This piece is in response to the 16 August 2022 piece entitled Secular Psychology and the Denial of Scriptural Authority found here:
https://proto-protestantism.blogspot.com/2022/08/secular-psychology-and-denial-of.html
I was asked to clarify and expand upon some of the ways
Evangelicalism has been compromised by modern psychology and feminism. These
questions could easily fill up a multi-volume series but I'll touch on just a
few points.
In the realm of ecclesiology, we see this in the therapeutic
models often employed by the so-called 'small groups' approach. Some conservatives
and Confessionalists use this as an occasion to take a shot at Pietism, and
while there are some parallels, the modern manifestation is quite different. Don't
misunderstand me, there's nothing wrong with groups meeting for study and the
like but there's a psychological-therapeutic methodology that's often employed
in the managing of such small groups, and the training of 'small group
leaders'. And this model also dovetails with the consumerist approach of the
churches that use these methods. In some respects, because of their attempt to
bring in large numbers, the small group is the vehicle to give people some
semblance of fellowship and church life – and to not get lost in the crowd.
It's really a testimony to the flawed mega-church model to begin with. A
mega-church struggles to develop a 'core', a concept easily understood in the context
of a small congregation. Small groups are a means to develop something loosely
akin to the concept but (and perhaps more importantly) it's also a way to
further inculcate the teachings and vision of the mega-church/seeker model
which are all rooted in terms like purpose, fulfillment, empowerment, and the
like – all of which seemed to be defined in psychological rather than Biblical
terms. They may quote Scripture but a closer examination reveals they are
reading a great deal into the text, even while ignoring it at critical points.
And thus the means of relevance and fellowship, the approaches
to 'relationships' and the like are all framed in terms of modern psychology
and therapeutic categories, even if they're dressed up with Christian language.
Modern Evangelical approaches to marriage cater to feminism.
This starts even in the approach to so-called pre-marital counseling which
absolutely drips with psychological assumptions. In such circles a man arguing
for New Testament roles and principles will generate red flags and probably an
intervention. In many cases he'll be accused of psychological abuse – which in
the modern Evangelical recasting of marriage is grounds for divorce.
Here's where it gets really confusing. There are plenty of
men (and not a few women) who fall into these patterns and are in fact cruel,
manipulative, and even sadistic. But just because there are people out there
who distort these roles and exploit them, doesn't mean that Biblical notions of
male headship should be simply dispensed with. And as Church discipline and
solid teaching are almost non-existent, some of these situations reach a
crisis, when they should have been addressed at a much earlier stage. And the
crises now define the experience and everything is subsequently viewed through
that lens.
Once again feminism used to argue for a kind of parity in the
marriage relationship. That used to be viewed as controversial, rebellious, and
anti-Christian. Today, the movement largely argues for a feminine preference –
women become the effective central figure or head of the family and the focus
of its energies, while men are relegated to a subordinate 'supportive' role.
Evangelicals in embracing the parity model can now argue they are
'conservative' and even say they reject feminism. But the truth is a mere
generation ago, the now 'conservative' norm was at the time an expression of
liberal feminism. They have simply moved the goalposts.
The language of 'self-fulfillment' and 'self-expression' so
normative in today's culture has provided a vehicle for feminism. Duty is in
many ways a despised concept or at best relegated to a secondary concern. In
other cases it's viewed as oppressive and abusive. This is true even in some
Calvinistic-Evangelical circles.
Women who do not pursue careers are looked down upon by the
culture and as Evangelicalism wants more than anything else to be relevant and
respected – the very concept of domesticity has been re-written by the
movement. Middle Class values dominate and in order to maintain that respectable
and secure lifestyle, most families will require two incomes. The assumption is
that women will work outside the home and the cultural dynamic has shifted – with
more and more women earning more than their husbands. If one of the spouses
needs to be domestic, work part-time, or stay home for a season, increasingly
it's the husband that's doing so. He's a good 'supportive' husband, but the
women that do so are often looked down upon – even in the Church. There are
small congregations that are an exception to this but I believe this statement
holds true in the larger Evangelical sphere.
Challenging these feminist models on Biblical terms is
largely rejected. Instead by means of psychological sleight-of-hand, such
arguments are quickly categorised as abusive, 'warning signs', or reek of
patriarchy.
Once again, there are real problems with some of these
approaches and the way men use and abuse their position. There's no doubt about
that, but this complete capitulation to feminism and psychology has proven
destructive. One needs only to turn on a show like Focus on the Family to
witness this on full display. They celebrate their feminism and yet try to
portray themselves as Biblical and conservative. But a discerning ear will
discover family and marital dynamics heavily shaped by the culture and
rationalised by means of psychology rather than any kind of reflection of New
Testament exegesis, let alone a robust Biblical analysis of culture and the history
of ideas.
Psychology also dominates the pulpits. We see it in reference
to the aforementioned topics but beyond that we see psychology employed in the
kind of emotional and pragmatic appeals that are used – some of this harking
back to the nineteenth century. Instead of truth being proclaimed, we hear
'studies show' and ethics are often rooted in outcome based calculations. Do this because it is right does not
appeal to the unregenerate ears of the masses filling the pews. Rather do this because it works, because it
will make you happy, because it will give you fulfillment, is what appeals to the
modern psychology-consumerist shaped mind.
Further, approaches to homiletics are often rooted in survey
data and demographic studies and are designed (not to connect on the basis of
truth being proclaimed and applied by the Holy Spirit) but to
psychology-influenced ideas about communication, keeping distracted minds
focused, and emotional appeal. Needless to say there are lots of stories and
often little text and as I've addressed elsewhere the 'Jesus told stories'
approach to homiletics represents bad exegesis, because that's not what the
parables were about or attempting to do. They weren't meant to be relatable but
to communicate mysteries – doctrines that would not be understood by those who
did not have ears to hear.
Additionally, I detect the psychological-consumerist approach
to preaching in the very speech patterns and manners of some, from the
sensitive types to the hip and cool, it's all packaging meant to 'connect' with
certain types of audiences. Once again the psychological and consumerist
approaches coalesce at this point.
The approach to Sunday School with age segregation and the
like is the fruit of the modern education system and its psychological mechanisms
of reaching people. I'm not going to make this a gospel issue as some do – I
know people that consider churches with age-segregated Sunday School classes to
be false churches. That's myopic and uncharitable to say the least, but at the
same time the practice, approach, and model did not arise from the pages of
Scripture but from a specific cultural context that embraced new
psychologically-influenced approaches to education. Some of these things are
now so deeply ingrained in the culture that to even raise these points simply
generates bewilderment, confusion, and often a great deal of ire. And yet it
has also provided a vehicle or backdoor for feminism and dubious practices to
creep into the Church. This cannot be disputed.
Worship itself has succumbed to subjective experience and
this must be contrasted with the objective rites and ordinances ordained by
God. For most in the Protestant and Evangelical sphere, they do not possess a
theology than can fully interact with the Scriptural data concerning prayer and
the sacraments. Rationalism dominates, even in circles that are ostensibly
conservative and supernaturalist in their epistemological orientation.
You can explain the riches of New Testament sacramental
theology to them but if they don't 'feel' it – then the supernatural aspect to
these rites carries little weight. But because of cultural sensibilities, the
pop-music experience that now dominates (and in many cases defines) the modern
Evangelical experience generates an emotional response – for many to the point
of being mystical or rapturous. As such, the music (which is unknown to both
the New Testament and the testimony of the Early Church) has supplanted actual
New Testament rites and ordinances. The Early Church sang to be sure but there
was no emphasis on music and it certainly had nothing to do with musicality as
instrumentation was not introduced for almost a thousand years. The aspects of
worship that are so integral to modern Evangelical experience, indeed what they
consider sine qua non, were
completely unknown to the Early Church and indeed most who named the name of
Christ for almost two thousand years. If anything its closest analogies can be
found in some of the liturgical innovations of Roman Catholicism which are
similar in spirit but arose in a completely different cultural context.
There is to be sure the spectre of Pietism lurking in the
background of these discussions but such a statement becomes at the same time
meaningless, and one that says far too much. Pietism in fact represents a
considerable spectrum of ideology and practice but for the sake of argument, if
one wishes to place the experiential aspect of worship and piety front and
center and contrast it with the objective – then yes, the negative appeal can
be made.
That said, these things need not necessarily be cast in a polarized either-or context. A proper understanding of the objective can certainly generate a vivacious experientialism. What I'm protesting against in this piece is the introduction of extra-Scriptural elements on the basis of cultural appeal – and the subsequent rationalisation of said elements on a psychological, or pragmatic basis.