 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
|||||||||
"The Uniqueness of the Christian Experience" is the final chapter of Josh McDowell's ETDAV and the culmination of all of his arguments for the "overwhelming truth" of the four brief Gospel stories of the life, teachings and miracles of Jesus of Nazareth. The chapter consists of many sweeping claims of approval of "Christianity" in general and of "Christian experience" in particular.
Calling the First Witness for the Defense...
Or Perhaps the Prosecution?
The first expert witness whom McDowell calls to the stand is Bernard Ramm, author of Protestant Christian Evidences, published in 1953. In that book Ramm wrote, "Because Christianity is true, it must have relevancy to every single aspect of the universe and human experience."
Directly following the quotation, McDowell added, "The evidence for the validity of both [Jesus' resurrection]" as a "factual event in history" and "Christian experience" is "overwhelming." However, Ramm did not say that, McDowell did. And Ramm's understanding of the "truth" of Christianity is not the same as McDowell's. For instance in the preface to Ramm's next book, The Christian View of Science and Scripture (published a year after the book McDowell cited) Ramm lamented the growth of "...a narrow bibliolatry [an excessive adherence to a literal interpretation of the Bible - ED.], the product not of faith but of fear," which had become the "major tradition of evangelicalism in the twentieth century." Ramm pointed out the lack of legitimate scientific and theological expertise on the part of "Biblical creationists" and discussed the questionable methods they employed to "prove" the truths of the Bible in a literal fashion. Josh McDowell interprets the Bible and science in exactly the fashion Ramm laments - including a belief in a literal "six-day creation" that took place only a few thousand years ago.[1]
Ramm continued to distance himself from the views of Josh McDowell and other "narrow bibliolators" in After Fundamentalism: The Future of Evangelical Theology (published thirty years after the work that McDowell cited in ETDAV.) Ramm wrote, "Fundamentalists do not properly interact with modern learning and thus are condemned to the losing strategy of obscurantism...Evolution, modern geology, scientific anthropology, and biblical criticism are subjected to continuous castigation. The fundamentalist presses do not rest in turning out the literature of obscurantism. Sometimes they do try to make hay out of modern knowledge. Harry Rimmer[2] and a number of others attempted to show that the Scriptures contain anticipations of modern science. But that solution no longer works.[3] There is also much reliance on the discoveries of modern archeological research but that foundation is laid only by ignoring findings that seem to counter the biblical record."[4]
In After Fundamentalism Ramm even took a swipe at the Moody Bible Institute, whose publication division (back in 1953) printed Ramm's relatively brash and youthful Protestant Christian Evidences that McDowell cited in ETDAV. As Ramm sees things today, "The founding of the Moody Bible Institute as a center of premillenial and dispensational theology [involving a literalistic interpretation of the Bible - ED.] [5] was the beginning. At present dispensationalist theology is taught as standard, orthodox theology in many Bible colleges, Christian liberal art colleges, and theological seminaries...In reading much dispensational literature, one encounters claims that amount to sinless perfection in biblical interpretation. Writers of this persuasion state that they are reading the Word of God for exactly what it says, or that they are reading it with pure eyes that have not been contaminated with traditional views of eschatology; or that, not having had an academic theological education, they can read the Scriptures unclouded by human opinion. Lewis Sperry Chafer himself claimed that, not having had academic training in theology, he was free to interpret the Scriptures with unclouded objectivity."[6]
What Ramm wrote concerning the pretensions of "dispensationalist theologians" provides the perfect parallel to McDowell's lack of legitimate theological and scientific expertise and his pretensions to having attained "objective" knowledge of Jesus Christ, the Bible, history, archeology and science. Needless to say, McDowell's case could not be made any weaker than by citing Bernard Ramm as the first witness in "defense" of McDowell's "narrow bibliolatry" and "fundamentalist obscurantism."
McDowell's next witness, Kenneth Scott Latourette, is effusive with praise concerning "Jesus' wide and profound effect upon humanity," especially "in the past three or four generations...Through him millions of individuals have been transformed and have begun to live the kind of life which He exemplified...Through Him movements have been set in motion...Measured by His influence, Jesus is central in the human story."
That is high praise, but exactly how many of society's "influences" can be traced back to "Jesus?" For instance, how much do we owe to ancient Near Eastern culture? The ancient Sumerians/Babylonians, who lived long before Jesus, taught in their Councils of Wisdom, "Do not return evil to your adversary; Requite with kindness the one who does evil to you, Maintain justice for your enemy, Be friendly to your enemy."[7] In The Dawn of Conscience James Henry Breasted[8] showed how the earliest known recorded ethics and laws belonged to the ancient Egyptians, Sumerians and Babylonians, who preceded the Hebrews. In The Codes of Hammurabi & Moses W. W. Davies showed how the law code of Hammurabi profoundly influenced the later law code of the Hebrews in both style and content.[9] For a recent general summary see William Sierichs, Jr.'s article, "The Pagan Origins of Biblical Morality (Or - Where Did Moses Really Get Those Commandments From?)."[10] There is also the critically acclaimed work, Old Testament Parallels: Laws and Stories from the Ancient Near East.[11] And in Origins: The Ancient Near Eastern Background of Some Modern Western Institutions William W. Hallo[12] listed the debt modern civilization owes to ancient Egyptian, Sumerian and Babylonian ideas of urbanism, the formation of capital, the order of the alphabet, astronomy, mathematics, algebra, the division of the day into 24 hours, the hour into 60 minutes, the circle into 360 degrees, the coronation of kings, games, cookbooks, and much more.
Keeping such information in mind, Latourette can not reasonably assert that "Measured by his influence, Jesus is central in the human story." The "human story" encompasses every civilization on earth over a very long period of time. "Jesus" was not "born" into the "human story" until a mere two thousand years ago. And after his birth it took ten to fifteen hundred years before the first Christian missionaries reached China and the Americas. (During that same period, Islam challenged Christianity and "won" the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Eastern Europe, parts of Russia, parts of India, and parts of Indonesia, to become the most widespread non-Christian religion on earth. Also, Communism's expansion was more explosive than either Christianity's or Islam's, and even after the decline of Communist influence, it has left behind billions of "practical atheists" when it comes to religion.)
I would agree with Latourette if he had merely claimed that "Jesus" was known at least by name by billions. (But of those billions, how many different interpretations of "Jesus" exist?) I would also agree if he had merely claimed that the human story had been influenced to varying degrees by different interpretations of "Jesus." But to brashly claim that "Measured by his influence, Jesus is central to the human story" demonstrates Latourette's blind religious devotion rather than his commitment to historical truth and accuracy. The "human story" is old and brimming over with "influences" stretching back to ancient civilizations both East and West. In Western civilization alone there were ancient Near Eastern influences; Greek/Roman politics, art, architecture, law, science and philosophy; Islamic mathematics, astronomy, philosophy (including the thousands of Greek and Roman manuscripts preserved by Islamic scholars at the library of Seville that played a crucial role in re-igniting Western society's intellectual progress). Other major influences include "guns, germs, and steel;"[13] the Renaissance; the Enlightenment; modern day socialist, humanist and feminist influences and ideals; and "common sense" (as Thomas Paine might say).
Speaking of the crucial influence that the Enlightenment exerted upon Christianity, theologian Albert Schweitzer pointed out, "For centuries Christianity treasured the great commandment of love and mercy as traditional truth without recognizing it as a reason for opposing slavery, witch burning and all the other ancient and medieval forms of inhumanity. It was only when Christianity experienced the influence of the thinking of the Age of Enlightenment that it was stirred into entering the struggle for humanity. The remembrance of this ought to preserve it forever from assuming any air of superiority in comparison with thought."[14]
Pulitzer prize-winning political scientist, Francis Fukuyama put it this way: "There was a time when religion played an all-powerful role in European politics with Protestants and Catholics organizing themselves into political factions and squandering the wealth of Europe on sectarian wars. [Like the "Thirty Year's War" that began in 1618 when Protestant leaders threw two Catholic emissaries out of a Prague window, and which turned central Europe into a wasteland of misery, leading to the deaths of more than a quarter of Europe's population. - ED.] English liberalism emerged in direct reaction to the religious fanaticism of the English Civil War. Contrary to those who at the time believed that religion was a necessary and permanent feature of the political landscape, liberalism vanquished religion in Europe. After a centuries-long confrontation with liberalism, religion was taught to be tolerant. In the sixteenth century, it would have seemed strange to most Europeans not to use political power to enforce belief in their particular sectarian faith. Today, the idea that the practice of religion other than one's own should injure one's own faith seems bizarre, even to the most pious churchmen. Religion has been relegated to the sphere of private life - exiled, it would seem, more or less permanently from European political life except on certain narrow issues like abortion... Religion per se did not create free societies; Christianity in a certain sense had to abolish itself through a secularization of its goals before liberalism could emerge...Political liberalism in England ended the religious wars between Protestant and Catholic that had nearly destroyed that country during the seventeenth century: with its advent, religion was defanged by being made tolerant."[15]
Even Robert Wuthnow, an evangelical Christian writer, admitted in Books & Culture (a newsletter produced by the editors of Christianity Today), "Framers of modern democratic theory in eighteenth century Europe [and colonial America - ED.] were profoundly influenced by the religious wars that had dominated the previous century and a half. Locke's emphasis on tolerance and Rousseau's idea of a social contract were efforts to find unifying agreements that would discourage religious groups from appealing absolutely to a higher source of authority. The idea of civil society emerged as a way of saying that people who disagree with each other about such vital matters as religion could nevertheless live together in harmony."[16]
But let us return to Mr. Latourette's praise of individuals in the "past three or four generations" whose lives "have been transformed and have begun to live the kind of life which He [Jesus] exemplified." A few that stand out in my mind are Mohandas K. Gandhi and Albert Schweitzer, though neither believed in "Jesus" in the way that McDowell advocates one must. Gandhi believed in focusing on whatever was best in each religion rather than trying to convert people from one religion to another. And Schweitzer was a noted theologian who rejected "the crooked and fragile thinking of Christian apologetics."[17] He later became a medical "missionary" in Africa because he held a liberal Christian philosophy based on a "reverence for life." And what about Florence Nightengale, the woman who made nursing a legitimate profession? She was one of the first women-libbers who believed a woman's place was not simply in the home. She made love to other women and disdained institutionalized religion. (Speaking of which the founder of the American Red Cross, Clara Barton, was a freethinker. And the founder of the International Red Cross, Andre Dunant, was gay.)
There are innumerable charitable organizations today; from international peace-seeking (and hunger-fighting) organizations to a multitude of national and local charities. In the U.S. such charities as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the Muscular Dystrophy Association are supported by donations to The United Way, which helps raise contributions for thousands of other national and local charitable organizations few of which are connected with religion or a particular religious denomination. And there are plenty of other charities seeking to help others like the Will Rogers Institute and Comic Relief. More food is given away each year by secular organizations and governments than by "Christians." Such work has more to do with a simple wish to help others than with "Jesus" per se.
Speaking of "Jesus' influence" on nations today, The Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and most other nations of northern Europe contain relatively low percentages of "Christians," yet their human rights records, their generosity, their average education levels, their quality of life, lengthy life spans, low crime rates, and low poverty rates, put the rest of the world to shame, including the far more "Christian" United States. Scandinavians also have the lowest rates of unplanned pregnancies in the world. They instituted comprehensive teaching in birth control in their schools, and it worked. The leaders of Scandinavia have a long record of working for world peace. Swedes have been in Bosnia far longer than Americans removing land mines. The leaders of Norway initiated the peace talks between the PLO and Israel.
Japan is another industrialized nation whose people have longer average life spans, higher average education levels, less poverty, lower crime rates, a lower percentage of their population in prison, and lower abortion rates than the United States. Fifty-six percent of the Japanese population "do not believe in God or a Universal Spirit or were uncertain." Compare that with the ninety percent of the U.S. population who "believe in God." (Countries that have as high a percentage of "believers in God" as the U.S. include Northern Ireland and Iran.)
And what about movements and organizations throughout history that have emphasized "Jesus" and yet which wound up promoting suspicion, fear, divisiveness, inequality, intolerance, bigotry, hatred, subjugation, persecution, slavery, torture, terrorism, and war, due to the exclusivistic nature of their teachings?
The Civil War, Slavery, and the Bible
Since Latourette mentioned the "past three or four generations" (prior to 1940 when his book appeared) as providing a significant demonstration of the wonderful life changing influence of "Jesus" on "millions of individuals," I wonder how he addressed nineteenth century America? "The nineteenth century [1800s] was a period of utmost religious importance in America. It was then that children began attending Sunday school...and Bible tracts began being published in the millions. And it was then that church membership first exploded nationwide...from 2,500 church congregations in 1780 to 11,000 in 1820 to 52,000 in 1860 [the year before the Civil War began]."[18] Other sources corroborate that between the Revolutionary War (1775-1783) and the start of the Civil War (1861), the "rate of adherence" to Christianity more than doubled.[19]
An indication of how seriously people took their "Christianity" at that time can be seen in the Philadelphia prayer riots of 1844 (17 years prior to the Civil War). Protestants besieged Catholic neighborhoods in Philadelphia with cannon fire, pistols, and by setting houses aflame, because the Catholics had protested the use of the Protestant's King James Bible in public schools. Martial law was declared, and it took two thousand federal troops to quell the rioting; eighteen people were killed and scores more were injured.[20]
Of course one "prayer riot" is nothing compared with the six hundred thousand who perished in the American Civil War (1861-65). Though the Civil War has been touted as purely a war for - and against - Southern independence, the irrevocable decision to secede hinged on an attempt to get the U.S. government to agree to a compromise that would have opened half of America's newly acquired Western territories to the expansion of slavery.[21] Lincoln's election and his party's decision to reject the expansion of slavery was clearly "the" issue that both underlay and precipitated the conflict between North and South. Moreover, "The longer the war lasted, the more many Northerners seemed willing to embrace radical measures; indeed, the war produced a kind of revolutionary momentum propelling public opinion forward to an extent that few could have imagined before the outbreak of hostilities."[22] Two years after the war began, Lincoln's Emancipation Proclamation turned the Civil War into a war to free slaves, if only in the Confederate states. And a few years after that, a Constitutional Amendment freed slaves throughout the land.
Neither must it be forgotten that the Civil War was America's greatest conflict. The number of American soldiers lost in that War was greater than the grand total of American soldiers lost in all other wars and military campaigns stretching from the War for Independence to the Gulf War. It was also a war that cost untold billions and nourished rather than canceled the hatreds and intolerance which persisted long afterwards - a war that would not have lasted so long and led to such a tremendous loss of lives and property were it not for the fact that Southerners held an unflagging belief in their way of life, a widespread expectation of victory, and a strong popular will which sustained them to the bitter end;[23] one major uniting factor being their Christian faith.
For instance, when the Confederate states drew up their constitution, they added something the colonial founders had voted to leave out, namely, an invocation of the Deity. The South's proud new constitution began: "We, the people...invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God..."[24] Southern clergymen and politicians even argued that the South was more "Christian" than the North, it was the "Redeemer Nation."[25] "With secession and the outbreak of the Civil War, Southern clergymen boldly proclaimed that the Confederacy had replaced the United States as God's chosen nation."[26]
Even prior to the War, South Carolinian politician, James Henry Hammond, boasted,
Our denominations are few, harmonious, pretty much united among themselves [especially on the issue of slavery - ED.], and pursue their avocations in humble peace...Few of the remarkable Isms of the present day have taken root among us. We have been so irreverent as to laugh at Mormonism and Millerism, which have created such commotions farther North; and modern prophets have no honor in our country. Shakers, Dunkers, Socialists, and the like, keep themselves afar off. You may attribute this to our domestic Slavery if you choose [the slaves being taught what to believe only by members of the 'few, harmonious' Southern churches - ED.]. I believe you would do so justly. There is no material here [in the South] for such characters [from the North] to operate upon...A people [like we Southerners] whose men are proverbially brave, intellectual and hospitable, and whose women are unaffectedly chaste, devoted to domestic life, and happy in it, can neither be degraded nor demoralized, whatever their institutions may be. My decided opinion is, that our system of Slavery contributes largely to the development and culture of these high and noble qualities...[27]
Confederate president, Jefferson Davis, went further than Hammond in arguing for the superiority of southerners. A year after the war began, Davis publicly called northerners "miscreants," adding, "Were it ever to be proposed again to enter into a Union with such a people, I could no more consent to do it than to trust myself in a den of thieves...There is indeed a difference between the two peoples. Let no man hug the delusion that there can be renewed association between them. Our enemies are...traditionless."[28]
Speaking of the South's "traditions," Jefferson Davis boasted,
It [slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts...Let the gentleman go to Revelation to learn the decree of God - let him go to the Bible...I said that slavery was sanctioned in the Bible, authorized, regulated, and recognized from Genesis to Revelation...Slavery existed then in the earliest ages, and among the chosen people of God; and in Revelation we are told that it shall exist till the end of time shall come. You find it in the Old and New Testaments - in the prophecies, psalms, and the epistles of Paul; you find it recognized, sanctioned everywhere.[29]
Davis' defenses of slavery are legion, as in his speech to Congress in 1848, "If slavery be a sin, it is not yours. It does not rest on your action for its origin, on your consent for its existence. It is a common law right to property in the service of man; its origin was Divine decree." After 1856, Davis reiterated in most of his public speeches that he was "tired" of apologies for "our institution." "African slavery, as it exists in the United States, is a moral, a social, and a political blessing."[30] Or, as Davis reiterated after being elected President of the Confederacy, "My own convictions as to negro slavery are strong. It has its evils and abuses...We recognize the negro as God and God's Book and God's Laws, in nature, tell us to recognize him - our inferior, fitted expressly for servitude...You cannot transform the negro into anything one-tenth as useful or as good as what slavery enables them to be."[31]
It should also be noted that before the South seceded politically from the North, they seceded religiously. The three largest Christian denominations in the South, the Methodists, Baptists and Presbyterians, seceded from their northern brethren to form separate "Southern" denominations, each founded on the Biblical right (of laymen and ministers) to own slaves. Not surprising in lieu of the fact that "In the 1700s, defenders of slavery among men of the cloth were far more numerous than opponents. 'For every John Wesley who was critical there were several George Whitefields who considered slavery a blessing.'"[32] By the mid-1800s "not one of the major Christian denominations [in America] other than the Quakers held a strong anti-slavery position."[33] Or to put it another way, "The institutional involvement of northern denominations and congregations [in the anti-slavery movement] was virtually nonexistent. It is not an exaggeration to assert that the clergyman or church member who marched with the abolitionists did so in spite of his denominational connection, not because of it. The antislavery movement owed much of its impetus to the efforts of individuals [who were often considered radicals or fanatics]."[34] Harriet Beecher Stowe's enormously popular anti-slavery novel, Uncle Tom's Cabin (1852) was written in reaction to her denomination's acquiescence to the practice of slavery.
Even Evangelical Christian historians have admitted the embarrassing facts of the matter:
The Old School (Presbyterian) General Assembly report of 1845 [16 years before the war] concluded that slavery was based on 'some of the plainest declarations of the Word of God.' Those who took this position were conservative evangelicals. Among their number were the best conservative theologians and exegetes of their day, including, Robert Dabney, James Thornwell and the great Charles Hodge of Princeton - fathers of twentieth century evangelicalism and of the modern expression of the doctrine of biblical inerrancy. No one can really appreciate how certain these evangelicals were that the Bible endorsed slavery, or of the vehemence of their argumentation unless something from their writings is read. I can only give a pale reflection of their righteous zeal for 'the biblical case for slavery.'[35]
Some of the arguments they employed included "the fact that all the patriarchs had slaves. Abraham, 'the friend of God,' and 'the father of the faithful,' bought slaves from Haran (Gen. 12:50), included them in his property list (Gen. 12:16, 24:35-36), and willed them to his son Isaac (Gen. 26:13-14). What is more, Scripture says God blessed Abraham by multiplying his slaves (Gen. 24:355). In Abraham's household Sarah was set over the slave, Hagar. [After Hagar ran away] the angel told her, 'return to your mistress and submit to her' (Gen. 16:9)."[36]
The Bible even depicts the "Lord" getting his own ministers involved with slaveholding. Numbers, chapter 31, says the Hebrews slew all the Midianites with the exception of Midianite female virgins whom the Hebrews "kept for themselves...Now the booty that remained from the spoil, which the [Hebrew] men of war had plundered included...16,000 human beings [i.e., the female virgins] from whom the Lord's tribute was 32 persons. And Moses gave the tribute which was the Lord's offering to Eleazar the priest, just as the Lord had commanded Moses...And from the sons of Israel's half, Moses took one out of every fifty, both of man [i.e., the female virgins] and animals, and gave them to the Levites...just as the Lord had commanded Moses."
"At God's command Joshua took slaves (Josh 9:23), as did David (1 Kings 8:2,6) and Solomon (1 Kings 9:20-21). Likewise, Job whom the Bible calls 'blameless and upright,' was 'a great slaveholder' (Job 1:15-17; 3:19; 4:18; 7:2; 31:13; 42:8)...Slavery is twice mentioned in the ten commandments (the 4th and 10th), but not as a sin ['Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, or his male slave, or his female slave.' Exodus 20:17]...God tells the Jews in Leviticus 25:44-46, 'You may acquire male and female slaves from the nations that are around you. Then too, out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you...they also may become your possession. You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to inherit as a possession forever [i.e., the slave's children would be born into slavery along with their children's children, forever].'"[37] So, slaves from "foreign" nations were treated as "possessions...forever."
On the other hand, if a Hebrew owned a fellow Hebrew as a slave, he had to offer him his freedom after "seven years." Though there is not a single penalty mentioned in the Bible should the master detain his slave longer than that period or refuse to offer him his freedom. Neither does such an offer appear to apply to female slaves. Furthermore, if a Hebrew slave chose to remain with his master after being offered his freedom, then the "Lord" told his people to "bore holes in the ears" of their fellow Hebrews to mark them as their master's possession "forever." So you had better speak up clearly and without hesitation the first time your master offered you your freedom because there was no Biblical provision for changing your mind at a later date. Complicating such decisions was the fact that masters often gave their slaves wives, so they could produce slave children for the master, all of whom, including the wife, were not allowed to leave with their husband or father, but which remained the master's "possessions." (Exodus 21:4-6)
The Bible also apparently allowed for a creditor to enslave his debtor or his debtor's children for the redemption of the debt (2 Kings 4:1); children could be sold into slavery by their parents (Exodus 21:7; Isaiah 50:1). So sayeth "the word of the Lord."
South Carolina politician, James Henry Hammond, after having received a letter from a British opponent of slavery, responded with two letters to a prominent British abolitionist whose friend had sent Hammond the original letter. Hammond's letters were published in the South Carolinian and in pamphlet form after which Hammond was deluged with congratulatory letters from admiring fellow southerners. Hammond's letters, written 16 years before the War, began by citing Biblical arguments for the legitimacy of slavery, and pointed out that "Although Slavery in its most revolting form was everywhere visible around Christ and his Apostles, no visionary notions of piety or philanthropy ever tempted them to gainsay the LAW...On the contrary, regarding Slavery as an established, as well as inevitable condition of human society, they never hinted at such a thing as its termination on earth, any more than that 'the poor may cease to be in the land,' which God affirms to Moses shall never be: and they exhort 'all slaves' to 'be subject to their masters in everything' [Titus 2:9]; to 'count their masters as worthy of all honor [1 Tim. 6:1];' ["Worthy" of "all honor?" Why? Just because the master had enough money in his pocket to purchase the slave? - ED.] 'to obey your masters, not only to win their favor when their eye is upon you but like slaves of Christ doing the will of God from your heart' [Ephes. 6:5-6]; 'not only good and gentle masters, but also harsh masters...for what glory is it if when you are harshly treated for your faults you take it patiently? But if when you act faultlessly and suffer for it and take it patiently, this is acceptable of God' [1 Peter 2:18-20]. St. Paul actually apprehended a runaway slave, and sent him back to his master!...It would be difficult to imagine sentiments and conduct more strikingly in contrast, than those of the Apostles and the abolitionists...Are abolitionists doing the work of God? No! God is not there. It is the work of Satan."[38]
The Reverend Richard Furman, president of the Baptist State Convention of South Carolina, wrote a letter to the governor in 1822 expressing the proslavery sentiments of South Carolina Baptists:
Had the holding of slaves been a moral evil, it cannot be supposed that the inspired Apostles, who feared not the faces of men, and were ready to lay down their lives in the cause of their God, would have tolerated it for a moment in the Christian Church. Or if they had done so on a principle of accommodation, in cases where the masters remained heathen, to avoid offenses and civil commotion; yet surely, where both master and servant were Christian, they would have required that the master should liberate his slave. But instead of this, they let the relationship remain untouched as being lawful and right, and insist on relative duties.[39]
In 1840 (21 years before the war) John England, the first Catholic bishop of Charleston, South Carolina, composed 18 letters to the Secretary of State, outlining the Bible's and the Catholic church's centuries old support of "domestic slavery." Bishop England asserted confidently, "In many of his parables, the Savior describes the master and his slaves in a variety of ways, without any condemnation or censure of slavery. In Luke 17:7-10, he describes the usual mode of acting towards slaves as the very basis upon which he teaches one of the most useful lessons of Christian virtue: 'But which of you, having a slave plowing or tending sheep, will say to him, when he has come in from the field, "Come immediately and sit down to eat"? But will he not say to him, "Prepare something for me to eat, and properly clothe yourself and serve me until I have eaten and drunk; and afterward you will eat and drink?" He does not thank the slave because he did the things which were commanded, does he? So when you do all the things which are commanded you, say, "We are unworthy slaves; we have done only that which we ought to have done."'...St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians, chapter 4, exhibits the great truth which he desires to inculcate by an illustration taken from the institutions of slavery, and without a single expression of censure. Nor did the Apostles consider the Christian master obliged to liberate his Christian servant."[40]
The Reverend Thornton Stringfellow, Baptist minister of Culpeper County, Virginia, composed a widely read defense of slavery in which he stressed, "The words of our Lord Jesus Christ...add to the obligation of the slave to render service with good-will to his master; gospel fellowship is not to be entertained with persons who will not consent to it!"[41] "A. B. Bledsoe, is only one of many who concluded that the 'sin of appalling magnitude' was not slave holding but the claim by abolitionists that slave holding was a sin. To suggest such a thing was 'an aggravated crime against God.'"[42] Or as the Rev. J. C. Postell preached, "So far from being a moral evil, slavery is a merciful visitation...It is the Lord's doing and it is marvelous in our eyes...It is by divine appointment."
Needless to say, the "Biblical case for slavery" did not impress the slave. Take the one mentioned in an ad in the Georgia Messenger (July 27th, 1837) that read:
RAN AWAY: My man Fountain * has holes bored in his ears * a scar on the right side of his forehead * has been shot in hind parts of his legs * is marked on the back with the whip.
The Biblical sanctioning of slavery must have helped remove a lot of the guilt that large slaveholders felt, buying, breeding, disciplining and selling so many men, women and children as if they were private property. But how did enslaved men and women feel? The most famous escaped slave of his day, Frederick Douglass, gave us a glimpse of how he felt. He wrote, "We have men sold to build churches, women sold to support the gospel, and babes sold to purchase Bibles for the poor heathen, all for the glory of God and the good of souls. The slave auctioneer's bell and the church-going bell chime in with each other, and the bitter cries of the heart-broken slave are drowned in the religious shouts of his pious master. Revivals of religion and revivals of the slave trade go hand in hand...Were I to be again reduced to the chains of slavery, next to the enslavement, I should regard being the slave of a religious master the greatest calamity that could befall me. For of all slaveholders with whom I have ever met, religious slaveholders are the worst. I have ever found them the meanest and basest, the most cruel and cowardly, of all others."[43]
Douglass also told about a slaveholding family he knew who knelt and prayed together daily, yet expressed no concern that their slaves nearly froze to death every winter due to an inadequate supply of clothing and blankets. He added, "It was my unhappy lot...to belong to a religious slaveholder...He always managed to have one or more of his slaves to whip every Monday morning...In August, 1832, my master attended a Methodist camp-meeting...and there experienced religion. He prayed morning, noon, and night. He very soon distinguished himself among his brethren, and was made a class leader and exhorter...I have seen him tie up a lame young woman, and whip her with a heavy cowskin whip upon her naked shoulders, causing the warm red blood to drip; and, in justification of the bloody deed, he would quote the passage of Scripture, 'He who knoweth the master's will, and doeth it not, shall be beaten with many stripes.'(Luke 12:47)"[44]
That passage of Scripture circulated quite a bit, especially since it was a teaching of Jesus spoken in a parable to illustrate God's just punishments toward His "slaves." Williams Wells Brown recalled that when he was owned by Dr. John Young he was taught that, when whipped, a slave must not find fault - for the Bible says, "He that knoweth his master's will and does it not, shall be beaten with many stripes!"[45]
The Old Testament agrees with the right of a master to beat his slave within an inch of their life, or within "a day or two" of their life: "If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, the slave survives a day or two [before dying], no vengeance shall be taken; for the slave is his master's money." [Exodus 21:20-21] (In line with such Biblical pearls of wisdom an early Christian Council, The Council of Elvira (c. 305), prescribed that any Christian mistress who beat her slave to death without premeditation was merely to be punished with five years of penance.) 1 Peter 2:18-20 even teaches that the Christian who is a slave should "patiently endure" even harsh unjust punishments in order to "find favor with God."
Douglass and Brown were not the only witnesses to testify that Christians were the cruelest slaveholders. "Henry Bibb...lists six 'professors of religion' who sold him to other 'professors of religion.' [One of Bibb's owners was a deacon in the Baptist church, who employed whips, chains, stocks, and thumbscrews to 'discipline' his slaves. - ED.] Harriet Jacobs, in her narrative, informs us that her tormenting owner was the worse for being converted. Mrs. Joseph Smith, testifying before the American Freedmen's Inquiry Commission in 1863 tells why Christian slaveholders were the worst owners: 'Well, it is something like this - the Christians will oppress you more.'"[46]
In general, slaveholders who approved of the Christianization of their slaves disciplined them with at least as much force and fervor as those who did not. Enforcing obedience and submission was just as much an order of the day for Christian slaveholders as for non-Christian ones. In fact, to the devout Christian slaveholder, disobedience to one's master constituted "faults done against God himself."[47] (Because the "Word of God" said that slave masters were "worthy of all honor," [1 Tim. 6:1]; and obedient slaves should seek to fulfill "the will of God" by serving their masters [Ephes. 6:5-6]; and slaves who endured "suffering" were "acceptable of God" [1 Peter 2:18-20]; it followed that slaves who did not honor their masters but disobeyed, and forsook suffering, displeased not only man, but God also.)
Speaking of the relationship of religion to slavery, there exists a letter written by a slave to a prominent white minister of North Carolina who had recently preached at that slave's plantation. An excerpt from that letter (with spelling and punctuation corrected) states: "I want you to tell me the reason you always preach to the white folks and keep your back to us. If God sent you to preach to sinners did He direct you to keep your face to the white folks constantly? Or is it because they give you money? If this is the cause we are the very persons who labor for this money but it is handed to you by our masters. Did God tell you to make your meeting houses just large enough to hold the white folks and let the Black people stand in the sun and rain as the brooks in the field? We are charged with inattention. It is impossible for us to pay good attention with this chance. In fact, some of us scarcely think we are preached to at all. Money appears to be the object. We are carried to market and sold to the highest bidder never once inquiring whether sold to a heathen or Christian. If the question was put, 'Did you sell to a Christian?" what would be the answer, 'I can't tell what he was, he gave me my price, that's all I was interested in?' Is that the way to heaven? If it is, there will be a good many who go there. If not, their chance of getting there will be bad for there can be many witnesses against them."[48]
The Southern Baptists, a denomination founded on the Biblical right to own slaves (and presently the nation's largest Protestant Christian denomination) "apologized" in June 1995 for their pro-slavery, pro-racist, pro-segregationist past. Measured from the date Southern Baptists began waving their Christian banner for slavery (1845) to the date they apologized (1995), it took them longer to apologize than it took the white South African government to apologize for their segregation policy known as "apartheid;" it took them longer to apologize than it took the Japanese Emperor to apologize to the Asian nations who suffered at the hands of Japan during World War II; it took them longer to apologize than it took the U.S. government to apologize to the 120,000 Japanese-Americans sent to prison camps during World War II; it took them longer to apologize than it took the U.S. government to apologize to the native Hawaiians whose government was forcibly overthrown in 1893; it took them longer to apologize than it took an Israeli president to shake hands with the head of the Palestinian Liberation Organization. Besides which, the Berlin Wall rose and fell and so did communism in Russia, before Southern Baptists finally apologized - an apology uttered one hundred and fifty years, six hundred thousand corpses, and countless lynchings, whippings and beatings, too late.
There is a verse in the Bible that promises, "The Holy Spirit will lead you into all truth." If only the "Holy Spirit" had "led" all pious and devout ministers and priests in the North and South into the same "truth" regarding slavery. Then Christians could have played a role in fostering mutual understanding. Instead, Christians read the same "perfect instruction book," arrived at different "instructions" regarding slavery, and helped fan the flames of hell on earth. They poured Biblically righteous indignation upon congregations and politicians, and increased the likelihood and quantity of resentment, bigotry, hatred, suffering, and calamity that followed. Moreover, the "few, harmonious Christian denominations" of the South helped unite and inspire Southerners to continue fighting for far longer than they should have.
The historian Paul Johnson[49] put it this way, "In the South, there were standard and much quoted texts on Negro inferiority, patriarchal and Mosaic acceptance of servitude, and of course St Paul on obedience to masters. In the events which led up to the War, both North and South hurled texts at each other. Revivalism and the evangelical movement generally played into the hands of extremists on both sides. When the war actually came, the Presbyterians, from North and South, tried to hold together by suppressing all discussion of the issue; but they split in the end...Only the Lutherans, the Episcoplaians, and the Catholics successfully avoided public debates and voting splits; but the evidence shows that they too were fundamentally divided on a basic issue of Christian principle.[50]
"Moreover, having split, the Christian churches promptly went to battle on both sides. Leonidas Polk, Bishop of Louisiana, entered the Confederate army as a major-general and announced: 'It is for constitutional liberty, which seems to have fled to us for refuge, for our hearthstones and our altars that we fight.' [One cannot help noticing that the loudest yelps for liberty came from Southerners defending the right to enslave others! - ED.] Thomas March, Bishop of Rhode Island, preached to the militia on the other side: 'It is a holy and righteous cause in which you enlist...God is with us...the Lord of Hosts is on our side [along with a heaping helping of northern factory-produced weapons and ammo - ED.].'
"The clerical interpretation of the war's progress was equally dogmatic and contradictory. The Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert Lewis Dabney blamed what he called the 'calculated malice' of the Northern Presbyterians and called on God for 'a retributive providence' which would demolish the North. Henry Ward Beecher, one of the most ferocious of the Northern clerical drum-beaters, predicted that the Southern leaders would be 'whirled aloft and plunged downward for ever and ever in an endless retribution.' The New Haven theologian Theodore Thornton Munger declared...that the Confederacy had been 'in league with Hell,' and the South was now 'suffering for its sins' as a matter of 'divine logic.'
"To judge by the hundreds of sermons and specially composed church prayers which have survived on both sides, ministers were among the most fanatical of the combatants from beginning to end. The churches played a major role in dividing the nation, and it may be that the splits in the churches made a final split in the nation possible. In the North, such a charge was often willingly accepted. Granville Moddy, a Northern Methodist, boasted in 1861, 'We are charged with having brought about the present contest. I believe it is true we did bring it about, and I glory in it, for it is a wreath of glory round our brow.' Southern clergymen did not make the same boast but of all the various elements in the South they did the most to make a secessionist state of mind possible. Southern clergymen were particularly responsible for prolonging the increasingly futile struggle. Both sides claimed vast numbers of 'conversions' among their troops and a tremendous increase in churchgoing and 'prayerfulness' as a result of the fighting."[51] [Other "results of the fighting" that clergymen were not nearly as boastful about included tremendous outbreaks of syphilis and gonorrhea among Northern and Southern troops, as well as diarrhea, the latter of which killed more soldiers than were killed in battle.[52] Not to mention the South's financial destitution. - ED.]
The Southern Presbyterian Church resolved in 1864 (a year after Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation and while the War was still raging): "We hesitate not to affirm that it is the peculiar mission of the Southern Church to conserve the institution of slavery, and to make it a blessing both to master and slave." The Church also insisted that it was "unscriptural and fanatical" to accept the dogma that slavery was inherently sinful: it was "one of the most pernicious heresies of modern times" - to which one slave's response was, "If slavery ain't a sin, then nothing is."
Mitchell Snay in Gospel of Disunion, pointed out the pivotal role that Southern denominations played in promoting secession: "Southern clergymen spoke openly and enthusiastically on behalf of disunion...Denominational groups across the South officially endorsed secession and conferred blessings on the new Southern nation." Influencial denominational papers from the Mississippi Baptist to the Southern Episcopalian, the Southern Presbyterian and the South Western Baptist, agreed that secession "must be effected at any cost, regardless of consequences," and "secession was the only consistent position that Southern freemen or Christians could occupy." (One amusing anecdote tells how a prominent member of a Southern Presbyterian church told his pastor that he would quit the church if the pastor did not pray for the Union. Unmoved by this threat, the pastor replied that "our church does not believe in praying for the dead!") Meanwhile, Northern clergymen blamed their Southern counterparts for "inflaming passions," "adding a feeling of religious fanaticism" to the secessionist controversy, and also blamed them for being "the strongest obstacle in the way of preserving the Union." "In this way, the Northern clergy contributed to the belief in an irrepressible conflict, and aroused the same kind of political passions they were condemning in their Southern brethren."[53]
One Southern sermon that had "a powerful influence in converting Southern sentiments to secession," and which was republished in several Southern newspapers and distributed in tens of thousands of individual copies, was Reverend Benjamin B. Palmer's sermon, "Slavery a Divine Trust: Duty of the South to Preserve and Perpetuate It," delivered soon after Lincoln's election in 1860. According to Palmer that election had brought "one issue before us" which had created a crisis that called forth the guidance of the clergy. That issue was "slavery." Palmer insisted that "the South defended the cause of all religion and truth...We defend the cause of God and religion," while abolitionism was "undeniably atheistic." Palmer was incensed at the platform of Lincoln's political party which promised to constrain the practice of slavery within certain geographical limits instead of allowing it to expand into America's Western territories. Therefore, the South had to secede in order to protect its providential trust of slavery.
When Union armies reached Reverend Palmer's home state, a Union general placed a price on his head, because as some said, the Reverend had done more than "any other non-combatant in the South to promote rebellion."[54] Thomas R. R. Cobb, an official of the Confederate government, summed up religion's contribution to the fervor and ferment of those times with these words, "This revolution [the secessionist cause] has been accomplished mainly by the Churches."[55]
Confederate president Jefferson Davis "Never publicly wavered in his conviction that the cause of the South was a just one. As the outcome of the war became obvious to almost everyone, he never truly conceded defeat. In the latter stages of the war, probably a majority of southerners saw him as aloof, stubborn, and even tyrannical. Only in the aftermath of war did Davis become a hero in the South, becoming a part of the Lost Cause mythology."[56]
After Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation "few slaves staged outright revolts, but thousands ran away. In the single month of January 1864 [the year before the war ended], Jefferson Davis himself lost three slaves, one of whom tried burning down the executive mansion on his way out."[57] The escaped slave, Frederick Douglass, wrote candidly, "I prayed for freedom twenty years, but received no answer until I prayed with my legs."[58]
It must prove humbling if not humiliating for Christians to note that the Greek philosopher, Zeno, declared centuries before Christ was born, "No matter whether you claim a slave by purchase or capture, the title is bad. Those who claim to own their fellow men look down into the pit and forget the justice that should rule the world." What clarity of speech and prophetic vision. If Moses, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Jesus or Paul had uttered such a passage, Jews and Christians would be prouder than hell of it. Rabbis, ministers and priests would have built sermons around it for centuries, splayed it across huge banners, carried it on placards held high, and emblazoned it in needlepoint on pillows sold in religious bookstores. If only the Bible spoke as clearly as Zeno on the subject of slavery.
Of course, the Bible did speak as clearly, but unlike Zeno, it favored the institution of slavery. The Christian church became the biggest slave owner in the Roman Empire. Popes kept slaves until the eighteenth century. Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107-117) refused the request of Christian slaves to have their freedom purchased out of the common fund. Augustine (c. 354-430) taught that slavery was God's will and that Christianity did not make slaves free but made good slaves out of bad ones (The City of God 19.5). "Early in the 11th century Benedict VIII condemned the children of priests to be slaves and Clement did likewise to the whole population of Venice in 1309. Pope Paul III decreed slavery for all Englishmen who supported Henry VIII of England. Papal licenses were granted to the Kings of Portugal in the fifteenth century to conquer 'heathen' countries and reduce their inhabitants to 'everlasting slavery.' Altogether, more than eighteen hundred years of Christianity supported the notion of slavery."[59] Furthermore, as historian Forrest G. Wood pointed out, "English North Americans embraced slavery because they were Christians, not in spite of it."[60]
It was only after the influence of Enlightenment thinking (in the eighteenth century) that some Christians in Britain and America began to focus on certain "dynamic principles" in the Bible that they claimed were anti-slavery, i.e., instead of continuing to emphasize the far plainer teachings of a master's rights of ownership and honor, and the submission, obedience and disciplining of slaves. So, it took millions of Christians over eighteen hundred years before they could agree on the proper application of certain "dynamic principles" to slavery. And they only arrived at this agreement after leaders of the Enlightenment (who were far from pious) had done so, and long after pagan philosophers like Zeno and Epictetus[61] had done so. Which demonstrates that Christianity has little reason to boast of its superiority over human reason.
Moreover, some "narrow bibliolators" who believe they are "led into all truth by the Holy Spirit" continue to declare that slavery is not, and has never been, a sin, and therefore, there was no God-given reason to outlaw it (which every country in the world did by the middle of the 1900s). John Murray of Westminster Theological Seminary continued to argue till 1957 that the Bible allows for the institution of slavery.[62] Adrian Rogers, a key leader in the 1980s of the fundamentalist movement in the Southern Baptist Convention, when asked by a non-fundamentalist pastor how he interpreted a particular biblical passage that condoned slavery, responded, "I feel slavery is a much maligned institution. If we had slavery today we would not have such a welfare problem."[63] (But think of the problems and injustices that slavery would create! I guess Mr. Rogers did not think that far.) Peter Ruckman, founder of the Pensacola Bible Institute, continues to state that "God never abolished slavery a day since it started (1 Tim. 6:1-3, 1 Cor. 7:21)."[64]
Even Dr. Henry Morris (the founder of the Institute for Creation Research) declared as late as 1991 that "Negroes...were [not meant] to be forcibly subjugated," but they were, "because of their innate nature."[65] While allowing for exceptions in the case of many outstanding "Negro" individuals, Morris teaches that "Negroes" are "possessed of a genetic character concerned mainly with mundane [commonplace] matters, they have eventually been displaced by the intellectual and philosophical acumen...and religious zeal of [other races]. Dr. Morris bases this belief on what he perceives to be a prophecy in "Genesis, chapter 9" that has been fulfilled, i.e., the curse that Noah laid upon one of his sons' sons to be "a slave of slaves...forever."
Many "narrow bibliolators" do not go so far as those above, but there are still significant numbers of them who proudly declare that being in favor of racial segregation is not a sin; neither do they consider it a sin to legally oppress homosexuals; subjugate women; mete out relatively harsh and oppressive discipline to wives and children (or to students and employees at some "Christian" schools, universities, and missionary organizations).
Slavery and Women's Rights, Parallel Issues
Not surprisingly the Bible's passages teaching slaves to "obey their masters in all things" and "find them worthy" appear right beside passages that teach women to be "subject" to men. "In most instances the apostles'instructions to slaves were given in parallel to instructions to wives to be subordinate and children to be obedient. The apostles reasoned that to reject the comments about slavery called into question the authority also of husbands and parents. It was obvious that the apostles held these matters to be of equal force." But if such matters were held to be of "equal force,"[66] then once the slavery verses were deemphasized in the light of other Biblical teachings, why not the female-subjugation verses too? Since it is now generally admitted that using the Bible to justify slavery is wrong, what about using the Bible to justify the subjugation of women? What if portions of the Bible have been "wrongly interpreted" or "overemphasized" for almost 2000 years, and have amplified problems in honest and open human relations? Moreover, what if some of the Bible's teachings are "simplistically rigid" or just plain "wrong" on a number of issues? Some moderate evangelical Christians are trying to make their "narrow bibliolatrous" brethren understand that denouncing slavery was only the beginning of "better Bible interpretation."[67]
Accomplishments of "Jesus" in History
Kenneth Scott Latourette (the historian whom McDowell cited) is free to say whatever he likes about the accomplishments of "Jesus" in history, and how "millions of individual's lives were transformed." All religions boast of their power to "transform" individuals and create a "better society." But history demonstrates that even having a "perfect book of instructions," a "born again soul," a "new heart," "Jesus' spirit living inside them" as well as "the Holy Spirit leading them into all truth," Christians still stumble into the same dirty ditches that every other exclusivistic "all or nothing" religious group or political party has throughout history. (And Christians continue to believe that only "they" are "forgiven" afterwards.) History also demonstrates that charity can be found in individuals and in nations that do not depend very much, if at all, on the Bible and "Jesus."
McDowell next discusses the "Unique Content of Christian Experience." He cites authors who are fellow fundamentalists or hard-line evangelicals, adding statements from himself that repeat, "Only Christianity...provides a totally new source of power for living [As if believers in other religions or philosophies never testify that theirs provides a 'new source of power for living' - ED.]...The thing that makes Christian conversion different, then, is Christ [sic]...a physical historical reality...overwhelming evidence...a God who may be identified and who made himself known in history...recorded in history...He was raised from the dead in history [Emphasis is McDowell's - ED.]...an objective reality as its basis...This objective reality is the person of Jesus Christ and his resurrection...objective reality...the person of Jesus Christ and His resurrection...objective reality, Jesus Christ [Repetition is McDowell's - ED.]...The evidence is overwhelming."
As if the previous eleven chapters of McDowell's book on the "overwhelming evidence" and "objective reality" of Jesus' life and resurrection "in history" were not enough, McDowell feels the need to repeat himself here. If I were a psychologist, I would have to wonder what he was being so defensive about. Or, if I was Ramm, I would see in such repetition another "obscurantist" tactic employed by someone who has chosen to "ignore findings that seem to counter the biblical record."
Do Dead Tomatoes Tell Tales?
Next, McDowell tells a fable of his own invention about a fellow with "a stewed tomato" in his right tennis shoe who believes the tomato has made him a better runner and a better person. McDowell rightfully questions such a belief. And he contrasts it with the "overwhelming reality" of Christian belief. However, no members of other religions, nor any atheists I know, hold a belief in miraculous tomatoes. So McDowell's fable proves unhelpful to folks who are trying to determine the legitimacy of the many "non-tomato" belief systems in the world today. Besides, such a fable could be utilized not just by Christian evangelists like McDowell but by advocates of any and all belief systems that rest on firmer legitimacy than ketchup in one's shoe.
After his fable demonstrating the "overwhelming" superiority of Christianity over "Tomato-anity," McDowell adds the testimony of a "redeemed drunkard" who testified that he was saved from alcoholic addiction by a "power" he identified as none other than "Jesus." (How many redeemed drunkards, I wonder, would it take to prove the historicity of the resurrection?) Apparently McDowell is unaware that alcoholics who quit drinking are a dime a dozen. You can find them not just among evangelical Christians, but among Jehovah's Witnesses, Mormons, Transcendental Meditation practitioners, herbal healers, Scientologists, Eckankar followers, at Alcoholics Anonymous meetings, and in secular groups like Drinkwise, Moderation Management, Rational Recovery Systems, Secular Organizations for Sobriety, Self Management And Recovery Training (SMART), Women for Sobriety/Men for Sobriety. Members of all such groups have experienced life-changing behaviors for the better. Any organization that demands responsibility and focuses on setting goals and eliminating grossly destructive behaviors has "success" stories to tell.
My mother's second husband was a totally reformed alcoholic and one of the friendliest kindest most cheerful people I ever had the pleasure to know. He had been an alcoholic for over a dozen years, and after joining AA became a dedicated member of that group for over a dozen more. He liked to sing songs ranging from Broadway tunes to hymns in church (when the occasion arose). But he did not believe in the superiority of any church's doctrines. He believed in a "Higher Power" (as they say in AA) and rarely discussed religion.
Sadly, I bet there are also alcoholics whom no groups are able to "redeem" or reform. I bet some of those alcoholics were devout Bible-believing Christians in their youth, or they got to "know Jesus" as their "personal savior" after they began drinking, but relapsed back into the bottle. Failures do not make for inspiring success stories, so you do not hear about such people very often, except in someone else's success story, who mentions how the sight of a "hopelessly messed up" friend or relative who died of some addiction, "inspired" them to quit.
The Universality of the Christian Experience
Next, McDowell discusses the "Universality of the Christian Experience." He argues that "The claims of great numbers of people confessing Christ are amazingly similar regardless of place, time, environment or background." Is McDowell oblivious of the fact that members of any religion, church, denomination, cult, political party, twelve-step program, or philosophical school of thought, tell "amazingly similar" stories of how and why they were attracted to their particular group? People who acknowledge the same beliefs and practices are naturally going to "astonish" one another with "amazingly similar tales" of who or what led them to do so, otherwise they would be somewhere else, believing something else. And of course, folks who leave such groups often tell "amazingly similar" stories of how and why they grew disenchanted with the particular group they left.
McDowell does not even begin to deal with the fact that today there are over 20,000 different Christian denominations, missionary groups and organizations (according to the Encyclopedia of Christianity). Indeed, within the religion known as "Christianity" there are nearly as infinite a variety of sects (each with their own weird beliefs and practices) as in Hinduism: From silent Trappist monks and quiet Quakers - to hell raisers and snake handlers; From those who "hear the Lord" telling them to run for president, seek diamonds in Uganda or sell "holy" cosmetics - to those who have visions of Mary, the saints, or experience bleeding stigmata; From those who believe the communion bread and wine remain just that - to those who believe the bread and wine are miraculously transformed into "invisible" flesh and blood (and can vouch for it with stories of communion wafers turning into human flesh and wine curdling into blood cells during Mass); From predestinationists to free will-ers; From universalists to damnationists; From Christian monks and priests who have gained insights into their own faith after dialoging with Buddhist monks and Hindu priests - to Christians who view Eastern religious ideas and practices as "Satanic"; From castrati (boys who sang in Catholic choirs and underwent castration to keep their voices high) - to Protestant choirs (singing Luther's hymn, "A Mighty Fortress is Our God," which was based on the melody of a drinking song) - all the way to "Christian reggae" and "Christian rap music;" From Christians who reject any behavior that even mimics "what homosexuals do" (including a rejection of fellatio and cunnilingus between husband and wife) - to Christians who accept committed, loving, homosexual relationships (including gay evangelical Church groups); From Catholic nuns and Amish women who dress to cover their bodies - to Christian nudists, and born-again strippers; From those who believe sending out missionaries to persuade others to become Christians is essential - to those (like the Anti-Mission Baptists) who believe that sending out missionaries and trying to persuade others constitutes a lack of faith and the sin of pride, and that the founding of "extra-congregational" missionary organizations is not Biblical; From Christians who believe Easter should be celebrated on one date (Roman Catholics) - to Christians who believe Easter should be celebrated on another date (Eastern Orthodox), which resulted in the Roman Catholics excommunicating all the Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire; From Christians who worship on Sunday - to Christians who worship on Saturday (the Hebrew "sabbath day" that God said to "keep holy" according to one of the Ten Commandments) - to Christians who believe their daily walk with "God" and love of their fellow man is far more important than church attendance; From Christians who stress "God's commands" to those who stress "God's love;" From those who teach that obeying the Bible's command to be "baptized with water as an adult believer" is an essential sign of salvation - to those who deny it is; From those who teach that "baptism in the Holy Spirit" along with "speaking in tongues" are important signs of salvation - to those who deny they are (some of whom see mental and Satanic delusions in all modern accounts of "Spirit baptism" and "tongue-speaking"); From those who believe that avoiding alcohol, smoking, gambling, dancing, "contemporary Christian music," movies, television, long hair (on men), etc., are all important "signs" of being "truly" saved - to those who believe you need only trust in Jesus as your personal savior to be saved; From Christians who believe sticking one's nose in politics is wrong - to coup d'etat Christians; From "stop the bomb" Christians to "drop the bomb" Christians; From "social Gospel" Christians to "uncompromised Gospel" Christians; From pro-slavery Christians to anti-slavery Christians; From Christians who wave their Bibles above their white hoods - to Christians "in the hood" who march for equal rights for people of all colors; From Christians who worry most about doctors taking fetal lives - to those who worry most about doctors of religion raising questions that might "abort" a young person's faith and their eternal life.
The history of Christianity is the history of controversies too innumerable to mention. Moreover, within each major "Christian" denomination there are fundamentalists, conservatives, moderates, liberals, and "everything in between," including those who are conservative on some subjects and liberal on others. There are Christians in the same churches who disagree on interpretations from Genesis to Revelation - from how (and when) the world began - to how (and when) it will end, all according to the same Bible.
A variety of "Christianities" flourished before fourth-century church councils at Nicea and Chalcedon heatedly debated and composed their definitions of "orthodox" Christian belief. "There was no orthodoxy - only the pluralistic search for truth...There was a pluralism and fluidity to Christian theological experience...and the later creeds from Nicea and Chalcedon are only two slices of the whole."[68] And those "slices" remained the biggest pieces of the Christian pie via the use of political force. The first Roman Emperor who was a convert to Christianity, Constantine, introduced and presided over the first major church council at Nicea in 325 and afterwards assured unanimity by banishing all the bishops who would not sign the new profession of faith. In 380, another Roman Christian Emperor, Theodosius, passed a decree that read: "We shall believe in the single Deity of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the concept of equal majesty and of the Holy Trinity. We command that those persons who follow this rule shall embrace the name of Catholic Christians. The rest, however, whom We adjudge demented and insane, shall sustain the infamy of heretical dogmas, their meeting places shall not receive the name of churches, and they shall be smitten first by divine vengeance and secondly by the retribution of Our own initiative, which We shall assume in accordance with the divine judgment."[69] Even the average Christians in the street were at odds with each other over matters of dogma. In the fourth and fifth-centuries citywide riots broke out between Christians with differing theological views and probably more Christians killed Christians at that time than the pagans had done during the previous centuries.[70]
From the day the "creeds" of "orthodox Christianity" were nailed down by political decrees, to today, Christian sects have continued to arise. A few of the stranger ones that stick out in my mind include the Skoptsy, each of whose male members cut off their "male member" - to become literal "eunuchs for the kingdom of God." (Shades of "Heaven's Gate!") And there were the Shakers, who were convinced that the Bible taught it was "best" for a Christian to never have sex, not even for procreation. (They raised orphaned children, but not enough of the children embraced Shakerism, so the sect died out.) According to some sources, there was even a Dutch Protestant Christian sect whose members murdered recently baptized infants to ensure that the infants would go to heaven[71] (a service also provided by some Catholic conquistadors who feared that if they left South American infants alive after baptizing them, then the infants might grow up and forsake Jesus for their parent's paganism and wind up in eternal hellfire).[72]
Even something as innocuous as "kneeling" proved a matter of debate within Christianity. The Church Fathers who lived in the days before the first Nicene Council (in 325 A.D.), along with the Council itself, agreed to forbid kneeling on all Sundays, and on all the days between Easter and Whit-Sunday. Kneeling was frowned upon as a pagan practice.
The existence of so much variety within "Christianity" proves that every "Christian" testimony could not possibly be "amazingly similar." No doubt members of each group tell stories of their attraction to it that others in the group find "amazingly similar." But that's only true of members in the same group. For instance, Frank Schaeffer (AKA "Franky," the son of the famous evangelical Christian apologist, Francis Schaeffer) harshly criticized evangelical Christianity in his first book, Addicted to Mediocrity, which was followed by a funny, charming novel about his family and his evangelical Christian home life that highlighted the shortcomings of both, Portofino: A Novel. Finally, Frank left evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodox Christianity and now speaks and writes about his conversion to that branch of Christianity with the same kind of intensity that marked his father's advocacy of evangelical Christianity. See Frank's books, Dancing Alone: The Quest for Orthodox Faith in the Age of False Religion (in which he critiques the secularizing influence of Protestantism), and, Letters to Father Aristotle: A Journey Through Contemporary American Orthodoxy. One could also cite the testimony of Dr. Charles Bell, a former Protestant charismatic who, like Frank, converted to the Orthodox Church, and wrote, Discovering the Rich Heritage of Orthodoxy. Or there's Frederica Matthewes-Green testimony in her book, Facing East: A Pilgrim's Journey Into the Mysteries of Orthodoxy. In fact, Peter Gillquist has condensed the stories of over two thousand evangelical Christians and their quest for "historic Christianity" in his book, Becoming Orthodox.
Thomas Howard began his spiritual quest as a Protestant fundamentalist (not unlike that of Josh McDowell), but grew to reject such a faith in favor of a broader more mainstream Episcopalian-evangelical faith. In his books, Christ the Tiger: A Postscript to Dogma, and, Evangelical is Not Enough: Worship of God in Liturgy & Sacrament, he outlines the changes he went through. Later, Mr. Howard left Episcopalianism for Catholicism and wrote, Lead Kindly Light: My Journey to Rome, and, On Being Catholic.
Scott Hahn, a former hard-line evangelical Presbyterian minister and professor of theology, described in his book, Rome Sweet Rome, and in numerous videos,[73] his journey away from "false" Protestant doctrines, and his discovery of the one "true" faith, Roman Catholicism. A number of former Protestants have written similar books about their move to Catholicism, like, David Curie, author of Born Fundamentalist, Born Again Catholic, or, Stephen K. Ray, a former devout Baptist who became Catholic along with his wife, and wrote Crossing the Tiber: Evangelical Protestants Discover the Historic Church.
So, Schaeffer, Howard, Hahn and many others testify to their rejection of fundamentalism (and/or hard-line evangelical) Protestantism. In fact, they point out the "errors" in their former beliefs and the "truth" of either Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism. Not a lot of "amazing similarity" with Josh McDowell's Protestant fundamentalist beliefs!
Of the nearly sixty "Christian" testimonies that McDowell hand picked for inclusion in ETDAV there are few (if any) testimonies from folks who became Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Anglican/Episcopalian, Pentecostal, Charismatic, Church of Christ, conservative Calvinist, or snake-handling, Christians. (I can not resist adding that a congregation of snake-handling Christians in Scrabble Creek, South Carolina, had a psychological test administered to them by a sociologist who gave the same test to a nearby Methodist congregation as a control group. And the serpent handlers came out mentally healthier!)[74] McDowell only cites testimonies from Christians of his own "narrow bibliolatrous" persuasion and ignores testimonies from Christians whose beliefs differ in significant ways from his own.
Among the testimonies that McDowell published, it would appear that some "converts" were raised as children to believe only in "Jesus and Christianity," and later "rededicated" their lives. Some had a dramatic conversion experience that happened at a specific time and place. Others had relatively undramatic experiences. Cartoonist, Charles Schulz, attended some "Bible Studies" and "thought about the matter" until he realized he "really loved God," yet, "I cannot point to a specific time of dedication to Christ." [In 1999, Charles Schultz told an interviewer that his religious views had evolved over the years, and, "The term that best describes me now is 'secular humanist.'" -David Templeton, "My Lunch with Spark," Metroactive section of The Sonoma County Independent, Dec. 30, 1999-Jan. 5, 2000. Online: http://www.metroactive.com/papers/sonoma/12.30.99/schulz2-9952. html] C. S. Lewis "decided to rejoin the church" during a trip to the zoo. Author, Eugenia Price, had a Christian friend and they argued about religion until Eugenia said, "'Okay, I guess you're right.' And that was it...Now I like to get up in the morning. He is my reason for waking up." Such stories are no more "amazingly similar" than testimonies from converts to other religions or belief systems.
McDowell cites fellow hard-line evangelical Protestants, E. Y. Mullins and Gordon Allport as experts on "Christian experience." (McDowell also cites Bernard Ramm - but I have discussed Ramm's "heretical" views above.) Naturally, Mullins and Allport write glowingly of "...irrefutable evidence of the objective existence of the Person so moving me...my certainty becomes absolute...the certainties of Christian experience...the blessedness of certitude." Such "absolute certainty" and "blessed certitude" is found universally among the most pious and devout adherents of different Christian denominations, other religions, and cults.
If McDowell had more of the curiosity of a genuine scholar, and less of the "blessed certitude" of an evangelist, he would have discovered that a far wider spectrum of religious testimonies and convictions exists than the narrow band he focuses on in ETDAV. For instance, there are the testimonies and convictions of Schaeffer, Howard, and Hahn, mentioned above; and those of many others recorded in the books below:
1) Journeys in Belief, edited by Bernard Dixon[75] (testimonies of people who converted from Catholicism to Judaism, from Christianity to skepticism, from skepticism to Christianity, etc., each time convinced that their new beliefs supplied the "best, or final, answers").
2) Amazing Conversions: Why Some People Turn to Faith & Others Abandon Religion, by Bob Altemeyer and Bruce Hunsberger[76] (testimonies of some "amazing believers" and some "amazing apostates" contrasted and compared).
3) What I Believe, edited by Mark Booth (featuring the sincerest beliefs of Albert Einstein, James Thurber, Thomas Mann, H. G. Wells, Bertrand Russell, et al.).
4) The Courage of Conviction: Thirty-Three Prominent Men and Women Reveal Their Beliefs - And How They Put Those Beliefs Into Practice, edited by Phillip L. Berman (the beliefs and convictions of Billy Graham, the Dalai Lama, Andrew Greeley, Harold Kushner, Jim Henson, Jane Goodall, Elizabeth Kubler-Ross, Mario Cuomo, et al.).
5) The Door Interviews, edited by Mike Yaconelli (interviews with Christians who are theologians, novelists, musicians, and politicians, and whose beliefs run the gamut from fundamentalism to liberalism and mixtures of both).
6) The Varieties of Religious Experience by the noted psychologist William James (who compares "once-born" and "twice-born" Christians).
7) Once-Born Twice-Born Zen by Conrad Hyers (about a school of Zen Buddhism whose descriptions of "satori" resemble being "born again").
8) The Inner Eye of Love by Robert Johnson (a Catholic in Japan compares Christian agape love with Buddhist karnua compassion; and compares devotion to Christ with devotion to the compassionate Amida Buddha).
9) The Marriage of East and West, and, The Cosmic Revelation: The Hindu Way to God by Dom Bede Griffiths (a Catholic who founded a Christian-Hindu ashram in India, who was also a close friend of C. S. Lewis, talks about his inter-religious discoveries).
10) The Spirituality of Comedy, The Comic Vision and the Christian Faith, And God Created Laughter: The Bible as Divine Comedy, and, The Laughing Buddha: Zen and the Comic Spirit by Conrad Hyers (the spirit of comedic grace shared by both Christians and non-Christians).
11) Cosmic Trigger, Vols. 1, 2 & 3 by Robert Anton Wilson (wild transcendental experiences as seen through the eyes of a "transcendental agnostic").
12) Leaving the Fold: Testimonies of Former Fundamentalists by Edward Babinski (thirty-three testimonies from "narrow bibliolators" who converted to either moderate/liberal Christianity, the wiccan religion, eastern mysticism, agnosticism, or atheism; including the testimony of evangelist Chuck Templeton, Billy Graham's closest friend, who became a "reverent agnostic").[77]
Today, not just books, but also the World Wide Web makes available (to those who seek) many first-hand "testimonies" to the validity (and invalidity) of different religions and philosophies. And you can often e-mail the authors of such testimonies and receive e-mail from them in return, until your bloodshot eyes, carpel-tunnelled wrists, stiff shoulders, and patience, is frazzled trying to show them the error of their ways and the superiority of your own.
"Millions...From All Walks of Life"
Next, McDowell proudly proclaims, "The following testimonies of men and women from all walks of life demonstrate the unity of Christian experience. While each one embraces a different background, profession or culture, each points to the same object as the source of new power for transformed lives - Jesus Christ...Is the Christian experience valid? These and millions more believe so, and they have new lives to back up their statement."
But compare McDowell's proclamation with this one:
"People who have benefited come from all over the globe and from all walks of life. L. Ron Hubbard's technology knows no economic, ethnic, racial, political or religious barriers...Literally millions of stories are on file in churches and missions in all parts of the world. These are not the stories of the privileged or select. They are the successes of everyday people who were looking for answers and who were bright enough to know when the answers had been found."
The latter statement comes from the "Church of Scientology" web site[78] which features glowing testimonies of miraculous healings, miraculous cures from drug and alcohol addiction, increased compassion, confidence, intelligence and the ability to "live life to its fullest."
It should be obvious to McDowell, as it has been to sociologists and students of comparative religion for quite some time, that every new religion begins with a founder and a few dedicated disciples (whom outsiders call "fanatics"). Next it is denounced as a "cult" or as an "unauthorized" "heretical" offshoot of a previous religion. After a hundred years or so the budding faith will grow and mature, or it will fail. It has either satisfied many of its members of its authenticity and importance in their lives, or it has not. If it continues to grow, then it will eventually include millions of satisfied customers drawn from all walks of life. There is Judaism (with its ancient and new branches, and its most famous "heretical" offshoot, Christianity); Christianity (with its denominations and "heretical" offshoots like Mormonism, Seventh-Day Adventism, Jehovah's Witnesses, the Unification Church, and the Unitarian Church); Islam (with its divisions and "heretical" offshoots like the universalistic Bahai faith); Hinduism (with its thousands of sects - including the Sikh religion that believes in one God and no caste system - and its most famous "heretical" offshoot Buddhism). All of them boast millions of followers from all walks of life. Who can predict what next seedling of faith will blossom into a full blown religion with "millions of followers from all walks of life?"[79] (For a fuller discussion of this interesting topic, I recommend, The Construction of Orthodoxy and Heresy: Neo-Confucian, Islamic, Jewish, and Early Christian Patterns by John B. Henderson.)
A Nurse, Two Golfers, and Two Miss Americas
McDowell produced two editions of ETDAV and he added and subtracted a few of the nearly sixty Christian testimonies (in chapter twelve) when he produced the second edition. For instance, McDowell added to the second edition a testimony from a woman in Panama, who wrote, "I could not put my ideas in order, they were so abstract and empty...I received Christ, I felt I could become a good nurse with the help of God." It puzzles me what the addition of that testimony was meant to demonstrate. What about all the other people in the world who were able to "put their ideas in order" and become nurses "with the help of" family, friends, teachers, and different beliefs?
In the second edition, the testimony of "Golfer" Rik Massengale replaced the testimony of "Golfer" Kermit Zarley. (No testimony from Jack Nicholas or Arnold Palmer?) And the testimony of one "Miss America" Terry Meeuwsen Camburn (1973 pageant winner) replaced the testimony of "Miss America" Vonda Kay Van Dyke (1965 pageant winner). (No testimony from a former "Miss Universe?")
It does not seem to phase McDowell that so many nurses, golf pros, Miss Americas (and Miss Universes), achieved their goals without relying as heavily and directly on "Jesus" as the few folks whom McDowell focuses upon. Compassion, friendliness, humor, patience, persistence, and keeping one's goals in sight, still have a lot to do with leading a happy and successful life, regardless of one's "deep personal reliance on Jesus" or some other faith.
Also, one wonders whether every "testifier" who was alive when ETDAV was published remained deeply devoted. Do some of them entertain ideas today that McDowell might find "heretical" (like Bernard Ramm)? Perhaps a few have "backslidden" or even left the fold? We may never know, because a book can only provide a slice of a person's life at the moment that book was published; and it is difficult keeping track of peoples' mental, emotional and spiritual (as well as geographical) movements. That is an inherent flaw of all "testimony" books (including the one I edited, Leaving the Fold).
However, there is one thing I am certain of, that a mind once stretched by a new idea (or new question) never fully regains its original dimensions. Even those who leave a particular "fold" only to return to it again, never return to exactly the same spot, mentally or spiritually speaking. Take the following example...
Physicist
The testimony of physicist, Lambert Dolphin, Jr., preceded all the rest in the first edition of ETDAV. But Lambert's testimony was stricken from the second edition. I thought that was odd since it seemed far more captivating than the testimony McDowell added to the second edition of the female nurse in Panama. Why remove such an interesting and strong testimony (the lead off testimony) and add such a mundane one? So I contacted Mr. Dolphin and learned that he experienced a lapse of faith before the second edition of ETDAV was published, which might explain McDowell's decision to excise Dolphin's testimony. Would any author of a book that boasted "undeniable" evidence of the "overwhelming" truth of Christianity wish to cite as an example of "Christian experience" someone who was suffering a "lapse of faith?"
After his lapse, Mr. Dolphin regained his conservative evangelical Christian faith. But it appears to be a faith of slightly wider dimensions than before. For instance, Mr. Dolphin stated in an e-mail to me on May 12, 1997, "I believe God is at work in every culture and religion. There are hints of this in Romans, chapter 2. My mentor Ray Stedman once said, 'There is one way to God, Jesus said so, but there are a thousand paths to the Messiah.' I met a number of Moslems in Egypt years ago who were very godly and compassionate and honorable men - putting many 'Christians' I know to shame."
U. S. Senator
A testimony by U.S. Senator, Mark Hatfield, appears in both editions of ETDAV. It is a squeaky clean little Campus Crusade for Christ testimony that appeared in one of their Collegiate Challenge magazines in 1965.
Eleven years later (in 1976) Hatfield's book, Between a Rock and a Hard Place was published, in which he recounted his struggles to be both a Christian and a senator. Though his theology remained conservative and evangelical, he also demonstrated a keen awareness of the dangers and evils of a civil religion that sees America as "God's chosen nation." In fact, in The Door Interviews (published in 1989), Hatfield remarked, "I find nothing in Scripture that says Christ died only for Americans...or that God's grace is limited...or that Christ's power of redemption is in any way circumscribed to certain cultures or certain groups...Nor am I going to believe that once we Christians get our hands on the power levers of Caesar [i.e., government] that somehow we're going to turn the world around. Some of the most heinous crimes in the history of humankind have been committed by those who thought that if they got a hold of Caesar's power, they could regenerate the world. Instead we ended up with things like the Dark Ages...the Crusades."[80]
Hatfield fleshed out that same criticism in "The Constantinian Legacy," chapter 6 of Between a Rock and a Hard Place, which contains the following gem: "The [Roman Empire] was not transformed by the reported conversion of its Emperor. It was not suddenly committed to seek the justice taught by Christ, but still sought the ends of its own self-preservation and prestige, frequently at a bloody cost. In no way had the Roman Empire suddenly become a 'Christian' Empire, molded by the teachings of Christ or committed to judging or fashioning itself according to the qualities of biblical justice. This is worth remembering today whenever we are tempted to suppose that the path to establishing self-righteousness for a nation lies simply through electing a committed Christian as President, or encouraging our leaders to pray and share a personal faith."[81]
In his book, Hatfield also discussed his concerns for the environment, ending world hunger, and the repercussions of his National Prayer Breakfast speech in which he called the Viet Nam war a "sin" when it was unfashionable to do so (a speech that prompted Billy Graham to write the Senator a letter of criticism). Hatfield is not blind to the problems we face as fellow human beings struggling to live together on the same little planet; nor is he blind to Christian excesses and sins of the past and present. But I doubt Josh McDowell wants the whole truth about Hatfield (or Christian history) to be known.
Curiously, though McDowell cited the testimony of one U.S. senator, he did not cite the testimony of a single U.S. president. I would love to see McDowell try to squeeze a strictly orthodox evangelical Christian testimony out of our first four presidents, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison (or our sixteenth president, Abraham Lincoln). I have studied what they had to say about God, Jesus, religion and the Bible, and compared it to the dubious attempts made by today's "Christian nation" spokesmen to re-make them into "orthodox Christians." Senator Hatfield and I could probably share a good laugh together discussing such attempts.
Former President of the U.N. General Assembly
McDowell cites the testimony of a former President of the U.N. General Assembly, Charles Malik, who declared in 1968 that "the whole world is as it were dissolving before our very eyes...These are great days and what is being decided in them is absolutely historic." The "whole world...dissolving?" The late 1960s as "absolutely historic days?" What "days" are not "absolutely historic?" And now that thirty years have passed, how "absolutely historic" and "world dissolving" does 1968 appear to have been? It appears that in 1968 Malik contracted the same end-times fever that prompted Hal Lindsey to write The Late Great Planet Earth (published in 1970). But the apocalyptic enthusiasm back then has proved as fallible as Lindsey's "prophetic interpretations." If nothing else, Malik's testimony appears to provide evidence that Christianity can turn a man into an alarmist and false prophet.
Besides, there are other famous United Nations personages whom McDowell chose to ignore, like Dag Hammarskjold, Secretary General of the U.N. in 1953 and 1957, whose book of diary excerpts, Markings, sold more than a quarter of a million copies in its first fourteen months. Woven throughout Markings was Hammarskjold's unique experience of Christianity, including his appreciation of the perceptions of Christian mystics like Meister Eckhardt, St. John of the Cross, St. John Perse, and playwrites Shakespeare and Ibsen. A little too broad a "Christian experience" for McDowell to make much use of.
And speaking of other United Nations personages whom McDowell ignores, there was the "U. N. troubleshooter," Conor Cruise O'Brien, who wrote, God Land: Reflections on Religion and Nationalism in which O'Brien pointed out the enormous tensions produced by interactions of religion and nationalism throughout history, from Old Testament Canaan to Joan of Arc, from Puritan Massachusetts Bay to the National Prayer Breakfasts, and the pitfalls that await any nation that considers itself especially favored by God.
Former Prostitute, Former Gang Leader, and Former Criminal
McDowell cites the testimony of a former prostitute named "Linda" whose story is not told by Linda, but by the minister who evangelized her. McDowell also cites the testimonies of a former gang leader, and a former criminal. Suffice it to say that groups as diverse as Scientology and Transcendental Meditation, have personal testimonies on record (along with statistical data), that demonstrate the effectiveness of their beliefs and practices in turning around criminals' lives and in significantly reducing the percentages of those who return to prison.[82] Moreover, any organization that demands responsibility and focuses on setting goals and eliminating grossly destructive behaviors has "success" stories to tell.
Perhaps in a future edition of ETDAV McDowell will add the testimony of another criminal, Jeffrey Dahmer, the cannibalistic serial killer who was "born again" before he was murdered by a fellow prison inmate. I would not be surprised to learn that Dahmer had been given a copy of the Gospel of John while in prison. (Of the four gospels, the Gospel of John is heavily favored by evangelical Christians. Probably because the author begins by boasting that Jesus was the "Divine Word of God," and then has John the Baptist announce that Jesus was "The Lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world," which was more than the Baptist knew about Jesus' mission according to the other Gospels. Also in the very first chapter, Andrew, Peter's brother, exclaims, "We have found the Messiah!" The Gospel of John even has a whole chapter (chapter 3) that explains "how to get saved." No wonder evangelical Christians favor the Gospel of John. It removes any mystery about "who" Jesus was, or "what" his mission was, or "how" to get "saved," because, according to that gospel, everyone knew it all, right at the start of Jesus' ministry.)
But if that is the gospel that Dahmer read, then I wonder what he thought when he got to chapter six where it says, "Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, you shall have no life within yourselves. He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life; and I will raise him up on the last day." (For those who find my question distasteful, please keep in mind that I am not the one who added a hint of "cannibalism" to the Bible - albeit a spiritual or metaphorical variety of cannibalism. Even more bizarre are testimonies by Catholics who swear that a few times in history, during Catholic Masses, communion wafers have miraculously changed into literal flesh, and wine changed into partially-clotted blood cells. This, of course, begs the question of whether anyone attending such Masses got to taste Jesus.)
Nazi Pilot in World War II: Surviving Dreadful Danger
McDowell also cites the testimony of a Nazi pilot in World War II, named, Moelders, who flew back to base safely after his plane was riddled with bullets, and who believed he "could never have survived that dreadful danger if he had not called on the everlasting God."
Moelders' faith echoes Psalm 91, "Surely He will deliver you...You will not be afraid of...the arrow that flies by day; or of the pestilence that stalks in darkness; or of the destruction that lays waste at noon. A thousand may fall at your side, and ten thousand at your right hand; but it will not come near you...Because you have made the Lord your refuge...no evil will befall you...His angels...will bear you up in their hands, lest you strike your foot against a stone. You shall tread upon the lion and cobra...you will trample them under foot...Because you have set your love upon Me, therefore I will deliver you...with long life I will satisfy you." (A modern day author of Psalm 91 would probably add that "Bullets shall not harm you, and atomic bomb radiation shall not burn you even though thousands around you melt into puddles of ooze." Which reminds me of how Rev. Pat Robertson in the late 1970s gave a rousing speech about how "machine gun bullets" would not be able to hurt true believers who stood up for Jesus.)
Of course anyone taking a moment's thought must recognize that Psalm 91 portrays a fantasy version of earthly existence, i.e., of a man incapable of being hurt by "arrows," an army of foes, diseases, poisonous snakes, lions, not even a chance of painfully stubbing his toe "against a stone." But if mankind's earthly existence teaches us anything it is that "bad things happen to even the most righteous believers." Job, Jesus, and Pope John Paul can testify to that, all of whom "stubbed their toes" and much worse. Add to the list the Christian and Olympic runner who was portrayed in the film, Chariots of Fire, who died at a relatively young age of a brain tumor while working as a missionary in China with his parents.
Another psalmist (or perhaps the same one who wrote Psalm 91) sang that he had "never seen the righteous forsaken, nor his descendants begging bread." (Ps. 37:25). If he had only opened his eyes...
Aside from such naive views there remains the common sense view: In every battle and in every massacre and in every disaster and plague there are usually a few who survive despite the odds against them. Neither are they all evangelical Christians. Nor do they all become evangelical Christians. But if they do, you can bet you'll hear their story shouted from the housetops.
And speaking of "surviving dreadful danger" in an air plane, I should add that Oral Robert's daughter died in a plane crash. Furthermore, in 1982, fundamentalist preacher Lester Rolloff (who had appeared a year earlier on 60 Minutes stating his defiance of what he called "Texas' Godless juvenile home system") along with four girl singers on their way to lead a revival, tried to fly a twin engine plane through a storm. A wind shear ripped off a wing and all five plunged 18,000 feet to their deaths.
Two years after Rolloff died, a 747 filled with Japanese on a Buddhist religious pilgrimage to Hawaii encountered a wind shear, which violently rolled the plane over and caused it to plunge almost five miles earthward. Amazingly, the Japanese pilot was able to recover control with only tail section damage. Success of this otherwise doomed flight was attributed by the plane's passengers to their "songs and prayers offered to the Buddha." Of course, those are not the kind of "testimonies" McDowell was looking for when he wrote ETDAV.
Movie Actor: Overcoming Suicidal Impulses
McDowell cites the testimony of actor Dean Jones who says "Jesus" helped him overcome suicidal impulses. But many things can help people do that. The philosopher/mathematician and Nobel Prize winner, Bertrand Russell, testified in his autobiography that he had a very unhappy youth and considered suicide, but his love of mathematics saved him. I have also heard various comedians testify that their love of comedy gave them a reason to go on living even under the direst of physical and psychological circumstances.
It worked that way for Stephen Vomhof too, who wrote, "When I was in high school and even junior high I occasionally thought about suicide because I thought I was the only person who thought the way I did. At times I came close to doing it but someone was always there to help. I was scorned whenever I tried to express myself by both students and my parents. It wasn't the scorn that hurt so much as the fact that they just didn't get it. They didn't care if they got it. To me it seemed that nobody got it, even my close and trusted friends. Watching Bill Hicks [a revolutionary comedian whose life was cut tragically short by terminal illness] I realized there was someone else like me out there. Not only that, but that there were fans for that person. I have never seriously considered suicide since; I doubt I ever will again. I have read a lot about Bill...and realized that Bill and I came from the same place. A religious background, an innate hatred of hypocrisy and an undying devotion to the search for truth. Currently I'm a philosophy major at a junior college in Minnesota...which is a little weird because I'm the son of a Lutheran minister...I have good friends and a snowmobile to drive out my frustrations. I still think about Bill a lot, hardly a day goes by that I don't think about something he said or something he did and his background and why...Like Plato's allegory of the cave I feel I have to scream back at the people inside the cave, drag them out kicking and screaming to see Bill. To be exposed to that X-factor that made Bill unique...I will always try to get others to appreciate his spectacular life. He touched one person's life and I'm grateful."[83]
Which reminds me of a lesson from the Talmud, an ancient book of Hebrew rabbinic wisdom. The lesson is taught in the form of a story: A rabbi walking down the street heard the voice of the prophet Elijah saying, "Although you fast and pray, never have you deserved the high place in heaven that awaits those two men on the other side of the road." So the rabbi ran after the two men and asked, "Do you give much to the poor?" They laughed. "No, we are beggars ourselves." "Then do you pray continuously?" the rabbi asked. "No. We are ignorant men. We don't know how to pray." "Then tell me what you do." And the men said, "We make jokes. We make people laugh when they are sad."
Again, not the kind of "testimonies" that McDowell was looking for when he put ETDAV together. Of course, what you find depends on where you look, and McDowell looks in relatively fewer places than a person would if they were genuinely curious about the breadth of human experience, "Christian" or otherwise.
A Prisoner, and a Singer: Miraculous Testimonies
Some of the testimonies that McDowell cites involve "miracles." As in the case of the prisoner, Ernest Gaither, who arose in the morning at the hour that he asked "God" to wake him. (I had a similar experience, reminding myself to wake up at an early hour without the aid of an alarm clock, and then woke up nearly at the exact minute. I have also reminded myself not to sleep too long before taking a nap, and it worked. However, I never interpreted such things to mean that "Christianity" must therefore be true and all other beliefs false.)
McDowell also cites the testimony of a singer and former drug abuser, B. J. Thomas, who was attracted to the "peace and calm" he spied in one of his friends, an evangelical Christian. During dinner at his friend's house, Thomas' friend said he saw something "evil" in Thomas. (Of course if you invite a hard-line evangelical Christian to "talk" to you about the "serious things of God" then any "signs of resistance" on your part come to be associated in that Christian's mind with "evil." It could be a rational argument you raise, minor distractions, inattentiveness, or an expression on your face, all of which the Christian may interpret as "the devil's attempt to thwart your salvation.") Thomas allowed his friend to pray to "make Satan flee," after which, Thomas says he felt a "disturbance in my chest. I felt for a minute a sharp pain and I thought I might have broken a rib. Then I had the illusion that something was 'just going' and a peace came over me."
He "had the illusion that something was just going?" What a slip of the tongue! (I think Mr. Thomas meant to use the word "impression," not "illusion.") But what if it was an "illusion?" Could the sharp pain be due to involuntary tensing once Thomas consented to his friend's unexpected and unnerving request to pray the "evil" out of him? After which Thomas relaxed, grew calmer, and increasingly receptive to his friend's beliefs? Perhaps Thomas' recollection of those events underwent a subtle "Christian" reinterpretation over time? As Rene Daumal pointed out in A Night of Serious Drinking, "It is very tempting, when you talk about the events of the past, to impose clarity and order upon what had neither one nor the other."
Mr. Thomas says that soon afterwards he tried to get high on pot, but decided to leave all his drugs behind, after which he did not experience withdrawal symptoms. (If only every drug addict and alcoholic who "came to Jesus" received the same miraculous healing that Thomas claims he did. They do not.) Exactly what types of drugs and what quantities, and how long he had been taking them since his last de-tox experience, Thomas does not say. What other factors might he be leaving out of his story? Without knowing more, how can anyone competently judge his seemingly "miraculous" lack of withdrawal symptoms? Mental attitude and focus can change one's brain chemicals too, naturally. It is also known that hypnotic suggestion can relieve people of pain. The brain and body have remarkable capabilities.
Besides which, testimonies of people who were "delivered from evil" are not unique. They can be found among believers in nearly all religions and sects. "Casting out evil" was common to ancient Babylonian, Persian, and Jewish priests and exorcists (Josephus mentions Jewish exorcists at work in Jerusalem who did not invoke Jesus' name to cast out demons). "Evil" is being "cast out" by modern day Catholic priests, Eastern Orthodox priests, Pentecostal ministers, American Indian (and Hindu) shaman, Wiccans, New Agers, and Haitian voodoo practitioners (especially of the Christianized version of voodoo in Haiti, whose followers also "speak in tongues").
Even people like Howard Storm and Betty Eadie, who have had Near-Death Experiences, tell how they met "dark vicious evil beings" and were saved from them by "beings of light." But Mr. Storm's NDE impressed upon him a universalistic truth that the "right" religion was "whichever one brings you closer to God." And Mrs. Eadie's experiences strengthened her Mormon faith. (The Mormons even have a journal that publishes stories of NDEs of Mormons.) Also, The Eckankar Journal, that promotes the "science of soul travel," contains miraculous testimonies of "personal experiences in the light and sound of God" on various planes of spiritual existence. And the Scientology web site that I mentioned above contains testimonies of wonderful healings from drugs and alcohol. (Scientologists also believe in what might be colloquially called, "evil spirits," that are "overcome" via their philosophy.)
And speaking of miracles in general, Scott Hahn's journey from Protestant fundamentalism to Catholicism features some stirring miraculous coincidences. But let us advance to the most miracle-filled testimony in McDowell's book...
The Testimony of Sadhu Sundar Singh
Sadhu ("Sadhu" is Hindu for "holy man") Sundar Singh was raised a Sikh (Hindu for "disciple"). Sikhism is a sect within Hinduism that was founded about 1500 A.D. that teaches belief in one God and rejects the caste system and idolatry. Therefore, Sundar from a young age shared some of the same basic religious beliefs of Jews, Christians and Moslems. Moreover, Sikhism emphasizes the divinity of the holy teacher or "guru" - which made it easy for Sundar to later accept the Christian doctrine of "Jesus" as the "divine incarnation of God."
Prior to his conversion Sundar attended a primary school run by the American Presbyterian Mission where the New Testament was read daily as a "textbook." According to the testimony that McDowell published, Sundar "refused to read the Bible at the daily lessons...To some extent the teaching of the Gospel on the love of God attracted me, but I still thought it was false." According to another testimony, not published in ETDAV, Sundar confessed, "Even then, I felt the Divine attractiveness and wonderful power of the Bible."[84]
The New Testament was a foreign holy book teaching a religion that was similar to, yet different from, his own. This confused his young mind and heart. Sundar even burned a copy of one of the Gospels in public. In the midst of such confusion and while only fourteen years old, his mother died, and Sundar underwent a crisis of faith. His mother was a loving saintly woman and they were very close. He wanted to assuage his fears about God and the afterlife so badly that he woke one night at 3 A.M. took a bath and prayed "expecting" to receive a visionary answer; he swore he would kill himself that morning if he did not receive one. That morning Sundar says he "met Jesus" who spoke the same words that were spoken to Paul on the Road to Damascus, "Why do you persecute me?"
Friedrich Heiler, in his sympathetic biography, The Gospel of Sadhu Sundar Singh (Oxford University Press, 1927), did not dispute Sundar's recollections, nor the sincerity of his faith, but cautiously added some "Critical Considerations": "In contradistinction to the...religious explanation of the miracle of Sundar's conversion, modern religious science suggests one that is natural and psychological. The psychological process which those who have studied conversion experiences have discovered is easily discernable in the Sadhu's experience: the utmost tension of effort, followed by a state of despair and complete cessation from struggle, culminating in a sudden inflow of assurance. The 'local color' on the fantasy side of the experience is easily explained by the influence of the story of Paul's conversion, which is obviously very similar. Although the Sadhu does not remember having heard of Paul's vision of Christ on the road to Damascus, this still seems probable, as the New Testament was read daily in the mission school. It seems quite likely that Sundar Singh's inward struggles and their solution were inevitably colored by the Pauline experience. Finally, we have to remember that such experiences of conversion are not all that rare in India. A leading figure in the Indian Methodist Church, Theophilus Subrahmanyam, was also led to Christ, and to work for Him among the outcasts, by a wonderful vision. The famous Mahratta evangelist and poet, Narayan Vaman Tilak, had a vision of Christ in August 1917, a few months before his death...The Indian mind is much more prone to visionary experience than the European [Emphasis added. - ED.]...To point out that this conversion resembles the conversion of St. Paul, to say that the whole experience conforms to a certain type and that similar experiences often occur among Indian Christians, does not offer any clear and complete explanation; it only makes it somewhat easier to understand."[85]
Sundar also told many miraculous stories (besides his conversion account) which included Sundar's meeting with a "365-year-old Maharishi of Kailash," Sundar's fasting for "forty days," being thrown into and plucked out of a Tibetan well, and stories of miraculous rescues and martyrdoms of others. Even his sympathetic biographer, Heiler, pointed out that "The critical historian...draws special attention to the curious sameness of the miracle motif [in Sundar's stories]. There are really only two types of miracles which appear in slightly varied form again and again in his stories. In the larger number of incidents supernatural figures appear and disappear with startling suddenness. The martyr-stories too, which the Sadhu tells, are almost all of the same type; in the midst of terrible suffering the martyrs are filled with supernatural joy which convinces the spectators of the truth of their Faith...We cannot, however, help noticing one curious fact: the converts and martyrs of whom Sundar Singh speaks reveal exactly the same kind of experience as the Sadhu; they think, feel, and talk just as he does...Finally, various parallels from the New Testament, and from the legendary literature of Christianity and Buddhism, show that many of the leading ideas in the Sadhu's miracle-stories are in no way either new or original...In addition, in all these tales of the miraculous the whole mentality of the Indian and especially of the Indian ascetic, must be taken into account. One of the most able students of the history of Indian literature says decidedly: 'Indians have never made any distinction between Saga, legend, and history.' This applies particularly to ascetics, who for days at a time are quite alone among the magnificent mountains of the Himalayas, and who give themselves up exclusively to the contemplation of Nature, to inward concentration, and supernatural ecstasy [exactly as Sundar did, who spent much time travelling alone in his beloved Himalayas, and who admitted that he slipped into and out of "spiritual ecstasy" (or, as the Hindus call it, "samadhi;" or as we would call it today, "altered states of consciousness") spontaneously and frequently, which included seeing visions and hearing voices - ED.]. In their experience the inner vision becomes developed to such an extent that the usual difference between subjective and objective truth disappears entirely. [Even Sundar's supporters and personal friends admitted that he had difficulty at times in distinguishing between vision and empirical reality.[86] - ED.] All this suggests that some of the Sadhu's stories of the miraculous need not be considered as historical facts, but as legends; doubtless they have some solid foundation, but, in the form in which they are told, they have been worked up by a creative miracle-fantasy. Even scholars who admit the possibility of the miraculous cannot refuse to consider such a suggestion...Those who are familiar with the problems of biblical and hagiographical miracle find, to their astonishment, in the anecdotes which the Sadhu tells over and over again, certain clear principles, which show how legends are formed: repetition of the same motif, doublets, and variants. It is a striking and significant fact that we can thus confirm these principles of the growth of legends in people belonging to our own day, for the Sadhu's stories deal exclusively with experiences of his own and of his contemporaries. So we see that legends do not necessarily arise after the death of a saint, and within the inner circle of his disciples, but during his own lifetime, and perhaps even in his own mind."[87]
Sundar Singh was quite independent of outward Church authority in all his religious life, thought, and work. He dropped out of a Christian seminary that he briefly attended. Neither did he attach much importance to public worship because in his experience the heart prays better in solitude than in a congregation. He was also highly displeased with what he found when he toured western nations that for centuries had the benefit of the Bible and whose central figure of worship was Jesus. Sundar proclaimed almost prophetic denunciations upon Western Christianity, and laughed at the way the West looked down upon religious men of the East as mere "pagans" and "heathens." "People call us heathens," he said in a conversation with the Archbishop of Upsala. "Just fancy! My mother a heathen! If she were alive now she would certainly be a Christian. But even while she followed her ancestral faith she was so religious that the term 'heathen' makes me smile. She prayed to God, she served God, she loved God, far more warmly and deeply than many Christians."[88] On another occasion, Sundar said, "I have seen many Christian women, but none of them came up to my mother."[89] And, conversing with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Sundar said: "If I do not see my mother in heaven, I shall ask God to send me to hell so that I may be with her."[90]
Sundar also made plain his view that, "There are many more people among us in India who lead a spiritual life than in the West, although they do not know or confess Christ...It is of course true that people who live in India worship idols; but here in England people worship themselves, and that is still worse. Idol-worshippers seek the truth, but people over here, so far as I can see, seek pleasure and comfort...The people of the West understand how to use electricity and how to fly in the air. The men of the East have sought the truth. Of the three Wise Men who went to Palestine to see Jesus not one was from the West.'"[91]
Neither was Sundar afraid to raise his voice in favor of "universalism." He could never deny to all non-Christians the possibility of entering heaven (as fundamentalist and hard-line evangelicals, like McDowell, do). In 1925 Sundar wrote, "If the Divine spark in the soul cannot be destroyed, then we need despair of no sinner...Since God created men to have fellowship with Himself, they cannot for ever be separated from Him...After long wandering, and by devious