Missing the Forest for the Trees: The 1960's and Revisionist History Through Omission (II)

I really object to the notion that 'legislation' feminized the Church. The connected issue (if one accepts their assumptions) is not the legislators per se who are officials in the Babel-kingdom of America. The issue is Church leaders who did not teach their people the difference between the holy and the profane, who did not separate Christian identity from American citizenship. Brown has no standing on this point as he is guilty of the latter and heavily promotes the Christian America mythology and the muscular pseudo-piety of the Christian warrior. As such he celebrates America's wars and all the lies, murder, and bloodshed they represent. I laugh at his concerns regarding women able to get into West Point, VMI, The Citadel, and the like. Paul would say, 'what have I to do with those who are outside? God will judge them.'

Christians don't go to West Point. Those who do should be put out of the Church, so what difference does it make if Babylon wants to train its women to kill for the empire? It has nothing to do with us.

This confusion of Church and culture is critical to understanding the flawed thought process of men like Brown. The conduct of the Philistines would only affect the Israelites when the Israelites forgot their identity. Abortion, feminism, promiscuity, the sex, drugs, and rock ethos of the Sixties era only affect the Church when the Church is confused, let alone something like legislation for equal pay. Forcing pagan women to stay home and be housewives is not going to make them Christians.

If the Church was changed by cultural trends then that is the fault of Church leaders. They failed and are still failing today. And why? It wasn't just a question of negligence which was the case often enough, but worse, they embraced Dominionism and in wanting the Church to be relevant (as they see it), it would need to be mainstream and affluent. They sold the Church a set of counterfeit sacraments (means of grace, means of building the Kingdom) and instead poisoned the Church. They have taken over the American Church and any opposition to their basic assumptions is immediately reckoned heretical.

How are the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin apostates? His categories are confused. He thinks anyone who deviates from Christian culture is apostate. The culture is not 'Christian' unless one re-defines the term. The culture is not baptised or in union with Christ. The Holy Spirit does not indwell the culture. There's no Shekinah in the Capitol. This kind of confused syncretist teaching is the very problem is this is the irony here - Brown and Bowers want to take on this issue and yet it's because of men like them (in the Church) that the Church is where it presently is. This is another one of those moments where the truth is stranger than fiction.

Bowers goes off the rails and starts in on Marxists and the like. It's just ignorant talk for the most part and unhelpful but such grand conspiracy-driven rhetoric resonates with his audience. It's clear that he relies heavily on red-baiting tactics and a cesspool of lies (to borrow his phrase). His website testifies to this.

I was not at all surprised to find Bowers' materials on the John Birch Society's New American website. In case you've forgotten the JBS was basically in line with Joseph McCarthy and insisted that not only were FDR, Truman, and Kennedy communists, but so was Eisenhower. Buffoonish is a word that comes to mind. This movement (which was largely discredited after the failed Goldwater campaign in 1964) has experienced a massive resurgence in the 2000's. I even found Bircher-inspired presentations at a PCA conference I attended back in 2024. I don't think it was unique and I certainly was aware of their influence and infiltration of Fundamentalist circles back in the day - a reality that continues to the present as seen most poignantly with radio shows like VCY's misnamed CrossTalk.

There's scaremongering regarding population collapse which might present economic difficulties but as I have long argued (from history) such talk is sensational. Things will change, but societies and cultures survive. But with Bowers and Brown we get the pronoun confusion - 'We're done' and the like as if the Church is not to be distinguished from America or as if the Church's fate is somehow tied to America. It's flawed thinking and to be honest even heretical as it (again) redefines the gospel by changing the definition of 'Christian' and it certainly represents a corruption of Biblical teaching regarding the Kingdom of Heaven.

And if might ride a hobby-horse for moment, I find it rich that Baptists who largely reject a theology of means, instead seem to heavily rely on a contrived theology of means - wherein the state, legislation, and thus coercion are a 'means' of 'strengthening' Christian families and building the Church. Where does the New Testament suggest the Holy Spirit works through these means? I can point to means the Spirit uses (such as the sacraments), but as Baptists they downplay these means and make them symbolic at best - when in fact I would argue they are both real and efficacious. As I said, forcing pagan women to stay home and be housewives is not going to make them be Christians or have strong moral families. It can (at best) create a veneer and that's what you had throughout the first two-thirds of the twentieth century. It was just a hollow and empty form that had been gutted of any substance the previous century. Of course it collapsed. Passing an equal pay law did not bring it about. Talk about missing the forest for the trees!

The idea that Christians might be marginalised or live as second class citizens is unthinkable to them and so we have to focus our time and energy on criticizing and overturning equal pay legislation, civil rights, Title IX, and every DEI directive. If you're living a quiet life, working with your hands, and minding your own business to witness toward them that are 'without', then such things are of little concern or bother to us. Now if you're trying to be a mover and shaker, to get rich and run a large corporation - then yes, you have to play by the rules and as such you're pulled into politics. Note that for Bowers and Brown the 'without' language (a preposition) necessitates the pronouns of 'us' and 'them' - not the 'we' of Evangelicalism, or the kind of sacralist assumptions that dominate the thinking found in this episode.

There's even more confusion in Brown's comments on Title IX. He thinks it leads to men beating up women - does he think this didn't happen in the past? Also, he waves the flag and promotes nationalism. Well, the US is a democratic republic and if taxpayers want to see programmes expanded and greater access then there's nothing in the Constitution to forbid it. I can reject it but I don't subscribe to the Constitution to begin with. If one votes, then one accepts the assumptions of democracy and that includes the idea that to support the system (like a patriot) you accept the results and work democratically to change them if you think it necessary. Brown clearly rejects this and yet wants to wave the flag - he wants to have his cake and eat it too. He also has no qualms in investing in the system and profiting from it - even while he argues that it's immoral. If it's immoral then put your money where your mouth is, pull out your investments, and earn an honest living as Paul commanded. But take heed, you might have to change the way you live and he and his rich friends may not like it so much.

The whole discussion begs the question. They assume the confused identity of Church and Culture - the theology of sacralism. If they're wrong (and they certainly are), then all their analysis is skewed and misleading.

The world is full of lost and wicked people. I guess they seem to find that shocking? And yet the 'cure' they would offer is a spiritual carcinogen. They are the poisoners. They're also deceiving themselves. I already reported on the absurdity of Brown's upcoming conference on the Quiet and Faithful Christian life. That's not what they're about. Not even close.

I hope Brown is right and that there's a shift taking place among the up and coming generation with regard to things like family worship. I think he's guilty of exaggeration but I'm afraid I also think that these models when integrated with Dominionist theology often go astray and will ultimately reap a rotten harvest. It's been going on long enough now that we're able to start seeing the fruit - the kids reaching adulthood. At best I would say the results are mixed. There are some still in the faith - but what faith? Is it simply MAGA Christianity? That's not the religion of the New Testament. I also see significant evidence of apostasy and its really ugly and especially tragic when it happens.