“You Are that man!”
For most of my life I never cared much for Bill Maher, for his brand of humor. But recently, I’ve found myself watching his weekly TV show on CNN. Not so much because my sense of humor has changed, although I have to admit he is growing on me. But rather, because I really enjoy his political commentary.
Even though he is very honest about his partisan leanings, unapologetically supporting Vice President Harris and expressing deep concern about Former President Trump, his points are incredibly incisive and fairly balanced, especially in exposing hypocrisy coming from both sides of the aisle.
An episode several weeks ago is a good example. He railed about how, while the extreme right denies January 6th, the extreme left denies October 7th. He was disgusted that, in their denials, both sides stake out indefensible positions. The ridiculous mental gymnastics each side is forced to do to justify their position makes this abundantly clear.
And yet—and yet—each side hypocritically points the finger at the other side for doing the exact thing they are doing! While they can see so clearly how indefensible the other side’s position is, they are completely blind to how indefensible their own position is. As Maher so deftly points out, it is their blind partisan orthodoxy, their profound lack of independent, critical thinking, that drives them to such blatantly irrational positions.
Maher frequently stresses the desperate need for all of us think more critically. To be open-minded and independent thinkers. Guided by facts and reason. By accurate data and rigorous logic. To which I say an enthusiastic “Amen!”
“You are that man!”
There is a very revealing story in the Bible (2 Samuel 12:1-13) about King David and the prophet Nathan. David had established himself as the greatest king in Israel’s history. The monarchy was at its height; it would never be as great again. David had achieved this success through a series of daring military exploits, courageously guiding his troops to victory and military dominance, and thereby fashioning Israel into a world power.
But far more importantly, according to the Bible, David had a stellar reputation as an upright and faithful man. He was, as the Bible puts it, a “man after God’s own heart.”
For some reason, however, David decided not to join in the most recent military campaign, leading his troops into battle as he had always done up to that point. One day, as his troops were engaged in battle, David was strolling through his palace and, from the high point his veranda afforded, caught sight of Bathsheba, an extraordinarily beautiful woman. David already had a large concubine. And being king, he could have had any unmarried woman in the kingdom he wanted. But Bathsheba was married. To Uriah, the Hittite. One of David’s troops. Who was heroically fighting on the front lines. In combat. To defend David’s monarchy.
But David really wanted Bathsheba. He lusted after her. So, being king, he sent for her and had sex with her. When we hear this story, we are aghast to hear that this “man after God’s own heart” could commit adultery so easily. That he could violate one of the Ten Commandments so easily. Especially given the fact that it was considered a capital offense in his day.
But it’s way worse than that. Bathsheba wouldn’t have felt safe saying no to the King’s advances. No one would. He’s the king. He could have you killed for displeasing him. So she would have had no choice in the matter. Which means that, effectively, David rapes her.
If that wasn’t bad enough, shortly after David rapes her, Bathsheba becomes pregnant. Now, David needs to find a way to cover up the incredible scandal he’s caused. So he devises a scheme to bring Uriah back from the front line so that he will sleep with his wife, Bathsheba. He even gets him drunk so that he will be more inclined to do so. That way, Uriah will think the child is his, a clever plan before there was DNA testing!
But Uriah thwarts the plan. He refuses to sleep with Bathsheba because, out of loyalty to his brother soldiers, he abstains from enjoying in the marriage privilege until all the troops can return home and do the same. A very honorable thing to do.
David is now forced to hatch another plan to cover up his fiasco. He decides to send Uriah back to the front line. Then he issues orders to his commanders inform everyone but Uriah to withdraw from the heat of battle at their command, abandoning Uriah to be killed. David effectively murders Uriah in order to take Bathsheba as his wife and cover up what he has done. David then goes on with his life, acting as if nothing ever happened.
Enter Nathan the prophet. Nathan tells David a parable about a rich man and a poor man. The rich man had an abundance of cattle and sheep. The poor man had one, lone ewe lamb. A lamb who had become like one of the family. Who he treated as a daughter who he shared his table with.
One day, a stranger came to visit and the rich man needed an animal to sacrifice in order to show the customary hospitality. But instead of using one of his many cattle or sheep, the rich man took the poor man’s only lamb who was considered a member of the poor man’s family and slaughtered her for his guest.
When David heard this parable, he was infuriated. He demanded that the rich man be put for death for committing such a heinous violation. To which Nathan replied: “You are that man.”
Up to that point, David was so committed to getting his way that he was completely blind to how indefensible his actions actually were. He might have rationalized his actions as something all kings do. But when David realized that Nathan’s parable was about him, it opened his eyes to the horror of what he had done and he repented of his sin.
You are that man!
In a more recent episode of Bill Maher, he interviewed an evangelical journalist who has been very outspoken, criticizing the way many evangelicals have cozied up to Donald Trump. Maher, who agrees, peppered him with range of questions and was clearly impressed by the critique this journalist had of his own faith group and the honesty and courage he has shown in exposing the pitfalls and dangers of this relationship. But in the last few minutes of the interview, Maher couldn’t help himself. He had to challenge this evangelical journalist’s faith.
Maher frequently talks about his atheism, how he grew up Catholic and, for a short time, “drank the cool aid” until he learned how to think critically and quickly outgrew the “mythological nonsense”.
So Maher pressed him: “You’re a very intelligent guy. You seem to be a critical, independent thinker. You appear to be very open minded. So how can you believe in this Jesus stuff? How can you believe he was born of a virgin, or rose from the dead?”
Maher made a point of mocking those who believe in these things: Anyone with half a brain can see that it’s pure mythology. Not, as he made a point of saying, that he denies Jesus was a real historical person. Or that he doesn’t admire many of his teachings. He also made a point of saying how he admires the approach Thomas Jefferson took, rewriting the Gospels by eliminating all the miraculous elements so that only Jesus’ teachings remained, the part of Jesus rational people can accept.
But to Maher’s mind, believers fall into the same kind of blind, dogmatic orthodoxy that those on the political extremes exhibit. An irrational commitment to their cause. Staking a position that is indefensible, that requires mental gymnastics to defend.
The journalist was amused by Maher’s question. He readily acknowledged how hard it might be to understand how he could believe in all this “Jesus stuff”. But he went on to explain how thinking critically about it is what has led him to discover a wealth of evidence for it. His faith is built not upon blind orthodoxy but rigorous logic.
Before Maher cut the interview off, they journalist tried to launch into some of that evidence. He began constructing an argument based on the fact that many extremely critical-minded biblical scholars now regard most of the “mythological” parts of the Gospels, like Jesus’ miracles and especially his resurrection, as solidly grounded in historical events.
Maher didn’t seem to be aware of any of this. Nor did he express any open-minded curiosity about it. Maher didn’t respond by saying: “That’s interesting, I need to look into it.” Instead, he just dismissed it: “Ya, well.” And he brought the interview to an end. He didn’t give this journalist time to explain.
But this journalist couldn’t be any more spot on. One of the major areas of consensus among the experts who study the Gospels, those who have devoted their lives to modern critical biblical scholarship, is around the fact that Jesus was an exorcist and healer. In fact, there is almost unanimous agreement over the fact that those who witnessed Jesus’ ministry—both friend and foe alike—were convinced that they had actually seen him perform exorcisms and miracles, even if his enemies attributed his power to demonic influence.
And of all the other figures from antiquity who are reported to have performed miraculous deeds, all of this is unique. In just about every other case, the historical sources are so suspect that scholars regard those reports to be legendary—in other words, mythology. The kind of mythology Maher thinks the Gospels are.
But modern scholars are of the nearly unanimous opinion that, while they consider the stories about other miracle workers to by mythology, the sources surrounding Jesus’ miracles are of such high quality, they need to be reckoned with as authentically historical. Making Jesus the most unique miracle worker in antiquity. (There are a number of other things as well that make him the most unique miracle worker in antiquity, but I don’t have time to go into them here.)
Within this consensus concerning the unique-to-antiquity-historical-fact about what the witnesses to Jesus’ ministry believed they had actually experienced, a good number of scholars either don’t attempt to draw any conclusion, other than that Jesus was a very charismatic figure, or attribute it to some kind of anomaly or anomalous phenomena, defying ordinary experience while not being strictly miraculous. But the rest—a clear majority—see no other way to explain this historical data than by attributing it to a supernatural source. They think there is enough evidence to demonstrate Jesus actually did perform miracles. And again, these are scholars who are as critical thinking as they come.
So you would think someone like Maher, who claims to be an open-minded, critical thinker, would want to investigate and see for himself. He clearly wasn’t aware that any of this modern scholarship existed. But he showed no interest or curiosity in finding out more about it. It was clear he has already made up his mind—years ago. So when the journalist was willing to share some of the best “science”, some of the best data, the field has to offer, he didn’t want to hear it. He wasn’t open to any of it. Out of an irrational commitment to his atheistic worldview.
Let me say this again: The majority of experts in the field agree that one of the most reliable historical datum we have about Jesus is that, at the very least, his contemporaries believed they had witnessed him perform numerous, spectacular, miraculous deeds.
If you are an open-minded, independent, critical thinker, as Maher proports to be, you will want to look into this stunning fact. If you want to follow the science, i.e., the best scholarship in this field, if you seek reliable data instead of alternative facts, then when it comes to the life of Jesus, there is no more trustworthy place to look, no more rigorously critical analysis available.
But Maher wasn’t at all open to any of it.
“You are that man!”
Maher’s refusal to apply his own standard to the Jesus question is indefensible. Which makes him a hypocrite. Just as blind to how irrational his position is, how blindly he is following his atheistic dogma. What he can see so clearly in the political extremists, what so disgusts him about their approach, he is utterly blind to in his approach to the historical Jesus.
“You are that man!”
Bill Maher and the political extremists aren’t alone in this. We are all that man. The truth is that, while we can so easily see what is indefensible in others, we all have an innate tendency to be completely blind to what is so indefensible in ourselves, whether that be our views, our attitudes, our positions, our beliefs, and/or our actions.
“You are that man!”
This election, as emotions run high and people begin to lose their heads over it; while each side accuses the other side of holding indefensible positions while at the very same time maintaining equally indefensible positions; while people are running around doing all kind of mental gymnastics trying to defend and rationalize the blatantly indefensible partisan positions they so blindly follow; while so many are simply reacting more out of partisan orthodoxy than clear headed, rigorous logic; while most won’t even listen to the other side, let alone keep an open mind to anything they say that has even a hint of validity to it, it gives all of us a good opportunity to critically examine our perspective, our blind spots.
While I don’t agree with Maher on everything, while, in light of modern critical scholarship, his conclusions about Christianity are indefensible, a fact he is ironically blind to, he is still spot on about how desperately we need to think more open-mindedly and critically.
“You are that man!”
For many years, even as a Christian, like Maher I considered Jesus’ miracles to be more mythology than fact. The only miracle that mattered to me was the Resurrection, which, because I had critically examined it in depth, I had come to believe. Beyond this one super-miracle, I preferred Jefferson’s approach to the Gospels. It seemed far more rational.
But as I started to see the incredible shift that was happening in modern critical scripture scholarship over the past thirty years, I had to reexamine my assumptions. And when I took a fresh, open-minded look and critically examined the evidence for myself, I began to see the embarrassing wealth of historical evidence scholars have unearthed for Jesus’ miracles. I began to see why practically all the experts, regardless of what they attribute it to, agree on their historical authenticity. I began to see that this is where thinking critically about it leads.
“You are that man!”
Whatever you make of this fact, if you are truly an open-minded, critical thinker, you will want to hear what the experts in the field say, experts who are the epitome of critical thinking, who hold each other accountable to the highest standards of critical thought. And then you will want to account for this fact. You will want to find a good, rigorously logical explanation for it.
If you have any comments or questions, I would love to hear them. You can go to the “Contact E. J.” Page of the Raising Jesus website and leave them there. I look forward to hearing from you!
