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.
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
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 bewith
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 ceremonieswhich 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.
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:
(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.
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:
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.
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 OldTestaments. 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.
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.