Last year, on October 3, I did a live interview with John Hall and Stephanie Fraschetti from Word-FM about the "Jesus Camp" documentary that was then the height of Evangelical fear-mongering (start here if you don't know what I'm talking about: "Jesus Camp: Brainwashed in the Blood — or Is it Spin?"). At least that was before the Ted Haggard fracas blew up.

Not long before this interview took place, I had also been interviewed by MSNBC for its program, "The Most." (If you're interested, see "Jesus Camp and BlogRodent on MSNBC."). It was interesting experiencing these two interview formats back-to-back. I enjoyed being on "The Most" as a floating-head talker, but I really enjoyed chatting with John

At 2:40 PM (CST) on Tuesday, September 26, I "appeared" on MSNBC's 'Net review: The Most, with Alison Stewart. Alison's producer spoke with Mark Moring, editor for the Christianity Today Movies channel, wondering if he'd be willing to answer a few questions about Jesus Camp on-air.

Since I'd seen the documentary and recently written an article for CT Movies, he deferred to me. I nervously accepted the opportunity.

I appeared not as a representative of Christianity Today (my employer), but as "a Pentecostal blogger" writing for Christianity Today Movies.

For three minutes, I fielded three questions:

• "What did you walk away from this documentary thinking about Evangelical camps for kids?"
• "Becky Fischer ...

Jesus Camp, what an experience. Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady's investigation into the hidden world of one Pentecostal kids' camp simultaneously delighted me, fascinated me, and embarrassed me. I love this film. I hate this film.

It angers me.

For those who haven't seen the trailer, by now, the premise is simple: follow three pre-teens from Missouri heading to a summer camp owned by the Assemblies of God in Devils Lake, North Dakota (Lakewood Park Bible Camp). Document their experiences there, and follow up on the aftermath. Simple enough.

But the devil, as they say, is in the details. Or, in this case, the future Evangelical Army of God is in the details. As Ewing and Grady have noted, their initial raw footage had no real drama: "There was absolutely no conflict. … it wasn't dynamic enough." So, toss in a conflicted profile of the "Kids on Fire" camp director, Becky Fischer; include a few oddball characters for color and commentary; stir up dissent using Air America radio host Mike Papantonio and his uninformed Greek chorus of callers. Then get a major Charismatic Evangelical to appear in the documentary to give your subtext some heft and legitimacy and tie it all together with a neat little bow called George Bush and the Supreme Court.

This week, Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady's indie documentary, Jesus Camp, is set to release, and already the blogosphere is all abuzz about it. I can't wait. I will be catching a pre-release screening of the film through the auspices of Christianity Today International, my employer, and will write my reactions to it as soon as possible. Of course, I'll share it with you.

Upon seeing the trailer, linked below, I was shocked and fascinated. Repelled and embarrassed. And angry. You see, I went to these camps as a kid. I witnessed this kind of exuberant excess, only I saw it with the eyes of an insider, both as a teenager and later as a camp counselor. I have seen the pseudo exorcisms (I sincerely doubt any of the exhibitions I saw at the altar were genuine possession) and I've seen my peers faint and wooden on the floor, both praising, weeping, and sometimes faking it.

And, looking back, it is a little creepy. But it was also formative.

I submit for your consideration two apparently unrelated questions:

• Is the Assemblies of God a cult?
• Is Wikipedia an authoritative encyclopedia?

I submit that the Assemblies of God is as much like a cult as the Wikipedia is authoritative. We are, instead, a movement.

A Word on Wikipedia
Over the last few months Wikipedia has taken much heat over its collaborative form of public authoring and editing. Nearly anyone can post an article, make an edit, or undo edits. This is good, and not-so-good: The good of it is that Wikipedia benefits from the collective mind of many editors. Where one editor may have it wrong, several others can guide an article to incremental perfection (in theory). On the other hand, one misinformed or biased "editor" can make subtle or egregious changes, and it may not come to the attention of those best armed to correct it. Thus, Wikipedia's