Anything can be a cult

I've been accused of sheltering my children from the real world by not allowing them to watch movies like this [. . .]

In the Vision Forum universe, God is little more than your Authority, with little intermediary human “authorities” in between Him and us. (This, by the way, is just recycled Bill Gothard-ism, the same kind of “chain of human spiritual authority” view that the Reformers fought to abolish centuries ago.) Thus, families behave the same way, especially between husbands and wives, fathers and daughters.

Quite literally, fathers own daughters in the Vision Forum universe[. . . .] This is not a reactionary exaggeration. Read their websites. See the cheerful proclamations their young women make about having their hearts “belong” to their fathers until a potential husband comes along for the arranged property transfers. Note the hegemonic, attack-of-the-clones dress codes in the above-posted video and elsewhere on the internet.

All of this twisted theology results from a low view of God, an exalted view of man and man’s righteousness, and terrible eisegesis and skewed reading of Scripture. Like Gothard and other legalists, they equate practices that are described in the Bible, such as arranged marriage, and ascribe these as having just as much value as direct commandments from God.

It’s bad enough that daughters and families are suffering the loss of freedom and Grace because of this false teaching. Far worse is the fact that God Himself is not glorified, and Grace merely is thrown into the grinding machine of Moralism.

I thought I said that, no, every single sourtship does not need to look like that. [. . .] I do not look at courship with reverant eyes, courtship and the Bible are at totally different totally totally different levels in my mind.

And I fully agree that “courtship is more the mindset then the actual action.” This leads, though, to some rather interesting realizations: what is tempting or hurtful to one person may not be the same to others. What will best serve the other person and glorify God to him or her, even in the manner of physical affections? It’s the same case with holiday celebration, or eating or drinking preferences, about which Paul was clear that Christians can have different standards because some struggle in some areas more than others do.

Most of your description two pages ago I have indeed heard before. The only thing new to me is your seeming recognition that Christians aren’t required in Scripture to follow this kind of model. That is unfortunately a view foreign to many other advocates of such courtship concepts.

However, I would take issue with the ideas that this is the “perfect situation,” Daughters. For example, a friend of mine just got married on Dec. 20, after what I thought was an unusual method of speed-courtship with his church’s help. For him, a few months of dating and friends-and-fellowship time was quicklyfollowedbyengagementandthenmarriage within two months!

Other friends, including NarniaWebbers, have adopted rock-solid Biblical “courtship” principles, including accountability and direction-drivenness, while not having a “chaperone” accompany them anytime they’re together. I myself am praising God for where He’s brought me in my own mostly-long-distance relationship with a certain young lady — a NarniaWebber! Who’s to say their/our method of mate-seeking isn’t “perfect” or God’s will, too?

What I would like to see more of in the stronger “courtship” advocates is a recognition that Christians are not all the same types of people — that is, homeschoolers, with Christian parents, living relatively close together, and with plenty of accountability available from Godly fathers and/or church leaders or mentors. To think otherwise is not just unrealistic or impractical, but bypassing the diversity of backgrounds in God’s people.

Even Josh Harris (often perceived as the “Love Doctor,” as he now sarcastically refers to himself!) had to get past some of his initial expectations: he married a non-homeschooled new Christian with a history of bad relationships and an absentee father, while more than a thousand miles from his own parents and any accountability to them!

Unfortunately, there’s a lot of bad doctrine being taught in these movements. It is very often based on the desires to correct other bad doctrines — such as anti-marriage-roles feminism, anti-family attitudes, secular dating-just-for-fun-and-profit, or “lazy Christianity.” Those goals, then, can become the goal of many teachings, particularly if — as I’ve already pointed out — you’re operating from a wrong view of God’s Grace and the need to make Him our center.

In fact, I would recommend backing up and restarting this whole debate from there — the flawed presuppositions of patriarchalism, leading to the result of flawed courtship concepts.

Meanwhile, though, let me repeat and supplements everyone’s arguments again Arranged-marriage-esque (how about we call it AME?) type courtship in a more-organized way. However, I must give credit to Don Veinot, who similarly organized his book’s rebuttal to the Gothard-esque courtship concepts (at least, as they are purported to be The Scriptural Way of Doing It). My first point will be the longest.

Recommended A Matter of Basic Principles: Bill Gothard and the Christian Life by Don Veinot

The differences can be confusing, particularly because so many extreme ideas are about, attaching themselves to either term. Many people, for example, think of Josh Harris as being that no-dating-ever-at-all guy — I was one of them! — but near the very beginning [o]f Boy Meets Girl and all throughout he specifies (though perhaps not enough?) that of course one-on-one time with a significant other is important, dates included.

Rather, depth-minded dating — that is, time spent doing activities pretty much together, dinner, movies, walks, et cetera — is a subset of courtship, which can also include family time and that sort of thing, and optimally takes place when either participant is ready to consider what any romantic relationship should keep in mind: Mawwiage.

Dating without being ready for Mawwiage is silly at best, dangerous at most. You’re playing with emotions that aren't ready to be experienced, and hearts that aren’t ready to be given.

But unhealthful “courtship” that basically amounts to the parents and family, church, whatever, running the show, is equally dangerous. This kind of “courtship” disallows either half of the “couple” — if it could even be called that, because they’re still part of the family Collective! — from making his/her own decisions and drawing upon their own connections with God's Spirit and Christian freedom to decide where to go.

Instead, the unhealthful dynamic of others standing between the now-more-mature person and God is enacted, resulting in frustration, lack of growth and relationship issues both at present and in the future.

Unfortunately, though, many sometimes-well-meaning Christian teachers, freaked out over the possibility of either sexual sin or just making any relationship mistake at all, advocate stringent policies, supposedly based in Scripture, for what to do and how to do it and above all don’t do this or that without clear parental permission and et cetera.

I'll go ahead and name names: Bill Gothard. Doug Phillips. And a bunch of their wannabes, such as this guy, particularly in the Christian homeschooling circuit. All of them, dismissing Biblical concepts of personal freedom in Christ and relying upon Him without required mediation of human “authorities” in between, have set up un-Biblical Systems of “courtship” that amount to legalistic, emotion-denying androidal “arranged marriage” methods. They’re wrong and they should be opposed — quite strenuously, too. Not only is correct doctrine and Christian freedom at stake, but the very future of Christian marriages and families and how they are formed, and whether they will even survive. …

In response to this, I received a great PM from one of the forum’s — and this discussion’s in particular — most active participants, challenging much of what I’d said.

The following three-part series consists of my response to her in which I tried to cover three main topics: first, those of legalistic authoritarian views and their ignorance of Grace; second, the resultant System-based construct of anti-individualistic Graceless “courtship”; third, the fallacies of using anecdotes or “signs,” either in Scripture or in our own lives, to find God’s will or prove a System.

Why December 25?

The origin of Christmas had nothing to do with paganism

According to conventional wisdom, Christmas had its origin in a pagan winter solstice festival, which the church co-opted to promote the new religion. In doing so, many of the old pagan customs crept into the Christian celebration. But this view is apparently a historical myth—like the stories of a church council debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, or that medieval folks believed the earth is flat—often repeated, even in classrooms, but not true.

William J. Tighe, a history professor at Muhlenberg College, gives a different account in his article “Calculating Christmas,” published in the December 2003 Touchstone Magazine. He points out that the ancient Roman religions had no winter solstice festival.

True, the Emperor Aurelian, in the five short years of his reign, tried to start one, “The Birth of the Unconquered Sun,” on Dec. 25, 274. This festival, marking the time of year when the length of daylight began to increase, was designed to breathe new life into a declining paganism. But Aurelian's new festival was instituted after Christians had already been associating that day with the birth of Christ. According to Mr. Tighe, the Birth of the Unconquered Sun “was almost certainly an attempt to create a pagan alternative to a date that was already of some significance to Roman Christians.” Christians were not imitating the pagans. The pagans were imitating the Christians.

[. . .]

Jesus was certainly considered a great prophet, so those church fathers who wanted a Christmas holiday reasoned that He must have been either born or conceived on the same date as the first Easter. There are hints that some Christians originally celebrated the birth of Christ in March or April. But then a consensus arose to celebrate Christ's conception on March 25, as the Feast of the Annunciation, marking when the angel first appeared to Mary.

[. . .]

This celebrates Christ's birth in the darkest time of the year. The Celtic and Germanic tribes, who would be evangelized later, did mark this time in their “Yule” festivals, a frightening season when only the light from the Yule log kept the darkness at bay. Christianity swallowed up that season of depression with the opposite message of joy: “The light [Jesus] shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it” (John 1:5).

Regardless of whether this was Christ's actual birthday, the symbolism works. And Christ's birth is inextricably linked to His resurrection.

An early pamphlet made the Army's position clear by saying that it' considers all music sacred when used with holy purpose'. For his Christmas message to War Cry readers of 1880 William Booth had already written: ' Secular music, do you say, belongs to the devil? Does it? Well, if it did I would plunder him for it, for he has no right to a single note of the whole seven. . . . Every note, and every strain, and every harmony is divine, and belongs to us. . . . So consecrate your voice and your instruments. Bring out your comets and harps and organs and flutes and violins and pianos and drums, and everything else that can make melody. Offer them to God, and use them to make all the hearts about you merry before the Lord.'

from the Salvation Army website

Just hours after the shooting the Amish were already reaching out to the non-Amish family of [schoolhouse murderer] Charles Roberts IV, who had barricaded 10 girls aged 6-13 in their school house, tied them up in front of the blackboard and shot them, fatally wounding five before killing himself.

[. . .]

The Amish response to what many of them have called, “our 9/11” has been in turns inspiring and startling.

Recommended Jane Eyre (Dover Thrift Editions) by Charlotte Brontë

“[. . .] St. John is a good man,” said Diana.

[Jane replies:] “He is a good and great man; but he forgets, pitilessly, the feelings and claims of little people, in pursuing his own large views. It is better, therefore, for the insignificant to keep out of his way lest, in his progress, he should trample them down.”