Apologia of Human Nature: Charlatans, Saints, Hoffer, and Burt Likko’s Query
David Limbaugh, lawyer brother of Rush and an author of several books on the Christian faith himself, wrote a tribute that was a pretty typical reaction in the Evangelical Christian world to the news:
Ravi was a unique Christian apologist and evangelist — a giant in his field. No one presented the Gospel more cogently and winsomely than he. Though gone from this Earth, his legacy and his indispensable ministry, Ravi Zacharias International Ministries, or RZIM, will continue in the abundantly capable hands of his wife and ministry partner, Margie Zacharias; their three children, Sarah Zacharias Davis, Naomi Zacharias and Nathan Zacharias; and so many other amazing Christian apologists.
I first became aware of Ravi before I was a believer and when I was still struggling with doubts. I watched in awe as he explained during a television interview Christianity’s basic truths in a way I had never heard. He exuded a confident mind tempered by a humble heart. I remember thinking to myself, “Wow, I’d like to see any Christian skeptic listen to this man and dare claim that intellectuals can’t be Christians, or that Christians can’t be intellectual.” He was so obviously a deep thinker and gifted communicator.
The problem was, there was more to Ravi Zacharias than just the official ministry bio. Now, being aware of Zacharias’ status among Christian circles myself for many years, because I is one, I’ll confess I did not know all the details of the controversies surrounding the “greatest apologist of our time” till I came to Ordinary Times and read Steve Baughman’s two pieces on the subject. So I did what I always try to do with new information that challenges my thinking: I looked into it myself. I found Steve’s coverage not only convincing but after my own research, including folks who are well-versed with the circles and people involved, I concluded that the accusations are probably true.
When Zacharias passed away we had an editorial decision to make on how to cover the news of his death and the articles we already have about it in the archive which still draw readers. Trying to balance unflattering information on the recently departed is not a pleasant piece of business, in any circumstance. Just promoting the old stories immediately upon the man’s death seemed inappropriate, so instead I reached out to Steve to see if he wanted to write something new, or recap, his previous work on the subject. That is the piece that ran the following day in Ordinary Times.
Which brings us up to our friend and Editor-in-Chief Emeritus of Ordinary Times Burt Likko’s comment and questions:
Seemingly rare is the nationally- or internationally-popular religious figure, who would be assessed by a non-adherent of that religion as all three of:
a) leading a personal life generally free of sexual and financial shenanigans;
b) has not fabricated academic credentials in some fashion; and
c) preaching behavior that is apparently well-rooted in the writings of their faith’s ancient holy texts.Now, don’t misunderstand me. I volunteer rather than concede that there are quite a lot of clerics out there in the world who meet all three of these criteria at the same time. Maybe even the overwhelming number. But I notice that those people tend to focus on their local ministries rather than on pursuit of national or international fame. I also notice that they don’t tend to engage in a lot of apologia as a means of outreach to the non-faithful and perhaps attempts to convert them.
Not only fair questions, but questions that have been around as long as there has been religion. For the sake of scope we will confine this to Christianity, though all faiths have their variations on these same themes, it seems. Also, let’s just acknowledge the fact that very bad people of any level can, and do, abuse and use their position. A small church leader is just as able to wreak havoc on victims as the multi-millionaire famous ones.
Burt’s point on the pursuit of fame is a valid one. Without doing a deep dive on the topic let us just proffer in general that a minister with multiple-thousands of congregants, or a massive ministry either domestic or international, is a different animal from the pastor of a small congregation in Pickyourtown, USA. With someone doing an international ministry, it’s even more layers of money, power, and fame involved. The pitch is always pretty much the same: all those resources are needed to reach the world with the message. The spectrum of this runs from the legitimate folks who run a tight ship both ethically and financially, to the Kenneth Copelands and Jim Bakkers of the world.
Thing is, none of that has anything to do with theology. Doesn’t even have much to do with religion. For the most part, it has little — if anything — to do with faith. It has to do with what your priorities are. I’ve studied religion in general and Christian theology in particular for 20 years now, but I don’t need any of that to really work through the issue at hand here.
This is a good place to bring up the Hoffer principle: “Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket”. Human nature going from heavenly minded to being up to no earthly good has a progression to it, you see.
Charlatans and grifters in Christianity aren’t new. Heck, Christ hadn’t even gotten on the cross before Judas Iscariot went looking to cash in in the name of. But the higher up the Christian leadership food chain you go, the closer you get to the point Burt is making about those leaders being viewed by a non-adherent as nothing vaguely resembling “holy.”
The non-religious parallel here would be a politician. Local level do-gooder has all the intentions in the world of going full tilt boogie for freedom, justice, and the American way. Then they move up to the next office, which requires them to change just a little bit. Then the next highest, which needs fundraising from X person so they have to keep them happy. Then the next level, where so-and-so needs their help. And so on and so on, each rung up the ladder requiring a little more compromise in the name of getting to a place to do more good for more folks. It’s all justified that way, you see, cause someone has to do it and it might as well be me, they say. A progression to it all.
Ministers that rose high and fell from grace, and who are honest about it, will tell you that is the mindset that traps them. Bigger, more money, more power will let them do all these things for good, and a little compromise for all that extra power is worth the price. Power will not corrupt them absolutely. More like a little at a time. Sometimes in spurts. The truly hard-hearted multiple times.
But for almost all humans, the power and the money will win, because they are human. Even those ostensibly about the work of a higher power.
Is the bi-vocational pastor with the small congregation that lives and dies with every one of his charges life events, shows his faith beyond all reproach, and seeks nothing but the betterment of his congregants’ lives both temporally and spiritually any more holy than the Joel Osteens of the world? I think so. I’d fight you that I know so. It sure looks like it to the outside observers.
Human nature is human nature, regardless of divine ambitions. Very few rise above that nature to be above all reproach, no matter their belief system. It is fair—biblical, even— to inspect the fruit of anyone’s labors in the vineyards of the Lord to see what they are producing.
Burt’s point on focusing on the task at hand, rather than fame, is the key to all this. Whatever cause you have, if your own fame and fortune come before it, your human nature is going to find a way to wreck you on the rocks of life. And you won’t even need a devil for it; you can do it all on your own.
There’s an old proverb we can end this on:
Fame! You’ll be as famous as famous can be,
with the whole wide world watching you win on TV.Except when they don’t
Because, sometimes they won’t.I’m afraid that some times
you’ll play lonely games too.
Games you can’t win
’cause you’ll play against you.”
Pretty good theologian, that Dr. Seuss.
I don’t know. Yes to err is to human and there is not a human who goes through out life without a major fuck up or two. Sometimes many more but I think the reason a lot of people around our age and younger became aggressively secular is because of the hypocrisy that often seems found in evangelical Christianity. A lot of the ministers ran quasi to very authoritarian regimes that could issue some brutal punishments or feelings to “sinners” (read: outsiders). And then what do you discover, these people lie about their academic qualifications, the sneak around with male sex workers while simultaneously stating that homosexuals deserved to be damned. Possibly multiple times on the same day. Or being pat to a parishoner who is distraught about a pregnancy while simultaneously paying for a mistress to have an abortion.
Yes, I’ve been a hypocrite. All humans do things that are somewhat to very hypocritical. Life often forces this but a lot of the superstar or not so superstar evangelical leaders/ministers take it to a whole new level. And it is jarring because they are supposed to lead their communities theoretically.
I’m not Christian and will never be Christian. There are rabbis or really religious Jews who fail at their callings, I remember reading a column by a sex worker who said that a lot of ultra-Orthodox Jews were her clients and she had friends with ultra-Orthodox clients because it allowed them to have sex with non-Jewish women.
There are also plenty of secular people who lie about academic credentials. I remember a story from the mid 2000s where M.I.T’s director of admissions was found to have forged/lied about her entire academic credentials. IIRC she did not even have a B.A. but she started as a lowly admin officer in the late 1970s and worked her way to the top position. https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/4/26/mit-admissions-dean-resigns-after-fake/
But the reason it galls me more from the Evangelical world is because it used to rule over us mere mortals and dissenters. “Who are you to question by belief that conservative, evangelical Christianity is the only rational way to view the world? I have degrees from Oxford and Cambridge. You are just a lawyer from a middling regional law school with a bachelor’s from a selective but not ultra-selective liberal arts college.” Same for the followers who are so impressed by the credentials of those like Zachrias. “We hate Oxford and Harvard and Yale and all those other godless, leftist hells except when it produces someone we like.”
Frankly, I am not sure why I should be forgiving of someone who thinks I am likely to spend all of eternity in torture because I reject the idea that Christ is the Messiah. I don’t think Ravi Zacharias deserves that fate. I don’t even think Fred Phelps deserves that fate.Report
I agree with Saul. Yes indeed, Christianity is a human institution with all the flaws and foibles of any other human institution. Likewise, the OP is quite right in seeing religion as a flavor of Hoffer’s “mass movements.”
But that’s a problem. Christianity is supposed to be the “correct one.” It’s not supposed to be a “mass movement” like any other. If the church becomes a nest of grifters, if the church cannot even manage its own house, then why should we trust it in other areas? Why should we believe this organization is run according to the revealed word of God, and not just people with all of their flaws?
I’m not sure that it can be both, at least not without watering down the meaning of “revealed word of God.”Report
Another way to look at this though is when should the fact that people keep on doing certain activities mean we should reevaluate alleged moral priors?
If Orthodox Jewish men keep on seeking avenues for sex with non-Jewish women, maybe, just maybe it means that there is nothing wrong with people from different backgrounds having non-marital and totally recreational sex together. Same with the fact that abstinence does not seem to work as a method of sex education.
Yet people still seem to stick with old beliefs because of needs for in groups and out groups and/or because there is an aspect to conservatism which is about the assertion and maintenance of privilege where they get to dictate behavior but not follow the rules.Report
One problem faced by the more rigid, orthodox religious groups is this: if they change their beliefs, how do they reconcile that with the fact they claim inerrant truth?
For example, the Mormon church used to teach that black people were spiritually “less than” white people. Later they changed that policy.
I’m glad they changed that policy. Black people drawn to Mormonism, whatever their reasons, deserve to be treated equally.
The question is, however, what changed? Did God change? He is supposed to be an eternal perfect being. Was there a “new revelation”? Perhaps, but that seems weird. No one saw an archangel appear. Golden tablets didn’t float down from the heavens. There hasn’t been (so far as we can tell) a new messiah.
I suspect that people changed. Moreover, they did so as a reflection of the changing mores of the broader culture.
I’m glad they changed with the mores of the broader culture. Racism is pretty awful. Becoming less racist is good. However, they claim to be representatives of an inerrant God. How did their forebears get it so wrong?
It’s all very curious.
I’m glad I’m an empiricist. If I change my mind, I can just say, “Well, I learned new stuff and changed my mind.”Report
Another way to look at it is that people really, really have a hard time admitting that they might hold minority views.
Like Andrew, I am not surprised that there is a difference between belief/support and willpower. For a secular example, there are lots of people in San Francisco who are clearly not following shelter-in-place/stay home. This is especially true on days when the weather is nice and the weather has been really nice for the last two weeks and into this week. Nearly perfect temperatures, not too much of a breeze, sunny. The beaches were jammed packed, I could see this from my walks which provided clear views of Ocean Beach and Baker Beach. Golden Gate Park was filled with groups ranging from 6 to 10 having picnics. I highly doubt that these people are all Trumpists or living together. A lot of them would tell you that they supported shelter-in-place if asked probably. They could also probably come up with an elaborate defense of why they were not breaking shelter in place.
Yet these seems to really upset a lot of people with more lefty politics than mine on LGM who wanted a real conversation about how all of this would lead to a “real conversation” on changing priorities any ending everything they hated about consumer capitalism. They hate hate hate that even California seems to be accelerating (albeit in a confused and uncooordinated way) towards lifting shelter-in-place restrictions.Report
Religious evangels are to theologians what diet pill salesmen are to medical nutritionists.
Which is to say, the most enthusiastic proponents speak in terms of certitude and inerrancy, while those who are the source of their knowledge speak in more measured terms, and are able to revise their answers based on new discoveries of fact.
And in theological circles, “I’m so sorry, I didn’t realize you were fully human” is one such new fact that can overturn previous pronouncements as is, “Oops, we were so blinded by our anger and fear we burned people to death who were innocent.”Report
Let me be clear, I am quite aware that many religious people are not fundamentalists.
I don’t think it splits between “educated theologians” versus “non-educated”. I’m sure you can find plenty of examples on both sides. Quite a few people use their smarts to defend bad ideas. Quite a few people can see the fundamental humanity in other people without any book learning at all.
I’m pretty sure Jesus made this exact point in a variety of ways.
Anyway, I think it has more to do with something deep inside each person. One might even call it love.
#####
I was thinking the other day about how we can conceptualize diversity and tolerance with regard to religion. My take: We should be accepting of all faith traditions. However, that doesn’t obligate us to accept every possible expression of every faith tradition. In short, we have the good ol’ “paradox of tolerance.”
We should tolerate all faiths insofar as the particular expression of each faith participates in the bargain — or as the motto of a local queer dance event puts it: “all are welcome who welcome all.”
This reveals the sinister trick of the intolerant. They demand tolerance of their intolerance.
We should refuse, obviously. Nothing new here. This has been discussed at length.
Anyway, I will always stan for my diverse and tolerant religious comrades. They come from every faith tradition. Thus I have no patience with general Christian-bashing, or Jew-hatred, or Muslim-bashing, etcetera. Fuck that shit.
By contrast, fundamentalists of any stripe can pound sand.Report
I like the distinction between faith traditions and expressions of those traditions, and I don’t think I’ve thought about it quite that way before.Report
My father is a Christian minister. If you asked him what is important in the bible, I suspect he’d talk about love and stuff, as expected. However, if you asked him specifically which stories in the bible resonate with him, his examples would certainly include Jesus among the lepers, or Jesus washing the feet of lowly people. He also seems rather fond of the ways Jesus rejected the rigid, “bookish” authorities. These are the aspects of Christianity that inspire him.
My father took a stand for gay marriage before it was popular. For this, he was forced out of the ministry he founded. He moved to another ministry, where he thrived.
In community college, I had an intro-to-philosophy teacher who, as he explained in class one day, grew up in a racist family. He told of a trip he went on, while attending seminary, where he sat beside a black man. Later, they all gathered in prayer. He ended up holding hands with that black man.
He claims that, after that moment, he could no longer be a racist. He could no longer look down on a fellow child of God. He took a stand. His family ended up rejecting him.
Both of these men are from a Christian faith tradition. Both are admirable people. This is not a contradiction. For each, their faith is a positive force in their life. In them, their faith inspires compassion, tolerance, and love.
I don’t need to provide examples of contrasting sorts of Christians. We know them well.
Between people like, on the one hand, my father and teacher, and on the other hand, right wing fundamentalists, there is an enormous gulf. Both groups have the same faith tradition, but very different expression. The first sort will thrive in a diverse, tolerant culture. The latter simply cannot.
When the latter sort claim that a tolerant society must cater to them, in order to be truly diverse, we should see through this rhetorical trickery. They are opposed to diversity and tolerance.
“Tolerance” doesn’t mean a moral blank slate free of judgement. It means, “All are welcome who welcome all.”
(Edit: I know I’ve told these stories many times. I think they’re worth retelling. Admirable people should be admired.)Report
I have vague memories of reading these stories from you before, Veronica, but I’m very happy you chose to re-tell them here. They are warm reminders of people becoming forces for good.Report
Thanks for sharing those stories, Veronica.Report
Orthodox Judaism isn’t exactly claiming to have inerrant truth in the same way that Christianity is, mainly because they don’t believe the entire world should become Orthodox Jews or that bad things will happen to them in the after life if they do not. Orthodox Judaism is really orthopraxy, right practices not right beliefs. They argue that Jews should follow Jewish law and even among the Orthodox there are big disagreements about what this means.Report
For what it’s worth, even though I can’t live a Orthodox lifestyle I have romantic reverence or them. The Orthodox and their culture are the base of the Jewish people. Without the Orthodox, there would be no Jews.Report
You also called yourself agnostic at bestReport
That doesn’t mean I can’t have romantic reverence for the Orthodox.Report
I feel just a bit of an obligation to comment, having been name-checked in the very title of the post.
While I see the OP’s point of the similarity of the paths of corruption followed by (some) politicians and clerics, I think there’s something to contrast.
Through sunshine laws and other kinds of publicity, we can see who is giving money to the formerly sincere politician, who has bought access to her. It’s usually not that hard to understand what it is that the politician’s counterpart in corruption seeks: “deregulate my industry,” “give me a position of influence,” “subsidize my business,” etc., quatenus visibilis. Who and what corrupts Jim Inhofe are materially different than who and what corrupts Bob Menendez (assuming both started out as sincere) and so we on the outside can understand what’s going on, and maybe even do legal or political things to mitigate it.
In the case of clerical corruption, it’s easy to see how the practical needs of an expansive ministry is one way pathway is opened to the vigorous pursuit of money and thus transmogrify into the love of money within the cleric. This seems to me to be a rawer expression of the love of money (see 1 Timothy 6:10) than the politician’s pursuit of campaign donations. (This presumes, of course, that the cleric in question at least started out with sincerity and free of outright avarice; MMV based on the individual.)
In other words, the politician’s pursuit of money begins with a need to exchange access and influence for the financial support needed to propel political campaigning. The cleric’s pursuit of money becomes internalized within the cleric’s own heart and mind. This has a less direct, but still tangible, effect upon the world in that the very notion of moral authorities deserving esteem and consideration is diminished and the messages of morality which they dispense are tainted.
Neither flavor of corruption is good, of course; we should hope that both our temporal and spiritual leaders are free of such moral corrosion for these and probably many other reasons. But cynically, we also know better.Report
I believe the problem of clerics succumbing to the temptations of fame and wealth and the problem of politicians succumbing to similar temptations are special cases of a general problem most of us face.
I believe we’re all hypocrites (as Saul seems to have implied in his first comment above). We all grow too attached to those comforts we are fortunate enough to have. If we are stronger than others in some ways, or have some advantage over others in some ways, we face the temptation to harm those who are at a disadvantage. When Andrew says in his OP, “[b]ut for almost all humans, the power and the money will win, because they are human,” the proper response, in my opinion, is “that but for the grace of god choose any of us.”
Those, like me, who are fortunate enough to have had a good formal education, to have (knock on wood, for now) a good job, to be in (relatively, for now, and, again, knock on wood) good health–there are countless ways we choose to harm others, sometimes without giving it much thought. Malice is there, but we have the opportunity to “forget” it.
I say clerics (and politicians) are “special cases” because they cause greater harm and on a more systematic level. There are probably solutions for very bad actors who end up violating some type of public trust in a way there aren’t solutions for addressing the evil we all are tempted to choose. So we should probably focus on those special cases. But it’s worth staying aware of the beam in our own eye.Report