Now that in my popular books I have “come out” as an agnostic, and since people read my books (wrongly, in my opinion) as an attack on Christianity (I may be attacking fundamentalism, but I’m not at all attacking Christianity), they now tend to read anything I write as being confrontational, in-your-face, deal-with-*that* kind of prose, when in fact I don’t mean it that way at all.
The first eight chapters of my book (the part on the Hebrew Bible) were sent to about fifteen readers to evaluate (three of them are ones I chose – experts on Hebrew Bible who could correct my mistakes and point out my howlers; the others were chosen by the Press because they teach the Bible Intro course). Most of my readers like the book. But some are incensed and think that it’s intentionally inflammatory. I really don’t think it is. My sense is that these professors (who are not necessarily religious themselves; they are just looking out for their students) find what I say inflammatory simply because it is me who is saying it, and they expect me to be inflammatory…
But it reminds me of another situation from my past. Even when I was at Moody Bible Institute as a hard-core evangelical Christian, we had good senses of humor and loved to kid around and joke It is interesting that if today, as a non-believer, I tell a joke or an anecdote that we all thought was really funny when I was an evangelical, the evangelicals find it not funny at all but down-right insulting. If I were an evangelical telling it in an evangelical context, it would be more than fine. But since I’m not, not. It seems to be similar with this book. If I were someone else, I could probably make it harder hitting that I have.
ETA: While I still don’t think the paywall is a great business decision, I definitely don’t regret the $25 I spend on my membership to the blog.