Related, sort of:

1) If there was a big-blow out media event that was supportive of traditional Christian claims, the NYTimes would consider it its sworn duty to run at least one contrarian op-ed pointing out the flaws of that media event, probably from a self-identified Christian who would be very careful, yet forceful in letting everyone know that there’s another way of doing this Christian business and don’t take these "fundamentalists" as necessarily authoritative.

But when the Media Event itself is contrarian, the Times runs op-eds in support. Not, God (or…who?) forbid, an uber-contrarian who points out the flaws of the Contrarian Media Event. So we don’t get say, N.T. Wright on the Gospel of Judas, we get Elaine Pagels…who of course is also a consultant on the project.

Sweet.

2) The double standard regarding the evaluation of these texts is tiresome, blindingly obvious and almost risible. The canonical gospels are inherently unreliable texts whose supporters were motivated by nothing but politics and power. The gnostic writings are really interesting, applicable interpretations whose supporters were marginalized spiritual heavyweights.

As I like to say, it all reminds me of teaching high school theology. Students would come in, with the weight of the world’s wisdom in their brains, and declare, "How do we know they didn’t just make all this stuff up? There’s no way to know for sure."

And then the same students would come in, breathless with excitement: "My cousin’s neighbor’s brother was in this house the other day and it was haunted and they saw stuff move and there was writing on the wall…I swear. It happened!"

Equal-opportunity critical lenses. That’s all I want. Let’s scrutinize. But let’s scrutinize everything, and do so honestly. That would be a better world.