Dinesh D’Souza, the New Atheism, and Constantinian Christianity

by Aaron Taylor 11-20-2009

Last week at the Innovative Evangelism Conference, I got a chance to hear Dinesh D’Souza speak to a standing room only crowd. Many in the crowd were fellow evangelists, but there were a few seekers and skeptics present as well.
Dinesh D’Souza is a renowned Christian apologist known for taking on the proponents of the New Atheism (people like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens). He’s also one of America’s most influential conservative thinkers.

Dinesh’s arguments from science and philosophy were well thought out. He addressed post-modern arguments against Christian exclusivism with sensitivity, breezed through the theodicy problem (the problem of why a good God allows evil to happen), and built a case for Christian morality without resorting to bashing heads with Bible verses. He even managed — rightly in my view — to avoid the trap of defending irreducible complexity as an argument for intelligent design. All things considered, I thought that Dinesh did a good job presenting arguments for the reasonableness of Christian faith. So why did I leave disappointed?

The weakest part of the presentation for me was when Dinesh defended Christianity against the charge that people in the name of Christ have committed some pretty horrific crimes against humanity, crimes like the Inquisition and the Crusades. Rather than renouncing the evil perpetrated in the name of Christ, Dinesh chose the standard apologetic response of stacking up the body count of crimes perpetrated in the name of Christ against crimes perpetrated in the name of atheism. The body count for the Inquisition? Four thousand. The body count for atheism? Millions. Christianity wins.

Not to say that there isn’t some merit to D’Souza’s argument mind you. It’s true that when you consider Lenin, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot, the body count for atheism in the 20th century alone far surpasses the body count for crimes committed in the name of Christ. D’Souza also rightly pointed out that atheism — more specifically the Marxist brand — was crucial to the philosophies of these barbaric dictators as opposed to the supposedly religious conflicts that are often really about land and resource distributions (like the Catholic/Protestant conflict in Northern Ireland and the Israeli/Palestinian conflict).

Leaving aside the potential counter-argument that Christianity has its share of religiously motivated wars as well (think — the 30 Years War, the Great Schism) it’s at this point that a thinking skeptic could say, “Yes, it’s true that without religion there would still be wars over land, ethnicity, and political philosophies, but the thing particularly dangerous about religion is that religion provides a transcendent source that allows people to dehumanize others with the approval of their conscience” — and the skeptic would be right.

This is why Jesus — not historic Christianity — should be the object of our apologetics. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus categorically rejected violence, nationalism, and the fusion of faith with earthly power, as did His followers for roughly the first 300 years of Church history. At around 325 A.D. the church and state developed a very cozy relationship under Constantine, producing what author David Bercot from Scroll Publishing likes to call the “Constantinian Hybrid.” It seems to me that in his counter-arguments to the New Atheists’ moral objections to religious faith, what Dinesh defended wasn’t so much Christianity, but Constantinian Christianity — the kind of Christianity that’s very comfortable fusing faith with earthly power.

Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not suggesting that Dinesh D’Souza approved of the Crusades and the Inquisition in his presentation. It’s just that something seems awry to me when a leading Christian intellectual has to tell his fellow believers that we should all be patting ourselves on the back because our predecessors haven’t tortured and killed as many people as the predecessors of other faiths and belief systems. Maybe I’m missing something, but I’m not sure why a non-Christian should be impressed with that. It seems to me that once we accept Constantinian Christianity as normative, we’ve seriously lowered the bar. As a Christian evangelist, D’Souza’s presentation forced me to ask myself perhaps the toughest of all questions. To what degree does the Christianity that I’m preaching look like Jesus?

Aaron D. Taylor is the author of Alone with A Jihadist: A Biblical Response to Holy War. To learn more about Aaron’s ministry, go to www.aarondtaylor.com. To follow Aaron on Twitter, go to www.twitter.com/aarondtaylor. Aaron can be contacted at fromdeathtolife@gmail.com.

Categories: Violence and Nonviolence, War & Peace

Lord_Voldemort

"Lest I be misunderstood, I’m not suggesting that Dinesh D’Souza approved of the Crusades and the Inquisition in his presentation. It’s just that something seems awry to me when a leading Christian intellectual has to tell his fellow believers that we should all be patting ourselves on the back because our predecessors haven’t tortured and killed as many people as the predecessors of other faiths and belief systems."

Yes, you are missing something. What you are missing is the long Christian understanding that regeneration for the Christian is a process, not an event. Individual Christians and Christian societies are not completely exempt from the temptations of this world, including the temptations of aggression.

Arguably D'Souza used the strongest possible argument for Christianity out there, because it builds on real-world experience. Christian societies, subject to the temptations of the world but in the process of regeneration, have committed atrocities, but they have committed fewer, and less severe ones, than atheistic societies, which is more-or-less what orthodox Christianity would predict.

As to why a non-Christian should be impressed with this argument, there are three reasons.

1. We are not sweeping our failures under the rug. We are owning up to them.

2. On the whole, our record is far from perfect, but it is better (it seems you would concede this much) and better is, well, better.

3. I agree that we should lift up Jesus as the model for mankind, but the first knowledge most people have of Jesus will be through his followers. There is no conflict between defending our record and glorifying Christ, at least long as our defense is honest. In fact, the two support each other.

LV

BuckeyeDon

I think you and Aaron both have valid points, Lord V. How do we make your (and Dinesh D'Souza's) point without conceding that Christian behavior re. the Crusades, Inquisition, etc. are excusable?

Chris "Jesdisciple"

I think that depends on how you define "excusable"... Dinesh's point is not that Christians should be allowed to persecute others as much as they like (and he probably could have been more explicit about this) but that Christianity itself results in less bad stuff. The bad stuff is still bad, but it's less.

This is similar to why we give vaccines while knowing that they get some people sick. Except in this case we are the vaccine, so we can theoretically prevent ourselves from causing damage.

However, Rick's point below about the Pharisee and the publican is a good one. We aren't supposed to say, "Well yeah, but look at how bad they did." We should be talking about how those things are horrible, we're told not to do them, and look what steps we're taking to prevent them.

BlueDeacon

Christian societies, subject to the temptations of the world but in the process of regeneration, have committed atrocities, but they have committed fewer, and less severe ones, than atheistic societies, which is more-or-less what orthodox Christianity would predict.

But that's really beside the point -- because it sounds as though "everybody does it." The real problem is that when we compare ourselves to "them" we may come out looking better, but if we compare ourselves to Jesus -- well, that doesn't look so good. That was the point of His parable of the Pharisee and the publican.

We are not sweeping our failures under the rug. We are owning up to them.

I know of no American Christian who has ever apologized for supporting apartheid during the Cold War -- and many did. You'd be surprised how much damage that has caused.

JaneinWNY

"Christian societies, subject to the temptations of the world but in the process of regeneration, have committed atrocities, but they have committed fewer, and less severe ones, than atheistic societies, which is more-or-less what orthodox Christianity would predict."

This must be my Anabaptist roots coming out, because I don't think a society can be be classified as Christian, unless it is defined very narrowly, for example a Hutterinte community, or the Amish. Was Germany in World War II a Christian society? I'm not clear on the details, but thought there was a state religion. What makes a Christian society?

Some have argued that Constantine was the worst thing ever to happen to the church, and I tend to agree.

Jane

Chris "Jesdisciple"

Yes, I would call Hitler's Germany a Christianized society. I doubt it was very authentically Christian, but the religion had become a fad like it is in America. When Christianity becomes the "brand-name" faith, we need to be on our guard against tyrants within our ranks.

Lord_Voldemort

The thing is, I don't think Constantine could be avoided. Pagan Rome could not stand forever and something had to fill the power vacuum.

At some point Christians were going to gain influence and take over leadership in a state, and when that happened we were bound to make errors and fail as we figured out just what political power was good for. To this day we haven't figured it out completely -- as you might have guessed reading some of the forums here.

In that sense Constantine's rise was a good thing, though I would not hold him up as an example to be emulated.

LV

BuckeyeDon

"At some point Christians were going to gain influence and take over leadership in a state..."

It happened in Armenia before it happened in Rome. Does anyone know how it worked out there? I don't think it followed the Constantinian pattern there.

DJ9791

Jane-take a look at Rev. Bonhoeffer's direct criticism of the Lutheran church (and other Christian congregations) during the years before and early during the war...he was openly critical of congregations which stood aside as the Nazi machine took over, and thereby also criticizing the Nazi regime by implication. This lead to his first arrest and imprisonment. Particularly look at his "Ethics"; there are many arguments which would apply today.

There really wasn't a state "religion" per se in Nazi Germany, although Himmler tried to create a quasi-religious mysticism around the SS.

I agree with you that the definition of a Christian society should be a narrow one...here in America we have long classified ourselves as a Christian nation; however, our nation was founded on MAN'S laws, not God's. Our foreign policy in the years since the Civil War, especially since WW II, cannot be construed as the actions of a Christian nation. And further, the majority of our population may say they believe in God, but the majority do not belong to Christian churches, or ANY, for that matter.

I think Lord V and others prevaricate over this type of issue and avoid the simple truth that too much evil and hatred has been spread in the name of Christianity, and that His true believers must stand against this in any form. Not a popular stance in the past eight years.

Pray for Peace and Dare to Act!

rothgar

I'm sorry but this argument leaves me cold.

To summarize as I see it, by their actions self-professed Christians perpetrated heinous crimes that Christ would have rejected and condemned. However, because these folks may have killed no more than adherents of other religions, our faith is better. I don't buy it. Sorry. Use this argument and the Jains are your best choice.

It is this kind of logic (and corresponding boorish behavior) that kept me from faith for nearly 2 decades. It may have sent my father to his grave without belief. It took the holy spirit getting me past this incongruity for me to come to believe.

For the actions that Christ would have rejected, Inquisition, Imperialism, and Wars for denominational superiority, I submit our only logical defense is to reject them too. These are clearly the acts of people who misunderstood or inserted their own desires in place of the teachings of Christ. As Rev. Boyd outlines in "The Myth of a Christian Nation", these acts stem from the improper fusion of Christianity and Government. While an Earthly Government has a role in the cosmic hierarchy, by its very nature EVERY government has to do things (policing, judging, etc.) that are counter to the teachings of Christ.

Also, looking at the balance I am not sure the argument works to start with. If you include the Spanish Conquest of the Americans (36 to 120+ Million) and Hitler's role in WWII (50 Million) plus all the princely wars that tore up Europe for centuries, you find that the scales tip decidedly against us.

The only defense we have is repudiating these acts asking forgiveness and working to be a faithful representation of our Lord and Savior.

Lord_Voldemort

Our faith is better, in the sense of being closer to the truth. Our people are better, but far from flawless.

Your comments on Spain and Germany aren't at all convincing, not least of all because the National Socialist government effectively repudiated Christianity and sought to restore Germanic paganism (that's what all the Hackenkreuzes were all about) and Christianity was only tolerated to the extent it bowed to and supported the state.

LV

scat

Do you have any statitics that support your contention that Christians commit fewer and less severe atrocities than atheists. When you talk about atheists, do you include people of other belief systems or just people who publicly declare there is no God. I think anyone making this claim has a big mountain to climb.

I agree that most people's first knowledge of Christ will be through his followers. I think the problem comes when people start worshipping the preacher, priest, messenger, etc. and never recognize the human fallibility of that messenger. They never take the next step and put their real faith in Christ and what He taught us. They give up their ability to discern the difference. Of course, this is often largely the fault of the leader they have come to regard as the bearer of all truth.

When I returned to Christ many years ago, my first inclination was to find a church, a preacher who could tell me truth. I can remember the moment, it was like a lightening bolt, when I realized I could skip the middleman and go right to the source. I put my faith in Christ and his words and have not yet been disappointed.

I will join a church when I find one where the minister says something like this -- here's what Christ says, here are the possible applications to the issue at hand, here is what I think He would want us to do and why, what do the rest of you think.

ckgmail

Thanks, Aaron. I don't recall anywhere in the Gospels Jesus telling his disciples not to be as bad as the pagans. Perhaps Constantinian Christianity is not as bad as non-religion--although we might argue that point--but we are called to a much higher standard. Unfortunately the church since Constantine has been pretty well given over to Constantinian Christianity--some exceptions with some of the followers of the radical reformation. Time to go back to red letter Christianity!

Lord_Voldemort

I'm not saying that Christians should settle for being less bad than the pagans. This is not about Christian ethics. What I'm talking about is what do we make of a historical record in which Christian individuals and societies have often fallen short of the mark? I think in context the record of Christianity holds up better than that of atheism or of most other religions. But we are not flawless.

Which is why Christians most eventually rely on faith, and not individual or corporate righteousness. Nobody aside from Jesus himself is completely without fault.

LV

SisterMarie

Christianity has a particularly bad track record, and those who would gloss over the atrocities committed by Chrisitans by comparing them favorably to other religions are missing the point. In this country, Christians threw witches in the river, drove the Indians from their land, imported Africans to labor like animals and screwed their women.

Anyone who is proud of that record is missing something from their reading of the scriptures.

MacArthur4

Much like trying to defend hitting your wife , an impossible task when our example is Christ.

But Christianity actually has an excellent track record. Whcih is why where Christianity has flourished , people in those regions have fourished also. No more in the world is their more respect for human rights , race, freedom of religion , sexual orienations, then where Christianity has taken hold.

How many people have churches where there are so many dedicated and loving examples of Christ go about their lives in quiet seritude to our King and feloow Christians . The media , Sojourners, Christian Coalitions pay little attention to these people usually . They are part of the church , and play a big part . We need perhaps to focus on them and what they do , hard when the world is always making out like Christ is just another religion among many. But that is nothing new.

Of course we can do better , is that not we are called to do .

eurotony

"Of course we can do better , is that not we are called to do"
We certainly are. A red-letter quote (Mt 5:20) : "Unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven."

Skeptimal

I have to say I disagree with your assertion that atheism was responsible for the genocides conducted by the Marxist dictators, but I agree that many historical acts blamed on Christianity are also not due primarily to the faith itself. (This is not my reason for writing, though.)

From a marketing perspective, your idea of putting forward the words and actions of the Biblical Jesus makes sense. Any good that Christianity has accomplished has been in putting forward the ideas of non-violent change, charity, and forgiveness.

For perhaps the majority of Christian churches, though, doesn't that amount to a bait and switch? The texts describing Jesus' actions are a handful of pages in the Bible. People think good thoughts about Christians because of the kindness of Jesus as described in the gospels, but in reality, most churches are more focused on the rest of the Bible, which teaches violence, judgmentalism, and intolerance.

The most recent example of this is the popular Christian t-shirt saying to pray for Obama and then citing Psalm 109:8 ("May his days be few...").

Your voice for non-violence seems like a whisper compared to the raving of those Christians who crave revolution and call your non-violence "weakness."

JoannaCW

"Any good that Christianity has accomplished has been in putting forward the ideas of non-violent change, charity, and forgiveness...The texts describing Jesus' actions are a handful of pages in the Bible...the rest of the Bible...teaches violence, judgementalism, and intolerance."

I think there's a lot more to the rest of the Bible. Nonviolence, not so much in the OT that I'm aware of. But the book of Habbakuk, and some of the great stories in Genesis, and in general God's relationship with his stiff-necked and backsliding people, emphasize forgiveness. And charity is a very deep theme in the OT. After all, Jesus didn't invent the commandment to love your neighbor as yourself; he was quoting Leviticus. The prophets are constantly exhorting the people to look to the widows and orphans. (And usually the people aren't listening...some things never change.)

Yes, there are parts of the history related in the Bible that make me cringe. And we who hold the Bible sacred need to struggle with those texts and with the ways in which we continue to be stiff-necked, violent, judgmental. But the terrible parts don't negate the value of the rest.

dbutler1776

What are the "crimes perpetrated in the name of atheism"? I understand if you say that a 9/11 hijacker, for example, was motivated by his religious beliefs to commit the crime, but I don't know of any mass murders or wars started in the name of atheism (as opposed to nazism or communism, etc).