"Religulous" is Agnoxious

Comedian, satirist, and political pundit Bill Maher's latest rant on religion is a movie entitled "Religulous." Maher's basic goal is to show how ridiculous religion (and belief if God in general) is. Maher interviews various religious leaders who can't answer questions like, "If God exists, why doesn't he just speak audibly to everyone at once and let us know?" and "How can you believe in a talking snake?" Maher also visits various religious sites including the Vatican and The Holy Land Experience amusement park in Florida. Though I haven't seen the movie, I've seen enough clips and interviews (like this one with NPR's Terry Gross) to come up with a few basic thoughts about Maher and the movie.

First, Maher's claim that religious people can be ridiculous doesn't pose much of a threat to the viability of religion itself. While I am certainly a "religious" person in the sense that I believe the Bible to be authoritative and truthful and regularly participate in and lead activities in a local Christian church, I readily agree with Maher that much of what counts as "religion" is indeed ridiculous. In all fairness, Maher and director Larry Charles (of "Borat" fame) had a fairly easy task - it isn't too hard to find religious people who appear fanatical and refuse to defend or explain their faith as it relates to history, reason, or science. It isn't exactly ground-breaking to assert that religious people can be quite ridiculous in their beliefs and practices.

Second, Maher's critique of religious belief itself is far from neutral (as it claims to be). Maher admits he is an agnostic - he doesn't know whether God exists or not and cannot understand how both atheists and religious folks can claim any certainty in the matter. But it is downright obnoxious, or shall we say, "agnoxious" how Maher assumes agnosticism is the only defensible view of God. He mocks the certainty of the religious belief with no restraint, all the while failing to look at the ironically certain nature of his uncertainty. This type of thinking may be comically defensible, but it is hardly intellectually defensible.

Third, Maher's mockery seems like an extravagant attempt to get "the idea of God" out of his head once and for all. In his interview with Larry King, Maher explained how he has worked long and hard to rid himself of "the idea of God." You can see Maher explain this here (scroll to the 4:40 mark). Sadly, Maher is exhibiting the very thing Paul discusses in Romans 1, specifically verse 18, "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth." Despite this and many other attempts, Maher will not be able to ever get "the idea of God" out of his mind or heart. As a person created in God's image, he has a knowledge of God in his heart yet covered by thick layers of sinful confusion, pride, and cynicism.

Finally, although "Religulous" is a comedy (or to use a more specific term, a "mockumentary"), it speaks volumes about how America's popular culture (or at least a segment of the culture) views religion. If Americans watch this movie and laugh, what does it say about their understanding of religion? And what does it say about how we, the religious, feed their misconceptions?

We may disagree with Maher's biting and biased critique of the historic Christian faith, but what are we doing to counteract it? Are we preaching the historical gospel of Christ with clarity? Are we defending our doctrine both privately and publicly? Do we live with an integrity worthy of the Christ we represent and proclaim? The gospel of Christ will always be folly to the world (1 Cor 1:23), but we must do our best to proclaim it, defend it, and adorn it well.