CHAPTER 3: POWER, PRESTIGE AND POSSESSION: TWO APPROACHES TO HOPE
3.4 Criticism of Buchan
Van Wyk offers a balanced reflection of both the good and bad of Buchan’s ministry, dividing the responses into four groups: those who write Buchan off totally, those who are reserved with their criticism, those who offer unconditional praise, and those who are reserved with their acknowledgment of the good that he is doing (2010:10).
Those who write Buchan off totally question the whole movement and describe Buchan and his followers very negatively, commenting on his fundamentalist use of scripture, out-dated theology, that it is strongly patriarchal, that it depends on mass hysteria, is populist, is a form of prosperity teaching, cheap religious propaganda, that it depends on an oppressive situation in the country and fear and uncertainly for the future for its popularity, and finally that is a personality cult (:10-11).
The second group who are reservedly critical are not as vocal in their criticism, but have reservations regarding revival movements that are not grounded in the church and which often make little difference in the long run. (:11)
Those who offer unconditional praise see the gatherings as exceptional and enriching
experiences that they wouldn’t miss for anything. Van Wyk notes that apparently there is a deep-seated need for a personal, experienced spirituality that is free of the dry intellectualism that people feel they get in the traditional (Afrikaans) churches (:11).
The final group believe that there is value in the gatherings, but they have their reservations. They recognise that it is biblical for the people of God to get together to celebrate, but that the personal salvation offered is less than what Christ taught and more focus should be given to the Kingdom of God (:11-12).
Van Wyk sums up his observations by suggesting that Buchan needs to be critically examined in these areas: the danger of prosperity gospel, particularly as portrayed in the film version of Faith like Potatoes14; the danger of an overarching patriarchy in the sense that masculinity and fatherhood are emphasised at the cost of femininity; the danger of it being a “white” movement – particularly in a country where the deepest need may be reconciliation between black and white, and the fact that the movement is not attached to any church. He asks the question, “How sustainable is this movement?”
(:12-13). This concern was noted in a later informal conversation with one of Buchan’s followers that since Buchan is no longer leading the Mighty Men Conferences, there seems to be very little interest in them.
A common criticism of Buchan’s theology is the role that he assigns to women. Nadar says “‘men taking responsibility’ is hardly an unpalatable idea, but “if ‘taking
responsibility’ means asserting dominating and coercive measures, including those in the religious domain, to maintain power, then our justice antennas have to be tuned in, so that we are not deceived by this palatable patriarchy, masquerading as ‘restoring masculinity’” (2009:554), thoughts echoed by a female letter writer to Die Burger who takes Buchan to task regarding his insistence that a woman must submit to the man (van Rensburg 2008).
Jean Oosthuizen, webmaster of an online discussion forum about faith, writes in Rapport about the danger of Buchan’s theology. She refers to him as “the potato
14 I note here that in my own reading of Buchan I haven’t noticed any prosperity gospel alarm bells ringing, although in informal conversations with his opponents “it’s all a money-making racket” has been a common criticism.
farmer” and his belief system as “potato theology” (2009) and argues that his “fast- food” theology is ultimately destructive, particularly when it comes to the so-called healings that take place at his services. She asks how responsible it is to allow a person to think that they are healed, when Buchan has no idea of the person’s medical
condition, and wants to know who is going to be responsible for the misoes (failed harvest) when the emotion and excitement of the moment has passed, there have been no miracles and all that remains are spiritually disillusioned wrecks (Oosthuizen 2009)15.
Not only is his theological viewpoint criticised, but also his behaviour. For example at the 2009 Mighty Men’s Conference Buchan collapsed from heatstroke. A newspaper headline proclaimed “Jesus red siek Buchan” (Jesus saves sick Buchan) and the event was widely portrayed as Jesus saving Buchan from dying due to heart failure.
Oosthuizen criticises the psyche of a nation that sees the event as ascribing to Buchan the status of a Messiah risen from the dead (2009).
Rohr criticises this kind of theology by suggesting that people of religion have forgotten that religion is supposed to be about “the Great Mystery” and see it instead as “crime and punishment”.
This is the only way that the postmodern Christian can put shape into the basically shapeless, bad novel called human life. It looks like an answer, or even gospel, but it is the same old story line of most of history; the big and strong win;
Prometheus passes for Jesus (2001:8).
While Rohr criticises both conservatives and liberals, his comments on conservatives are that they tend to avoid the horizontal claims of the gospel – the claims to breadth and inclusion of the Kingdom of God, fearful of mercy and compassion, or breaking of rules. “They are always circling the wagons around this very fragile God that they have to protect” (2001:36) – exactly the words used to describe Buchan by some of his critics (laager mentality). Rohr goes on to describe how conservative types fight as soon as they have targeted the appropriate sinner, or anyone who threatens their strong control
15 Paraphrased from the Afrikaans article.
needs. They usually have a strong punitive need and a false moral superiority (:36).