January 27, 2010 by Shane Kastler.

It’s not always easy to write a compelling 700 page biography of a man who is viewed negatively by most people today and many in his own day.  But William C. Davis managed to do it in Jefferson Davis: The Man & His Hour.

            The author Davis, a longtime historian, takes up the subject of Confederate president Davis (no relation) in an extremely well-researched and readable narrative that covers Davis’ life from birth to death.  As the author points out, the main reason that Davis is known today was because of his role in the American Civil War, and therefore much of the book is dedicated to that enthralling four-year period from 1861-1865.  But Davis’s life involved much more than that period alone.

            The youngest child in a large family, Jefferson Finis Davis was born in 1808 to parents who aptly named their child, hoping (rightly so) that he would be their last child.  Born in Kentucky, Davis was ultimately raised in Mississippi.  After a brief stint at Transylvania University, he accepted an appointment to the United States Military Academy at West Point.  Always fiery and opinionated, Davis was a less than stellar, albeit popular student who made friends and enemies that would last a lifetime.  After graduating, he continued his military career and eventually became a war in hero in the brief Mexican War of 1846-1848. 

            As a young man, Davis married the daughter of Zachary Taylor, his commanding officer and future U.S. President.  Although Taylor initially did not want his daughter Sarah to marry a soldier, he eventually reluctantly consented when Davis resigned the service and moved back to his native Mississippi.  But early summer was not a good time for the newlyweds to move to the tropical climate and both soon came down with malaria.  Davis almost died.  Sarah did.  A mere two months into their marriage.  Young Jefferson Davis was utterly devastated.

            For the next ten years, Davis became a reclusive farmer.  His older brother Joseph, more than twenty years his senior, served as a father –figure to Jefferson and gave him a portion of his land to manage.  For the next decade he worked with his brother managing the plantation and he largely kept to himself.  But eventually he became involved in local politics, and he found romance once again.

            At the age of 35, Davis met the young Varina Howell and married the 17 year old girl who would eventually become the First Lady of the Confederacy.  Around this same time, Davis was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives.  At times, the marriage was strained as the firm and opinionated Jefferson learned to live with the much younger and equally opinionated Varina.  But eventually their union became a blissful one, producing several children.

            Davis never finished his term in Congress because of the outbreak of the Mexican War.  He resigned so he could serve as Colonel in the 1^st Mississippi volunteers.  After he came home a hero, he attempted a run for governor, but was defeated.  From 1853-1857, he served in the cabinet of President Franklin Pierce as Secretary of War; ironically building up a United States military that he would one day fight against as Confederate President.

            After his stint in Pierce’s cabinet, Davis was elected U.S. Senator from Mississippi, this being the last office that Davis would hold in the Union.  In 1861, he resigned from the Senate and returned to Mississippi to await what would happen as the Southern states seceded, eventually forming the Confederate States of America.  He was appointed by the governor to serve as Brigadier General of Mississippi volunteers and desperately hoped to be a commanding general in the coming war, but fate had other plans.  He was unanimously selected to serve as President of the new nation and was summoned to Montgomery, Alabama the first capital of the C.S.A.  Davis claims to have never wanted the position, but rather accepted it out of a sense of duty.  His hope was that once the government was firmly established he would return to field service, but his election to a six-year term in 1862 ended such hopes.

            As President, Davis tried to establish a new government, while also serving as Commander-in-Chief to a fledgling nation fighting a war for independence.  A bureaucrat by nature, Davis at times struggled in his role as chief executive.  He idolized some generals, like Robert E. Lee and Albert Sidney Johnston; while he loathed others, namely Joseph Johnston and Pierre Beauregard.  He was loyal to a fault to those he considered friends, while sometimes irrationally critical to those he deemed enemies. 

            William Davis, while writing honestly about the President’s many faults, also manages to bring out the tender human side of Davis.  He was a man intensely sensitive to the feelings of others; and a father who reveled in playing with his children.  Publicly considered cold and aloof, Davis could be quite warm and engaging when he visited with friends in private.  For most of his time as President, he carried a tremendous burden and it usually showed in his outer actions and demeanor.

            During the war, Davis was baptized and confirmed in the Episcopal Church and seems to have been a committed Christian for the remainder of his life.  In fact, Davis was sitting in church on a Sunday morning when he received an urgent telegram from Robert E. Lee that he must evacuate Richmond at once.  Davis and his cabinet complied and began to flee south temporarily establishing capitals in Danville, Virginia and Greensboro, North Carolina.  Having already sent Varina and the children ahead several days earlier, he eventually caught up with them and they were reunited, though the reunion would prove to be brief.

            The assassination of Abraham Lincoln made Davis a wanted man.  In the hysteria following Lincoln’s murder, Davis and other high ranking Confederate were suspected as conspirators.  Some wanted him captured, tried, and hung for murder or treason.  He was eventually captured near Irwinville, Georgia in May of 1865.

            The next two years would be some of the most trying of Davis’ life as he sat imprisoned awaiting what charges might be filed against him.  As word leaked to the public of the persecution Davis was experiencing at the hands of his jailers an ironic sympathy began to grow for him, even in the North.  Some demanded he be released on bail and brought to a “speedy trial” but in truth the Federal government had no idea what to do with him.  They feared a public trial that might lead to his acquittal, so eventually, he was released.

            The next ten years of Davis’s life were difficult as he sought to somehow make a living and rebuild his life.  He spent time in Canada and England before eventually moving to Memphis where he served as President of the Carolina Life Insurance Company.  But the economy destroyed the company and Davis had to look for other work.  Ultimately he moved to Biloxi, Mississippi where he was given a rent-free house to work on his memoirs.  The Rise & Fall of the Confederate Government was a lengthy two volume work that Davis wrote with the help of others to give an accurate defense of his actions during the war.  The book did not sell well and Davis probably received nothing in royalties from the work.  But he did have a new home.  The rent-free estate Beauvoir was left to him in the will of the woman who owned it and Davis would spend the rest of his life there.

            Davis died in 1889 from complications from pneumonia.  Varina and two daughters survived him, though four sons and a daughter preceded him in death.  He was initially interred in New Orleans, but later moved to the Hollywood Cemetery in Richmond, the city that made him famous.

            William Davis’ book is an excellent account of the enigmatic Jefferson Davis.  Highly readable and interesting, William Davis manages to give an honest account of Davis’ shortcomings while also adequately telling of his positive traits.  Some authors manage to convey scads of facts, while others are short on facts but excel in compelling narrative.  William C. Davis does both. Not only did I come away with more knowledge of Davis, I also had a greater respect for the man and the many struggles he faced in life.  Any study of Jefferson Davis should include this book as a solid reference for the Confederacy’s only President.

Posted in Book Reviews | Print | No Comments »

January 15, 2010 by Shane Kastler.

In Pursuit: The Chase, Capture, Persecution & Surprising Release of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, historian Clint Johnson covers a fascinating three-year period in American history with the story of Confederate President Jefferson Davis from 1865-1868.  As the Civil War draws to a close and the Union army converges on Richmond; Davis receives an urgent appeal from General Robert E. Lee that he must evacuate the capital city immediately.  Davis and the Confederate cabinet gather important records and the federal treasury and begin a march towards the “new” capital of Danville, Virginia.  Their stay there is short-lived as they must continue deeper south into North Carolina.  Eventually, some of the cabinet members resign and commence their own flight, while Davis is reunited with his wife and children whom he had sent ahead.  The chase of Davis ends in Georgia where Federal cavalry catch up with and capture Davis in an early morning raid upon his camp. 

Davis spends the next two years imprisoned; awaiting trial from a Federal government that is uncertain with what to charge him.  Some want him tried for treason; but this charge falls apart because he never actually made an attempt to overthrow an existing government.  Rather, he led a secession away from a government that then proceeded to invade the South.  Others wanted Davis tried for conspiracy in the assassination of Abraham Lincoln; but this also fell apart when the Federal government’s three star witness’s testimonies were found to be riddled with lies.

            Eventually, Davis was released on bail and charges were dropped in 1868 by outgoing President Andrew Johnson.  In the end, the Federal government feared the bad publicity that would result if they tried Davis and he was acquitted, which would give a certain amount of legal credence to the Confederate States of America.

            Clint Johnson’s book is well-researched and written.  Though writing from a Southern perspective, he adequately portrays Davis as he was; warts and all.  Though a brave and valiant man, Davis could be extremely stubborn and was unwilling to surrender when surrender was really the only option.  All of Davis’ generals and cabinet members eventually see this before Davis does…and he stays defiant to the end.

            One of the greatest arguments that arise out of a study of Davis is whether or not secession is treasonous.  Perhaps the greatest argument that secession was not only legal, but indeed constitutional was the fact that Davis ultimately went uncharged for the crime.  It seems that even a Federal government highly belligerent towards Davis knew deep down that the Confederacy had the legal right to exist.

            I would recommend the reading of this book, not only for the politically incorrect, though accurate, historical data; but also for the exciting story that it tells.  Davis was an extremely polarizing figure in both the North and the South; but polarizing doesn’t necessarily mean wrong. 

This book also tells of some of the uncalled for persecutions Davis endured while incarcerated.  And of some unlikely Davis sympathizers in the North, including some within the Federal government.  Johnson ends the book by briefly writing of Davis’ post-war defense entitled The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, where he defends himself, and often maligns his generals for the ultimate demise of the Confederacy.  Pursuit is an entertaining and informative read and I would recommend it to anyone interested in history, war, or just an interesting true story.

Posted in Book Reviews | Print | No Comments »

March 20, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

In The Making & Unmaking of an Evangelical Mind: The Case of Edward Carnell, Rudolph Nelson delves into the fascinating life and tragic death of one of the 20^th century’s most influential Christian philosophers, Edward John Carnell. After receiving simultaneous doctoral degrees from Harvard Divinity School and Boston University, Carnell blazed onto the theological scene in 1948 by winning the $5,000 first prize in a book contest sponsored by Eerdmans Publishing for his book: An Introduction to Christian Apologetics: A Philosophic Defense of the Trinitarian-Theistic Faith. Soon after the book was published, Carnell sought and was granted a professorship at the newly formed Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, CA. Though still a young man in his twenties, Carnell appeared ready to take the Christian academic community by storm. Instead, by the end of his short life some twenty years later…the “storm” had overtaken him. He died alone, in a hotel room, having overdosed on prescription sleeping pills. Adding further stigma to his name, the autopsy report stated that it was unable to determine whether the death was accidental or suicidal.

Early Life

Ed Carnell grew up as the third of four children born to a fundamentalist, Baptist pastor named Hubert Carnell. After bouncing around the Midwest, serving various churches, the Carnells eventually settled in Albion, Michigan, where Ed was a popular, though unimpressive student. Both his family and his friends were quite stunned when Ed, upon graduating from High School as a “C” student, announced his intentions to enter the ministry and to pursue training at Wheaton College in Illinois.

The college life, proved financially difficult for Carnell. Coming from a poor family, he had to make his way by working part-time in the school cafeteria. But, for the first time in his life, he excelled in the classroom. By sitting under the teaching of renowned Philosophy professor, Gordon H. Clark, Carnell found his wings, academically speaking. Clark’s influence over many of the Wheaton student’s was quite profound. An engaging, theologically Reformed, apologist educated at the University of Pennsylvania, Clark challenged and inspired his students to understand and properly defend the rationality of the Christian faith. This is exactly what Carnell set out to do.

After graduating from Wheaton, Carnell moved to Philadelphia to attend Westminster Theological Seminary. It was here that he encountered the teacher who was arguably the most influential Christian apologist of the 20^th century, Cornelius Van Til. While Van Til influenced Carnell toward an Apologetic methodology that espoused man’s presuppositional belief in the Christian God; Van Til’s influence proved to be much less significant than Clark’s had been. By the end of his writing career, Carnell had received some mild rebukes from Van Til for not having embraced the full-orbed presuppostionalism that he espoused. Van Til was also involved in a major controversy with Gordon Clark over Clark’s ordination in the Orthodox Presbyterian Church. The argument, over an extremely technical and theological point, led to a permanent schism between the two men, both of whom remained in the same denomination. Clark eventually left for a different brand of Presbyterianism, but undoubtedly, the damage done to Clark by Van Til, had a profound impact on Carnell.

Fuller Seminary

Carnell dutifully served Fuller Seminary as Professor of Theology for five years, but the situation at Fuller was contentious. Harold Ocknega had served during that time as President in Absentia, remaining in Boston where he pastored a church. He vacillated numerous times between moving to Pasadena to take up the Presidency full time and resigning to focus on his pastorate. But it was clear that the seminary needed on hand leadership. In 1957, into this void stepped Edward Carnell.

While it is frequently difficult for a person to go from colleague to supervisor, the transition seems to have been doubly hard for Carnell. Though the faculty sought an onsite President, they were divided in their agreement on Carnell’s suitability for the position. Young, ambitious, and inexperienced Carnell appeared to be in over his head, and perhaps he was. Add to the mix that Carnell was by personality and temperament more suited for the classroom and study than he was the fundraiser and figurehead role of President and you have a recipe for disaster. Carnell made it clear time and time again that he was not a fundraiser, but an academician. Nevertheless, funds were extremely tight, and stress weighed heavily upon him. Though the seminary progressed under his leadership, he ultimately resigned in 1959 after a five year tenure, and returned to the classroom. But his life was never the same again.

Later Life & Tragic Death

Carnell had suffered from insomnia for much of his life; and the added strain of the presidency exacerbated his emotional state. At times, he fell into deep seasons of depression and sought relief through medication and electroshock therapy. His mental condition was further assailed by polemic assaults from the fundamentalist Christians of the day. Though Carnell once labeled himself a “fundamentalist” he ultimately preferred the term “evangelical.” Fundamentalists were considered anti-intellectual, and legalistic in some of their views, and Carnell was anything but. He desired Christian scholarship to be rigorously academic and rational; and he confessed that he had grown up under a smothering brand of legalism that he found distasteful. Because of some of these comments, he was attacked by some fundamentalists, and the assaults took their toll.

It appears that in his later years, the medication and shock therapy influenced his teaching abilities. His once quick and sharp mind now took awkwardly long pauses when lecturing; and at times, he appeared to be distracted while in the classroom. The end came in 1967, when he was invited to address a Roman Catholic conference in Oakland, California. He had struggled for some time with remembering whether or not he had taken his sleeping medication, and his wife had gotten in the habit of dolling his pills out to him. But, he had done well for quite some time and was beginning to take care of the responsibility himself. Because of this, he attended the conference by himself and was scheduled to speak on noon of the second day. He never showed up and was found dead in his hotel room’s bathroom floor. He was 48.

It seems that Carnell’s death was more than likely accidental. A towel rack in the bathroom was pulled from the wall, indicating that he had fallen. Furthermore, several pill bottles were found in his room, with pills remaining in them. Typically if one is planning a suicidal overdose, they take all the pills they can. Finally, the level of barbiturates in his system was 3.5mg, and the average barbiturate suicide victim has between 6 and 8 mg. But, the coroner’s report sealed his fate and left a permanent cloud over his name as a “possible suicide.” Perhaps the suspicions are justified. After all, he was an insomniac, who suffered from severe depression, and had a history of mental anguish associated with his career. But the evidence points to the contrary; and in truth we will never know for certain.

Critique of Rudolph Nelson’s Critique

Nelson’s book is loosely divided into three parts. The first part examines Carnell’s life in a largely biographical fashion. The second part examines his theological positions and professional struggles. The third part, shortest in length, makes final conclusions. Without question, the first part is the most interesting section of the book. One cannot help but be impressed and inspired by this poor, underachieving “C” student, who works his way up the academic latter to the point of attaining two doctorates by the age of 30. Nelson contends, rightly so, that if Carnell had stayed in the classroom he probably would have lived a long and fruitful life. As it was, his ascension to the Presidency proved to be the turning point, and downfall of his career.

The author’s critique of Carnell’s theology is predictable. Nelson confesses that he was once a “fundamentalist” until he saw the theological light and became a liberal. In his criticism of Carnell, he sneers frequently at Carnell’s “primitive understanding” of the Bible and essentially dismisses him as an oaf because he never reached the enlightened position of denying the faith he claimed to possess. In essence, Carnell is ripped and labeled as an ignoramus because he didn’t reject his Biblical beliefs and climb (or slide) to the heights (or depths) of higher critical liberalism. In fact, in reading Nelson’s condescending critique of Carnell’s beliefs, one could easily forget that Carnell was not a backwoods illiterate at all. He had a Ph.D. from Boston University, and a Th.D. from Harvard having written dissertations on the philosophy of the Danish thinker Soren Kierkegaard and the theology of Reinhold Niebuhr. The author seems aghast that one could attain such intellectual accomplishments and still be a Biblical Christian.

Nelson also implies that perhaps Carnell didn’t really believe what he claimed to. Based on a comment by Carnell’s brother, whom Edward was not especially close to, Nelson contends that Carnell suffered greatly because his mind refused to accept the Christian faith that he was taught to believe. Indeed Carnell does admit to struggles with doubt (as all people do), but nowhere in his writings, personal or private, does Carnell come anywhere close to denying the faith. He had his faults, and he had his struggles, but he remained devoted to the Christian faith to the end. It seems that Nelson makes a little too much of Carnell’s occasional mentions of suicide in his writings. In his first book, An Introduction to Christian Apologetics, Carnell begins the book by writing of the struggles man faces in a fallen world. He mentions that these struggle are manifested most dramatically when once commits suicide. Nelson also comments on an alleged statement made by Gordon Clark in a debate with an atheist. Supposedly, when confronted with what he would do if Christianity proved to be false, Clark responded that he would kill himself because there would be no reason to exist. This statement of Clark’s is found no where in print and was given to Nelson by an alleged witness to the debate. But regardless of whether or not it’s true; to try and make a case for Edward Carnell’s anguish over the believability of Christianity from such shoddy evidence is unconvincing.

Nelson ends the book with a brief conclusion in which he takes the stance of Carnell’s death being accidental. And he suggests that his “primitive faith” combined with his foolhardy venture as a seminary President, pushed him over the emotional edge.

While I obviously didn’t agree with all of Nelson’s conclusion, I did enjoy the book and was fascinated by Carnell’s life. The author did a thorough job, in my opinion, of presenting the biographical information in a highly readable fashion. However, the author’s personal prejudice against conservative Christianity tainted his judgment towards Carnell and led to conclusions that were unjustified. I would recommend the book, with an exception. If one believes they can entertained by an interesting life story, while also warned about the possible pitfalls of entering a professions that doesn’t suit them then read the book. But the Christian reader needs to be discerning and see through the polemic attacks the author makes on the Biblical, Christian faith.

Posted in Book Reviews | Print | No Comments »

February 24, 2009 by Shane Kastler.

This book gives a fascinating account of one of the twentieth century’s most influential New Testament scholars. George Eldon Ladd had a sharp mind and a strong desire to influence the liberal scholarly community for the Kingdom of God. Though raised and brought to faith in a Dispensational church, Ladd grew up to reject Dispensationalism in favor of Historic Premillennialism, which differentiates from Dispensationalism in that it does not hold to a pre-tribulational rapture, nor a distinction between the nation of Israel and the Christian Church. Ladd was educated at Gordon College (today known as Gordon-Conwell); and after pastoring several New England Baptist churches, earned a Ph.D. from Harvard University. Though his doctoral studies were under the tutelage of a liberal advisor, Ladd retained his evangelical faith and sought to write a work, from a conservative theological perspective, that even the liberal’s of the higher criticism camp, would have to appreciate. Unto this end, Ladd devoted his academic life, and in the process, sacrificed much of his family life.

In many ways, Ladd was a deeply troubled man, as D’Elia depicts in this work. Ladd had a cold relationship with his father, who appears to have been overbearing. And he was jealous of his younger brother, who was always more popular, athletic, and approved of by their father. Ladd eventually marries and has two children, but his commitment (obsession) with his studies leads to an alienation with his wife, and children. Beginning in the 1950’s Ladd starts to struggle with alcoholism and eventually sexual sin (D’Elia implies that Ladd probably had an affair while on sabbatical in Germany and also made a pass at the wife of one of his students.) His alcoholism becomes worse, until eventually his employer, Fuller Theological Seminary has to reprimand and suspend him for one year. Ladd considers divorcing his wife, but never does. She dies in 1976. In 1980, Ladd, who by now is an uncontrollable alcoholic, has a stroke and spends his last two years in a nursing home, dying in 1982.

Though Ladd’s psyche was always brittle, it seems that he was ultimately pushed over the edge in the 1960s shortly after completing his magnum opus. For ten solid years, he had worked on a book called “Jesus and the Kingdom” that was meant to be a work to engage the liberal scholars of the day. One book reviewer, Norman Perrin, panned the book in a theological journal, and Ladd absolutely fell apart. From that point on, he considered his life a failure and he slid deeper and deeper into emotional duress and alcoholism. Friends, colleagues, and family all tried to help him but he refused. Ultimately his behavior cost him numerous relationships, including those of his children who rarely spoke to him. This is the tragedy of Ladd’s life, and a lesson for those who would put work, even God’s work, ahead of their relationship with the Lord and the family he has given them to care for. But Ladd’s academic achievements were indeed profound.

While dispensational theology was the predominant conservative view of the day, Ladd confronted it with some of its unbiblical and extreme tendencies. In so doing, he was much maligned by leading dispensationalists such as John Walvoord, but he added another, much needed perspective to the debate regarding eschatology. Ladd is still considered the most prominent twentieth century spokesman for the millennial view known as Historic Premillennialism, and is widely read on the subject even today.

Ladd also wrote a Theology of the New Testament, that some have considered on par with John Calvin’s “Institutes of the Christian Religion” in its scope and influence. Clearly Ladd had something to offer the world of Christian scholarship. But sadly, his personal life didn’t coincide with his stated, written beliefs.

My conclusion of this work is that it is a tremendous read for those interested in the theological academy, and for those who would like a glimpse into the personal life of this truly tragic figure. D’Elia does a masterful job of weaving the scholarly achievements of Ladd with his personal life in way that is interesting, albeit sad. Ladd’s life and work have much to teach us in both positive and negative ways. D’Elia brings this out clearly in a book that is both intellectually challenging, and personally interesting. I recommend its reading, and the reading of Ladd’s work, without reservation.

Posted in Book Reviews | Print | No Comments »

October 8, 2008 by Shane Kastler.

Since the economy is making so much news these days, I thought I would recommend a great (and easy) book on understanding how the economy works.  The book is called, Basic Economics: A Common Sense Guide to the Economy, and is written by Thomas Sowell.

As a business major in college, I was required to take several classes in Economics, Finance, Accounting, etc……but I learned a lot more about economics from Sowell’s book than I did in any college class.  In the book he explains how free markets work, how prices are affected by supply and demand, how competition controls prices, and how government intervention usually screws everything up.  When the government gets too involved in economic situations, they distort the true value of things, thus creating financial havoc.

Thomas Sowell is what you might call a "Liberal’s worst nightmare"– he’s a black conservative who frequently speaks out against Barack Obama and democratic policies.  Sowell also has a fascinating life story.  A high school dropout who joined the Marine Corps, Sowell eventually got a GED, then earned degrees from Harvard and Columbia University before earning a Ph.D. in Economics from the University of Chicago.  So he knows way more than most of us ever will about the economy, but he’s able to explain it in a way that simpletons like me can understand.  His political commentary is very insightful as well and you can read it at townhall.com.

In conclusion, if you want to understand what in the world the news guys are talking about with the economy.  Or if you want to understand why Obama’s economic philosophy will be detrimental to our nation.  Get a copy of Sowell’s book.  It’s informative, well-written, and best of all, easy to understand.

Posted in Current Events, Political Issues, Book Reviews | Print | 3 Comments »

December 19, 2007 by Shane Kastler.

The following is a review I wrote for “My Grandfather’s Son” By Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas….

Clarence Thomas will forever be remembered for the “high tech lynching” he survived at the hands of liberal senators during his 1991 confirmation hearing. It’s sad that that will be his legacy, because his life story is facsinating. In this book he writes of the struggles of growing up dirt poor in Georgia with a single mom, who eventually sends him to be raised by his hard working, independent minded grandfather, who molded him into the man he is today. Thomas writes with brevity and clarity hitting the highlights, and lowlights of his life. His first marriage, divorce, 2nd marriage, early struggles with race issues, college, law school, and secular career. He even addresses the Anita Hill issue in a very convincing and believable way. The book was much shorter than I thought it would be (I was able to read it in a day)—but what it lacked in girth, it made up for in profundity. I would highly recommend this great story of the American dream fulfilled by a man of integrity and judicial brilliance.

Posted in Book Reviews | Print | No Comments »

June 15, 2007 by Shane Kastler.

The latest installment of atheistic manifestos hit the shelves on May 1, 2007. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (published by Twelve Publishers, a division of Warner Books, New York, NY) by Christopher Hitchens quickly rose to the New York Times bestseller list. Hitchens himself, is a fairly multifaceted individual, serving as a contributing editor to Vanity Fair magazine, as well as a visiting professor of liberal studies at the New School. A native of England, Hitchens immigrated to the United States in 1981, and became a U.S. citizen in April of 2007. He has been known as a philosopher, political commentator, activist, scholar, and lecturer. This book, for the most part, falls under “philosophy” as he debunks religion in general and blames many of society’s ills upon a belief in a non-existent God.

I’ll begin this review by simply describing the physical design of the book. The smallest word on the cover is “god” in tiny, un-capitalized letters. Followed by ever increasing font… “is not GREAT.” Subtitled: “How Religion Poisons Everything.” If you turn the book over, you’ll see these words at the top “Praise for Christopher Hitchens” followed by the fawning reviews he’s received from such unbiased (insert sarcasm here) publications as the London Observer and the Los Angeles Times. The “god” cover and the “praise for Christopher Hitchens” back cover are hardly an accident of irony, but rather a blasphemous exaltation of a man. Which pretty much sums up the book. Take a look inside the back cover and you can read a little bit about Hitchens, and see a photograph, of what looks to be the saddest and most miserable human on the planet. Maybe he just doesn’t like having his picture taken. But have you ever seen a picture of an atheistic philosopher that looked happy? Probably not. If there is no God, and no Heaven, and no Divine standards, then life is fairly pointless, isn’t it? Clearly, there’s no joy in atheism.

I’ve always wondered why atheists are so often violently opposed to God. If they truly believe God doesn’t exist…then why do they appear to be so mad at Him? I’ve never seen diatribe’s against the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus. I have argued elsewhere that deep down, all people are hard wired to believe in God’s existence, and thus atheism is a crime against the very conscience God placed within the emotional/spiritual makeup of all people. Hitchens clearly has an axe to grind against religion. In the early portions of the book, he describes his upbringing in parochial school England. Speaking kindly of his grammar school teacher, he described her as a Christian who tried to show the children the beauty that exists in God’s world. Of course, Hitchens seems to believe that he intellectually blew past his naïve teacher early on, and adopted a cynical and condescending view of “Mrs. Watts” and her belief in God.

With that said, Hitchens declares that he was raised in a fairly happy environment, with no psychological cause to turn against God. Indeed, the tone of the book seems to simply imply that he’s just way too intelligent to believe in God. (“professing to be wise, they became fools.” Romans 1:22) The fact that Hitchens is obviously intelligent, left me a little surprised at some of his contradictory and simplistic arguments. For example, in defending his atheism, he wrote about many other intellectual atheists that disagreed with him on minor issues. Yet, they remain united in their beliefs (or lack thereof). He’s obviously a big enlightenment fan that values “reason” and “logic” over “faith” and boasted of his atheistic camps “openmindedness” (p. 5). Yeah right! He’s openminded…as long as you agree with him. Otherwise you’re a buffoon. I think we can all claim to share such a hypocritical openmindedness. Can’t we?

Hitchens is willing to admit that some things are beyond our knowing and other things are fascinating to our minds. He states: “If the universe was found to be finite or infinite, either discovery would be equally stupefying and impenetrable to me.” (p. 10) This leads me to wonder if, at the very least, Hitchens might be a closet agnostic rather than atheist. But his admission of things beyond would seem to suggest, at least a chance of a Supreme Being. Yet, he refuses to go there. He bristles at the Christian term “seeker,” and swears that he is not one. But, if there are things beyond his knowledge, then why can’t there be a God…beyond his knowledge?

He concludes chapter one by making a declaration that he desires for religious people to simply leave him alone. “But this, religion is ultimately incapable of doing.” (v. 13) Really? He wants religious people to leave him alone? Then why on earth did he write a book inciting religious peoples deepest held convictions? If you want religious people to leave you alone, then I wouldn’t suggest writing a book subtitled: “How Religion Poisons Everything.”

Chapter 2, entitled, “Religion Kills” begins some of the more simplistic arguments Hitchens espouses. To simplify it to its least common denominator, this is essentially what he says. Ayatollah Khomeini was evil. Ayatollah Khomeini believed in God. Therefore God doesn’t exist. He use equally ridiculous examples for other radical Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Perhaps the most glaring example of this over simplification is his citing Fred Phelps, the Topeka, Kansas “preacher” as an example of Christianity. Phelps has made himself famous by protesting military funerals, homosexuals, and anything else that might draw publicity. Phelps holds beliefs that 99.99999999 percent of Christians would find abhorrent. Yet THIS is Hitchens example. That would be like judging every person of European dissent by what we know of Adolph Hitler. Would Hitchens want us to think all Europeans are like Hitler? Probably not, since he’s European. Then it’s asinine for him to hold Phelps up as an example of Christianity.

The point is this…just because people, even so called religious people, do bad things has nothing to do with whether or not God exists. Surely it has dawned on him that many times people do things that go against God’s moral will. The word for such action is sin…and I would suggest SIN, not Religion poisons everything. Hitchens plethora of examples citing religious people’s errors simply bolsters the belief in the fall of man, rather than the atheistic view of God. Not to mention the fact that Hitchens conveniently ignores heinous crimes committed by atheists. He’s eerily silent about Joseph Stalin, Vladimir Lenin, Karl Marx, Communism, the Soviet Union, and China. Luckily that collective group has never murdered anyone….Right, Christopher?

Another example of simplistic argumentation comes in Hitchens account of 9/11, which was perpetrated by people of a “religion.” Obviously, most would agree that Islamic radicals don’t do much to endear people to God. But, the knee jerk over reaction of throwing the Theistic baby out with the bathwater proves nothing. Hitchens praises the brave folks who confronted their religious zealot captors and caused the fourth plane to plummet in a Pennsylvania field. Bravo for these brave souls who gave their lives to save many others. But if memory serves, one of the heroic ringleaders of this mutiny was Todd Beamer, a devout Christian, and graduate of Wheaton College. Does religion poison everything? Beamer’s religion led him to save many lives. Perhaps even Hitchens, who lives in Washington, D.C.

The rest of Hitchens book makes predictable arguments against various religions. He claims the New Testament is loaded with contradictions (a claim that has been adequately refuted numerous times) concerning the virgin birth, the birthplace of Jesus, the date of Jesus’ birth, etc. He rips the Old Testament as being superstitious and unenlightened. Billy Graham he calls an anti-Semite. Mel Gibson he calls a fascist. Mel Gibson’s father, he calls a thug. Tim LaHaye a monkey. I think you can see the point and tone of the book.

With that said, Hitchens does make some arguments I would agree with. I too would claim the non-existence of the “god” that religions other than Christianity claim to worship. In fact, Jesus Himself stated, “No one comes the Father except by me.” (John 14:6) So, many of Hitchens attacks on radical Islam, Judaism, and Eastern religions are valid. Even some of his attacks on Christians are valid. Indeed no Biblical Christian would defend the crusades, nor a mandatory State religion of Christianity. But with all of that said, the main premise of the book seems to be that since so many people who believe in God are bad….God must not exist. This conclusion is simplistic, irrational, and in fact, crumbles under careful scrutiny.

In the end, Hitchens offers a belief in rationalism and reason. We can be amazed by nature and the cosmos, rather than God. Of course, I would argue (along with Paul) that we can be amazed by GOD, because of nature and the cosmos. (See Romans 1, and Acts 17) Hitchens is obviously a smart man. But it appears equally obvious that he is a cynical, hardened, and in some ways, pompous intellectual. His book will no doubt win some converts to his line of thinking. Any well written book bashing God is sure to garner plenty of press from places like the New York Times. But “well written” and “well argued” are two completely different things. Hitchens is a good writer. But a predictable philosopher. He rejects carte blanche any belief in the supernatural (similar to David Hume), and when one uses this as a starting point, ANY belief is rendered impossible. Christians begin with God as the starting point, then examine Science to see how God works. Hitchens begins with Science and Reason as the starting point, then backs into atheism based on flawed logic. Make no mistake, believing in God does require an ability to accept something unseen, indeed this is the very essence of faith. But God has not left himself without witness in the world He so precisely created. Open you eyes and see the glory of God surrounding you, Christopher! As Francis Schaefer said, “He is there and He is not silent.” My prayer is that Christopher Hitchens’ spiritual eyes will be opened to see what his physical eyes refuses to acknowledge. And that his book will be clearly recognized as the stumbling block it is intended to be.