When talking with some of my classmates after watching this movie, I was told that I should've seen the first half of the movie; apparently, it was harder to believe than even the second half. However, even with what little I did see, I think I understand the movie and how it's trying to portray Christian Evangelicals.
I wrote down a number of things that bothered me about this film. First, the second half of the movie began with the little boy, Levi, preparing a sermon. I have mixed feelings on this. If God has given him the passion and ability for public speaking, more power to him! Just, not yet. As a child, he has neither the knowledge nor the authority to preach effectively. He doesn't know enough about the Bible to give instruction to other believers, and he doesn't possess the God-given authority to preach in the church. Now, if he was acting simply as a motivator for kids his age, that's fine. Going beyond that into actual instruction, however, is a leap too far for a boy his age.
Next, the thing that was emphazised to me over and over was the violence of this camp's evangelism. Never once can I recall them mentioning the love of God; only ever His wrath for sinners and the unrepentent. The femal leader of this camp calls the kids to "make war" on the world, referencing prophecies from Paul as support. (Aside: Paul wasn't a prophet, and he never said that preaching the gospel was like going to war.) During the sermon on abortion, the speaker gets the kids chanting "righteous judges" as the man holds up a display of miniature babies meant to represent unborn life. Again, children do not have the authority to act as or to call themselves judges. And frankly, neither do the adults of the camp. Jesus tells us to remove the plank in our own eye before removing the speck in our neighbors. The mere fact that these people call themselves "righteous" shows that they don't have the right to be "judges".
Finally, the cuts to the radio host were perhaps the most blatant attempt at negatively portraying the camp. Although the harsh views the radio host presents may be more condemning than the filmers really believe, the host's discussions offer insight into what main-stream media thinks about Christian evangelicals, and especially how camps like this one affect that stereotype. The host's name is Mike Papantonio, a lawyer and co-host of Ring of Fire, a nationally-syndicated weekly talk show. In short, he tells other people his opinion on issues in the nation today. His role in Jesus Camp is obvious: display the media's views and slander Christian evangelism. Some of his statements are particularly harsh: he calls the camp a "fundamentalist movement interfering with American's freedom to learn," and says the kids are being trained as "child soldiers for the Republican party," a thinly veiled reference to the brutally indoctrinated child soldiers fighting in the African bushlands today. Papantonio says that, "God has a very special place for people who mess with children," as if he would know, despite his proclaimed distast for modern Christians and their "rights" (see the Wikipedia article on Mike Papantonio). Throughout the interview, he emphasizes the separation of church and state, a controversial issue that is easily twisted to act against Christians. His final blow is this: "Christianity is a witch's brew!" That pretty much speaks for itself. Papantonio is convinced that conservative Christians have slowly been taking over America, transforming politics and religion for their own purposes. This view nearly captures the theme of the whole film: overly zealous Christians are brainwashing children to raise a generation of literal "Jesus freaks" to eventually gain control of the government.
Luther
14 years ago
Great post. This Papantonio character deserves some discussion, and I'm glad you took some time to write about him. To take a tiny sliver of American Evangelicalism and generalize the rest of the group is ill-informed at best, and malintentioned at worst. As annoyingly radical as Becky Fischer is in the movie, Papantonio is in the same vein on the opposite viewpoint.
ReplyDelete