Buddhist Catholic Contemplative Evangelical General Christian Hindu Jewish Latter-day Saint Muslim New Visions Progressive Christian

Beliefs

Topics

Columnists

Resource Library

Research Tools

Video

Podcasts

Thought Readers

Faith In Media Tracker

Newsletters

Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In Subscription Support

Follow Patheos

Love, Joy, Feminism

Home
Nonreligious
Anonymous Tip: Instant Distrust

Anonymous Tip: Instant Distrust

Last updated on: December 23, 2016 at 8:35 am by Libby Anne

Anonymous Tip: Instant Distrust 2016-12-23T08:35:50-04:00 Libby Anne

LOGO Patheos Explore the world's faith through different perspectives on religion and spirituality! Patheos has the views of the prevalent religions and spiritualities of the world.

A Review Series of Anonymous Tip, by Michael Farris

Pp. 460-463

The Supreme Court testimony is over, and Peter, Gwen, and Charlie debrief at a restaurant in Virginia named L’Auberge Chez Francois.

Upon hearing the name Gwen smiled to herself, “I guess I’m not in Spokane anymore.”

Gwen’s such a sweet country girl.

As they had back to her hotel Gwen recalls the packet of financial information Cindy had sent, which she’d glanced at and dismissed as unimportant the previous day. Peter’s curiosity perks up.

“I wonder what that stuff is?”

“I peeked,” Gwen admitted weakly. “It’s just a bunch of financial records.”

“That could be interesting,” Peter said. “I’ve wondered about all the money they’ve raised.”

I find Gwen’s lack of curiosity concerning. But more concerning actually, is an exchange later on the same page. Charlie jokes with Peter that he’s going to win nine-to-nothing, and Peter objects.

“Well, there’s no way it’s going to be unanimous in my favor.”

“It doesn’t have to be, does it?” Gwen asked.

“No, just five votes. You should start praying for five votes,” the professor said. “It’s going to be close.”

Oh, Gwen. Gwen, Gwen, Gwen. I suspect that Farris, as author, is using Gwen as a device to make sure the audience knows what they need is five votes, but there are other ways to do that, and this way—and this has been done repeatedly—makes Gwen look clueless and Peter look horrid. After all, even if Gwen had known nothing about the Supreme Court before this case, Peter should have made sure she knew the basics when her case headed in this direction.

They drop Charlie off at the airport to get back to his busy schedule at the law school, and we cut to Donna for a moment. Donna is upset that Stephen made her come to his place separately so that they wouldn’t be seen together because of the Supreme Court case. Donna is being ridiculous. Stephen risked his career attempting to get his boss to shelve an interesting case because the case involved his girlfriend. I’d imagine Stephen could get disbarred for something like that. If I were Stephen, I would have let Donna know it wasn’t safe to see her at all this visit (she’s in town for the Supreme Court, after all, and you never know what lengths reporters will go to)—and if I were Donna, I’d understand that!

Anyway, Donna had planned to go sight seeing but decides to instead mop around Stephen’s apartment because “being shunned by Stockton while she was at the Supreme court was more than she could bear.” WTF. I wrote before that Farris’s male characters are essentially all deeply sexist or ethically dubious, and frequently both, but his female characters are no easier to admire. Back when Donna falsified records and lied before the court, one could attempt to put that down to her anger at the law not giving her enough leeway to protect children (although what she did was wrong regardless of her reasons). This whole thing between her and Stephen, though, is weird. She sees him as her ticket out of Spokane. Well guess what! She could just move out of Spokane. She doesn’t need a man to do that. Rita did it without a man.

I was so caught up in Donna being ridiculous that I almost forgot to mention that while moping around Stephen’s apartment she finds a green barrette with three strands of long red hair in it under the couch cushions (she wasn’t snooping—she’d lost an earring while laying on the couch). Farris tells us that “Corliss’s spirit welled up with fear and anger.” The inclusion of fear is interesting—she’s afraid of losing Stephen, presumably.

Now we shift back to Peter and Gwen, who are on their way to the banquet. Peter has looked at the financial documents, but Farris has decided to have that happen off-book. Or something. I would say off-screen if it were a movie. Anyway, Peter notices the “Heart of America—Supreme Court Victory Banquet” signs and this happens:

“I hope no one gets in trouble for false advertising,” Peter said.

“We’re gonna win,” Gwen said confidently.

“Blind loyalty always scores points with me,” he replied.

Now that’s just uncomfortable. Blind loyalty should not score points with anyone. Blind loyalty is not a good thing, and frankly, it’s created a world of trouble throughout history and across the globe. But then, everything we’ve seen so far suggests that Peter likes his women blond, gorgeous, and blindly loyal. I can’t even with this relationship.

Humphrey sees them coming in, and we get this:

“Good to see you, Peter. And this must be Gwen. You are lovely, my deer. Peter was really lucky—I mean blessed, to have found you.”

“Thank you so much,” Gwen said with a courteous but distant air. She instantly distrusted him. “But I think I am blessed far more.”

Oh my gosh there is so much to unpack here. Why does Gwen instantly distrust Humphrey? Presumably because he’s a creep, and good, godly people have an instant creep-detector. Except that they don’t. In fact, this suggestion—that you should be able to sense a religious con artist when meeting him—is highly dangerous. Some of the worst abusers are the best at getting people on their side, at making people comfortable with them, at signaling belonging.

Let me give you an example. Farris, the book’s author, recalls being deeply impacted by attending a conference where Bill Gothard spoke in the late 1980s or early 1990s. In fact, Farris was so impressed with Gothard’s message that he and his wife gave up birth control as a result. Gothard was exposed several years ago for having serially groomed and molested dozens teenage girls and young women sent to him by their parents to work as his secretaries over the course of three decades. Good evangelical Christians do not have creep-meters. Suggesting that they do is dangerous.

Peter and Gwen are seated by a former Congressman, who is now retired and serves on the board of Heart of America. Farris introduces him as follows:

McElliot had a reputation as a true conservative, with a warm personality that made it difficult for even the most liberal person to dislike him.

I’m not sure that’s how that works, but okay. It’s also a lot of tell, don’t show, but I suppose Farris probably didn’t have much space to spare at this point.

Once everyone is seated the banquet begins with a patriotic song. Because of course it does. Then we get this very strange introduction by Humphrey:

“As you know, Heart of America is a conservative, non-sectarian organization dedicated to advancing the family. Our aim is to protect all families in America. Although we are not a religious organization, we recognize that the families of this nation are well-served by the three great religions of our land—Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.”

Gwen gave Peter a surprised look as the word “Islam” was invoked.

“We are committed to families. We are committed to freedom. And we are committed to faith—whatever faith one chooses.”

Oh my god this is so sloppy. Who are Humphrey’s audience, exactly? Who are the 250 people in attendance? By all appearances, Humphrey has been catering to an evangelical audience, pretending to be one of them and milking them for cash. If he’s been able pull that off, he has to know that “whatever faith one chooses” isn’t going to go over well with an evangelical audience. It’s incredibly tone deaf.

But I think I may know what is going on here. Farris has created a character who is posing as evangelical but in fact is a money-grubbing fraud. He wants to be very clear, though, that this figure is just posing as an evangelical. A real evangelical wouldn’t do things like this. Farris is making it as clear as he can that Humphrey isn’t actually an evangelical. Humphrey can’t even get the language right—in other words, he’s not actually “one of us.” Writing so soon after the Jim Bakker scandal, you’d think Farris would know better than this.

Humphrey could have been written so much more interestingly than this. Humphrey offered an opportunity to delve into the problem of fraud and financial mismanagement within the evangelical world. Instead, all we get is cardboard cutouts.

Also, notice Gwen’s response to the inclusion of Islam—and only Islam, the reference to Judaism didn’t bother her. Presumably, if Humphrey had referenced our country’s Christian and Jewish heritage, Gwen wouldn’t have balked. After all, that would be right in line with conservatives’ favored “Judeo-Christian” rhetoric. But Islam—Islam is treated as a boogeyman. Don’t get me wrong, I have problems with the limitations on women’s rights that exist within many Islamic interpretations (it should be noticed that Hasidic Judaism places similar restrictions on women). But there’s something cloying in the way evangelicals talk about Judaism that feels less like acceptance and more like erasure.

I could write reams about this, and probably should at some point, but not here.

Next week we’ll find out how—or if—Peter exposes Humphrey for his unethical fundraising practices. Stay tuned!

I have a Patreon! Please support my writing!

Uncategorized

Anonymous Tip

Previous Post

December 22, 2016

From Patheos Atheist to Patheos Nonreligious

Next Post

December 24, 2016 Saturday Link Love: Democracy, Hitler, Transformation, and Monopoly

Browse Our Archives

Select a Category Atheism Evangelicalism/Fundamentalism Family Feminism Homeschool Meta Parenting Patriarchy Politics Purity Quiverfull Social Justice Uncategorized Worthwhile reads

Select a Month February 2021 January 2021 December 2020 November 2020 October 2020 September 2020 August 2020 July 2020 June 2020 May 2020 April 2020 March 2020 February 2020 January 2020 December 2019 November 2019 October 2019 September 2019 August 2019 July 2019 June 2019 May 2019 April 2019 March 2019 February 2019 January 2019 December 2018 November 2018 October 2018 September 2018 August 2018 July 2018 June 2018 May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011

TAKE THE

Religious Wisdom Quiz

Who had a colorful coat from his father?

Select your answer to see how you score.

Isaac Daniel David Joseph