There are certain providential circumstances that lead to conversations you might not have entered otherwise. My wife and I had such a conversation late last week. You see, in case you haven’t seen the latest episode of Keeping up with the Schneiderashians, the most recent development is that we are expecting another baby…again. I can hear the questions already: “Didn’t they just have a baby?” The answer is, “Yes. Yes we did.”

Of course, we’re thrilled at the news (we’ve known for a while…this is really news for you, not us), and all sorts of planning is going on, thinking through the logistics of a fourth baby on top of a by-then toddler. Previous guest spaces are being reassigned as baby spaces [insert in-laws joke here], clothing needs are being assessed, and mental preparations are underway to adjust to the end of life as we currently know it. And let me reiterate amid all this tongue-in-cheek rhetoric: we’re ecstatic.

But it did lead to a conversation the other night that I’m sure has surfaced in numerous families over the last year or so. In fact, it’s a common trope in times of difficulty for every married couple. When we assess all the events of last year, from the pandemic and all the health and social implications its brought, the BLM protests and the riots that arose from them, the devastating forest fires that ravaged California, Oregon, and Nevada, and then finally the political drama surrounding the presidential election and the elongated ballot fights that finally culminated in the insurrection at the Capitol Building just a few weeks ago…all of this accumulates and presses on the mind of any sane individual who looks at the world and wonders, “What’s going on in this country?”

That sentiment then takes married couples one step further as they begin to ask the question, “Is it right to bring a life into the world right now?” The world is uncertain and fraught with conflict and danger. Of course, it always has been, but there’s been quite a few decades of insulation from hard life that parents have felt in this country. Parents today don’t remember the Great War of 1914-1918. They don’t have an experiential category for the Great Depression, or the Second World War. Conflict of this magnitude hasn’t hit our country as a whole really since the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s, and then later in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. By and large, national, societal, and cultural danger has been a world problem but not necessarily a national problem with direct implications on American families.

That was the topic of conversation that my wife and I had last week. It wasn’t a question she and I were personally entertaining as much as it was a topic she had heard discussed on a podcast, and in light of my blog from last week, it produced a healthy discussion. In fact, it’s so in line with what I talked about last week that I thought it appropriate to address it and what’s really behind it today.

Authority to Progress

Last week, I laid out the case that Progressivism is an ideological movement that Christians need to see not so much as a simple political position but as a rival religion and a rival gospel. That may sound over the top, but I couldn’t be more serious. Progressivism is a rival gospel. Like the true gospel, it offers people hope. But it is a hope in this world, not in spite of it. And like the true gospel, is offers freedom. But it is a freedom from accountability and authority. It is a freedom that promises personal and individual autonomy. “No one gets to tell you who you are except you,” it says, “and only Progressivism can liberate you from the external authorities that threaten your personal identity.”

Taking this one step further, Progressivism offers a rival epistemology, which is to say that it offers a rival source for truth. Within a biblical worldview, authority is understood in hierarchical fashion, with the ultimate authority being identified as God himself, and the expression of his authority as none other than what he has spoken, i.e., the Bible. Wayne Grudem aptly summarizes this in his discussion of the self-attestation of Scripture:

The words of Scripture are “self-attesting.” They cannot be “proved” to be God’s words by appeal to any higher authority. For if an appeal to some higher authority (say, historical accuracy or logical consistency) were used to prove that the Bible is God’s Word, then the Bible itself would not be our highest or absolute authority: it would be subordinate in authority to the thing to which we appealed to prove it to be God’s Word.

Now, at this point Grudem recognizes the apparent logical fallacy at play. One could easily object to this by pointing out that by using Scripture to prove that Scripture is God’s Word is nothing more than circular reasoning. The objection is absolutely accurate. And it proves his point. As Grudem goes on to discuss,

All arguments for an absolute authority must ultimately appeal to that authority for proof: otherwise the authority would not be an absolute or highest authority. This problem is not unique to the Christian who is arguing for the authority of the Bible. Everyone either implicitly or explicitly uses some kind of circular argument when defending his or her ultimate authority for belief. (Grudem, Systematic Theology, 78-9).

This is certainly true for Progressivism. In an article authored by theologian Carl R. Trueman and published in the February edition of First Things, Trueman makes the argument that the final authority…really, the superstructure of truth upon which Progressivism in all its numerous manifestations is build…is critical theory. It’s not anything new. It’s been around since its concepts were first articulated by Karl Marx in the 19th century and implemented in Russia during the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. Only now, instead of class warfare, the focus has shifted to issues of race and personal identity, and with a new name, it feel just as new and revolutionary as it did to the Russian peasants one hundred years ago.

And just as the Bible holds the position of final and absolute authority for life and doctrine within the Christian faith, to the point that it is itself proof of its authority, so critical theory sits on the throne and rules as the sovereign and irrefutable authority of Progressivism. Trueman writes,

Critical race theory, like other critical theories–postcolonialism or queer theory, for example–is self-certifying. Its basic claims, for example, that racism is systemic or that being non-racist is impossible, are not conclusions drawn from arguments. They are axioms and they cannot be challenged by those who do not agree with them. Those who dissent or offer criticism are, by definition, part of the problem. (Trueman, “Evangelicals and Race Theory”).

It’s important to remember that Trueman, though speaking of critical race theory, doesn’t limit his assertion so narrowly. This is true regardless of whatever particular flavor of critical theory is being employed. Critical theory is a worldview. It is a way of explaining the world and how it works. It can be applied equally to the class issues of rich and poor, to the race issues of whites and blacks, or to the gender issues of LGBTQ+ and “cysgender normatives.” In every case, there is an oppressor and an oppressed. This is how the world works according to critical theory, and people belong to one of those two groups. Trueman writes,

Critical race theory rests on simple, therapeutic premises. It leaves no room for argument or doubt. For all its sophisticated language, CRT portrays life as a zero-sum game. Some people do not have power. They struggle and do no flourish. This happens because somebody else has seized power from them and oppressed them in an ongoing and unrelenting way. The oppression has solidified into a self-justifying system. There is a comprehensive explanation for all the evils we suffer.

I hope you can see the alternate worldview narratives at work in all of this. Progressivism is the political incarnation of an alternative religion which seeks to re-explain who man is, what his problem is, and where the solution is to be found. Instead of man as God’s image-bearer, man is seen as an autonomous being. Instead of man’s problem being his fallenness and condemnation before God, the problem is couched as a zero-sum battle between oppressed and oppressors. As such, the solution is found not in Christ as our propitiation who satisfies the wrath of God, gives us hope for life apart from and in spite of this world, and gives us context for suffering, instead it fixes all eyes on Progressivism and the social and cultural revolution as the means of attaining a edenic utopia in this world and in this life, free from conflict and struggle, and free to live as autonomous individuals.

Like every religion, critical theory comes with its own religious traps and elements, as Trueman points out regarding CRT:

All-embracing and transformative views often have a religious quality. Critical race theory is no exception. It has a creedal language and liturgy, with orthodox words (“white privilege,” “systemic racism”) and prescribed actions (raising the fist, taking the knee). To deviate from the forms is to deviate from the faith. Certain words are heretical (“non-racist,” “all lives matter”). The slogan “silence is violence” is a potent rhetorical weapon. To fail to participate in the liturgy is to reject the antiracism the liturgy purports to represent–something only a racist would do.

Now, getting back to the initial topic at hand, here’s the deal. This kind of worldview will not…cannot…accept a challenge to its authority. It is a totalizing narrative which demands acceptance and allegiance. All challenges are seen as proof of its validity, and all obstacles must be overcome or overthrown in order to effect the inevitable progress expected and promised within the meta-narrative.

Here’s where the rubber starts to meet the road. There are certain obstacles that naturally stand in the way of the religion of Progressivism in all its critical-theory forms. We talked about the first and greatest obstacle last week: the Church. But there’s another that stands in the way of progressivist utopia and it is this: the family.

Why the family? What could this seemingly small, benign, un-intimidating unit called the family do to challenge a worldview and world movement as massive as Progressivism? Without writing a treatise (you’re welcome!), I want to overview why the family poses a threat to progressivism, how the latter has attempted to overthrow the family, and what Christian families can do in light of it all. I know, I’m setting my sights pretty low for this one, but I hope to touch on these points briefly and readdress them in more detail as opportunities arise.

Why the Family is an obstacle to Progressivism

There are probably numerous reasons we could discuss as to how the family poses a threat to “social progress,” but ultimately there’s only two I want to discuss in this context, and they are understandably related. The first is that the family is its own cell of authority, and second that the family as defined within the biblical worldview threatens to delegitimize the progressive meta-narrative.

The Family is a rival authority

The first reason the family poses a threat to “social progress” is because it stands as a rival authority to the worldview of progressivism. In order for progressivism to flourish, it must gain a hold of every mind. No individual can be left un-indoctrinated. But that tenet faces a fundamental obstacle with the family. The family is in itself a distinct socially-autonomous unit. It has its own hierarchy of authority. Parents are seen as having ultimate authority over the shaping of their children’s worldview. 

When we think about the family as defined by Scripture, we see the goodness of God in creating a structure whereby through the self-sacrificing love of husband and wife, a theater is built in which children can be nurtured, loved, supported, and discipled. In the family, marriage is a means of multiplying the testimony of the gospel, where husbands love their wives sacrificially as Christ loved his church, and wives selflessly submit to their husbands authority as the church does to Christ as her authority (Eph 5:22-33). In a family, parenting is seen as a human expression of God’s tender, loving, and disciplinary care for us as his children (Heb 12:3-11).

But even beyond that, family is the context in which children are instructed. It’s where they learn how to love others and how to live in truth. It’s where their worldview is shaped, and parents have a direct influence on that process. And that’s a problem for progressivism, because it establishes a unit of sovereign authority that threatens the movement’s control of all individuals. While the family remains intact, the movement doesn’t have the sovereignty to control children and what they think. While parents still wield authority over their children, progress has hit an obstacle which must either be syncretized with the spirit of the culture or overthrown as an institution.

At the heart of this threat are two competing doctrines. Progressivism is ultimately an ideology that rests upon the power of the state. Though it has tremendous influence through social and cultural vectors, it is built on the assumption that the state (i.e., government) is the best vehicle for dealing with societal problems.

Challenging this is what has been known as the doctrine of subsidiarity, which Albert Mohler describes this way:

The doctrine of subsidiarity—which emerged out of natural law theory—teaches that meaning, truth, and authority reside in the smallest meaningful unit possible. If the family unit is deficient, no government can meet the need of its citizens. When the family is strong, government can be small. (Albert Mohler, “Toward a Christian View of Economics”)

But really, progressivism is not as innocuous as simply believing in “big government.” For progressivism, “big government” isn’t just a “better way” to address societal problems, its the vehicle for implementing progressivist ideals. The movement can, for a time, utilize the powerful influence of culture with its anti-biblical logic, values, and lures. But ultimately, only the state brandishes the coercive power to effect the change the movement expects and demands. Subsidiarity stands as a direct contradiction because it offers hope that the problems faced by societies and individuals can be solved through alternative means, i.e., the strengthening of the nuclear family. This simply won’t do.

So the family is an obstacle because it directly confronts the authority of the movement and its ability to access the minds of individual. The parent-child relationship is a potential fortress that blocks the worldview of critical theory from indoctrinating children into the movement of woke-ism and the progressivist religion.

But that leads into a second and related reason for why the progressive crosshairs must target the family.

The family delegitimizes the meta-narrative

The family is a tough nut to crack. But it’s even tougher because all the evidence points to the fact that when it is cracked, the effects on individuals are catastrophic. Decades of research have been conducted demonstrating the powerful influence of in-tact nuclear families. When there is a strong, loving marriage between husband and wife, children tend to flourish. This shouldn’t be any surprise. We’re told to expect it: “Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it” (Prov 22:6). Not a promise, but a general axiom, and it has proven true even within families who are not believers. The simple fact is that stable families are the seedbed for socially and emotionally healthy individuals.

But there’s a problem. This narrative for societal problems (which, we understand, is a result of fallenness and sin), contradicts the doctrine of progressivism and critical theory. The problem can’t be familial, because we know what the problem is: it’s systemic structures of oppression, and these can’t be fixed within the family. They must be addressed by the state itself.

A very clear example of this can be seen in the now-deleted “What We Believe” section of the website for the organization “Black Lives Matter” (the deletion of this section has created its own controversy which we don’t have time to address here). The self-expressed worldview of this organization sees the adherents as a “global Black Family” in which they “intentionally build and nurture a beloved community that is bonded together through a beautiful struggle that is restorative, not depleting.” Part of the intention of this community-based approach is to relieve the community of the individual responsibility of raising children within the limiting confines of tradition nuclear families. The document asserts,

We dismantle the patriarchal practice that requires mothers to work “double shifts” so that they can mother in private even as they participate in public justice work.

Now, we have to understand that statement within the context of the statistics related to the “black community” in America, which data has demonstrated to hold a disproportionately high level of single-mother homes and out-of-wedlock pregnancy. The “patriarchal practice” referred to above isn’t a result of patriarchy as much as a result of breakdowns in marriage and, in numerous instances, fatherless homes. This is tragic and and certainly not fair to these wives and mothers. But that context, difficult and frustrating as it is, is interpreted by the movement not as a problem based on the break-down of the nuclear family, but rather the result of the oppressive system that insists that the nuclear family is the answer to the problem (not to mention the oppression imposed by men as a whole). That’s why their doctrinal statement goes on to make the point quite plain:

We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.

Rather than see strengthening the family as the key to reversing the struggles faced by the community, the organization doubles down by determining to disrupt the family and instead replace it with a community-based approach to raising children. Of course, when the community has parent-level access to children, it also has parent-level authority over them, and that introduces the access necessary to influence their worldview at an individual level. When that worldview is then reinforced by the very context in which they grow up…a community-based family rather than the nuclear…the worldview has been baked into the child and the indoctrination is complete.

So to circle back around, the reason why the family poses a threat to progressivism is because it exposes the flaws of the movement and threatens to delegitimize it. The entire movement of progressivism shirks naturals law (we see this quite plainly in the “science” of transgenderism). Subsidiarity, as we have seen, expresses the natural law of God that locates fundamental societal issues as beginning and surfacing in the break down of the nuclear family, and this evidence exposes the critical weakness of the worldview of progressivism.

How progressivism has assaulted the family

Since the family stands as an obstacle to rival religion and gospel progressivism, it has naturally come under assault, and I want to BRIEFLY touch on some of the strategies used to undermine, attack, transform, and ultimately deconstruct the family in order to neutralize it as a threat to the movement.

Marriage

The first and most obvious way in which the family is undermined is through marriage. Now, you’re probably thinking about the recent supreme court rulings on homosexual marriage, and you’re right, that’s part of it, but it goes deeper and further than that. Ultimately, the first assaults on marriage came with the fundamental shift in the culture’s tolerance for divorce. The heart of the family is the relationship between husband and wife. In fact, within a family, that relationship is more important than the relationship of parent-to-child. As divorce became culturally acceptable or even vogue, the central relationship of the family came to be seen as a maleable contract into which one could enter or dissolve with little effort or second thought.

Of course, the homosexual agenda has brought the very definition of marriage under assault, and certainly at risk within this new era, apart from the affront it makes upon God’s glory as the architect of marriage, is the confusion it creates for children who then grow up in homes without the mother-father parental structure.

But a third avenue for attacking marriage has been in the culture’s willingness to give up on the institution entirely as an unnecessary context for expressing love. Now we are told that marriage simply isn’t necessary, and that there are equally acceptable contexts in which love and sexual fulfillment can be enjoyed. Of course, the spirit of the age behind of all this is the familiar progressive tenet of individual autonomy.

Education

While divorce and homosexual marriage assaulted the husband-wife relationship at the heart of the family, there has been a long and equally virulent attack on the parent-child relationship. Progressivism has rightly identified the public school system as a backdoor into the home, and we have seen a steady increase in progressive ideological curriculum infiltrate the classroom. Now, the potency of this infiltration fluctuates from state to state, but the backdoor is there and its undeniable, and it is a particular threat to parents asleep at the wheel or too busy with life and work to pay attention to the worldview that is being reinforced at school and which may be thoroughly at odds with the worldview embraced in the home.

Parents who don’t use the public school option for education pose a particular threat to progressivism. With no backdoor open into the home, they are left with no option but to attempt at kicking the door down themselves, and we’ve seen this most clearly in recent months in controversies surrounding the legitimacy of homeschooling. More than that, Christian schools and colleges have come under fire as the other great educational impediment. In November 2020, the Human Rights Campaign, the nation’s most influential LGBTQ organization, placed several demands on the upcoming Biden administration in order to bring the administration into conformity with the LGBTQ movement. Among the numerous demands levied, perhaps the most shocking was that “non-discrimination policies and science-based curriculum are not undermined by religious exemption to accreditation standards.” To state the seriousness of this demand, Albert Mohler has writtren, “That is sinister. I’ve not seen any document like this before—the Human Rights Campaign is effectively calling for religious colleges and schools to be coerced into the sexual revolution or stripped of accreditation.”

So you see, the strategy is direct, effective, and coming more and more swiftly. Education is a key vector for direct access to the mind of each child. If they can’t get access, then they will try to remove any other option.

Discipline

A third way we’ve seen the family undermined and attacked is through the pervasive influence of anti- and alternative discipline theories within the family. Long gone are the days when a mother or father could publicly and confidently state, “Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him” (Prov 13:24). That kind of rhetoric brings not just social disgust but the threat of government intervention. All of this underscores a subtle but effective tactic for undermining the family is by influencing how parents can raise their children. By condemning corporal discipline of children (or even any corrective approach to discipline), demonizing parents who use appropriate levels of pain as a means of correction, and threatening parents with the possibility of losing parental custody, the means by which parents can shape and guide young minds in truth and biblical morality is stymied.

Abortion

Of course, the most egregious and morally revolting means of attacking the family is through the systematic murder of the unborn. This past Friday (Jan 22, 2021) marked the 48th anniversary of the Roe vs. Wade decision which legalized abortion on demand throughout the country. The effects of that decision are staggering, with an estimated 62 million unborn babies killed since the decision was made. Just to put that number in perspective, that’s 10 times the number Jews who were murdered during the holocaust. This is a truly staggering reality.

But what’s the strategy? How does abortion help progressivism gain access to the minds of children, if the goal of abortion is to get rid of the child altogether? Well, abortion appeals at the level that is fundamental to the movement’s central tenet: individual autonomy and freedom. What abortion promises is freedom for every women to have the “right to be as equally unpreganant” as men. Any other option is oppression, and you can guess who the oppressor is.

What this does is raises the individual above the family, separates sex from marriage, and separates, children but sex. Progressivism is perfectly fine with the family as long as embraces the values and worldview of progressivism.

strategy for the family

Now, let’s go all the way back to the beginning. I know this has been a long read, but the weightiness of these issues makes it hard to touch the surface. The conversation my wife and I had gets at the heart of everything we’ve just talked about, and it was the response I had to the question of whether or not it was okay for parents to bring a child into the world as it is right now. My answer is simply this: Not only is it okay, but it’s essential.

I’ll reiterate my statement I made earlier…the family stands as a major obstacle to the rival religion and gospel of progressivism. It challenges its authority and exposes its inherent flaws. So the first and most obvious response I have is this: if the family is that much of a threat, then that means it’s powerful. And it is! We should expect that. The very first institution God established was that of marriage (Gen 2:24), and its built into the very mandate God gave his new image-bearers when he told them to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it” (Gen 1:28). Right in those two contexts is the family, with husband and wife as central and children as flowing out of that divine institution.

So how can a wife, a mother, a husband, a father, guard against progressivism’s attack on the family? Here’s a few things to think about.

Be aware

Don’t be asleep at the wheel. Be aware of what’s going on. Be cognizant of the devil’s schemes. As the apostle Peter writes, “Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour” (1 Pet 5:8). He’s looking for fathers who are passive, mother’s who are overbearing, husbands who are selfish and inattentive, and wives who are resentful. He wants to exploit every opportunity to weaken the family, first from within, and then from without.

That means paying attention to the temperature of your marriage. It means dealing with conflict quickly and in a way that brings about God-honoring resolution. It means recognizing the subtle influences that society has over your children. As Rob Dreher notes,

Conservative parents are often quick to spot threats to their family’s values from progressive ideologues, but they can be uncritically accepting of the free market’s logic and values, to say nothing of mindlessly surrendering their children’s minds to smartphones and the internet.

Trust God

Fear is a big issue, especially with everything going on. We all have temptations to fear, and particular weaknesses to which we are prone to become anxious. But when we understand that marriage and family is a divine institution, we recognize that we are part of something that is beyond us. God didn’t just create this thing called “the family” and then abandon us. He has given us a wealth of resources to live out a God-centered marriage and family that is a powerful antidote and challenge to progressivism’s core ideology. Not only that, we believers, we have his Spirit who enables us to do that which we can’t do in the flesh.

Part of what we’re called to do is realize that its through the family that we have to fight. We don’t just fight for the family. We fight with the family, and the most powerful way in which we do that is by having strong marriages and raising our children to know Christ and have a worldview shaped by the Bible. If children don’t learn how to think in the home, they will learn how to think in the world. By then, it’s too late. Now, that can make us scared. Or it can embolden us to take our responsibility seriously and trust in the Lord.

Fight for truth

Ultimately, the fight we’re dealing with is not a human fight. We’re not fighting people. As Paul told the Ephesians,

For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. (Eph 6:12).

The things we’re battling as Christians and as families are ideas…satanically-induced ideas. They are extremely seductive ideas, because they speak to the broken, the needy, and the whole of the human condition. They offer a hope in this world, but they seduce people into believing they can be free of suffering by getting rid of the “oppression” that holds them back from being who they are…whatever that may be for them. It holds them captive because it is a closed-loop system that proves itself, and rejects all challenges. It is a fortress in the mind.

Praise the Lord. Jesus is in the business of destroying fortresses in the mind.

For though we walk in the flesh, we are not waging war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. (2 Cor 10:5-3-5).

What could possibly penetrate the circular fortress of progressive religion with its self-attesting authority of critical theory? What could possibly open the eyes of those whose minds have been blinded by the god of this world, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ (2 Cor 4:4)? It seems impossible. And it is, humanly speaking. “But with God, all things are possible” (Matt 19:26). By the power of God’s Spirit, the fortress can be penetrated, broken down by the gospel. The mind can be taken captive to Christ. And the Spirit himself can change the heart to see God’s Word as the true final and highest authority.

So take up God’s spiritual weapons. Take them up individually, and with your family. Teach your kids how to pray. Teach them God’s Word. And don’t insulate them too much from how the world works. At some point, kids will have to grapple with the reality of how the worldview you are teaching them conflicts directly with the worldview they are increasingly exposed to on a daily basis.

We cannot simply live as all other families live, except that we go to church on Sunday. Holding the correct theological beliefs and having the right intentions will not be enough. Christian parents must be intentionally countercultural in their approach to family dynamics. The days of living like everybody else and hoping our children turn our for the best are over. (Rob Dreher, Live Not by Lies)