THE DARK SIDE OF CHRISTIAN HISTORY

The Dark Side of Christian History

The Dark Side of Christian History by Helen Ellerbe: Morningstar and Lark, Orlando Florida, 1999 ISBN 0-9644873-4-9

     This is the sort of book that I had to force myself through. It was not so much the purported subject matter but rather the author's not-so-well-hidden agenda. This is not an overview of the crimes of the Roman Catholic Church and the Protestant churches except insofar as these can be slotted into Ellerbe's real purpose. This purpose is to argue against Christianity and for pop-religious New-Age "spirituality" with a thin veneer of corrupted feminism. The author makes her intentions abundantly plain in the Introduction for fostering "sexism, racism, the intolerance of difference and the 'desecration' of the natural environment". It would be hard to find such a crystal clear expression of trendy leftism outside of the academy. Social class is conspicuous by its absence. So is the concept of hierarchy in general, the role of government and individual freedom (beyond sacred differences deified by a subculture). There is a vague bow to "self-determination" but no indication that this might extend to the infidels outside of the politically-correct charmed circle. It almost certainly doesn't.

     The author genuflects in her introduction to the fact that there were "alternative Christianities" in the early centuries of the Church. As might be expected from the blindfolded world view of the 'New-Age' she lavishes particular praise on the Gnostics. She also mentions the Essenes. As might be expected her knowledge of these theologies is incredibly superficial, probably drawn from other neo-mystic books that bear the same resemblance to reality as Stalinist propaganda does. The Gnostics, in the majority of cases amongst their crazy-quilt writings, were far more "anti-nature" than any orthodox theologian could ever be. Despite the lies of the orthodox their beliefs were quite ascetic, and their "hidden knowledge" consisted of an over-elaborated mythology the knowledge of which was supposedly the key to escaping the inevitably corrupt world. I know...consistency and facts are part of that great evil "science" that also has to be abolished for the dreaded New Age to dawn. Ellerbe gets well into this later.

     The author goes on to belabour the misogynist nature of early orthodox Christianity. No doubt true, but the Christological content of the early disputes is simply ignored. It's of no interest to her purpose. The economic interactions of Church and state in the Roman Empire are slighted in favour of ideological argument (or assertion). This assertion continues through the first part of the book, and the author's only digression from passing over heresies other than her favourite ones is a condemnation of the Church's disapproval of Origen's idea of reincarnation. There is little doubt that this is part of the author's ideology/theology. We also get a discussion of sex, free will and compulsion/authority though, once more, innocent of what the people at the time considered important. History is supposed to be history, not an ideological "read-back".

     Ellerbe then passes on to medieval times. She states rather than proves that it was the influence of the Church that led to the decline of the West in this period. Sort of extending Gibbon way beyond his wildest ambitions. She goes so far as to say that the practice of "bleeding" in medieval times was due to "the Monks". Go figure ! She mentions many of the "sins" of the medieval Church and misses many more. No doubt Christianity was not a "creative force" in this period, but the author implies that it was responsible for the vast picture of western decline. Barbarian invasions are, of course, irrelevant. The reality was that Christianity and its influence were contradictory , as the Marxists are fond of saying. Some of its actions were beneficial and some were malevolent. Such fine distinctions, however, escape the author.

     The author cites the monumental corruption of the medieval Papacy, something that is well established. The very corruption of the Renaissance Popes, however, was progressive in its own way. The logic of the times also dictated that the Papacy become a secular power, and many of its crimes were for "reasons of state" rather than the abstract motivations that Ellerbe likes to move in. In the end the Church was pretty much a mirror of the secular powers that it alternately fought and allied with, no better nor no worse. The atrocities that happened were typical of the age and might have been worse under some other sort of ideological "guidance" such as that of a more Gnostic Church. Ideology at the time was very much subservient to power politics.

     Ellerby passes a severe judgement on the Protestant Reformation. She denounces the common Protestant theories of free will (or lack thereof) and original sin without recognition of the disputes within Protestantism about such matters. She dates, strangely enough, the concept of an unitary God as opposed to a multiplicity of saints from this era. The veneration of saints is identified with the pantheistic, many faced. view of divinity that she favours. Yes, it is a bit of a stretch. She also notes the supposed rise of a more severe asceticism  which presumably is connected to the ideas of predestination and denial of free will. Once more remember the Gnostics that she has a superficial acquaintance with for how it could have been worse.

     In Chaper 8, The Witch Hunts: The End of Magic and Miracles" the author really hits her stride. Whatever she imagines the "witch craze" was actually a reversal of early Church opinion which opined that most of what was called "witchcraft" was ignorance and superstition. Pretty true actually, though such "witchcraft" was considered orthodox when properly covered with a Christian veneer. The campaign against "witchcraft" was never so extensive as the author imagines.

     The Inquisition played a prominent role in the "witch hunt". Whatever the author says however, the main motive behind this was self-interest and bureaucratic expansion. The so-called "witches" only came into the purview of the 'Holy Office' during its decline when it was running out of real victims. The author (deliberately ?) refuses to examine the extent of the Inquisition's dealing with "witches" and how they compare with its total business. She relies only on anecdote and insinuation. Whatever Ellerbe's sympathies the mass of Inquisitorial victims were "heretics" rather than "witches" if for no other reason than that the estates of heretics were a better source of plunder. I guess, however, that this would spoil the author's narrative of a contest of ideas as opposed to one of interests.

     In Chapter 9 Ellerbe makes her purpose quite clear again with the title 'Alieniation From Nature', Uh huh ! She makes the ideological assertion that a Christian view of the world as "sinful" (once more a step down from her beloved Gnostics) led to some sort of "separation" that became a leitmotif of western society. Oh well, I guess that the vast majority of people who lived in rural areas until recent decades were "obviously" alienated because of this presumed ideology. Just to be obvious the author u8ses this opportunity to sing a little paean to pre-Christian paganism. This was supposedly "non-alienated". Yes, I'm sure !

     The author moves on to the modern age in Chapter 10, 'A World Without God'. In this chapter the author outdoes any of her Jesuit opponents by attempting (and failing in my opinion) to twist facts and logic to say that the modern science that has disproved so much of dogmatic religion is itself a mere development of said religion. Yes, it is quite a stretch, and an accusation that sticks much more to New-Age religiosity than to any secular viewpoint. But if logic and facts are "bad things" and (cough, cough) "alienating" then you can "prove" anything you so damn well please.

     Of course we come face to face with the usual chintzy mystic "proof" of such a thing via a misinterpretation of the quantum world that the author has only a child's version of. Sighhhh ! It seems to occur pretty well everywhere in such a world. The author quotes a person named E.H. Walker to this effect;

     "...the universe is 'inhabited' by an almost unlimited number of conscious, usually non-thinking (oh, non-thinking consciousnesses - mm), entities that are responsible for the detailed working of the universe"

     Once more, uh-huh. God, or gods if you like, as cosmic obsessive compulsives. Ellerby fails to see the humour is such a statement. For those who are interested you can look up this "authority" that the author quotes. For instance you can see his tax-dodge "Cancer Institute" via 'Charity Navigator' where the "fund-raising" expenses are quoted as $10,149,158, the cost of "Administration" (mostly his widow actually) as $457,040 and the tiny, little beast of "programs" at the end as $290,174. There again you can look Walker up on Wikipedia. This long time US military researcher no doubt did his research in an "ant-sexist, anti-racist respect for 'difference' and the natural environment" manner. It has to be true by the worldview of the author because he is "spiritual". I hope his victims in the Third World appreciate such a refined soul.

     I guess the reader can estimate how much I disliked this book. From the opening when she presents her opinion that controlling people through "dictating and controlling their spirituality is the most (sic) insidious and damaging slavery of all" her agenda is quite clear. In a backhand way this book presents a bare-bones account of the "dark side" of Christianity, but the historical facts are treated superficially because of the much more important (to the author) need to fit them into her ideology. It would have been better to present a more thorough history rather than spend effort in trying to hammer square pegs into round holes.

Measuring ghosts

MEASURING GHOSTS
     A recent article in Science Translational Medicine asks the question "Can We Measure Autism ?" To my mind this begs the question, "is there really something called "autism" that we should be trying to measure ?". The authors Isaac S. Kohane and Alai Eran inadvertently make the case in the negative. They first of all note the controversy that recent changes in the "psychiatric Bible", the DSM, have provoked. To their credit they mention the "changes in funding" behind some of the debate, though they stop short of a robust criticism of the "mental illness complex" as a money making industry. They also mention how the DSM classifications "strike at the heart of our own identities as autonomous human beings" without going on to criticize the whole enterprise as a method whereby some people exercise power over others. Finally they admit the obvious, that mental health "diseases" simply don't have the "robust and definitive" criteria that is demanded in other fields of medicine.

     The authors, however, are reformers rather than abolitionists. They lay out a series of criteria for diagnosing autism spectrum disorder (the present fashionable name). These would include 1)agreement of the key features of a disorder/disease, 2)agreement on how such features are to measured clinically and 3)a pathway from such measurements to a clinical label that provides useful information on both prognosis and treatment, including estimates of the effectiveness of such treatment. They admit that, "Until recently, ASD diagnoses did not meet most of these criteria.".

     Are the more "recent" criteria any better ? The authors go on to honestly admit that even "expert" (let alone the way that autism is usually diagnosed) ways of diagnosing (labelling ?) autism are wildly variable, and they admit the possibility and even likelihood "do not impart sufficient diagnostic or prognostic accuracy to be clinically useful". Mind you these are the efforts of the recent experts. They also admit the "remarkable individual differences" in response to such interventions. Without, of course, ever invoking the need for evidence based medicine. What is the natural course of the so-called disease if people don't work on it and its carrier ? What is the natural rate of recovery ?

     The authors mention the large body of research in real scientific fields about the supposed causes of "autism", and they edge close to saying that supposed "co-morbidities" may in  fact reflect that autism is, in fact, many different things masquerading under a label that is-my opinion- financially convenient for a large number of "people manipulators". They also state that verifying such research will require a much larger data analysis than has been done to date. The authors have great hopes that the diagnosis of "autism" will be improved through a thorough analysis and combination of the objective signs being investigated (as opposed to the subjective way that the label is presently applied). Their hopes are that coming to a diagnostic decision about autism will more closely resemble real medicine like the diagnosis of heart disease where many lines of evidence are considered. They do, however, admit reality, that "the multimodal approach remains untested".

     Kohane and Eran end their editorial with their vision of a wide data connection net that might actually make autism diagnosis an objective and useful enterprise. They, as reformers, make their bows to the various institutions which presently profit from autism - "research, clinical care, school, home". After mentioning holy four they give an afterthought to "individuals, with their consent". The mind boggles at the thought of a child or adolescent facing such a gathering of power having enough will and guile to escape their kindly embrace without bringing down the inevitable punishment hidden behind the mask of caring. It is significant that they end their essay by calling for data sharing amongst the holy four. The "patient" is left out of the loop here.

     I have to admit that the reforms being proposed can seem quite attractive. They are, however, fitted into a mindset that accepts both the power of this branch of the psychiatric industry and some underlying reality to the label presently being used. While not being an expert I can read the studies being done and recognize some glaring problems with them. An historical scepticism seems in order. I have an old medical book from the 1930s in my library that parses out over 20 different forms of the mental disease called "masturbation". The idea that there was no such disease would have seemed perverse (pun !) to the author. Nowadays the author himself would be the perverse one.

     Psychology and psychiatry are not sciences in any non-ideological sense of the term beyond some rather basic findings. These are where real science is done in these disciples. The rest is very much smoke and mirrors, the smoke coming from the burning of huge piles of public money and small piles of private money spent by those who want to fill their time with useless and usually painful pursuits. The way I see it "autism" is very much like the label "schizophrenic". Both labels conceal a reality of many, many, many different real diseases under a useless generalization. I don't doubt that both schizophrenics and autistics contain large populations that do have legitimate diseases, but the popularity of a catch-all label impedes both diagnostic and therapeutic efforts to deal with these matters. For instance many labelled "autistic" may indeed have gastrointestinal upsets. BUT giving them a secondary diagnosis of autism means that the real problem remains unaddressed. The signs become the focus rather than the cause.

     Ignoring real diseases and "treating" things that are nothing but misplaced words is like putting problems down to demonic possession and imagining that rituals of exorcism are some sort of "treatment". There is finally the question of whether there is anything wrong at all in at least some cases. I'm not of the opinion that labels like autistic or schizophrenic don't disguise at least some real medical problems- many not one. There is, however, the example of masturbation that I mentioned above. In that case the whole intricate system of medical (and popular) superstition was utterly false. How much of what is now described by psychiatric labels is also totally imaginary ? How much is also much better dealt with by literature or philosophy rather than "medicine" ?

     That is the sort of question I would like to leave with the reader. That is why I think that attempts to reform a modern witchhunt by increased rigour are very much asking us to "measure ghosts".

"Genetic Horoscopes"
From the "made in the USA Department":
The August 3, 2006 edition of Nature Magazine contains a news article on a new scam now being offered in the USA. The scam is basically that a company advertises over the Internet that it can do "DNA analysis" and report back on the risk of future ailments. Affiliated companies- of course- then offer nutritional supplements that purport to reduce the risk of the diseases discovered by these "tests". The supplements are nothing but multivitamins dispensed with a hefty dose of quack medicine theories.
The US Government Accountability Office (GAO) conducted an investigation using the DNA of only two people in their submissions, a 48 year old man and a nine month old girl. The "results" from 4 companies surveyed were "contradictory and warned of various conditions". The study posed as 14 different individuals and the "results" for the 14 "individuals" differed even if the DNA was the same.
Littler better than your horoscope in the newspaper. Perhaps worse, but, once more, never trust anything with the adjective "natural" attached to it.