Curious Christian

5 responses to “Focus on The Family”

1. 

   Chris S

   2008-06-23

   Phillip Adams recently did a story about the family on late night live. http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2008/2276547.htm well worth a listen.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   Mike Lowe

   2008-06-24

   I don’t know much about The Family, and being a left-leaning theologically liberal sort of chap I don’t have a lot of sympathy for them as depicted in these articles. But, frankly, I am suspicious of Jeff Sharlet’s motives and objectivity.
   The reason for my suspicion is that he has twice mentioned Moral Re-Armament in connection with The Family in ways which distort the truth and smack of propaganda. MRA is something I do know about as I work with its successor, Initiatives of Change.
   In an interview on Alternet http://www.alternet.org/rights/87665/ Sharlet says ‘Yet one of their major influences was Frank Buchman of Moral Re-Armament in the 1930s. He was all but “out” as gay. But he was also one of the early architects of anti-gay invective on the Christian right. He even wrote a pamphlet on how to spot gay men: their green shoes and their affection for suede.’
   There are several holes in this statement as far as I can see. One: If Buchman was a ‘major influence’ then The Family failed to take on board the most important parts of Buchman’s message. One of my colleagues here in Melbourne had a run-in with Doug Coe in the 1980s in which Coe, apparently told him he didn’t agree with the ‘four absolutes’ of love, purity, unselfishness and love, advocated by Buchman as guides for living, and that he disagreed with MRA’s emphasis on making restitution for things we have done wrong. Also, while it is true that MRA aimed to reach the ‘up and out’ it was never at the expense of working with the poor. Some of MRA’s most effective work was in the slums of East London and Calcutta and the favela’s of Rio de Janeiro.
   Secondly, while there has been a lot of speculation about Buchman’s sexuality it is far from truth to say that he was ‘all but “out” as gay’. And the pamphlet referred to was not written by Buchman but by some of his followers. Yes, it is there and not something which I or anyone else I know of involved in MRA / Initiatives of Change would regard with anything but embarrasment. Incidentally, I have a gay brother whom I love, and so I’m particularly sensitive on these issues of inclusivity.
   To claim that Buchman was ‘one of the early architects of anti-gay invective’ is also going way over the top. The fact is that the anti-gay invective has a long and unhappy history and the present day antics of Archbishops of Sydney and Nigeria owe nothing to Buchman or MRA.
   I know this is only a small part of what Sharlet has written, and I don’t know enough to comment on the rest. But because of the distortions that I do know about I take the rest with a pinch of salt.

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Steve Hayes

   2008-06-24

   When I read your post I thought wou were talking about the Children of God.
   http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_God

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Matt Stone

   2008-06-24

   Steve, yes, when I first came across the article my first thoughts were of the Children of God too. You’d think they would have steared clear of that label to avoid confusion.

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Matt Stone

   2008-06-24

   Mike, thanks for your comments. As I indicated I am reserving judgement till I read more. While I am hardly a sympathizer for hawkish Christianity, as my recent post on religious war should make clear, and am somewhat repulsed some of the opinions reportedly held by this network, methinks this is a too much of a gift horse for spin doctors and that we should always tread wearily when the work “conspiracy” comes up.

   LikeLike

   Reply