This week I began reading Lift High the Cross by Ann Burlein. Her book, subtitled “Where White Supremacy and the Christian Right Converge,” attempts to use the presumed core beliefs of the Christian Identity movement and James Dobson's Focus on the Family to demonstrate that the supposedly benevolent Christian Right comes from the same roots – and shares many core values with – the White Supremacist movements led by such “ministers” as Christian Identity's Pete Peters.

I must admit that, as I began to read, I started with a deep ambivalence about the core thesis of the book. Though I would stylize myself now more as a “Progressive Libertarian,” I come from a conservative pentecostal family with a history of deep involvement in the Republican party. (My own credentials as a member of the 90's Christian Right are strong. As a child I stood on street corners holding abortion protest signs, and as a young college student I was heavily involved in the movement in Maine to prevent “sexual orientation” being added as a protected class to the state's bill of rights.) Although it is true that I have since moved to a much more politically ambiguous position, I have always seen myself as a very “tolerant” person... even before I began my major in comparative religions and left the world of established religion for the much more open interpretations of life and religion inherent in the “emergence” circles in which I increasingly find myself functioning these days!

However, as I read on, I found myself agreeing that Burlein's main point was justified – if not all of interpretations leading to her conclusion. In fact, as I read her background research on the Christian Identity movement, I found that many of the practices and methodologies inherent in the movement were extremely familiar to me from my Apostolic Pentecostal background and did, in fact, present some of the same issues which led to my separation from organized Apostolic circles. As Burlein elucidated upon the scriptural re-interpretations necessary for Peters' ideas to have legitimacy, the creation of “countermemories” which allow for the revisualizing of Biblical narratives to fit the worldview held by a particular group, and the ways in which Peters sets up an “ideal” version of masculinity and femininity which can never be truly met, I found myself recognizing many of the sources of my own discomfort within the Pentecostal tradition. This was truly brought home when Burlen pointed to the fact that Christian Identity's beliefs in Whites as Israelites were shared by Charles Parnham and that the movement began in San Francisco, birthplace of Pentecostalism!

All of this is, of course, separate from the actual racism, sexism, and genderism inherent in Apostolic circles. As a member of several churches, I had had my share of uncomfortable experiences in this department. When my childhood pastor justified the current state of Blacks in the South by using the “Ham/Canaan” narrative, when another pastor described his curly hair as being from some “ooga booga” in his blood line, when it was suggested in front of visitors who I brought to church that the “homosexual problem” could be solved by putting all of the “male gays” on one island and all of the lesbians on another, or when my wife was labeled as rebellious for asking doctrinal questions which were perfectly legitimate for myself to ask, I found myself repeatedly justifying these actions as local cultural foibles which were not representative of the actual doctrinal narratives of the overall “church” to which we belonged. However, the fear of the “other” inherent in these discourses has never made sense to me. In many ways, my search as an “Emergent Apostolic” has been to hold to the good in the socio/religious culture that is my heritage while somehow freeing myself and my family from the sexist, racist, and bigoted views which make up so much of the current dialogue.

In this, I find myself sympathizing with Dr. Dobson who – though tarred with much the same brush by Burlein – is attempting in his own way to create this sort of dynamic on a larger scale. As the culture has changed, Dobson has attempted (with sometimes more and sometimes less success) to find ways to articulate his strong cultural and religious beliefs in a way that makes sense in our post (or perhaps post-post?) modern world. While I don't agree with the ways in which his viewpoints contribute to the hegemonic power structures in our society, I do find many of his articulations useful. If nothing else, they shed light on the very struggles which I and my wife struggle with on a daily basis...

More on this later, but feel free to comment!

Cheers!

JS