Patriarchy, Christian Reconstructionsim, and White Supremacy

Notes on this post: First, I apologize for its length. It is far longer than any other post I have ever made. It represents the result of three months of research, writing, and rewriting. However, I felt it was necessary to lay out all of the important information, quotes, and links. For those who care about the issues currently dividing conservative Christianity, I think this information is important. I would urge my readers to follow the links as well. These are ideas that are being flaunted publicly and proudly, not hidden. 

It is fitting, though, that I would finish this during Black History Month. 

Second, for those of my readers who do not share my faith, I understand if you find this post tedious. I do want to say that the Patriarchy movement is a fringe group within the conservative wing of American Christianity - although I believe it is gaining influence. It is no more representative of the majority of American Christians than terrorists are representative of American Muslims. Please do not lump me or the others of my faith in with this group.

Third, I have chosen to use the terms “black” and “white” to refer to African Americans and persons of pale, European descent, respectively. I realize that these terms are not particularly accurate, and that different people prefer different terms. I use them as they are commonly used and understood in general discourse. In keeping with the recommendations of The Chicago Manual of Style, I have used lowercase for these terms, except when referring to the White Supremacy movement. In quoting directly from others, I use their language, even if it is highly offensive. I prefer not to bowdlerize.
 

This post is a follow-up to my discussion of Uncle Tom’s Cabin.  Although I had already uncovered some disturbing writings by a major figure in the modern “Christian Patriarchy” movement, Douglas Wilson, I continued to research the issue, because I felt that I was still missing a piece somewhere.
 

First, let me back up a bit. Recall that I spent some time as a teen in a group affiliated with the Christian Patriarchy Movement (although not directly - the link was more in the ideas and in the fact that they shared a good number of followers). That group was and is led by a man named Bill Gothard. (This is the group made most famous by the Duggars of "19 and Counting." Without getting into it too much, Gothard presents a legalistic, checklist based approach to Christianity; advocates a hierarchical system of authority with elements of Patriarchy; and has quite the lucrative empire of programs for teens and adults.) My wife’s family was involved with a much more restrictive, and I would say, utterly insane group. (Bold Christian Living - Jonathan Lindvall.) Poke around on the website a bit. Again, a system of authority, Patriarchy, and lots of stuff to buy. (Notice the trend...) This group holds ideas that are virtually identical to those of Douglas Phillips (Vision Forum), another major figure in the Christian Patriarchy movement. (Yet again, a system of authority, Patriarch, and stuff to buy.)

 
It was during my Gothard years that I first noted a racist edge to this segment of ultra-conservative Christianity. Gothard, who began his programs in the 1960s, blames most, or perhaps all spiritual problems on exposure to “rock music.” “Rock music” (which turned out to include jazz as well) was deemed evil, regardless of content, due in large part to its alleged origin in pagan Africa. “Godly” music came from Christian Europe, and was exemplified by military marching music. (There were also musical claims, which I discuss below in my note.)

I also noticed that the vision of “ideal” Christianity presented looked much like an upper-middle-class, white society of the past. Perhaps the 1950s, or the Victorian period. There didn’t seem to be any chance of attaining “God’s best” unless one was reasonably well off, certainly; and all vestiges of non-European or non-white American cultures were looked on with suspicion. 

Eventually, my wife and I grew up and moved out, and got married. We decided that we did not agree with Gothard and Lindvall, and that we would make a clean break with what we saw as legalistic, authoritarian, and somewhat nutty systems. Our parents, too, eventually moved on. 

Over the last couple of years, aided by the internet, I have been in better touch with the friends I made during those years. I was intrigued by a pattern of difficulties that they had and were having as a result of their experiences. Many had great difficulty in their relationships with their parents, including some where the parents attempted to torpedo their marriage. Others were struggling with the effects of the legalism, and so on. This led me to start keeping an eye on developments involving the major figures in the Patriarchy movement. 

Not long ago, Douglas Wilson made headlines with a statement he made about marital sexual relations, which he said were ungodly if they were done for mutual pleasure. Rather, he said, they should reflect the dominance of the man (Patriarchy), who plants and colonizes. (The woman receives.) The part that caught the eye of those outside of the ultra-conservative circles was his claim that the rape fantasy was a  longing for the “godly” form of sex, where there is “true authority and true submission” (his words). (See note below for more on this issue.) 

Still, I felt like there was a link that I was missing. It seemed unlikely that Wilson used White Supremacist arguments by accident. True, Patriarchy and White Supremacism are both based on a belief that a portion of humanity is inherently, congenitally, inferior; but, it seemed to me that there had to be a more solid connection. Otherwise, why would Wilson risk tainting his reputation by taking a controversial position on an issue seemingly unrelated to his main focus?
 

The final piece fell into place for me with a link provided by my friend and fellow blogger at thatmom.com. She linked to a Wade Burleson post on Patriarchy that mentioned a Civil War theologian named Robert Lewis Dabney. A quick internet search, and the light came on for me.

R. L. Dabney was Confederate General “Stonewall” Jackson’s chaplain, and he went on to a career as a preacher, writer, and theologian after the war ended.

Dabney also happens to be a revered hero of the leaders of the Patriarchy movement.

I previously mentioned Wilson’s pamphlet, Slavery as it Was. It turns out that some bookstores refused to carry it, not because of its racism, but because it was wholesale plagiarized from a book by Dabney. Also notable: Steve Wilkins, who co-wrote the pamphlet with Wilson, is a professor with his “chair” named in honor of - wait for it - R. L. Dabney. (I noted previously that Wilkins is a former leader of The League of the South, a secessionist and White Supremacist organization. In addition to advocating for a re-establishment of the Confederacy, they condemn interracial marriage and adoption, and support the repeal of civil rights laws.)

Wilson isn’t the only leader in the Patriarchy movement with a thing for Dabney, however. Douglas Phillips, who is probably the “godfather” of the movement (and also the son of extreme-right-wing presidential candidate Howard Phillips), wrote an awed biography of Dabney, Robert Lewis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks, and even composed a poem, an ode, really, to his greatness.

One cannot search Dabney’s name without finding a myriad of White Supremacist websites. He is equally revered in those circles. 

 
So what did Dabney preach?

I do want to be fair, and admit that Dabney’s work on systematic theology (which is available for free online) is pretty much within the pell of orthodoxy. Most of it is pretty uncontroversial, and he lays it out in a useful, systematic format.

It is his views about the South, race, class, and gender, that are more controversial.

But again, one must go back before the Civil War to find the connection.
           

"For the average person, all problems date to World War II; for the more informed, to World War I; for the genuine historian, to the French Revolution."

~ Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn

       
Dabney too believed that the error of the French Revolution was that of equality. Men were decidedly not equal, in his view. The man was superior to the woman, the aristocrat was superior to the commoner, and the white man was superior to the black man.

Again: are all men naturally equal in strength, in virtue, in capacity, or in rights? The thought is preposterous. The same man does not even continue to have the same natural rights all the time. The female child is born with a different set of rights in part, from the male child of the same parents; because born to different native capacities and natural relations and duties. In what then are men naturally equal? I answer, first: in their common title to the several quantums of liberty appropriate to each, differing as they do in different men; second, they are equal in their common humanity, and their common share in the obligations and benefits of the golden rule.

Hence, the general equality of nature will by no means produce a literal and universal equality of civil condition; for the simple reason that the different classes of citizens have very different specific rights; and this grows out of their differences of sex, virtue, intelligence, civilization, etc., and the demands of the common welfare. Thus, if the low grade of intelligence, virtue and civilization of the African in America, disqualified him for being his own guardian, and if his own true welfare (taking the "general run" of cases) and that of the community, would be plainly marred by this freedom; then the law decided correctly, that the African here has no natural right to his self–control, as to his own labour and locomotion. Hence, his natural liberty is only that which remains after that privilege is retrenched. (From Systematic Theology)

Dabney wasn’t the only person of his era with these views, of course. Even such a luminary as Edmund Burke, who held many admirable views, opposed the idea of equality.
           

"Political equality is against nature. Social equality is against nature. Economic equality is against nature. The idea of equality is subversive of order".

~ Edmund Burke.

From the above, one can guess a bit about Dabney’s views on race and slavery. It is his book, A Defense of Virginia and the South, (available in full for free online) that Dabney expounded his most racist views. (In fact, this book, written soon after the Civil War, was considered racist in its time.) Dabney defends slavery as a noble institution, and in fact, “the righteous, the best, yea, the only tolerable relation” between blacks and whites. It is this quote that Wilson “softens” in Slavery as it Was. 
 

"Slavery produced in the South a genuine affection between the races that we believe we can say has never existed in any nation before the War or since...Slavery as it existed in the South was not an adversarial relationship with pervasive racial animosity. Because of its dominantly patriarchal character, it was a relationship based upon mutual affection and confidence. There has never been a multi-racial society which has existed with such mutual intimacy and harmony in the history of the world."

(From Slavery as it Was)

Perhaps slavery is no longer the “righteous” relationship, or the “only tolerable” relationship between blacks and whites, but it is still the “best” in the history of the world.

Some other choice quotes from A Defense of Virginia and other minor writings on slavery: 

It is well known, that, as a general rule, they [Negroes] are a graceless, vagabondish set, and contribute very little to the support of the State by which they are protected. They are not citizens, never can become citizens, and wherever found in large numbers they are an expense and a source of trouble…

The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity…

The offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South.    (From A Defense of Virginia and the South)   

Dabney also opposed the education of blacks. (He opposed all public schools, as well as any secular education - which is another reason he appeals to the leaders of the Patriarchy movement.)
 

But, you asked for my opinion of this fearful question of the negro in our common schools. It is not necessary for me to repeat the points so strongly put by “Civis.” To one of them only, I would add my voice: the unrighteousness of expending vast sums, wrung by a grinding taxation from our oppressed people, upon a pretended education of freed slaves; when the State can neither pay its debts, nor attend to its own legitimate interests. Law and common honesty both endorse the maxim: “A man must be just before he is generous.” The action of the State, in wasting this money thus, which is due to her creditors, is as inexcusable as it is fantastical. I do know that not a few of our white brethren, before the war, independent and intelli­gent, are now prevented from educating their own children, because they are compelled to keep them in the cornfield, labor­ing from year’s end to year’s end, to raise these taxes to give a pretended education to the brats of the black paupers, who are loafing around their plantations, stealing a part of the scanty crops and stock their poor, struggling boys are able to raise. Not seldom has this pitiful sight made my blood boil with in­dignation, and then made my heart bleed with the thought. (From The Negro and the Common School)

There is much more to be found, all in the public domain online.

Douglas Phillips, who has stated that Dabney was foundational to his thinking, in his poem to Dabney, specifically praises A Defense of Virginia:

We must remember Thornwell, Palmer, Girardeau —
All Southern men who preached with power, unity, and flow;
But when it comes to logic pure there’s one that tops our list:
Hail Dabney, prophet of the South, our great apologist.

Geneva had its Calvin, Rome its Augustine,
England had is Cromwell to fight the libertine;
But in our land there was but one who dared to turn the tide
Of reconstructionistic zeal and yankeedom’s foul pride.

The feminist, the plutocrat, the wiley carpetbagger,
The Darwinist, the bureaucrat, and transcendental braggart;
The scalawag, the suffragette, the surly Statist simp
Were by your pen defrocked, exposed, and wounded, left to limp.

The solomonic wisdom from your pugilistic pen
Has rendered impotent the creeds of far less noble men;
And with a keen, perceptive flair that exceeds Nostradamus,
Your prophesies have proven wrong each foolish doubting Thomas.

You make us leave our comfort zone and re-engage the battle,
Content no more to tolerate the sophomoric prattle
Of Socialists, Republicrats, and those who compromise;
No longer may we coddle them or listen to their lies.

And so with joy we doff our hats and shout from every mouth:
Hail Dabney, wise apologist, defender of the South!

Phillips, in particular, considers Dabney to be a true prophet, speaking the uncomfortable truth. As I will note, this love of Dabney’s vision of the Confederate South will tie in with the goals of Christian Reconstructionism, which I discuss below.

The second thread connecting Dabney with the patriarchy movement is a view of the subordination of women to men. Again, Dabney is of the belief that it is equality which is responsible for the decay of morals and society. Dabney believed that neither blacks nor women should have the right to vote. As for women’s sufferage, he said, “The obvious answer is, that it will destroy Christianity and civilization in America.” One suspects that, since Dabney referred to the women’s rights movement as being a cause of abolitionism, he was not happy about Harriet Beecher Stowe in particular.

Some other choice words: 

 

How utterly opposed is all this to the leveling doctrine of your Radical. Women are here consigned to a social subordination, and expressly excluded from ruling offices, on grounds of their sex, and a divine ordination based by God upon a transaction which happened nearly six thousand years ago! The woman's sphere is expressly assigned her within her home, and she is taught that the assumption of publicity is an outrage against that nature with which she is endowed.

Political excitements will corrupt women tenfold more than men; and this, not because women are naturally inferior to men, but because they are naturally adapted to a wholly different sphere. When we point to the fact that they are naturally more emotional and less calculating, more impulsive and less self-contained, that they have a quicker tact but less logic, that their social nature makes them more liable to the contagion of epidemic passions, and that the duties of their sex make it physically impossible for them to acquire the knowledge in a foreign sphere necessary for political duties, we do not depreciate woman; we only say that nature has adapted her to one thing and disqualified her for the other. The violet would wither in that full glare of midsummer in which the sunflower thrives: this does not argue that the violet is the meaner flower. The vine, left to stand alone, would be hurled prone in the mire by the first blasts of that history...But the vine cannot be an oak; it must be itself, dependent, clinging, but more precious than that on which it leans or it must perish. When anything, animate or inanimate, is used for a function to which it is not adapted, that foreign use must endamage it, and the more the farther that function is from its own sphere. So it will be found (and it is no disparagement to woman to say it) that the very traits which fit her to be the angel of a virtuous home unfit her to meet the agitations of political life, even as safely as does the more rugged man. The hot glare of publicity and .passion will speedily deflower her delicacy and sweetness. Those temptations, which her Maker did not form her to bear, will debauch her heart, developing a character as much more repulsive than that of the debauched man as the fall has been greater. (From Women’s Rights Women.)

These views sound eerily similar to the "Tenets of Biblical Patriarchy", as found on Phillips’ website.

Again, the view is one of hierarchy: the man rules the woman, the white man rules the black man, the aristocrat rules the commoner.

The third thread is, in my view, the one that ties together the patriarchy movement and the white supremacist movement. The important term here is Christian Reconstructionism. Organizations like the League of the South advocate the secession of the South, and the reestablishment of Antebellum society. Christian Reconstructionists advocate the establishment of a society ruled by “Biblical” principles (as defined by them, of course). Wikipedia’s description is informative.

In a later post, I want to address the issue of “Theonomy,” which I believe is the fundamental error at the root of the patriarchy and reconstructionist movements.

How does this relate to Dabney? In A Defense of Virginia, he argues that that the Antebellum South was the last true “Christian” society. Furthermore, this “godly” society did not end as a result of its own failure, but rather because it was violently destroyed by the “heretical” North.

Thus, the Civil War wasn’t about slavery, nor was it a secular conflict. In Dabney’s view it was, quite literally, good versus evil, right versus wrong. The North, with its ideals of equality, was inherently evil, along with its ideas. 

Douglas Wilson expressly agrees with this statement, writing:

“You’re not going to scare me away from the word Confederate.” Wilson identifies as a “paleo-confederate.” “We’re fighting in a long war, and that [the Civil War] was one battle that we lost.” (Christianity Today, April 17, 2009)

Dabney went further, to predict that racial integration, social equality, and “feminism” would lead to a whole host of social evils. He claimed that the freeing of the slaves, with its implication of equality, would naturally lead to the breakdown of society. Human nature being what it is, many of these predicted ills have come to pass in the last 150 years. It doesn’t take much imagination to foresee the arc of a civilization from its rise to its death. However, Dabney, like many before and since, was sure he knew both the cause and the cure. Society would be destroyed by equality (women and blacks are getting uppity!), and the cure was the re-establishment of the “natural order,” slavery and all. (Women and blacks should know their place!)

Let’s try this with another historical visionary believed to be a prophet. The prediction in Mein Kampf: Germany was losing its character and morale. The cause: The Jews! The solution: Nazism and the Final Solution!

Let’s also try this with Marx, who accurately predicted the results of greed in a capitalist society. He blamed it on religion and capitalism (the bourgeoisie is oppressing you, and the priests defend them!), and advocated atheism and communism (as applied by Lenin, Stalin, and others: kill the priests and plunder the people richer than you!)

Or how about this one? Many predicted that the Roman Empire would decay because the traditional polytheism was no longer practiced. Surely this was due to those Christians infesting the Empire! Say, those lions look hungry...See how easy this is? Try it for yourself!

This is why patriarchs like Douglas Phillips consider Dabney to be a prophet. They see problems in our society which were predicted by Dabney, accept his explanation, and attempt to establish a society based on his prescription - perhaps minus the slavery thing - but with the rest. Thus, they advocate for subordinate gender roles, avoidance of interracial marriage, home schooling as the only “godly” choice, and so on. 

A page from Gospel of Slavery: A Primer of Freedom, by Abel Thomas, published in 1864. The terms “patriarchal” and “gospel” were commonly used by the defenders of slavery to describe the institution. Dabney was one of these, of course, and his ideas were already well known to the abolitionists. I was more surprised to find that Douglas Wilson would so unashamedly describe slavery as “patriarchal,” considering its connection to his own philosophy.
 
There is a solid link between Dabney and the modern White Supremacy movement. He is spoken of with awe, and is commonly cited in support of their positions against integration and interracial marriage. I hate to dignify bigotry with a link, but I believe the information is important in this case. This site also unabashedly claims an increasing collaboration between the Christian Reconstructionist movement and the League of the South and other White Supremacist organizations.

Likewise, there is an historical connection from Dabney to the modern Patriarchy movement. In rough historical order, these are the names that took the proto-reconstructionist ideas from Dabney to the present: Richard M. Weaver (“Southern people reached the eve of the Civil War one of the few religious people left in the Western World.”), C. Gregg Singer (“[the US Civil War] as a humanistic revolt against Christianity and the world and life view of the Scriptures … Thornwell, Dabney, and their contemporaries … properly read abolitionism as a revolt against the biblical conception of society and a revolt against the doctrine of divine sovereignty in human affairs.”), and Rousas Rushdoony. Now there is an interesting name I recall vaguely from my childhood, although I think it was in the context of him being a little nutty.
 
“A little nutty” is a vast understatement. Rushdoony (who wrote much of his output during the ferment of the Civil Rights Movement)  is considered the founder of the modern Reconstructionist movement. He is also loved by Douglas Wilson and Douglas Phillips. Unsurprisingly, at least by this time, he is another revered figure of the White Supremacy movement. As a matter of fact, my best source for information about the connections from Dabney to Rushdoony was a White Supremacist website. The white supremacists make no secret of all of this: they are proud of the racist views of Dabney, Rushdoony, and others.

Likewise, Douglas Phillips makes no secret of his love for Rushdoony.

“Especially fond to me are the memories of old days when I could visit in person or listen on tape to Mr. [Otto] Scott and Dr. R.J. Rushdoony (now with the Lord) as they would wax eloquent on subjects as diverse as the moral inadequacies of jazz...” Douglas Phillips on Rushdoony

 Phillips said that he took three books to his law school classes: “the textbook, a copy of The Institutes of Biblical Law, and my Bible.”

What does Rushdoony say in The Institutes of Biblical Law?

The white man has behind him centuries of Christian culture and the discipline and the selective breeding this faith requires… The Negro is a product of a radically different past, and his [genetic] heredity has been governed by radically different considerations.

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

Hybridization seeks to improve on God’s work by attempting to gain the best qualities of two diverse things; there is no question that some hybrids do show certain advantageous qualities, but there is also no question that it comes at a price, bringing some serious disadvantages.

Every social order institutes its own program of separation or segregation… Segregation, separation, or quarantine, whichever name is used, is inescapable in any society.

Rushdoony was also a holocaust denialist, claiming that the “lies” about it were worse than any atrocities committed.

I also found it interesting that Rushdoony opposed democracy, saying that “Christianity and democracy are inevitably enemies,” and that “Democracy is the great love of the failures and cowards of life.” Why would this be? Rushdoony believed in the concept of a “spiritual aristocracy,” the rule by those naturally fit to rule. As he put it, “The goal is the developed Kingdom of God, the New Jerusalem, a world order under God's law.”

Boy, this is starting to sound familiar!

(Rushdoony would take Reconstruction further than Dabney. While Dabney advocated for the restoration of the Antebellum South, Rushdoony advocated for the reestablishment of the government of the Old Testament Kingdom of Israel, along with all of Old Testament law and penalties. Yes, that includes the stoning to death of women who lie about their virginity.)

Douglas Wilson mentions Rushdoony on his blog extensively, although he appears to have at least nominally rejected Reconstructionism. (I think that his ideas amount to Reconstructionism without the name.)  This post in particular discusses the influence of Dabney and Rushdoony.  
 

Circling back to the Douglas Phillips quote above, notice the mention of the evils of jazz. Here we come full circle to the beginning of my discussion. Bill Gothard plagiarized most of his writings on the evils of “rock music” from Rushdoony. Also, in his home school curriculum, Gothard advocates for a world order which is essentially Reconstructionism: the establishment of a society governed by a spiritual aristocracy in line with Old Testament laws. Characteristically, Gothard does not attribute in his publications, which makes it harder to draw the direct connection. However, the ideas are copied nearly word-for-word from Rushdoony and others. The essential views on gender roles, clothing, authority, and many others are substantially similar to the teachings by Douglas Phillips. Thus, while Gothard never makes the connection explicit like Phillips and Wilson do, there is too much similarity in the teachings and worldview to be a coincidence.

Once I discovered all of these explicit links, much of what puzzled me about Gothardism and the modern Patriarchy movement became much clearer. Once I understood that underlying all of the rules and authoritarianism was a belief that a truly “godly” society had once existed, and that it was destroyed by the forces of evil embodied in the North, it became clear why these groups focus on hierarchies, authority, and conformity to a rigid cultural expectation. Also, certain views of specific issues that had seemed odd to me suddenly fit into the greater worldview inspired by Dabney and Rushdoony.

- Belief that “rock music” and jazz were the roots of all evil. Once one accepts that those of African descent are by nature inferior and that mixing the races is evil, this one comes naturally.

- Disapproval of adoption, particularly foreign adoption. After all, it might dilute the purity of the race.

- Glorification of the culture of a particular era. Specifically, the glorification of the culture of the upper class in the Antebellum South. From this follow the imposition of a dress code based on the outfits of the era.

- Forbidding the wearing of blue jeans, even for manual labor. Jeans were marketed to factory workers (an evil Northern system, according to Dabney), although I suspect that James Dean also contributed to their “ungodly” reputation.

- A focus on the limitation of the roles of women. This particular belief, including the subservience of women to men has been raised by the Patriarchists to the level of a fundamental doctrine of the faith, equal to a belief in the deity of Christ.

- Hostility to women who exercise or play sports. This would be an encroachment on male territory, and also not the sort of thing an aristocratic woman would do.

- A corresponding focus on the alleged “feminization” of men in our society, and a quest to make men conform to a rather militaristic ideal of masculinity. This focus includes the restriction of reading material for children to those books that show properly “masculine” and “feminine” traits, and support the other elements of the Patriarchal worldview. This is amazingly similar to the restrictions imposed by the Nazis in Germany and by Stalin in the USSR.

- Advocacy for the establishment of an alternative society, rather than functioning as Christians within the present society. After all, the “Northern” society we live in is illegitimate, and should be overthrown.

- Militant Fecundity and its close relative Quiverfull, which advocate large families. (Think of the Duggars - prominent members of Gothard’s system.) Since the intent is to establish an alternative society and overthrow the “evil” one we live in, one needs lots of bodies.

- View of others that do not hold the same views as the enemy - even other Christians. All these groups advocate keeping separate from the world. The ideal is self-employment, homeschooling, and marriage only within the group. This stems from the view of the South as true Christian society and everyone else as the evil North.

-  Home schooling as the only Biblical method of education. This comes directly from Dabney and Rushdoony, of course. Lindvall has gone so far as to say that only home school parents should be permitted to have a leadership position in a church.

- Attraction to an extreme form of Calvinism. In particular, an extension of the doctrine of election to a belief that God chooses certain individuals to be damned, and that therefore they have no opportunity to repent. They were chosen for hell before the creation of the world. I believe this is attractive because it enables the “us versus them” view. The “others” can then be safely ignored. If they agree with us, then God has chosen them. If not, then, well, to hell with them anyway. (I should clarify that the vast majority of Calvinists reject both Patriarchy and Reconstructionism. Most Patriarchists are Calvinists, but few Calvinists are Patriarchists.)

- Emphasis on “authority.” In addition to the hierarchical view of society, it is important that in a military conflict that orders be obeyed without question.

- Belief that any lifestyle outside of the rigidly prescribed roles is evil. Once one believes that a particular society and culture was the last Christian society, this follows naturally.

- Stigmatization and punishment of “non-normative” individuals. See above.

- Suspicion of independent thought. In Gothardism, a particularly bad epithet is “Independent Spirit.” I know, I heard that a few times. Those who are skeptical of a particular claim are written off as rebellious, or at least “spiritually insensitive.” Again, this stems from the belief that a particular society is the only godly society combined with the authoritarian view of the world.

- “Courtship” or “betrothal” as the “godly” method for finding a spouse. Because preserving the purity of the movement is so important, marriage isn’t about the formation of a new family, or about love, or anything like that. It is about ensuring that the new spouse conforms to the expectations of the group, and furthers its goal. It also serves to prevent “hybridization” with other races, although this is more understood than stated.

- The veneration of books by G. A. Henty. (These are considered by many in the movement to be the best possible books for young boys to read, despite having some troubling racist and colonialist attitudes that are very much of their time. I’m not claiming these books are bad, but that they may be loved as much for their worldview as for their merit.)

- The corresponding veneration of the Elsie Dinsmore books for girls, which present a view of society, race, and gender roles very much in line with Patriarchal ideals. (Unlike Henty, I have nothing good to say here. My wife suffered through one of the books, and complained of poor writing, cardboard characters, and a disturbing quasi-incestuous relationship between Elsie and her father. I also note that she marries her father’s best friend, who had his eye on her since she was a small girl. Eww.)

- Real life experience, logic, and anything outside of the orthodoxy of the group are disregarded. They are trumped by the particular interpretation given to Scripture by the group leader. This too stems from the belief that a perfect society existed in the past, and that all we need to do to attain Utopia is re-create it. (Theonomy also comes in here.)

- Everything of our present culture is evil by definition, but things of the culture of the Antebellum South are good by definition.

I write this in part because I am worried that the Reconstructionist/Theonomist paradigm is gaining in popularity with conservative Christianity. These ideas have really gained popularity in certain parts of the home school movement as well, although I would hasten to add that most of us do not subscribe to these views. Also, not everyone who has a connection with the above Patriarchists or their ideas believes all of the reconstructionism or has racist ideals. However, too many of the cultural assumptions that flow out of the Reconstructionist paradigm have become as or more important than Christ himself to many conservative Christians. As my blogger friend aptly put it, it is getting extremely difficult for those of us who believe the traditional tenets of the faith to find a church that doesn’t also believe in rigid gender roles and a return to the culture of the past. I have mentioned to many of my friends and family that this new Patriarchy is not the faith I was raised in. Formerly, it was about the change in the heart as a result of redemption, not about the external appearance in line with a particular culture. Marriage was about mutual love and sacrifice, not the idea of submission and domination. Worship was about our response to God, not a fight about musical style. And “the world” wasn’t so much a malevolent force to be feared as a world in need of our compassion, care, and assistance.

I do want to clarify that my parents are not racists or Patriarchists, and they never taught us those things. Likewise, I do not believe my wife’s parents believed or taught those ideas. Our years in Patriarchal groups were spent there out of ignorance, not ill intent. Furthermore, the internet had not yet become the source of information that it is now, and many of the less savory ideas were kept hidden from neophytes, so our parents could see only the surface and not the underbelly. In a day and age when young ladies dress like Bratz dolls, and a high percentage of children are born out of wedlock, there is a certain amount of concern about our children that is both natural and legitimate. In that situation, it is very attractive to see rows of neatly dressed, polite teenagers, and hear promises of a better way. As demagogues throughout history have known, in times of cultural upheaval, it is comforting to believe that someone foresaw the problems, knows the cause, and has the solution - so much more so if the “problem” stems from the “bad” influence of people different than you. Thus good folks get sucked into a vision they do not share by the promise of one they do share.

Lest anyone think that I have exaggerated the Reconstructionist aspect of this, I hereby link to Douglas Phillips’ “200 Year Plan.” It is worth the time to peruse the PDF slides, which contain many of the elements I already cited. (The importance of a child’s spouse: she must buy into the vision and be willing to have lots of children, emphasis on patriarchy, the “vision of the father,” i.e. control of adult children, an utter lack of non-white people - particularly in leadership, military references, passing references to aristocracy.)
 
(200 year plan - Douglas Phillips)

The end goal is clear: to establish a new (or renewed) “Christian nation,” one which is governed (and governs others) in line with Phillips’ view of God’s will. The generally accepted term for this is a Theocracy. I, for one, would be vehemently opposed to this. I think the words of C. S. Lewis express my thoughts.

"I am a democrat because I believe that no man or group of men is good enough to be trusted with uncontrolled power over others. And the higher the pretensions of such power, the more dangerous I think it both to rulers and to the subjects. Hence Theocracy is the worst of all governments. If we must have a tyrant a robber baron is far better than an inquisitor. The baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity at some point may be sated; and since he dimly knows he is doing wrong he may possibly repent. But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

And since Theocracy is the worst, the nearer any government approaches to Theocracy the worse it will be. A metaphysic held by the rulers with the force of a religion, is a bad sign. It forbids them, like the inquisitor, to admit any grain of truth or good in their opponents, it abrogates the ordinary rules of morality, and it gives a seemingly high, super-personal sanction to all the very ordinary human passions by which, like other men, the rulers will frequently be actuated. In a word, it forbids wholesome doubt. A political programme can never in reality be more than probably right. We never know all the facts about the present and we can only guess the future. To attach to a party programme -- whose highest claim is to reasonable prudence -- the sort of assent which we should reserve for demonstrable theorems, is a kind of intoxication," (From Reflections on the Psalms)

Note on Music:

I think I have adequately explained the racist element in the theories of music propounded by Gothard and Rushdoony. The supposed musical explanation is this:

Emphasis on the “downbeat” is good and “godly,” while emphasis on the “back beat” is evil. I suppose one could dismiss the whole theory on the basis that neither type of beat is ever mentioned in the Bible, but Gothard in particular takes it very seriously. (Rushdoony wrote Institutes in the 1940s, before rock and roll.) To support this view, Gothard cites the “African” roots of “rock and roll” and Africa’s “pagan” culture as proof that it is evil. At best, this ignores all of the “pagan” influences in European music. In my opinion, it is more of the racism descended from Dabney. By being “white,” certain music is just inherently more holy.

As a musician, I have further problems with the theory. Very little music has emphasis solely on either the downbeat or the upbeat, which is a more accurate term than “back beat.” In fact, most music, particularly of a light or popular nature - including military marches - has a contrasting emphasis on both the upbeat and the downbeat. This is not a secret. Any reasonably educated musician can tell you this. Anyone who has played a second violin or viola part in a Sousa march can tell you that all they do is play off the beat. The whole time. (Personal experience here...) The general pattern in Western music is bass notes on the downbeat, treble on the upbeat. Think of the polka: oom-pah, oom-pah, etc. Likewise in the waltz: oom-pah-pah, oom-pah-pah. And guess what? It is the same way in “rock” music today. Ask any drummer. Bass drum on the downbeat, snare on the upbeat. This is, of course, a gross simplification of rhythm, but so was the “evil” and “good” music dichotomy. In reality, rules and expectations are broken in truly interesting music all the time. That is the whole point. A constant emphasis of one beat is boring, regardless of what beat it is. Composers and artists from the classical masters to the latest songwriters seek to create unexpected and intriguing rhythms, melodies, and harmonies.

Thus, the “musical” justification was clearly bogus to me from the beginning, and served to demonstrate Gothard’s ignorance of the basics of music. Rushdoony was more honest. Music from Europe was superior to music from Africa because the white race was, in his view, morally superior to the black race.



An example of “godly” music. Note the 2nd violins playing on the offbeat throughout, and the flutes and piccolos in many other spots. Also, note that there is often bass drum on the downbeat, and snare drum on the upbeat. Remember: Bass on the downbeat, treble on the upbeat...

   
An example of “evil” music. Once again: bass on the downbeat, treble on the upbeat. Isn’t this fun?

Note on the Douglas Wilson rape controversy:

A blogger and friend of Douglas Wilson reposed the following excerpt from Wilson’s book, Fidelity: How to be a One Woman Man as a response to the popularity of Fifty Shades of Grey, a novel about kinky, violent sex. All excerpts can be viewed on Amazon.com using the search within the book feature.

Because we have forgotten the biblical concepts of true authority and submission, or more accurately, have rebelled against them, we have created a climate in which caricatures of authority and submission intrude upon our lives with violence.

When we quarrel with the way the world is, we find that the world has ways of getting back at us. In other words, however we try, the sexual act cannot be made into an egalitarian pleasuring party. A man penetrates, conquers, colonizes, plants. A woman receives, surrenders, accepts. This is of course offensive to all egalitarians, and so our culture has rebelled against the concept of authority and submission in marriage. This means that we have sought to suppress the concepts of authority and submission as they relate to the marriage bed.

But we cannot make gravity disappear just because we dislike it, and in the same way we find that our banished authority and submission comes back to us in pathological forms. This is what lies behind sexual “bondage and submission games,” along with very common rape fantasies. Men dream of being rapists, and women find themselves wistfully reading novels in which someone ravishes the “soon to be made willing” heroine. Those who deny they have any need for water at all will soon find themselves lusting after polluted water, but water nonetheless.

True authority and true submission are therefore an erotic necessity. When authority is honored according to the word of God it serves and protects — and gives enormous pleasure. When it is denied, the result is not “no authority,” but an authority which devours. (Page 88. Emphasis in original.)

It is beyond the scope of this post to explain why this is offensive, and I assume most of my readers will find that point to be completely obvious. It also fits neatly with the Christian Patriarchy view that women are in fact lesser beings, and therefore must always be under the protection (and control) of a man. In fact, Wilson makes this reasonably clear in the opening of the first chapter of the book:

This book was written for men and their sons. I suggest that wives read this only when their husbands give it to them, and not the other way around. The introduction mentioned the issue of “straight talk” – and this means, in part, a rejection of euphemism. Some of what is said here may be offensive to Christian women, but the point is certainly not to give offense. The point is to provide biblically specific and pointed help to Christian males. (On page 13.)

Although, again, this discussion is beyond the scope of this one post, I may have to explore the degree to which misogyny and the control of women are a core belief of the Christian Patriarchy movement.

Suffice it to say that, like many of Wilson’s ideas, this one is not only factually false, but obviously factually false. Those places in the world where women are most likely to be raped also happen to be those places which most adhere to the Patriarchal view of male-female relations. Even worse, many of those in these areas of the world that advocate patriarchy mutilate the genitals of their females, which ensures that the sex act is not an “egalitarian pleasure fest.” That, in fact, is the point.

If Wilson were really concerned about ending rape, he might note that women are the safest in those countries that have strong rape laws, a view of women as equals, and influential feminist movements.

Update on Douglas Wilson:

After writing this, I came across a more recent book by Douglas Wilson that shows how his ideas have evolved a bit since Slavery as it Was. A few years later, he wrote Angels in the Architecture, wherein he argues that it was, not the Antebellum South, but in fact the Middle Ages that were the most “godly” age. 

He does double down on his claims about the Antebellum South, however:

The American South was the last nation of the first Christendom. … The South will rise again. (pp. 203, 205)

From the introduction, which, as above, can be viewed on Amazon.com for free:

“Christian Medievalism, however, presents us with a view of a whole life, full of truth, beauty, goodness, and all their nasty contraries. The medieval period is the closest thing we have to a maturing Christian culture.” [emphasis in the original]

I will admit to having been surprised to see a Protestant claiming that things were better before the Reformation. However, I was even more surprised to see that Wilson also dismissed the Reformation as an aberration, wholly unrelated to the Enlightenment and Modernism (both of which he condemns as the new focus of evil in the world). This seems to be yet another example of willful ignorance of history. It would take a full post to explore the connection between the Reformation and Modernism - and to refute the idea that things were in fact better in the Middle Ages. Suffice it to say that the idea that one could approach God directly without the blessing and intervention of the Mother Church was perhaps the most radical idea of the last thousand years. It lead naturally and obviously to the idea that one could think and explore the world individually, without being bound to a false orthodoxy. I also find it hard to believe that any Protestant could say with a straight face that the world was more “godly” in an era when most of humanity lacked access to the Bible in their language.

Wilson’s claim does make perfect sense, however, in light of his obsession with hierarchies and power. During the Middle Ages, the Church was at its zenith of political and economic power. It had more temporal might than any one nation, and could in fact control the everyday lives of its citizens in ways that even the Soviets struggled to duplicate. And, obviously, the rigid social structures which privileged men and the aristocracy that were so dear to Dabney and Rushdoony were still strong. One gets to avoid the racial issue presented by the glorification of the Antebellum South because Europe was fairly racially homogenous (except for those pesky Jews), and Africa was largely perceived to be the home of the Muslims, who could be seen as the enemy - crusades and all.

And, of course, women knew their place. In the final few pages (also available for viewing on Amazon.com), Wilson lists his idea of the elements of the Middle Ages that we need to revive. Among these are a distrust of science and technology, the centrality of the Church, rural living, and disappearance of the secular state. Also interesting is the claim that we should have a “predominance of poetic over rationalistic knowledge.” And, of course, the usual references to “federal headship” and “creation hierarchies,” both of which refer to the limited role of women within the Patriarchal worldview.

Clearly, Wilson disagrees with some of the basic ideas of the Reformation and the Enlightenment that many, including myself, hold dear. Separation of Church and State (a big issue since my ancestors were non-conformists), the scientific method, the worth of the individual, the technological advances which enabled people like me to survive childhood, the idea that all men are created equal, and so forth.

When I mentioned to my wife as we discussed this that Wilson doesn’t seem to be interested in imagining himself as a member of the lower classes, she noted that actually, he seems to wish that he could be Pope. I imagine that, like others, he believe the world would be a magical, poetic, marvelous place if everyone would do things his way. Sorry, I mean “God’s way.”

I would counter that, wholly apart from the record of history, Wilson’s ideal can be found in our world today. A few countries in Latin America are still dominated by the Catholic Church, live a rural life, and keep women in their place. The best example, however, is probably the Muslim world. All that is needed is to make them say, “Jesus” instead of “Mohammed,” and it would be perfect. I, for one, would rather pass on this vision, thank you very much.

Note on the South:

I do not want to create the impression that I think there was nothing good about the Antebellum South, or that I dislike the modern South. On the contrary, my friends and acquaintances - both black and white - from the South are thoroughly charming. The courtesy and hospitality is a good thing - and something worth preserving and/or restoring. Likewise, I do not believe that the North was a “godly” society either, nor do I defend our own time as the best in history. I believe that the Antebellum South - and the North - had its good and its bad, just like every time in history and place on this planet ever, including our modern times. I do not argue with the desire to make our world a kinder, more courteous place. However, as Dabney made clear, his belief was that the important facet of Southern culture was the inequality, and that the abolition of slavery would lead to the disintegration of society. And the Christian Patriarchy movement likewise wishes to establish the political forms and hierarchical vision of that time and place, rather than the inward virtues.

One further resource:

This particular paper was also of help to me in locating the primary sources for the quotes, as well as tying together the links between Christian Reconstructionism and White Supremacy.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/civil_war_canadian_review.htm