The sad part is the
resulting pendulum swings. Some of these groups have taken whatever issue
they've chosen to emphasize too far. In some cases they're not altogether wrong
but by overemphasizing it, effectively making it part of the gospel... the
reaction can be pretty severe. The pendulum (as it were) swings from one
extreme to the other.
When I read of the fall of
Bill Gothard or Doug Phillips of Vision Forum it seems like many of the
Christian critics are taking almost a feminist/modernist bent. Of course the defenders of these men will
condemn all their critics as liberal worldlings. Some indeed are, but that
doesn't vindicate the advocates of Patriarchy either. I find myself a little
frustrated. I've always had my reservations about these groups and it's good
that their downfalls are leading to some questioning. But the questioning often
seems to venture into equally unhealthy and disturbing waters.
Apparently many of the men
are abusive and treat women badly. Some of the stuff borders on the obscene. But
when I read their critics I'm presented with a quasi-feminism as the only
alternative. Suddenly if I don't want my wife or daughters to be career women,
I'm some kind of tyrant or abuser.
Suddenly because of the
abuses by Vision Forum or Sovereign Grace Ministries, if you have a
twenty-something unmarried daughter who is living at home, you're pretty
suspect. You're probably abusing her or have brainwashed her.
It's not quite fair. I can
think of several cases where a twenty-something daughter is at home but the
family is in no way caught up in the Patriarchy movement. The suggestion is
that if she's not out pursuing a career then she's being oppressed,
brainwashed, or has been paralyzed by her upbringing.
It's unfortunate but the
abuses always lead to a pendulum swing that in the end can prove just as
harmful.
I often find myself in the
unenviable position of trying to defend 'some' of the positions and yet make it
known that my motivation and hopefully my spirit is quite different.
I think it needs to be
emphasized that when it comes to these groups everything must be viewed through
the lens of Dominionism. Ultimately this is the foundation and driving force of
their theology. They have a particular goal related to the culture, and a
system/strategy they use to attain it.
For me, the structuring of
my family, how I view my children, my daughters, how we order our family in
terms of authority, and how we approach issues like children etc... all stem from a desire to be obedient to
Scripture and demonstrate faithfulness in our lives.
Isn't that what the
Patriarchy people are doing? I know that's what they would say, but again I insist
that Dominionism is the elephant in the room or (as I see it) the storm cloud
that's overhead casting a long ominous shadow. I don't think of the Church in
terms of conquering the culture, and please understand these groups have
different approaches to this.
Some believe in active
engagement at the present and trying to heal culture's wounds. Others (like
Generation's Kevin Swanson) may 'seem' like retreatists. He's deceitfully hijacked
the Mayflower imagery and speaks of effectively pulling back from the culture.
Why? Is he a quietistic pietist? a Separatist on the order of the Mayflower
Pilgrims? Some kind of Neo-Amish? Hardly. His goal is to circle the wagons, literally
breed a new Dominionist army and when American culture collapses in a
generation or two, then they will ready to step in and take over society.
Regardless of the approach
all of these groups have a 'mission' when it comes to culture. In some way they
want to see a Christian society and believe they must offer Christian
solutions, version or blueprints to counter the lost world's culture. I would
maintain the Bible teaches us something quite different and as well meaning as
their intentions sound to the ear they are misguided and actually represent a
serious departure from the New Testament's teaching regarding the Kingdom of
God and the ethics that flow from it.
All of the issues are
effectively politicized and subjugated to the overall agenda. There's a type of
coherence to all of it but it doesn't mean that it's Biblical.
There's a lot of legalism,
a lot of imposed extra-Scriptural rules that really are generated from cultural
taboos and interpretations of history. I've written in the past about how many
groups identify with a historical 'Golden Age', a period they think was the
last 'good' time before culture took a bad turn.
Of course a lot of the
criticisms (from ex-members and outsiders) are also juvenile and equally
misguided. Some seem to be really upset over Calvinist use of alcohol. That
said, I know those circles well and some of the Calvinists even pendulum swing
a bit. Many have escaped the legalism of the Baptist/Evangelical world and now
eagerly (and perhaps with a bit too much zeal) embrace the consumption of alcohol.
Some guys I knew from many
years ago were definitely pushing it a bit. They weren't just going to have a
beer or glass of wine with dinner, which is Scripturally just fine... no, they
were going to push the envelope. It wouldn't surprise me to find out that some
of them ended up drinking a little too much from time to time.
But at the same time those
who are absolutely critical of any alcoholic consumption have their own problems
with legalism, flawed exegesis, and faulty theological construction.
Continue reading Part 2
Continue reading Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.