At the blog From
Bitter Waters to Sweet, Mara Reid asks the following
concerning the New Calvinism (NC)
I see from the example in the post (that of a woman being abused "partaking in Christ's suffering") that NCs can come off as ambivalent about helping/stopping suffering when it rears its ugly head.
Do they take it a step further and actually emphasize suffering as a goal/way of life?
In other words, it's one thing to tell a suffering person that they shouldn't seek to change their situation. It's another thing to tell a happy person that they should actively aspire to be suffering.
#1: Neoplatonism among New Calvinists and Adherents of Quiverfull/Patriarchy
My husband's perennial first
response is that it is neoplatonism, or Christianity that has been infused with secular ancient Greek philosophical ideals. Plato taught that the body was
bad and the spirit was good. We have to make the body suffer and we have to resist delights of the flesh to
achieve spiritual insight and enlightenment.
This neoplatonism did transfer over into Catholicism. With all of
the parallels to Roman Catholic ideology in NC and their perversions of Catholicism, it doesn't surprise
me.
All of these religions are works-based systems of salvation, so one
must suffer in penance to purge sin. Suffering indicates and confirms release experientially,
and grace is such a MIRACLE, those who follow works-based religion
can't believe that they get grace based on faith alone. So
they mix works in there so it seems to them like more of an even
exchange. You have to replace faith with something.
(This always makes me think of Monty
Python's Holy Grail with the monks in the beginning who chant and
then whack themselves in the head with a board after each phrase. It was their commentary on the inconsistencies in this old, Roman Catholic practice.)
#2: Image Consciousness as a Function of Spiritual Abuse
It seems to be an integral part of
the patriarchy movement, as Lynne notes. Hillary McFarland talks
about this in her book, Quivering
Daughters. Families take on the cause, and when they suffer
the tough elements of poverty because of their willful choices, it is
seen as virtuous. For example, consider women like Nancy Campbell's
daughter suffering by having no heat, living in a flooded house, it
is suffering directly for Christ and His cause, not a lack of dutiful
stewardship or immaturity. It's better and more holy to use the "old paths" instead of the new ones, as dipping your child in kerosene to remove lice (the proof that you're being persecuted for your faith) instead of buying an inexpensive shampoo which does the same thing without risk of harm. It's better to raise and butcher goats (a very dirty process) to make soap which you cannot freely use because you have no hot water and limited water than it is to buy a bar of soap at the store.
These folks aren't really suffering for the
cause, and it brings no spiritual benefit, but it “proves” to the
person that they are special to God and that what they've done is
important. (That's a primary element of spiritual abuse according to
David Henke.)
It is also translated in the person's head as righteous
persecution for righteousness. That is very Puritan, but today, it's
all about image consciousness as much as it is "proof" of
one's spirituality and self-righteousness. They want to look
different to get attention. New Calvinist Russell Moore said that we
should seek to be a “kingdom of freaks” (Different
By Design conference audio 2007). It's the proof that they are
better than everyone else.
#3: The "Virtue" of Producerism
Then, there are people like Chip
Berlet who see it as an integral part of the outlook of "Right Wing Populism" in the United States. It is a way of perceiving the world -- a way in
which people are taught to process what happens to them and how they
fit in with the world, and it values labor. It is very common in high demand groups and
is a way of controlling and motivating a group.
You can read more about it here,
but it is a system characterized by
1. Producerism
2. Demonization and Scapegoating
3. Conspiricism
4. Apocalyptic Narratives and
Millennial Visions (in patriarchy, through dominionism)
In this case, we're talking about the
aspect of producerism
which gives the group cause to see people in terms of all black or
white. You either labor and are part of the cause (or part of
red-blooded, hard working America), or you are the problem. This
gives them an intellectual reason to feel morally superior to “the
problem.” (Remember how Hitler had that “Jewish problem”?)
In producerism, people are divided into
two categories: producers and parasites. The parasites,
either those who unworthily partake of the fruit of the labor of
others or those who labor against the cause are labeled as evil.
This allows the individual to disengage morally, giving their own
sense of ethics over to the group and it's cause, and they can treat
those non-producers as lesser beings. It's a way of letting the
virtuous end justify the means. When that happens, you can justify
treating those “lesser beings” immorally, and you can have
license to do anything you want yourself.
This dovetail's with Paul's noting that
the system of New Calvinism is really all about antinomianism.
These guys want to do whatever they see fit without paying all of
the consequences, and they moralize and "one up" themselves
on the moral ladder while they "one down" everyone else in
order to do it. They redefine people and terms to fit their desired
endpoint. As
Lynne aptly notes in her comment, in patriarchy and NC, women are
blamed for quite a bit, right down to original sin.
Really, it's an adult revamp of
primitive
ego defense mechanisms with a bit of tribalism mixed in. They
are not mature enough to care about others in a healthy way, so they
reduce their opponents to level the playing field and give themselves
an advantage. That's what small
children do, thinking in oversimplified terms and the most basic
of categories of black
and white. In terms of Robert Lifton's criteria of thought
reform, it's a part and a function of the Demand
for Purity, and it involves the Dispensing
of Existence. In reality, people and groups of people are very
complex, and we are all a mix of good and bad (the Image of God mixed
with our sinful natures). We don't fit all that neatly into
categories and stereotypes.
Does anyone remember the line from
Orwell's 1984? “He who controls the
present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the
future.” Just
drop whatever inconvenient evidence that defines the past (or
doctrine) differently into the “memory hole” to wipe it away from
the discussion and the world of thinkable ideas. Make it a set of
“unwords” and replace it with “Newspeak.” Is
this any different from one of Doug Phillips' favorite sayings of“He
who defines wins”? In New
Calvinism, they don't redefine sin like Emergent Christianity does,
but they redefine the process by which God redeems us from sin. (No
suffering, no redemption.)
#4: Gothard's Grace Points to Keep Away Sin Cooties and Gain Power
And
then there's the weird psychology of seeking out suffering in
Gothard's weird twist on Roman Catholic Theology wherein you earn
grace through suffering so that you can keep the sin cooties away.
Suffer, and you'll bank up power points to do what God really wants
you to do. It's Gothard's special understanding of the hidden formula in the idea that God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble (I Peter 5:5). There's a whole section on this abberant doctrine of his in the Big Red IBLP Book.
You have to go out to seek opportunities to be humble, and then you can bank up meritorious works. It is similar to the Roman Catholic idea that you could bank up good works as salutary acts to keep yourself out of purgatory or buy someone else's way out. There are many similarities between New Calvinism and Gothard's system because they both merge justification and sanctification.
You have to go out to seek opportunities to be humble, and then you can bank up meritorious works. It is similar to the Roman Catholic idea that you could bank up good works as salutary acts to keep yourself out of purgatory or buy someone else's way out. There are many similarities between New Calvinism and Gothard's system because they both merge justification and sanctification.
From Valerie
Tarico's interview with me concerning Gothard's system and complementarianism:
Gothard's additional errors contribute to the overall harmful nature of his ideology. Because favor with God must be earned through works of submission, one must have a structure that requires submission. He misinterprets key Scriptures about authority, perceiving that the church and the family operate under a military-style, chain of command authority structure. Because one must work to accumulate this mystical substance of merit, mistreatment and abuse merely provide needed mechanisms for accumulating merit. Unless an authority requires a Christian to commit an overt sin, Gothard teaches that all authority must be obeyed at all costs.. . . Those who live at the top of the food chain fair well, but in the process of this chain of command/humility system, those who fall at the lower end of the hierarchy are required to submit and suffer all manner of injustice to improve their character and work God's mystical and often indiscernible divine plan.
