Reactionism and Church History

I was reading a book, Singles at the Crossroads by Al Hsu, and he proposed the idea that when looking at singleness, reactionism has played a huge role in the Church's theology of singleness, marriage and family. And since I've recently finished (and passed) my Church History class, it was quite interesting to follow Hsu's understanding of Church history. He argues that early Christians reacted against the OT belief that family equated with social salvation. Jesus put singleness and marriage on the same plane. Yet in their reactionism to the Jewish standard, and much much more so the Gnostics, the early church supported celibacy. When celibacy failed, during the Reformation, the Protestant Churches started a new norm in reaction to celibacy that was so pro-family that eventually (as we see now) that marriage is seen as a more worthy choice.

I'm totally concerned by this! How much of our Christianity and our theology is a reaction to the secular or the culture? Granted, I am usually one to say yes, Jesus is seen through culture, but I think there is also a limit to that as well, where we begin to create our own version of Christianity. Think! Yes, we do need to be react when the Reverend Birdsong types show up at college campus' and tell of a distorted Gospel. But at what point does our reaction also become a new Gospel? Or becoming a new distorted Gospel because it is reaction. At what point (and how) do we turn and move the Gospel back to center? Be assured that I myself have a lot to do as well as I realize how much I have internalized the A-good-Chrisitian-is-a-good-family-oriented-person over the busting-open-kingdom-doors-as-a Single person.

It's so complicated that that admission of my internalization is all I can comment on at the moment. The rest is too overwhelming.