Legalism and Generation Joshua: An Exercise in Confusion

https://www.christianpost.com/voices/how-the-fundamentals-of-christian-fundamentalism-led-me-out.html

I read this piece twice, attempting to take it all in and let it wash over me. I could appreciate some of what Elizabeth Doll has to say and yet at the same time was repulsed by it. There are definitely problems in some quarters of the Church and often it seems like the parts that affect people the most are not questions of substance but style, an ethos, and a kind of culture within the Church.

I was also left puzzled by how many of these young people truly don't understand things. Certain principles and ethics are drilled into their heads but either the parents are not spending the time on helping them to understand or they're failing in their attempts to do so.

The article primarily caught my eye because it's yet another disgruntled member of Generation Joshua. My kids were homeschooled and could have been part of all this - but weren't by design. We never joined HSLDA and have always rejected their Dominionist vision for the Church and America. For my part, I believe that since this is a false doctrinal paradigm it will necessarily generate bad results. In other words these sorts of tales don't surprise me.

Legalism is a tricky word and I find a lot of people don't understand it. Some fail to grasp that building walls and imposing extra-Scriptural commands is a form of legalism akin to what the Pharisees were doing in the time of Christ - and condemned by Him for it. It can also be about works-based salvation and this can dovetail with the extra-Scriptural 'checklist' attempts at piety. The made-up rules become the standard of orthodoxy - replacing the gospel. That's when legalism becomes really destructive - an air of self-righteousness and judgmentalism resting on a foundation of man-made rules.

But in other cases some people associate a vigorous Christianity that takes obedience seriously as being legalistic. This latter example is not legalism per se but an attempt at taking Scripture seriously. Scripture can of course be misinterpreted and abused and that's common enough. Some believe this infringes on grace and assurance but I would argue the Evangelical understanding of these concepts is deficient and deformed. Sometime it's half-true, but then once these partial truths are absolutized in the framework of theological system, the end result is a gross misrepresentation of Scripture. The result is cheap grace and presumption.

Reading of her attendance at Tea Party events as a teenager makes me think the issue here is not 'fundamentalism' or 'legalism' but a shallow and impoverished form of Christianity that is lost in the mire of Christendom, and the hybrid theology born of Dominionism that conflates and confuses philosophy and political ideology with New Testament doctrine. It sounds like at the very least her parent's energies were misguided.

Christian Democrats are lying to themselves - as are the myriad Christians who register with and vote for the GOP. There are problems with Christians who don't take the Bible seriously and while I disagree with Baconian and hyper-literalist readings of passages in Genesis and elsewhere - I wouldn't take exception to the fact that they're trying to be obedient to Scripture. Clearly Doll has broken with this - and what has she replaced it with? If the answer is some form of Darwinism, this is a problem. It doesn't necessarily mean a person isn't saved but rather the person has a flawed view of Biblical Authority and Revelation. As such the person is in danger and given time they risk losing their way and failing to continue in the faith grounded and settled. Moved away from the hope of the gospel they will fail to persevere.

She has rejected complimentarianism (which is often weak to begin with) - but what has she replaced it with? Has she simply turned to feminist egalitarianism? Once again, the Scriptures are undermined. She seems to equate fundamentalism with simply taking the Scriptures seriously - even though that's somewhat misleading when viewed through the lens of Church history. If she is saying the Scriptures are not to be taken as authoritative but still calls herself a Christian - what does that mean? Who says?

She's still a political conservative and involved in politics, seeking a more irenic civil religion. It seems to me that she has fled one faction and with it left behind much that was good - and yet retained its worst elements. What a sad and frustrating narrative.

The highest calling for a Christian is not to love 'our fellow Americans'. Their American identity is immaterial for our obligation is the same whether they are from Mexico, Italy, India, Russia, or China. To give herself to American politics is a waste and tells me that in all her struggles she has learned nothing at all. Is this her way of expressing dissatisfaction with her parents - to pursue a different political path? If so, that's pretty sad, for both parties involved.

She extols rationalism and doesn't realize that even as she professes Christ and the pursuit of wisdom she is in fact dancing on the edge of a precipice. She eschews mortification - which is admittedly no easy pursuit and yet to extol its opposite, to rejoice in self and self-affirmation? I tremble for this young woman and fear if she has not entirely lost her way she is in danger of doing so.

This paragraph says a lot:

Whether politically conservative or progressive, legalistic fundamentalism demands people’s souls. It insists on perfect adherence to imperfect laws and selectively enforces the law on its enemies. It offers no grace to sinners, just punishment it calls accountability.

She has confused fundamentalism (which she seems unable to define) with Christian politicking, with Dominionism and attempts to manifest the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth in the form of a political or tribal entity. She wants to explore - even sexually I guess, based on her opening statements. Without hesitation, the Enlightenment values of Western Liberalism are baptized, which easily blend with her notions and proclivities toward self-affirmation. What an indictment of her family and church. Clearly she has misunderstood things at the most basic of levels. What a sad piece to read.