Like everyone else, I think, the second part of Crowley’s book left me somewhat flummoxed. Like David said, there are parts that are very clear to me, and others that I’m unsure why are there. But there is one part that means something to me.
In the 1980’s (ancient times to most of you) I was raising a small child in the country with a television that received only one channel. It was there that I met with bits and pieces of the bizarre rhetoric of Jim and Tammy Faye Baker. These two were Christian fundamentalists, apocolyptists in Crowley’s terms, who had a very popular television show. The line—how they drew audiences in—was that sometime during the 1980’s the world would end, Jesus would return, and everyone had to make ready. It must have been a very strong message, because the two raised millions upon millions, built an entire holiday resort for their congregation, and homes, boats and planes for themselves. The people who gave them money were ready to believe that they were among the chosen who would ascend into heaven. Then it became 1990. Jim was busted (I think for tax evasion) and it came out that the pair’s marriage wasn’t all it was cracked up to be. The ministry went belly up, everything was lost, and out there in TV land were all those people who had believed.
The point is that this is very strong stuff, and that it can be used to manipulate individuals and politics. I don’t know if I buy into Crowley’s version of 911, but I know that I’ll think about it now. No, it hadn’t come to my attention before. It is this kind strong rhetoric that gives people an ability to see themselves as superior that is frightening. No, Christians aren’t bad, but the rhetoric that pulls people into feeling superior is. The Nazi’s used it, the Klan used it, and it works because people feel alone, frightened and weak.
There are many Christians out there who do not spout, listen to, or promote this kind of thing, but for the most part their messages are not the ones being heard. I do not have a problem with being Christian, I have a problem with those who so strongly desire to be seen as superior or better, that they will harass, disparage, or disrespect everyone else. I think this is what Crowley, in part, is getting at. She wants us to be aware of what is going on around us, and the effect that is possible because of it. I think she may be right.
1 comment:
I wish I would've seen Maggie's post before making my first one this week, as I would've nodded to its excellence in summing up my own feeling on what is just now coming to mind as a concern in the discussion of Crowley and everyone's comments on Crowley. Reading Rice's blog post critique of Crowley, I feel that he's playing up the showmanship aspect of the evangelicals--an important point, but I think Rice does it to the detriment of discussing what *effects* these "leaders" have. I know that "leaders" is a loaded term, but the point is that whether or not they believe what they say, their words have power--and this is literally the case when the evangelicals in question are senators, congressmen and justices.
Post a Comment