crypto-Catholic sensibilities, I don’t see how an action could strip you of your identity as a believer. Bad acts make you a bad whatever-you-are, but only divergent beliefs actually cut you off from the community, since they preclude seeking healing from that church.

What’s York’s deal, anyway?
He was raised in the Church of the Nazarene, but he makes several comments in the text that imply he’s now a practicing Mennonite. He mentions at one point the he does not believe in an immortal human soul, but notes he “can honestly say this and remain perfectly orthodox.” I don’t think everyone who writes about religion needs to fess about their personal beliefs, but, given that York has written an entire book examining the evidence for one particular facet of faith, it would be really interesting to know what propositions have cleared his threshold for belief. And after his (much appreciated) hatchet job on Unitarians, I was awfully curious to see what kind of a creed he subscribes to. If you’re going to go after other people’s beliefs, it’s nice to put your own cards on the table in an afterword or appendix, so we know where to aim when we hit back.

Debate Tactics

Reviews/Recommendations

soteriology

Previous Post

April 21, 2012

"What's Hard is Simple, What's Natural Comes Hard"

Next Post

April 23, 2012 An Objective Immoral Moral Law

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category 7 Quick Takes Apologetics Atheism Book Conversion Debate Tactics Debates Epistemology/Philosophy Housekeeping Ideological Turing Test Marriage Morality in Practice Parsing Catholicism Possibly Heretical Radio Reviews/Recommendations Sequence Index Spiritual Practice Uncategorized

Select a Month April 2017 March 2017 January 2017 December 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who stopped the sun from setting during a battle?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Moses Joshua Samuel Elijah