Ryan and Debi Cragun’s Blog

Our trip to Southern Utah was pretty short, just 3 days.  My in-laws wanted to see the Shakespearean festival (though Cyrano de Bergerac is not by Shakespeare), Zion National Park, and Les Miserables.  I suggested Mountain Meadows and one other stop: Colorado City.  For those not familiar with Colorado City, Arizona, it’s a town literally on the border between Utah and Arizona (strategically placed to avoid authorities when required).  It’s also the base of operations for The Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the increasingly well-known polygamist group, some of the members of which were the residents of the ranch in El Dorado Texas that was raided in April.  Debi and I recently wrote book chapters on the FLDS (the bookshould be coming out in the next 6 months or so), and I’ve heard lots of stories about the FLDS, so I figured stopping by Colorado City might be fun.  We originally planned to stop there after Zion National Park, but we spent more time in the park than originally planned, so we moved it to Wednesday and stopped there on our way home.

We didn’t really know what we wanted to see or what we could see in Colorado City, but we figured we’d drive around and see whatever we could and then hopefully stop for lunch somewhere.  Often Colorado City is referred to as Colorado City/Hilldale, as the town is kind of split right on the border - Colorado City is in Arizona and Hilldale is in Utah.  Since we were driving south from Utah, we passed through Hilldale first. Hilldale is, well, pretty much non-existent.  The majority of the city is in Arizona.  Only the very northern edge of the settlement is in Utah.  So, it really is more accurate to say Colorado City.

Without a particular plan of attack, we simply turned down a street and started driving around randomly.  As luck would have it, the best part of our trip happened at the very first house on the very first street we drove down.  I had heard stories that people in Colorado City are very distrustful of outsiders and that they will stop and stare at you if you drive into town.  I wasn’t sure if that was true, but it really is.  As we turned down the first street, we saw a woman dressed in the standard FLDS dress with her kids working on the lawn outside.  All of the kids stopped what they were doing and stared at us as we drove by.  We tried to get a picture that first time, but didn’t get a good one and felt pretty awkward doing so anyway.  So, we snuck up on them later and snapped this shot:

You can see the mother to the right, hoeing away.  The kids are all dressed in the standard outfits: girls in full-length dresses, boys in jeans and long sleeve shirts.  As we passed them this time, we waved.  Only the youngest kids waved back while all the others simply stared.  I’m not surprised by their response, but I am fascinated: the FLDS are definitely secretive and wary of outsiders.  I would kind of feel bad for my voyeurism, but I really am interested in them from a sociological perspective, so I can kind of justify snapping these photos.

We drove around the town for another 30 to 45 minutes, just seeing what we could see.  I don’t think anyone has written an article on this yet, but someone should definitely write an article on the architecture/urban planning of a secretive polygamist sect.  I was absolutely fascinated by what we saw.  If someone is interested in writing this paper, maybe the following will give you a good start (and then we can collaborate on an actual article).  I’ll begin with the most common house type we saw, something like the house in this picture:

It’s a very large home, which makes sense considering the sizes of families among the FLDS.  But there are several things that are noteworthy about these homes.  First, unlike homes for monogamous couples, they aren’t necessarily built for the aesthetic value but to maximize space.  This is particularly apparent in some of the other homes we photographed (see below), but also apparent in the above home - the more rooms the better.  Also, while you can’t see it very well in this low-resolution photo, the exterior of the house isn’t finished stucco but rather wooden particle board painted gray, which is pretty common among the homes we saw.  Second, notice the additions: the small building to the left is an addition to this home and there is a trailer to the right.  Neither of the two additions fit, aesthetically, with the larger home, reinforcing the idea that construction in the FLDS community is more about space than about architectural appeal.  I have to wonder if that is unique in residential communities.

This next photo does a better job illustrating the pragmatism of the FLDS.  Similar to the above home, but even more simplistic and less stylistic, this home is basically an enormous box with virtualy no adornments.  Also like the above home, the exterior is wooden particle board, this time painted brown, with no attempt at adding a finished exterior, like stucco or brick.  This is about the most utilitarian home you can get: it’s a massive box with tons of space for wives and kids.

Though slightly less common than traditional foundation homes, a fairly common sight was trailer homes like the one in the photo below.  There are hundreds of these homes scattered throughout Colorado City.  Again, this is probably a simple matter of utilitarianism: If you run out of space for your wives and kids, you buy a trailer and set it up in a field near your home.

The three homes above also illustrate the lack of interest in maintaining one’s yard, which was also very common in Colorado City.  Of the several hundred homes we saw, very few had any significant landscaping.  This is reaffirmed when you visit the town’s cemetery (which doubles as a monument to Prophet Leroy S. Johnson):

While we were in the cemetery there were sprinklers on and it was apparent some minor attempts at landscaping the cemetery had taken place.  But it remained mostly sandy soil and weeds.  There was virtually no grass and no clear lines demarcating sand from grass or walking areas from viewing areas.  I have a rather cynical theory to explain this that goes along with my assertions of pragmatism: The community wants to give the veneer of been clean, tidy, and well-kept, but the time required in simply handling the hundreds of kids is too much.  Additionally, while there are weak attempts at landscaping, the real interests of the community lie in maintaining their lifestyle and earning money, neither of which require nice landscaping.  Finally, maintaining a nice lawn in a desert area like Colorado City is probably both prohibitively expensive and time consuming.  It would require making that a priority, which is clearly not of interest in the community.  As a result, there is virtually no landscaping of note in the community.

Another point of architectural interest is the preponderance of abandoned homes like this one:

We probably saw one to two dozen homes just like this - framed up, but missing windows and inhabitants.  I don’t know what the explanation is for these homes, so I’m just going to propose a couple of possibilities.  First, the trust that holds the communal funds for the FLDS is now in receivership by the State of Arizona.  With limited access to the hundreds of millions in the fund, construction may have ceased on new projects.  Another explanation may be the reign of Warren Jeffs.  Once he took control of the religion he kicked out a number of men who were seen as threats.  These homes may stand as tributes to and reminders of the importance of obedience to the prophet.  I really am just guessing here, so if anyone reading this has a better explanation, I’d love to hear it.

Another element of the architecture of the community that is of interest is the preponderance of large privacy walls.  Of course you see privacy fences in cities and towns all over, but rarely do you see walls as imposing as this:

Walls like this were pretty common, though they weren’t all as tall as this one.  The walls are also pragmatic - to keep people like me from seeing what is going on behind them.

Despite having everything in common (supposedly), there are also clear class differences in the community, which are also apparent in the architecture.  Compare the home in the photo below to the homes shown earlier:

I’m guessing the quality of the homes reflects the religious hierarchy as well.

Another strange architectural feature is the lack of signage on most buildings.  By far the largest building in town, this massive white building, had no sign indicating its function.  From its architecture I’m inclined to believe this is the main church for the FLDS in the community:

The lack of signage is pretty common.  Again, I’m guessing this is a privacy thing: If you don’t know what the functions of buildings are, it’s hard to find people doing things in those buildings.  The lack of signage was also apparent on the restaurant/cafe where we ate lunch (which was the second most interesting thing we saw) - Vermillion Restaurant:

The sign is under the awning and not facing the street but between this building and another.  You really have to look for it to find it.

I knew they had a restaurant or two in town and was hoping to eat in town just to get a little bit of the experience.  We found this cafe near the center of town.  On the door was a sign that said, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone.”  Next to that sign was a sign that said, “Absolutely no cameras or video equipment permitted inside.”  As I was really interested in seeing how things functioned in the community, I didn’t take my camera in, though I would have loved to have gotten a photo of the inside of the cafe.  Inside was basically one large room with a counter at one end and restrooms at the other.  There were no booths, just very long tables with chairs.  It was completely open with no pillars, so you could see everyone inside.  You wrote your order on a slip of paper at the counter, they rang you up, then delivered it to your table.  The food selection was pretty interesting as much of it was simply frozen prepared food that they would heat up and deliver (e.g., mozzarella sticks, pizza sticks, chicken sticks, fish sticks, etc.).  We placed our orders and headed to a table to wait for them.

The owners of the restaurant are clearly FLDS - the woman who took our order was wearing the traditional dress and had the hairstyle that is common among the FLDS.  There were a couple of other tables occupied.  One was occupied by several men, all of whom were wearing long-sleeve shirts, jeans, and hats.  They all had cell phones and frequently made calls.  The other table was occupied by a mother with four kids, all girls and all under the age of about 8.  We were the only non-FLDS in the cafe.  It was fascinating to see the young girls respond to our presence.  There was one girl, probably around 4 or 5, who clearly recognized us as outsiders.  We were just as novel to her as she was to us.  She couldn’t stop staring at us.  She and her older sister kept running around our table to get a better look at us.  We smiled and waved and said hello, but she was reticent to respond.  We tried to be as cordial as possible, but the adults, who did glance at us furtively, didn’t really respond at all.

I did ask the person who took our order one thing about the community: I asked her if there was a monument to the 1953 Short Creek Raid.  The community used to be called Short Creek, but changed its name after it was raided by the State of Arizona in 1953 (very similar to the raid on the ranch in Texas).  If you read the entry on Wikipedia you’ll see that the polygamists in the town had forewarning about the raid and gathered in the local school to sing patriotic songs while the kids played around the flagpole outside.  I thought there would be a monument to the raid, as it was a defining moment in the community.  So, I asked her where it was.  She told us, but it was a good thing I asked or we never would have found it.  If it is a monument to the earlier raid, it is pretty neglected at this point.  Here’s a photo of the school:

The yard, like the rest of the community, is unkempt, but now it is also littered with trash and junk.  There is a sign indicating it is a historic location, but whoever is in charge of keeping it up is literally letting it die:

Debi and I got a picture at the famed flagpole, which was about the only area that seemed to be slighty well kept.  The rest of the place was really going down hill.

This was our last stop in the community before we headed back to Salt Lake City.  On our way home I asked my in-laws what there favorite part of the trip was.  Rosemary liked Les Miserables.  Gary, who didn’t understand initially why were going to visit a town on the border, said his favorite part was Colorado City.  I have to admit it was probably my favorite part, too.  It’s not every day that you get to visit a town in the heart of America that is inhabited by a people with a culture so foreign to regular Americans that you literally feel like are in a foreign country and are experiencing culture shock.  It was a fascinating chance to peek inside a reclusive, secretive sect and get a glimpse of the lifestyle that makes them so unique.

I try not to post on here about Mormonism very often as I don’t want to offend family.  Even so, I feel this issue is important enough to mention.  If you’re not aware of it, the LDS religion recently came out with a letter encouraging the members of the religion in California to work towards a state constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.  Surprise, surprise, I’m not very fond of this action.  But, I’m not alone.  Dozens of people have come together to express their disagreement with this bigoted action of the LDS religion on this website: Signing for Something.  Basically, the website is a place for people to post letters to the leadership of the LDS religion.  The people running the site will also personally deliver the letters the LDS headquarters in SLC.  As an additional option, many people are resigning their memberships in the LDS religion because of this action and to protest the bigotry of the religion.  I’m mentioning this here because I think everyone should take 15 minutes and read through some of the letters on the website.  A number of them are from gay members of the religion, from heterosexual current members who are resigning in protest, from former mission presidents, etc.  This position of the LDS religion is drawing ire and criticism from the group that most needs to criticize the leadership: the members.

Violence Against Wives

Author:

R. Emerson Dobash; Russell Dobash

Publisher:

The Free Press

Date of Publication:

1979

ISBN:

0029073200

Rating:

9

Summary:

I picked this book up as it is related to a project I’m working on having to do with families and religion. Spousal abuse isn’t normally my area of expertise. Also, I have to admit to having skimmed some of the contents, but I think I got the primary points of the book.

The authors start the book out describing a group of women in England who finally get together in the 1970s at a community center and begin discussing a variety of issues facing women. It’s only after the community center opens that some of the women begin discussing the abuse they suffer from their husbands. These discussions eventually open the shutters, exposing a pervasive problem to a world that has basically been oblivious to it for millenia: lots of husbands beat their wives.

The authors then describe the history of husbands beating wives, “history is littered with references to, and formulas for, beating, clubbing, and kicking them into submission. Women’s place in history often has been at the receiving end of a blow” (p. 31). This abuse took place basically as far back as written history goes, and probably much further. The authors highlight two particular periods: Ancient Rome, which is often thought of as progressive, and Christianity in the Middle Ages (post the fall of Rome).

In Rome, “It was the legal right of a husband to require that his wife obey him. She was his property and subject to whatever form of control was necessary for achieving obedience and what was deemed by himself and by the law to be appropriate behavior” (p. 36). Particularly grievous offenses of wives against husbands included: adultery, drinking of wine or drunkenness, “counterfeiting the household keys, making poison, abortion, attending public games without the husband’s permission, and appearing unveiled in the streets” (p. 36). “A husband was allowed to leave his wife if she committed any of these offenses, but, until later reforms, she was prohibited from leaving him even if he engaged in the same behavior. For him, such behavior was not defined as an offense, and he was therefore not liable for punishment” (p. 37).

Christianity during the Middle Ages co-opted the ” retrogressive principles of patriarchy” (p. 40) from the Romans, not their later progressive ideas. What’s more, Christianity provided an ideological and moral support for patriarchy (p. 44). Granted, the state later codified this relationship into law and arranged the legal system so as to make it difficult if not impossible for women to change it. But Christianity justified that system. At the end of the Middle Ages, as changes and reforms spread around the Western World (we’re ignoring the rest of the world, as is so common among Westerners), one thing that did not change in a progressive fashion was the spousal relationship, “The authority of the male head of each conjugal unit was increased while wives became more dependent and subject to control and chastisement and lost many of the means that traditionally had afforded them some opportunity, albeit very limited, to resist or struggle against subordination. As the French historian Petiot put it: “Starting in the fourteenth century, we see a slow and steady deterioration of the wife’s position in the household. She loses the right to take the place of the husband in his absence or insanity… Finally, in the sixteenth century, the married woman is placed under a disability so that any acts she performs without the authority of her husband or the law are null and void. This development strengthens the power of the husband, who is finally established as a sort of domestic monarch”" (p. 48).

This disenfranchisement of women was legally codified in the U.S., “In 1824 wife beating was made legal in Mississippi. Court cases in several other states reaffirmed the traditional right of a man to beat his wife and did so in language identical to that of the English common law” (p. 4). “[The] subordination of women was explicitly established in the institutional practices of both the church and the state and supported by some of the most prominent political, legal, religious, philosophical, and literary figures in Western society, for instance, Rousseau, Hegel, Kant, Fichte, Blackstone, Saint Augustine, John Knox, Calvin, and Martin Luther. In one way or another, they each advocated a patriarchal relationship between men and women and especially between husbands and wives. They believed that men had the right to dominate and control women and that women were by their nature subservient to men. This relationship was deemed natural, sacred, and unproblematic and such beliefs resulted in long periods of disregard or denial of the husband’s abuses of his economic, political, and physical power” (pp. 6-7).

What, exactly, was the relationship between husbands and wives? “The relationship between husbands and wives was once almost identical to that between parents and children. The husband’s use of physical force against his wife was similarly an expression of the unequal status, authority, and power of marital partners and was widely accepted as appropriate to the husband’s superior position. The husband was legally vested with responsibility for the control and management of his wife’s behavior because she was generally acknowledged to be naturally less capable and responsible than her spouse” (pp. 10-11).

It wasn’t until after the Civil War in America that wife beating was made illegal. It took until 1894 for Mississippi to change the earlier law (p. 63). But the change in legality didn’t change the practice. That remained fairly common through the 1970s, and probably remains disturbingly common still today. There’s also a great deal of irony (and not in a humorous sense), that the most pervasive brutalization of women takes place in what is deemed the most “sacred institution”: the family. “It is within marriage that a woman is most likely to be slapped and shoved about, severely assaulted, killed, or raped” (p. 75).

After giving the above history of the treatment of women, the authors turn to their findings. They interviewed over 100 hundred women who had been physically abused by their husbands. They also draw on the data of other researchers. They discuss abuse from its initiation, when a husband first hits his wife, and follow it through to when it ends, either with the wife leaving or one of the two dying.

Most of the women in the study did not marry men who were already physically abusing them: 77% experienced the first violence after marriage. But for most of these women, it was soon after marriage: 84% were attacked within the first three years. Why do men do this? Those men who do beat their wives tend to think of their wives as property, “One woman we interviewed told us that she was first beaten on her honeymoon and when she cried and protested, her husband replied, “I married you so I own you.”… The husband’s sense of ownership and control is immediate. It comes with the marriage contract, and all the social meanings and obligations associated with the words “love, honor, and obey”" (p. 94). The first time a husband hits his wife changes their relationship, “The first episode clearly illustrates a growing sense of possessiveness, domination, and “rightful” control and these are the factors that lead to the continuation of the violence” (p. 96). Initially women think the violence will stop, especially if the violence is associated with what are believed to be solvable problems (p.124). Men, initially, are also remorseful (p. 124). But the alleged problems are usually not solvable and are just excuses for the violence, not the actual causes. Over time, the man, “becomes less concerned, less remorseful, and less willing to change while the woman’s affection for him and estimation of her own worth begin to deteriorate. As the physical abuse becomes more frequent and severe it eventually dominates the relationship” (p. 124).

Women in abusive relationships seldom respond with violence. The physical strength of their spouses makes such attempts futile, as fighting back generally only increases the rage of their husbands (p. 108). Despite their lack of a violent response, wives do make it clear to their husbands that the violence is not okay and they are not happy with it (p. 120). Women in abusive relationships experience violence regularly, “A majority of the women experienced at least two attacks a week. Twenty-five percent said that the violence usually lasted from 45 minutes to over 5 hours; the other 75% reported that the physical attack lasted 30 minutes or less… Any particular physical attack might last only a few minutes or several hours, as one woman indicated” (p. 120). The authors estimate only 2% of the attacks are reported to the police (pp. 1654-165), though wives do mention the abuse more commonly to friends, relatives, and other individuals.

Also, only about 3% of the beatings the women received were reported to doctors (p. 180). In the authors’ research, 20% of women never made a single visit for any of the injuries they received. Some of the beatings result in broken bones and severe lacerations, but women are reluctant to go to the doctor, “When visits to the doctor were made usually they were made against the husband’s explicit prohibition or were allowed by him only after the woman had given assurances that the source of the injury would not be revealed to any medical staff. This meant that the time spent in the doctor’s office or the emergency room often was very tense and that the woman sometimes had to lie about the cause of her injuries in order to protect herself from further attack” (p. 181). Doctors also rarely inquired about abuse (in the 1970s at least, not sure about today), which meant the women had to bring it up. And even when they did, doctors usually would simply say “leave him” and not do anything else.

Part of the reason doctors probably said so little was because so few men are prosecuted for beating their wives, “In 1966 over seventy-five hundred women appeared at the district attorney’s office in Washington D.C. seeking to file complaints against their husbands. Only 200, that is, 2.7%, succeeded” (p. 219). I’m not sure what the numbers are today, but I’m guessing they are still pretty low.

Once the attacks become repetitive, wives often cease to struggle, “They cease to argue and to defend themselves from even the most blatantly false accusations or unjust treatments in the hope that they will avoid an escalation of violence. Either they turn inward and attempt to build a protective shell around their emotions that will allow them to cope with the continuing violence or they consider that their only escape is suicide or murder” (p. 141)

It is at this point that the authors address the age old question of why women in such relationships don’t leave, “Since a married woman’s social and individual worth rests largely upon her ability to be a good wife and mother and since being a good wife includes, among other things, providing proper services for her husband… then her sense of self-worth depends in large part on how the recipients of her services, that is, her husband and children, evaluate her performance. When a man beats his wife… he is making an explicit and powerful statement about his belief in her inability to be a good wife and to provide what he believes to be proper services. When he then blames her for the beating, this becomes an even more powerful statement of her worthlessness. When statements of blame are repeated often enough, the woman, who initially felt that she was unjustly treated, begins to have doubts” (p. 125). Thus, women in such relationships are controlled by several factors: First, they have accepted the ideology that says women should be defined by how good of a wife they are, which sets them up for failure. Second, their husband, regardless of the wives’ behavior, indicates they are not good wives through the abuse. And third, this abuse leads the wives to believe they have failed to live up to the ideology that set them up for failure in the first place.

The authors also note that many women do leave, but, they, “do so with varying intentions about the permanency of that act. Certainly, a few women never leave the house even for several hours, but most women have at some time left, sometimes with every intention of returning and sometimes intending to make a permanent break” (p. 144). Of the women interviewed by the authors, 88% left at some point, but most returned home within a week (p. 144). The reasons women don’t leave vary, but usually include, “a devastatingly low self-concept, isolation, and fear of living independently,” as well as concern for the children and feeling “trapped” because of a lack of education or occupational prospects (p. 146). There are certain factors that increase the odds of leaving, including particularly severe or frequent attacks (p. 146).

Not all women leave. Some die from the violence. Some commit suicide. Others kill their husbands. And yet others live with the abuse until their husband dies or they die. Unfortunately, there is no way to really know just how many women are living with this kind of abuse.

Review:

This is a carefully researched, well-written book. The only problem: it’s dated. The authors have another book out updating this research, which I’m hoping to peruse in the next few days. I’m sure much has changed. That said, the historical treatment of violence against women in this book is really informative. The book also offers an interesting snapshot of violence against wives in the 1970s. Because the book is dated, I’m not going to recommend it. I’ll see what I think of their newer book.

I’ll end this review with the authors’ concluding thought, “The struggle against wife beating must be oriented both to the immediate needs of women now suffering from violence and to more fundamental changes in the position of women. We now stand at a point where we may either work toward removing the very roots of wife beating by eliminating patriarchal domination or we may work only toward limited reforms which, while providing vital assistance to women currently being beaten, will do little about the problem itself. We must take up the challenge and address the issue in its fullest form, otherwise we will commit the errors of the past. The problem lies in the domination of women. The answer lies in the struggle against it” (pp. 242-243).

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement

Author:

Andrew Holden

Publisher:

Routledge

Date of Publication:

2002

ISBN:

0415266106

Rating:

9

Summary:

I picked up this book because I’ve been working on a paper comparing LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) growth and I needed a better understanding of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This book definitely fits the bill.

The author is very clear in his intentions from the outset, “I write for an academic community, or indeed for anyone with a sociological interest in religious movements.” (p. xi). That said, the book is readable by a non-sociologist, but there is a substantial amount of sociological jargon in the book that might make it onerous reading for non-academics.

As I see it, the book basically has three elements. The first is the background information on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, from their history to their theology. However, it is not a detailed summary of the JW’s background nor their theology, and this is not, generally, laid out with the specific intent of describing the background or theology, but it is interlaced with the other information in the book. The second element is a description of the author’s research into the JWs. The author conducted interviews with many JWs and attended meetings and other activities for years. He also read much of their literature. In short, the book reports the results of the author’s ethnographic research into the JWs in the UK over a 5 to 10 year period in the mid to late 1990s. The third element of the book is the theoretical explanations provided for why people join, why the JWs are growing as fast as they are, and why people leave.

Just in case anyone reading this review is interested in some of the unique characteristics of the JWs, I thought I’d include a few explanations provided by the author. You may know that JWs don’t celebrate most holidays, either religious or national. But do you know why? “The Society forbids its members to participate in annual events such as Christmas, Easter, birthdays and national festivals. It teaches that Jehovah does not acknowledge these events since, wherever they are cited in the scriptures, they are always in the context of sin or apostasy… Though they recognise that the birth of Christ is presented as a joyful occasion by the synoptic writers, devotees refuse to partake in the celebration on the grounds that we do not know the precise date of an event that has, in any case, become tainted with secular images such as lights, trees, tinsel and mistletoe. As far as Easter is concerned, the egg is historically a pagan symbol for the celebration of the return of spring and the rabbit was an emblem of fertility, neither of which is connected with the resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, the Witnesses associate annual celebrations with immodest behaviour and excessive alcohol consumption…” (pp. 25-26).

Also, JWs don’t vote nor salute flags. Again, there is an explanation, “Despite their belief that Satan controls the world, the Witnesses do not generally go as far as members of religious organisations such as the Plymouth Brethren in isolating themselves completely from outsiders. None the less, their persistent refusal to engage in political activities such as voting in elections or joining pressure groups shows their disdain for secular society. The Witnesses continue to object to both jury and military service (on the grounds of pacifism and neutrality), and they do not support local or national charities.” (pp. 25-26).

The belief and behavior for which JWs are most well-known, however, is the refusal of blood transfusions. Ever wonder why they refuse transfusions? “The Society teaches that blood transfusions are strictly forbidden since blood is a source of life that is sacred to Jehovah… Genesis 9: 4 and Leviticus 17: 11-12 are among the scriptural references used by the Society in support of the doctrine, but it is Acts 15: 28-9 that is most frequently quoted in Watch Tower literature: ‘For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.’ Blood transfusions are thus considered physically and morally unclean… receiving blood is tantamount to polluting oneself as well as offending the community.” (p. 28)

Something I didn’t know much about before reading this book was the behavioral codes of the JWs regarding appearance, alcohol and drugs, and sex. JWs believe cleanliness and nice clothing are illustrations of their purity, so they tend to wear nice, clean clothes. As far as the others are concerned, “Adultery, fornication, masturbation and homosexuality all flout the organisation’s teachings on sexual conduct. Anything other than highly controlled heterosexual activity is regarded as immoral, and sexual intercourse is confined to marriage. Drug abuse, smoking and the excessive consumption of alcohol, although not symbolically polluting, are believed to be physically polluting and offensive to Jehovah.” (pp. 25-26). None of this is particularly surprising, but I didn’t realize how anti-homosexual JWs are, “Of all these sexual activities, homosexuality is regarded as probably the most vile and unnatural. In a much earlier tract, but one still widely used by devotees, we read: masturbation can lead into homosexuality. In such instances the person, not satisfied with his lonely sexual activity, seeks a partner for mutual sex play. This happens much more frequently than you may realize. Contrary to what many persons think, homosexuals are not born that way, but their homosexual behaviour is learned. And often a person gets started when very young by playing with anothers’ sexual parts, and then engaging in homosexual acts.” (p. 27). I guess from a “control” standpoint, combining masturbation with homosexuality makes sense, but it obviously flies in the face of the preponderance of empirical evidence: masturbating doesn’t make people homosexual.

The author also describes the organization of the JWs, which was also something with which I was not that familiar. JWs don’t have paid clergy and all the members in good standing (called “pioneers”) are the missionary force. But I was never sure who ran the organization, “The Witnesses make use of two corporations - namely, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and New York, and the International Bible Students Association. The Pennsylvanian Corporation has voting members who live in all parts of the world. They meet annually and elect or re-elect seven directors of the corporation, who themselves elect officers. The President of the corporation is therefore, elected not by popular vote but by the directors, who choose one of their members for the post. The International Bible Students Association is a London Corporation. It owns property in Britain and is responsible predominantly for British affairs. The President is responsible for the central administration of door-to-door evangelism and travels extensively to check on the progress of the movement worldwide. Doctrinal edicts are the responsibility of a larger body of Jehovah’s Witnesses known as the remnant class - a spiritual committee comprising the President and other devotees.” (pp. 29-30). This makes the leadership of the organization seem as though it is more of a corporation than anything else, but this next quote illustrates some of the differences, “Until recently, members of the Governing Body remained completely anonymous to Witnesses at grass roots level. Their photographs were never to be seen in Kingdom Halls or in any of the organisation’s literature. Witnesses everywhere continue to believe that God is using the Governing Body as his channel of communication, and any correspondence for which it is responsible is endorsed only by the Society’s official rubber stamp… The structure of the movement and the intense loyalty demanded of each individual at every level demonstrates the characteristics of totalitarianism… namely, an elaborate total ideology making chiliastic claims with a promise of a utopian future, a single mass party, a monopoly of the means of communication and central direction and control of activity through bureaucratic co-ordination… the Watch Tower Society controls millions of people who are denied freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of conscience yet, paradoxically… devotees regard themselves as free, and non-members as oppressed or ‘in shackles’” (pp. 32-33).

Another tidbit about the JWs that most may be somewhat familiar with is the fact that it is a millenarian movement awaiting the return of Christ. The JW leadership claimed Christ was going to return multiple times, “The years of 1874, 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975 were all earmarked, to a greater or lesser extent, as times for the Second Coming of Christ, yet all brought bitter disappointment.” (p. 1). As is the case with many religious movements, disappointments like these are easily justified (e.g., followers lacked faith or the coming was spiritual, not physical, etc.).

Why are the JWs growing (and growing faster than Mormons, by the way)? The author attributes their appeal to two factors: the close-knit community converts find upon joining and the certainty provided by the totalitarian belief system that converts find comforting in light of the uncertainty brought about by modernization (p. 56). It is the chaos of modernity that pushes people toward the JWs, who provide answers and certainty for individuals who feel lost in the modern world.

The author also notes that JWs use some tools of modernity to convert others, namely they try to persuade through reason and logic rather than through appeals to emotion. While the “logic” is generally fallacious and tortured, appeals to reason are attractive to potential converts. The lack of charismatic worship is also somewhat unique to JWs, “…preparation for Watch Tower ministry is largely devoid of supernatural invocation. One indicator of this is the fact that the familiar stories in which born-again Christians declare how lost they were before they saw the light were missing in the testimonies of Witness converts.” (p. 60). The author also notes that JW meetings are devoid of glossolalia, weeping, and other displays of intensity or emotion - they are pretty rational affairs. Thus, JWs benefit from the very modernity they use as their foil in trying to attract converts.

Review:

The author is actually quite fair to quotidian members of the organization, but is dutifully critical of the leadership, particularly the founder of the JWs, “In a court in Ontario, Canada, in 1913, he [Russell, the founder of the JWs] declared under oath to be an expert scripture scholar, but when handed a Greek New Testament he was forced to admit that he did not even know the Greek alphabet. Neither did he know Latin or Hebrew. Few, if any, academic theologians in the universities of the world today acknowledge Russell as a scholar in any sense of the word.” (p. 19). The author is skeptical of many of the claims of the movement, but he is quite respectful of those who affiliate with the movement. It seems as though his years of experience around these people have led him to admire them for their devotion even though he does not find their beliefs compelling.

One claim of the author that I was skeptical about was the assertion that JWs are not particularly interested in education, “It would be a mistake, however, to think that, because Witness children are disciplined readers and listeners, they are high academic achievers. There are two main reasons why this is not generally the case. First, the passive ‘learning’ that takes place in the Kingdom Hall and at Book Study meetings fails to procure the critical thinking, less still the analytical skills, required for high-level academic performance; and, second, the Society’s message is unequivocally spiritual, which means that, whatever the academic potential of its younger members, evangelistic activities take priority over educational success. Young Witnesses who intend to undergo baptism rarely progress to college or university.” (pp. 134-135). While I’m not really surprised by this claim considering there are no social scientists studying religion who are Jehovah’s Witnesses are far as I know, I did think it warranted closer scrutiny. So, I pulled out the General Social Survey and ran a quick analysis on the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the data set. The mean educational attainment reported for JWs from 1972 to 2006 is 11.29 years, which means just less than a high school diploma. The mean for the US generally is around 12.40, which means some college. Intriguingly, when you limit the GSS to just 2006, the mean for JWs drops to 11.24; JW educational attainment is not improving. This would seem to indicate that the author is right: JWs do not value educational attainment nearly as much as they value devotion to the religion.

I only have two very minor criticisms of the book. First, the author doesn’t clearly spell out his methods, though there is a brief section on his approach early in the book. A little more detail on his ethnographic methods would have been nice. Second, the book is missing one bit of information I was hoping it would have: The membership increase ratio of converts to children. In other words, what percentage of new members are converts vs. what percentage are children of existing members? Given my interests in religious growth, I was hoping he would answer this but he didn’t, even though he did say that about 70% of the children of JWs remain members.

Overall, this is a superbly-written book that does a remarkable job explaining a religious movement. The book details the theology and history sufficiently for his purposes and for readers to understand the movement, but it is not a detailed exegesis. The theoretical arguments for the appeal of the religion and its growth are also sound and well-reasoned. Finally, the author presents a good balance between skepticism of the movement’s claims and respect for the adherents. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in understanding how sociologists think about religious movements.

Author:
Michelle Goldberg
Publisher:
W.W. Norton & Company
Date of Publication:
2006
ISBN:
9780393329766
Rating:
8
Summary:
I heard about this book as a regular listener to the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s weekly podcast (which I recommend) and thought it might be worth picking up. The author, Michelle Goldberg, is a journalist and describes herself as a secular Jew and ardent urbanite. She wrote this book because she felt America was becoming increasingly hostile toward the cosmopolitan values she cherishes (p. 21).

Goldberg attributes that hostility to the movement she describes in this book, which she calls “Christian nationalism.” Christian nationalism espouses dominion theology, “…the ultimate goal of Christian nationalist leaders isn’t fairness. It’s dominion. The movement is built on a theology that asserts the Christian right to rule. That doesn’t mean that nonbelievers will be forced to convert. They’ll just have to learn their place.” (p. 7). Advocates of Christian nationalism have a different worldview, a Christian worldview. In that worldview, America was founded as a Christian nation (it was not), Puritans were kind to Native Americans (they were not), evolution is discredited (it has not been), men and dinosaurs lived together in the Garden of Eden (please!), the Earth is six thousand years old (try 4.6 billion years), and Christians should rule the world (p. 5). This worldview is totalistic: it influences every aspect of its adherents’ lives.

Christian nationalists make up a small percentage of the US population (maybe 10%; pp. 8-9), which means not all evangelical Christians are Christian nationalists. When you think about the “religious right,” it is probably the Christian nationalists you are thinking of: Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and Ralph Reed are/were all leaders of this movement. Despite their relatively small size, they are disproportionately influential in American politics and culture, “In 2004, the Christian Coalition gave 42 out of 100 senators ratings of 100 percent, meaning they took the group’s position on every significant issue.” (p. 10).

Goldberg describes several aspects of the Christian nationalist movement, including: the political uses of homophobia (chapter 2), the intelligent design vs. evolution debate (chapter 3), the faith-based initiative of the Bush Administration (chapter 4), abstinence sex education (which is an oxymoron; chapter 5), and the war on the courts (chapter 6).

One of the more interesting topics Goldberg discusses is the penetration of Christian nationalists in the Bush Administration. Seven percent of White House interns are graduates of Patrick Henry College, a Christian nationalist college for home-schooled evangelical Christians (pp. 2-3). While a small school (with fewer than 100 new students a year), the students are trained in Christian nationalism but schooled in how to convert their message into secular terms so they do not appear to be pushing Christianity on the public (pp. 3-4), which is their actual goal.

Goldberg also describes some of the heroes of the Christian nationalist movement, including Roy Moore, the Alabama judge who is most famous for placing a 10 commandments monument in the state courthouse and refusing to remove it. He’s less well-known for his opposition to removing segregationist language from the state constitution (he’s a racist) and for his 2002 court decision awarding custody of three children to an abusive father over their lesbian mother (p. 25). While Moore isn’t someone I would consider much of a role model, he isn’t alone among Christian nationalists in his bigotry, “A 2004 survey… found that 48.3 percent of white conservative Christians said they would disapprove if their child wanted to marry a black person, compared with 21.8 percent of white Americans as a whole.” (p. 70).

Another interesting “achievement” of Christian nationalists is their reframing of evolution as a “debated” scientific idea. This is intriguing because of how they have gone about doing this: Christian nationalists turned to quasi-postmodernistic ideas to subvert the authority of science and rationality, claiming scientific findings are just opinions. While an absurd argument, it is apparently attractive to some. The irony, of course, is that Christian nationalists then want to turn around and claim that they have The Truth, even though they argue against the possibility of truth to undermine evolution (p. 87). I see this as symptomatic of the disingenuousness of Christian nationalists - they have been found lying and distorting in their efforts to turn the US into a theocracy.

Goldberg also highlights the hypocrisy and negligence that is the Bush Administration’s Faith-Based Initiatives. The money given to religious groups under this program is not tracked and many religious charities and therapeutic centers are not regulated (leading to terrible abuses of people). What evaluation of these programs exists indicates they are not at all effective (p. 127). The mismanagement of the faith-based initiatives has even turned off early advocates who now recognize the initiative for what it really was: political pandering and bribery (pp. 113-114). The faith-based initiatives of the Bush Administration were basically huge bribes to Christian nationalists in exchange for their political support. The billions spent on this program have done little to nothing to actually help non-Christian nationalist Americans.

The author points out some additional irony in the Christian nationalist movement, arguing that the leaders of the Christian nationalist movement are actually pulling a “bait and switch” on their Christian foot soldiers, “The leaders of the backlash may talk Christ, but they walk corporate. Values may matter most to voters, but they always take a backseat to the needs of money once the elections are won… Abortion is never halted. Affirmative action is never abolished. The culture industry is never forced to clean up its act.” (pp. 29-30). What many followers of the Christian nationalist movement fail to see is the enormous fortunes of their leaders. Pat Robertson and James Dobson are the leaders of enormous corporate empires; both men are extremely wealthy and powerful (see note at end of review). There are, no doubt, some authentic, genuinely devoted religious leaders; but many of them are in it just for the money, including the leaders of the Christian nationalist movement.

Another bit of irony is also adroitly pointed out by Ms. Goldberg, “What about the heartland’s much-vaunted moral qualities? … Here again the image of small-town piety bears little relation to reality in rural America. The states that Mr. Bush won in 2000 boast slightly higher rates for murder, illegitimacy and teenage childbirth than the supposedly degenerate states that voted for Mr. Gore. The contrast is especially stark when it comes to marriage… The lowest divorce rates are largely in the blue states: the Northeast and the upper Midwest. And the state with the lowest divorce rate was Massachusetts, home to John Kerry, the Kennedys and same-sex marriage. In 2003, the rate in Massachusetts was 5.7 divorces per 1,000 married people, compared with 10.8 in Kentucky, 11.1 in Mississippi and 12.7 in Arkansas.” (p. 67). The hot-beds of Christian nationalism aren’t practicing what they preach (not that I’m advocating it, I just find it ironic).
Review:
For some reason I was under the impression that this book was going to be more academically oriented. It’s not. It’s more like a really long journalistic article you might find in the New York Times Magazine. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that; in fact, it was somewhat refreshing to me to read a book that simply reported what the author found without developing a complex theoretical framework to explain it (which is what you would find in an academic book). So, I guess my point here is, don’t expect a theoretical explanation for what is happening or how it is happening.

Another problem with the book is that it insinuates in several places that Christian nationalists are, if not outrightly, awfully close to being fascists (e.g., p. 34). I find this insinuation a bit tenuous. Fascism is basically ultra-nationalism or super-patriotism; allegiance to the state is placed above all else. It is often characterized by violent suppression of opposition, which probably would happen under a Christian theocratic government in the US, but I’m not quite sure the author makes a compelling case that Christian nationalists are fascists. As I understand this movement, they speak less about patriotism than they do about religion. Of course, Goldberg may be implying that once Christianity takes over the state, religion becomes the equivalent of patriotism, but that certainly isn’t clear.

The author also seems to give more credence than necessary to some of the claims of the abstinence-only advocates. She claims abstinence only education delays the onset of sexual activity, which most of the recent studies finds is not accurate. She also claims that condoms are not particularly effective in preventing the transmission of Human papillomavirus (HPV; p. 148). While genital warts can certainly transmit HPV and condoms don’t protect against that type of transmission, good sexual education encourages people to inspect their partners prior to sex - ergo, you’ll find the warts. But HPV can also be transmitted via seminal and vaginal fluids, and condoms do protect against that type of transmission. Why the author gives the abstinence-only advocates any credit isn’t clear to me.

There is also no clear progression or logical order to the book. It jumps from one topic to the next without any clear rationale for why things should be ordered the way they are. Perhaps with this particular movement it would have been too complicated to try to document its development chronologically, which is why the author used a thematic approach, but it still isn’t perfectly clear why the order of the book is the way it is.

Criticisms aside, the book does have some really prescient insights. For instance, the authors argues that, “If there is a hard landing-due to an oil shock, a burst housing bubble, a sharp decline in the value of the dollar, or some other crisis-interest rates would shoot up, leaving many people unable to pay their floating-rate mortgages and credit card bills. Repossessions and bankruptcies would follow. Many Americans would lose everything they have, including their houses. The resulting anger could fuel radical populist movements of either the left or the right-more likely the right, since it has a far stronger ideological infrastructure in place in most of America.” (p. 186). While I don’t think it was too difficult to predict any of the above in 2006, it is still impressive that most of the things mentioned above did happen in 2007 and 2008.

The author also argues that, “The religious divide in America isn’t so much between the faithless and faithful-it’s between those who want to maintain a secular, pluralistic society and those who do not. But the growing presence of non-Christians will exacerbate the frightened anger of those desperate to drag the country back to its mythical Christian roots… fundamentalism works in symbiosis with secularization; the more it is thwarted, the more extreme it becomes.” (p. 182). The end result will be an increasing polarization as secularists become more vocal in opposing the Christian nationalists, and this appears to be happening. But there is one more bit of irony in all of this, “The things so many Islamic fundamentalists hate about the West-its sexual openness, its art, the possibilities it offers for escaping the bonds of family and religion, for inventing one’s own life-are what the Christian nationalists hate as well. And so, in a final grotesque irony, we come full circle and see defenders of American chauvinism speaking the language of anti-American radicals.” (p. 208). Christian nationalists may not see it, but they are a lot closer to Islamic Fundamentalists than they realize, even though they claim to vehemently oppose them.

Overall, the book is well-written, though, keep in mind, it is less academic than journalistic. As a result, it isn’t as weighty as an academic book might be. This book is relatively light reading, even if disturbing. However, readers shouldn’t be too worried by this book. In my opinion, the conclusion to this book should read, “Be a little afraid of Christian nationalists, because they do want to subvert the secular history of the U.S. and, if they win, you will lose your rights to think how, believe, and act how you want. But don’t be too afraid because people like you, people who value pluralism and the freedoms that come with secular democracies, make up the majority of Americans. We’ll stop them from turning the U.S. into a theocracy, but you should do what you can to help.” This book does a good job making people aware of a movement in the US that should make people uneasy. I recommend it.

(Note: On the issue of personal wealth of the leaders of the Christian nationalist movement, I looked up some information on James Dobson. Two pieces of property are registered to a James Dobson Trust in El Paso County Colorado. The first one is located at 1453 Smoochers Circle (hilarious name for James Dobson) and is worth an estimated $673,224. The second property is located at 7 Pourtales Road and is worth an estimated $649,785. James Dobson appears to be doing quite well for himself.)