A review by marc_s
Confronting Christianity: 12 Hard Questions for the World's Largest Religion by Rebecca McLaughlin

challenging informative reflective medium-paced

1.0

Rebecca McLaughlin’s Confronting Christianity is an apologetic text that seeks to provide Christianity’s answer to a dozen questions. These include (some of these are paraphrases):

• Is religion good or bad?
• Does Christianity hinder diversity?
• Is Christianity the one true religion?
• Does religion hinder morality?
• Does religion cause violence?
• Can we take the Bible literally?
• Has science disproved Christianity?
• Is Christianity misogynistic?
• Is Christianity homophobic?
• What about the Bible and slavery?
• What about suffering?
• What about hell?

As is evident by this list, McLaughlin’s work focuses on religion broadly and Christianity more narrowly at different points. Although it is brought up at various points throughout the book, it is extremely evident that McLaughlin is heavily influenced by the culture and worldview of academia. I believe that this manifests in a variety of ways throughout the book, including its apparent academic audience, the sources McLaughlin cites, the presuppositions she brings to the book, and the perspective she takes on some of the issues discussed. The work seems to be tailored toward this particular group; however, I believe that this causes McLaughlin to compromise on elements of the truth and get many things wrong throughout the book as a result.

To begin discussing the chapters in some level of detail (beyond general critiques), I mostly agreed with the first chapter, only observing that McLaughlin’s attempt to critique capitalism on 24 appears to be a stronger critique of financial excess rather than the particular economic system of capitalism.

Chapter two is where things get a bit more interesting. This chapter is one of the places where McLaughlin’s somewhat liberal academic worldview comes through most evidently, including her “white guilt complex.” (33) Being that McLaughlin’s more specific goal in this essay was to dispel the myth that Christianity is a western religion, I found it odd that it took her nearly five pages to bring up that Christianity is an eastern religion by origin. McLaughlin pulls some quotes from somewhat controversial figures within evangelicalism (MLK and Tim Keller) in addition to making the following confusing statements:

“The New Testament is one of the most emphatically anti-racist texts ever written” (44)

“American churches have far to go in living up to the biblical promise” (45)

I genuinely have no idea what McLaughlin means by either of these since she does little to define her terms or explain them further. The only conclusion I can realistically draw is that, not unusually for academics, McLaughlin’s worldview has been influenced by Critical Race Theory on some level, which I find to be concerning and disagree with broadly.

The third chapter I found myself in general agreement with. I appreciated (and hope to emulate in this review) McLaughlin’s comment pointing out that:

“disagreement is not evidence of disrespect.” (50)

The one oddity of this chapter (as my friend Hannah who lent me this book keenly observed) is that McLaughlin makes the first mention of her hope in Christ on 52, which I was expecting to come up earlier.

I found myself in general agreement with the fourth chapter also, aside from this one statement that I found confusing because evolution is not traditionally part of the Christian understanding of creation. As, we’ll see later, I think this is further indicative of academia’s influence on McLaughlin’s worldview:

“At this point, Christians traditionally invoke evolution to ram home the point.” (70)

Chapter five was about religion and violence, a topic on which my disagreements with McLaughlin were minimal. However, McLaughlin failed to take sufficient account of the biblical evidence when she claimed that Jesus favored the poor on 81. Although the Bible contains many instances of Jesus caring for the poor (Matthew 5:3; 25:40; Luke 4:18), He does not appear to favor them over the rich, since being God, Jesus desires justice which is exemplified particularly by Leviticus 19:15 and demonstrable by Christ’s actions toward the rich young ruler and Zacchaeus (Luke 18; 19:1-10). We do well to remember that Christ was more concerned with the spiritual state of the individuals that He encountered rather than their temporal status or power, and it is demonstrable through Scripture that this, rather than a special favor for the marginalized, was the guiding principle of His actions. Christ embodies justice rather than an ideologue conducting His ministry through the lens of power dynamics. It may be true that McLaughlin was trying to give particular emphasis to Christ’s care for the marginalized; however, neglecting the full picture here may leave readers with a false understanding of Christ’s intentions. Additionally, McLaughlin’s claim aligns with a misconception about Christ’s values that is common in modern academia. This may be indicative of McLaughlin’s broader worldview, since she concludes this essay with a view of the crucifixion that takes further queues from the commonly left-wing Critical Theory-influenced view of power dynamics:

“Violence is the use of power by the strong to hurt the weak. At the cross, the most powerful man who ever lived submitted to the most brutal death ever died, to save the powerless. Christianity does not glorify violence. It humiliates it.” (93)

Chapter six discusses taking the Bible literally. I agreed with McLaughlin’s writing here, although taking the Bible literarily may be a better way to phrase what she is advocating.

The seventh chapter was about science. McLaughlin rightly discusses the Christian origins of science and I agree with her take barring some comments about the Big Bang, Genesis, and evolution, which is brought up later but related to this topic.

Chapter eight is about whether Christianity is misogynistic. I agreed with McLaughlin generally, but found her discussion of “traditional gender roles” (142) somewhat confusing and not aligned with my understanding of the topic.

The fun truly begins with chapter nine’s discussion of homosexuality. Unsurprisingly, there were some differences between my view and McLaughlin’s on this subject. McLaughlin kicks things off with this statement:

“We believe that God could change our instincts, but we have no promise that he will, because blue-blood heterosexuality is not the goal of the Christian life: Jesus is.” (154)

While McLaughlin rightly points out that the central focus of the Christian life is Christ, her statement seems to ignore that this inherently means that Christians must do what Jesus commands (John 14:15). 1 Corinthians 6:11 suggests that Christians are to conform to God’s standards in all areas of life, including sexual ethics. McLaughlin’s apparent position seems to accept homosexuality as normative, a view which cannot account for the sin’s presentation in Romans 1:18-32; Jude 7, and the sexuality’s appearance in New Testament vice lists (1 Corinthians 6:9-11; 1 Timothy 1:10). The view espoused by McLaughlin appears to align with the Side B view of sexuality (homosexual acts but not desires are sinful), which I disagree with strenuously because it is at odds with biblical teaching on sexuality, sin, and sanctification.

McLaughlin continues on page 155 to evade the predominant meaning of “same-sex relationships” by discussing whether Christians may be in friendships with those who share their gender, although she does rightly concede that marriage is different than friendship and that marriage is limited to heterosexual monogamous couples on 157. I disagreed somewhat with McLaughlin’s reading of 1 Corinthians 7:38 on 160 as I do not think that her conclusion of Paul’s view on singleness is correct. Although the initial disagreement may be a minor tiff on Paul’s emphasis, the disagreement becomes more serious as McLaughlin continues:

“Enabling same-sex attracted Christians who choose to remain single to thrive in the church means becoming more biblical, not less.” (161)

Here McLaughlin again falsely equates homosexuality as a normative sexual orientation on the same plane as God’s clearly intended heterosexual design for sex (Genesis 2:24), which is another hallmark of the Side B position as previously discussed. Unfortunately, things do not improve from here:

“As a predominantly same-sex-attracted woman happily married to a man, I myself am increasingly convinced that the longing I at times have felt is ultimately a longing not for another woman but for the One who created that person.” (161)

McLaughlin here equates her homosexual desires with a longing for Christ. I believe this is a grave error that can only warrant a strong response. McLaughlin’s conflation of her desire for Christ with her sinful desires, particularly her perverse sexual desires, is a serious misunderstanding and misapplication of Christ’s teachings that blatantly demeans  the person of Christ. As previously discussed, homosexual desires are sinful, and equating those sinful desires to a longing for Christ comes across as dangerously disrespectful toward our Savior.

From here, McLaughlin continues by discussing what the Bible really says about homosexuality. I agree with McLaughlin that the Bible prohibits homosexual acts, but this statement reinforces an element of McLaughlin’s perspective that permeates the entire chapter: homosexual acts are sinful, but homosexual desires are affirmed as valid (as the previous and other direct quotations clarify). Not to belabor the point, but I again appeal to God’s original design for sexuality in Genesis 2:24 and Romans 1:18-32 (cf. Jude 7) where Paul directly disproves this idea, claiming that not only are homosexual acts sinful, but homosexual desires are also (cf. Matthew 5:27-28). A side note, but McLaughlin’s brief discussion of pederasty (which itself is not nice) is a nice inclusion.

Speaking of Paul, McLaughlin proceeds to argue that Paul was not a homophobe in 164-166. She uses the vice list in 1 Timothy 1:10 and proceeds to argue that Paul could not have been homophobic because he saw himself as the foremost of sinners (1:15-16). Although it appears McLaughlin cares about it, Paul being a homophobe is something I deem irrelevant to the discussion (I think her question about Christianity’s homophobia is poorly framed); what is more concerning, however, is that it appears that McLaughlin claims that all of the sins included in 1:10 are of equal severity before God, which is incompatible with Genesis 19:1-30; Romans 1:26-27; Jude 7. McLaughlin quotes this passage following this brief rabbit hole simply as “verses that condemn homosexual sex for men and women” (165) that are “unquestionably offensive.” (165) McLaughlin again neglects to mention that this is the very passage which says that homosexual desires, in addition to homosexual acts, are sinful. McLaughlin proceeds to quote 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 directly, another vice list containing homosexuality, yet again fails to make any account of the phrase “Such were some of you” in the midst of the text which, contrary to McLaughlin’s apparent view, heavily implies that Christians who struggled with homosexuality did not remain as homosexuals thanks to God’s work in them. To jump ahead somewhat, the notion that McLaughlin views sexuality as fixed is confirmed directly when she writes:

“Ultimately, while we do not choose our sexual attractions, we do choose our sexual actions.” (171)

Apart from Christ this could be a true statement in some sense. With Christ, however, McLaughlin appears to confess that she does not trust God to help her, or anyone else for that matter, overcome their homosexual desires (something I myself have seen direct evidence to the contrary in others’ lives to some degree).

To circle back momentarily, McLaughlin’s suggestion that a “heterosexual pornography addiction” (167) might be a worse sin than homosexual desires is misplaced. The real issue is not comparing the severity of these sins but recognizing that both require Christ’s transformative help. While there is sympathy for individuals struggling with homosexuality and the challenges they may face within the church, McLaughlin’s approach seems to downplay the seriousness of homosexual sin. Although this portion of her work may suggest that McLaughlin does view homosexual desires as sinful, her continued evasion of the question and previous statements to the contrary appear more indicative of her position in my view. Yet another example of this occurs near the end of the chapter in this somewhat confusingly worded statement:

“Why can we not say, therefore, that people who are exclusively same-sex attracted are exceptions to the biblical rule? Because the Bible is clear in its no to homosexual sex.” (173)

Moreover, McLaughlin’s interpretation of celibacy in 1 Corinthians 7 appears flawed, as she seems to continue equating homosexual desires with heterosexual ones, which distorts the passage’s intended meaning. Her reading undermines the text’s clear teachings on celibacy and sexual ethics.

My last major issue with McLaughlin’s position in this chapter was brought out by the following quote:

“None of this proves that the biblical view is correct or that it should necessarily dictate secular laws.” (172)

Firstly, we must understand that the biblical view of homosexuality is not what McLaughlin has put forward in this chapter. If we give McLaughlin the benefit of the doubt for a moment and assume that her view is synonymous with the biblical view (which it isn’t), she appears to state that the Bible’s counsel is not necessarily correct and that it is not directly applicable to all people. This does not account for the fact that all people, Christian or not, are under God’s moral standard. Numerous passages, particularly from the prophets, testify to this (Isaiah 13:9-22; Jeremiah 46:25-26; Ezekiel 25:3-7; Obadiah 1:10-16). Whether there should be laws against homosexuality is a different question (perhaps to be explored another time), but McLaughlin is playing with fire by asserting that the biblical view may be incorrect. Again, if what we assume she means by the “biblical view” (172) is the unbiblical view that McLaughlin here advocates, she is right, but the Bible’s counsel on the matter is true and applies to all people regardless of their objections.

To finally move on to chapter ten’s discussion of slavery, McLaughlin made some good points about the Atlantic slave trade being unbiblical via 1 Timothy 1:10 and reached a good conclusion regarding abolition (although I don’t think I fully agree with how she got there or the method of abolitionists). The most prevalent element of this chapter in my view, and a consistent problem throughout much of the book, is that a plethora of what McLaughlin has to say here is at best tangentially related to the question she set out to answer and very little of it is relevant to what these questions generally mean in common thought. I did not come away from this chapter feeling like McLaughlin had done an adequate job engaging the subject matter, such as dealing with the provisions for slavery in the Mosaic law and the fact that the institution of slavery is never directly abolished in the New Testament. There are good answers to these questions, but unfortunately, you will not find them in McLaughlin’s book.

Aside from some minor disagreements in what McLaughlin did discuss (conclusions on Philemon and quoting from (in my view) theologically questionable figures such as “leading black Theologian Thabiti Anyabwile” (186) and MLK), I do not think McLaughlin did the topic justice or engaged alternate views (such as mine) in any meaningful way despite reaching a valid conclusion on the matter that I actually agree with (although I do think her conclusion is an oversimplification of the biblical answer to this question).

Chapter eleven was about suffering. To prevent anyone reading this review from suffering much longer, I will simply say that I agreed with almost everything McLaughlin had to say on this topic except for her old-earth view of creation (204).

Finally, chapter twelve is about hell. Although McLaughlin had some more good things to say, I again did not come away from the piece thinking that the subject matter had been adequately addressed. The discussion of hell as an actual place and the reality of eternal torment was minimal; the closest that McLaughlin got in my view was saying that hell is the opposite of heaven and the natural consequence of rejecting Christ (218). Again, I do not disagree, but I felt the conclusion here was shallow and unsatisfactory in light of the question McLaughlin set out to answer. The question of free will also came up, but I was disappointed that McLaughlin essentially avoided it at the beginning of 220 by talking about how God is free.

To conclude this extremely and perhaps needlessly long review, Confronting Christianity is an attempt at an apologetics book that fell short in many critical areas. Although McLaughlin gave it a good college try (pun intended), this book is plagued with issues including McLaughlin’s left-wing academic presuppositions, frequent filibustering, continuous failures to answer its own questions in meaningful ways, its minor theological shortcomings, insufficient accounting of the biblical text, and its promotion of a heretical view of human sexuality, sin, and Christ’s power in sanctification through its apparent advocacy of the Side B position (and surprise! McLaughlin’s close friend is Rachel Gilson!) McLaughlin could have solved these problems in the space provided by devoting more focus toward representing Christianity’s answers to her questions of interest, but these unaddressed shortcomings make this book completely unusable for the average reader. I do not believe McLaughlin needed to compromise on the biblical truth of these matters as she did whether she viewed her writing as in service of her intended audience or the space provided to address each question. The ingredients were present to craft a useful apologetic, but the finished work failed to fully realize this potential.

I am happy to acknowledge that there are some things that McLaughlin got right, and there were many points at which I agreed with her. However, this is a deeply flawed book that comes off as more of a showcase of McLaughlin’s academic connections than a useful apologetic when read by a layman. I find it extremely difficult to believe that any atheist, agnostic, skeptic, or religiously curious person, academic or otherwise, who picks up this book will be convinced of the truth of the Christian faith if they were even able to finish it, especially since the orthodox Christian faith is not entirely what McLaughlin tries to defend. If I am honest, I am not even sure these are the twelve most important questions to answer in a skeptic’s mind. Surely a chapter defending the authenticity of the resurrection would have been a good inclusion over a topic like whether religion as a whole is good or bad as far as defending the Christian faith goes.

Overall, I have nothing against McLaughlin personally, although I am disappointed and concerned by much of what she said in this book and hope that she will come around and change her tune on some of these subjects. Perhaps there are a few diamonds in the rough throughout, but on the whole: I earnestly plead with you to avoid this book. If you want to know why, read the rest of my review.