Wednesday, October 6, 2010

Reformed Legalism

I came upon this article recently, and to borrow a phrase from "The World's Greatest Spokesperson in the World"..."Guys! I just gagged!"


What Is Family Reformation



For those of you who may read this man's writing, or that of his wife, and be influenced by it, I BEG you, please don't shut down your critical thought process - as you would need to do to accept this way of belief and life. It really is a lot more simple to live a life pleasing to the Lord than what he presents here, and this kind of thinking, despite being packaged in ooey-gooey Christian goodness, points you toward blatant idolatry.


You have died with Christ, and he has set you free from the spiritual powers of this world. So why do you keep on following the rules of the world, such as, “Don’t handle! Don’t taste! Don’t touch!”? Such rules are mere human teachings about things that deteriorate as we use them. These rules may seem wise because they require strong devotion, pious self-denial, and severe bodily discipline. But they provide no help in conquering a person’s evil desires.


It should be noted that some fairly prominent Kinists attend this pastor's church. Whether or not he accepts them and their beliefs shouldn't be so much an issue (even though I suspect he turns a blind eye, perhaps even sympathizes), but moreso, why they chose his church would be very telling.


I want to look at just a few of the issues presented in the article, a "few" because to address them all would take several posts...


The first, and most fundamental institution created by God, was that of the family–society’s basic unit (Genesis 1:27-28).


Goliath was created before David. Does that make Goliath more fundamental and important? What came first : the chicken or the egg? Me thinks that some patrios place too much value on ancillary, and often purely coincidental, matters that mean a whole lot of nothing. Christ had this to say about family...


As Jesus was speaking to the crowd, his mother and brothers stood outside, asking to speak to him. Someone told Jesus, “Your mother and your brothers are outside, and they want to speak to you.” Jesus asked, “Who is my mother? Who are my brothers?” Then he pointed to his disciples and said, “Look, these are my mother and brothers. Anyone who does the will of my Father in heaven is my brother and sister and mother!”


Big difference in the two approaches.


When the family decays the church is wounded and eventually, society crumbles.


While I'm all for strong, loving, healthy, Christ-centered families (note that I didn't say "dad-centered"), I don't know that there's a "biblical model" for this idea that he presents. Fundamentalists seem to make the scriptures into a religious Candyland where everything happened in perfect harmony, according to God's ordained order. The fact is, the record of some of the most dysfunctional families who ever breathed the oxygen of our atmosphere can be found in the BIBLE, in accounts given of GOD's people, not the "world's". King David's family, for instance, put the "fun" in dysfunction. I guess he should've been more of a patriarch?


God has ordained the wife to be her husband’s helper (Genesis 2:18)


I think this is one of those verses that has been mistranslated, misused, and misunderstood for centuries. "Ezer", the Hebrew word translated as "help meet" in Genesis, can't really be narrowed down quite so easily. The word can mean protection, rescue, and several other connotations, none of which mean "subordinate", since in all other instances "ezer" refers to God. This mistranslation, or misunderstanding, is right in the patriarch's wheelhouse.


So because man was created first, he's to be the leader over woman because she was taken from him? Hmmm. Well, I'm pretty sure our nation was formed before George Washington was named President, and he was taken from our nation, just as Eve was taken from Adam, hence wo-man, so does that mean that our country should lead our President (rather than our President leading our country) or should we just forsake "God's ordained order" and apply the common sense God gave us?


Together they are to take dominion and bring life to a lost and dying world for the glory of God!


Did God really instruct this? Or did He actually instruct them to have dominion over the animal, fish, and plant lifeforms (as caretakers, not conquering heroes)?...in the Garden of Eden, which we are no longer in.


Children are to be brought up with the expectation that they will be Christians (Genesis 18:19; Proverbs 22:6; Ephesians 6:4).


None of these scriptures instruct such an expectation. Whether a child becomes a Christian or not is between the child and Christ - not the child, Christ, and the child's parent. Teach them about Christ? You bet. Point to Christ in all things? Absolutely and without fail. Indoctrinate them and make them mind-numbed Christian robots (who may or may not have a truly personal relationship with Christ)? That's for cults, but then again, the P/QF movement is very much a cult.


Our Sovereign God controls the womb (Genesis 29:31; Genesis 30:22) and we should accept God’s blessing of children wholeheartedly and with gratefulness.


Well, if God is truly sovereign in the sense he suggests, why does he own a car? Why doesn't he just trust the Lord to will him wherever He wants him to be?...cause, God would be sovereign over transportation too, right? Does he use an alarm clock? But isn't God sovereign over when he sleeps and when he wakes up? Isn't an alarm clock a lack of faith?


Do you think my example is absurd? Just watch the Duggars and get back to me on that.


While the Word of God does not designate a particular method for the education of children, parents are responsible, before God, to insure their children have a thorough Christian worldview (Deuteronomy 4:9; 6:6-9; Romans 13:3-5; Ephesians 6:4; 2 Timothy 3:15). We believe the best way to accomplish this goal is by educating and discipling our children at home. 


It isn't his duty to "disciple" his children any more than it's the responsibility of a church to "disciple" it's members. Only Christ can "disciple". Just teach them about Christ. There's a fine line between "discipling" someone and telling them what they believe.


Our covenant children are like arrows in the hand of a warrior (Psalm 127:4); and when properly sharpened and aimed, they are to be shot into the world to fight against ungodliness.


This scripture suggests no such thing, at all, as the purpose of children. And, "covenant" children? Where did that come from?


Age-segregated philosophies in both organized schools and in some churches have no basis in Scripture and have actually worked to harm the church (Mark 3:25) and weaken its effectiveness (Luke 11:17; 1 Corinthians 15:33).


Mark 3:25? What the heck? Luke 11:17? 1st Corinthians 15:33? God help us if this guy isn't the champion of proof-texting scriptures that have NOTHING to do with what he's saying. Not even close. Please don't be fooled by this stuff, people. The man is dishonestly using scripture to promote a personal religious/sociopolitical agenda - which he just happens to make a dollar or two from.


There are no positive examples of daughters leaving the protective oversight of their fathers (Genesis 34, Numbers 30:3-5). We believe it is a biblical model for a daughter to remain under the protection of her father until she is married. This way, his responsibility to protect and guide his daughter into marriage can be properly carried out.


Genesis 34? Dinah? I'm curious why he didn't include the biblical account of what can happen while under a father's authority...Tamar anyone? I think Dinah fared a lot better, but hey, that's just me. And, Numbers 30 doesn't deal in either positives or negatives. In fact, a young woman in her youth was a young woman under the age of 12. Ouch. That scripture doesn't really work all that well for patrios. Undermines their authority.


If you're gonna base the positive or negative value of something on whether it's "modeled" in scripture, where does playing golf fit in? I can't find one positive example of golf in the scripture. I guess "godly" people shouldn't play golf then. 


Remember, just because something's recorded in the scripture, like prostitution, adultery, murdery, thievery, et cetera, doesn't mean it's "modeled" there. The whole idea of things being "modeled" in the scripture, particularly in the OT, is a massive stretch.


The successful Christian family is one that sees faithfulness passed down from generation to generation; ever expanding the Kingdom of God, and thus fulfilling the mandate to bring His Word to all nations and all tongues (Genesis 1:28; Psalm 78:1-8; Isaiah 59:21; Malachi 4:6; Luke 1:17).


Scriptures that have nothing to do with what he's saying. Proof-texts, misappropriations, and cultic, dominionist madness.


I pray this gives you a little glimpse into the heart of family reformation.


He needs to pray harder. I looked, and I saw no heart. I saw a man speaking in place of God, prostituting the scriptures, leading God's people astray from a simple gospel, getting caught up in something I discussed here and also was discussed here


Don't fall for this stuff people. I'd stand on the roof and scream it if it would make any difference.


Oh, foolish Galatians! Who has cast an evil spell on you? For the meaning of Jesus Christ’s death was made as clear to you as if you had seen a picture of his death on the cross. Let me ask you this one question: Did you receive the Holy Spirit by obeying the law of Moses? Of course not! You received the Spirit because you believed the message you heard about Christ. How foolish can you be? After starting your Christian lives in the Spirit, why are you now trying to become perfect by your own human effort? Have you experienced so much for nothing? Surely it was not in vain, was it?


Remove the rigid, legalistic authority structure and see if you can still find their Jesus. I dare ya.

26 comments:

  1. The first institution God created was a garden. Therefore the lack of trees is causing society to collapse. Everybody go out and plant apple trees ('cause that totally went well the first time).

    Cats were created before men or women, which... explains a lot, actually.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "Cats were created before men or women, which... explains a lot, actually."

    HAHAHAHAHA! I am really cracking up! Sitting here with my laptop on the cat hair dusted couch, my feet up on the coffee-table.. I mean, the cat's table.

    Seriously, though, all this Reformed and New Reformed stuff I've been reading since coming back to Christianity last year is so absurd. I can understand the urge to base Christian praxology on intellectually "provable" ideas since our modern culture is so obsessed with proof via the scientific method. But really, all the rational sounding proof I've heard had to have been developed by people who checked their common sense at the door cuz most 10-year-olds know how to develop better arguments than stuff like this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Polygamy is modeled in scriptures by the patriarchs. When is that going to be started up again? As the first wife (who has already born her husband sons), I could use a couple of extra slaves to do housework, etc.

    I find it so convenient how these people are so willing to "trust God" when it comes to things which happen to other people (pregnancy), but not in their own transportation.

    It says the angels will bear them up, lest they dash their feet against a stone......surely this means all the truly faithful will be transported by angels to wherever they can 'believe' to go.

    Proof-texts, misappropriations, and cultic, demonionist madness. Sorry, my bad, dominionistic.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Modest estimates from conservative denominations show that 70% of children from Christian households are leaving the faith! Just imagine if 70% of your church dropped dead today. Would this get your attention? But, the trends show that 70% of the children in our churches are spiritually dead—and somehow we failed to notice."

    Conservative churches? Meaning, the Vision Forum, Family Integrated, legalistic ones? Well then PRAISE THE LORD that such a mass exodus is occuring!! And who is he to equate leaving his sanctioned church with leaving the faith and becoming spiritually dead? Maybe if they had something worth keeping, their kids wouldn't be throwing it away.

    "Age-segregated philosophies in both organized schools and in some churches have no basis in Scripture and have actually worked to harm the church (Mark 3:25) and weaken its effectiveness (Luke 11:17; 1 Corinthians 15:33)."

    WHAT?! Wow, is that guy good at throwing around scriptures that have nothing to do with his points. Mark 3:25 is talking about "a kingdom divided against itself"...that Satan cannot cast out his own demons. He is saying that churches like mine, and every church that is not a FIC is "a kingdom divided against itself", i.e, with some serving God and some serving Satan (Mark 3:25). Just...wow. Whatever happened to Jesus' admonition to Hi disciples to leave alone the guys that were casting out demons in Jesus' name, but weren't actually part of "their group"? Jesus told them to leave those guys alone...if they weren't working against Him, then they were on His side. Someone needs to tell that to Mr. McDonald.



    The biblical training of covenant children is best accomplished within a wholesome, age-integrated setting (Deuteronomy 29:10-11; 2 Chronicles 20:13; Joel 2:16; Matthew 19:14); therefore we encourage a setting that unites the people of God into an age integrated group allowing the older and wiser to disciple and fellowship with younger members of the church.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ooops. That last paragraph quoted wasn't supposed to be there. :P

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am so glad you're addressing this. Please don't stop. Please keep screaming the Way, Truth, and Life. Someone will hear Him through you.

    LOVED Eric's comment, by the way. Hah.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jesus didn't tell the disciples to "be fruitful and multiply." He told them to "bear fruit" (good works) and to "gather fruit" (new converts). He did not tell them to "take dominion." He told them to "go into all the world and preach the gospel."

    Instead, these people withdraw from the world while simultaneously trying to control it-- and forsake His mandates for the sake of perpetuating 1st-century structures that have nothing to do with His kingdom. Jesus said no one could enter the Kingdom without becoming as a little child. He didn't mean, "everybody but the man of the house, who gets to rule."

    Last I looked at ancient Jewish, Greek and Roman society, a "little child" was one without power or prestige-- both of which they amass to themselves.

    And the worst is that by peer-pressure and unkept promises, they lure people into all this, women and men alike.

    ReplyDelete
  8. "Conservative churches? Meaning, the Vision Forum, Family Integrated, legalistic ones? Well then PRAISE THE LORD that such a mass exodus is occuring!!"

    Ain't that the truth, Darcy.

    Great comments guys.

    ReplyDelete
  9. AMEN, AMEN, AMEN.
    Fabulous post. Sadly, you may have to define Kinist for some folks to get the full meaning. No where in the Bible is a daughter meant to be a junior wife to her father nor is she to learn to "please" a man by first "pleasing" her own father--taking away her mother's role. There is so much sick false teaching in the Patriarchal world. Thanks for helping get the word out.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Good idea, Hopewell.


    Kinism, via Metapedia...

    "Kinists believe that when God dispersed mankind at the Tower of Babel, he segregated each race. They all are apologists for Southern slavery and the ante-bellum South, and consider themselves followers of the Presbyterian minister R. L. Dabney, who was a chaplain in the Confederate army. They are strict Sabbatarians and are paleoconservative, only they reject capitalism in favor of "covenantal agrarian" economics. They are fierce opponents of industrialism and modernity.

    Kinists are advocates of secession, racial separatism, agrarianism, homeschooling, patriarchy, and theonomy, and are primarily Reformed Christians. Kinist Mark Godfrey wrote, "we hold to Kevin MacDonald's view that the ethnic "rules" of Jews which prioritize ethnic loyalty and survival virtually ensure their disproportionate representation in elite circles -circles where these self-same values are propagated. We do not put much stock in cabals or star chambers or population-wide conspiracies, but rather in the conspiracy of consensus." They believe in outlawing miscegenation, and many are members of the League of the South.

    Even though Kinism is a new movement, it closely reflects the traditional views on race of the rural South. This is demonstrated in their strident opposition to miscegenation. Kinists insist, that kinism, simply defined, means "Love of one's own kind," and that kinists do not suggest violence or hatred toward anyone based on race."


    From the Kinist Institute...

    "We at Kinism.net believe that our White peoples have an inalienable, that is God-given, right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as distinct nations, apart from all other genetic and ethnic families. We believe the cultures of our European ancestry to have achieved a similarity which allows them to seek unity, where unity is conducive to the glorification of God, and to the reform of secularized and degenerate cultures that have succumbed to the satanic religion of materialism. We believe this right extends to all other genetic and ethnic families, be they Oriental, African, or otherwise. And while we are concerned primarily with the prosperity of our own genetic extended family, we recognize the universality of the catholic Christian Church, and seek its prosperity, wherever it arises, to the extent it remains faithful to the orthodox Gospel of Jesus Christ as put forth in the Bible, both Old and New Testaments."

    From the National Policy Institute...

    "Kinism, on the other hand, is the benign awareness that homogeneous social structure breeds trust, and therefore safety. I further submit that the founding race of any nation has the right to determine its ethnic composition and its citizenship. As Jared Taylor reminds us: “If it is ‘racist’ to prefer the company of people of one’s race, to prefer the culture created by one’s race, and to want one’s race to survive and flourish, then virtually everyone of every color is ‘racist,’ and the term has no useful meaning.”

    The Virginia League of the South statement on kinism begins this way: “It is time to discuss the racial issue intelligently. Ignoring it will not make it go away.” Amen! As Scott Trask says, “A common race is the foundation of any true nation, while a common religion is the foundation of a common moral code.”"

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's what kinism is? Oh help. Am I reading it right that they are basically saying, "We'll take care of our race and you take care of yours?"

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's a pretty good way to summarize it, Sharon, although you might want to add "because that's the way God would have it" to the end of it.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Lewis. Although I agree with the gist of your post, I take exception to this: It isn't his duty to "disciple" his children any more than it's the responsibility of a church to "disciple" it's members. Only Christ can "disciple". Just teach them about Christ. There's a fine line between "discipling" someone and telling them what they believe.
    Discipling used as a verb (in the dictionary) means to teach; to train; to bring up. As a parent, that is what I do. Also, this: So because man was created first, he's to be the leader over woman because she was taken from him? Hmmm. Well, I'm pretty sure our nation was formed before George Washington was named President, and he was taken from our nation, just as Eve was taken from Adam, hence wo-man, so does that mean that our country should lead our President (rather than our President leading our country) or should we just forsake "God's ordained order" and apply the common sense God gave us? I was wondering how you reconcile Paul's stance in Eph.5 on husband/wife roles? It just seems your argument is as weak as Mr. McDonald's. If it sounds like I'm straining at gnats, it's only because I'm still vomiting up the camel of gothardism in my own life.

    ReplyDelete
  14. supernalquest...That's the lesser verb usage of "disciple". The common one, the one with religious/Christian connections, is "to make into a disciple". If the object is to merely teach or train, without religious overtones, these parents (and certain churches and movements) would say teach and train. They say disciple to give it a religious connotation. It's a bit of a loaded word. The fine line is in whether parents are attempting to make clones of themselves, in which case, the child actually becomes their disciple and not Christ's.

    And, just so you'll know, I'm not saying there's anything whatsoever wrong with you teaching and training your child;)

    For a look at my take on Ephesians 5, check out this post...

    http://thecommandmentsofmen.blogspot.com/2010/09/disingenuousness-of-patriarchy.html

    ReplyDelete
  15. When the family decays the church is wounded and eventually, society crumbles.


    While I'm all for strong, loving, healthy, Christ-centered families (note that I didn't say "dad-centered"), I don't know that there's a "biblical model" for this idea that he presents. Fundamentalists seem to make the scriptures into a religious Candyland where everything happened in perfect harmony, according to God's ordained order. The fact is, the record of some of the most dysfunctional families who ever breathed the oxygen of our atmosphere can be found in the BIBLE, in accounts given of GOD's people, not the "world's". King David's family, for instance, put the "fun" in dysfunction. I guess he should've been more of a patriarch?


    I haven't gotten any farther than this when I HAD to comment! Jesus said our enemies will be members of our own household! Matt 10:34-37

    And it is exactly these QF/P families that are forcing their children to make a choice: Jesus or the cult? I am so happy for the ones who find the strength to choose Jesus and leave their families behind, but my heart aches for all those too crippled by the cult indoctrination to make that leap of faith.

    Okay, back to the rest of the article...

    ReplyDelete
  16. "And, "covenant" children? Where did that come from?" Start researching infant baptism and you'll find out. It's this idea that, as long as your children have not hit the mysterious age of accountability, they are "covered" under Daddy and Mommy's faith and are saved. Infant baptism is an outward acknowledgment of this deal.

    It's horrific flip side is the predestinationalist's belief that all those other children outside covenanted homes are going straight to hell. None of that "salvation of the innocent's by the mercy of God" theology for them! Remember, they start smacking infants for their perceived "sin" before they can walk or talk.

    As a young Baptist, I was taught that all innocents go straight to heaven, but to these QF/P Calvinist folk there are no innocents. There are only chosen and damned. They of course are the chosen. We can all tell because they home school and go to FIC churches. The rest of the world can quite literally go to hell for all they care.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "The biblical training of covenant children is best accomplished within a wholesome, age-integrated setting (Deuteronomy 29:10-11; 2 Chronicles 20:13; Joel 2:16; Matthew 19:14); therefore we encourage a setting that unites the people of God into an age integrated group allowing the older and wiser to disciple and fellowship with younger members of the church."

    Well I think this quote is the biggest piece of double-speak I've ever encountered! FIC churches actually have LESS interaction between the young and the "older and wiser to disciple and fellowship" because they REFUSE age appropriate Sunday school classes taught by, you guessed it, "the older and wiser".

    Traditional Sunday school classes are THE place where older believers OUTSIDE OF THE IMMEDIATE FAMILY sit down with youngsters and share their wisdom. Often they will have informal conversations, perhaps over snacks, which certainly qualify as "fellowship".

    True Christ-like relationships between older and younger develop in traditional Sunday school, so obviously the real reason FIC churches are against traditional Sunday school is NOT their stated reason.

    Their real reason is that the parents want 100% complete and unceasing milieu control over their children. They do not want the children to have ANY relationships with any one outside of the parents dominating presence.

    Why is this? One, because they fear that all of their teaching is for naught, and that an hour a week outside of the parent's presence will undo all of their indoctrination. They have no confidence in either the Word of God hidden in young hearts or the power of the Holy Spirit to protect and guide their children outside of the parents dominating influence.

    So it could be a complete lack of faith in the Good Shepherd to protect and keep those who come to Him. They will deny this of course, and say that it is their "role" to do this for Jesus, without ever acknowledging that what they mean is that God can't work in their children's lives apart from and without using them. What height of spiritual pride makes one believe that God is dependent on you and only you to accomplish His good will in the lives of your children?

    More likely though, it comes from a deep subconscious understanding that they have gone off the deep end, that at least some of what goes on in their families constitutes abuse, and that they must never allow anyone outside of the family to interact with their children lest those children come to understand that.

    Cults and abusers of other kinds instinctively isolate. Isolate and control, or the whole house of cards could come crashing down.

    I pray that more than 70% of the children from these cultic families escape. I pray they all eventually escape! 70% is not near enough.

    May God himself pull down these kingdoms of men which blasphemy the Holy Spirit every single day. Where the Spirit of the Lord is there is liberty. There is no liberty for children in QF/P families. Sad.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm at least impressed that he bothers to admit that “abstinence programs” have been a failure.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Only have a second before heading to bed, but wanted to chime in on two things...

    I don't think the idea of discipling someone has to be negative. When I was in campus ministry I "discipled" women in the group. We met for coffee, prayed together, studied Scripture together, etc. It is a lot like mentoring and maybe that word would seem less loaded to some. But not every Christian who uses the term discipling has evil intentions of control and manipulation.

    Re: covenant children... I would respectfully disagree with what shadowspring wrote. I was raised Baptist and immersed. My husband was baptized as an infant and later chose to be immersed. My husband and I dedicated our daughter in a Baptist church and later had her baptized in a CRC church when we chose to join there. Truth be told, when she professes faith in Christ I will probably encourage her to go through believer's baptism. All that to say, my husband and I have lots of experience with this topic!

    Infant baptism does not save a child and any Reformed group that teaches that is out of the mainstream of the Reformed traditions. Please do not lump all people in Reformed denominations in the QF/P camp. That is simply not accurate and a misrepresentation of the many fine Christians in many of those denominations. There is no one smacking infants and wishing people to be damned to hell in our church or any of the other Reformed churches with which I'm acquainted. While I completely understand the frustration people feel with the QF/P movement, please be careful about making sweeping generalizations that just aren't accurate.

    Thanks,
    Sallie

    ReplyDelete
  20. re: Covenant children

    I'd never heard the phrase before but certainly have heard the concept. From the diatribes in my childhood against those who practiced infant baptism as symbolic of salvation (which we thoroughly disagreed with, yet the idea of baptism as a dedication of parents intent to raise the child "in the Lord" was taught to us as a perversion of the symbol of salvation) to an email from a relative last year.

    She stated that she has come to understand the "theology of parenting" to grant her the responsibility to "choose Christ for our kids". She said, "On a practical level, most people would probably say this is little different than simply raising the kids in one religious tradition or other, but to me, the choice to raise my kids within Christianity is accepting God's grace on their behalf until such a time as they continue to choose Him or reject Him."

    I was so offended by such a theology on the grounds that it left the offspring of the "unsaved" (which she had clearly considered my children to be) to be outside of God's grace before they reached the age of reason (whatever that might actually be), that I couldn't even respond to that comment in her email. Although obviously I've kept the email all these months so it still niggles.

    Where is the wideness of God's grace if it depends on the human frailty of parents to determine the state of a child's soul? Even if you believed that doctrine to be true--or any of the variations of Election--how can you consider such a god to be worth of adoration? If that were the only god I could see as consonant with Jesus' teachings and the Bible (and it was for a long time), I would again run screaming into the wilds of heathenism where I found much more gracious and loving Divinity.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Sallie,

    So you are saying that the idea behind covenant theology- that God makes salvation covenants with a man and his family, and that all under that man's authority share in the salvation covenant with their covenant head- are you saying that I misunderstand that? Do you believe that the infants of others around the world are innocent and blameless in God's sight, and will be received into heaven in the case of a young demise? Or are those children also bound by the choices of their fathers, so that the children of the "unelect" are doomed to hell on the basis of the covenantal (or is non-covenental a better word?) status of their fathers?

    That is the logical flip side of covenant theology. People who believe this stuff don't concern themselves with the rest of humanity, but only their own "elect" status. That is why I say that the rest of the world can (and will) quite literally go to hell for all you care. Your responsibility begins and ends with you covenantal head, does it not?


    And yes, the Pearls, who are big names in the QF/P world, do advocate smacking infants. They actually advocate smacking them after deliberately placing forbidden objects within reach and then smacking them when the infants natural, God-given curiosity spurs the child to reach for the object. I wish I were making this up....

    ReplyDelete
  22. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify what I was saying.

    There are some out there who claim to be Reformed who have hijacked that term and perversely twisted it into something that would not be recognizable to most believers in Reformed churches (think CRC, RCA, PCA, etc.). For example, the idea of a covenantal father as a means of salvation is not there. My salvation and my daughter's salvation has nothing to do with my husband. It is not a covenant of salvation. Baptizing my daughter did not save her and will not save her. Her only hope of salvation is putting her individual faith in Christ. Her baptism demonstrated our commitment to raise her in the church, to provide opportunities to know Christ, etc. Believe me, as a life-long Baptist I read the material VERY CAREFULLY before I agreed to baptize her.

    I don't know God's mind regarding infants and young children who die. I've experienced a miscarriage and I do believe my child is with Christ, especially based on David's testimony in Scripture about seeing his son again. But anyone who claims to have an air-tight theology in this area must be more spiritual than I am.

    Re: election and predestination. Yes, I believe those doctrines. I have to. They are clearly in Scripture. Do I have a total explanation and defense of them? No. Where God's sovereignty and man's responsibility starts and ends... I do not know. God is sovereign. Man is responsible. They are both clearly taught in Scripture. It is beyond my ability to understand it. But they are both clearly there in both the Old and New Testaments.

    Re: being unconcerned with the rest of humanity going to hell... This is just such an unfair and inaccurate accusation. The denomination we are currently in is so into social justice that sometimes it makes me uncomfortable. I would encourage you to explore the CRC beliefs and see that this is just so patently false. http://crcna.org/pages/index.cfm

    Re: the Pearls. The Pearls are an extreme and if they profess to be Reformed... All I can say is that their teachings would be laughable to people in our church and other Reformed churches I've been associated with.

    Again, I understand people's anger and frustration with QF, patriarchy, Vision Forum, Pearls, etc. But they DO NOT represent the Reformed churches in general. That was my original intent in responding. Please do not assume that these fringe groups are in any way, shape or form representative of everyone who claims to be Reformed in their flavor.

    Warmly,
    Sallie

    ReplyDelete
  23. Personally, I think adding the word "covenant" before just about everything is a way to sound more spiritual or something. Believe me, I've heard it all: Covenant family, covenant friendship, covenant children, covenant homeschool, covenant home, covenant spouse, covenant church, you name it. Someone said something to me about how to keep a "covenant friendship" alive, and I said "What does that even mean???" They couldn't tell me. They were also a little shocked that I didn't know "the lingo". Apparently it's just another dialect of Christianese, "Reformed Christianese". :P That only they can speak and understand.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sallie...The only thing you've said that I'd take any issue with (and it may be largely semantics)...

    "election and predestination. Yes, I believe those doctrines. I have to. They are clearly in Scripture."

    I believe those things are IN the scriptures, yes...but not clearly so - at least not any more clearly than salvation extended to ALL who believe, as it is in John 3:16 as an example.

    My personal issue with reformed theology is the enormous amount of gray area and question marks, not just on the periphery, but also in the critical mass, of the belief. It's those gray areas which give rise to the fringe fundamentalist groups I discuss here, in my estimation.

    That said, anyone who puts their faith in Christ is a brother or sister, whether reformed or otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Lewis,

    Yes, I think we agree. When I said they are clearly in Scripture, I mean that they are clearly there. There are people who reject predestination in any way, shape or form and I don't understand that when it is mentioned several times in Scripture. Now exactly what it means and how it plays out... No one can be certain of that. It is a mystery and beyond our finite comprehension. But the Bible says that God predestines some. How we understand that alongside the totality of Scripture might lead people to different conclusions. But, as you said, anyone who is in Christ is a brother or sister. :-)

    ReplyDelete
  26. The thing I've noticed is that most of the patriarchy teachers are Calvinists/reformed. For example, I don't think I've ever heard Vision Forum actually promote evangelism - only having lots of babies to do "kingdom work."

    While I don't believe all Calvinists are into these lifestyles, it seems that something about it does attract them more than non-Calvinists. This is based on my experience in our family integrated church and people in the social circles of our church members. Perhaps it's different in other cities.

    Although I strongly disagree with Michael Pearl in many, many areas, I should point out that he is NOT a Calvinist. He sells materials refuting Calvinism. He also encourages his customers to support prison ministries or go preach in prisons themselves. He supports evangelism in ways I can never imagine Vision Forum doing.

    ReplyDelete