In previous issues of The Skeptical Review, Farrell Till has entertained us with his imaginative view of the impact of Christianity on the world. In his initial article, "Who's To Blame?" (TSR, January/February 1999), his basic theme can be boiled down to the following excerpts.
"When skeptics refer to the inquisitions, witch hunts, and other persecutions that Christianity has left in its wake... Christians piously condemn these actions (while silently approving them, we suspect) and declare that Christianity cannot be blamed for the violent activities of radicals.
"Christianity is not to blame? Then just who is to blame? Christianity is based on a book that depicts racism, brutality, massacre, and homophobia as the will of the very god Christians worship.... [A Christian] would say that the inquisitions, persecutions, and witch hunts of the past cannot be blamed on those who preached that heresy and witchcraft were wrong. Such simplistic reasoning as this ignores the obvious fact that hatred of this kind begins with religion and is fanned by religion, and more than any factor, the direction that religion takes is determined by what its leaders preach... but preachers like Fred Phelps see where the Bible says that homosexuals should be killed (Lev. 20: 13; Rom. 1:27, 32) and think that this too should be preached. They're not responsible when someone takes them seriously enough actually to do what the Bible says? Why aren't they?"
Till's point is clear. As a retired English professor, he has not forgotten the power of a well placed rhetorical question. It is inconceivable that anyone would misunderstand his point. Nevertheless, Dave Matson managed to do it (TSR, April/May 2000). In a meager attempt to defend Till's position, he wrote that nobody ever said that Christianity is the cause of atrocity. What, then, was Till trying to say?
Demonstrating his commitment to Till, Matson argued that Soviet and Chinese communist atrocities were not the logical fruit of skepticism, yet history declares unequivocally that those atrocities were not the fruit of Christianity. What else is there? One either holds to the Biblical teaching on morality, or one is skeptical of the value of moral standards and embarks into life as a Stalin or a Mao doing whatever is right in their own eyes.
Matson, as skeptics seem prone to do, confuses casual with causal relationships. Certainly, there is a casual relationship between Christianity and historical events only because Christianity has been so widespread. There is also a casual relationship between music and historical events, but no one suggests that music makes people behave a certain way. This is because a casual relationship does not establish a causal relationship. If one follows Matson's logic, one could conclude that the local fire department spends its time setting fires simply because it is always observed at the scene of fires. Only solid, logical research and analysis can take a casual relationship and determine whether a causal link exists, and Matson has not done this. Neither has Till. One conclusion we can draw from Matson is that skeptics are prone to hyperbole.
Till attempted to organize his arguments better in a later article (TSR, November/December 1999). After reflection, Till realized that he had not meant to say that Christianity was at fault; instead, he meant the Bible. In addition, he was basically only suggesting that the Bible might possibly be influencing some of the violent activities that have become a part of modern society. His retreat no doubt discouraged the faithful.
Till suggested that certain radical elements are motivated by religious agendas. He never really described how this happens. He cannot quite grasp the idea that people with agendas seek to use religion to further their purposes. In a world in which homosexuals become priests to gain access to young boys and scam artists hire themselves out to preach in order to fleece the innocent, Till sees only devoutly religious people strictly obeying every jot and tittle in the Bible. The more fanatic the person or the more fanatically he uses religion, the more devout he appears in Till's eyes. Having, himself, once been a pretender to the pulpit, one would think that Till could grasp the distinction that exists.
Till offered several arguments to support his position. One argument goes like this. If radical groups derive their names from the Bible, then the Bible must be the cause of their actions. Using this logic, Till concludes that the Bible promotes evil. In Till's world, the Army of God and the Phineas Priesthood are not motivated by such mundane things as greed, jealousy, or selfishness. No, they take their names from the Bible, and in doing so, they come under some magical power exerted by the Bible through those Biblical names. Skeptics seem very naive to believe this. Even Christians, who obviously have derived their name from Christ, do not use such a specious argument. It is not because the name Christ appears in the Bible that people call themselves Christian and behave as Christ would. Skeptics cannot quite figure out how this really works.
Till supported his argument by saying that there is no real right or wrong. What homosexuals do is as natural to the homosexual as that which heterosexuals do is natural to them. Consequently, Till has a difficult time when the Bible says that certain acts are evil or just plain wrong. To Till, some people in the Bible may not measure up to the moral expectations of others or of God, but that does not make them bad in his eyes. Phinehas took action against people who were doing evil, but Till would have one believe that Phinehas only considered the people to be morally inferior and did no more than exert his personal brand of moral superiority. The skeptic who buys into this only displays ignorance. The fruit of such nonsense is that we now see the evolutionists (a unique breed of skeptics) beginning to claim that rape is not inherently evil. Instead, it is merely the natural pursuit of men seeking to leave their evolutionary imprint on society. How dare one view the rapist as a moral inferior, much less evil, or think to punish him for his actions.
Till then argued that the Bible must be a bad influence because people in the Bible did bad things. His example was Lot. Lot was described as a righteous man, but Till dwelt on two notable events in Lot's life. One time, Lot's house was surrounded by Sodomites seeking to have sex with two men visiting Lot. Lot, instead, offered his daughters as sexual substitutes in place of the men. Because the Bible did not explicitly condemn Lot for this, Till apparently would have us think that fathers, under the influence of the Bible, will be led to offer their daughters to homosexuals, too. Regardless, Till still considers it a poor example of Biblical morality.
Even Christians agree that Lot's actions were not morally right. People, including Christians, sin. The behavior of individuals who call themselves Christian is not always an accurate indicator of Biblical teaching. Skeptics, however, do not tolerate mistakes. They also have problems when the Bible portrays the good as well as the evil side of men. Perhaps, the Bible reveals more about themselves than skeptics want to admit.
The Bible also described how Lot's daughters became pregnant by their father. Till, in an outburst of imagination, described it as a drunken orgy. Again, Till lamented, the Bible does not indicate divine disapproval. From this, it appears that we should fear for daughters in religious families, who upon reading of Lot's daughters would immediately seek to emulate their behavior. Only a skeptic could come to that conclusion. Fortunately, Till recovered his senses enough to say, "I think we have to agree with Hutchinson that there isn't a chance in the world that the Bible could have a negative influence on anyone." This may be a little out of context, but what is context to a skeptic?
Next, Till said that there is absolutely nothing in his position to imply that he thinks that Christians are equally influenced by the good and the bad in the Bible. His point is that the Bible must influence Christians to emulate the bad behavior described in the Bible if it causes them to emulate the good. Till, at least, admitted that this influence is not equal. Coincidentally, one can observe that the Bible has a positive influence to good and a negative influence to bad. It promotes good and restricts bad.
He further stated that no one has addressed the levels of influence that the good and the bad in the Bible may have. He certainly has not. Despite not having researched how the Bible actually influences people, Till advanced his personal belief that the Bible has far less influence on Christians for good than one might think. This, no doubt, reflects the inability of the Bible to exert much influence on him in those days when he used a pulpit to do his thing. Regardless, Till cannot distinguish between good and bad and cannot understand how the Bible, or anything else, can influence a person in one direction but not the other.
In his "Finishing Touch" (TSR, March/April 2000), Till alluded to his considerable knowledge of the Salem Witch trials but is unable to apply that knowledge to state anything definitive for the reader. It would have been better had he not patted himself on the back so much but, instead, had spent a little time trying to sort out what happened in Salem and how it related to the Bible. Basically, the events in Salem amounted to a few bored young girls looking for excitement along with a few copy cats whose efforts were magnified by a family that had a score to settle. They took advantage of people who had poor reputations and were easily slandered. Just because Salem was governed by rules taken from the Bible does not mean that everyone in Salem bought into that system. The Salem Witch trials proved only that people can resist the moral teaching of the Bible. Surely skeptics could have figured that out before now.
Cotton Mather and company do not appear to have been prepared to handle the hysteria that erupted and otherwise seemed to have had little real influence over the protagonists in this drama. We witnessed a similar sequence of events in the early 1990's when prosecutors began charging day care providers with child molestation. In that hysteria, ordinarily intelligent people believed the most outrageous and unbelievable charges. Perhaps Till can use his vast knowledge to tell us his version of events in Salem. There is no evidence that the Bible was the cause of that hysteria and Till, despite his appeals to an extensive knowledge on the matter, was unable to offer anything to support his position. Till also confused the debate over the inquisition. The inquisition began as nothing more than an effort by a religious faction to preserve its turf. It was taken over by politicians who saw a good way to get rid of their opponents. By the 1500's, it involved attempts by the Roman Catholic church to prevent the spread of Protestant influence. Anyone concluding that Christianity or the Bible caused the inquisition merely displays their considerable ignorance.
Not to be outdone by Till, Matson would have one believe that the Khmer Rouge were innocent naturalists who had nothing in common with Stalin or Mao. Having been educated in the glories of Marxism in France, Khmer Rouge leaders admired the Chinese and North Korean political systems. That they preferred death to reeducation camps hardly made them unique. Mao's atheistic China belittled and suppressed religious expression then even as it does today. Stalin spent his formative years in a seminary where his mother sent him to prepare him for the priesthood. He had other ideas. So, what makes the Khmer Rouge any different from those guys or any different from the skeptics whose testimonies fill the pages of TSR?
Till has tried to convince readers that Christianity or the Bible is the cause of past atrocities. He has written much but said nothing. If Till wishes to continue his diatribe against Christianity, he needs to provide real arguments and not just vent his personal animosity. Absent that, I suspect this issue has come to an end.
(Roger Hutchinson, 11904 Lafayette Drive, Silver Spring,
MD 20902; e-mail, RHutchin@AOL. com)
