Jeff Sharlet, contributing editor of Rolling Stone, is author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism At The Heart of American Power.  His book about the group best-known for sponsoring the National Prayer Breakfast has gained renewed interest since its hardback publication in 2008.

With two of its members confessing to marital infidelity — Senator John Ensign and Governor Mark Sanford — interest in the Family and its multiple mansions in Washington, D. C. and abroad is at a new height.  Most recently, Rep. Zach Wamp of Tennessee, commenting on the scandal of his Family housemate John Ensign, refused to discuss his housemates or their living arrangements in the Family’s house on C Street in D. C..

This is the 3rd and final installment in my 3-part interview with Sharlet.  Part 1 and Part 2 round out the interview.

Chuck Warnock:  A) Do you believe the influence of the Family is increasing or decreasing?  B) How do you view President Obama’s remarks at the 2009 National Prayer Breakfast where he mentions the history of the national prayer breakfast beginning in Seattle?  C) Do you know if your book has had any influence on how the Obama administration relates to Doug Coe, or any of the other organizations or leaders of the religious right?

Jeff Sharlet:  A) I don’t know; B) with dismay; politics and opinions aside, that was just shoddy history; C) I don’t know about the Obama administration, but at least one religious right organization bought bulk copies of the book for distribution to its supporters with the caveat that while I’m not a Christian, they think the story I tell is an important one. This group happens to have a lot of first-hand experience with the Family, so they’re in a good position to know.

CW:  Finally, many of the evangelical leaders you mention are now either dead, or moving off the public stage due to age.  What is your opinion of how a younger generation views the blending of religious devotion and political power that you write about in The Family?  Will the Family survive another 75 years, or is it a vestige a fading era?

JS:  That’s the question of the new millennium, isn’t it? The Family may, indeed, be fading — I don’t think they have anyone of Coe’s charisma or leadership talent to succeed him. The current day-to-day leaders, Dick Foth and Richard Carver, are uninspiring. David Coe, Doug’s son, is, in the words of one Family insider, kind of like the Joaquin Phoenix character in Gladiator. But I think the ideas of the Family will prosper. Indeed, I think they’re well-suited to the moment — ostensibly bi-partisan, diplomatic in tone if not in substance, relentlessly amiable, even in the cause of murderous regimes. Reminds me of Rick Warren — not a Family man, but heir to a certain style of politicized religion, much more the descendent of Abraham Vereide, Family founder, than of Jerry Falwell. I’m heartened by the expanded vision of a lot of young Christian conservatives, thinking more seriously about global poverty than had previous generations; but I’m disheartened by their responses, naive at best and dangerous at worst, as in their support for authoritarian governments in Rwanda and Uganda.

Beyond that, I can’t say. You’re a pastor — you tell me.

_____________________

Read my review of The Family at Amicus Dei.  A YouTube video of NBC’s reporting on the Family features footage of Doug Coe, then leader of the Family, referring to Hitler and Mao as role models of leadership and commitment.  It is very disturbing.

Note: I purchased my copy of The Family and received no inducement to read and review the book, or to interview Jeff Sharlet.  I believe Sharlet makes a compelling case for more transparency in religious life, especially as it intersects the public square.  Whether you agree or disagree with Sharlet, he has produced a comprehensive book on a previously almost-secret organization that bears reading as a cautionary tale about the seduction of power.

This is Part 2 of my interview with Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power. This week, The Family is  #5  in Amazon.com’s sales rankings.  If you’d like to catch up, Part 1 of the interview is here.  My review of The Family is at my blog, Amicus Dei.

The Family tells the story of a secretive quasi-evangelical organization, founded in the late 1930s, which has insinuated itself into the halls of power in Washington and other countries around the world.  In the U. S., the Family is the behind-the-scenes sponsor of the National Prayer Breakfast each February in Washington, D. C..

The Family organization operates several residences, one of them “the house at C Street,” where several United States senators and congressmen live when in Washington, D. C..  Two Family members have recently been in the news for marital infidelity — Senator John Ensign of Arizona, and Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

Sharlet says The Family “is a story about two great spheres of belief, religion and politics, and the ways in which they are bound together by the mythologies of America.” – The Family, p.2

Interview with Jeff Sharlet, part 2:

CW:  You report that Doug Coe and others in the Family make repeated references to Adolf Hitler, Josef Stalin, and other totalitarian leaders as examples of the kind of effective leadership the Family aspires to.  Did this strike you as odd, and how do you account for the use of these ruthless dictators as role models for the Family?

JS:  Um, yes. And I said as much when I was spending time with them, then again during interviews with Family associates such as Senator Sam Brownback, Representative Frank Wolf, and former Bush White House special aide Doug Kuo. Kuo, whom I like a great deal, insists that Coe uses these killers simply as metaphors. To which the only response I can think of is, You can’t think of a better metaphor for Jesus than Hitler? I make clear in the book that Coe is not a neo-Nazi. Indeed, he cites fascists and communists and even Osama bin Laden. It’s not their ideology he admires, it’s their methods. The Family fetishizes strength. Or, as Coe put it in an interview with my colleague Tor Gjerstadt of the Norwegian Dagbladet (a large daily there), power.

CW:  What, in your opinion, are the most objectionable beliefs or practices of the Family?  On what do you base your evaluation of these beliefs and practices?  In other words, what is your particular background or experience that qualifies you to write a book like The Family?

JS:  Beliefs are a matter of conscience; but practices, especially those of the powerful, can be a matter of public concern. The Family has facilitated support for dictators such as Ferdinand Marcos, Suharto, Siad Barre, General Park, and even a Central American death squad leader convicted of torture in the U.S. This, to me, is objectionable, as it is to many Family members who learn about it. I’m inspired by the example, for instance, of the Rev. Ben Daniel, deeply involved as a young man. But he quit when he learned that the Family leaders he’d looked up to were using their access to the powerful to represent the interests of the most murderous elements from countries such as Nicaragua and El Salvador. Or there’s Cliff Gosney, a longtime participant, a deeply Christian man, who quit when he realized that the Family was using him and the foreign leader for whom he was the Family’s point man, South Africa’s Mangosuthu Buthelezi, for political gain rather than spiritual development. I’m concerned, too, by the practice of secrecy. “The more invisible you can make your organization,” Doug Coe has preached, “the more influence it will have.” He cites the mafia as a good example, and Family members like to refer to their movement as the “Christian mafia.” That’s just not a good model in a democracy like ours. I have the highest respect for citizens of all beliefs who make their arguments openly in the public square, fundamentalists included. I’ve been heartened by the support the book has received from self-professed fundamentalists who are as bothered by these anti-democratic practices as I am. We may not agree on much, these fundamentalists and me, but we agree that democracy depends on us engaging in our arguments in good faith, with plenty of sunlight.

As for my background, I’m not sure what you mean. You want my professional credentials? Or are you asking me for my religious beliefs? If it’s the former, I think they qualify me: I’ve been a working journalist for sixteen years, have written for a large number of mainstream national publications, have focused on religion for about 14 years, have taught graduate level religious studies at New York University and lectured at colleges, universities, and churches around the country, have been positively reviewed by both conservative and liberal critics, have won prizes and been a finalist for prizes, etc., etc. I’m proud of the fact that Ann Coulter wrote that I’m one of the stupidest journalists in America, and even prouder of the fact that she did so based on her own clumsy misreading of scripture.

But if it’s the latter — my beliefs — my first answer is, What does it matter? The facts are the facts. And then my second answer is contained within the last pages of the book, in which I write openly of my own beliefs, particularly my commitment to the Book of Exodus as inspiration for thinking about the role of faith in public life. I’m not a Christian, though half my family is. But I’ve written for Christian publications and published many Christian writers. I’ve been engaged in that conversation for a long time. I think it’s one of the most important conversations in America.

All of the above is a long-winded way of saying I’m a citizen.

__________

Part 3 of my interview with Jeff Sharlet will appear on Thursday, July 16.  In Part 3, Sharlet comments on the continuing influence of the Family, and his thoughts on the future of the Family and evangelicalism.

This is part 1 of my exclusive interview with Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family.  Parts 2 and 3 will be posted Wednesday and Thursday of this week.

Interview with Jeff Sharlet, author of The Family: Part 1
by Chuck Warnock

Jeff Sharlet is author of The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism At The Heart of American Power, number five on Amazon’s bestseller list this week. The Family tells the story of a secretive quasi-evangelical organization, founded in the late 1930s, which has insinuated itself into the halls of power in Washington and other countries around the world.

The Family operates several residences, one of them “the house at C Street,” where several United States senators and congressmen live when in Washington, D. C..  Two Family members have recently been in the news for marital infidelity — Senator John Ensign of Arizona, and Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina.

In 2002, Sharlet lived at one of the Family’s many centers, Ivanwald, giving him an insider’s perspective to an organization that remains an enigma in evangelical life.  But the story of the Family is also one of intrigue, international power politics, and a self-styled religion described by its practitioners as “Jesus plus nothing.” In short, The Family is one of the most fascinating and disturbing books I have ever read.

After reading The Family, I contacted Jeff Sharlet who agreed to a blog interview.  I submitted the following questions.  Both my questions and his answers are unedited.  For my review of The Family, visit my blog AmicusDei.com.

About the Author: “Jeff Sharlet is a contributing editor for Harper’s and Rolling Stone, and a visiting research scholar at New York University’s Center for Religion and Media, where he has taught journalism and religious studies.  He is co-author, with Peter Manseau, of Killing the Buddha, and the editor of TheRevealer.org.  He lives in Brooklyn, New York.” — from About the Author, The Family.

Here is Part 1 of my interview with the author of The Family, Jeff Sharlet:

CW:  At 454 pages, including notes and index, The Family covers evangelical fundamentalism from the period of Jonathan Edwards in the 1700s to the Office of Faith-Based Initiatives in the George W. Bush White House, all centered around a group called the Family, which is best known for leading the National Prayer Breakfast in Washington, D.C. each February.  How long did it take you to research and write The Family?

JS:  Five years of direct work, but I’ve been writing about religion, history, and politics for much longer than that. I stumbled into the Family in 2002, with no particular intentions and completely unaware of its political identity. When I left, I thought there might be more of a story, so I traveled to their archives at the Billy Graham Center in Wheaton, Illinois. What I found there both shocked and intrigued. I ended up writing an article for Harper’s, and then a book proposal, largely so that I could afford to go back to the archives and keep digging.

In addition to pastoring a small church, we garden. Actually, Debbie does the real gardening, I just dig holes where she tells me to. Here’s a walk from our backdoor to the vegetable garden and beyond. Note the 1-day old bluebirds at the very end of the video. I’m not posting a sermon today because we have a gospel quartet singing tomorrow for the entire service. Enjoy the garden tour!

In their infinite wisdom, our board of supervisors has decided the way out of our county’s financial squeeze (we’re the 2nd poorest county in Virginia) is to allow beer and wine sales on Sundays.  One supervisor commented tonight, “This isn’t about religion, it’s about economics.”

I would agree.  I don’t think Christians can make a credible case any longer for Sunday blue laws.  Blue laws restrict goods that may be bought and sold on Sundays here in Virginia, as they do in many states, although fewer now than in past years.

Baptists say we believe in the separation of church and state, and if we do, we should not look to the state — or county — to protect Sundays.   Our blue laws don’t protect the Jewish sabbath, or the Seventh-Day Adventist day of worship, so why should Christians get special treatment from the government, local or otherwise?  No, I don’t think we can make a civil case for keeping blue laws.

But we can make an economic case.  The assumption our supervisors are making is that Sunday sales of beer and wine will generate more tax revenue for our struggling county.  However, let’s take a closer look at this assumption:

1.  The supervisors don’t really know how much revenue this will generate.  No economic impact study has been done, probably because the county can’t afford it.

2.  No one has considered the economic cost of allowing beer and wine sales on Sunday.  Adding one more day per week increases the opportunity to buy beer and wine by more than 15%.  Will our county supervisors also increase the sheriff’s department budget by 15% to put more deputies in patrol cars on Sundays?  Will the supervisors increase the budgets of local rescue squads and fire departments who respond to car wrecks?  Do we know what percentage of car accidents, domestic abuse cases, and child abuse cases involve alcohol?  And, are we going to increase the budgets of all those agencies by 15% to handle the potential increase?

3.  The state of Virginia does not allow alcohol sales on election day, presumably so that our citizens can make clear-headed voting decisions.  Why not establish one day a week, Sunday or not, to stop alcohol sales just to give us all a breather from the problems associated with alcohol?  We regulate who can purchase alcohol, where it can be sold, in what types of containers and quantities, and the tax on alcohol sales.  Why not regulate the days on which it is sold on a regular basis?

4.  Finally, our county is not a destination for tourists or those seeking recreation.  The only people needing to buy alcohol on Sundays are most likely the ones who have problems with it in the first place.  Just like state lotteries, alcohol sales are geared to those who can least afford it.  Our county already has a higher than average rate of substance abuse, and a long culture of alcohol-related crime, including bootlegging.

I agree with our esteemed county supervisor — this isn’t about religion.  It is about economics.  I just wish our supervisors would do their homework before trying to buffalo us with their new-found concern for “keeping our shopping dollars in Pittsylvania county.”

Lifting the ban on Sunday beer and wine sales without assessing the impact is bad public policy, economic or otherwise.  I for one plan to oppose their efforts.  What do you think?