Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back (Paperback)
by Frank Schaeffer
If you grew up in the Christian fundamentalist/evangelical sub-culture the way I did, this book will really resonate with your own experience. At least it did for me.
Francis Schaeffer (father of the author) was a huge figure within Christian fundmentalism/Evangelicalism during the 1970s and 80s. His books are still lauded within that circle for putting an intellectual/philosophical face on biblical literalist views. Crazy for God is a tell-all book by his son outlining some of the hypocrisy and general craziness within the movement.
I read the book through two lenses. 1) Sons who aren't as successful as their fathers. 2) Former fundamentalists trying to make sense out of their upbringing and reaction to it. On both counts the book is successful, in my mind.
I couldn't put this one down. I can't remember the last time I read a book that is over 400 pages in just a few days. Frank Schaeffer writes clearly so the book is easy to read. He doesn't pull any punches, spilling all the juicy details about sex, drug use, spousal abuse, and insider conversations with leaders in the fundamentalist movement.
Others will disagree with me on this, but I think that at some level the author still respects his parents and his family, even if he has chosen a different path in his own life. I suppose some will see the book solely as a betrayal, but speaking as a former fundamentalist, one of the most difficult things in leaving that life is being able to honestly come clean about its secrets. So I tend to see the book in that light.
Paperback: 448 pages
Publisher: Da Capo Press; 1st Da Capo Press Pbk. Ed edition (September 29, 2008)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0306817500
ISBN-13: 978-0306817502
Showing posts with label fundamentalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label fundamentalism. Show all posts
Because I Love You
|
29.6.06
Because I Love You, by Max Lucado
Well, I just re-read Max Lucado's story for children Because I Love You and now I remember why I thought it was so creepy the first time I read it --especially in light of my fundamentalist upbringing.
One of the main messages of this book seems to be that curiosity is dangerous. Don't inquire. Don't question. Just accept what an authority figure tells you. If you do question, you risk alienating yourself from your community. Once you've gone down the questioning path and left the sheltering walls of religious totalism only an act of God can bring you back.
To me the book seems like an insidious attempt to try to frighten children out of questioning the values of the authority system. I see this with so many adults too, that seem afraid to question, that would rather live in a secure little bubble of never examining the assumptions behind what they believe.
The lie is made all the stronger because it is partly true. As one who has rejected the fundamentalism of my upbringing, it does feel lonely and dangerous sometimes to be "out in the cold," outside of the authoritarian system that promised simplicity and security if one didn't question things. Yet there is also great beauty and truth outside the walls.
I guess I'd even go so far as to say that the whole truth is only outside the wall, and what it means to be human is to seek after the whole truth. This book does a terrible disservice by implying otherwise. It certainly feels safer inside the walls, but I was raised to shun "feel good theology!"
And what the is Lucado trying to imply by naming the curious kid "Paladin?" All the good conformist kids got normal names. Paladin sounds like something out of Dungeons and Dragons, which of course every good fundy knows is a Satanic game. :)
Okay, I'm done ranting now. Few things get me as irate as the manipulation of children.
Publisher: Crossway Books (February 1999); ISBN: 0891079920
Well, I just re-read Max Lucado's story for children Because I Love You and now I remember why I thought it was so creepy the first time I read it --especially in light of my fundamentalist upbringing.
One of the main messages of this book seems to be that curiosity is dangerous. Don't inquire. Don't question. Just accept what an authority figure tells you. If you do question, you risk alienating yourself from your community. Once you've gone down the questioning path and left the sheltering walls of religious totalism only an act of God can bring you back.
To me the book seems like an insidious attempt to try to frighten children out of questioning the values of the authority system. I see this with so many adults too, that seem afraid to question, that would rather live in a secure little bubble of never examining the assumptions behind what they believe.
The lie is made all the stronger because it is partly true. As one who has rejected the fundamentalism of my upbringing, it does feel lonely and dangerous sometimes to be "out in the cold," outside of the authoritarian system that promised simplicity and security if one didn't question things. Yet there is also great beauty and truth outside the walls.
I guess I'd even go so far as to say that the whole truth is only outside the wall, and what it means to be human is to seek after the whole truth. This book does a terrible disservice by implying otherwise. It certainly feels safer inside the walls, but I was raised to shun "feel good theology!"
And what the
Okay, I'm done ranting now. Few things get me as irate as the manipulation of children.
Publisher: Crossway Books (February 1999); ISBN: 0891079920
Not a Drop to Drink
|
8.7.03
'Not A Drop To Drink,' by Grey Rollins
Grey Rollins' 16 page short story 'Not A Drop To Drink' examines group dynamics, mob rule, and the violence associated with religious fundamentalism within the context of a classic "hard SF" short story. The premise is simple: Colonists stuck on a world with little fresh water debate dwindling alternatives to ensure their survival. After discarding other options which have proven ineffective, scientist Lalo Helsink makes a daring proposal: genetically engineer the children to have salt glands so that they can drink the abundant seawater found on the planet. Without this modification the colony's needs will outstrip the fresh water supply in a matter of years, ensuring death.
While most are uneasy with such a draconian solution, it is seen as the only alternative to certain death. Not so for Agnes Beeson, leader of a Christian prayer group in the colony. She and her followers believe that God is punishing the colony for lack of faith, and if they pray hard enough rain will come. She believes that genetic tinkering on humans is an abomination --displaying lack of faith in God's design when God created humans.
With the colony still ambivalent, the plan goes forward and the first generation of "salties" --children with salt tracks that stem from their eyes to rid their bodies of excess salt-- is born. Beeson will not be stopped, however, and soon acts of vandalism against Helsink and the parents of the "salties" erupt in the colony. These violent acts finally culminate in a fire that consumes eight houses and kills two adults. The story ends as Helsink and the families leave the colony. Although they lack resources and are in the minority, their future seems hopeful because --through more genetic engineering in order to avoid inbreeding-- they can still reproduce in large enough numbers to establish a viable colony.
This story raised two questions for me. First, when religious fundamentalism gains power, is violence inevitable? If one is merely talking about Christian or Muslim conservatives who believe they take the Bible or Qur'an literally --I don't think that alone is enough to guarantee a violent sect. Historically there have been textual literalists who also included an ethic of non-violence in their belief systems --finding the justification for non-violence in the very texts they attempt to follow so scrupulously. I see the defining characteristic of fundamentalism as the tendency to demonize the other. When one's ethical system encourages one to see evil as an external force resident in some other group, instead of recognizing the evil that lurks within --or seeing God as Other-- it's easy to legitimize violence against groups that are different in any way.
Secondly, is it moral to genetically engineer human beings? Many in contemporary Western society draw a distinction between reproductive cloning (which they see as "playing God" with the process that leads to birth) and therapeutic cloning or gene therapies (which they see as helpful medicine.) For me 'Not a Drop to Drink' exposes some of the flaws in this kind of thinking by showing that actually changing the human genome is far more radical than using the technology to simply make a copy of another human being, flaws and all. I tend to see using genetic technology to help infertile couples --or perhaps help gay and lesbian couples pass on their genes-- as a relatively benign use of the technology. Adding and subtracting things to human genes seems more provocative, raising questions about the extent to which our genes make us human, and the boundaries of what can be considered human at all.
PUBLISHER: July/August 2003 issue of Analog: Science Fiction and Fact (Astounding). Pages 100-118. Dell Magazines. New York. ISSN: 1059-2113.
Grey Rollins' 16 page short story 'Not A Drop To Drink' examines group dynamics, mob rule, and the violence associated with religious fundamentalism within the context of a classic "hard SF" short story. The premise is simple: Colonists stuck on a world with little fresh water debate dwindling alternatives to ensure their survival. After discarding other options which have proven ineffective, scientist Lalo Helsink makes a daring proposal: genetically engineer the children to have salt glands so that they can drink the abundant seawater found on the planet. Without this modification the colony's needs will outstrip the fresh water supply in a matter of years, ensuring death.
While most are uneasy with such a draconian solution, it is seen as the only alternative to certain death. Not so for Agnes Beeson, leader of a Christian prayer group in the colony. She and her followers believe that God is punishing the colony for lack of faith, and if they pray hard enough rain will come. She believes that genetic tinkering on humans is an abomination --displaying lack of faith in God's design when God created humans.
With the colony still ambivalent, the plan goes forward and the first generation of "salties" --children with salt tracks that stem from their eyes to rid their bodies of excess salt-- is born. Beeson will not be stopped, however, and soon acts of vandalism against Helsink and the parents of the "salties" erupt in the colony. These violent acts finally culminate in a fire that consumes eight houses and kills two adults. The story ends as Helsink and the families leave the colony. Although they lack resources and are in the minority, their future seems hopeful because --through more genetic engineering in order to avoid inbreeding-- they can still reproduce in large enough numbers to establish a viable colony.
This story raised two questions for me. First, when religious fundamentalism gains power, is violence inevitable? If one is merely talking about Christian or Muslim conservatives who believe they take the Bible or Qur'an literally --I don't think that alone is enough to guarantee a violent sect. Historically there have been textual literalists who also included an ethic of non-violence in their belief systems --finding the justification for non-violence in the very texts they attempt to follow so scrupulously. I see the defining characteristic of fundamentalism as the tendency to demonize the other. When one's ethical system encourages one to see evil as an external force resident in some other group, instead of recognizing the evil that lurks within --or seeing God as Other-- it's easy to legitimize violence against groups that are different in any way.
Secondly, is it moral to genetically engineer human beings? Many in contemporary Western society draw a distinction between reproductive cloning (which they see as "playing God" with the process that leads to birth) and therapeutic cloning or gene therapies (which they see as helpful medicine.) For me 'Not a Drop to Drink' exposes some of the flaws in this kind of thinking by showing that actually changing the human genome is far more radical than using the technology to simply make a copy of another human being, flaws and all. I tend to see using genetic technology to help infertile couples --or perhaps help gay and lesbian couples pass on their genes-- as a relatively benign use of the technology. Adding and subtracting things to human genes seems more provocative, raising questions about the extent to which our genes make us human, and the boundaries of what can be considered human at all.
PUBLISHER: July/August 2003 issue of Analog: Science Fiction and Fact (Astounding). Pages 100-118. Dell Magazines. New York. ISSN: 1059-2113.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
