I saw the film Jesus Camp yesterday at an open discussion held at my alma mater, Lindenwood. The film is... disturbing. It follows a particular "Evangelical" children's camp (which is heavily Pentecostal and, I would assert, more properly labeled Fundamentalist), following the director and several kids during the time before, during and after the camp. The camp presents many truths, but at the same time was truly disturbing. What tactics are proper for a camp to use to get children to "accept" the Gospel? For that matter, do they really accept a personal relationship with Christ if they are scared into it, or do they merely assent to propositions?
The video also raised some questions about the fundamental debate between the camp and its so-called "enemies," the "liberal relativists." I wrote the following in an e-mail discussing the film; the comments are somewhat stream-of-consciousness in form, but hopefully they are intelligible:
I've been mulling over "Jesus Camp" some more. I'm not sure if anything I came up with is worthwhile, and they aren't really unique, but for what its worth...It was really very interesting, if a bit nauseating. Perhaps it is because I've been busy deconstructing my theology since Dr. Schnellmann's Criticism got me thinking about deconstruction, or perhaps my "Covenant Theology" class is emphasizing a "post-modern critique" aware "narrative theology," or maybe all that is apropos to nothing, but I was thinking: isn't the whole debate essentially yet another airing of two ugly heads of the Enlightenment Project's (dying) beast? Maybe it is time I try to make a reference to Foucault. In fact, perhaps this is where Prof. Stevens was heading with his Foucault reference...
After all, the fundamentalist movement, and many of the "enemies" that Fischer worries about [...] are products of the Enlightenment/modernist perspective.
While the homeschool mom, for instance, was busy attacking evolution, she was doing so with the assumption that the Bible speaks in essentially scientific propositions. That reminds me of Dr. Meyers's discussion on category errors with Genesis, and the "walk to work or eat your lunch" example. The "offensiveness" of evolution exists largely among Christians who buy into such a reductionistic, modernist worldview that the only thing that matters is the physical creation and hence see a creation viewpoint and evolution as necessarily opposed. For that matter, the pressure Fischer felt that she must use whatever rhetoric necessary to gain converts would seem to be taking a very naturalistic view of what is required for true conversion (what happened to God in this picture?).
The whole lack of grace among the Christians of the video would seem
Perhaps the (seemingly ever increasing) antagonism between modernist factions will lead to their eventual collapse? Maybe I am overly optimistic there. Of course, then that would mean one thing (logically) in theology: a second wave of Neo-Orthodoxy! I can only imagine all the new books on St. Karl of Basel that would be written...
to come from the fact that they are primarily reading the Bible as propositions of law rather than a story of grace (to sound all deconstructionist again, they seemed to lack a sense of a redemptive
meta-narrative). Despite the "manifestations of the Spirit" there was little real sense of a relational understanding of Christianity.
Anyone here see this film? What did you think?
Trackback URL: http://asisaid.com/journal/trackback/1270.html
I’d like to see it. Until that happens, I’ve already long been in the line to criticize the Western rationalist view of Scripture. Oddly, I still qualify for the strictly academic definition of “fundamentalist,” but I am utterly convinced most of my fellow fundies are off the track. While I believe, for example, in a literal Adam and Eve in some literal location called Eden, the literalness is hardly the point. If that’s it, and we ignore what they symbolize, we have no foundation for needing grace. BTW, I admit to once being in the “Jesus Camp,” as it were.
I know what you mean Ed. I missed the point in the past too. I think you hit the key on that “literalness is hardly the point.” I see no problem in literally interpreting such, the problem is when that distracts from the Gospel message. Clearly, the point of retelling the story of Adam and Eve is more than just to give us a report so we could have our facts straight on history: the point is to show God’s power as creator and humans inability to follow God faithfully. I’d rather see a lot of people hear the Gospel and accept Christ while also interpreting Adam and Eve metaphorically rather than seeing fewer Christians who all interpret them literally.
Oh, and wait — you want to see a movie?
Movies are evil, but sometimes a necessary evil
I'd rather read a book, but the author doesn't seem to plan one, as far as I can find.
Ah, OK, gotcha.
I think it is probably worth watching, it was well done. The directors clearly had a bias against Evangelicals, but they didn't have to do much to get their message across following this particular camp.
<blockquote> While the homeschool mom, for instance, was busy attacking evolution, she was doing so with the assumption that the Bible speaks in essentially scientific propositions. That reminds me of Dr. Meyers’s discussion on category errors with Genesis, and the “walk to work or eat your lunch” example. The “offensiveness” of evolution exists largely among Christians who buy into such a reductionistic, modernist worldview that the only thing that matters is the physical creation and hence see a creation viewpoint and evolution as necessarily opposed. </blockquote>
I can see your point, Tim, and largely (or even totally) agree with it. But I should take issue with the Bible/Science dichotomy. Of course, trying to narrate the Bible in scientific key would be wrong. But I believe that even though Gen. 1 is a cosmogony like many Ancient Near Eastern counterparts, that particular cosmogony was inspired and revealed as true by the Holy Spirit of God. Because of that, I tend to treat that cosmogony as factual unless proven otherwise.
The only candidate so far to challenge the factual validity of Gen. 1 is gradualistic, naturalistic evolution. And this is a set of beliefs crafted to appeal better to a scientificist mindset, even though there’s nothing scientific about them.
Of course, the Bible does not speak in scientific terms; but if the Bible says God created the world as we know it in six days, I’d at least give the Bible the benefit of the doubt. Jorge Luis Borges took an interesting argument from Bertrand Russell to convince me of this.
P.D.: Happy (belated) birthday again, Tim!
Eduardo, I think you make very good points. And, I certainly don’t want to deny the Bible’s capacity to speak scientifically, either. To say it never speaks to science would also be a modernist error, I think. But, I think to read Genesis 1 as primarily about the mode of creation (in our modern, scientific sense) may be unfair to the text. It’s primary point is about God as creator, not the construction of the universe.
The problem I see is if a child is convinced that the faith depends on Genesis 1 being a scientific account and that it makes sense because the scientists are a bunch of stupid idiots, if that child later goes to college and takes a biology class and decides the scientists aren’t as stupid as he once believed, he may feel he ought to reject the Christian faith because his understanding of the faith is dependent on a whole bunch of extra baggage. People should not feel troubled, for example, that the story in Genesis 1 and the story in Genesis 2 are not chronologically in the same order. Neither one is wrong, of course, but they may seem to be wrong if fit into the wrong interpretive context…
Oh, and thanks for the birthday wish!
Please enter your comment entry below. Press 'Preview' to see how it will look.