A Conundrum of Sorts

I feel ya.

Some people tend to gravitate to Presbyterian/Reformed traditions out of a zeal for theological purity. This is not to say that we're the only game in town when it comes to theological purity, but you know what I mean.

So, people have this zeal for doctrinal purity, which is a good thing generally speaking, but it can also carry with it a certain psycho-spiritual disposition - when you couple a zeal for doctrinal purity with the idea that the Bible has something to say about everything (and I mean in some degree of detail - the Bible addresses ultimate issues which have bearing on everything, but it does not address all matters directly or in detail), and the race is on to find the "Biblical" way to handle human activity X and to actively evangelize your view, because it all falls under the category of doctrinal purity.

I suppose right-wing theological error has the mitigating factor of usually having some correct motivation (i.e. We want to obey everything God has to say to us) as opposed to left-wing theological error, which can be motivated by a desire to escape the authority of God's word, but still - one wonders if, in those fringe cases you mentioned, the Bible is more of a vehicle for someone to actualize their psychological issues rather than a covenant document to be carefully studied and exegeted.

That's a tough one. It's hard not to say something. Because it's just too freaky!

Mostly I try to pretend they don't exist and just avoid situations that will raise my ire (hey, I don't even read the WorldmagBlog, because I get mad every time I accidently wander over there), because I figure getting upset isn't going to solve anything and anything I happen to say won't change anybody's mind.

What I get really upset about is when these kinds of people become of the "face" of Christianity or Reformed theology (because inevitably they often happen to be interested in politicts, too. woe is us!).

Waaaait a minute. I was basically in agreement with some of your post until I realized you linked me and Holly with the "same people" who are an "dangerous and insular group of people" etc. I'd just like to clarify a couple of things:

a) I don't subscribe to the beliefs you just stated. While I am not a feminist, I am not one who thinks that women can only bake bread. Did you read what Holly and I wrote?

b) Unlike 99.9 percent of the Christian blogosphere, Holly and I are not Calvinists.

I appreciate what you're essentially saying in this post, but why the over-generalization? You categorize (and show some disdain for) many different beliefs in this post. Okay, you may not homeschool, and perhaps you don't believe in headcovering. Hey, I work outside of the home and wear jeans. It's okay. But why call someone with different (and not unbiblical) convictions "nuts"? Is it really that crazy?

Hey.

I agree with y'all...in fact, the same issues have been on my mind since the Huffine/Little Geneva meltdown last week. I actually didn't grow up in either Presbyterian or Reformed circles, but rather in a large Southern Baptist church. It wasn't until high school, when I really began searching the Bible independently, as well as read Michael Horton's Putting Amazing Back Into Grace, that I began to develop a new way of thinking. The friend who loaned me a copy of that book included this warning: "Reformed Theology is a good trip, that is, it is a means to an end...not the end itself." Even with this obvious caveat I spent several months walking around like I had the corner on the theology market...it had become the end for me.

I've learned over the years that denominations, traditions and history can and should be questioned, and that "this is the way it's always been done" does not mean that this the way it should be continued to be done. I think Christ Central Church (PCA) in Charlotte sums our calling up well in their mission statement: "Freeing people to enjoy God, hear His truth, form authentic relationships, and face the world with the renewed dignity that comes from Christ."

The right-wing theological error Phil mentions above is increasingly dangerous, and I think it's increasingly on the rise. As humans, it's much easier for us to accept or fashion a set of rules by which we "earn" (whether we'll admit this is what we're doing or not) God's love or esteem, than actually believe that grace is suffcient. Those same rules become power to the rulekeeper, and, as we've seen with the folks at Little Geneva, if you don't read the bible the same way they do, well, you better "beg" God to "heal your mind." These kind of people either want to convince you of their rules by bullying you into submission, or by shouting over you until you give up.

These actions, or others like them, shouldn't shock us (they should rightly anger us). People throughout history have twisted the Word of God to support, condone, champion and rubber stamp a laundry list of crimes, abuses and lies. To attempt an answer at your question Josiah, I believe we must confront these people in love, in the same way you would confront a family member who has a drinking problem, or a close friend who was fighting drug addiction. However, we're all cautiously aware that God hardens the hearts of those He choses to...continuing to confront those people is pointless. Such is the case with the Little Geneva crew...their theology, their thinly-veiled excitement over the "nosedive" they have been led to believe the PCA and other churches to be taking, their refusal to consider equality among races and dignity among all people biblical truth, their confused ideas about politics, government and religious freedom...it has become their end. May it not be ours...

Kristin, my apologies. I was unclear about whom I was referring to in that linking. The linking meant to be a reference to the debate proper and my particular contentions would be with the positions of RC Sproul JR in that debate (i.e. I'm on your side).

So I apologize and will amend my post to better represent my point and your role in that particular discussion. If you'd like I can "unlink" you if you think it still might associate you too closely with the camps I discuss in my post.

I did read what you and Holly wrote and I found it edifying, and I do think that most of the Christian blogosphere isn't Calvinist, I just think that Calvinists are somewhat obvious about it with all the theological rigamarole.

Further, I will probably engage in some type of homeschooling if and when my wife and I have kids and I do dig the headcovering thing in principle (though I don't think its normative), and would support my wife if she felt compelled to don a headcovering in corporate worship.

And I don't think that all people who are homeschoolers or where headcoverings or are theonomists or vossians or whatever are nuts or if they are "nuts" are so because of their beliefs. There exists a particular mentality, psychology, and culture with may who adhere to those beliefs that I think is somewhat sociopathic both inside of and outside of their immediate communities. Hence the perjorative and perhaps unhelpful term (for those immediately outside of my friends/family/context) "nuts".

So maybe it would be the wiser thing to use the term "sociopathic" as opposed to "nuts", though I wonder if the term can be applied to particular social groups as opposed to just individuals. Here's where I look at Abbie & Scott to chime in.

keep your brothers and sisters honest, honestly.

Okay, thanks. I am glad to know you don't think I am a nut! ;-) You don't have to unlink me; watever you want to do is fine.

I appreciate your explanation and can see where you are coming from.

It's so hard when "camps" form around particular doctrines. There was a time that being dresses-only and headcovering consumed my thinking. (I am a passionate person.) I do not subscribe to those doctrines now, by the way, and agree with you about the hc (I have a post on that that needs an addendum). Fixating on a doctrine rather than the whole counsel of God, the Holy Spirit, and the input of other (and mature) believers is dangerous indeed.

The truth about being a member of any group is that there are going to be members of that same group who you are embarrased to be associated with - be that Calvinists or Mormons, Republicans or Communists, Vols or Cubs - you just have to decide what to do with the embarrassment. You can't exactly write them off without reflecting on the commonalities, but you can't stay silent either or the embarrassment becomes tacit acceptance. I feel your pain - but keep up the exploration. We all profit.

Ya think being in the Reformed community is bad, try coming from the homeschooling subculture. I wouldn't trade my educational experience for anything, but if you were homeschooled and say anything negative about any aspect of the homeschool subculture, people take it to mean that you hate homeschooling and hate having been homeschooled.

I would be curious to hear what Scott has to say on the subject of applying the term “sociopathic” to a particular social group vs. individuals. He is probably more qualified to answer your question than am I. But never let it be said that a mere issue of qualification stopped me from “chiming in.” Please forgive the long post, but your question requires somewhat of a complex answer. And I tried to be thorough.

It seems to me that by far the bulk of psychological case studies dealing with sociopathy deal with it in terms of the individual, rather than a particular social group. Although with the recent phenomenon of terrorism, and the advent of the field of terrorism scholarship, more attention has been paid to the concept of sociopathy as it applies to particular groups or factions (an interesting book on the subject is “A Political Organization Approach to Transnational Terrorism” by Kent Layne Oots).

In general, those social groups that are referred to as “sociopathic” are ones that tend to attract sociopathic elements. For example, social groups that may be considered sociopathic are: gangs, the mob or mafia, drug cartels, cults, terrorist organizations (which can include ethnic separatists, nationalists, ideological extremists, and issue-based interest groups), government or rebel militant factions, and last but not least the notoriously sociopathic, but oft forgotten, “conservative Reformed theonomistic head-covering-wearing homeschooling faction.”

Evgeniy Golovahka has used the term “sociopathy” to describe the communist regime in his work, “The Main Tendencies of Social Development Under Postcommunist Transformation” (which is very interesting). He discusses social adaptation and general and specific sociopathies, and referes to communism as a kind of social pathology—“a specific sociopathy appearing in a disorganized and weak socium due to ideological 'virus', namely an idea to attain total equality with the help of the violent extermination of private ow nership and the suppression of owners' resistance.” Although, he tends to utilize the term more loosely—he uses “sociopathy” as an analogy to describe social illness and a kind of “social madness” that occurs in postcommunist society (http://politicon.iatp.org.ua/ eng/golovakha %20eng19.02.htm).

I think what makes the term “sociopathic” difficult to apply to groups is that it is a complicated pathology to define. People can’t even decide on what to call it (you will often hear the terms “antisocial personality disorder” and “psychopathy” used interchangeably for “sociopathy” even though they are, in reality, somewhat different). According to the Diagnostic & Statistical Manual IV (DSM-IV) of the American Psychiatric Association (which is basically the dictionary of psychiatric diagnoses), a diagnosis of “antisocial personality disorder” (aka sociopathy or psychopathy) is considered when an individual possesses at least three of the following seven characteristics:
1. failure to conform to social norms
2. deceitfulness, manipulativeness
3. impulsivity, failure to plan ahead
4. irritability; aggressiveness
5. reckless disregard for the safety of self or others
6. consistent irresponsibility
7. lack of remorse for having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another person

Although, it is my opinion that the diagnosis can be pretty subjective--a lot of people I know exhibit at least three of these characteristics, especially if they’re going through puberty. And other experts on the subject, who think that the DSM’s definition describes “criminality” more than it does true “sociopathy,” believe it is important to consider further characteristics of sociopaths as a group. These traits include a superficial charm (or charisma) that allows the true sociopath to seduce or con other people, grandiose sense of self, shallow emotions, incapicity for love, need for stimulation (“living on the edge”), poor behavioral controls, lack of empathy, early behavior problems, authoritarian, and conventional appearance--to name a few.

And so, while it may be more accurate or precise to apply the term sociopathy to individuals, you can use it to describe a particular group of people that adopt belief systems which cause them to behave in a similar manner that meets the pre-determined criteria of sociopathy. But you do need to be careful when making that kind of generalization—or you could be guilty of doing something like reading Bad’s blog and assuming all conservative, Reformed Christians are neo-Nazi fascist sociopaths. (Another interesting resource, if you are really interested in the subject, is Edward M. Lemert’s “Social Pathology; a Systematic Approach to the Theory of Sociopathic Behavior).

Dude, this is not a problem even remotely unique to conservative Presbyterianism. I grew up in Assemblies of God, charismatic/pentacostal, and Southern Baptist churches, as well as the PCA, and these are problems in these churches as well. I think you might have to leave the church in general to escape these folks. It doesn't seem to be a problem connected to Reformed doctrine or anything. People get it wrong everywhere, not just in our church. I think this is one of those problems that people have, not necessarily denominations.

Paul & Abbie:

first Paul: ya, I'm pretty aware the problem isn't limited to just the Reformed/Presbyterian camp, but the context for my conundrum IS the Ref/Pres camp. Its the one I grew up in and still swim in, hence why I'm worried about dealing with the sociopaths in that camps as opposed to the United Methodists or any other tradition for that matter.

second Abbie: you're a genius. You're smarter than me. You write better than I do. Sweet mary. When the heck did you get so dang smart?!?

I don't think my comment will have much directly to do with this post, but just some of my own vents. Check out Stark and Finke's book Acts of Faith, some time. In it, they model the distribution of religious temperaments in a denomination. There are, at the tails, the obvious extremes - the extremely zealous left and the extremely strict right. All of us are in denominations that draw from the middle to right-end of the spectrum, so we see more of those types than most. But I think we also see more of it because of our involvement with Internet communities. People like Harry, et al. are geographically disaggregated, and historically, they had so few options to find people of like mind except to uproot and leave (think of the theonomic nucleus in Tyler, Texas in the late 1970s and early 1980s when so many people uprooted their families to move there). Today, that's not as necessary since a sweet looking weblog can generate and sustain a community of people from that rightward tail in the distribution. And since all of us here spend so much time traveling in simliar Internet channels, we butt heads against it in ways that, for instance, members of our church do not.

But I do think that those extreme ends satisfy basic human wants for a lot of people. It's incredibly satisfying to think that you alone possess the correct true viewpoint, that the rest of the world is wrong, etc. The Reformation and even moreso our denomination(s) in the PCA/OPC have an origin story in which we were oppressed by a perverted church. There's always an impulse there, it seems like, to purify the church. John Frame has a good article about some possible origins of this and locates the warring tendencies in Machen and his American Presbyterian legacy. I suspect there's a lot of truth to that - particularly among the groups heavily influenced by Van Til and his idea of "antithesis."

I try not to even think about this stuff anymore, though. I'm going to be dead in sixty years and every minute I spend distressed about the factions in the church is minutes wasted. America's free market for religion is good, ultimately, from the perspective of the Great commission, but with it it brings significant competitive pressures. There are no capital costs associated with starting these movements - even less so today. It's quite easy for someone to write tract and publication after tract and publication on the Internet with their blogging. The ubqiuity of Internet access even in remote rural parts of the country make it very easy to be an effective member of a movement. In fact, you can by day be a CPA and by night lead the fight for neo-confederacy. There will always be this stuff. I've read that the genius of Catholicism was that it became this multi-faceted organization where those kinds of temperaments (which may very well just be innate personality things. If so, then that kind of strictness and intensity is probably useful to the church, since it's a part of the person's structural personality) could be properly channelled. You could have different orders who even ultimately were in tension with one another but who were all under the same institutional umbrella. So you might have someone like Aquinas and someone like St. John of the Cross - two very different individuals in temperament and outlook - who found their proper place in the church.

But Protestantism isn't beaurecratic. It's decentralized, which is its strength, but also brings with it weaknesses. There's no way ultimately to control anyone since all you ahve to do is start a homechurch.

Hey Josiah, I love your name! (I have a 3 year old named Josiah.)

Hmmmm. According to Abbie's definitions, we are all probably sociopaths. Religion would be sociopathic. I agree! You are one smart lady to be able to rattle all of that stuff off! :)

I also agree that the internet probably is the largest boon to the "sociopathic" derivations of various mainstream theologies...it is easy to gain a following and to imagine yourself popular!

As Kristen mentioned, I'm not Reformed. I was one of the first to point out the ludicrous statements made by RC Junior. (Although, in retrospect, it didn't hurt me at all to examine my own time spent on the computer. It was ultimately a good thing.) So thanks for taking down the link calling me dangerous! :) I agree that most all theological persuasions have their "fringe" elements. I think within the Reformed world, the fringe is growing, however. Perhaps it is a backlash against the shallow theology that is so pervasive...I would also attribute it in part to the growth of the homeschooling movement. (I'm a homeschooler, too.) You guys (with Reformed theology) have the corner on about 98 percent of the curriculum market. The "fringe" you are talking about is actually in charge of most of that. It is and was bound to grow.

Can you help me out with a question? What is the difference between Reformed and Covenental Reformed?

Thanks for letting me visit. :) And you know...Cabbage Patch dolls really ARE evil. (Just kidding. :)

Holly - isn't covenantal reformed code for theonomy? It might also have something to do with this federal vision stuff. Reformed theology is broad (as my old pastor said, reformed theology is an eight-lane, not a two-lane, highway). Soteriologically, it emphasizes substitionary atonement and the doctrines of grace, but has many different stances in its tradition on the sacraments and the value of covenant membership. It's Calvinist in its views of election, though I think the federal vision stuff kind of shows that Calvin's thoughts about election were more nuanced than maybe we're inclined to think if all we know is decreedal theology. I think it tends to be agnostic on eschatology and has a lot of different views on the kingdom and the church. The main thing I see it is believing in the cardinal things like christology, adhering to "sola scriptura" and the other sola's, and then offering broad outlines for the other things. It's more or less "Protestantism" except minus the legalism (usually).

Reformed Protestantism: Sola Powered

Well, Josiah, during childhood I think you might have been a little preoccupied with writing "Elvis Lives" on the foreheads of my dolls and with roll-on deodorant on my bed sheets. The fact that I liked to read and write, too, may have escaped your esteemed notice. :)

Fishness: you speak truth. Dangit, kinda ticks me off that the 4-5 years of our most intensive cognitive development occured so far apart with little time together in-between. Something we should work to remedy. I'm pretty dang excited 'bout you coming out in a couple weeks, although its annoying you wont be here when we've got the new house.

fishness and dude: What a nice way to "chat" with yuze before I leave for work each night...gives me somethin' to think about in case the ER is slow and patient census is low. Re the namecalling of the sociopathic nuts, it's a difficult call. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, is it a duck and should we call it a duck-if others will benefit from our upfront brutally clear honesty? Or are we just making excuses to not have all our speech "seasoned with grace" as Scripture commands? Something to pray about and ask for wisdom...especially when we are as opinionated and verbal (and in some cases, well reasoned) as we surely must be! Hmmm....I like swimming in the Ref. Presby. Pond. I've met some wonderful fish in here over the years, among the sharks, carps, and jellyfish. Guess it does take all types...after all, we do swim in a fallen world, er, pond, that is. Love to you both-- Keep swimming (and call home now and then).