* * *
Chalcedon Foundation discloses they privately contributed to Joe Taylor’s legal defense against Doug Phillips, and discussion on Reconstructionism and “Biblical Patriarchy”
* * *
Further developments have unfolded on the Doug Phillips story and I will try to briefly recap them since the content has been buried in blog comments. Links are provided if you care to dig deeper.
On an earlier article here, Doug Phillips: Repentance and Restoration – Is it Possible?, a commenter using the name “Chalcedon Foundation” contributed a link to the comment discussion. It is important to understand what the Chalcedon Foundation is. Here is a small blurb from Wikipedia — and although this is probably not how the Chalcedon Foundation describes itself, it does give a glimpse of how they are perceived in the broader public arena:
The Chalcedon Foundation provides educational material in the form of books, newsletter reports and various electronic media, toward advancing the theological teachings of Rushdoony’s Christian Reconstructionism movement. It is notable for its role in the influence of Christianity on politics in the U.S. and has been described as “a think tank of the Religious Right. Rushdoony’s son, Mark now heads the foundation.
The Chalcedon Foundation has been listed as an anti-gay hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center for, among other reasons, supporting the death penalty for homosexuals.
Here is the comment by “Chalcedon Foundation” posted on the aforementioned article:
A very different approach to the fundamental issue: http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/liberty-from-abuse-2/
* * *
I responded by commenting that the link led to a Reconstructionist site. This apparently opened up a whole can of worms and discussion ensued about Reconstructionism. I then posted this:
* * *
I just took a quick look at the link provided by Chalcedon and was surprised at what I read. There is a lot of good info in that article. Time prevents me from reading the whole thing, but there is a good understanding of ecclesiastical abuse. That particular article may be fine, however, I would urge caution when reading at this site (shouldn’t we always be careful, though?). Reconstructionism (you’ll see footnotes from Rushdoony, a Reconstructionist), is the core of the Homeschool Movement and the driving force of many of the practices: keeping daughters at home, out of the work force, away from college, marrying young, having lots of babies, etc.
* * *
If you look on my sidebar Categories listings for Reconstructionist-Dominion Movement, I have articles identifying R.J. Rushdoony as the father of the Homeschool Movement. The title was not original with me. However, it seems that both “Chalcedon Foundation” and commenter T.W. Eston have issues with me attributing to Rushdoony the excesses and abuses within the Homeschool Movement. Read T.W. Eston’s most recent comment:
* * *
I have high regard for Julie Anne, but I believe she is misinformed on this point. As I have noted in my article, R.J. Rushdoony is one of the founding fathers of the modern home school movement. It would not then be unreasonable for those who condemn home schooling to disdain Rushdoony. But oddly enough there are many home schoolers (Julie Anne being one of them) who believe in home schooling but who at the same time disdain one of its most significant pioneers. Such is the sad state of confusion so many live in today.
* * *
Fair enough. T. W. Eston has a good point. While researching Rushdoony months ago, it is true that I did not find specific documentation connecting him directly to the types of abuses we see currently within the Homeschool Movement. So it seems that Rushdoony began the movement, but as certain men jumped on board, they shaped it with their own ideas and agendas, some abusive. T.W. Eston refers to these men as “hyper-patriarchs” in his comment and then later lists specific individuals:
* * *
Julie Anne, it would seem to me that’s what you, and many other commenters here, have done in unjustly attributing to Rushdoony those things in the modern home schooling movement that you (and I too) object to. Place the blame squarely where it belongs: Phillips, Sproul, Swanson, McDonald, Botkin, and others of their ilk, not with a man who did not promulgate those things that you have unjustly accused him of.
* * *
That makes sense. Commenter, Chalcedon Foundation, and for that matter, T.W. Eston, both seem to highly respect Rushdoony. That’s fine. I don’t. I do not like the trajectory he set forth with his Reconstructionist views and how the foundational system of Reconstructionism has fueled these current movements.
* * *
Chalcedon Foundation Paid $5,000 to Joe Taylor to Help with Legal Expenses
* * *
Another interesting development along the way is the disclosure that the Chalcedon Foundation paid $5,000 to Joe Taylor to help cover legal fees when Doug Phillips was suing him over the allosaur debacle. You can read the entire discourse in the comments at Jen’s Gems, Open Letter To Chalcedon Foundation Regarding Its Defense of Doug Phillips.
Martin Selbrede, the Vice President at Chalcedon Foundation, shared the story of how Joe Taylor was personal friends with both him and Rushdoony.
* * *
As Vice President of Chalcedon at the time, I took this issue to President Mark Rushdoony and we decided it was morally incumbent upon us to offer Joe Taylor what help we could against the legal onslaught he was facing. On the condition that Joe never reveal the source of the money to anyone, Chalcedon sent him an “officially anonymous” check for $5,000 (which we really didn’t have to give) to help Joe defend himself against the legal assault Doug Phillips had initiated. This proverbial “gift in secret” remained so until the moment this paragraph was posted here on this site.
* * *
Later, Joe Taylor chimed in with a comment to confirm this contribution:
* * *
Joe Taylor Says:
November 20, 2013 at 9:31 amMartin Selbrede is correct. I can now acknowledge that Chalcedon did send me a check for $5,000 to help in my defense against Doug Phillip’s legal assault on me beginning in 2002.
* * *
However, Joe adds much more in his comment. He discusses the pattern of Phillips using the intellectual property of others for his own personal gain:
* * *
In the early 80s, Robert Green and I began discussing the need to help men recover their God-given responsibility to lead and train their families. Robert subsequently published his excellent magazine “Quit You Like Men” for which Doug Phillips was a writer. I believe that they usually got negative reactions to Doug’s articles. Nevertheless, Doug went on to make a lot of money on the premise of “patriarchy” although, misued in his hands.
Nor was Doug the first to see the need for a magazine and organization that would help the early homeschool movement network and be a source for home education resources. In 1986, I flew to Georgia to lay the groundwork for just such ideas with Steve Schiffman, for whom I also designed “The American Vision” logo consisting of three Pilgrim kids (the models were kids I was helping raise). I have often wondered if my “Norman Rockwell” style and the name “The American Vision” was any influence on Doug’s choice of the name for his organization and it’s [sic] “Rockwell” style.
Starting in 2002, and repeatedly through 2008 I tried to warn not only Chalcedon, but ICR, AiG, and others in the home school, Creation, and American Heritage movements about Doug and his partners. The legal problems ruined [sic] my health and business, the most active Creation fossil excavation, restoration and research team in all of Creation circles. Doug bragged that his group of little homeschool kids took paleontology away from the secular world. In fact he destroyed it. What a wonderful work we could have all done together with Doug’s brilliant mind, business ability and his contacts with wealthy Christians. By now, instead of Creation field [sic} paleontology being severely crippled, it could have blossomed and been responsible for the start of several new fossil evidence museums, films and publications not to mention the training of numerous laborers in the feild.
* * *
Chalcedon Foundation to Release Symposium on Spiritual Abuse, Patriarchy, and Feminism Possibly in 2014
I took special interest in another topic in the conversation there between Martin Selbrede and T.W. Eston: spiritual abuse, and restarting publication of Chalcedon’s Journal of Christian Reconstruction. Selbrede writes:
I thought that a Symposium on Spiritual Abuse would be an excellent first issue to put out in 2014, pulling contributions from key sources, all directed toward developing a constructive solution to a growing problem. That could then be followed by a Symposium on Patriarchy and Feminism. These two consecutive volumes would constitute a worthy way to restart the Journal. (Emphasis added.)
Um, the key leaders in the Homeschool Movement who subscribe to Reconstructionist views are the ringleaders of abuse within the movement. Hello!?!
T.W. Eston responds by endorsing the concept and offers his own title to the symposium idea, apparently to take on those who’ve gone overboard from “true” Reconstructionism and misused the term to cover their own abusive approaches to theology and hierarchical control.
I would say that the long standing hiatus of the Journal of Christian Reconstruction is a likely factor, perhaps even a significant one, in giving free reign to the Hyper-Patriarchs, especially given that all of the most abusive of them have claimed at one point or another to have been influenced by Christian Reconstructionism. They’ve had little to nothing in the way of a scholarly rebuke and, as I see it, the only genuinely authoritative rebuke could come from the same organization through which Christian Reconstructionism and Biblical Patriarchy is recognized to have originated from. (Emphasis added.)
I think you will find many who will be eager to subscribe should it come back out of retirement. Allow me to suggest a third edition: Symposium on Patriarchy and [vs.] Hyper-Patriarchy. The subject matter is extensive enough that I believe that it really merits its own edition.
. . . . . because we’re all nice and cozy with the idea of scholarly Reconstructionists educating us about spiritual abuse, aren’t we, now? The “only genuinely authoritative rebuke?” What does that mean? Who is that authority? Why are they in that place of authority? Oh yea, these are guys who are brilliant scholars and intellectuals who have a direct line with God?
* * *
Related articles
- Open Letter To Chalcedon Foundation Regarding Its Defense of Doug Phillips (jensgems.wordpress.com)
- Denver Christian Perspectives Examiner: “Chalcedon ministry sets ‘record straight’ about relationship with Doug Phillips” (jensgems.wordpress.com)
Spiritual Sounding Board 
Free At Last, oh dear honey-boo-boo. Someone that is a cultural marxist is one that promotes multiculturalism, or a combination of all cultures into one amalgamated culture. I thought someone of your high intellectual esteem would be knowledgeable of such lowly common speech. I’ll break it down for you, and I promise I’ll type slow. Cultural Marxism is the twisted utopia John Lennon with his googely glassed bride sang about, and Leon Trotsky had kvetching kosher dreams of. As for me and my family, we’ll have no part of this present man-made Hell. As a Kinist I respect every race’s unique abilities, and gifts as God bestowed, and wish the gospel of Christ to take hold in each.
Martin, theologically you and I are essentially the same, aside from this Kinism/Alienism issue. Why throw good Christian men under the bus on this issue, just to appease these mouth breathing femi-Nazis? If you pay attention, you’ll find the ministry you represent attracts Kinists, because it’s founder was a Kinist too. Quit worrying about offending the god of multiculturalism, Marchin Lootin King, and let’s work together to fix the ills the church is suffering from.
Attack away ladies and effeminate men, I’m wearing my special zombie repellent today.
LikeLike
Chester Chuckles,
I call Poe’s law! Hilarious.
Even if you didn’t mean it to be.
LikeLike
“I’m wearing my special zombie repellent today.”
And right handsome you look, Chesty. But it’s yer sheer breadth of intellect that’s causin’ me to swoon. Kin I be part of your fambly too?
LikeLike
Free At Last- If I can’t appeal to one’s reason, at least I can make ’em laugh Even if it is at me ;).
Patrice, no ebonics please, I’m far to white to understand such gibberish.
LikeLike
Chester Clown,
Thanks for the good nature.
Yeah, i’m familiar with the term “cultural marxism.” And that it’s a shorthand for having to think about anything complicated. Anybody who disagrees with whoever is weilding the term at the moment automatically is assumed to subscribe to the same philospohy, (sarcasm alert) we all want a salvation through a “liberal,” godless one world government where we rob from the rich and hold hands and hold hedonistic rituals while singing kum ba ya pie in the sky!
I listen to hank sr., patsy cline, classic country, bluegrass, and baroque. The only Beatles song I know was covered by Rosanne Cash. And trotsky-smotsky. As others here have said, we have no use for human philosophies here. Give us Jesus.
As for Poe’s law… I’d like to propose another law if it hasn’t already been done.
Julie’s law:
In any discussion thread on Julie Anne’s blog, sooner or later somebody’s gonna get called a femi-nazi!
And, I think the first person to get called that on a discussion thread should be roundly teased and/or congratulated in a good natured spirit. Did I win this round?
If so, this is my favorite favorite meme for it (I so want to award this bunny hat to chester is a spirit of good nature and forgiveness!).
Yes, from now on, the first person i hear
saying femi-nazi on any thread will be virtually awarded this bunny hat! Chester you are the lucky winner!
http://crecmemes.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/that-woman-doesnt-agree-with-me/
LikeLike
Free at Last, you are cracking me up!!!
LikeLike
Free At Last- As per your music choices, how mighty white of you!
As per my vernacular choice, just be thankful the language is deemed family friendly. There are more apt, to the point terms that come to mind. But then again, I don’t want to lose my gentleman demeanor.
LikeLike
Things always get interesting when the devil shows up. Focus on Jesus everyone don’t get distracted with all the talk and double talk. I am especially fond of yes or no questions prompting multiple paragraph responses, none of which ever answer the question, as explanation. Smoke and mirrors to mask the evil. It’s not too late for any of you. Read the Word for yourselves don’t listen to the voices of men and the Holy Spirit will gift you eyes to see and ears to hear.
LikeLike
Easy there, Chester, darlin’, you’re the one who called me honey boo-boo! And it was so ridiculous, I laughed. I appreciated the levity, if not the ad hominem condescension. My world is populated with men who view and treat women like you do, so I’ve learned to laugh it off. Oh well. You’re a manly man, you’ll survive the bunny hat intact. Take it as a compliment.
LikeLike
Where is the “Like Button” when you need it? There are so many comments here I’ve wanted to “like”!
I know I’m still kinda new here and haven’t commented much. But there is a good reason for that. You all have been keeping me very busy researching for myself all these new concepts I’ve never come across before. Reconstructionism, Covenant Theology, Calvinism, just to name a few. I absolutely abhor this new thinking of dominionism that is invading our churches and the society at large. No one should be subjugated by another. We are all equally made in the image of God. Not one race or gender should ever be more privileged or considered “better” than another. I just ran across this website to give me more understanding of Rushdooney’s, North’s and Chalcedon’s theology. (I’m beginning to hate the word “theology”). This site has help me get a better understanding of where theonomy has gone wrong:
http://cicministry.org/scholarly/sch001.htm
LikeLike
“Chester Chuckles on November 26, 2013 at 6:55 PM
Free At Last- As per your music choices, how mighty white of you!”
Yeah, you aren’t the first person to tell me that my music is old fogey white music. But I like it.
LikeLike
Free At Last,
Brilliant! While I was envisioning eye holed, dunce cap shaped, white headgear, you were awarding a pink bunny hat. While I fear that my association of Chuckie Upchuckles with the Klan would only have been seen by some as a compliment, you have provided a good-natured, humorous illustration by which we can all visualize the incredible imbecility of all these racist and misogynistic ravings and rantings.
LikeLike
Cuss away, Chester, if you need those kinds of words to express the thoughts in your head. I don’t like to listen to those kinds of words, and I was raised better than to employ them except in highly justified circumstances of extreme provocation (much more extreme than being frustrated by an anonymous commenter on a blog), but I don’t live in a bubble. If you call me what I think you want to call me, it won’t make it true. God knows my heart and history. You don’t.
Julie Anne might bleep you, though— I don’t know.
LikeLike
Gary W on November 26, 2013 at 7:52 PM
Thanks Gary. Sometimes things just get so ridiculous they need a bunny hat.
You and other guys get called a girly-man or some similar appellation (e.g.
whatever Chester said) because you stand up for women here, which I think is just as silly and counterintuitive. I challenge you to come up with something funnier than the bunny hat that we can award for the first person to thump his chest and denounce the manhood of all males who disagree with him and side with the intolerista feminazis!
LikeLike
FYI: I’m at choir and skimming. I’ve got lots of choir activity going on with upcoming Christmas programs and still have to finish up on this very “interesting” thread.
If there is a moderation issue, please alert me with: ATTN Julie Anne or something like that, or email me. I check frequently, but am unable to keep up on all the content in the comments during this busy choral season. I’ll catch up as I can. Carry on.
LikeLike
Did I miss a cuss word somewhere? If so, please let me know time stamp.
LikeLike
“I challenge you to come up with something funnier than the bunny hat . . .”
See, that’s just the thing. I can immediately come up with any number of insulting and demeaning “awards,” but I just don’t have a sufficiently good sense of the ridiculous to come up with something effectively humorous.
But we shall see.
LikeLike
No problems here, Julie Anne.
After being awarded the bunny hat for invoking the feminazi word,
“Chester Chuckles on November 26, 2013 at 6:55 PM”
Wrote to me
“As per my vernacular choice, just be thankful the language is deemed family friendly. There are more apt, to the point terms that come to mind. But then again, I don’t want to lose my gentleman demeanor.”
Trembling with overwhelming trepidation and horror at the mere thought that Chester might make good on his threat to cuss at me, I responded like I did just to let him know that no, we don’t shatter like glass when somebody uses words of low breeding in our presence, we just note that out of a man’s mouth comes the overflow of his heart and we move on.
I don’t think he’ll cuss, but he’s just admitted he’s rapidly running out of other vocabulary words. Hopefully he’ll man up and take the teasing and the bunny hat without coming unglued.
Boy, he’s right, though, I am sooooooooo thankful he didn’t call me a wordy dird! Because that’s just the kind of thing a real gentleman would threaten to do.
LikeLike
Gary W on November 26, 2013 at 8:23 PM
It should be so ridiculous and over the too that isn’t mean… just really hilarious.
To bad it it’s fall. It’s just the job for a summer clerk on a slow day 🙂
With great anticipation I await your response to my challenge!
LikeLike
waitingforthetrumpet2 on November 26, 2013 at 7:17 PM
Welcome and amen! I’m new here too and haven’t yet mastered the art of pithiness. Sorry bout that. And you are so right.
Hendersonfamily4
Amen! I have really been encouraged by all you have said here. Thank you.
LikeLike
Free At Last, thank you for the warm welcome. You’re doing just fine! I’m rolling on the floor laughing at your wittiness. I love it!
LikeLike
Oh great. Now I’ve got the picture of Wilson from the “Cultists in Hats” blog in my head. Stick with the bunny.
LikeLike
“Cindy K on November 26, 2013 at 8:49 PM
Oh great. Now I’ve got the picture of Wilson from the “Cultists in Hats” blog in my head. Stick with the bunny.”
What? No link? I’m off to google this one….
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Free at Last- You can keep the gay bunny hat, cause it’s giving me visions of that homo pink bunny suit from Christmas Story.
And for the record I’m not a woman abuser, nor do I treat them like dirt. I love my wife as Christ loves the church. As for the klan reference, I’ve not worn one since my last cross burning last week (rolls eyes at the reference).
My only intent to post here was to warn Martin to not waste his time here. A clean cess-pool at the end of the day is still a cesspool, and only fit for one thing.
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
LikeLike
Ahh … but I do luv me some deep research now and again.
I may be a “completist” when it comes to collections, yet I did restrain myself and didn’t link to the fascinating series of Zombie Hats that I dug up.
Oh wait … what was the topic again?
LikeLike
Free At Last,
I fear it’s not appropriate for ordinary wear and tear, but maybe Chester would Chuckle if we were to acknowledge his talent for identifying girly men with what I will call the Manly Man’s Kilt award:
http://tinyurl.com/qyko4ct
LikeLike
“As for the klan reference, I’ve not worn one [a white hood] since my last cross burning last week.”
No doubt an example of Poe’s law in reverse — i.e. a true statement made in the hope it will be taken as being a facetious remark.
LikeLike
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQt-BDDniHSOOUuED_b-1KOxT34QlGk3Wv7SB6FTcCv4pYb414-
LikeLike
Chester Chuckles on November 26, 2013 at 9:05 PM
Chester,
I’ll take your word that you don’t “abuse” women, whatever that means to you. I never accused you of “abuse.”
In fact, I’ll state outright that you haven’t abused me. You don’t have that kind of power, for one thing. However, the way you have spoken to me and others on this site is insulting and condescending simply on the basis of the fact that some of us are
women. Very ad hominem, very ineffective as a persuasive device. If you can’t hear yourself doing it, it’s not my job to educate you. That was your mom’s job, and if you try talking to her that way I wouldn’t be surprised of she sets you straight yet. I don’t advise it. And I sure do hope your wife doesn’t have to put up with it; if so, she’s a saint.
Sorry, but you are stuck with the pink bunny hat. It’s virtual anyway. Lighten up.
And I never accused you of being in the klan. Again, if you can’t see how your expression of certain views may have caused somebody else to associate you with racists in funny hats hiding behind their anonymity while attempting to intimidate others, I don’t reckon there’s any good way to explain it to you so you’ll understand. I personally am able to perceive that you aren’t out actually looking for women and black people to physically beat up. Belittle and insult them when the opportunity arises, maybe, and threaten to cuss at us, but I do not in any way suggest you’d actually do anything illegal.
Happy thanksgiving and goodnight.
LikeLike
Yes Gary,
That right there!!!!
If only you knew how much some of these kinists loved their kilts. It’s sad to me really, because my family has genuine kilt wearers that aren’t kinists and it just cheapens the whole concept for those kinists to be out there free as the breeze trying to coopt them for a dumb cause!
You win !!
LikeLike
“Free at Last- You can keep the gay bunny hat, cause it’s giving me visions of that homo pink bunny suit from Christmas Story.
And for the record I’m not a woman abuser, nor do I treat them like dirt. I love my wife as Christ loves the church. As for the klan reference, I’ve not worn one since my last cross burning last week (rolls eyes at the reference).
My only intent to post here was to warn Martin to not waste his time here. A clean cess-pool at the end of the day is still a cesspool, and only fit for one thing.”
Chester, Your words rat you out. You don’t seem to understand what love is. It’s doubtful you treat women, including your wife well, since you represent yourself with hateful speech. It’s about as far from Christ as I can imagine.
The bunny hat I envisioned comes with a fluffy cottontail & a tray. And one who enjoys that outfit might label thinking women as femi-nazis.
This is sick. I’m late to the conversation, am quite disgusted, but I’m learning & appreciating the pushback & questions from JA’s readership, who never cease to amaze with their knowledge. Sadly, it seems I’ve read a whole lot of not much in the response on the other end. I’ll be checking back to see if the main questions are answered. I’m sure many others are waiting & will do so as well.
LikeLike
“Reconstructionism’s political and religious program:
Reconstructionism represents one of the most extreme forms of Fundamentalist Christianity thought found in the U.S. Its followers are attempting to peacefully convert the laws of United States so that they match those of the Hebrew Scriptures. They intend to facilitate this by using the freedom of religion in the US to train a generation of children in private Christian religious schools. Later, their graduates will be charged with the responsibility of creating a new Bible-based political, religious and social order.
One of the first tasks of this order will be to eliminate religious choice and freedom. Their eventual goal is to achieve the “Kingdom of God” in which much of the world is converted to Christianity. They feel that the power of God’s word will bring about this conversion peacefully. No armed force or insurrection will be needed; in fact, they believe that there will be little opposition to their plan. People will willingly accept it. All that needs to be done is to properly explain it to them. If, as many commentators predict, conversion of the U.S. to a theocracy is met with opposition, Dominionists may have to revert to force.
All religious organizations, congregations etc. other than strictly fundamentalist Christianity would be suppressed. Nonconforming evangelical, main line and liberal Christian religious institutions would no longer be allowed to hold services, organize, proselytize, etc. Society would revert to the laws and punishments of the Hebrew Scriptures. Any person who advocated or practiced other religious beliefs outside of their home would be tried for idolatry and executed if found guilty. Blasphemy, adultery and homosexual behavior would be criminalized; those found guilty would also be executed.
At that time that this essay was originally written, this was the only religious movement in North America of which we were aware which advocates genocide for followers of minority religions and non-conforming members of their own religion. Since then, we have learned of two conservative Christian pastors in Texas who independently advocated the execution of all Wiccans.”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/reconstr2.htm
LikeLike
P.s gary
Extra points because it matches the hat!
Boy, now that Chester’s won the matching kilt, will he survive? Just the choice words he had for that *imaginary* pink hat and making sure to mention his wife and stuff made me think he doth protest a little too much.
ATTN Julie Anne- sorry to be a tattletale but I’m not sure Chester’s choice of words about homosexuals don’t merit a moderator’s review?
LikeLike
Mr. Chuckles – -are you saying this blog is a cesspool??
Brad, thank you for the hat contributions. I’m trying to figure out which one is my fave: the tin head is great.
LikeLike
This is getting so hard to follow. TMI. Anyway I just wanted to say thanks to Nicholas for the Anthony Bradley links. Good stuff. I also ran across another intesting Anthony Bradley article. Its about Doug Phillips. Such interesting comments too. I had no clue he Doug Phillips was such a racist.
http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2007/07/hail-robert-dabney-is-this-reformed-presbyterianism-virginia-style.html
LikeLike
If Chester has won the pink rabbit hat with matching tray and kilt (is that what we decided?), Hendersonfamily4 wins three gold stars for courage and endurance.
Taunya, I hope you can eventually shake your sandals free of this filth, and that you have (or will find) friends who know your great value and love you with their whole hearts. And I pray that you, your husband and children are given all God’s blessings and peace.
For myself, I’m grateful you came by. I learned a lot.
LikeLike
Patrice,
Help me out here. You refer to “tray” and kilt. What is the tray part?
LikeLike
Martin Selbrede (Nov 26 6:35am) wrote: “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.””
Rushdoony’s work is like a musical composition that, at outset, is so screechy that it brings tears to the eyes. Why would any music lover be inclined to listen past that intro, much less to the end, when the dissonance recurs like nightmares and the composition is as long as Wagner’s Ring Cycle?
God made creation generously redundant. Truths are spread throughout. Whatever might be hidden in Rushdoony’s writings can be found elsewhere without requiring that one’s ear-drums be damaged w00t.
Moreover, this dissonance does not come from “uncomfortable truths”. It is curious that van Til immediately followed his idea regarding presuppositions by establishing a profoundly false presupposition: reality is true only to the extent that it can be found within the pages of the Bible. But it’s impossible for the uni(multi)verse created by God to be contained inside a physical book. This assumption twisted the book and creation out of recognition. In the end, the living God is left outside for the sake of written law.
But Rousas adopted van Til’s fundamental flaw and developed it. “Institutes of Biblical Law” indeed! Which is very sad because he used an interesting sharp mind to wreak destruction on US Christianity during a time when we desperately need wisdom and direction.
I suspect it is fear of loss of control that causes these men to retreat into the Bible, drawing all creation in behind them, slapping the book covers closed, and choosing, in an orgy of legalism, long-discredited authoritarianism, women-submission, and race separatism.
Jesus was clear that we are not to live through fear or desire for power. Martin, some of us sense in you a desire to live differently. In order to maintain Rushdoony’s authority, you must evade, elide and compromise. More than anything, I wish you a life of love and mystery alongside our living God.
LikeLike
Free At Last,
If you are O.K. with it, I’ll be good to go with the pink kilt, but I’m a little concerned. I don’t want to be giving some sort of general offense to those for whom the kilt is a legitimate and honorable part of their heritage. As someone whose family includes genuine kilt wearers, what do you think?
LikeLike
Gary W, 6:15am:
I merely supposed the bunny hat was a play on the Playboy bunnies who bring the drinks and food on trays to the Real Men ™ with a wag of their little cottontails. You know. And that pink kilt was tres chic, no?
I would not make decisions in this vital matter; it is Julie Anne who decides the award and she said she may prefer the tin-face. I was merely being ridiculous about others’ ideas and indulging an image of Rousas in such, performing such. wooohooo
LikeLike
Yes, out of bounds if Free At Last finds it insulting. Cf Julie Anne, when she recovers from latest bout of choir practice.
LikeLike
Thanks for the explanation Patrice. Your allusion to trays makes perfect sense once you’ve nudged me out of my overly literalistic bent of mind.
LikeLike
I perceive that my comment about “more heat than light” here was an understatement.
If any choose to take Chalcedon’s name, or my own, in vain hereafter, let me commend to you the proper pronunciations of both. Chalcedon is pronounced kal-SEE-dun, while Selbrede is pronounced sel-BRED-ee. And Rushdoony has no “e” in it.
The irresponsibly inaccurate material from religioustolerance.org, where virtually every negative point is 180-degrees opposite to what Chalcedon and Dr. Rushdoony assert, was dutifully reproduced in this thread. The repetition of false statements seems to doom us to a culture in which slander and libel are zealously protected rights, and the truth is barred from the table.
Now to the heated topics, of which I’ll pick two (and answer Free At Last’s better-phrased question), and will tonight post (separately, due to its length) Dr. Rushdoony’s specific discussion concerning racism written in the late 1960s. If any here, from any ideological perspective, persist in misrepresenting him thereafter, they’ll then be sinning against better knowledge. The Bible asserts that a single admonition is sufficient: there is no doctrine of “nagging” in Scripture regarding admonition (but there is in respect to persisting in the search for justice, as in Luke 18:1-8).
Commenting on Exodus 32:29, Rushdoony says “Moses summons the tribe of Levi to consecrate themselves to God by standing against friends, neighbors, and even brothers and sons…faithfulness to God must take priority over all things else.” Then note his discussion of Aaron’s complicity: “He feared the power of the people more than the power of God. He acted pragmatically rather than religiously. In our time, the cowardly pragmatic stand is very much in evidence in church and state, capital and labor, in every sphere. … Pragmatism can be as much an idol as anything else. Nothing perhaps does more injury to a society than cowardice and weak moral character.”
Perhaps the most defensible understanding of Proverbs 18:24 is this, that to have lots of friends you must drop your standards. When friendship is urged as a motive rather than God’s requirements, the discussion has already deteriorated beyond repair. This is why the example of the Levites is magnified in Scripture: they put God and His Word above everything else. For them, godliness trumped friendship. Where these are reversed, loyalties are dislocated. Personal example: a family that was to have assisted me at a homeschooling event bowed out because Doug Phillips pressured them to do so as a direct result of the publication of my article, “Patriarchy and Feminism.” The father, a man I very much respect, told me that he had finally concluded, “we have to stand with our friends.” As a result we had to cancel the event. I’m pretty certain that man has a different perspective today, but you can see the powerful but illegitimate force that urging friendship can have on a matter.
So, all other things being equal (ceteris parabus, as they say), friendship might in some instances be safely introduced as a factor to assist in evaluating a course of action (but never to pervert justice by being “a respecter of persons”). After having extensively taught systematic theology in the 1980s, I began a lengthy series in the early 1990s on all the moral imperatives in Scripture, delivering no less than three one-hour sermons on the topic of flattery and its poisonous effects. I’m reasonably well inoculated against appeals to friendship, etc., if the matter at stake is biblical truth. Biblical truth is to be discussed at the level of scriptural exegesis, and no other factor can rightfully intrude upon God’s prerogatives. We must not only be Berean in studying the Scripture, we must act as the Levites did in putting God first before everything else. We must say with Paul, “let God be true, but every man a liar.” We are warned that to be friends with the world is to be God’s enemy, so friendships of all kinds MUST be proscribed (limited) by the parameters of Scripture. Otherwise, friendship is idolatry.
So, the proper venue in resolving a biblical question is appeal to Scripture, to the totality of Scripture, and by an exhaustively systematic exposition of the whole counsel of God as set forth in Scripture. No other factors have a right to interfere in adjudicating such matters.
So, in direct answer to the (now properly narrowed) question of Free At Last, I do not regard kinism to be biblical, nor did Dr. Rushdoony (I know this from my countless discussions with him over more than two decades, and in light of ALL he said and wrote relative to the topic). That said, the kinists are absolutely right to object to hatchet jobs that misrepresent their views. When rumors of an issue of Faith for All of Life focusing on kinism arose, I received messages via Facebook from quite a few individuals requesting that I should at least allow kinists to articulate their own views so that at a bare minimum, I would deal with their actual position rather than erect a straw man to attack. They raise a completely legitimate concern: nobody likes having words stuffed in their mouths, or conclusions drawn for them that they themselves don’t hold to. Any hope for resolving these issues would be cut short if the first step Chalcedon takes is to misrepresent the views it is examining (false witness, in effect). Recall that it was false witness that got us into the First Gulf War (Kuwaiti nurses reporting on television that Iraqi soldiers had thrown Kuwaiti babies out of their incubators). This issue doesn’t need the heat of a war, it needs the light of Scripture (and specifically, the totality of Scripture).
But Free At Last completely misinterpreted my distinction between a theological/exegetical statement and a socio/political statement. Public repudiation in today’s overheated climate is done for social and political reasons: it operates in the domain of the sound bite tailored to control narratives, not the realm of vigorous application of Scripture. It’s something demanded of political candidates when some supposedly unsavory quasi-affiliation comes to light, or the “wrong” kind of person makes a donation to their campaign.
The very fact that we’re on this blog bears this out: both sides want to make political/ideological capital out of anything Chalcedon might say that they can turn to the advantage of their philosophy. But Chalcedon is focused on the application of Scripture. Rushdoony himself took a “pox on both your houses” approach to the Democrats and Republicans because he stood for what God required. In his essay, “The Failure of Men,” appearing in the Jan-Feb 2014 Faith for All of Life, he says things that feminists would be pleasantly surprised to read (but which patriarchalists would likely reprehend). Pragmatic considerations don’t enter in if you truly believe you have to answer to God for what you say, write, and do. Few take this seriously today.
It can’t be helped that some will try to psychoanalyze me, attribute motives to me useful to their agendas, etc., and that nobody will simply grant that Chalcedon derives its position and actions upon the Word of God and lets the chips fall where they may. Since that notion doesn’t fit the highly-polarized paradigms being floated here, people will find it convenient to project motives onto me. Those, I do repudiate. And the fact of the matter is, not all questions have simple answers. Jesus, in answering the Sadducees in their objection to the resurrection, mounted a complicated argument premised on their misunderstanding of key passages of Scripture. The Lord’s argument against the Pharisees using Psalm 110 is also a powerhouse of involved logic. And we should note that in John 7, nobody bothered to take up the challenge issued against Christ’s Messiahship: “Search and look, for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.” This claim was false (see Isaiah 9), but everyone unthinkingly accepted this assured pronouncement from the authorities. Nobody went to God’s Word to see it for themselves. And that omission is what plagues so much of the discussion here.
Finally, for those impugning Chalcedon’s motives, I have been publicly stating (since February 29, 2008 in Dallas, Texas) that my mission at Chalcedon is to make Chalcedon obsolete. By rights, there should BE no para-church ministries IF the church were firing on all cylinders as “the pillar and ground of the truth.” So, our work is primarily to fill a gap that shouldn’t even exist. The more successful we are at our mission, the closer we can get to our goal of closing our doors.
Now, if you’ll excuse me, new issues have unexpectedly arisen with a well-known allosaur fossil that have brought that ten-year-old matter back onto the front burner, necessitating some important work on my part to resolve first-hand. That matter must take precedence over my participation here. Please do not conclude that I must be ignoring your questions if there is a significant delay in replying to you.
LikeLike
Gary W, I’ve done it for years, imagining the authoritarian men I meet dressed for Playboy/Hooter girl action. It’s like remembering that we all take our pants off, but better, leveling the playing field against belittlement of my gender. But it wouldn’t work for everyone, I know.
I was delighted this morn to add the kilt to my mental imagery, particularly because playgirl bunnies always do lots of bending. Which I’m sure is now far far TMI.
LikeLike
What is happening to my blog? Am I going to need to change the viewing rating here? LOL
LikeLike
Martin S. says ” If any here, from any ideological perspective, persist in misrepresenting him thereafter, they’ll then be sinning against better knowledge.”
Whoa, everybody. To disagree with the self serving of characterizations of CF’s spokesman is to “sin against knowledge.” Take warning! We are to submit to the authority of the man possession incontestable Knowledge and understanding.
Well, Mr. S, take note. If I am not convinced of Paul’s infallibility, neither am I convinced of your — especially where you are in hot pursuit of what I perceive to be an anti-grace and anti-love agenda that has nothing to do with Jesus.
LikeLike
“What is happening to my blog?”
I know, JA. When Mr. Chuckles showed up, I wondered if it was a full moon or something. 🙂
LikeLike
Gary, I didn’t refer to my characterizations (note my actual full statement, not your out-of-context snippet) but to letting Rushdoony speak for himself on the specific matter of racism. I was pointing forward to a Position Paper by Dr. Rushdoony that I plan to post here tonight, God willing. If you insist that Dr. Rushdoony’s Position Paper can be deleted and you can substitute your words for his stated position, this seems counterproductive to me. How would the Golden Rule operate for you on this hypothesis?
To what purpose is it to say you’re not convinced of Paul’s infallibility? It seems the magistrate in Luke 18 is even more independent in his thinking than you are when he says he fears neither God nor man. Hard to top that. (Funny, though, that he caved into the widow who was wearing him out.)
LikeLike
M.Selbrede. says, “So, the proper venue in resolving a biblical question is appeal to Scripture, to the totality of Scripture, and by an exhaustively systematic exposition of the whole counsel of God as set forth in Scripture. No other factors have a right to interfere in adjudicating such matters,” and “. . . nobody will simply grant that Chalcedon derives its position and actions upon the Word of God . . .”
Now I get it. I see quite clearly now. Scripture becomes the fourth person of the trinity, and Chalcedon as the final arbiter of “systematic exposition of the whole counsel of God” becomes the Holy Spirit; and the rest of us are to bow down in grateful servitude to the epistemological and revelatory Authority of our betters, failing which we are sinning against Knowledge.
Let me say it as plainly as I can, Mr. Selbrede, while you seem to project a nice enough persona, the presuppositions upon which you pretend to speak with Authority are, metaphorically speaking, base born, illegitimate sons of female dogs.
And while I am at it, to decline to do something that fits your agenda, even if out of friendship to the likes of Doug Phillips, is no sin. It is not as though Phillips was compelling anybody to undertake some heinous act.
LikeLike
Gary W, “Scripture becomes the fourth person of the trinity…”
Yes, it is a misconstrual of Scripture as part of the God-head. Rather than correctly understanding the “Word of God” as God-with-us, Jesus the physical man alive in a particular time in reality, they see the “Word of God” as God-with-us, a book of laws/principles, not alive but still physical, enduring as-is throughout created time, intractible and perpetual as the rocks on which the Ten Commandments were supposedly written.
As you note, their view inevitably elevates those who teach the Bible. Theologians become the doorways to God-the-Bible, new/old priests set up as mediators. Thus we see correct theology elevated to all-in-all at our seminaries and become the priority of our church lives. This idea has spread through US Christianity, its bad fruits exposed on this blog again and again, and other “discernment blogs”.
It’s a huge mistake!
LikeLike
Plus, they forget that Christ, when he ascended, gave us the Holy Spirit, also alive and residing inside each of us. It is the Holy Spirit who is the same yesterday-today-tomorrow. It is through his continual presence-within-us that we maintain our stability and certainty, not through the Law.
LikeLike
You see, Gary, this is why no one can accept equitable, gracious treatment here. Part from the wild extrapolations you impose on my quite modest statements, you presume to weigh in on a matter you haven’t investigated. In secular law, what happened had affinities to tortious interference (Chalcedon only reserved the booth because of the promised assistance, so the withdrawal of that assistance at the hand of another blocked our participation). I trust you’re not an attorney, or I would feel sorry for your clients. And “heinous” is an overheated term: you used it, I did not. But the sad thing is how you couched the original discussion (over the value of impartiality) in so pejorative a manner, rerouting it at will to cast everything in the worst possible, most derogatory light. Scripture requires that we tell the truth, even about people we might think are our enemies.
Can we not dial back the harshness a bit? I don’t see how it edifies anyone. When God says “there is joy for a man in his utterance,” I don’t think He included statements that risk sliding into invective rather than equitably-reasoned statements.
LikeLike
It was a curious and astonishing act, that God joined with a human in the person of Jesus and when Jesus ascended, that God-the-Holy-Spirit again joined with humans, with each of us. That is how much we are valued by Him/Her! How could we possibly demean any among us, if the Holy Spirit has not done so? That is why I cannot see hierarchy and authoritarianism as anything but a dismissal of the decisions of God.
LikeLike
Patrice is absolutely correct that the Holy Spirit, not the Law, is the sole agent by which we are sanctified. Chalcedon has never said otherwise, and has in fact consistently taught the same point. The Spirit came to convict the world of sin and of righteousness, and is to be poured out on all flesh so that one day the New Covenant promised is fulfilled that “no man shall need to teach his neighbor, saying Know the Lord, for all shall know Him from the least to the greatest.”
To substitute the Law for the Spirit is to run afoul of Paul’s warning in I Tim 1:8, that “the law is good if used lawfully.” Such substitution is an unlawful use of the law and is inherently unfruitful, if not in fact harmful, as it leads straight back to a works religion and denies the purpose and value of the Atonement secured on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ.
It is interesting, then, that so many Charismatic Christians are attracted to Rushdoony — they realized that he understood the omnipotent power of the Spirit to make alive, and to work in us both to will and to do.
LikeLike
Patrice,
It is, I think, instructive that MS deflects your 8:38 AM comment. You were clearly alluding to the Holy Spirit’s function of revealing truth. “When tthe Spirit of truth comes, uhe will vguide you into all the truth, . . . (John 16:13, ESV). MS, it seems, would limit the Spirit’s role to that of sanctification. That way, we are still dependent on experts, gurus and other upper cast figures to mediate truth to us mere dalits.
LikeLike
M. Selbrede,
You ask, “Can we not dial back the harshness a bit?” but only after observing, “I trust you’re not an attorney, . . .” What more derogatory aspersion could you possibly cast, given the context and tone of your comment, than to suggest that I might be an attorney?
Heh, heh, heh.
LikeLike
Patrice
Yup…
“It is the Holy Spirit who is the same yesterday-today-tomorrow. It is through his continual presence-within-us that we maintain our stability and certainty, **NOT** through the Law.”
God NO longer dweels in Temples made with hands. Ac 7:48, Ac 17:24,
God Lives in me, in you, in “WE,” His Body, His Church… 😉
God is in “WE,” His Body, His Church… 2 Cor 6:16.
Christ is in “WE, His Body, His Church… Col 1:27, Gal 2:20, Eph 3:17.
The Father is in “WE,” His Body, His Church… Eph 4:4-6,
Jesus Christ is in “WE,” His Body, His Church… 2 Cor 13:5,.
The Holy Spirit is in “WE,” His Body, His Church… 1Co 6:19, Rom 8:11.
The Spirit of truth is in “WE,” His Body, His Church… John 14:16-18.
The Kingdom of God is in “WE,” His Body, His Church… Luke 17:20-21.
Gettin kinda crowed inside of us – Yes? 😉
And we need NOT that any man teach us, “WE.” – Thank you Jesus…
Deut 4:36
Out of heaven he made thee to **hear His voice,**
that **He (God) might instruct thee:**
1 John 2:27
But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth **in you,**
**and ye need not that any man teach you:**
but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things,
and is truth, and is no lie,
and even as it hath taught you,
ye shall abide in him.
And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:
them also I must bring, and they shall “hear My voice; “
and there shall be “ONE” fold, and “ONE” shepherd.
John 10:16
One Voice – One Fold – One Shepherd – One Leader – One Teacher
{{{{{{ Jesus }}}}}}
LikeLike
In Theonomy, the Bible is seen as the sufficient source for all law and guidance necessary to live the Christian life and to govern society (as an extension of that life). On the surface, that sounds fine to most Christians. I thought that when this material came into my life that it was purely about Calvinism with a specific interest in defending Christian interests in civil government, a Christian’s duty of good stewardship. I didn’t understand that I was also agreeing to a whole theology. I wasn’t informed about what all that meant, and I came to that knowledge by hard experience. It all put a significant strain on my marriage.
Covenant Theology (CT) is more beholden to the OT Law, understanding that God only had one people in accordance to the Covenant of Redemption (when the Persons of the Godhead had a meeting before the earth was established to figure out the division of labor). The distinction of “the elect of Israel” in the OT and the Church in the NT do not exist in CT. In CT, the Church began in the OT, understanding the “assembly” as the same thing as the “ecclesia.” If I’m not mistaken, the Church began when God cut the covenant with Abraham (and his seed which applies to Christians). There is also a Covenant of Grace that God made with Christ which included believers back to Adam, as no one is ever saved apart from God’s grace. The New Covenant is really derived from the Covenant that God worked out in a previous covenant. And to discern laws apply, you must figure out what law falls into what category so that you can figure out which ones should apply to NT believers. There’s also a long history in this group of a rejection of how Martin Luther discerned what OT laws applied to NT believers, classifying Luther as antinomian. Libertine is another pejorative that was once thrown around.
Taking things a bit further, in Theonomy, if and when a Christian society does get established on the earth, Rushdoony believed that OT laws could be reestablished to govern society. (I do know that he did say that he’d be happy if the US just adopted only Ten Laws.) But it is through this CT tie to the OT that all the stoning comes in, presuming that most people will already be Christian – few people will sin. This only applies, however, when the society decides that they want to be Christian, and it was not supposed to happen through coercion or through government takeover (apart from the free choice of the people working within our American system). I did not learn about the stoning business, save until my husband read this literature for many years, and he started with horrible rhetoric all the time about how God was glorified in the demise and suffering of the unbeliever. “If we stoned ______ sinner (fill in the blank), we wouldn’t have to deal with these problems and our government would have plenty of money.” (My husband now cannot even remember saying this kind of thing all of the time.) For all the talk of grace, in real life at churches where this stuff is embraced, I heard a rather hard edge about how one relates to the sinner. It isn’t one of grace abounding but tends to be about the gratification of punishment. They have it coming because they hate God and God hates His enemies.
Here I would defer back to the issue of spiritual abuse concerning how one’s focus sets a group up for problems. Establishing Christian law was the distinction of Theonomy from CT, and the focus on methods of governance and punishment is a focus within that system. It does demand patriarchy because the OT demands it, and the New Covenant believer is beholden to them as part of the assembly that began with Abraham. Slavery is Biblical, and is a way for the US to overcome its issues with debt.
Calvinism is only a part of that whole system, and sadly, for most people who pass for Calvinists today, it is seen as a kind of “survival of the spiritually fittest.” Rather than gratitude and an intense understanding of God’s holiness, it becomes a way of benchmarking oneself theologically and morally against people who are unbelievers and those who are not Calvinists.
And as Gary North will tell you and as he’s written, no one in CT can decide what laws fall into what category, demanding that the laws in the moral category be followed. Rushdoony got it right, some others get it right, but North, Phillips, Botkin, and others get it wrong. Get the scorecard and a high priest to figure it out, and it has to be the right priest. If you want some history on Rushdoony himself, you can only read the writings of the one man who got it right. Ephesians does not trump the patriarchal laws in the OT, so you have patriarchy in Theonomy, but you have to be an acolyte of Chalcedon to get it right, and you have to talk to Mr. Selbrede. (Phillips and his lot are just “doing patriarchy wrong.”) I have an email from Chris Ortiz (the then spokesperson for Chalcedon) who said he’d conversed with Harry Seabrook (a pseudonym for the founder of a renowned Reconstructionist kinist). If you read Rushdoony’s writing before a certain date, it does classify as kinist, but since he mellowed as time wore on, he no longer lived out what he wrote 40 years before. So you have to take that into account, and you have to have personal knowledge of how Rushdoony lived to discern these matters – and to do that, you must talk to his close friends or former coworkers. Most people don’t have access to them. Ortiz pledged undying support for Phillips in that correspondence and accused me of bearing false witness against him, but someone told me that on another website (influenced strongly by kinists if not run by them) that anything Ortiz said no longer applies. But now, we learn that Chalcedon gave money to a good man that Phillips was abusing. To understand what goes on here on this blog this week, I have to read another one, a kinist influenced one. Servitude and agrarianism is part of the economic package. The Chalcedon Report publishes articles about stoning and has so for years, and all I can figure is that it is more like a form of Christian science fiction about a coming utopia – fiction because such is not imminent. But to understand those articles and properly put them into perspective, you have to read a few books and then must discern them in the proper way. And there’s the very friendly history that Chalcedon shared with the leaders (Mumford) in the cultic Christian system (Shepherding-Discipleship) from which I emerged fifteen years ago. It’s how I learned about Chalcedon.
As I have stated, there may be some good that comes out of Chalcedon. I did enjoy many articles that talked about God’s sovereignty and that which resonated with my disappointment at that time with how American politics play out. I wanted to be teachable and open to wise counsel so that I could be conformed to the Image of Christ and still do. So I studied. And I read a lot of stuff that made no sense because it was not relevant, and it only made sense if I considered the presuppositions of Theonomy (which I did not share). There was also the personal toll this material has taken within my marriage. I was never given informed consent about any of this, and I don’t know how on earth most people can get it.
LikeLike
M. Selbrede says, “To substitute the Law for the Spirit is to run afoul of Paul’s warning in I Tim 1:8, that “the law is good if used lawfully.” Setting aside the fact that M.S.’s truncated quote is insufficient to set aside the revelatory role of the Spirit in a believer’s life, let me complete the passage:
“understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the gospel of the glory of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.” (1 Timothy 1:9-11, ESV)
M.S. admonishes me to dial back the harshness, but applies to all of us a principle that Paul himself says applies to the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, and perjurers. Who, exactly, is M.S. accusing of being any of these things? Talk about harsh!
Once more Martin, you seem to project a nice enough persona, but I dare say there is little if any substantive difference between your positions and the positions of the circumcision party against which Paul pushed back to vigorously and angrily in his letter to the Galatians.
LikeLike
That is “psuedonym for the founder of a renowed kinist organization.” i couldn’t just call up Harry Seabrook, particularly because that isn’t his real name. Ortiz could? But there is no crossover, and Chalcedon has nothing to do with that kinist element? Why did any representative of Chalcedon have anything to do with Seabrook to start with if they are not legitimate?
LikeLike
Oh, wait. I keep forgetting. I just learned through an email about what took place on another website which I refuse to read that Mr. Selbrede disowned Ortiz.
LikeLike
Just give me Jesus! I don’t need any of these twisted, misogynistic, male-domination oriented, elitist, false theologies. Just give me JESUS! period
LikeLike
Cindy K. said [ November 27, 2013 @ 9:23 AM] — “In Theonomy, the Bible is seen as the sufficient source for all law and guidance necessary to live the Christian life and to govern society (as an extension of that life).”
It seems like the flavor of what I’ve been picking up from the entire conversation is that in Theonomy and Reconstructionism, the Bible is *sufficient,* but that RJ Rushdoony is *necessary.* And that, in the absence of Rushdoony now, Chalcedon Foundation is necessary to interpret the necessary Rushdoony-ness of real versus knock-off Reconstructionism.
Wonder if a crowd-sourced counsel (at least, one not bent on doing evil) is always better than one supposedly necessary/sufficient counsel.
P.S. by CT in your quote, I’m assuming that you mean Covenant Theology and not Christianity Today? I’ve lost track of all the abbreviations that have been bandied about in these technical threads …
LikeLike
That is not a very kind thing to say, Mr. Selbrede. Now you’re getting personal.
Gary W. – I’ll never tell!
LikeLike
“P.S. by CT in your quote, I’m assuming that you mean Covenant Theology and not Christianity Today? ”
HAHA!
Should we add a page for abbreviations somewhere?
LikeLike
Martin – Or should I call you “Chief Sientist” Martin G. Selbrede
You write…
“If any choose to take Chalcedon’s name, or my own, in vain hereafter,”
Sorry Martin – I have NO desire to take your name, I already have one. 😉
And are you making yourself equal with God?
Hint, Hint – Do a little word study on “Name and Vain” in .Exodus 20:7.
Thou shalt not take the “name” of the LORD thy God in “vain;”
for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Or that of Chalcedon’s – Seems yuse guys promote – Geocentrism…
The Earth does NOT move and is at the Center of the Universe….
Everything revolves around – YOU.
Wow – You can NOT make this stuff up… 😉
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/16/182146/521
Chalcedon was –and may well still be –a hotbed of “geocentricity.” RJ Rushdoony, Chalcedon’s very founder, seems to have been a “geocentrist” and the man Rushdoony tapped as his successor, Martin Selbrede, has emerged as a one of the leading theoreticians working doggedly to smack down the impudent Copernicus and restore the Earth to its rightful place at the center of the Universe and all creation.”
“Selbrede, to his credit, isn’t trying to hide his views – nor is he trying to make a show of them either. Here’s what appears to be a comment of Selbrede’s, quite eloquent, posted on a Catholic geocentrist’s blog, on a recent book on Geocentrism, by Robert Sungenis and Robert Bennett, entitled “Galileo Was Wrong”
Then this site quotes Martin – Who signs a comment left someplace else as…
Martin G. Selbrede
Chief Scientist, UniPixel Displays, Inc.
Vice President, The Chalcedon Foundation
And – Martin – Chief Scientist – Was a main speaker at…
“First Catholic Conference on Geocentrism”
http://geocentrism.com/Catholic_Geocentrism_1
Mr. Martin Selbrede: Answering Common Objections to Geocentrism
————
Now my Brain really hurts – And where is my new “Creepo Meter.”
Seems Rushdoony really ws a loony…
LikeLike
brad,
I thought I bracketed (CT) after Covenant Theology when I first used it. I must have been distracted, anticipating how I would list the problems I’ve encountered when trying to figure out all of the hidden curriculum involved in Theonomy.
LikeLike
Julie Anne,
Feel free to go back in and write it out and bracket it in that comment. I though that I had.
LikeLike
Yeah, JA, I think an abbrev. list on SSB would help us tell CT from CF from CT, in case that happens to be important to the discussion to discern BS from SB. If U NO what I mean. eTC.
Or if peeps would be so kind as to give the full title of something and then their abbreviation in parentheses after it the first time they use it in a thread, that would be helpful. Could at least search and find it.
Otherwise, it tends to become “reader friendly” only for those already in the know, you know.
LikeLike
🙂
LikeLike
I do take OT and NT for granted when conversing with Christians.
Brad, did I do a fair job at putting the essentials in a paragraph?
LikeLike
Brad’s statement is brilliant:
It seems like the flavor of what I’ve been picking up from the entire conversation is that in Theonomy and Reconstructionism, the Bible is *sufficient,* but that RJ Rushdoony is *necessary.* And that, in the absence of Rushdoony now, Chalcedon Foundation is necessary to interpret the necessary Rushdoony-ness of real versus knock-off Reconstructionism.
LikeLike
Ok, here ya go: https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/about/about-spiritual-sounding-board-blog/common-abbreviations-at-ssb/
It’s under “About Julie Anne” and then “About the blog.” Hmm, I should probably make an About the Blog in a more visible area. I’ll work on that later.
LikeLike
OverTime? No Thanks.
Optical Transport Networks and Technologies?
Umm … oh wait, Old Testament, New Testament.
PS CK much better, OK. Thanx
LikeLike
Do I really need to put OT on that list? What about BS? I thought I saw that somewhere.
LikeLike
Martin at 6:53
” I do not regard kinism to be biblical, nor did Dr. Rushdoony.”
It took some courage to say that, Martin, even if I had to hunt for it to find it. Even if you aren’t willing to repudiate Wilkins and the League as you seem to be with respect to Phillips, the League and the kinists will surely repudiate you.
Ladies and gentlemen, it seems like a small thing, but Martin has just stepped afoul of the kinists and the League, and that is not an enviable position. I know. Imagine if you will a “friendlier,” cleaner, more respectable KKK in business suits and church clothes instead of bedsheets, with the ability to intimidate and retaliate through money and surprisingly extensive political connections rather than cross burnings.
The venom of the kinists was evident in folks like Enoch and Chuckles who came here expressly to “warn” Martin not to step out of line, but he did. It was a small step. But it was a small step over their line. They don’t like it when someone they feel entitled to claim as their own refuses to walk in lockstep with them… to them, it’s the unpardonable sin of turning your back on kith and kin. Martin will need to be prepared to be disowned by them now. It won’t be pleasant, but I think with God’s help, he could turn out to have a greater ministry now than he ever thought possible.
Martin, we may not see eye to eye on a lot of things, but I wish you well in your journey. I wish you a greater legacy than Rushdoony’s. Peace and grace to
you.
LikeLike
“Gary W on November 27, 2013 at 6:25 AM
Free At Last,
If you are O.K. with it, I’ll be good to go with the pink kilt, but I’m a little concerned. I don’t want to be giving some sort of general offense to those for whom the kilt is a legitimate and honorable part of their heritage. As someone whose family includes genuine kilt wearers, what do you think?”
I can’t speak for all kilt-wearers everywhere, but the ones I know would probably rather those phallocentric guys be given a silly pink kilt and leave the real tartans for the better men. I think it’s fine, personally.
LikeLike
-Gary W, I think you captured what Martin is saying in a nutshell here.
“Now I get it. I see quite clearly now. Scripture becomes the fourth person of the trinity, and Chalcedon as the final arbiter of “systematic exposition of the whole counsel of God” becomes the Holy Spirit; and the rest of us are to bow down in grateful servitude to the epistemological and revelatory Authority of our betters, failing which we are sinning against Knowledge.”
-Patrice, thank you for your kind words. My family and I have been free of this for about six blissful years now. As Cindy K, whom I have know via the internet through the entire process, has said recovery is not linear so we are still dealing with the effects of all of this but we have moved on.
-Free At Last, I too have been encouraged by your words, you have made me smile.
“Hendersonfamily4
Amen! I have really been encouraged by all you have said here. Thank you.”
LikeLike
“Patrice on November 27, 2013 at 6:27 AM
Gary W, 6:15am:
I merely supposed the bunny hat was a play on the Playboy bunnies who bring the drinks and food on trays to the Real Men ™ with a wag of their little cottontails. You know. And that pink kilt was tres chic, no?”
Patrice, here is the bunny hat which I (or anybody who beats me to it and wants to play) shall award to the first (and inevitable!) person on any comment thread to come in here call somebody a femi-nazi.
http://crecmemes.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/that-woman-doesnt-agree-with-me/
This is the bunny hat that got Chuckles in a knot. Apparently, the mere thought of winning the award made his manhood feel threatened, even though in real life he wasn’t ever actually in danger of having to wear a real hat like this. Go figure.
LikeLike
Taunya,
Be forewarned that the idea that emotional healing as a non-linear process (more like peeling an onion as healing goes deeper with personal growth and time) isn’t a concept that I derived from Scripture. It is, however, based on what the profession of mental health has learned, particularly about dealing with trauma. One of my favorite books that cites this quite well is Judith Herman, MD’s “Trauma and Recovery.” Honestly, I could find proof texts both in support of the idea and condemning it as sin.
LikeLike
Martin (Nov 27, 8:58am), you cannot hold to the God of Love residing in each of us as the Holy Spirit, and also believe in a hierarchy for humans. Nor can you believe that the Holy Spirit is the consistent mover through our lives/generations, and also believe that applying OT law to society is what God wishes for us.
You wrote: “Patrice is absolutely correct that the Holy Spirit, not the Law, is the sole agent by which we are sanctified. Chalcedon has never said otherwise….The Spirit came to convict the world of sin and of righteousness….To substitute the Law for the Spirit is….an unlawful use of the law….and denies the purpose and value of the Atonement secured on the cross by the Lord Jesus Christ.”
The being/action of the Holy Spirit isn’t limited to conviction towards salvation for sanctification, nor limited to stirring the human heart towards understanding of law and scripture.
You wrote: “ …and [the HS] is to be poured out on all flesh so that one day the New Covenant promised is fulfilled that “no man shall need to teach his neighbor, saying Know the Lord, for all shall know Him from the least to the greatest .”
The Kingdom Come is already here and is becoming. We are made in the image of God and his very spirit resides in us, enlivening and enlightening all that we are/do. It is by His/Her very breath that we live. In fact, the Holy Spirit upholds all creation, casting his good self wherever S/He will, and that is everywhere. It is by His/Her guidance that we recognize truth wherever it shows. It is not only for the future that the HS exists, but for right now.
Martin wrote: “It is interesting, then, that so many Charismatic Christians are attracted to Rushdoony — they realized that he understood the omnipotent power of the Spirit to make alive, and to work in us both to will and to do.”
It is those Charismatic Christians who live in fear or long for power, and who also obsess over the end-times, that have joined up with Rushdoony’s Reconstructionism in the form of Dominionist ideas. They are people with the same preoccupations, merely coming from a somewhat different background.
We do not start from the same place and therefore we will always disagree even where our words coincide. I only wish that you would be direct and honest about it. It does your cause no good to be sly and evasive.
LikeLike
-Free At Last
I agree with you Martin did make a significant step here:
Martin at 6:53
” I do not regard kinism to be biblical, nor did Dr. Rushdoony.”
I am glad you acknowledged it, but I would like a bit of clarification on this. I would like to know what according to Martin and Rushdoony, if we have anything that outlines his position on this, makes kinism unbiblical. The kinists, from what I have read over the years, have made their beliefs very clear and from what I can tell they do not waiver or change with time. Looking at what they believe it is clear to see why they feel they are in agreement with Rushdoony and are even living out his legacy.
Martin claims this is not so and that Rushdoony regarded kinism as unbiblical, why? Where in Rushdoony or Martin’s opinion does kinism go wrong? Is it unbiblical because you don’t like their website? they speak too harshly? they use the wrong bible translation to make their arguments? What exactly do they support that you do not and why?
LikeLike
I’ve been attributing Rushdoony’s denial of the holocaust as within the bounds of kinism. Think of it as a defense of one’s own race, in the sense of the straight definition of the term.
You can, if you will, claim that Rushdoony never called for the works of the Confederate Presbyterians to be republished to be made accessible, or that those works were not racist. You can claim that no statements of anti-miscegenation are included in his writings. You can cite the fact that he performed interracial marriages and that he didn’t ever, at any time, hold any kinist views. You can cite that he lived a good Christian life.
How do you then get around his statements of denial about the Jewish holocaust as a well-documented fact of history? (And I know very well that the Jews were not the only groups of people who were persecuted.)
LikeLike
Free At Last: IMO, the best award ever, one that any real male patriarch would (un)desire. As long as you keep the chinstrap for those windy days. And for….well, never mind.
Cindy K, “Trauma and Recovery” was my favorite book for recovery, too. How grateful I am to Herman for being willing to openly observe the effects of abuse on the human, (a brutal job that few have wanted to face) and to propose ways forward! She was one of the first to be willing to stare down domestic evil.
Taking the long winding road of recovery has taught me how we humans learn, even about God, a slow unfolding through time when hearts/minds stay open. I have even become a patient person (def not a natural gift). Thus I maintain hope for Martin, too (sorry, old boy!)
LikeLike
Gary writes, “M.S. admonishes me to dial back the harshness, but applies to all of us a principle that Paul himself says applies to the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who strike their fathers and mothers, for murderers, the sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, and perjurers. Who, exactly, is M.S. accusing of being any of these things? Talk about harsh!”
I think you need to retract this, for as you quoted from me in an earlier paragraph, I was specifically applying the verse to those who “substitute the Law for the Spirit” (pretty much applying, I would hope, to nobody here, but nonetheless implicitly charged against me). I did not apply this to you or Patrice or anyone else, and anyone reading with care can see this is so.
Your distortion of my statements was so unexpected, I was tempted to verify that I was still using a QWERTY keyboard to write my last post. Again, why are we putting such unnecessarily derogatory constructions upon things, reversing their obvious, explicit, clear meaning? E.g., clipping things and providing a brand-new alien context for them to propagate a false understanding of my point?
A high view of God’s Word seems a harsh point upon which to condemn someone. God Himself said, in Psalm 138:2, that He was magnifying His Word above His Own Name. How God’s attitude transmutes into a “fourth person of the Trinity” is hard to follow. Nobody argued (at least from my side) that Rushdoony was necessary for anything. That obviously false perspective is being planted on my person (and I think everyone knows what motivates the planting of false evidence on someone).
That said, I do not intend to be harsh to anyone, even tongue in cheek, so I offer my apologies for anything that I ACTUALLY wrote that was in any way harsh. I surely need not apologize for any distorted mutations of what I wrote posted by others. I know there’s a lot of pain, anger, and hurt among those who post and lurk here, and I take that into account when I write, trying to be patient.
God promises through Isaiah that one day, Zion shall see eye to eye. If we work harder to speak more graciously one to another, that precious day might approach more swiftly, don’t you think?
LikeLike
Cindy K, I will try to take some time when I get home from work to take up the question you ask concerning the Holocaust. We seem to hear this challenge a lot, and so I don’t mind explaining it again in this venue.
LikeLike
“hendersonfamily4 on November 27, 2013 at 11:10 AM”
I too would like to hear answers to all these very good questions! I hope Martin will supply some solid, definitive answers.
God bless you, my wise sister, and happy thanksgiving to you and your family.
LikeLike
Martin Selbrede wrote:
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.
Mr. Selbrede,
I’m concerned that your esteem of what warrants a Biblical framework may be quite narrow.
If you are indeed interested in this pursuit, buy a copy of the “Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse” by Johnson and VanVonderan and read it for yourself. You can find their contact information from there, and I can tell you that Jeff VanVonderan is the person who has been more accessible since the publication of the book.
Buy a copy of “The Heresy of Mind Control” by Steven Martin.
http://recognizeheresy.com/default.aspx
He runs the Wellspring Retreat and Recovery Center in Ohio, and he’s easy to find. The group may have another representative that would come if their expenses were paid. Larry Pile would be great.
If you are interested in their writing, please contact them yourself, but I would suggest that these books are essential reading on the subject from a Christian perspective. If you’re presenting a symposium, you need to read at least these two works. Another book that is much shorter and perhaps easier to read is “Healing Spiritual Abuse” by Ken Blue. Beyond that, you can visit my website and look at the other titles, but I’d recommend the one’s in the suggested reading list I feature there. If you’re interested in them, you can seek those authors out.
I am part of a new initiative within the International Cultic Studies Association called the “Spiritual Safe Haven Network” (SSHN). The research demonstrates that most people who endure spiritual abuse find no help when they seek out that help from churches and pastors, so the SSHN seeks to help educate spiritual leaders and seminaries about the needs of the spiritually abused. One of the problems, I suspect, will be that spiritual abuse is more of an issue of manipulation of behavior and information, and quite often, the doctrine and the church government procedures followed by spiritual abusers generally looks very Biblical. It is a matter of how the abusers manipulate the system. The solutions to the problem are based on the empirical research, though the Christians who work in this field operate from a Christian worldview certainly draw on the Word more than anything else when working with survivors. But given all of that, I suspect that this is not what you’re looking for. I do not find ICSA’s approach to be mutually exclusive from a Christian approach, nor without value. The best authority on spiritual abuse and thought reform was Jesus Himself.
When we’ve finished development of our curriculum which is in process, I’ll send you some information. Until then, perhaps you might benefit from something I wrote for Andrew Sandlin a few years ago, discussing the problem.
http://www.undermoregrace.blogspot.com/2009/03/new-cults-of-biblical-christianity.html
LikeLike
Years back I just touched the surface of what is Patriarchy as in VF or Chalcedon, etc on the internet during the Ligoneir scandal.. It makes my skin crawl. That surface was too much for me as it exposed duplicitous behavior that was inexplicable and the most bizarre teaching I had ever heard.. I had NO idea this stuff existed and included Kinism, OT law for us today, etc.. Now when I hear Van Til and others mentioned, I know where it will lead eventually. I think Patrice gets it but might not understand the Kinist ties. Cindy K most definitely gets it.
It is a bizarre world of smoke and mirrors. What you are hearing from Mr. Selbrede is the typical irenic play around the edges to present a nice view of patriarchy and dominionism. They are masters of picking out points and deflecting. Have you noticed how many are cmoing here and other blogs using the term “Hyper Patriarchy” to describe Phillips? I personally think this is a ploy.
What absolutely blew my mind years ago was how many of them supported Ligoneir and Sproul Sr/Jr. He is not as mainstream as you might think. Also beware of other blogs that might seem benign and are trying to make themselves the news source for news on Phillips. Things are not always as they seem in that world. It is a sick place and people are easily fooled.
LikeLike
yes, LSOP, I hadn’t heard of kinism until two days ago. I have little idea of what it is, much less how it works and how it ties into the broader base. It’s not even in the dictionary. I’ve only a general sense of “we must keep things separate” which is plain ole tribalism, and practically, double-speaks for racism, ethnocentrism. It seems just like any kind of “me-not-them-ism” which humans use to make themselves feel superior-when-separated. And it is combined with female-subordination which makes another layer of the same, that will always also divide them from within.
The thing that most amazes me is the slyness and subterfuge. In politics, it is obviously used on the stump to get people to vote and then do what one wants when elected. So why here? It’s just propaganda and gets people when they are ignorant but doesn’t really work “for the Kingdom”, not a bit. So I can’t help but suspect they have a hidden agenda by which they hope to gain power here and soon-ish.
LikeLike
I am apalled that Martin Selbrede is trying to say Rushdoony was not a racist! I am of mixed background; Russian Jewish and African American. Some of the Rushdoony quotes from this thread are offensive to me. As a proud member member of the Christian LGBT community, his racism and homophobia shouldn’t be tolerated.
Martin might not be a racist, but Rushdoony most certainly was.
LikeLike
Mr. Selbrede: Does everything have to pass through the Chalcedon test before it can be approved? Why does Chalcedon get to be the final word? I seem to get that underlying theme in your comments. One thing that I have not seen you address is the Priesthood of Believers. Your Chalcedon group is no closer to God than any one of us here. There is danger in having one group/man interpret scripture for all. That kind of removes any need for the Holy Spirit. I’m not buying it. It also makes me think of Christians outside of the US (and this kind of ties in with Phillips and his obsession with Americanism/Civil War) – – so many people get all caught up into everything American and I wonder what our Christian friends from UK or Africa or South America, etc, might think when they read some of this stuff – – that only American Christian “scholars” have the perfect interpretation of scripture. Hogwash. Such arrogance.
LikeLike
Martin,
I responded to your use of 1 Tim 1:8 according to the sense of the verse itself, in context. If you want to apply a truncated fragment of the complete passage to make a point not addressed by the verse itself, that’s your business, but I’ll not be issuing any retractions.
And by the way, do you really subscribe to the notion of a physically geocentric solar system and/or universe as seems to be indicated in the article to which A. Amos Love links above? If so, yikes!! I can see how some would speculate that the Earth is at the center of God’s purpose for His creation, but the sun revolving around the Earth and/or the universe having it’s center at the Earth? What about the Milky Way Galaxy? Does it, including its core, revolve around the Earth?
Do please tell us that the article at http://www.talk2action.org/story/2007/2/16/182146/521 misrepresents your views. And please, link us to any renunciation of such views you may have published before the matter was raised here.
LikeLike
Patrice,
“The thing that most amazes me is the slyness and subterfuge. In politics, it is obviously used on the stump to get people to vote and then do what one wants when elected. So why here? It’s just propaganda and gets people when they are ignorant but doesn’t really work “for the Kingdom”, not a bit. So I can’t help but suspect they have a hidden agenda by which they hope to gain power here and soon-ish.”
I think Rushdoony and Chalcedon have always been up front about their goals.
I think the problem is that many Christians have unwittingly supported them without understanding the political aspirations. As Martin has stated, their goal is that Christians will voluntarily embrace this. How does that happen? Well, as Gary North once said, “We once were shepherds without sheep. No longer.” They have found ways to gain influence. One of those ways has been through the Christian Homeschool Movement. The more young people they can indoctrinate to accept their Biblical law, there will eventually be more voters to usher in their representatives.
If they are successful, we, or our descendants, will someday know what it was like to live in the time of the Puritans.
http://heresyintheheartland.blogspot.com/2013/06/in-memory-of-thomas-granger.html
LikeLike
Cindy K, I read your 2004 article with interest. And I know I own the book by Ken Blue (possibly also the one by Steven Martin). Will order any that I don’t have (particularly the first one you mentioned).
Chalcedon’s symposiums are rarely in-person events (I believe that only happened in 1983 and 1984). They represent the written contributions of a group of authors focused on a general symposium topic. So, travel isn’t necessary, but we value the contributions of Christians in their areas of experience or expertise.
If you look at the Journal historically, many non-reconstructionists have contributed to it. If an author falls within the scope of orthodox Christianity, we see no reason not to consider a submitted manuscript from him or her. This is our stated editorial policy and we have faithfully followed it. In fact, contributions from secular sources, reprinted with permission, have appeared in our Journal.
This brings up the interesting issue of Donatism, which had an impact on the early church. In the Donatist perspective, you basically didn’t know that your baptism or your marriage was valid until the minister who had performed them had died. If at any time he had fallen from the faith and drifted into apostasy, the Donatists held that all the baptisms and marriages he performed were retroactively nullified. You would be immediately guilty of fornication due to the retroactive annulment of your marriage. The church resolved the Donatist crisis by asserting that baptism and marriage were valid regardless of the (impossible-to-know) moral state of the one officiating at either event.
We should consider the early church’s resolution of the Donatist issue when it comes to questions about publishing something in 2004 and then learning three years later that the author is now compromised. Is that periodical retroactively tainted because an author has deflected into aberrations or heresies or dissipating sins after the publication comes out? The modern answer is Yes, but the early church answered this question more wisely. We should consider the implications of their views and their importance in today’s arena, where theology tends to turn into a contact sport due to the influence of social expectations.
LikeLike