Recently, I began reading a book so interesting that I stayed up until
2:30 a.m. finishing it. If you ever want a detailed account of how
the nineteenth-century English Evangelicals ended the British slave
trade; abolished sati and infant sacrifice in India; banned child labor and other
such abuses in England; started the world’s first ‘animal rights’ group (The
RSPCA, which banned the torture of animals for sport); rehabilitated prosti-
tutes; reformed the Parliament; brought education and relief to the destitutes
of England; brought about prison and lunatic asylum reforms, etc., then the
book to read is “The Call to Seriousness: The Evangelical Impact on the
Victorians,” by Ian C. Bradley (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co, 1976).
Bradley tries to take the stance of an impartial historian. However, it becomes clear after a few chapters that the subjects of his study are steadily gaining
his admiration and empathy. In every chapter he critiques the excesses of the movement: their petty legalisms, repressive behavior codes (“The Cult of Conduct”), intellectual philistinism, and so forth. And yet, his approach is
fair and he always balances the negatives with their many positive contribu- tions. For the most part, the positives win out. A famous historian quoted in the book sums up the mixture: “Between 1780 and 1850 the English ceased
to be one of the most aggressive, brutal, rowdy, outspoken, riotous, cruel and bloodthirsty nations in the world and became one of the most inhibited, polite, tender-minded, prudish and hypocritical” (p. 106).
The book, however, ends on a tragic note. Many of the Evangelicals lost their children and grandchildren to agnosticism or atheism. All throughout its pages, we see glimpses of English Evangelicalism’s serious weakness: anti- intellectualism. It comes out in the many accounts of their petty legalism and sometimes even pharisaic separatism; and how they terrorized their children with stories of juvenile Sabbath-breakers, who actually had a little fun on
a Sunday and then died and went to Hell for it; and how they forbade their members to read “secular” novels and discouraged them from patronizing “secular” art and music (Mozart and Beethoven were flat out!). Their intellec- tual weakness becomes more pronounced in their view of “practical” religion.
of ideas: No longer were they pro-
tected, sheltered children, reading the
propaganda of Hannah More. They
were now thinking adults in the real
world, reading the assaults of atheists,
agnostics, and occultists. Their parents
and their church had not provided
answers to such attacks on their faith.
Nor had they trained their children in
the critical examination of the Biblical
worldview vs. other world views, which
would have provided them with the
tools to find answers for themselves The story of the great author George
Eliot (the pen-name of Mary Ann
Evans) was very upsetting. I had
grown up reading her stories but had
never known the story of her life. She
was raised an Evangelical and loved
God with all her heart (but, unfortu-
nately, she had not been taught how
What sickened me the most was the
fact that Evans lost her faith through
reading the works of Hennell and
Strauss! At this point in history, those
men are no longer taken seriously.
Their works have been completely
refuted. No careful, thinking person
today could ever lose faith by read-
ing Strauss! In our time, some people
lose their faith over the Jesus Seminar,
but the western Church has come a
long way in scholarship. Right off the top of my head I can think of at
least three books, two by Protestants
and one by a Catholic, which solidly
refute the theories of the Jesus Seminar
(and there are many more). Why
didn’t the nineteenth-century English
Evangelicals produce solid responses
to Strauss and others? Why were they
so lazy in this area when they were so
diligent in every other aspect of life?
Why did a whole generation have to be
robbed of their faith in Christ? Why
did a sweet young girl like Mary Ann
Evans have to get deceived, fall away,
and then live a life alienated from God
as the mistress of another woman’s
husband? True, Evans and all the
others were adults, accountable to God
for their actions and beliefs. But from
Why does the Indian church allow
such intellectual attacks to go
unchallenged? Are the bishops and
seminarians afraid that if they write
well-researched answers that some-
body might beat them up or throw
rocks at them? What really is the
problem here? Perhaps the same anti-
intellectual laziness which destroyed
English Evangelicalism. Please do not underestimatetheintelligenceofour
Indian young people. Many Christians
alloverIndiahavereadtheseattacks,
especially the ones serialized in The
Asian Age. How many of them have
already lost their faith because no one
in the church bothered to give them
an answer? Maybe we should just tell
them to “Trust and obey and go on
your way.” Is that what the church
leaders think? They should not fool
themselves. The young people will go
on their way, out of the Church and
into Hinduism or something else.
Bradley tries to take the stance of an impartial historian. However, it becomes clear after a few chapters that the subjects of his study are steadily gaining
his admiration and empathy. In every chapter he critiques the excesses of the movement: their petty legalisms, repressive behavior codes (“The Cult of Conduct”), intellectual philistinism, and so forth. And yet, his approach is
fair and he always balances the negatives with their many positive contribu- tions. For the most part, the positives win out. A famous historian quoted in the book sums up the mixture: “Between 1780 and 1850 the English ceased
to be one of the most aggressive, brutal, rowdy, outspoken, riotous, cruel and bloodthirsty nations in the world and became one of the most inhibited, polite, tender-minded, prudish and hypocritical” (p. 106).
The book, however, ends on a tragic note. Many of the Evangelicals lost their children and grandchildren to agnosticism or atheism. All throughout its pages, we see glimpses of English Evangelicalism’s serious weakness: anti- intellectualism. It comes out in the many accounts of their petty legalism and sometimes even pharisaic separatism; and how they terrorized their children with stories of juvenile Sabbath-breakers, who actually had a little fun on
a Sunday and then died and went to Hell for it; and how they forbade their members to read “secular” novels and discouraged them from patronizing “secular” art and music (Mozart and Beethoven were flat out!). Their intellec- tual weakness becomes more pronounced in their view of “practical” religion.
True Christianity, they believed, did
not entail entering the marketplace of
ideas. They did not think it worthwhile
to intelligently engage the skeptics,
German Biblical critics, agnostics and
atheistic philosophers of their day.
Instead, they claimed, God had called
them to a purely practical faith: to send
forth missionaries, to help the poor and
downtrodden, to better peoples’ man-
ners. These were the things pleasing
to God; not intellectual debate or true apologetics. In fact, a popular belief of theirs was that one could only prove the existence of God by looking deep within one’s own conscience (pietism at its worst!). When, by the mid-1800s, much of Evangelicalism became influ- enced by the rise of proto-fundamen- talist groups, any fading hope of a ‘life of the mind’ was dashed to pieces.
Which brings us to the tragic last chapter of Bradley’s book, the story
of the new generation: the children and grandchildren of these nine- teenth-century Evangelicals. While some of them kept the faith, “an alarmingly high number deserted the Evangelical fold” (p. 194). Some still remained Christians. For example, three of William Wilberforce’s sons became Roman Catholics and the fourth became a non-Evangelical Anglican. Thomas Macauley also forsook Evangelicalism, though he still considered himself Christian. The real tragedy is not in these cases, but
in the many others who abandoned
the Christian faith altogether. Bradley notes that, “Samuel Butler, George Eliot [pen-name of Mary Ann Evans], Leslie and James Fitzjames Stephen, and Francis Newman renounced Christianity altogether and became atheists” (p. 194). There are many others whom Bradley doesn’t mention. For example, what about Margaret Noble several years later, the Wesleyan pastor’s daughter, who as a child “loved Jesus very much” and wanted to be
a missionary when she grew up? As
an adult, she came under the spell of Swami Vivekananda, converted to Hinduism, changed her name to Sister Nivedita, and wrote praises to “Kali the Mother.” The list could go on and on.
Many of those who fell away fit into a similar pattern. On one hand, they resented the repressive narrowness
to God; not intellectual debate or true apologetics. In fact, a popular belief of theirs was that one could only prove the existence of God by looking deep within one’s own conscience (pietism at its worst!). When, by the mid-1800s, much of Evangelicalism became influ- enced by the rise of proto-fundamen- talist groups, any fading hope of a ‘life of the mind’ was dashed to pieces.
Which brings us to the tragic last chapter of Bradley’s book, the story
of the new generation: the children and grandchildren of these nine- teenth-century Evangelicals. While some of them kept the faith, “an alarmingly high number deserted the Evangelical fold” (p. 194). Some still remained Christians. For example, three of William Wilberforce’s sons became Roman Catholics and the fourth became a non-Evangelical Anglican. Thomas Macauley also forsook Evangelicalism, though he still considered himself Christian. The real tragedy is not in these cases, but
in the many others who abandoned
the Christian faith altogether. Bradley notes that, “Samuel Butler, George Eliot [pen-name of Mary Ann Evans], Leslie and James Fitzjames Stephen, and Francis Newman renounced Christianity altogether and became atheists” (p. 194). There are many others whom Bradley doesn’t mention. For example, what about Margaret Noble several years later, the Wesleyan pastor’s daughter, who as a child “loved Jesus very much” and wanted to be
a missionary when she grew up? As
an adult, she came under the spell of Swami Vivekananda, converted to Hinduism, changed her name to Sister Nivedita, and wrote praises to “Kali the Mother.” The list could go on and on.
Many of those who fell away fit into a similar pattern. On one hand, they resented the repressive narrowness
of their upbringings, but they also
appreciated the many good aspects.
The main issue was with the world
to love Him with her mind). Her hero
was William Wilberforce, and when
she was 19 she wrote, “Oh that I might
be made as useful in my lowly and
obscure station as he [Wilberforce]
was in the exalted one assigned to him”
(p. 199). In another letter, she said that
she would be happy if the only music
she ever heard again in her life were
worship music. However, all was not
well. Bradley notes that “Three years
later she rejected Christianity in a con-
version which was almost as cataclys-
mic as those which had brought others
to vital religion” (p. 199).
What was it that shattered Evan’s faith? She read two books of
Biblical criticism, Charles Hennell’s “Inquiry Concerning the Origin of Christianity,” and Strauss’ “Life of Jesus.” Utterly disillusioned, she aban- doned her faith and spent the rest of her days alone in the universe, without God. She tried her utmost to live a moral and selfless life without divine assistance, but failed miserably. In the 1850s, when she had become a suc- cessful author, she met George Lewes, a philosopher and scientist. Lewes was a married man, but they “fell in love.” Since he had no legal grounds for divorce, he simply abandoned his wife and moved in with Evans. They lived together as though married until Lewes’ death in 1878, trying to pre- tend that Lewes’ real wife didn’t really exist. What a wonderful beginning and yet such a horrible shipwreck for Mary Ann Evan’s life.
What was it that shattered Evan’s faith? She read two books of
Biblical criticism, Charles Hennell’s “Inquiry Concerning the Origin of Christianity,” and Strauss’ “Life of Jesus.” Utterly disillusioned, she aban- doned her faith and spent the rest of her days alone in the universe, without God. She tried her utmost to live a moral and selfless life without divine assistance, but failed miserably. In the 1850s, when she had become a suc- cessful author, she met George Lewes, a philosopher and scientist. Lewes was a married man, but they “fell in love.” Since he had no legal grounds for divorce, he simply abandoned his wife and moved in with Evans. They lived together as though married until Lewes’ death in 1878, trying to pre- tend that Lewes’ real wife didn’t really exist. What a wonderful beginning and yet such a horrible shipwreck for Mary Ann Evan’s life.
a Biblical perspective, they were also
sheep whose shepherds had failed to
protect them from savage wolves.
The book’s conclusion left me with deep grief in my heart for a genera- tion now long dead. And I thought
of today’s English, the great-great grandchildren of the Evangelical generation. An England where the Royal Family has degenerated into tabloid trash, where Mick Jagger has become a knight, and where instead of Christian spirituality they follow everything from Hare Krishna to Harry Potter. And don’t forget those wonderful Brits who convert to Islam, like shoe-bomber Richard Reed. What a travesty!
When Vishal Mangalwadi joined me in the office the next morning, I told him about my reading experience and how badly it had bothered me. Vishal immediately said that the present- day Indian church is failing in the exact same manner. He mentioned
as an example the attacks of Hindu journalist/politician Arun Shourie against the gospels a few years ago. I was in Calcutta then and read them each week as they came out in The Asian Age newspaper. He had used his connections to write full paged, syn- dicated articles attacking the Bible for several Sundays in a row, culminating
The book’s conclusion left me with deep grief in my heart for a genera- tion now long dead. And I thought
of today’s English, the great-great grandchildren of the Evangelical generation. An England where the Royal Family has degenerated into tabloid trash, where Mick Jagger has become a knight, and where instead of Christian spirituality they follow everything from Hare Krishna to Harry Potter. And don’t forget those wonderful Brits who convert to Islam, like shoe-bomber Richard Reed. What a travesty!
When Vishal Mangalwadi joined me in the office the next morning, I told him about my reading experience and how badly it had bothered me. Vishal immediately said that the present- day Indian church is failing in the exact same manner. He mentioned
as an example the attacks of Hindu journalist/politician Arun Shourie against the gospels a few years ago. I was in Calcutta then and read them each week as they came out in The Asian Age newspaper. He had used his connections to write full paged, syn- dicated articles attacking the Bible for several Sundays in a row, culminating
on Easter Sunday. (Apparently, some-
one forgot to tell him that Hindus are
tolerant of all religions!) The amazing
thing about it was he was using old,
outworn, nineteenth-century argu-
ments against Christianity. A few
weeks later, one Christian leader gave
a pathetic, insipid reply in the op-ed
section of the Asian Age, but that was
it. The rest of the Indian church was
publicly quiet.
I mentioned the articles to some col- leagues at the Bible college where I taught. Some were unaware of them and others seemed rather sheepish, as if the articles might be shaking their faith as well! One person said that maybe RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries) or some such group should write a response. But no one from any of the well- funded seminaries in India ever said or wrote a word. Nor did any of the well-paid church bishops, who in addition to their salaries get free housing and transportation. Several years later, they still remain silent! And not only that, there is more
to the scandal. In 1989, Sita Ram Goel wrote his “History of Hindu- Christian Encounters” (Voice of India Publishing). Around the same time, Voice of India also published “Psychology of Prophetism.” Over twelve years later, the Indian church still has NOT responded to these attacks against Christianity. When Arun Shourie wrote “Missionaries in India,” (1994) only one person, Vishal Mangalwadi, responded with a book. No one has of yet answered his newest anti-Christian polemic, “Harvesting our Souls.”
I mentioned the articles to some col- leagues at the Bible college where I taught. Some were unaware of them and others seemed rather sheepish, as if the articles might be shaking their faith as well! One person said that maybe RZIM (Ravi Zacharias International Ministries) or some such group should write a response. But no one from any of the well- funded seminaries in India ever said or wrote a word. Nor did any of the well-paid church bishops, who in addition to their salaries get free housing and transportation. Several years later, they still remain silent! And not only that, there is more
to the scandal. In 1989, Sita Ram Goel wrote his “History of Hindu- Christian Encounters” (Voice of India Publishing). Around the same time, Voice of India also published “Psychology of Prophetism.” Over twelve years later, the Indian church still has NOT responded to these attacks against Christianity. When Arun Shourie wrote “Missionaries in India,” (1994) only one person, Vishal Mangalwadi, responded with a book. No one has of yet answered his newest anti-Christian polemic, “Harvesting our Souls.”
The fault, however, does not lie with
the Indian Church alone, but with
the Western missions groups that
pour untold millions of dollars into
India. These groups seem not to have
learned anything at all from the fail-
ures of both English and American
Evangelicalism. For they will invest
millions of dollars to send western
tracts, dig wells, build hospitals,
and give free food to impoverished Muslims in India. But if someone requests a few thousand dollars to help Indian Christian thinkers do some serious research and writing, they are ignored.
Each generation of leaders in each nation will be accountable for the sheep in their care. They will answer for it at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Which reminds me...possibly no other group in church history was more aware of the Judgment Seat of Christ than the nineteenth-century English Evangelicals. They were, in fact, overly aware of it, almost to the point of neurosis. How devastatingly ironic it
is that those same people will have to give an account at the Judgment Seat of Christ for losing entire generations, starting with their own children, because they were too lazy to challenge the wolves at the door.
May the Indian church awake before it ends up in the same defeated place, guilty of the blood of its own sheep that it cared not to defend!
and give free food to impoverished Muslims in India. But if someone requests a few thousand dollars to help Indian Christian thinkers do some serious research and writing, they are ignored.
Each generation of leaders in each nation will be accountable for the sheep in their care. They will answer for it at the Judgment Seat of Christ.
Which reminds me...possibly no other group in church history was more aware of the Judgment Seat of Christ than the nineteenth-century English Evangelicals. They were, in fact, overly aware of it, almost to the point of neurosis. How devastatingly ironic it
is that those same people will have to give an account at the Judgment Seat of Christ for losing entire generations, starting with their own children, because they were too lazy to challenge the wolves at the door.
May the Indian church awake before it ends up in the same defeated place, guilty of the blood of its own sheep that it cared not to defend!
- Jonathan W Rice, IJFM,
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thank you for leaving your thoughts. Please live a life of Joy today.