Review of Jesus Camp (2006) by Travis T — 23 Jun 2010

This documentary hits me on many different levels. Doctrinally-speaking, although there are periods of genuine Christian devotion, there are also very worrisome statements and practices that raise questions about the correct methods of religious instruction for children. Methodologically-speaking, though, there are too many holes in the way the film was put together to put forth a valid argument. The point of the film seems to be that evangelicals are moving to take over the nation, which was confirmed with the nomination and approval of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. While that in itself has problems (Alito's a Catholic, which still troubles some parts of the evangelical landscape), there are many other flaws in the logic of the film.

First, the film appears to equate Pentecostalism (Pastor Fischer and Christ Triumphant Church) with the broader evangelical movement, which is completely false. Although not explicitly stated, there weren't any non-Pentecostal groups to compare in the film.

Second, although evangelicalism as a movement is spreading quickly throughout Christianity, to treat it as a monolith is an egregious generalization. There are as many differences among evangelicals as there are among members of any other religious group (to the point where there's big disagreements among academics as to what 'evangelical' really means, due to the diversity of belief and practice).

Third, Fischer's camp and the church were selected for a reason - to set it up as a straw-man to serve the greater goal of the film. Given that some of the practices and statements would cause many Christians to give pause and/or pass judgment (even the evangelicals that the film wishes to equate with Fischer), the representatives of the film cannot truly be called representative of the evangelical movement in America. These questionable moments are the basis of the film's underlying premise that evangelicals are trying to take over the country and (essentially) build a theocracy.

Fourth, Papantonio is seen as a kind of narrator in the film through his radio talk show, seemingly putting forth the point-of-view of the film's crew. However, some of his statements were as alarmist as the very groups he was denouncing. While Fischer was claiming an us-vs-the world mentality to her children congregants, he was proclaiming the virtues of a world-vs-"fundamentalist" mentality. He ended up being merely the mirror image of Fischer, even though that was most likely not the intent of the film.

Lastly, a foundational aspect of the film seems to be that this kind of religious instruction is wrong, including child evangelism and homeschooling. For homeschooling, the statistic provided was that 75% of homeschoolers were identified as evangelical. But what about the other 25%? Are they following the same kind of 'indoctrination'? The use of the statistic seems to suggest that homeschooling is wrong merely because of the numbers involved. Had evangelicals only composed 15% of homeschoolers, there wouldn't be an outcry. Getting back to the last point, the presentation of this material suggests that these are questionable practices solely because of the presence of 'evangelicalism'. But why should evangelicals be treated differently than any other belief system? If a parent wants to educate their child as a secularist, why is that any different? One can say that secularist children are taught to have a more open mind, but there really isn't any data to back that up. Instead, many secularists look down on those who profess religious belief systems, which is the same kind of value judgment seemingly denounced by the film's spokesperson (Papantonio).

All in all, the film has some memorable and debate-engendering images. However, the weak construction of the argument makes it only a mild conversation-starter, instead of an informed, thought-provoking instrument that would have been much more constructive toward the debates skimmed over in the film.