The Academy Award-nominated documentary Jesus Camp exposes a group of Americans that are insular, close-minded, xenophobic, and obsessed with tying religion to politics. I’m referring, of course, to film critics: “the scariest movie you'll see all year” (TV Guide); “a genuine subversive threat to the nation” (Seattle Post-Intelligencer) ; "...one of the most unnerving films of the year." (L.A. Times) "...the possibility of a right-wing Christian American version of what happened in China no longer seems entirely far-fetched." (The New York Times). Such hyperventilating reactions to the film say more about America than anything in this 2005 documentary, recently released on DVD.
Your own reaction to the film will depend on how shocked you are by Pentecostalism. The film is obstensibly about "evangelicals" yet every Christian depicted in the documentary attends some sort of charismatic church. The casual viewer would be left with the impression that being “saved” causes all evangelicals to speak in tongues, convulse uncontrollably, weep hysterically, and vote Republican.
Exposing the voting patterns of these strange creatures is the primary motive (if not the sole reason) for this documentary. It is not just that these people hold strange beliefs but that they hold strange beliefs and are (a) allowed to vote for Republicans and (b) indoctrinate their children who will one day be allowed to vote for Republicans. Pentecostals have existed in America for over a hundred years, but since they tended to vote for Democrats, the Cultural Elite took no notice of them. It is only after their political realignment that it became clear that their intentions are to install a theocracy and make glossolalia the national language.
The film is also clear in establishing that Pentecostalism equals evangelicalism equals “Religious Right.” What is more difficult to establish is that the people at the “Jesus Camp” have any direct political influence. In order to establish the connection, the filmmakers include snippets of Christian radio broadcast by leaders of the Religious Right, the smooth-talking shepherds of these tongue-speaking sheep. Their attempts to subvert democracy are exemplified by the Religious Right’s support of Samuel Alito for the Supreme Court. The casual viewer could be forgiven for leaving with the impression that Alito was a snake-handling “evangelical” from West Virginia rather than a Catholic from New Jersey. Indeed, the film never mentions that the Religious Right rejected Harriet Miers, a bona fide evangelical from Texas, for an East Coast papist.
Such nuance would be hard to fit into the caricature -- and the one thing this film has no room for is nuance. To ensure that no one mistakes the key message of the film (“a frightening, infuriating, yet profoundly compassionate documentary about the indoctrination of children by the Evangelical right” – New York magazine), the filmmakers include Mike Papantonio, an Air America radio host, to serve as the Greek chorus. Papantonio comes across as an unreconstructed bigot; the type who, in a less politically correct age, would be warning about the nefarious influence of the Jooos. He is even more intolerant—and less articulate—than the children at the church camp. Yet he is portrayed as the "film's voice of reason" (Seattle P-I).
Aside from the political angle, your reaction to the film will—once again--depend on how shocked you are by Pentecostalism. Having spent much of my life around charismatic Christians, I found the extended scenes of the church services downright boring. Speaking in tongues? Check. Being slain in the Spirit? Check. Weeping, hand-raising, women preaching? Check, check, check. There is nothing portrayed in the film that doesn’t go on in churches in every city in America. Some people will find such a thought terrifying, which shows how out of touch they are with the people in their own country.
Indeed, it makes you wonder about the political judgment of those who are threatened by the people—especially the charming kids—in this film. The main character of the documentary is, after all, a Pentecostal children's pastor who runs a church camp in North Dakota. In case you missed that let me point it out again. A Pentecostal children’s pastor. Who runs a church camp. In North Dakota. If this is the biggest threat to secularism that we can come up with, then I hereby renounce my membership in the Religious Right.
While there is much that I disagree with, and even find strange, about the charismatic movement, there is nothing about it that is politically dangerous. What is dangerous, however, is the way that some of our fellow citizens are willing to vilify and dehumanize those with whom they disagree (“the "saved" children in the hypnotic, upsetting and bleakly humorous Jesus Camp are like an extroverted version of Village of the Damned” -- Baltimore Sun). Jesus Camp doesn’t tell us much about evangelicals or the Religious Right. But it speaks volumes about the anti-populist and anti-religious attitudes of secular America.
I saw this when it first did the documentary film festival rounds and had a slightly different reaction, although I agree that it shows only a tiny slice of Christian America.
But the simplistic representation of the Christian faith in the documentary may be as much a reflection of they way the faith is represented in that particular church as it is the filmmakers' intentions. You can see my review for a further explication.
As for speaking in tongues, those kids were not speaking in tongues. It appeared they were just uttering familiar sounds induced by a state of heightened emotion. I thought it was pretty interesting that the kids were uttering sounds such as "Je je je" and "Hale hale hale." I am pretty sure that the neurological studies of people actually speaking in tongues showing that the intentional and conscious parts of their brains are not active would not produce the same results here. Impulsive utterances are not the same as divinely inspired utterances!
I agree that some of the press on the film's subjects have been unjustifiably viscious. But I can't help also criticising the (adult) subjects' wanting application of scripture and manipulation of children's emotions for misrepresenting the Christian faith in the first place.
As for speaking in tongues, those kids were not speaking in tongues.
Angela, there is speaking in tongues and then there is "speaking in tongues". The former is described in Acts, where disciples of Christ speak in real languages that they previously didn't have knowledge. It would be like me waking up one morning with the abilty to speak Tagalog or Greek. "Speaking in tongues" is something you see in charasmatic churches in which people speak what sounds like gibberish, but is ostensibly a "spirit language" understood by God or the angels.
Because these folks have been around for over a hundred years we aren't supposed to be creeped out by them? Don't get me wrong; I support their right to worship and vote as they please. But they still creep me out. If you don't understand that reaction, perhaps it is you who is "out of touch" with the people in your own country.
I haven't seen this particular crockumentary, but I am rather interested in the rise of the genre - the very concept of lugubrious entertainment is delightful. As repulsive as Michael Moore is as a person, Roger and Me was innovative and started a trend that has served the left well. I don't think, generally speaking, crockumentaries engender a lot of political change - Moore's F911 created a lot of hope and expectation for Kerry's campaign, and bought him a catbird seat at the convention, but its net effect was obviously below expectations.
For the apocalyptic branch of the left, the crockumentary is such a natural medium to spread the message of doom (cf An Inconvenient Truth) I predict we have yet to see its full flowering and popularity. With the power of cgi and Moore's Rules of Editing, we shall no doubt be able to watch the angry hordes of the New Republic of Gilead, complete with cross emblazoned foreheads and pikes, descend on the DNC and Supreme Court buildings in Washington to usher in the Millenium of Woe.
Move over, Rachel Carson.
I suppose they could have done a documentary on Christians who stay married, raise great kids, tithe and more, go on mission trips, pay all their taxes, work hard and well for their employers, treat others kindly, let their religious views inform their political decisions, etc., etc., but then who would pay to see that?
There was also Alexandra Pelosi's 'Friends of God' documentary. We need a hard hitting expose on the brainwashing of Secular Fundamentalists children. Indoctrination is pervasive in public education, but probably not as sexy as pentacostalism.
I’m referring, of course, to film critics
"The funniest line you'll read all week" ;-)
I'm a Wheaton-College-educated adult who's been around the Christian scene for a long time. I was raised Lutheran and spent several years in a Presbyterian Church that had been pastored by R.C. Sproul.
I currently attend an independent Pentecostal church. As a totally sane Christian with a degree in Christian Education, I fail to understand the hysteria among some fellow brothers and sisters in Christ over Pentecostalism. Or any other small-"o" orthodox Christian sect they cannot understand.
Yes, excesses do occur. But they occur in all churches; only the TYPE of excess differs. Ritualism that's lost all meaning. Cold-heartedness. Judgmentalism. Materialism. Us vs. Them. Creeping secularism. Concession to culture. Cults of personality. It's all there in varying degrees in your church, too.
This incipient blindness bothers me. I think it would do all us Christians a great service if we took six months off from the denomination we've been in since we were teething, and go to several churches outside our comfort zone. You all-white churchgoers should visit a black gospel church. Episcopalians, head over to the Assemblies of God. Pentecostals should attend a non-instrumental Disciples of Christ church. Bible Baptists, check out what's happening at the Greek Orthodox church.
And you know what, I give you all permission not to like that different church you attend. But at least THINK and PRAY about what you saw there. Ask yourself if you're the only person on the planet with a handle on the Truth. Rather than standing slack-jawed, yelling, "Well, I never!" get off the high horse and come down to earth. Your judgmentalism is frightening.
No one's asking you to convert to some new sect. But at least stop being so insular it makes you look ignorant. It's one of the things the lost hate about us, and for good reason.
I haven't seen this documentary yet, but from the clips I've seen and what I've heard and read about it, I think your comments are right on target, Joe. I was never Pentecostal, but I can see that they are taking the talk about spiritual warfare and such completely out of context. These people do not pose a threat to democracy.
I am unhappy knowing that children are being taught such rubbish, but probably no more than you are at the thought that I teach my children that global warming and evolution are real and that hell and the Holy Spirit are not.
I like what you say, DLE. Could I suggest you go one step further? Visit a Catholic church, a Jewish synagogue and a Muslim mosque. If you really want to broaden your horizons and those of your children, visit a Unitarian Universalist church. I wouldn't expect you to agree with the teachings of any of these, but you will learn that we are all basically good, but fallible, human beings in search of truth.
First let me state that I've not seen the film, however I have come to realize that the more negative and visceral the world's reaction to a "Christian" presentation (preaching, apologetics, theonomy, etc) the more closlely it approximates actual Biblical Christianity.
Again, I've not seen the film but experience and has shown us that the watered-down Nerf theology so popular with many of today's "seeker sensitive" ecumenical churces of deceit is quite popular and palatable to the unredeemed, worldly and carnal mind.
False teacher like Rick Warren, Joel Osteen and Rob Bell are continually hailed for their progressive "Christian" views and fawned over by a non-threatened mainstream media.
But oh how quickly would their ecumenical love-fest vaporize if they would speak the truth in love! The truth of sin, repentance, and hell and the hope of a Savior!
Romans 9:33
As it is written, Behold, I lay in Sion a stumblingstone and rock of offence: and whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
1 Peter 2:8
And a stone of stumbling, and a rock of offence, even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
1 Corinthians 1:18
For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
1 Corinthians 1:21
For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
1 Corinthians 1:27
But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;
1 Corinthians 1:23
But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
1 Corinthians 1:25
Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
1 Corinthians 2:14
But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
1 Corinthians 3:19
For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
Coram Deo:
Wow! 9 (count 'em nine!) proof-text snippets. Impressive. But are you sure you listed every single one of the ones that were in your concordance? Maybe you skipped one.
why is this film something to be ashamed of or hide from? why make excuses and hide it in a closet?
First let me state that I've not seen the film, however I have come to realize that the more negative and visceral the world's reaction to a "Christian" presentation (preaching, apologetics, theonomy, etc) the more closlely it approximates actual Biblical Christianity.
What about all of our (i would hope) negative and visceral reaction to the retards of the Westboro Baptist Church? Does your realization include them as more closely approximating Biblical Christianity?
Please explain to me how Coram was prooftexting, exter. Reading the passages in their context only strengthens his case.
Joe,
Another factor that you forgot (and you forget little) is the picture that this production paints of its producers -- the mainstream Left (not Liberal, but Left). Air America and the Left (like Crooks & Liars) have proven to be entrenched in the camp of anti-Evangelical in most all respects. The rhetoric is unending.
Even in the more moderate Left arena, Ed Schultz has made some verbal errors and thoughtless statements about Evangelicals (though he would class himself as such). Go out to his forum for a good picture of the followers' opinions.
It is the Left that exposed itself when creating this piece of political propaganda. (Let's all take clear notice how the apparent abuse faded from view after the elections.)
Collin
http://evangelicalperspective.blogspot.com
I haven't seen this yet, but intend to. The political angle is actually something I hadn't really considered with respect to this movie. From what I have read and heard, the primary message of it was about what horrific lengths some adults go to in order to indoctrinate their children, and how painful and damaging the experience can be for those kids. Psychological torture of children is criminal unless you call it religion.
Regardless of one's political leanings, I'd expect this film to be a strong argument against forced indoctrination of children into any faith-based ideology, religious or otherwise. I teach my kids that we don't really know anything other than what we can observe (if that), and that we should all be wary of confusing wishful thinking with reality.
True beliefs shouldn't require faith.
godma writes:
Regardless of one's political leanings, I'd expect this film to be a strong argument against forced indoctrination of children into any faith-based ideology, religious or otherwise. I teach my kids that we don't really know anything other than what we can observe (if that), and that we should all be wary of confusing wishful thinking with reality.
True beliefs shouldn't require faith.
True beliefs are only attainable through a saving relationship with Jesus Christ.
The secular-humanist rational-material worldview you are teaching your children is your religion: the religion of empirical science - so called. But, as I've stated here before, one cannot give a coherent account for the natural sciences, reason or universal abstract entities like the laws of logic apart from secretly borrowing from or assuming the Christian theistic worldview (since it's impossible for man to make sense of the universe in any other manner).
The unbeliever has no defensible philosophical ground for himself or his worldview yet he continually denies, suppresses, and reasons in circles in a vain effort to suppress the knowledge of the Christian God.
It's endlessly fascinating to watch the unregenerate claim wisdom and knowledge when the sad truth is they are willfully ignorant of the revelation of the Christian God both in nature and in themselves.
Tell me godma, how do you "observe" the universal laws of logic? Do you even agree that the laws of logic are universal? If so how do provide your children (or yourself for that matter) with an account for any abstract entity whatsoever?
Abstract entities are by definition not materialistic therefore I'd like to know how in an atheist universe it is possible to explain or give an account for the existence of things like universal laws in the first place.
It seems to me that you're at least as dogmatic and religious in your beliefs as the most unthinking "Bible-thumper" ever conjured up by the wild-eyed conspiracy theorists on the far left fringe of our society.
Imperical science is as much a religion as apple juice is a form of nuclear energy. Religions require belief in the supernatural in order to be defined as such. methodological naturalism has absolutely no relation whatsoever with the supernatural...so whenever finaly decide you need some help to remove your head from your own @ss,give me a howler.
What the reviewer seems to be missing (on purpose?), is that while the people in this movie are NOT political operatives, they are TOOLS of political operatives. Recall the statement by the children's "pastor" toward the end of the movie:
"The liberals should be shaking in their boots."
These people want a "Christian" nation. They SAY they believe in democracy, but only if you agree with THEM. They want to be free to spout their hate for people who disagree with them; to demonize homosexuals, liberals, non-Christians, Muslims, whoever. They've turned it into an "us-against-them" situation. They're mistaken if they think "liberals" care what they do - they don't. Just leave the rest of America alone. Teach your kids whatever you want (within reason), but DO NOT force your beliefs on the rest of America.
Just one more thing - remember the scene where the mother is homeschooling Levi? And as she sits there in her air-conditioned home, with a textbook (about Creationism) in her hand, and her microwave, and refrigerator, and stove, and TV, and VCR, and the rest of the modern conveniences around her she says, "Did you get to the part where it tells you that Science doesn't solve anything?"
Wow, does she even realize?
My responses to Coram Deo:
CD: Tell me godma, how do you "observe" the universal laws of logic? Do you even agree that the laws of logic are universal?
G: I don't know if they're universal or not, because my experience is limited to just my own little portion of the universe. What makes YOU so sure that they are (or anything is) universal? Are you somehow able to observe the entire universe? If so, how many fingers am I holding up?
One can't observe logic directly, but one can perform logical operations repeatedly and measure how often they work (in the sense of yielding results consistent with further observation). But of course all of us here most likely agree already that logic works. After all, we're using it right now (or trying to) in order to formulate and make sense of these very arguments.
I think the point you're actually trying to make is that my belief in empiricism is the same kind as your belief that Jesus rose from the dead. They are categorically different in a few ways. For one, my belief in empiricism is dependent on the ability of it to yield consistent, predictive, positive results when tested. Also, I am not particularly emotionally invested in this belief. It just seems to be a good bet, based on its track record of performance, so I'll stick with it until that ceases to be the case.
Your belief in the resurrection of Jesus depends on "faith", meaning it isn't susceptible to the same standards of testing as normal beliefs. For normal beliefs, you would require pretty much the same standards of evidence and reason that I or anyone else would require. For example, if I claimed that you and I were actually 5th cousins, you would not respect my "faith" as a justification for that belief. You'd want to see a family tree or possibly a DNA test.
For religious beliefs, I'm not really clear what the different standards are, but clearly they are only invoked for beliefs that aren't supportable by evidence and logic alone. My guess is that faith is mostly a matter of wishful thinking.
Let me just say, to be clear, that I do not necessarily think the entire universe is reducible to empirical analysis. All I'm saying is that faith is a very unreliable way to learn the truth about how things work. It might, however, be very good at all sorts of other things. That's beside the point.
CD: If so how do provide your children (or yourself for that matter) with an account for any abstract entity whatsoever?
G: I'm not sure what you are getting at. What do you mean by "an account"? Are you implying that no concept can make sense or be useful without some universal, objective basis behind it?
Abstract concepts are just mental tools that can be used to simplify lines of reasoning. They don't necessarily exist in any sense outside of the mind.
CD: Abstract entities are by definition not materialistic therefore I'd like to know how in an atheist universe it is possible to explain or give an account for the existence of things like universal laws in the first place
G: An "atheist universe" is nothing more than a universe in which there are no deities. It seems that you are confusing atheism with materialism, or possibly naturalism. Not all atheists go that far. The only critical factor is lack of belief in deities.
That said, are you familiar with the distinction between software and hardware? It's like that. Software is not an additional "thing", but is an emergent pattern mediated by computer hardware. Another analogy: waves and water. The waves are not actually "things", but are just patterns mediated by the water. Most brain scientists think of mental patterns in this same way. What you call "abstract entities" are just mental constructs.
Coram Deo,
You seem to divide the world into two categories
(1) devout Christians (otherwise undefined)
(2)degerate unbeievers.
Is that correct?
FWIW,
I'm a christian college student who works with mostly Jews in a Pro-Israel Advocacy organization, and one of the first questions I'm asked, after telling someone I'm a christian, is "Have you seen Jesus Camp?".
Coram Deo,
I might agree with some of what your saying, but you are coming across as quite arrogant. You attitude seems to be: I am a "saved" therefore despite the fact I am a mere human being, I have all the cosmic answers and all unbelievers despite their intellegence and thoughtfulness are just stupid and their ideas mean nothing.
I believe Christ was the son of God, who lived amoung us (who sought to redeem us through his death and resurrection). He was humble when he dealt with people. He seemed more comfortable with the tax collectors, whores, and other sinners than with religious right of his day.
JohnW
As "born again" believers, my wife and I found the movie "Jesus Camp" very disturbing. Aside from the film's token attempts to misrepresent self-professed Christians as a whole,
(a) Most of those kids were too young for such religious indoctrination. They simply did not understand the events which occurred at the said camp. Yet these adults exposed their children to a very dominant and manipulative woman pastoralship (cross ref. 1 Timothy 2:12), who apparently had no nuclear family of her own (cross ref. 1 Timothy 3:2, 4-5).
(b) Nobody is holding the adults' beliefs and practices accountable to the Word of God. For instance, they publicly spoke in uninterpreted "tongues" (cross ref. 1 Corinthians 14:27-28), experienced unfalsifiable "special anointings," and made unfalsifiable "prophetic utterances." Moreover, they "prayed over" empty seats and the audio-visual equipment, as if they could "immunize" the said objects against demonic influence by God the Spirit. Yet nobody tested these "movements of the Spirit" as Biblical Scripture requires (1 John 4:1, 1 Thessalonians 5:21).
So, really, I would tell Becky Fischer that if your beliefs require a faith which shuns discernment, then your faith is "in denial" about something.
Thanks for those links, Lucky. I was particularly interested in the last two, which encourage people to not blindly believe, but to test things first. Seems like something I can agree with, being a proud skeptic myself.
However, I looked up 1 Jon 4:1, and found that the subsequent two verses make explicit the precise nature of testing to be done in this particular case. And to call this testing weak is an understatement. All that is required to pass the test is a confession that Jesus is "come in the flesh".
1 John 4:2 - Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
1 John 4:3 - And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world
So all one has to do is confess this in order to be taken seriously as being of God? I haven't seen the film yet, but I'm pretty sure the Jesus Camp administrators have already made this particular confession...
Also, what do you make of 1 Corinthians 13:7, which seems to be in slight contradiction to this very sensible admonission that beliefs should stand up to thorough testing? It seems to say that one should believe everything, without stating anything about the need for any kind of testing at all.
1 Corinthians 13:7 - "Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth all things"
Maybe this is out of context, but at least on the surface it is a bit confusing.
But it gets worse yet. Romans 14:23 explicitly says that doubting itself is sinful!
"And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of faith is sin."
godma,
You're taking the Romans 14:23 verse out of context. Read the whole chapter.
There are, though, a number of passages that do condemn doubting. Perhaps the most famous is in John when "Doubting Thomas" (my patron saint!) must be convinced in person that Jesus has been resurrected. Right after this, we are told how blessed are those who have not seen, yet believe. Of course, the ironic thing is that all the disciples required proof before believing. Even Peter and John refused to take the word of the women. These men who knew Jesus best and had seen his miracles refused to believe in his resurrection without hard proof. Even at Jesus' ascension, Matthew says some of those present doubted. The great apostle Paul refused to believe in Jesus even though he was supposedly being confronted with eyewitnesses who were willing to be martyred. He had to have a personal visitation from Jesus on the Damascus Road. Yet, we, 2,000 years later, are expected to believe with no proof other than the second, third, and fourth hand reports of ancient manuscripts written anonymously, whose originals no longer exist, and whose extant copies are riddled with errors, contradictions and textual variations. My problem is that I don't have more faith than Thomas, Peter, John or Paul.
The greatets threat to america is children who have the audacity to pray.
There is no more closed-minded group in America than the left-wing intellectuals who endlessly bleat about "tolerance."
"Tolerance for me, but not for thee", in other words.
It's interesting that separation of church and state is only threatened when the believers are conservative. When various left-wing Christians said the US should "get out of Central America" in the '80's, the New York Times didn't so much as yawn.
Thanks, ex-preacher. I'll read further.
John Salmon,
Tolerance doesn't mean accepting all things. I, for example, don't want my child praying in school. And do you want to allow ALL children to pray in school, or just Christians? Are all the little Muslim children allowed to pray 5 times a day, or just once, or none at all? What about Wiccans, or Buddhists, etc.? I don't think you want prayer in schools, I think you want "Christian" prayer in schools.
And we want separation of church and state in all cases. At least, I do, and all other liberals I know.
Leebo-I didn't say, and I don't believe, any of what you attribute to me.
Tolerance means, at a minimum, assuming that people who think differently from one's self are not, A) bad people, and B) necessarily wrong, at least not in everything they believe.
I think you'd have an awfully hard time demonstrating that "liberals", typically, are tolerant of believers.
Now you can turn the argument around and say, Well, you people (believers) aren't tolerant of us (secularists.) That's often true.
But secularists need to recognize that when they try to get the government to enact legislation that's to their liking they are doing the same thing believers do-turning their world view into law.
John,
The first part of your reply basically says, "You aren't tolerant of us and we're not tolerant of you". I don't really know how to prove that one. I feel like we ARE tolerant of you, and you feel that we're not, so we just have to leave it there, I guess.
There is one thing that I can say that I'M not tolerant of, but this is not aimed at you, just some religious people I have heard. I have read of religious groups trying to stop hate-crime laws from being enacted, and to keep homosexuals from being listed as hate-crime victims. I feel that this is SO WRONG. But like I said, this isn't aimed at YOU, just something I read.
I'm not sure what laws you are talking about when you say that if we try to enact laws we may be forcing our world views on you. We just want religion out of public places. Do whatever you (not YOU, but you know what I mean) want, worship whoever you want, just don't make me do it, too.
By the way, this is a great place. I think it's SO GOOD for everyone to be able to state their beliefs and talk about them in such a pleasant way. Fighting and arguing sure doesn't work, does it?
ex-preacher,
Are you familiar with the works of N. T. Wright? I think you would find his take on Jesus and the Resurrection quite refreshing and interesting.
ex-preacher,
Are you familiar with the works of N. T. Wright? I think you would find his take on Jesus and the Resurrection quite refreshing and interesting.
ntwrightpage.com
Ex-Preacher and Wonders for Oyarsa,
In addition to N.T. Wright, I would recommend Richard Horsley. I am currently reading his book, "Jesus and the New World Disorder" and after that I plan on reading "Paul and Empire".
I am enjoying his book-it helps provide some historical context for the New Testament writings in terms of Christ's relationship with the roman empire of his day.
JohnW
Yes, Wonders for Oyarsa, I am quite familiar with N.T. Wright. It would be hard to get a B.A. in Bible, an M.Div., and a D.Min. at conservative Christian universities, and not have read N.T. Wright. Bishop Wright is a brilliant, prolific and articulate spokesman for the traditional postion, though his views on some matters might make many evangelicals uncomfortable.
Ever since my deconversion, many well-intentioned friends and family have recommended various authors that might help me reconvert. They assume that I am somehow ignorant of the arguments for Christianity. The irony is that they themselves are almost always ignorant of the best arguments against Christianity. When I suggest authors for them to read, they politely turn me down.
In the hope that you are more open, let me ask if you have read John Dominic Crossan. He and N.T. Wright and others recently published "The Resurrection of Jesus: John Dominic Crossan And N.T. Wright in Dialogue." Another author I would recommend is Marcus Borg. He and N.T. Wright wrote "The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions." And to make the circle complete, you could read "The Last Week: What the Gospels Really Teach About Jesus' Final Days in Jerusalem" by Crossan and Borg.
I would also recommend Gerd Ludemann, Geza Vermes, Bart Ehrman (more of a textual critic), L. Michael White (I studied under him before he "went liberal"), and Paula Fredriksen.
High-powered academic conservatives who admit that the Resurrection can't be proved include John P. Meier and E.P Sanders.
Other skeptics of lesser intellectual firepower, but still worth reading, would include John Shelby Spong, Earl Doherty, Robert Price, Jeffrey Jay Lowder, and Richard Carrier (the last three have essays in the library at infidels.org).
Ex-Preacher,
Would you share your number one reason for de-converting?
Was it one thing in particular or was it a series of things over a long period of time. Or was it the behavior/ideas of christians?
JohnW
Thanks for asking, JohnW. It was a cluster of reasons, but the two biggest issues for me were the problem of suffering and the existence of hell.
There always were things I didn't understand and questions I couldn't answer, but I always pushed them to the back burner and assured myself that people much smarter than me (parents, teachers, C.S. Lewis) must have resolved these problems. What I discovered, though, was that the more I learned the more questions and problems I discovered. It took becoming an assistant professor of Bible at a large Christian university to force me to deal head-on with my doubts. Now there were students asking me the same questions I had and looking to me as the smarter person on whom they would rely for reassurance. I turned to fellow professors (about 30 Bible professors on this faculty) who were much smarter than me and found that they either spouted the same pat answers I had always heard or they admitted that they couldn't resolve the problems either.
I finally decided to make a list of every problem, question, doubt that I had and do my best to find the truth wherever that might lead me. I categorized my questions into twelve broad areas. In addition to the two I mentioned, there were areas such as: the efficacy of prayer, evolution/creation, Bible contradictions, canonicity, the problem of confusion (why can't Christians agree on what the Bible teaches), the problem of heaven, and the teachings of Jesus. I decided that a weakness on any one of these would be very damaging to my faith as I then understood it. After many months of study I concluded that my faith came out the loser on all twelve counts. So I resigned my position and decided to become a history professor.
That's a very short version. One of the common responses I get around here is people telling me that I wasn't a true Christian. I certainly thought I was for thirty-something years. I think I was as much a committed and "real" Christian as anyone I knew. I have no idea how to prove to anyone that I was a true believer, but I know that I was.
You ask if it had anything to do with the behavior of Christians. Absolutely not. I knew then and know now that you cannot judge the truth of a position by looking at the attempts of fallible humans to consistently hold to their principles.
John Salmon suggests that conservative Christians are being unfairly tagged as threatening the separation of church and state. He believes that liberal Christians who agitate for change are given a free pass.
John, let me explain why conservative Christians scare me more than liberal Christians.
The following quotes are from an article that appeared at christianpost-dot-com (I'm not giving an exact link as the site here seems not to like those, but you can find the story easily enough).
- - - - -
"Christians are feeling more "alien" to American culture, but a group of Christian "culture war" veterans are planning to reclaim America for what is was founded on."
"The Reclaiming America for Christ conference heads for Fort Lauderdale, Fla., in March and replacing key speaker Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Ministries is newly added Dr. Richard Land, who heads the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission."
[snip]
"The ministry announced over the weekend that Land will take the place of Kennedy as the prominent evangelical leader recuperates in the hospital.
"'Why reclaiming America?' Kennedy had asked at a previous Reclaiming America conference.
"'This nation started out as a Christian nation and was the work of Christ in the beginning, and therefore, we have every right to reclaim it,' said Kennedy.
"Although America was established with the Christian faith, there are people today who seem to think that Christians just arrived from Mars, Kennedy had said, 'that we're some sort of aliens that have come here to obtrude ourselves into their lovely secular culture.'
"But the origins of America say it all.
"'America simply began as a church relocation project,' Kennedy told conference participants. Leaving the persecution in England, Pilgrims arrived in America to establish 'a new home for their church.'
"'Yes, the church had a great deal to do with the founding of America and they said that they came here for the glory of God and the establishment of the Christian faith.'
"Thus given the Christian founding of America, the annual conference calls Christians to simply 'reclaim' America for Christ, as Kennedy had noted.
"U.S. Senate Chaplain Barry Black recently withdrew his engagement to speak at the conference, saying that his 'non-partisan role as chaplain conflicts with the conference agenda.'
"Speakers scheduled to speak include best-selling author Ann Coulter; Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council [and Joe's boss]; Fr. Frank Pavone, National Director of Priests for Life; Dr. Frank Wright, President of the National Religious Broadcasters; and Walid Phares, author of Future Jihad."
Ex-Preacher,
Thanks for sharing about your de-converting. I had been wondering what caused it.
I will not try to re-convert you. I think you were being honest with yourself and wanted to show personal integrity. You could have just as easily stayed in your position and just given your students "the right" answers on these difficult issues.
Many of the issues you brought up bother me as well and can not be easily resolved. And frankly, believing, "God Said It, I Believe It, and That Settles It", just does not take care of these matters. It just not enough for me to de-convert though-my christian faith gives me comfort and a frame of reference. The way the religious right blindly supports the Bush administration's policies and war-mongering is just about enough to push me over the edge sometimes though.
Best Wishes,
JohnW
ex-preacher,
You said what I would like to say, just 100 times better! I can never find the quotes I want, and I can never think of a good way to say something. Maybe I need to take a writing class, huh?
JohnW,
I was where you are a few years ago. To this day, I just don't know what's true, not true, etc. I do ponder it, quite a bit, but I guess I lean toward a sceptical point of view. Many of the questions that bothered ex-preacher and you, also bothered me. It just doesn't add up, but still...sometimes I don't know.
I've read Crossan, Borg, and Ehrman. I don't think any of them can match Wright in their arguments, but I would think that, wouldn't I? ;-)
The reason I assumed you hadn't, was that you often seemed to caricature Christianity, and it lead me into thinking you hadn't ultimately wrestled with the Christian position at its best. But I suppose this is easy to do in the heat of argument. Of course, despite hardly knowing you, I naturally would love to see you reconvert. Surely you understand, coming from my perspective, why I can't help this. But I won't give you reading lists.
What I will do is extend an invitation. Over on my blog I'm working on a several-year project to blog the Bible (like David Plotz is doing at Slate). I want to read the entire thing with my adult and semi-educated mind, and really wrestle with the picture that is being painted. I want to engage difficult and troubling things head on, without quick-fix pat answers to brush aside problems and contradictions. And I want more than anything for others to join with me - showing me where I go wrong or pointing out things I'm missing.
Naturally, we all have limited time, and you probably have better things to do than read my little blog. But your questions are interesting ones, and I'd love to have your input as I go through the Bible. If anything, it would keep me honest!
I've read Crossan, Borg, and Ehrman. I don't think any of them can match Wright in their arguments, but I would think that, wouldn't I? ;-)
The reason I assumed you hadn't, was that you often seemed to caricature Christianity, and it lead me into thinking you hadn't ultimately wrestled with the Christian position at its best. But I suppose this is easy to do in the heat of argument. Of course, despite hardly knowing you, I naturally would love to see you reconvert. Surely you understand, coming from my perspective, why I can't help this. But I won't give you reading lists.
What I will do is extend an invitation. Over on my blog I'm working on a several-year project to blog the Bible (like David Plotz is doing at Slate). I want to read the entire thing with my adult and semi-educated mind, and really wrestle with the picture that is being painted. I want to engage difficult and troubling things head on, without quick-fix pat answers to brush aside problems and contradictions. And I want more than anything for others to join with me - showing me where I go wrong or pointing out things I'm missing.
Naturally, we all have limited time, and you probably have better things to do than read my little blog. But your questions are interesting ones, and I'd love to have your input as I go through the Bible. If anything, it would keep me honest!
Thanks, JohnW and Leebo, for your kind words. In the heat of debate, we all sound very self-assured, but deep down I think all of us struggle with many of the same questions and doubts.
WFO, I looked at your blog. I think what you are doing is worthwhile and from my perspective, a thorough and honest reading of the Bible is the surest path to atheism. :) Your musings do come across to me as more preaching or devotional than true wrestling. You're right - I don't have the time to engage with you over there, plus I think I would always be the odd man out. But, good luck. Could you tell me where you think I have caricatured the Bible? Certainly, I have to take short-cuts, but I don't recall intentionally caricaturing anything.
Your musings do come across to me as more preaching or devotional than true wrestling.
Did you read fighting with the Bible? That sorta sums up my approach. I do go at scripture with a position of trust and affection, rather than suspicion, even if I intend not to ignore the warts. I do believe that to truly be devotional, there must be serious wrestling - so I don't see the two as diametrically opposed.
Think of it this way - who sees and knows a woman more as she truly is - the husband who loves her, or the spurned boyfriend of her past? Both could make the argument that the other person's predisposition is causing them to only see one side of her. Yet, I would put my money on the husband - there is something about prolonged love that lets one see everything, the good and the bad, and keep on loving.
plus I think I would always be the odd man out.
I'm starting to get a few more skeptical readers. I appreciate their company.
Could you tell me where you think I have caricatured the Bible? Certainly, I have to take short-cuts, but I don't recall intentionally caricaturing anything.
The two that immediately come to mind saying Jesus is the most evil of all dictators for his eternal torture chamber, and your assuming that, to follow Jesus, you could never support a just war. The statements look particularly silly when put together. ;-)
Dang it Joe! Another one of my posts is getting held... Can you just put in one of those letter-reading thingeys or something?
Ex preacher,
I'm rewriting my post that Joe's spam detector ate, though it will probably resurface and look goofy shortly.
Your musings do come across to me as more preaching or devotional than true wrestling.
Did you get a chance to read this item:
http://wondersforoyarsa.blogspot.com/2006/09/fighting-with-bible.html
It's really a summary of what my approach to the Bible has become, in the light of what sort of things we find when we read the Bible. I admit that I do approach the Bible from a position of affection and trust, rather than skepticism, but I hope that doesn't mean I neglect to take seriously the warts that are there. I don't that devotion and wrestling and doubt are incompatible - in fact I think they are essential to a rich faith.
Let me put it this way. Say there are two people who know a woman - one is her husband, the other is a college boyfriend who had a nasty breakup with her back-in-the-day. Both would claim that they know "how she REALLY is" and both might say that the other man is blinded by circumstances and vested interests. And both might be right to some degree. Yet I would bet ultimately that the husband knows here best. There is something about enduring love that helps someone know a person deeply, to look at all the ugliness and beauty together and to continue to love.
I think I would always be the odd man out
I have a growing number of skeptical readers. I value their input quite a bit.
Could you tell me where you think I have caricatured the Bible? Certainly, I have to take short-cuts, but I don't recall intentionally caricaturing anything.
The two things that come to mind are your declaring Jesus more evil than any dictator for his horrible eternal torture chamber, and saying that it is inconsistent for followers of Jesus to support war, even a just one. The two comments look particularly interesting when put side-by-side. ;-)
Ex preacher,
I'm rewriting my post that Joe's spam detector ate, though it will probably resurface and look goofy shortly.
Your musings do come across to me as more preaching or devotional than true wrestling.
Did you get a chance to read this item:
wondersforoyarsa.blogspot.com/2006/09/fighting-with-bible.html
It's really a summary of what my approach to the Bible has become, in the light of what sort of things we find when we read the Bible. I admit that I do approach the Bible from a position of affection and trust, rather than skepticism, but I hope that doesn't mean I neglect to take seriously the warts that are there. I don't that devotion and wrestling and doubt are incompatible - in fact I think they are essential to a rich faith.
Let me put it this way. Say there are two people who know a woman - one is her husband, the other is a college boyfriend who had a nasty breakup with her back-in-the-day. Both would claim that they know "how she REALLY is" and both might say that the other man is blinded by circumstances and vested interests. And both might be right to some degree. Yet I would bet ultimately that the husband knows here best. There is something about enduring love that helps someone know a person deeply, to look at all the ugliness and beauty together and to continue to love.
I think I would always be the odd man out
I have a growing number of skeptical readers. I value their input quite a bit.
Could you tell me where you think I have caricatured the Bible? Certainly, I have to take short-cuts, but I don't recall intentionally caricaturing anything.
The two things that come to mind are your declaring Jesus more evil than any dictator for his horrible eternal torture chamber, and saying that it is inconsistent for followers of Jesus to support war, even a just one. The two comments look particularly interesting when put side-by-side. ;-)
boy do I look like an idiot - triple post! But there have been times where my comments get eaten for good... Any advice, Joe?
I stand by both of those positions, though I'm sure I worded them differently.
And yet it was presumptuous of me to assume you hadn't read N. T. Wright?
Yep. And it would be presumptious of me to assume that you haven't read the gospels.
Let me ask you this, WFO. Does Wright argue that Jesus either didn't really believe in hell or that he did believe in just war?
Wright does argue that many of the passages we interpret as Jesus speaking of Hell, were speaking of a much more pressing judgment coming upon Israel. When the hammer fell upon those who had rejected his way of being Israel, that wrath would not be merely the wrath of Rome, but the wrath of God.
I haven't seen this film yet but I really want to! I'm from the Midwest and I went to youth camp from the 8th to 12th grade and it was AWESOME!! Going to youth camp really deepened my relationship with Jesus and my peers.
I attend college in a very liberal Boston and bonding with Christians and people who come from different backgrounds and expressing my faith in that arena is just as important as my formative years at youth camp. God is not bound to a certain denomination or traditions...He's out there touching the hearts of men and women in all kinds of ways. The Gospel of Jesus is creative and vibrant.
I'm not going to knock this movie before I see it but I'm glad that it was nominated for an Oscar. It's opening doors so that other films about the Christian faith can be shared and appreciated in the "big leagues".
Good post!
Joe,
While your review does make some reasonable points, they are overshadowed by your polemics and your tendency to look the other way when something inconvenient for the faith is depicted.
I think your points are valid (if a bit overstated) regarding the film's producers painting Christianity with too broad a brush. Your argument would've had more weight if it were true that secular people look at all Christians the same way. They don't, and most do, in fact, understand many if not all of the nuances. Still, it isn't difficult to take away from the film the point your are trying to make.
However, what I do find most appalling is your dismisal of the events at the camp as actions of the politically impotent and that this is nothing new.
We have been murdering each other for thousands of years. Should we dismiss murder as "nothing new?" David Koresh was politically impotent, but does that mean we can dismiss the atrocities that he committed against his followers? I am sure that this isn't the point you were trying to make, but do you see how this sort of sloppy thinking can be turned around?
And before you chastise me for making a comparison to David Koresh, my point is that what is going on here is wrong, and there is no way that you can rationalize that. In doing so, you make it all too easy for secular society to paint Christians with that broad brush that you dislike so much.
insurance company ratings
nikqj2 U cool ))
nikqj2 U cool ))
nikqj2 U cool ))