What Would Jesus Do?
By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Religion, The Politics Of FilmI am asking in earnest, do you think that Jesus’ teachings advocate anything close to what you see here?
It’s a new film. It’s called Jesus Camp and it’s about the summer camps evangelicals send their kids to so they can become better trained Christians…emphasis on the “trained.” Supposedly, the film is very even handed with its subject matter and gives voice to both sides. However…after seeing that trailer I certainly got chills.
Frankly, evangelicals frighten me. Many of them seem to have contempt for the separation of church and state, and they have no problem putting their kids through camps like these so they’ll be indoctrinated with the same values. I just don’t think that Jesus would be okay with this movement. I don’t think he’d be okay with the idea that these people are more concerned with abortion than they are with feeding and clothing the poor. I just don’t think so.
But I’d like to hear your thoughts after you watch the trailer.
This entry was posted on Sunday, September 3rd, 2006 and is filed under Religion, The Politics Of Film. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
September 3rd, 2006 at 3:41 pm
Thanks alot.
That was about the scariest thing I’ve seen.
I particularly liked the part with the kid saying he was saved at 5 years old because he wanted more from life.
September 3rd, 2006 at 4:16 pm
It is sad when our differences are emphasized rather than our shared values. There is not much difference to me between these zealots and suicide bombers, between the Christian Right and Islamo-facists.
I am somewhat optimistic that when young folks grow up they have to reconcile their “training” with their personal experiences of the world and those of other points of view.
So far most Americans support a secular government that nurtures diversity, So far…
Diversity and communication is the antidote.
September 3rd, 2006 at 4:37 pm
It all comes down to fundamentalism. Having hardcore beliefs is one thing, but the Religious Right and the extremist Muslims approach their faith from a fundamentalist standpoint, i.e., they believe in the absolute infallibility of their chosen canon of scripture. All it takes is a *tiny* shift away from fundamentalist extremism, from believeing all people who believe differently from you are an affront to God, to rectify many of the conflicts we are seeing today. If you can admit that there exists even the slightest possibility that your chosen canon of scripture is incomplete, that there might be a sliver of theological truth to be found in someone *else’s* canon of scripture, then it’s a natural progression to a live-and-let-live attitude. If people will simply admit that what they believe might not be the end-all-be-all absolute truth, then they cannot in good conscience kill people of other faiths or practice coercive proselytization.
Unfortunately, fundamentalism is built upon a literal interpretation (an interpretation typically supplied to the flock by the religious leader) of their chosen scriptures, pretty much all of which have a statement of being the absolute and only truth hidden away in there somewhere. Fundamentalism thus feeds upon fear and ignorance, just like all demagoguery. It’s purveyors supply an interpretation of scripture to those too weak, busy, uneducated or scared to study various scriptures and make a determination of their own beliefs for themselves. Unfortunately, the sort of person who would strive to indoctrinate others aggressively with their dogma/interpretation tends to not be of a balanced, thoughtful, considerate demeanor.
It’s painful to watch people acting so destructively and ignorantly in regards to an issue which, for faith-influence people, should be something deeply personal, meaningful and inspirational.
September 3rd, 2006 at 5:52 pm
“Frankly, evangelicals frighten me.”
“Frankly, Muslims frighten me.”
“Frankly, Jews frighten me.”
“Frankly, Asians frighten me.”
“Frankly, Negroes frighten me.”
“Frankly, people who are different frighten me.”
September 3rd, 2006 at 6:05 pm
I started this comment several time then deleted it. It’s hard to explain the reality of the evangelical movement. It’s far more frighting in person than on a video. They are the American Taliban. For them W was personally chosen by god to lead the USA. They ardently believe that we are surrounded by demons, that everything they do is god’s will and that they are a persecuted people. To them the USA is Jesus’s land and we should repeal the bill of rights and declare ourselves a Christian nation. (of course it would have to be THEIR brand of Christianity). They actually want the apocalypse to occur because that would mean Jesus would return.
This is not speculation or hearsay on my part, these are views repeatedly expressed to me by coworkers and friends
September 3rd, 2006 at 6:31 pm
Frankly, extremists frighten me. In so much as they are so different from everybody else, that’s particularly scary too.
And by the way…Negroes? I think you can come up with a more appropriate, non-offensive term. Next time, please do so.
September 3rd, 2006 at 7:02 pm
I’m with J.A. Marritt on this one. This post smacks of classic bigotry. Find extreme examples, set them up as the norm, tar an entire class of people with the same brush.
It ignores the inconvenient existence of thoughtful, reasonable, intelligent educated evangelicals like say, Philip Yancey. Or the many I have known who were just decent, every-day people who would be absolutely astonished at the most of the attitudes ascribed to them. I’ve known an awful lot of evangelicals over the years, seeing as I’ve been involved in these churches for decades, and I’ve known very, very few individuals who fit those stereotypes. Sorry.
For the record, evangelical and fundamentalist are not synonymous terms. Fundamentalists are a subset.
If people will simply admit that what they believe might not be the end-all-be-all absolute truth, then they cannot in good conscience kill people of other faiths or practice coercive proselytization. Classic straw man. The vast majority of evangelicals would recoil in horror from such an attitude. In fact, they would argue very vigorously that a conversion that doesn’t spring from a sincere heart quite simply isn’t one. And the Biblical doctrine of Christ’s sacrificial love for sinners (”For God showed His great love for us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”) pretty well precludes wanting to chop off the heads of people who don’t share the same beliefs. I have never, ever in my entire life heard a single individual espouse such a thing. And it is odious to suggest that this is a normal attitude. The much more normal response to a lost world has been to set up orphanages, inner city missions, hospitals in Third World countries… woo, scary stuff!
I am sick to death of being judged on the basis of ignorant caricatures.
September 3rd, 2006 at 7:27 pm
It’s obvious we need to use better vocabulary to describe “the Religious Far Right.” Fundamentalism just means that they think the Bible should be taken literally. Well Jesus explicitly says that all prayer should be private, (is commonly interpreted to say) that God is separate from the state and that the most dangerous threat comes from people that say they know what God wants and that their actions are blessed by God (with the corollary that no one can proclaim who is “saved” or not). Several fundamentalist sects (and non-denominational friends I have) also point to several passages that call on Christians to be pacifist. And of course there is a plethora of passages about helping the poor and sick, being humble and a score of other things that are deemphasized in the movement.
Many evangelicals (and in increasing numbers) are environmentalists, and think that separation of church and state is vital to protect their religion in addition to what walrus said.
I like Andrew Sullivan’s usage of Christianist to describe the conflagration of politics and religion. Also, there is dominionism, which believes that Christ will only return when the world is completely under Biblical law, and anyone that breaks their interpretations of the law should be executed.
September 3rd, 2006 at 8:05 pm
Well, like it or not, the public and political face of the evangelical movement has been taken over by these people. You know it and I know it. So let’s not pretend about that.
Now, if you’re so angry at people making this generalization, do something about it. Get the moderate evangelicals organized and speak out. Otherwise you run the risk of your more fundamentalist brethren continuing to run the spirit of your movement straight into the ground.
September 3rd, 2006 at 8:41 pm
I can’t do that for a number of reasons. Health, first of all. Second, I’m not American.
Part of any such campaign would be trying to persuade the media to give equal time, or better yet, proportional time, to moderate evangelicals and what they are up to. Like that is going to happen. It isn’t sensational, doesn’t titillate and would preclude mockery.
FWIW, my husband is teaching at an evangelical college where he teaches history, and makes it an active part of his approach to challenge his students to get beyond myths and to the facts, to question assertions, in short, to learn critical thinking. For the time being, that will probably have to be the extent of our personal involvement. Only so far you can stretch.
I don’t think he’d be okay with the idea that these people are more concerned with abortion than they are with feeding and clothing the poor.
This is an astonishing assertion. Any facts or figures to back that up? I’ll agree it generates a lot less talk, because it’s less controversial, but you’d be hard-pressed to find an evangelical church of any size that isn’t active in feeding and clothing the poor in one way or another. Usually many ways.
My own church provides monetary assistance to two inner city missions, as well as having regular volunteers who provide homemade sandwiches and the like, we conduct regular drives for clothing and other supplies, we donate our used furniture and other objects to help refugees, contribute to the upkeep of medical missionaries, orphanages, and such, give substantial amounts to disaster relief, send teenagers to the Dream Center in LA where they get practical experience in working with the poor and homeless (my own son will be spending a year there. He returned from a short-term missions trip last year particularly enthused about taking the kids of whores and pushers off the street and organizing activities for them, as well as making friendships with the guys on Skid Row – yes, THAT Skid Row), and I could go on, but I’m not in a leadership position and I don’t know all that goes on. Most of this is pretty untrumpeted, it’s just way too normal to get any special mention.
I can’t remember the last time I even heard the word abortion in a sermon or a Sunday School class. I’m sure it happens occasionally…
The financial contribution we made to a local synagogue when it was the victim of anti-Semitic vandalism didn’t make the news. We didn’t announce it to the press. Must have been that thing that Jesus said about not blowing trumpets when you give alms. The point I am trying to make is that there is an awful lot of stuff going on that doesn’t get air time and that doesn’t conform to the stereotypes.
May I humbly suggest that your perceptions are seriously skewed and you are just promoting facile stereotypes rather than speaking from any base of knowledge? May I further suggest that the phrase “these people” almost invariably occurs in a sentence that promotes stereotypes rather than purveying real information or encouraging thoughtful evaluation?
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:16 pm
“May I humbly suggest that your perceptions are seriously skewed and you are just promoting facile stereotypes rather than speaking from any base of knowledge? “
Well I can’t speak for others, but living for decades in the bible belt of the American south provides ample knowledge base. I will acknowledge that there is a flip side to scarier aspects of evangelical movement. Including the charitable works they do. But that doesn’t make their other behavior and beliefs any less scary.
September 3rd, 2006 at 9:36 pm
Justin,
Since you have this public forum, I suggest that you should “do something about it” and help paint a more accurate picture of modern Christianity. I think it’s irresponsible on your part to post this video and then claim, based on what’s in it, that evangelicals frighten you. You then cop out in the thread and absolve yourself and this blog of any responsibility in finding out the real truth for the benefit of your readers.
The main reason evangelicals and the religious right have this evil reputation is because this type of negative exposure is mostly all they get. Why don’t you do a serious post on evangelicals and explore the other side – the good stuff that Christians do everyday. I think even you will be pleasantly shocked by what you discover (although you will probably be disappointed on the abortion issue). Of course I’m assuming that seeking truth is a part of your agenda.
September 3rd, 2006 at 11:12 pm
[...] read more | digg story [...]
September 4th, 2006 at 2:16 am
I say this as an evangelical. Evangelicals scare me too. We aren’t all like that though. Just… too many of the noisy ones are. The chapel I attend is a major funder of a Bible camp, but it’s nothing like what’s portrayed in that video. That said, in some way, it’s much, much worse, and in some ways, it’s exactly what it should be. It almost entirely depends on which week of the summer it is, and who the director is that week.
There’s this one guy who tends to direct the first week, whose primary goal seems to be scaring the pants off the kids. And he’s good at it. He’ll have “object lessons” where if you fail to write your name down in the “lamb’s book of life”, by the end of the week… Well, they set up gas pipes just under the water in the lake. They poked holes in the pipes and lit the pipes on fire. Because of the reflections at night, it looks like the whole lake is burning. Annnnd, then they make all the kids who didn’t sign their name swim through it. It’s perfectly safe — the water’s like 2 feet deep and no one gets within 20 feet of the fire — but that doesn’t make it a good idea.
The second week’s director, on the other hand, is just about the nicest guy you ever wanted to meet. That week’s object lesson? Going into the nearby town and helping everyone around the town with lawn work, painting sheds, park cleanup, and so on. Just to be nice. No proselytizing involved.
If it’s any consolation, the second week is about 5 times more popular.
September 4th, 2006 at 3:17 am
walrus wrote:
“…but you’d be hard-pressed to find an evangelical church of any size that isn’t active in feeding and clothing the poor in one way or another. Usually many ways.”
This is very much true. I do social & public health work in the urban NE and evangelical [and *sometimes* mainstream] christian or Jewish religious orgs are often the mainstays for basic needs, aside from regular charitable orgs. Not the local or State or Federal governments. That might burn you a little, but it has to do with the amount of red tape any government attaches to anything it does vs. simple charity & good works.
Aside from all of that, the clip didn’t alarm me in any way. At least not more than seeing little tykes brought to protest marches, pro-choice rallies, nudist folk festivals, etc. all of which I’ve seen with my own eyes. Any average kid grows up following what their parents say, then turning 180 degrees opposite anyway….
September 4th, 2006 at 7:44 am
“Well, like it or not, the public and political face of the [civil rights] movement has been taken over by these people. You know it and I know it. So let’s not pretend about that.
“Now, if you’re so angry at people making this generalization, do something about it. Get the moderate [Negroes] organized and speak out. Otherwise you run the risk of your more [extremist] brethren continuing to run the spirit of your movement straight into the ground.”
September 4th, 2006 at 8:47 am
j. a. Marritt,
There you go again. “Evangelical” is an imprecise term for what Justin is talking about, since it lumps sane evangelicals such as Walrus and Bob Aman in with the crazies. However, it is not equivalent to “Negro.” The latter is a racial term, and it is illegitimate on its face to ascribe a belief system to a racial group. Evangelical, on the other hand, descibes a belief system, and it is perfectly legitimate to ascribe a belief system to adherents of a belief system. Mikkel and Andrew Sullivan have it right – we need to differentiate the crazies – I prefer “dominionist,” myself. Once we have done so, however, judging them on their beliefs is not prejudicial, but judicious.
urthshu,
Protest marches teach children that it is okay to challenge authority. Dominionism teaches children that they will go to Hell if they do. These are not equally alarming to me.
September 4th, 2006 at 9:31 am
There’s a perverse logic implied in the trailer: that which states that the tactics of, say, Hamas (indoctrinating their children to seek jihad and martyrdom) is working. Winning, even. So “we” should fight tactic with tactic, God with God.
A similar parallel is the contention that these people on the screen are aberrant and do not speak for the community of evangelicals. Okay. But just as there have been polemics (mine included) that has made an argument that moderate Muslims must police their radical brothers, there possibly should be calls for Christian Evangelicals to calls nuts on those marching their children around in anticipation of a Muslim-Christian Holy War.
Frankly, if such a war would come to pass, I suspect that whatever side is ultimately victorious, the outcome would be largely the same, if not in philosophy than at least in degree. Once God has been invoked to countenance specific action, the slide toward devine right has begun. The danger that would be apparent in a purely religious war is far greater than that which would be presented in a war of superstition versus enlightenment.
Onward Christian Soldiers, indeed.
September 4th, 2006 at 12:42 pm
Since so many people offended when the word “fascism” is used to describe Radical Islam, or that they believe Radical Islam is some sort of a reactionary movement to American corporate imperialism, or as Michael Moore has said, “there is no terrorist threat…I repeat, there is no terrorist threat;” perhaps the choice we will inevitably face in the future will be to retreat in fear while some sort of American-Christian holy army does the fighting on our behalf, or convert like the fox reporters.
September 4th, 2006 at 2:02 pm
JLA, I’m glad you referred to my post, especially since the verbage conflict has exploded even on this thread. I’d like to point out one thing though — dominionism is a very specific and extreme doctrine that itself isn’t appropriate to describe all the types of “crazies.” For example, my grandmother feels like her Lutheran upbringing was the root cause of much of her depression and eventual alcoholism because any of her attempts at personalizing God were meant with ridicule and warning of damnation. It was only after she found various churches (including some modern Lutheran ones) that discussed her questions and let her become more secure in her faith that her problems went away. But even the worst things her childhood church said, none of them advocated taking over the government and killing non-believers.
Here is a link about dominionism. I’d like to point out two things: first of all, the only complaints they seem to have received about the characterization is this paragraph. “The reinstitution of slavery appears to be a hot button item among Reconstructionists. We have received a few negative E-mails which complained that the movement does not recommend the resumption of human slavery. But we have received many more Emails from Reconstructionists claiming that legalizing slavery would be good for North America.” Secondly, it notes “Dominionism thought is finding considerable support among Pentecostal and Charismatic denominations and churches.” Looking at the website for the camp that is featured in the movie, I see they are Pentecostal. I can’t find any specific reference to dominionism but it is very possible that the “movement” (the word the pastor uses to describe her work) is that.
September 4th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
This clip I found on their site makes me particularly sad because this woman knows exactly what she’s saying, but somehow she can’t see the inherent tragedy, danger and flaws in the logic. It sounds like she’s readying for a holy war, no?
Note the last line, “Excuse me, but we have the truth!”
Whoa…
September 4th, 2006 at 4:31 pm
[...] Want to watch a scary movie trailer? Justin Gardner has it loaded and ready to go for you at Donklephant. [...]
September 4th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
Justin – I think your last comment is the most revealing. What really bothers you, and many, is that Anyone has the audacity it be a true believer, i.e. actually believe that their religion, worldview, philosophy holds the one and only special position as the Absolute Truth. For the Agnostic the offense is with the confidence, the inexplicable certitude of the True Believer which seems at complete odds with our existence. For the Aethist, of course, the the offense is not with the certitude of the True Believer, but with the very idea of an Absolute Truth. Which are you?
September 4th, 2006 at 9:32 pm
DosPeros:
The way I see it, the problem isn’t with “Absolute Truth” but rather with certainty. Truth and uncertainty aren’t mutually exclusive. You can be quite sure that there is an Absolute Truth but not be absolutely certain about what it is. I personally fall into this camp. I personally believe that the Bible as we have it today contains Absolute Truth, but I also believe that some small percentage of the Bible as we have it today has been distorted and modified either by accident or to suit the beliefs of scribes, copyists, and translators. Worse, I believe that the various christian traditions grossly distort the intended meaning of the scriptures. These beliefs require me to maintain an open mind on many subjects, whereas many Christians believe what they believe with absolute certainty, and refuse to subject their beliefs to any sort of critique. That is a problem.
September 4th, 2006 at 9:55 pm
Yeah, that trailer seemed real “balanced” to me. I can just imagine how evenhandedly Magnolia Pictures is going to treat this subject. It’s kind of difficult for everyday evangelicals to get the spotlight when the secular media is intent upon documenting the extreme and selling it as the norm. I somehow doubt Magnolia Pictures will be filming a mainstream Vacation Bible School any time soon. Radical Christian fundamentalists haven’t stolen the spotlight so much as had it focused upon them by the secular media, and if the truth suffers in the process, who can blame them? The radicals get their message out, the media gets a scary story, and everybody’s happy, right?
September 4th, 2006 at 10:29 pm
Bob – I agree. I think one issue with any “children religious camp” is that, by definition, it is not an exercise in bolstering faith with reason. That puts it beyond the ability of the secular humanist to understand – unless it some environmental equivalent to Earth Day. It comes off as “scary”, because they simply don’t know what is going on.
I don’t think that Jesus would object, though. Afterall, I don’t think Jesus really cares how one comes to be a Believer, but rather the simple fact that one is or is not. That being said, I don’t think St. Thomas Aquinas would find it very fulfilling intellectually. I personally know Ph.D’s and intellectuals of all ilks that are died-in-the-wool born-again true believers. The outcome is the same, howeer the means of spiritual achievement are antipodal to the Jesus Camp. To me, this post & probably this film (although I have not seen it) are pure propaganda — (and of course, that doesn’t mean there isn’t a kernel of truth in it): A way of mocking people’s beliefs and the way they chose to spiritually educate their children. Most Americans will view it and have the sence that people like Justin are laughing at them and making fun of them for their beliefs. Most Americans will shake their head at the irony of this attitude coming from people who harp incessantly about tolerance and understanding and reprimand commenters on the correct nomenclature for blacks while at the same time claiming that “evangelicals” (for whom MANY ARE BLACKS) scare them!
Sorry, if this seems harsh, but for as much as Justin and I have disagreed, I NEVER considered him an intolerant, close-minded, elitist bigot until this post.
September 4th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
With that being said, I want to add one more item: I’ve been commenting on Donklephant basical since its inception. There have been a lot of good debates and I’ve had a lot of fun. And for that I want to thank Justin, but I will not be commenting here anymore. The idea of this blog being a place of moderate centrism has turned into a joke. There is no centrism or moderation with the current posters and any such advertisement as such is to whore-out the English language for political manipulation to an embarrassing degree. I wish you all the best of lives and to continue to fight for what you believe in. So long.
September 5th, 2006 at 2:19 am
And by the way…Negroes? I think you can come up with a more appropriate, non-offensive term. Next time, please do so.
If you find the word “Negro” offensive then you need a reality lesson! Second, if you don’t like it, take that up with large organizations such as the United Negro College Fund !!
WIth your vile comment, you are also spitting on the graves of every person of color who put their livelihood AND life on the line for the right to be called negroes!!
You sir, are what frightens me. A United States citizen (?) lunatic who can’t separate his fantasies from today’s realities.
Oh let me guess, you also have a problem with the term “colored people.” Well loser, we are ALL colored people, with the possible exception of albinos. And if you have problems with people using it, take it up with the NAACP !!
September 5th, 2006 at 10:07 am
This is such an odd thread. One would think that the film trailer depicted an ordinary Sunday School class.
“Army of God”? “I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag”?
None of the people I know would suggest that such a camp represents mainstream Christian thinking… yet some of the comments here seem to be doing just that.
While I wouldn’t have chosen “evangalism” to describe folks who would support the ideologies in “Jesus Camp”, the reactions to the terminology seems to taken this dialogue into the weeds. Perhaps I’m misunderstanding?
To me, extremism in any religion is disturbing, and my feathers get ruffled indeed when such zealots begin to “act” on their beliefs… whether it’s blowing people up, or working toward a stated desire for domination of the political system.
Are groups such as this one (depicted in Jesus Camp) a majority? I hardly think so. But then… neither is al-Qaeda within Islam.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:26 am
BrianOfAtlanta, first of all I have seen interviews with the directors and they were completely clueless about evangelicalism (something it sounds like Justin is as well). I agree that is a problem as the film might imply it covers “mainstream” evangelicals. However, I completely disagree this is simply a matter of the media choosing to focus on the most radical.
The Left Behind series (written by Tim LaHaye) is not only enomorously popular, but it is very politicized with having the Antichrist’s father being an abortion loving gay UN head who uses science to lead people away from God (and is based out of Iraq — written a couple years before the war). They have a game coming out where you battle the forces of the Antichrist on the streets of New York and if you kill an innocent, you can make up for it by converting others. This of course, is closely tied in with “friends” of Israel — the foremost among them Jerry Falwell — that believe it needs to take over all the Biblically foretold lands so Armaggedon can commence (and which BTW, Israel has started to deem a security threat because they are worried they’ll short circuit peace attempts and hasn’t been giving visas to some of the most prominent people of the movement).
Pat Robertson blames natural disasters — and 9/11 — on our sins (and close calls were averted by prayer), Ariel Sharon’s stroke on his withdrawal from Gaza, and said “You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense. I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist.” I should note though that he actually does do a lot of great poverty/development related work and should be applauded for that.
James Dobson is based in Colorado Springs — home of the Air Force academy, which is seeing a growing religious intolerance that the military is extremely concerned about. His main focus is on homosexuality and traditional marriage. His biggest influence outside his base is to lead the rallying cry against the judicial branch.
These four men are seen as the leaders of the evangelical movement, and I think they have the numbers to back it up. I brought them up specifically because they are also very integrated as part of the Republican party — specifically this Administration. When questions arose about Harriet Myers, they arose about her legally, politcally and religiously (would she rule the “right” way). What did Bush do? He had Dobson give her an a-ok, that her religious beliefs were quite fine in his book (although he refused to be more specific)…and almost completely ignored placating anyone that had reservations about her legal skills.
Couple that with megachurches that are springing up everywhere. One near me has the main pastor doing faith healings and all you have to do is watch his TV show and touch his fingers as he gives a prayer and all your aliments will go away. Another one in Louisiana where I used to live uses bona fide cult techniques. If you go there for the first time, they get your name/number/address and separate you from anyone you came in with. Then after the sermon, you break up into small groups (again, one newcomer per group) and they work on making sure you’ve accepted Jesus their way. They will call, send letters and even go to your house if you stop going. They tell children that if their parents don’t want to go, then their parents are damning them to hell and they will secretly shuttle them to services by picking them up at public places. They took it off their website (this is a great picture to show the decadence of the building, which has to be seen to be believed), but they used to have the group meeting syllabi. At the beginning of each group meeting, they would mark (and this is a direct quote) “Souls I’ve saved this (week/month/year)” along with whether they are meeting their “souls saved” target. (And yes, it says “I’ve saved,” not Jesus and not God). I’ve heard these things directly from four different people that have been there independently of each other and they all said the exact same thing (well they called the Methodist a fake believer, which they didn’t do to the agnostics). Oh yeah, that place has 5k+ members and growing, while the healing place has 10k+.
Have I met more “moderate” (dyed in the whole born agains that believe the Bible is innerant and accepted Jesus, but don’t have the political/mystical thing going on) Evangelicals than radicals? Yes, I have. I don’t know whether that’s just the circles I run in or a true sample, but I agree that in general there is nothing inherently scary about evangelicalism. However, the self proclaimed leaders of the movement that I do find scary have influence in the highest places in government (and not in some conspiracy six degrees of Falwell game, I mean the President publicly counts them as his closest religious advisors and they stump — except for Robertson who isn’t as political — for Republicans) and the type of places that are present in this movie seem to be springing up fairly recently. Notice that the website keeps saying “revival” over and over as a mantra. I do think that it is their goal to have a revival similar to the 20s-30s where fire and brimstone sermons, coupled with end times prophecies and routine miracles swept the nation. Maybe you disagree, but I don’t think that is really about accepting Jesus at all. But I have yet to see evangelical friends that do good works (going to SE Asia to fight religious persecution, to Latin America to build infrastructure for the poor, etc) say anything about this other movement other than to say they are “crazy” and not “living the message of Christ.”
Also note the church in Louisiana is called the Harvest, and the movie one keeps talking about the upcoming “harvest.” I’ve tried long and hard to figure out the source of this phrase that is very prominently used amongst these types of churches but I haven’t been able to. Does anyone know the source?
September 5th, 2006 at 10:44 am
Oh…sure you did DP. I’m sure you’ve said those words on more than one occasion when describing a post of mine. Maybe you didn’t string them together, but you’ve most certainly suggested as much in the past.
And what’s funny is you’ve called me out on so many occasions for so much less, this is rather disingenuous of you. I’ve always been the evenhanded one in our continuning online dialogue. Anybody who wants to spend any time going through our various word wars will clearly see that.
But hey, I respect the fact that you want to leave. However, are you really telling me that somebody who is readying the young for a holy war…you’re tellling me that’s okay with you?
Make no mistake, I have no problem with people having faith, practicing their faith and loving God. However, I do have problems with extreme faith because it can lead people into some awful places. Anybody who has any sense of history knows this, and that’s why these people frighten me. Would I try to stop them from what they’re doing? No. But again, it scares me.
It’s been nice knowing you DP. Hope you find a blog that’s more to your liking.
Lazarus Long…huh? Yeah, I’ll just go right out and start calling African-Americans Negroes or Coloreds and see what happens. My guess is that an overwhelming majority would be rather angry at the use. Just a hunch…but hey, I’m a lunatic.
Okay, I’m done with this thread. Moving on…
September 5th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Yes Polimom has a good point. No one on this thread has said that the movie represents the secret real Christianity (which people routinely do when an Islamic mosque is found to be radical) or that people that have faith should not be trusted. I hate to harp on it, but once again, they’re hiding behind the vocabulary. Justin says he finds “evangelicals” scary and people come rushing to the defense of evangelicalism…when he’s referring to a film that has children going to a camp where militaristic themes are made indistinguishable from religious. People, they have children dressed up with full face paint camo singing about being soldiers for Christ and pledging their lives to the Christian flag, while the leader talks lovingly of Palestinian suicide bombers. By baiting all the secular humanists into responding with imprecise language, they are getting the mainstream religious people to feel under attack. Maybe I’ll make my own blog about how vocabulary (especially with the rise of Orwellian language) is used to frame debate; OK that’s the last thing I’m going to say.
September 5th, 2006 at 10:54 am
Many of you are talking about the liberal media trying to portray Christians in a bad light. Every religions has their “crazy” sects, and they are probably the ones most likely to have a documentary made about them because of their “craziness.” If you don’t like it, and since Christians are a majority in this country, it seems to me that you have the power and money to make lots of documentaries that show case all of your “normal” groups.
I think the issue that I (and maybe others) have with religious groups is that you won’t call out extremist groups in your own faith. Those kids were crying, screaming and writhing on the floor in that video! That is crazy, inappropriate and to me it is abusive. There is no reason for little kids to be acting like that unless a bunch of overzealous, abusive adults are putting weird ideas into their heads. They are brainwashing those kids, period.
September 5th, 2006 at 11:02 am
DosPeros said: “Sorry, if this seems harsh, but for as much as Justin and I have disagreed, I NEVER considered him an intolerant, close-minded, elitist bigot until this post.”
That was harsh and untrue. This is a great blog, and I think there is a good mix of posters and commenters here. You are not a moderate centrist and neither am I. The point is for us to all have debates here and share our opinions. When Justin expresses opinions you don’t agree with, you have a cow. And now you’re calling him a bigot? Really inappropriate. I would say if you are that upset it probably is a good thing that you stop posting here.
September 5th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
Mikkel:
The source would be the Bible. The phrase is used constantly with the usual meaning being a metaphor for evangelism. It’s also a metaphor used in Revelation, but that’s not likely to be the harvest the church in question was named after.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:42 pm
Thanks, I haven’t really focused much at all on the evangelism present in the Bible and I guess my born-again friends were too busy emphasizing how and where they think Christian value systems overlap with other traditions to use that phrase.
September 5th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
Honestly I can’t stand people like this, even though my parents would probably approve wholeheartedly of the “brainwash the kids” methodology – they certainly tried it on me. Eighteen years after I moved out my fundamentalist parents still cannot accept me as I am.
It is people like the ones trained at these concentration camps who beat up gay people with baseball bats, or drive their own gay children to suicide because their worldview has no room for anything outside the narrow belief system that was pounded into their skulls. Welcome to the next generation of the KKK.
September 14th, 2006 at 8:46 pm
Hey wow this is a pretty trippy site?
Stop by to check out Jesus Rocks
Stop by to check out Jesus Rocks
Stop by to check out Jesus Rocks
September 14th, 2006 at 8:47 pm
Jesus would wear a Jesus Rocks shirt!
Jesus would wear a Jesus Rocks shirt!
Jesus would wear a Jesus Rocks shirt!
January 30th, 2007 at 11:48 pm
[...] The following YouTube vid is just one segment from the upcoming film Friends of God: A Road Trip with Alexandra Pelosi, and it certainly makes me think of Jesus Camp. [...]
April 21st, 2007 at 8:16 am
Unlimited Movie Downloads
TV show downloads are so expensive at most download sites. Fortunately,
October 28th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
I feel that the evangelicals are twisting religion.
1. God said the 1st commandent and 2nd commandment are most important.
2nd commandment- LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR
“THE BIBLE SAYS, GOD SAID THESE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THEN ALL OTHER things HE PRIORITIZED AND SAID 1st AND 2nd commandment ARE THE MOST IMPORTANT.
And guess what the 1st or 2nd commandment is not. you shall not be gay, or you shall not have an abortion(even if you say it is murder#6). God still said the 2nd is more important.
And the bible doesn’t change, god’s word does not change
If you can’t serve god and live up to the 1st commandemt and 2nd commandent on judgement day , that between you and god
Another thing when you take away freewill and try to play god yourself, and judge yourself, unstead of letting god judge, shame on you
ex, gays , abortion
those things are sins but god said to love your neighbor is more important. so if your neighbor is gay or had an abortion it is not up to you to judge them, its up to you to love them, according to the 2nd commandent.
remember the bible says you will be judged as harshly as you judge others. do you want to be judged harshly well them stop the harsh judging please it’s gods job
and yes i think jesus would vote for obama, he has been helping him as much as the “liberal media” with the rain in pennsylvania today and mccain trying to win that state, mccain cancelled because of rain, water. not obama. he went out in the rain for a chance at hope and change we need. Thank you jesus for sending obama to unite us , we need that change , racism is hate- it violates 2nd commandment-love your neighbor