Why I am not a Christian ~ by Bertrand Russell:
I had read this book thirty some years ago. At the time, not knowing much about God and religion especially the Christianity, I agreed to a certain extent with the detesting thoughts the author had about the religion as a whole where he condemned the Christianity and Jesus; however, after having an intimate relationship with God for years, and experiencing His constant love and becoming a Christian myself, I began to wonder why Russell chose against it?
The fact is it was so long ago that that I have forgotten almost everything in regard to why Russell chose not become a Christian and what arguments he had submitted against it. So I had to go back and take a fresh look at the contents of the book which contains the text of the lecture Russell delivered on March 6, 1927 to the National Secular Society, South London Branch, at Battersea Town Hall, and in light of current understanding, I reexamined my thoughts about Russell’s arguments. I also went online to learn more about what the people thought of Russell’s viewpoint for not being a Christian?
Well, I was not happy either with the contents of the book or comments people posted about what Russell had to say? Most of it did not sit well with me. What I disliked the most was the insulting tone laced with sarcasm, and an offensive attitude Russell displayed towards Christ. I consider this as his arrogance when he ridicules the Deity by saying:
I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.
It is not hard to see the superiority complex in Russell thinking himself as an authority to judge and rank these noble men. It seems as if he enjoyed insulting Jesus and took much pleasure in his words degrading Him in any way he could. From such a prominent philosopher an impartial criticism is a natural expectation, but Russell fails in it quite badly. His cynicism and arrogance jumps out when we read these words. In debasing Jesus he ends up debasing himself. Look at the lowly choice of words which could have been much better if he wanted to be gracious about it without changing the meaning, but he did not, and showed his keen dislike for the Divine in a demeaning way.
“There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character….”
This is the lowest point for him as I see it when he pointed finger on Christ’s character. Only his followers can enjoy and appreciate such awful choice of words and find this book worthy of praises, not me. One does not have to agree with anything about God or Christ, but stating his arguments against them have to be done in a respectable and responsible manner when talking about someone who is believed to be the incarnation of God and worshipped as such by one fourth of the world population -- which I found is lacking in what Russell presented at this highly regarded occasion.
Furthermore, what I read online about this book – the posted comments by various readers – I was not surprised at all because most of the views posted were either from the atheists and agnostics who did not believe in the existence of God let alone believing in the deity of Christ. Many of them praised Russell’s views as if they have received some kind of heavenly light which have made their vision clear and now they can see the truth and have become rid of the confusion. Unbelievable! What can I say -- the people see what they want to see?
It is a human thing – when the thoughts of his followers are confirmed by Russell -- who was a highly renowned mathematician and held a great authority and recognition in the field of philosophy -- it is very natural that they hold his opinions with very high regards and values them as if they are the absolute truth. It is very understandable.
But the fact is that Russell’s arguments are highly unbalanced because he lacked equality in shedding the light on both sides. Clearly, in several places, while discussing the various aspects of a subject matter he was speaking of, the pros and cons were not equally highlighted.
I am an ordinary man with no qualifications in Philosophy. So there is no way I can ever even think of judging Russell’s thoughts and dare to challenge his arguments on the basis of philosophical logic; however what I am writing here are merely the expressions of my emotions arising out of my ordinary understanding and how I feel about the rationale he presented in this book for not believing in the existence of God and not being a Christian.
Russell was a great mathematician and philosopher of the twentieth century and there is no way I could ever dare to judge His arguments presented in this book logically and philosophically, but theologically speaking, after knowing of the truth what I know now, he seemed to be way off the mark. His claims are rooted in the history of Christianity, and hence, probably are true because they are part of the recorded facts, so I do not wish to labor to check their correctness; however, his dislike for the religion, especially the Christianity, tilted his views so much against it that all he could see was the evil done by the religion and church and totally failed to see the good rendered by the holy institution.
It is easy to see why he felt the way he did after reading what the history of the church is and what atrocities have been often committed by it over time especially during the times when the religion was clouded by dark believes? I fault religion and so does just about everyone else for all kinds of ills the societies and individual man have been suffering since the time of its origin.
But, no social order is perfect. When the societies themselves across the board are not perfect, and the man himself who is the very fabric of them is not perfect, faulting the system of religion by Russell is totally justified. But to highlight its evil practices without touching the goodness of its heart and not fully understanding the light of its true essence and not highlighting its virtue in the background while counting its crimes shows tremendous darkness on his part.
In regard to the criticism of Christ, the scriptural text he chose to present as the basis for arguments against Him and His proclamations, are very limited in their view, and that is why, it becomes obvious that Russell’s understanding of the character of Christ is quite narrow and faulty. He treated the holy text literally, as if it was written in the language of scientific facts, and he drew all kinds of wrong conclusions from it not realizing that the divine words have much broader meaning and scope.
True, that the scriptural truth can be learned by the human brilliance and his brightness can understand what it says literally, but that is not enough simply because the divinity encapsulated in the sacred word does not get revealed this way which happens only through the divine revelations. The true meaning of the holy word is concealed in its deeper core, and can only be grasped when the spirit of man receives the light of the spirit of God. Until then his understanding of the scriptural text remain superficial and without true substance.
One has to know God and be in His grace to have any communion with His spirit. Russell did not even believe in God, let alone have any relationship with Him. No wonder He was totally void of such divine empowerment. So all he knew was what his logic could derive from the scriptures, and hence, he totally missed out on the divine revelations hidden in the holy word which are given by God only to those who come to Him in humility and abide in His grace. Contrarily, Russell never believed in God, so forget about knowing and receiving His grace, and that is why he never understood who He truly is?
It is foolishness to hold an argument that God exists. If one does not believe in it, there is nothing more to discuss with him about the religion, Christianity and Christ. He understands God just the way he understands the law of gravity. So it seems very foolish on part of Russell when he makes these kinds of statements?
“What really moves people to believe in God is not any intellectual argument at all. Most people believe in God because they have been taught from early infancy to do it, and that is the main reason.”
“… Then I think that the next most powerful reason is the wish for safety, a sort of feeling that there is a big brother who will look after you. That plays a very profound part in influencing people's desire for a belief in God.”
“Religion is based, I think, primarily and mainly upon fear. It is partly the terror of the unknown and partly, as I have said, the wish to feel that you have a kind of elder brother who will stand by you in all your troubles and disputes. Fear is the basis of the whole thing -- fear of the mysterious, fear of defeat, fear of death. Fear is the parent of cruelty, and therefore it is no wonder if cruelty and religion have gone hand in hand. It is because fear is at the basis of those two things.”
True, that God and religion get instilled in us right from our infancy because it is a part of our daily feed, but that does not mean that we become aware of God’s existence because of that nursing alone. I won’t deny that it does play a role but it is not the main reason. His existence is felt by our inner being and that is what makes us believe in God. We don’t believe in gravity because we read in the books or taught about it in my science class, we believe because we experience it everywhere in our daily life. The difference is that the awareness of the existence of gravity comes through our physicality while the consciousness of existence of God comes not only through our physical being but also through our spiritual being; in fact, the true awareness of God comes only through the spiritual channel. Our spirit is the only conduit for communication with God. Russell totally missed on it. His unbelief in God’s existence made him utterly ignorant of His character and virtue, forget about His goodness and glory, and that is why he made such statements which are filled with so much ignorance and darkness in his understanding of God.
I am not talking about people but myself. I did not come to acknowledge God because I was terrified of Him. I did not come to accept Him because of the terror of unknown, the fear of the mysterious, the fear of defeat, or the fear of death. Surely, those fears are always there, but I did not come to God because of them. I came to Him because He drew my spirit to Him and made me see His love and His light made me see the reality of Existence with much more clarity. It did not happen because I was looking for some older brother to watch over me and stand by you in all your troubles and disputes.
True that I always believed in the existence of God as far as I can remember, but unless one has the sense of acknowledgement of Him, the acceptance of His existence does not have any real meaning. I know this to be true from my own self. I lived that life of ‘no’ God until he intervened and made His acknowledgment known to me. Unfortunately, it never happened with Russell, so he missed out in knowing God and His awesomeness.
My acceptance of God was not due to some kind of fear and condemnation, but out of His goodness and grace – His love and affection -- His care and compassion – His warmth and comfort in times of desperate need to my tormented soul – which Russell had no capacity to know because he probably never understood it. I am sure he did experience it at times in his life, but in his astutely rationalized wisdom, he never acknowledged it as a grace bestowed over him by the Divine.
Oh! Having the logically sharp vision does not mean one has the sight to see the brilliance of the Spirit.
What I find in reading the contents of the lecture Russell delivered at the National Secular Society, South London Branch, that it is highly unbalanced in providing its view on both sides – pros and cons – on any aspect of the subject matter he spoke of.
For example he says:
“One is often told that it is a very wrong thing to attack religion, because religion makes men virtuous. So I am told; I have not noticed it.”
There are millions in this world who would disagree with him; in fact, a great percentage would not approve of his thinking. I am not very pro of the religion either, because I also do not agree with the way it is often preached and professed, practiced and exercised – resulting in all kinds of ills of various forms.
I suffered greatly in my own life because of how I was treated by the ignorance of believers. But I also believe that they had a good heart towards me and they acted in goodwill. However, it is sad that often their benevolence manifested in unkind insensitivity and even cruelty. But to hold them responsible for my suffering will be a mistake on my part. I respect their intent which was of love, grace and goodness even though their actions were hurtful. The ignorance with which the man is born with does not wash out just because he has found religion or has become a believer of God. It is extinguished in him slowly but surely as the light of the Spirit gets hold of his heart and allows it to flourish in His beauty.
So even while being justified to hold the religion responsible for all the ills Russell spoke of does not justify his ignorance of not counting the goodness the religion has bestowed upon the life of man from all ages. He is one of the few among billions who do not see that without the religion – even with all of its faults -- the world would be a horrific place – a place of barbaric habitation.
Due to the simple fact that all the famous world religions have one commonality – the commonality of a set of moral code – which each faith advocates and impresses upon with its own boundaries, limitations and diversities, and regards its adherence as a standard essentiality for its followers.
Can we deny the fact that it is this moral code prescribed, preached and professed by religion is the major force which forms and shapes the conduct of humanity towards goodness? True, that religion is also a tool in the hands of evil which uses it to create all kinds of ills in the society, but let us not overlook how much good it showers in its comparison. Who would disagree that the religious faith inspires individuals to do better and become better?
Too bad, that Russell did not see it that way; all he could see is the evil done by the religion and not the good that sustained the societies in all cultures. It is not a philosophical viewpoint but a fact that can easily be verified.
Russell had great problem with the religion, especially with Christianity. However, as I have said before, I am not going to argue the historical facts he presented in regard to both and take his words as stated below:
You find this curious fact that the more intense has been the religion of any period and the more profound has been the dogmatic belief, the greater has been the cruelty and the worse has been the state of affairs. In the so-called ages of faith, when men really did believe the Christian religion in all its completeness, there was the Inquisition, with all its tortures; there were millions of unfortunate women burned as witches; and there was every kind of cruelty practiced upon all sorts of people in the name of religion.
And I do not disagree with Russell’s statement that the church has often caused much infliction to societies under its influence.
There are a great many ways in which, at the present moment, the church, by its insistence upon what it chooses to call morality, inflicts upon all sorts of people undeserved and unnecessary suffering.
But the church also did lots of good to mankind. Like anything else church also is not perfect. It also has ills – undeniably. But the good it has rendered outweighs its bad any day!
Then again, anything that man has designed and implemented for his betterment has not only done good but also occasionally ended up doing bad. Russell was very pro of science and so are the majority of us. After all it has given us all kinds of things of luxury and comfort. It has advanced man’s horizons of reach. But along with those blessings also came all kinds of destructive things like bombs, tanks and other destructive inventions. Should we call them the gift or the curse of science?
Russell held the church responsible for all kinds of evil done against the mankind. But I find his judgment very faulty. How come he ignored the fact that the world has been a place where lived both, the good and the evil and they still do, no matter through which lens we look at the humanity. It never was a perfect place. So why ignore the good and just focus on the evil. I am glad that Russell also mentioned the names of St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas. These are those Christian pillars of Faith who impacted countless lives while they were alive and have been inspirations to millions since then. Even to this day their thoughts and believes, their teachings and writings, are great motivators to Christian all across the globe. So then, how come Russell could never mention the good done by these great apologetics of Christianity?
He also thought the church to be a major impediment to human progress and did not hesitate to blame it for all kinds of social evils, which is so unfair and unjustified. Surely, there is some truth to it, but he took the truth and stretched it to its extremities to make it look as evil as he possibly could.
You find as you look around the world that every single bit of progress in humane feeling, every improvement in the criminal law, every step toward the diminution of war, every step toward better treatment of the colored races, or every mitigation of slavery, every moral progress that there has been in the world, has been consistently opposed by the organized churches of the world. I say quite deliberately that the Christian religion, as organized in its churches, has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world.
Russell called the church ‘the principal enemy of the moral progress in the world’. How ridiculous that sounds! If he were alive today, he himself could have witnessed that the Christianity – the religion – is the only remaining power that is still working as a shining guiding-light for the faulting and falling man. Even though, I am not sure how long this light will remain before the man turns it off to engage in his evil and submerged in total darkness. The days seem quite near. I just hope I am wrong.
Surely, much good has been accomplished by man’s own wisdom which he used to rehabilitate the societies through broader thinking and by establishing all kinds of laws to regulate human behavior with much acceptance of each other. All that is true, but most of the transformation that has taken place in the name of the human progress is all external. The inner core of man has only narrowed and become darker. Let us ask if all that progress has brought more love in human to human relationship or declined even further?
Russell did not believe in God. He did not believe in the Absolute. He looked at his own power – the power of man -- – the power of his efforts and inventions -- the power of science -- as the main force of human progress. He held the idea that the good of mankind has to come through man teaching and training himself to be at his best -- and who can argue with that?
Science can teach us, and I think our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports, no longer to invent allies in the sky, but rather to look to our own efforts here below to make this world a better place to live in, instead of the sort of place that the churches in all these centuries have made it.
But even with all kinds of progress in science, how come today’s man is far more immoral than his predecessor? If science and technology and other human efforts were the power to bring the betterment of mankind, then with all the remarkable evolution of human knowhow and his exceeding excellence in science, we would have attained the solutions for all human struggles by now; if not completely, then at least very close to it. On the contrary, the facts cannot be argued that it has only gotten worse as the societies across the world have been morally falling constantly even with the tremendous progress in science. Even with the extraordinary rise in his physical abilities, the man inside has been continually declining in virtue and character. So let us ask again, have we really made the world a better place by man’s material progress as Russell has so confidently professed? He wrote that ‘our own hearts can teach us, no longer to look around for imaginary supports’; but what he did not know that it is not the materialism of science but the meditation of the imaginary -- the Transcendental – is the only power that can transform and renovate the human heart.
When Russell talks about the religion, he is talking mainly about Christianity. And when he does it, he does not separate the essence of the Christianity from its exercise. He does not differentiate between the religion and its practice. He does not separate the theology from its profession. For the faults in practice, he blames the crux of Christianity. He never understood this difference and that is why his thinking was the way it was.
The religion is a light to guide man towards the Divine -- such is a widely accepted view of the spiritual mind. All the major religions are in agreement with this thought. The driving principle that regulates them is that, ‘Do good and get good’, under which the man is constantly striving to become good through good works and being benevolent and hoping to become cleansed of sin and be purified in an effort to have a good standing before God.
However, the Christianity stands on a very different premise. It does not signify the righteous human effort as the power and potency to enable man to stand justified before his creator, but centralizes upon the basis built on the grace of God channeled through the sacrifice Christ made and gave His life at the cross for the justification of those who believe in Him.
The Christianity recognizes the darkness of man – the darkness that rises in him due to his ego and self-righteousness that he can pay for his sins through his holy deeds and purify himself in the sight of God -- and it makes it clear that all righteous deeds of man are nothing but filthy rags before God (Isaiah 64:6).With this background belief, the Christianity renders itself as a proponent of the loving relationship between God and man, which he can have through the belief in Christ. The Christianity is the beacon of light for all men when it comes to the life after this. In its shine man can learn how to yoke with God and receive the gift of eternal life with Him through the faith and belief in His beloved son Christ – Who is the central theme of this belief.
In Russell’s wisdom, Christ was only little more than an ordinary mortal man who was not much in wisdom:
I now want to say a few words upon a topic which I often think is not quite sufficiently dealt with by Rationalists, and that is the question whether Christ was the best and the wisest of men.
I am glad he used the word ‘rationalists’. Understanding the reality of God and Christ is ever beyond the extremities of brightness of a rationalist. There are limitations to rationality when it comes to rationalize the divinity. The reason has its boundaries and hence unable to encompass the ‘boundless’. It is like I have a stick-yard and I decide to measure the infinity of the universe.
The human mind is tiny and puny, can anyone argue that? So no matter how bright and brilliant Russell was, and no matter how high he thought of his judgment, he still was morally miniscule in judging morality of the man of Christ. His arrogance is most evident in statements which display an extreme affirmation of the absoluteness of his beliefs leaving no room for any other to hold a different opinion.
Russell did not believe in hell; it was an absolute truth to him. So according to him the moral compass of Christ was quite defective because He happened to believe in it:
There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ's moral character, and that is that He believed in hell.
These words of cynical arrogance show of how little understanding of higher things this man had. His brassy egocentric nature shows up so vividly in these words. So that the audience does not criticize him as being unfair and rude, he wraps his degrading words with the words of generosity and fairness by praising Jesus’ maxims but his egoistic thoughts of superiority for moral judgment over Christ screams through the choice of his words and their expression which he uses to not only condemn the wisdom of Christ but His goodness as well.
Having granted the excellence of these maxims, I come to certain points in which I do not believe that one can grant either the superlative wisdom or the superlative goodness of Christ as depicted in the Gospels;
I am sure he found extreme pleasure while speaking these words decreasing Christ as far as he could, and derived much satisfaction when he ranked Jesus lower than Socrates before the houseful of wise men – the great thinkers and philosophers of his time -- and placed him lower in wisdom and virtue:
I cannot myself feel that either in the matter of wisdom or in the matter of virtue Christ stands quite as high as some other people known to history. I think I should put Buddha and Socrates above Him in those respects.
Referring to the words below, if Russell ever knew God, he would have known the true meaning of these words of Christ, "Take no thought for the morrow." One has to live these words, to know what they mean. Without being solely reliant upon God how can one understand the meaning of what Jesus was trying to tell? But Russell saw only what he wanted to see in these words where even the simplest of mind could not have been as deluded as was he:
When He said, "Take no thought for the morrow," and things of that sort, it was very largely because He thought that the second coming was going to be very soon, and that all ordinary mundane affairs did not count. I have, as a matter of fact, known some Christians who did believe that the second coming was imminent.
Jesus did not say these words, "Take no thought for the morrow," because He thought the ‘second coming’ was imminent in the very near future, hence the mundane life has no value -- so why to worry about it? Only people, who think like Russell, can conclude to mean something like that. How can someone have such a timid thinking! All one need is to read these words with its context and get the simple meaning of Jesus said?
What Christ meant was that we should enjoy today to its fullness and experience God’s love in it, and not worry about tomorrow. Trust the Creator for His goodness and grace in our days to come. What He was trying to say that the life which has been given from above is to be lived in care of the Providence and not to be managed by our own power and potency.
How can a man like Russell, so void of God’s grace, ever comprehend this reality, that because of the violation of this simple law of life that, "Take no thought for the morrow," and not living today and each day after this in total reliance of God, as prescribed by the holy scriptures and confirmed hereby with these words of Christ, the man has filled his days with all kinds of worries and stress and have lost his rest in God that He made available to him in His sanctuary.
About the second coming of Christ, only those Christians, who have been very eager about it and acted in their own wisdom, are the ones who have been misled by their own wishful thinking. This has been happening throughout the centuries. Misguided by their self-righteousness, often self-righteous holy people prophesized like prophets and acted wrongly, and ended up bringing disaster to many who believed them. The scriptures say that thoughts of God are not man’s thoughts (Isaiah 55:8). This is why often man fails in interpreting God’s word rightly because he tries to extract its hidden truth by his own wisdom.
The early Christians did really believe it, and they did abstain from such things as planting trees in their gardens, because they did accept from Christ the belief that the second coming was imminent. In that respect, clearly He was not so wise as some other people have been, and He was certainly not superlatively wise.
Russell complaints about Christians acknowledging their sins before God, because in his sight they are debasing themselves because they are ashamed and do not find themselves worthy of any self-respect. No surprise there! Because most of us think that since we are not thieves and robbers, murderers and child molesters, and have not committed any heinous crimes, we are okay; we are morally quite fit; and we can stand before God with our heads up. Really!
When you hear people in church debasing themselves and saying that they are miserable sinners, and all the rest of it, it seems contemptible and not worthy of self-respecting human beings. We ought to stand up and look the world frankly in the face. We ought to make the best we can of the world, and if it is not so good as we wish, after all it will still be better than what these others have made of it in all these ages.
So, according to Russell, all the little lies and deceits, cheating and defrauding, dishonesty and corruption, and all kinds of minor violations and moral defilements which we all commit just about each day, are acceptable and okay; and we need not to be sorry for them because they do not make us morally any less; they should not affect our inner person. For such minor crimes, we should not be convicted of our conscience, and there should be no moral consequence. Isn’t this what Russell means?
To him, these offences have no bearing on our moral man. Our manipulations and fabrications of facts, the twisting and maneuvering of the truth, the conduct of animosity and jealousy, all such common daily trespasses should not matter much; and there is no reason for us to feel sorry for them, because if we do and acknowledge our wrongs before God and ask for His forgiveness, it would mean we are debasing ourselves and feel are so ashamed that we think of ourselves worthy of no self-respect.
Is this really how a Christian feels when he acknowledges his sins before God and asks for His forgiveness? Does he really feel that he is not worthy of any self-respect? What a seriously wrong conclusion is that!
Of course, it is a serious mistake to make light of our wrongs no matter how minor they are, because in the sight of God, they are regarded as sins. Keeping in mind that even a look at a woman with a lustful heart is considered an act of adultery (Matthew 5:28). Imagine how many crimes we end up committing each day. The fact is that our daily offences are countless – whether we agree or not. So, how can their acknowledgement before the Holy One with a humble heart and a plea for His help to be reformed into His righteousness be wrong?
When a Christian acknowledges his sins before the almighty, he is not debasing himself but moving forward towards his reformation into becoming a righteous person through the grace of God. I know this is not easy to grasp for the one who does not believe even in His existence let alone His grace.
Honestly, for me even to understand what Russell has written in this book is difficult – I openly admit that. But philosophically speaking, I get to the core of his arguments. One simple fact about him explains a whole lot about who Russell was that he was a great mathematician and logician. He derived the conclusions based on logic. And I believe it was this logician in Russell that drove his thinking about God and Christ. The arguments in his book provide a peak of that logical man in him who was so dominant that his spiritual man never had a chance to become a voice.
Russell was of single vision – the vision of Logic – which was sharp as the edge of a sword. It penetrated whatever was put before it; with its sharpness it shredded philosophical subjects into pieces. It is very true that the blood of ‘logic’ is the ‘fact’, and without fact the logic dies. However, the ‘fact’ is an earthly quantity, a physical term. Its identity carries corporeal credentials. So how can it be used to qualify the Celestial? How can it be eligible to judge the Heavenly?
Oh! How can the rationality of human mind grasp the concealed in what is God breathed?
Russell saw Bible with the self-illuminated sight of logic – the sight which was very limited in its capacity and had no ability to behold the limitlessness of the Truth of God. So he could never see the wholeness of the magnificence and majesty of the divine word and missed out totally in seeing the entirety of its excellence, and totally failed to behold the exquisiteness of the Creator as exposed in the sacred scriptures.
The truth is that with all the brilliance and brightness Russell had, he yet failed to capture the totality of the goodness and greatness of the gospel, and never understood the infiniteness of love living in the heart of God and it’s extreme capacity to sacrifice even His own Son to save man from the eternal condemnation.
Today, the Bible is available in so many languages, so if anyone desires to learn what’s in it, can do so quite easily. However, the divinity concealed in its words and the hidden heavenly wisdom does not come through the brilliance of mind but is revealed to the humble heart which is made ready only through the grace of God to receive the brightness of the Spirit, because only the Spirit has the power to expose the exquisiteness of the eternal Word.
With no disrespect to Russell, I am only stating a simple fact that Russell had the same problem just as the Pharisees – too cocky and confident of their self-rightness. Russell’s philosophical brightness led him to be so self-assured that he treated the divine word as metaphysical script. He sought the meaning of the holy word through his logical mind, which was to be received through a humble heart in the supernatural light from the Divine.
And the saddest thing about Russell is that he missed out on knowing His Maker; He missed out on experiencing His love; He missed out on enjoying His grace.