This post is part of our ongoing series examining Mark Clark’s book, The Problem of God, one section at a time. Each post critically analyzes Clark’s claims through the lens of reason, evidence, and The God Question’s core philosophy: we don’t begin with belief—we begin with curiosity. This installment responds to Chapter 3, Section 6: “Cultural Trust: Slaves, Women, and Polygamists” (pp. 78–82).
Cultural Context or Moral Failure?
In this section of The Problem of God, Mark Clark tackles a deeply uncomfortable question: Can we trust the Bible when it seems to endorse slavery, misogyny, or polygamy?
Clark’s answer: You’re reading it wrong.
He argues that modern readers misunderstand ancient culture—and that, when rightly interpreted, the Bible is more subversive than supportive of these outdated norms.
But that defense raises a bigger question:
If a text that claims to be divinely inspired requires centuries of cultural and academic translation just to avoid obvious moral failures… can it really be trusted?
Slavery: Just a Misunderstood Institution?
Clark insists that biblical slavery wasn’t as bad as modern slavery. It wasn’t racial, he says, and often allowed slaves to earn freedom.
But the problem isn’t how bad biblical slavery was. The problem is that a holy book treats it as normal—offering no clear condemnation, only regulations and instructions.
Paul’s command for slaves to “obey their masters” (Col. 3:22) isn’t ambiguous. No amount of historical footnoting can turn that into moral leadership.
Misogyny and Polygamy: Descriptive, Not Prescriptive?
Clark points to the dysfunction of patriarchal families as evidence that the Bible is critiquing—not endorsing—those practices. And yes, the family drama of Genesis is a mess.
But here’s the catch: God never condemns any of it.
- Jacob has multiple wives.
- Women are treated as property.
- Children are bartered and favored like livestock.
If God is using these stories to critique injustice, he’s doing so silently.
When Apologetics Becomes Interpretation Gymnastics
Over and over, Clark asks us to reinterpret difficult passages more charitably. But that’s the problem. If the Bible is God’s revelation to the world, why does it require so much explaining?
Why does the “real meaning” always seem to be just one apologetic step away from what the text plainly says?
A message from God shouldn’t need modern filters to be morally sound.
Final Thought: Shouldn’t a Holy Text Be Better Than This?
Clark wants us to trust the Bible’s moral compass. But when that compass seems to point toward slavery, patriarchy, and gender hierarchy, “trust us—it doesn’t really mean that” isn’t good enough.
A truly inspired book shouldn’t look like every other book from its time. It should rise above.
And maybe—just maybe—it doesn’t.
God or Delusion? 