Andrée Seu Peterson on the "Time" cover 
Click to Print
Include Comments
MSNBC’s follow-up on WORLD and C Street
On Friday, MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow mentioned WORLD’s cover story on C Street house. Last night she followed that up with a full report on our coverage of the scandal-tainted Washington, D.C., refuge for congressmen and the organization behind it. Her guest was Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family.
ADDENDUM: Scott Horton of Harper’s Magazine comments on WORLD’s coverage of this story.
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top93 Comments to “MSNBC’s follow-up on WORLD and C Street”
“..scrutiny is coming from an unlikely source…”
Well I hope not. I hope World is a beacon of truth and true reporting, unlike most news outlets today. Most news outlets are downsizing, and no one does true investigative reporting. And even fewer are interested in a truthful indepth report.
I hope World is the exception to the rule.
Report comment to moderator
The secular media almost never report on religion unless there is a homosexual agenda, or some perceived scandal potential, a profile on terrorism, or if there is inner strife. And when they do, there is always a rather obvious cluelessness one can see in their reporting. I think the way they apparently referred to this wayward or opprotunist group with the word “fundamentalist” or the phrase “elite fundamentalism,” showed some sloppiness by MSNBC in my opinion.
But this group apparently called “The Family” does derserve scrutiny and WORLD is on the right track. If WORLD ignored it, all the reporting on it would end up being clueless in a secularist sort of way.
Report comment to moderator
Accountability. Larry Burkett always insisted that groups like the family always have accountability from independent sources. Unlike “Focus on the Family”, “The Family” seems to be a law unto itself.
Remember recent investigations being made on FOF? They came out clean and vindicated of every single charge made against them. You know why that is? It’s because they’ve remained accountable to an independant board.
Any time you have secrecy coupled with a lot of money and power, there’s going to be trouble. I don’t care who you are. That’s just human nature.
Report comment to moderator
The observation of a certain “disdain for the established church” is one I am seeing becoming all too common in the so-called evangelical Christian community these days. It lurks in the Emergent Church movement. It is rising among the younger hip evangelical set. I see it in extremely popular books like “Blue Like Jazz; Nonreligious Thoughts on Christian Spirituality,” by Donald Miller.
It does NOT fly for me. It’s far too easy to claim to be “spiritual” and be as “nonreligious” as you want to be while being gratuitously critical of the church and even hold her (the bride of Christ) in disdain. I see all sorts of dangers and pitfalls in this faith-cheapening and often self-righteous and overly independent trend. Too many want to write their own “spiritual” ticket and avoid the commitments of an imperfect Christian community.
Christianity without the church leads to neither and it hurts the reputation of both.
Report comment to moderator
Well, once you get past the overt sarcasm and condescending attitude toward conservatives, the piece was mostly fair and balanced.
Maddow first has to mock, calling this a CHRISTIAN sex scandal, as though Jesus promoted such things. Then she has some fun chastising World for waiting so long and expressing “hostility toward untoward discussion” whatever that means.
Sharlett begins by calling World’s reporting “just the Christian right trying to cut off a limb”, but later acknowledges that HONEST conservatives (as if there could be such a thing) oppose this organization. Since Pat Robertson defends C Street, he must be one of those other kinds.
Sharlett goes over the top by calling this “Secret fundamentalism at the heart of American power”. And calling this the “Christian Mafia” is quite a stretch. Let’s see, was the Mafia famous for its sex scandals? The only thing similar is that they both use the word ‘Family’.
Liberals are only fascinated with sex scandals among conservatives. And if they are Christians all the better – get out the lanterns and torches. But they are remarkably silent about John Edwards and the scandals of the left.
I am glad to see conservatives willing to discuss a topic without choosing sides. Well done, World!
Report comment to moderator
#4 “The observation of a certain “disdain for the established church” is one I am seeing becoming all too common in the so-called evangelical Christian community these days.”
Joel, that is a very important subject. I wish I had time to discuss it more, but I have to run. I think World has tackled this in the past, but it is time for an update. Thanks for bringing it up.
Report comment to moderator
When I mentioned a larger trend (with an example) among evangelicals or others for holding some disdain for the es-pablished church, I did not mean to equate other groups with this particular group under WORLD’s scrutiny. Just making a general point of concern and finding some thematic common ground for that concern.
________
Good points, Xion, at #5. Regarding #6, if you comment later, Xion, I will be glad to read your thoughts.
Report comment to moderator
I have to admit, when I first heard of the book “The Family” (on a recent post here–maybe Scroop’s) I dismissed it as DaVinci Code nonsense. I’m glad World did the story on C Street. It seems the Family has some honorable purposes, and a great infrastructure for engaging culture and politics. Maybe shining a light on the organization will redeem it.
Report comment to moderator
Kudos, WORLD! You got accolades for honest reporting from one of the left’s leading anchors. I’m inclined to think you deserved the needling about your knee-jerk reaction against Sharlett’s book, though I would want to read Olasky’s review before deciding that for certain (link, Mickey?)
See, Maddow isn’t so bad. She’s a liberal, and (as I said in the previous thread on this issue) she’s sometimes a bit smarmy and sarcastic, but in general I’ve found her to be fair.
Xion, in your haste to take umbrage, you’re not being fair. Sharlett did not say that WORLD exposing the Family was “just the Christian right trying to cut off a limb.” He said this:
He had nothing but praise for WORLD’s coverage. It was the Family he compared to a starfish that can remove one limb and grow another in its place. This was the basis for his calling it “the Christian Mafia.” Not that they have sex scandals (which is a minor issue, IMO), but that they are a secretive organization comprised of a network of front groups whose stated goal is to gain power.
Again, that is what has liberals, independents, and some conservatives up in arms. Not that the C Street Band has sex scandals. Except that it exposes their rank hypocrisy, I honestly don’t care. I suspect most liberals and independents feel the same. The real issue is that they are a secretive religious organization that seeks political power and even fetishizes power by making it a religious value.
Report comment to moderator
I agree with Joel Mark and Xion, the disdain for the established church is a topic that should be examined. As the book of Judges often says, “everyone did what was right in his own eyes,” and I think that attitude can be found in the free form living of American Protestant Christianity. Say what you will about the Catholic Church, at least someone is in charge of setting standards.
As posters have noted here on the blog, we all seem to interpret Scripture to suit ourselves and our beliefs. There’s danger there and I think that lack of accountability hurts the church and damages many people’s understanding of who Jesus is and how the trinity interacts in life.
Report comment to moderator
I have never heard her before, but my impression of her in this clip is that she is a sort of Rush Limbaugh from the left. Her clip was mostly fluff with little substance, which is what you expect from TV. Since TV is an image medium, she was just trying to create an image.
At least they linked to the real coverage of the issue from WORLD. you can tell she was not familiar at all with WORLD or she would have not kept calling it THE WORLD.
Report comment to moderator
If you took every statement in this thread that sneers about liberals, and substituted the word conservatives, it would be more or less equally accurate.
A very irony-deficient group around here.
Report comment to moderator
Random Name,
indeed a great deal of irony in this thread (but then don’t you thrive on irony??
).
I suspect that MIchelle’s post 10 is the key point here:
- if one argues, as Luther appears to, that everyone has the ability and right to interpret scripture, then one wold expect to see, and does see, a drift in the protestant’s community understanding of theology
- if one argues that there is a central authority, and indeed apostolic succession arguments may suggest this, then one ends up with a central authority who ensures consistency
And it is hard to have it both ways: have a central authority AND allow every individual to interpret scripture.
It is, I suggest, one of the great inconsistencies in the protestant movement.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: I think the way they apparently referred to this wayward or opprotunist group with the word “fundamentalist” or the phrase “elite fundamentalism,” showed some sloppiness by MSNBC in my opinion.
Thanks for your opinion, JOEL, which reveals your own prejudice and says nothing about Rachel Maddow. The words “fundamentalist” and “elite” are rooted in the history of the organization and its goals. MSNBC was careful to report that World as an Evangelical magazine criticized The Family over theology and its independence from church oversight. Maddow’s interviews with Jeff Sharlet have gone further into the weeds than anything World has done, including this cover story, since a number of sources refuse to comment.
XION: . . .expressing “hostility toward untoward discussion” whatever that means. . . Sharlett goes over the top by calling this “Secret fundamentalism at the heart of American power”. And calling this the “Christian Mafia” is quite a stretch . . . Liberals are only fascinated with sex scandals among conservatives.
That’s quite a mouthful, XION. What “hostility toward untoward discussion” means is Marvin Olasky calling Jeff Sharlet’s book “paranoia.” Every word in the title of Sharlet’s book is accurate. You may have quibbles over the word “fundamentalism,” as Joel Mark does, but whatever theological differences you may have, the word is a valid label for a right-wing group that emerged in the 1930’s. Besides, “fundamentalism” is now a description of some non-Christian religious movements, too. Members of The Family call themselves the Christian Mafia.
Rachel Maddow and Jeff Sharlet don’t care about The Family’s sex scandals or theology or church discipline. That’s WORLD’s provenance. Maddow and Sharlet are concerned about The Family’s relationship to power.
Report comment to moderator
The way Rachel Maddow and her guest used the term “fundamentalist” or the phrase “elite fundamentalism,” in my view, showed little understanding of that term. Those who fail to grasp it’s real meaning tend to use it in knee-jerk fashion simply for the stigma value it carries for liberal listeners.
For the record, I don’t use the word for myself, but I have respect for those who do claim that label wisely and respectfully and with understadning.
Report comment to moderator
Joel mark post 15,
we are it would seem seeing the classic problem in these discussions: we talk using the same word but apparently have very different meanings for the word.
So what do you suggest is the rigorous definition of “fundamentalist”?
Report comment to moderator
My thoughts:
-There are reasons to have, as Maddow says, “misgivings about the Family.” Those reasons include the disdain for the established church and a muddy theology, as WORLD mentions. Some have criticized the organization for the lack of church discipline and structure. I don’t think that’s a problem if the participants are also involved in a church. Like Colson, I’d say it is definitely a mistake if the Family is used as a replacement for church.
-The founder seems to have had a Dominionist theology, as Xion mentioned yesterday on another thread. This is a problem, although it is not clear to me exactly how much of the organization’s mission and activities are driven by this theology.
-RKG said, “It seems the Family has some honorable purposes”. I agree. To quote from Sen. Inhofe: “We talk about our families, we talk about our backgrounds, we talk about our faith. We get together and support each other and pray together. There is nothing new and sinister about this.” This is good. Also, quoting from WORLD’s article:
Young women who live at a boarding house called Potomac Point down the street work dusting shelves, scrubbing dishes, and making meals at the Cedars. Young men who live down the street at a separate house called Ivanwald tend the grounds carrying leaf blowers. The mansion’s carriage house holds administrative offices.
The Fellowship also owns a house in the high-crime northeast Washington neighborhood of Trinidad, where students come for afterschool programs that sometimes include a field trip out to swim at the Cedars. The group began Jonathan House, a home for young Christian men named after Coe’s deceased son and now operated by Washington Community Fellowship. And in Annapolis it owns homes for young people to live in and receive mentoring under the Wilberforce Foundation.
This sounds good to me.
-There is a legitimate concern about the secrecy. As Halverson said, “Does this provide an enabling environment? Or does this provide an environment of discipline? I’ve seen it do both.”
But, there is also a legitimate need for privacy with a group of public figures who get together to talk about their private lives. Don’t mistake a private group for a group with sinister motives. But that group will need to be careful to maintain an environment of discipline.
-It is a misnomer to call this a “fundamentalist” group. Muddy theology, disdain for the established church, and interfaith dialogues? Hardly sounds fundamentalist.
-It does not seem to be necessarily a partisan group. Democrats live in the C Street house, and some D’s such as Hillary Clinton have apparently gone to the Family for refuge or healing when they needed it.
-It is a mistake to insinuate that the group encourages sex scandals. Some members have had sex scandals while part of the group. This could be a result of too little discipline in the group, or it could just indicate a problem in the individuals themselves, who perhaps neglected to be open or to make full use of the Fellowship to overcome their struggles. Some politicians have gone to the Family for help or restoration after their sin; this is a good work of the group, and does not indicate any culpability by the group in the sin.
-JJF said, “they are a secretive organization comprised of a network of front groups whose stated goal is to gain power.” Really? I don’t see that. Yes, they want a relationship with those in power; this does not mean that they want political power for themselves to implement some kind of diabolical agenda. They want to influence and help the faith of those in power. However, they must be careful so that they do not become personally greedy for power.
Just my two cents (or since it’s a long post, maybe 20 cents). No offense.
Report comment to moderator
The following observation isn’t original, but it’s true. Sex scandals on the part of conservatives, and particularly Christians, represent hypocrisy. On the part of liberals, where the standards are so very low, it’s not hypocrisy. And it’s the hypocrisy the liberals decry, not the sex.
Of course, liberals ignore their own hypocrites, too. For instance, their own prophet of doom, Al Gore, in their religion of environmentalism and it’s current crisis of the decade, global warming, is about as hypocritical as they come.
Report comment to moderator
Why do these people only worry about the relationship to power from the christian right? What about the organizations under the liberal christian or christian left? Simply because the media approve of what the left is doing?
Let the scrutiny begin, but don’t act like every word everyone speaks should be spread about in the public. There is a vast mixing up of things in both of these reports. Money matters and theology should be out in the open. People’s private concerns, unless there is a bigger concern for safety of someone, are just that: private concerns. The reports seem to jumble it all up together, which in my mind lessens it’s value.
Report comment to moderator
All that Maddow and Sharlet are concerned about is spreading paranoia against Christianity. Criticizing Sharlet’s lack of objectivity and unprofessionalism isn’t the same thing as saying that C Street is beyond criticism.
Report comment to moderator
KI post 19,
and the organizations in the U.S. under the Christian left?
Report comment to moderator
I would like to hear JoelMarks definition of fundamentalist as well.
It’s interesting to me that this group of people in DC seems to want to take over the world in Jesus’ name, yet will not call itself Christian or even use the word Christ.
It has some strange theology surrounding money and power as well.
I went back and read Sharlet’s original story in Harpers (still haven’t gotten the book) and sure enough, the residents of the Ivanwood facility do provide cleaning, cooking and other services
to the residents of C Street.
The entire article makes the place sound like a very tight little cult, but the power and privilege surrounding it is scary.
Report comment to moderator
Forgot to add the link:
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2003/03/0079525?pg=1
Report comment to moderator
Did anyone else notice that she left out the Clintons? The most famous sex scandal in history, and they were involved in C Street, yet she seems to have totally forgotten them.
Report comment to moderator
I should add, they seem like an evangelical broad tent, or perhaps theologically moderate-leaning evangelical. Not fundamentalist.
Also, yes they’ve called themselves the “Christian Mafia,” but jokingly. To seriously repeat this as if it describes something about them is misleading. Liberals who say this, such as Maddow and Sharlet (if they do), are just trying to scare independents and liberals who don’t know all the facts.
Report comment to moderator
As I recall, the fundamentalist movement was conceived as a response to modernity. It was essentially a movement to protect the core–fundamental–doctrines of the Christian faith that were under attack, primarily the supernatural (virgin birth, resurrection, etc.). Perhaps because so concerned with the fundamentals, and not a more robust theology, I think fundamentalists in some places were deemed simplistic and unedudcated Christians. From then until now, however, the word is more used to describe zealous Christians, whatever their theology, and its usually derogatory to some degree.
Report comment to moderator
RKG post 26,
so when you say:
“It was essentially a movement to protect the core–fundamental–doctrines of the Christian faith that were under attack, primarily the supernatural (virgin birth, resurrection, etc.).”
Are you suggesting that fundmanetalism is effetively neo-Nicaeanism?
Report comment to moderator
So, Musing, the ones on the right are known, but the ones on the left are a big mystery? An open secret, I guess. If one is discussing the so-called disturbing relationship between religion and government (power), it would seem all the other groups with that relationship should be similarly examined. They just never seem to get the same coverage by the media.
Report comment to moderator
Having met someone involved with this group–the ministry end–I think Matt’s post is right on.
There’s a difference between privacy and secrecy. And both can be abused. You just have to beware doing what is right in your own eyes.
Report comment to moderator
KI post 28,
some interesting comments, but again what groups are you referring to?
I have seen many times in tis blog comments similar to one not being able to be a christian and voting Democratic. So it would seem by this definition, christian groups on the left would be an oxymoron.
Report comment to moderator
Other than general creepiness, moral lapses of some members, and theological lapses (including those involving the doctrine of the Church), can anyone give me a brief summary of the specific issues there are against this foundation?
The zoning of the property as a church – is this commonly done for religious oriented organizations?
The IRS classification of church – how about some context here, is this really odd?
Funding irregularities – once again, they may be creepy, but is there anything specific that we can put our finger on and say is absolutely wrong?
What else is there that is definite? I just think a bullet point summary would be helpful.
Report comment to moderator
MATT Y: It is a misnomer to call this a “fundamentalist” group. Muddy theology, disdain for the established church, and interfaith dialogues? Hardly sounds fundamentalist.
Historically, the label “fundamentalist” denoted a belief in the “five fundamentals”: the infallibility of the Bible, the Virgin Birth, the atonement, the resurrection, and the historical reality of the miracles. The Family emerged out of historical fundamentalism and presumably it still fits this definition.
It’s unfair of you and JOEL MARK to dispute the media’s attribution “fundamentalist” to The Family on grounds that you question its doctrinal purity. The word “fundamentalist” doesn’t belong to y’all. You lost it, like Xerox lost “xerox”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamentalism
Report comment to moderator
A couple of thoughts:
First, thanks World for taking on an organization, even when it seems to support similar moral issues. Many times issues are tried to be explained away when an organization with similar ethos is involved. Accountability is the key, especially for Christian organizations, our witness to the world is the key. I would also agree with one of the above posters, that the sex isn’t the scandel, the hypocrisy is. We, as Christians, must walk the walk that we are talking. If we do not, then we lose the privilage to speak into the situation at all. Some of Jesus’ strongest condemnations was to the hypocritical pharisees.
Two, it again makes clear the danger when we think that the Kingdom of God will be brought about by political means. Folks our hope and faith does not lie in Washington DC, but in the empty tomb in Jerusalem! Too often we think that real change can take place through the goverment, but the only real change thtat can happen is when hearts are changed by the gospel. After all, the United States is not the New Jerusalem.
Third, I share this hesitantly, as I don’t want to seem to be deflecting the issue. I appreciate and applaude both Maddow’s and World’s investigation into what appears to be a dishonest and scandelous organization. But, I wonder, where is the investigation from the left on organizations like ACORN or SEIU? Other than Glenn Beck, and other conservatives, there has been none. Thoughts about why charges were dismissed against the Black Panthers in Philidelphia after they had basically plead no contest by not responding to the charges. Where is Maddow, and Matthews and Olberman in the midst of all this? Or is it only the right that needs scrutiny?
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis,
my sense is:
On the left:
o a secretive organizaton involved in our politics
o aapparenlty advocating a “dominionist” perspectvie
From some christian perspectives
o theological issues
o no responsiveness to a centralized aithority
Yup – can’t see anything illegal here either. It may in fact, given recent political donnybrooks, germane to understanding certain political situations.
Since it is apparetly involved in poltiics, arguably fair game for news reportign in so far as the organizaton impacts our political system.
Report comment to moderator
MUSING, you never heard of the National Council of Churches?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks Musing. I’ll wait and see if anyone else can weigh in.
I try to see things in perspective and to avoid the hype. Articles can be written that cast long shadows from little substance. Let’s separate the substance from the shadow, keeping in mind that there could well be lots of substance we don’t see as yet.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL MARK: The way Rachel Maddow and her guest used the term “fundamentalist” or the phrase “elite fundamentalism,” in my view, showed little understanding of that term.
Actually, Jeff Sharlet lived at C-Street and was taught by its leaders. He knows a great deal about these terms. Maybe he’s wrong (or not), but he comprehends very well. Maddow and Sharlet’s work and understanding deserve a lot more respect than you’re evidently willing to concede. Maddow read both Sharlet’s book and the WORLD cover story. As a PhD from Oxford, she understood.
JOEL, do you wonder why you have a nose bleed? When you accused Maddow of “obvious cluelessness” your knee snapped up and smashed it.
This argument over the purity of the term “fundamentalist” is misdirecting WorldMag’s readers away from the significance of The Family’s relationship to power in Washington. Forget the sex and church attendance.
If I’m not mistaken, fundamentalists once upon a time were mortally opposed to “secret societies.” How ironic that one of the oldest associations that grew out of the fundamentalist movement has constructed itself as a secret organization whose members call themselves the “Christian Mafia.”
Report comment to moderator
Matt & RKG are both right.
The Christian fundamentalist movement was a response to modernity in the USA in the early 20th century. It stands in stark contrast with any “Islamic” form of “fundamentalism” in that Islamic fundamentalism essentially and deeply political in nature, whereas the Christian fundamentalist movement was largely separatist and often anti-political–eschewing most any merging or mixing with the concerns of this secular world.
These secular and liberal pundits or reporters seem to have no idea of this distinction. Christian fundamentalists adhere to a strict and literal reading of the Bible and the fundamental doctrines taught in the Bible (as RKG pointed out and illustrated). They also resist a secularist reductionist materialism that minimizes the supernatural or the transcendent.
It may be legitimate to honestly criticize Christian fundamentalism on some level, it is not fair-minded to try to tie this C Street group or “Family” (and many other active Christian groups or movements today) with actual “fundamentalism.” Seems like this C Street group wants to engage with politics and secular concerns more than most fundamentalists would ever be comfortable engaging (among many other differences).
_______________
Please consider these definitional distinctions, Musing and Scroop Moth.
Report comment to moderator
Since the left has adopted the word “fundamentalist” in order to stereotype a wide variety of serious Christian groups or movements, I don’t expect them to give up their misuse of that term. It carries too much “stigma value” for liberal listeners for them to give it up in the interest of honest clarity.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop: I usually think of “fundamentalists” as a subset of evangelicals. Here is a quote from the wikipedia article you provided:
Over time the term came to be associated with a particular segment of Evangelical Protestantism, who distinguished themselves by their separatist approach toward modernity, toward aspects of the culture which they feel typify the modern world, and toward other Christians who did not similarly separate themselves.
The term fundamentalist is difficult to apply unambiguously, especially when applied to groups outside the USA, which are typically far less dogmatic. Many self-described Fundamentalists would include Jerry Falwell in their company, but would not embrace Pat Robertson as a fundamentalist because of his espousal of charismatic teachings. Fundamentalist institutions include Pensacola Christian College, and Bob Jones University, but classically Fundamentalist schools such as Fuller Theological Seminary and Biola University no longer describe themselves as Fundamentalist, although in the broad sense described by this article they are fundamentalist (better, Evangelical) in their perspective.
Report comment to moderator
Joel #38, I agree. Good post.
Report comment to moderator
But the lack of church discipline…
This place has serious problems with the doctrine and practice of the church. That said, can World really make the above claim? Discipline is often not publicized. There are privacy issues here. How would World know this? How could they make that statement?
Known moral lapses of members – we don’t know what is happening behind the scenes, and once again they are not obliged to tell us.
Rob Schenck’s comments – he’s right on about the role of the church, but not qualified to comment on the internal workings of this organization.
And that’s about it.
This place is creepy. But some of World’s reporting is also creepy. I hate appearing to defend this place, but World needs to hold back from their embellishments so they don’t lose the entire thrust of their argument. I could go on.
I wouldn’t be surprised if World is right. But that is just not reason enough to justify shouting such accusations with the megaphone they have.
Show me how I am wrong. Please.
Report comment to moderator
JoelMark: Which “fundamental” doctrines do fundamentalists teach or emphasize more than “modernist” churches?
You have emphasized the “supernatural” goings on in the Bible, but in terms of actual doctrine, what’s the difference.
FWIW, from a non-believers standpoint, the Bible is a large collection of writings, parts of which can be used to discern or justify virtually any recommendations for human behavior.
For centuries people have pointed to the Bible in support of wildly different moral and political positions. Slavery, capital punishment, abortion, inequality and equality, war, peace, monagamy, polygamy, diet, incarceration, punishment, forgiveness, astrology and much more all find support, often explicit in the Bible.
So which parts of it do fundamentalists consider fundamental while others don’t?
Incidentally, I also take sharp issue with your attempt to disassociate fundamentalism from politics, which gets into the whole C street thing, but lets try to get back to basics.
Here is your chance to provide some “honest clarity”. What do you believe that your average twice a month Methodist or Catholic parishioner walking past my door on Sunday does not? Or do you not consider yourself a “fundamentalist”.
Report comment to moderator
Joel:
You make a good case in #38.
The problem, I think, is that the definition of Christian fundamentalism you gave in #38 is specific to theologians and Church historians. The vast majority of people understand the term far more loosely. Though I’ve not seen it precisely defined, people seem to mean “a belief that your own religion (be it Islam or Christianity or Judaism), as the only true and inerrant religion, ought to be guideline for the laws of your nation, or perhaps of all the world.”
That (roughly) is how the term is popularly (mis)understood. That being the case, you can’t fault Maddow or Sharlet for being “not fair-minded” in using the term that way, though you could argue that they are uninformed.
Report comment to moderator
Amphi: What has been reported:
A complex, purportedly religious, organization with access to lots of power in lots of places and an obsession with secrecy.
One member having an affair and being counseled by another member to pay off his paramour’s family.
Another member carrying on his affair within the confines of C Street.
Another semi-offical member having counseling sessions about his affair.
Some obvious and outright lies about the organizational nature of the family being told to reporters.
At least one theologically trained, extremely influential leading member of the central organization being extremely critical of the dominionist theology advocated by its untrained, now dominant leader.
Somewhat suspect low rents paid by political members who also receive maid service, food service, use of 5 living rooms, some of which is provided by unpaid recruits to the organization.
Highly suspicious involvement of a variety of foreign leaders with the organization.
Residents overwhemingly belonging to one political party.
An attorney general leading weekly or daily prayer sessions at the organization.
Really strange nomenclature. No “Christians” allowed and the luxurious House of the Poor refers to those “poor in spirit”. Members considering themselves “select” or “elect”.
A founder with clearly fascist tendencies.
A doctrine that obviously values power over values, theology or loyalty to anyone outside the organization.
I’m sure I’ve left a lot out, but it will do for now.
All of that is presently out there and none of it has been refuted by anybody.
Personally, I’m having a very difficult time distinguishing between Doug Coe, Jim Jones and the Waco whacko; but I’m sure you can enlighten me.
Report comment to moderator
I did leave one out; it comes right after the fascistic founder, Mr Vereide.
A current dominant leader, Coe, who is proud to compare his organization, discipline, and loyalty to that of Hitler.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia wrote, “I also take sharp issue with your attempt to disassociate fundamentalism from politics…”
I know, and that is what I am saying is a general misunderstanding on your part. You understand the word from it’s misuse (in my view) by liberal pundits who miss that distinction, conveniently. But we can disagree.
__________
I will respectfully pass on your other questions because they are just too vague and I’m not sure I even understand what you are asking.
Report comment to moderator
The “fundamentalist” adjective was also applied to Muslim terrorists and then broadly used to lump in “fundamentalist” Christians as an equivalent danger in terms of accruing political power in America.
This is the template that Maddow’s stuck in as she said, you’re not paranoid of theyr’re really after you.
Report comment to moderator
There are two things you must guard against when considering a secret organization.
1) Assuming the best.
2) Assuming the worst.
Yes, their very secrecy leaves them open to 2). But I for one will not fill in the blanks and by my slander give them a reason to cling tighter to their organization.
Report comment to moderator
The back and forth argument about “fundamentalism” clouds the issue because of the great diversity of usage of the term. The C Street issues should be evaluated on the basis of their abuse of trust, power, image, etc. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law if criminal activities are revealed. They should suffer the loss of credibility to the degree they have deceived the public and their supporters.
A serious problem is the linkage of C Street behaviors with conservative Christian churches. The vast majority of them are open and above board with their finances and their ministry activities and goals. The Bible, and God, is certainly not to blame for C Street abuses. Similar to the fact that the US Constitution is not to blame for the abuses in US politics.
Conserviative Christian churches consider courteous confidentiality to be entirely appropriate; while manipulative scheming is always suspect and wrong.
Report comment to moderator
AMPHIPOLIS, Amen. And we seem to know an awful lot about this secret organization.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, the only point you mention that has substance beyond general creepiness and your opinions is this one:
One member having an affair and being counseled by another member to pay off his paramour’s family.
I can’t find the backup for this, maybe you can help me out.
Residents overwhemingly belonging to one political party.
Sounds like Chaka Fattah’s entire district where I used to live.
Many of your creepy points are cause for great concern, but must be held loosely because they are unsubstantiated. I know from the tentative nature of many of your comments that you know this. We have to be very careful to not confuse the innocent with the guilty and to avoid the conspiracy theory trap.
Others who regularly attend C Street house gatherings or other Fellowship studies reportedly include
Reportedly include? Maybe they once stepped inside the building, and World gets to bluster their story with more names thus “reportedly” sliming people who, for all they know, have nothing to do with it other than appearing in this article.
Report comment to moderator
As a newcomer to this forum I am very surprised at the conclusions some are leaping to. Forgive my naivete…another reminder that I should know better.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe if they “reportedly” saw Chaeney (oops, that’s Cheney – yes, I was a subscriber way back then) walk by the building they could have added his name to the article and gotten on CNN. Wouldn’t that have been grand.
Report comment to moderator
The piece looks like serious journalism
Ouch. This is called damning with faint praise.
Report comment to moderator
Hmm, a house full of (almost) all Republican Congressmen, an AG providing prayer services, extensive involvement with world leaders and their ofspring, a clearly dominionist, power-glorifying theology and some folks who are having a great deal of trouble connecting the dots.
Amphi: Ensign’s paramour’s husband, who was also one of Ensign’s aides has stated that one of the Republican Senators from Oklahoma, can’t remember which one, was present at one of the counseling sessions and stated something to the effect that one of the first things Ensign had to do was get his, the former aide’s house paid off. Ensign’s family then apparently made a whole bunch of gifts to the aide’s family. I think the total approached something like $100,000.
Incidentally, although I don’t think he is presently there, Sam Brownback apparently lived at C street for a while. One might wonder why, as he is married to a very wealthy woman.
For that matter, Ensign could also live just about anywhere he wants.
Report comment to moderator
I can only imagine the chaos that would ensue if all of these politicians were Democrats and Rev Wright was running this kind of super-secret organization.
But instead it’s the Best and The Brightest (and Wealthiest) of the Moral Majority under the leadership of a mysterious cult leader spreading their seed worldwide and cavorting with Evil Dictators.
JoelMark: There was nothing vague about my questions concerning doctrinal differences. You just couldn’t provide any answers, because the real differences between “fundamentalists” and garden variety Christians are political, not theological.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t suppose you have a link or something, or corroboration beyond an aggrieved husband’s cloudy recollection.
There is a tendency to pile on accusations once open season has been declared. To connect dots that are not related. To dredge for innuendo. I’ve seen it before. People remember the seriousness of the charge, not the backup for the charge.
Beware of hearsay.
Report comment to moderator
3545,
actualy of course Ihave.
I am interestied in what KI thinks the list is.
And KI would argue that the National council of Churches is Christian?
Report comment to moderator
3545,
So lets look at the National Council of Churches, who have a web site at:
http://www.ncccusa.org/
and publish their annula report at:
http://www.ncccusa.org/pdfs/NCCannualreport2008.pdf
complete with teir financial information and a list of thier contributors.
Yup – this sure looks like an opporutnity for that deep investigatvie reporting which so intrigues reproters.
And your next suggestion???
Report comment to moderator
Christian “fundamentalists” in the 1930’s, 40’s, 50’s were focused entirely on Biblical doctrinal issues. As with all issues, the term has become applied to a great variety of perspectives.
People on both sides of the debate seem to have great zeal in pointing out the hypocrisy of the their opponents.
We do not know all the factual details of the C Street issue. If what is being alleged is true the penalties should be paid in full. BUT, there are those who seem to want the penalty to be that all of conservative Christianity be proclaimed guilty of the same hypocrisy of secrecy and manilpulation. That is patently unwarrented and unfair. Those who simply enjoy seeing hypocrisy in their enemies will continue the attack on fundamentalism; while those who care about honest judgment will simply call for a thourough investigation of the C Street family.
Report comment to moderator
The Family walks like a duck and quacks like a duck.
1. Acceptance of the five fundamentals, and roots in the fundamentalist movement in the 1930’s
2. Radicalism: Jesus plus nothing, i.e., Jesus above all other ties and affinities. Jesus came not to bring peace but the sword, and to take over.
3. Fundamentalist members: Founder Dr. Abraham Vereide (according to the 1961 Zondervan’s biography), Sen. Mark Hatfield, Sen. John Ashcroft, Rev. Chris Halverson, Rev. Richard C. Halverson (former Senate chaplain), William Lee Corder (Young Life), Rev. Richard Foth, Rev. Rob Schenck, Doug Coe (formerly Intervarsity Fellowship, Navigators, top-25 Evangelical).
4. Evangelicals think The Family is Evangelical. According to book by sociologist Michael Lindsay of Rice U., 360 influential, self-described Evangelicals characterize The Family as an Evangelical organization. They rate The Family as more influential than James Dobson or Tony Perkins.
http://www.amazon.com/Faith-Halls-Power-Evangelicals-American/dp/0195326660/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250626755&sr=1-4
5. Jeff Sharlet, being a research fellow in religion at NYU, has credentials to detect fundamentalism and its varieties. His assessment may be theologically incorrect (or not), but it’s not historically ignorant, nor is it “knee-jerk.” In fact, the book has been praised for its discussion of and contribution to the history of fundamentalism. Sharlet argues that The Family represents a different strain of fundamentalism, elite mystical fundamentalism as distinct from “white trash”, populist fundamentalism.
http://www.amazon.com/Family-Secret-Fundamentalism-Heart-American/dp/0060560053/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250625140&sr=1-1
Sharlet told NPR this: The media recognizes fundamentalism and religious activism when it comes in these very stereotypical roles, whereas the elite fundamentalist tradition doesn’t look like what Americans think fundamentalists are, going all the way back to 1925 when H.L. Mencken set the mold with his description of these sort of hillbilly Bible-thumpers at the Scopes Monkey Trial, more recently in The Washington Post, which dismissed fundamentalists as largely ignorant and easily led and poor rural people. That just doesn’t describe the elite part of the movement.
http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2008/07/04/04
JOEL MARK, you show yourself to be without decent respect for hard-working and conscientious people when you claim that Maddow and Sharlet are “clueless” and “unaware.” Then you have the gall to accuse them of “knee-jerk” reactions. Please show a little more respect.
Report comment to moderator
So it does seem that there is no strict definition of fundamentalism.
But I do suggest that fundamentalism is but one of the many types of adjectives that get used to try to make relgions, and in this case Christiaity, more specific in its meaning.
Now fundamentalist Christianity is not wrong.
However, when it involved itslef in government, then it is fair game for reporting.
And if it is secretive, the reporting will probably be all the more intense.
And if you dont want the scrutiny, either dont get involved in politics OR be bland and open.
Report comment to moderator
Musing: As I understand the term, Evangelicals are not exactly supposed to be quiet or secretive about their beliefs. They are supposed to out there proclaiming the word to everybody.
But these guys are only proclaiming the word to the powerful, the wealthy and those who can be useful to them. And they don’t want anybody else to know what their “word” is.
Secrecy generally is a term applied to political organizations, not religious ones. Unless they have some kind of nefarious agenda.
Mr Coe tells his acolytes he is training them to “Rule the World”.
And an awful lot of Republicans seem to be in training.
We scrubbed their toilets, hoovered their carpets, polished their silver. The day I worked at C Street I ran into Doug Coe, who was tutoring Todd Tiahrt, a Republican congressman from Kansas. …
…He wanted to know the best way “for the Christian to win the race with the Muslim.” The Muslim, he said, has too many babies, while Americans kill too many of theirs.
Doug agreed this could be a problem. But he was more concerned that the focus on labels like “Christian” might get in the way of the congressman’s prayers. Religion distracts people from Jesus, Doug said, and allows them to isolate Christ’s will from their work in the world…
… “We gotta take Jesus out of the religious wrapping.”
“All right, how do we do that?” Tiahrt asked.
“A covenant,” Doug answered. The congressman half-smiled, as if caught between confessing his ignorance and pretending he knew what Doug was talking about. “Like the Mafia,” Doug clarified. “Look at the strength of their bonds.” He made a fist and held it before Tiahrt’s face. Tiahrt nodded, squinting. “See, for them it’s honor,” Doug said. “For us, it’s Jesus.”
Coe listed other men who had changed the world through the strength of the covenants they had forged with their “brothers”: “Look at Hitler,” he said. “Lenin, Ho Chi Minh, Bin Laden.”
Report comment to moderator
Shocked! Shocked! I am shocked thre is religious fanaticism in this church.
Report comment to moderator
Labeling can get you into trouble if you apply one and then go on to ignorantly apply the specific beliefs you expect to go with it. I really don’t think we know much about what this group believes beyond the bits and pieces World has given us, which based on their scanty report sounds unorthodox. It would have been nice if they gave us a statement of faith or something. It’s no good trying to tie all “fundamentalists,” or worse evangelicals, to this group as if we believe and practice the same things. There are many variations, I for instance consider myself reformed and not fundamentalist. No offence, fundys!
It is ludicrous to lump all people with “radical” religious beliefs together with the word fundamentalist. It seems to be done only to facilitate guilt by association, as if pentecostals are going to blow themselves up in the marketplace like their radical fundamentalist Musilm brethren. You may disagree with people’s values, but that does not warrant associating them with Islam, unless you want me to start associating you with Mao.
No, no, take the time to learn what people actually believe, like World has at least attempted to do with this group. The speciic beliefs are very important.
Report comment to moderator
The Fellowship’s 501(c)(3) mission statement is:
To develop and maintain an informal association of people banded together, to go out as “ambassadors of reconciliation,” modeling the principles of Jesus, based on loving God and loving others. To work with the leaders of other nations, and as their hearts are touched, the poor, the oppressed, the widows and the youth of their country will be impacted in a positive manner. Is is said that youth groups will be developed under the thoughts of Jesus, including loving others as you want to be loved.”
Maybe that’s their secret.
Report comment to moderator
In our church we try to get guys together in groups of three or four to hold each other accountable, often over chastity issues such as pornography. These groups are obviously very private because they are very, very honest. People I know who are involved in politics (at the state level) have told me how difficult it is to resist temptation and how difficult it is to get help – who do you trust? Who can give you counsel, or hold you accountable? It is far more difficult than it seems, and there are many who genuinely seek that kind of help, that kind of friendship. I have personally seen it.
The church ought to have the structure and maturity to do this, but often it does not. Many of the people in this group were probably seeking this type of thing. It is a big thing in the church right now, thank God. Those who do not trust them assume their privacy was sinister, I know this is not always so. But then again some seem to have used it as a cover, or worse. I just want those on the outside to know that Christians do really meet and pray and seriously struggle with temptation. This is discipleship. Obviously, the kind of thing arcadia alleged above (56) and the dominionist garbage does not fit into this model at all.
Churches are where these things should happen, with oversight, solid teaching, accountability, and the humility that comes from the gospel.
Report comment to moderator
Hearts touched, impacted in a positive manner, thoughts of Jesus, loving others as you want to be loved – sounds nice, but could mean just about anything.
It actually sounds like fluffy liberal teaching to me. No sin.
Report comment to moderator
Some “Family” associations: The Falls Church, McLean Bible Church, Willowbank Conference & Retreat Center, Campus Crusade for Christ’s Christian Embassy, C.S. Lewis Institute, Prison Fellowship International, Youth With a Mission, Trinity Forum & Trinity Forum Academy, World Vision, Southeast DC Partners, Timothy Trust, Project Mercy, World Concern, Cornerstone Development, National Center for Neighborhood Enterprise, Trees for the Future, Jerusalem Summit, Young Life International, Christians in Parliament (UK), International Center for Religion & Diplomacy, Wilburforce Foundation, Three Swallows Foundation.
Report comment to moderator
Why do we keep calling it a church? Have I missed something? That was a mission statement, not a statement of belief.
Alcoholics Anonymous isn’t a church, yet they keep things even more confidential.
Report comment to moderator
Amphi: I think you really don’t get it, here. They have no “faith”, no theology as most people think of it. Their object of “worship” is a very abstracted, disconnected Jesus whose usefulness is as an example that some select and elect people, working together under a veil of secrecy (which they fancy-up as a “covenant”) are born to, or can be taught to, rule the world. The ultimate object is not faith, not salvation, not heaven, but power.
They themselves, including apparently their Republican acolyte/trainees reject “Chritianity” and seek to “unpack” Jesus from religion in order to obtain this power.
To the Family, Jesus is not just a name; he is also a real man. “An awesome guy,” a Family employee named Terry told the brothers over breakfast one morning. “He excelled in every activity. He was a great teacher, sure, but he was also a real guy’s guy. He would have made an excellent athlete.”
For a very wealthy Senator, or the son of Texas oilman working on the Hill, or a son of a wealthy Ecuadoran, that’s one heck of more interesting message than:
And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
Or silly pablum about forgiving enemies, loving obviously unworthy neighbors or valuing workmen.
And it has enabled this group to acquire great wealth and considerable power while flying under the radar and with no visible means of support.
PS, Amphi: I can think of a few “fundys” who have blown people up and encouraged mass suicides in the last couple of decades. Can you? Of course these guys don’t have to use such crude methods. They have megabucks and armies for the wet work. cf Erik Prince. Other examples: the Waco whacko, Eric Rudolph (remember Atlanta and a clinic), McVeigh (likely but not quite proven), Jim Jones, Tiller’s assassin and more. And then there are the kids saved from the devil.
If the suicide belt fits…
Report comment to moderator
How easily we talk past each other rather than converse with each other. We think that in the saying we have conversed; while having listened so very little. But it doesn’t matter much because we only really care about what we say; no so much about understanding or being understood. Besides if you don’t see things the way I do it’s only because you are not as smart as I.
I wonder what would happen if we had a topic that required us to ask a question (sincere, not retorical or cynical) every other time we posted?
Have any of you personally attended a church fundamental church where the secrecy and hidden motives scared you away?
Report comment to moderator
I just wonder why it’s assumed that “members” and “renters” at C Street don’t belong to a church (as Chuck Colson implied) in their home districts with their families – Protestants, Catholics, Democrats, Republicans and everything in between. As a criticism, this seems totally illogical and unfair in painting them all with a broad brush of suspicion based on secular media speculation echoed by WORLD.
Report comment to moderator
Wow. This is one of the most civil and interesting discussions I’ve seen in a while. So many of you on the left and right have weighed in with insightful and respectful comments. Even Scroop Moth (I know!
Good job!
One thing that intrigues me is the trepidation from the left that a secret conservative organization might be pulling the strings of power, especially when Democrats also participate at C Street.
I have been studying 20th century Secular Progressivism for some time now and see this theme recurring incessantly in left-wing thought. Nearly every government thriller from Hollywood portrays some powerful right-wing conspiracy in government that works to undermine all that is good. This is common a theme in the writings of all of the giants of left-wing thought, like Engels, Marx, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, Mao, Castro, etc.
But what is so fascinating is that while secular progressives have almost complete and total control of government and media power, they are still fearful of the tiniest hint of conservatism. Yet, those who distrusts government power are the chief advocates for big government.
What is it about the Liberal Disorder that causes its victims to advocate the very thing they detest?
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, what you say is probably true of some, but certainly not all. According to World’s report, the place is loosely organized and has changed. There is no reason to believe that everyone associated with it (including some Democrats) believes as Coe does.
As far as your list of fundamentalists, you lump everyone from McVeigh to Jim Jones to people on this blog in the same basket regardless of their specific beliefs. I could put liberals and atheists with Stalin and Mao, or maybe Dahmer. I won’t, because I know their specific beliefs are relevant. Stereotyping, or worse – ignorantly associating people with lunatics because their belief in God affects their values – is not helpful.
Their object of “worship” is a very abstracted, disconnected Jesus…
You do not know what all of these people believe, and it is wrong for you to judge them or assume anything about their faith just because World (whose reporting is suddenly trustworthy in your eyes) says they may have once attended a meeting at this place.
Report comment to moderator
It is not only a misuse and a misnomer but maybe it compliments this C Street group far too highly (and somewhat incorrectly) to call them Christian “fundamentalists.” That implies a high level of seriousness and sincerity in their faith convictions. I’m not so sure.
Liberals often don’t like to be labeled. But they sure love to label others on ther own (often clueless) terms and will refuse to be corrected on their misunderstandings, because the label works for them and can be used to leave a stigma where it is often not deserved.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: What is so fascinating is that although “fundamentalists” and evangelicals wield enormous power in Washington and the country (enough, to require a Sarah Palin on a national ticket) every time someone critcizes them they depict themselves as victims of the MSM, religious persecution, or some entrenched Secular Progressivism.
I don’t know how you have the chutzpah to depict yourselves as somehow being powerless and unheard after 8 years of GWB and eight years of majority conservative Republican control.
And when you think about it, the last two Democratic Presidents were actually Southern Baptists.
Report comment to moderator
74, 3545 – exactly right.
At the center of the group is Doug Coe
With no title? No position? Is he on the board, is he in any way a formal authority there at all? Does this octogenarian really have the incredible power attributed to him? Are these politicians all under his spell, like Alexandra with Rasputin? I don’t think so. I think that is just crazy.
World’s story is long on speculation and short on specifics. Nobody has come up with anything substantial.
This place is being portrayed as fascist. Fascists do not hide their leaders.
It’s creepy. I don’t like it. But it is not Tim McVeigh or Jim Jones.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis – 79
I often enjoy your posts however, I fail to see why you have brought McVeigh or Jim Jones into the mix. When you do that it sets a tone, one I feel is more than harsh, it’s a ‘mention’ without making an accusation….. used to making a point – both these men were involved in death, I would hope that you think about this before sliding their names in where they don’t belong.
In closing I’m rather surprised you mentioned McVeigh or Jim Jones in regards to this thread -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria -
Thanks for the complement, I enjoy your posts also!
See Arcadia’s 72. I was following up on that, but perhaps I should have used more restraint.
Report comment to moderator
complIment, duh. I need to go to bed.
Report comment to moderator
Amphipolis 81
Amphipolis, I owe you an apology, I’m sorry – I had not read Arcadia’s post #72 which is ridiculous. I don’t have a good excuse, I rarely read this person’s posts along with others. After reading your post, I believe you used EXTREME RESTRAINT. You had every right to post what you did.
Report comment to moderator
Still waiting for anything substantial, see my post 31.
I’m also wondering if my critical comments on the article in 42, 52, 79, and the critiques of others will be answered.
World criticizes this organization’s theology, but they have not, as far as I have seen, actually quoted any official doctrinal statement or beliefs whatsoever. This is similar to what I believe is their misrepresentation of the group’s leadership. It’s easy to find a kook associated with a group and expose his beliefs. It is a lot harder to show that those beliefs are official, or even shared by anyone else. World has not done this. Their article is full of rumor and innuendo. Gossip.
World didn’t stop there but pressed forward with a piece that strongly implies that all people mentioned as having “reportedly” attended a meeting share these beliefs. I hold World responsible for that implication. It was obviously intentional. It was manipulative. It was wrong.
Beware of reporters who try to puff themselves up by bringing important people down. If their facts stand up, so be it. But woe to them if they don’t. This too is not Christian.
Report comment to moderator
Eric Fellman, a Fellowship employee for 11 years who remains on the board
But he is not currently an employee, is he? Not since last fall? World’s wording carefully leaves this non explicit.
http://www.wbtc.com/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6142
Here is positive thinking Fellman:
Entrusted with the task of bringing Norman Vincent Peale’s timeless message of Positive Thinking into the ’90s, motivational speaker and author Eric Fellman does that and more, expanding on its principles and offering an easily workable system for today’s spiritual environment.
http://www.amazon.com/Power-Behind-Positive-Thinking-Unlocking/dp/0060623152
World left that out of his resume. I don’t have time to chase this further.
Report comment to moderator
AMPHIPOLIS #84: World criticizes this organization’s theology, but they have not, as far as I have seen, actually quoted any official doctrinal statement or beliefs whatsoever.
More likely than not, WORLD is relying on observations that Jeff Sharlet makes in Secret Fundamentalism. Sharlet read through boxes of Family archives that have been deposited at the Wheaton College library, and he reports divergences from populist forms of fundamentalism.
The papers apparently are big. Ph.D. candidates all over the country want at them for dissertations.
Report comment to moderator
Some more info & commentary here:
http://blogs.pioneerlocal.com/religion/2009/07/christian_conspiracy_is_secret.html
I wonder how, and if, Sharlet was allowed to view any recent Wheaton Fellowship Foundation archives. Did he ever say that he got recent information from there?
All folders with paper records less than twenty-five years old are closed to users until January 1st of the year following the 25th anniversary of the creation of the youngest document in that file, except to those users with the written permission of the President of the Fellowship Foundation. This restriction applies to everyone, including Foundation staff and associates.
Report comment to moderator
Maybe Sharlet read the materials before nov. 2003, or started reading relevant files before that date and was permitted to continue reading those files, but not open new files? I don’t know. In any case, maybe World didn’t like indications of doctrinal impurities in the past and failed to see evidence of subsequent orthodox reforms.
I don’t like the way Jeff Finley grinds his ax. He says Sharlet “claims to have infiltrated the mysterious Family/Fellowship.” It’s not a claim. Sharlet lived at The Family, attended meetings, and interviewed people, including some who wouldn’t talk to WORLD, if I’m not mistaken.
Nor do I share Finley’s pity for the “bad press” that powerful organizations suffer when they won’t talk to the press.
Report comment to moderator
Anyone who knows anything about what the bible really says about the Jews and their right to the’ Holy Land’ should agree; Jesus, as He was leaving the temple for the last time before His crucifixion said “Your house is left unto you desolate”. Then when He died, the vale was torn from top to bottom, signifying the end of the Jewish economy of ceremonial laws.
Why would anyone who claims to be a Christian, base his beliefs and political platform around ensuring a Jewish state?
It is solely because; the Christian Coalition believes based off erroneous prophetic interpretation that the temple in Jerusalem must be rebuilt in order for the 2nd coming of the Messiah. They don’t care one bit about the people of Palestine having the right to keep what had been theirs for centuries, and they definitely don’t support the belief system of the Jews…they only want to convert them into Christians and force the issue of rebuilding the temple!!!! Many conservative Jews also believe the rebuilding of the temple must happen, so they are willing to smile and come to the table, just so they can take home the check for billions of American dollars for defense every year.
My purpose is not to discourage the Jewish people to have a homeland, but I do discourage false interpretation of the WORD OF YAHWEH to support their claims.
Paul (who was a Jew) said;
28 A person is not a Jew who is one only outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a person is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a person’s praise is not from other people, but from God.
All of the later prophecies that speak of the Jews are not talking about literal Israel, although it does spiritually apply to them first if they acknowledge the grace of God through Messiah, Jesus Christ.
If you really want to hasten the coming of the LORD, fast and pray and let go of your prejudicial understandings, then pick up the bible and let God’s Spirit teach you what it really means, then go out and tell the world what He shows you. The sooner everyone who truly has faith comes together in the knowledge of the Lord, the sooner He will come. But don’t think just because you take His name and plaster it on your own beliefs that you are doing God’s work. That is the spirit of Anti-Christ and the worst plagues ever pronounced in the bible will be directed at you. So with trembling hands and stammering lips should you approach the issue of what God wants. Not as a political platform Huckabee/ Christian Coalition/C-Street!
America; the beast with two horns, which at one time where the separation of church and state, is now beginning to speak with the voice of the dragon.(See Revelation 13-11)
Father, please help us to be prepared for what you said will come next…the mark of the beast, which will be an enforced broken Sabbath. In Yeshua (Jesus’) Holy name please hear and show your inspiration of this prayer to your sincere children, Amen.
Remember; “When they cry peace and safety then sudden destruction comes” 1st Thessalonians 5: 3
Report comment to moderator
Scroop -
I’m sure his touted search of the boxes at Wheaton yielded lots of fresh Reagan era insights.
I don’t like the way Jeff Finley grinds his ax.
LOL – I suppose Sharlet’s ax is always nice and sharp.
Maybe he interviewed Hillary Clinton. Apparently she “infiltrated” also.
By the way – speaking of boxes – I think it would be a challenge to box up Eric Fellman, who is and was actually in the foundation’s leadership, as a fundamentalist. Peale and the World Bible Translation Center are not exactly on the right side of evangelicalism, if they are there at all.
Report comment to moderator
jamesonofthunder – 89
Only those who are of the true tribes of Israel, (12 Tribes) will be the 144,000. These will be 12,000 from each Tribe to total 144,000 -
These are literal Jews, literal tribes -
Report comment to moderator
#78 Arcadia “Xion: What is so fascinating is that although “fundamentalists” and evangelicals wield enormous power in Washington and the country…”
Huh? Are you serious? That is an honest question. If you can find five fundamentalists who wield any power in Washington D.C. it would be a very big day.
I am seriously interested in this extreme paranoia from the left. It is a continuous thread in so much of left-wing literature and speech. It is a constant theme in Hollywood. And yet, where are all these secret fundamentalist evildoers?
A fundamentalist Christian is technically a person who acts like Christ. How much evil would a peace loving, cheek-turning do-gooder who only wants to be helpful and server do? Why does the left insist on demonizing the Mother Theresa’s of the world, like the Mafia? It’s really bizarre, but fascinating.
Report comment to moderator
I have posted a new Fellowship/Family blog post about the group’s National Prayer Breakfast:
http://blogs.pioneerlocal.com/religion/2010/02/breakfast_with_the_family.html
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDmag.com's Community section to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!