Under Much Grace

Concerning this slavery issue:
To make a long story short, in my journey out of Word of Faith, I ended up reading a great deal of Theonomy and Covenant Theology, but I don’t think that any self-respecting Presbyterian would claim me as their own… Elements of Calvinism helped bring balance to the drastic arminianism of my past. I was also influenced by the late D James Kennedy’s version of Christian Reconstruction which viewed the Enlightenment as a mixed bag but one that provided for the conditions that fostered the religious freedom in the U.S. (with the French Revolution in cultic/humanistic contrast). Theonomy, until the death of Rousas J Rushdoony (not that his human construct was without its problems), was also governed by freedom-loving, wise (non-baby boomer) folks as well. These two men provide good exemplars of those Calvinists who, not anticipating a pre-(7 year) tribulation rapture of the Church, hold to the dominionist perpective.

I don’t know if it’s the American Baby Boomer generation, world events or postmodernism, but the freedom-loving leaders of the past seem to be nearly non-existent. The new guard of baby boomer aged leaders within the Reformed traditions (predominantly) embrace an authoritarian outlook and seem to look to the writings of Robert Louis Dabney (presbyterian minister/seminiary teacher and Confederate, author of “Defense of Virginia and the South”) as some kind of prophetic literature tantamount to the Bible. Dabney argued and defended slavery as well as opposed both minority and women’s suffrage and public education. (I’ve recently skimmed “A Defense of Virginia and the South” because of this issue to find that Dabney hated the Enlightenment -??freedom??- as well as Locke and Burke.) Within the homeschooling circles with Christian Reconstruction influences, Dabney is literally venerated as a prophet. The (non-militant) neoConfederate movement and advocates who once only argued against top-heavy federal government now also openly argue for “kinism” and against feminism. Many within this group of Reformed boomers also despise Luther and argue for a type of sarcedotalism in the forms of Catholic ecumenism, Federal Vision and New Perspectives on Paul. (At Westminster where Slick attended, there is much controversy over teachings that deny traditional salvation through grace and insert a merited grace element through works into justification among other problems.)

Ken Giles (“The Trinity and Subordinationism,” “Jesus and the Father” and articles on CBE) explains that the slavery issues support the ontological subordination of women throught the heresy of the subordinationism of Christ within the Trinity. For those interested in the Matt Slick camp and the influences within Presbyterian/Reformed circles related to slavery, women and this authoritarian neo-Confederate issue, Mark Noll’s book on slavery, “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis” is a necessary read. (His earlier work, “The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind” is also vital to understanding the American Christian Reconstructionist as well.)

So the Reformed and Christian Reconstruction influences continue to grow regarding the defense of slavery and opposition to feminism as the outward manifestations of their underlying authoritarianism. It’s a disturbing new trend (that was not characteristic of the aforementioned Rushdoony and Kennedy) that seems to rest in the Systematic Theologies of Turretin and Hodges in the 19th century, melded with this over-response to feminism. Giles is a must-read on this topic. Christian homeschoolers are easy prey for these zealots, many of whom are arrogant epistemic foundationalists.

The question is what to do about it? If anyone wants any addtitional info either on or offline, please email me via my website at http://www.UnderMuchGrace.com.