The Homeschool Movement: Reconstructionist Movement, Michael Farris, HSLDA, and Patrick Henry College

Continuing with last article's theme of Reconstructionist ideology as in the homeschool movement, I'd like to give you some history on Michael Farris, one of the key pillars in the homeschool movement.  I cannot say whether Farris would call himself a Reconstructionist, but as I shared in the last post, many times people adopt Reconstructionist ideologybh without even knowing they are a Reconstructionist.  We can see a lot of evidence that he has been influenced by the ideals of Reconstructionist:  full-quiver, teaching children at home, involvement in government, education, etc.

Here is part of his bio from the group he founded in 1983, the Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) (website):

Michael Farris is the chancellor of Patrick Henry College and chairman of the Home School Legal Defense Association. He was the founding president of each organization.

Farris is a constitutional appellate litigator who has served as lead counsel in the United States Supreme Court, eight federal circuit courts, and the appellate courts of 13 states.

and

He has been a leader on Capitol Hill for over 30 years and is widely known for his leadership on homeschooling, religious freedom, and the preservation of American sovereignty. 

And this last sentence is important to note:

Mike and Vickie Farris have 10 children and 14 grandchildren.

Michael Farris has the picture-perfect family for the homeschool movement and Reconstructionist ideology.  Because of his key position in the homeschooling movement, it's good to see what has influenced him and observe his actions and how he influences others.  

To remind again what this Reconstructionist ideology looks like, I found the quote below by author David Barton.  Barton is well known in the homeschooling community and his history books have been sold in homeschool catalogs for years.  He serves on the Board of Advisors of the Providence Foundation, a group which promotes Reconstructionist ideas.  (Ok, JA snark:  just now as I have been researching more on this the background of the Providence Foundation, I have found more connections with Reconstructionism on the very curriculum we have used in our home with our children.  These books are still on my shelf.  I want to burn them, but I may have to keep them to use for future blog posts!  This ideology did not come from just leaders in the homeschooling community, they infiltrated into the very curriculum that we use with our children.  I've been brainwashing my own children into this mindset without knowing it.  I thought I was buying decent history curricula for my children and now I see that it was tainted with this agenda.  Un-freaking-believable!!!  This stuff just keeps going and going and going.)  Read what David Barton has to say on this subject of the Reconstructionists:  

"The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law."

When Christian families decide to educate their children at home, I don't think they realize that these Reconstructionist roots exist in the homeschool movement.   The next quote comes from a very informative article, Reconstruction Theology and Home Education and discusses what a "Reconstructed America" would look like from the mindset of Reconstructionists:

In his excellent 1996 book, With God on Our Side, William Martin used a sampling of the views of several noted Reconstructionists to give a sense of how a Reconstructed America would be: "The federal government would play no role in regulating business, public education, or welfare…[S]ome government would be visible at the level of counties…but citizens would be answerable to church authorities on most matters subject to regulation…income taxes would not exceed ten percent - the biblical tithe - and social security would disappear…[P]ublic schools would be abolished in favor of home-schooling arrangements, and families would operate on a strict patriarchal pattern. The only people permitted to vote would be members of 'biblically correct' churches. Most notably, a theonomic order would make homosexuality, adultery, blasphemy, propagation of false doctrine, and incorrigible behavior by disobedient children subject to the death penalty, preferably administered by stoning…a reconstructed America would have little room for Jews, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, atheists, or even non-Reconstructionist Christians. 'The Christian', one Reconstructionist author has asserted, 'must realize that pluralism is a myth…R.J. Rushdoony, also regards pluralism as a heresy, since, in the name of toleration, the believer is asked to associate on a common level of total acceptance with the atheist, the pervert, the criminal, and the adherents of other religions."

So, again,  with this Reconstructionist background, let's take a look at Farris.  He's an ordained pastor, an attorney, very active in legal matters, founded Homeschool Legal Defense Association in 1983:

Home School Legal Defense Association is a nonprofit advocacy organization established to defend and advance the constitutional right of parents to direct the education of their children and to protect family freedoms. Through annual memberships, HSLDA is tens of thousands of families united in service together, providing a strong voice when and where needed.

Promoting the homeschooling agenda and being active in the legal system are definitely ideals in the Reconstructionist movement.  

You might ask:  Julie Anne, what is your beef?  You homeschool - - don't you appreciate Farris' efforts for the homeschooling community?  Where would homeschoolers be today if HSLDA hadn't helped with lobbying efforts and made sure all 50 states had decent laws ensuring homeschooling freedoms?  Good questions.  I'm glad you asked :)

We found out about HSLDA through a homeschool convention and discovered most of our homeschooling friends belonged to this organization.  Paying a membership fee ($115 p/year) gives homeschooling the peace of mind that should their family ever have any legal entanglements with their local public  government school, HSLDA would be there to help.  They also have helped families in cases where Children's Protective Services and other government "intrusions" may have crossed the lines.  

Included in our HSLDA membership, we received a magazine each month, The Home School Report.  This magazine listed key legal issues involving homeschooling in each state.  They also reported current stories of families with legal issues sometimes involving government intrusion, child custody issues, etc.  We were kept abreast of various laws in states with contact information to make our voices count.  

At one point, this magazine had a tear-out section listing what to do if a government official (police, school official, CPS, etc) came to our door making demands or asking for information.  We were instructed to hang this list in a location (ie, inside a kitchen cupboard) so it would be handy.  In addition to providing important phone numbers, the page included instructions like:  do not allow a government official to come in your house, instructions to advise the official that you are calling your attorney, etc.  I wish I saved a copy now, but it certainly promoted a fear of the government, that the government was not on our side.  The stories in the articles were frightening, including stories of the government's intrusion in private citizen's lives, taking children away from parents, forcing children to go to public government schools (in the homeschooling movement, people don't say "public" school, but "government school" - JA's snark meter is going crazy just typing this).  

HSLDA had a way of convincing homeschooling families that we needed them and their services.  If we did not take advantage of their service, we were risking government intrusion in our lives, worst-case scenarios were described of government officials coming to our home and removing and/or taking custody of our children.  If we did not pay our membership fee each year, we were risking unsurmountable legal fees if we got in trouble with our school district or government.  HSLDA would defend us in court if we needed them.  HSLDA would speak on our behalf.  They would fight to keep laws so we could have the freedom to homeschool. 

Here is a good example of the tone we got from HSLDA.  It is involving a specific case that HSLDA defended.  When you are about to venture into an unknown territory and experienced homeschool leaders present themselves to you in a way that they will help you, make sure you are safe from the evil government who wants to interfere with your right to homeschool, you tend to want to believe them.  Watching a video like the one below can send a fear message that there is something huge going on in the government that may threaten you as you try to teach your children at home.  It makes perfect sense to send in the $100+ membership fee and let them take care of you.  You feel safe in their hands when you write out that check, because you never know when someone will come knocking at your front door.

Did you notice the ominous music in the background?  There was a purpose - it invokes an emotional response.  It is manipulation.  This stuff drives me crazy. They spoke for all homeschoolers.  

But wait . . . do they speak for all homeschoolers?  In 2000, when we were about to move to Oregon, I joined a homeschool e-mail group to get a feel for the homeschooling environment in Oregon.  This homeschool e-mail group was a mixed group with Christians and non-Christians.  On that e-mail group I heard for the first time that HSLDA did not speak on behalf of all homeschoolers.  In fact, a lot of homeschoolers were quite upset that HSLDA presumed to speak on their behalf.  They didn't like the way HSLDA had changed some laws and thought they were interfering with their homeschool freedoms and promoting their own agenda.  Wow!    

This is when I took a closer look and saw that there was some sort of agenda going on.  It was also when I stopped paying our membership fees.  Since canceling our membership, we've had no government intrusion in our life and in fact, we've had no problems whatsoever with the two public school systems with which we have dealt.    (Not to say that there are never legal homeschooling problems, but our experience has been fine.)

While searching around for more info on Farris today, I discovered a new group geared to teens founded by Farris and HSLDA.  Here we go again.  It is a group called Generation Joshua with the intended purpose to equip teens in the political process (if it looks like Reconstructionist agenda, walks like Reconstructionist agenda . . .).  Here is the scoop:

Inspired by Mike Farris’ book The Joshua Generation, Generation Joshua was founded in 2003 by Farris, Home School Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) President Mike Smith, and the HSLDA Board of Trustees.

In the book, Farris casts a vision for this next generation to build on the foundation their parents built. 

Generation Joshua is a 501(c)(4) member organization and works with the HSLDA-PAC, an advocacy group. This allows Generation Joshua to conduct non-partisan educational activities while also being able to participate actively in the election process through the HSLDA-PAC. Since it was founded in 2003, Generation Joshua has grown to over 7,500 members and has established over 100 clubs nationwide. 

As the Generation Joshua Program continues to grow, more conservative godly youth get involved in the political system making a real difference in our nation. The future of Generation Joshua will continue to be an exciting journey as the next generation shapes this nation and becomes tomorrow’s leaders.

This group was alive and well during this year's elections.  Here is a promotional video Generation Joshua produced for the occasion:

Ok, that's a brief history of some of Michael Farris' groups, HSLDA and Joshua Generation, including our experience with HSLDA over the years.  Let's now move along to Patrick Henry College which Mike Farris founded in 2000.  Read their mission and vision statements (keeping in mind the Reconstructionist agenda):

The Mission of Patrick Henry College is to prepare Christian men and women who will lead our nation and shape our culture with timeless biblical values and fidelity to the spirit of the American founding.  Educating students according to a classical liberal arts curriculum and training them with apprenticeship methodology, the College provides academically excellent baccalaureate level higher education with a biblical worldview.

The Vision of Patrick Henry College is to aid in the transformation of American society by training Christian students to serve God and mankind with a passion for righteousness justice, and mercy, through careers of public service and culture influence. 

We cannot dismiss the fact that Patrick Henry College is strategically located in close proximity to our Nation's capital so students are able to participate in political meetings, hearings, lobbying efforts, meet government officials, etc.  Yes, indeed, not only does Farris personally work within the legal system, he has been raising up homeschool warriors to infiltrate the system.  This fits the agenda to a tee.

Prior to 2000, in the homeschool movement, we heard from top leaders that there are other alternatives to college for our homeschooled students. Colleges were sometimes labeled as evil influences, even conservative Christian institutions, and girls especially should not go to college, but remain at home under the protection of their patriarchal fathers.  But strangely, something happened overnight in 2000.  Somehow, Mike Farris got a free pass and convinced homeschool parents that the new college would be different.  I remember the big build-up of this college even before the groundbreaking.  This was to be the first college that would be specifically tailored for homeschoolers.  Other students would be able to attend, but first priority would be to homeschool students.  He made PHC okay for not only homeschoolers in general, but young ladies as well.  Remember, he comes from the Patriarchal camp where young daughters typically remain at home until their daddies find them appropriate spouses through the courtship process.  I don't know how Mike and patriarchal homeschool daddy's wrestled this issue, but there are in fact young ladies who attend this college.   

JA snark:  I guess if you are part of this agenda and God tells you a patriarchal daddy that his daughter might be a special daughter who can infiltrate the government for God's glory, then daddies are able to cut the cord and let those special daughters do their good works.  But . . . what happens if those young ladies find a young man without their daddy around?  Who will oversee her while she is away at college?  Who will make sure the relationship meets daddy's criteria?  

Stay tuned for the next post on what originally got me worked up and what led to this series on Reconstructionism.  

The Homeschool Movement: Its Reconstructionist Roots and Rushdoony's Influence

"We are authorized by God to challenge all that is not godly!" Rushdoony thundered. "God is angry with the wicked every day, and the sins of the wicked deserve the infliction of God's wrath in this life as well as the life hereafter!"  Rushdoony

I know the title of this post seems dry and boring.  If spiritual abuse is a concern of yours, I encourage you to take the time to read this post carefully.  Check out the links and do some research on your own.  The information I have found has compelled me to keep blogging, to keep telling my story, and to keep sharing the stories of others.  I am just a little worked up on this topic.  

There is much more to homeschooling than just educating children.  There is much more to patriarchy and courtship than fathers being heads of home and parents involved in the process of finding mates for their adult children.  You must know that there is an agenda going on.  This agenda ties these practices together.  I thought I was homeschooling my children because I could do a better job than the local public school system.  I thought I was homeschooling my children so I could include Bible in their education and also protect them from negative worldly influences. That was pretty much my agenda.  But that was not the agenda of the people I looked up to - the leaders in the homeschooling community.  We looked to the leaders because they knew what they were doing and could help guide us on our foreign path.  But there was an underlying agenda that I didn't know about, that they did not disclose.  It was there all along, but it's not so obvious.  I want to expose that NOW! 

Many of you know that this blog started with the intent to share about my family's experience at a spiritually abusive church.  There has been much heartache in that experience and then 3-1/2 years later, it continued as my former pastor filed a defamation lawsuit against me and 4 others (and lost) this past summer.  I have seen the impact on my family and have done a lot of soul searching:  what led us to that church?  who influenced my life as a Christian?  who influenced my life as a mother?  who influenced my life as I ventured into homeschooling my children?  As I researched my primary influencers, I found a common thread of destructive ideologies within the homeschooling movement.  

My first article on the homeschooling movement opened up a whole can of worms on a culture that I have been a part of for the last 20 years or so.  Some of these teachings (courtship, modesty/purity, full-quiver) have infiltrated churches and families who do not teach their children at home.  It is a powerful movement and I caught on to the movement without realizing I was part of it.  I embraced certain aspects of it, brought those aspects that I agreed with to my churches.   As we moved around the country (my husband was in the Navy), I shared these aspects with my friends and friends shared the aspects they learned with me, etc.  That is how this movement spreads.  It can be one particular teaching or many, but they all intertwine, feeding the agenda.

It is important to have knowledge of this movement because even if you have no desire to homeschool your children or maybe you are single or empty-nesters, this movement spreads to churches in some way or other and as we have seen with courtship, patriarchy, and other teachings, some of the teachings leave a devastating path with emotional and spiritual turmoil.  

The other night I read an article about Michael Farris that got me worked up. Mike Farris is known as one of the key pillars of the homeschool movement.  I wanted to share my thoughts on a situation regarding Michael Farris, but realized without sharing more background information, you wouldn't get the full picture.  So, please allow me to do that now.  

Before Michael Farris was a pillar in the homeschool community, there was another very prominent figure, Rousas John Rushdoony (1916-2001).  I believe Rushdoony set the trajectory for the homeschooling movement.  Although Rushdoony died in 2001, he established the basis of the movement long before.  These roots are in Christian Reconstructionism.   

I found this article which described Christian Reconstructionism very well.  As you read the variety of quoted materials included in the post, I encourage you to keep in mind how the ideas of patriarchy, courtship, full-quiver tie in with this belief system.

What is Reconstructionism?

Reconstructionism is a theology that arose out of conservative Presbyterianism (Reformed and Orthodox), which proposes that contemporary application of the laws of Old Testament Israel, or "Biblical Law," is the basis for reconstructing society toward the Kingdom of God on earth.

Reconstructionism argues that the Bible is to be the governing text for all areas of life--such as government, education, law, and the arts, not merely "social" or "moral" issues like pornography, homosexuality, and abortion. Reconstructionists have formulated a "Biblical world view" and "Biblical principles" by which to examine contemporary matters. Reconstructionist theologian David Chilton succinctly describes this view: "The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the Lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God's law."

More broadly, Reconstructionists believe that there are three main areas of governance: family government, church government, and civil government. Under God's covenant, the nuclear family is the basic unit. The husband is the head of the family, and wife and children are "in submission" to him. In turn, the husband "submits" to Jesus and to God's laws as detailed in the Old Testament. The church has its own ecclesiastical structure and governance. Civil government exists to implement God's laws. All three institutions are under Biblical Law, the implementation of which is called "theonomy."

Source

Let's learn a little about Rushdoony.  This is from Wikipedia:

Rousas John Rushdoony (April 25, 1916 – February 8, 2001) was a Calvinist philosopher, historian, andtheologian and is widely credited as the father of Christian Reconstructionism and an inspiration for the modern Christian homeschool movement.^[1][2] His followers and critics have argued that his thought exerts considerable influence on the Christian right.^{[3] (Source)}

I was glad to find this video on Rushdoony and his Reconstructionist beliefs. It is an interview with Bill Moyers of PBS and is very good.  It's still difficult for me to wrap the idea around my head that part of this belief system is to bring the Old Testament laws into modern times; ie, death penalty for those who commit adultery, death penalty for homosexuals, etc.  

Christian Reconstructionism in a Nutshell from Bruce Prescott on Vimeo.



This quote describes how Rushdoony took his Reconstructionist views and made a case for educating children at home and thus became known as the "father of the homeschool movement" by many:

Key to this strategy was the homeschooling movement.  Education, Rushdoony realized early on, was the best way to distribute his message. To that end, he wrote multiple books on the history of American education, charting its transformation from one-room schoolhouses and parochial schools to urban institutions. These books became guideposts for Christians who believed that public schools were indoctrinating their kids in the false faith of secular humanism. McVicar, the Ohio State scholar, says, “Rushdoony understood that if he changed the way Christians educated their children, he could change the way they thought.” (Source - ja note:  this article goes on to discuss current people in politics influenced by Rushdoony's ideologies  - very interesting article)

The homeschool movement is comprised of specific teachings/beliefs.  These teachings come from various groups or individuals who share the common thread of homeschooling.  These groups work independently and may have different focuses, are in different locations, but again, the foundational agenda can be found in Reconstructionist roots.

Interestingly, I had the above paragraph typed up a couple days ago and a few minutes ago I read an article by Frederick Clarkson originally published in June 1994 about this Reconstructionist "movement" and how it has spread over the years:

A Movement of Ideas
As a movement primarily of ideas, Reconstructionism has no single denominational or institutional home. Nor is it totally defined by a single charismatic leader, nor even a single text. Rather, it is defined by a small group of scholars who are identified with Reformed or Orthodox Presbyterianism. The movement networks primarily through magazines, conferences, publishing houses, think tanks, and bookstores. As a matter of strategy, it is a self-consciously decentralized and publicity-shy movement.

This is exactly what I have seen happening in the homeschool movement and why it is so hard to pin down because it is not localized in one church, one denomination, or organization.  Both the Reconstructionist and homeschool movements are so invasive and have spread the same way.  You or people you know may be part of either the Reconstructionist movement or the homeschool movement and have adopted ideologies without even realizing it.  I realized through my research that I furthered the homeschool movement by sharing books, CDs, talking to my friends about my new-found ideas.  I had been a part of it all along endorsing it and spreading it quite convincingly among my friends and church acquaintances.  

Here's a little more on Rushdoony.  In 1965 he founded the non-profit organization called Chalcedon Foundation to promote the Reconstructionism.  Read Chalcedon's vision statement here.  

Here's a brief summary from Wikipedia:

The Chalcedon Foundation is an American Christian Reconstructionist organization founded by Rousas John Rushdoony in 1965. Named for the Council of Chalcedon,^[2] it has also included theologians such as Gary North, who later founded his own organization, the Institute for Christian Economics.

The Chalcedon Foundation provides educational material in the form of books, newsletter reports and various electronic media, toward advancing the theological teachings of Rushdoony's Christian Reconstructionism movement. It is notable for its role in the influence of Christianity on politics in the U.S.^[3] and has been described as "a think tank of the Religious Right.^[4] Rushdoony's son, Mark now heads the foundation.

The Chalcedon Foundation has been listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Centerfor, among other reasons, supporting the death penalty for homosexuals.^[5]

We can see in the above summary that this Reconstructionist organization has infiltrated the education systems and politics in America with their Reconstructionist agenda.  

Here are more articles I found interesting in researching this topic:

Invitation to a Stoning

Chalcedon Foundation Leads Christian Reconstructionists in Campaign to Convert Conservative Fundamentalist Churches

His Truth is Marching On

When we think of spiritual abuse, we think of it in the confines of a church.  The homeschool movement is different because it has no confines - it is scattered all over the country, people can become as involved as they want in various groups, but what I've noticed is that there are behavioral characteristics used by those in the homeschool movement which are similar to behavior used by spiritually abusive church leaders.  There are different dynamics, but the end results can be the same.  This is why I keep sharing personal stories about these topics here.  

The UnMarried Movie: Singleness as a Result of Rigid and Controlled Parenting

I'm still getting comments on the UnMarried movie posts (More Background Info on the Movie: UnMarried and UnMarried Movie: Is Staying Single Sabotaging Chr... )  and today while looking through my Twitter feed, I noticed quite a few tweets on the topics of modesty and purity.  


In case you missed the brief movie trailer, here it is:





I've discussed this on my blog before.  Our former church had rigid rules on modesty and purity (Hyper-Modesty in the Church, Part 1,  Hyper-Modesty in the Church, Part 2, Hyper Modesty in the Church, Part 3, and BGBC Survivors: Legalism: Do Not Expose Your Thighs!)  We had a dress code - nothing above the knees should be showing.  The bride in the picture above would not have been allowed to wear that strapless wedding gown at our church.  Other rules included no co-ed swimming.  The boys were encouraged to turn their heads if they saw a woman jogging.  Some moms were known to cover their boys' eyes when passing through the lingerie section of a clothing store or when passing Victoria Secret at the mall.  I remember my kids racing to the tv to turn off "inappropriate" commercials or shows when they saw someone dressed immodestly.  Some parents would mark up texts books with a black marker if there was a picture of an immodest sculpture or painting.  

And then there were the purity rules - no boy or girl should ever be alone together.  Relationships had to go through the father, girls were given purity rings by their fathers (and mothers) and they pledged to remain virgins until marriage, sometimes signing a covenant . . . . and so on.

As I was thinking about modesty and purity, it made me wonder about the movie, UnMarried.  Do you suppose all of these modesty and purity rules may have backfired and contributed to the growing number of singles?   The people behind the UnMarried movie come from the patriarchal background.  They believe in moms having lots and lots of babies to populate the earth with more Christians.  Singleness remains a threat to their way of doing things because no babies means fewer Christians in future generations (as if they are the ones who determines if their child was elect, right?).

One thing I've heard from moms who have raised young adults in the homeschool environment is that their adult children are somewhat afraid of the opposite sex. They don't quite know what to do with them.  For years these kids were told don't look at the opposite sex, don't lust, don't touch.  And now the producers of this movie are telling these same young adults:  hurry up and get married.  Perhaps they might even say these singles are in sin and preempting God's plans for His church by their "prolonged adolescence".  I've certainly read it before by folks within this movement.

This is more whacked out stuff, people!  Tell young adults, don't touch, don't look and then tell them to get married, touch, and procreate.   What a roller coaster ride for these young adults.  That absurdity might drive me to prolonged adolescence and therapy.   

Yup, I think it backfired.  It is my opinion that the movie, UnMarried is an attempt at damage control.  They are trying to recover from the mess they made by their ridiculous rules of making sure their children were completely modest and virginal.   Legalism backfires, people.  It just does not work the way people want.  It usually produces extremes.  In my former church, the result of this kind of legalism was a lot of young adults acting out sexually.  It can go the other direction, too - prolonged singleness.  They've raised a bunch of adult children who have difficulty functioning normally in a mixed-sex society.  They may be afraid to look at the opposite sex for fear of lust and sin.  They may be afraid to talk to someone of the opposite sex because they aren't married yet and fear, What would people think?  In most circles I am familiar with, a young couple would not be allowed to go to even Starbucks alone unless a little sibling tagged along.  
 
To the producers of this movie, throw away your legalistic courtship rules and purity contracts.  Let young adult men and women decide for themselves who they want to share the rest of their lives with.  Did your parents decide for you who you were to marry?  Did your parents sign purity contracts with you?  Let these young adults listen to God for the plans He has for them.  Your job as parent was to train them to hear the voice of God, to read His word, to accept the counsel of wise people.  If you did your job right, you have nothing to fear.  God is sovereign, right?   Do you trust God with your adult children and their future?







photo credit: <a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/seanmolin/8042578241/">Sean Molin Photography</a> via <a href="http://photopin.com">photopin</a> <a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.0/">cc</a>

False Teachers: The Hard Gospel and Grace

In my former church our pastor spoke that our church was different than others because he preached a tough gospel message.  It was implied that people in other churches would have difficulty getting through the narrow gate to heaven because their pastors preached what they wanted to hear, not what was necessary to get to heaven.  Our pastor didn't water down the Word and wasn't into seeker-sensitive or easy-believisim teachings.  Some current church members even mentioned this narrow gate wording on their Google reviews which have since been revised or/or removed.  It was (is) a source of pride among the congregation.  We felt thankful that we didn't have to listen to other pastor's sermons which were most likely weak.  There was a sense among us that other pastors must not love their congregations the way ours did because our pastor preached the hard teachings.  We were special ones to have this teaching, even though it meant a more difficult path.  


Spiritual abuse pattern:  A common trait in spiritually abusive churches is elitism.   If we are so special, and all others churches are inferior, who wants to attend an inferior church?  Elitism is a manipulation tactic to keep people at the church.  And it works powerfully because we become convinced that no other church will measure up to our elite church.

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.  Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.   Matthew 7:13-14

What we saw modeled to us to get to that narrow path, however,  was works-based religion.  We felt the need to be present at all church meetings.  If there was a car wash evangelism outreach, it was important to be there.  We felt pressure to go out and and evangelize on Friday nights, to other events he deemed important.  We had to use the right formula for evangelism, we had rules of how to dress, there were rules of when women could talk, what members did with our time outside of church.  Somehow, the pastor did not need to say a thing and people still felt  pressure and could hear his rules in their heads.   These were unspoken rules.  I've spoken to a number of people who sensed this pressure and felt guilty for not attending a specific event or teaching.

Religion always teaches that you can get to God by doing something.  Your good standing with God depends on what you do.  Do the law, perform religion, do it right, look good, try hard.  Is that the gate through which we are called to find life?  No.  Those leading people to it are ravenous wolves in sheep's clothing.  They look like sheep, and they appear to be the safest, most righteous, but they lead people down the wrong path.  Jesus plus anything is not Jesus! 

(from The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse by David Johnson & Jeff VanVonderen)

Look at the verse following the narrow gate passage:

¹⁵ “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves.  

I discussed a bit of this with my friend, Pastor Ken Garrett.  Ken has first-hand experience of being involved in an abusive church for over a decade and has studied spiritual abuse at great length.  I always appreciate his insight.  He shared this with me and it goes right along with what we and so many people experience in abusive churches:

Dogmatic, demanding preachers are prone to boast that their "gospel" is THE narrow way; and they can usually point to a truck-load of rules, mores, taboos, and religious expectations and dogmatic doctrines that they've laid on their followers as evidence of just how "narrow" their way is!   Basically, any church that doesn't seem as "strict" as their church immediately is accorded the "broad-and-wide-way-that-leads-to-death" title.  It's the theology of bullies, and is an affront to God's marvelous grace.

Ken is exactly right.  A typical pattern we see in these churches, as Ken alludes to in the last sentence, is a lack of grace.   There is no gospel without grace.  If a pastor says "grace" from the pulpit, but his life and actions reflect otherwise, is he preaching the gospel?  I don't think so.   Preaching is much more than the words coming from the pulpit.  A pastor preaches and models to his congregants through his words and actions after the service, during the week as he rubs shoulders with congregants and those outside the church.  

Anyone can get caught up into a church like ours.  Because so much seemed biblical and accurate from the pulpit, I had difficulty articulating what the real problem was.  I share our personal accounts because my husband and I had been Christians over 30 years and we were fooled.  I knew something was wrong the first time I walked in the place, but could not identify it.    It took leaving the church, getting out of the environment completely to see things clearly, and even then, it was a process.  The wool was pulled over our eyes.  We drank the Kool-Aid.  The after-effects of the Kool-Aid are wretched and painful.  We are still dealing with it.  

I hope our story helps to illustrate how false teachers creep in and can get even seasoned Christians fooled.  Just because your pastor teaches the hard gospel and uses scripture to back it up, and preaches against false teachers, calling them out, does not mean that your pastor is not a wolf.  Scripture says that they creep in unnoticed.    Their objective is to devour.  Look for the inconsistencies in their words.  If they preach grace, is the fruit evident in their lives and words away from the pulpit and in their personal life in dealings with others?  






photo credit: Norma Desmond via photopin cc

More Background Info on the Movie: UnMarried

There is a slice of heaven on earth when we can relate to one another in the church, regardless of the form our family takes, as individuals equal in worth, significance and value.  ~Wade Burleson

The other day, I posted about a new movie coming out called UnMarried.  I really appreciated the contributions in the comments.  Just as I suspected, the singles who read my blog are not feeling the love at church.  They do feel "singled" out.  It seems there is an underlying favoritism toward married and families.  This is a concern to me.  It does not seem very loving.

Blog reader, Serving in Japan reminded me that they used the phrase "prolonged adolescence" in reference to singles in a summary of the film, so I wanted to take another look at what was said.  Here is the summary from the UnMarried website: 

They're everywhere. Unmarried, young Christian adults. Some searching and praying for that perfect match from Heaven. While others have all but abandoned the whole idea of marriage altogether.

Many are still at home, living a life of prolonged adolescence, with no hopes of marriage in sight. What has caused this drastic change that has reshaped the lives of an entire generation into singleness?

Join us as we search out the biblical answers for what has taken place, and interview theologians, families, young Christians (married and unmarried alike). Be with us as we search the scriptures for truth.

I did a little more digging to see what/who is behind this movie.  UnMarried is being promoted by Family Vision Films.  I visited the Family Vision Films website to read their "About Us" page:

Family Vision Films began in January of 2011 after a family discussion about the difficulty of finding excellent Christian films all in one place. We want to bring to you the very best, the "cream of the crop," of God-honoring DVDs.  We strive to offer comparable prices and the lowest possible shipping.  As a family with 11 children, we well understand the need to budget our funds wisely!

They also included a picture of their family with eleven children and sign their name Jason and Jennifer Ross.  Could this be a full-quiver family?  A Patriarchal family?  

I found another website featuring this video.  This comes from Renewing Housewives site whose e-mail address shows a Family Vision's e-mail address - what do you know - Jennifer is the blogger there.  Also, the e-mail address for Renewing Housewives is "info at familyvisionfilms dot com", so apparently whomever mans the Family Visions e-mail account also is getting the e-mails from people wanting to connect with Renewing Housewives.   

Disclaimer:  Just so you know, the e-mail you send to BGBCsurvivors @ gmail dot com does not go through any e-mail account of my husband's.  I am the only one who reads that mail.  I don't know why I never felt compelled to say that before.  I'm feeling an icky feeling even having to mention that.  


Take a look at the "feel" of the website.  This is my first clue of "Patriarchy" - the Victorian look.  Hmmm - that might be an interesting blog post.  I'll make a note of it.  I may need to take a break from this post for a sec to get a JA attitude adjustment.  









Here is the blurb about the upcoming film UnMarried posted on the Renewing Housewives website. 

Well!  As we continue to work on our second Homemaking DVD, we have started another one as well.  My very visionary husband has been inspired to produce a film that explores our current epidemic of protracted singleness in the church.

• Why are there so many unmarried Christians?

• What is causing this trend?

• Is it even an issue?

• And what can we do?  What should we do?

We are still in the production stage of this film.  We hope to release in the Spring of 2013.   Please pray for us as we seek the biblical answers for what has taken place, interview theologians, families, and young Christians (married and unmarried alike). 

Will someone please tell me what a very visionary husband is?  No, never-mind, I don't want to know.  We may not need to delve into that wording specifically, but it's important to note that both Kevin Swanson (mentioned in the previous post on this topic) and the folks at Family Vision/Renewing Housewives are from the Patriarchal mindset.  This is a culture that idolizes families and puts great emphasis on raising Christian families for the future generations.  They are also "full-quiver" -  having as many babies as possible and populating the earth with Christian offspring - little warriors for Christ.  Not to say any or all of that is bad, but it is an agenda that consumes every aspect of their lives.  (For further reading on patriarchy, I highly recommend Cindy Kunsman's articles.  Here's a very helpful one.)

 It deserves to be said again: God is far more concerned about the functionality of the individual Christian in the family than the form of the family the individual Christian is in.   ~Wade Burleson 

When I read or hear strong words against a specific group of people, it makes me wonder if there is a deeper message beneath.  Those strong words and generalities (ie, prolonged adolescence, protracted singleness) created a conflict in my mind and I'm not even single.   I think what was lacking to me was love and grace.  It seems to always come back to that.  Some people have in their mind the way things "ought" to be and if you don't fit within their "ought-to-be" mindset, then they feel you need to be called out on it.  And many times it becomes such an issue that people suggest that even the "gospel" depends on it.  There's that buzz word again.    It may not be "gospel" whatsoever, but their message is sometimes cloaked with that "gospel" word to draw you in and convince you that it is the "right" or "gospel" way.  If you are a Christian, you can't argue against "gospel", can you?  Take note:  spiritual abusers use this manipulative tactic to control.  

In my first blog post regarding the movie, UnMarried, I also quoted notes from a sermon by Al Mohler.  I do not believe Mohler and Swanson are from the same camp, but they are presenting a similar message on this issue of singleness.  I don't care for the way they are presenting their messages.  There may be some truth to the fact that some singles are wasting time or "floundering around".  The twenties is a challenging time in someone's life.  They are newly out of high school, trying to figure out their niche.  There are other complicating matters in 2012 than in previous decades: we have a very difficult economy, difficulty finding jobs - even for college graduates at the Master level.  There are definitely more distractions with technology.  But we have to be careful to not generalize and not label a whole group of people just because of their marital status.  We can't presume to judge their hearts.

Thankfully, not all church leaders and pastors portray singleness in such a derogatory fashion.  Last week, I read an article from Pastor Wade Burleson and found it so refreshing.  The family units we see in 2012 look quite different than 50 years ago.  A couple parts of Wade's article apply to singles and I thought it would be good to provide a healthy balance here.  The quotes are from the middle of the article, so please be sure to check out the whole article to get the full context:   Focus on the Function of Your Life, Not the Form of Your Family.
  

When church leaders put an emphasis on the form that family units should take, even if it is a well-intentioned effort to encourage families, the emphasis of Scripture is missed. God is not nearly as interested in the form of a family group as He is the functionality of the individual person. Let me prove this:

(1). Marriage is temporal, not eternal.  

Granted, there are a few non-traditional western religions (i.e. Mormonism) and  a few long-time eastern religions (i.e. Islam) who advocate that marriage, even mulitiple marriages for men, are eternal. That's just not so. Jesus said that in heaven we "will not marry nor be given in marriage" (Mark 12:25).

Marriage is something that is not eternal. At some point, marriage will end for everyone.  If a marriage happens to end here on earth for a Christian, it is possible for that Christian to experience the same fulfillment and joy here and now that he or she will experience eternally. A divorcee who trusts Christ, a graced widow or widower, and even Christian singles who have never married or never will marry have as much personal value, identity and significance as any married Christian. In fact, it might be said that there is an advantage for the Christian who is not married; he or she has the opportunity to understand how to function individually now as Christ intends us to function eternally then.

So let me be crystal clear. Since marriage is a form of relationship that will one day end for everyone, when there is an overemphasis in church on the form of one's family to the neglect of the individual's function within his or her family, then churches fail in our biblical mission. The function of a Christian within the family never ends, and when properly understood, never fails. So what is our function as Christians? We are to love others in our family unit as Christ has loved us (John 15:12).  When we learn to function in this manner we never fail, though the form our family takes comes to an end (I Corinthians 13:8). 

I hope my single readers are encouraged by Wade's words.  You singles are valuable to the Body of Christ (and to me).  You are just as valuable to Christ as me, a married woman and mother or as a pastor or as a child.  When we look at the full picture, we are all equals among Christ.   I hope you take great comfort in that truth.

photo credit: f2b1610 via photopin cc