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. Ri Ri,

   Good point. — and what about Paul telling slaves to seek freedom. As Christians, shouldn’t we help them aspire to such? If they were slaves to someone else, is it right for us to take those people and make them slaves, too? I could never make sense of this stuff, either.

   LikeLike

2. “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.”

   I thought they were the first too. But further online investigation shows that it was Jasmine Baucham who was the first to promote it as a way of life for Christian females. The Botkin Sisters promote her ideas and writings on their blog.

   What is interesting about all of these people; Jasmine and the Botkins with their SAHD kitsch, Driscoll with his promotion of marital anal sex and blow jobs from the pulpit, and the Christian BDSM sub-culture that is springing up within Christian Patriarchy and going by the euphemism Christian Domestic Discipline, is that these people are not content just doing what they’re doing. They want the rest of us to know about it and do it too.

   I mean, if a girl figures her prospects for marriage are low or if she’s an introvert and she’s afraid of going out into the world to make it on her own and wants to live with her parents her whole life instead, FINE. But why try to push it on others as if its a Biblical mandate?

   Similarly, if Driscoll likes to penetrate his wife’s pooper – have at it. Why does he feel the need for us to know about it, accept it, and do it ourselves?

   And yet similarly again, if some couples are into BDSM, getting spanked or spanking, largely due to unresolved childhood issues, well, why do I have to know about it and why do they have to promote it as a “christian” thing?

   I’ll tell you why – all of these people are feel extremely insecure in what they are doing and have internalized deep shame over it. They are seeking validation in putting it out there, and by encouraging us, even “mandating” these things for us, they are trying to make it so what they are doing is mainstreamed and normalized so that they can feel better about themselves.

   LikeLike

3. Gary W and Free At Last, so these slip/slide methods are often used in the south?! I’ve never lived in the south, which is probably why it’s new to me. There is racism here too but it is generally either more direct or unspoken.

   Thanks, I learned something.

   LikeLike

4. “Patrice on November 23, 2013 at 2:53 AM
   Gary W and Free At Last, so these slip/slide methods are often used in the south?! I’ve never lived in the south, which is probably why it’s new to me.”

   Oh, yeah, darlin’, some southerners are good at serving up hate with a smile and a plausible denial. You see, being nice and being hospitable are important here, so you can’t come right out and be hateful directly if your mamma raised you right. This gives polite racists a way of distancing themselves from those uncouth ruffians amongst us who are more direct about it. It allows them to think they aren’t racist because they aren’t out hooping and hollering and burning crosses and lynching people like the kkk of yore. The kinist, patriarchist, heirarchist league of the south is a (Rushdoony-loving) prime, if extreme, example of how this works. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/warrenthrockmorton/2013/08/21/league-of-the-south-hopes-to-create-friendly-first-impression-at-immigration-rally/

   For the record, a lot of southerners are not like that. I’m happy to be a southerner from generations of southerners. It’s part of who I am. But it doesn’t define me; my identity is in Christ, who, incidentally, wasn’t incarnated into a white southerner’s body… he wasn’t even American! All of us are born into cultures that have some good features and some features we ought rightly to repudiate,
   challenge, and change in the name Christ. This one’s mine.

   You asked some great questions of our Chalcedon friend. I look forward to his answers. I also look forward to his answer about the League of the South. If he can’t answer those questions satisfactorily, he’s only managed to disprove everything he’s claimed about St. Rushdoony and the foundation.

   LikeLike

5. Pingback: How to Evaluate a Suitor (TBB) « Scarlet Letters

6. “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” – quoted by Patrice on this thread, originally from a reconstructionist.

   He thinks the price in Leviticus is about human worth? Wow, what an anti-Christian attitude. What Jesus did on the cross – that is the Bible’s prime indicator of human worth.

   It is clear in :8 God considers the money a person probably could bring. As women, in an era when work was mostly physical, had less money than men, and men were probably not willing to spend as much on girls without begrudging it, God charges accordingly.

   LikeLike

7. As I warned last night, I’m at a conference in Houston and won’t have time to reply to the queue of strong questions until I return home. This doesn’t mean your questions aren’t worthy of response, or that I don’t acknowledge the harm, reality, and anti-biblical nature of racism, antiSemitism, and other ungodly positions.

   Note that one poster asserted that even if I successfully show that Rushdoony’s position is not racist in all points, it doesn’t count for a thing because his underlying theology is corrupt anyway: I’d only have shifted him from racist heretic to non-racist heretic. So, if I’m to clear the air over racism only to open the door to a more intense interrogation, everyone here will need to be patient. I do have a day job, after all. So if there are, say, 30 pending challenges, and I don’t get around to answering your specific question while answering others, simply bring it up again and I will not ignore it. But don’t read into any delays to reply that I’m turning my back on this matter. But I’d like not to have to thumb-key responses into an iPhone as I’m doing now, as that will only exacerbate the delay, provoking folks here to read something into my alleged “failure to reply.”

   LikeLike

8. Quickly (before I get up to lecture here in Houston), there is only one place to find Chalcedon’s official position about the published work of the Botkin sisters, which is in the Mar-Apr 2010 issue of Faith for All of Life, in the cover story “Patriarchy vs. Feminism.” Note that in that article I called for the authors to revise their book, and explained why (because they were binding the consciences of people without biblical warrant and supporting their views using Rushdoony quotes which were being improperly applied and pressed into the service of an ideology he didn’t hold to).

   Lesson to take away from that last point about misappropriation of Rushdoony: it does happen all the time, and it creates an erroneous impression. And this is rampant and nobody has the resources to stop it unless the quoting parties voluntarily retract their material. Few do (but there are some, to their considerable credit).

   LikeLike

9. Martin: I understand your time limitations. We’ll still be here when you are able to fully respond. Thanks for reminding us.

   LikeLike

10. Free At Last (Nov 23, 6:41am) The people from the south I know aren’t like this so I didn’t realize this methodology played to such an extent. I expect it from politicians but these people have them beat. On the vid about the new black cross flag: “Germanic knights called the Teutonic knights used a flag similar to this.” They’re twelve years old! Sheesh!

    We certainly have racism here in the Detroit area, but it’s less wink-wink nod-nod. Suburban racism towards our black city (which is how the lines are drawn here these days) is generally framed as economics-morality: raw or complicit silence. Which, come to think of it, makes perfect sense since our roots are in industry. And there are groups of wealthier blacks who hate on the urban blacks just like the rest. Nasty all the way around.

    Yah, imagine that—Jesus wasn’t American or white. Clears it up, right there.

    I hope Taunya is doing ok this morn.

    LikeLike

11. Martin Selbrede wrote:
    Note that one poster asserted that even if I successfully show that Rushdoony’s position is not racist in all points, it doesn’t count for a thing because his underlying theology is corrupt anyway…

    This is unfortunate, and I’m sorry to hear this term of “heretic” thrown around so often. I don’t think that Rushdoony was by any means a heretic, even by conservative terms. In the essentials of the faith, the sure, simple, non-optional stuff that you have to believe to qualify as Christian, I think that he was spot on. It’s in the supportive doctrine, intramural (or what some refer to as the non-essentials) that I think that these problems arise. (Some of what I see written here does concern this disparagement among the different Protestant theologies, all ones well within the pale of orthodoxy. Each one has its high points and its pitfalls.)

    In David Henke’s Spiritual Abuse Model, the last characteristic he lists is “Unbalanced” which refers to a religious group that focuses on minor doctrine, making those minor points central to the religious group in doctrine and practice. In retrospect, I think that the concerns about politics and some of the points of theonomy itself became more of a focus than the Gospel, or it may have opened the door wide for this to happen. For many, those special foci end up eclipsing the Gospel.

    Sometimes, Calvinism, Covenant Theology, and Theonomy itself becomes more significant than the Gospel to its followers, though many will argue that this is not possible. (Again, we come around to clarity in the writings which makes understanding too hard to attain for too many.) In Doug Phillips’ system, a super-spiritualized concept of family (including sexuality and reproduction) eclipses everything, mixed in there with borrowed concepts of shepherding that he pulled from Gothard. Some may have also come through the old Chalcedonesque ties to people like Bob Mumford who helped establish the cultic Shepherding Discipleship Movement. (I learned about Chalcedon through Mumfordites while in a shepherding church that also loved Gothard.)

    Personally, I like Augustine’s old adage as a good guide.
    In the essentials, unity. (not uniformity)
    In the non-essentials, liberty. (the intramural doctrines)
    And in all things, love.

    To be a heretic, you have to deny the essentials. But all kinds of errors can be made and disagreements can be had concerning the intramural doctrines, and some are quite elitist and miserable in their defense of them. The greater the pitfalls or error loopholes in one’s supporting and intramural doctrines, the more room you make for jerks, idiots, the well-meaning inept, and narcissistic sociopaths to take advantage of those pitfalls and errors. The big challenge for us as Christians involves the challenge of love, particularly when we get into the heated stuff and the deeply painful issues of racism which both Christianity and America bear as a scourge. Many theonomists claim slavery as the best way for America to become financially solvent and prefer the Confederate Presbyterian affirmation of slavery, and that’s a huge, HUGE problem. (You have to do quite a bit of reading to figure that out, however.)

    And a religious system or group can be non-heretical, but they can be miserably spiritually abusive (for they are not the same thing). And some groups are far more spiritually abusive than others. That’s what makes this stuff so sticky and hard to discern.

    http://www.watchman.org/profile/abusepro.htm

    NOTE: A moderator updated this comment to insert a missing “close italics” marker so that only the first paragraph is italicized to show the quote from Martin Selbride.

    LikeLike

12. It’s too bad that Andrea Schwartz’ audio interview with the Botkin Sisters that I streamed through Chalcedon’s website gave me the impression that Chalcedon celebrated them and their lifestyle. If their system is problematic, why give them a platform?

    I was once told personally by Ortiz at Chalcedon that alleged examples of patriarchal abuse were extreme and undocumented. This is why many later endeavored to publish “Quivering Daughters” — to document the abuses and the extensive harm done by this very system of patriarchy. (That book was edited by a Thenomist, BTW.)

    Covenant Theology and Theonomy demand patriarchy. What makes patriarchy a problem manifests through people who execute it through spiritual abuse. Not all who follow these theologies or patriarchy are spiritually abusive.

    I would not care one bit whether Christians decided to follow a SAHD model as their act of worship to God. My problems with it concern the abusive elements, specifically the spiritual abuse, the authoritarian prescribing of it to all believers, and the pervasive, real-life harm suffered by those who were raised in it.

    78% of the verses in the Bible that talk about spiritual abuse/pharisees/false prophets teach that we should look to fruit and behavior to discern error. Only 10% of those verses teach us to examine doctrine. If Chalcedon published some admonishments about “So Much More” (the Botkin book defending SAHDs), they’re off to a good start with that 10%. Now, they should come to terms with the fruit and the behavior produced by this lifestyle. (When I tried to address this with Chalcedon in the past, I was marginalized.)

    LikeLike

13. Undermuchgrace (nov 23, 9:32am) and Martin: There is quite a difference between calling someone a heretic and saying some of their teachings were heretical. The commenters wrote “heretical teachings” and “heretical doctrines”. And both were regarding ideas of patriarchy, so they were also specific that way.

    I might call Rushdoony a heretic if I thought that I had the right to declare anyone such. I don’t, because only God knows enough to do a fair job of evaluation. I think he’s deeply wrong on some fundamental things, though. Something more than non-essentials, certainly. Ideas of patriarchy, for eg, go to the heart of our ideas of God, how S/He made this world, and what Jesus actually did here on earth.

    LikeLike

14. Patrice,
    Thank for using the inclusive word “s/he” – I’m consistently amazed how seldom other people use it!

    LikeLike

15. Andrea Schwartz……….my goodness, I have to laugh…..and not just because she uses that term “helpmeet”, like it’s a single word. And of course it’s because it’s HER role to help HIM (husband, not God) to meet HIS (again, husband, not God) goals and objectives.

    From Engendered Differences, a paper by Andrea Schwartz:

    The Bible clearly states that women are not to serve as elders in the church. This mandate in no way indicates that men are superior to women in character or ability. This is an organizational difference by God’s design, outlining His hierarchy of authority and responsibility, not to mention jurisdiction. A woman’s role in the immediate and extended family is of such paramount importance, that to assume roles outside these areas is wasting her as the valuable resource she is. There’s simply too much to do in this arena for her to abdicate her position to areas of lesser importance.

    (emphasis mine)

    And yet, in real life, those areas of “lesser importance” are far more valued. Go figure.

    LikeLike

16. Patrice,

    Frankly, I was concerned that I was the one to whom the heretic comment was directed, and I agree with your assessment about what constitutes a heretic.

    I got out of extreme Word of Faith, found Calvinism to be a good means of countering some of those errors, ended up in Shepherding and Theonomy, then got out. Of myself, I say that I hope that when I leave this life, I’m a whole lot less heretical than I was when I first embarked upon it. God brings us into the knowledge of the Truth as we grow in sanctification, through that fear and trembling process.

    (A system of patriarchy is not a short cut around that fear and trembling.)

    I am probably still a little defensive, as I’ve gone to great lengths to be diplomatic in many situations when addressing some of these theological problems, never called anyone heretic, but I have been accused of doing so many times.

    It’s funny because of how all of this gender business plays out. I’ve been accused of a lack of submission to my husband many times because of my outspoken criticisms about Phillips, but when these people ask my husband, they’re shocked to find him far more critical and blunt that I am. Ha! One of the people who accused me of this was a well-known apologist, and when he talked to my husband, he said that “Cindy’s too nice and considerate. Be assured: These people are heretics.” The man got so enraged that he repeated to many that I do little else but make these accusations.

    But that said, I will go on record that, after looking into the Multigenerational Faithfulness teachings in 2009, I no longer believe that Vision Forum was just a Christian group that is aberrant because of problems with non-essential doctrine. I think that they’re teaching a very different gospel, a statement I defend on my blog in some length. And given the shift in things at Chalcedon since the late ’90s, I can’t even venture to guess what is really preached there now. What endured prior to then was problematic and complicated enough.

    LikeLike

17. I should probably also clarify that as well.

    I’m not quite sure whether Martin’s 8:03AM comment today was making claims that someone here in this forum was deeming Rushdoony a heretic, and I had recently noted my own assessment of the limitations and pitfalls of Theonomy.

    it doesn’t count for a thing because his underlying theology is corrupt anyway: I’d only have shifted him from racist heretic to non-racist heretic.

    LikeLike

18. Undermuchgrace (Nov23,11:46am) You’ve bounced from one harsh group to another! I’m glad you are on the other side of all that. I despise how many of these groups drain our joy/peace away. God wants our love and for us to love others/selves and that’s the bulk of it right there. I don’t go in for “fear and trembling”, as it is translated, but rather respect, awe, humility, and now/then, downright astonishment.

    I totally agree that some of these people preach a different gospel. They believe in a god of wrath and it’s a different god than the one I know. The wrathful god is authoritarian, which is logical because of his controlling judgmental character. It is also logical, then, that his creation would be strongly hierarchical.

    But when I compare this wrathful authoritarian god to the sayings/stories/acts of Jesus, I see a deep disparity, which doesn’t make sense since Jesus is also God. Plus, in my experience, the world functions best in a non-hierarchical, cooperative, and relational manner, so I can’t help but think this god is simply wrong.

    IMO, there are two gods being seriously worshipped in Christendom: one is a god of wrath and judgment, the other is a god of love and justice. Since they cannot both be the true God, there is a huge fault-line running through our religion. That’s a strange thing to say but I don’t know how else to explain it.

    LikeLike

19. Very thoughtful insights, Patrice. Two visions of God do exist. One is wrathful and controls his creation; law and hierarchy image this God very well. The other is loving and seeks creative obedience from free agents made in his image. Our view of God will determine how we treat others.

    LikeLike

20. Patrice,

    I think of fear and trembling as the process of critical thinking as engaging our problems. In Hebrews 10, it says that God writes His law in our hearts, and with the counsel of the Word and the guidance of the Spirit, we have to walk out our faith through the hard work of discernment.

    Constructs like the “Visionary Daughters” and things like Bill Gothard’s seven simple steps to solve every complex life problem are all shortcuts around these struggles. When you follow them, you sign your discernment over to the system and trust that the guy who wrote the rules down had things right. In that sense, they are a shortcut around the critical thinking and decision making that we all must do every day. When you follow a list, you create the illusion that you’re not really culpable for your errors.

    This is the same reason why uniformity is easier than unity. You just follow the rules, you don’t have to think, and you feel less morally responsible for what happens or what you do in obedience. In the process, many Calvinists cover up their freewillism, just creating an alternate form of legalism. They create their own autonomism in their quest to take dominion through these plans.

    LikeLike

21. undermuchgrace: Ok, that’s cool. The “fear and trembling” verse still echoes from my childhood as a demand to maintain abject fear of our angry god.

    For me, coming out from under heavy submission was initially terrifying, especially towards making mistakes but eventually I discovered the beauty of forgiveness. God is completely forgiving when I own them forthrightly—even before I get to say it, it is already forgiven! And because of forgiveness, I am free to experiment, to be imaginative, to follow my nose, to track down the logic of anything, to dance anywhere, to have whatever emotions occur. As Paul wrote, we don’t sin so that grace occurs but we do sin and are filled with grace so that we can continue on our way without fear.

    How lovely freedom is when God is along with us! I hope it is somewhat like that for you too.

    LikeLike

22. At 9:32 A.M. undermuchgrace makes the good point that “To be a heretic, you have to deny the essentials.” I suggest that one who denies the essentials is more apostate than heretic, but no matter. The question is, what are the essentials? If I understand the closing verses of Mt. 25, what is essential where ultimate destiny is concerned is whether we have loved, as demonstrated by how we have treated “the least of these.”

    How may I know whether my treatment of “the least of these” is consistent with love? I will treat them as I would have others treat me. Would I wish to be excluded, because of the color of my skin, from serving according to my abilities in government, commerce or Christian fellowship? No, of course not. Would I wish to be excluded from serving the Body of Christ as a shepherd, teacher, overseer or deacon because of my gender? No, of course not.

    Therefore, anybody who makes distinctions with regard to acceptable service in any area of life whatsoever on the basis of skin color or gender is, I submit, both heretical and apostate.

    LikeLike

23. I would urge all of you to google the site “Americans United”. You’ll find lots of info there about the Religious Right and guess what? If you look under “Resources” there’s a subsection called “Religious Right Research”. It’s a list of leaders and organizations who seek to impose a fundamentalist Christian viewpoint on all Americans. When you click on “Learn More” it will give you a list , and under Christian Reconstructionists you’ll see that Chalcedon Foundation is the leading group in this fringe movement. There’s lots of info on this site (some of it disturbing) and will give you an idea about Martin Selbrede’s agenda. I’m still trying to figure out T.W. Eston’s interest in this whole topic; perhaps he’s part of the Religious Right movement also and hoping to help clean up Rushdoony’s image. I think the discerning readers on this Blog can think intelligently and make good judgments on their own.

    LikeLike

24. Carmen,

    Another good source of info, particularly the history, can be found in Berlet and Lyons’ “Right Wing Populism” book. It also explains the kinism aspect and the KKK, and how it plays into things through the history of it in the US.

    http://www.publiceye.org/tools_of_fear/index.html

    I think that there’s an excellent chance that Eston is a kinist, if not THE consummate kinist himself. His interest in Chalcedon is part of that Spirit Water Blood element of the group that is “racialist” within Chalcedon, and they all love, l.o.v.e., LOVE Gary North.

    The Kinists declared war on Doug Phillips when RC Sproul, Jr. adopted an African American baby. The kinists felt that they (Phillips and Sproul, Jr.) turned their backs on their devotion to the Southern Cause, the League of the South (major contributors to the Constitution Party) and their fellow Dabneyophiles through miscegenation by adoption. They sought to punish the turncoats and relish Phillips’ demise.

    Murky, muddy business.

    LikeLike

25. “The Kinists declared war on Doug Phillips when RC Sproul, Jr. adopted an African American baby. The kinists felt that they (Phillips and Sproul, Jr.) turned their backs on their devotion to the Southern Cause, the League of the South (major contributors to the Constitution Party) and their fellow Dabneyophiles through miscegenation by adoption.”

    The hilarious thing is that Rushdoony himself “miscegenated” by marrying a woman not from his own ethnic background.

    LikeLike

26. Cindy K on November 24, 2013 at 11:49 AM

    Thank you for mentioning the ties between the “patriotic” Reconstructionists, kinists, patriarchists, and southern secessionists (like the League of the South) with their unbiblical ideas of racial, gender, and economic heirarchy. As a lawyer and a Christian in the South, I have watched with growing concern as these groups’ theories combine, ooze poison in the most mainstream places, spread, and reproduce to corrupt the law, politics, and most horrible of all, the gospel and the church, while the peddlers of these lies get rich off the credulous like a bunch of traveling snake oil salesmen. It isn’t only the South where this influence is subtly poisoning the church and the nation. Look to the links between, say, michael peroutka’s reconstructionist u.s. constitution course, which patriotic church people everywhere in the nation are buying into as gospel, and the secessionist league of the south. Peroutka, ironically, has pledged his lotalty and resources to… the League. Warren Throckmorton has covered this issue quite well in his blog at patheos.

    This same alarm you have sounded needs to be sounded loud and clear, far and wide, for the sake of the church and the nation.

    LikeLike

27. Ri Ri,

    Which wife?

    LikeLike

28. Free At Last:

    Peroutka, the 2004 Constitution Party Presidential Candidate who speaks at the LoS Convention every year for decades? Who dedicates statues in parks in Maryland and points to the Confederate Flag at public gatherings, referring to it as our nation’s flag in his speeches? Whose 2004 campaign platform read like it was cribbed from Phillips’ Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy?

    I don’t know if Peroutka supports Chalcedon, however, but the groups so often overlap. Steve Wilkins is just one fine and notable example. Then there are the ones who claim that they’re only interested in the economics of agrarianism, claiming that they can eat the fish and spit out the kinist bones? Murky, murky.

    Janet Fishburn has a book that can be read online, “Confroning the Idolatry of Family,” that talks about some of this stuff as something of an American Folk Religion. Mark Noll also talks about this in “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind.”

    LikeLike

29. “Which wife?”

    Both. Neither came from his specific ethno-cultural background.

    Rushdoony writes against inter-racial, as well as inter-cultural marriage here;

    “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

    And here;

    “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

30. Cindy K
    “I don’t know if Peroutka supports Chalcedon, however, but the groups so often overlap. Steve Wilkins is just one fine and notable example. Then there are the ones who claim that they’re only interested in the economics of agrarianism, claiming that they can eat the fish and spit out the kinist bones? Murky, murky.”

    Mr. Selbride came here to refurbish Rushdoony and Chalcedon’s image as not so extreme when it came to patriarchy. Thanks to the bravery of Taunya, Selbride found himself trying to refurbish Rushdoony as not so extreme a racist. Well, I think we all know what kinism is.

    I have asked Mr Selbride pointedly if Chalcedon repudiates Wilkins, the League, and its ideals. I even quoted the League’s denial that it is racist, which is based not on a denial of racial superiority, but on a denial that racism is even a thing. If Chalcedon cannot or will not repudiate the League, with its outwardly “christian” image and inwardly uber-patriarchist and racist views, then we know this is all a bunch of image control for Chalcedon.

    I am still waiting for an answer from Mr.Selbride. I look forward to it. He seems to understand that he cannot successfully defend Rushdoony here unless he can prove that Rushdoony was neither kinist nor patriarchist at all. Slapping a nicer, more moderate,women-and-children-first,grandfatherly face on these heretical ideas to distance Rushdoony from the extremes like Phillips and kkk lynch mobs is not going to cut it.

    LikeLike

31. Free at Last,

    And what of Lloyd Sprinkle who was encouraged to republish the writings of the Confederate Presbyterians — books that say that it’s a sin to teach a Black man to read, and that Native Americans are worse than the Negro? At least he’s not been fingered for plagiarism and doctrinal error by three denominations.

    I’m not trying to be disagreeable, either. These are serious problems in this movement and in this group. The patriarchy movement was drawn from many of the writings of these men like RL Dabney, BM Palmer, Thayer, etc… Rushdoony encouraged people to study these writings — books that had perhaps some good ideas but were also full of screed.

    LikeLike

32. I’ve had a couple of exchanges with people about this discussion here, and I thought that some of them brought up some good points. But things still come back to the fact that Chalcedon is a big bag of murky, messy things to me. There were some good elements, but to use the Rushdoony family’s own saying, it has been rather like separating out pepper flakes from gnat droppings. It has been ridiculously tedious, time consuming, and not very relevant for me, save that I had to learn these things to preserve my marriage (to collect the documentation and evidence of the fruit of it get my husband out of it). I don’t think it’s because I’ve misunderstood anything about what I’ve read or heard, nor do I believe that I’m just not sophisticated enough to appreciate theonomy. I think that the best way that most theonomists would describe my esteem for it now would be through the pejorative moniker of “antinomian” (against the law), as though I have no respect for God’s holiness or my Christian duty to pursue righteousness.

    I understood Mr. Selbrede as one of the more balanced people at Chalcedon before the post Y2K era in Rushdoony’s absense – not a kinist or one of the people who wrote really odd things that would send me into cognitive dissonance. But having thought about his statement, I think that given our standards today, I don’t know that he can do much more than argue that Rushdoony was “not that big of a racist.” Chalcedon has to own those problematic writings, and they have to do that in a climate today where the writings are understood as very problematic. Again, though, much of this has to do with Covenant Theology and Rushdoony’s interpretation of it.

    I also don’t know how he can clear up Chalcedon’s position on the Botkins and what they represent (which is what Phillips represents in addition to publishing their book). As a friend of mine stated in an email to me, all Chalcedon can really offer is a “better kind of patriarchy.” As memes from people who left it often say, “Patriarchy: You’re not doing it right.” Even in this instance, to discern their position, you have to not only be an acolyte who reads all of their literature, you also have to have access to the VP of the organization to go up into heaven to bring down the truth, because listening to an interview on the website makes it even more confusing. While using colorful analogies, it feels a bit like “Don’t pee on my shoe and tell me it’s raining.”

    I once wrote to Chalcedon and communicated with a Vice President there about the problems with Phillips, specifically his spiritually abusive behavior and the way women are treated in his group, particularly young women. I find it shocking now to learn that Chlacedon gave money to Joe Taylor, especially in light of how strongly Chris Ortiz defended Phillips. (I don’t feel quite so bad about having supported them now, as I’d like to think in my own mind that what my husband and I gave went right to Joe.) I guess that, for the sake of image consciousness, that it might be said that Chris Ortiz no longer works for Chalcedon, so whatever Ortiz wrote to me in 2007 no longer applies? What if I write to them a few years from now? I’ll get accused of gossip again, I suppose.

    http://undermoregrace.blogspot.com/2009/03/protesting-patriarchy-corresponding.html

    The other huge problem that I have is with the distinguishing characteristic of Theonomy: the focus on the OT law. I suppose that there is no fault in encouraging people to read about idealized and venerated periods in history to glean wisdom from them, but people did venerate them and sought to revive them. The other thing I can’t get around, something I corresponded with Taunya about today – Rushdoony thought that the OT laws like stoning could only be instituted in a Christian society which we clearly do not have and very likely won’t for generations, if things progress as they have in my lifetime. Why spend such an extraordinary amount of time pondering how, when Christians take dominion, how stoning can be reinstituted as punishment for crime. Why publish Einwechter’s article about how it’s Biblical to stone rebellious teenagers, for example, if it’s not going to happen any time soon? I never understood how that stuff was “good to the use of edifying that it may minster grace.”

    Some people may get some good value out of things there. I don’t. There’s too much confusion to sift through, and life is too short. It’s in my best interest to buy a different brand of pepper, sans gnat guano.

    LikeLike

33. “I think that there’s an excellent chance that Eston is a kinist, if not THE consummate kinist himself. His interest in Chalcedon is part of that Spirit Water Blood element of the group that is “racialist” within Chalcedon, and they all love, l.o.v.e., LOVE Gary North.”

    Thanks for that information Cindy. That may explain the response I got from Mr. Eston when I brought up the topic of R.J. Rushdoony’s quotes regarding race on the Jens Gems blog.

    LikeLike

34. This racist stuff is so messed up!

    I can’t wrap my head around this BS. I think Jesus would be okay with me saying BS. I think He’d be throwing tables over the way people in these groups treat blacks, women, etc. Why are we still dealing with this stuff in 2013?

    LikeLike

35. Oh, for the sake of the submission crowd:

    I collected documentation about the problems in doctrine and practice associated with Chalcedon over a ten year period to present to my husband, and I waited that long for him to make up his own mind. That correspondence with Ortiz sealed the deal, though.

    LikeLike

36. Racism that really isn’t racism. Slavery excused. Patriarchy, except done the right way. Stoning teenagers. Holocaust denial. And they propose to come alongside us in opposition to spiritual abuse?

    It is the moral equivalent of an advocacy organization promoting cartoon and animation-only pedophile “art” were trying to come to the aid of people who are dedicated to the eradication of the sexual exploitation of children.

    LikeLike

37. It would be bad enough if we were talking about all of this stuff in conjunction with a non-Christian organization(s) but the fact that these are people and organizations that claim Christ? That they read the same gospels we do and come up with this in the name of Jesus? I can say one thing either the men and woman who hold these beliefs, or support/defend those that do, are braver than I or they don’t have as strong a belief in the power of God as do I because I would be MUCH too afraid to express, support, or defend these beliefs and quotes in the name of Jesus.

    My advice to Mr. Selbrede is to follow God not man. I would not defend the sins of Mr. Rushdoony, I am sure you have your own to deal with. Admit this man was a racist sinner who read the bible and allowed his own prejudice to cloud it’s meaning and move on. What you say on this blog you need to be able to defend before your Lord and Savior. Rushdoony is dead and he has dealt with his Maker regarding his sin, you still need to, don’t take on the sin of another. I would love an answer to my questions but if you are smart and fear the Lord, as you say you do, you will admit the answer is sin, plain and simple. You do not have to follow Rushdoony down the hole he dug for himself. Take a moment to read what your mentor wrote and pray about it to be sure you want to be on record defending his beliefs.

    The stuff being discussed with regards to Rushdoony, Dabney, Phillips, Botkin, Kinists, and brown is a path straight to hell. It is nothing but man using the Bible to puff himself up, how vile!

    LikeLike

38. Three decades or so ago, I was reading widely in the writings of Van Til, Dooweyeerd, Rushdoony, Warfield, Kuyper, Bavinck, Schaeffer, Poythress, North, etc. At the time, I wanted to be thoroughly “biblical” in my understanding of the world and in developing the skills to parse various paradigms.

    However, somewhere in there, I eventually parted ways with the core notions that the Old Testament writings were meant to be implemented as-is as rules for “the” godly society and that the Church and/or America were the new Israel. Also, I came to believe that Christians are meant to sojourn in host cultures and serve by sharing our life and living out our faith — not occupy cultures as their overlords to dictate their lives and conform them to our faith.

    I also saw the spiritual abuse that derived from supposed disciples of Jesus Christ signing over their responsibility for personal discernment and decision-making to the intellectual, theological, and/or pastoral elites among them. These bound-set systems (with their over-applied black-and-white thinking) are flawed from the outset, and in very specific ways that easily give fuel to spin-off and knock-off hucksters to squelch the hope of God’s people — and all under the guise of being “biblical.”

    That’s why these threads on Vision Forum Ministries/Inc. and Chalcedon Foundation have been mentally and emotionally exhausting, though certainly the discussion here has been necessary. I get it about the agony it is to try to come to terms with the conversation, and the impossibility of nuancing the complexity of the issues to the satisfaction of all.

    Personally, I’m in the process of deciding whether to write a post on “Why I didn’t become a Reconstructionist.” If I don’t, or if it takes a long time to write because I have other obligations far more pressing, I thought I’d at least share a few observations and random reflections, for what they’re worth. These come from my processing of personal experiences, not doing a book report on what others have noticed. Some rely on having technical background, some don’t, so they may or may not make sense. But they’re my conclusions based on a journey that involved deep consideration of the doctrinal systems of these writers over at least five years of intense reading/discussions and many more years of reflecting on them and moving in other directions.

    * * * * *

    The danger in adhering too closely to just one person’s theological system is that, eventually, we tend to forget the difference between biblical sources and merely theological resources. We end up following the person and his/her system rather than becoming more like Christ. In technical terms, we become a *simulacra* — a copy of a copy — and sooner or later, no one knows any more what the original actually looked like.

    * * * * *

    All of us are limited by the dominant logic systems in our language and culture. That, compounded with the brokenness and limitations of our thinking, mean that no theology is perfect. That is true even when the theologizer is brilliant, an expert, even a paradigm pioneer polymath as R.J. Rushdoony clearly was. There is no such thing as “inerrant theology.”

    * * * * *

    Any systematic theology that relies too heavily on only one form of reasoning, and/or only one key expounder of so-called “truth,” gets us off track. Often it takes us away from being reflective about our lives and what’s going on around us, and we get too focused on interpreting it all “correctly” according to “the system.” At some point, it is no longer theology but philosophy, and we act more like Gnostics (purveyors of secret knowledge) than Pistics (believers who practice Christlikeness). And at that point, we live out the relational emphasis of Gnostics: “Only smart people count.” And if they don’t think exactly like us, they really aren’t all that smart. And this is the core form of elitism from which all other social divisiveness stems.

    * * * * *

    Theology followed too closely becomes a spewlogy and eventually our eulogy.

    LikeLike

39. OMG. I just did Dutch Dyslexia! Make that Dooyeweerd, not Dooweyeerd — which sounds far more Scandinavian, and though I was reared Lutheran, as a linguist I should have gotten the consonants correct!

    LikeLike

40. LOL, Brad. You’re funny. I was going to fix it for you, but your 2nd comment helps to lighten the heavy mood in here, so it will stay 🙂

    he danger in adhering too closely to just one person’s theological system is that, eventually, we tend to forget the difference between biblical sources and merely theological resources. We end up following the person and his/her system rather than becoming more like Christ.

    Amen to that!

    LikeLike

41. Taunya-hendersonfamily, joyelle,
    Cindy K, Gary W, julie anne,
    Brad in the future, and so many, many others:

    Thank you. Thank you. Right now tears are running down my face. Until I heard you speak, each and every one of you, I thought I was all alone, wrecked, voiceless, a solitary specator watching the church’s impending train wreck with no one to but me to scream “STOP!” To hear you speak the truth, each in your own way, is so much more important than whatever mr selbride has to say about the legacy of a dead man.

    I hope Mr.Selbride will have an epiphany and even become a voice of godly wisdom preaching truth to those who might listen to him and not to the rest of us; in the meantime, what you have said on this thread has been no end of encouragement. God bless you all!

    LikeLike

42. Free At Last,

    You felt alone, it seems, because so few knew, and those who did know had no effective means of communicating. Not only was there no effective means of communication between those who knew, there were and are many like myself who simply had no idea. I may have come into contact with the vileness of racism some 50 years ago, but names and concepts like Doug Philips, patriarchy, reconstructionism, and dominionism weren’t even on my radar until a few months ago. Only Julie Anne’s blog fixed that. It is only by means of this particular thread that I have been made aware of names like Rushdooney, kinism, League of the South, Peroutka, Chalcedon, Wilkins &c. Well, I’m sure the battle for what is good and Godly is far from over, but at least the Internet is contributing to a great leveling of the playing field. The voices of black-as-white and white-as-black cannot now so easily get away with hawking their evil wares by squelching the voices of those who would cry out for God and Truth and Justice and Love.

    To all here who have joined in the battle against racism, misogyny, and every other form of hatred, including spiritual abuse, I thank you. I thank you for opening my eyes. I commend you for caring enough to speak.

    LikeLike

43. Hits are coming to my blog from this interesting article: http://tribaltheocrat.com/2013/11/the-downfall-of-doug-phillips-and-chalcedons-half-hearted-defense-of-r-j-rushdoonys-legacy/

    LikeLike

44. Free at Last said:

    “‘Until I heard you speak, each and every one of you, I thought I was all alone, wrecked, voiceless, a solitary specator watching the church’s impending train wreck with no one to but me to scream “STOP!”‘

    You are among friends here and certainly not alone. I’m so touched by your honesty. I think if we were to canvas the people who read here, your words would echo so many. Thank you for sharing this.

    LikeLike

45. Gary said:

    “To all here who have joined in the battle against racism, misogyny, and every other form of hatred, including spiritual abuse, I thank you. I thank you for opening my eyes. I commend you for caring enough to speak.”

    So good, Gary!!

    SSB is the vehicle, but I’m in that car with the rest of you. I’m so thankful for what you all have taught me on this crazy ride.

    LikeLike

46. Carmen wrote (nov 23, 10:59am): “Thank for using the inclusive word “s/he” – I’m consistently amazed how seldom other people use it!”

    Doing my small bit to correct our views of the God-head, hah. BTW, how do you deal cleanly with his/her? I think it’s fascinating that there are no sex-inclusive pronouns in English.

    LikeLike

47. JA, The site you reference is an abomination. It is racist at its core. It abuses scripture. And it offers apparent “biblical” justification for segregation and unequal treatment of persons based on their ancestry. It is the reality of Rushdoony’s thinking and writing. To believe what is touted there is sin, b/c it denies the power of the Holy Spirit over racial preferences.

    LikeLike

48. Julia Anne (nov 24, 9:23pm) Oh, geeze, that’s a wretched article, start to finish! He manages to demean everyone. The only accurate statement is when he complains that “they won’t allow us to survive….” You got that right, Mickey Henry. And I will continue to do my bit to destroy your ideas because you know nothing of the true God even as you claim our faith for yourself. Bah

    http://tribaltheocrat.com/2013/11/the-downfall-of-doug-phillips-and-chalcedons-half-hearted-defense-of-r-j-rushdoonys-legacy/

    LikeLike

49. Patrice – How do I handle him/her? I write her/him! . .. smile. ..

    An Attorney and Patrice – I’m glad you read what I read in that article. I didn’t like it at all and, more importantly, I don’t think the Henderson family will either. It’s just more proof of ‘cherry-picking’ verses from the Bible to suit their (warped and toxic) ideology. It gave me the ‘NO!’ feeling. . .

    LikeLike

50. On this blog, I think I’m learning more about Christendom in America than I ever did before. Certainly more than I wanted to… 😛

    That Tribal Theocrat article was a real treat. Hard to believe anyone thinks that way in this age, and yet the evidence is there. It’s so bizarre to hear Mickey Henry talk about the love of God, when he shows such barely-veiled contempt towards anyone who doesn’t accept his twisted interpretation of the Bible.

    This line from Henry’s friend caught my eye: “Of course, no one [on Julie Ann’s blog] attempts to prove that what Rush said was false.” If I were going to comment on his site (I’m not eager to give him my e-mail), it would go something like this:

    “No, no one will try to disprove Rushdoony’s drivel on ‘races’. That’s because no one has to. The backwards, nonsensical nature of your racist (or kinist, or whatever) ideology is obvious to anyone who isn’t an elitist snob.”

    How I wish this way of thinking would simply gasp its last and die, like the dinosaur it is.

    From what I’ve seen, Mr. Selbride seems to have a good heart. I’m not sure if he will be back, but I hope that he realizes the contempt that these avowed followers of Rushdoony have even for him. I hope he sees that Henry’s ideology is the logical conclusion of Rush’s line of thought. And if he wants to support homeschooling, I sincerely hope Mr. Selbride will choose to do it in someone else’s name.

    (P.S. The spell checker doesn’t recognize ‘kinist’ either. At least it’s shorter than ‘complementarianism’. 🙂 )

    LikeLike

51. Hmm, I was hoping to hear back from Martin after the weekend. He couldn’t have forgotten us, do you think?

    LikeLike

52. “Julie Anne on November 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM
    Hmm, I was hoping to hear back from Martin after the weekend. He couldn’t have forgotten us, do you think?”

    I doubt he’s forgotten. Our questions put him between a rock and a hard place. Admit what we all know is true, and his hero would fall from his pedastal. Deny it, and anger Chalcedon’s base of support and influence. For instance, if he denounced the League of the South, he will offend certain of Chalcedon’s supporters and friends; affirm them, and he simply proves our point about Rushdoony’s legacy being racist, patriarchist, and destructive.

    The unsupportable “middle” ground Mr. Selbride attempted to capture and defend (arguing that Rushdoony’s brand of kinism and patriarchy was benevolent) was so logically indefensible that it disgusted us and Rushdoony’s fanboys alike, as is illustrated by the vile, hateful, intellectually unhinged article to which Julie Anne linked.

    Mr. Selbride, if you are out there, I want you to know that I am praying for you. You seem a decent fellow. I am praying that God will wake you up, that you will realize you are defending an intellectually, morally, and biblically indefensible position. I pray you will relocate to a position of truth and light instead of struggling on with an impossible task. I pray that you will stop trying to rehabilitate the image of a dead man and make a legacy of your own, a legacy of truth. Stop apologizing for Mr. Rushdoony, stop trying to following his footsteps, and make a legacy for yourself.

    I hope Mr. Rushdoony, mistaken as he was, imparted to you a desire to know God’s truth with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. If he did, he surely wouldn’t be dishonored if you followed that pasion for truth and stepped into the light. Stop tilting at windmills; stop trying to walk Rushdoony’s path and find your own. Wake up. Who knows, maybe you’ll find yourself doing more good than your hero ever did.

    LikeLike

53. I had the opportunity to go back to read Mr. Selbrede’s comments, as well as the article he authored concerning spiritual abuse that is featured on the Chalcedon website. He notes the problems of spiritual abuse written about in the literature on the subject and what was reported to him by the spiritually abused person that sought his help. He is said to have read 130 books that are featured in a picture with Mr. Selbrede, noted in the article.

    http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/liberty-from-abuse-2/

    I don’t know what other sources he sited, but I recognized a few titles in the article’s photo including “Toxic Faith” by Steve Arteburn (Christian psychologist out of the Minerth Meyer/New Life Clinics era in the ’80s) and “Don’t Call It Love” by Patrick Carnes (a secular book about sexual addiction and codependency, not spiritual abuse).

    The best intro Christian book on the subject IMO is “The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse.” The Watchman Fellowship features David Henke’s model of spiritual abuse on their website. There are many others by Evangelicals including authors Blue, Enroth, Burks, Paul Martin, etc.. One of the best is “The Heresy of Mind Control” by Steven Martin who is from the Nazarene tradition, and his brother, Dr. Paul Martin, produced some excellent research on post-cult involvement. (Paul who was well known in Christian counter cult apologetics established the first accredited post-cult inpatient recovery center after he exited Geoffrey Botkin’s original cult, The Great Commission.) I suspect that Mr. Selbrede read at least a few of these sources. They are good Christian books on this subject that offer a great deal of hope and encouragement, and they are written from a Christian perspective – by Christians who embrace Biblical Authority and find the Bible to be the sufficient source of all truth needful for life and godliness.

    I find Selbrede’s comment quite telling, however:

    The source material identified the problem clearly enough, but until the victim encountered the writings of Dr. R. J. Rushdoony, no actual solution was evident because everyone else, without exception, adopted either antinomian or humanistic assumptions.

    Dr. Paul Martin elucidated through research that people in high demand religion and people who emerge from them have a high degree of dissociation, something that is taken into consideration when approaching a person in distress related to the spiritual abuse experience. It is an empirically validated and tested fact (with EEG data observable on physical assessment), but we can’t find a reference for “dissociation” in the Bible, or an explanation of an EEG. Does this make the finding antinomian or humanistic if I acknowledge it as a clinical finding and then integrate that into my approach to helping the spiritually abused? Can my counsel of the spiritually abused still be Christian and well within God’s law? Is there not a shred of truly Biblical help in these many excellent books that are now available on the subject?

    All truth is God’s truth, is it not, in a Van Tillian spirit? I don’t necessarily see an empirically fact, validated under scrutiny with sound statistical analysis, as mutually exclusive from Biblical truth. The Christian should be able and well-prepared to engage the culture and the language of the culture. What I believe that I read in Mr. Selbrede’s statement is that only Chalcedon and Rushdoony had adequate and Biblical answers available in their literature for dealing with spiritual abuse. Doesn’t that sound less like Van Til and more like Gordon Clark’s axoimatic foundationalism which believes that capitulating to science sells out one’s devotion to God’s Truth? There’s not a thing in any of these books that offers truly and fully Biblical answers? I have to echo Brad/futurist guy. It sounds rather gnostic and elitist to me.

    But then, I guess my earlier self assessment is very likely accurate. I must be a sell-out humanist and antinomian. My parents never should have sent me to nursing school. It’s relegated me to being a lesser Christian, if I even am one by this standard.

    LikeLike

54. This isn’t to say that what Mr. Selbede elucidated is false or without value. His observations parallel David Henke’s spiritual abuse model, and many elements of it actually fit better with Robert Lifton’s thought reform model. How Ironic!

    I’m very disappointed because it classifies all of these very helpful books on the subject, many of them expressly Christian, as without much worth by way of recovery and healing. But they are not Calvinist, and many of these books talk a great deal about finding one’s own autonomy as part of healing when you take it back from your spiritual abuser. Autonomy, in any sense, is a foul word in Theonomy.

    LikeLike

55. Cindy K., let me clarify a bit what I intended when I referred to the victim (who read the books, not myself, as my explanation does in fact state, although collaborating on a project allowed me considerable time to soak in the basic premises of these works on abuse). This clarification was also made in response to a point made by T. W. Eston when suggesting Chalcedon was more “in the middle of the pack” than “out in front,” and I agreed in the following way. Overall, I said, Chalcedon was “in the middle of the pack, at best.” Where I believe Chalcedon was out front was in providing the correct sanctions against the abuser, thereby validating the victim. Even today I am reading posts collected by T. W. Eston by some noted observers that essentially deny the biblical sanction against abuse of spiritual office. And it is THIS factor that was lacking in that mass of books in the photo, and in the protracted experience of the victim, where in each ministry approached the restoration of the abuser dominated the landscape, and the restoration of the victim discounted. (Back to your technical note: since my concern was ethical rather than metaphysical, I hadn’t sold out my Van Tillian approach to adopt a Clarkian model.)

    Let me add that I think there IS a biblical basis for the concept of dissociation, and I mentioned it (not by name, but conceptually) in my article concerning the Hebrew idiom in Ezekiel 34 about “the losing of one’s self.” We often have a hard time transliterating between languages, and something that might have seemed suitably idiomatic to the KJV translators might seem a muddle to people who use modern English. More can be said, but it is my position that plumbing the Bible provides insights that will prove edifying (but here I am assuming that the Bible scholars are motivated to look to Scripture to understand these crises, but I am inclined to think that far too many of them are motivated to neglect Scripture). The right thing to do is rarely the easy thing to do.

    LikeLike

56. Welcome back, Martin. I’m hoping we can get some things cleared up.

    LikeLike

57. This is a short work week for me, and I will have much more time to reply to the many questions and challenges during this coming four-day-weekend than I do tonight (which happens to be my birthday, so I’m being hijacked for the evening).

    I do want to acknowledge with humility the compassion I discern in some of the posts about me, and that there are those who choose to pray for me. I am grateful for this. While I have much to say about the issues that raise these prayers, I cannot but see the heart behind these sincerely-intended statements of concern. I am not unmindful of them. I have a software deployment tomorrow that will keep me at work late, but will try to respond at greater length to some pending older questions on Wednesday evening. Thank you for your patience!

    LikeLike

58. Helpful resources on the Reconstructionist/Theonomy movements/cults:

    http://theonomists.blogspot.com/ (Discusses Doug Wilson’s early activity as well)

    http://www.trinityfoundation.org/journal.php?id=184

    LikeLike

59. Thanks for the update and happy birthday, Martin. Looking forward to reading your responses.

    LikeLike

60. Just a few quick counter-points while I have a moment.

    The September 2000 issue of Chalcedon’s Magazine featured the cover story on “The Racialist Heresy,” wherein we find clear condemnations of both racism and anti-semitism and repudiations of the false idea of white superiority. Two of the authors writing for that issue are themselves Jewish.

    Writing in 1982, R. J. Rushdoony had this to say about a noted black pastor as the situation then stood (this from the Journal of Christian Reconstruction IX:1-2, pg. 59): “One of the great pastors of America is the Rev. E. V. Hill. The Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church in Los Angeles, California, in the Watts area, is a church with a mission to its Negro community and to all America. Dr. Hill recognizes the threat of the inner cities, with their millions of Latin Americans, Negroes, and whites, all poor and all potential recruits for revolutionary movements. Dr. Hill is working to make them actual recruits for Christ’s Kingdom. His goal is Christian Schools for the children, and Christian training schools for the adults, in all the major American cities within the decade. Work has been started in Dallas, Texas, and Denver, Colorado towards that goal, with a strong base in Los Angeles. Members of the Mount Zion Missionary Baptist Church are trained for and charged with a responsibility to be a missionary wherever they are, beginning with their own block. For 31 blocks around the church, a person on each street has a responsibility to be Christ’s ambassador. On one block, a blind woman brought 161 out of 162 people into Christ’s Kingdom. Dr. Hill’s purpose is not to catch a few stray souls here and there but to command America for Christ, beginning with the inner city. His work of Christian reconstruction is one of the more exciting stories of our time.”

    Writing in the 1940s, Dutch theologian Herman Hoeksema wrote, “It is always dangerous to draw conclusions from someone’s statements in order then to attribute the conclusions to the author of the comments.” This precise danger is what is being stepped into here. When we encounter the word “heredity” it is a word pre-freighted in our minds with the issue of superiority/inferiority as the primary connotation (thanks a lot, Darwin). If this were the case in Rushdoony’s usage throughout his works, then the criticisms would hold, but this is not the case. Note his pointing out a hereditary factor in the newly-published book by him on the American Indian (pg. 60) when discussing the white man’s evil exploitation of the American Indian through alcohol: “Second, certain races have apparently a genetic inability to assimilate alcoholic beverages, whereas others have no such problems. Others who have difficulties with liquor are Northern European peoples.” Well, good thing he added that last point or he would have been condemned for singling out Native Americans (but he added that point because it was true, and it is the truth that mattered to him, and factors that give rise to man’s mistreatment of his fellow man should all be given due weight in Rushdoony’s estimation). So, we’d have to go through Rushdoony’s writings (the early bulk of which were directed to other scholars, not to laymen) to assemble what he meant when he spoke of heredity as a factor. We do the same with Biblical writers (not that Rushdoony was an apostle — he was merely an uninspired man) — we look to see how St. Paul uses a certain word, and then can draw conclusions of what he meant in one place based on his usage in other places. We offer Rushdoony no such courtesy: we shoehorn him into a concrete overshoe because we move too quickly to the argumentative kill. Christians, of all people, should have been clued into the danger of this — we end up in effect consenting to the sentiment at Christ’s trial: “What further need have we of witnesses?” In other words, ‘Nuff said: he’s guilty!

    Finally, about the idea of “ties.” Who ever said that all ties were mutual and bi-directional? When we say “X has ties to Chalcedon,” does that mean Chalcedon has ties to X simply because of appropriation (with distortion and selective filtering) of what Chalcedon publishes? How often should Chalcedon consume its resources repudiating such ties rather than actually conducting its mission? Dr. Rushdoony’s position was plain-spoken: “I don’t let my enemies set my agenda for me.”

    On the other hand, I think there is merit IN THE PRINCIPLE implicit in the line of questioning that suggests that Chalcedon allegedly doesn’t criticize positions that might cause it to lose financial support. The underlying principle girding this challenge is, in itself, a powerful point — it’s premised on the idea laid out in Hosea 4:8 — “They feed on the sin of my people.” In other words, Israel’s leaders refused to rebuke the people’s sins because they financially benefited from failing to confront it. They didn’t want to kick over their own rice bowl. As the Romans put it, “cui bono?” as in, “who benefits,” what we now phrase this way: “follow the money.”

    Further, it seems to me that an alleged “fear of lost support” is, in effect, a fear of man, which the Bible declares to be a snare. The underlying principles in all this, then, are absolutely valid. The question becomes this: does Chalcedon fall under the condemnation in Hosea 4:8? Does the fact that we’ve published against these views mean nothing? This then brings in the question: what is the best vehicle to use to convey such ideas? A blog post out in the wild wild west of the Internet? A position paper on our website? A magazine issue focused on it (which doesn’t seem to matter, since we’ve done it once before, but in my view the argumentation used back then could have been more biblically rooted, but that’s just my personal preferences coming out)? Should a full issue of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction be allocated for this topic, and who should decide this matter, ourselves or others? And for some people, perhaps none of that combined would be adequate to satisfy them (due to the very real emotional hurt these matters entail). But for the record, some material has been in development to address — yet again — the issue of kinism (not because we haven’t done so before, but because of changes in the expression of those ideas since 2000 that warrant revisiting it). But if you look at Chalcedon’s publishing throughput, it’s a slow boat to China because we refuse to go into debt and our resources are very limited, and we are addressing all areas of life, of which this is but one. It will get its due, however.

    Galvanized by exchanges here, I approached some black brethren in Houston at the conference I was speaking at this last Saturday and flat out asked one of them (Vernon) if he thought Rushdoony had been a racist. Without my prompting him, he said he had visited the “racist theology” website and its block of damning Rushdoony quotes. He laughed and said “you can’t understand Rushdoony’s views without studying them in depth — by themselves, these quotes sound racist, so if you don’t bother to dig deep to understand the actual point Rushdoony was making, you’ll just leave it at that, which would be a shame.” From this I gathered that Vernon (whom I’ve never met before) arrived at his view independently of anything I’ve said or written. And the next day, in Conroe, Texas, I’m at an explicitly Christian Reconstructionist church that I’m visiting for the day, seated behind an interracial married couple who attend it. I could not help but be saddened by the huge disconnect between the reality of Christian reconstruction in front of me in the Lord’s house versus the demonized perception of it in the blogosphere. But those in the middle of it know different.

    LikeLike

61. If I must study Rushdooney at length and in depth before I can satisfy myself that his self-evidently racist and misogynistic statements aren’t racist and misogynistic, then to Hell with his teaching, though not with his person. Further, I do not care how many testimonies in favor of Rushdooney can be produced. A manufacturer may be able to produce any number of favorable testimonials, but a defective product is still a defective product.

    As between Rushdoony and Paul, give me Paul. As between Paul and Jesus, give me Jesus. All else is a spiritually homicidal distraction.

    LikeLike

62. Dr. Selbrede would have us believe that RJR’s views on race were completely benign and yet RJR’s own Son-in-law, in his 1995 book “Baptized Patriarchalism” accuses his Father-in-law (RJR) of the very thing that Selbrede is denying here.. North, in a section entitled familialism and Racism lays out the case nicely that RJR was a racist.

    Now, I think North was wrong. AND I think Selbrede wrong. Clearly RJR was no racist but what RJR embraced was a proto version of Kinism — a basic staple of pre-1940 Reformed theology.

    Clearly RJR was non consistent on his views but just as clearly the predominance of quotes from RJR reveal that he did understand that races and peoples existed and that those distinctions should normatively be maintained.

    Here are just two quotes of many that could be appealed to in order to prove the point,

    “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
    Audio Tape

    “Men remain feeling guilty, for a false sense of guilt has no cure save the truth, and this is not forthcoming. Since the citizens are now guilt-ridden because of their education and political indoctrination, they are more amenable to robbery, and even murder. If the white man feels guilty towards the Negro, he is less capable of defending himself against the Negroes who turn into a revolutionary rabble, bent on theft and murder. The state finds it easier to rob men when men feel guilty for what they are and have, and the state drones on and on about the needs of the poor of the nation and of the world.”

    R. J. Rushdoony
    Politics of Guilt and Pity – pg 46

    In Dr. Selbrede’s denial of the nearly uniform teaching of RJR (incidents do exist which seem to contradict the majority of RJR’s teachings) Dr. Selbrede is falling into a mindset that RJR warned about repeatedly in his extensive writings,

    “Man is now defined as humanity rather than the individual, and this great one, humanity, to be truly a unity, must exist as one state. In this picture, any assertion of individuality, local or national independence, or the reality of races, is viewed with hostility and as a sign of mental sickness; it is an assertion of plurality which challenges the reality and unity of the universal.“

    R.J. Rushdoony
    The One and the Many, p.17

    Dr. Selbrede in a rush to defend RJR from the cultural Marxist left is embracing principles of the cultural Marxists in order to preform ideological-cide on RJR’s writings and thinking. Dr. Selbrede is denying that RJR insisted upon the reality of race and is running like a frightened rabbit from the hostility of those who affirm what RJR affirmed about the reality of races and the necessity to honor those racial distinctions in a God honoring way.

    It will do no good for Dr. Selbrede to suggest that RJR was a closet modernist on this issue. RJR clearly was not. RJR understood that racial differences existed and even suggested that there could be superiority and inferiority among races for a set period of time,

    “No, there is no connection. They don’t pretend to be Biblical, they’ll just read something in order to say they’ve read the Bible. As a matter of fact, the early church was segregated. First of all, in New Testament times it was segregated between the Jewish believers and the Gentile believers. And there was… a good reason for that. The Jewish believers were so far superior that to integrate the two would have meant more often confusion. And when you realize that in, say the Corinthian church, they didn’t even know that fornication or adultery was a sin because in the Greek world there was nothing wrong with that. After all the chambers of commerce in Greece and Corinth and elsewhere… in Corinth the chambers of commerce maintained regularly around two thousand prostitutes for all visiting businessmen. It was a manufacturing town and so on… and no one thought there was anything immoral about that. Or about men having relations with prostitutes. This was all taken for granted. So in the Gentile churches the moral standard was pretty low. It was a lot of hard work for a couple of generations and more to bring them up to any kind of standard. Well, the Jewish congregations represented a far higher moral standard and Paul saw nothing wrong with that, nor did any other apostle. So the principle of segregation was present there from the beginning.”

    R. J. Rushdoony
    Audio – On Segregation

    All of this compels me to suggest that it is possible that a future issue of “Faith For All Of LIfe” (FFAOL) that seeks to vindicate Selbrede’s Rushdoony, may be expected to be a hatchet job where the real RJR is hidden beneath the cloaks of the hostility of cultural Marxism.

    One would hope that Dr. Selbrede would allow the Kinists to have their input in such a future FFAOL edition but given what Dr. Selbrede has been saying here one wonders if that that will happen.

    LikeLike

63. “As between Rushdoony and Paul, give me Paul.” Amen to this.

    “As between Paul and Jesus, give me Jesus.” Well, you have to clarify this one. If we’re talking about what these two DID, no question: Paul didn’t hang on a cross for my sins. And it’s Jesus who is Lord, not Paul. But if it’s in regard to teaching, the two are in harmony — Paul is an ambassador for Christ and received his teaching from the Lord. The one time he offered his own opinion (1 Cor 7) he distinguished it from what the Lord Jesus commanded.

    Patience is in short supply, but given how much harm has been done in the name of Christianity, I can sympathize with it.

    LikeLike

64. To Mr. Powell, please note that I hold no degrees of any kind other than a high school diploma. Aside from having been a National Merit Scholar, my credentials are quite modest.

    Inflation of credentials is the last thing we need in this discussion.

    LikeLike

65. Does anyone know why Rushdoony divorced and remarried?

    LikeLike

66. “The one time he offered his own opinion (1 Cor 7) he distinguished it from what the Lord Jesus commanded.”

    Why not say, rather, that we are to accept Paul as speaking for the Lord only when he specifically claims to be doing so? I am aware that Wayne Grudem has conflated the prophetic with the apostolic, but I just cannot think of any Scripture that says the 12 apostles were also prophets, and certainly no Scripture claims that they were prophets in the sense that they were subject to death by stoning should they prophesy falsely.

    Well, Moses permitted divorce because of the hardness of men’s hearts. Jesus said do not separate what God has joined. As between Moses and Jesus, I will endeavor to follow Jesus. Jesus came to set men free. Paul returned the slave Onesimus to his master. As between Paul and Jesus I will follow Jesus. Jesus treated women with dignity and respect. If the standard translations are correct, which is disputed, Paul dishonored women according to the misogynistic views and practices of the culture and society of his day. As between Paul and Jesus, I will endeavor to follow Jesus.

    LikeLike

67. As between Rushdoony and Paul, give me Paul. As between Paul and Jesus, give me Jesus. All else is a spiritually homicidal distraction.

    You’ve got me singing “Give me Jesus” now.

    LikeLike

68. Gary W

    This conversation has annoyed me – And has broken my “Creepo Meter”

    But – – You’ve got me singing…

    “I have decided to follow Jesus”

    http://www.godsfaithbook.com/index.php?option=com_community&view=videos&task=video&userid=10847&videoid=10822&Itemid=101

    LikeLike

69. Nicholas, someone did a blog post about his divorce. When I get home, I’ll try to post the link

    LikeLike

70. Good morning Amos,

    Annoying indeed! Some here have responded to nonsense with a fair amount of understanding and compassion. Me, not so much. On the theory that it is blasphemy to attribute to God that which is evil, I have entertained the notion of turning one commenter over to Satan that he might learn not to blaspheme. I will accept any and all pats on the back for having recognized that this is not the situation for such a radical step.

    And, from you, I will also be open to any (hopefully gentle) correction. I fully and freely admit that truth comes easier to me than love. On the other hand, Jesus was not shy about calling pigs pigs and snakes snakes.

    LikeLike

71. Let us at least consider precisely why Dr. Rushdoony didn’t respond to his son-in-law’s hostile attacks (to show why you cannot draw any legitimate conclusion from that silence, nor characterize Dr. North as a reliable source).

    In 1998, I submitted an essay (“Reconstructing Postmillennialism”) to Chalcedon for publication in the Journal of Christian Reconstruction Symposium on Eschatology. I later discovered that an important footnote had been removed prior to printing, one specifically establishing, with documentary proof in Dr. North’s own hand, that he had made a false statement with a material impact. Whereas Dr. North has denied he had ever done X, his letter to me explicitly confirmed that he had deliberately done X and precisely why he had done X. But this material, which could have put Dr. North in a bad (albeit self-inflicted) light, was taken out of my article.

    So I called Dr. Rushdoony.

    “What’s on your mind, Martin?” he asked. I told him about the missing footnote.

    He explained that the cause of Christ wasn’t served by fueling an unedifying conflict. He had no intention of responding to Dr. North’s writings (although the 180-degree difference between his positions and what Dr. North was attributing to him on topic after topic for fifteen straight years was so marked that Dr. Rushdoony told me, “I wonder if he’s trying to give me a heart attack”). Dr. Rushdoony had recently allowed the editor to work up an agreement with North specifying that neither side disparage the other, which apparently didn’t cover the large amount of material of North’s already in print.

    The takeaway here: how many of you would remain silent and work quietly while your son-in-law was working to undermine your reputation for years? And IF you were able to turn the other cheek for that long, would you think it fair for others to frame your own views using your son-in-law’s deliberate attempts to discredit your positions?

    I will base my decision for remaining in this discussion on how the above information is used — or abused — by the individuals on this blog. Gracious Christians will conduct themselves one way, ideologues another. What I share here I do in good faith, and if that’s reciprocated, I will continue to reach out. But there’s no possibility of reaching out when you find that your hand has been amputated.

    LikeLike

72. JA- That song is beyond beautiful.
    I had a CD that came with an Anne Graham Lotz book of the same name.
    She gave a mini sermon and then played that song.
    I shared it at a Bible study at my home. It brought many tears.
    It brings back memories of a time before we were shunned from our church when 12-18 women used to meet in my home every week 8 yrs ago or so.
    Those days are long passed-the song brings that back. Bittersweet.
    I wish I could find it.
    I’ll look for it.

    LikeLike

73. Here are the Words: Anne Graham Lotz

    He is enduringly strong
    He is entirely sincere
    He is eternally steadfast
    He is immortally gracious
    He is imperially powerful
    He is impartially merciful
    He is the greatest phenomenon that has ever crossed the horizons of the globe
    He is Gods son
    He is the sinners savior
    He is the captives ransom
    He is the breadth of life
    He is the centerpiece of civilization
    He stands in the solitude of Himself
    He is august and He is unique
    He is unparalleled and unprecedented
    He is undisputed and undefined
    He is unsurpassed and unshakable
    He is the lofty idea in philosophy
    He is the highest personality in psychology
    He is the supreme subject in literature
    He is the unavoidable problem in higher criticism
    He is the fundamental doctrine of theology
    He is the cornerstone, the capstone and the stumbling stone of all religion
    He is the miracle of the ages

    Just give me Jesus

    No means of measure can define His limitless love
    No far seeing telescope can bring into visibility the coastline of His shore-less supply
    No barrier can hinder Him from pouring out His blessings
    He forgives and He forgets
    He creates and He cleanses
    He restores and He rebuilds
    He heals and He helps
    He reconciles and He redeems
    He comforts and He carries
    He lives and He loves
    He is the God of the second chance, the fat chance, the slim chance, the no chance

    Just give me Jesus

    He discharges debtors
    He delivers the captives
    He defends the feeble
    He blesses the young
    He serves the unfortunate
    He regards the aged
    He rewards the diligent
    He beautifies the meek
    He is the key to knowledge
    He is the fountain of life
    He is the wellspring of joy
    He is the storehouse of wisdom
    He is the foundation of faith
    He is the doorway of deliverance
    He is the pathway to peace
    He is the roadway of righteousness
    He is the gateway to glory
    He is the highway to happiness

    Just give me Jesus
    He supplies strength to the weary
    He increases power to the faint
    He offers escape to the tempted
    He sympathizes with the hurting
    He saves the hopeless
    He shields the helpless
    He sustains the homeless
    He gives purpose to the aimless
    He gives reason to our meaninglessness
    He gives fulfillment to our emptiness
    He gives light in the darkness, comfort in the loneliness, fruit in the barrenness, future to the hopeless, life to the lifeless

    Just give me Jesus
    He guards the young
    He seeks the stray
    He finds the lost
    He guides the faithful
    He rights the wronged
    He ad-verges the abused
    He defends the weak
    He comforts the oppressed
    He welcomes the prodigal
    He heals the sick
    He cleanses the dirty
    He beautifies the meek
    He restores the failure
    He mends the broken
    He blesses the poor
    He fills the empty
    He clothes the naked
    He satisfies the hungry
    He elevates the humble
    He forgives the sinner and He raises the dead

    Just give me Jesus
    His office is manifold and His promise is assured
    His life is matchless and goodness is limitless
    His mercy is enough and grace is sufficient
    His reign is righteous
    His yoke is easy and His burden is light
    He is indestructible
    He is indescribable
    He is incomprehensible
    He is inescapable
    He is invisible
    He is irresistible
    He is irrefutable

    I can’t get Him out of my mind and I can’t get Him out of my heart.
    I can’t outlive Him and I can’t live without Him.
    The pharisees couldn’t stand Him.
    The family couldn’t stop Him
    Satan tried to tempt Him but found he couldn’t trip Him
    Pilate examined Him on trial but found no fault in Him
    The Romans crucified Him but couldn’t take His life
    Death couldn’t handle Him and the grave couldn’t hold Him

    Just give me Jesus
    He had no predecessor and would have no successor
    He is the lion and the lamb
    He is God and He is man
    He is the seven way king:

    1.He is the King of the Jews; that is a racial king
    2.He is the King of Israel; that is a national king
    3.He is the King of Righteousness; that is a moral king
    4.He is the King of the Ages; that is an eternal king
    5.He is the King of Heaven; that is a universal king
    6.He is the King of Glory; that is a celestial king
    7.He is the King of Kings and the Lord of Lords

    Please just give me Jesus

    LikeLike

74. Gary W

    Sounds good to me…
    “Jesus was not shy about calling pigs pigs and snakes snakes.”

    I’ve remained kinda silent – I have nothing nice to say to these guys.
    And this is the first I’ve heard of Rushdooney and this, this, errr, thinking. Ugh…

    I appreciated your taking up the cause – And all the other folks here.
    You-all have dome a fine job of rebuking this, this, errr, thinking – Yukky.

    All I keep understanding inside me is – Rushdoony ala loony – 😉

    Eph 5:11
    And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness,
    but rather reprove them.

    Tit 2:15*
    These things speak, and exhort, and rebuke with all authority.
    Let no man despise thee.

    LikeLike

75. Hannah

    That was wonderful – Just give me Jesus

    I feel cleansed – Thanks

    LikeLike

76. JA,
    Re: the blog post on Rushdoony’s divorce. Are you thinking about this one? http://heresyintheheartland.blogspot.com/2013/08/voiceless-women-arda-j-rushdoony.html?m=1

    LikeLike

77. Yes, that’s it, BTDT. Thanks!

    LikeLike

78. And – As long as we’re talking about {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    Why would someone want to follow a Mere Fallible Human…
    Especially a “Dead” Mere Fallible Human…

    When “WE,” His Body, His Ekklesia, His Church, His Called Out Ones, His Disciples, His Ambassordors, His Bride, His Kings and Priest, His sons, His Saints, His Redeemed, His Sheep, His Children…

    Can – Hear His Voice – And Follow

    {{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}

    LikeLike

79. Martin Selbrede on November 26, 2013 at 6:35 AM:

    My friend, was that supposed to be an answer to my question about the League? Because it wasn’t. Does Chalcedon repudiate the league of the south and its ideals? It’s simple yes or no question.

    You put much store by who has written what in the newsletter. Well, it is my understanding that Steve Wilkins has written in that newsletter. Is that correct? If so, does this mean that you endorse his views as being consistent with Rushdoony’s? Again, yes or no answers would be fine.

    Must …. repress… lawyer… instincts.

    Thanks for considering these questions.

    LikeLike

80. Rushdonney had the “Title” Pastor – Hmmm? That’s NOT in the Bible. 😦
    NOT one Disciple of Jesus had the “Title” pastor.

    Rushdonney had the “Title” Reverend – Hmmm? That’s NOT in the Bible. 😦
    NOT one Disciple of Jesus had the “Title” reverend.

    Rushdonney had the “Title” Doctor – Hmmm? That’s NOT in the Bible. 😦
    NOT one Disciple of Jesus had the “Title” doctor.

    Okay – Three strikes and you’re out… Rushdooney was a loony….
    Why follow him? And he’s “Dead” to boot…

    Seems, the only “Leader” Jesus said to “Follow” was “Himself.”
    Except once – where they were to follow a man with a pitcher of water. 🙂
    Mr 14:13 …there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water: follow him.

    And if you Follow Jesus…
    Jesus will make you a fisher of men. – Yup – Jesus does it…
    Can NOT find Jesus asking “WE,” to follow a man
    Don’t need to go to deep to understand Jesus when He talks to you…
    Ahh, the simplicity of Jesus – He speaks my language – NOT like these guys.

    Mt 4:19 …*Follow me,* and I will make you fishers of men.
    Mt 8:19 … I will *Follow thee* whithersoever thou goest.
    Mt 8:22 …*Follow me;* and let the dead bury their dead.
    Mt 9:9 … *Follow me.* And he arose, and *FOLLOWED him.*
    Mt 16:24 …let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and *Follow me.*
    Mt 19:21 …thou shalt have treasure in heaven: and come and *Follow me.*
    Mr 2:14 …Levi… *Follow me.* And he arose and *Followed him.*
    Mr 6:1 …came into his own country; and his disciples *Follow him.*
    Mr 8:34 …Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself…
    ……..and *Follow me.*
    Mr 10:21 …One thing thou lackest…take up the cross, and *Follow me.*
    Luke 5:27 … Levi, sitting at the receipt of custom: said to him, *Follow me.*
    Luke 9:23 And he said to them “ALL” If any man will COME AFTER ME,
    ……let him deny himself, and take up his cross daily, and Follow me.
    Luke 9:57 …Lord, I will *Follow thee* whithersoever thou goest.
    Luke 9:59 And he said unto another, *Follow me*…
    Luke 9:61 …Lord, I will *Follow thee;* let me first go bid them farewell…
    Luke 18:22 …distribute unto the poor… and come, *Follow me.*
    Luke 22:10 …bearing a pitcher of water; follow him into the house…
    John 1:43 …Jesus… findeth Philip, and saith unto him, *Follow me.*
    John 10:4 …and the sheep *Follow him:* for they know his voice.
    John 10:5 And *a stranger will they not Follow,* but will flee from him…
    John 10:27 My sheep hear my voice, I know them, and they *Follow me:*
    John 12:26 If any man serve me, let him *Follow me*…
    John 13:36 …Whither I go, thou canst not *Follow me* now…
    John 13:37 Peter said unto him, Lord, why cannot I Follow thee now?…
    John 21:19 This spake he, signifying by what death he should glorify God.
    ……. And when he had spoken this, he saith unto him, *Follow me.*
    John 21:22 Jesus saith unto him, If I will that he tarry till I come,
    …… what is that to thee? *Follow thou me.*

    Yup – I have decided to Follow

    [[[[[[ Jesus }}}}}}

    LikeLike

81. I keep picking up on something around the blogosphere and even here with these patriarchy folks. They are using the term “Hyper Patriarchy” trying to distance themselves from VF/Phillips.

    Don’t buy it.

    LikeLike

82. Enoch, honey …. “Cultural Marxists?” In the words of the great Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do no’ think it means what you think it means.”

    LikeLike

83. “Lydia on November 26, 2013 at 10:36 AM
    I keep picking up on something around the blogosphere and even here with these patriarchy folks. They are using the term “Hyper Patriarchy” trying to distance themselves from VF/Phillips.

    Don’t buy it.”

    That’s the truth in a nutshell, Lydia. Patriarchy is patriarchy is unbiblical. Kinism is racism is unbiblical. Extreme, moderate, lite, neo, paleo, whatever … Still unbiblical. It is no defense to say Rushdoony or Wilson anybody else was not that extreme. Even Enoch gets that. It’s still patriarchy, kinism … Unbiblical.

    Side note, I watched a similar sort of “our views are not that extreme … The problem is that hyper user took them too far and/or failed to uncritically accept them without modification” tactic today regarding the book “to train up a child.”
    http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/bestoftv/2013/11/26/ac-tuchman-on-to-train-up-a-child.cnn.html?c=homepage-t

    LikeLike

84. Free At Last — A good (and interesting) question. But is it a simple question, or is it really a compound question? Let’s see how Jesus handled a difficult issue that might have a bearing on this.

    Everyone knows that the scribes and Pharisees were on Jesus’s list (you know which one I mean). Yet He says something profound about His opponents in Matt. 23:2-3 — “The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses’ seat: All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not ye after their works: for they say, and do not.” When these men sat “in Moses’s seat,” namely, were reading the Scriptures, the authority in the Scriptures was undiminished, notwithstanding the hypocrisy of the ones reading God’s Word to the people. So, why doesn’t Jesus fully “repudiate” the scribes and Pharisees? Because it would throw the baby out with the bath water. He then goes on to detail how filthy the bath water is for the remainder of the chapter — but He refuses to harm the baby. So, the Lord was specific and selective in His admonitions. He would fail the politically-correct test for mounting an acceptable across-the-board repudiation. He hedged His rebuke because justice demanded He do so, and He was Justice Incarnate.

    My approach to a matter like this is exegetical (first) and theological (second), NOT social and political (primarily because this is a moral matter that is profoundly personal, not institutional and depersonalized, in scope). You are (in effect if not in intent) requesting that I step out and adopt your view that this question should be determined socio-politically. But to determine it there means its feet are planted firmly in the air: ten years from now the socio-political climate might demand something different. And to answer socio-politically means that we should look to resolve answers by social media consensus, not exegesis of Scripture. If constituency X, or position Y, embraces or promotes a view in conflict with Scripture while asserting it to be the teaching of Scripture, then the conflict with Scripture must be brought to the table by those competent to do so, in the arena of exegesis.

    As anyone who has bothered to read the original post whereby I entered these discussion pages, the primary point of my article Liberty From Abuse was erected on exegetical grounds (for any who don’t know what that means, it refers to working toward linguistic precision on what God’s Word in the original languages actually means, with an eye toward faithfully applying it). I think the flaw in throwing a label around like “cultural Marxist” (apart from poisoning the well) is that it overlooks that the vehicle by which these questions must be arrived at is painstaking exegesis of Scripture. And if whatever Chalcedon puts forth is researched and presented in that framework, such pejorative labels become self-negating (unless, of course, God Himself is to be condemned as a cultural Marxist). As you can see, there is more heat than light in this dispute, but what Chalcedon is trying to do is expand scriptural light on these matters, not add to the social media static, and certainly not to issue blanket statements that the Lord Jesus Christ Himself didn’t issue against the scribes and Pharisees. I would, however, be able to answer narrower questions that don’t run afoul of the principle Christ laid down in Matthew 23.

    As far as I can remember on this blog, I’ve not applied labels to anyone here. Not a single person has been labeled by me; rather, I’ve focused on discussing the consequences of ideas and bringing Scripture to bear in several places. But like memes (see my article in the latest Faith for All of Life, “The Ultimate Meme”), labels provide a shortcut enabling someone to control the narrative. I think for matters this important, shortcuts will not prove useful, however attractive they might seem. There are no meaningful soundbites in Hebrews 7 because it is a sustained argument start to finish that requires every part to convey its important truth. That’s not evasion, that’s what handling the Word with care entails. If this doesn’t satisfy an ideological agenda, fine — where is it written in God’s Word that I must follow the multitude? It’s cheap and easy to answer either Yes or No, but “wide the path and easy to travel” describes the road to destruction, while narrow and more difficult to travel is the path that leads to life. So, I’ll travel the more difficult path here, but if we work together in this dialogue, we might get something out if it that would be more satisfying to you just by focusing the lens in a bit more.

    LikeLike

85. “So, I’ll travel the more difficult path here,”

    I dunno. It sure seems we’re having a difficult time focusing the lens on Jesus, Who in addition to being the truth and the life is the WAY, the one and only (and narrow) WAY. I submit that to follow Rushdooney or anybody else other than Jesus is to take the easy, wide path that leads to destruction. By definition.

    As to the question of avoiding labels, I could almost be persuaded. What with some of what is being defended here, I am almost embarrassed by the label of Christian. Fortunately, I do not have to be embarrassed to be a follower of Jesus, and only Jesus.

    LikeLike

86. Martin Selbrede wrote:

    “More can be said, but it is my position that plumbing the Bible provides insights that will prove edifying (but here I am assuming that the Bible scholars are motivated to look to Scripture to understand these crises, but I am inclined to think that far too many of them are motivated to neglect Scripture). The right thing to do is rarely the easy thing to do.”

    This response troubles me quite a bit, particularly considering those of us who found very good Scripturally guided help through the books on the subject of spiritual abuse. Again, we get back to the problem of finding ones that meet the demands of theonomy if so many of them are “motivated to neglect Scripture.”

    Are the aforementioned Christian books on the subject (I forgot to mention the Ryans’ writings in that earlier list above) only helpful to the antinomian? I fear that this puts immediate and pragmatic help out of the reach of many people. Is the way really that narrow, even to first find your way to the path before the steps get steep? Did those of us who gleaned help and spiritual edification through the Word in these books take the wrong, easy path? Many of us had no Biblical means of getting justice or restoration, or that justice worked against us in devastating ways, even though we went through the best ecclesiastical process available to us. What of the young women who get out of the IFB who vomit when they hear a man read the Bible (so much so that another survivor paid to have Scripture recorded by a woman for audio mediation)? What of the woman I know who vomits when she merely looks at a church because of what was done to her there? I don’t think that the “right way of restoration” is accessible to them. I think it comes to us along the long journey of healing.

    When you add to what orthodoxy demands, putting non-essential doctrinal preferences into the category of what constitutes essential belief, you actually restrict people from gaining access to the love of God and the help that the community of Christ can offer them. Jesus talked about this when he said that the Pharisees made the way of heaven too hard to attain, but Michael Meiring has a nice discourse on this in his book “Preserving Evangelical Unity,” too.

    Contrary to popular belief, denominationalism is not the root cause of disunity; it is sectarianism or fundamentalism.  And the evangelical church is not immune to this disease.  Some Christians have in the past and up to now sown a sectarian attitude, believing that unity means conformity to all their views and “refusing to allow for diversity in others.”  They have broadened Christian orthodoxy by breaking fellowship with any other Christian who disagrees with them on non-essential doctrines, which is fueled by their belief that the Holy Spirit illumines their minds to understand everything written in the Bible.  There is, however, a subtle danger that all of us must face in our effort for unity.  We must be aware that when we apply principles of interpretation, we are approaching Scripture with our presuppositions, influenced by our environment and theological traditions   (pg. 10).
    Mr. Selbrede, if I am interpreting what you’ve written about the Christian literature correctly, you’re saying that it is neglectful of Scripture. Because of this one example and your article, you’ve determined Chalcedon is the best and most adequate source of information about how the devout and dutiful Christian can overcome the myriad of problems (post cult trauma syndrome, PTSD associated with spiritual abuse, shunning by one’s religious community, etc.). The others, though Christian in general nature, have actually neglected their Christian duty and have not given the Word it’s proper place in the healing process?

    I’m concerned that these writings are actually neglectful of a Reformed framework and are therefore antinomian, to state it more accurately, and it is this that makes them inadequate. Would that not mean that to really get it right, everyone has to become a Calvinist, and one of the right variety? There are a lot of antinomian, humanistically influenced Calvinists out there. And it breaks my heart to write this, but what you’ve written sounds elitist. There’s only hope for a very few of us, and the rest of us are just going to languish in pain and ignorance of the truth because we don’t have enough esteem for God’s Law.

    But then, I don’t know what you’ve actually read yourself. I would challenge you to read Johnson and VanVonderan’s “Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse,” Steven Martin’s “The Heresy of Mind Control,” Wendy Duncan’s “I Can’t Hear God Anymore,” and the number of books that Dale and Juanita Ryan have written. If you find them inadequate and antinomian and neglectful, then in liberty and love, we’ll have to agree to disagree.

    LikeLike

87. Cindy, I apologize for my poverty of expression. I thought I had clarified this adequately some time ago, so I must be stumbling here. Chalcedon’s focus was predominantly on the sanctions against the perpetrator and the specific supporting passage in Ezekiel 34. I in no way wish to diminish the labors of all the Christians working this issue, regardless of theological background. I’ve tried last week to correct this impression on both this site and at Jen’s Gems. Perhaps having to deal with two sites caused something to fall through the cracks.

    I think we have a piece of the puzzle: the one that prevents recidivism, and the one that should be impressed upon everyone seeking church office: one strike and you’re out. Other than that, I lean heavily on the work of others in respect to the many other components of abuse and rehabilitation of the victims, and I consider plagiarism of the labors of others to be reprehensible. If some of the writers you mentioned would consider contributing to the planned Journal Symposium on Abuse that Chalcedon has planned for 2014, please provide contact info for them. I’ve already acquired several authors as a result of my Liberty From Abuse article, and I evaluate all such work on Biblical merits, not within a narrow ideological framework. This liberal emphasis has always marked the Journal (as mentioned in previous posts).

    The victim of abuse that I collaborated with prevailed upon me to put my first post on this site because of the title concerning “restoration to office” and its conditions. THAT is why I was even here: because distinctive to Scripture is the denial of any such restoration to office. If I appeared to be making a wider argument, that might have arisen here having been drawn into countless side issues by parties suspicious of my presence. The victim acknowledges having received significant healing from some of the materials, but never ultimate closure in respect to justice (due to collusive behavior by church & ministry favoring the abuser).

    I hope this clarifies things better.

    LikeLike

88. The current kinist movement and ideology is a creation of the neoconfederate movement: http://www.adl.org/assets/pdf/combating-hate/Kinism-Racist-and-Anti-Semitic-Religionfinal2.pdf

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/summer/rooting-out-racism

    It is an attempt to provide a theological justification for the racial views they already held, a holdover from the Jim Crow era. They cite theologians from the past who held some or all of their views, such as Robert Lewis Dabney and R.J. Rushdoony. The kinists do identify as reconstructionists/theonomists. Many theonomists however are clearly embarrassed by the kinists and want to distance themselves from them.

    LikeLike

89. @BTDT

    Thanks for posting that link. It’s obvious that that aspect of Rushdoony’s life is one that the theonomists would rather keep quiet.

    LikeLike

90. I’ve looked at some of the threads on kinist blogs and they literally accuse anyone who disagrees with them of “Marxism.”

    Here’s some more examples of “kinist” behavior chronicled by Dr. Anthony Bradley:

    http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2007/02/the-excommunication-of-anthony-bradley-hoped-for-in-memphis.html

    http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2010/07/why-didnt-they.html

    LikeLike

91. More examples:

    http://www.dranthonybradley.com/when-challenging-confederate-loving-calvinists-expect-this/

    http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2012/07/anthony-bradley-12.html

    LikeLike

92. Dr. Bradley on the similarity between kinist and klan ideology: http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2006/01/you-make-the-call-the-kkk-vs-reformed-kinists-some-southern-reformed-theocratswhats-the-difference-really.html

    LikeLike

93. Very long but interesting blog post covering a lot of what is being talked about here. I apologize it this has been linked here previously. R.J. Rushdoony is mentioned several times.

    http://fiddlrts.blogspot.ca/2013/02/patriarchy-christian-reconstructionsim.html

    Also, Martin can you please explain how Rushdoony’s beliefs about race differ from those of the kinists? Did his beliefs change over time and if so is there anything in writing that you can recommend I read that would illustrate this.

    LikeLike

94. Free At Last (Nov 26, 10:38am) Re Enoch’s “Cultural Marxists”, I suspect he is double-speaking “democracy” wherein each citizen has a voice in how government is run.

    LikeLike

95. All, I will return tomorrow to answer some more questions. Some good insights being shared here by others. If you look up above, you’ll see I did address some issues earlier today as opportunity permitted (but obviously not all, because as Warfield once said, “This is quite a list!”).

    LikeLike

96. Mr. Selbrede,

    I am the Kinist who wrote the introductory remarks in the Tribal Theocrat blog post to which Julie Anne gave a link above. I read with some interest your comment: “…some material has been in development to address — yet again — the issue of kinism.” Kinists welcome a dialog with Chalcedon on this issue. We only ask that you give us a fair hearing, allowing for the nuances of our position, just as you have requested here for R. J. Rushdoony. All too often, critics of Kinism knock down strawman after strawman, but never deal with our actual beliefs. Would you apply to us the same standard you request for yourself? If you would be willing, we would like the opportunity to submit a position paper for publication with the critical material you referenced. If you are unwilling, I hope that you would at least permit us to define our position for you, rather than consulting exclusively with our critics. You are welcome to contact me through the contact page for Empty Tomb Books:

    http://emptytombbooks.com/pages/Contact.html

    Further, you are also welcome to answer my charges on Tribal Theocrat. We also have a liberal comment policy. I can assure you that we will endeavor to deal honestly with you, but I will also forewarn you that we are plain spoken.

    LikeLike

97. Martin,
    I’ve asked a straight question. I’ve gotten a gobbledygook of patronizing. evasive, nonresponsive, irrelevant, and insubstantive words strung together that amount to nothing except, perhaps, a refusal to repudiate the League.

    Yout evasive maeuver of painting yourself as the one concerned with theology and Scripture and me as someone whose views are based on sociopolitical fads is disingenuous melarky. At every point, my objection to patriarchy, kinism, misogyny, and racsim have been that they are “unbiblical.” Never that they are unpopular, anachronistic, outdated, politically incorrect, or the like. You who accuse us of cherrypicking and reformulating Rushdoony’s points— why do you make such a tramsparent, failed attempt to do that to me? You lose credibility there.

    In deciding whether something is right or wrong, I expect nothing less of myself or anyone else but to examine the thing in the light of scripture. Goodness knows, there are all manner of forms of misogyny and racism that are quite politically correct in this day and age — but still unbiblical and, therefore, wrong.

    In fact, Mr, Selbride, in the time and place where I live, in my profession, with hundreds of years of spotless white anglo-celtic southern presbyterian heritage, and my own and my family’s social standing, it would be sociopolitcally advantagous for me to send the League an application and a membership check. Oh, yes, the doors that would open to me financially and professionally! But I won’t. Because my soul is not for sale. I certainly hope yours isn’t either.

    In fact, I have faced negative social and political consequences from kinists in my community for engaging in certain interracial activities with my Christian brothers and sisters of other races that I will not describe for concern of opening myself and my safety up to further danger. Next time, I don’t expect thr consequences to be so easily survivable. And there will be a next time, Mr.Selbride, because, as Casper ten Boom said when the Nazis offered to let him off with only a warning if he promised to behave himself: “If you let me go now, I promise, tomorrow I will open my door to anyone who knocks.”

    I’m not a hero. Taunya and thr Henderson family are heroes.
    But your suggestion that I object to the league’s views because they are unpopular in some other world that the one in which i find myself is a coward’s way out for you, and a badly flawed one. If I were driven by social and political aspirations, I’d be carrying a black cross on a white background with all the rest of them.

    In fact, with all your nonspecific talk about rice bowls and babies and bathwater it increasingly appears to me that you are the one commenting on the basis of social and political expedience. Perhaps you are afraid to speak what you know is true lest
    It put you at cross angles to the rich and powerful. Either that, or you are trying to make a distiction without a difference and you really are in agreement with them.

    I have not bothered to explain why these kinist and patriarchal ideas are unbiblical, and I won’t, because the question is not why does Free at Last find them unbiblical. The question, and I will rephrase it for you one last time, is this:

    Do you, Mr. Selbride, find the kinist views of the League of thr South to be biblical? Yes or no.

    It’s not a compound question. Another rambling noncommittal answer will be deemed a “no” and we can move on. Others can determine for themselves whether you are right about that.

    LikeLike

98. Mr. Selbrede,

    These Cultural Marxists hate you. They will never agree with you or see how reasonable you are being in your discussion with them. These people are the enemy. You are in danger of eschewing your Kinist friends for the sake of trying to satisfy the cultural Marxists. Those people will not be satisfied until their Universal Racism, of which RJR wrote about and against, wins the day so that the Marxist NWO they are working towards — whether as epistemologically self conscious or as useful idiots — amalgamates all men into one pagan people owning one pagan faith living in a singular pagan culture.

    Here the genius Rushdoony on this debate,

    “The U.N. position, ostensibly anti-racist, is no less racist than the most fervent champions of race in history. Indeed, the liberal, religion of humanity faith is simply a form of racism. There are two kinds of racism today. For the first, to belong to a particular race, white or black, Jewish or Arab, is all-important. Membership in a particular group is itself a mark of distinction and discrimination, and constitutes the dividing line. For the second form of racism, to belong to the human race is all-important. For both positions, racial membership is the test, the ticket of admission and the guarantee of status. Against this expanded or liberal form of racism, as against all forms of racism, orthodox Christianity enters a dissent. For the Christian, character, born of faith, is the test of man, not a particular race or the human race. Racial differences are recognized as real and as God-given, but the determinative fact concerning man is his relationship to God, not the fact of his humanity. This is the Biblical position; it is also the position which makes for progress by emphasizing quality. Quality is sought out and emulated. A people, discriminated against at one time, by emulation advance themselves, as witness the Irish in America. Therefore, in no uncertain terms, the orthodox Christian must regard the universal racism of the U.N. as a menace, destructive of the Christian faith and detrimental to man.

    R.J. Rushdoony,
    The Nature of the American System, p. 142

    Only the Kinists agree with this kind of reasoning Martin. Only the Kinists are the inheritors of RJR’s legacy.

    LikeLike

99. Enoch, honey, not everybody who disagrees with you is a marxist, cultural or otherwise. But it’s easier than thinking, isn’t it, to call us all that? Bless your heart.

    LikeLike

100. P.s. Martin, I don’t hate you. I wish you’d give a straight answer to the question, but if anybody understands the stakes when it comes to standing against folks like Enoch, it’s me. If you’d rather not stand up to Enoch and his philosophical brethren, I suppose you do have your family and your livelihood to think about.

     From me, there is frustration, but no hatred, certainly I wish you God’s truth and peace and for your family as well. You and I disagree with one another, but we don’t hate one another. Fir folks like Enoch, that’s a little too nuanced a concept. Have a good Thanksgiving.

     LikeLike

101. And they divide and divide themselves until they fit into the stable at Narnia’s Last Battle:

     “Aslan raised his head and shook his mane. Instantly a glorious feast appeared on the Dwarfs’ knees: pies and tongues and pigeons and trifles and ices, and each Dwarf had a goblet of good wine in his right hand. But it wasn’t much use. They began eating and drinking greedily enough, but it was clear that they couldn’t taste it properly. They thought they were eating and drinking only the sort of things you might find in a stable. One said he was trying to eat hay and another said he got a bit of an old turnip and a third said he’d found a raw cabbage leaf. And they raised golden goblets of rich red wine to their lips and said “Ugh! Fancy drinking dirty water out of a trough that a donkey’s been at! Never thought we’d come to this.”

     But very soon every Dwarf began suspecting that every other Dwarf had found something nicer than he had, and they started grabbing and snatching, and went on to quarreling, till in a few minutes there was a free fight and all the good food was smeared on their faces and clothes or trodden under foot.

     But when at last they sat down to nurse their black eyes and their bleeding noses, they all said: “Well, at any rate there’s no Humbug here. We haven’t let anyone take us in. The Dwarfs are for the Dwarfs.”

     “You see,” said Aslan. “They will not let us help them. They have chosen cunning instead of belief. Their prison is only in their own minds yet they are in that prison; and so afraid of being taken in that they cannot be taken out.”

     LikeLike