After its release at Sundance last year this doc had created quite a buzz, and I made a mental note after reading about it in Rolling Stone Magazine's Sundance issue that I wanted to see the movie.
Of course I forgot about the film, until April 2007 and the Academy
nominates for best doc feature-length. Finally, last night, after a
year of anticipation (though unconscious) I watched Jesus Camp.
Directly afterward I read Stephen Holden's review for the New York Times, dont read it it is pointless. He takes certain instances out of context and strings them
together in a more perfect narrative, I don't really like Holden.
Anyway, the review did hit upon one thing about the film that did interest me.
What was the purpose of the film? It is not an expansive study of
evangelism, it is not a look at the growth of evangelism in the United
States. Exclusively, the film deals with the teaching of children. It
follows three children (and others in passing) as they go through the
Kids on Fire summer camp. Where they are self admittedly being trained
to fight in God's Army to reclaim America. Children collapse in prayer,
speak in tongues, and cry uncontrollably . They are taught the evils of
Harry Potter and they, for the most part. are home schooled where they can be
taught, above anything else, that Darwinism is satanic and abortion is
a sin against God.
I must be honest with anyone reading, when I rented the film I got it because I thought I might find it humorous, and occasionally I laughed out loud, when the children's preacher almost cried with disdain for Harry Potter, but for the most part I was perplexed.
The one voice of moderation is a radio talk show host on Air America who claims to be a Christian but is obviously liberally aligned. The Pastor Becky Fisher of the children's camp (probably the film's main character) calls in and has a debate with him, and he claims to be blown away by "how crazier and crazier they get."
It does seem to me that their love for their children and their diligence
in raising them is admirable, but here is the problem Evangelist. Your
doctrine teaches only exclusion and only judgement of others.
The radio show host makes a valid point at the difference between teaching your children and indoctrinating your children, Ms. Fisher responds by saying indoctrination will happen somewhere so she opts for indoctrination through her church.
The most glaring trend that surfaces in the film is the language of war in
the practicing of their religion. Most of the kids seem pretty normal
outside of the confines of the camp and the church, but there will be
one day when they have to leave home and learn things with their own
devices, what will happen then?
Postscript:
The film is made with a compassionate lens, it does not seem to look down its nose at these people as I may be doing and as other reviewers have been doing. These are people motivated for a cause, a group of children and their parents travel from Missouri to Washington DC to protest abortion as Judge Alito is about to be confirmed. The political interest and political action that these children are being taught is valuable and dialogue is never bad, we can only hope that somewhere along the way the kids learn that dialogue means tolerance of, or at least listening to, opposing points of view.
2 comments:
I WANT TO SEE THIS...I have become obsessed with it...many friends have told me of its awesomeness. However, they warn that it is disturbing.
I'm curious about your edit at the bottom...it is made with compassion? (a) is it generally assumed those who are not religion look at those with it w/out compassion? (b) should there be compassion in making a film about crazy extremists? Those same filmmakers certaintly wouldn't have compassion on Muslim extremists.
I don't mean the filmmakers agree with the people they are filming. The compassion I refer to is how the film is made not as a character judgment. It does not attempt to explain their extremist views as a product of weak characters or as a result of them being plain stupid which I do think is a common perception for liberals, and especially non-religious liberals. What I mean by compassion is that this film could have easily been an hour and a half of laughing at these people, but I feel that method would have been fruitless.
Just as I believe that Muslim extremism will never be addressed until we recede from our ivory tower enough to really listen and discern from whence these ideolgies originate we will similarly never address the issue of Christian Fundamentalism if we only relegate to the realm of the feeble minded, uneducated, and backward.
In other words, compassion does not mean empathy. The film allows the viewer to watch the unfolding of events and passes no judgement on the quality of these people as human beings, while certainly passing judgement on the validity of their ideas.
If you say that extremism should not be compassionately dealt with we are going to hover in this area of stasis, this area that we have been in for the past four years where "we do not negotiate with terrorists." A lot of good that policy has done us.
Post a Comment