The Most Hated Family in America April 1, 2007
Posted by rupertward in fundamentalism, Louis Theroux, society, TV.trackback
Tonight on BBC 2, Louis Theroux produced a documentary on the Phelps Family, dubbed the most hated family in America (you can see some highlights here). The Phelps family, with patriarch Fred Phelps, essentially make up Westboro Baptist Church (with only one non-family member, Steve, that we saw on the program, who had been a journalist doing a program on the Phelps, and then joined them!). The family and church are fundamentalist, anti-gay, anti-America, pretty much anti-everything.
The family picket funerals of soldiers who dies in Iraq (a sign of God’s judgement), other churches (they hate gay people enough), and even a store that sell Swedish hoovers (don’t ask … oh OK, apparently the Swedish authorities arrested a pastor who preached against homosexuality). It is a hate-filled, rules based, grace-less religion that seems so far removed from all that I know of God, Jesus, and the Christian Faith. There is nothing in common that I have that with this group …
Or have I?
Louis Theroux, in his disarming and yet penetrating way, gets beneath the surface. He makes a couple of penetrating observations of the Phelps family, that rings some bells for me in other segments of the Christian Church, and my own life … albeit in a less extreme form:
1. “In their world, being hated is proof they are doing the right thing … they preach a hatred, that is reflected back on them, confirming them in their beliefs.”
We may not preach a hatred like the Phelps. We may not be so angry or judgemental. But don’t we sometimes think too, that we are oppressed or marginalised? We are the ones being sidelined by the society we live in. By people at work or college. By our neighbours. Doesn’t our society increasingly hate Christians? Or hate what we stand for? And we justify ourselves by saying that it is clearly a sign that we are saying God’s word, that the world can’t accept it.
And yet we don’t often to stop to look at why they might not be liking our message. Just maybe it isn’t the message, but it is the way we saying it … just maybe we have a little anger and judgement in our voices … and that is what the world is objecting to?
Of course there will be things that the church has to say which won’t be popular. But isn’t it easier to point the finger at others, rather than examining ourselves? And doesn’t Jesus have something to say about that?
2. “If you preach that the world is full of condemned sinners, the world will begin to take that shape.”
We may not use the same language, but Louis makes the point well: what you look for, is what you see. If we expect to see evil and lawlessness, then that is what we will notice. The acts of kindness, the love, goodness, humanity of others … we tend not to notice those things, when we expect to see something else.
In fact, I think Louis is saying something more: the way we see the world, will actually shape the world in that way. If we see the world full of condemned sinners, then that is what we actually call up in people. If we see people as image bearers, even if we are broken image bearers, then something of humanity and goodness will emerge.
What do you think? Do you think it is just what we stand for that the our society seems to be rejecting or do you think we bear some responsibility for? And how do you see the world?
Rupert's Blog 
I see the world as a beautiful place with beautiful people in it.
Yes, there is war; discontent; hurt; anguish; pain; heartache; people we would rather not encounter; situations that are not ideal; different beliefs & opposing opinions … but that shouldn’t mean we become blinded by ignorance and judge others to protect our own safe bubble.
I agree that people become who we expect them to become e.g. teenagers who are all tarred with the same brush. Vasey said ‘what we see depends on where we stand and what we expect to see’ … maybe it’s time we took a few steps in another direction?
I am sure lots could be said here but I will offer some initial comments:
1 – My personal belief is that we (the church) need to listen very carefully to criticisms, especially from those that we are trying to include (i.e. non-Christians). I have said for years that the only “stumbling-block” should be Jesus and his gospel. As you say, we are told by scripture to expect that will be received either as offensive or foolish. Yet often its secondary things that offend and put people off. I think we should try harder to remove these secondary things, but by no means avoid the first category.
I guess one of the many problems with this so-called Phelps family is that they think every offense caused must be a good thing, clearly absurd. Why not set fire to King James bibles and throw them through windows? That way we spread the gospel and cause outrage all in one 🙂
I also wonder what the response of other churches in the area is to this nonsensical false church. Have they been ignored by other churches? I wonder, what is the proper response to such a “church”?
2 – not sure about this. Its seems we need, as always, to hold two opposite truths in tension.
a) the world is full of messed up, jacked-up sinners. This is not a theological point. This is a fact.
b) all people are created in God’s image; have dignity, value, and worth; and as many as will respond to Jesus will be offered eternal life, be transformed into the image of Christ, and will become a child of God.
It seems most churches emphasise either the former (leading to condemnation) or the latter (leading to self-righteousness). The trick is hold both as true and to preach both. Dr Tim Keller (Redeemer Presbyterian Church, NYC) says something similar and I think he is bang on the money on this point.
I think also, part of it comes down to intent. I know, even for most of the body of Christ, has the intent of loving people. Admittedly it may not always look that way. But I can even look back at my church life and even the screwiest, messed up, churches I’ve been in, I still saw the intention of people loving others.
That being said, it’s always good too look at things like this with a mirror being held to your face….
Good comments everyone.
Anon … (are you always the same anon who comments, or do we have a number of anon’s here????)
Good comment. I love the quote by Vasey … who is she/he? Any thoughts on the direction we should move to see things differently?
Alastair – great comment under #1. I have come across something today that illustrates your point beautifully that i might try to post later today: Jim Henderson, at Off the Map. They ask non-Christians what they think of church, not in some manipulative way to get them saved, but to see what they think about church, so we can learn!
On #2, i agree both are true. But i still think that what you emphasise is what you call up. If we emphasise “sinner” that is what we will see and what we encourage. If we emphasise image bearer meant for relationship with God, i think that is what we encourage (and of course in that context we have to talk help people see what might hold them back from the deep ingrained longing for God in every human being … which is our stubborn independence from God).
With our kids, if we tell them they are naughty, funnily enough they just get naughtier. If we tell them they good kids, they become that!
One of the things that i am learning to do is to see every human being as an image bearer … made in the image of God, and somohow reflecting God. With some people it is difficult to see, but if we can connect with that part of them that longs to be pure, good and holy …
David – i think you are right. I have been in a VERY screwed up church situation, but i do think the people involved were really trying to do their best. It just wasn’t very healthy at times!
So i guess my question here is: how can we put that mirror up to ourselves so that we don’t cause carnage in the church and the community that we are a witness to, not because of our evil intentions, but because of our inability to learn?
I caught the show as well – what a fascinating family. For me the tension between the life of the community where they were all so supportive of each other and yet their external activities which were often so negative was a real eye opener – community where we all think the same hardcore way, whatever is that hardcore [post-modern engagement is the only way for churches to be, springs to mind] means that we might all look loving but in our outside engagements we’re just as inflexible/right as the phelps think they are.
Or to put it another way to use my fave quote from someone who i can never remember – ‘if we surround ourselves with people like us we don’t have community we have a clique…’
i would say we are not facing hate in the western world – people don’t hate us they just kill us with apathy – yeah, whatever. Or plurality – yeah that is one path isn’t it, or just individuality – heh if it works for you etc.
By and large we as a church in the west are like that too, we don’t want to tread on any toes, or mess with anyone’s choices – we are almost the oppostite end of the spectrum to the phelps, which is maybe why we react in such shock to them?
So to get back to your Q – do we take our status as being ignored as proof of our rightness or are we just far too understanding and nice about it?
Maybe if we had the passion of the Phelps for the pursuits of the kingdom of God then that would be a good place – what are the counter-cultural radical ways of living that we need to be – picketing funerals is bad taste but what is the good taste actions for us to do?
Oh and i agree on theology point, as Brian Mclaren likes to say, what we focus on determines what we miss…
Very interesting Paul, thanks! I hadn’t thought of this way: we should emulate the Phelps in their zeal and “outreach”!
Actually I have said that before concerning the scientology people. Here in Edinburgh they often set up a tent during the festival, complete with plasma screens, lots young people staffing it, it all looks good and impressive. Shame about the content 🙂 But I did think that if the local churches made such an effort (and spent as much money) on outreach as they did, perhaps we would be onto something.
Rupert, thanks for your reply. How amusing that Jim is paying folks to attend church! I’ve heard he even got an Atheist to speak at one of his conferences. Apparently there were quite a few ‘Amens‘ from the audience as the Atheist denounced Christianity from the pulpit! Quite controversial… 🙂
Regarding point (2), given that you agree both points are two, why not emphasise both? As always, I think we need to ensure our message is faithful to the New Testament message. And given the centrality of death and resurrection of Jesus to NT theology, I would say the most important thing to emphasise that.
This may be a case of semantics, but I just don’t feel comfortable with any version of Christianity that starts to minimise what Jesus did for us. And currently it seems to me that if you remove (2a), you diminish the work of the cross, and also the depth of the love of God. Its like telling the parable of the prodigal son, only saying that after he left his father’s house he went to the temple and did some good deeds, then decided he was being independent so returned home again. Doesn’t quite do it for me!
So I guess really for me there are three things to talk about, essentially:
(2a) fallen world; fallen people; injustice; enslaved; oppressed; without hope; etc
(2b) But created as Image bearers; dignity, value, worth, etc
(2c) Jesus through his work (esp cross and resurrection) and through the outpouring of his spirit to his people, enables us to resolve the tension between 2a and 2b and be thrust into 2d:
(2d) Adopted child of God, restored image bearer, renewed mind, cleansed, freed, delivered, new creation, etc.
So in summary I suppose I am saying that I feel there is a danger if we just emphasise (2b), as you suggest might be a good idea, that we start preaching some kind of Judaism (i.e. cross-less Christianity) or new-age paganism.
Can you alleviate my fears? (so to speak!)
Liked the post, Rupert. Actually wanted to pick up on something Paul said about having the passion of the Phelps but in better taste.
While I totally take on board that we all mess up, none of us has a perfect understanding/witness/church, etc… I think there is something about discerning whats at the heart of things by their fruits, and to me it seems that something that is so full of hate and lacking sensitivity (picketing funerals) (or even evidence of the fruit of the spirit?) seems to have missed the heart of God as I understand by a fair way. As such there seems to be a driven-ness to it that isn’t actually godly or something to be emulated, however sincere they may be in believing they are serving God.
Which isn’t to say that we couldn’t do with more passion and zeal in our own walk with God, ‘cos of course we can. Neither is it to say that we are better than the Phelps, who maybe have gt something of the heart of God we miss in other areas (maybe ones not seen on the documentary).
Which brings me on to the other point I’d like to make. I didn’t see it myself, but I’m sure Theroux’s programme was really shocking, but don’t forget that programme makers like Theroux, Michael Moore, etc… are primarily in the entertainment business – they take a lot of material and pick the worst bits to make their case as strong as possible and as entertaining.
Finally, love the idea of listening more fully to what non-christians make of church. It is after all one of the steps to greater self-awareness to understand how others see you.
lol … I think there are one or two anons … I am the anon that you think I am though (perhaps I should create an anon-id? to distinguish!!).
re: vasey … he is Michael Vasey, author of Strangers and Friends: A New Exploration of Homosexuality and the Bible (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1995) … a text I used for my dissertation years ago but the words lingered and remind me of the limitations of my own view from time to time.
I think the greatest direction we can take is to become more aware of the bias in our own perspective … I actually missed the show so can’t comment in great detail but from the trailers I did see it appears that there wasn’t even a willingness to engage in another’s perspective and that, I believe, is dangerous.
Sometimes the answers are really simple: Phelps’ sin is hatred (murder). The worlds main sins relevant to this is bearing false witness (misrepresentation).
Disapproval of homosexual thought-life and practice because it kills the potential for the full Glory of God in someones life (I believe this but there are many other such sins) is not the same thing as hating and wishing for final vengeance upon a homosexual person. “God is not willing that any should perish”.
When you challenge people about sin, people get angry, because that makes them out to be not-like-God. Simple.
People especially get angry if they have already murdered in their heart, on account of some real or imagined sin.
The difficult bit to understand is the cross. Could someone explain it to me again?