For Captive, Book Offers New Purpose : "Ashley Smith, who was held captive for 7 1/2 hours by the man accused of killing an Atlanta judge and three others, told interviewers Monday that a passage from Warren's book seemed to help persuade her captor to set her free."
'This is, I would say, one of the more dramatic, if not the most dramatic [testimonials] I'm aware of,' said Vicki Cessna, spokeswoman for Christian publisher Zondervan in Grand Rapids, Mich. 'Obviously the book has had far-reaching, life-changing influences for millions of people. We're just honored that this in any way helped facilitate a positive outcome for Ashley.'
This bothers me. I should be clear, I have not read Warren's book and really don't intend to. Part of it is my distrust of most of this popular Christian stuff, that, in my mind, tends to simplify the complex and ignore broader contexts that really need to be explored.
The other part of me says that if this type of book, or the Prayer of Jabez stuff (with its companion marketing crap) helps someone, then that is fine. I still believe the church would be better off reading deeper theological writings, but I suspect that even stuff like Thomas Kinkade (that makes me wince) is helpful to some.
The publisher's response, however, speaks to that other part of me that really distrusts the magical side of Christianity. You know, the stories about the pocket bible that stops a bullet, or the family bible that survives a fire, or whatever. (I have also heard of a 69 cent bic pen deflecting a bullet too, but you don't see people praying to the pen.) In a different time, the fact that people would treat a book by some pastor with the same magical qualities would have disturbed conservative Evangelicals, but not today. Just as the Passion's success proves that Mel was telling the truth about the Crucifixion, the fact that a murderer was intrigued by Warren's book is supposed to display God's hand.
The simplistic explanations sell, but they ultimately don't convince. I remember James Dobson telling people that Ted Bundy became a serial killer because of porn. And he knew that because Bundy told him. A man who had practiced deceit to lure young women to their death was his evidence. Imagine the scene Dobson could create now if he can only find that this killer read porn as a kid and then was stopped from killing one more person by Rick Warren.
Well, to each his own, I guess. But I will pass on the Rick Warren. And the Tim LaHaye, and the Jerusalem Prayer Team.
2 comments:
I'm not sure if Dobson actually blamed Ted Bundy's actions on pornography. I do remember him saying that one of the basic traits of a serial killer is an addiction to porn. The latter view is true, at least on the surface, but also false for several reasons. As you point out, Streak, there's some vast oversimplification going on.
As Dobson should have learned in Psych 101, correlation does not mean causation. Does porn cause violent behavior, or are violent people drawn to porn? On top of that, MANY male serial killers were also sexually abused as children, which adds an entirely new dimension to things. Male serial killers also tend to act out violent bondage scenarios, which again makes for a far more complex portrait than Dobson's paint by numbers analysis.
Then there's the false assumption that serial killers are mostly male. But that's because female serial killers are less likely to be caught. The female serial killer is more likely to smother or poison a victim, instead of killing in a more violent way. So who knows how many female serial killers there are working in hospitals and in nursing homes.
Kevin, you might be right. I remember the interview (vaguely) and remember Dobson linking Bundy to porn.
The female serial killer thing is actually quite interesting. A book a few years ago "When she was bad" details how biased Americans have been about exploring violent behavior. Most studies on the subject focus on males and ignore female aggression completely.
Post a Comment