Under Much Grace

technomom wrote: Some people think every disagreement is a personal attack.

Over on http://www.thatmom.wordpress.com, under the Visionary Daughters thread, this same topic just came up. (The latest “thatmom podcast” should post late tonight or tomorrow.) In June, I introduced the problems of patriarchy on a few internet forums and found that most people accused me of gossip and of personal criticism rather than doctrinal or praxy problems among the leadership in the so-called “Biblical Patriarchy” movement. Because I pointed out that a significant portion of these doctrines were not Biblical, I was accused of calling several ministers and para-church organization leaders “bad men.” I received several emails stating that I was attacking “godly men” but was offered no explanation of the ungodly aspects of their (mingled with Godly) doctrine or their ungodly behaviours. The most robust argument that I was given by one gentlemen was that one of these men “treated us marvelously.” I spoke to Don Veinot of Midwest Christian Outreach a few weeks ago who states that people accuse him of being “mean.” He agrees that this might be true, but asks if he’s also “wrong.”

In the age of the law of the politically correct, it seems that the church has also capitulated to this secular trend. The superficial aspects of relationships and communication override the substance. Oh, how postmodern! The medium is the message. It’s sad to see that men like Matt Slick (trained at a seminary that I hold in high esteem) and others in the Reformed faith have so strongly capitulated to this ideal. At least, this is what it looks like to me. This is a very difficult problem affecting apologetics that I was not prepared to confront. I feel sometimes as if I’m in gradeschool trying to reason with children who cry “na, na, na…”