An Evangelist Confronts Hovind
4 June 2001
Dear (Name withheld),
Attached are my comments [May 19] on the two Hovind videos, which we discussed briefly at last night’s fellowship meeting. At that meeting, I had the chance to see a bit more of Hovind’s work, from what was apparently a newer video.
My comments in the present letter are offered in the context of events that preceded the meeting; testimonies given during the meeting; and responses to Hovind’s video offered by guests at the meeting.
The night before the meeting, I participated in subduing and praying for a
young man who was under the influence of drugs and alcohol, as well as
(apparently) evil spirits. It was my first such experience, and as such
encounters go, it wasn’t a particularly dramatic one. However, even such
an unremarkable example showed the power of God’s love and of Christ’s
name. Testimonies given at the meeting before viewing the Hovind video
reinforced those points. I feel fortunate to live in this region, where
I’m continually awed by God’s power as I learn more about the spread of
Evangelical faiths among the indigenous peoples. It’s been a profound
experience to realize that many whom I pass on the sidewalks are saintly people
who suffered for their faith. Similarly, many among our Fellowship are
giants in my estimation: Believers who have spread the Gospel selflessly, at
great cost to health, etc.
How dismaying, then, to see other Believers view with admiration a video in
which Kent Hovind smears those who believe the Theory of Evolution, by showing
how Nazis used it (actually, they twisted it) to support their racial
theories. Hovind’s attack is obtuse, intellectually dishonest, and vile.
(1)
Unfortunately, other Hovind videos show these tactics to be typical of Hovind,
and it would appear that he employs them to the approval and positive delight
of many Believers.
I find this disturbing. Will we convince people that Christianity is true by choosing an obviously dishonest man to defend it? Even by the secular world’s standards, Hovind is ill-mannered and deceitful; how much more so by our own?
Some Believers hold that it takes a man like Hovind to combat teaching of evolution and the Big Bang in the schools, and that his character assassinations, straw-man arguments, and other deplorable tactics are justified by the importance of the struggle. I would implore such Believers to reconsider this stance, for several reasons.
Firstly, this stance is a familiar one: “the ends justify the means”. Surely we know the dangers of such thinking; how many of the Church’s errors and abuses, both historically and here in this region, are attributable to similar rationalizations of behaviors and policies that were clearly wrong? Do we believe that we can avoid falling into the same errors if we adopt the same manner of justifying our behavior?
Secondly, if personal testimonies of converts in this region are to be
believed, the Gospel spread here because Christians succeeded where shamans
failed. The sick were cured, curses were broken, and people gave up their
traditional habits of drinking and fighting, thereby becoming peaceful and
prosperous. Of course this did not happen every time, but it happened
often enough that Christianity spread phenomenally, sometimes to areas that no
missionaries had yet visited. It’s difficult to argue with the results of
successful power encounters [with evil spirits], combined with Christ’s
teaching on how we are to treat our enemies.
This, I think, is precisely where Hovind would get us into trouble.
Having experienced first-hand the fruits of living a godly life, even in the
face of physical persecution and black magic, the convert is now to believe
that he is justified in slandering people who hold to a different cosmology,
even if they hold such views honestly and innocently. This is
contradictory, and a betrayal of what the converts have learned. We have
no right to expect any long-term good to come of it. (2)
Finally, we must consider our duty to Hovind. Honorable Believers differ regarding whether it is possible for a Christian to lose his salvation, but all will agree that a Believer who is flagrantly sinning must be counseled and, if necessary, disciplined. We do so out of concern for the errant individual as well as for the body of Believers.
What do we say, then, for the idea not only of countenancing Hovind’s behavior, but actively encouraging him in it because we find it useful? As I explain in the attached comments, Hovind is straying very far from God in this area of his life, and we are wronging him by failing to confront him about his behavior.
Yours in Christ,
Jim Smith
P.S. I do need to mention something about textbooks’ discussions of
evolution and the Big Bang. If Hovind wishes to criticize textbooks, he
will find plenty of support among scientists, who continually bemoan textbooks’
wretched teaching of science. Where many Creationists go wrong is in
holding bad teaching of these theories against the theories themselves, and
indeed against the very scientists who bemoan that bad teaching.
For example, Piltdown Man shouldn’t appear in any science textbook, except as a
cautionary example of a successful scientific fraud. However, inclusion
of Piltdown Man in textbooks is in no way reflects upon the theory of evolution
itself, or upon present-day scientists who recognize it as a fraud and are not
responsible for the textbooks’ contents. Nor are evolutionists responsible for
Nazi racial theories, any more than gun manufacturers are responsible for
criminal misuse of their products. If we were to believe otherwise, we
would have to accept that Christianity is invalidated by the frauds, crimes,
and atrocities committed in its name, and that Jesus Himself, and Believers
collectively, are to blame for the Inquisition, religious wars, and the blind
eye that many Believers turned to the Holocaust. (3)
Such subtleties seem lost upon Hovind, but will be seized upon by activist
nonBelievers.
Footnotes:
1. Besides being dishonorable, such attacks are at best ineffective, and more often deservedly counterproductive: nonBelievers know that wars of extermination and feelings of racial superiority existed long before the Theory of Evolution. Moreover, nonBelievers are quick to point out that religious differences have accounted for plenty of vicious wars of their own. (See articles on the Thirty Years’ War, Hussites, and Alexander Nevsky.) Such attacks make us look like blatant hypocrites to nonBelievers. Go back
2. Incidentally, we might note that while Dr. Ed Murphy
(author of The Handbook for Spiritual Warfare) believes that the Bible is
without error wherever it touches upon scientific fields, he does not seem to
believe that other views of Genesis necessarily cripple spiritual
warfare. (Footnote 1 to Chapter 7, presented on p. 543 of the 1996
edition.)
Go
back
3. Believers who insist upon blaming the theory of
evolution for Nazism should note that Hitler’s modern-day admirers cite
biblical support for similarly odious racial theories. If nonBelievers
were to attack the Bible on that basis, would Hovind accept such attacks as
valid? He should, if he is to be consistent. For that matter,
Christianity’s own record of persecuting Jews, plus Christian nations’
reluctance to shelter Jewish refugees from Nazi Europe, makes us look like a
pot calling the kettle black when we blame evolution for Nazi crimes. Go back