Critiquing: #031 Jean Vanier and When Leaders Let Us Down

February 28, 2020 | Ask NT Wright Anything – Premier

Sexual Abuse — Church Accountability — Spiritual Leadership — Emotional Impact — Christian Virtue

---

Episode Assessment:

Metric	———	Commentary
Degree of Accuracy	B-	Most of the information presented seems factually accurate, but some details about Jean Vanier and the extent of his actions are vague.
Degree of Coherence	C+	While the discussion is generally logical, there are moments where the narrative meanders and loses focus.
Absence of Fallacies	B	The content largely avoids logical fallacies, though there are a few areas where arguments could be better substantiated.
Degree of Evidence	C	The episode relies heavily on anecdotal evidence and personal opinions without much direct citation of external sources.
Degree of Testability	D+	Many claims, particularly those related to the emotional and spiritual impact, are difficult to test or verify objectively.
Rational Confidence	C+	The arguments presented are somewhat persuasive, but the lack of robust evidence and some logical leaps reduce confidence.

---

Major Arguments and Counter-Arguments:

1. Jean Vanier’s Actions and Their Impact on the Church

Premises:

• Jean Vanier, the founder of L’Arche, committed sexual abuse.
• His actions have profoundly affected his followers and the church community.
• Spiritual leaders are often seen as moral exemplars, and their failings can lead to a sense of betrayal among their followers.

Syllogism:

1. Premise: Jean Vanier was a respected spiritual leader.
2. Premise: Jean Vanier committed acts of sexual abuse.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, Jean Vanier’s actions have led to a sense of betrayal and disillusionment among his followers and within the church.

Counter-Argument:
Despite the valid emotional responses to Vanier’s actions, it’s essential to differentiate between the individual and the values they represented. The principles of compassion and community that L’Arche stands for remain valuable, even if their founder failed to embody them fully. This distinction allows the community to continue its mission without dismissing the pain caused by Vanier’s actions.

2. Accountability and Leadership in the Church

Premises:

• Leaders in the church need to be held accountable to prevent abuses of power.
• Structures of accountability can help maintain the integrity of religious institutions.
• Independent movements often lack these structures, leading to potential abuses.

Syllogism:

1. Premise: Effective leadership requires accountability.
2. Premise: Many religious movements lack sufficient accountability structures.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, these movements are more prone to abuses of power and moral failings among leaders.

Counter-Argument:
While accountability is crucial, it’s also important to recognize that no system is foolproof. Even institutions with robust accountability measures have experienced significant moral failings. The focus should not solely be on creating structures but also on fostering a culture of transparency and mutual accountability within all levels of the organization.

3. The Role of Christian Virtue and Moral Failings

Premises:

• Christian virtues are integral to the faith and should guide believers’ actions.
• The failings of prominent Christians can challenge the perceived integrity of these virtues.
• It’s important to distinguish between the person and the principles they profess.

Syllogism:

1. Premise: Christian virtues are meant to guide believers’ actions.
2. Premise: Prominent Christians sometimes fail to embody these virtues.
3. Conclusion: Therefore, it’s essential to distinguish between the individual and the principles they profess.

Counter-Argument:
Christianity teaches that all humans are fallible and in need of grace. The failings of prominent individuals do not invalidate the principles of the faith. Instead, they underscore the need for humility and the continuous striving for personal and communal integrity. The focus should be on how the community responds to these failings and works to uphold its core values despite human imperfections.

◉ The Absence of Evidence for Sanctification:

Analyzing the Expected vs. Observed Impact of the Holy Spirit

The concept of sanctification is central to Christian theology. It posits that believers, by virtue of the indwelling Holy Spirit, undergo a transformative process that makes them progressively more righteous and holy. This sanctification is expected to result in a discernible difference in behavior and morality between Christians and non-believers. However, empirical observations do not substantiate this claim to a degree that convincingly suggests the power of an actual God.

One might expect that if Christians truly possess an indwelling, sanctifying Holy Spirit, their moral and ethical conduct would starkly contrast with that of non-believers. This distinction should be evident in various aspects of life, including divorce rates, crime rates, and overall moral behavior. Unfortunately, the data reveals only marginal differences, raising questions about the efficacy of sanctification as claimed by Christian doctrine.

For instance, when examining divorce rates among Christian communities compared to non-Christian groups such as Mormons and Japanese, the differences are not as pronounced as one might anticipate. Studies indicate that divorce rates among Christians are comparable to, or even slightly higher than, those in non-Christian populations. This is perplexing, given that the sanctifying influence of the Holy Spirit should ostensibly fortify Christian marriages against the societal pressures that lead to divorce.

Similarly, when considering crime rates, Christian communities do not demonstrate a significant advantage over their non-Christian counterparts. While it is acknowledged that many Christians lead lives of integrity and compassion, these virtues are not exclusive to Christian populations. Non-Christian communities often exhibit similar levels of ethical behavior, challenging the notion that the Holy Spirit’s presence uniquely enhances moral conduct.

This lack of substantial evidence supporting the transformative power of the Holy Spirit justifies a skeptical stance toward the claims of sanctification. If the indwelling Holy Spirit were as efficacious as described in Christian teachings, we would expect to see an unequivocal and robust difference in behavior between Christians and non-believers. The absence of such a difference suggests that the Holy Spirit’s role in sanctification may be overstated or misunderstood.

While faith communities provide important social and emotional support, these benefits are not exclusive to Christianity and do not necessarily indicate divine intervention. The marginal differences observed between Christians and non-believers suggest that factors such as cultural norms, community support, and individual predispositions play significant roles in shaping moral behavior, potentially overshadowing the purported influence of the Holy Spirit.

In conclusion, the anticipated clear, transformative impact of the Holy Spirit on Christian behavior is not supported by empirical evidence. This observation warrants a critical reevaluation of the claims of sanctification within Christian theology. It is important for believers and skeptics alike to engage in thoughtful and open-minded discussions about the implications of these findings.

---

Warm Welcome to Discuss: We invite you to share your thoughts and perspectives on this topic in the comments section below. Whether you agree or disagree, your insights are valuable to fostering a deeper understanding of sanctification and its impact on moral behavior. Let’s explore this complex issue together!