Amicus Dei

Here are the 10 reasons I believe President Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize:

1. He has promised to close Guantanamo, although that is taking longer than he thought;
2. he is wrapping up our involvement in Iraq;
3. he is re-thinking the conventional wisdom on Afghanistan;
4. he has engaged the Iranians, North Koreans, Cubans, Chinese, and others;
5. he has restarted the Mideast peace process;
6. he has reframed our relationship with Russia and their satellite states;
7. he has gone to Cairo to address Muslims in their own country, both engaging and cautioning them on the US role in the world;
8. he led our nation in a rescue of the world financial markets;
9. he has the approval of 77% of Europeans; and,
10. he has restored faith that America can be a moral voice, a reasonable voice in a very unreasonable and immoral world.

None of those accomplishments are complete, but the game has changed, and the President led the way.  I for one think it’s a good day in America today!

It reads in part like a Cold War spy novel, but unfortunately The Family by Jeff Sharlet is not fiction.  Rather, The Family, subtitled The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power, tells the story of how one quasi-evangelical organization clandestinely infiltrated the halls of power in Washington, D.C. and beyond.  It is the story of raw politics wrapped in a blanket of evangelical piety that is at times both fascinating and disturbing.

The author, Jeff Sharlet, knows the Family better than most outside the elite Washington set — Sharlet spent a month in 2002 living in one of the Family’s many residences, Ivanwald.  While there, Sharlet was privy to confidential Family documents and met with the head of the Family, Doug Coe.  In 2005, Coe was named one of the 25 most influential evangelicals by Time magazine, joining the ranks of more widely-recognized figures like Chuck Colson (a Family member and product); James Dobson; and others.

The Family, Sharlet says, “is a story about two great spheres of belief, religion and politics, and the ways in which they are bound together by the mythologies of America.” And quite a story it is, too.  Sharlet remembers his days living at Ivanwald where he heard Adolf Hitler often referred to as an example of effective leadership.  When Sharlet questioned members of the Family about this fascination with Hitler, he was told Hitler and other dictators were a “model of intimate relationships.”  Sharlet wondered, as I do, if the Family couldn’t find someone more worthy of comparison with Jesus as a leader.

Founded in the 1930s by Abraham Vereide and a group of Seattle businessmen, the first meeting of the group which would later become the Family was for prayer, and to break a dockworker labor strike.  Vereide, or Abram as he was called, saw the American way of life and the Christian message as virtually interchangeable.  Recounting a revelation, Abram would tell how God spoke to him with “The Idea” of working with men of power — business leaders, politicians, and powerbrokers in society.  Abram believed, based on Romans 13:1, that God established men of authority.  In other words, if a man was in a position of authority, God had put him there, and Abram was to work with him regardless of his character, morals, or actions.  If he befriended these powerful men, the benefit would be a trickle-down of blessings on the common people.  After all, working with poor people hadn’t really changed the world much.  The rich and powerful were the place to start, according to Vereide.

Vereide began prayer meetings with these powerful leaders, and quickly found himself the welcomed guest of businessmen and politicians on the national, as well as local level.  These prayer cells were patterned on the cells of communist organizations, whose politics Abram despised, but whose organization and commitment he admired.

But, Sharlet doesn’t just focus on the founding work of Abraham Vereide. He flashes back to the 1700s to Jonathan Edwards, and later, Charles G. Finney, both of whom fostered the antecedents of modern evangelicalism.  Edwards did so with his soft-spoken but terrifying sermons, and his fascination with the extreme religious experiences of his followers.  Finney’s revivalism produced the “anxious bench,” where penitent sinners would weep for forgiveness and salvation in response to his preaching. Those precursors of modern evangelical life shifted the American gospel, according to Sharlet, paving the way for men like Abraham Vereide and his successor, Doug Coe, and the organization known as the Family.

Under Coe’s leadership, the Family submerges, goes underground, to increase its influence and avoid scrutiny as it curries favor with politicians both American and international.  That some of those politicians were ruthless dictators like Indonesia’s Suharto, or Somalia’s Siad Barre, or Nicaragua’s Somosa seemed to be of little concern to the Family or to Coe.  Coe once said, when explaining why the Family did not object to the inhumanity of some of its friends, “I don’t want to embarass anyone.”  Presumably, Coe didn’t want to use his influence to save the hundreds of thousands slaughtered by Suharto, or Barre, or Somosa either.

Sharlet writes with a captivating clarity, weaving the story of the organization from the Family’s own records housed at the Billy Graham Center at Wheaton College.  Once accessible to anyone, more recent documents are now off-limits to researchers because of Sharlet’s articles and the inquiries of several international reporters, according to Sharlet.  Secrecy creates the impression the Family has something to hide, which Sharlet’s critics say they don’t.

Sharlet is careful not to sound shrill as he reports on the connections the Family has made.  He notes particularly ministers of defense from developing countries who attend the National Prayer Breakfast for the purpose of meeting influential members of Congress.  Sharlet cites several instances of increased foreign and military aid after connections are made by the Family.  Sharlet provides copious endnotes to support his reporting on the Family and their affairs.  A comprehensive index allows quick access to subjects and individuals of interest to the reader.  It is evident Sharlet has done his homework over the five years he spent researching and writing the book, and it shows in the book’s meticulous detail.

Does Sharlet get it all right?  I’m not sure about all the details, but at times the book seems to gather up the whole of evangelicalism under the suspicion of one part of it, the Family.  But perhaps this is Sharlet’s way of pointing out that evangelicalism’s unquestioning embrace of all who bathe their work in the name of Jesus ought to be re-examined.  For the most part, Sharlet’s book is a stunning expose’ of the blurring of power politics and a reinvented gospel fostering an Americanized-version of Jesus.

If there is any comfort to be taken from the saga presented in The Family, it might be that they don’t appear to be succeeding. Two of their members, Senator John Ensign of Arizona, and Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina recently made the news because of their marital infidelity.  Ensign’s unfaithfulness occurred with one of his staff members, the wife of his chief of staff.  Senator Tom Coburn, another Family member, is said to have tried to help Ensign by suggesting that his chief of staff and his wife be “made whole” financially.  Coburn has denied suggesting any such thing, but the Senate Ethics Committee may investigate the whole sorry mess.

Governor Mark Sanford, of course, kept the nation riveted with his disappearance to walk the Appalalchian Trail, which apparently extends all the way to Argentina, where he went to see his “soul mate.”  On his return, and with endless discussions of his affair, Sanford likened himself to King David in the same terms that Sharlet had heard the Family use during his stay at Ivanwald.  If the Family is no more successful at international intrigue than they are at raising the moral bar in Washington, we need not fear a far-right theocracy anytime soon.  Of course, that’s the cynical view, and I acknowledge it as such.  The Family is far from being a bunch of clowns, even if there are a few in their midst.

Jeff Sharlet has done evangelicals a favor by showing us that in the case of the Family, the emperor really is naked.  The argument which forms the basis for the Family — that men of authority are there because God placed them there — is a poor exegetical attempt to justify amoral power politics.  If Jesus were to have adopted the philosophy of the Family, he would have worked with Herod, and he would have taken Pontius Pilate to lunch.  And, when Satan tempted Christ by offering him raw political power, Jesus would have jumped at the chance because, as Doug Coe says, “we work with power where we can [and] build new power where we can’t.”

(I purchased my own copy of The Family, and have received no inducement to read or review the book.  I requested an interview with Jeff Sharlet, which he provided, and you can read my questions and his responses at my other blog, Confessions of a Small-Church Pastor. )

Now that we’re accustomed to serial crises — bank failures, oil prices, food contamination, and so on — I thought I’d roll all this together into one post about the collapse of society as we know it.  Which actually makes for some thought-provoking reading.  If you’re interested in how this might play out in the 21st century, read Joseph Tainter’s The Collapse of Complex Societies.

Tainter is head of the Department of Environment and Society at Utah State University, and writes for an archaeological crowd.  The Collapse of Complex Societies is not a pop culture book, but a textbook (which explains both the price and Cambridge Press as publisher).  Be forewarned that this is not easy slogging, but Tainter meticulously outlines the reasons for the study of societal collapse (we’re all interested in why other societies failed so we can avoid the same fate), and debunks the common easy explanations of societal collapse, such as resource depletion, catastrophes, insufficient response to circumstances, intruders, social dysfunction, and so forth.

Collapse of a society, according to Tainter, is the result of diminishing returns of social complexity.  This is seen primarily in the amount of energy required to maintain a society at its current level of complexity.  Collapse occurs when a society simplifies its complexity, which can be dramatic or mundane.

Tainter spends a lot of time focused on ancient Rome because we have extant records in great detail.  A spiral of rising taxes, territorial expansion, governmental crackdown, and imperial capriciousness continues until of its own weight (inability to maintain its complexity) the Western Roman Empire collapses for good.  Of course, with a little help from the barbarian hoards, but Tainter contends collapse would have occurred anyway.

Follow up Tainter with Strauss and Howe’s book, The Fourth Turning.    Strauss and Howe contend that the Millennial generation will face “the fourth turning” as a natural part of a cultural cycle here in the United States.  This fourth turning is a crisis of great proportion and will challenge the Millennials to become a new version of “the greatest generation.”  Makes for fascinating reading in light of Tainter’s argument about the diminishing returns of maintaining increasing complexity in a society.

Throw Kuntsler’s book, The Long Emergency, and Zakaria’s book, The Post American World, into the mix and a case can be made for an impending societal “adjustment” here in the US that will transform the future of this nation.  What implications will these converging theories have for communities of faith in the future?  That’s another interesting question that I don’t see anyone addressing?  - Amicus Dei

Those who would divide and conquer the electorate in this primary season will find their 20th century strategy inappropriate and ill-received, for this time, we are not afraid. We are not afraid of each other, but affirm in one another those differences that make us each unique. We are not afraid of ideas or beliefs that differ from our own because a plurality of ideas and beliefs enriches our society.

Read the rest of this entry »

A couple of posts ago, I reviewed John Allen Paulos book, Irreligion. Paulos answered his own question — Are there any logical reasons to believe in God? — with an unequivocal, No. In his book, Paulos comes to that negative conclusion by dismantling to his own satisfaction 12 of the logical arguments for the existence of God.

Read the rest of this entry »

Debbie and I started a new blog, Eden’s Path, to chronicle our journey toward a sustainable, simple life. The name Eden’s Path is taken from a old Celtic Christian saying that living in this world is like having “one foot in Eden.” We thought that summed up what we were trying to say. At Eden’s Path we’ll explore ways to live more simply — spend less, enjoy it more, slow down, and live our lives in the rhythm of God’s grace.

This journey started when we turned off our cable TV, and began to use that time to think, read, talk, cook, and generally try to live our life “mindfully” as the Buddhists say. Of course, Jesus said something similar when he said, ‘Therefore I tell you, do not worry about your life, what you will eat or what you will drink, or about your body, what you will wear.”

There is also a monastic component here, too. Two words described the life of monks — orare et laborare — to pray and to work. So, that’s what we’re trying to do within the limits of our ability. And if it sounds way too serious and grim, we’re actually having a lot of fun! If you’re interested, stop by Eden’s Path, and leave a comment or some helpful hints. We need all the help we can get! — Amicus Dei

In Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why The Arguments For God Just Don’t Add Up, John Allen Paulos performs a great favor for Christians: he knocks the props from under the classic arguments for the existence of God. You might think that evaluation strange coming from a Baptist pastor, but let me explain.

This short 158-page book takes on a task far beyond its diminutive size. Paulos begins the book by asking:

Are there any logical reasons to believe in God?

Read the rest of this entry »

John Allen Paulos sent me a review copy of his book, Irreligion.  Thanks to Dr.  Paulos and Hill & Wang (division of Farrar, Straus and Giroux)  for their kindness and I’ll post a review shortly.   You might be surprised at what I say.  Or then, again, maybe not.  Stay tuned.

Today is the Virginia presidential primary, and Debbie and I voted just a few minutes ago.  Not many voters today, the poll workers said.  Maybe because we’re in a very Republican area, and that contest looks settled.  But, I wonder if the historic impact of voting choices today on the Democratic side has been realized.  If you vote in the Democratic primary today in Virginia, you are making history regardless of your choice.  A black man whose father was an immigrant, and a white woman are the primary candidates for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States of America.  With all that is wrong with us, this is a very bright moment indeed.  Debbie and I participated in history today, casting ballots of hope.  -- Amicus Dei

It all started when we unplugged the TV cable. We’re now in our fourth month without TV, cable or otherwise. I didn’t even watch the Super Bowl, which apparently was actually super this year. Without cable we don’t get Fox (not a total loss, I might add), and no one invited me to a Super Bowl party, so no SB this year. But, I’m getting off point.

Read the rest of this entry »

After an off-hand reference I made to Irreligion, by John Allen Paulos, in my post God Bashing, I received a comment on that post by Dr. Paulos himself, which I am posting here: 

I think you might gain a more nuanced perspective on my book,
Irreligion, were you to read the first chapter (only 3 pages), which is
available on my site (URL above) or through the NY Times at http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/books/chapters/1st-chapter-irreligion.html?ref=books&pagewanted=all

Thanks. John Allen Paulos

I really like that Dr. Paulos tackles criticism head-on.   And, I did read the first chapter, which I found very interesting.  We certainly do not agree on the issue of faith, but that’s okay.  Although I only mentioned the book and its NY Times review in passing, I do want to be fair.  I have offered to read the book in its entirety, then post a fair-minded review.  Don’t know if the publisher will provide me a review copy or not, but we’ll see.  But, I do like this guy’s style — both in tackling criticism, and his actual writing style, so I am hoping the publisher will cooperate.  I’ll keep you posted.  — Amicus Dei