Therefore, it should come as no surprise that, while doing the research for my review of Jeff Sharlet’s book on The Family that I found much to repel me about that organization. At the same time, I did find some points of agreement. Like the proverbial broken clock, even the Family may be right at least “twice a day.” According to Sharlet:

[The Family] is a lot more militaristic. Really at its fundamental core, almost monarchist. We would be told time and time again, “Christ’s kingdom is not a democracy.” (ALT)

In this assertion, I have to agree: Christianity, rightly understood, is monarchical in nature. Christ proclaimed the Kingdom of God. A Kingdom as such is not a democracy. It is the King that declares the law and enforces the law. It is the king that rules his realm. For Christ, God’s Kingdom was at hand; that meant God was soon to rule his Land and ultimately the entire Earth.

As such, this can only mean that Doug Coe, the leader of The Family, is correct on at least this one point: Christ was a monarchist. Accordingly, to be Christ’s followers, we must be monarchists as well. Nor is this conclusion mine—or Doug Coe’s—alone. For instance, in his blogsite Joe Carter lists this as one of his Six Thoughts About Jesus:

“Jesus is not a Republican or a Democrat,” said John Mark Reynolds, “He’s probably a monarchist.” When I first heard that at GodBlogCon several years ago I thought it was clever; now I find it to be a profound insight. Jesus constantly talked about the Kingdom of Heaven. So why do so few Christians talk about it? One reason, I believe, is that we are now all republicans and democrats (small-R, small-D) and simply don’t understand what Jesus is talking about. We may use the term “Lord” and “King of Kings” but—unlike the vast majority of people throughout history—we do not comprehend what it means to live under the reign of a king. We need some remedial training on how to live as subjects in a kingdom.

As King, God serves as the patron of the Earth, bestowing His favor upon us and expecting a return of status, honor, and public praise (as did all patrons in the ancient world). Also, scripture records that God as Kingly Patron appointed one and only one person to act as His agent, his intermediary, in this world (Mat 28:18). God is on His throne already and Christ is his “right hand man.” (Mk 16:19; Lk 22:69; Acts 2:33, 7:56; Rom 8:34; Eph 1:20; Col 3:1) Scripture describes this as a present, not a future, reality. The Kingdom of God was inaugurated during the life of Jesus, probably starting at the time of his passion but most certainly by the time of his ascension into the sky.

Such would be the unmistakable import of the scriptural witness. God is King now. Christ rules at his right hand now. Ultimately, the world—whatever its appearance—is ruled by a monarchy now. This is the message that the world tries to block out while it crouches in a corner with hands over both ears and a scream in its lungs. For us, there is One God and One Lord. The world is His Kingdom; the peoples of the world are His subjects. We can either be good subjects of that Kingdom or bad subjects, but we cannot escape being subjects.

One can understand why secularists find such an assertion by Christians threatening. One can even understand why religious agnostics like Jeff Sharlet would find this basic message from Doug Coe so alarming. What is confusing to me is that even Christians are embarrassed by this message. Witness Canadian Catholic Christian blogger, Deborah Gyapong, and her response to a recent Canadian Supreme Court Decision.

See, anti-Christian bigotry is fashionable. It’s even been useful in political campaigns to bash those scary Christian conservatives, paint them as theocrats, to portray them as morally equivalent to terrorist jihadists, to call them “anti-Charter” and “anti-Canadian” as Liberals have done in recent federal campaigns. There is a spate of books touting this thesis selling well in the United States and bloggers like Andrew Sullivan refer to Christian leaders as “Christianists” and warn they want to take over and impose a theocracy as dismal as that of the Taliban. These are pernicious misrepresentations at best, outright lies at worst. While there may be the odd kook who wants the return of Old Testament Law, or the ridiculous, tiny but ubiquitous Fred Phelps gang with their hateful messages, these people represent less than a fraction of one one-hundredths of a per cent of Christian believers.

Though Gyapong wishes to defend the Christian community, in the process she perhaps gives up too much. She betrays as much of a revulsion toward what the Reformed call the “crown rights of Jesus Christ” as does Sharlet; the only difference is that Sharlet attaches it to an elite “underground” of Christian political lobbyists and Gyapong applies it to the “odd kook” and “a fraction of on one-hundredths of a percent of Christian believers.” In that, both may be correct, perhaps this is now the position only of the fringe or kook elite. Yet in reading the Bible, it should be the unashamed opinion of the majority.

For Christians, if they proclaim Christ as King (or more properly, the King’s intermediary or right hand man), then to one level or another, they truly must be “theocrats” or “Christianist.” Though they may give sway to the democratic ideas, those ideals must work within the limiting framework (or “frame word“) of the Rule of God over His planet. We may, like Phelps, apply this position incorrectly, but that does not denigrate the fact that this is the position of the New Testament and the Church from the first century onward. The world is already a theocracy.

Yet the Christian theocracy differs from that of the Taliban or the Jihadists in that we would not describe it as “dismal” (though perhaps the same could be said of the Muslim belief about his theocracy as well). Also the methods of “imposing” the theocracy differ. The Jihadist imposes it by warfare of one sort or another. Though Christianity has in the past used such methods, such has never been in accord with its foundational documents. Instead, the Kingdom is not imposed at all. For the Christian, the theocracy already exists. God is already King and Christ already is seated at His right hand. He already has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. One does not impose something that already exists. There is no need to do so. The Kingly rule started during the lifetime of Jesus of Nazareth. All that remains is to proclaim the gospel, the imperial news of Jesus Christ, so that the world will recognize that fact.

In this, the supposed enemies of Christianity and David Coe are correct: Christianity is monarchical in terms of its ultimate view of reality. However, such a viewpoint does not necessarily mean it contends that a monarchy is the only legitimate form of human government. In fact, one may argue otherwise…

More to come..

The ironic part (yes, Jeff—I know the meaning of the word) of my assertion is that once the Family is properly categorized, I think Jeff’s book becomes more controversial not less so. In many ways, by trying to connect “the Family” to these other groups, it deminishes the effect the book should engender. The impact would be larger if the Family was placed into its own category entirely. But I anticipate my conclusions.

First, Sharlet does a good job of noting that the Family is not a conspiracy (though reviewers, endorsers, and the publisher do their best to paint it in those terms). In fact, he notes the Family, despite the power it welds over various politicians and some of the undesirable results it has endorsed, is doing nothing illegal.

The Family’s not a conspiracy. They are part of a strain of American elite religious conservatism. They are not breaking the laws. In some cases they’re making the laws… (From Sharlet’s interview in the Marketplace)

I actually do dismiss all conspiracy theories. The Family isn’t a conspiracy itself—they’re not breaking the laws, they’re making the laws. The problem isn’t that they’re breaking rules, it’s that they are making a case for a conservative, imperial ideology that too many politicians find appealing…The common denominator is power, not theological orthodoxy. (RDL)

One is tempted to say, after reading these quotes, “What then is all the excitement about?” A group of Christians, of a conservative bent at least economically, are basically giving justification for politicians to do what they want to do anyway. They are speaking to the Power and Principalities and giving them a means to rationalize what they are doing. As such, they become a Power and Principality themselves. As such, in some cases, they may tip the scales of a political decision in a way they want it to go, but the power this group welds must be combined with other powers (oil companies and the aerospace industry for instance) for it to become effective. At worst they appear to be an informal lobbying group for their own particular viewpoint on Christian faith.

I don’t agree with it but I have to acknowledge that worse things have been done in the name of religion or Christianity. Still, again, I don’t want the actions of the Family to reinforce the negative judgment people right now have for what Sharlet calls “popular fundamentalism” or the “regular Christian Right.” The Family is very different from these groups. So different that to make such a connection is almost unjust. In many instances, Sharlet in his interviews intimidates this very assertion:

The press can’t “see” The Family because they don’t look like fundamentalists are supposed to look like. They’re sophisticated, polished, internationalistic, polite. (RDL)

I assert more that in this visual myopia, the press is judging rightly. The polished, sophisticated exterior reveals the same interior. The Family does not look like fundamentalists because they are not fundamentalists. What they are, Sharlet identifies quite often. I highlight the word to make my point quickly.

We discovered that as far back as the 1940’s, when The Family began organizing congressmen, the groups founder, Abraham Vereide, was praising Hitler’s “youth work” as a model to be adopted by Americans. He denounced Hitler himself, but he admired fascism’s cultivation of elites.. (HARP2)

Instead, the media, then and now, tends to acquiesce to elite secretiveness.. (HARP2)

According to their belief in themselves as a “new chosen,” an anointed elite that have replaced the Jews in God’s esteem.. (HARP2)

The Bible itself is for the masses; in the Fellowship, Christ reveals a higher set of commands to the anointed few. (RDL)

Another thing that I think is very important is the distinction I make in the book is between the popular front of fundamentalism which is James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Pat Robertson, and this self described avante guarde of Fundamentalism, this elite….They are only insiders. They are not interested in your soul or mine. They are interested in converting the elite and working as insiders. (LLS)

The Family’s not a conspiracy. They are part of a strain of American elite religious conservatism. (Marketplace)

The Family regard themselves, above all else, as “the elite.” In that status, their only concern is to speak to “the elite,” to those in power. Therein lies their secretive nature. They don’t speak to the public because they denigrate their importance. Why waste your time dealing with the masses if the masses are ineffective and inconsequential? They are “under the radar because that is the nature of “elites.” They can’t sully their hands dealing with “commoners.”

This perspective alone totally separates The Family from Evangelicals, the Christian Right, and the Fundamentalist. All of these groups care very much about the masses, especially about those whom they consider outside of Christ and destined for the eternal flames. Even if their concern is to “get a notch on their belt for Jesus” by converting you, the point is that they think you are worth their time to convert. In the same way, the members of the Christian Right, for all their bluster, work through the American Democratic process. They seek to build coalitions in order to convince the voting populace to change the culture in their direction. They work their voting blocks to do just that: vote. They trust, rightly or wrongly, that rhetoric and persuasion are the means to make such a change; not smoky back rooms—even if those back rooms begin with prayer.

The Family does none of these things. The work quietly because to do otherwise would be to reduce their status as the elite. That is the word that describes them best: elites and elitists.

And that should have been Sharlet’s title: The Family: the Religious Elite that Undergirds American Politics. Such a title would not have insinuated guilt to the innocent and it would have been more accurate. As an added bonus, I think it is more alarming than the original.

An elite can only be fought if the battle is concentrated on that elite. If the effort is spread out to include other targets then it will fail. That is why Sharlet’s book publisher, in choosing that subtitle and focus, blunted the effectiveness of what Sharlet could have accomplished. If the Family is truly as fascist as Sharlet contends—a fact for which I have to take his word, not seeing the source documents myself—then this defused focus will only allow them to continue and thrive.

Though Sharlet’s book, The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power identifies (wrongly, I think) the Family as a Fundamentalist sect that has infiltrated Washington Politics, use of his material is also pointed at “the Christian Right.” This identification is not made as consistently by Sharlet (who is a nuanced and careful writer) as it is by those who endorse and review his books. I gave some examples of this “guilt by association” in my first post. As another, here is a review as posted on Amazon:

The Family is the best book available on the Christian right precisely because it unpacks the ways in which the people often described as such are neither Christian nor right. I don’t mean that in the bumper sticker sense - I don’t buy (and Sharlet does not suggest) that this elite group of religiously motivated power players are not real Christians because of their political interests (even if the group itself sometimes prefers not to use the word). Rather, he makes the case that such easy categorization does not do justice to, or sufficiently warn against, their actual influence and reach.

Yet the connection between what is normally perceived as “the Christian Right” has little to do with the group Sharlet describes in his book. Like his assertion that the Family is another kind of fundamentalism, Sharlet asserts that it is also another kind of Christian Right. He gives some examples of crucial differences between the Family and what he calls the “regular Christian Right.”

They are not the traditional right wing bad guys.(RDL)

They are very different than the regular Christian Right in that they are very internationalist. They are interested in recruiting members around the world. (LLS)

But one of the things again that distinguishes them from the Christian Right, is as Doug Coe expresses it like so, we work with power where we can; build new power where we can’t. It’s a country club fundamentalism. (LLS)

One of the important things that separates them from the popular Christian Right—we know about the rapture: Jesus is going to come and. They don’t believe in the rapture. (LLS)

However, though these ideological differences should make one pause before using the antics of the Family to cast further dispersions on the Christian Right, they are not the more convincing proof. What is more telling are the more famous names within the Family itself. Rarely do the “friends,” “members,” “associates,” or “Core” square with those the public most associates (and dislikes) within the Christian Right.

For example, the Family does not include those whose names more readily come to mind when the Christian Right is the topic of conversation. For example, James Dobson and his Focus on the Family organization is an outsider to the Family (LLS). At the same time, though many readers describe members of the Family as “Pat Robertson-types,” Pat Robertson himself is not affiliated with the group. According to Sharlet, Pat “became too ‘charismatic’—in the religious sense of the word—for The Family’s upper class tastes.” (RDL)

Another person is absent from the roles of the Family whom everyone would expect to be listed: George W. Bush. Per Sharlet, “he’s not terribly involved actually. That’s one of the interesting things.” (LLS). No kidding! The most openly Evangelical president in years is not involved with this right wing Christian Political organization. The president, who was pushed to victory in at least 2004 by the Christian Right, is not part of Doug Coe’s elite. The man whose victory caused many to label the parts of the country that voted for him “Jesusland” is unimportant in their eyes.

One would say that if the above three figures, the major heroes of the Christian Right, are not part of the Family, then the Family is not part of the Christian Right. Period. You have to the Family something else and put them in another category altogether. Using Sharlet’s book to smear the Christian Right would be like using the antics of the Skin Heads to smear all balding men.

Need further proof? Just check out the listing of those who are associated with the Family

• Hillary Clinton (RDL, ALT, LLS). According to Sharlet (and Mother Jones News), Hillary regards Doug Coe—the leader of the Family, as a “genuinely loving spiritual mentor and guide.” (RDL). Hillary Clinton. If you have even been remotely associated with anyone on the Christian Right, you would know that they regard Hillary—unfairly, in my opinion—as next the Jezebel in God’s ranking of women. (For those that don’t read the Bible, that’s pretty close to the bottom.)
• Al Gore (RDL, ALT). Yep, global warming Gore. Yet it is claimed that Gore lost the Presidential election due to two sources: the votes of the Evangelicals and the ruling of the Supreme Court. Nor was it until recently that those of the Christian Right bought into Gore’s thesis of Global Warming. Accordingly, to include Al Gore and the Christian Right in the same sentence only works if the relationship is adversarial, not cooperative.
• Gerald Ford (LLS). Wasn’t that the guy who lost to the Candidate who made “Born Again” a household term? Need I say any more?
• Chuck Colson (RDL). Actually, as a former aid to Nixon, this one makes some sense. However, it appears that Colson did not become a member until after he was kicked under the bus by Nixon. If the Family is after power, their timing stinks in Colson’s case.
• Cal Thomas, the columnist (RDL). This would be the closest connection the Family has to the Christian Right. However, Thomas has written at least one book decrying the Christian Right’s emphasis on politics. This change may be part of his “cover” to go back underground into the recesses of the Family, but I doubt it.

So in summary, it appears that Sharlet should and an adjectivial phrase to all of his major descriptions of the family. That phrase is “another kind of.” It is “another kind of” secret. It is “another kind of” Fundamentalism. It is “another kind of” Christian Right. I say, it is “another kind of” all of these things because it is not really any of these things.

I agree with Sharlet’s realization in Harpers: “Their faith and their practice seemed closer to a perverted form of Buddhism, their God outside ‘the truth,’ their Christ everywhere and nowhere at once.” (HARP1). This is not Fundamentalism, the Christian Right, or even generic Evangelicalism. To quote the man from the Emerald City, “This is a horse of a different color.”

Next: Just What Kind of Horse is it? How Sharlet’s Publishers Missed the Really Scary Subtitle

Transitions

This series was prompted by my joining a new church (and almost a new religion) in preparation for marrying my wife–my wife of 24 years come this August, to put it into perspective. Though marrying my wife was one of my best moves, joining this church was not. At the start, it was a joyous place to be. However it decayed into an almost oppressive environment.

Under its wings, I moved into the Calvinist camp; for that I owe it something. Yet before long the leadership became something I could not recognize from the early days of its founding. At the start, we could ask any question we wanted after the sermon as part of the worship service. At the end, I was excommunicated for disagreeing with the Elders during a meeting that was called in order to get our opinion on a new fellowship hall. I noted that we would be better served working on building fellowship rather than a fellowship hall.

The deemed I was being too disrespectful. They demanded I attend a closed door meeting by myself with all four Elders acting as judge over me. I said I would attend if I could have a witness. They refused. I refused.

Then they formally excommunicated me! Thirteen years of membership did not matter for much of anything.

Still, I did get at least some cartoons out of the deal. The funny part is that when these were made in the first years, they though them funny. I even put them together in a very rough animated cartoon. Someday, I may post that on this site as well.

So the series moves from a Catholic setting to a Protestant one. To make a connection, I had the Baptist church meeting in the gymnasium of the St. Joshua’s Catholic Church.

In the course of these reviews, I have made use not only of Sharlet’s book, but interviews has done on the project that are readily available on the internet. In order to help identify my sources, I will reference the quotes as follows: LLS for Sharlet’s interview on the Leonard Lopate Show on June 3rd, 2008; ALT for the alternet.org interview; HARP1 for his original article printed in Harpers entitled Jesus Plus Nothing; HARP2 will refer to the follow up interview in 2008; FDL for the Fire Dog Lake interview.

The reason I hit on Sharlet’s book is that on such incendiary topics as the Religion/Politics connection, terms must be exact. If not, the whole book—against Sharlet’s wishes I am certain—will be used to tar and feather people that have nothing to do with its premise. Case in point, note one of the comments listed in response to an article on Sharlet’s book here:

Thank you for posting this. Dangerous people like these fundies need more light cast on them, and more people paying attention to what they’re really about.

Other commenters note how this book exposes “the Christian Right.” The dislike American currently has for Fundamentalists, Evangelicals, the Christian Right, etc. is being fed by Sharlet’s book and the hype attached to it. It becomes guilt by association or category.

So back to my lead question, is the Family, as Sharlet describes it, Fundamentalist? Even Sharlet appears to dance around the term, sometimes affirming it but always with qualification. He wants to distinguish the “Fundamentalism” of the Family from the “Fundamentalism” as most known by the public at large, or “popular Fundamentalism” to use his terms.

Another thing that I think is very important is the distinction I make in the book is between the popular front of fundamentalism which is James Dobson, Focus on the Family, and Pat Robertson, and this self described avant-garde of Fundamentalism, this elite. (LLS)

So the normal targets the public has in mind when they hear “Fundamentalist”, Pat Robertson, James Dobson, and the like, actually have nothing to do with Sharlet’s group. Though Sharlet also tags this group with other terms, such as Dominionist (FDL), theocrats (HARP1), Evangelicals (LLS), he sticks with “Fundamentalist” as their main identifier.

Is use the term—in the book I describe—we need to use the term “fundamentalism” in the traditional sense of what goes back to 1920; which is the idea of creating a fixed religion, a fixed set of truths upon which everything else can rise .. Fundamentalist is the most accurate term for the shape of his [Doug Coe's-ed] faith. But he himself will say, “I am not even a Christian.” He says, “I am just a follower of Christ.”(LLS)

The Fundamentalism to which Sharlet accurately refers was shaped by the publication of a series of essays entitled “The Fundamentals” which were published (actually) from 1910 to 1915. According to Wikiperdia: “The volumes defended orthodox Protestant beliefs and attacked higher criticism, liberal theology, Catholicism (also called by them Romanism), socialsim, Modern Philosophy, atheism, Christian Science, Mormonism, Spiritualism and evolutionism (an article by geologist (George Frederick Wright).”

Many things in Doug Coe’s Foundation or Family organization just don’t appear to match up with those publications or the theological framework they espouse. (Yes, I have a copy.) Or to put it another way, “This is not your father’s Fundamentalism.” Many of their beliefs, if Sharlet presents them accurately—and I have no reason to think he does not—just don’t match up with the common perceptions of Fundamentalists. For example, do you perceive Christian Fundamentalists as holding or doing to the following?

• Meetings held where the Koran is read, but “Jesus is there”? (HARP2)
• Deriding the term “Christian” as too narrow? (HARP1)
• Not really caring about abortion? (ALT)
• Loving the atheistic amoralist philosopher Nietzsche? (ALT)
• Even knowing who Nietzsche is?
• Not being interested in people’s souls? (LLS)—I would bet most of us think they are all too interested in our souls, thank you very much.
• Not believing in the Rapture, ala Left Behind, but are Postmillennial instead. (Actually, The Fundamentals does not have a particular Eschatological viewpoint but favors Premillennialism over the Postmillennial view.)
• Believe that decisions are not made by democracy, the church, or even Scripture. That believe that the Bible is for the masses, but Christ reveals a higher set of commands to the anointed few? (RDL)
• That doesn’t demand “doctrinal loyalty” and thinks “liberals are free to join them” (RDL)—What were the Fundamentals about if not “doctrinal loyalty?”
• Maintains relationships with the Moonies and the Scientologists? (RDL)
• That believes you can just sit there and Jesus will tell you what to do. (ALT) (Use the Force, Luke!)
• Says that the Sermon on the Mount was part of the “strange things” things Jesus sometimes said. (I would love to know the context of that oft repeated quote.)
• When they speak of Covenant, the first thing that comes to their mind is not Abraham, Noah, or Jonathan and David, but Hitler, Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, and Ben Laden. (HARP1)

(The last one may prompt some agreement among the anti-Fundy crowd, but believe me. I have sat through a few Evangelical, Fundamentalist, and even Christian Right sermons. The only time I heard the name of Hitler mentioned was during an anti-abortion sermon. It was not a favorable reference.)

I cannot verify the historicity of the Family’s connection to the 1915’s Fundamentalism: but if this was its source, I can truly say “this apple has fallen very far indeed from the tree.” In fact, it has morphed into something else besides an apple altogether.

In looking over the above points, I find that—except for the last—these statements would find agreement in many a mainstream Protestant Church in America today. Read by themselves, they sound pretty pluralistic to me. Though the Family is conservative politically and economically, they are clearly something else religiously. The fundamentalists would call them liberal.

Next: Is Sharlet Right About The Right?

I already mentioned my Daughter graduated from High School as a homeschooled child. Here is the video the class of 11 seniors put together that was shown at the ceremony. I know this has been done in other venues, but they still put in some nice touches. I know it is my daughter, so I am prejudiced, but it still brings tears to my eyes when I watch it.

It was performed to the tune of “Who Am I” by Casting Crowns and performed at Crossroads Christian Church. I thank all who were involved.

Sharlet’s work is that of a supposed insider to the organization. How did he penetrate the inner reaches of their headquarters, so ominously named “Ivanwald?” (which is sometimes in New York City and at other times in Arlington, Virginia)? So if this secret group is so secret, then certainly Sharlet had to work undercover in order to gain access to this damning information. One brings to mind James Bond antics including false identities, trench coats, and the picking of locks in order to gain access to the archives of dastardly documents and plans. At least one would anticipate covert meetings with informants in vacant parking garages.

Nope. Nothing like that at all.

So how did Sharlet get access? Not through the auspices of an albino assassin but by the recommendation of a banker. That’s right; a banker. As he records both in the first chapter of the book and in an article he wrote previously for Harper’s, a friend, who was a recent Ivanwald alumnus, suggested him for membership in the organization.

Having gained access through his convenient contact, Sharlet promptly changed his name in order to conceal his identity as a investigative reporter. Using his undercover spy skills, he then maneuvered his way into the secret recesses of the organization, skillfully twisting his way through the labyrinthian rituals of ….

Uh. No he did not. In fact, it was just the opposite. According to Sharlet, he did not enter the portals of the Family in any kind of clandestine way at all. Per an interview at alternet.org, Sharlet admitted, “Actually, I was posing as myself.” He did not hide or change his identity. No false passports or driver’s licenses were used.

Well, James Bond also uses his own name when he investigates the latest villain’s network of spies and saboteurs. He only hides his profession as a spy. So certainly, in true Bond fashion, Sharlet kept his name but hid the fact that he was a writer from those he was scrutinizing.

Uh. Well, no again. Sharlet openly told them he was a writer and even more.

“I didn’t really know how to explain you to the guys,” Bengt went on. “So I just told him we got a new dude, he’s from New York, he’s a writer, he’s Jewish, but he wants to know Jesus. And you know what they said?”

“No,” I answered, my fingers curling around the door handle.

“Bring him on!” (Pg. 17)

So not only did the Family know Sharlet’s name, they knew he was a journalist and they knew he was Jewish. In fact, according to Sharlet in his interview with Leonard Lopate on WNYC radio, it was “one of his calling cards.”

So we have a “secret” Christian organization that lets a known journalist into their organization, one who is openly not a Christian but Jewish, yet still gives that same person access to their archives—some 600 boxes of internal documents. I hope I am not the only person who is starting to think, “Secret political undergrounds don’t normally operate that way.” Certainly Lopate was beginning to move in that direction in his interview with Sharlet.

Lopate: But he knew you were a journalist and he knew you would be bringing journalistic sensibilities…

Sharlet: Yeah. It’s one of the fascinating things about the Family because its this group that is secretive but not terribly secret … So I told them I was a journalist. I went under my real name. And they said ‘That’s fine.” And at one point one of the leaders of the group that I was with said, “You know, you ought to write a book about us but nobody would believe it.” So I took his dare.

So one of the leaders of this “secretive, but not terribly secret” organization not only allows Sharlet access, he suggests that he write a book about them. The whole thing begins to strain credibility. Yet it does not end even there. Sharlet in other places even goes to lengths to deny the Family is a conspiracy of any kind.

I always say to interviewers, “This is not a conspiracy.” There’s no secret badge or anything. It’s much looser. This is how the vast right-wing conspiracy works, by being associates, friends.

Jeff, if the Family is “not a conspiracy,” then how is it part of the “vast right wing conspiracy”? This makes as much sense as being “secretive but not terribly secret.” It appears that even Sharlet is aware that he is walking a fine line between truth and the hype that sells books. In the process, he comes across at least to me as inconsistent if not deliberately misleading.

It is noteworthy that after his “secretive but not secret” statement above, the interviewer started to laugh nervously and move on to another topic. No wonder! I am certain he saw the paradoxes in Sharlet’s claims as well. Lopate thought he had a James Bond in his chair who was exposing the equivalent of a religious SPECTRE. Instead he had a Maxwell Smart who was bringing CHAOS into his radio show.

To Be Continued…

Now it is the Fundamentalists’ turn. What Dan Brown did with (or to) Opus Dei, Jeff Sharlet may accomplish with (or to) the Fundamentalists/Evangelicals. The odd part is that, unlike The Da Vinci Code, it may be the marketing rather than the content of Sharlet’s “expose” that does the most damage. (Sharlet himself in interviews appears to be a very nuanced and careful writer.)

Sharlet’s book in question is The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. The subject of the book is not the obscure sect, The Family, formerly known as the Children of God. Nor is it the more politically involved organization of James Dobson, Focus on the Family. Instead, the target is a group in Washington most known for initiating the Prayer Breakfasts attended by presidents and congressmen alike. The publisher’s description adds a sinister note to the activities of “the Family” (also known as the Foundation):

In public, they host Prayer Breakfasts; in private, they preach a gospel of “biblical capitalism,” military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao as leadership models, the Family’s current leader, Doug Coe, declares, “We work with power where we can, build new power where we can’t.” Sharlet’s discoveries dramatically challenge conventional wisdom about American fundamentalism, revealing its crucial role in the unraveling of the New Deal, the waging of the cold war, and the no-holds-barred economics of globalization. The question Sharlet believes we must ask is not “What do fundamentalists want?” but “What have they already done?”

The tone is also set by Barbara Ehrenreich’s quote on the bookjacket:

Just when we thought the Christian right was crumbling, Jeff Sharlet delivers a rude shock: One of its most powerful and cult-like core groups, the Family, has been thriving. Sharlet’s book is one of the most compelling and brilliantly researched exposes you’ll ever read — just don’t read it alone at night!

Got that. “Don’t read it alone at night!” Oooh, frightening! What those Christian Right people are really after will chill you to the bone. It would keep even Stephen King awake.

And the hype continues from other reviewers. Witness this quote from author Thomas Frank:

Of all the important studies of the American right, The Family is undoubtedly the most eloquent. It is also quite possibly the most terrifying. This story of a secretive and unmerciful church of ‘key men’ goes way beyond Jesus Christ, CEO—it’s Jesus Christ, lobbyist; Jesus Christ, strikebreaker; and maybe even Jesus Christ, fuehrer.

(Historical point: fuhrer was Hilter’s commandeering of the Lordship due to Christ. No less a worthy than Karl Barth—who was hardly a close associate of the Christian Right—noted that Hitler could not be fuehrer since Christ already was. It was a term that meant “leader” or more specifically “Lord.”)

However, even more pointed is the recommendation from Pulitzer Prize winner Debby Applegate:

Forget what you think you know about the Christian Right; Jeff Sharlet has uncovered a frightening strain of hidden fundamentalism that forces us to revise our understanding of religion and politics in modern America. A brilliant marriage of investigative journalism and history, an unsettling story of how this small but powerful group shaped the faith of the nation in the 20th century and drives the politics of empire in the 21st. Anyone interested in circles of power will love this book.

So the linkages in the book are made. Sharlet’s The Family is a secretive organization of the sinister Christian Right. Fundamentalism equals Evangelical equals Christian Right equals the nefarious “Family.” The public now has their Protestant version of Dan Brown’s Opus Dei. The problem is that the Family, by Sharlet’s own admission in his writing and subsequent interviews is none of these things; at least not as these descriptions are commonly interpreted by the public. It is not secret; it is not part of what the public perceives as the Christian Right (for instance, the hated-by-the-Left James Dobson has no part in the organization), nor is it sinister—unless your total goal is the elimination of religious expression from all public life.

I must admit that I have read only portions of the book; but even so, it was enough to throw doubt on what Sharlet proposes. Logic as well as Sharlet’s own admissions in interviews destroy his entire thesis. He must redefine what most people mean by the the terms “secret,” “Fundatmentalist/Evangelical,” and even “power” in order to push his thesis forward. I shall in future posts examine The Family and refute Sharlet’s above adjectives for that organization one by one.

Yet, despite my efforts I fear Sharet will be effective in ways even he could not predict. After all, unlike The Da Vinci Code, Sharlet’s book is not supposed to be a work of fiction. Most will not get beyond the title and the book jacket when they examine his work. It is a shame. “You can’t tell a book by its cover” may be more accurate for this work than in any other. The problem is that the “cover” is inflammatory and may incite more suppression of Christian expression than is taking place currently in Canada and even closer to home.

To Be Continued…

The last of the Dee Dee Dance Studio Panels

Near the end of the road now. Not long after this one was put together, I was married. Suddenly my time became premium. Not only did I have to give up learning to dance myself; I ran out of time to actually create the series. As you will see, it also took a more dramatic turn in content. I don’t think it was necessarily for the better. I became more serious and frankly, the strip did as well. It was less fun.

There will be only about 18 to go, including four I did to include in my wedding bulletin.

That’s “Canada” not “China.” It gets confusing, I know. And now the similarity is becoming even more marked than the fact that both countries begin with the letter “C.” This post may even get my name on a list someday when I cross the border on vacation or for business. I am exaggerating, but if things continue at their present pace in Canada, maybe not so much.

So, I join in with such worthies as Ezra Levant and Kathie Shaidle in their call to reprint Rev. Steven Boissoin’s “hate crime” letter to the Red Deer Advocate. This is not to say I agree with all or even the majority of what Boissoin has written. I do, however, protect my rights of free speech and press by allowing him the freedom to say or write what his conscience dictates.

The following is not intended for those who are suffering from an unwanted sexual identity crisis. For you, I have understanding, care, compassion and tolerance. I sympathize with you and offer you my love and fellowship. I prayerfully beseech you to seek help, and I assure you that your present enslavement to homosexuality can be remedied. Many outspoken, former homosexuals are free today.

Instead, this is aimed precisely at every individual that in any way supports the homosexual machine that has been mercilessly gaining ground in our society since the 1960s. I cannot pity you any longer and remain inactive. You have caused far too much damage.

My banner has now been raised and war has been declared so as to defend the precious sanctity of our innocent children and youth, that you so eagerly toil, day and night, to consume. With me stand the greatest weapons that you have encountered to date - God and the “Moral Majority.” Know this, we will defeat you, then heal the damage that you have caused. Modern society has become dispassionate to the cause of righteousness. Many people are so apathetic and desensitized today that they cannot even accurately define the term “morality.”

The masses have dug in and continue to excuse their failure to stand against horrendous atrocities such as the aggressive propagation of homo- and bisexuality. Inexcusable justifications such as, “I’m just not sure where the truth lies,” or “If they don’t affect me then I don’t care what they do,” abound from the lips of the quantifiable majority.

Face the facts, it is affecting you. Like it or not, every professing heterosexual is have their future aggressively chopped at the roots.

Edmund Burke’s observation that, “All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing,” has been confirmed time and time again. From kindergarten class on, our children, your grandchildren are being strategically targeted, psychologically abused and brainwashed by homosexual and pro-homosexual educators.

Our children are being victimized by repugnant and premeditated strategies, aimed at desensitizing and eventually recruiting our young into their camps. Think about it, children as young as five and six years of age are being subjected to psychologically and physiologically damaging pro-homosexual literature and guidance in the public school system; all under the fraudulent guise of equal rights.

Your children are being warped into believing that same-sex families are acceptable; that men kissing men is appropriate.

Your teenagers are being instructed on how to perform so-called safe same gender oral and anal sex and at the same time being told that it is normal, natural and even productive. Will your child be the next victim that tests homosexuality positive?

Come on people, wake up! It’s time to stand together and take whatever steps are necessary to reverse the wickedness that our lethargy has authorized to spawn. Where homosexuality flourishes, all manner of wickedness abounds.

Regardless of what you hear, the militant homosexual agenda isn’t rooted in protecting homosexuals from “gay bashing.” The agenda is clearly about homosexual activists that include, teachers, politicians, lawyers, Supreme Court judges, and God forbid, even so-called ministers, who are all determined to gain complete equality in our nation and even worse, our world.

Don’t allow yourself to be deceived any longer. These activists are not morally upright citizens, concerned about the best interests of our society. They are perverse, self-centered and morally deprived individuals who are spreading their psychological disease into every area of our lives. Homosexual rights activists and those that defend them, are just as immoral as the pedophiles, drug dealers and pimps that plague our communities.

The homosexual agenda is not gaining ground because it is morally backed. It is gaining ground simply because you, Mr. and Mrs. Heterosexual, do nothing to stop it. It is only a matter of time before some of these morally bankrupt individuals such as those involved with NAMBLA, the North American Man/Boy Lovers Association, will achieve their goal to have sexual relations with children and assert that it is a matter of free choice and claim that we are intolerant bigots not to accept it.

If you are reading this and think that this is alarmist, then I simply ask you this: how bad do things have to become before you will get involved? It’s time to start taking back what the enemy has taken from you. The safety and future of our children is at stake.

Rev. Stephen Boissoin

Some things to note: first thing, Boissoin was not targeting homosexuals as people. Any unbiased reading of the content would verify that. He has some sympathetic things to say in the first parapraph of the letter to the homosexual person, even though he disagrees mightily with the lifestyle. No, the targets of the letter are the political activities and strategies of the Homosexual activist groups. In other words, the Human Rights decision against Boissoin was specifically aimed at censoring his political views. That should send a chill through everyone; even those of the Homosexual Agenda that Boisson speaks against. Speech censored in one direction can just as easily shift to another.

Second, the ruling of the commission specifically targeted Boissoin’s religious views. Being found guilty of hate speech and being fined is bad enough, but the commission went even further. The Alberta Human Rights Tribunal recently ordered him to stop talking about homosexuality from the perspective of his evangelical Christian faith. Moreover, the government tribunal has prohibited him from criticizing the government process to which he had been subjected.

Even stranger still, the court has ordered him to apologize for his previous expressions on this topic as a Christian, and basically violate his conscience. Such an action goes beyond any semblance of justice and can only be viewed as a means for the court to humiliate Boissoin and any other people who share similar beliefs; you know, those stupid, “fundy” Christians.

The only meaningful response to such a judge and such a ruling is a single finger salute. Nor are such judges and rulings limited to Canada, though this one does amaze for sheer audacity. I am afraid that as Christians we may soon all be called upon to once again risk “our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor” for the cause of liberty.

Truly the courts and governmental systems of the Western nations are transforming into those of the Village in Patrick McGoohan’s The Prisoner. In such an environment, being charged with contempt of court will not only be a virtue, it will be the only reasonable response of a person who wishes to remain fully human.