Today I received a comment from Breen that caught my attention:
Dr. Rauser, I’ve begun reading your series critiquing Craig’s defense of the Caananite killing and have found it to be insightful; however, I don’t appreciate you degrading a fellow Christian brother by calling him a “apologetic spin doctor.” Name-calling to put down others should have no place in a Christian’s vocabulary, especially when directed toward another believer.
I agree with Breen: it is wrong to name-call in order to “put others down” where “putting others down” means “belittling” or “humiliating”. However, I disagree with Breen’s statement that this is wrong “especially when directed toward another believer.” If it is wrong to belittle or humiliate a person then it is wrong, full stop. I don’t know in what sense it would be less wrong to belittle a non-Christian than a Christian.
Alas, I have a second, more serious disagreement with Breen which centers on the assumption that by referring to Craig’s argument as evidence of the “apologetic spin doctor” I was thereby belittling or humiliating him. Far from it. My intent was to invoke an accurate description of Craig’s characterization of the Canaanite genocide.
Let’s start with a definition of the term “spin doctor”:
“a person who provides a favourable slant to an item of news, potentially unpopular policy, etc., esp on behalf of a political personality or party”
By applying the term “apologetic spin doctor” I am making the claim that Craig satisfies this definition with respect to some aspect of his apologetic work. This isn’t an inflammatory term, it is not merely an insult. There is no animus here. I simply believe that I have provided evidence that Craig satisfies this description. How so?
Let’s return to the context where the claim is made. It comes in my article “William Lane Craig’s defense of genocide based on a reprobate culture” where I point out that Craig misrepresents the nature of the genocide described in Joshua by presenting it as something broadly analogous to a forced resettlement when in fact it fits within the framework of herem sacrifice. It is understandable that Craig wouldn’t be inclined to stress the sacrificial dimensions of the narrative because doing so makes his job as an apologist that much more difficult. How can he explain the fact that the Canaanites are censured for child sacrifice while also accepting that the narrative depicts the Israelites as engaged in herem sacrifice of an entire population … including children?
But my conviction is that the task of an apologist includes the obligation to present the whole picture, warts and all, even if that makes your case more difficult. Indeed, I believe such a commitment is, among other things, absolutely essential for intellectual credibility in front of a skeptical world.
So how to assess the fact that Craig misrepresents the genocide by never mentioning the central theme of herem sacrificial warfare? Well let’s look at our term “spin doctor” again:
“a person who provides a favourable slant to an item of news, potentially unpopular policy, etc., esp on behalf of a political personality or party”
In this case Craig is providing a favourable slant to the Joshua genocide by eliding any mention of the herem sacrificial framework, and he seems to do so on behalf of the evangelical Christian community in his role as a Christian apologist. Consequently, this is what I wrote:
“Craig’s representation of what is going on in the text looks to be another case of the apologetic spin doctor at work. Defend the letter of the narrative if you must, but at least represent accurately what it says.”
Now it is perhaps conceivable that Craig is simply uninformed about the concept of herem sacrifice. But given Craig’s status as Christianity’s leading apologist and his undeniable adeptness as a debater and public intellectual, as well as the fact that he has addressed these very texts on multiple occasions, this seems most unlikely to me. And so it leaves as the most likely option the conclusion that Craig succumbed at this point to the wiles of the spin doctor.
In closing, it should be emphasized that everybody is in danger of succumbing to the wiles of the spin doctor. I’ve been there. I’ve spun things in my favor. (Hey, let’s be honest. Who hasn’t done this at one time or another? We’re not talkin’ the unforgivable sin here.) So if I was making an argument in a skewed fashion (consciously or unconsciously) in a way that distorted the issues in favor of my position, I would certainly appreciate others calling me to account.
