Bullies and Saints - A book review - has Christianity done lots of evil?

 

An Apology

This book, under the general category of apologetics, is an attempt to answer critics of Christianity who say that Christians cause wars or that Christianity is reponsible for violence.

Dickson answers the critics in three ways:

First he shows how the criticisms levelled at the church are so often either wrong or way overblown.  Wars fought in the name of religion often turn out to be political wars - which, O by the way, had a religious component. That "religious component" could easily have been tribal bias, political party affiliation, etc. The real cause of war is not religion but the human heart. The Good Friday agreement, for example, barely mentions religion - the Irish Troubles were about nationalism and separatism - political notions. Dickson reminds the reader that the biggest conflicts in history (WW1, WW2) were non-religious; he shows that when they are added to the irreligious conflicts (Stalin, Mao Zedong, Pol Pot), so-called "Christian attrocities" pale into significance.

True Christians have done far more good than evil

In the second place, Dickson balances the evil done in the name of the "church" with the good done. Hospitals, charity work, and so on, all find their roots in Christian doctrine: the precious nature of every human being made in the image of God, and the imperative to love. 

In the third place, Dickson encourages the reader to take the log out of their own eyes and fess up to the evil done in the name of Christ. But it's here that a fatal flaw in the book appears.

A fatal flaw

Hands up, there's no doubt that believers have done wrong in the name of Christ (which is why we must always point to Christ, not to his flawed followers). Martin Luther's diatribe against the Jews is a fine example. (So too his forgotten diatribes against the Anabaptists). 

But Dickson - and to give him credit he acknowledges this - lumps everyone who calls themselves a Christian, a true Christian. Every church, a true church. I guess academics can do little else but take on face value what a person says they are.

Jesus taught something very different from Dickson - he taught his disciples to discern. Jesus says that "by their fruit you shall know them." Jesus calls us to make judgements. Not to judge, but to make judgements (there's a world of difference between them). He says that on the last day many who said they were believers and call him "Lord, Lord" will be sent them away to hell because of their evil deeds.

It is a cardinal (and frankly, pretty elementary?) error to lump all churches together and call them "Christian." And this error flaws Dickson's work fatally. It results in him calling the crusades and child abuse, evils done by Christians. This is unthinkable. A man who abuses children is not a Christian, no matter the fanciness or the colour of the frock he wears. People who take up arms to gain land, money or power have nothing to do with Christ. They may call themselves "church" or "Christian" until the cows come home, but according to Christ they have nothing to do with him, whose kingdom is not of this world.

True Christians have nothing to be ashamed of, nothing to explain away, when it comes to the crusades or to the modern day scourge of child abuse. People who commit such deeds have absolutely nothing to do with Christ.

We have no doubt that a few true Christians may have got caught up with the crusades, but the crusades had nothing to do with Christ. They were the fruit of an apostate church which had already abandoned the truth, had married the state and become even more wicked than the world. 

In the case of "church" child abuse, Dickson notes that the majority take place in institutions where the Biblical right of church leaders to marry has been rejected. There is no good reason to regard such places as "Christian."  Child abuse is far rarer elsewhere in "the church", and when it is found there, let's be clear, it has nothing to do with Christ.

The world of Academia

True believers have made big mistakes in the story of the church - and we still do. For this we should be honest, humble and contrite. But we should not apologise for the deeds of wicked unbelievers who hid under the mantle of Christ to perform their deeds, whether killing or abusing. 

Where does this strange blindness come from? Most probably the academy. A book written from within the church would have been far more discerning. 

Dickson's book may be helpful for pastors to read or for boffins, but I personally know of very few ordinary people in church life I could give this too. Not just because of the fatal error, but because of the high-faluten language, the references to transient debates and scholastic studies, and scholarly unknowns. 

We're still waiting for an ordinary book which we could give to those who have been deceived into thinking that the church has caused trouble in the world.