Anti-Christian Christian movements?

July 2, 2011 By

The Economist, which I don’t often look to for its religion reporting, has an article this week that is rich on scene-setting descriptions and bland on substantive reporting.

The focus of the article was a festival in the forest of “alternative” Christians. Not hipsters, so much as people somewhat on the fringes. Here’s a snippet :

Visitors could learn from Tom Prasada-Rao, a singer, how to chant “Om” and “Hallelujah Hare Krishna”, or hear Paul Fromberg, a pastor from San Francisco, talking about his 2005 wedding to another man. “God is changing the church through the bodies of gay men,” Mr Fromberg told a packed session on human sexuality. Also under discussion was “religious multiple belonging”—in other words, belonging to a clutch of different faiths at once.

Several disillusioned evangelical leaders attended. One was Jay Bakker, son of Jim and Tammy Bakker of the defunct-Praise-the-Lord-TV-network fame, who gave meandering talks on growing up fundamentalist. Frank Schaeffer, who has made a career out of criticising his evangelical parents Francis and Edith Schaeffer, called the Bible “Bronze-Age mythology” and confessed he had a “conflicted ambivalence” about abortion.

OK, I’m a sucker for colorful details. And this article has that in spades.

But it also leaves unanswered some big questions. Starting with: Who are … these people?

Some are described as liberal Christians, but what do they actually believe? This could be a really, really fascinating article about some new-fangled movement in Christianity. All that we are really told, though, is that this hippie festival Wild Goose Festival targeted “artists and musicians, nonconformists, post-Christians, non-Christians, disaffected evangelicals and a liberal evangelical subset known as the ‘emergent’ church.” Nothing there represents a new movement.

Regardless, where does the belief of guys like Schaeffer come from? When the festival director says “We’re a laboratory for justice, spirituality and art in the way of Jesus,” what is he basing that on?

As far as I could tell from reading this article, this festival is more about celebrating the Bible as philosophy and mythology than as a compass for life. Simply saying that evangelicals disapprove of this festival and the theology of its congregants doesn’t really cut it:

Most evangelicals do not view the emergents so kindly. The few conservatives at the festival privately complained that the panels were stacked with liberals and that issues dear to them, such as abortion, were neglected. Greenbelt has often met similar criticism in recent years.

Again: Why? Better yet: Show me the conflict, don’t tell me that it’s there.

Print Friendly

Filed Under: Evangelicals, Godbeat, Mainline, Pop Culture, Worship
  • Elijah

    Hear hear. Give us something to sink our teeth into!

  • carl

    The author of this article defined the word ‘Christian’ according to a broad taxonomy. I suppose this is understandable in one sense because journalists aren’t supposed to impose labels on groups. (Heh. Chuckle. Snicker. … BWA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA! OK, now that we have all had a good laugh at the idea of journalists not imposing labels…)

    The issue comes down to “Who controls the definition?” Historic Christianity has doctrinal content that is openly rejected by the groups represented in this story. By this definition, these groups are not recognizably part of the Christian faith, and so cannot be called ‘Alternate Christians.’ The modern tendency however is to define ‘Christian’ according to the label people apply to themselves. It makes a difference to the story because the label ‘Alternate Christian’ can only be applied using the later definition. And without the label ‘Alternate Christian,’ there is no story here. It’s just a bunch of vaguely spiritual people at an Arts Festival.

    The hook for the story is the rejection of the historic Christian faith, and its replacement by something more compatible with the modern mind. That’s why people like Frank Schaeffer and Jay Bakker get prominence. They are significant only because of what they have rejected. No one cares about ‘religious multiple belongings’ in the absence of this context. Apply a strict definition of the word ‘Christian’ and the story disappears. Apply a broad definition and suddenly a major religion is mutating right before your eyes.

    carl

  • Brad A. Greenberg

    Great point, Carl. (Where’s that +1 button?)

  • Deacon John M. Bresnahan

    I don’t know how true the observation is, but I had a history professor a few decades ago who said that as long as a religion is creating heresies and offshoots, that religion is alive and has a future (even if the heresies and offshoots don’t).
    This story, seeming to point to a collapse of evangelical Christianity into chaos may, instead, be a sign of its vitality, if that professor I heard is correct.

  • Dave

    “God is changing the church through the bodies of gay men,” Mr Fromberg told a packed session on human sexuality.

    Interesting choice of words. Were I a journalist present I’d've asked him why God is not also acting through the bodies of lesbians.

  • http://www.biblebeltblogger.com Frank Lockwood

    This is one of Julia Duin’s articles, and I think she did a really, really nice job. And kudos to The Economist for running it.

    It’s my experience that magazine space is a lot harder to secure than newspaper space. I have no doubt that Julia squeezed as much into this story as was possible while meeting her space and time constraints.

  • Brad A. Greenberg

    I certainly agree that space constraints were an issue here. And, like I said, I like colorful details. But I still think that some essential substance is missing here.

  • http://kylajoyful.com Kyla

    As a participant of the Wild Goose Festival, I agree with your commentary, Brad. I spent the last week reading dozens of perspectives from the Festival, and found the Economist article disappointing.

    I like that Ms. Duin gave a picture of the festival that makes readers curious, which clearly worked for you. The weekend challenged me to step out of my current way of thinking and invite others to participate. I am thrilled that the Economist featured the Wild Goose, and did so in a way to make others curious enough to investigate further.

    However, my first thought when I originally read this article last week, was the same as yours. “Who are these people?” Even as a committed participant, I could not generate a good description from the detailed article. If I hadn’t met her, I would wonder if Ms. Duin actually attended the festival, or if she only gathered quotes from controversial speakers.

    I think Ms. Duin would have served her readers better if she mentioned conversations with festival participants, instead of its presenters. The Wild Goose Festival created space for participants to be presenters, and vice versa. The sense of “us” and “them” that often comes with events such as these, never existed. The four-day weekend created a space for people to engage in sincere community, and discover new ways to follow Jesus’ example and command to Love Well.

    My suggestion for Ms. Duin? Get to know the people, and then you can tell their stories.

  • http://oldmoonsisterstars.wordpress.com/ Apuleius Platonicus

    I think that the question of whether or not (and if so, to what extent) these Wild Goosers are actually, in any meaningful sense, Christian, is a secondary question compared to this one: do they represent more than 1% of the world’s two billion Christians? And please remember that 1% of 2B is 20M.

    Meanwhile, Pentecostalists make up an estimated 1/4 of the world’s Christians, and on top of that they are widely believed to be the fastest growing segment of Christianity.

  • http://www.tmatt.net tmatt

    The key is that the Economist articles are written under an ultra-ultra strict word count. It must be AGONY to be a reporter and have to cut a story this rich to this small footprint.

    So I am with Mr. Lockwood on this one.

    Question the format, not the reporter

  • Jerry

    While agreeing with much of the commentary, I take strong issue with this posting’s headline accusing such people of being anti-Christian. A better question if not such a media-savvy headline hook is what kind of Christians they are. From their website, I wonder what “Celtic Christianity” really is although I suspect it’s not that close to the Wikipedia entry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Christianity

    …In the spirit of vibrant, category-defying Celtic Christianity, we saw our desire embodied in the Celtic Church’s way of speaking about the enigmatic Holy Spirit: The Wild Goose, who wanders where she will. Who can tame her? No one. Far better it is to embark on a Wild Goose Chase, and see the terrain of our faith be transformed.
    …
    The Wild Goose is a Celtic metaphor for the Holy Spirit. We are followers of Jesus creating a festival of justice, spirituality, music and the arts. The festival is rooted in the Christian tradition and therefore open to all regardless of belief, ethnicity, gender, sexuality, denomination or religious affiliation.

    http://www.wildgoosefestival.org/about-us/history/

  • http://www.juliaduin.com Julia Duin

    A brief word from the writer: Brad, have read your post twice and can’t figure out what your problem is with it. Considering I got 200 words chopped off the story, I “showed” the best I could. It would take a master’s thesis to describe the theological rainbow that was present at Wild Goose. As for Kyla, my tent was over by the ranger station. If yours was nearby, I assume you were kept awake until 3 a.m. Sunday (by all the noise) as I was.

  • Dan Crawford

    Point of Information: Is the Frank Schaefer mentioned in the article the one who dumped evangelicalism for Eastern Orthodoxy? Are we to conclude he has now dumped Eastern Orthodoxy?

  • Dale

    Dan Crawford wrote:

    Are we to conclude he has now dumped Eastern Orthodoxy?

    Pretty much. He’s now making the rounds on MSNBC and the other regular media suspects as an “expert” on evangelicalism and the Religious Right (which he claims to have created. No, really.).

    But it’s the same ol’ Franky. Different tune, same style: hyperbole, vitriol and condescension. Seems to sell well to people who watch Olbermann– now there’s a surprise.

    I thought Julia’s comment about him was spot-on.

  • Norman

    200 words, that’s more than a trim, that’s a buzzcut. The Economist is such an elegantly written publication, though, very much the feather in ones cap. I had no idea the space restrictions were so severe.

  • Norman

    It’s like giving Kate the Mia Farrow/Rosemary’s Baby look…

  • http://www.mattpritchard.com Matt Pritchard

    As a speaker at the festival, I object to the description of it as “liberal.” I did a quick Google search to confirm my suspicion and it doesn’t appear in any of the written materials on the website.

    The more apt description comes from festival organizers: “We are followers of Jesus creating a festival of justice, spirituality, music and the arts.”

    Believing that Christ deeply values justice, love, creation, life, peace-making, redistribution, and reconciliation, all topics focused on at the festival, is a theologically robust (or, as some would say, conservative) reading of scripture, just not a politically conservative one. The old categories of liberal and conservative are unhelpful in describing the shifts occurring in the postmodern church.

    I seek to be a follower of Jesus above all. To expand the lyrics of one of the Festival musicians, Derek Webb: My first allegiance is not to democracy or blood, [political party/ideology, money, survival, success, correctness, or comfort, or anything else,] it’s to a King and a Kingdom.

  • http://kylajoyful.com Kyla

    Julia, Deleting 200 words from your report sounds extremely frustrating. You are correct, it would take a Masters’ thesis to describe Wild Goose! Thanks for giving it your all for this report, I hope to see you there next year.

  • http://www.aleksandreia.wordpress.com Hector_St_Clare

    The Gnostics were Christian. Heretical Christians, but still Christians in some sense. As were the Arians, Modalists, and others. (I consider the Arians and Modalists very _wrong_ of course, as I consider the Calvinists very wrong, but they’re still Christians in the broad sense the word).

    And it’s worth pointing out that many evangelical preachers (including the ones I can listen to on the local evangelical radio station) also deny key doctrines of historic Christianity, such as the perpetual virginity of Mary (which an ecumenical council signed off on, btw), the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist, the legitimacy of praying to the saints and angels, the legitimacy of icons, and others.

    You can either have a broad definition of Christianity, including both orthodox and heretical/heterodox streams (according to which these folks might or might not qualify- without knowing their beliefs it’s hard to say). Or you could have a narrow definition of Christianity, say, limited to the beliefs of the first seven councils. The problem is that by the narrow definition, many evangelicals wouldn’t qualify either.

    For the record, I’d agree with the ‘conservatives’ mentioned in the post that I don’t see how you can be a faithful Christian and ignore the manifest evil of abortion, but that’s just me.

  • http://mrwcase.tumblr.com Matthew Case

    THE WHO: As a fellow attendee of the festival, those that attended spanned a wide range of theological beliefs and stereotypes. There were hippies, tatted Emergent youth pastors with soul patches, & LGBTQ lovers, but also computer geeks, Orthodox Catholics, single moms, Evangelical grandparents (and teenagers), Franciscan friars, and niños running around; all rampant with excitement to grow in Christ. Sounds a lot like the Kingdom of God…

    THE WHAT: Liturgical, Orthodox/Catholic prayer services, beer-n-hymns reminiscent of Luther’s ministry, challenging discussions and speakers, healing music, and open communion (for everyone, no exceptions) in the Anabaptist style (and style of Jesus…) were held throughout the weekend. Dialogue and community were central to all events.

    THE WHY: Here is the point in debate. Was this a party to celebrate being heretics? Driscoll may think so. Ms. Duin mentioned that this was a laboratory, but perhaps ran out of words to elaborate that this was a place to experiment with ideas and ways to bring the Kingdom of Heaven to Earth. Those that attended are seekers, many spiritually dead with the mainstream ease of Western Christianity, that hope to enter into a community that considers the Gospel of Christ worth taking to practice. Orthodoxy can be debated forever, but orthopraxis (right practice) seemed to be more of the focus. And many Wild Goosers went to NC & stumbled upon the ancient, beautiful truth that following Christ and experimenting in how to live out His truths is best done in a sharpening, loving, Christ-centered community.

  • Julia

    The boundaries of legitimate Christianity must be defended.

    Problem: Who decides what is legitimate?

    Matthew Case: you say that Orthodox Catholics were involved. I don’t see how that can be if there was open communion in the Anabaptist style. The business of experimenting with worship style is also not orthodox. Sounds more like Matthew Max’s Cosmic Mass.

    http://www.veoh.com/watch/v17458479sYfD8HFn?h1=The+Cosmic+Mass

  • Bram

    Julia,

    If “legitimacy” is up for grabs, then what give liberals the “right” to revise theology at will, at whim, to redefine morality, to worship the zeitgeist at every turn, and on down the line?

    It would seem to me that if “legitimacy” is as hard to come by as you imply, then a conservative and not a liberal stance would be the more prudent course.

    Just saying.

  • Ignominious

    Greenberg: “Who are…these people?”

    Answer: Another tiresome group of celebrity wannabees or has-beens who are out to create a Yet Another Media Event (“in the same bucolic place”) in order to magnify their own already overblown self-importance.

    Therefore, there was never anything sustantive to report to begin with. This is why it was “bland on substantive reporting.” The only real mystery here is why did the Economist, usually a worthwhile publication, even bother?

  • Jerry

    We’ve clearly gone way WAY WAY beyond the purpose of this blog into debating theology including lengthy sermons on what constitutes a Christian.

    But I do want to add that I appreciated Matthew Case’s first hand report. And I do hope Brad will choose more accurate blog headings in the future.

  • http://!)! Passing By

    I agree that this thread is seriously outside of the parameters of the blog, but it does illustrate the journalistic problem, which is how do you refer to religious groups that may or may not adhere to the root doctrines of the faith they claim. Yes, what are “the root doctrines”?

    I think we can all agree that the womynpriests getting all ordained and claiming to be Roman Catholic are bogus, but “Christian” is a term widely claimed and given widely divergent meanings (again, as illustrated in this thread) . Personally, I’ve used the term “historic Christianity”, but now I have to question the validity of the term, or more precisely, it’s utility. It’s all an interesting problem.

    I tend to agree with Jerry about the title of this post: it reaches into the problem I’ve described with content that may, or may not be supported by the journalism. I will say the question mark saves it, but barely. :-)

  • http://www.getreligion.org Mollie

    Attempted to delete all off-topic comments.

    Please keep comments focused on journalism.

  • http://khanya.wordpress.com Steve Hayes

    I’m taking part in a synchroblog about the Wild Goose festival. Not having been anywhere near it, I devoted much of my post to this critique of Time’s expose of the article in The Economist, and how confusing it all is. It’s at A Wild Goose chase? is anyone is interested, but it also has links to blog posts from people who were there, and whose reporting is much more informative than The Economist, Time and GetReligion put together.

  • Curtis

    “Problem: Who decides what is legitimate?”

    That has been the crux of the problem with the Protestant Reformation for about 500 years now. Sure, we try to fall back on “sola scriptura”, but everyone and their brother has a different interpretation of what Scripture says, and of course they all think they are right. The refrain of “scripture is literal and infallible” is getting a little tired 500 years later. In our post-modern, information-based society, the belief that God can somehow be encapsulated by a small collection of static, unchanging information seems quaint but entirely irrelevant to today’s world.

    With the advent of today’s communication technologies, we now know that conversations and relationships between people are far more true and meaningful than a heap of words printed on a page. We now understand that God is working in the world today through networks and relationships, not only through words.

    Just as the Protestant Reformation shaped a way of understanding God that aligned with the technology of the day — the printing press, the Emerging Church is exploring a way of knowing and worshiping God that aligns with the way God currently works in the world — through networks and relationships.

  • AStev

    With only a scanty 1500 attendees, quite a significant proportion of them (and organizers) seem to have commented here on this post.

    Sadly, their salt has lost its taste.