McAfee: You escaped the WBC on your eighteenth birthday, but how long did it take before you gave up the doctrine of Calvinism? And before you became an atheist?
Nate Phelps: It was a long journey. I avoided religion for about five years after I left. I eventually returned when my children were born because I wanted them to feel included. I immersed myself in an evangelical-free church for the next 10 years or so. It was very difficult to accept the kinder, gentler version of Christianity because we had learned from day one that accepting a lighter version of the Bible was a sign of weakness and hypocrisy. I ended up in counseling on two different occasions. One of those times was with a counselor who had a theology degree as well. Between that period and my own efforts to make sense of it all, I began to move away from the notion of a real supernatural being. There were a handful of events that took place in the 1990s, through 2005, that brought me to the point of atheism.
McAfee: Did you ever hold a sign for WBC, or did the picketing activism come after your departure?
Nate Phelps: I left in 1976. Their campaign began in 1991. But the elements of their campaign were going on in a variety of venues throughout our childhood. Condemning people for their lack of faith, creating enmity with members of the community, stirring up media attention … all of these activities were always present in one form or another in our lives.
McAfee: As a member of WBC as a child, were you expected to learn about other religions? How were other worldviews portrayed or taught?
Nate Phelps: Our primary source of information about other religions and philosophies came from our father on Sundays. He was meticulous in picking out each belief system, explaining why it was in opposition to the one Truth, then attacking the leader(s) of that system personally. School education about other religions was sparse in my experience growing up in the ’60s and ’70s, but what we did hear we readily dismissed because of our “knowledge” from church.
McAfee: What role does the WBC believe their media attention serves?
Nate Phelps: This gets interesting. First some groundwork. My father spoke lovingly and longingly about the two men in the Bible who never died (Enoch & Elijah). When I was there his teaching moved closer and closer to the idea that death is a judgment from god. He also spent a lot of time “predicting” the return of Christ. His studies, and his knowledge of the passages that say no man knows the timing of the return, led him to a conclusion that Christ would return somewhere around the year 2000, give or take 13 years. One final piece: in my father’s studies and teachings, he identified a number of specific precursors to the return of Christ. A few of those are: that all men on earth must hear the Truth, and that 144,000 Jews need to be converted.
So you put all this together with the fervent knowledge that the WBC is the only place on Earth where the truth exists, and you have a perfect set of ingredients for them to conclude that they are intimately involved in paving the way for Christ’s return. For those who have followed them closely, several years back they turned their focus on Jews. They picketed synagogues, Jewish centers, and funerals of Jews. Their stated intent was to put God’s truth to their lips to help facilitate the salvation of the 144,000.
Now to finally answer your original question: They are constantly looking for more and better ways to reach large audiences. Their goal is to finally reach that magic tipping point where the final person on Earth hears, and therefore receives, God’s judgment and wrath. In their world, this will cause a celestial lever to be pulled that releases the Kracken … er … Christ.
McAfee: Why do you think you were able to see past the indoctrination and the fear of escaping when so many others haven’t been able to do so?
Nate Phelps: I hate this question. I don’t know for sure. I only know that I grew up in a terribly violent home. I know that much of that violence, specifically including the verbal, was directed at me. I know that I believed my father’s message about me. I recall specifically as a teenager walking through the mental process of calculating how long I would have to the year 2000 and feeling a sense of urgency to leave that place of pain and live my life to the fullest until I had to face God’s wrath and judgment at the age of 42. I also know that I harbored a lot of questions about how we could be so special and be so cruel at the same time. I wondered about how someone like Elton John could bring so much good into the world but the only thing that mattered to God was that he had sex with the wrong people.
I know I spent years searching for the kinder, gentler God that appeared in the zeitgeist of the ’70s and ’80s. I know that I never got satisfactory answers to the questions I had about everything religious. I also know it’s possible that my conclusions are colored by my experiences. That’s not to say I think I’m wrong, just that my conclusions are colored. I know that I did a tremendous amount of work studying this question. I know that I had a strong, strong bias toward finding God. I believed that there would come a time that I would hear the right sequence of words from the right person and it would all fall in place.
But the biggest thing I know is that, in spite of the limitations my father’s words placed in my mind, I developed a rich system of belief that argued for a natural view of the world. A big part of me just “knew” that these magical explanations were too complex and unknowable as religion tried to explain the universe. When my father argued that God caused tornados, I constantly asked the question in my own mind: why can’t it just be that cold air meets hot air and creates tornados?
In 2004, when I read Michael Shermer’s The Science of Good & Evil, everything fell into place. The sense of relief I felt as I read this book was profound. Finally, someone out there arguing for my view of the world.
McAfee: Are you in regular contact with any other escapees of WBC? I imagine you all have extremely interesting stories and perspectives.
Nate Phelps: My older brother Mark and I worked for 25 years together. My younger sister Dortha left several years after us. Both Mark and I maintain a relationship with her as well. I also keep in touch with several of the score of nieces and nephews who have left.
McAfee: Do you see a difference between commonplace religious indoctrination and what the WBC practices?
Nate Phelps: The only difference is the content.
McAfee: Does the WBC play a role in showing Christians the dangerous nature of their religion, or do you think most people simply write WBC off as not “True” Christians?
Nate Phelps: It depends on where you are on that continuum. WBC is definitely polarizing. No one gets to sit on the fence in this debate. I have to say I get just as offended with the “that’s not my god” argument as I do with the hateful rhetoric of my family. Just recently I posted a horrific video that gave us a window into the moment a young gay man was cut off from his family who “didn’t want the neighbors to think they condoned his ‘choice.’” The resulting comments included a number of “that’s not my god” arguments. In response I wrote this: “A number of you have posted on here that this isn’t real Christianity. I believe a more accurate statement is ‘I’m not an historical Christian.’” Of course this is real Christianity. These people didn’t make this up. The Bible speaks in a number of places on the subject of same-sex sex. Further, the position of the Christian Church in modern history has opposed it. To dismiss this as aberrant is simply not accurate.
That said, it is true that many Christians have embraced a more contemporary idea of Christianity that quietly ignores these passages in favor of equality on this matter. A big part of this kinder, gentler Christian is to argue that God doesn’t hate, that Jesus’ message was about love and acceptance. Again, this is NOT an historical position of the Church.
You may see this as splitting hairs, but I see it as a huge, huge issue. As long as people continue to say that this kind of hateful conduct is not real Christianity, we can continue to downplay the importance that religion plays in creating these hateful ideas that do oh-so-much harm. It is, and was, Christian preachers who put forth the
idea that gay is evil. Full stop.
If you want to separate yourself from this behavior, it is necessary to separate yourself from the label of Christian. If you have embraced the new, loving Christ, call it something else … be a Jesusite.
McAfee: Is WBC growing? Have you seen evidence to suggest that they’re inspiring other churches to undertake similar fundamentalist activism?
Nate Phelps: No and no. Just the opposite. I know the membership of the church has shrunk by 50 percent or better, by their own admission. As for inspiration … there are always extreme viewpoints. It’s hard to say that there are more because of them. Well, let’s just say, I don’t perceive it.
McAfee: The WBC has a strong emphasis on illuminating what they call the “sin” of homosexuality, but the Bible itself deals with homosexuality in only a small number of passages. Do you have any insight into why the church is so focused on it?
Nate Phelps: I’ve heard that argument before. Maybe it’s because of what I learned growing up, but I don’t really think that’s a good argument. The Bible is supposed to be the inspired, inerrant word of a divine creator. If he just says it once, that’s plenty of attention on a subject from the standpoint of a believer.
I have no experience to speculate on why my father sees the reality of homosexuality as evil other than what he has always asserted. A passage in Romans 1, from his interpretation, treats homosexuality as a uniquely evil sin that God “turns you over to.” To Fred, this implied that it was a sin you couldn’t turn back from so obviously God really, really, really doesn’t like it.
But bear in mind that just as much as they focus on it, America and the world was already focusing on it. In the broader sense, if the WBC has decided to become a harkening angel to God’s judgment of the world, what better “sin” to focus on in this time. If he had been born 50 years earlier, I’m satisfied that their signs would read “God Hates Niggers” as the black community struggled for their own justice and equality.
McAfee: Just as common cultural Christians write off negative and violent passages in the Old Testament, it seems as though the WBC is forced to ignore the positive and loving aspects of the New Testament. Would you say that’s an accurate assessment?
Nate Phelps: No. They believe all the passages expressing God’s love are written for the believer. Just like the humorous game of adding “in bed” to the end of your Chinese fortune, they add “for or of believers” where they see mention of God’s love. “The world” in John 3:16 is the world of believers.
McAfee: With the rise of support for same-sex marriage in the United States, do you think WBC will be further marginalized by the general public?
Nate Phelps: How could they be more marginalized? I think the more important outcome of this battle will be the further marginalization of religion in general. Once again the archaic ideas of an impossible idea are demonstrably wrong. Once again “absolute Truth” isn’t.
McAfee: What do you think your family members still with WBC say about you now?
Nate Phelps: I was interviewed by a reporter when I was in Clayton, Missouri, to give a talk for a GSA [Gay-Straight Alliance] club. He had recently spent a few weeks with the church ahead of writing an extensive piece on them. It was a pointed interview. I had the real sense that he had heard a lot about me from them and wanted to challenge me and my version. He ended the interview by saying “you know … your family … they really, really hate you.” I admit it was very difficult to hear. I sat stunned for a few moments then I told him, “They don’t have the right to say that anymore. They ostracized and shunned me 35 years ago, they don’t get to keep playing that emotional card.”
McAfee: Is there anything else you’d like to add?
Nate Phelps: For me my public speaking efforts have stopped being about the WBC and focus primarily on changing the mindset of North America. There are millions of people here who suffer daily, hourly, because of nonsensical ideas. America loves their Constitution as long as it supports their bias. Well, that’s not how it works. That document, more than anything else, protects the minorities from the wolven (okay, I made that word up) ferocity of a prejudiced majority. It is past time that we all understand that we have NO right to even debate the withholding of equal rights to all. It is past time that we all understand that that secular document trumps any holy book we contrive.
Black, white, gay, straight, foreign, domestic, Christian, Muslim, male, female, and transgender people become just people in the sanctuary of the Constitution and the heart of the Humanist.
EXPOSING SCIENTOLOGY
For an example of a modern cult that has been relatively successful in terms of growth, look no further than Scientology, a registered religion that has made a practice of seeking out and converting celebrities with money, connections, and notoriety in order to gain legitimacy in the public eye. The most prominent Scientologist is Tom Cruise,34 of Top Gun and Mission: Impossible fame, but the church’s list also includes Saturday Night Fever star John Travolta, Mad Men actress Elisabeth Moss, and many, many more.35 High-level Scientologists and Hollywood elite alike were shocked when Leah Remini, who was raised in Scientology36 and is known best for her role as Carrie in The King of Queens, announced her departure from the church. She cited a number of reasons for her decision, including confrontations with Cruise, and ultimately published her memoir, Troublemaker: Surviving Hollywood and Scientology, on November 3, 2015. In the book, Remini says she was “a big fan” of Cruise until she got to know him.37
“I’m sure many people could say the same thing about me or any other celebrity. But this is different; most actors are not in charge of your faith,” the actress wrote. “I don’t doubt that Tom is in Scientology because he believes in it, but to me he has simply been given too much power by his church.”
I had heard a lot about Scientology through popular media, but, due to the investigative nature of my writing, I decided to take a closer look at the cult, its practices, and how it actually works. As part of my investigation into Scientology, I took part in a number of so-called intelligence quotient (IQ) and stress tests at the local Church of Scientology headquarters in Los Angeles—I did everything but purchase their $50 book. I immediately gained a sense for what Scientology is in practice: untrained counselors using unapproved methods to “cure” diseases that can be treated medically or aren’t even really there. The cult mentality was also immediately apparent during the group’s testing procedures. The church’s preliminary personality questionnaire, for instance, included questions like, “Do you prefer to take a passive role in any club or organization to which you belong?” and, “Would you give up easily on a given course if it were causing you a considerable amount of inconvenience?” One question that I found particularly interesting, and was perhaps included by the cult’s leaders as a “red flag” of sorts, asked, “Are you logical and scientific in your thinking?”
After the group’s Oxford Capacity Analysis test, which is deceivingly named and is in no way affiliated with the University of Oxford, I was told that I have an “IQ” of 138 but that I am depressed and therefore in need of their services. Despite my numerous written and verbal indications that I was happy and living a fulfilling life, the Scientology representative said I’m “too intelligent for my own good” and that I will “continue to be unhappy,” even if I don’t notice it, unless I do as they say. I was immediately instructed to sign up for counseling courses that could, in time, yield results and even increase my IQ. After the testing and precounseling, I sought to speak to someone who was more familiar with Scientology and its history.
Jamie DeWolf is a slam poet, stand-up comedian, and filmmaker from Oakland, California—but he’s also the great grandson of someone he calls “one of the greatest con men of the last century.”
Lafayette Ronald Hubbard—better known as L. Ron Hubbard—was the founder of Scientology and DeWolf’s great grandfather on his mother’s side. In 1953, Hubbard incorporated the Church of Scientology after failing
to pass off his teachings as a legitimate self-help system and to protect his people from allegations that they were practicing medicine without licenses.38 Famous for its proscriptions against modern psychiatry, fierce litigation efforts, and science fiction–based belief system, Scientology has continued to thrive for years without Hubbard at the helm.
DeWolf said that, although Scientology teaches some very farfetched ideas, it’s not far from what so-called legitimate religions teach. Scientologists believe that Xenu, the dictator of the “Galactic Confederacy,” brought billions of his people to earth in a DC-8-like spacecraft 75 million years ago.
“Everyone has to give Christianity its respectful distance, but when it comes to Scientology, people are more than happy to mock it out loud and laugh in its face—claiming their beliefs are ridiculous,” DeWolf said. “Christians believe in a magic apple and a talking snake and a boat with every organism on the planet floated around for 40 days … who is more ridiculous?”
In a performance filmed for NPR’s Snap Judgment in 2011, DeWolf told the previously unheard story of L. Ron Hubbard, from the point of view of someone who was written out of his biography. After seeing the powerful video,39 in which DeWolf says Hubbard went from “pennies to prophet,” I asked him to tell me more about his great grandfather and the Church of Scientology. DeWolf, who sports a Scientology symbol tattoo on his right arm, sat down with me to discuss his own religious upbringing, his encounters with the Church of Scientology’s secret police force, and more. Here’s an edited transcript of our discussion:
No Sacred Cows Page 50
