A Noble Tradition

Book Burning and Guilt

There is a long, respectable tradition of book burning in the Christian church.  We read in the Book of Acts that when the Gospel of our Lord began to take hold of large numbers of families in Ephesus that a widespread fear began to fall upon that great pagan city.  As people came out of the horrors of pagan magical practices and were made sons and daughters of God through believing in Christ they disclosed and confessed the things they had been involved in before conversion.

So convicted were they of the evil of pagan witchcraft and magical rites that they brought all their books of magical practices--that is books of secret arts, rites, spells, curses, sexual deviancy, and demon respect--and burnt them publicly.  It was some bonfire--around fifty thousand pieces of silver's worth.  (Acts 19: 17-20)  On the assumption that a piece of silver represented about an ounce, in today's debased coin that would represent a bonfire of around NZ$2.6m dollars worth of books going up in smoke. 

Now, of course, this was not a political stunt.  It was a public act of repentance and turning away from evil.  Since doubtless those books represented a dead past, and since for many there would be demonic powers associated with the books, burning them was not just an act of repentance and consecration, it was also to help secure liberation, in the same way that a converted alcoholic might systematically rid his house of alcohol, lest he fall under its thall again. 

So there is nothing wrong with book burning per se--although pseudo-intellectuals would disagree, seeing any rejection of any book an act of cultural philistinism.  The liberal intellectual prides himself on his urbane openness of mind towards any human thought or creation, except of course any criticism of his liberalism which is very definitely not to be tolerated. 

Some of the great libraries of antiquity have been destroyed, either through natural catastrophes such the destruction of Pompeii in AD79, or through human device such as the burning of the library at Alexandria during the invasion of Mark Anthony.  Without doubt these represent great historical loss.  There was nothing intrinsically evil in the books of magic burned in Ephesus.  Separated from the pagan cultural practices, and the demonic powers incarnated therein, the burned books could have provided much insight to scholars in our day of the nature of religion in the Roman Empire. No doubt it would be a tale of debasement, degradation, and evil--but it would be a tale that could be told without threat or danger--and one that would well prove helpful and cautionary.   

But in the situation and circumstances of Ephesus as people were coming out of captivity to the Devil into the freedom of Christ, destroying their magic books was the right thing to do.  However, it was not without political consequences, for the account in Acts goes on to tell us of a riot in that city that occurred afterwards as silversmiths found their market for shrines of the goddess Diana was shrinking due to the number of people becoming Christians.  The silversmiths, led by one Demetrius, took offence at the "offence" given to the goddess and led a riot that threatened the city itself.  (Acts 19: 23-28)

Fast forward to the present.  A pastor in the US orders the burning of the Koran, wanting to call attention to its prescription for evil violence.  As a result, some Islamic folk in Afghanistan take offence and murder some UN aid workers.  In response some excited members of the Commentariate in the US accuse the pastor of committing murder.  Yet again blood libel rears its head. 

But let's think this through more sensibly.  We know neither the pastor, nor his motivations, but we assume that members of his flock were not recent converts coming out of Islam who had previously been captive to the teachings of the Koran.  The situation, then, was different--very different--from that real serious book-burning in Ephesus two millennia ago.  It is likely that it was done to make a public point about the Koran.  Now even here we ought not to rush to judgment.  There are numerous instances of God's servants publicly enacting scenes to get a point across to an audience.  One thinks of Jeremiah and Ezekiel and Hosea for example. 

A relevant question to ask is, Which of the commandments did this pastor break?  Well, possibly he is guilty of gratuitous offence to Islamic believers--but even here the case needs to be made carefully, not just asserted.  We are conscious that any Christian witness might be so labelled as gratuitous offence to Unbelievers, leading to demands that Christians be silenced. 

As to the murders that transpired as a reaction to the pastor's order of Koran burning we must be very, very clear.  The responsibility for that breaking of the sixth commandment, Thou shalt not murder, rests totally with the perpetrators.  Anyone who suggests otherwise is guilty of blood libel. Aaron Worthing at Patterico makes the point very well in a piece entitled, "Don't Burn the Bible, or This Kitten Gets It!" by making reference to Abraham Lincoln who, when campaigning for the presidency, was libellously accused by his opponents. 

In 1860, long before he was the Republican nominee for President, he confronted fears that this union would break if the nation dared elect a Republican president, addressing his remarks to the South:

But you will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is [clever]. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “[Give me your money], or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me – my money – was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

(Old-timey slang replaced with modern language.)  The metaphor works perfectly.  What the robber demanded of Lincoln—his money—was his own and he had a clear right to keep it.  But it was no more his own than my God-given right to freedom of speech and freedom of religion is my own, and the threat of death to extort Lincoln’s money, and the threat of death to strangers to extort my silence, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.

Or, put another way, any suggestion that the pastor was guilty of murder because of his acts is as stupid and duplicitous as the suggestion that Lincoln was guilty of murder because he was killed for refusing to give up his money to a thief demanding with menace.  Yet this is precisely what Joe Klein, a nationally recognised journalist/commentator has argued in Time Magazine:

But there should be no confusion about this: [Pastor] Jones’s act was murderous as any suicide bomber’s. If there is a hell, he’s just guaranteed himself an afterlifetime membership.

Really.  On this basis, Paul would be guilty of inciting a rioting in Ephesus, Jeremiah guilty of Nebuchadnezzar's sack and execution of thousands in Jerusalem, former Moslems who become Christians would be guilty of their own murders when they are honour-killed, and our Lord would be guilty of the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70.  Methinks, Mr Klein that you had better repent before the Hell which you interdict upon the head of the pastor falls upon you.  Blood libel is no trifle.  May our Lord have mercy upon you and bring you to your senses before it is too late.