Dave Matson's latest reply to Roger Hutchinson will help me put a quick finishing touch to Hutchinson's attempts to whitewash the history of Christianity. Both Matson's replies and mine have shown that Hutchinson clearly tried to make biblical skepticism responsible for various modern-day atrocities. In his initial article on this subject, he laid the blame for these on "those who reject the Bible."
When we look at the 20th century, we find that it is the skeptics who have rightfully earned a reputation for gross atrocities against mankind. As examples, we can readily cite the handiwork of Stalin in Russia, the communists in China, and the killing fields of Cambodia. Collectively, those involved in just these three examples rejected the Bible and what it teaches and accounted for the deaths of some 50 million innocent people. If one is honestly looking for radical elements with a reputation for atrocities, one need look no further than to those who reject the Bible--skeptics ("Who's to Blame: More Hype Than Substance," May/June 1999, p. 8).
This statement is too clear to misunderstand. The first sentence states the topic of the paragraph: "When we look at the 20th century, we find that it is the skeptics who have rightfully earned a reputation for gross atrocities against mankind." The very next sentence said, "As examples, we can readily cite the handiwork of Stalin in Russia, the communists in China, and the killing fields in Cambodia," so the obvious intention of this part of the paragraph was to give examples of the claim in the topic sentence, i. e., skeptics of the 20th century have rightfully earned a reputation for gross atrocities against mankind. Hutchinson then went on to say that "those involved in just these three examples rejected the Bible and what it teaches and accounted for the deaths of some 50 million innocent people. How can this be interpreted to mean anything but that Hutchinson was attributing the atrocities in Russia, China, and Cambodia to rejection of the Bible? After singling out these three nations as examples of "skeptics who have rightfully earned a reputation for gross atrocities against mankind," Hutchinson concluded the paragraph by saying, "If one is honestly looking for radical elements with a reputation for atrocities, one need look no further than to those who reject the Bible--skeptics.
This is what Hutchinson said at the outset of the debate over this issue, and he has been twisting this paragraph ever since to make it appear that he didn't mean what he clearly said, just as he constantly tries to twist plain statements in the Bible to make them not say what they clearly do say. He may fool others, but he won't fool me. I taught college writing for 30 years, so I think I gained some insight into how to analyze a paragraph to determine what the writer meant. If he now realizes that he made an incorrect statement or that he carelessly stated his position, he should just say so and stop all the verbal gymnastics he is engaging in to deny that he said what he clearly did say.
Hutchinson continues to deny even the most obvious connections that Christianity has had to past atrocities. He accused me of not "conduct[ing] much of an investigation of the events in Salem and not enough to even begin to judge what happened" (November/December 1999, p. 7), but I will pit my knowledge of the Salem witch hunts against Hutchinson's any day. In addition to teaching writing on the college level, I also taught American literature, and the literature of colonial New England was an integral part of the course. I put a special emphasis on this part of American literature especially because of the influence that conservative Christianity had had on the laws and customs of colonial New England. By letting them see what had happened when a religious establishment controlled governmental reins, I wanted students to have reason to question those who plea for a return to the good old days when laws and customs really were based on "biblical principles." I have read the works of William Bradford, John Winthrop, Edward Taylor, and Cotton Mather, so I think I know something about the influence that the Bible had on their thinking. My classes studied the Diary of Samuel Sewall, one of the judges at the Salem witch trials, so I think I know something about the influence that biblical thought initially had on him during the trials and the psychological problems that he later experienced after realizing that the trials had been a serious mistake. I know about the exile of Anne Hutchinson and Roger Williams for religious beliefs that conflicted with those of the Puritan establishment. I know about the hanging of 18-year-old Mary Latham for the "crime" of adultery and John Winthrop's justification of it on biblical grounds. I know about the persecution of Quakers and the harsh laws that provided for their banishment from the colony and the death penalty for returning after exile. I know about the hanging of Mary Dyer for the "crime" of returning to Boston after she had been exiled in accordance with those laws. What does Roger Hutchinson know about this aspect of our nation's history? Not much apparently or else he wouldn't be trying to deny the role that biblical beliefs played in this sordid part of our nation's history.
In my initial reply to Hutchinson on this subject (May/June 1999), I devoted the equivalent of an entire page (pp. 10, 16) to the atrocities of the Inquisition and cited documentation that showed the obvious role that the church had played in this unsavory aspect of Christian history. Hutchinson waved this information aside with just an 18-line comment in which he argued that I had left out "crucial points" by not noting that "(t)he targets of the inquisition were often those who had a different perspective on the Bible" (November/December 1999, p. 7). Well, no kidding! Certainly the targets of the inquisition were those who had "different perspectives" on the Bible from those who were conducting the inquisition. If the perspectives had been the same on both sides, why would there have even been an inquisition in the first place? We would hardly expect those in power to persecute people for believing the same way they did. As my grandchildren would say, "Well, duh!"
After this ridiculous quibble, Hutchinson wondered if "this [was] a case of Christians persecuting non-Christians or non-Christians persecuting Christians" (p. 7). He said that I didn't "seem to know," but I do know the game he is playing, because it is a familiar one. He is trying to dismiss all of the atrocities in Christianity's past by arguing that those who did those things weren't "real Christians," and so Christianity can't be blamed. This will be a familiar quibble to those who do much posting on the internet. The Roger Hutchinsons in cyberspace typically exonerate Christianity of all blame in the crusades, the witch hunts, the Inquisition, and other persecutions in Christianity's past on the grounds that those who did these things weren't "real Christians." I'd like to see Hutchinson try to deny that whether they were "real Christians" or not, they were acting from what their understanding of and belief in the Bible led them to do.
We haven't seen the last of Roger Hutchinson. He has already
sent me an article and letters that will be in the next issue, and on
the day that I was writing this article, he sent another one that will
be published still later. If you thought that he couldn't possibly get
any sillier than what you have already seen from him, just wait. There
is more to come. If he wants the rope to hang himself, I'm delighted to
give it to him.
