By Rick Hiebert. All Rights Reserved. Used by Permission.
Marci McDonald, and her book, are continuing to get a lot of media attention.
To begin, her interview on The Agenda is now online at YouTube:
Meanwhile at the Winnipeg Free Press, columnist Tom Ford suggests that “Christian nationalists” are not the only religious ones active in politics.
Bene D might need to brace himself, as the Earth starts rotating in the other direction. The National Post, which has been quite critical of The Armageddon Factor, is the home of Chris Selley, the paper’s “op-eds, and editorials watch” blogger. His comment might surprise:
“Having actually read the book, we must say that while there are certainly a few eye-rolling moments, and some factual errors that have been documented, it’s far more reportorial than it is judgmental. We’ve found some of the coverage downright baffling, actually.”
Perhaps he was encouraged in this opinion after talking to her and posting their conversation at the paper’s Full Comment podcast page. It’s “Canada’s Christian Right” from May 21.
On the blogosphere, the right has moved to wondering whether Marci McDonald is channelling “Tail Gunner Joe”. “McCarthyism” directed against Christians. This is tied to Gilles Duceppe’s and NDP MP Pat Martin’s worries that a small number of Tory staffers and such had agreed to meet for lunch with Msgr. Fred Dolan, a Canadian leader of the very conservative Catholic lay group Opus Dei.
The CBC’s Evan Solomon interviewed Dolan on air, and as the controversy was brewing. blogger and journalist Deborah Gyapong, argued that the politician’s comments about the lunch singled out conservative Christians for censure in a way that Sikhs and Jews, say, would not shunned be in Ottawa. She has been continuing with the story over the past few days. Ottawa Citizen columnist David Warren was dismayed. Ezra Levant, in a blog post that will no doubt be appearing rewritten in the National Post, makes similar arguments and comes right out and writes “McCarthyism of the left”.
How may this be relevant to a discussion of McDonald’s book, given that it really doesn’t mention Opus Dei in depth at all? Well, both Gyapong and Levant cite McDonald’s book as an example of how the atmosphere may be posioned against conservative Christians. A “catalyst”.
So, I mention it here to suggest that any mentions of Opus Dei and McDonald on the right may merely muddy the waters and be a possible distraction. It may arguably be a common symptom of a rhetorical disease, but “Nurse McDonald” didn’t cause it in the patient.
As I have mentioned Opus Dei, I should also go on to say that Duceppe and Martin, both members of left-leaning parties, would naturally be worried about the group, along with other progressives north of the 49th, even if Marci McDonald had never written her book. Comments and actions by Opus Dei leaders in the United States have worried progressives down there as well, leading them to wonder whether the lay group is respectful of pluralism and democracy.
I don’t know much about the group myself , but here is a place to start.
UPDATE: As Ezra Levant hinted he would yesterday, he’s written an op-ed in today’s National Post, which follows up on his concerns.
In the Drew Marshall interview and this TVO interview Ms. McDonald points out there are two errors in the book which will be corrected by Random House in the next edition.
She goes through them in more detail in the Marshall interview.
Ms. McDonald also points out the second wave of criticism is occurring, and that this was completely expected.
The Agenda: 15:45
“It’s an interesting tactic. The finding errors is the second wave of criticism, the first wave was just plain name calling, and that was very interesting to me because I had warned that if we opened up this debate, these wedge issues this is the kind of polarized, venomous, vitriolic, ad hominum attack that we could be open to 30 years down the road here, the way we are seeing in the United States.”
10 or Conservative Party MP’s were asked to come on The Agenda, one said he would but it was too late to get him on.
I finally had the opportunity to examine at least a few dozen pages of her book on Google Books.
As a former PAOC pastor and fellow traveler of the Watchmen for the Nations folks, I noticed several factual mistakes, similar to the ones Ezra Levant pointed out. So I am sure there are many more, but they don’t really amount to much. Marci McDonald wasn’t at the events that I was at, so I would not expect her to get all the facts correct. Two facts will be corrected in the next edition, but I would expect that the factual errors would be several dozen in number.
That being said, it is not the factual mistakes that are troubling, reporters frequently miss things they write about. Rather, it is the tone of her writing, the points that she tries to make and conclusions she draws that will leave the reader with the impression that something far more sinister is happening than is really the case.
I did not have the chance to read much, but several events that I know well stand out to me and I think that McDonald is doing a particularly bad job. For example, on Page 162 she writes about David Demian’s message about Generation X saying,
“In charismatic circles, prophetic pronouncements are regards with the same reverence that the Vatican reserves for papal edicts. When David Demian declared at a Watchmen for the Nations gathering that Canada’s end times destiny would be realized by Generation X, she knew she had received a divine commission. But unlike Papal edicts, Demian’s decree carried a cryptic corollary: ‘This generation must learn to walk backward before they run forward,’ he declared, leaving the assembled Watchmen mystified. For Krystow, the riddle was soon solved. During a Watchmen Gathering in Montreal she had a vision of a broom sweeping away debris to expose forgotten ruins. To write a book unearthing Canada’s Christian origins”
Factually this is mostly correct, but McDonald is skewing the narrative to fit her thesis.
- First, charismatic Christians have widely varying views on prophetic messages, including those who attend Watchmen Gatherings and many of their leaders.
- Second, Watchmen meetings are not about, or focused on prophetic messages by leaders. Nor is it about politics. It is principally about Christians coming together (from nearly every denomination, including Amish), to pray and to listen together to what God might be saying and acting on it.
- Third, David Demian had always been talking about a special role for Generation X, so what he said was nothing new.
- Fourth, I was there in Kelowna, I heard the message and it was not a “prophetic decree” nor it did not leave me mystified. It was a fairly straightforward exhortation to a younger generation to honour the older generation, taking by analogy the story of the sons of Noah (look it up to see what he meant by walking backwards). It was very clear and concise and it was directed to the next gathering in Charlottown in the summer of 2002.
- Fifth, it was not a riddle that Krystow solved, in fact it had nothing to do with her. However, it would seem that Krystow was inspired by the message and from what I have heard about the book, it did follow the spirit of what Demian spoke about. It was not so much about the Christian origins of Canada but about Christian Canadians in history.
So in one paragraph McDonald paints a picture that doesn’t really exist. This is worse than getting minor facts wrong. However, through the book, she attributes considerable power to David Demian as if he was pulling strings behind the scenes. Demian and Watchmen did not “launch†the National House of Prayer, or I would have known about it. They endorsed it, but that is a different thing.
Another theme that I find troubling is her accusation that Conservative efforts to support Israel and the military is in fact an attempt to hasten the coming of Armageddon and the return of Christ. Funny things is, Evangelicals, including Christian Zionists don’t talk much about Armageddon anymore. But what I remember from years ago, most of the stuff coming from the End Times industry seemed to advocate a military build up to *avoid* Armageddon rather than promote it.
Her major error is boiling it all down to two groups, Christian Reconstructionists and Dispensational Premillennialists, yet most of the people she talks about fit into neither of those two camps. From what I can tell, she names only one Reconstructionist sympathizer, Tim Bloedow, who is not particularly influential. Maybe I am wrong, but that is all I have been able to find so far.
As I see it, Christian Reconstructionists are a dwindling group of prolific authors who have one idea, and that’s about it. They have no followers to speak of, no churches, lead no movements and are not particularly well liked or well received by most Evangelicals. The have lost no love on Premillinnialists, and if they were ever in a position of political power, Pentecostals like me would be the first ones with their backs to the wall. Life under Christian Reconstructionism, according to their own written work, would be rather medieval.
But on the oft quoted page 359 she attributes the vision of a medieval style Christian Reconstructionist scoiety to the likes of Krystow and the Parkers.
“…Waving their bright flags on the lawns of the Parliament Building, extolling the country’s Christian roots to a compelling soft-rock beat, they might seem to offer a refreshing recipe for morality and national pride, but their agenda—while outwardly inclusive and multi-racial–is ultimately exclusionary. In their idealized Christian nation, non-believers–aetheists [sic], non-Christians and even Christian secularists–have no place, and those in violation of biblical law, notably homosexuals and adulterers, would merit severe punishment and the sort of shunning that once characterized a society where suspected witches were burned. Theirs is a dark and dangerous vision, one that brooks no dissent and requires the dismantling of key democratic institutions.â€
I don’t know much about Krystow or the Parkers, but I do know many of those who partner with Watchmen for the Nations, who have similar belief systems and this statement she makes is completely ridiculous. What she did was a bait and switch, putting the words of Reconstructionists into the mouths of others.
And most of the people she calls “Dispensational Premillennialists” are in fact not, so again she betrays a huge lack of insight into her subject.
It is not so simple. The people in her book are not mindless followers of charismatic leaders, engaging in groupthink. There are a wide variety of views among them about how to engage culture, society, etc. It is important to consider what is meant by statements such as “End Time†as it means different things to different people.
As I write this and refer back to the book again, I am confronted with more errors and misconceptions. So I might as well stop as I have to work to earn a living.
Over the years I have responded to critics of Pentecostalism, the Charismatic movement, Evangelicals and various revival movements, and critics would do well to heed the advice of my Seminary theology prof, James Beverly. If you are going to attribute a belief or worldview to someone, rather than read between the lines of their statements, written work, and second hand reports, it would really help to simply call them and ask, “do you believe __________?†Marci has clearly not done her homework.
Mike, I am interested to hear what capacity you were involved with Watchmen and PAOC. I’m somewhat skeptical of your claim of involvement when you admit to not knowing much about Kryskow or the Parkers. Anyone involved with Watchmen at any serious capacity would be well aware of these folks.
Tim, I was aware of them, and that was about it. But they were never the focus of Watchmen meetings I was at. If you knew about Watchmen, you would know the ministries or organizations of individual participants were rarely acknowledged or highlighted.
So the problem is that McDonald has created this impression that there was more going on than there really was.
I was involved as both a participant and as one of the “Fathers” for some national gatherings in 2001 and 2002 and was deeply involved, on a leadership level in the Alberta Watchmen meetings until I moved to Ontario in 2006. And I was part of the organizing team for the Edmonton stop of the LaDanse tour in 2003.
So Mark, you’re saying that since 2006, you really aren’t sure of the ongoings then, correct? Based upon my reading of the entire book by McDonald, it’s a lot more current than what you cite.
Tim,
I have not been attending the as many of the Gatherings since then, nor have I been in a leadership role, but I have been in close contact with many of them, including key leaders as well as receiving updates and invitations from Watchmen. Yes, they did mention Krystow and the Parkers, among other things, but only in passing.
Bear in mind that both were established long before 2006.
But perhaps I am totally wrong and it is true (as you seem to believe) that Watchmen had changed their MO since that time and were redirecting all of their efforts towards politically subversive activities.
I am curious, though, did they make the change? *please note the sarcasm*