First print review of the new book … and my take
11 10 2007
Mountain Xpress has published a dual review by Duke University teacher Seth Howland. Howland took a look at my book side-by-side with The Preacher and the Presidents, a new offering from Time magazine writers Nancy Gibbs and Michael Duffy. (Read my review of their book here.)
While Howland, an evangelical Christian, gives predictable credit to Graham’s putative “good works,” and has strong disagreements with my take on Graham’s later career, I think the review is largely a fair one. The only specific complaint I would offer is his use of the word “specious” to describe some of my sources. Wrong. I may or may not have overlooked exculpatory evidence, but my sources are all academically solid.
An example of our different takes: Howland sees Graham’s entry into the Soviet Union over Ronald Reagan’s objections as an example of the minister taking the moral high ground. I see it as opening a new market. In essence, all of the good ascribed to Graham comes down to belief that his beliefs are valid. To my way of thinking he has profited enormously from selling an untestable hypothesis.
But I am, notwithstanding specific quibbles, humbled by the seriousness with which my work is being considered now that it is out in the world. As Howland fairly concludes:
“Even so, The Preacher and the Presidents and The Prince of War render a valuable service. By providing conflicting accounts of a life lived in the public eye, these two books reveal the fundamental difficulty of biography. If the authors have failed to offer perspective on every aspect of Graham’s career, they nonetheless move conversations about his legacy forward.”
Who could ask for anything more?
You know the seriousness or a review or a book when you read one that thinks with you, not tell you what to think. Your book seems to conclude on Graham’s actions purely based on your prejudices towards Christianity itself, not on the political activism of the Christian Right. The review, coming from a Christian, seems so much more balanced.
Graham is a fallible human being and his errors are serious- Christians need to study them and sharpen their understanding of applying Christianity to world affairs. That said, he is not a complete fake as you make him out to be. When a Christian is told that he is out to sell his faith for personal profit, he is hurt. But then when you look at the alternatives that the mocker has to offer, you see just emptiness. It’s easy to throw stones, Mr. Bothman; it’s far tougher to build a house. I’m afraid you have simply thrown a stone. Thanks for whatever good it gives us, and I hope you realize it’s potential to hurt or mock someone else’s faith- simply for your personal profit, perhaps?
I would only hope that my book will be judged on its content, not reviews by others—though, as a frequent book reviewer and review reader myself, I recognize the value of reviews in guiding us in our reading choices.
The chief difficulty I see with a review of my work by a Christian is that problem I cited above. If you start with the assumption that a public figure’s work is “good,” it must necessarily color your conclusions. It is true that I don’t embrace Graham’s faith, but my book analyzes the advice he has given to presidents and world leaders throughout his career. That advice can be judged on its own merits, without regard to religious faith. That is the whole basis for the separation of church and state embodied in our Constitution.
I didn’t start in on my research with any assumptions about Graham’s works, other than that he espouses an unproveable hypothesis in his religious crusades. What I sought to evaluate was his political activity.
After twenty years as an investigative reporter and more than five years of research on this book, including extensive travel for research, employment of professional researchers and editors, etc., I do hope for some recompense for my effort. And I have never mocked Graham’s faith.