I recently read a
post at the Cry
for Justice blog critiquing a sermon that Voddie
Baucham delivered about the “Permanence
of Marriage.” The blog explores the theme Pastor Jeff Crippen's book Cry
for Justice: How the evil of domestic abuse hides in your church. It's an excellent place to read if you're
dealing with the issue of abuse or if you're trying to understand the
behavior of an abuser. I've not yet read the book, because frankly,
I find the subject of abuse to be a difficult topic. I begin to read
and cannot concentrate because of the difficulty of the subject
itself. I have, however, read selections of very good and helpful
content on the Cry
for Justice blog.
When the sermon came to my attention, I
immediately thought of something I'd read in one of Baucham's books a
couple of years ago. A reader contacted me and asked me to consider
critiquing his book, What
He Must Be... If He Wants to Marry My Daughter. It came
highly
recommended by a source they trusted at the time, and this reader
became quite dismayed. They found the principles Baucham promoted
and his twisting of Scripture in such an authoritative tone to be so
troubling that they claimed that they'd actually begun to question
Christianity. I relented and bought a used copy of the book,
wondering what content could have been so troubling. I read only a
third or so of it and stopped. I found it to be so full of bizarre
that I quickly grew weary of it. I contacted the person via email
and shared some general ideas about what I'd read before I gave up on
the effort.
Looking back on what I read a couple of
summers ago, Baucham makes three notably “memorable” points in
that first section the book. He boldly claimed that Zilpah
and Bilhah were actually Leah's dowery that Laban
paid as opposed to the traditional idea that they were “given” as
slaves to Leah. (Should we do the same today because it's the
Biblical thing to do?). In claiming that all rank and file Christians
who do not hold a position of leadership in the church to support his
rigid homeschooling centered affinity group that is marketed as the
Family Integrated Church under the guise of elder-led church
government, Baucham emasculates the Scriptures about the higher
standards required of shepherds, deacons, and teachers of their
significance, making them applicable to every male Believer. This
final “teaching” exemplifies every characteristic of spiritual
abuse as defined by Henke's model. I but I was probably floored the
most when I read read that Baucham seems to claim that Martin
Luther believed that marriage was a sacrament.
I didn't know how to respond publicly
at the time because I was surprised to find that a few pages of the
same book mentioned me by name. They repeat Baucham's confabulation
about me that Don Veinot of the Evangelical Ministries to New
Religions noted
to be a falsehood when Baucham posted it on his blog in 2008.
Ironically, when confronted about his error, Baucham published a
revised statement that contained additional and more serious,
uncharitable errors. (It
no longer appears online, BTW.) But I guess that his book had
already gone to press. Between that and the miserable
misrepresentations of the Word of God that he makes in defending his
“Stay
At Home Daughter” thesis, at that point, I declined writing any
blog commentary about any of it. Sometimes, I believe that it's
prudent to say nothing about some of this kind of material because
criticism can be perceived by aberrant groups as a type of religious
persecution which feeds self-aggrandizement, something that
ironically becomes a twisted type of reward.
No Divorce... EVER.
I believe that the sacrament issue is
now worth addressing, in light of the statement that Baucham makes in
his “Permanence of Marriage” sermon concerning how Matthew (or
perhaps Jesus Himself) lacked sufficient perspicacity to adequately
explain what He meant. For a moment, I thought that he might
actually “go Bultmann” on the crowd by pointing out repeatedly
that the “porneia clause” only appears in Matthew's writings, as
though this is some kind of suggestion that Matthew had issues with
discernment. Either way, he explains how the Logos did a poor job
explaining to humanity what He meant in the God-breathed Gospel. I
immediately recalled the passage in his book about marriage itself as
a “sanctifying work” as though marriage is a religious rite that
confers spiritual benefit. (For a Protestant, I would say that the
term “sanctifying” as a modifier for the word “work” should
not even be found in the same sentence, let alone for someone who
calls them Reformed.) In what some consider to be a cribbing of
Elliff's
view which contradicts and rules out Jesus'
statement about divorce for the cause of porneia
(what the context suggests as a broader category of sexual sin that
exceeds the act of adultery only), I guess that we should all be glad
that Baucham is around to set Christians throughout the ages straight
on this matter!
In this post, I wish to assert that
viewing marriage as what Baucham describes as a “sanctifying work”
has a direct bearing on why one might also believe in the “permanence
of marriage,” regardless of adultery, sexual sin, or even domestic
abuse.
Though I don't intend to dwell on this
book, this sermon, or their specious claims at any length, I would
like to note this about the sermon. It contained glib jocularity that
would suggest to some that physical abuse is not a somber matter of
grave concern to Baucham, though I know that it is troubling if not
troublesome to some couples that have left his congregation. I made
only a single note about its content as I listened to the sermon:
“Homicide? Maybe. Divorce? Never!”
Another person just pointed out to me that I'm
not the only one to express this same concern (as Jeff Crippen
also blogged about it). And to me, the comment certainly seems
consistent with other
overtly aggressive statements Baucham has made about control.
Baucham's Linguistic Booby Traps and
Other Tricks of Logical Fallacy
Having explained this topic in previous
posts (HERE
and HERE),
I wont go into much detail today, save to say that Baucham
demonstrates again his great skill of speaking with charismatic
authoritative prowess to evade the discernment of his audience. In
general, he often says just enough to convey his intended meaning and
his “hidden
curriculum” through fuzzy
logic, unstated
assumption, and redefinition
of known, traditional terminology in such a way that he can still
also deny that he's said anything improper or taken an intended
meaning out
of context. The issue of marriage as a work that confers
holiness or God's favor certainly demonstrates this tactic of the
informal logical fallacy of equivocation in particular. Aberrant
Christianity frequently makes use of this type of error of logic, one
matter of many that James Sire notes in his book, Scripture
Twisting: 20 Ways Cults Misread the Bible. Plausible
deniability is everything.
What Is a Sacrament?
First, we must clarify what a
Protestant, particularly a “Capital R Reformed Protestant”
understands about the use of the term “sacrament.”
In the most general sense, a sacrament is a religious rite or
ceremonial act that is interpreted as a visible, outward sign of
God's grace and forgiveness. Some traditions believe that something
holy is imparted to the participant through the process of the
sacrament, literally meaning “holy act.” Denominations interpret
sacraments differently and some embrace differing doctrines, noting
that sanctification describes the process by which a Christian
becomes increasingly more “holy.”
Holiness in this sense means morally and spiritually excellent, “set
apart” or venerated for God's use.
Since Luther was cited by Baucham in
the passage of interest, consider that Luther's central message and
cause for protest surrounded the idea that salvation comes through
faith alone. Faith alone initiates the process whereby Jesus imputes
the Believer with His holiness while He bears the punishment and
stigma for sin. Luther protested the idea that the Catholic church
dispensed righteousness to people and declared them saved from their
sins only if they performed certain works, creating a fusion of both
faith and works together that were necessary for salvation.
Roman Catholicism still embraces seven
sacraments which help to infuse the Christian with holiness which
works from the outside of the person through what they do to in order
to affect an inward change. These Roman Catholic sacraments include
baptism, confirmation, the Eucharist (communion), marriage,
ordination, confession/penance and, the anointing of the sick/“last
rites.” They either give a person or increase “sanctifying
grace” (works that either establish or deepen one's favor with
God.) Luther identified only
two sacraments in the New Testament, instituted by Jesus Himself,
acts which “aid in faith” in some way: water baptism and the
Eucharist (the Lord's Supper). Some Protestant theologies observe
these traditions as an “act of obedience” or as ordinances which
publicly confirm their faith, while others embrace a range of
interpretations about some type of conferred spiritual benefit and
the nature of that benefit.
The other Roman Catholic sacraments
were works that man did, and works cannot impute or infuse
righteousness into the inner man, a change that can only happen
within the Believer through the sovereign transformative work of the
Holy Spirt. One cannot underemphasize this aspect of Luther's
message, a concept embodied in the Five
Solas (or Solae) of the the Reformation. With that
consideration, I note well that Baucham does not use the term
“sacrament” itself in the excerpt below, but he does make what
some might find to be an even bolder statement. He uses the term
“sanctifying work.”
Baucham's Misleading Summary of
Luther on Marriage
As part of the discussion of finding a
suitable candidate for his daughter to marry, a gospel for all
dutiful fathers who want to attain God's highest and best, Baucham
turns to Luther for support.
Excerpt from Voddie Baucham's What
He Must Be... (pg.
38, emphasis mine):
The Bible clearly presents marriage as a glorious gift from God and a tool that he uses to bless and sanctify his people in numerous ways. Martin Luther enumerates some of these sanctifying works wrought by the marriage covenant in his lectures on Abraham's plans for the marriage of Isaac. He states:
“Marriage is the God-appointed and legitimate union of man and woman in the hope of having children or at least for the purpose of avoiding fornication and sin and living to the glory of God. The ultimate purpose is to obey God, to find aid and counsel against sin; to call upon God; to seek, love, and educate children for the glory of God; to live with one's wife in the fear of God and to bear the cross.”
Thus, according to Luther, marriage is a tool that God uses for at least three purposes: 1) procreation, 2) avoiding fornication, and 3) sanctification.
Recalling an instance when Baucham
accused the world of “playing
fast and loose” with Biblical texts, I can't help but offer the
same critique of what he does with his “summary” of Luther.
Where in this quote does Luther say anything about marriage being an
undertaking that specifically works holiness into the inner being of
the Believer as a consequence of pursing it? Where does this quote
indicate that marriage is a work at all? Are we touching on the
issue of “Shepherdism”
or the “Obedience
of Faith” controversy, merely because Luther says in this quote
that our ultimate purpose is to obey God which results in avoiding
sin? Has the priority to birth and parent large numbers of “covenant
children” to save
the world created a new sacrament among Baucham's followers in
the Quiverfull Movement?
I believe that to support the premise
of his belief system, Baucham makes what I find to be a spurious
claim that Luther himself saw marriage as a sacrament. He lays this
idea as a foundational principle that he relies upon for additional
spurious claims that he makes later in the book. Marriage is such a
central part of his narrowly regimented view of family and church
hierarchy so that we can all “get family discipleship right,”
he's got to exploit every morsel that he can find. And Baucham
should be honest. He's well-trained and knows the principles of
proper hermeneutics, or at least why a teacher should not “play
fast and loose” with theological terms. He should realize and
anticipate that, as a self-proclaimed “fire-breathing,
TULIP believing, five-point Calvinist,” the term connotes a
specific meaning when discussing basic theology.
Maybe he would belabor the technical
point that because marriage is said to merely be a tool that God uses
as opposed to saying that man willfully uses it as a tool to gain
power? That might be more believable, but the context of the book
sets marriage up as the ideal and what Doug Phillips calls
“normative.” I guess that God gives you fewer grace points by
infusion if you fail to get married, considering that marriage is
said to be a sanctifying work. If you don't marry, you have less
opportunity to have holiness infuse into you? If you marry, you
become closer to God and wield more spiritual power? How then does 1
Corinthians 7:7-8 apply? As you can imagine, Baucham has pat
and convoluted answers for that in the book, too.
Is Baucham reformed, or does he want to
be Roman Catholic theologian? As my husband says frequently after
reading John
Robbins for so many years and in so many contexts, “The
New Calvinists get more RC by the minute.” (If you're a
Roman Catholic reading here, note that I don't necessarily intend to
slam Catholicism on this point, though I hold to a staunchly
Protestant view.) I just want to point out that the if someone's
going to start preaching that virtuous works combine with faith
results in spiritual holiness on the inside of a person, please don't
call yourself a Calvinist.
Or try to be more faithful to use academic and theological terms more
appropriately so that we can clearly understand your intended meaning
when you use terms like “sanctifying work.”
Additional reading: What
Was All That Stuff About Voddie?
