- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
That a movement like Mars Hill could gain enough political clout to remake society in its own image scares me. But, for a couple reasons, I wonder whether this movement will still be thriving in another decade.
One reason for doubt is practical. The young men of Mars Hill have given themselves the task of becoming sole breadwinners for huge families. Four or five decades ago, a man could pull that off, but the cost of living is higher now, and many couples agree that nothing threatens marital bliss like money woes. In between tending to toddlers and stretching a pound of hamburger to feed another mouth, Mama might start to resent the fact that, while Papa didn't have to cede a single song from his iPod, she had to give up every whiff of modernity since 1920. Many women who stay in these marriages might do so only with an understanding: "With so many mouths to feed, we both have to bring home paychecks." And as many experienced couples know, the wife facing the pressure of outside employment doesn't bode well for the biblical interpretation of male headship and female acquiescence.
The other reason for doubt is spiritual. Journalist and essayist Richard Rogriguez recently remarked, "I don't understand these super churches that talk about Christ as a winner. Christ was a loser in this world." If Mars Hill really is about overtaking the voting public and slapping the nonbelievers into shape, the community's deepest thinkers might face a crisis of faith. Of course, that assumes Mars Hill has a lot of deep thinkers in the first place.
