A Bridge Too Far

In 1944 the Allies launched Operation Market Garden, the largest airborne operation in history, to attempt to recover a large portion of Holland from the Nazis. They attempted to seize eight bridges and hold them. The famed Battle of Arnhem was made into a movie in 1977 -- A Bridge Too Far. The assault force, overextended and exhausted, finally retreated in desperation because they had attempted one too many bridges. They had gone "a bridge too far" and it resulted in defeat.

Vision Forum Ministries is an organization dedicated to their understanding of a biblical approach to family and church. They contend for biblical patriarchy, homeschooling, creationism, family-integrated churches, and "Quiverfull"¹. They made the news recently when their president resigned because of an inappropriate relationship with a woman not his wife². (Please note: The media is obviously painting this as an "affair", complete with the sexual baggage of such a relationship. Neither Douglas Phillips, the resigning president, nor his wife nor Vision Forum Ministries are claiming anything more than a relationship that was "inappropriately romantic and affectionate" without a sexual component. This is one more opportunity to see the anti-Christian media at work.) Most of what the organization advocates is simple, biblical truth. The only point at which questions arise (or, rather, should arise) is when you get into the family-oriented issues.

In their "Biblical Confession for Uniting Church and Family" they have a lot of good stuff. Scripture is sufficient. God created Church and family. Satan is a deceiver. That kind of stuff. A lot of it really is beyond controversy.

They pick up other points that would be currently controversial. They affirm that the leadership of the Church is biblically "a plurality of biblically qualified elders" and reject "the two unbiblical extremes of our day: authoritarian, one-man leadership/one-man ministry that impedes the biblical functioning of the body, and leaderless house churches that disregard the biblical necessity of elders." Now, frankly, I know of a lot of churches and church people that might find one or the other of these two rejections -- either the "one-man leadership" or the "leaderless house church" -- objectionable. Many view the one-man leadership version as not merely beyond question, but as the norm. "That's what everyone does, isn't it? I mean, isn't that in the Bible?" And the fact is that it is not in the Bible. You will note, for instance, that while Peter played a prominent role in the first church in Jerusalem, he is never identified as the sole leader. He is often a mouthpiece, but the leadership was listed as either "the Apostles" or, as a minimum, "Peter, James, and John." Nor are any of Paul's epistles to particular churches ever addressed to the pastors of those churches. Biblical church leadership was always a plurality. Which puts a roadblock in the way of both the one-man leadership concept and the leaderless house church concept.

Vision Forum Ministries makes more claims that might give us pause. They claim "The Church is a family of families." Well, yes, and I would have to agree that "the current trend to value numbers and size more than intimacy and vitality" is a problem, but I'm not sure I can find any biblical references that would argue that churches are a family of families. They may be, but demonstrating it biblically is currently beyond my ability. And their biblical reference intended to say the same is 1 Tim. 3:15 which reads, "I write so that you will know how one ought to conduct himself in the household of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and support of the truth." That's all well and good, but nothing in that text argues for the claim that "the church is a family of families". So while it may be true in practice, I'm not at all sure that we can call it a biblical principle.

In their Article VII which takes the position that the family is the primary building block of the Church (remembering that I couldn't find the biblical principle that held that the Church was a family of families), their biblical support is meager. This time it comes from 2 Tim. 4:19 which states, "Greet Prisca and Aquila, and the household of Onesiphorus." I'm sorry. That is no claim to family as the primary building block. So here's where my first actual problem occurs. Based on this affirmation, they reject "the church's implementation of modern individualism by fragmenting the family through age-graded, peer-oriented, and special-interest classes, thus preventing rather than promoting family unity and inter-generational relationships." Did you catch that? Here's the claim. If your church includes programs that are geared to certain ages or seeks to unite certain peer groups or offers things of interest to particular individuals, it is promoting a disintegration of the family and is in violation of biblical principles. And now, you see, I think they've overstepped.

I have a real kinship with these views. I believe it is biblical to say that the first component of human society is the family. I think it is biblically undeniable that God designed the family with the husband as head of the wife and the father as head of the household -- patriarchy. I believe, further, that the Bible clearly states that God did this as an image of the God-ordained patriarchal hierarchy of life (see, for instance, 1 Cor 11:3 and Eph 5:22-33 with special emphasis on Eph 5:32). God as "Father" is not a mistake or fluke of culture. It is His design. I think that Satan has attacked the family by first attacking fathers. He has attacked the family by twisting good ideas (such as Sunday School) into bad ones (where families are indeed disintegrated on Sundays). He has attacked the family by twisting society's views so that children are now at the top of the food chain and wives and mothers are second with fathers and husbands at the bottom. He has attacked the family by blinding too many churches to this problem so that they never speak out about it or repent of it. He has attacked the family in these last days by redefining marriage, gender, and leadership. I believe these are all attacks of Satan on God's principles and God's people. These are all things that Vision Forum Ministries is concerned about, and so am I. I only ask that we be careful about calling something a sin, a violation of biblical principles, when we can't actually find a command that tells us to do or not do the thing in question or the biblical principle that defines it. I would think that this is a bridge too far.

Postscript: A very good article was written on "One Vital Lesson from Doug Phillips’ Resignation. I offer it as suggested reading.
_________
¹ Quiverfull is a movement among some that holds that children are a blessing and, as such, lots of children are lots of blessing. They avoid all forms of birth control and advocate large families. The "Quiverfull" term comes from Psalm 127:3–5. That is, it's not entirely unbiblical.

² Very important. The failure of Doug Phillips in this area is not an invalidation of any of the principles he or the organization hold. To make such an argument is the classic ad hominem fallacy. You need to evaluate each position for its truth or lack thereof and not judge it based on the success or failure of the one advocating it. Biblical patriarchy, for instance, is not predicated on Doug Phillips' ability to do it properly. Be careful not to make that illogical leap.