Doug Phillips

[rmac3]

You ought to read this about Phillips

http://racistchurches.wordpress.com/200 ... allantyne/

[Not That Kind of Dr]

I think that the readers' comments disturb me more than the actual passage under discussion, and that's saying something.

[MamaJunebug]

Considering that my husband and kids are tri-racial (European, African, Native American), it all gets a big shrug from me. The responders are correct in that it's historic fact, and history is rarely pretty.

It shows the white [sic] folks being at least as arrogant and superior as their black [sic] associates are shown to be unenlightened.

The fact that Phillips publishes it simply means he has located a market for it and is making money off of it. It's no surprise that he reprints stuff in the public domain and sells it to indiscriminate buyers who could read it on-line or at a library and save their money for something else.

The most over-protected homeschool graduate, upon encountering a black [sic] person in real life, is going to learn very quickly that the Ballantyne narrative is woefully antique, especially should that graduate be so stupid as to presume that his new acquaintance has a hankerin' for leopard brains or is, because of his appearance, automatically an affable, submissive person.

;)

[Brainsample]

Doug cannot come up with a single original idea or concept -- he only borrows, steals, or mimics someone else or someone else's material.

Rushdoony encouraged people to republish the writings of the Confederate Presbys, and by today's standards which are much different, that material is both misogynist and racist. (It was not considered so openly in that day.) All Doug can do is repeat what others have said and mix different borrowed ideas to make them look original.

If you look back at the writings of Benjamin Palmer or one of the other less popular Confederate Presby ministers, it is Vision Forum tripe mixed with Doug's version of Ceremonial Judaism which isn't even like the real thing, though he tells the masses that it is.

Mix in there that he follows Covenant Theology and thinks that the Church started with Abraham and not at Pentecost (the "church" built upon the revelation of Jesus Christ which is given by the Holy Spirit, something that many believe is different from the Old Testament "assembly"). It is not just a spiritual thing, but for these guys, everything is a physical thing, too. Rushdoony did not live this way in his personal life, but these new neopatriarchalists act like they are Abraham's new seed, and Doug's Jewish so he's extra special. Einwechter preaches that they are the physical seed of Abraham and that they are to fill the earth with physical descendants. He also teaches that sins follow a person's children to the fourth generation as it did under the Mosaic Covenant. That is not true under the New Covenant -- we are made new creations in Christ through the Blood. There is no gender or race anymore. Doug sits on the fence on this and plays whatever card is convenient. To not be a racist, he'll state that there is only one race in Christ among Christians. But to be spiritually superior in his practice of spiritual eugenics, he'll capitalize on race and separatism and piety.

Anyway, Rushdoony encouraged the reading of the old Confederates, and many took that and used it to make their own new religion out of it, a syncretistic mess and mix of American Nationalism, Christianity, Judaism, Confederate Idealism, Theonomy, Christian Reconstruction, Roman Paterfamilias Patrairchy and the Baal marriage, etc....

But nothing is new.

[MamaJunebug]

Brainsample, I'm intrigued by your statement that Rushdoony didn't live that way in his private life.

Can you expand?

TIA!

[gustava]

"The excerpt doen’t demean the Africans; it only points out their savage, superstitious and very foreign characteristics."

Wonder what would be considered demeaning.

[gustava]

And: He was in divinity school during WWII, rather than in the military.

And: He divorced the mother of his five children.

[Brainsample]

Brainsample, I'm intrigued by your statement that Rushdoony didn't live that way in his private life.

Can you expand?

TIA!

On at least two occasions, based on what people who knew Rushdoony personally have said to me over the years, I asked Andrew Sandlin to go on record to respond to some of these matters concerning Doug Phillips. Andrew was president of Chalcedon while Rousas J. Rushdoony was alive and worked with him. I think that he is therefore a pretty good source of what Rush believed while he was still alive.

As soon as my email server stops acting weird, I'll pull up those quotable quotes.

In the meanwhile, I can tell you that the Gary North minded people you see today that run around carrying on about Rushdoony believe very different things about how people should live than did Rush himself. In fact, he used to produce tapes that he called “Armchair Tapes,†and he talked on them at length, as early as 25 years ago, about his great concerns that homeschoolers would turn themselves into cloistered and therefore culturally irrelevant communities that were afraid to engage the world. (You can bet Chalcedon won't re-release any of those old tapes as mp3 downloads any time soon!) He also disagreed with much of the theology and aberrant views of Gary North and others whom he refused to publish while he was alive but who are published and courted by Chalcedon now. For example, I KNOW that he would never have embraced the SAHD concept and the Botkin girls would never have been featured on a Chalcedon podcast while Rush was alive.

He was not in favor of women abandoning motherhood, but he loved strong women, well-educated women, and he was not against women attending university. He was respectful of others with different beliefs, and though he taught a pretty strong doctrine, he did not live like a legalist. I am told by many that he was not opposed to birth control. He didn't want to run off and live on a compound so that he and his family would not be “contaminated†by the world. He advocated that people be strong minded and well studied so that they could very actively engage the world and be ambassadors for the Gospel as Paul taught. The whole idea was to be changed by Christ, and the rest of everything that happened was grass roots and not a theocracy goal, though he had ideas about what our laws should be (like every other American does). He loved the liberty that we have in this country, and he was against a theocracy. He believed that the more free people were to have expression of religion and thought, the more Christianity would flourish (though I didn't find him to be 100% consistent here, FWIW). We definitely don't see that in the Gary North and the Doug Phillips types.

Rushdoony was also a gracious pastor, and he would drive hours to meet with people who were afraid to go to church or were troubled and called the Chalcedon office. He was gracious. That's nothing like Doug and his running around with is “Touch not, taste not†fearmongering piety, nor is it like his acting like he's a higher life form than everyone else, including other Christians who actually share his beliefs. He was kind to and respectful of (gasp!) atheists and Catholics (double gasp!!!). Rushdoony was humble and kind, I am told. He may have written some serious garbage at one time, and more of it seemed to be when he was younger. But he was not arrogant, at least not in his later years.

Rushdoony didn't publish the junk that passes for theonomy today (which doesn't negate the fact that I find some problems in his theonomy and theology). There again, that was a theological innovation for a different age, and that stuff doesn't really work today. Back in the '90s, Andrew Sandlin even wrote an epitaph for the Christian Reconstruction movement. It's time had past.

I'll post those quotes, one of which is a response from Andrew about something that Joyce wrote in Quiverfull.

[Brainsample]

From Sandlin on March 25, 2009:

Rushdoony was basically a conservative libertarian. He did hold that the OT civil legislation should be enforced but only in a Christian society, which means, not in modern America, which he saw as ripe for God's judgment. He was an agrarian, in my view because OT civil legislation could be more suitably applied in that environment. He was not comfortable with modern technologically spread capitalism. He hated the stock market. His views were closer to Robert Nisbet than to Irving Kristol. He did support patriarchy, but he was not opposed to birth control, and he did not oppose educated and strong women and, in fact, he surrounded himself with them. He would have found many of D. Phillips' views extreme. He was a committed, pre-Enlightenment thinker. He opposed interracial marriage and was something of a feudalist. He was a genuine, old-line conservative much like Pat Buchanan, but he is not easy to classify.

You may quote me on all this.

[Brainsample]

I don't have permission to quote this whole thing from Andrew from January 2008, but I will post this much, and I'm sure that Andrew wouldn't mind:

Of course, he would have found the kinists' racism abhorrent, but they do claim him.

To be honest, I think that Phillips is not a kinist, and I don't think he's a racist based on nationality but essentially disdains people because of their beliefs and behaviors because he's like a higher life form that doesn't want to get sullied by people whom he believes are his lessers. I am one of them and have been justly treated as such in person, long before I ever became vocal on this issue. And sadly, I think we likely got better treatment from Doug initially because we did seek him out at church and we were once involved in the Taxpayer's Party in Maryland.

But Doug does follow that Confederate Ideology like it is a religion that is on par with the Gospel. I think that Rushdoony had some social beliefs that were racist by today's standards, based on statements he made when he was young. The man was in his 80s when he died, and he seems to have changed and progressed over the years, especially over the last 20 or so.

[Brainsample]

In that first quote from Sandlin, he mentions that he was uncomfortable with technology, but in other discussions I've had with Andrew and with others who knew him, Rushdoony was not a Luddite.

[Brainsample]

And: He was in divinity school during WWII, rather than in the military.

And: He divorced the mother of his five children.

That's Ballantyne, not Rushdoony!

I don't know what the heck Rushdoony was doing during WWII. He may have also been in school. But he didn't divorce his wife, nor did he abandon his children. ;)

[hoipolloi]

That's Ballantyne, not Rushdoony!

I don't know what the heck Rushdoony was doing during WWII. He may have also been in school. But he didn't divorce his wife, nor did he abandon his children. ;)

Rushdoony's Wikipedia entry says that he did divorce his first wife, mother of his five children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_John_Rushdoony) as does this strange blog (theonomists.blogspot.com/). I know that Wikipedia is not an infallible source of information (and the blog is, well, strange), but why would someone make this up?

[Brainsample]

Rushdoony's Wikipedia entry says that he did divorce his first wife, mother of his five children (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rousas_John_Rushdoony) as does this strange blog (theonomists.blogspot.com/). I know that Wikipedia is not an infallible source of information (and the blog is, well, strange), but why would someone make this up?

Holy Geneva, Batman!

I had no clue! Having not been alive then and not having a clue who he was until the '90s, I would have never guessed... I'll have to check with some friends. I wouldn't be surprised if they knew nothing about it.

:!:

[Brainsample]

That "Meet the Theonomists" blog is pretty interesting, and in large part I agree. It reads like an ex-Wilsonite, and it links over to related Wilson critics, too.

So what are my general conclusions with regard to this movement, its future, and my place therein? First and foremost, I must conclude that, despite the specific good points mentioned above, and some similar points, and the general Calvinistic orthodoxy of the theonomy movement, the movement itself is nonetheless infected with wholesale theological aberrations and excesses. Several of these are directly related to an over-reliance on and/or an overemphasis on certain aspects of covenant theology (despite occasional claims to the contrary from certain of the movement leaders, it is really not possible to be a consistent theonomist and a Baptist, a fact which is often unedifyingly and directly upheld by many of the newer, younger adherents).

I would call Doug Phillips one of the newer, younger adherents. The Presbys don't seem to be as weird as the Baptist versions, but then, there are folks like Morecraft and Wilson who trash that generalization.

This is interesting, too. Don't know if it's true, and I don't know that using John MacArthur as a benchmark had any meaning, or it could be very telling. I'm not sure! I can't stand John MacArthur.

The Chalcedon Report (CR), for one, has recently taken to publishing articles written by theonomy kids, often related to the Rushdoony clan, and accompanied by glowing encomia — the kid is brilliant, doctrinally orthodox, etc., when in reality these articles are mostly noteworthy for how well the kid has mindlessly rehashed whatever his parents have taught him. And the student articles in the CR are actually very tame compared to many of the stuff seen in other more fringe fora. Indeed, one member of the faculty of the John MacArthur “Master’s College†in California noted that the homeschooled kids they accept usually have to be deprogrammed in the area of history out of the errors gleaned from “the pseudo-historical home-school materials†they have studied under. While he was not referring just to theonomy kids, his description here is apt and fit for them.

[MamaJunebug]

Gadzooks, Zoot brainsample, that's tons to absorb! and I thank you for it most heartily. Will be interested to learn what you find out about his marital history.

[apple1]

...This is interesting, too. Don't know if it's true, and I don't know that using John MacArthur as a benchmark had any meaning, or it could be very telling. I'm not sure! I can't stand John MacArthur...

High five, Brainsample!

As one who spent many, many years in Baptist churches (mostly IFB and Southern Baptist) I am SHOCKED at the level of "reverence" given to MacArther (and Mohler and Piper) by many Baptists- including many who profess to be leaving the legalistic excesses of IFBdom behind. I truly believe these people are clueless, and in reality, I think there is more danger behind the above-mentioned triad than behind all of the non-famous IFB guys put together. These worries me considerably.

[gustava]

From Conservapedia:

Rushdoony was married twice and had five children: Mark, John, Matthew, Luke, and Sharon. Sharon is married to Gary North, an economist, activist and founder of the right-wing news site CredibilityWatch.org.[4][5] Mark is the current president of the Chalcedon Foundation and runs an evangelical ministry in San Juan Capistrano.

From http://thechurchofjesuschrist.us

Rushdoony had five children with his first wife, Arda June Gent Rushdoony, who died in 1977. He married his second wife, Dorothy Barbara Ross Rushdoony, who became the step mother of his children, in 1962. She died in 2003.

Assuming these sources are correct, there must have been a divorce. Wife #1 died in 1977. He married wife #2 in 1962. M

[Brainsample]

Gadzooks, Zoot brainsample, that's tons to absorb! and I thank you for it most heartily. Will be interested to learn what you find out about his marital history.

You can call me Zoot! Still gotta make some calls to check in with folks to see what's what.

[Brainsample]

High five, Brainsample!

As one who spent many, many years in Baptist churches (mostly IFB and Southern Baptist) I am SHOCKED at the level of "reverence" given to MacArther (and Mohler and Piper) by many Baptists- including many who profess to be leaving the legalistic excesses of IFBdom behind. I truly believe these people are clueless, and in reality, I think there is more danger behind the above-mentioned triad than behind all of the non-famous IFB guys put together. These worries me considerably.

I think that the Reformed movement became popular as a response to the lack of intellectualism in Dispensationalism, and sometime over the past 10 years, it became really popular to be a Calvinist. But I agree that this bunch you mention is like the holy trinity of the Baptist movement. And the church has developed their own version of politically correct behavior -- you're not permitted to say anything critical of Piper, Mohler, or MacArthur. You'll get all sorts of social pressure and harassment if you do.

Mohler has intellectual appeal, and Piper has that whole romantic, poetry, and quick to be all humble and emotional (kinda like Mahaney). It think that both of these appeal to people.

MacArthur I do not get and can't stand, and I don't know how anyone gets anything out of his teachings. I first heard him on the radio, three days in a row back in '88. I turned off the radio on the third day, and I said aloud: "I don't know why they call this program 'Grace to You' because there's not a bit of grace in anything he's said for me." He sounds angry and mean, and I think that he looks it, too. But I've talked to lots of people who claim that he's the first expository teacher they were exposed to. I had a friend who said she was so moved by his teaching one morning while busy in the kitchen, she actually laid down on the kitchen floor prostrate because she "felt the presence of God" in Mac's teaching that day. I shot my mouth off too fast and said, "Well that's just another testimony to Balaam's ass." That didn't go over too well with my friend...

I don't get the hero worship, either.

[jan9206]

DOUG PHILLIPS IS A TOOL!