Lies Evangelicals Need to Stop Telling: "Christians Ended Slavery and Reduced Domestic Violence."

I’m very disappointed that I have to write this particular post, and I’m a bit disappointed in the people who have made this post necessary. I shouldn’t be surprised, but I guess I retain a little optimism that people will show enough historical knowledge and intellectual honesty and humility to avoid saying stuff like this, but I guess not.

This isn’t something that bothers just me. I have talked about the issue with my wife, and with some friends, and we found this concerning, both because of its cavalier disregard of actual historical truth, and for its breathtaking arrogance.

So here it is (paraphrased):

“Christianity ended slavery, reduced violence against women, and as Christians lose their influence, our nation will go to hell.”

This is, simply put, bullcrap on a stick.

And I am embarrassed both for those who keep saying it and for those who nod along and say “amen.”

So, let me offer my rebuttal and my argument why we Christians need to stop saying stupid lies like this.

1. Saying “Christianity ended slavery” is like saying “Humans ended slavery.”

Both statements are true in the most technical of senses, but highly misleading, and therefore untruthful.

Yes, William Wilberforce (a hero in the truest sense) was a Christian. So was Abraham Lincoln.

But, so was Robert E. Lee and so was Jefferson Davis, and nearly everyone who owned, sold, and traded slaves.

The vast majority of those on both sides of the Civil War were Christians.

But it is more than that.

The arguments against the abolition of slavery were made by extremely devout Christians. The ones who took the Bible the most literally. And they accused the abolitionists of being a bunch of apostates, Unitarians, and atheists. (Certainly there were “free thinkers” as atheists were called back then on both sides as well.)

So sure, some Christians helped end slavery. And some Christians fought to the death to fight against the end of slavery. Some Christians enlisted the Bible as a source for abolitionist views. And some Christians used the Bible in support of slavery. (I don’t have room for a comprehensive list of these, but a bare minimum of research will turn up numerous primary sources.)

For example, this gem from Jefferson Davis:

"Slavery was established by the decree of Almighty God. It is sanctioned in the Bible, in both testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."

So, this wasn’t a “Christians versus Atheists” thing. It wasn’t Christians on one side against the atheists over slavery.

It was “Abolitionists versus Supporters of Slavery.” And we need to be honest about that.

Here is a great money quote from Abraham Lincoln, from his second inaugural address: 

"Both [North and South] read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes."

Thomas Jonathan "Stonewall" Jackson

Devout Christian.

His troops slaughtered thousands to preserve the right of white men to own black men.

His chaplain, Robert Lewis Dabney, - also a devout Christian - would later write A Defense of Virginia, a book acknowledged in its time to be highly racist. It made an argument from the Bible for the inferiority of Africans and women to white men. 

2. Don’t use the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.

“But they weren’t real Christians.” Yes, yes they were. You don’t get to pick and choose. They were Christians, many of them devout.

Yes, they were wrong about slavery. But no, they weren’t atheists or non-Christians, and you can’t claim that they were without lying. Don’t do that.

3. Almost without exception, those defending the Confederacy today are conservative Christians.

Here’s looking at you, Doug Wilson and the rest of Christian Reconstructionism. 

I do not know a single atheist who is arguing that slavery was a good thing for African Americans, actually. Can’t think of one. Can you?

To take it further, just about everyone that I know that thinks the Civil Rights movement was bad for America is a conservative Christian. And that’s even before we get into the vile stuff I’ve seen posted in the aftermath of Ferguson. 

Oh, and guess who is advocating for the abolishment of the Civil Rights act...so that Christians can refuse to serve gays? Oh, that would be Matt Walsh, who is all too beloved in conservative Christian circles. 

So, to assert that “the world will go to hell” has a problem, doesn’t it?

Tell you what, I’ll make a bet. I’ll bet that if every American Christian disappeared tomorrow, we would NOT return to slavery. I also bet we would not see the repeal of the Civil Rights Act. You willing to take that bet?

4. Christianity didn’t reduce violence against women.

The credit for that should go to Feminism.

It wasn’t until the 1880s that a woman could divorce her husband for beating her.

Throughout most of the history of Christianity, as a matter of fact, it was considered fine for a husband to beat his wife. (I discussed this in more detail in this post.) 

Things started to change in the late 1700s with the advent of first wave feminism, which asserted the (then) radical idea that women were not in fact congenitally inferior to men, and in need of rule and correction as if they were children (or slaves.) (For more on the history of misogyny, see this installment of my series on Modesty Culture.)

It was Feminism that drove the change in the laws and attitudes.

True, many early feminists were Christians, and many of the American feminists of the 1800s were conservative Evangelical Christians.

But also, most of those fighting against feminism were Christians too. And often devout. Hello Robert Lewis Dabney...

It wasn’t until 1993 that marital rape was made an equal criminal offense to stranger rape in all 50 states.

1993.

In fact, it wasn’t until the 1970s that marital rape was even made a crime in all 50 states. Let that sink in a bit.

That’s pretty crazy, if you think about it.

Also in 1993, Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act.

Both of these developments were driven by Feminists. And this time, the weight of American Christianity was opposed to the reforms.

So, what was the result of these Feminist driven reforms?

Hmm. It appears that in the last two decades, domestic violence has declined dramatically.  (The decline started before that, but it really accellerated with the widespread acceptance of the idea that women were equal and that hitting them was wrong - and low class.)

And this, during the time that conservative Christianity has declined in numbers and influence.

Guess what? Christians cannot take credit for this decline. Sorry.

Actually, instead of trying to take credit for this, more Christians are simply in denial about it.

For example the Council For Victorian Gender Roles Council On Biblical Manhood and Womanhood claims in its “Danvers Statement”  that there is an “upsurge of physical and emotional abuse in the family.”

Now maybe there is an increasing problem in CBMW type churches. I could see that as a possibility since the teachings likely attract abusive men. But there sure as heck isn’t any such upsurge in society at large.

It is the exact opposite. Violence against and abuse of women and children is on the decline.

So, will CBMW stop lying about it? I doubt it.

5. Almost without exception, the voices telling women to stay and be beaten and raped are conservative Christians.

Hello, John Piper. And others. (On a related note,  Piper also thinks that abused Christians should go back to an abusive leader too. So what if there were “bodies under the Mars Hill Bus...) 

Oh, and who is it who thinks that “marital rape” is an oxymoron? That would be some conservative Christians. This is just one of a number of instances.  And I have heard the same argument made by friends and acquaintances too. This isn’t a fringe view.

So, want to make a bet? Do you really believe that if all the Christians disappeared, we would go back to allowing men to beat and rape their wives? Really?

So, be honest. What is more likely? All the Christians disappear and we go back to beating and raping our wives?

Or that if Christians disappeared, we would lose the last few voices defending violence against women. I’m a devout Christian, and I greatly fear that it would be the latter.

6. We shouldn’t pat ourselves on the back because others in the past have done good things.

I am not arguing that there haven’t been Christians in the past who did good things motivated by their faith. There were, obviously.

But there were also many who did good things who were motivated by their Enlightenment values, or their own conscience, or their other beliefs.

And there were also many who fought against those good things, also motivated by their Christian beliefs. And there were many who did downright evil things because they believed their faith compelled them to do it. (See, for example, the Crusades and the Inquisition and witch burning and the Native American genocide and so on…)

We cannot simply claim the credit for the good, while eluding blame for the bad.

Furthermore, even if the past were an unblemished credit to our faith, it wouldn’t give us personal credit for ourselves now.

The fact that William Wilberforce did amazing things to help end an evil does not make me a better person because I share his faith. The question is, what is MY faith motivating me to do now?

Is my faith motivating me to fight injustice in the world? Or is it leading me to oppose access to contraception for those who haven’t “won” at our economic system enough to pay out-of-pocket?  (That’s just one example that has been eating me in recent years.) Does our faith motivate us to care for Ebola victims in Africa? (In many cases, yes. Those people are heroes, even if conservative darling Ann Coulter dismisses them.) Or is my faith leading me to deny health care to children because of the sex their parents are having?

Or, directly on point to this discussion: Is my faith leading me to speak up on behalf of the oppressed and to try to undo the continuing malign effects of racism and white supremacy that still plague us 150 years after the end of the Civil War? Does it lead me to call for an end to police brutality? Or does it lead me to moralize against the poor and “ghetto” culture?

Does it lead me to support policies that reduce violence against women? Or does it lead me to advise women to stay in abusive relationships and submit?

This isn’t meant to be a diss of Christianity. For goodness’ sake, I am a Christian, and I obviously believe in it, or I would leave the faith.

Christianity can be - and has been - a strong force for good. It has also been - and sometimes is now - a strong force for evil.

7. Faith by itself is not enough.

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

(James 2:14-17 NIV)

As I have pointed out, historically speaking, Christian faith has not been a guarantee of good beliefs or good actions. Faith is not enough by itself. It must be accompanied by good beliefs about non-theological issues, and good actions.

Slavery was not defeated by a nebulous “faith” in Christ. It was defeated by a specific belief. Namely, that slavery was wrong and should be abolished. It doesn’t matter whether one came to that realization as a result of Christ’s teaching on love and the golden rule, or whether one came at it from the idea that all men are equal and should not be owned by one another, or from simply sympathy for the plight of slaves. This belief is called “abolitionism.”

Domestic violence isn’t being reduced by some nebulous “faith” in Christ, but by a specific belief that women are fully human and fully equal to men. Many Christians don’t want to admit this, but violence against women is also being reduced by the rejection of the belief that women are to obey men. (After all, if women must obey, how are men to compel obedience?) A belief in full equality is a belief that a hierarchy is wrong. This belief is called “feminism.” Specifically, per the dictionary, the belief in the full social, economic, and political equality of women.

Simply saying “come to Jesus” doesn’t end evil. Working to end evil ends evil.

8. Rather than pat ourselves on the back, American Christianity needs to do some serious soul searching as to why WE are the ones standing on the side of evil all too often.

It is beyond the scope of this post to explore this in detail, but American Christianity is currently in an unholy alliance with certain political positions that are more in line with the teachings of Ayn Rand than with those of Christ. 

Suffice it to say, for the purposes of this post, that at least when it comes to the issues raised in this post, namely slavery and violence against women, that the Church seems to be more interested in returning to and idolizing the past than actually working to rid the world of these evils. If anything, the effective efforts that others have made to end these evils are opposed primarily by conservative Christians.

As I have noted, the opposition to VAWA, the defence of the Confederacy and Jim Crow, and the current opposition to anything the smacks of the Civil Rights Movement or Feminism is coming primarily - nearly exclusively - from the conservative religious right.

Instead of smugly saying “Just imagine how bad things would be without us,” we need to be saying, “How can we stop making the world a worse place by our actions opposing the good efforts of others?”

Instead of feeling good about humanitarian victories of the past, we need to consider whether we are currently furthering their efforts - or fighting to keep current evils in place.

9. Our subconscious fear

We like to say that we fear that as we lose our influence that the world will go to hell.

I think our deeper fear is that as we lose our influence, it won’t.

And then we would have to answer the question of how we became so irrelevant to the cause of justice and the fight against evil. And that is a terrifying thought that we don’t want to face. It’s easier to shake our heads about gays the sins of low income people and feel superior.

10. Stop lying.

I’m not sure why we insist on telling these lies about the past. Probably, there is a combination of reasons, and different people will have different motives. But in any case, we need to stop with the lying.

If we tell these lies because we are historically ignorant, we need to spend a little less time reading yet another Christian self help or theology book, and actually learn some history. The past wasn’t the golden age we like to think it is. It was, in many measurable ways, much more violent and evil than the present, and we tend to forget that.

For the Civil War, I recommend The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.

There are abundant resources on Feminism and domestic violence, both in print and online. There is also abundant evidence of the ongoing and substantial decline in all kinds of violence, and some compelling theories as to the causes.

We cannot hope to make our faith attractive if we cannot even bring ourselves to learn history and tell the truth about it. Denying our own past and present evil only makes things worse.

For others, I suspect that there is a lot of denialism regarding the past, and a willful refusal to reconsider the real-life consequences of certain political positions.

It is deeply dear to our theology that faith in Christ makes us better people. Ergo, if more people are Christians, the world should be less evil. The reality is much more complicated. If history shows anything, it is that mere “faith” is pretty useless. We become better people as we become more like Christ, which is a wholly different thing.

Another reason that this idea gets any traction is, in my opinion, the obsession with sex that plagues the American church. As a result of that obsession, we find it easy to believe that the world is getting worse. Of course, there are problems in the world today. The declining faith in the institution of marriage is a huge one, and one that the Church has failed to answer (largely, in my opinion, because it’s answer is usually “go back to the past”). But the real issues the Church believes are plaguing the world are 1) women are able to have sex out of wedlock like men always have without dire consequences, and 2) gays. Because societal beliefs have changed in these two areas, there is widespread pearl clutching.

But the church has missed a huge and long term decline in violence over the last century as a result. (Stay tuned for a book review on this issue.)

Because of the obsession with sex as the primary indicator of morality, the Church is having a hard time noticing substantial modern moral improvements, such the decline in domestic violence. That’s how CBMW can make a ludicrously false statement. The theology says that female virginity and female submission leads to happier and less violent marriages, so it must be true, right? Even if the evidence is contrary. And all our problems would be solved if people would just stop having sex, right?

So please. Stop lying. Just stop.

You’re not winning any new converts, and you are driving the intellectually honest out of the church.

The truth shouldn’t scare us. I agree with both Thomas Aquinas and John Milton that all truth is God’s truth, and that it will ultimately win out. It may well require us to rethink some theological commitments. It may mean that human culture, laws, and institutions will change. It will absolutely mean that we will have uncomfortable moments when we discover we have been wrong.

But shouldn’t we, as Christians, be concerned with the truth?

So let’s stop telling lies, even - especially - when they make us feel better about ourselves.

11. The arrogance.

More than anything, the Church right now reminds me of a certain type of kid I remember from my teen years. We used to play pick-up basketball (and occasionally other sports) with neighbor kids. It seems there is always this one kid.

He thinks he knows the rules better than everyone else, and feels a need to let everyone else know it. He whines and moans constantly about how he is getting fouled every time he touches the ball - and even when he isn’t. He is sure he is the best player on the court, when he is actually a poor player. Most of the players try to humor him, because, well, everybody should get a shot. Some might try to give him a pointer on how to improve. He’ll have none of it, of course, from those losers. But a few (the Richard Dawkins’ of the playground) start teasing him.

Eventually, he can’t stand it anymore. People won’t play by his rules, and won’t give him privileges, and then they tease him. He takes his ball and goes home, sure that everyone will realize just how much they lost when he left. Instead, everyone breathes a big sigh of relief.

Likewise, the Church right now spends its time on imaginary slights, moralizes about the sex everyone else is having, thinks it is the Michael Jordan of morality and ethics, when it really can’t even identify the narcissists and abusers in its own midst. An atheist or two starts pointing out its weaknesses, and rather than learn something, it just lashes out and pouts.

In the end, the Church expects that it will take its ball and go home get raptured out of the world, and everything will go to hell. And then Christ will ride in on his horse and smite all those who dared to disrespect the sore loser, and all will be right with the world.

Maybe it’s just me, but I believe now is not the time for arrogance. It is time to listen and learn from those outside our bubble.

The Small House At Allington by Anthony Trollope

Source of book: I own this

This book is the 5th in Trollope’s Barsetshire Novels, a set of loosely connected books set in the same imaginary place in England.

Anthony Trollope is one of my favorite authors, and I have read and reviewed several of his works previously. I am currently reading one book per year, alternating between Barsetshire and other novels.

Trollope was a contemporary of Charles Dickens, and, in my opinion, a more subtle writer. In particular, he writes far better female characters, and makes his people human, rather than caricatures. This is not to detract from Dickens, but to praise Trollope’s skill and psychological insight.

Previous reviews:

Barsetshire Novels:

Dr. Thorne

Framley Parsonage

The Barchester Chronicles (BBC Series)

Others:

He Knew He Was Right

Cousin Henry

***

As with most of the books in this series, there some overlapping characters with other books, but the main focus of the plot is on persons who are, at most, background characters in other books.

In this case, there are several links. First is Griselda Grantly, daughter of the Archdeacon (from The Warden and Barchester Towers), now the married Lady Dumbello. Her mother and father also appear briefly in this book. Second is the De Courcy family, the snobbish and shallow aristocrats familiar from Dr. Thorne. A third link is the appearance of Plantagenet Palliser, who is introduced in this book, but becomes the central character in Trollope’s other series, the Palliser Novels.

The Small House at Allington features the Dale family. Christopher Dale is the squire, a lifelong bachelor. His widowed sister lives at the “Small House” on his estate, essentially rent free, with her two daughters, Bell and Lily. He lives in the “Great House” with his nephew, Bernard.

As is common in Trollope’s novels, love and marriage drive the plot. Bernard’s friend Crosby, a shallow and ambitious young man, falls in love with Lily. She returns his feelings, and they become engaged. However, Crosby’s financial hopes are disappointed when the squire informs him that he will not be leaving Lily anything. (He means no malice, but he is gruff and set in his ways.) Crosby, against his better judgment, is then persuaded to jilt Lily and marry the cold and calculating Alexandrina De Courcy. Lily is heartbroken, and cannot bring herself to stop loving Crosby, even though he has done her wrong.

Johnny Eames, a good hearted, but awkward young man (Trollope calls him a “hobbledehoy”) has long been in love with Lily, but she finds him more desirable as a friend than as a lover. As the novel progresses, Johnny saves the Earl De Guest from his pet bull, thus earning a helpful ally - even if the Earl lacks common sense much of the time. Johnny’s journey from his clumsy youth to maturity is a major theme of the novel. 

Illustration of Johnny Eames and Earl De Guest 

by John Everett Millais from the 1864 first edition.

Meanwhile, the Squire wishes that Bernard and Bell marry, so that he can leave them his estate, and thus unite the branches of the family. Bernard dutifully attempts to woo Bell, even though he isn’t much of a romantic. Bell isn’t interested, and tells him so. She is in love with Dr. Crofts, but she either doesn’t know it, or hasn’t admitted it to herself.

Other minor plots include Plantagenet Palliser’s attempt to have an affair with Lady Dumbello, Crosby’s trials and tribulations after his faithless abandonment of Lily, and the drama at the boarding house where Eames resides in London.

This book is a bit darker than the other Barsetshire novels. Happy endings are rare in this one, and there is a good bit more grit and grime. Trollope was no fan of London, from what I can tell, and his view in this novel at least, is that the city corrupts the purity of the country. Not that all country people are pure, but that those who are struggle to maintain their morals when in contact with corrupting influence of urban life.

Another facet that makes this novel less sunny than the others is that Trollope refuses to let his characters change in ways that would increase their happiness. Lily, clearly, would be better off without Crosbie, but she has loved once, and continues to love blindly. Her refusal to see him accurately is frustrating. Perhaps more so because I have seen such things too often in real life. It remains a puzzle to me why both men and women cling to spouses or lovers that do not really care about them.

Likewise, Crosbie tries to have it all, but, because he is blinded by his ambition, he fails to see ahead to the consequences of his actions. A little common sense would have told him that marrying into the De Courcy family would bring him neither fortune nor happiness, but he sees only what he wants to see until it is too late.

The one relationship that ends with a degree of hope is that of Squire Dale and his sister. The two of them have lived for years in a state of, well, something less than affection. His late brother married beneath himself when he chose her, and she never felt fully accepted on equal terms. She lives where she does by the charity, if you will, of the squire, and she knows it. The only reason she stays is that she believes it will be better for her daughters. For his part, the squire wouldn’t dream of seeing what he does as true charity. He does it because he believes it is the right thing to do, and a good thing for everyone. After all, the house would be vacant otherwise. On the other hand, if Mrs. Dale would just push Bell to marry Bernard…

In some ways, then, the détente between them as the story ends is surprising. A lesser author would have neatly wrapped it up so that there could be a happy ending. Trollope understands the psychology of each, so nothing comes easily or completely. The thaw is precisely as one would expect from the characters, and is fully human.

As always, Trollope’s characters are memorable both because they are true to life and because they are complex.

A good example is Earl De Guest’s sister, Lady Julia.

She was as proud of her position as was the earl her brother, but her pride was maintained with more of outward show and less of inward nobility.

She is a bit of a prude - particularly in public. When Lily becomes engaged to Crosby, they visit her.

Lady Julia made a very elaborate curtsey, and expressed a hope that her young friend might be made happy in that sphere of life to which it had pleased God to call her.

I’m afraid I know a few people like this. Still, she has her human side, and finds herself struggling not to show too much pleasure after Eames knocks Crosby down.

Trollope is by no means irreligious, but he has a keen eye for hypocrisy and folly. Like Lady Julia, Rosina De Courcy (Alexandrina’s spinster sister) has a form of religion that primarily serves to make her odious to others.

The Lady Rosina was very religious...It was of Lady Rosina that the servants were afraid, especially with reference to that so-called day of rest which, under her dominion, had become to many of them a day of restless torment. It had not always been so with the Lady Rosina, but her eyes had been opened by the wife of a great church dignitary in the neighbourhood, and she had undergone regeneration. How great may be the misery inflicted by an energetic, unmarried, healthy woman in that condition, - a woman with no husband, or children, or duties, to distract her from her work - I pray that my readers may never know.

I tend to agree with Trollope here. There is no person so troublesome as she who has no end of time to spend trying to reform other people.

In addition to his insights on piety and hypocrisy, Trollope also understood issues of gender and class remarkably well for his time. As noted above, the “moral” reforms of aristocrats often burdened the servants. Likewise, as Hopkins, the squire’s gardener notes, when Mrs. Dale claims to have a headache to avoid an uncomfortable interview, he notes:

“What lies gentlefolks do tell! If I said I’d a headache when I ought to be out among the things, what would they say to me? But a poor man mustn’t never lie, nor yet drink, nor yet do nothing.”

Likewise, the importance of keeping up appearances is the guiding principle for the De Courcys. As Crosby comes to understand, he will be expected to pinch pennies when it comes to comfort for himself in order to afford visible luxuries. “[E]very shilling must be saved the spending of which would not make itself apparent to the outer world.” They may be relatively poor, but no one should be able to tell that.

When it comes to women, Trollope gently but pointedly notes the fundamental unfairness of society. In one case, he invites us into the psyche of Bernard, who is determined to keep his job, even though he doesn’t need to work, and his uncle would prefer that he stay home and keep him company. Bernard reflects that he could not abide the dullness of an idle life. However, “Women are more accustomed than men to long, dull, unemployed hours; and therefore Mrs. Dale and her daughters bore the tedium courageously.”

In another telling episode, Lily and Crosby have their first real disagreement, over whether Lily can remain friends with Eames. Lily honestly notes that Eames holds no romantic charms for her, but he is an old family friend, so she insists that he will be welcome at their future home. Crosby isn’t comfortable with this, but even more than that, he wishes to have the upper hand.

Had Lily yielded to him and confessed that he was right, he would have made himself at once as pleasant as the sun in May. But this she had not done. She had simply abstained from her argument because she did not choose to be vexed, and had declared her continued purpose of seeing Eames on his promised visit. Crosbie would have had her acknowledge herself wrong, and he would have delighted in the privilege of forgiving her. But Lily Dale was one who did not greatly relish forgiveness, or any necessity of being forgiven.

Point made, without a lecture like many authors might have offered. But it is clear what is happening here. Crosbie must have dominance, and Lily is unwilling to yield it. While Crosbie is vexed here, he has no idea how much worse his life will actually be when he is caught by the De Courcys.

Trollope’s books have their share of designing women, to be sure, and the De Courcys hardly have the upper hand here. The “affair” between Palliser and Lady Dumbello is hardly anything other than imagination at the beginning. Dumbello gives him a slightly longer conversation than the others in the party. He thinks he sees an opening, and allows himself to be flattered by the idea of a glamorous mistress. The fact that his uncle and benefactor objects only strengthens his resolve. Lady Dumbello, though, has no intention of sullying her own reputation. When her mother writes her concerned about the rumors, she leverages that letter into an apology and jewelry from her husband. From this sort may we all be preserved.

One final conversation struck me particularly. After the jilting and an illness for Lily (this is the Victorian era, after all…), she and Bell banter about novels.

The practical Bell isn’t enamoured of the currently popular ones, because they are too unrealistic.

“It is always right in the novels. That’s why I don’t like them. They are too sweet.”

“That’s why I do like them, because they are so sweet. A sermon is not to tell you what you are, but what you ought to be, and a novel should tell you not what you are to get, but what you’d like to get.”

“If so, then, I’d go back to the old school, and have the heroine really a heroine, walking all the way up from Edinburgh to London, and falling among thieves; or else nursing a wounded hero, and describing the battle from the window. We’ve got tired of that; or else the people who write can’t do it now-a-days. But if we are to have real life, let it be real!”

“No, Bell, no! Real life sometimes is so painful.”

Bell is referencing Sir Walter Scott, of course: The Heart of Midlothian (reviewed here) and Ivanhoe, respectively. This is also a great summary of major debates about novels. (And sermons…) Should novels be escapist? Or realistic? And what does “realistic” mean anyway? For Trollope, one could argue that his are both realistic and escapist at the same time. They do not always end happily, and they are based on realistic emotions and human drama. No dragons to slay, shall we say. On the other hand, they take place in a society that many - most perhaps - of his readers would never experience first hand. After all, even the minor gentry and white collar middle class had it made compared to the blue collar middle class which kept Trollope’s bills paid. Even for himself, these circles were aspirational when he started writing. He was a successful postal worker, but he earned his living. The idea of worrying about whether 1000 a year was enough wasn’t real to him or his readers. But, like many forms of literature, human nature is often best understood and illuminated with an unfamiliar situation or world. Although I will never be a Victorian British aristocrat, I can recognize humanity when I see it, and ponder my own foibles.

Lily Dale has been called one of Trollope’s best heroines. I tend to disagree. I find her personality to be a bit grating, but that probably is just an indication that she isn’t my kind of woman. If I were to pick a favorite heroine from this series, I would go with Lucy Robarts from Framley Parsonage, although Eleanor from The Warden and Barchester Towers gets serious points simply for having the good sense to slap Obadiah Slope.

But the point of a Trollope novel isn’t that you personally like the characters. They are not, as Lily put it, “the way you want them to be.” Rather, they are the way they are, and the plot is always driven by that essence of who they are. However much we may want Lily to see that Crosby is a cad, or how much we wish that Eames wasn’t such a clumsy lover, they simply are who they are, and the plot follows their personalities to the inevitable conclusion.

***

Regular followers of my blog know that I am a partisan for Trollope. I believe he is one of the underrated novelists, undone by his unpopular confession that he viewed writing as a job, not as a random inspiration. It shattered the then-in-vogue vision of the artist as suffering savant rather than careful craftsman and patient observer - a vision which today continues to entice too many would-be writers without the discipline and determination to put in the hard work of mastering a craft.

The Full Cupboard Of Life by Alexander McCall Smith

Source of book: Audiobook from the library

I’ve blogged about Alexander McCall Smith before, so I won’t rehash all his biography or his delightful involvement in the Really Terrible Orchestra. Rather, I suggest reading my previous posts, which will give the background on this series of novels.

The Sunday Philosophy Club (the first one I read, so the best place to start)

The Kalahari Typing School For Men (#4 in the series)

Blue Shoes And Happiness (#7 in the series)

I’ve mentioned before that my kids, for some reason, love the #1 Ladies’ Detective Agency series of books. Despite the slow pace and philosophical musings, they find them quite entertaining. Perhaps this is because of Mma. Ramotswe’s endless capacity for bush tea, or the raisin-laden cakes used by Mma. Potokwane, the director of the orphanage, to convince the timid and kind-hearted Mr. J.L.B. Matekoni to donate his time to her cause. These, of course, are in abundance in this particular book, as is another recurring element: the obsession that the apprentice Charlie has with girls.

This book is #5 in the series. I have ended up listening to them out of order because our library doesn’t have all of them, and many are checked out by others at any given time. Fortunately, it is possible to jump in anywhere and enjoy them, as McCall Smith introduces the key characters and settings in each book.

I’m not sure how McCall Smith came up with the title for this particular book, as it doesn’t seem as topical as the other two I have listened to in this series. One might, however, have gone with “Taking The Plunge.”

Poor Mr. J.L.B. Matekoni finds himself in a series of pickles which threaten to overwhelm his already delicate nerves and force him to heights of bravery he fears he cannot attain. First, Mma. Ramotswe wishes for him to set a date for their wedding. While he clearly wishes to marry her, the expectations are just too much. There are relatives, and food to plan, and...well, too much for an introvert like him to face. Then, Mma. Potokwane railroads him into doing a sponsored parachute jump to raise money for the orphanage, when he has never even ridden in an airplane. Finally, when he takes pity on a rare old car which has been abused by an unscrupulous mechanic, he runs afoul of the perpetrator, who tries to intimidate him.

While this is going on, Mma. Ramotswe is hired to investigate four potential beaus of a rich businesswoman, to see if they are in love with her, or just her money.

It will take all of Mma. Ramotswe’s ingenuity - and some help from Mma. Potokwane - to ease Mr. J.L.B. Matekoni’s burdens, all while allowing him to retain his dignity.

Like all of the books of this series, this one addresses weighty issues. Is it easier or harder for a wealthy person to find love and a spouse? What is the nature of courage? How does a feminist navigate a culture in which the superiority of men is assumed? Is it ethical to manipulate someone into doing something you believe they want to do, but don’t? Can the world’s problems be solved by common sense, emotional intelligence, and enough bush tea? (Well, the answer to that may very well be “yes.”)

As always, McCall Smith writes with a gentle touch. There are few true villains in his books, and no perfect heroes and heroines either. The characters are all realistic amalgams of goodness and flaws, and, like Mma. Ramotswe, we get further when we understand others’ struggles and weaknesses, and encourage the better parts of themselves.

"Hostile Culture": White Evangelicalism Shows It Has No Clue

Ah yes, so in the wake of the same-sex marriage court decision, there has been much pearl clutching in Evangelicalism.

Now, to be fair, I have been pleasantly surprised at the number and widespread nature of a number of reasonable voices. Many seem to have “gotten it” that we as Christians are not to give into fear and hate, but are to display love and a sound mind. So that part was encouraging.

And those, like the ever-loathsome Doug Wilson, and the ever-mockable Pat Robertson, who both said thoroughly stupid things, are more amusing than truly worrisome. (Wilson went on the record as saying that supporting Gay Marriage was far worse than supporting slavery.  Pat Robertson claimed that gays will now make you pretend to like anal and oral sex. Hey Pat, maybe you need to listen to “Walk This Way” sometime…)

What I find more troublesome is the way that even the reasonable voices have this great concern - and even fear - that they are now in a “hostile culture.” Yes, indeed, the “persecution” is coming, and we need to figure out what to do.

This is, quite simply, ludicrous.

As many, including Rachel Held Evans in this post,  have pointed out, the United States is more than 70% Christian by identification. The vast, vast majority of those in political power are Christian. Our land is filled with churches. Which are tax-exempt. So, the “culture” can hardly be hostile to Christians considering Christians ARE the culture.

Oh, I know the protest. “But they aren’t REAL Christians.” Which means, “they don’t agree with us about ________ issue.” And, as in the case of same-sex marriage, the issue is typically a political issue. (What unions will a secular government recognize.) 

But beyond the essential impossibility of a huge majority being the victim of persecution, there is another problem.

White Evangelicals have no freaking clue what it means to live in a hostile culture.

Hint: A culture isn’t hostile just because you sometimes get blowback for expressing ideas. It isn’t hostile because you experience disapproval for acting like an Asshole For Jesus™

How do I know that they have no clue? Because a hostile culture exists right now, and has since the before inception of the United States, and white Evangelicals are mostly in deep denial about it as they continue to support its existence.

What a hostile culture looks like:

Imagine if Christians submitted resumes, but didn’t get callbacks because their names (say Joshua or Mary) identified them as believers.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans. 

Imagine if Christians with no criminal record were less likely to be hired than non-Christians with criminal records.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans. 

Imagine if those Christians that did get hired were assumed to have been, not for their merits, but because of quotas and “diversity.”

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans and other minorities.

Imagine if Christians were charged higher interest rates for loans, despite identical credit ratings.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans and other minorities. And it has been happening for decades. 

Imagine if the term “good schools” was shorthand for “mostly non-Christian,” and most non-Christian parents who could afford to would seek out these “good” schools. Imagine if, in order to avoid their kids having to associate with Christians, they formed their own private schools to perpetuate the segregation.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans and other minorities.

Imagine if, when too many Christians moved into a neighborhood, the non-Christians moved out rather than live in proximity to Christians.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans and other minorities. 

Imagine if Christians were being “stopped and frisked” at far higher rates than non-Christians, even though they were less likely to have contraband or weapons on them.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans and other minorities. I blogged about Ferguson here. I urge you to read the entire DOJ report. 

Imagine if, even after proof of the above came out, a significant number of people - including major media figures, politicians, and a high percentage of the population claimed that Christians just had higher criminal propensities. (Yes, an acquaintance sent me such an article as “rebuttal” to the Ferguson report. The fact that he/she was able to assume that it would not be viewed as offensively racist shows just how deep the denial is.)

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans.

Now imagine that Christians were protesting the shooting of an unarmed Christian teenager, and the cops came out with military weaponry. Imagine that a few opportunistic thugs took advantage of the situation to loot. Now imagine that the entire group of protesters - and indeed all Christians - were labeled “thugs,” a thousand facebook meme spread the idea.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans.

Imagine that there was a call for a ban on protest - that is, a denial of First Amendment speech and assembly rights - because Christians “just couldn’t behave themselves.”

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans.

Imagine that a cop screamed at that group of Christians, “Bring it, you fucking animals!” And that many would defend the cop and deny that this showed a culture of prejudice.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans.

Imagine if a symbol of the kidnapping, sale, murder, beating and rape of Christians flew from government buildings. Imagine if the symbol was conceived with the idea that “As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the Atheist man over the inferior or Christian race; a _____ flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.” Now imagine if the removal of that symbol from places of government power was met by fierce resistance.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But the designer of a certain flag did indeed say, “As a people we are fighting to maintain the Heaven-ordained supremacy of the white man over the inferior or colored race; a white flag would thus be emblematical of our cause.” And that flag was placed on the capitol as a protest against civil rights laws that would end segregation and Jim Crow.

Imagine if Christians used drugs at a lower rate than non-Christians, but were imprisoned far more often for doing so.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans. 

Imagine if possession of a substance that had a mental association with Christians was punished dozens of times more harshly than a very similar substance associated with non-Christians.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans. 

Imagine if a leading candidate for one of the two major political parties publicly stated that Christians were rapists and drug dealers, and were “destroying our country.” And that we needed to “take our nation back.”

Imagine if this was greeted with cheers, and a thousand Facebook posts saying “Trump is right, and is saying what we are all thinking.” Yes, this was my Facebook feed last week.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to brown skinned people. 

Imagine if a murder by a guy with a criminal record led to calls for immediate deportation of all Christians to Mexico.

No, this isn't happening to Christians. It's happening to Mexicans.  

Imagine if, instead of every president in our history was non-Christian, rather than Christian; and that a Christian had finally been elected to office. Imagine if, despite solid evidence to the contrary, a significant percentage of the population refused to believe that that president was legally elected.

No, this didn’t happen to Christians, but it did happen to our African American president, didn’t it?

Imagine that a Christian was going to be cast in a movie about a fictitious superhero, and there was a general freakout about how it was “historically inaccurate.” That's right, a "historically inaccurate" completely made up character.

Yes, this actually happened. But not over Christianity, but race. 

Imagine if you threw a pool party at a public pool in your neighborhood, but when other Christians showed up, and you played your Chris Tomlin records a bit too loud, the cops were called, and told that you were from outside of the area. And one of the neighbors told the Christian teens to go back to their Section 8 housing where they belonged. And then a cop pulled a gun on the Christians and slammed a 14-year-old girl’s head to the ground. Imagine that this was merely the latest in a long history of incidents where Christians were kept out of public pools.

No, this isn’t happening to Christians. But it sure is happening to African Americans.

I could go on and on. These are just the things that I could recall while blogging over lunch hour on a weekday.

In the wake of a year of racial unrest - and let’s be honest - a year in which atrocious behavior by many in authority came to light - I have found myself repeatedly appalled by the racism and nastiness on display by friends and family. And yes, this includes many, many Christians. They generally don’t even realize the meaning and prejudice of what they say and post. 

And, given that white Christians are the single largest demographic group in this nation, they really don't have anyone else to blame for the culture.

So, when white Evangelicals worry about “living in a hostile culture,” I have to bite my tongue to keep from laughing.

Because they have NO FREAKING CLUE what a hostile culture is. Or that they have been complicit in maintaining one their entire lives.

What it really comes down to isn’t that Evangelicals will be living in a hostile culture. THEY WON’T. At least anytime soon. Not a real “hostile culture.”

Instead, what has happened is that a teeny, tiny part of their privilege has been lost. They can’t walk into a room and assume that everyone will agree with them. They can’t act like assholes and know that nobody will challenge them. Horrors, they might have to actually do business with people they don’t like.

White Evangelicals have had a swimming pool-sized supply of privilege for a couple of centuries. And now, somebody just removed a spoonful of it, and they are freaking out.

If white Evangelicals had to put up with the hostility that African Americans and other minorities do - even for one day - I think they would completely lose their minds.

So, maybe these books and posts and articles on “living in a hostile culture” will be helpful. Maybe they will be How To Not Be A Jerk 101 by a less threatening name. That would come in handy. Perhaps we can have one on “how not to imagine persecution” to go with it.

But perhaps we don’t really need all that. We have a source handy for tips on how to survive in a hostile culture. Maybe we can sit down with our African American brothers and sisters.

And just listen. 

***

Further reading: My thoughts on Fred Phelps and why the erroneous belief that the United States is the new Israel is at the root of the panic.

****

Any additional examples to contribute?

Read my Comment Policy before you comment, but note that I will accept links in this case. However, I will fact check, so be careful of your sources.