The Gospel Coalition

For a long time now I’ve been meaning to read more of Thomas Sowell. His Basic Economics has long been on my list of things to do, as has Economic Fallacies. As it stands, Intellectuals and Societies is only the second of his books I’ve read (after The Housing Boom and Bust). This book is really a broadside against the people who influence our society with their ideas. It is a book that takes aim at intellectuals, and especially those who deliberately avoid accountability for what they believe and what they teach. The “places to which intellectuals tend to gravitate tend to be places where sheer intellect counts for much and where wisdom is by no means necessary, since there are few consequences to face or prices to be paid for promoting ideas that turn out to be disastrous for society at large.”

Of course a book dealing with intellectuals will need to provide a useful definition for this class of person. Here Sowell says simply that an intellectual is a person whose end product is ideas and whose validation process involves only peers. Accountable only to their peers (which is no real accountability at all), intellectuals are free to create outrageous ideas and to influence society with them. And yet they are almost never called to account for these ideas. It is obviously very dangerous to separate ideas from consequences, to allow people to propose and demand whatever they wish but without ever calling those people to account for their influence. And yet this is precisely what happens with intellectuals. Says Sowell, “the ultimate test of a deconstructionist’s ideas is whether other deconstructionists find those ideas interesting, original, persuasive, elegant, or ingenious. There is no external test.”

Through the book, Sowell looks to several areas of society and shows where and how intellectuals have had their influence. He looks to economics, social vision, media, academia, law and war. In each case he shows how intellectuals have influenced society, how their ideas have become part of the cultural engagement and how, almost inevitably, the effects have been negative. He shows that ultimately what intellectuals crave is power and authority, especially moral authority. “In many ways, on a whole range of issues, the revealed preference of intellectuals is to gain moral authority—or, vicariously, political power—or both, over the rest of society. The desires or interests of none of the ostensible beneficiaries of that authority or power—whether the poor, minorities, or criminals in prison—are allowed to outweigh the more fundamental issue of gaining and maintaining the moral hegemony of the anointed.” Those who are unaccountable point to their own intellectual superiority as grounds to express and maintain power over others.

Sowell’s view toward intellectuals in general is exasperation and, at times, ridicule. This ridicule is particularly entertaining in a book that, by virtue of the subject matter and the never-ending examples, is extremely frustrating. Sowell breaks up the frustration with the occasional penetrating and scornful comment: “Intellectuals who have never run any business have been remarkably confident that they know when businesses have been run wrongly or when their owners or managers are overpaid.” Or again, “It is hard to think of any decade within the past century when the intelligentsia were not embarked on some urgent crusade to save the world from some great danger to which ordinary folk were considered to be oblivious.” Or in case any doubt remains as to his position, “While virtually anyone can name a list of medical, scientific, or technological things that have made the lives of today’s generation better in some way than that of people in the past, including people just one generation ago, it would be a challenge for even a highly informed person to name three ways in which our lives today are better as a result of the ideas of sociologists or deconstructionists.”

I guess the irony in all of this is that Sowell himself is an intellectual. Yet he proves himself to be an intellectual with that rarest of all virtues–common sense. He does not allow ideology to cloud his judgment, permitting him to propose the outrageous and the destructive. His conservatism stands him in good stead. Meanwhile, his ability to communicate complex ideas to simple minds, allows him to write a book that though written about intellectuals, is not a book only for intellectuals. Anyone can read this book and benefit from it. And hopefully many will.

As the National Review writes, “Sowell takes aim at the class of people who influence our public debate, institutions, and policy. Few of Sowell’s targets are left standing at the end, and those who are stagger back to their corner, bloody and bruised.” In almost every case they deserve the beating they’ve received.

What strikes me as I read Sowell is the profound difference between intellect and wisdom. A man may be utterly brilliant, well-spoken and highly-regarded, the holder of endless academic credentials and acclaim from his peers. And yet he may be a complete fool. And doesn’t the Bible tell us just this? The book of Proverbs tells us with stark clarity that many who consider themselves wise are, in reality, foolish. The book of James ties wisdom to humility. There is little humility in today’s intellectuals and, sadly, very little wisdom. Sowell expends some effort in differentiating between intelligence and wisdom. “Intelligence minus judgment equals intellect. Wisdom is the rarest quality of all—the ability to combine intellect, knowledge, experience, and judgment in a way to produce a coherent understanding.” The harsh reality is that many intellectuals are bankrupt when it comes to wisdom. Too many intellectuals have never learned to be wise. They are foolish at heart and, inevitably, the ideas that define them are just as foolish. And in this book Sowell illustrates this time and time again. It is, I think, the enduring lesson of Intellectuals and Society.

Verdict: Read it to better understand how intellectuals shape society.

Politicians come and go, rise and fall. Few fall as quickly and with as little grace as John Edwards. Once a front-runner for the Democratic Presidential nomination, Edwards was undone by the news that while his wife of thirty years was battling cancer, he had been carrying on an affair and had even fathered a child with his lover. He rose far and fast and found that he could fall just as quickly. Voters are willing to put up with some scandals, but not this one. Edwards fell from grace and will never recover. His days as Presidential hopeful are long gone.

The story of Edwards’ meteoric rise and fall is told by Andrew Young in the book The Politician. Young first volunteered for Edwards in his 1998 campaign for the U.S. Senate. He remained in Edwards’ employ constantly after that point. He graduated from driving Edwards from event-to-event around his home state, to managing his schedule from his Senate office. Along the way he also became the guy who was tasked with cleaning up behind Edwards, hiding or erasing evidence of his boss’ indiscretions. He became like family, or perhaps like a domestic slave, seeing the Edwards’ at their best and their worst. Eventually this led him, at his boss’ bequest, to claim to be the father of Edwards’ unborn child.

“How, I asked, was I supposed to explain to my wife that I should confess an affair I never had, claim an unborn child that was not mine, and then bring her along with our family as we attempted to vanish into thin air?” Can you imagine having this conversation with your wife? And yet somehow Young did it and managed to convince his wife to play along; or, more likely, to convince her that at this point she had to play along. Thus began a bizarre couple of months of being on the run from the paparazzi, attempting to hide a truth that was only too apparent. Not surprisingly, no one was fooled.

Young’s account of his many years of unparalleled access to the Edwards family makes for fascinating reading that will serve to confirm the accounts of John and Elizabeth. Those who read it will be glad that Edwards never had the opportunity to become President. If his opinion of himself was so great as a “mere” Senator, we can only imagine what would have happened had he attained the highest office in the land. Presented as brilliant, astute and yet so self-absorbed that he was unable to see the cost of his poor decisions, Edwards is portrayed in a decidedly negative light. His wife Elizabeth suffers as well, shown to be angry, spiteful and power-hungry, willing to show public hypocrisy toward her husband in order to have the chance to become First Lady. Both accounts accord with what is widely known about the two.

What is more interesting, perhaps, is Young’s portrayal of himself. Having made a long series of monumentally bad decisions, and having spent years as little more than a gopher for his boss, constantly asked to do the most menial of tasks, Young is probably a little easier on himself than the outside observer would be. Though he does not refuse to put any blame on himself, neither does he really refuse to paint a picture of himself as the victim of a particularly charismatic and persuasive individual. In the end he borrows the pseudo-Christian spirituality of his father, the preacher Bob Young, and says that he should have just learned to love himself; this would have kept him from doing all he did. “If I had truly loved myself, I would have been ashamed of my own mistakes and lived in fear of being found out. If I had loved myself, I would not have felt the need to devote myself to a hero and his cause. If I had loved myself, I would have understood how much Cheri and the kids valued the time I spent with them and I would have said no to John and Elizabeth Edwards.” But I disagree with this fundamentally self-centered worldview. So does the Bible. What would have made the difference is if he would have loved himself less. Had he loved himself less and his wife and family more, he would have seen Edwards for who he was and would have walked away, to live life for and with his family. It was his own self-absorption that led to his enslavement to John Edwards. Only the blindest mind would refuse to see this in the pages of the book.

I find that the major lesson of The Politician has less to do with John Edwards and more to do with the author himself. What strikes me is how a man can hang his star on another person, trusting that the ascendancy of the other person will bring about his own ascendancy. This desire to become somebody on the coattails of someone else led Young to do things that cross from ill-advised to just plain dumb–epically dumb. Even when asked to do things that were immoral or illegal, Young was so bound to Edwards that to refuse his will would be to leave himself destitute and friendless. Of course eventually he ended up both destitute and friendless anyway. It was inevitable, really. The book of Proverbs seems to have all kind of wisdom that would have informed Young, if only he had taken its lessons to heart. These lessons are to be taught to young men. A guy of Young’s age should have known better.

Here we see a man who thought so highly of himself that he was willing to do anything, even at the expense of his own dignity and conscience, to satisfy the increasingly self-centered demands of another person. Yet it was in this other man that he hoped to find life. Edwards was an idol, not in the sense of someone he aspired to become, but someone in whom he sought to find life. And like any idol, Edwards proved cruel and remorseless and petty. He demanded much but offered only deferred and ultimately impossible joy. Young bound his life to this idol and suffered the inevitable consequences.

Verdict: Read it to see how the heart longs to find life in all the wrong places.

Ozzy Osbourne marvels at his own success. When he was a child no one (but no one!) would have predicted that of all the kids in his class, of all the kids on his street, he is the one who would go on to worldwide fame and acclaim. Of course we know now that he would go on to build himself into one of the original heavy metal stars, one of the first of a whole new breed of bad-boy rock stars who would be much-imitated and much-idolized. Both with Black Sabbath and as a solo artist, Osbourne will always have his place in the rock pantheon.

But that was only a portent of things to come. At the peak of his storied rock and roll career, no one (but no one!) would have predicted that greater popularity would follow. Always a fringe success, popular in the world of hard rock but not much beyond, suddenly Osbourne was loved, laughed with and laughed at by men, women, boys and girls as they enjoyed his antics and the inner workings of his almost unbelievably bizarre family. The Osbournes is undoubtedly one of the strangest cultural phenomena this side of Survivor. Season after season, countless millions tuned in.

Osbourne’s lifelong commitment to the epitome of all it means to be a rock star is well-known. Year after year, he pursued the desires of the flesh, the allure of wine, women and song. He hoovered up unimaginable quantities of every conceivable narcotic and chased it with never-ending rivers of alcohol. He pursued endless lines of women or, as often as not, enjoyed their pursuit of him. He had all he had ever wanted when he set out to make a name for himself as a rock ‘n roller.

So here he is, on the far side of sixty, reminiscing about his life, his career as a rock star and his shorter career as a television star. There is little regret expressed here; mostly just fond memories of days gone by, though those days were given over to every kind of vice. There is no redemption since redemption would depend upon an admission of wrong. Sure he says he’s gotten off and stayed off drugs and he says he’s mostly gotten away from the booze. But that is far different than expressing true regret. Even after all these years, he’s just the same old guy. It doesn’t seem that he has learned a whole lot along the way.

If you have ever spent a few minutes watching The Osbournes you will know that Ozzy shows the effects of all of those years of partying, not to mention the effects of dyslexia and a strange Parkinsons-like chromosomal defect. In I Am Ozzy he says that he has barely ever been able to read through a book; and yet here he has managed to write one that is well-written and clear in its prose; he says his memory is shot and yet he seems to be able to recall in detail so many events that took place many years ago. Obviously the book was written by or with a ghost-writer; that will come as no surprise. But does he really remember all of these days, all of these events that happened forty years ago? Or is this just a compendium of could-be-true tales drawn from dim memories? I find it hard to believe this book could be consistently factual.

I can’t help but feel that in this book Ozzy is being presented in a very strategic, very careful way. It’s like he is a product just as much as his albums are. And really, it seems that much of his career was a show, a shell. Ozzy was known as a force for the dark side, an outright Satanist who bit the heads off bats and drove countless impressionable young people to the occult. But he never bought into any of the Satanism. It was all just a ruse, a way of making people sit up and take notice. It was all part of his mystique, his carefully-constructed persona. Satanism was just a handy prop that drew legions of fans to his side–fans who were eager to try something, anything, that would be rebellious, that would be an outright show of defiance against God, against parents, against everything.

In one telling moment he writes “Y’know, I used to get upset by people not understanding me, but I’ve made a career out of it now. I even ham it up a bit, ‘cos it’s what people expect of me.” And even in this book I think he is giving people what they expect of him. Whether it’s the honest truth or not seems beside the point. He wants to tell a good story and to entertain people. The book is entertaining in its own way, I suppose, thought the reader’s enjoyment may well be tempered by the profanity of his mouth and of his life. The book is as crass, as given over to vice, as his life has been.

Osbourne says that “whatever I do, I do to excess.” And ain’t that the truth. His life has been one of constant excess. The only thing he seems not to have found in exceeding measure is joy. As he enters his seventh decade, he offers little reason to think that he is really enjoying life, that he has found true joy and happiness. His best days are behind him and there doesn’t seem to be much ahead. He has been an idol to millions, an influence upon a whole generation. And yet the only way he has to measure his life is in things–fat bank accounts, album sales, popularity. As he revels in his years of partying, of desperately seeking life in the arms and adulation of others, you can’t help but detect the emptiness, the gaping void at the heart of it all.

Verdict: Read it if… Honestly, who am I trying to fool? I can’t think of a single good reason.

Last week I wrote that the bestseller list had stabilized with an average of three new books added each week. Sure enough, this week saw exactly that new many new titles. I am finding that I can read three of these books per week without too much trouble; it is the fourth book that I just haven’t been able to get to without doing so at the expense of something else. And so I remain about one-and-a-half books behind. I still have yet to read Anticancer and am only halfway through Intellectuals and Society. Meanwhile, three new books have been added to my reading list.

Jumping straight to the #2 spot is Ozzy Osbourne’s I am Ozzy. This is (obviously) his memoir, telling the story of his life from childhood up to The Osbournes and beyond. I have no love for Osbourne or his music, so anticipate reading this book band-aid style–rip it off quickly and get it over with.

Starting at #3 on the list is Andrew Young’s tell-all The Politician. I have heard little about this book except that it utterly unmasks John Edwards. I am not a big fan of tell-alls, so am not entirely enthusiastic about reading this one. Nevertheless, I will prevail. Unfortunately it is not yet available in Kindle format, so I’ll have to read it in hardcover (which means paying hardcover prices).

And at #9 is Courting Disaster by Marc Thiessen. Here is the ultra-short description from the Times: “‘Enhanced interrogation’ saved American lives and Obama is risking them, a Bush speechwriter says.” Now that sounds more interesting. I bet the Times disagrees.

Rising fast just below the list is Freefall: America, Free Markets, and the Sinking of the World Economy by Joseph E. Stiglitz. That looks like quite an interesting title so I’m hoping it makes its way onto the list next week.

Patti Smith is the godmother of punk, punk long before it was cool to be so. Starting in the mid-seventies, she blended her beat poetry with three-chord rock and very quickly became the kind of artist that millions of others would aspire to. Her new book, Just Kids, hit the bestseller list almost as soon as it was released. A memoir of sorts, the book really traces just one aspect of her life–her relationship with the artist Robert Mapplethorpe.

Smith met Mapplethorpe on the streets of New York City when they were both just in their young twenties. They began a lifelong relationship, first as lovers and then as friends. Living the Bohemian lifestyle in New York, they traveled in the same Beatnik circles as Janis Joplin and Jimi Hendryx and many of the most prominent artists of the era. Smith’s memoir traces the early days of her relationship with Mapplethorpe when they were lovers, inseparable and much in love, to Mapplethorpe’s death in 1989 when they were just friends.

If you know anything of the life of Robert Mapplethorpe, you’ll know that he was openly and proudly homosexual. But he did not actually become homosexual until his early twenties, a couple of years after he met Smith. And even then he seemed to be conflicted, desiring first both and then neither. But eventually he came to terms with his homosexuality, a fact that was soon reflected in his art, much of which was highly-erotic and homosexual in nature. He began to document through photography much of the ugly underside of the homosexual lifestyle. But he and Smith remained fast friends, continuing to live together and continuing to support one another year after year. As Mapplethorpe became a sought-after photographer and as Smith became a highly-regarded musician, their paths continued to cross and their friendship remained. It remained until 1989 when Mapplethorpe’s lifestyle caught up with him and he died of complications arising from AIDS.

I found Just Kids a profoundly depressing book. I saw Smith and Mapplethorpe fall further and further into their sin, finding delight in the occult, getting more involved in drugs, and Robert increasingly giving himself over to homosexuality. They saw friend after friend fall prey to the Bohemian life they had chosen, succumbing to drugs and disease. Any happiness they found was fleeting, any joy directed only to the immediate gratification of their most self-centered desires. They both wanted to find fame and though both found it, it seems that it just drove happiness and purpose farther and farther away.

It is interesting to note that both grew up in religious households, Smith as the daughter of Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mapplethorpe as the son of faithful Roman Catholics. And yet both hated God, mocking him through their art and turning instead to what was Satanic, attributing their success more to Darkness than to Light. And not surprisingly, their life and their work reflects that darkness. The wages of sin is death, the Bible tells us. And the stench of death is all over the lives of both Smith and Mapplethorpe. It’s all over this book.

Verdict: Read it if you’re stuck on a desert island and this is the only book that washes ashore with you.

Looking back at the books that made their way onto the New York Times list of bestsellers in January, I was rather surprised to see that only one of them could rightly be termed a business book. Daniel Pink’s Drive, which is jointly filed under Business and Self-Help, concerns itself with “The Surprising Truth About What Motivates Us.”

“This is a book about motivation,” he says. “I will show that much of what we believe about the subject just isn’t so… The problem is that most businesses haven’t caught up to this new understanding of what motivates us. Too many organizations—not just companies, but governments and nonprofits as well—still operate from assumptions about human potential and individual performance that are outdated, unexamined, and rooted more in folklore than in science.” This is an interesting premise, isn’t it? What if the way we try to motivate people, say through using financial bonuses in the workplace, is not only ultimately ineffective but also downright de-motivating? What if we have gotten this all very wrong? That would be bad news, I guess. “The good news is that the solution stands before us—in the work of a band of behavioral scientists who have carried on the pioneering efforts of Harlow and Deci and whose quiet work over the last half-century offers us a more dynamic view of human motivation. For too long, there’s been a mismatch between what science knows and what business does. The goal of this book is to repair that breach.”

Reading through a Christian lens, I saw that Pink immediately got off to a bad start by setting “carrot and stick” motivation within an evolutionary lens. That is to say that motivation that depends on bonuses for good behavior and punishment for poor behavior is rooted in evolutionary behavior. As one who puts no stock in that kind of evolution, I am left looking for another explanation for what appears to be deep-rooted human behavior.

Pink distinguishes between three types of motivation that he calls Motivation 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0. Motivation 1.0 is instinctual, animal motivation or, in his worldview, the motivation of our simian ancestors. Motivation 2.0 says that the way to improve performance, to increase productivity, or encourage excellence is to reward the good and punish the bad. This is the motivation we most often see in the classroom and boardroom, but, he suggests, a kind of motivation that harms as much as it helps. This is especially true in creative work where it dulls rather than sharpens.

Pink proposes a new kind of motivation. Motivation 3.0 is a kind of internal motivation that arises at the confluence of autonomy, mastery, and purpose. These three terms play an important role in Drive. Autonomy is a natural human urge to direct our own lives; mastery is that desire to improve in our ability to do something that really matters; purpose is our desire to connect to something bigger than ourselves. Says Pink, “Human beings have an innate inner drive to be autonomous, self-determined, and connected to one another. And when that drive is liberated, people achieve more and live richer lives.”

At this point Pink introduces two kinds of behavior: Type X and Type I. Type X behavior is fueled by extrinsic rewards (“X” is for extrinsic, don’t you see?). Where we are mostly accustomed to Type X behavior, he pushes toward Type I which depends upon intrinsic rewards. Rather than being motivated only be extrinsic rewards such as year-end bonuses, we are motivated by the joy we take in what we do. Type I behavior depends upon these same three factors: autonomy, mastery and purpose. “Today economic accomplishment, not to mention personal fulfillment … depends not on keeping our nature submerged but on allowing it to surface. It requires resisting the temptation to control people—and instead doing everything we can to reawaken their deep-seated sense of autonomy. This innate capacity for self-direction is at the heart of Motivation 3.0 and Type I behavior.” Having introduced and defended Motivation 3.0, Pink provides a long list of resources for introducing it within organizations. He writes, for example, of one of today’s buzzwords: Results Only Work Environments, in which there are no set hours or locations; just get the work done and everyone’s happy. Maybe there is real benefit in rethinking how we work, even going so far as to rethink the Monday to Friday, 9 to 5 kind of workday.

I enjoyed reading Drive and found that it offered a multitude of interesting observations about human nature. Though the carrot and stick mentality seems to be deeply embedded in humans, either innately or perhaps culturally, I can see that a new kind of motivator may well suit us. Speaking personally, I know that I have found far more joy in situations where I’ve been self-directed and where I’ve found autonomy, mastery and purpose. Certainly those experiences have been far more beneficial than ones where I’ve been micro-managed and disenfranchised. And wouldn’t this make good sense from a theological perspective? God may resort to carrot and stick motivation when necessary (think of the Old Testament covenantal language in which God lays out a promise and obligation and the punishment due to those who violate the terms) but doesn’t God desire that we obey him freely and from the overflow of joy within? Doesn’t he desire that we worship and honor him out of delight rather than duty? That intrinsic motivation is so much more powerful, so much more fulfilling.

Drive is one of those books where I’d love to have a Christian “interpret” it. What I mean is that I’d love to hear a Christian who is knowledgeable about these kinds of business principles look at it through a Christian lens (I’m looking at you, Matt Perman). Many of the principles of the book will no doubt need to be discarded but many others will undoubtedly prove transferable by a mind far greater than mine.

As he brings the book to a close Pink writes, “A central idea of this book has been the mismatch between what science knows and what business does. The gap is wide. Its existence is alarming. And though closing it seems daunting, we have reasons to be optimistic.” Of course if there is a gap between science and business, the gap between theology and business must be greater still. I couldn’t help but think that in this book Pink unearths some truths about humans that are as much theological as they are scientific. Those principles, brought into a business, will surely have to change the way the business is run. And if business, why not ministry and classroom and the rest of life?

Verdict: Read it if you want to rethink how you are motivated and how to motivate others.

You knew I was going to enjoy reading this book. In Evidence of the Afterlife Jeffrey Long, M.D., looks at “The Science of Near-Death Experiences.” The book really just contains the results and analysis of the largest-ever scientific study of near-death experiences (NDE). The study researched over 1300 NDErs (near death experiencers) from around the world, seeking to understand what causes such experiences and what greater realities they may point to. Ultimately, says Long, they point us to the stark reality that there is life after death and that those who experience NDE are bringing back just a little bit of that afterlife with them.

Let me cover a couple of complaints right off the top. Though Long claims that this is a scientific study, I doubt many scientists would be thrilled with his use of the term. The study involves analysis of tales of NDEs submitted via his web site. Though he offers some anecdotal evidence and occasional source evidence, all of his statistical analysis comes from anonymous submissions to a form on his web site. Needless to say, this hardly constitutes scientific rigor. Further, the book is quite poorly-written. For a title published by a major publisher (HarperOne in this case) Evidence of the Afterlife has a childish quality to it, like it is a high school essay rather than a serious book.

The book is structured around nine separate lines of evidence that, when taken together, point to the existence of an afterlife. Some are meant to stand on their own while others are meant to show the consistency in NDEs, thus providing proof of their validity. In brief, here are those evidences: 1) The level of consciousness and alertness during NDEs is greater than it is in the rest of life, even though the NDErs are unconscious or clinically dead; 2) What NDErs see and hear in an out-of-body state is generally realistic and verifiable; 3) Normal or supernormal vision occurs in NDEs among those who are legally blind. In other words, during an NDE the blind experience vision; 4) Many NDEs occur under anesthesia when conscious experience should be impossible; 5) Life reviews during NDEs include real events, including events that have otherwise been forgotten; 6) When NDErs encounter others during their experiences, those other people are almost always already deceased; 7) The NDEs of children are essentially identical to those of adults who may be accused of having their experiences influenced by what they have heard of other NDErs; 8 ) NDEs are consistent around the world; 9) Most NDErs experience profound changes in their lives following an NDE. These after-effects are powerful and long-lasting, leading the NDErs to become better people.

Through his studies, Long has become a believer in NDEs, saying rightly, it seems, that they are spiritual experiences more than medical experiences. Though doctors are not able to explain NDEs through medical science, those who admit the existence of a Higher Power most certainly can. This is an important thread to follow. Almost all NDE survivors claim that they are now more spiritual than before their near-death experience. Isn’t it interesting that such experiences drive people toward spirituality rather than away from it? As a Christian, this ought to make me glad, right? Yet all is not well, for rarely does that new-found spirituality look anything like a biblical spirituality. “Although they don’t necessarily become more religious, NDErs often state that they become more spiritual, and with that change comes a belief in the sacredness of life and a special knowledge that serves to guide them the rest of their lives. … Near-death experiencers are virtually unanimous that the afterlife is for all of us, not just for those who have had NDEs. This is certainly consistent with their uniform description of the afterlife as a loving and inclusive realm, a realm for us all. For decades NDEs have been a message of hope to millions of people that there is an afterlife for both themselves and their loved ones.”

Uh oh. Very quickly we see that a New Age kind of spirituality is what NDErs return with. Though they claim to now know that God exists, many of them also come to see that we are all god. In the words of a typical survivor, “We live in a ‘plural unity’ or ‘oneness.’ In other words, our reality is ‘unity in plurality and plurality in unity.’ That I was everything and everything was me, without essential differences other than in earthly appearances. That there is no God outside ourselves, but rather, God is in everything and everything is a part of God, as is life itself.” Did you get that?

Many NDErs go further still, returning from their experiences to claim supernatural abilities, either during that experience or continuing after. Many claim that they were omniscient while they were near-dead, knowing all there is to know. Many claim to have brought back knowledge that they are now tasked with imparting to the rest of humanity . Others claim to have gained psychic abilities, especially in regard to empathizing with people’s moods and troubles. Most claimed that the NDE has left them with little or no fear of death. Having experienced death once, they feel prepared to face it again, knowing in their hearts that they will go to a better place for a better existence. Time would fail me to offer a point-by-point look at what the Bible teaches in contrast to the spirituality of these NDErs. Suffice it to say that on almost every point, NDEr spirituality is directly opposite to what the Bible teaches.

Looking at all of this evidence, and having determined that there is, indeed, an afterlife, Long says “Because NDEs happen to people all over the world, they are a spiritual thread that binds us together, a common experience that reminds us of our mutual spiritual nature.” Later he writes, “This book has important implications for religion. The great religions have always spoken of the belief in God and an afterlife. The evidence of near-death experiences points to an afterlife and a universe guided by a vastly loving intelligence. Near-death experiences consistently reveal that death is not an end but rather a transition to an afterlife. This is a profoundly inspiring thought for us all and for our loved ones. I hope that this book helps to promote such an encouraging message.” He even feels that an understand of our common end in the afterlife ought to be able to bridge us to worldwide peace.

Stuff and nonsense. Let me know how that works out for you, Dr. Long. World peace through NDEs may be one of the most ridiculous things I’ve heard in a long time. Of course as a Christian I have to grapple with asking exactly what a NDE is. It seems irrefutable that many people, when gravely injured and often when clinically dead, do experience something. The accounts are too common and too consistent to ignore entirely. So we see that such experiences do appear to exist and that they seem to lead directly away from what the Bible teaches us. What recourse do we have, then, but to state with some confidence that these experiences are somehow a trick of Satan? And would it not be just like the Enemy to use such an experience to convince people of their own divinity–to lead people as far from what is true as is possible? I am persuaded that NDEs do exist but that they exist to deceive, to provide false comfort, to provide false hope, to enslave, to trap, to destroy.

I think Amazon already knows this. Evidence of the Afterlife is filed under Books > Religion & Spirituality > Occult. Well done.

Verdict: Read it if you want to see how Satan continues to ensnare and enslave.