A Botkin Update and a Botkin Success Story

I don't exactly get it myself, but many people find them fascinating, and posts about them here on this site remain among the perennially popular. I just see the family as a typical example of those who transitioned out of one cultic group to enter another, changing very few of their beliefs in the process. Spiritual abuse is spiritual abuse.

The Botkin Family seems to be ramping up for some new activities after having purchased a new camp-style compound in Tennessee which I assume means that they won't be running off to New Zealand. I've heard that “visionary lord of his home” Geoffrey Botkin is officially awaiting the birth of grandchildren now, so he can finally get cracking on that 200 Year Plan for his offspring. I'm not sure what he's going to do about his written plan to make his son Prime Minister of NZ since they no longer reside there. Maybe they tabled that idea? The revision sounds like a lot of work.

In the meanwhile, the Visionary Daughters who apparently have not yet been permitted to court have written a book of advice on how young women in homeschooling's aberrant patriarchy movement should relate to young men. (To their credit, I understand that it is not nearly as disturbing as their first book, So Much More.) Their beautiful, insightful, and well-educated cousin, has written about her honest response to her beautiful first cousins' new book. Katie Botkin who writes the review is the daughter of Geoff's brother Gregg and his wife who were both involved with the Great Commission cult under Jim McCotter in the seventies (along with Geoff) but departed from and disavowed the group's system long ago. Geoff who was recruited at about the same time as his brother remained with the Great Commission and then remained with McCotter as a business partner until 2002. His Great Commission beliefs made for an easy transition in the similar spiritually abusive system of Vision Forum.

I understand that Katie stands in stark contrast to the stay at home daughter ideal that her cousins teach, epitomizing some of the very things that her Visionary Daughter cousins warn against. But I rejoice to see that, though her parents departed from a restrictive and spiritually abusive lifestyle that they still maintain a good relationship with Geoff and “Vicky” Botkin (as “Victoria” was known to her friends in the “Saints” in the Great Commission in Norman, Oklahoma when they participated in the cultic group). Families like Gregg's and their children like Katie encourage me so much because I tend to focus on the numbers of people who contact me for help with the negative fallout which results in the lives of their children as a consequence of their own spiritual abuse experience. The second generation is often required to pay the price of pain as the lasting legacy of spiritually abusive groups.

I see Katie Botkin as a success story, and she is living proof to parents who struggle with the aftermath of spiritual abuse and the effects that it has on their children. I'm also glad that she has what I understand is a loving relationship and good communication with her extended family, even though they remain part of a such a spiritually abusive system. It is my hope that in years to come, she will be a resource and a testimony to them of what can be possible if and when they decide to depart from the system. I hope that the many parents who contact me and read here will take encouragement in Katie's example, living proof that children whose parents were involved in spiritual abuse can go on to live very full, rich, rewarding, and meaningful lives. I have heard nothing but encouraging things about her family through mutual friends and acquaintances, and that is something worth celebrating.

.

Courageous: Just the Theological Stuff (. . . Not Much More than a Vision Forum 'How To' Video)

 

A friend wrote to me today to ask if I could change my review of the film, Courageous, so that the theological issues introduced by the film cold appear first. Rather than do that, I've decided just to repost only the section of the review that deals with the disturbing, subtle theological problems posed within the film in an additional blog post. If you'd like some perspective on the cinematographic aspects, directing, and writing, you can LINK HERE to the original full review in the previous post to read more.

Excerpted from the full review of the film, Courageous, by Sherwood Films

by Cindy Kunsman

(Also, don't miss the review of the film at 

the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition!)

Religious Themes

Many of the single ideas which the film proposed in droves spoke to true, insightful and beneficial tenets of the Christian Faith, including dutiful parenting on the part of a father, and responsible behavior in terms of ethics. These were admirable qualities for which the film was notable, but they were directed into more specific concepts that I often found less than praiseworthy.

Intimacy Issues. Probably the greatest difficulty with the film revolved around the overall lack of believable intimacy among the characters, even though it attempted to portray and emphasize relationships.. None of the male characters modeled an appropriate level of intimacy with their wives, and I was disappointed to see the film abandon the developing story of the relationship between the bereaved parents. We see only one conversation of any depth between them. Javier's wife in particular (the strongest marriage in the lot) and the other wives seem to be portrayed as cheerleaders on the sideline of the real game of life, but the interactions didn't connote any degree of honest intimacy, especially between the characters who lost a child in the film. I wonder if this accurately reflects the nature of marital intimacy among the complementarians who foster this lifestyle and ideology?

In terms of emotional self-disclosure, respect, and dialogue, the group of men were far closer to their male companions within the group than they seemed to be with their wives, but even the level of intimacy among the men proved disappointingly superficial to me. I found that the two strongest emotional bonds between characters in the film were forged by a single character. Rather than showing deeper intimacy through marriage, I found that the relationship between the father and his teen daughter to be the most developed, intimate relationship portrayed in the film, followed by this same father character's relationship with his deadbeat, absent dad coworker whom he compassionately encourages to repent. Did the film really intend to communicate to the audience an ideal that men's closest relationships should be those with other men and those shared their daughters as opposed to their wives? (Read more HERE about Voddie Baucham's telling statement concerning how attention from daughters basically keeps a man from committing adultery because of his yearnings.)  17Feb12 ADDENDUM:  Listen to the comment directly in the video clip posted below.

Dating Daddy and his Proposal. I found the daddy-daughter date scene to be disturbing. Essentially, the father proposes to his daughter, using language which indicates that he considers himself to be on equal footing and of the same order of person with his daughter's potential mates. Consistent with the belief within this subculture that young women remain married to the father through ownership until they marry another father-vetted and approved man, the father in the film uses the language of Vision Forum to reinforce the ideology of courtship. Such a system which Vision Forum promotes as Biblical was not even demanded under Judaism, a concept that they filter through their distorted version of Covenant Theology. (Read more HERE.) So to adapt and cope with the inherent risks of trusting a daughter to conduct herself with dignity, grace and chastity, the father overcorrects for his legitimate concerns and fears through an extra-Biblical ritual which signifies ownership. I felt sick at the close of the father-daughter date scene as the daughter gazed at the father's heart-shaped ring that he actually places on her finger after his proposal – a proposal that she was duty bound to accept as an obedient daughter. (With a suitor, she presumably has the liberty to decline such a proposal, that is, if her father decides to allow her that liberty. Not all do in patriarchy.)

Winning Hearts and Guarding Souls. The last scene of the film finally states the primary purpose of lauding the duties of fatherhood through a formal homily. The “winning hearts” concept, a theme within Vision Forum circles, relates to their teaching of parents to turn their children's hearts toward home, a system that often proves to be oppressive for women. As a general statement, it isn't such a terrible concept, but in consideration of the culture's loaded language, this encoded and covert terminology masks the spiritually abusive nature of their teachings. It conceals the meat of their doctrine wherein father's govern, direct, and micromanage family members to ensure their service to the “father's vision” and family objectives. Fathers require their families to serve his primary vision, requiring his prior approval and blessing of all of their personal endeavors as individuals. (Please also note HERE and in the archives of the San Antonio Christian Film Festival that Sherwood and Kirk Cameron have an established relationship with Vision Forum.)

Andrew Sandlin once astutely noted that this hegemonic system has little to do with a Biblical concept and more in common with the pagan Roman Paterfamilias. Father overlords in Vision Forum's system require their “obsequious sons” to submit to all of their wishes, even if that son is a fully grown adult, a concept also criticized strongly by counter cult apologist, Don Veinot (pdf file). The misleading language concerning hearts sounds like a mere reference to loving relationships, but under the veneer, it speaks to their doctrine of the father as a family despot.

The Father as Spiritual Intermediary Priest for his Children. Though it is subtle and because I am familiar with the doctrines taught within the subculture, I note the subtly conveyed concept that fathers also act as intermediary priests for their children which the film implies. In the homily at the end of the film, the character named Adam first uses the language of “God's design for families.” The veneer looks quite appealing, but the underbelly of the concept is a pagan Paterfamilia snare created by language which manipulates thought. In terms of Vision Forum's system, this is not God's design for families, but rather exemplifies the traditions of men. We then hear fathers noted as primary models of integrity for their children, but nothing is said of the contribution of mothers. Not to downplay the commitment to integrity that fathers should model, but take note that within this ideology, women are seen as a type of child whom her husband must chastise and rule, arguing Hebrews 12 and Ephesians 5 as a proof texts. She is not a mutual, co-equal partner in parenting. The husband parents her along with their children.

The protagonist makes the true statement that fathers must be accountable for their responsibilities as fathers, but in the next sentence, talk of the souls of children implies more than just parental guidance and spiritual training. It refers to the spiritualizing of the role of fathers, as it is believed within this system that each father serves his family as an intermediary spiritual priest for which Voddie Baucham in particular is most notable. These men within Vision Forum's system believe that they intercede for their children's souls through their home-centered ecclesiocentric system, and their concept exceeds mere training and guidance. They teach that the father sanctifies the family, suggesting that marriage itself is a something of a sacrament. (Baucham claims falsely on page 39 of What Must He Be If He Wants To Marry My Daughter that Martin Luther teaches about the “sanctifying works wrought by the marriage covenant,” an excellent example of the type of misleading, fuzzy logic used by the group to propagate this concept which they tend to convey indirectly to avoid criticism.) Confused seminary students at MBTS asked me about this very idea after a presentation I once gave there, as they believed that they would stand before God to make spiritual intercession for the sins of their wives. Please note this statement of the Owner/Publisher of a homeschooling magazine affiliated with this group (emphasis mine), a pragmatic example of what earnest people understand about this doctrine:

He has served as a regional support group board member leading the charge to exhort homeschooling fathers and husbands to assume their God-given duty to be the leaders of their homes, including sanctifying their wives. . .

This is not a Protestant teaching, and it isn't even consistent with Judaism. It is something more akin to a distortion of Roman Catholic Theology, something that should be disturbing to Reformed Protestants. I had to laugh about the “Resolution” ceremony in the film as my husband said, “They should be repeating this in Latin, and then they should be sprinkled with holy water.” Scripture lends no support to the idea that a father becomes a type of demigod to his children or a spiritual intermediary who pleads before God for mercy because of the sins of his children or his wife. A father can intercede for his children through prayer, model behavior, train them in ethics and truth, teach them to be wise and discerning, but he neither governs nor stands as a mediator for the souls of his children. He will be held accountable for his behavior as a father, but not for his children's own sins. An element of this idea prevails within the teachings of many Baptists who maintain that corporal punishment holds the power to purify the soul. Only God can do that, and only the Blood can wash away our sins. No man holds that power for another human being. Sinful flesh cannot sanctify sinful flesh.

Overcorrection and Extremism as a Mindset. I do realize that men often do not feel honored or encouraged in these aspects of life, either because they were raised without fathers or had fathers that were absent, uninvolved, or unprepared. Sadly, I believe that the film models an overcorrection and unnecessary extreme for these problems as it is practiced in the patriarchal lifestyle it seeks to chronicle. Rather than seeking a balance of mature Christian living in balanced moderation, the solution becomes an overcorrection to the problem which I believe results in a new and different error.

Prevalent within the Vision Forum practices of the father-centered home wherein his children and wife exist to serve his vision, a propensity to create histrionic ritual flourishes. The group will jump at any chance to dress up in period costumes of some variety and have events “Reformation Fairs” that prove to themselves and the rest of the world that they are more special to God than everyone else. (At three points during the film, my husband said “Oh, no! Here's another excuse for them to play 'dress up'.”) They are obsessed with outward appearance, and though they would be the first to decry ritual in the Catholic and Emergent Churches, they will be the first to create their own odd rituals. Marriage ceremonies among the Vision Forum elite include knighting the groom with a sword, the transfer of the father's authority to the groom, the washing of the groom's feet by the bride as an act of submission, presentation of a quiver for arrows to groom and bride, the payment of a gold coin to the father of the bride which had been dubbed the “bride price” (actually a compensation paid to a father if his daughter's sexual purity has been defiled or defamed under the Mosaic Law), or the payment of some dowry. Some groups even withhold the time of the ceremony from the bride as a reference to Matthew 25 (Select “Biblical Betrothal,” and make sure to watch the bizarre “training videos” noted in the sidebar, particularly the two that reference wedding ceremonies which include some of these noted rituals).

This group of people needs a parade for everything that they do because of the conformity and uniformity demanded of followers as an show of spirituality. As others have pointed out, why do the men in this film and in the homeschooling patriarchy movement need a celebration for those tasks that they knew were their duty when they married and had children? Why do they need a resolution to follow when Scripture spells out their responsibilities? From their character and the transformation that takes place in them through the Word and the Spirit as they mature in Christ come the abilities that they will need to parent through the full counsel of the Word. Why is a resolution necessary? They replace the Word with their resolutions, the traditions of men, following them instead of the simple truths that are noted in Scripture. They replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit with a new type of legalism which they bind to themselves and write on their hearts instead of the Word. It allows them to maintain control through the arm of the flesh instead of trusting God like the rest of us. This speaks of love, not control.

Reasons behind the extremism. I believe that this impetus to make overcorrections that we see portrayed in Courageous results from two causes. First, many follow a pattern of perspective and a system of thought which prefers conspiracy, scapegoating, catastrophe, and legalism. Chip Berlet dubs this as Right Wing Populism, and the group follows from long “multigenerational” tradition in this system of elitism and survival of the spiritually fittest. (To fully understand the ugliness beneath the kitsch of the group's odd terminology, consider devoting time to reading this material.)

I believe that the second influence which drives the group to extremes to overcompensate for problems that arise from concerns like fatherlessness that we see in the film, they turn to formulas to guard against their own unresolved personal pain under the guise of protecting their families. (We see this in the resolution and church ceremonies followed by the band of Sheriff brothers in the film.) When parents raise children without appropriately respecting their naivete and the limitations of their age, they tend to raise those children to become adults who are uncomfortable with imperfection and immaturity in themselves. As adults, they then work to drive imperfection out of their children or at least guard against experiences that they find painful through formulaic solutions (e.g., the Resolution and the father-daughter ring ritual). In real life, these formulaic practices tend to degrade into extremes of legalism which compete with balanced Christian living over time. As Vyckie Garrison notes, because the father-centered ideology redefines balance as sinful mediocrity and compromise to be resisted at all costs under most all circumstances, her family “did NOT want to be balanced.” This is a core symptom of dysfunction found in families affected by addiction, a pattern of behavior that Vision Forum teaches as God's ordained plan for godly living.

From How Parents' Intolerance of a Child's Immaturity Creates Both Victims and Abusers:

These adults have difficulty with the routine experience and expression of mature, adult behavior, understanding balance as lack of passion or lack of life because the chaos and drama in their family of origin raises the bar on the level of stimulation they need. . .

The over-mature and controlling adult children of dysfunctional homes tend to erect walls as boundaries in relationships, and the relationships that they do foster tend to be very non-spontaneous. They've never been allowed to embrace their immaturity, and that is how they perceive appropriate playful behavior in adulthood.  I believe that these individuals tend to gravitate towards legalistic religions and fringe Christianity, believing that their extremes demonstrate greater faith.  Plain, old mainstream religion just doesn't seem like quite enough for them.  They don't want to follow "dead Christianity," so they choose extreme versions of it.

In many of these individuals who continue to suffer as adults from the unhealed wounds and the dysfunctional patterns from their own family of origin, the drama and the extremes and the ritual replace true intimacy. Those affected mistake the drama for intimacy because it helps them feel alive. They are generally so overwhelmed with shame and suffer with feelings of low worth and lack of love for themselves and in themselves, that love is about little more than duty and deadness. They distract themselves from the sense of numbness by controlling and dominating others, though in the film, we only see the ideal of the virtuous intent. One need only to read about the painful and often devastating consequences on but a few spiritual abuse survivor blogs to learn about the risks and some of the more unfortunate outcomes that result, despite the best of intentions.

Courageous is, at best, a string of moralistic vignettes that are poorly knit together. Not all will understand the subtle messages about homeschooling's aberrant patriarchy movement embedded in the film, and they will hopefully not fall prey to the deception that others practice I'm concerned that it will become a gateway into groups like Vision Forum, especially considering its early popular appeal among many Christian groups. To those who see it as a film that glorifies father-centered, “family integrated,” “multigenerational faithfulness,” all terms that mean something very different from their deceptive pleasant sound, it is a documentary of their priestcraft.

In closing have to include these two noteworthy comments from my husband:

“All in all, the acting wasn't that bad, considering the precious little the actors had to work with.”

“Some days I swear that they're Roman Catholic. Some days I swear that they're Muslim. And some days, I just swear.”

Referenced comment starts at about 2 minutes into the clip:

A Thorough Review of Courageous: A String of Moralistic Vignettes or a Documentary of Priestcraft?

 (Though I have written the review itself, the content represents the perspective and strong opinions that I share with my husband who screened the film with me at the request of the Freedom for Christian Women Coalition and helped to craft this response.)

At the outset, let me say that from personal experience, I have the utmost respect for Sheriffs in particular. I also never fully appreciated the dangerous nature of their job when patrolling highways until I discussed the topic with a couple of medical examiners about a decade ago. I had never before considered what it must be like to perform autopsy after autopsy on law enforcement officers who are killed when they approach a vehicle at the roadside. I want to make clear that my review of this film should not be considered a poor reflection on the courage of men who undertake such dangerous work, performing it with both valor and compassion. Aspects of this movie did give me cause to consider my appreciation for the true kindness of law enforcement officers.

Significant Factors of Distraction

I found that I did not have as many kind things to say about the movie as did my friends who were critical of messages in the film, and my husband was far more critical of the film than I was. It lacked some of the elements that better funded studios feature such as more consistent incidental sound and music, though I suppose one should consider that Sherwood Productions lacks access to the resources of larger film producers. During the scenes that did not crescendo to a particular point of drama, I found the total absence of incidental background noise and music disconcerting. The film also featured many of the scenes where character's heads were cut off at the top by the field of view and were followed with camera angles that were too tight, so much so that I found myself actually hunching down and holding my own head in an odd position.

I found that all of these factors presented notable distractions from the story of the film. I actually took a class in cinematography with a delightful, fascinating, and eccentric playwright professor in college wherein I studied the powerful yet subtle implications of camera angles, framing, and other factors such as depth of field. I'm certainly no expert from a single class as an undergraduate, but I don't recall studying the implications of subtly conveyed meaning of the camera angles used in Courageous, especially early in the film. Having heard good things about the film from some tough critics, perhaps I held too high of an expectation for the flow its technical aspects?

I also found the law enforcement characters' propensity to speak on the phone and read phone displays while driving to be problematic, considering the many state laws banning such activity and the data showing the distraction potential of talking on the phone while driving, even while using a hands-free device. My husband also noted some procedural problems including the use of a taser device without first warning the suspect. At another point of climax in the film, the sheriffs took refuge behind a civilian's car (with him in it) during a gun fight which put him in the way of fatal harm. (The film did not note whether this civilian survived.) The officers also took personal cell phone calls in the midst of very critical duties on the job, something I hope is not a common practice. Considering the source of the film as well as my own experience in a profession managing life and death situations, I found these factors to be inconsistent. I make note of them here because their degree of irresponsibility seemed retrograde to the film's focused concern with ethics and duty.

Plot and Character Development

Rather than identifying a primary protagonist with whom the audience could identify, the early phase of the film introduced several different, primary characters, and I was confused about the plot because those characters didn't relate well to one another within a cohesive storyline. I suppose that if I was not as distracted by the aforementioned factors, I may have been less disoriented by the numerous shallow profiles of too many people with whom I did not emotionally connect, especially in the first forty minutes of the film. Within the first first twenty minutes into a good film, the director should clearly communicate the identity of the primary protagonist(s), providing some insight into the dilemma faced within the unfolding storyline.

Not until the pivotal event of the death of a child which occurred well into the film was I able to identify strongly with any one character in a way that fostered my interest in the rather arcane plot. This emotional hook was also superficial because of the competing, various, and somewhat abstract themes that were suggested for this character, all of which I found lacking in continuity. In fact, I didn't really learn the name of the primary protagonist until a third of the way into the film, and I was not sure how his family members were related until the funeral scene The director gave no salient clues to foreshadow the film's most significant elements, as everything (and therefore nothing) seemed central until the midpoint of the film. I did quite a bit of this type of “catching up” throughout the film because the director did not make clear these central and essential elements. Even the relationship between the eventually emerging protagonist and his children seemed weak to me and far too short in duration, an odd element considering the film's slowly emerging theme of dutiful fatherhood.

Storyline and Primary Message

Essentially, Courageous consisted of a string of somewhat thematically related moralistic vignettes and discussions that the writers and director attempted to knit together rather poorly. This made the many characters and what seemed like too numerous, peripheral dilemmas of equal significance seem very abstract because of their lack of clear progression towards a final conclusion which had to be stated overtly in the film's final scene. At one point, my husband postulated that perhaps the film sought to demonstrate to relationships among Christian men. At another point, he asked again whether it was meant as a “how to film” which displayed “proper behavior demonstrating the way 'real' and 'manly men' should talk to one another “for the sake of moralizing.”

Another rather superficial aspect of the film involved it's shallow and predictable storyline and dialogue. In real life, even intimate friends experience conflict, yet the story featured little to no interpersonal conflict within relationships, save for the character Javier's dilemma with an employer who set out to test is integrity. (I found that troubling, as he was “tempted with evil” by his employer. If the film sought to send a pure, Christian message, the writer should note the Book of James which states that God tempts no man with evil through deception.)

Even the more intimate personal conversations largely lacked the natural friction and tension that exists in all relationships, like an old episode of the Donna Reed Show. This lack also added to the burden created by the lack of critical engagement resulting from the unclear plot and character identity. Especially concerning the scenes which dealt with bereavement, as my husband and I deal professionally with the bereaved, we found this dialogue to be disappointingly unrealistic and disturbingly short. My husband stated, “The characters exist in abstraction. They say all of the things that you're 'supposed' to say, but it isn't the way people really talk in genuine, real life conversations.” We both also noted the use of the loaded language used within these limited Christian circles which would have little meaning to those outside of those subcultures. This created another distraction, giving cause to again question the target audience for the film.

Introduction of Too Many Interesting Themes Which Were Abruptly Dropped Without Development

Perhaps if the film had focused on only one or two of the twenty or so potential plot lines with which it flirted, it would have made for a more cohesive plot that could have served to support the primary moral message. The early contrast between “good” Christian bonding among the deputies versus the “bad” bonding among gang members would have made for a very dynamic central plot. The character with a daughter that he had abandoned and other references to the negative outcomes associated with fatherlessness could have strongly dovetailed with this bonding theme in interesting ways, but most of these themes remained significantly undeveloped or were abandoned. Even the issue of bereavement was completely dropped at a certain point to follow the new theme of the “Resolution” of ethics and conduct which the men pledged and signed. The potential for tension between father and daughter which was complicated by the relationship triangle created by the daughter's new suitor could have also been developed in greater depth in a realistic way to clearly support the primary plot and moral.

The film seemed to develop into an “accountability group” theme that focused on relationships among men, but even that developing emotional intimacy and interpersonal connection fell to the wayside in favor of the new, emerging theme of the “Resolution” document. The Resolution took the film into another divergent path instead of weaving all of the themes together into a the film's potential for a single converging moral message. They had great material for several subplots which could have worked towards a central theme over the course of the movie or could have served as plots for several other single films. Instead, I feel that the writer and director just threw all of their favorite ideas together but didn't artfully connect them in a way that supported a consolidated the moral message which had to be conveyed directly at the end in a sermon. The film lacked that type of mastery of the art of storytelling which is necessary for all really great films.

Religious Themes

Many of the single ideas which the film proposed in droves spoke to true, insightful and beneficial tenets of the Christian Faith, including dutiful parenting on the part of a father, and responsible behavior in terms of ethics. These were admirable qualities for which the film was notable, but they were directed into more specific concepts that I often found less than praiseworthy.

Intimacy Issues. Probably the greatest difficulty with the film revolved around the overall lack of believable intimacy among the characters, even though it attempted to portray and emphasize relationships.. None of the male characters modeled an appropriate level of intimacy with their wives, and I was disappointed to see the film abandon the developing story of the relationship between the bereaved parents. We see only one conversation of any depth between them. Javier's wife in particular (the strongest marriage in the lot) and the other wives seem to be portrayed as cheerleaders on the sideline of the real game of life, but the interactions didn't connote any degree of honest intimacy, especially between the characters who lost a child in the film. I wonder if this accurately reflects the nature of marital intimacy among the complementarians who foster this lifestyle and ideology?

In terms of emotional self-disclosure, respect, and dialogue, the group of men were far closer to their male companions within the group than they seemed to be with their wives, but even the level of intimacy among the men proved disappointingly superficial to me. I found that the two strongest emotional bonds between characters in the film were forged by a single character. Rather than showing deeper intimacy through marriage, I found that the relationship between the father and his teen daughter to be the most developed, intimate relationship portrayed in the film, followed by this same father character's relationship with his deadbeat, absent dad coworker whom he compassionately encourages to repent. Did the film really intend to communicate to the audience an ideal that men's closest relationships should be those with other men and those shared their daughters as opposed to their wives? (Read more HERE about Voddie Baucham's telling statement concerning how attention from daughters basically keeps a man from committing adultery because of his yearnings.)  17Feb12 ADDENDUM:  Listen to the comment directly in the video clip posted below.

Dating Daddy and his Proposal. I found the daddy-daughter date scene to be disturbing. Essentially, the father proposes to his daughter, using language which indicates that he considers himself to be on equal footing and of the same order of person with his daughter's potential mates. Consistent with the belief within this subculture that young women remain married to the father through ownership until they marry another father-vetted and approved man, the father in the film uses the language of Vision Forum to reinforce the ideology of courtship. Such a system which Vision Forum promotes as Biblical was not even demanded under Judaism, a concept that they filter through their distorted version of Covenant Theology. (Read more HERE.) So to adapt and cope with the inherent risks of trusting a daughter to conduct herself with dignity, grace and chastity, the father overcorrects for his legitimate concerns and fears through an extra-Biblical ritual which signifies ownership. I felt sick at the close of the father-daughter date scene as the daughter gazed at the father's heart-shaped ring that he actually places on her finger after his proposal – a proposal that she was duty bound to accept as an obedient daughter. (With a suitor, she presumably has the liberty to decline such a proposal, that is, if her father decides to allow her that liberty. Not all do in patriarchy.)

Winning Hearts and Guarding Souls. The last scene of the film finally states the primary purpose of lauding the duties of fatherhood through a formal homily. The “winning hearts” concept, a theme within Vision Forum circles, relates to their teaching of parents to turn their children's hearts toward home, a system that often proves to be oppressive for women. As a general statement, it isn't such a terrible concept, but in consideration of the culture's loaded language, this encoded and covert terminology masks the spiritually abusive nature of their teachings. It conceals the meat of their doctrine wherein father's govern, direct, and micromanage family members to ensure their service to the “father's vision” and family objectives. Fathers require their families to serve his primary vision, requiring his prior approval and blessing of all of their personal endeavors as individuals. (Please also note HERE and in the archives of the San Antonio Christian Film Festival that Sherwood and Kirk Cameron have an established relationship with Vision Forum.)

Andrew Sandlin once astutely noted that this hegemonic system has little to do with a Biblical concept and more in common with the pagan Roman Paterfamilias. Father overlords in Vision Forum's system require their “obsequious sons” to submit to all of their wishes, even if that son is a fully grown adult, a concept also criticized strongly by counter cult apologist, Don Veinot (pdf file). The misleading language concerning hearts sounds like a mere reference to loving relationships, but under the veneer, it speaks to their doctrine of the father as a family despot.

The Father as Spiritual Intermediary Priest for his Children. Though it is subtle and because I am familiar with the doctrines taught within the subculture, I note the subtly conveyed concept that fathers also act as intermediary priests for their children which the film implies. In the homily at the end of the film, the character named Adam first uses the language of “God's design for families.” The veneer looks quite appealing, but the underbelly of the concept is a pagan Paterfamilia snare created by language which manipulates thought. In terms of Vision Forum's system, this is not God's design for families, but rather exemplifies the traditions of men. We then hear fathers noted as primary models of integrity for their children, but nothing is said of the contribution of mothers. Not to downplay the commitment to integrity that fathers should model, but take note that within this ideology, women are seen as a type of child whom her husband must chastise and rule, arguing Hebrews 12 and Ephesians 5 as a proof texts. She is not a mutual, co-equal partner in parenting. The husband parents her along with their children.

The protagonist makes the true statement that fathers must be accountable for their responsibilities as fathers, but in the next sentence, talk of the souls of children implies more than just parental guidance and spiritual training. It refers to the spiritualizing of the role of fathers, as it is believed within this system that each father serves his family as an intermediary spiritual priest for which Voddie Baucham in particular is most notable. These men within Vision Forum's system believe that they intercede for their children's souls through their home-centered ecclesiocentric system, and their concept exceeds mere training and guidance. They teach that the father sanctifies the family, suggesting that marriage itself is a something of a sacrament. (Baucham claims falsely on page 39 of What Must He Be If He Wants To Marry My Daughter that Martin Luther teaches about the “sanctifying works wrought by the marriage covenant,” an excellent example of the type of misleading, fuzzy logic used by the group to propagate this concept which they tend to convey indirectly to avoid criticism.) Confused seminary students at MBTS asked me about this very idea after a presentation I once gave there, as they believed that they would stand before God to make spiritual intercession for the sins of their wives. Please note this statement of the Owner/Publisher of a homeschooling magazine affiliated with this group (emphasis mine), a pragmatic example of what earnest people understand about this doctrine:

He has served as a regional support group board member leading the charge to exhort homeschooling fathers and husbands to assume their God-given duty to be the leaders of their homes, including sanctifying their wives. . .

This is not a Protestant teaching, and it isn't even consistent with Judaism. It is something more akin to a distortion of Roman Catholic Theology, something that should be disturbing to Reformed Protestants. I had to laugh about the “Resolution” ceremony in the film as my husband said, “They should be repeating this in Latin, and then they should be sprinkled with holy water.” Scripture lends no support to the idea that a father becomes a type of demigod to his children or a spiritual intermediary who pleads before God for mercy because of the sins of his children or his wife. A father can intercede for his children through prayer, model behavior, train them in ethics and truth, teach them to be wise and discerning, but he neither governs nor stands as a mediator for the souls of his children. He will be held accountable for his behavior as a father, but not for his children's own sins. An element of this idea prevails within the teachings of many Baptists who maintain that corporal punishment holds the power to purify the soul. Only God can do that, and only the Blood can wash away our sins. No man holds that power for another human being. Sinful flesh cannot sanctify sinful flesh.

Overcorrection and Extremism as a Mindset. I do realize that men often do not feel honored or encouraged in these aspects of life, either because they were raised without fathers or had fathers that were absent, uninvolved, or unprepared. Sadly, I believe that the film models an overcorrection and unnecessary extreme for these problems as it is practiced in the patriarchal lifestyle it seeks to chronicle. Rather than seeking a balance of mature Christian living in balanced moderation, the solution becomes an overcorrection to the problem which I believe results in a new and different error.

Prevalent within the Vision Forum practices of the father-centered home wherein his children and wife exist to serve his vision, a propensity to create histrionic ritual flourishes. The group will jump at any chance to dress up in period costumes of some variety and have events “Reformation Fairs” that prove to themselves and the rest of the world that they are more special to God than everyone else. (At three points during the film, my husband said “Oh, no! Here's another excuse for them to play 'dress up'.”) They are obsessed with outward appearance, and though they would be the first to decry ritual in the Catholic and Emergent Churches, they will be the first to create their own odd rituals. Marriage ceremonies among the Vision Forum elite include knighting the groom with a sword, the transfer of the father's authority to the groom, the washing of the groom's feet by the bride as an act of submission, presentation of a quiver for arrows to groom and bride, the payment of a gold coin to the father of the bride which had been dubbed the “bride price” (actually a compensation paid to a father if his daughter's sexual purity has been defiled or defamed under the Mosaic Law), or the payment of some dowry. Some groups even withhold the time of the ceremony from the bride as a reference to Matthew 25 (Select “Biblical Betrothal,” and make sure to watch the bizarre “training videos” noted in the sidebar, particularly the two that reference wedding ceremonies which include some of these noted rituals).

This group of people needs a parade for everything that they do because of the conformity and uniformity demanded of followers as an show of spirituality. As others have pointed out, why do the men in this film and in the homeschooling patriarchy movement need a celebration for those tasks that they knew were their duty when they married and had children? Why do they need a resolution to follow when Scripture spells out their responsibilities? From their character and the transformation that takes place in them through the Word and the Spirit as they mature in Christ come the abilities that they will need to parent through the full counsel of the Word. Why is a resolution necessary? They replace the Word with their resolutions, the traditions of men, following them instead of the simple truths that are noted in Scripture. They replace the guidance of the Holy Spirit with a new type of legalism which they bind to themselves and write on their hearts instead of the Word. It allows them to maintain control through the arm of the flesh instead of trusting God like the rest of us. This speaks of love, not control.

Reasons behind the extremism. I believe that this impetus to make overcorrections that we see portrayed in Courageous results from two causes. First, many follow a pattern of perspective and a system of thought which prefers conspiracy, scapegoating, catastrophe, and legalism. Chip Berlet dubs this as Right Wing Populism, and the group follows from long “multigenerational” tradition in this system of elitism and survival of the spiritually fittest. (To fully understand the ugliness beneath the kitsch of the group's odd terminology, consider devoting time to reading this material.)

I believe that the second influence which drives the group to extremes to overcompensate for problems that arise from concerns like fatherlessness that we see in the film, they turn to formulas to guard against their own unresolved personal pain under the guise of protecting their families. (We see this in the resolution and church ceremonies followed by the band of Sheriff brothers in the film.) When parents raise children without appropriately respecting their naivete and the limitations of their age, they tend to raise those children to become adults who are uncomfortable with imperfection and immaturity in themselves. As adults, they then work to drive imperfection out of their children or at least guard against experiences that they find painful through formulaic solutions (e.g., the Resolution and the father-daughter ring ritual). In real life, these formulaic practices tend to degrade into extremes of legalism which compete with balanced Christian living over time. As Vyckie Garrison notes, because the father-centered ideology redefines balance as sinful mediocrity and compromise to be resisted at all costs under most all circumstances, her family “did NOT want to be balanced.” This is a core symptom of dysfunction found in families affected by addiction, a pattern of behavior that Vision Forum teaches as God's ordained plan for godly living.

From How Parents' Intolerance of a Child's Immaturity Creates Both Victims and Abusers:

These adults have difficulty with the routine experience and expression of mature, adult behavior, understanding balance as lack of passion or lack of life because the chaos and drama in their family of origin raises the bar on the level of stimulation they need. . .

The over-mature and controlling adult children of dysfunctional homes tend to erect walls as boundaries in relationships, and the relationships that they do foster tend to be very non-spontaneous. They've never been allowed to embrace their immaturity, and that is how they perceive appropriate playful behavior in adulthood.  I believe that these individuals tend to gravitate towards legalistic religions and fringe Christianity, believing that their extremes demonstrate greater faith.  Plain, old mainstream religion just doesn't seem like quite enough for them.  They don't want to follow "dead Christianity," so they choose extreme versions of it.

In many of these individuals who continue to suffer as adults from the unhealed wounds and the dysfunctional patterns from their own family of origin, the drama and the extremes and the ritual replace true intimacy. Those affected mistake the drama for intimacy because it helps them feel alive. They are generally so overwhelmed with shame and suffer with feelings of low worth and lack of love for themselves and in themselves, that love is about little more than duty and deadness. They distract themselves from the sense of numbness by controlling and dominating others, though in the film, we only see the ideal of the virtuous intent. One need only to read about the painful and often devastating consequences on but a few spiritual abuse survivor blogs to learn about the risks and some of the more unfortunate outcomes that result, despite the best of intentions.

Courageous is, at best, a string of moralistic vignettes that are poorly knit together. Not all will understand the subtle messages about homeschooling's aberrant patriarchy movement embedded in the film, and they will hopefully not fall prey to the deception that others practice I'm concerned that it will become a gateway into groups like Vision Forum, especially considering its early popular appeal among many Christian groups. To those who see it as a film that glorifies father-centered, “family integrated,” “multigenerational faithfulness,” all terms that mean something very different from their deceptive pleasant sound, it is a documentary of their priestcraft.

In closing have to include these two noteworthy comments from my husband:

“All in all, the acting wasn't that bad, considering the precious little the actors had to work with.”

“Some days I swear that they're Roman Catholic. Some days I swear that they're Muslim. And some days, I just swear.”

Referenced comment starts at about 2 minutes into the clip:

Piper's Pip of a Quip About the "Masculine Feel"

I generally don't follow John Piper at all since I pointed out his problematic teachings concerning women, but I respond to requests that people make of me to address certain aspect of their teachings from time to time. Having gleaned a great deal from those critics of The New Calvinism, I believe that I've learned why I have not found his style and material all that compelling, even apart from his teachings on gender. Most of what he says sounds so esoteric to me, and considering that I'm concrete and pragmatic for the most part, I assumed that we just had major stylistic differences that didn't match to my own style of learning and communication. It appears that the reasons for the disconnect prove to be ideological/theological and relate to fundamental differences between our beliefs about what exactly takes place when a person puts their faith in Christ and the manner in which the resultant transformation and perseverance in the faith progresses.

But here's a bit of levity. 

I've been contacted by quite a few people concerning Piper's recent claim that “God gave Christianity a masculine feel.” Had I not received so many emails from so many people pertaining to this latest bizarre quote, I would not have known anything about it. Several people have written fine critiques concerning the matter including Cheryl Schatz and Rachel Held Evans, and I will refer you to them to glean more about the discussion and responses to Piper's latest.

I've debated whether it is appropriate to note my own response initial response to this statement as well as my husband's because it is a bit silly, even though it represents such a weighty matter concerning how complementarians scapegoat women and the troubling consequences that follow from the belief system. I make note of it here with the blessing of many trusted friends and with my husband's permission.

When I first read the single sound-byte, I could not help but react to the strange nature of the way the statement was parsed. I said, “I'm sorry, but this has all the makings for several really bad jokes and sounds like one without even adding much to it.” 

After some initial laughter, even more ensued after my husband made this very silly statement himself. I wish I had him on film, capturing his near incredulous response, complete with his sense of exasperation and what was sounded like an honest expression of serious concern. It was not only humorous, but I felt like it hallmarked the ridiculous depravity of the extraordinary overfocus on gender which often achieves something quite the opposite of complementarianism's formally stated and desired intent. My husband offered this very honest reaction which bordered on humor and disgust.

“Maybe God did give Christianity a masculine feel. I don't really want to hear their worthless arguments about how they can justify the statement. I just want to make sure that I don't give Piper or any of the rest of them any opportunity to give me a masculine feel.”

I believe that these men have placed so much focus on their fears that they often resemble that which they detest and fear the most. In the process of scrambling to defend their positions concerning their man-made doctrine, I believe that they've lost all perspective about what they're actually communicating and how it comes across to reasonable people. It's really quite sad, but I appreciate this opportunity to laugh as opposed to weeping.

.

What Did Jesus Say About the "Blueness of the Wound"?

This month marked the second anniversary of the death of Lydia Schatz, and the sixth anniversary date of the death of Sean Paddock quickly approaches at the end of the month. Then, before we know it, May will be here, marking the first anniversary of the death of Hana-Grace Williams.

While pondering the Independent Fundamental Baptists' (IFB) admiration for Proverbs 20:30 in support of beating children until they are bruised to purge ad drive away evil from them, a different Scripture popped into my mind. It happened on the anniversary date of Lydia's death as I prayed for all those who have been so deeply affected by the events. This thought hasn't occurred to me before when considering these matters so intently over the past year, but I thought of one distinct and very different Scripture from both the New and the Old Testaments. I recalled how Jesus stepped into the synagogue and declared the fulfillment of words of Isaiah:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised. . .(Luke 4:18)

There are many Scriptures which many others have argued that stand in contrast to and even repudiate this very non-Christian idea that man has the power to purge sin from himself or from others through corporal punishment. How can sinful flesh make another sinful person holy? This is something that only God does in us.

But today, I hope to pass on the epiphany that I had, inspired by the words of Jesus. He didn't come to bruise but he came to set us at liberty. Under the first, preferred meaning of the word 'liberty' on the Merriam Webster site, defining liberty as the quality or state of being free, it further delineates the meaning as both freedom from physical restraint and freedom from arbitrary or despotic control. God desires something so much better for us than domination, and even He does not seek to rule over people in this way.

Jesus doesn't instruct us to bruise anyone but seeks to heal those who are hurt, to deliver those who are captive, to give insight to those who are blinded and to deliver the bruised from their bondage. He does warn us about offending little ones and warns us that those who do will face something far worse than a millstone's weight and the deepest sea. If we are to follow His example, we must stand up against the captivity and the despots while attending to the wounded. He wants to drive away evil with goodness, not through punishment. He seeks to heal the “blueness of the wound,” not create more.

I am so grateful for HermanaLinda at Why Not Train a Child?, for Tulipgirl, and for many others like them who work to expose the darkness to the light concerning these matters.

Uniformity and Unity in Diversity In the Context of The New Calvinism

Black and White

Many years ago, I worked for a supervisor who displayed a quote without an attribution that I found fascinating, noting that great minds were preoccupied with ideas, average minds talked of events, and small minded people talked about other people. I still admire the quote and find it insightful, but I have to admit, given my political bend, I was disappointed to eventually learn that the quote is attributed to Eleanor Roosevelt. 

It would be so much easier in my own mind and heart if the quote that I liked so much had come from an interesting someone who was known for witty quips – someone more like Winston Churchill – or even Dorothy Parker or Theodore Roosevelt! It requires less mental work and less maturity on our part if things and people are simple and easily dropped into a safe category. We don't want to have to think about things to much, and we don't want to be burdened with rethinking them. This is why the Weapons of Influence work so well to trap us. Complex people with lots of talent become harder to pigeon hole and categorize in our brains, and our emotions cloud that process and make it far more complicated as well. Our thoughts are so often captive to people we like.

A few years ago, on this blog, I'd decided to post single, astute quotes from a wide variety of different people including deists, a Catholic, and a couple of theologians – none of whom held larger perspectives and general views that were consistent with Evangelical Christianity. The quotes were cutting and true, and they applied well to the discussion of spiritual abuse, legalism, and liberty of thought as an American which pointed out the limitations of Christian Reconstruction. I was rather shocked at the mail I received, for people assumed that if I agreed with one wise and accurate statement made by these individuals, I had to believe everything that they ever said and believed about everything. I've received similar mail in response to my previous blog post concerning The New Calvinism.

I definitely met my objective for selecting these quotes – for I pushed people to think and challenged their biases. I also challenged the simplicity of black and white thought that evangelicals tend to follow (e.g., All deists and Catholics are evil; therefore, they can never make a meaningful statement on any subject.). There is also the consideration of the change in people over time, growing older and wiser, coming to new conclusions over time, and we are also subject to the learning curve, because it takes time to study everything that a person has written. A notable person or teacher may start out in one tradition and change over time, making one era of their work quite different from another. History may judge them on only their worst or their best contributions, and the evil that men do lives after them. But people are not that simple, and we are always dependent on context. A single quote may be valid and true, but the context may ruin it. Then there are writers like Ayn Rand, who from my vantage and beliefs, presents a fascinating example of contrasts, appreciating so many good things (freedom, free capitalism, individualism), yet getting so many other things so very wrong at the same time. Because I've thoughtfully consider, challenge, and reaffirm my own beliefs, I find that I can be discerning and tolerant of those ideas that don't match my own. But how does one stay grounded?

Unity, Liberty and Love

Hermeneutics and a commitment to Christian unity show their great worth when we guard against oversimplifying people and ideas, plugging them into pre-defined pigeon holes of our preference and remembering that people are dynamic, changing and growing over time. When we look at dynamic people as static representations of a doctrine and then try to place them in pigeon holes of absolutes, we oversimplify. When we try to find people who only believe all of the same things that we believe in on all counts, not only do we oversimplfy, we seek uniformity. Uniformity differs much from unity, as unity requires a degree of maturity and self-assurance to tolerate the discomfort that arises as well as the mental work we must do when we realize that we are not all identical. It is easier when all things are uniform, but people are not uniform creatures. We are complicated and diverse.

I discuss this in more length in this post and at the top of the webpage in the note to new readers, but the topic needs revisiting from time to time. The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans about eating meat sacrificed to idols, giving us liberty to follow our individual consciences in certain practices within Christianity that were not mandatory while refraining from hindering others through our own conduct. Paul spent a great deal of his time sorting out these same kinds of issues with other churches, with the problems in Galatia providing another example of this sorting out of what was mandatory and what was left up to the individual to follow through the guidance of the Word and the Spirit. In that same spirit of thought, Augustine framed out his quotable statement:

In essentials, unity.

In non-essentials, liberty.

In all things, love.

Avoiding Oversimplification

We now live in an age in Christianity where we seek oversimplified reductions of people so that we can categorize them, primarily because we are bombarded with all sorts of different kinds of information. Influence The Psychology of Persuasion provides an excellent discussion of these tendencies, and the writings of Neil Postman also touch on this material in a different way. It's hard to keep up with it all, and we tend to like to take shortcuts through that information. In many cases we must. We don't re-think which way we have to turn the faucet to get hot water, and we don't ponder why the sun rises every morning. We make assumptions about such things, or we would get very little accomplished.

Thanks to men like John Hus and Martin Luther who followed him, and many of the Reformers, Protestants enjoy the reaffirmed concept of the “priesthood of all believers” and the liberty in the Spirit about which Paul taught the early church. We're not intended to be uniform but are called to unity. As Christians, we are called to remain in unity concerning central doctrine while also affirming liberty. This makes the job tougher, because we can't just plunk people into a static category when we consider their doctrine. There's also the learning curve, as we cannot know all we need to know about a teacher or a ministry from just a few encounters. As individuals grow and their interests change, their message will change over time, so while we might like what someone says today, but their original message may have been very different. We may agree with them solidly one doctrine and disagree heartily on others. We may be taken in by labels, using them as a shortcut or rule of thumb, making the wrong assumptions about all that a person teaches. This presents a host of potential pitfalls for misunderstanding a teacher or ministry's position or intent. People might be much more complex than we thought which may become uncomfortable to us. And we might hold false expectations that those leaders or teachers who are gifted in one area should or are gifted in every area.

Add to that our human limitations of cognitive biases, the ways in which our perceptions, our human nature, and our own preferences shape how we see the world. I often feel like a broken record repeating over and over that the most amazing thing about the human mind is not so much it's ability to realize things but its remarkable, creative ability to avoid ideas that seem threatening to us. I've discussed cognitive dissonance in recent posts, but there are lists and lists of distortions and biases of thought that color how we see the world. None of us sees it through pure objectivity. Wikipedia offers an almost overwhelmingly long list of human tendencies by which we oversimplify the world through our own subjective side. We're all subject to error, misunderstanding, and mistakes in our assumptions. Hopefully, over time, we become less subject to the our human failings and grow into greater mastery and maturity which age and experience enhances. If we are humble, we can learn from our mistakes, admitting them to others along the way. Changes will hopefully hallmark our growth.

Unity in the Essentials

I believe that it is possible to affirm a fellow believer in the essential elements of the faith, those things that are non-optional in terms of unity, the most notable one being God's identity and how that contrasts with mankind or other created beings. Another essential involves an understanding about what salvation means and how it is mediated. I can stand in agreement with a Roman Catholic on the identity of Christ, but I don't stand in agreement with them on the details of how God bestows salvation on us or the role that man plays in that process. Things become more complicated with Protestants, not less, because we allow for liberty and personal conviction which leads to the development of varied doctrines, sometimes concerning the essentials. For example, I stand in agreement concerning many doctrines of the Church with many involved in the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW), but I stand against them concerning the Doctrine of the Eternal Subordination of the Son and concerning their claims that their gender preferences are essential as opposed to intramural. I have far more in common in terms of doctrine with CBMW than I do with someone who is Catholic, but I agree with a Catholic far more strongly about Christ's identity. And just to bake your noodle, I suspect that I share nearly the same concept of Christ's identity with Doug Phillips of Vision Forum more consistently than with CBMW or Catholicism, though I stand at odds with so many other doctrines taught by the group.

With the New Calvinists, many of whom are involved in CBMW, I believe that their doctrines threaten and chip away at central doctrine and the core beliefs that support those doctrines. The various discussions of how God mediates salvation which involves an understanding of justification, sanctification, and what role human agency (our works) play in that mix speak to God's identity, so they become very important in establishing and supporting essential doctrine. Seventh Day Adventism in particular presents unique challenges because they maintain other doctrines that also chip away at what men like Walter Martin consider to be orthodox and traditional Christianity (in the Protestant sense), without perhaps a direct challenge, denying central doctrine. Ravi Zacharias, the new editor of the late Dr. Martin's seminal book on theological cults, was criticized for his liberty to pray without naming Jesus when he participated in an ecumenical event– so when we Protestants agree on the essentials, we face an even greater challenge as to how those essential ideas flesh out in practice in the proper and best way.

I stand strongly with those who speak the truth about the abuses of power within groups like the Southern Baptist Convention concerning gender and the tendency toward a top-down, Roman Catholic like system where leaders seek to become the new Protestant popes. I stand against the heavy handed measures these groups have used to crush criticism. I stand with them regarding their calling out of the abuses within aberrant patriarchal homeschooling oriented special purpose religions that are passed off as orthodox. But I do not stand with them when they make claims that challenge essential Christian doctrine or defend doctrines that speak to the doctrines that lend strong support the essentials.  That's not a repudiation of individuals on a personal level but a matter of conviction and iron sharpening iron.

It would be easier and more pleasant to share the same views on every matter, but like Martin Luther, I am also captive to my conscience and the Word as I understand it. Under liberty also, I reject some of the things that even Martin Luther wrote and believed, because I am accountable to the Word and the Spirit, not how Luther parsed it while facing the matters of his day and in his time. Though my beliefs and how I understand the Bible in all conscience may largely conform to a particular theology, I don't feel the necessity to be bound to any Systematic Theology or system.

I will not answer to Arthur Pink, John Calvin, or John Gill about how I followed Covenant Theology or Calvinism, nor will I answer to Cyrus Scofield or Dwight L. Moody about whether or not I followed Dispensationalism. My beliefs and convictions don't fit in with any of the available options, as they are framed out in the set theologies of Protestantism. (Gasp!) Though I affirm Biblical truth in all three of the theologies, I do not look to them first to understand doctrine, but rather look to Scripture.  And my understanding of these matters has changed and will likely change over time as I grow and continue to mature in the faith.  I believe that I will stand to give an account of how I lived my life, whether I followed the full counsel of the Word of God and the intent of my heart with confidence towards God, how I did that over time as I grew in wisdom, and will give that account to God Himself. No Reformer will be there to make intercession for me, pleading my case before God. I don't think I'm going to get a pass if I trusted, lived out and repeated what a leader taught, especially if my conscience convicted me that a particular belief of theirs was problematic.

No Place or Time to Coast

In the world of ideas, especially Christian ideas, we cannot afford to find a safe zone in which we can coast. We have to be Bereans every day, always on guard and always weighing ideas against the standard of truth. Human beings change and grow, and we are fragile. We change and grow in our own journey and spiritual walk. We are all open to falling into error when we take strong stands and are not careful and wise about doing so. We love novelty. We love to find systems and formulas to help us understand things and to help us get things done more efficiently with fewer errors. But we have to maintain perspective and remain grounded as we work through all of these matters.

We risk deception when we stop. We risk deception whenever we let someone else handle the burden of thinking and discernment for us. But ultimately, we are responsible, and the only safe place as a Christian comes through the dynamic relationship we maintain through our knowledge of the Word in a renewed mind and the illuminating guidance of the Holy Spirit. We are lucky to find those discerning mentors who stand with us consistently, but those relationships are not without their risks.