How Calvin's Spheres of Dominion Facilitate the Family Integrated Church

In the statement that Dr. R Albert Mohler, Jr. made concerning the appointment of Randy Stinson as a dean and a Family Integrated Church (FIC) specialist, he says that Southern Baptist Theological Seminary (SBTS) holds a

“family-centered vision of church ministry.”

It was stated that this “revolutionary vision” of the seminary and for the seminary inspired them to formally adopt their focus on family integrated worship. I find this term troubling, though it is not for terribly obvious reason. I admit that I do have a mild knee-jerk, emotional reaction to the sound of the phrase that Dr. Mohler uses here because of its subtle implications. Should church ministry be anything other than Christ-centered, and how does one mediate that ministry – to the individual or to the individual who is only seen as part of a family? Here a particular, strict hierarchical interpretation of Calvinism’s and Theonomy’s spheres of responsibility competes subtly with the Word concerning how one views Christian ministry and how the church should best accomplish it.

Dr. Mohler says “family-centered” but this need not mean that he believes in anything other than a Christ-centered life for the Christian. That is not my point, though I don’t like some of the implications, preferring "Christ-centered" with perhaps a primary focus of ministering to families instead of “family centered.” Among other things, I am concerned about whether individuals will miss ministry in favor of a family-only focus. Can an individual exist as an entity worthy of ministry apart from a family? How, by whom and by what standard is family defined? Within the next few blog posts, I shall explain the foundations of federal headship and how the doctrine forms the foundational rationale for family integrated worship.

The Spheres of Calvin and Theonomy Government can be defined as that agency through which an individual or body functions and exercises authority. Theonomy ( theo and nomos or “god’s law” -- the study of the Word of God as the sufficient source of all human ethics) recognizes four spheres of government within which the Christian should endeavor to establish dominion : individual, family, church and civil. Personally, I find this to be a very helpful way of looking at how an individual relates to these different social spheres, but I do not always see them as falling in an hierarchical order under all circumstances.

Some who follow Calvin or Theonomy sometimes see the subordinate individual as confined to the next immediate sphere, perceiving and interpreting the world in such a way. And with all due respect to men like John Calvin if that is his interpretation, but I do not believe that this is always a Biblical approach. This concept and misapplications of it have opened up into several different problems in many Reformed teachings as a result of honoring Theonomy's conceptual framework over what we know to be true in Scripture. Conceptual models should help us understand Scripture and should not take precedence. The Bible first, then Calvinism or whatever other theological concept you might like to add as a tool to help you understand Scripture – and NEVER should the reverse be true. What does an hierarchical ordering of the spheres of dominion look like in terms of evangelism? There is a definite order to how we should go about evangelization:

• Individual -- The first sphere of ministry is personal – and within this sphere, we experience spiritual rebirth and experience transformation by the renewing of our minds.
• Family -- From then, our faith should flow forth from the individual sphere into the next immediate one: that of family (from sphere #1 to sphere #2 in the diagram).
• Church -- As our families experience the benefits of faith, evangelism and the blessings of our faith will manifest in the next sphere of the church.
• Civil / Secular -- As our churches are transformed and become more effective, our society (our civil and secular spheres) will experience the benefits of our faith.

This is significant, because taking dominion begins at the “grassroots level” and should never start with revolutionizing from the top down. To change society, we must first change ourselves, then our families, then our churches. The hearts of the people will change through faith first, not through politics, works of the law, or through legalistic conduct standards within the church (something akin to Roman Catholicism whenever outward rituals are employed to "infuse" grace or holiness). If you are RC, please take into consideration that I am not, and infused grace through works or sacraments was strongly reputiated by the Reformation, the theology from which these teachings developed. 

Based on personality traits, belief systems or power motives (or a combination thereof), some individuals will naturally prefer to order the world more sequentially versus a personality that best makes sense of the world through random or non-sequential means. Both through personality assessment and through recent, fascinating advances in neurophysiologic imaging, we observe that human beings tend use or “prefer” one side of the brain over the other side. Those who favor the analytical Left Side of the cerebral hemisphere of the brain will also “prefer” hierarchical ordering because this is where these functions are located within the brain. (Neither sequential/hierarchical preference or a linear/non-hierarchical ordering of information is right or wrong, it is just different and often a consequence of anatomy, not necessarily feminism.)

For those who do prefer hierarchy, they may also apply the same concept of Calvin's spheres of government to their conceptual understanding of how the individual should behave within the larger society. They will likely follow a similar hierarchical pattern for conduct just as the Reformed concept of evangelism maintains because this is what comes easily and naturally for the Left-Brained individual. Those who do not possess headship (women and children) cannot transcend these spheres of dominion under this interpretation because of hierarchy. A woman cannot approach one sphere without her inclusion within the immediately lesser sphere (one of which is mediated by her federal head). This is the foundational argument for prohibiting voting for women as it would be interpreted as functioning within the civil sphere, out from under the authority of her family and presumably the church as well. For this reason, Reformed beliefs do tend toward theocracy, because under a theocracy, there very little to no ambiguity between spheres of government. It's just easier. The government is all well ordered under the same law in a theocracy -- God's Law, presumably reducing miscarriage of justice and providing benefit for all people. On a functional level, when all spheres follow a uniform code, there is theoretically less logistical "mess." The spheres nest quite well within one another, and the power structure (per this paternal interpretation of the spheres) limits dissent.

One can attempt to work one's way up the chain of command to address injustice, but at the lowest level, women and children are called to the virtue of submission to unjust authorities for the purpose of developing patience, character and perseverance. This strongly discourages women and children from voicing complaints and limits their opportunity to do so. The next post will investigate the spheres and their implications for women, with the third post summarizing how family integrated worship can be seen as somewhat of a necessity when one strongly adheres to and espouses these ideals and interpretations. . .

Tweet

Defining Our Terms and Expectations: The Family Integrated Church

A priest, a rabbi and a Protestant minister walk into a bar...

They order Buffalo wings to share, and the waitress brings them a plate of deep fried chicken wings that have been dressed with a sauce made of “Franks” hot sauce, butter and garlic. It’s served with a side of homemade blue cheese salad dressing for dipping and several sticks of celery. The priest, the rabbi and the minister are all quite pleased with the appetizer, noting if they had ordered this dish 50 years ago, the waitress would likely not have known what to say to them. They certainly would not have been served chicken with hot sauce, blue cheese and celery. Someone with a quick wit would have said “But buffalo don’t have wings!”

Tweet

Southern Seminary Guilty by Association or a Case of the Emperor's New Clothes?

I recently received some indirect feedback from a reporter regarding the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary’s response to the patriarchy workshop I presented in March ‘08 at an unnamed Southern Baptist Seminary. Because the apologetics organization for whom I spoke would not disclose to me who protested the lecture, I told the reporter that I had absolutely no information to indicate that anyone at SBTS had any knowledge of me or my lecture. I was told by a reporter they were well acquainted with the workshop and had reviewed the online video. I was also made aware that Russell Moore and Bruce Ware offered a whole litany of purely personal ad hominem abusive comments against me that had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the presentation.

Tweet

More on Black and White from Steven Martin

A little reminder about what Steven Martin has to say about Lifton’s “Doctrine over Person”:

Fitting the Rigid Mold ( from Pg. 109)

Doctrine Over Person consists of fitting everything under the leader’s dominating control into a pre-conceived mold.

This involves:

• Human experience and the interpretation of those experiences.

• Human feelings and the interpretation of those feelings.

• Disregarding one’s feelings or sensitivities.

• No appreciation of someone’s talents, individuality or creativity; the only goal is to fit everyone and their personalities into the dominating vies and influence of the one in control, opposing diversity and individual differences.

• The rigidity of the doctrinal mold resists adaptation even when adaptation may prove to be best.

• The rewriting of history to fit the system of the doctrinal mold.

Stating it another way, the controller reinterprets the personal feelings and experiences of the group members to fit his own dominating views and influence. He disregards and remolds past events, individual differences and capabilities to fit his own preconceived mold. In essence, the controller rejects everything that does not fit into his preconceived mold or framework.

-Summary & paraphrase of Dr. Lifton on Doctrine Over Person

Read more from Steven Martin HERE.

Tweet

Thinking Only in Black and White

It’s interesting living in a family where we have a great number of drug allergies and idiosyncratic (unusual, odd or unexpected) responses to medicines. Doctors hate it and some have become angry with us, the patient because our bodies don’t elicit the “correct” response. There’s a particular class of medicines that causes a life-threatening asthmatic response and my tongue and face swell. I went to a new doctor, seeking an alternative to the medicine to which I was allergic, and he recommended that since “I had not taken it in awhile,” I should try an injection of it there in their office. I told him that he would have to phone the local emergency room in advance to plan for my arrival and have epinephrine ready there in his own office. The last time I took the medicine orally, my lung capacity dropped to less than 50% of normal and my tongue and airway started to swell shut. He was actually offended that I refused the medicine Needless to say, I left that doctor and never went back.

Tweet

Everready Apologetics

I just don't understand this attitude of retreat from secular or even Christian culture. In "The Twilight of American Culture," Berman says that retreat from the degrading culture like the monastics did might be one way of surviving posmodernism. I think it's safe to say that Berman is not an Evangelical Christian.

Rousas J. Rushdooney stated on some of his armchair tapes that he had concern that the homeschooling movement might actually end up doing something like this in a reactionary withdrawal from culture. (This was definitely NOT something he believed to be desirable!) This concept was brought to mind by Karen Campbell's August 8th "thatmom" podcast where she quotes several Evangelicals who promote "outbreeding the competition" over evangelism of the unbeliever. We are to retreat into little monastic communities and withdraw from culture, partly through fear and partly through piety.

Tweet

Evangelical Christians are Vulnerable to Deception and Spiritual Abuse

Knowledge of solid Biblical doctrine will not protect or shield a person from spiritual deception. Many Evangelical Christians, including those who participate in Christian apologetics (defending the truth of the Christian faith with the Bible as the standard) believe that they are insulated from deception and spiritual abuse. Note what Dr. Harold Bussell has to say about how vulnerable just such a belief can render a person highly vulnerable.  

Believing that one is impervious to spiritual deception actually puts a person at high risk for deception.

Tweet

Langone on Techniques of Mind Control

Michael Langone, Ph.D. on manipulative methods used by spiritual abusers

From "Cults and Mind Control" on the ICSA Website:


What is Mind Control?

Mind control (also known as "brainwashing," "coercive persuasion," and "thought reform") refers to a process in which a group or individual systematically uses unethically manipulative methods to persuade others to conform to the wishes of the manipulator(s). Such methods include the following:

• extensive control of information in order to limit alternatives from which members may make "choices"
• deception
• group pressure
• intense indoctrination into a belief system that denigrates independent critical thinking and considers the world outside the group to be threatening, evil, or gravely in error an insistence that members’ distress-much of which may consist of anxiety and guilt subtly induced by the group-can be relieved only by conforming to the group
• physical and/or psychological debilitation through inadequate diet or fatigue the induction of dissociative (trance-like) states via the misuse of meditation, chanting, speaking in tongues, and other exercises in which attention is narrowed, suggestibility heightened, and independent critical thinking weakened
• alternation of harshness/threats and leniency/love in order to effect compliance with the leadership’s wishes isolation from social supports pressured public confessions

Read more HERE.

Tweet

Why It's Hard to Leave an Abusive Relationship

Margaret Singer on Effects of Getting Out:

(non-comprehensive, of course!)


Why it's hard to leave.

1. Deception in the recruitment process and throughout membership
2. Debilitation, because of the hours, the degree if commitment, the psychological pressures, and the inner constriction and strife.
3. Dependency, as a result of being cut off from the outside world in many ways
4. Dread, because of beliefs instilled by the cult that a person who leaves will find no real life on the outside
5. Desensitization, so that things that once have troubled them no longer do (for example, learning that money collected from fund-raising is supporting the leader's lavish lifestyle rather than the cause for which it was given, or seeing children badly abused or even killed.

Tweet

From the ReFocus Website:

Post-Cult Trauma Syndrome*

---

After exiting a cult, an individual may experience a period of intense and often conflicting emotions. She or he may feel relief to be out of the group, but also may feel grief over the loss of positive elements in the cult, such as friendships, a sense of belonging or the feeling of personal worth generated by the group's stated ideals or mission. The emotional upheaval of the period is often characterized by "post- cult trauma syndrome":

Tweet

Some Effects of Spiritual Abuse

From David Henke on Spiritual Abuse (Watchman Fellowship's Profile of Spiritual Abuse):

EFFECTS OF SPIRITUAL ABUSE

Spiritual abuse has a devastating effect on people. A very high level of trust is often placed in spiritual leaders. It is, and ought to be, expected that the trust will be honored and guarded. When such trust is violated the wound is very deep. Sometimes the wound is so deep that the wounded person cannot trust even a legitimate spiritual authority again.

Tweet

What is a cult?

From "Rise of the Cults" a sermon by Dr. Walter Martin, Lee College Chapel, January 1979 (hosted by the Spiritwatch Ministries website) What is a cult?

• A group of people polarized arounds somebodies’s interpretation of the Bible.

• They always claim to be harmonious with the Christian faith.

• And they always deny the central doctrine of the Christian faith: That Jesus Christ is nothing less than God himself in human flesh...

78% of people that are in the cults today came out of the Church.

Jesus said in Matthew 24 that the end times would be hallmarked by the rise of many false teachers. He also mentions earthquakes and wars, etc., but he emphasizes false teachers and prophets who look will look, sound and act just like the genuine article.

~~~~~

I would like to hear all of the patriarchy in churches and all of those who ascribe to hierarchalism explain all of their beliefs about the Trinity specifically. But considering that the concept of eternal hierarchalism in the Godhead has been published in one of the most popular, contemporary Systematic Theology texts used today, I guess that we can expect as much.

And people wonder why I am so personally concerned about why notable professors in the SBC preach that Jesus -- God -- has less authority than God????? Well, let me rephrase that. Supposedly that means something different than saying that the Father has ultimate or supreme authority over the Son (a quality that the Son does not have, to the point of not being able to hear and answer prayer without a special dispensation from the Father). Gotta support that gender hierarchy!

Tweet

More on Spiritual Abuse: Reasons Why We Get Drawn into the System

The Problem of Shame

As mentioned in the previous post, all people share a common trait: we all bear a certain degree and potential for shame. The Christian explains this by putting this in spiritual terms. This shame derives from our separation from God which occurred in the Garden of Eden at the time of Adam’s fall from grace. This shame over our separation from God and our fallen nature (sin nature) serves as the foundation of all of our other shame.

Tweet

Refocusing on the Basics of Spiritual Abuse

Over the past two months, I’ve addressing several different and specific aspects of the patriocentric or the so-called “Biblical patriarchy” movement. That group in particular was the primary impetus for my online discussion and writing about the larger topic of spiritual abuse.

 There are many other different groups that fall under this main category, but my most disturbing experiences originated within the roots of what has become patriocentricity. Most recently, I mentioned the topic of spousal abuse, preceded by a great deal of material on covert/emotional incest because I believe that both of these topics prove very significant to the patriocentric movement, not necessarily all those who suffer spiritual abuse. There are many such additional aspects to this specific movement that have been discussed here: kinism, neo-Confederate idealism, what some (not me!) call “hyper-Calvinism” (which I don’t think qualifies as Calvinism at all), the cult of domesticity, “militant fecundity,” a neo-gnostic/Pelagian quest for an “Uber Adam,” formulaic and simplistic plans for Christian living, etc. 

It is a diverse collection of beliefs all worthy of discussion. But I’d like to revisit the general topic of spiritual abuse and reorient a bit, putting all these things into perspective. There are many more groups who fall under the general category of spiritual abuse, though most discussion here had concerned the specifics of a particular group.

What is Spiritual Abuse? In very general terms, as there are many definitions for these types of things, spiritual abuse is the process by which a religious group or individual misuses the system, their authority and influence over followers for some advantage, but at the follower’s expense. There is always some degree of deception involved, though it is often impossible to know where the deception originates.

The group leader may be deceived by the system of teachings himself as a true believer of the religion that was thrust upon him at an earlier time. It may be that the group leader and others within the group use the idea of the greater ideological good and their intended goals to justify their manipulative means, but this element most always comes into play: “the end justifies the means.” In terms of Scripture, Jesus talked about these same concepts, using different language when discussing the Pharisees and “wolves in sheeps’ clothing.” The Bible touches upon all of the modern elements of the double bind, cognitive dissonance and some of these more complicated sounding terms, but the dynamics and techniques are nothing new. And I believe that Jesus was deeply moved with compassion for the spiritually abused when he discusses scattered sheep without a shepherd. None of this is anything new, though the language applied to it is.

You can select older material about spiritual abuse from the list of tags here, and I recommend listening to thatmom’s podcasts on spiritual abuse – seven in all. We discuss Henke’s definition, Robert Lifton’s criteria, Cialdini’s work regarding what he calls “Weapons of Influence” (often used by salesmen), ideas about manipulation, etc. There are several lists of some of these resources listed in the sidebar. Some are listed directly with links to additional information and the recommended links to more resources provide a whole universe to explore on this topic. And I believe that there is enough material to keep me busy documenting here for the rest of my days before covering all the different types and varieties of spiritual abuse, but I am primarily concerned, at this point, with patriocentricity. Perhaps one of the most difficult aspects of considering spiritual abuse is the message that the techniques used by Christian groups and manipulators do not differ from other, non-Christian religious groups or cults.

Though we are all very different from one another, basic human nature does not differ. Though each group practices the core techniques of manipulation differently and the degree to which one particular technique is used in comparison with others varies greatly, the same core characteristics of manipulation and coercion are present in every idealistic and totalistic group. The minute we add our own plans and programs to the Gospel, we start to head down this idealistic path of good intent while using very human means of accomplishing that “greater good.”

 Who Gets Pulled Into Spiritual Abuse? Anyone. Everyone is vulnerable. That is perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the topic: we are all vulnerable. The process of spiritual abuse is fairly simple. When we have unmet needs and during times of great stress or transition in our lives, we become more susceptible to influence. One is more likely to listen seriously to and consider the beliefs of a Good Samaritan after he has cared for us and bound our wounds. If we have a threatening problem, and someone offers a seemingly viable solution, we become well-disposed towards them and disbelieving of information that demonstrates that they are anything contrary to what we’ve understood about them. Many people become involved with cultic groups and get pulled into spiritual abuse after a major life transition or a period of grief that destabilizes them.

Identifying the problems, issues and pitfalls of a new group of people or ideas becomes much more difficult and less important when we are stressed as well as during the process of their meeting of our needs. The process of the very subtle manipulation used by individuals and groups seems quite harmless during this time of “honeymoon” with the group. Several aspects of manipulation sweep in during this phase – primarily that of milieu control and mystical manipulation. The environment is highly controlled to the advantage of the group (love bombing), making a fair and rational evaluation of the belief system and the facts about the group very difficult if not impossible. Robert Lifton states that the hallmark techniques are actually based upon clever use of logical fallacies and capitalize upon our inherent human weaknesses and tendencies. Cialdini’s writing helps us understand some of these tendencies and how our human nature aids in the process of deception about the belief system and the group.

Spiritually abusive systems capitalize upon shame and inherent weakness. All people have a degree of guilt and shame because we are fallible human beings. We are not perfect and cannot attain perfection, however much we desire it. This type of shame describes something very different than true moral guilt over one’s specific actions, almost a general sense of disappointment in one’s self because of our limitations.

 In her book “Hurt People Hurt People,” Sandra Wilson states it this way: “As I see it, shame is rooted in the lie that human beings can and should be perfect. And being perfect includes the ‘take anything’ factor, (that is, endure any circumstance without feeling anything but ‘fine’ and without behaving any way but ‘nice.’)” So in that respect, all people have shame potential that a system or individual can exploit. Some potential and degree of shame is a universal human trait. Abusers of all types, not just spiritual abusers, exploit this human trait to gain undue influence over others. For those who have unresolved shame issues in their pasts that they continue to carry with them, the degree to which you can be manipulated increases.

I appreciate Harriet Braiker’s writing on manipulation because she discusses all aspects of many types of manipulation and how to move from being a “soft-target” for a manipulator by developing the traits of a “hard target.” Any extra shame that we have hanging around in our minds and hearts gives a spiritual abuser or any type of manipulator a foothold for exploitation. (They exploit the good aspects of our human nature, and that which causes us emotional pain is all the more easy to exploit.) Until the next post, visit UnderMuchGrace.com for more information

Tweet

A Diagram/Adaptation of Pia Mellody's Love Addiction/Love Avoidant Cycle

(Click to enlarge diagram)
Think of each block like a cog on a wheel.
Both wheels turn because they are propelled by the next cog in the partner's wheel, driving one another.

This is not my work but an adaptation of Pia Mellody's conception of how the Love Addicted (fantasy oriented, needy people that love you into loving yourself) and Love Avoidants (rescuers, care-takers, risk-takers) interract with one another.

Tweet

The Cycle of Abuse

This cycle has been a notable factor in some offline discussions that I've had with several people since this topic presented itself (from so many different sources). In any type of abuse or manipulative relationship (including spiritual abuse settings), we see this ever repeating pattern. I've seen this reproduced so many times, I don't even know who to credit as the original source. I offer my own version of it here. I think of the calm phase as the first step in the process, though people frequently do not indicate this as the first phase in the process in their diagrams. Here is my own version of the "cycle of abuse." Honeymoon/Calm Phase Things seem wonderful at what I always consider the beginning of the pattern, and everyone (particularly the victim) hopes beyond hope that things will be different from here. Everything has been resolved and the problems will not persist. There is open communication and things seem to be back on the desired, ideal track. You forgive and you forget. All the past is forgotten.

Tension Phase Things start to become a bother, especially for the person who is abusive. Things start to become irritating and these offences begin to build. Communication that was very open just a short time before is now difficult and guarded. There is much avoidant behavior and "walking on eggshells." "I'd better not provoke." "I'm going to get into trouble for this, so I won't say anthing." "I have a problem with this but I can't take the chance of talking about it."

Confrontation or Altercation Phase The accumulated tension or irritation errupts into some type of controntation and communication shifts from a passive avoidance to aggression on the part of just one or both of the parties involved. Here, we see verbal and physical abuse, intimidation, threats, ect. The accumulated tension is unloaded in one acute event which is often not commensurate to what appears to have triggered the event.

 Reconciliation Phase Both parties basically become very shocked by the confrontation, and the frustration has been expressed by at least one party. The other party is left to deal with shock, injury, incredulity, ect. It is during this phase that apologies and excuses are offered to assuage the other partner's pain and emotion, whatever that may be. There may also be a great show of caring from the abusive party which engenders the sympathy of the injured. Both parties generally try to excuse the event by creating a myth about the altercation: "it wasn't that bad and was blown out of proportion." 

Denial is also a possibility, as the confrontation quickly and conveniently slips out of the remembrance of one or both parties. With Borderline Personality Disorder, the effect of that disease process actually prevent the memory from passing from short term into long term memory storage. It is literally forgotten. Then back to square one...

Tweet

Who Does This Look Like To You?

Who does this look like to you? Does this remind you of your spiritual abuser? Does this remind you of a religious leader? Of a family member? Yourself?

Before I list exactly what this list of traits describes, I would like you to consider them on their own merit. I have removed the descriptive term from the traits. You will have to link below to discover what the traits describe.

Tweet