Chalcedon Foundation Privately Donated Funds to Joe Taylor to Help His Legal Defense Against Doug Phillips

428 thoughts on “Chalcedon Foundation Privately Donated Funds to Joe Taylor to Help His Legal Defense Against Doug Phillips”

1. (Sarcasm alert)
   Yes, indeed! Reconstructionists have done such a stellar job of stemming the abuses from their own disciples. Then they want us to believe it will be so glorious when they take over the US legal system. There most certainly won’t be any abuses then, will there? The ones in authority will see to that.

   I believe we’re witnessing some damage control. Every other wolf does it.

   LikeLike

2. BTDT – said, “Then they want us to believe it will be so glorious when they take over the US legal system.”

   Interesting you mention that – – check out this comment from Martin Selbrede at Jen’s Gems blog:

   Martin Selbrede Says:
   November 21, 2013 at 8:45 pm
   While conceding that he could not condone the practice from a strictly Biblical standpoint, Dr. Rushdoony more than once referred to an early American solution to spousal abuse: the other men in the community visited the abusive husband at night, took him outside, and dragged him by his feet naked through a briar patch. Remarkably, this ended all abuse of the wife without fail. Those communities were not willing to “stand idly by innocent blood.” Their actions, however flawed, did prove how much they valued the life and well-being of the abused wife.

   How different this is from the modern practice, in which a church’s leadership drags the abused wife through the ringer.

   LikeLike

3. To understand the relationship between Rushdoony and patriarchy, you need to read more than just the Institutes. There was a marked change in his theology, for a specific reason. I suggest taking a look at this. Quite revealing. http://www.garynorth.com/freebooks/docs/217a_47e.htm

   LikeLike

4. “the only genuinely authoritative rebuke ”

   The only genuinely authoritative rebuke will be when each and every member of Doug Phillip’s church, ministry and Vision Forum votes with their feet and just does not show up.

   LikeLike

5. Mod note: Beyond this point you may encounter sarcasm. ~ja
   
   Been there done that, I strongly support the 2nd amendment by collecting small arms and stockpiling huge amounts of ammo. Enough to supply a mid-sized militia and run raids 24/7 on the reconstructionist forces. So Don’t worry, some of us are ready to go to war when and if these Talibanish wackjobs ever come to power in the littlest of ways. We even have our own little CIA, complete with enemy lists for sequential and orderly assassinations. Gary north and his merry band of crazies can forget it, they won’t last a day after attempting a take over of this country. A republic we are and a Republic we shall stay.

   By the way, did you know that Gary North actually built a bunker and hid out underground for y2K. That kind of shows you just how far their brain trust will get them, a hole in the dessert. Some off these idiots actually had their wives learning to pull teeth and do other dental work in the home to get ready for the collapse of society.

   LikeLike

6. I read through the links you included in the article. I don’t know, Julie Anne, but I’m not convinced that the administration of Old Testament justice will solve the problems you’ve been talking about on this Blog. To be completely honest, the idea horrifies me. Perhaps others can read the Bible and find women who were respected and treated as equals – with control over their own lives – but I sure can’t. For me, that’s the issue.

   I wonder if either T.W Eston or Martin Sebrede have read your initial story or that of Hannah’s – your daughter’s. I have, and I re-read them again last night. No one can read those without feeling the anguish and heartbreak this family experienced in the clutches of a power-hungry, dictatorial leader who demanded complete control over everyone in the flock.

   I have to tell you that when I read through those letters from Chalcedon, what I get is the sense of a power struggle – patriarchy or hyper-patriarchy; men are still in THE ultimate power position. Although yes, there certainly have been men who have been hurt by overpowering leaders, when you read through the accounts on this Blog it has been, for the most part, WOMEN (and by extension, children) who have been hurt the most. Julie Anne, you have given the greatest gift to them – a VOICE. They can be heard, after years of repeatedly being told that their opinions don’t matter. Someone is listening to them and saying, “I know exactly what you are saying and I hurt for you – tell me about it”.

   The bottom line, it appears to me, is that the reconstructionist/dominionist/patriarchal system is not a fair, just, or equality-based way to live – for any of us. THAT’s the issue.

   LikeLike

7. “While conceding that he could not condone the practice from a strictly Biblical standpoint, Dr. Rushdoony more than once referred to an early American solution to spousal abuse: the other men in the community visited the abusive husband at night, took him outside, and dragged him by his feet naked through a briar patch. Remarkably, this ended all abuse of the wife without fail.”

   How mature.

   “How different this is from the modern practice, in which a church’s leadership drags the abused wife through the ringer.”

   Speaking of which, read how Rushdoony and then his church treated his first wife.
   http://heresyintheheartland.blogspot.com/2013/08/voiceless-women-arda-j-rushdoony.html?m=1

   LikeLike

8. BTDT – I read that one, too. Red flag! Also read some recent speeches by Mark Rushdoony. Sorry, but I’m not convinced that this institution is going to be helpmates to hurting women.

   LikeLike

9. Yes, but you see, Carmen, we’re all just “misinformed.” (Heavy sarcasm)
   I don’t have a problem with disagreements or differences in opinion. But, branding someone as “misinformed” is arrogantly condescending.

   LikeLike

10. @carmen,

    I read through the links you included in the article. I don’t know, Julie Anne, but I’m not convinced that the administration of Old Testament justice will solve the problems you’ve been talking about on this Blog. To be completely honest, the idea horrifies me.

    I don’t see it either, carmen, I see it as producing more men and women with beliefs and attitudes such as those of the person calling him/herself “Biblical Marriage” in the comments section on Doug Wilson’s blog:

    “,,,I do what the Bible says every time, no matter how crazy it sounds at first blush. If it’s in the Bible, I believe it. That’s why I think women have no authority over themselves or the words they speak unless their husbands approve, and they aren’t held accountable if they break their oaths under their husbands’ authority (Numbers 30:10-15), so Doug Wilson’s whole post is a mockery of God and real patriarchy. Oath breaking is normally a sin (Numbers 30: 1-2) but mere women can’t be trusted to make proper, binding oaths independent of their husbands. Women are worth about half what men are (Leviticus 27: 3-7) which is probably why the real patriarchs needed at least two of them (see Abraham, Jacob, David etc) as wives. And don’t quote that egalitarian trash about there being “neither male nor female” in Christ. CLEARLY there is male and female in Christ, or we wouldn’t have all those verses on female submission.

    What a hopeful future for women packed into that little rant, eh?

    LikeLike

11. Scott: I took the liberty to add a little disclaimer at the top of your comment for your protection and mine 🙂

    By the way, did you know that Gary North actually built a bunker and hid out underground for y2K. That kind of shows you just how far their brain trust will get them, a hole in the dessert. Some off these idiots actually had their wives learning to pull teeth and do other dental work in the home to get ready for the collapse of society.

    You are right about this ^^^. During the y2K hype, I got sucked in to reading Gary North’s junk. I actually subscribed to his e-mails and it was a huge e-mail list. Reading through all of the “how to prepare” messages was very daunting for a then mom of 5, especially when my husband was blowing the whole thing off. I was very nervous about the situation. After it didn’t happen, I started researching Gary North and reading about Reconstructionism and then I realized that it was all a fraud. He was using even Christians to promote his Reconstructionist agenda.

    Right after we moved to Oregon, I was at Costco and spotted a homeschool mom and we connected and started talking (homeschool moms can spot homeschool moms very easily – lol). She was a sweet lady and invited us to her church. We went. The men had given us books to read and because something was not quite right, I started researching names I found listed in the book. Lo and behold, it was Reconstructionist. My creepo meter was engaged then (obviously got out of calibration a few years later when we joined the cult).

    LikeLike

12. It didn’t take long for the briar patch quote to be distorted as to its obvious intent: it has effectively been held up as representative of what America would look like if biblical law were applied. That this is the exact opposite from the quote’s meaning is obvious, but that doesn’t prevent the quote from being misused. The point is NOT that the community had followed biblical law (this is explicitly denied!) but that in their conduct they erred on the side of the victim, not the abuser (which is the modern practice).

    No utterance is safe from ideological hijacking, no meaning is exempt from total reversal in the service of preconceived notions.

    At this rate, I’m wondering how long before T. W. Eston is accused of being a Chalcedon plant.

    However, I can understand how the atmosphere of distrust lends itself to these responses. You might consider, then, the words of Kathryn Joyce in “Quiverfull” when she says that there is a tendency to look for the influence of R. J. Rushdoony in all the wrong places. Doug Wilson is one such “wrong place” — among many.

    Why would folks claim to be riding Rushdoony’s coattails in the first place? Because they want to legitimize their own position/authority by name-dropping. This would be bad enough if they were faithfully replicating Rushdoony’s views (they’d still be indulging in the kind of party spirit St. Paul reprehends), but to invoke Rushdoony’s name over positions Rushdoony didn’t hold is culpable. I suspect this is the reason Eston decries the resulting guilt by association. If the Lord Jesus hasn’t been exempt from people doing things in His Name that He hates, how much more would we expect errant things to be done in the name of noteworthy men? Is Martin Luther to blame for the conduct of modern Lutherans? Dead men issue no endorsements.

    If Rushdoony’s views are the fountain from which such extremist errors have flowed, then apostolic Christianity is the fountain from which countless heresies have also flowed, and it should likewise be repudiated for the resulting fruit. If it’s right to make important distinctions in the latter case, it’s no less so for the former. Doesn’t honesty in communication require this at the very least?

    LikeLike

13. “If Rushdoony’s views are the fountain from which such extremist errors have flowed, then apostolic Christianity is the fountain from which countless heresies have also flowed, and it should likewise be repudiated for the resulting fruit.”

    Actually, I would argue that the countless heresies of supposed Christianity had a good deal more to do with the insinuation of Plato into the faith in the place of Jesus. I haven’t researched it, so I won’t take a position, but I wonder if the Chalcedon Foundation is really following Jesus. From the comments here, which I admittedly have only had time to skim, it appears CF may be grounded more in the imperfect Law transmitted through Moses than the perfect Law of Love, Who is Jesus, Who is God. I am curious to know if the CF position incorporates notions of authority, as opposed to love, as a basis for ordering relationships between Christians. If so, then I would submit that the CF position is not exempt from the charge of indulging Platonist principles.

    If the CF position is to be defended on the basis that it promotes only patriarchy lite, as opposed to hyper-patriarchy, I don’t buy it. Shop lifting a candy bar is not O.K. on the basis that it is only a petty offense, not grand larceny.

    LikeLike

14. “You might consider, then, the words of Kathryn Joyce in “Quiverfull” when she says that there is a tendency to look for the influence of R. J. Rushdoony in all the wrong places. Doug Wilson is one such “wrong place” — among many.”

    Are you saying you have in no fashion been supportive of the Patriarchal miscreants?

    LikeLike

15. Are you saying you have in no fashion been supportive of the Patriarchal miscreants?

    I would really like to read Selbrede’s definition of Biblical Patriarchy and look forward to reading the symposium mentioned in the article above.

    LikeLike

16. @carmen,

    I have to tell you that when I read through those letters from Chalcedon, what I get is the sense of a power struggle – patriarchy or hyper-patriarchy; men are still in THE ultimate power position.

    Absolutely!! After reading Martin Selbrede’s response to T.W. Eston’s “Open Letter to Chalcedon Foundation…” at jen’s gems, I signed up for free account at the Chalcedon website, as mentioned in the response, and had a look at one of the articles that was mentioned, “Patriarchy and Feminism.” and its footnotes. Footnote #42 reads:

    The issue of political power for women often lies at the heart of the egalitarian question. Patriarchalists cite the third chapter of Isaiah to prove that “women in power over men” is a sign of God’s judgment on a nation. As a bald fact, this is true enough. However, from a practical point of view, patriarchalists regard the placing of women into political office as the cause of God’s judgment, rather than a consequence of His judgment. But taking Isaiah 3 contextually, God decimates the land of competent males (the “stay and the staff”) so that the best rulers remaining are women. This reflects on something that Rushdoony calls “The Failure of Men” (cf. note 12). Women in power are the medicine God dishes out to Israel to shame the men. To reject God’s prescribed judgment on the nation is to compound that judgment. Some patriarchalists treat it as axiomatic that no Christian should vote to put a woman into political office, even if the woman adopts rigorously Biblical positions across the board, because her gender represents an instant disqualification. Such patriarchalists are forced to abstain from voting altogether, or knowingly vote for a male candidate who will undermine justice and further enslave them. More commendable would be attempts to raise up better men for office who will honor their oaths of office and uphold justice, and to take one’s medicine in the meantime. Israel refused to realize they’d reached a point of no return (Deut. 1:41–46) and tried to reverse the judgment against them presumptuously. Although they were instructed to accept the ignominy of the later Babylonian exile (Jer. 29:4ff), and warned that fighting against the Babylonians would be fruitless (Jer. 32:5, and elsewhere), many still refused to take their medicine, to their own hurt. Theonomically, the standard for a ruler (“being just and ruling in the fear of God,” where justice is defined wholly with respect to God’s law) would be the one to apply (meaning that I’m obviously not referring to Sarah Palin or any other statist), and if a woman fills that criterion better than any male candidate, that is the form that God’s judgment is taking on that people. There is, therefore, some authority for regarding any subsequent vote for the male candidate as an attempt to defang the divine judgment laid out in Isaiah 3. This egalitarian question is exacerbated in the case of women attorneys who work tirelessly to save lives in futile care and right-to-life cases, often doing so in a vacuum where no men are laboring, and yet the woman is excoriated for usurping male prerogatives. She valiantly fights Christ’s enemies in front of her, and is shot from behind by Christ’s friends. “The LORD looked and was displeased that there was no justice. He saw that there was no one, he was appalled that there was no one to intervene” (Isa. 59:15b–16a NIV). But some think God would be more appalled if a woman stands in the very gap that men failed to stand in, an attitude at least somewhat akin to the Sanhedrin’s reaction to Christ’s cleansing of the Temple (they knew it should have been cleansed, but were offended when Christ cleansed it before they got around to it).

    Although I can appreciate how that note is admonishing those patriarchalists who view female gender as being instant disqualification for positions of power, etc., in saying that God’s having decimated the land of competent males so that the best rulers remaining are women and that it’s God’s way of shaming men for their failure to raise up better men still promotes the notion that God places men, as a group, in a state of pre-eminence over women, as a group. Men, not God, placed themselves in state of pre-eminence over women. For a woman who feels a calling to leadership or other position/profession, regardless of the availability/inavailability of good men, she will still labour under that “well, let’s wait and see first if there are any good male candidates” approach, rather than considering her within a pool of potential candidates, no matter the sex or gender……..unless, of course, the job in question is vaccuuming or toilet cleaning or the not-so-fun aspects of child rearing, as we’ll gladly cede those jobs to women and tell them that those are the most important and powerful jobs in the world, y’know, the hand that rocks the cradle and all.

    LikeLike

17. Martin Selbrede: I cannot accept Rushdoony’s central ideas because, via Van Til, he believed that theology was the queen science. For him, everything in this world emerges from theology: government, economy, arts, family, ideas of masculine/feminine, science, etc.

    But this is a profound misconstrual of the truth that God is Lord of All. God is indeed Lord of All but theology is not God. Nor is the Bible the same thing as God. The truth is that anywhere we go, we see God-at-work and it all belongs to Him/Her. The walk of faith is fascinating precisely because of its constantly-surprising, ever-revealing voice/face/mind of God.

    It is in this way that Rushdoony’s approach creates flawed fruit, not because mistaken ideas will always appear, as you correctly point out, but because his premises are awry.

    One of the flawed fruits is in their view of women. When you insist on viewing half the human race as practically less than the other half, you will have the second half misusing domination. That is how it is with humans, almost invariably.

    Another of its flawed fruits is seen in the cruelty. They dig it out of OT law and believe it applicable to the whole world. They take God’s own decisions regarding consequences for sin and claim them as their own, an act of hubris. Further, they belittle the work of Christ, who turned the Law on its head and set us free.

    So while I laud them for writing a clear and thorough post about treatment of victims, I will never allow them authority to apply their remedies. I never wished stoning for my (now deceased) abusing pastor-father. It would have deepened/broadened a situation that was already immensely destructive.

    It is understandable that Reconstructionists want to separate from Doug Phillips—his ego had become so malignant that he distorted the beliefs that began his faith-walk, and he soon stopped even following those beliefs. They are correct!

    But their underlying theology is itself malign: egocentric as well as excruciatingly narrow. It does not begin to describe the gigantic complex art work that God made and we call “creation”.

    But the worst of it this theology is that it skims over the central principle and primary focus of the gospel, the sturdy clear truthful faithful Love of our God, and our job to nurture/reflect this Love across this world.

    LikeLike

18. Perhaps you could tell me how many Patriarchy groups would have a cover story on internationally-distributed magazine that was written by an female attorney, as Chalcedon has done. In fact, Jerri Lynn Ward has written several major articles for us at my request.

    Again, you can see that I’m not running from our record, I’m pointing to it.

    LikeLike

19. Selbrede: I would love to see links to articles by your bunch criticizing the attitudes/beliefs of Phillips. For the sake of church safety/purity, I’m sure your intellectuals went through the work of dividing the false from the truth during his reign.

    My (sexually/physically) abusive pastor-father went to Westminster and adored Van Til and I had to hear about him ad nauseam when growing up. And in case you blow me off because of that, we children also had to incessantly hear about Mozart, but I still like him because he did wonderful work.

    LikeLike

20. Pam –
    Yes, it’s always interesting when you read about these men who insist that women’s ‘jobs’ are the most important – the ones you highlighted above – and that it doesn’t mean they’re unequal; it suggests that these are even coveted positions (insert mental pat on the head). Uh huh. Begs the question, “Then why aren’t men doing them?”
    And Martin, how many women are on the Board at Chalcedon?
    How many have paid positions? Just curious.

    LikeLike

21. “Selbrede: I would love to see links to articles by your bunch criticizing the attitudes/beliefs of Phillips.”

    Au contraire, Selbrede considers Phillips a “faithful leader.”

    LikeLike

22. Patrice – Your comment was e.x.c.e.l.l.e.n.t. I was looking for something to quote and wanted to quote the whole thing and decided to simply say: thank you!

    LikeLike

23. Carmen, I believe there are five paid positions at Chalcedon held by women, including the managing editor position. My position, on the other hand, is entirely unpaid. I volunteer my time to the organization. To adapt an old saying, if you’re the vice president of Chalcedon, that and $5 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.

    LikeLike

24. Selbrede: Regarding Jerri Lynn Ward. Is she allowed because there are no men in your bunch who can do a better job? Or because she works primarily with issues that some accord specifically to women? What a shame that would be! Why does God give so many gifts/talents to women? Are they only for times like these, when the character of the male has been so decimated by culture that only women are left standing in the breach? If so, there’s a tremendous lot of gifting lying around fallow, merely “in case”.

    Such a view deeply insults both men and women!

    By the way, promoting libertarianism when one is actually interested in bringing the world under the umbrella of a particular theology is dishonest. To label it “Christian libertarianism” is not corrective but sly and creates confusion rather than clarity.

    LikeLike

25. In case you wondered, of paid positions at Chalcedon, women outnumber men by at least 2-to-1. But are you asking because you believe in quotas, or are looking for something else in the numbers?

    LikeLike

26. Patrice, I would think Jerri Ward would take umbrage at your characterization. We shouldn’t speculative in such as a way as to discredit a strong woman like that. That’s not much different than when a noted Christian male attorney took credit for work that she had actually done. If you read several of her articles you’ll realize that she is published by us on the merits of her work and her character, not her gender — and she is certainly not relegated to the margins, she writes on issues relevant to society at large (e.g., Obamacare, statism, etc.).

    Re: libertarianism, perhaps my recent article on Reinventing Leadership would set the record straight there. If you “follow the money,” you might come to a different conclusion (or simply decide you prefer an American statism that costs each family an average of $72,000 a year). The picture looks VERY different when we pull back the curtains on the current paradigm.

    LikeLike

27. Martin – as I said, I’m curious. Perhaps if I tell you that I am a public school teacher, I’m an Elder (and have been for some time now) in a liberal Protestant denomination in Canada, I don’t believe the Bible to be the inerrant word of God (but still believe there are good things in there) and I’m a staunch feminist (and think everyone else should be, too!); it will enlighten you.

    LikeLike

28. Carmen, that’s perfectly fine. Given the worldview disparities that bulge out of these posts, I often wonder what motivates a question — and I’m delighted that this question came out of innocent curiosity rather than being agenda-driven.

    LikeLike

29. Selbrede,

    You still haven’t addressed this question Patrice asked: “Selbrede: I would love to see links to articles by your bunch criticizing the attitudes/beliefs of Phillips. For the sake of church safety/purity, I’m sure your intellectuals went through the work of dividing the false from the truth during his reign.”

    Would you care to explain why you consider Phillips to be a “faithful leader” and “inspiring.”

    LikeLike

30. Selbrede: I do not know enough about Jerri Ward to presume, and I did not. I am asking you questions about how your bunch views women and I used Jerri because you presented her as one of yours. How do you differ from Doug Phillips on male headship? And I would like links to articles that properly criticized Doug when Vision Forum was a growing concern.

    Re libertarianism. People from many different perspectives have “followed the money” and understand that very serious issues face our nation and the world at large. Most of them agree that the gov’t as it stands is no longer working for the people. Libertarians hold to the idea of getting rid of much/most gov’t altogether. Because your bunch wants to eventually see a nation governed from a theological perspective, you aren’t actually libertarian, not even a moderate sort. Yes, you ally with the idea of dismantling much of gov’t but that is only a part of your goals. That is why I find it dishonest.

    LikeLike

31. Martin, if I HAD an agenda, it would be to establish YOUR agenda. Since I had never heard of the Chalcedon Foundation until yesterday, it’s made for some marathon reading.
    Frankly, I’m getting the “NO!” feeling from much of it. What I lack in diplomacy, I make up for in sincerity. ..

    LikeLike

32. BTDT, since Pam already quoted from a Chalcedon article dealing with this matter, I’m not sure why it’s not accessible to Patrice. I recall someone even providing links that made it possible to access them without a free login. It’s in the March-April 2010 issue of Faith for All of Life at Chalcedon’s website.

    Also, to snip two words and then another single word out of a quote or pair of quotes from some undisclosed Chalcedon publication doesn’t provide sufficient context for me to answer your question (although it allows you to steer things in a leading way that might, or might not, be appropriate). I could speculate the source of those three words — and still miss the target. Frustrating. If I were to speculate anyway, I would think any such quote would have reference to the San Antonio Independent Christian Film Festival and what Mr. Phillips was working to achieve there (only the context will reveal if I’ve guessed correctly, but you’ve withheld that so far so I do not know).

    The last time I wrote anything positive about Doug Phillips was in regard to his September 2013 speech in Kerrville concerning his late father — and in that sense, it was the moving speech I responded to, not the character of the speaker. My emotional reaction was in response to the recounting of the character of Doug’s father — and it was absolutely inspiring. The fact that Doug Phillips was a hypocrite in delivering a speech concerning his father’s Christian character cannot retroactively change my reaction to it, but it surely recontextualizes it. In any case, that particular comment appeared in the 4-page in-house newsletter sent to Chalcedon supporters every 2 months, not in our main magazine, Faith for All of Life.

    Here is why I strongly supported the Film Festival: I believe Christians need to exercise leadership in the media and arts. Thirty years ago, I lectured on the Christian reconstruction of music at Chalcedon’s first Conference on the Media and the Arts. This long-standing emphasis is dear to my heart, as I am a symphonic composer who’s had two symphonies and four concertos performed by live orchestras in Los Angeles, where I later served as associate conductor for a 65-piece orchestra before moving to Texas in 2001.

    LikeLike

33. Carmen, I don’t doubt the sincerity of anyone here. If I didn’t believe that all the tough questions were nonetheless emitted in a spirit of sincerity, I wouldn’t see much reason to stay in so hot a kitchen. But if the pejorative “your bunch” being used of Chalcedon mutates into “your cabal” and finally “your splinter cell,” I might have to conclude that I’ve worn out what little welcome I had.

    LikeLike

34. I am a Christian woman of color who is in my 13th year of homeschooling. For a while my family and I were followers of patriarchy Phillips, Botkin, Baucham, Brown. My husband along with another man even started a family-integrated church. Quotes like the one below from R.J. Rushdooney among other things led us to look more closely at this movement. My question: how and why do Christian men and women support and uphold this man as a leader? This quote and many others show him to be a racist. Why is this major sin overlooked while the sins of so many others, homosexuality for instance, automatically disqualify a person from being perceived as a strong Christian and a great leader? I have read here with great interest since the Doug Phillips scandal broke and I do not see this issue even mentioned.

    I used to address these issues on my blog regularly back in 2008-2010 but have since walked way entirely from this movement and it’s cult-like practices. The scandal involving Doug Phillips has once again peaked my interest as it has so many others. For those following on Freejinger, I know you all are reading this, I am Taunya old-fashionedmusings. The blog is no longer visible and hasn’t been for years but those of you who have been around a while may remember poking fun at my family and I, as you seem to take so much pleasure doing to all the “fundies” as you call them. I just couldn’t resist waving to all of you. Most people never admit reading your stuff but many of us do especially at times like this.

    In all seriousness I would love to know why all of you who uphold Rushdooney as such an upstanding and godly Christian leader ignore all of his racist beliefs? Do you hold them as well? Why is that type of sin acceptable but being homosexual or having an affair is not? Please enlighten me, I have asked this question many times before with no answer. I see the Doug Phillips scandal has loosened the tongues a bit so I figured I may get an answer. This is not an attempt to be mean-spirited I seriously want to understand how my Christian brothers can uphold teachings like these. Awaiting a response.

    Taunya Henderson

    Quote from R.J. Rushdooney’s book The Institutes of Biblical Law:
    “The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture and the discipline and the selective breeding this faith requires… The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his [genetic] heredity has been governed by radically different considerations.
    Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong… The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.
    Hybridization seeks to improve on God’s work by attempting to gain the best qualities of two diverse things; there is no question that some hybrids do show certain advantageous qualities, but there is also no question that it comes at a price, bringing some serious disadvantages.
    Every social order institutes its own program of separation or segregation… Segregation, separation, or quarantine, whichever name is used, is inescapable in any society.”

    LikeLike

35. Patrice, could you tell me what Rushdoony regarded as the most fundamental form of government? If we can get this simple matter resolved (which he taught on continually for 42 years), the rest will fall into place with a little effort.

    I’ll be in Houston this weekend delivering several lectures at a Law and Liberty event, and so will be only intermittently able to post here. Please don’t think I’ve dropped off the map.

    LikeLike

36. I have temporarily opened up my blog so that my original blog post addressing the issue of racism, R.J. Rushdoony and the homeschool movement. The link is here. http://focusedongrace.blogspot.com/2009/02/marketing-of-titus-2-woman-part-7.html

    LikeLike

37. Taunya, I’ve responded to this issue on the other thread on Spiritual Sounding Board. It would be tedious to copy all that material over here. To hit just a few highlights — Rushdoony performed interracial marriages, and cited Numbers 12 as an example of such a marriage that God Himself defended against Miriam’s objections. Perhaps the most common slogan from Rushdoony’s own mouth was that the thing that mattered “was grace, not race.” In my prior posts I also speak to the wording “the burden of the law” and the actual real-world examples Rushdoony used in regard to this question (re: Japanese war brides of WWII and the issue of misinterpreted cultural cues). The University of California Press published a 2011 analysis by Klein that concluded that Rushdoony was “not a biological racialist,” and in fact held the position that “racism founded on modern biology simply represented another pagan revival.” What researchers (even hostile ones) working through the mass of his works invariably find is that Rushdoony was a very nuanced, systematic thinker whose fully-stated position can appear to differ from selected quotations — and it’s his fully-stated position that needs to be heard and understood.

    LikeLike

38. hendersonfamily4,

    I found the same material to be offensive, and I’m not a person of color. I can only imagine how it comes across to someone whose people have fought hard for equality. I brought up the issue in this thread: https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/11/06/doug-phillips-repentance-and-restoration-is-it-possible/#comment-53160
    This was Mr. Selbrede’s response to Rushdoony’s quotes on interracial marriage: https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/11/06/doug-phillips-repentance-and-restoration-is-it-possible/#comment-53268

    I hope you get a more satisfactory answer than I did.

    LikeLike

39. BTDT, please see post 4 minutes before yours. I expanded a little bit on the issue.

    LikeLike

40. I have temporarily opened up my blog so that my original blog post addressing the issue of racism, R.J. Rushdoony and the homeschool movement. The link is here. http://focusedongrace.blogspot.com/2009/02/marketing-of-titus-2-woman-part-7.html

    hendersonfamily4/Taunya: I read your post and the tears started flowing and anger came out of nowhere. I wanted to scream after reading it and I’m obviously very white. You must have reasons to have your blog closed, but would you consider giving me permission to cross-post your article and of course give you credit. Your article is so revealing. I’m just sitting here in shock. I’m a West Coast girl and remember when we moved to GA and VA in the 90s, I discovered that the Civil War was alive and well in those states. I had no clue this was happening in my own country. I am so angry that people are still looking at the color of skin! Who does THAT??? I think I need to go for a run and I don’t run – this anger is REALLY getting to me. Thank you so much for sharing your article.

    LikeLike

41. Martin, I am glad you didn’t stalk off.

    I would rather you answer the question (Rushdoony’s most fundamental form of gov’t). I’m not interested in Socratic learning this weekend. I have Thanksgiving dinner here on Sunday (Canadian/US family) and will be running around getting things ready, which might seem no big deal but I am also ill and have to parcel my energy.

    But just to start it, off the top of my head and drawing from info garnered decades back, Rushdoony saw the church at center and rising from it are the principles/laws of God applied to the community (national) structure and descending from it, laws/principles applied to family/self structures. It is hierarchical and that is the beginning of my disapproval. So tell me how I am incorrect.

    See, I don’t think the saying “there is no liberty apart from Christ and his law” can be literally applied to large groups of people. I just don’t. Sorry. I also don’t think that the law “that is written on every man’s heart” is the same as the OT Law given to Israel, even though there are overlaps. The law is fascinating and I laud you all for taking it seriously. My upbringing was steeped in it and through it I learned to think, and I am grateful for that. But I look at law completely differently than you because it is abstract and dead, and what I love best is life (for which those principles were made) and it is from life that I evaluate laws/principles.

    That of course, means I look at the Bible differently too. I believe it to be a handbook for living (and there are commenters here who disagree). I put my emphasis on the Holy Spirit and walk through my life guiding/talking/laughing together with Him/Her.

    You all are quite correct in this—how we view God and how we view the Bible makes a huge difference in how we live and how we view the rest of the world.

    LikeLike

42. Hendersonfamily4, there is no rationale for that screed in Rushdoony’s Institutes. There are not enough words in the world to make up for it, except full public confession, repentance, restitution. Which he didn’t do. It is simply wicked, and I am ashamed that such could ever be written, much less by Christian leadership in the latter part of the twentieth century.

    Martin, you cannot make good of it. Just accept that he was full of crap on this and find other better stuff of his to defend.

    I’ve long thought that the harsh and rigid personality of John Calvin has influenced the church for 500 years because his followers were intent on defending him down to the last bit, fearing that if they gave an inch, they’d lose it all. Which was their profound lack of trust in our God to take care of the truth and to bring it forward.

    LikeLike

43. Julie Anne, you have my permission. The blog is closed because I closed that chapter on my life after considerable damage was done to both my family and I. But I will keep it open for a time to educate others about this movement.

    It I hard for me to even begin to think about any of this and even harder to open this up and have people read it. My family and I have been GREATLY wounded. We are still Christians but have not been members of a church in two years and currently we do not attend anywhere regularly. This after being in leadership at many churches for years and even starting a family-integrated church. Our story is one full of pain at the hands of those who claim Christ, especially white conservative Christians, sorry.

    Thank you for at least posting my comment. T.W. Eston at Jen’s Gems would not even do that.

    LikeLike

44. Martin I want to respond to your comment but I will need to pray about it and do a bit more research before I do. It has been many years since this stuff was fresh in my mind. It is extremely painful to pull this out now but I feel I must. I will respond later this evening I may have a few more questions that I would appreciate having an answer to. Thank you for your prompt response to my first comment.

    LikeLike

45. Pam, I am on my phone so this will have to be brief. The Isaiah 3 passage is a horrible translation. Kaherine Bushnell devotes a alot of time to i it in her block. You can google it and read a lot of it for free. She really did her homework and it will really surprise you it doesn’t even say women and children. I mean what What do you do with judge Deborah and King Josiah

    LikeLike

46. hendersonfamily4,

    “Our story is one full of pain at the hands of those who claim Christ, especially white conservative Christians, sorry.”

    No need to apologize here. I can only speak generally, because I don’t believe this blog has ever discussed our experiences from the viewpoint of race. But, I’d gather most of us here have experienced abuse at the hands of “white conservative Christians,” too.

    LikeLike

47. Taunya, I did a full electronic search of all three volumes of Rushdoony’s Institutes of Biblical Law (1973, 1989, 1994) and none of them, so far as the computer can tell, contain this quote you attribute to him in Volume 1: “The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture and the discipline and the selective breeding this faith requires… The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his [genetic] heredity has been governed by radically different considerations.”

    In case the electronic version or search routine is faulty, could you be so kind as to provide the page reference for this quote. Also, it would be useful if you could provide the full quote and fill in the printed word that appears that you’ve replaced with the bracketed word [genetic]. This would help clarify matters immensely. I don’t believe the text has been altered since 1973 (or so the publisher, which isn’t Chalcedon, assures us), and I have an original 1973 version to verify things if needed. You’re help in sleuthing this down is appreciated.

    I noticed two things in your blogspot of interest. First, I too have objected, in print, to many of the ministries mounted on an over-reaching interpretation of Titus 2. Second, there were two traditions in the South over racial relations, the one side represented by R. L. Dabney, the other by the great Princeton Theologian, Kentucky-born Benjamin B. Warfield. Rushdoony actually stands in Warfield’s tradition, not Dabney’s. I too am deeply troubled by Dabney’s assertions in regard to racial matters — as was Warfield (howbeit not perfectly, but it’s disingenuous to be “wise after the facts”).

    LikeLike

48. Martin,
    According to this website: http://faithandheritage.com/2012/07/rushdoonys-kinism/
    the quote in question is attributed to Rushdoony’s “The Biblical Philosophy of History,” pp. 88-89. “The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture, and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires. Although the white man may reject this faith and subject himself instead to the requirements of humanism, he is still a product of this Christian past. The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity is governed by radically different consideration.”

    LikeLike

49. It I hard for me to even begin to think about any of this and even harder to open this up and have people read it. My family and I have been GREATLY wounded. We are still Christians but have not been members of a church in two years and currently we do not attend anywhere regularly. This after being in leadership at many churches for years and even starting a family-integrated church. Our story is one full of pain at the hands of those who claim Christ, especially white conservative Christians, sorry.

    Taunya: I am so grieved at what you have experienced. Many here have been wounded by the church by various methods. Some have broken families and marriages because of the abuse they incurred. It is one of the most tragic things I could ever imagine. Unfortunately, I get to add your story to that very long list of spiritual abuse stories I have read. This place is a safe place for those who have been abused and you will always have a place to share here if you desire. You will get support here.

    I’m disappointed that T.W. Eston will not allow you to share at Jen’s Gems. I’ll have to go and see what’s going on. I have little patience with people who try to control the speech of others. We are in the USA, not China. Good grief.

    LikeLike

50. BTDT – thanks for that quote:

    “The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture, and the discipline and selective breeding this faith requires. Although the white man may reject this faith and subject himself instead to the requirements of humanism, he is still a product of this Christian past. The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his heredity is governed by radically different consideration.”

    Ok, there are a whole bunch of very colorful words that want to fly out of my mouth and I am not one to normally cus, but this stuff is really really upsetting me. Who in the hell makes up this crap? Oh my word, I cannot believe these white men are referring to people of color so hatefully. Un-freakin-real! I am livid.

    LikeLike

51. Martin take a look at this article and of course the one Been There Done That posted earlier both of filled with quotes from Rushdoony. I would love to hear your thoughts on this and how someone who held viewpoints such as these could be regarded as a Spiritual leader.

    I do have to step out for a bit but I will be home later this evening and I will check back in. Thanks for your time.

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/unreasonablefaith/2009/05/r-j-rushdoony-reconstructionist-and-racist-bigot/

    LikeLike

52. Hendersonfamily4, I know how much courage it takes to pick up old pains. My respect! I hope you can let yourself be as angry as you need to be. There is no sin in it.

    I don’t go to church, either, because of my own experiences, and I also still love our God very much. I salute you from across the interwebs 🙂

    LikeLike

53. Julie Anne I can’t thank you enough for taking this so seriously.

    LikeLike

54. Hendersonfamily4

    Thanks for your story and courage.

    Ditto Patrice…
    “I don’t go to church, either, because of my own experiences, and I also still love our God very much. I salute you from across the interwebs.”

    LikeLike

55. I want to thank those of you who are dealing with real raw emotions as we tackle this difficult subject. This stuff is deep and painful. Bringing this out in the spotlight is so important. Thank you for being vulnerable with us. I admire your courage and strength.

    LikeLike

56. Martin Selbrede

    With all due respect…
    You have a great ability to put forth some very “Strange B. S.”

    And – I would never say…
    A person with your edjumacatinal background – Is totally deceived…
    Because, when you are deceived you do NOT know it… So why say it?
    God bless your heart…

    Or, ask you…
    Is it possible that God has sent the delusion you are in? 2 Th 2:11
    After all, God needs ministers to minister the delusion… Tag, you’re it…
    God bless your heart…

    Now, I don’t want you to think – You are giving me the creeps…
    Just because my “Creepo-Meter” went into the red danger zone…
    And then exploded – After reading your crafty, charming, comments…
    That sound so good – Both as “Chalcedon Foundation” and Martin Selbrede.
    Denying everything as – misinformation – misunderstanding…

    And I want to say this as nice and loving as possible…
    You, and Rushdoony ala loony, have spouted some very “Strange B. S.”
    Well, you did – Rushdoony ala loony – is dead…

    And you are giving me the creeps… and making my brain hurt…
    God bless your heart…

    Why follow dead men?

    When you can follow Jesus?

    LikeLike

57. Julie Anne I can’t thank you enough for taking this so seriously.

    You’re welcome, but thank YOU! We owe you so much. I wish I could take away all of that yuck!

    LikeLike

58. If even a small fraction of the quotes being attributed to Rushdooney are accurate, he was an out and out racist. An attempt is being made to explain away this racism by an appeal to supposedly overlooked nuance. There is not enough ink in the world to record sufficient nuance to explain away the writings that are being attributed to Rushdooney. Were I to record the words necessary to accurately express the outrage I am experiencing at this moment, I fear that even the ever-patient and inordinately generous Julie Anne would ban me from her blog for life.

    LikeLike

59. I can’t seem to ever stop being appalled by some humans’ lack of empathy, the simple willingness to walk in someone else’s shoes for a while, to see. It is the way we learn about others and thus see how to stand next to one another, shoulder to shoulder. It’s also how we learn about the nature of our God because S/He is revealed in what S/He made. It is an indispensible act of the imagination.

    Far too often I’ve found that people who can’t put themselves in women’s shoes also can’t put themselves in children’s shoes also can’t put themselves in the shoes of people of different ethnicities also can’t put themselves in the shoes of all God’s lovely creatures/nature. They suffer a profound failure of the imagination. And because of that failure, they cannot give proper honor even to God.

    What goes missing is love. It is a willingness to love that allows us to exercise our imagination, and it is love itself that emerges from the exercise. Love is central to our faith and its lack damages the Bride of Christ more frequently than anything that comes from the outside.

    I just keep getting appalled, again and again.

    What say you, Martin? Your leader trashed the identity of this person with his words. His followers followed up helpfully. When some of those followers were not faithful to your leader, you still did nothing to make clear that you believed each human being is made beautifully by God and retains full value and freedom to be themselves. And now in this thread, you work excuses for your leader rather than face this woman’s grief and anger.

    Do you have any idea of what kind of damage occurs when a person is told that God Himself made her second-rate? Especially when that very opinion still echoes throughout the secular culture towards which you readily make criticism?

    LikeLike

60. I have read all of the writings posted here and at jensgems on the Rushdooney/Chalcedon issues. I used to study a great deal of Rushdooney’s life and works. I am very familiar with the spokesmen for Christian Reconstruction. Is the main issue that they are misrepresenting true patriarchy and not confronting hyper-patriarchy? NO. The main issue is the aberrant theology that is at the core of Rushdooney’s belief system. It is Dominion Theology that must be confronted, for it is within that theology that such heretical teachings and practices of “patriarchy”take root. The fruit is only as healthy as the tree from which it grows. What does the Scripture teach about these issues of patriarchy? That is the question we should be asking.

    LikeLike

61. @carmen,

    …Begs the question, “Then why aren’t men doing them?”

    You certainly can’t expect them to do the low-to-no pay and low status jobs! Why, that would be unmanly!! but perfectly suitable for women, who need to be quiet and modest. I bookmarked this comment section at Ally Fogg’s blog, and think that you might get a bit of a kick out of it. For brevity’s sake, read from comment #30 to #41, focusing on the dialogue between Ally and Mike, specifically. Mike is bemoaning that, amongst other things, 2/3 of public sector jobs are filled by women, and that there is no drive to recruit men into the public service even though a large sector of the unemployed are men.

    @lydiasellerofpurple,

    Pam, I am on my phone so this will have to be brief. The Isaiah 3 passage is a horrible translation. Kaherine Bushnell devotes a alot of time to i it in her block. You can google it and read a lot of it for free. She really did her homework and it will really surprise you it doesn’t even say women and children. I mean what What do you do with judge Deborah and King Josiah

    THANK YOU!!!!

    I see that there are numerous comments since I last visited, and haven’t yet had a chance to go through all of them. I will try to make time later on to get caught up!

    LikeLike

62. Joyelle says the only question we should be asking is “What does the Scripture teach about these issues of patriarchy?” With apologies for having said this before, but Jesus says “[C]all no man your father on earth, for you have one Father, who is in heaven.” (Matthew 23:9, ESV). The context makes it clear that the word “father” in this text has the sense of patriarch. I would go so far as to say that the translators got it wrong. The correct translation is “Call no man your patriarch on Earth.”

    LikeLike

63. I was homeschooled. I was the perfect patriarchal father-honoring daughter. I was a model of virtuous womanhood, hanging out with all the ‘right’ people and doing the ‘right’ things. I wrote articles and led Bible studies on how daughters must stay home until marrage and serve their fathers. I also had a genuine admiration for Doug Phillips, Scott Brown, Arnold and Esther Pent and Matt and Jennie Chancey were personal friends of my family. So were the Brad Phillips family. Then I went through a failed courtship and started searching the Scripture for myself, to see if these things be so. With a heart opened to the Lord showing me what His Word really says to the doctrines espoused by the patriarchy movement, I began to realize that so much of what i believed was based on erroneous, even heretical, doctrines. And with the counsel of my pastor and other Godly men and women, and after trying my hardest to work things through with my parents and come yo a Biblical understanding together. They would have nothing of my new convictions, so I determined to follow the Lord above all else and left home at the age of 24. The repurcussions of my stance and decisions were

    LikeLike

64. ….the most difficult thing i have ever had to bear. The spiritual abuse was incredible and i certainly learned who was really a trustworthy friend! More importantly, and my entire reason for posting all of this here, is that i learned what it means to study God’s Word and follow after HIM , not merely to live like the self righteous Galatians. I found freedom in Christ. Freedom to truly obey His Word and learn what it means to walk by His Spirit. I am not Armenian or antisocial. I am Reformed theological and live by the commandments of The New Testament. I began to see how the entire patriarchy movement is based on the Old Testament, focusing on Dominion and Covenant theology. And i must ask: Where is Christ?

    LikeLike

65. Before she completed her thought, I had begun to complete the last sentence of Joyelle’s 1:58 post by guessing that the repercussions she suffered included shunning, alienation, being disowned and such like. It grieves me that I was generally correct in my guess. Whatever its particular form, spiritual abuse appears to be the all-too-common response of patriocentrists to those who would reject the patriocentric ideological agenda. I contend that the prevalence of such hateful and hurtful conduct by patriocentrists and other fundamentalist “Christians” is just one more instance of bad fruit revealing the poison nature of the doctrinal tree that bears it.

    Joyelle, you ask “Where is Christ?” Praise God, He is in you, and He is living through you. I am sorry the price you are paying is so steep.

    LikeLike

66. My phone was guessing words for me and i didn’t realize it. I meant to write that i am not Arminian or antinomian. One last comment: I have noticed the utter lack of a true focus on the Gospel of Christ and deliberate teaching on how a Christian can know God’s will as they walk by His Spirit. The tenets of patriarchy are successful because the followers aren’t encouraged to seek the truth in Scripture. The leaders fall into sin because their lives are not controlled by the Holy Spirit. Their families fall apart because Christ is not the central focus.

    LikeLike

67. Joyelle – – I am so glad to hear where you are now, though I’m sure it took an incredible amount of heartache and digging deep to get where you are. Do you have your story written anywhere? I would love to share it here or link to it. Your testimony could give so many hope. Wow, I am so impressed with your diligent study and courage to go against the lifestyle you were raised in to find the truth. Incredible.

    LikeLike

68. All of this certainly makes one wonder, What went through the minds of any interracial couples that asked Dr. Rushdoony to perform their wedding ceremony? And why would someone characterized in this way perform the ceremony? Perhaps because they knew something that isn’t obvious with all of these partial quotes: they knew Dr. Rushdoony’s position, that he regarded their marriage as an equal yoking. And concerning his published works, they were careful to read the entire chapter and gather what the context was, who Rushdoony was specifically criticizing, and why. In “Revolt Against Maturity,” pg. 90, Rushdoony writes “Very plainly then, talk about heredity and environment obscures the basic issue. It deals with dangerous half-truths and ignores the basic fact that man is not a product but a producer, not an effect essentially but a cause, and more than that, a person.” In that chapter he objects to all ways in which human beings are depersonalized.

    And this is the context of the “offensive” quote from The Biblical Philosophy of History — it occurs in Rushdoony’s critique of the historiographical method used in 1956 by historian Kenneth M. Stampp. Rushdoony is pointing out that Stampp’s analysis was turning real human beings, persons, into cookie-cutter cutouts and abstractions, literally obliterating their history to create what Rushdoony regarded as a myth or fantasy. Rushdoony’s point is that this form of historiography depersonalizes its objects and lends itself to a false perspective that invalidates personhood in its depth and complexity. It is historiography that he is addressing here (this is, after all, a book about the philosophy of history), and the intent is clear in context. Slicing the quote out of context definitely creates a very different effect (one naturally finds it reprehensible outside its context, as our own presuppositions naturally enough provide a new context for it).

    At the other website Taunya asked me to look at, we see again the notorious citation from page 159 of Rushdoony’s Foundations of Social Order, where the N-word looks to be put into Rushdoony’s mouth along with a nasty string of racial epithets. No context, of course — but you need only see the FULL paragraph to realize that Rushdoony is quoting — with an eye to criticize — some writings developed in the circle of Erich Fromm’s associates. The Wikipedia article on Rushdoony (still woefully inaccurate) until recently had this quote posted without the quotation marks, specifically to demonize Rushdoony for something he didn’t ever say, which was said by someone else, and which he was openly criticizing. Rushdoony’s enemies routinely eradicated every attempt to post the entire paragraph because that would exonerate Rushdoony and condemn somebody else for that racist language. No different than planting illegal drugs on an innocent man, in effect.

    Warfield said we are infinitely patient about distinctions we want to make, but have no patience at all with distinctions others might wish to make. This is human nature. These books are all available on-line for free to view. Get a running start, see who Dr. Rushdoony is criticizing and why, what the consequences are of the positions he’s examining, and the picture may look different to you. It may not (who can say, he’s not a politically correct writer), but at least you would know what he was saying and why, not projecting motives onto him that make no sense in context (either of his writings or his actions).

    Scholars hostile to Rushdoony but honest in their research have concluded he’s not a racist. They wouldn’t give him a pass on this point unless they realized their academic integrity required doing so.

    Let’s personalize it in a different way. Rushdoony spent 8-1/2 years as a missionary among the Paiute and Shoshone tribes at the Owyhee Reservation in the northwest tip of Nevada. His usual Saturday night routine was to pull Indian youths that had been knifed off the streets and take them into his home to bind up their wounds and carefully tend and minister to them. This he did until about 4 AM, after which he lay down in his clothes to sleep for just two hours before he had to get up and prepare for church in the morning. Every weekend for 8-1/2 years, without let-up.

    What racist would spend his time in so sacrificial a way? The love of Christ in the man was the only reason he labored among the needy. I seriously doubt a single one of his critics would have done for the American Indians what he did, for as long as he did, with so little recognition as he did.

    I leave now for Houston, and will be lecturing all day tomorrow. I will try to check back in here, but can make no promises until I’m back home in Austin. But so long as the moderator will have me to answer questions, I will be back.

    LikeLike

69. Martin – Thanks for your willingness to dialogue. I’m sure my readers are not done with you yet 🙂 I hope you have a good trip and day tomorrow lecturing.

    ja

    LikeLike

70. Thanks, Julie Anne. It’s a very hot kitchen here, but you’ve been a gracious host and, in my estimation, very fair to everyone here.

    LikeLike

71. So we are to believe each and every one of the racist remarks attributed to Rushdooney are being taken out of context. I am EXTREMELY suspicious. In my experience the old “you’re taking it out of context” ploy is a favorite of people, especially “pastors” and other doctrinaire sorts, who only want to shut down a discussion they can’t win on the merits.

    Besides, why all this push to defend a mere man. What does Jesus have to say on the topic at hand? If Jesus didn’t teach patriarchy, and he actually warned against it, then to the ever-burning abyss with it!

    LikeLike

72. Thanks, Martin. As one who was sued by a tyrannical pastor in order to prevent me from speaking publicly, I greatly value free speech. As long as my readers are being treated respectfully, I do not mind a good debate.

    LikeLike

73. Thank you Gary W. The past 6 years have been a tremendous challenge and a great blessing as the Lord has guided my life in serving Him and giving me a husband who loves the Lord. I have realized how much of my prior focus was an idolatry of family. The Bible does not teach that our primary focus is on building a Christian family. Rather, we are exhorted to follow Christ’s example, function together in a local body of believers and let our light so shine before men that others see Christ and trust in Him for their salvation. The Christian life is not about changing the government, portraying the perfect family or living in the past and pretending to create a Christian culture. No. Our purpose is to glorify Christ by being obedient to the clear teachings of His Word and being sanctified by His Spirit as we walk in grace and truth.

    LikeLike

74. Martin Selbrede wrote: “What racist would spend his time in so sacrificial a way? The love of Christ in the man was the only reason he labored among the needy. I seriously doubt a single one of his critics would have done for the American Indians what he did, for as long as he did, with so little recognition as he did.”

    Yeah well, that’s also how my father was in his church, helping people left/right for decades. People came to his funeral from four different churches, as far as 2K miles away, and I stood in line by my mother while they recounted the good things he did for them or their parents or their children or the community. The president of my college came with condolences, saying what a good pastor was, influencing the world around him with the solid teachings of Westminster. But he sexually abused his children, and beat them and his wife, told me that God made me for suffering, locked one of his sons in a closet for days, etc.

    Thus it is that Rushdoony also did some good, fine and dandy. In the end, it was mere works-salvation because he wrote cruel things about people who were not like him and then he spun words around them, and then his followers did the same thing after him, and it caused deep spiritual damage and damage and more damage all the way into this comment thread. And that reveals the heart of the man, just as my father’s actions did for him.

    An additional shame is that you, here, prefer to find ways to support your dead leader rather than openly express sorrow for the results of his words, and offer some encouragement to a woman deeply hurt by them. Your priorities are indeed apparent for all to see.

    And by the way, you have not answered questions here today. You received them and answered almost none.

    Humbug, Martin. All your words are humbug.

    LikeLike

75. Julie Anne, I have only just begun to allow my story to be made public. I would be glad to share my testimony here. I am in the process of writings several articles on various issues related to my own experiences with patriarchy. Currently, I am in the midst of starting a ministry to young women who are trapped in spiritually abusive home situations.

    LikeLike

76. Patrice: I am watching this discourse. If Martin wants to have a temporary platform on my blog to defend Rushdoony, then he will need to answer your questions. I look forward to reading his responses to your questions tomorrow.

    LikeLike

77. And that’s such a waste of a good mind! I hate that!

    LikeLike

78. Currently, I am in the midst of starting a ministry to young women who are trapped in spiritually abusive home situations.

    Joyelle:

    Oh wow – I am especially interested in your ministry efforts and would love to do whatever I can to help support that endeavor. Please feel free to contact me. spiritualsb@ gmail.com

    LikeLike

79. You are a lovely woman, Julie Anne. Thanks for allowing me in your living room.

    LikeLike

80. So glad to have you here, Patrice 🙂

    LikeLike

81. Was this then taken out of context also? (from the link that BTDT provided)

    “Moreover, if she is to be “a help as before him,” a mirror, there must be a common cultural background. This militates against marriages across cultures and across races where there is no common culture or association possible. The new unit is a continuation of the old unit but an independent one; and there has to be a unity or else it is not a marriage. Thus, the attempt of many today to say there is nothing in the Bible against mixed marriages whether religiously or culturally is altogether unfounded. We do not have to go to the Mosaic law (Exodus and Deuteronomy) to demonstrate that, because here in the very beginning (Genesis) we are told that she must be a help meet “bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh” sharing his faith, sharing a common background, a common culture, a common desire to fulfill his calling under God. This, then, is the meaning of marriage in the Biblical sense.”
    R. J. Rushdoony, The Doctrine of Marriage

    LikeLike

82. Thank you, Pam. I was just getting ready to re-post another one.

    ‘And when asked directly about the sinfulness of interracial marriage, Rushdoony responded:

    The answer is, there is not a law against it, but there is basically a principle that militates against such marriages, so that you might say they are just barely legal, but in principle Scripture is opposed to them. Because the whole point of marriage is that the wife be a helpmeet to her husband, and the term “helpmeet” means in effect a mirror, an image, one who reflects him spiritually; that is, in terms of faith, in terms of a common background, in terms of a common purpose. Now, marriage between persons of very different races generally doesn’t fulfill that requirement, you see. So that it can be technically a marriage, but it isn’t one in which the wife can be a helpmeet. So that while it can legally qualify, theologically you could say there are factors which normally, in almost 99 cases out of 100, would militate against it.

    R. J. Rushdoony – audio, “The Law of Divorce”’
    http://faithandheritage.com/2012/07/rushdoonys-kinism/

    Selbrede keeps bringing up the point that Rushdoony performed some interracial marriages. Perhaps these few were the 1% that he believed would “legally qualify.”

    LikeLike

83. @Gary W,

    What does Jesus have to say on the topic at hand? If Jesus didn’t teach patriarchy, and he actually warned against it, then to the ever-burning abyss with it!

    hear, hear!!

    LikeLike

84. I also discovered this quote from a Rushdoony audio:
    “The treatment of the slaves, on the whole, was good and indulgent. They were valued private property. Most of the slaves were unwilling to see slavery end. They followed their masters around and expected continued care…. Moreover, the slaves were not enslaved by Americans. The Negroes who were brought to the united States were slaves in Africa. They were owned by their tribe or by other tribes — by their chief or people of another area or areas. They moved from one slavery to another — from a very ugly form of slavery to their fellow Africans, usually, to a very indulgent one with the white man.”
    http://christiankinism.com/2011/02/a-return-to-slavery-excerpt-rushdoony/

    I find this quote remarkable, because Doug Wilson has written very similar views.

    LikeLike

85. Thanks BTDT perhaps Martin can start by telling us how this quote was taken out of context when he returns.

    Martin, you talk about Rushdoony not being a racist because he lived among and helped the Native Americans. There are many different types of racism. I am not very familiar with Rushdoony’s work at all but a cursory reading of some of his comments on race tells me he did not hate people with dark skin he simply believed they were inferior to white people.

    I love cats and spend a good amount of time taking care of them and living among them I don’t however believe cats are in any way equal to me or any other human but it does not stop me from caring for and loving them as cherished pets. Reading Rushdoony’s words it is clear he thought of people from racial groups with dark skin as animal-like. More like a pet or at the very least a child that a good Christian should love, take care of and not mistreat. He did not however dark skin people as equals and is therefore a racist and not the esteemed man of God many want to make of him.

    Let us not bury our heads in the sand here. This is a man who spoke out strongly against those leading a sinful life and yet his life was full of the sin of racism. We can pull out every big theological word in the book debate back and forth over lofty points on the internet all day long but in the end we face Jesus with nothing. The stuff R.J. Rushdoony wrote regarding black people and others of color is not of God, period. It is not a biblical worldview and it goes against the biblical truth that all races are equal in the eyes of God. There is no way all of this stuff is taken out of context. What context makes all of this ok?

    LikeLike

86. “… a ‘Litany’ popular in these circles identifies ‘God’ with the city, with the ’spick, black nigger, bastard, Buddhahead, and kike,’ with ‘all men,’ and calls for communion with all men as they are… This concept runs deeply through the so-called Civil Rights Revolution… But this total communion without law, communion beyond good and evil, militates against everything in man. No society has ever existed without class and caste lines. The more social distinctions are denied, the more force is required in society to bring men together, and the more force prevails in society, the less the communion.” The Foundations of Social Order, p. 17 and 159

    LikeLike

87. A little more reading on the subject of Rushdoony and racism. Where there is smoke there is fire and there is a lot of smoke here, a whole lot. One or two things can certainly be taken out of context but all of this. http://racistchurches.wordpress.com/2007/06/12/rj-rushdoony/

    LikeLike

88. Gary W:
    “So we are to believe each and every one of the racist remarks attributed to Rushdooney are being taken out of context.”

    Like you, Gary, I’m skeptical of this “out of context” protest. But, let’s pretend for a moment that our friend from Chalcedon has successfully swatted down each quote and each unpalatable Rushdoony sycophant (e.g. Phillips) like the tailor in the fable killing off flies.

    The rotten meat of bad theology is still there underneath, smelling of death, flies or no.

    Patriarchy lite is still ungodly, unbiblical, and unjust.

    Furthermore, kinism is nothing but pure racism wrapped up in the flowing robes of patriarchy. Well, it’s often topped off with a reconstructionist tricorn hat, or, just as often, a little gray civil war secessionist cap.

    I live in the South, too, I know.

    So distance the man from uber-patriarchs like Phillips and uber-racists, too, if it helps you believe in a man you care about. We all have relatives we’d like to remember with fondness and ideals we hate to let go of. But, seriously, those who aren’t viewing Rushdoony with rose-colored glasses can see quite clearly. Those uber-types are only taking his ideals to their logical conclusion.

    League of the South, anyone? Or will you try to distance Mr. Rushdoony from their views, too? Perhaps the Rev. Steven Wilkins might could help out with that.

    LikeLike

89. “Currently, I am in the midst of starting a ministry to young women who are trapped in spiritually abusive home situations.

    Joyelle:

    Oh wow – I am especially interested in your ministry efforts and would love to do whatever I can to help support that endeavor. Please feel free to contact me. spiritualsb@ gmail.com.”

    Julie Anne, if there is anything your readers can do, please let us know.
    I for one would like to support any ministry that can help the brave refugees fleeing pat/comp to find their footing. I was there once; I wasted my twenties and many God-given opportunities trying to recover on my own in a time when folks like you and Joyelle weren’t findable. Thank you both for all you do.

    LikeLike

90. So, hendersonfamily4 at 5:23 gives us a link to Rushdooney quotes that further nail him as a racist, including the racism of antisemitism. Perhaps Mr. Chalcedon Forum will be able to point us to certain magnanimous statements about and actions toward Jews that will relieve Rushdooney and his disciples from the ignominy of his stated views? Or maybe it’s all just being taken out of context?

    It’s all so reminiscent of the 1960’s when the racists around me would endeavor to make themselves appear morally superior by saying magnanimous things about people they nevertheless insisted on referring to as n****rs.

    hendersonfamily4, I am very sorry. I know that I cannot have any idea whatever what it is like. Thank you for your perspective. I dare say that if Martin Selbrede had an ounce of Christian Love within him, he would simply apologize and go away. Who knows? Maybe he will, if only to prove me wrong.

    LikeLike

91. After an evening of reading, what strikes me most is how careful Rushdoony was. Ideas hinted at as if keeping an eye on plausible deniability, words redefined, things said and then unsaid, sentences spun around empty centers. Lots and lots of smoke. “Kinism”? What a load of racist crap!

    He made a similar dance of the meaning/place of women, like the article from Chalcedon at beginning of this thread. Chalcedon is faithful that way.

    So why the sly? Why the evasions and fog?

    And what’s with these guys condemning various forms of music? Rousas picked out jazz. It seems so ignorant. I don’t get it at all.

    Rushdoony was obviously an intelligent man but ethically he was just a mess. I wish he’d picked another religion to do his shtick. Or better yet, made one up out of whole cloth so no one would have to deal with his legacy.

    LikeLike

92. “It’s all so reminiscent of the 1960′s when the racists around me would endeavor to make themselves appear morally superior by saying magnanimous things about people they nevertheless insisted on referring to as n****rs.”

    Gary,
    I hear you, brother. I wasn’t around in the 60’s but I am a southern native living in the south. To me, what I’m hearing is reminiscent of today’s more p.c. racists who don’t say the “n” word. They do talk about how some of their best friends are black/white/whatever race – they even went to an african american wedding/ funeral/bar mitzvah/quinceanera/other ceremony! – as if the willingness to interact and make exceptions to their generally racist concept of the other “races” absolves them of their tightly ingrained
    core belief the they are in fact of generally superior stock.

    So “Rushdoony had interracially married friends that he approved of” and “Rushdoony had some nonracist things to say” and “some of his best friends were black” is about what I normally hear offered as “proof” that a racist is not a racist.

    This is what the Bible teaches: there is only one “race:” the human race. Adam’s descendants all. And the savior of mankind has come for every nation, tribe, and tongue.

    LikeLike

93. I found the Theonomy learning curve to be wickedly steep, making the mistaken assumption that it was all more about Calvinism than it was about Christian Reconstruction as an American Christian’s duty. It was an interesting tour, to say the least.

    Part of what I think is a problem with RJ Rushdoony’s style is his complexity. He wrote so thoroughly, that to understand his mind on a topic, you would have to discern 20 pages of complex writing to really get his elaborate points on a matter. I believe that many people who pick up is work don’t discern much beyond page three, then believe that they understand his position. He’s the worst guy for sound bites in this respect, and we now live in a soundbyte society which is now not very helpful to most people who read him.

    I believe that he also encouraged people to draw from the writings of people like the Confederate Presbyterians and from concepts used in feudalism, but not as a guide for others to pick up to use to create an anachronistic life or religion to make life easier or foolproof. Many who followed him did just this, IMO, and I know that this is not what he wanted. (That said, I don’t know that I wanted what he wanted, either.) I understand that he was a conservative libertarian who loved the American system, and he encouraged Christians to assert their rights and power from the grass roots upward from which a theocracy could eventually come through the will of the people. His system was more about evangelism through right living that would eventually change society. (We no longer see this, IMO. We see top-down government control interested theocrats who are interested in elitist control. And they are all very angry. Rushdoony wasn’t.)

    RJ Rushdoony was also my grandfather’s age, and what constituted racism (via anti-miscegenation, etc.) in their generation was vastly different than in my own (the oldest of the genXers/tail of the Boomers). That’s not an excuse or any defense, by any means, and I’ve argued these same types of things with older family members of my own who followed a different zeitgeist in their different generations. There was also the issue of the Armenian war which I think contributed to his skeptical position on the holocaust. Understanding some of that in context, I believe, helps put him into perspective, but it doesn’t excuse what I find to be holes in his system of belief which others seem to me to have expanded upon. (I’m sad that I never had the chance to spar with him on some of these matters.)

    I think another big problem with him was his approach to dealing with problem with other Christians, especially under the larger umbrella of Theonomy. There were people who identify as Theonomists who were horrible to him personally while he was alive and promoted ideas that he rejected. (You don’t see them published in the old journals.) But as I understand things, RJ Rushdoony felt it was prudent to keep disagreements of nearly all varieties “among one’s own” private and quiet. I think that in his absence, I wish that he’d been a bit more clear and confrontative about the points of doctrine and praxis with which he disagreed. After he died, though I think that some of these distinctions were rather murky anyway, the “Stone ‘Em” Gary North types and the Vision Forum types and the kinist types got lumped in together under the same group with Rushdoony himself in a way that was increasingly both obvious uncomfortable for me. And in the beginning, I didn’t understand that these types all existed under this umbrella, nor did I understand the larger theology for quite a long time. I wish that I had.

    Looking at it with broader perspective and the changes that I’ve seen, and after tackling more of that learning curve, I’m not so certain that it was worth it if the ultimate fruit of the effort was the veneration of what seems to me like a “culturally irrelevant” group that is obsessed with sex and the spiritualization of it, in one way or another. I wish I’d have understood more about all of these complex elements before my tour, and I might have passed on it.

    LikeLike

94. Free at Last, if you would, please contact Julie Anne directly at her email listed above and leave your name and contact information. I would like to get in touch with you that way , if that is okay. It is so important to network with people who have walked the difficult path of leaving the grasp of unbiblical homelife situations and who now truly desire to follow Christ. I would be so grateful to learn from you and share what is on my heart in providing a means of freedom for women who don’t know which step to take next. There is a joy in the journey of following Christ and my purpose is to offer hope and love as my sisters in Christ learn to seek Him in wisdom and truth.

    LikeLike

95. Wasn’t Rushdoony himself an arab man? Then he should have ever only married an arab woman, going by his own philosophy.

    Speaking of race, from my research and perusing of dominionist blogs, it appears that not more than a small handful of African American families areinvolved, if that. I’ve gone through seminar, event and wedding photos and most of the time don’t see any black people at all.

    I find it telling that Jasmine Baucham (Voddie Baucham’s daughter) was the first girl to come up with the whole SAHD (stay at home daugher) thing. I don’t think its too far fetched that she may have foresighted that in her particular sub-culture, where black people are few and far between, and the conservative white parents may be hesitant about one of their kids “courting” a black girl, she didn’t stand much of a chance in the way of walking down an aisle, and hence came up with this “lifestyle” and then saw that she could promote it as her niche.

    LikeLike

96. Tell us, please, Mr. Selbrede, does
    Chalcedon repudiate the League of the South and all its members? Are the apparent ties between the two groups just a manufactured figment of a vast internet conspiracy? Or will you wait until the League shows its true colors before you remember to clarify that their ideas have suddenly all along been antithetical to Mr. Rushdoony’s legacy of racial harmony and equality? Is the Rev. Steven Wilkins one of yours, one of theirs, both, or neither? Perhaps there are two people of the same name and just a very uncanny coincidence?

    If I am mistaken in my understanding that Chalcedon and the League share devotees and have overlapping ideals,
    I would like to know. These questions are sincere. If you repudiate the League and all its ideals, then I will sincerely apologize for even mentioning Rushdoony or Chalcedon in the same breath as the League, even in a question.

    P.s.: Oh, that’s right, (sarcasm alert) the League isn’t racist. They believe that “The term “racism” has its origins in Communism and that movement’s sordid attempt to undermine Western Christendom. Because it has been effective in silencing many of their opponents, the modern day left continues to employ it. Hence, we in The League of the South will not respond to what we consider as an anti-white and anti-Southern appellation designed to demonize us and inculcate “white guilt” in our people. If you call us “racists,” our response will be “so what?””
    Quote from dixienet dot org

    LikeLike

97. I’d mentioned in an earlier comment about disagreements with my own family about issues of race. I have never, ever understood how Christians could look at people who were of other races and think less of them, BTW. My parents were basically agnostic when I was born, as were their families of origin. Some of them had some dumb ideas as non-Christians. But there is no Jew nor Greek and we are all one in Christ.

    But consider that some of these implications are theological. Covenant Theology and Theonomy in particular are more beholden to the Old Testament law than New Covenant Theology or Dispensationalism. One must divide the law into three categories (moral, civil, and ceremonial) to then discern which laws must be followed. And even Gary North admits readily that no one who follows these systems can agree about what laws fall into what category in many cases. I realized on my journey that my conceptualization and conviction about the Old Law is strictly Lutheran, as it has always been. The Old Law is applicable so long as it doesn’t argue against one’s justification and fosters holiness and conviction. (There is now no condemnation….) If it brings condemnation, it’s the Law misapplied.

    But I’ve since learned that this classifies me as an antinomian in terms of Covenant Theology, and in some cases, a libertine, depending on who’s talking.

    I do know that I am a sinner, so grateful to be saved by grace. And sadly, that is the most important element that seems to get lost in all of these concerns.

    LikeLike

98. Rushdoony was from several generations of Christians (and I believe ministers) who persevered there under great persecution.

    LikeLike

99. Let me try this again Ri Ri:

    Rushdoony was of Arminian descent from a family of Christians, generations of whom persevered there under much persecution. And I believe that he came from a long line of ministers.

    LikeLike

100. Ri Ri,

     On the matter of the SAHD, you wrote:
     find it telling that Jasmine Baucham (Voddie Baucham’s daughter) was the first girl to come up with the whole SAHD (stay at home daugher) thing.

     If you trace this back, you can take it back to the Apocrypha, but lets jump forward to Bill Gothard. From his school of thought specifically in homeschooling came a couple of branches, Lindvall and Phillips.

     The Botkin Sisters, interviewed and highly esteemed by Chalcedon in at least one radio interview I’ve heard, were really among those who first advanced the SAHD concept. Where they came from is interesting. Geoff Botkin, the father, came out of a cultic group called the Great Commission, and transition over into Vision Forum’s concept of the SAHD was quite simple. Little changed. Botkin advanced his interests through Vision Forum who provided him with a platform for the SAHD concept.

     LikeLike

101. “Rushdoony was of Arminian descent from a family of Christians, generations of whom persevered there under much persecution. And I believe that he came from a long line of ministers.”

     – And according to his very own words, his inter-cultural marriage to a woman NOT from there was wrong;

     “Unequal yoking plainly means mixed marriages between believers and unbelievers is clearly forbidden. But Deuteronomy 22:10 not only forbids unequal yoking by inference, and as a case law, but also unequal yoking generally. This means that an unequal marriage between believers or between unbelievers is wrong… The burden of the law is thus against inter-religious, inter-racial, and inter-cultural marriages, in that they normally go against the very community which marriage is designed to establish.”

     – The Institutes of Biblical Law, by RJ Rushdoony

     Another quote;

     “The Negroes who were brought to the united States were slaves in Africa. They were owned by their tribe or by other tribes — by their chief or people of another area or areas. They moved from one slavery to another — from a very ugly form of slavery to their fellow Africans, usually, to a very indulgent one with the white man.”

     – From where did this idea that these Africans were “slaves” in their own homeland originate? While it is possible that some of them may have been enslaved by Arab Muslims in Africa, there is no evidence that non-Abrahamic African cultures had the institution of slavery as part of the fabric of their societies as we know it.

     LikeLike