Give me absolute control over every living soul
March 21, 2017 6:38 PM Subscribe
How a Christian movement is growing rapidly in the midst of religious decline A Christian movement led by popular independent religious entrepreneurs, often referred to as 'apostles,' is changing the religious landscape of America.
INC Christianity
That's a bit on-the-nose, no?
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:48 PM on March 21, 2017 [18 favorites]
That's a bit on-the-nose, no?
posted by soren_lorensen at 6:48 PM on March 21, 2017 [18 favorites]
The Long Con?
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 6:56 PM on March 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by Jessica Savitch's Coke Spoon at 6:56 PM on March 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
It is not so much about proselytizing to unbelievers as it is about transforming society through placing Christian believers in powerful positions in all sectors of society.
"Christian" "believers", surely. These people do not give even one tenth of a shit what Jesus said.
posted by IAmUnaware at 6:57 PM on March 21, 2017 [31 favorites]
"Christian" "believers", surely. These people do not give even one tenth of a shit what Jesus said.
posted by IAmUnaware at 6:57 PM on March 21, 2017 [31 favorites]
These people do not give even one tenth of a shit what Jesus said.
Does that really matter?
posted by dilaudid at 7:00 PM on March 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
Does that really matter?
posted by dilaudid at 7:00 PM on March 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
Christian is as Christians do.
posted by rhizome at 7:02 PM on March 21, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 7:02 PM on March 21, 2017 [9 favorites]
Does that really matter?
Yes; not everyone's cool with being led by the disingenuous.
posted by destructive cactus at 7:02 PM on March 21, 2017 [26 favorites]
Yes; not everyone's cool with being led by the disingenuous.
posted by destructive cactus at 7:02 PM on March 21, 2017 [26 favorites]
According to the director of media services at the Kansas City-based International House of Prayer (IHOP)
Heh. Heheh.
posted by clawsoon at 7:05 PM on March 21, 2017 [10 favorites]
Heh. Heheh.
posted by clawsoon at 7:05 PM on March 21, 2017 [10 favorites]
“We see discord at home. We see fear in the marketplace...”
Is that Jesus guy running around flipping over the money changers' tables again?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 7:09 PM on March 21, 2017 [72 favorites]
Is that Jesus guy running around flipping over the money changers' tables again?
posted by mandolin conspiracy at 7:09 PM on March 21, 2017 [72 favorites]
Certainly dipping into politics will cause them to forfeit their tax-exempt status?
Hhahahahahhaa. Just kidding. I know better.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 7:09 PM on March 21, 2017 [19 favorites]
Hhahahahahhaa. Just kidding. I know better.
posted by Abehammerb Lincoln at 7:09 PM on March 21, 2017 [19 favorites]
It seems important to note that the OP link is a promotion for a book that was just published, written by the authors of the book.
posted by XMLicious at 7:20 PM on March 21, 2017 [8 favorites]
posted by XMLicious at 7:20 PM on March 21, 2017 [8 favorites]
I am a Christian. These people are using the trappings and texts of Christianity for their own reward, and I find it repugnant.
Now, I believe strongly in the notion of service (Matthew 20), and so I kind of understand the notion that, if you believe that you will always act honorably and correctly then you ought to serve others to increase the common good...but these folks are Not That.
I don't feel the need to proselytize: my beliefs are my own. What these people want to do -- to obtain positions of influence so as to give them a larger audience -- is just about service.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ indeed
posted by wenestvedt at 7:21 PM on March 21, 2017 [42 favorites]
Now, I believe strongly in the notion of service (Matthew 20), and so I kind of understand the notion that, if you believe that you will always act honorably and correctly then you ought to serve others to increase the common good...but these folks are Not That.
I don't feel the need to proselytize: my beliefs are my own. What these people want to do -- to obtain positions of influence so as to give them a larger audience -- is just about service.
(╯°□°）╯︵ ┻━┻ indeed
posted by wenestvedt at 7:21 PM on March 21, 2017 [42 favorites]
The khristos, the Messiah... has not achieved the Messianic age
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift sword against nation and they will no longer study warfare. (Isaiah 2:4)
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. (Isaiah 11:6-9)"
The people become tired of lies, the predators become emboldened. We must turn inward and find the power to create peace within ourselves to bring this to the world. We can not wait for one soul to come and save earth, nor pretend it has already been done. We can do this. Together.
posted by xarnop at 7:49 PM on March 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
"They shall beat their swords into plowshares and their spears into pruning hooks; nation will not lift sword against nation and they will no longer study warfare. (Isaiah 2:4)
The wolf will live with the lamb, the leopard will lie down with the goat, the calf and the lion and the yearling together; and a little child will lead them. The cow will feed with the bear, their young will lie down together, and the lion will eat straw like the ox. The infant will play near the hole of the cobra, and the young child put his hand into the viper's nest. (Isaiah 11:6-9)"
The people become tired of lies, the predators become emboldened. We must turn inward and find the power to create peace within ourselves to bring this to the world. We can not wait for one soul to come and save earth, nor pretend it has already been done. We can do this. Together.
posted by xarnop at 7:49 PM on March 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
What strikes me about this most is the realization that, to gain power, the traditional congregationally-based structure can be totally abandoned. That this movement can now be purely about thought control, removing itself entirely from any profession of representing a faith community accountable to some - any - moral structure. By promoting this idea of "network-based Christianity," individuals are free to click and share, push memes and hot takes, identify without being accountable, and spread their tentacles into the "seven mountains" without ever having a real, challenging, and deep moment of facing what Christ demanded of them. It's a completion of a long-developing trend where the notional identity "christian" can come to mean socially-conservative, socially-isolated, self-aggrandizing belief systems, leaving any authentic path of attempting to live the moral directives of Jesus of Nazarath well aside. It's not entirely new, but this promotion of a final divorce from congregational life makes the corruption complete.
Or: "See to it that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many."
posted by Miko at 7:57 PM on March 21, 2017 [86 favorites]
Or: "See to it that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, claiming, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many."
posted by Miko at 7:57 PM on March 21, 2017 [86 favorites]
Christians have been finding the beliefs/behavior of other Christians appalling for a long time, so I suppose I'm solidly within tradition in my response.
I think there's something almost perfectly corroded about this, though. It's got such a similar shape with the idols of prosperity and status, and a flavor that seems so American: discarding the congregation means no community to tend, which means no real human context for seeing the details of practical (or compassionate) application of the principles/practices you teach, and no one to be accountable to except those with more power. The faith isn't preached, it's marketed, symbols transform into brands, and you market passionate participation in the identification with the brand itself. And the tribe doesn't even have to be brothers and sisters. Dedicated community provides a kind of grace that covers a multitude of sins in the churches; this sounds like it conveniently removes that.
I will say that I respect the idea that active work is necessary to make the world better. My religious community seems to have taught that it's important to work to try to bring some of heaven to earth on personal, family, congregational, and if possible broader levels. Christianity loses a lot of its moral force when it leans so heavily on Christ's extension of grace that it leads people to neglect the numerous margins for redemption the world offers willing men and women opportunities to try to come to grips with.
But where I think the world can be improved by people in leadership, it seems more likely to me that those prepared to do it are going to be people who don't believe they have a total view of what makes society good. Christians aren't unique in this respect, it's a human failing, we're just one good example. I'm curious about what "beliefs and practices" there's an attempt by the article's subjects to spread, but it almost doesn't matter if they're not done by people who have a community context in which they're committed by bonds of care to attentively work out the details.
posted by weston at 8:07 PM on March 21, 2017 [11 favorites]
I think there's something almost perfectly corroded about this, though. It's got such a similar shape with the idols of prosperity and status, and a flavor that seems so American: discarding the congregation means no community to tend, which means no real human context for seeing the details of practical (or compassionate) application of the principles/practices you teach, and no one to be accountable to except those with more power. The faith isn't preached, it's marketed, symbols transform into brands, and you market passionate participation in the identification with the brand itself. And the tribe doesn't even have to be brothers and sisters. Dedicated community provides a kind of grace that covers a multitude of sins in the churches; this sounds like it conveniently removes that.
I will say that I respect the idea that active work is necessary to make the world better. My religious community seems to have taught that it's important to work to try to bring some of heaven to earth on personal, family, congregational, and if possible broader levels. Christianity loses a lot of its moral force when it leans so heavily on Christ's extension of grace that it leads people to neglect the numerous margins for redemption the world offers willing men and women opportunities to try to come to grips with.
But where I think the world can be improved by people in leadership, it seems more likely to me that those prepared to do it are going to be people who don't believe they have a total view of what makes society good. Christians aren't unique in this respect, it's a human failing, we're just one good example. I'm curious about what "beliefs and practices" there's an attempt by the article's subjects to spread, but it almost doesn't matter if they're not done by people who have a community context in which they're committed by bonds of care to attentively work out the details.
posted by weston at 8:07 PM on March 21, 2017 [11 favorites]
"But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2 People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3 without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4 treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
--
"3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
2 Timothy, 3 1-7, and 4 1-4
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:25 PM on March 21, 2017 [23 favorites]
6 They are the kind who worm their way into homes and gain control over gullible women, who are loaded down with sins and are swayed by all kinds of evil desires, 7 always learning but never able to come to a knowledge of the truth.
--
"3 For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4 They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths."
2 Timothy, 3 1-7, and 4 1-4
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 8:25 PM on March 21, 2017 [23 favorites]
Mod note: Let's not turn this into a generic Christianity- or religion-bashing thread, please. Thanks.
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:02 PM on March 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
posted by restless_nomad (staff) at 9:02 PM on March 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
weston: I'm curious about what "beliefs and practices" there's an attempt by the article's subjects to spread
I'm also curious. From the hints they drop, it sounds like it's mostly another iteration of the revivalist tradition that goes back three centuries or so in the U.S., the Great Awakenings that periodically sweep through America: No central structure, but a loosely-affiliated network of preachers and teachers; some traveling, some with home congregations, all preaching similar messages. A focus on charismatic preaching and intense emotional experiences. The expectation that Christ's coming is just around the corner. An amplification of the spread of the message using the most advanced available communication technology: Printing presses, then radio, then television, now the Internet. A belief that the U.S. is at the centre of God's plans and should be, more-or-less, a theocracy.
Each revival has had a lasting impact on American culture, though it's doubtful that those who started each fire could've predicted the outcome. The revivals have had way of drawing in diverse groups and filling them with passion, and that's a volatile combination. Who could've foreseen that some of the Second Awakening energy would transmute itself into abolitionist energy, then women's suffrage and temperance energy? Or that some of the Jesus Movement energy would be transmuted into anti-abortion and pro-Reagan energy?
From what's in the article, the leaders seem to think that they'll be able to call into being a formless mass that'll follow in whatever direction those placed in the "seven mountains" lead. I think that neither they - nor we - can know what the end result will be. They are attempting to summon one of the periodic hurricanes of American political and religious life, and hurricanes have a way of going off-course.
posted by clawsoon at 9:16 PM on March 21, 2017 [21 favorites]
I'm also curious. From the hints they drop, it sounds like it's mostly another iteration of the revivalist tradition that goes back three centuries or so in the U.S., the Great Awakenings that periodically sweep through America: No central structure, but a loosely-affiliated network of preachers and teachers; some traveling, some with home congregations, all preaching similar messages. A focus on charismatic preaching and intense emotional experiences. The expectation that Christ's coming is just around the corner. An amplification of the spread of the message using the most advanced available communication technology: Printing presses, then radio, then television, now the Internet. A belief that the U.S. is at the centre of God's plans and should be, more-or-less, a theocracy.
Each revival has had a lasting impact on American culture, though it's doubtful that those who started each fire could've predicted the outcome. The revivals have had way of drawing in diverse groups and filling them with passion, and that's a volatile combination. Who could've foreseen that some of the Second Awakening energy would transmute itself into abolitionist energy, then women's suffrage and temperance energy? Or that some of the Jesus Movement energy would be transmuted into anti-abortion and pro-Reagan energy?
From what's in the article, the leaders seem to think that they'll be able to call into being a formless mass that'll follow in whatever direction those placed in the "seven mountains" lead. I think that neither they - nor we - can know what the end result will be. They are attempting to summon one of the periodic hurricanes of American political and religious life, and hurricanes have a way of going off-course.
posted by clawsoon at 9:16 PM on March 21, 2017 [21 favorites]
Can we also not turn this into a #NotAllChristians thread?
posted by ActingTheGoat at 9:18 PM on March 21, 2017 [9 favorites]
posted by ActingTheGoat at 9:18 PM on March 21, 2017 [9 favorites]
The authors didn't use the word Dominionists, did they? But that's what these guys are. They've been around for a while. Scary if they really are back in the ascent.
posted by jfwlucy at 9:21 PM on March 21, 2017 [12 favorites]
posted by jfwlucy at 9:21 PM on March 21, 2017 [12 favorites]
According to the director of media services at the Kansas City-based International House of Prayer (IHOP)
Heh. Heheh.
So we could take them out with one trademark lawsuit?
posted by stevis23 at 9:25 PM on March 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
Heh. Heheh.
So we could take them out with one trademark lawsuit?
posted by stevis23 at 9:25 PM on March 21, 2017 [1 favorite]
Let's not turn this into a generic Christianity- or religion-bashing thread, please.
Can we also not turn this into a #NotAllChristians thread?
Let's wrap this up now, all the bases have already been covered.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:52 PM on March 21, 2017 [11 favorites]
Can we also not turn this into a #NotAllChristians thread?
Let's wrap this up now, all the bases have already been covered.
posted by T.D. Strange at 9:52 PM on March 21, 2017 [11 favorites]
✝️ (╯ಠل͟ಠ）╯︵ ┻━┻ $ • ¢•¥ £ • • ₪ € • •
posted by wreckingball at 10:00 PM on March 21, 2017 [44 favorites]
posted by wreckingball at 10:00 PM on March 21, 2017 [44 favorites]
Yes, the "Seven mountains of culture" is straight-up Dominionism. Funny that they didn't use that word in the article.
posted by sneebler at 10:01 PM on March 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
posted by sneebler at 10:01 PM on March 21, 2017 [7 favorites]
I support this being a "Not all Christians thread", because other Metafilter members are Christians who would like to distance themselves from this movement. They should have every right to do so.
What I noted from the FPP: this plan for putting their own "kingdom-minded" into the tops of power - this is an actual conspiracy. It's like the whole Jewish-conspiracy-myth has been mirror imaging (aka seeing others by what you would do).
posted by jb at 10:07 PM on March 21, 2017 [9 favorites]
What I noted from the FPP: this plan for putting their own "kingdom-minded" into the tops of power - this is an actual conspiracy. It's like the whole Jewish-conspiracy-myth has been mirror imaging (aka seeing others by what you would do).
posted by jb at 10:07 PM on March 21, 2017 [9 favorites]
jb: What I noted from the FPP: this plan for putting their own "kingdom-minded" into the tops of power - this is an actual conspiracy.
Is it still a conspiracy if you tell everybody about it?
posted by clawsoon at 10:09 PM on March 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
Is it still a conspiracy if you tell everybody about it?
posted by clawsoon at 10:09 PM on March 21, 2017 [4 favorites]
This has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with people wanting a strong absolute leader to lead them into a promised land and away from the hash they've made of their own lives. If you told them to do the hokey pokey seven times a day they'd do it if you promised them a steady paycheck and weekly affirmations. I'd say it's an American trait but it's not, it's a human trait. And until we learn how to mollify these people's anxiety without providing them with strong authoritarian figures we will continue to cycle through periods of Renaissance and repression. People don't handle anxiety well, so far the only thing that seems to help long term is a strong social safety net, which leads to a loss of strong central leadership and therefore is actively destroyed by those trying to become a strong central leader.
tldr: these people are nervous and have Daddy issues, they don't give a shit about God or being good, they just want to be told what to do.
posted by fshgrl at 10:29 PM on March 21, 2017 [19 favorites]
tldr: these people are nervous and have Daddy issues, they don't give a shit about God or being good, they just want to be told what to do.
posted by fshgrl at 10:29 PM on March 21, 2017 [19 favorites]
I support this being a "Not all Christians thread", because other Metafilter members are Christians who would like to distance themselves from this movement. They should have every right to do so.
This article isn't about Christianity in general and it isn't about church doctrine. It's about a religious (and very political) movement within Christianity in the United States.
Charismatic Christians emphasize supernatural miracles and divine interventions, but INC Christianity is different from other charismatics – and other Christian denominations in general – in the following ways:
It is not focused primarily on building congregations but rather on spreading beliefs and practices through media, conferences and ministry schools.
It is not so much about proselytizing to unbelievers as it is about transforming society through placing Christian believers in powerful positions in all sectors of society.
It is organized as a network of independent leaders rather than as formally organized denominations.
This is more interesting than quotes of scripture, with chapter and verse citations, statements of No True Christian or denunciations that these people don't speak for all Christians. The article never asserts that and neither did anybody in this thread, unless there were some deleted comments.
The problem with these people isn't that they just misunderstood that one specific line or don't get the "correct" message from the Bible. The problem is that they are assholes and they are organized. They have an aggressive lack of empathy and their toxic message is growing by 3.24% per year.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 10:54 PM on March 21, 2017 [20 favorites]
This article isn't about Christianity in general and it isn't about church doctrine. It's about a religious (and very political) movement within Christianity in the United States.
Charismatic Christians emphasize supernatural miracles and divine interventions, but INC Christianity is different from other charismatics – and other Christian denominations in general – in the following ways:
It is not focused primarily on building congregations but rather on spreading beliefs and practices through media, conferences and ministry schools.
It is not so much about proselytizing to unbelievers as it is about transforming society through placing Christian believers in powerful positions in all sectors of society.
It is organized as a network of independent leaders rather than as formally organized denominations.
This is more interesting than quotes of scripture, with chapter and verse citations, statements of No True Christian or denunciations that these people don't speak for all Christians. The article never asserts that and neither did anybody in this thread, unless there were some deleted comments.
The problem with these people isn't that they just misunderstood that one specific line or don't get the "correct" message from the Bible. The problem is that they are assholes and they are organized. They have an aggressive lack of empathy and their toxic message is growing by 3.24% per year.
posted by ActingTheGoat at 10:54 PM on March 21, 2017 [20 favorites]
I can't remember where I read it - it was pretty recently - but there was an essay by a woman who had grown up in this movement. She said that families were encouraged to have as many children as possible specifically to outbreed nonbelievers, and that kids were groomed from a young age to have political aspirations.
posted by AFABulous at 11:11 PM on March 21, 2017
posted by AFABulous at 11:11 PM on March 21, 2017
Argh now it's going to drive me crazy because it's impossible to search for. It was about how she had estranged herself from her family and she was now denouncing Trump. I think I saw the link on Twitter, not here, and I think it was on Medium.
posted by AFABulous at 11:14 PM on March 21, 2017
posted by AFABulous at 11:14 PM on March 21, 2017
Argh now it's going to drive me crazy because it's impossible to search for.
Searching for "quiverfull" both on the Blue and the web at large will give you a lot of links about that aspect of the movement.
posted by Candleman at 11:17 PM on March 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
Searching for "quiverfull" both on the Blue and the web at large will give you a lot of links about that aspect of the movement.
posted by Candleman at 11:17 PM on March 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
"Yes, the "Seven mountains of culture" is straight-up Dominionism. Funny that they didn't use that word in the article."
I'm a teeny bit familiar with the work; I think the difference is that the folks they call "INC" Christians aren't seeking to build churches or expand congregations; they're straight-up "spiritual freelancers." Dominionist theology is, well, a theology; but most Dominionists are part of congregations and trying to grow a congregation in a fairly traditional way, as well as doing the "seven mountains" stuff.
I actually don't think the article really did justice to what's unique about these INCs that the authors are highlighting. Traditional Pentecostals want to build a Pentecostal Church; traditional Charismatics want to introduce charismatic practices into whatever denominational tradition they already come out of. The INC folks emphasize individuality over community (which is a very weird orientation for a Christian theology); following individual leaders rather than building a church community; and they're very big on "disrupting" traditional church bureaucracies, leadership networks, and educational systems. Which certainly has its positive aspects -- tension between the progressive and pilgrim demands of the Gospel, and the tendency of any leadership to become entrenched and sclerotic, is one of the oldest stories in Christianity. On the other hand, those bureaucracies enforce rules and norms that help prevent scammers and grifters and fraudsters from working their way through a flock; they tend to curb theological excesses (try getting snake-handling going at a Methodist Church, no matter how charismatic); they provide important oversight and stability. (They also provide, and the importance of this honestly can't be overstated, someone to sue.)
These INC folks are basically "Uber, but for Ultra-Right-Wing Christianity." They want to disrupt the market, bust up the existing actors in the space, and do it with no accountability to either their employees(/contractors) or their consumers -- and do it while evading as much regulation and oversight as possible. A Pentecostal church that has to pay for a building, buy insurance, keep the lights on, hold weekly services, feed local hungry people, etc., simply can't compete financially with a superstar preacher with who swoops in, convinces other people to rent a hall, collects a speaking fee, sells merch, pushes their social networking, and swoops out, with basically no costs, no responsibility, and no ongoing relationship with a congregation. They share a lot in common with the alt-right media and use a lot of the same tactics to push their message.
Plus then it's theologically scary in all the ways Dominionist theology is scary. Plus some of the superstitious shit on the fringes is ... pretty out there even for American evangelical Christianity. Like, snake handling and faith healing and speaking in tongues is one thing, and to me as a mainline Christian, that's pretty much crossing the line from faith to superstition (essentially, a gullible and childlike belief in magic rather than a mature understanding of how grace functions in the world), but, okay, it has a long history on the fringes of Christianity, I understand the history of it and I can see how people get there, even though I think their theology is wrong. Some of the stuff you hear is just ... straight-up lunacy. Not, like, regular Christian lunacy that has a tradition in the faith, but just nuts.
Theologically it's a hot mess; politically it's ultra-right-wing; organizationally it's built to dodge legal (and spiritual) accountability; and its outreach methods are built to use 21st century media and political spin.
Most forms of dangerous insanity in Christianity are relatively self-limiting because of emphasis on a congregation, which provides some form of accountability to a fixed community of people; you can only get away with killing people with snakes or sexually assaulting children for so long before the community rises up against it. (Like, sometimes a very long time and I'm not minimizing that. But eventually either your group dwindles to a dozen like-minded loons that can be safely ignored, or you get the institutional state rising up against your excesses -- these days through lawsuits but in the past through refusing taxes to Rome or disestablishing the church or converting to Presbyterianism or whatever.) When the organization itself becomes sick -- let's use the example of the Boston Archdiocese and the sexual abuse scandals -- there still is an organization that can be investigated, sued, named and shamed, made to pay victims, by the community that the congregation is unavoidably embedded in. What's terrifying to me (as someone who's academically interested in the institutional nature of churches and how they function, legally and theologically) is that with INC types you don't have that. You have one charismatic dude, who may have offshore shell corporations, who's not responsible to report his finances to any kind of church governing board, who's teaching whatever he wants to say is the will of God, who moves from place to place, victimizing one or two people at a time (maybe defrauding them of cash, maybe assaulting them, there are many options), spread out, so they don't become known as a "broken stair" in the community, there aren't whispers to avoid Rev. Brown because he creeps on girls, and they can go on like this for years and years ... and simply flee the jurisdiction if they get charged. And then the next guy comes to town. It's bad-actor whack-a-mole.
Anyway, the Dominionist theology is frightening and should rightly be called out (we had a long discussion of it w/r/t Ted Cruz way back when), but I think the lack of institutional or community structure, control, and accountability is an underappreciated aspect of these INC people that bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Silicon Valley bad actors like Uber, and to the alt-right. If they're immune to consequences, they're very difficult to combat.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:29 PM on March 21, 2017 [75 favorites]
I'm a teeny bit familiar with the work; I think the difference is that the folks they call "INC" Christians aren't seeking to build churches or expand congregations; they're straight-up "spiritual freelancers." Dominionist theology is, well, a theology; but most Dominionists are part of congregations and trying to grow a congregation in a fairly traditional way, as well as doing the "seven mountains" stuff.
I actually don't think the article really did justice to what's unique about these INCs that the authors are highlighting. Traditional Pentecostals want to build a Pentecostal Church; traditional Charismatics want to introduce charismatic practices into whatever denominational tradition they already come out of. The INC folks emphasize individuality over community (which is a very weird orientation for a Christian theology); following individual leaders rather than building a church community; and they're very big on "disrupting" traditional church bureaucracies, leadership networks, and educational systems. Which certainly has its positive aspects -- tension between the progressive and pilgrim demands of the Gospel, and the tendency of any leadership to become entrenched and sclerotic, is one of the oldest stories in Christianity. On the other hand, those bureaucracies enforce rules and norms that help prevent scammers and grifters and fraudsters from working their way through a flock; they tend to curb theological excesses (try getting snake-handling going at a Methodist Church, no matter how charismatic); they provide important oversight and stability. (They also provide, and the importance of this honestly can't be overstated, someone to sue.)
These INC folks are basically "Uber, but for Ultra-Right-Wing Christianity." They want to disrupt the market, bust up the existing actors in the space, and do it with no accountability to either their employees(/contractors) or their consumers -- and do it while evading as much regulation and oversight as possible. A Pentecostal church that has to pay for a building, buy insurance, keep the lights on, hold weekly services, feed local hungry people, etc., simply can't compete financially with a superstar preacher with who swoops in, convinces other people to rent a hall, collects a speaking fee, sells merch, pushes their social networking, and swoops out, with basically no costs, no responsibility, and no ongoing relationship with a congregation. They share a lot in common with the alt-right media and use a lot of the same tactics to push their message.
Plus then it's theologically scary in all the ways Dominionist theology is scary. Plus some of the superstitious shit on the fringes is ... pretty out there even for American evangelical Christianity. Like, snake handling and faith healing and speaking in tongues is one thing, and to me as a mainline Christian, that's pretty much crossing the line from faith to superstition (essentially, a gullible and childlike belief in magic rather than a mature understanding of how grace functions in the world), but, okay, it has a long history on the fringes of Christianity, I understand the history of it and I can see how people get there, even though I think their theology is wrong. Some of the stuff you hear is just ... straight-up lunacy. Not, like, regular Christian lunacy that has a tradition in the faith, but just nuts.
Theologically it's a hot mess; politically it's ultra-right-wing; organizationally it's built to dodge legal (and spiritual) accountability; and its outreach methods are built to use 21st century media and political spin.
Most forms of dangerous insanity in Christianity are relatively self-limiting because of emphasis on a congregation, which provides some form of accountability to a fixed community of people; you can only get away with killing people with snakes or sexually assaulting children for so long before the community rises up against it. (Like, sometimes a very long time and I'm not minimizing that. But eventually either your group dwindles to a dozen like-minded loons that can be safely ignored, or you get the institutional state rising up against your excesses -- these days through lawsuits but in the past through refusing taxes to Rome or disestablishing the church or converting to Presbyterianism or whatever.) When the organization itself becomes sick -- let's use the example of the Boston Archdiocese and the sexual abuse scandals -- there still is an organization that can be investigated, sued, named and shamed, made to pay victims, by the community that the congregation is unavoidably embedded in. What's terrifying to me (as someone who's academically interested in the institutional nature of churches and how they function, legally and theologically) is that with INC types you don't have that. You have one charismatic dude, who may have offshore shell corporations, who's not responsible to report his finances to any kind of church governing board, who's teaching whatever he wants to say is the will of God, who moves from place to place, victimizing one or two people at a time (maybe defrauding them of cash, maybe assaulting them, there are many options), spread out, so they don't become known as a "broken stair" in the community, there aren't whispers to avoid Rev. Brown because he creeps on girls, and they can go on like this for years and years ... and simply flee the jurisdiction if they get charged. And then the next guy comes to town. It's bad-actor whack-a-mole.
Anyway, the Dominionist theology is frightening and should rightly be called out (we had a long discussion of it w/r/t Ted Cruz way back when), but I think the lack of institutional or community structure, control, and accountability is an underappreciated aspect of these INC people that bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Silicon Valley bad actors like Uber, and to the alt-right. If they're immune to consequences, they're very difficult to combat.
posted by Eyebrows McGee at 11:29 PM on March 21, 2017 [75 favorites]
Seven mountains? Weird.
"And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads; and on its horns were ten diadems, and on its heads were blasphemous names." [Revelation 13:1]
posted by paladin at 11:48 PM on March 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
"And I saw a beast rising out of the sea, having ten horns and seven heads; and on its horns were ten diadems, and on its heads were blasphemous names." [Revelation 13:1]
posted by paladin at 11:48 PM on March 21, 2017 [5 favorites]
Keep in mind that some of us (me, at least) have someone very close to them deeply involved in this culture. These threads are always cringe-inducing for the glib generalities and psychoanalysis -- some stuff I take personally.
I think the one thing that I can say is that I've been trying to get my head around this for almost twenty years. I don't know how much is kept from my view; I don't how much my loved-ones are representative even though they are embedded full-time in the highest levels of this culture. I can say that this person and spouse are entirely earnest and live according to their values. But I can also say that they are utterly appalled by Trump and yet also utterly shocked at how the majority of their community has enthusiastically endorsed him -- just as one example of a number of similar disagreements. But they're certainly not dissidents.
I've been an atheist since I was young, but I've always had an interest in and respect for religious belief and I have observed in every single religious community the great varieties of human nature -- people for whom their faith and practice are very functionally different from each other, even though they share the same creed. I've always seen, everywhere, crass hypocrisy and the accumulation of power for its own sake. I've always seen true believers who practice their faith with anger and hate; I've always seen true believers who practice their faith with acceptance and love. I have seen deeply corrupt religious institutions and have seen deeply, socially positive, contributing institutions.
The thing is, I'm not seeing anything that different in this particular Christian culture than I've seen elsewhere. I respect Miko's take on this -- I'm interested in what Eyebrows McGee [on preview: there's her great comment] and others here who have long experience and scholarship in mainline Christianity have to say. I'm not quite as convinced by the non-accountability argument making the case that this is something extraordinary. I'm partly persuaded, because it's clearly true to some extent. Yet, also, in my experience, not.
Yes, I want to ask my loved-one: you know personally some of those folk who went to Uganda, do you approve of their influence? But I can't ask that because I'm afraid that there's no answer that would satisfy me or would even avoid infuriating me. I know those are not my loved-one's personal beliefs. This person has often pointed out, with some sad irony, that adultery is as great a sin as homosexuality to the members of their community and yet most of them somehow don't seem to be nearly as upset about it. Well, okay, but sometimes there really is guilt by association.
I love this person very much, and admire this person very much, and I feel certain that we both see the other the same way: as very good people, with very strong values, somehow deeply embedded in a culture and value system that is very mistaken. Oftentimes, we find we have much more common ground with each than we do with all the other people around us who are not at either of the two ends of the religious spectrum as we each are. I find it remarkable that the two of us share an instinct, value, and practice for tolerance and love and yet so many of our respective fellow-travelers embody intolerance and hate. I imagine we both have some trouble coming to terms with the simple conundrum of whether we each are representative of the other people who share our respective beliefs.
As a point of fact, I'm very strongly an atheist, but I'm not a New Atheist. From my perspective, all of these metaphysical belief systems are a combination of nonsense and necessary psychosocial function -- they've all included both the worst and best of human nature, just as every other human institution has.
I'm always extremely wary of a cultural perspective that justifies its generalizations and condemnations of such-and-so faith/religion/creed/movement/spiritualism as being inherently bad and toxic because this time, this group of people really are dangerously Other. That's always the claim.
That's not to say that we can't differentiate, because of course we can. I'm willing to take a stand against a version of Islam that embraces suicide bombers. Likewise, I'm willing to take a stand against a version of Christianity that endorses the execution of gay people. What I have a problem with, though, is the glib painting with a broad brush, with a perspective, a tone, that generalizes a group of people to the degree to which they are no longer seen as individuals, but merely the particular instance of a vilified Other that not only must be opposed, but hated -- robbed of their idiosyncratic humanity and the simple fact that you find very good people and very bad people wherever you look.
I have only a very small window to the inside of this culture -- in some ways it may view deeply but not widely. But when I read some of these news or magazine articles, occasionally linked here, and I read the comments here, I have that feeling that people get when the news media reports on something they have direct experience of: wow, this is a combination of quite true and quite false. When you have some experience with something, you can easily tell when it's being reported on by those from a view completely outside. It's something to keep in mind.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:01 AM on March 22, 2017 [15 favorites]
I think the one thing that I can say is that I've been trying to get my head around this for almost twenty years. I don't know how much is kept from my view; I don't how much my loved-ones are representative even though they are embedded full-time in the highest levels of this culture. I can say that this person and spouse are entirely earnest and live according to their values. But I can also say that they are utterly appalled by Trump and yet also utterly shocked at how the majority of their community has enthusiastically endorsed him -- just as one example of a number of similar disagreements. But they're certainly not dissidents.
I've been an atheist since I was young, but I've always had an interest in and respect for religious belief and I have observed in every single religious community the great varieties of human nature -- people for whom their faith and practice are very functionally different from each other, even though they share the same creed. I've always seen, everywhere, crass hypocrisy and the accumulation of power for its own sake. I've always seen true believers who practice their faith with anger and hate; I've always seen true believers who practice their faith with acceptance and love. I have seen deeply corrupt religious institutions and have seen deeply, socially positive, contributing institutions.
The thing is, I'm not seeing anything that different in this particular Christian culture than I've seen elsewhere. I respect Miko's take on this -- I'm interested in what Eyebrows McGee [on preview: there's her great comment] and others here who have long experience and scholarship in mainline Christianity have to say. I'm not quite as convinced by the non-accountability argument making the case that this is something extraordinary. I'm partly persuaded, because it's clearly true to some extent. Yet, also, in my experience, not.
Yes, I want to ask my loved-one: you know personally some of those folk who went to Uganda, do you approve of their influence? But I can't ask that because I'm afraid that there's no answer that would satisfy me or would even avoid infuriating me. I know those are not my loved-one's personal beliefs. This person has often pointed out, with some sad irony, that adultery is as great a sin as homosexuality to the members of their community and yet most of them somehow don't seem to be nearly as upset about it. Well, okay, but sometimes there really is guilt by association.
I love this person very much, and admire this person very much, and I feel certain that we both see the other the same way: as very good people, with very strong values, somehow deeply embedded in a culture and value system that is very mistaken. Oftentimes, we find we have much more common ground with each than we do with all the other people around us who are not at either of the two ends of the religious spectrum as we each are. I find it remarkable that the two of us share an instinct, value, and practice for tolerance and love and yet so many of our respective fellow-travelers embody intolerance and hate. I imagine we both have some trouble coming to terms with the simple conundrum of whether we each are representative of the other people who share our respective beliefs.
As a point of fact, I'm very strongly an atheist, but I'm not a New Atheist. From my perspective, all of these metaphysical belief systems are a combination of nonsense and necessary psychosocial function -- they've all included both the worst and best of human nature, just as every other human institution has.
I'm always extremely wary of a cultural perspective that justifies its generalizations and condemnations of such-and-so faith/religion/creed/movement/spiritualism as being inherently bad and toxic because this time, this group of people really are dangerously Other. That's always the claim.
That's not to say that we can't differentiate, because of course we can. I'm willing to take a stand against a version of Islam that embraces suicide bombers. Likewise, I'm willing to take a stand against a version of Christianity that endorses the execution of gay people. What I have a problem with, though, is the glib painting with a broad brush, with a perspective, a tone, that generalizes a group of people to the degree to which they are no longer seen as individuals, but merely the particular instance of a vilified Other that not only must be opposed, but hated -- robbed of their idiosyncratic humanity and the simple fact that you find very good people and very bad people wherever you look.
I have only a very small window to the inside of this culture -- in some ways it may view deeply but not widely. But when I read some of these news or magazine articles, occasionally linked here, and I read the comments here, I have that feeling that people get when the news media reports on something they have direct experience of: wow, this is a combination of quite true and quite false. When you have some experience with something, you can easily tell when it's being reported on by those from a view completely outside. It's something to keep in mind.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 12:01 AM on March 22, 2017 [15 favorites]
Huh, Christianity does contain all kinds.
What I'm doing is of a vaguely similar vein but hopefully less objectionable. I don't consistently attend a church, but I network with other Christians from a variety of churches, and as a group some of us collaborate to run secular businesses and activities.
The model of Christianity most people think of is one where all the Christians come to church once a week and that the kingdom of god is some kind of afterlife you go to after you die.
The more modern idea is that we are today, right now, building God's kingdom on earth. We don't try to "sell" Christianity by proselytizing to people as a primary goal. It's more passive conversion - the idea is, well, by achieving moral and ethical perfection, the people we're in contact with will eventually self convert anyway. Each Christian is effectively a diplomat or representative of the Kingdom and it's no use if the diplomats only huddle among themselves at church. In some sense it's more inward focused - do the right thing yourself, everything else will follow. The network does literally everything - there's stuff like, a chain of food outlets set up specifically to apprentice at-risk youth to teach them a trade and give them an income. Underground social spaces to give drug addicts and homeless people a safe space to socialize and join / form communities with each other. Biggest reason for this was how addicts would use drain water and some people wanted them to have access to clean water. One project was to set up student residences for international students and provide guardianship / support / social networks. Another provided childcare support and early education to underprivileged families. And of course people drop in and out between doing their own full time work and working on these projects. These projects can be self funding if their revenue generation is good enough, and others can survive on external funding: leveraging church or government funding as a force for good is something "someone" has to do, and churches themselves are sometimes too organizationally stretched to do it themselves.
Their principles ring true but not quite in the way they have embraced it. We want Christians working and living in all parts of society - not just at the most powerful levels, but also at the most disadvantaged. It is true that focusing on "building congregations" is self defeating, like building a fish tank and putting all the believers inside it, and we need to focus on kingdom building in the wider world.
posted by xdvesper at 12:06 AM on March 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
What I'm doing is of a vaguely similar vein but hopefully less objectionable. I don't consistently attend a church, but I network with other Christians from a variety of churches, and as a group some of us collaborate to run secular businesses and activities.
The model of Christianity most people think of is one where all the Christians come to church once a week and that the kingdom of god is some kind of afterlife you go to after you die.
The more modern idea is that we are today, right now, building God's kingdom on earth. We don't try to "sell" Christianity by proselytizing to people as a primary goal. It's more passive conversion - the idea is, well, by achieving moral and ethical perfection, the people we're in contact with will eventually self convert anyway. Each Christian is effectively a diplomat or representative of the Kingdom and it's no use if the diplomats only huddle among themselves at church. In some sense it's more inward focused - do the right thing yourself, everything else will follow. The network does literally everything - there's stuff like, a chain of food outlets set up specifically to apprentice at-risk youth to teach them a trade and give them an income. Underground social spaces to give drug addicts and homeless people a safe space to socialize and join / form communities with each other. Biggest reason for this was how addicts would use drain water and some people wanted them to have access to clean water. One project was to set up student residences for international students and provide guardianship / support / social networks. Another provided childcare support and early education to underprivileged families. And of course people drop in and out between doing their own full time work and working on these projects. These projects can be self funding if their revenue generation is good enough, and others can survive on external funding: leveraging church or government funding as a force for good is something "someone" has to do, and churches themselves are sometimes too organizationally stretched to do it themselves.
Their principles ring true but not quite in the way they have embraced it. We want Christians working and living in all parts of society - not just at the most powerful levels, but also at the most disadvantaged. It is true that focusing on "building congregations" is self defeating, like building a fish tank and putting all the believers inside it, and we need to focus on kingdom building in the wider world.
posted by xdvesper at 12:06 AM on March 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
It is not focused primarily on building congregations but rather on spreading beliefs and practices through media, conferences and ministry schools. ...
It is organized as a network of independent leaders rather than as formally organized denominations.
When I read these lines, I immediately thought of the Fabian tactics George Washington used to keep the American Revolution alive after losing New York City. Hit and run. Don’t try to hold any ground. Harass the enemy. Cut his supply lines. Make his holding of territory increasingly expensive.
Guerrilla forces are often loose networks of groups with the same fundamental goal concerning an enemy. They operate in much the same way as Eyebrows McGee so perfectly described in the third graf of this recent comment.
Fabian or guerrilla tactics can be successful, but it’s a long game. In the case of INC Christianity, what this means is that there will be plenty of time for the various networked leaders to become more popular and sack away increasing sums of money as they destabilize (I can’t see it any other way) our society and institutions. This movement bears watching.
posted by bryon at 12:41 AM on March 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
It is organized as a network of independent leaders rather than as formally organized denominations.
When I read these lines, I immediately thought of the Fabian tactics George Washington used to keep the American Revolution alive after losing New York City. Hit and run. Don’t try to hold any ground. Harass the enemy. Cut his supply lines. Make his holding of territory increasingly expensive.
Guerrilla forces are often loose networks of groups with the same fundamental goal concerning an enemy. They operate in much the same way as Eyebrows McGee so perfectly described in the third graf of this recent comment.
Fabian or guerrilla tactics can be successful, but it’s a long game. In the case of INC Christianity, what this means is that there will be plenty of time for the various networked leaders to become more popular and sack away increasing sums of money as they destabilize (I can’t see it any other way) our society and institutions. This movement bears watching.
posted by bryon at 12:41 AM on March 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
This is nothing more than conservative prosperity 'christianity' dressed in the worst strains of American Individualism(tm). It's familiar in the culture already so is non-threatening. It uses marketing techniques that work and lives in a social media friendly environment that's appealing to the youngs and hipper olders.
Tl;dr: it's just another odious way for the 'Christian' conservative 1%ers to garner popular support to overtake the government. All while lying to themselves that this is what Jesus wants and while making the world a worse place.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 1:26 AM on March 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
Tl;dr: it's just another odious way for the 'Christian' conservative 1%ers to garner popular support to overtake the government. All while lying to themselves that this is what Jesus wants and while making the world a worse place.
posted by Klaxon Aoooogah at 1:26 AM on March 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
I'm really not digging the whole Republic of Gilead vibe these days
posted by giizhik at 1:53 AM on March 22, 2017 [14 favorites]
posted by giizhik at 1:53 AM on March 22, 2017 [14 favorites]
anything that different in this particular Christian culture than I've seen elsewhere.
The absence of any focus on church and congregation, as a physical place you go to receive the sacraments / participate in community, is incredibly different from any other form of Christianity that I know of. Promoting Christianity without inviting people to take any interest in baptism and the Eucharist -- going to some specific place, among some specific people, and doing some specific thing -- is bafflingly and profoundly different from every tradition that has come before. The rest -- no buildings, no communities, no accountability, no charity -- flows from that fundamental and deeply strange absence. Where are you telling people to encounter Christ, as Christians? On Facebook? Shouting together at a rally? That makes no sense at all.
You do get some Christian traditions that are terribly and dangerously politicised, because they centre all the political stuff and pay less attention to the sacramental and the practice-based stuff. (And the risk of doing that is a perpetual risk to all Christian traditions.) But this is the first movement I've come across that defines Christianity itself as being all about politics and not at all about Christ. When I say that, I don't mean "lack of fidelity to the teaching of the Christ of the gospels", which is of course a very contestable claim. I just mean "lack of attention to any idea of encounter with Christ" -- the thing you do in a building with other Christians, which is not talking or shouting or acquiring power, however unfortunately enmeshed your church may have become in those things at other moments. Absent any focus at all on Christian religious practice, I can't see much resemblance to any other Christian tradition.
posted by Aravis76 at 5:04 AM on March 22, 2017 [10 favorites]
The absence of any focus on church and congregation, as a physical place you go to receive the sacraments / participate in community, is incredibly different from any other form of Christianity that I know of. Promoting Christianity without inviting people to take any interest in baptism and the Eucharist -- going to some specific place, among some specific people, and doing some specific thing -- is bafflingly and profoundly different from every tradition that has come before. The rest -- no buildings, no communities, no accountability, no charity -- flows from that fundamental and deeply strange absence. Where are you telling people to encounter Christ, as Christians? On Facebook? Shouting together at a rally? That makes no sense at all.
You do get some Christian traditions that are terribly and dangerously politicised, because they centre all the political stuff and pay less attention to the sacramental and the practice-based stuff. (And the risk of doing that is a perpetual risk to all Christian traditions.) But this is the first movement I've come across that defines Christianity itself as being all about politics and not at all about Christ. When I say that, I don't mean "lack of fidelity to the teaching of the Christ of the gospels", which is of course a very contestable claim. I just mean "lack of attention to any idea of encounter with Christ" -- the thing you do in a building with other Christians, which is not talking or shouting or acquiring power, however unfortunately enmeshed your church may have become in those things at other moments. Absent any focus at all on Christian religious practice, I can't see much resemblance to any other Christian tradition.
posted by Aravis76 at 5:04 AM on March 22, 2017 [10 favorites]
Let's not turn this into a generic Christianity- or religion-bashing thread, please.
Can we also not turn this into a #NotAllChristians thread?
How about humans? Can we blame all humans? Because raccoons don't do this.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:08 AM on March 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
Can we also not turn this into a #NotAllChristians thread?
How about humans? Can we blame all humans? Because raccoons don't do this.
posted by Faint of Butt at 5:08 AM on March 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
Reminds me of the one glorious moment where, for but an instant, Jack Chick displayed self-awareness.
posted by delfin at 5:44 AM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by delfin at 5:44 AM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
The absence of any focus on church and congregation, as a physical place you go to receive the sacraments / participate in community, is incredibly different from any other form of Christianity that I know of.
There is a large disparity between those who profess to be Christian in the UK and those who attend church with any regularity. The churches are happy to have these numbers and their existence helps the CoE particularly to maintain political influence.
posted by biffa at 5:52 AM on March 22, 2017
There is a large disparity between those who profess to be Christian in the UK and those who attend church with any regularity. The churches are happy to have these numbers and their existence helps the CoE particularly to maintain political influence.
posted by biffa at 5:52 AM on March 22, 2017
"The rest -- no buildings, no communities, no accountability, no charity -- flows from that fundamental and deeply strange absence."
But I know for a fact that this is an untrue characterization. I also know that it's true enough, as far as it goes, for some large, undefined part of this group. This criticism is, as far as I can tell, valid enough to consider as an important characterization and therefore a way into a critical analysis; but it is not valid enough to make the criticism categorical, which yours seems to be. And I think that, as previously mentioned in these comments, there is a long tradition of loosely affiliated, itinerant Christian counterculture in America. And this really is a counterculture in this sense -- it is absolutely not equivalent to the fundamentalists we used to know, nor the already established pentecostal communities, or -- importantly -- the alt-right. The last association is very tenuous -- I won't categorically deny it, but everything I've learned about the alt-right in the last few years is quite disjoint with everything I've learned about this community in the last sixteen. I think that it likely overlaps the alt-right to some degree in its youth and alternative media orientation and cultural politics. But I think it is profoundly mistaken to associate the two, otherwise. It also overlaps with cultural conservative evangelism as we've come to know it, yet it's nevertheless quite distinct.
And the whole political thing is nebulous and opaque -- at least to outsiders. As far as I have seen, there's far less interest in cultural conservative political activism as we know it today (relative to the Liberty University cohort), but there is also far more interest in this "seven mountains" infiltration of culture. Although, in my experience, "infiltration" isn't quite right. And, also, very strongly in my experience, the emphasis is much less on the transformation of American institutions as it is exporting this worldwide.
I'd trust an authoritative critical analysis from someone like Eyebrows McGee -- who has the knowledge and training for the proper cultural and theological evaluation -- but who, in addition, has been deeply involved in this actual movement, and then left. Because otherwise everything I see here and elsewhere is a gloss that radically overemphasizes some things while radically deemphasizing others. In other words, pretty much the typical outsider cultural criticism.
None of this is intended to defend this community categorically. I absolutely do not see it as equivalent to the Liberty University cohort or the alt-right cohort, but insofar as we can generalize about its politics and effects on our society, I do consider it, as in the case of the others, among my political enemies. I consider it the lesser threat here in North America, and a greater threat for its influence in the developing world.
But fundamentally it's a mistake to conglomerate all of these people into some sufficiently homogenized group that we can talk about these folk the way that we're doing in this thread. The only things that I see that are common characteristics are youth evangelizing, an idiosyncratic (but largely Dominionist) theology, national and international networking, and a deep distrust of traditional Christian institutions. A lot of this looks to me like something we've been seeing in American Christianity for a long time, just in its newest form. It is very American, though it doesn't seem self-aware of this. But Americans and our cultural institutions seem never to recognize how peculiar we are, compared to most of the rest of the world, in our emphasis on the individual and innovation and our relative lack of a strong sense of rooted community and our oblivious and reckless disregard for ways of life that are, in a word, more typical of human experience.
The bottom line for me is that these folk are somewhat opaque and inconsistent to me, even though I have this close family association. While, in contrast, my experience with other atheists and people who are otherwise largely my peers (such as with MeFi) is that they lack the knowledge to even understand and evaluate Eyebrows McGee's comment about contemporary Methodism or, indeed, could even name the world's principle Christian denominations or, you know, the Gospels. Discussion about religion and religious communities here is generally uninformed, even with regard to very basic stuff -- and this whole movement is something that is weirdly nebulous even for those who are much closer to it. I think it is theoretically possible to have an informed and informative discussion here about it -- but, as always, we should be aware of our vast ignorance and how easily it is to generalize about people we feel are very unlike ourselves.
I don't automatically dismiss the #notallX retorts to my point-of-view -- I've been considering where there are both similarities and differences to other oppressive institutions and perspectives we criticize here. I don't really want to break the discussion out to the larger context of religious belief itself -- the mods explicitly don't want that and it wouldn't be productive -- but I do personally feel strongly that religious belief and practice is extraordinary in many ways -- whether it's a close association with ethnicity and place and history, or the American-style culture of personal (re)invention, either way it deserves some respect for how it engages with what I see as some essential human questions. I am, and many of the rest of us here are, in the tiny, minuscule portion of humanity that explicitly rejects this whole epistemological structure -- but I think it's very important, essential, to not be reductive of faith and religious belief and its practice given its centrality to human history and experience. And, as I wrote earlier, I've seen a vast variation of function of belief and practice among individuals of every religious community I've observed. I'm not an anthropologist with this specialization, of course. But we have a tendency to see individuals as mere cogs in vast and coherent culture structures, which we can then generalize about and either applaud or vilify and this kind of reductive analysis can be useful, as far as it goes. And then it can be the opposite of useful beyond that point.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:25 AM on March 22, 2017 [8 favorites]
But I know for a fact that this is an untrue characterization. I also know that it's true enough, as far as it goes, for some large, undefined part of this group. This criticism is, as far as I can tell, valid enough to consider as an important characterization and therefore a way into a critical analysis; but it is not valid enough to make the criticism categorical, which yours seems to be. And I think that, as previously mentioned in these comments, there is a long tradition of loosely affiliated, itinerant Christian counterculture in America. And this really is a counterculture in this sense -- it is absolutely not equivalent to the fundamentalists we used to know, nor the already established pentecostal communities, or -- importantly -- the alt-right. The last association is very tenuous -- I won't categorically deny it, but everything I've learned about the alt-right in the last few years is quite disjoint with everything I've learned about this community in the last sixteen. I think that it likely overlaps the alt-right to some degree in its youth and alternative media orientation and cultural politics. But I think it is profoundly mistaken to associate the two, otherwise. It also overlaps with cultural conservative evangelism as we've come to know it, yet it's nevertheless quite distinct.
And the whole political thing is nebulous and opaque -- at least to outsiders. As far as I have seen, there's far less interest in cultural conservative political activism as we know it today (relative to the Liberty University cohort), but there is also far more interest in this "seven mountains" infiltration of culture. Although, in my experience, "infiltration" isn't quite right. And, also, very strongly in my experience, the emphasis is much less on the transformation of American institutions as it is exporting this worldwide.
I'd trust an authoritative critical analysis from someone like Eyebrows McGee -- who has the knowledge and training for the proper cultural and theological evaluation -- but who, in addition, has been deeply involved in this actual movement, and then left. Because otherwise everything I see here and elsewhere is a gloss that radically overemphasizes some things while radically deemphasizing others. In other words, pretty much the typical outsider cultural criticism.
None of this is intended to defend this community categorically. I absolutely do not see it as equivalent to the Liberty University cohort or the alt-right cohort, but insofar as we can generalize about its politics and effects on our society, I do consider it, as in the case of the others, among my political enemies. I consider it the lesser threat here in North America, and a greater threat for its influence in the developing world.
But fundamentally it's a mistake to conglomerate all of these people into some sufficiently homogenized group that we can talk about these folk the way that we're doing in this thread. The only things that I see that are common characteristics are youth evangelizing, an idiosyncratic (but largely Dominionist) theology, national and international networking, and a deep distrust of traditional Christian institutions. A lot of this looks to me like something we've been seeing in American Christianity for a long time, just in its newest form. It is very American, though it doesn't seem self-aware of this. But Americans and our cultural institutions seem never to recognize how peculiar we are, compared to most of the rest of the world, in our emphasis on the individual and innovation and our relative lack of a strong sense of rooted community and our oblivious and reckless disregard for ways of life that are, in a word, more typical of human experience.
The bottom line for me is that these folk are somewhat opaque and inconsistent to me, even though I have this close family association. While, in contrast, my experience with other atheists and people who are otherwise largely my peers (such as with MeFi) is that they lack the knowledge to even understand and evaluate Eyebrows McGee's comment about contemporary Methodism or, indeed, could even name the world's principle Christian denominations or, you know, the Gospels. Discussion about religion and religious communities here is generally uninformed, even with regard to very basic stuff -- and this whole movement is something that is weirdly nebulous even for those who are much closer to it. I think it is theoretically possible to have an informed and informative discussion here about it -- but, as always, we should be aware of our vast ignorance and how easily it is to generalize about people we feel are very unlike ourselves.
I don't automatically dismiss the #notallX retorts to my point-of-view -- I've been considering where there are both similarities and differences to other oppressive institutions and perspectives we criticize here. I don't really want to break the discussion out to the larger context of religious belief itself -- the mods explicitly don't want that and it wouldn't be productive -- but I do personally feel strongly that religious belief and practice is extraordinary in many ways -- whether it's a close association with ethnicity and place and history, or the American-style culture of personal (re)invention, either way it deserves some respect for how it engages with what I see as some essential human questions. I am, and many of the rest of us here are, in the tiny, minuscule portion of humanity that explicitly rejects this whole epistemological structure -- but I think it's very important, essential, to not be reductive of faith and religious belief and its practice given its centrality to human history and experience. And, as I wrote earlier, I've seen a vast variation of function of belief and practice among individuals of every religious community I've observed. I'm not an anthropologist with this specialization, of course. But we have a tendency to see individuals as mere cogs in vast and coherent culture structures, which we can then generalize about and either applaud or vilify and this kind of reductive analysis can be useful, as far as it goes. And then it can be the opposite of useful beyond that point.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 6:25 AM on March 22, 2017 [8 favorites]
In the US, it seems the job of God is to give you money/opportunity/a good job, not to actually care for the sick, poor, wretched, etc. -- prosperity gospel, in other words. I find this an interesting reflection of how good government is also perceived in similar circles -- if the sole job of government is also to provide a good job, because your food, shelter, and healthcare is dependent on that one thing, then it kind of makes sense that rather than proving a social safety net you provide maximal support for industry-building.
So to me the idea that you don't become a Christian community by creating a congregation which redistributes wealth and help, but instead by becoming influential in business and government for the purpose of essentially personal prosperity and influence, is basically bringing American Christianity in line with the US's national expression of capitalism. It's late-stage prosperity gospel.
I'm not really a Christian believer but I do find it pretty interesting that Jesus explicitly addresses this via the camel through the eye of the needle speech, one of the most direct and clear information he provides (as opposed to say, speeches around virginity or the role of women.) And yet here this movement is.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:36 AM on March 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
So to me the idea that you don't become a Christian community by creating a congregation which redistributes wealth and help, but instead by becoming influential in business and government for the purpose of essentially personal prosperity and influence, is basically bringing American Christianity in line with the US's national expression of capitalism. It's late-stage prosperity gospel.
I'm not really a Christian believer but I do find it pretty interesting that Jesus explicitly addresses this via the camel through the eye of the needle speech, one of the most direct and clear information he provides (as opposed to say, speeches around virginity or the role of women.) And yet here this movement is.
posted by warriorqueen at 6:36 AM on March 22, 2017 [4 favorites]
"...prosperity gospel, in other words..."
I think that your second paragraph and its relationship to American ideology is mostly on the mark, but I think this equation with prosperity gospel is absolutely wrong. I personally haven't seen any overlap in these two communities (what we're here calling "INC" and "prosperity gospel"), but I am certain there is some overlap, because both INC and prosperity gospel are in the Pentecostal lineage. Yet, my own observation is that there's some active rejection of capitalist prosperity gospel and such.
Where your analysis is correct is when you put the Dominionism within the context of American culture. What they believe they are doing is to prepare for and building the eschatological structure of the Church. That's the common thread. But some are focused on the nationalist here-and-now, and others are very much not. Just following some Wikipedia trails, as I just now did, is dizzying. There is tremendous variation in how these people view themselves with respect to secular society, politics, and materialism. Prosperity gospel is a very specific thing -- in my view, a repugnant apotheosis of American capitalist individualism and religious belief. It's distinct. Related, but distinct.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:04 AM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
I think that your second paragraph and its relationship to American ideology is mostly on the mark, but I think this equation with prosperity gospel is absolutely wrong. I personally haven't seen any overlap in these two communities (what we're here calling "INC" and "prosperity gospel"), but I am certain there is some overlap, because both INC and prosperity gospel are in the Pentecostal lineage. Yet, my own observation is that there's some active rejection of capitalist prosperity gospel and such.
Where your analysis is correct is when you put the Dominionism within the context of American culture. What they believe they are doing is to prepare for and building the eschatological structure of the Church. That's the common thread. But some are focused on the nationalist here-and-now, and others are very much not. Just following some Wikipedia trails, as I just now did, is dizzying. There is tremendous variation in how these people view themselves with respect to secular society, politics, and materialism. Prosperity gospel is a very specific thing -- in my view, a repugnant apotheosis of American capitalist individualism and religious belief. It's distinct. Related, but distinct.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:04 AM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Aravis76: The absence of any focus on church and congregation, as a physical place you go to receive the sacraments / participate in community, is incredibly different from any other form of Christianity that I know of. Promoting Christianity without inviting people to take any interest in baptism and the Eucharist -- going to some specific place, among some specific people, and doing some specific thing -- is bafflingly and profoundly different from every tradition that has come before.
For me, the absence of a focus on congregation in this movement is the part that doesn't seem like a new thing, though perhaps I'm confounding two different kinds of things. I've coincidentally read, in the past year, of multiple historical movements in the Church where a loose collection of preachers would sweep through, "save" large numbers of people, and then move on with no thought for church or congregation. George Whitfield (and some of those he inspired) did it in the late 1700s in New England. Among Mennonites in Canada, large numbers were rootlessly converted to Evangelicalism by revival tent preachers in the 1950s - and then many Evangelical Mennonite missionaries themselves went to do the same thing among First Nations groups, much to the annoyance of established Anglican and Catholic churches who were left to deal with the aftermath. The same charge has been leveled multiple times against Billy Graham: Get a bunch of people worked up and "saved", then leave town with little thought for congregation or community. They were all "disruptors", breaking up "orderly parish system, communities, and even families", leaving an atomized and unstable Christianity behind them, often with unpredictable results.
I may be overemphasizing the similarities, though, and I'd be glad to be corrected. I wish there was a more substantive article about INC specifically that we could chew on.
posted by clawsoon at 7:13 AM on March 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
For me, the absence of a focus on congregation in this movement is the part that doesn't seem like a new thing, though perhaps I'm confounding two different kinds of things. I've coincidentally read, in the past year, of multiple historical movements in the Church where a loose collection of preachers would sweep through, "save" large numbers of people, and then move on with no thought for church or congregation. George Whitfield (and some of those he inspired) did it in the late 1700s in New England. Among Mennonites in Canada, large numbers were rootlessly converted to Evangelicalism by revival tent preachers in the 1950s - and then many Evangelical Mennonite missionaries themselves went to do the same thing among First Nations groups, much to the annoyance of established Anglican and Catholic churches who were left to deal with the aftermath. The same charge has been leveled multiple times against Billy Graham: Get a bunch of people worked up and "saved", then leave town with little thought for congregation or community. They were all "disruptors", breaking up "orderly parish system, communities, and even families", leaving an atomized and unstable Christianity behind them, often with unpredictable results.
I may be overemphasizing the similarities, though, and I'd be glad to be corrected. I wish there was a more substantive article about INC specifically that we could chew on.
posted by clawsoon at 7:13 AM on March 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
There is tremendous variation in how these people view themselves with respect to secular society, politics, and materialism.
But they will all unite to vote against the ungodly queer loving democrat baby killers.
And therein lies a problem.
posted by adamvasco at 8:44 AM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
But they will all unite to vote against the ungodly queer loving democrat baby killers.
And therein lies a problem.
posted by adamvasco at 8:44 AM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
"And therein lies a problem."
Sure, that's why if I have to generalize, I consider them in my "enemies" camp. I don't know how my loved one voted, though I'm certain it wasn't for Trump. Was it for Clinton? Probably not. Which is your point.
But that point is a much bigger sociopolitical topic. There's a vastly diverse coalition that voted against Clinton. Personally, I think the common theme is whiteness as a social identity, but good luck on getting any of those folk to recognize that.
In the greater scheme of things, I'm much more alarmed by the *chan oriented alt-right than I am by this diverse group. The larger cultural trend is white revanchism -- this is the common thread that links these very diverse groups. And unlike, say, the case of the INCs, we can readily identify the near-center of this political insurgency. I don't want to get carried away with this -- though it's hard to resist -- but today's Dick Cheney is Steve Bannon: someone who is at the nexus of the manipulation of a lot of useful idiots for the realization of horror. To the degree to which the INC is a factor, they're useful idiots, not main players. They want to think of themselves as such and, if the End Times occur, their self-image will be justified. But I find that unlikely. Meanwhile, there really is a corrosive force at the heart of American culture, and it's this white revanchism.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:04 AM on March 22, 2017
Sure, that's why if I have to generalize, I consider them in my "enemies" camp. I don't know how my loved one voted, though I'm certain it wasn't for Trump. Was it for Clinton? Probably not. Which is your point.
But that point is a much bigger sociopolitical topic. There's a vastly diverse coalition that voted against Clinton. Personally, I think the common theme is whiteness as a social identity, but good luck on getting any of those folk to recognize that.
In the greater scheme of things, I'm much more alarmed by the *chan oriented alt-right than I am by this diverse group. The larger cultural trend is white revanchism -- this is the common thread that links these very diverse groups. And unlike, say, the case of the INCs, we can readily identify the near-center of this political insurgency. I don't want to get carried away with this -- though it's hard to resist -- but today's Dick Cheney is Steve Bannon: someone who is at the nexus of the manipulation of a lot of useful idiots for the realization of horror. To the degree to which the INC is a factor, they're useful idiots, not main players. They want to think of themselves as such and, if the End Times occur, their self-image will be justified. But I find that unlikely. Meanwhile, there really is a corrosive force at the heart of American culture, and it's this white revanchism.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 9:04 AM on March 22, 2017
The idea of a congregationless Christianity utterly boggles the mind. I thought that was the whole point? *EC is confused*
Having developed a relationship as a non-Catholic adult with a community of Roman Catholic* women religious, I've been struck how they are out there living and building community amongst themselves and the people they serve. They really seem to try to do right by the most vulnerable people in their community through education, medical care, feeding the hungry, and so on. Is it a perfect system? No, but they also have real, personal relationships with community members.
This INC stuff sounds like a big marketing scam that avoids all accountability for the charlatans preaching and preening, while not requiring people to at least attempt to live in a way that emulates the Jesus Christ depicted in the religion's holy texts. Not saying that no one can find meaning there or use it to affect positive change, but it seems like it'd be difficult in that environment.
*The usual disclaimers regarding the Church's institutional problems and dubious morality around sexuality apply.
posted by Excommunicated Cardinal at 9:56 AM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Having developed a relationship as a non-Catholic adult with a community of Roman Catholic* women religious, I've been struck how they are out there living and building community amongst themselves and the people they serve. They really seem to try to do right by the most vulnerable people in their community through education, medical care, feeding the hungry, and so on. Is it a perfect system? No, but they also have real, personal relationships with community members.
This INC stuff sounds like a big marketing scam that avoids all accountability for the charlatans preaching and preening, while not requiring people to at least attempt to live in a way that emulates the Jesus Christ depicted in the religion's holy texts. Not saying that no one can find meaning there or use it to affect positive change, but it seems like it'd be difficult in that environment.
*The usual disclaimers regarding the Church's institutional problems and dubious morality around sexuality apply.
posted by Excommunicated Cardinal at 9:56 AM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Most of the Christian writers I'm finding who are talking about the "seven mountains" don't use the term "Independent Network Charismatic". That seems to be a term made up by the authors of this article. The name I'm running into the most is the New Apostolic Reformation (more), whose roots go back to 1975 and involved the founder of Youth with a Mission and the founder of Campus Crusade for Christ. The "seven mountains" were transformed into a "seven mountains mandate" by Lance Wallnau, a man who tagged Trump as "God's Chaos Candidate". C. Peter Wagner, a man who wrote a lot of books about battling demons, is credited with founding the NAR as such.
I wish the article had included this basic information. I guess they wanted us to buy their book.
Here's an acerbic take on the movement that does tie it to Prosperity Gospel, though the NAR/INC folks, unlike the Prosperity Gospel folks, try to make it sound like the money's not really for them:
The same author goes into much more detail about the movement here, with the same acerbic charm. E.g. "It doesn’t take much to find examples online of Wagner showing evidence of an absolute theological lobotomy." Or:
posted by clawsoon at 10:07 AM on March 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
I wish the article had included this basic information. I guess they wanted us to buy their book.
Here's an acerbic take on the movement that does tie it to Prosperity Gospel, though the NAR/INC folks, unlike the Prosperity Gospel folks, try to make it sound like the money's not really for them:
They want a lot of money: they need it for the sort of “influencing the people with money” sort of work they’re chasing. At the end of the day the Seven Mountain Mandate results in people gaining money, power and influence in the secular world for the purpose of (eventually) using a fraction of it for the promotion of a false gospel.The author of that article, though, seems to be unworried that they'll get very far in taking over secular culture:
I know multiple people who have tried to “take the mountain.” They were spiritually unprepared to face the temptations and pressures of Hollywood; taught to be spiritually arrogant by foolish teachers who were highly incompetent with the Scriptures. Armed with a few misunderstood scriptural “promises” and the power of positive thinking, these folks tried to exercise their spiritual authority over their mountain. Most of them left the church and, spiritually speaking, are in the intensive care ward. Sadly, some are bloated corpses floating in the pool of depravity that is Western popular culture.By that reckoning, ignoring congregation and community has left them without the social support they need to accomplish their goal of taking over the world; instead, as mostly isolated individuals, the world usually takes over them.
The same author goes into much more detail about the movement here, with the same acerbic charm. E.g. "It doesn’t take much to find examples online of Wagner showing evidence of an absolute theological lobotomy." Or:
I’m not ashamed to say that Todd Bentley is possibly the Frank Chu of evangelicalism; nobody knows what Bentley is talking about either. What would you call someone who put this man in a pulpit? What would you call a group of men who placed a man back in a pulpit after he filled the baptismal with jello, slapped a visitor and played “chubby bunny” with the communion wafers in front of the whole church?They sound like an interesting bunch, anyway.
posted by clawsoon at 10:07 AM on March 22, 2017 [6 favorites]
"They really seem to try to do right by the most vulnerable people in their community through education, medical care, feeding the hungry, and so on. Is it a perfect system? No, but they also have real, personal relationships with community members."
Yeah, I think the thing that most worries me (or is, admittedly, most characteristic in a negative sense) is that the INCs are inwardly focused. They do develop and maintain strong communities -- this generalized characterization of them as not doing so is mistaken. But what I'm not seeing is outwardly focused philanthropy that isn't explicitly and exclusively evangelist.
On the other hand, this loved-one of mine considers "social justice" to be a positive descriptor and has actively oriented around that so...
Again, representative? I think largely not. But that this person exists, at a high level, within this culture/context, has to indicate something. At least some heterogeneity.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:12 AM on March 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
Yeah, I think the thing that most worries me (or is, admittedly, most characteristic in a negative sense) is that the INCs are inwardly focused. They do develop and maintain strong communities -- this generalized characterization of them as not doing so is mistaken. But what I'm not seeing is outwardly focused philanthropy that isn't explicitly and exclusively evangelist.
On the other hand, this loved-one of mine considers "social justice" to be a positive descriptor and has actively oriented around that so...
Again, representative? I think largely not. But that this person exists, at a high level, within this culture/context, has to indicate something. At least some heterogeneity.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 10:12 AM on March 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
AFABulous Not the article you linked to, but there's a writer with a similar background with a blog you may like http://www.patheos.com/blogs/lovejoyfeminism/. She's also the product of a quiverfull far right wing ultra Christian upbringing who broke free, and blogs on a lot of topics while providing useful insight into the rank and file of that movement.
posted by sotonohito at 10:25 AM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
posted by sotonohito at 10:25 AM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
The absence of any focus on church and congregation, as a physical place you go to receive the sacraments / participate in community, is incredibly different from any other form of Christianity that I know of
this is traditional in various sincere Protestant sects which care a great deal about pleasing God and not much at all about political dominion. it's the logical conclusion of being disgusted first by Catholic churches where people can be attracted by beautiful architecture and worldly this and that, and then by the creeping corruption in Protestant churches, with their professionalized clergy and near-professionalized music -- churches are no better than theaters, ministers no better than showmen or actors, etc. etc. this is a surprising philosophy to any who grew up being more bored than entertained by the services of their youth but was a very strongly held one.
so, no smells, no bells, no flashy instrumental music, no charismatic preachers who might divert the minds of the congregation from God to his servant, and to prevent those things from creeping in, no physical churches. Meetings with other faithful in their homes, yes; a physical fixed church to gather in, no. Making it something that comes into being whenever two or three are gathered together is an old-style attempt to keep worship always fixed on the divine and not on everything else. Nothing at all like what the subjects of the post are doing, but completely a thing of long standing.
posted by queenofbithynia at 11:33 AM on March 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
this is traditional in various sincere Protestant sects which care a great deal about pleasing God and not much at all about political dominion. it's the logical conclusion of being disgusted first by Catholic churches where people can be attracted by beautiful architecture and worldly this and that, and then by the creeping corruption in Protestant churches, with their professionalized clergy and near-professionalized music -- churches are no better than theaters, ministers no better than showmen or actors, etc. etc. this is a surprising philosophy to any who grew up being more bored than entertained by the services of their youth but was a very strongly held one.
so, no smells, no bells, no flashy instrumental music, no charismatic preachers who might divert the minds of the congregation from God to his servant, and to prevent those things from creeping in, no physical churches. Meetings with other faithful in their homes, yes; a physical fixed church to gather in, no. Making it something that comes into being whenever two or three are gathered together is an old-style attempt to keep worship always fixed on the divine and not on everything else. Nothing at all like what the subjects of the post are doing, but completely a thing of long standing.
posted by queenofbithynia at 11:33 AM on March 22, 2017 [3 favorites]
Every thirty years or so the media discovers that Many Americans Are Christians! OMG! How dangerous! A religious dictatorship is right around the corner!
After a while the media forgets about it and moves on to the next crisis. The religious dictatorship somehow never happens, and America goes on, much as before. Repeat ad infinitum.
I think the internet has shortened this cycle to ten or fifteen years. See MeFi around 2001-2003.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:40 PM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
After a while the media forgets about it and moves on to the next crisis. The religious dictatorship somehow never happens, and America goes on, much as before. Repeat ad infinitum.
I think the internet has shortened this cycle to ten or fifteen years. See MeFi around 2001-2003.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 12:40 PM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
I'm starting to see what Eyebrows McGee meant by, "Some of the stuff you hear is just ... straight-up lunacy. Not, like, regular Christian lunacy that has a tradition in the faith, but just nuts."
"The sun goddess is not a very nice lady. The sun goddess is a power of darkness, which is headed up by the kingdom of Satan. And so the sun goddess wants natural disasters to come to Japan."
"I will cause the blood of the aborted children to be quieted, because I am now resurrecting them in the wombs of the Marys of this hour. You thought you took them out, Satan, but I am bringing them back through the wombs of the women that are giving birth in the next 15 years and shall bring forth those that were stolen from the wombs of those through legalized abortions."
"There were stories of angelic encounters, oil dripping from the speaker’s feet, feathers and gold dust falling on the worshipers, rain falling inside of the buildings, and supernatural gems being found all over the church."
"I need to be honest; I have personally never raised anyone from the dead although I have tried twice."
"From its early days, New Life Church’s members worked to map out all the territorial demon spirits inhabiting Colorado Springs. At some point in the process, they fed the mapping information into a computer database. Methodically—street by street, block by block—they used prayer-warfare to expel the demons from their city. And they 'maintained a 24/7 prayer shield over Colorado Springs to prevent demon re-infestations.'"
"Bentley had held revival events with Baker in Africa at which he claimed to heal AIDS victims. And in 2008, the heavily tattooed Bentley temporarily became the superstar of the movement with a faith-healing revival in which he punched and kicked patients in order to “heal” them and expel the demons that caused their affliction."
The most detailed and thoroughly researched examination of the phenomenon that I've found so far is here. It talks about the history of the movement, along with the political goals of the movement both outside and inside the church. One thing that we haven't discussed much yet is the authoritarianism of the movement within the church:
"The sun goddess is not a very nice lady. The sun goddess is a power of darkness, which is headed up by the kingdom of Satan. And so the sun goddess wants natural disasters to come to Japan."
"I will cause the blood of the aborted children to be quieted, because I am now resurrecting them in the wombs of the Marys of this hour. You thought you took them out, Satan, but I am bringing them back through the wombs of the women that are giving birth in the next 15 years and shall bring forth those that were stolen from the wombs of those through legalized abortions."
"There were stories of angelic encounters, oil dripping from the speaker’s feet, feathers and gold dust falling on the worshipers, rain falling inside of the buildings, and supernatural gems being found all over the church."
"I need to be honest; I have personally never raised anyone from the dead although I have tried twice."
"From its early days, New Life Church’s members worked to map out all the territorial demon spirits inhabiting Colorado Springs. At some point in the process, they fed the mapping information into a computer database. Methodically—street by street, block by block—they used prayer-warfare to expel the demons from their city. And they 'maintained a 24/7 prayer shield over Colorado Springs to prevent demon re-infestations.'"
"Bentley had held revival events with Baker in Africa at which he claimed to heal AIDS victims. And in 2008, the heavily tattooed Bentley temporarily became the superstar of the movement with a faith-healing revival in which he punched and kicked patients in order to “heal” them and expel the demons that caused their affliction."
The most detailed and thoroughly researched examination of the phenomenon that I've found so far is here. It talks about the history of the movement, along with the political goals of the movement both outside and inside the church. One thing that we haven't discussed much yet is the authoritarianism of the movement within the church:
Evangelical churches in the United States are, traditionally, democratically governed. Pastors are typically hired or fired directly by congregational vote or by elected deacons or elders, who also manage the budget and make other decisions for the congregation. But one of the major themes taught by New Apostolic leaders is the need for congregational and organizational members to submit to pastoral, or apostolic, authority. The effect is that, across the nation, churches that were once democratically governed are transferring power to NAR apostles, who then provide “apostolic covering” to other pastors, churches, and ministries below them. The apostolic “cover” is the person to whom one is accountable—a spiritual mentor. Failing to submit to this authority means inviting demonic attack. Submitting becomes a measure of one’s faith.posted by clawsoon at 2:53 PM on March 22, 2017 [7 favorites]
The religious dictatorship somehow never happens
There are only five known Dominionists in the present Cabinet so nothing to worry about.
Led by Mike Pence who dreams of a Christian theocracy, rejects the separation of church and state, and places his Christian faith above the U.S. Constitution. Pence describes himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order”. He refuses to accept Evolution, is rabidly anti-gay, believes abortion should be criminalized, and that Global Warming is a hoax.
posted by adamvasco at 2:58 PM on March 22, 2017 [5 favorites]
There are only five known Dominionists in the present Cabinet so nothing to worry about.
Led by Mike Pence who dreams of a Christian theocracy, rejects the separation of church and state, and places his Christian faith above the U.S. Constitution. Pence describes himself as “a Christian, a conservative, and a Republican, in that order”. He refuses to accept Evolution, is rabidly anti-gay, believes abortion should be criminalized, and that Global Warming is a hoax.
posted by adamvasco at 2:58 PM on March 22, 2017 [5 favorites]
"In 12 years, the music has never stopped at the International House of Prayer."
Enjoy some of it here, by IHOP's worship leader Misty Edwards. It aims, from what I gather, to be hypnotic, redolent of angels and demons and warfare on a hidden plane.
posted by clawsoon at 3:04 PM on March 22, 2017
Enjoy some of it here, by IHOP's worship leader Misty Edwards. It aims, from what I gather, to be hypnotic, redolent of angels and demons and warfare on a hidden plane.
posted by clawsoon at 3:04 PM on March 22, 2017
Is that all.
posted by rhizome at 6:19 PM on March 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
posted by rhizome at 6:19 PM on March 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
rhizome: Is that all.
No, that's not all! For the low, low yearly payment of only $450 - less than the price of a cup of coffee a day! - you, too, can become an apostle! Some terms and conditions apply, see Holy Spirit for details.
I'm sorry for the threadsitting, but the more I read about these people the more fascinated I get. I'm starting to think that their take-over-the-world talk is just another schtick: They're comfortable claiming that they've raised dozens of people from the dead in order to extract money and attention from their followers, so why not claim that they'll have all of culture and government in their hands any day now, too? It's another outlandish claim to make them seem successful and powerful, like the supernatural gems that show up in their churches or that time they ended mad cow disease in Europe.
I'd personally worry more about the more practical and methodical Dominionists, not this bunch of miracle workers and demon slayers, though I'm sure the those Dominionists will be happy to use the enthusiasms of these ones in their quest for power.
posted by clawsoon at 6:47 PM on March 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
No, that's not all! For the low, low yearly payment of only $450 - less than the price of a cup of coffee a day! - you, too, can become an apostle! Some terms and conditions apply, see Holy Spirit for details.
I'm sorry for the threadsitting, but the more I read about these people the more fascinated I get. I'm starting to think that their take-over-the-world talk is just another schtick: They're comfortable claiming that they've raised dozens of people from the dead in order to extract money and attention from their followers, so why not claim that they'll have all of culture and government in their hands any day now, too? It's another outlandish claim to make them seem successful and powerful, like the supernatural gems that show up in their churches or that time they ended mad cow disease in Europe.
I'd personally worry more about the more practical and methodical Dominionists, not this bunch of miracle workers and demon slayers, though I'm sure the those Dominionists will be happy to use the enthusiasms of these ones in their quest for power.
posted by clawsoon at 6:47 PM on March 22, 2017 [2 favorites]
When this ruling the world thing came up before, Jesus was quoted as saying, "Get thee behind me Satan." John of Patmos said all this stuff, but Jesus claimed to have no interest in ruling the world.
posted by Oyéah at 7:42 PM on March 22, 2017
posted by Oyéah at 7:42 PM on March 22, 2017
For me, the absence of a focus on congregation in this movement is the part that doesn't seem like a new thing, though perhaps I'm confounding two different kinds of things. I've coincidentally read, in the past year, of multiple historical movements in the Church where a loose collection of preachers would sweep through, "save" large numbers of people, and then move on with no thought for church or congregation. George Whitfield (and some of those he inspired) did it in the late 1700s in New England. They were all "disruptors", breaking up "orderly parish system, communities, and even families", leaving an atomized and unstable Christianity behind them, often with unpredictable results.
I've been studying the Methodism of the 2nd Great Awakening for many years, and at least in regards to that movement (which swept New England and the Midwest 1790ish-1840ish), though it was true that circuit preachers spread the word, the assumption entirely was that the communities left behind, newly saved, would form new local congregations to maintain these religious commitments. Areas that had been visited by circuit preachers were called "Burned-Over Districts," because there was no new "fuel," so to speak, to convert, everyone having been "saved." But they weren't just left to their own devices - they were supposed to organize into congregations, and in fact, there was a specific liturgy which they were supposed to practice that involved a high level of congregational involvement at certain times of year, and a few major sacramental rituals also to be practiced in communal worship. There were also clear written instructions on how to organize a congregation and become part of the region's official Methodist structure: you were supposed to form classes, elect a leader, and meet once a week for spiritual inquiries and to donate alms. The class meeting, with its clear emphasis on fellowship, is credited with being directly responsible for the exponential growth of Methodism during its 50 years of rapid growth 1790-1840 - it was the cell structure which replicated easily, and because it was intimate and face-to-face, was deeply personally transformative. So, though Methodism was intensely disruptive to older religious institutions, it was never anti-congregationalist. In fact, the central feature of American Methodism was its big gatherings in camp meetings, which weren't one-time revivals but often a multiply repeated, usually year-after-year phenomenon, which brought preachers and believers together for a deep moment of renewal of faith. So, while I appreciate certain aspects of this analogy, the Methodists of New England at the turn of the 19th century aren't a good example. I don't know about Mennonites.
It's fair to question whether I'm reacting to the content or the form of this type of 'worship.' I'm not sure I'm completely certain where I stand on it, in truth. One of the comments above seemed to be talking about the similiarities to Socality or something like it, which interested me because when I learned about Socality (here on MeFi) I had a far more benign response than I do to this, though it is similarly networked and image/social-media-driven. I think part of the difficulty in talking about whether this is new or old, good or bad, is that INC is the authors' own categorization, not one internally defined by any of these communities - and the authors would probably place Socality and its ilk within INC, not in contrast to it. So, in part, what I'm responding to may not be the lack of a congregation but the lack of any meaningful structures of ethical accountability that would inevitably militate against the worldly goals of Dominionism:
And yes, of course it's possible to have that kind of consumerist experience in a congregation, as well. But another thing that happens in congregations is that they're complex human organizations that rely a lot on volunteer labor and mutual empowerment, and so, though there is a spiritual leader(s), there is also a number of people who share power within a congregational structure and so no single person's point of view always necessarily dominates (and anyone who's ever been a church volunteer certainly knows what the kibitzing and difference of opinion is like). These media streams don't operate that way and don't empower any of the participants - instead, they seem to solidify power in a few narrow individuals.
posted by Miko at 8:13 PM on March 22, 2017 [8 favorites]
I've been studying the Methodism of the 2nd Great Awakening for many years, and at least in regards to that movement (which swept New England and the Midwest 1790ish-1840ish), though it was true that circuit preachers spread the word, the assumption entirely was that the communities left behind, newly saved, would form new local congregations to maintain these religious commitments. Areas that had been visited by circuit preachers were called "Burned-Over Districts," because there was no new "fuel," so to speak, to convert, everyone having been "saved." But they weren't just left to their own devices - they were supposed to organize into congregations, and in fact, there was a specific liturgy which they were supposed to practice that involved a high level of congregational involvement at certain times of year, and a few major sacramental rituals also to be practiced in communal worship. There were also clear written instructions on how to organize a congregation and become part of the region's official Methodist structure: you were supposed to form classes, elect a leader, and meet once a week for spiritual inquiries and to donate alms. The class meeting, with its clear emphasis on fellowship, is credited with being directly responsible for the exponential growth of Methodism during its 50 years of rapid growth 1790-1840 - it was the cell structure which replicated easily, and because it was intimate and face-to-face, was deeply personally transformative. So, though Methodism was intensely disruptive to older religious institutions, it was never anti-congregationalist. In fact, the central feature of American Methodism was its big gatherings in camp meetings, which weren't one-time revivals but often a multiply repeated, usually year-after-year phenomenon, which brought preachers and believers together for a deep moment of renewal of faith. So, while I appreciate certain aspects of this analogy, the Methodists of New England at the turn of the 19th century aren't a good example. I don't know about Mennonites.
It's fair to question whether I'm reacting to the content or the form of this type of 'worship.' I'm not sure I'm completely certain where I stand on it, in truth. One of the comments above seemed to be talking about the similiarities to Socality or something like it, which interested me because when I learned about Socality (here on MeFi) I had a far more benign response than I do to this, though it is similarly networked and image/social-media-driven. I think part of the difficulty in talking about whether this is new or old, good or bad, is that INC is the authors' own categorization, not one internally defined by any of these communities - and the authors would probably place Socality and its ilk within INC, not in contrast to it. So, in part, what I'm responding to may not be the lack of a congregation but the lack of any meaningful structures of ethical accountability that would inevitably militate against the worldly goals of Dominionism:
their leaders are not content simply to connect individuals to God and grow congregations. Most INC Christian groups we studied seek to bring heaven or God’s intended perfect society to Earth by placing “kingdom-minded people” in powerful positions at the top of all sectors of society.In short, it may be that the reason I believe congregationalism is important is not that I'm against the idea of networked and distributed affiliation, but that congregations serve several important roles, among them confronting participants regularly with theological arguments against which individuals can examine their own personal beliefs, spiritual progress, and aspirations, and social expectations and real-world relationships in which you are visible and present, and that those aren't always forgiving moments. I can still imagine some remote tele-ministry sort of stuff not being awful, but I think my issue with INC is every bit as much that there seems to be an utter lack of regard for the Gospels as it is that there's also no co-present, theologically referential, human gathering which might introduce rigorous thought about what is said in the Gospels - that is what a congregation has the power to do, in my view. Bring believers into contentious and searching real-time, direct discussions that are about active processing, rather than consuming.
And yes, of course it's possible to have that kind of consumerist experience in a congregation, as well. But another thing that happens in congregations is that they're complex human organizations that rely a lot on volunteer labor and mutual empowerment, and so, though there is a spiritual leader(s), there is also a number of people who share power within a congregational structure and so no single person's point of view always necessarily dominates (and anyone who's ever been a church volunteer certainly knows what the kibitzing and difference of opinion is like). These media streams don't operate that way and don't empower any of the participants - instead, they seem to solidify power in a few narrow individuals.
posted by Miko at 8:13 PM on March 22, 2017 [8 favorites]
"I need to be honest; I have personally never raised anyone from the dead although I have tried twice."
So, sort of the terrifying offspring of Christianity and D&D, or maybe LARPing? Oh, the begetting!!
posted by sneebler at 8:24 PM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
So, sort of the terrifying offspring of Christianity and D&D, or maybe LARPing? Oh, the begetting!!
posted by sneebler at 8:24 PM on March 22, 2017 [1 favorite]
Miko: Areas that had been visited by circuit preachers were called "Burned-Over Districts," because there was no new "fuel," so to speak, to convert, everyone having been "saved." But they weren't just left to their own devices - they were supposed to organize into congregations, and in fact, there was a specific liturgy which they were supposed to practice that involved a high level of congregational involvement at certain times of year, and a few major sacramental rituals also to be practiced in communal worship. There were also clear written instructions on how to organize a congregation and become part of the region's official Methodist structure: you were supposed to form classes, elect a leader, and meet once a week for spiritual inquiries and to donate alms.
My impression of the Burned-Over Districts is that they birthed an exceptional number of sects which rejected the Nicene Creed or other widely shared Christian beliefs, suggesting that the instructions that the preachers left behind weren't enough to put the congregations they birthed on a stable footing. Is that a fairer characterization than my initial one?
...it was the cell structure which replicated easily, and because it was intimate and face-to-face, was deeply personally transformative.
It's interesting that the Wikipedia page on the New Apostolic Reformation also uses "cell" terminology, though that may just be a coincidence.
I wonder if there are historical precedents which fit better. From what I'm reading, NAR/INC seems to be in the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, with an especially close resemblance to the post-WWII Latter Rain movement. They share direct revelation to modern prophets, the authority of modern apostles, dominionism, healing and miracles, and geographical spiritual warfare with Latter Rain, though apparently no direct historical connection has been established. But surely a similar combination of beliefs has arisen multiple times in the past? Is there truly any new heresy?
I think my issue with INC is every bit as much that there seems to be an utter lack of regard for the Gospels as it is that there's also no co-present, theologically referential, human gathering which might introduce rigorous thought about what is said in the Gospels - that is what a congregation has the power to do, in my view. Bring believers into contentious and searching real-time, direct discussions that are about active processing, rather than consuming.
Aye, rigorous thought does not appear to be the main appeal of the movement, even when they do have congregations and meetings, even when they're producing signs and wonders themselves instead of passively consuming.
posted by clawsoon at 10:08 PM on March 22, 2017
My impression of the Burned-Over Districts is that they birthed an exceptional number of sects which rejected the Nicene Creed or other widely shared Christian beliefs, suggesting that the instructions that the preachers left behind weren't enough to put the congregations they birthed on a stable footing. Is that a fairer characterization than my initial one?
...it was the cell structure which replicated easily, and because it was intimate and face-to-face, was deeply personally transformative.
It's interesting that the Wikipedia page on the New Apostolic Reformation also uses "cell" terminology, though that may just be a coincidence.
I wonder if there are historical precedents which fit better. From what I'm reading, NAR/INC seems to be in the Pentecostal/Charismatic tradition, with an especially close resemblance to the post-WWII Latter Rain movement. They share direct revelation to modern prophets, the authority of modern apostles, dominionism, healing and miracles, and geographical spiritual warfare with Latter Rain, though apparently no direct historical connection has been established. But surely a similar combination of beliefs has arisen multiple times in the past? Is there truly any new heresy?
I think my issue with INC is every bit as much that there seems to be an utter lack of regard for the Gospels as it is that there's also no co-present, theologically referential, human gathering which might introduce rigorous thought about what is said in the Gospels - that is what a congregation has the power to do, in my view. Bring believers into contentious and searching real-time, direct discussions that are about active processing, rather than consuming.
Aye, rigorous thought does not appear to be the main appeal of the movement, even when they do have congregations and meetings, even when they're producing signs and wonders themselves instead of passively consuming.
posted by clawsoon at 10:08 PM on March 22, 2017
My impression of the Burned-Over Districts is that they birthed an exceptional number of sects which rejected the Nicene Creed or other widely shared Christian beliefs, suggesting that the instructions that the preachers left behind weren't enough to put the congregations they birthed on a stable footing. Is that a fairer characterization than my initial one?
Well, I'm not as deeply informed on other denominations, but it seems like all of the sects they birthed were still congregationally based. They all fractured along dogmatic lines and arcana, but they tended still to share the emphasis on group cohesion and meeting together in worship - whether they were Baptists, Mormons, utopian milennialists, or what have you - they didn't reject communal worship.
posted by Miko at 5:52 AM on March 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
Well, I'm not as deeply informed on other denominations, but it seems like all of the sects they birthed were still congregationally based. They all fractured along dogmatic lines and arcana, but they tended still to share the emphasis on group cohesion and meeting together in worship - whether they were Baptists, Mormons, utopian milennialists, or what have you - they didn't reject communal worship.
posted by Miko at 5:52 AM on March 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
They all fractured along dogmatic lines and arcana, but they tended still to share the emphasis on group cohesion and meeting together in worship - whether they were Baptists, Mormons, utopian milennialists, or what have you - they didn't reject communal worship.
The more that I'm reading about NAR (I'll use that term since it seems to be the accepted one within the community), the more that I'm questioning the characterization that they reject communal worship. Yes, they do a lot of broadcasting (via GOD TV and the Internet), but they also have the full complement of congregations, Bible schools, prayer meetings, and worship meetings. And they additionally have prayer walks, and prayer marches, and prayer rallies, and 247/7/365 prayer watches, and revivals, and healings, and communal movings of the Holy Spirit. They don't seem to be an introverted bunch. What makes them anti-communal compared to other Christian movements?
posted by clawsoon at 6:55 AM on March 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
The more that I'm reading about NAR (I'll use that term since it seems to be the accepted one within the community), the more that I'm questioning the characterization that they reject communal worship. Yes, they do a lot of broadcasting (via GOD TV and the Internet), but they also have the full complement of congregations, Bible schools, prayer meetings, and worship meetings. And they additionally have prayer walks, and prayer marches, and prayer rallies, and 247/7/365 prayer watches, and revivals, and healings, and communal movings of the Holy Spirit. They don't seem to be an introverted bunch. What makes them anti-communal compared to other Christian movements?
posted by clawsoon at 6:55 AM on March 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
Yeah, NAR at the least is very communal worship oriented.
But what I don't have any knowledge of is the experience of the average person involved in this. I only have a view of some people (the, shall we say, "elite") who are devoting their lives to this. It makes sense that if you look at the leadership, you'll find people who are rigorous and sincere and live their beliefs and do so within the structure of community. Indeed, my view is one that sees nothing but notable and very intense community. But then, that would be the case with the core. And, also, within the core, there are sure to be less sincere and more questionable actors.
I am biased. I am also deeply conflicted about this topic. My view of this is primarily through the experience of someone dear to me who may very well be atypical within the leadership. But the (by marriage) other loved-one who is very much presently actively in the leadership of the movement is both like and unlike some of the concerns discussed above. It's hard to imagine this person being more rigorous and intellectually coherent and so is also not quite representative of the concerns being raised.
I'm trying to be very circumspect here out of respect for my loved-one -- I hope that people appreciate that -- but those who are familiar with me and my posting history will know more about this topic. This person closest to me has values and a personality that is so contrary to what's being described that it's very confusing to me. It long has been very confusing to me. I mentioned "social justice" -- there is that. Or a more feminist viewpoint about the Church (as argued via the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ). My personal problem has always been how to reconcile that my loved-one is among the leadership of this movement and yet seems to have instincts and positions that are very much at odds with how it is externally characterized. I have to consider -- thus the circumspection -- that this is my own private view granted to me (and filtered by) my loved-one who, quite frankly, has values closer to mine than not. Which is to say, despite devoting a life to this, and being in the leadership, is likely not representative at all.
On the other hand, that's my dilemma whenever this particular discussion comes up on MeFi. I feel compelled to put forth a #notallX argument because even though, yeah, I really understand that #notallX arguments are diversionary, this is a person I love who cannot be truthfully characterized in the way that people talk about this subject here. And I think that maybe that's an important data point. I mean, I have always held on to that personally, in my own particular experience, as a psychological way to understand and connect -- that this person, deep within this movement, is a force for things that are good, even though I would otherwise wish that they had found their faith somewhere else and from another direction.
And it is an important and vital data point, as is my presenting a view on this topic that is more a specific perspective. A fundamental value of mine, which I've always enacted on MeFi, is to balance the abstract with the specific, the analytical with the anecdotal. Because we need to both see systems and individuals. It's important never to forget to really see some of the people one is generalizing about and abstracting; just as it's important to not improperly universalize from one specific example. This is actually my own personal struggle on this very topic about an actual person. There is a person here, who I know well, deeply love and greatly respect, and there is the larger context, which alarms and angers me. It would be easier for me where it possible that I could truthfully see this person as that bigoted uncle at the Thanksgiving table who I love, nevertheless. But it's not that simple -- because this person I love is the farthest thing from the caricature of the uninformed, facile idiot.
Which brings me back to my larger point. From my perspective as a lifelong atheist who is nevertheless respectful of faith and religious institutions, I am wary of how it is that historically lines have always been drawn -- which is to say, existing insitutions and structures are completely normal and rationally supportable and the disruptive, new movement is incoherent, irrational, and morally suspect. Isn't that always the argument? From my view from all the way outside, it seems like it has been. And I don't even know how to go about distinguishing everyday components of Christian faith from "superstition". Mainline folk find this obvious but, from the outside, as an atheist, this usually seems to me to be splitting hairs. And lest one raise the issue of empiricism (are people miraculously healed? and so on), that's obviously a sword that cuts both ways.
So. Let's get to brass tacks; to what matters functionally to most of us here. (My own issues are specific to me, and are more complicated; but they include the stuff that the typical mefite would be concerned with.) The one thing I do see very clearly is a strong distinction between, as I've already written, the Liberty University crowd and this. I don't feel as directly threatened, politically, by these "INC" people, despite this discussion of "seven mountains". In my personal experience, if that's their goal, they are pitifully unprepared because they, themselves, scorn so much of secular culture. And, also, an important part of the appeal to young people is that it's not as typically culturally conservative and political ... at least, not on the surface. Yet, elsewhere, there's a whole branch of Christian conservatism that has successfully infiltrated the American political system and it's really not these folk. There's some overlap, yes, but it comes from the other side, the side that is far more politically oriented. As Miko points out, the clumping category of "INS" is the authors' invention and not self-described by the people involved. My own observation is that the overlap confuses outside observers when, really, there is a strong distinction when you experience these folk personally.
And I'll be entirely frank about this one part (though I'm hesitant): Lou Engle. In my observation, he's an example of where the overlap occurs. I can't speak to what it looks like from the inside, but I can say that from the outside looking in, there's some, um, disagreement. And, really, given what we know, this seems quite predictable. Again, I'm an unbeliever. But you can think in these eschatological terms (as so many Protestant sects do) and organize your worship and community around that theme, but, even so, you can have a sort of long-view or a short-view. Or, more specifically, some people are going to be more worldly in the expression and function of their belief, and some are not. And hasn't this always been true? From my vantage point on the outside, my observation is that this is a fractal pattern -- which is to say, it's true of entire religions as well as being true at each level down to individual congregations.
As a political matter, I'm inclined to refrain from generalization and, instead, react to the specific. There's a broad range of regressive policies that are supported by the diverse Christian right, and it's not as important to generalize about movements and oppose movements as it is to oppose each specific attempt to enact those regressive policies. Doing the clumping and generalization is often counterproductive -- for me, a good example is the LDS and Prop 8. Yeah, the LDS funded a lot of that; but a lot of people who have focused on the LDS as villains of that don't have a deep enough understanding why the LDS has retreated so quickly from this stance. If you are going to talk about these particular institutions and position them within your mental political map, then at the very least you should actually know enough about these institutions to understand, why, for example, the LDS has tried to distance itself from the Prop 8 thing. The point is that the real fight is about specific things, not generalizing about groups of people who share the same creed -- because that generalization about actual groups of people made up of individuals is usually misleading and self-serving while, in contrast, acting swiftly and strongly against real-world policies we oppose is always, always the first priority.
That doesn't mean that it's not important to know one's enemy in order to defeat them. But, honestly, with all of this stuff I almost never see any real attempts from people at "knowing one's enemy". The glosses I see are more about what's comfortable for the person Othering than they are truly insightful views that guide deep strategy. I'm all in favor of the latter. But if you're going to do this, do it right.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:54 PM on March 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
But what I don't have any knowledge of is the experience of the average person involved in this. I only have a view of some people (the, shall we say, "elite") who are devoting their lives to this. It makes sense that if you look at the leadership, you'll find people who are rigorous and sincere and live their beliefs and do so within the structure of community. Indeed, my view is one that sees nothing but notable and very intense community. But then, that would be the case with the core. And, also, within the core, there are sure to be less sincere and more questionable actors.
I am biased. I am also deeply conflicted about this topic. My view of this is primarily through the experience of someone dear to me who may very well be atypical within the leadership. But the (by marriage) other loved-one who is very much presently actively in the leadership of the movement is both like and unlike some of the concerns discussed above. It's hard to imagine this person being more rigorous and intellectually coherent and so is also not quite representative of the concerns being raised.
I'm trying to be very circumspect here out of respect for my loved-one -- I hope that people appreciate that -- but those who are familiar with me and my posting history will know more about this topic. This person closest to me has values and a personality that is so contrary to what's being described that it's very confusing to me. It long has been very confusing to me. I mentioned "social justice" -- there is that. Or a more feminist viewpoint about the Church (as argued via the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ). My personal problem has always been how to reconcile that my loved-one is among the leadership of this movement and yet seems to have instincts and positions that are very much at odds with how it is externally characterized. I have to consider -- thus the circumspection -- that this is my own private view granted to me (and filtered by) my loved-one who, quite frankly, has values closer to mine than not. Which is to say, despite devoting a life to this, and being in the leadership, is likely not representative at all.
On the other hand, that's my dilemma whenever this particular discussion comes up on MeFi. I feel compelled to put forth a #notallX argument because even though, yeah, I really understand that #notallX arguments are diversionary, this is a person I love who cannot be truthfully characterized in the way that people talk about this subject here. And I think that maybe that's an important data point. I mean, I have always held on to that personally, in my own particular experience, as a psychological way to understand and connect -- that this person, deep within this movement, is a force for things that are good, even though I would otherwise wish that they had found their faith somewhere else and from another direction.
And it is an important and vital data point, as is my presenting a view on this topic that is more a specific perspective. A fundamental value of mine, which I've always enacted on MeFi, is to balance the abstract with the specific, the analytical with the anecdotal. Because we need to both see systems and individuals. It's important never to forget to really see some of the people one is generalizing about and abstracting; just as it's important to not improperly universalize from one specific example. This is actually my own personal struggle on this very topic about an actual person. There is a person here, who I know well, deeply love and greatly respect, and there is the larger context, which alarms and angers me. It would be easier for me where it possible that I could truthfully see this person as that bigoted uncle at the Thanksgiving table who I love, nevertheless. But it's not that simple -- because this person I love is the farthest thing from the caricature of the uninformed, facile idiot.
Which brings me back to my larger point. From my perspective as a lifelong atheist who is nevertheless respectful of faith and religious institutions, I am wary of how it is that historically lines have always been drawn -- which is to say, existing insitutions and structures are completely normal and rationally supportable and the disruptive, new movement is incoherent, irrational, and morally suspect. Isn't that always the argument? From my view from all the way outside, it seems like it has been. And I don't even know how to go about distinguishing everyday components of Christian faith from "superstition". Mainline folk find this obvious but, from the outside, as an atheist, this usually seems to me to be splitting hairs. And lest one raise the issue of empiricism (are people miraculously healed? and so on), that's obviously a sword that cuts both ways.
So. Let's get to brass tacks; to what matters functionally to most of us here. (My own issues are specific to me, and are more complicated; but they include the stuff that the typical mefite would be concerned with.) The one thing I do see very clearly is a strong distinction between, as I've already written, the Liberty University crowd and this. I don't feel as directly threatened, politically, by these "INC" people, despite this discussion of "seven mountains". In my personal experience, if that's their goal, they are pitifully unprepared because they, themselves, scorn so much of secular culture. And, also, an important part of the appeal to young people is that it's not as typically culturally conservative and political ... at least, not on the surface. Yet, elsewhere, there's a whole branch of Christian conservatism that has successfully infiltrated the American political system and it's really not these folk. There's some overlap, yes, but it comes from the other side, the side that is far more politically oriented. As Miko points out, the clumping category of "INS" is the authors' invention and not self-described by the people involved. My own observation is that the overlap confuses outside observers when, really, there is a strong distinction when you experience these folk personally.
And I'll be entirely frank about this one part (though I'm hesitant): Lou Engle. In my observation, he's an example of where the overlap occurs. I can't speak to what it looks like from the inside, but I can say that from the outside looking in, there's some, um, disagreement. And, really, given what we know, this seems quite predictable. Again, I'm an unbeliever. But you can think in these eschatological terms (as so many Protestant sects do) and organize your worship and community around that theme, but, even so, you can have a sort of long-view or a short-view. Or, more specifically, some people are going to be more worldly in the expression and function of their belief, and some are not. And hasn't this always been true? From my vantage point on the outside, my observation is that this is a fractal pattern -- which is to say, it's true of entire religions as well as being true at each level down to individual congregations.
As a political matter, I'm inclined to refrain from generalization and, instead, react to the specific. There's a broad range of regressive policies that are supported by the diverse Christian right, and it's not as important to generalize about movements and oppose movements as it is to oppose each specific attempt to enact those regressive policies. Doing the clumping and generalization is often counterproductive -- for me, a good example is the LDS and Prop 8. Yeah, the LDS funded a lot of that; but a lot of people who have focused on the LDS as villains of that don't have a deep enough understanding why the LDS has retreated so quickly from this stance. If you are going to talk about these particular institutions and position them within your mental political map, then at the very least you should actually know enough about these institutions to understand, why, for example, the LDS has tried to distance itself from the Prop 8 thing. The point is that the real fight is about specific things, not generalizing about groups of people who share the same creed -- because that generalization about actual groups of people made up of individuals is usually misleading and self-serving while, in contrast, acting swiftly and strongly against real-world policies we oppose is always, always the first priority.
That doesn't mean that it's not important to know one's enemy in order to defeat them. But, honestly, with all of this stuff I almost never see any real attempts from people at "knowing one's enemy". The glosses I see are more about what's comfortable for the person Othering than they are truly insightful views that guide deep strategy. I'm all in favor of the latter. But if you're going to do this, do it right.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 7:54 PM on March 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
My personal problem has always been how to reconcile that my loved-one is among the leadership of this movement and yet seems to have instincts and positions that are very much at odds with how it is externally characterized. I have to consider -- thus the circumspection -- that this is my own private view granted to me (and filtered by) my loved-one who, quite frankly, has values closer to mine than not. Which is to say, despite devoting a life to this, and being in the leadership, is likely not representative at all.
I don't know enough to know much about this situation. But isn't there some meaningfulness to knowing people through their actions, not their positions? Through the consequences of their choices and the recipients of their power to direct voluntarism and rhetoric, rather than to their own sense of innermost values? Your insight into the inner life of one individual might not be the last word on his or her moral impact on the world, if that makes sense.
I mean, I see your larger point. Many people deeply involved in a religious community have motivations that are at some level essentially positive, even if, perhaps, misdirected (in that sometimes means run counter to ends, something especially visible in the "pro-life" debate that almost never focuses on activities that would minimize abortion). At the same time, there are many people in religious communities - and I'm not so much othering here as basing this on specific and direct personal experience - who are there for reasons of pathological psychology, untreated trauma, predation, self-aggrandization, and other negative motivations. That's a very real thing - in religious organizations as well as every other kind of garden-variety organization because this is a feature of human organizations. And there are some theological and institutional structures that better cover for or apologize for those less prosocial motivations, while others at least affirm the principle of confronting and routing out antisocial motivations.
posted by Miko at 8:07 PM on March 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
I don't know enough to know much about this situation. But isn't there some meaningfulness to knowing people through their actions, not their positions? Through the consequences of their choices and the recipients of their power to direct voluntarism and rhetoric, rather than to their own sense of innermost values? Your insight into the inner life of one individual might not be the last word on his or her moral impact on the world, if that makes sense.
I mean, I see your larger point. Many people deeply involved in a religious community have motivations that are at some level essentially positive, even if, perhaps, misdirected (in that sometimes means run counter to ends, something especially visible in the "pro-life" debate that almost never focuses on activities that would minimize abortion). At the same time, there are many people in religious communities - and I'm not so much othering here as basing this on specific and direct personal experience - who are there for reasons of pathological psychology, untreated trauma, predation, self-aggrandization, and other negative motivations. That's a very real thing - in religious organizations as well as every other kind of garden-variety organization because this is a feature of human organizations. And there are some theological and institutional structures that better cover for or apologize for those less prosocial motivations, while others at least affirm the principle of confronting and routing out antisocial motivations.
posted by Miko at 8:07 PM on March 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
Or a more feminist viewpoint about the Church (as argued via the analogy of the Church as the Bride of Christ).
I found it interesting that some of the scornful dismissals of NAR from conservative Christians that I've read have included side-swipes at the leadership roles that NAR congregations give to women. It seems that Charismatic/Pentecostal movements in general have been more open to women in leadership roles, though that declines when they move from "inspired by the Spirit" leadership to "professional attended seminary" leadership. That would be an interesting dynamic to learn more about.
But what I don't have any knowledge of is the experience of the average person involved in this. I only have a view of some people (the, shall we say, "elite") who are devoting their lives to this.
One trove of average-believer stories - though it's obviously negative - is the Leaving the NAR Church collection. It paints some pictures from the bottom up, though you do have to take into account the negative spin.
There is a person here, who I know well, deeply love and greatly respect, and there is the larger context, which alarms and angers me. It would be easier for me where it possible that I could truthfully see this person as that bigoted uncle at the Thanksgiving table who I love, nevertheless. But it's not that simple -- because this person I love is the farthest thing from the caricature of the uninformed, facile idiot. ... But, honestly, with all of this stuff I almost never see any real attempts from people at "knowing one's enemy". The glosses I see are more about what's comfortable for the person Othering...
I've done a fair amount of Othering in this discussion. I also know what it's like to love (and admire) specific actual people who have beliefs not too far from the ones we're discussing, beliefs that I no longer share. I don't have a satisfactory answer for you on this one.
posted by clawsoon at 8:55 PM on March 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
I found it interesting that some of the scornful dismissals of NAR from conservative Christians that I've read have included side-swipes at the leadership roles that NAR congregations give to women. It seems that Charismatic/Pentecostal movements in general have been more open to women in leadership roles, though that declines when they move from "inspired by the Spirit" leadership to "professional attended seminary" leadership. That would be an interesting dynamic to learn more about.
But what I don't have any knowledge of is the experience of the average person involved in this. I only have a view of some people (the, shall we say, "elite") who are devoting their lives to this.
One trove of average-believer stories - though it's obviously negative - is the Leaving the NAR Church collection. It paints some pictures from the bottom up, though you do have to take into account the negative spin.
There is a person here, who I know well, deeply love and greatly respect, and there is the larger context, which alarms and angers me. It would be easier for me where it possible that I could truthfully see this person as that bigoted uncle at the Thanksgiving table who I love, nevertheless. But it's not that simple -- because this person I love is the farthest thing from the caricature of the uninformed, facile idiot. ... But, honestly, with all of this stuff I almost never see any real attempts from people at "knowing one's enemy". The glosses I see are more about what's comfortable for the person Othering...
I've done a fair amount of Othering in this discussion. I also know what it's like to love (and admire) specific actual people who have beliefs not too far from the ones we're discussing, beliefs that I no longer share. I don't have a satisfactory answer for you on this one.
posted by clawsoon at 8:55 PM on March 23, 2017 [1 favorite]
« Older A very impressive likeness | Tigers are the teetotalers of the cat family. Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
...well, that's terrifying.
posted by goodbyewaffles at 6:46 PM on March 21, 2017 [33 favorites]