tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post5956927691720832273..comments2024-03-25T09:01:20.997-07:00Comments on Diary of an Autodidact: Dominionism and Evangelicalism PART 1: It's All About The PowerDiary of an Autodidacthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comBlogger23125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-46109217989308411902017-06-26T19:59:45.249-07:002017-06-26T19:59:45.249-07:00One likely big reason why fear and hatred of scien...One likely big reason why fear and hatred of science is so baked into Evangelical Christianity at this point has to do with science being at the forefront of the Renaissance, when the church began to lose control of knowledge. Since that seems to be the point a lot of evangelicals believe society "lost their way", that ties to a belief that science ITSELF causes one to lose their way. That plus the fact that proper science tries to eliminate as many assumptions as possible, and a lot of anti-science evangelicals want to keep the "Bible is infallible" assumption in everything...Dark Phoenix (Nixa)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11557085553371905683noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-7898102994969142902016-07-20T18:41:22.290-07:002016-07-20T18:41:22.290-07:00Thanks! I'll check it out.Thanks! I'll check it out.Mary E. Stephenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09206071568335923658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-77112508701666937612016-07-17T04:45:49.051-07:002016-07-17T04:45:49.051-07:00Mary, how funny is this! It did not occur to me th...Mary, how funny is this! It did not occur to me that you were addressing someone else.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262026016908169872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-23718384134188067302016-07-16T22:06:12.640-07:002016-07-16T22:06:12.640-07:00Definitely confusing to have too many Tims on one ...Definitely confusing to have too many Tims on one thread. :D Mary, Tim Chastain does have a blog of his own, one that has been helpful to me in my own journey. When I grow up, I hope to be as gracious as he is. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-37625078042249905522016-07-16T16:55:55.698-07:002016-07-16T16:55:55.698-07:00Tim Chastain - Sorry for the confusion. The name ...Tim Chastain - Sorry for the confusion. The name of "The Autodidactic" who writes this blog is named Tim in real life, and I think of him by his real name. :-) My comment was addressed to him. I didn't mean to cause any confusion.<br /><br />I was homeschooled for the later part of my education, but my parents never followed Gothard or any of the other leaders of the "Christian Patriarchy" movement. They also were not interested in the quiverfull stuff. But, we knew and know people who are involved in these things. I have learned a lot at this blog, though, since this Tim writes from a viewpoint of having been on the inside and then having left. <br /><br />I will look up the link you suggested. I was actually hoping that Tim who writes this blog would write something on the "godly seed" since he has a better knowledge of the overall Dominionist and Patriarchal viewpoint than I do. Maybe he will get inspired. :-)Mary E. Stephenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09206071568335923658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-11540996966662981172016-07-15T20:56:37.939-07:002016-07-15T20:56:37.939-07:00Thanks for your remarks. There's a lot of food...Thanks for your remarks. There's a lot of food for thought there. Some of this confirms what I was already thinking. It is interesting to consider how the "godly seed" ideology ties into so many of the facets of Christian Patriarchy. I hadn't thought of the courtship connection to that, but that makes sense.<br /><br />I don't remember when I first heard about the "200 Year Plan", but it is ridiculous. I really don't see how it can be played out realistically without imposing serious bondage on one's progeny. It's kind of the mother of all guilt trips, isn't it?<br /><br />Botkin (& co.) is a problem anyway. From what little research I've done, I found claims that he was part of the Shepherding Movement (considered a cult), but when things didn't work out in New Zealand, where he and his idol pastor had moved, he returned to the States and joined up with Doug Phillips. As far as I could learn he never renounced the cult he was involved with, just morphed into the "Biblical Patriarchy" grand high tooley-muck he is today, and was accepted with open arms (and wallets).Mary E. Stephenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09206071568335923658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-40791760653955944392016-07-12T11:46:40.963-07:002016-07-12T11:46:40.963-07:00That could be a fascinating article. I would agree...That could be a fascinating article. I would agree that the idea of "godly seed" is important in the Dominionist/Quiverfull worldview. Perhaps one of the most interesting bits I came across is the "200 Year Plan" that Doug Phillips and Geoff Botkin came up with, that combines militant fecundity (I wish I had thought up that phrase first...) with dominionist political goals. <br /><br />https://spiritualsoundingboard.com/2013/12/03/doug-phillips-vision-forum-multi-generational-faithfulness-and-video-of-young-boy-explaining-the-importance-of-having-many-children-for-10-generations/ <br /><br />That might be a good start. <br /><br />The other thing that I want to mention in this regard is that, while it isn't always apparent to outsiders, this idea of "godly seed" is driven by two factors. The first is the idea of the United States as the "new Israel," and the second is a deeply rooted white supremacy. These combine such that "godly seed" is in large part a euphemism for "white Christians need to have more babies lest the brown skinned people/Muslims (take your pick) out-reproduce them." There is definitely an opinion about who the "real Americans" are - every bit as much as who the "real Christians" are. <br /><br />That's one reason why I think that part of the drive behind the Courtship movement is to ensure that the kids don't marry outside of the tribe. Which means theology, class, and yes, race. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-13296167522510736312016-07-11T11:43:06.552-07:002016-07-11T11:43:06.552-07:00Hi Mary, Although I was a fundamentalist and then ...Hi Mary, Although I was a fundamentalist and then an Evangelical, I was out of that movement before the more extreme developments such as homeschooling, quiverfull, and Gothard's patriarchal umbrella of protection became widespread. So I am not familiar with these issues from personal experience.<br /><br />I did become aware of Rushdooney in the early 1970s, and I was also aware of the growth of homeschooling and of Gothard's growing influence. But I was not involved in any of that. My knowledge of those things come to me second-hand.<br /><br />I was not aware of the concept of the 'godly seed' until you mentioned it here, but I did a little checking around and found several references to it in No longer Quivering; a possibly good search on this is at http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nolongerquivering/?s=godly+seed.<br /><br />Your question has really raised my interest. I hope you are able to do the article, and I look forward to it.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262026016908169872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-49592220600914590562016-07-10T08:51:47.823-07:002016-07-10T08:51:47.823-07:00Hi, Tim. I haven't read this yet, but I'm...Hi, Tim. I haven't read this yet, but I'm going to read the series (or as much as is done so far) with a view to linking to it for my readers. My question today is this - do you have anything that specifically addresses the "godly seed" aspect of Dominionism and the Quiverfull Movement? I am working on a series on why we are not Quiverfull and when I started to investigate the "godly seed" aspect I realized that it is a much bigger issue than I thought. I believe it to be a foundation stone of the whole belief system. In fact, I am inclined to think that a lot of the bizarre and extreme teachings relating sex and marriage, etc. probably find their source in this. So, I thought if you had touched on this subject somewhere in your writings I'd like to see what you had to say, knowing your level of research and knowledge. Or perhaps you know someone else whose writing on the subject you would recommend. Thanks for any help you can give.Mary E. Stephenshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09206071568335923658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-69970184304203871262016-05-19T09:55:31.543-07:002016-05-19T09:55:31.543-07:00Outstanding points. The scapegoat syndrome is ende...Outstanding points. The scapegoat syndrome is endemic to fundamentalist violent religion as well. If tragedy is the fault of the infidels, sooner or later, a "Final Solution" ends up presenting itself. <br /><br />In addition to Falwell, I would list Pat Robertson and John Piper as those who have blamed specific tragedies on specific sins. (Piper infamously blamed a particular tornado on tolerance of gay marriage.) <br /><br />I thoroughly agree that this leads to false "solutions" to problems, from poverty to terrorism. <br /><br />Also, isn't it amazing how feminism always gets listed? Clearly the evil in the world *must* be the fault of all those uppity women...Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-75524344883599922312016-05-19T04:23:13.291-07:002016-05-19T04:23:13.291-07:00Wonderful post. An aspect I haven't seen menti...Wonderful post. An aspect I haven't seen mentioned in this post, though not central to the points your making, is the idea that you'll be punished for your neighbor's sin.<br /><br />That by allowing your neighbor to live/conduct sin you are in part responsible and thus will be made to suffer as a result. Huge scapegoat tool, but also a driving factor in the need to control the seven mountains you mentioned.<br /><br />If everyone is acting in a godly manner, then god will stop sending floods, disease, and pain to us. Which sounds pretty divorced from reality, but if you look up any tragic event of national note you'll find someone blaming some group labelled 'sinners'.<br /><br />Reinforcing that success/happiness is a reward for the pious, that poverty is for people who deserve to be poor. <br /><br />I feel this is important because it also serves a more insidious purpose, which is the simplification of tragedy. The perfect example being the 9/11 attacks. After they occurred Falwell surmised that god allowed this to happen due to moral decay. Listing things like feminism, homosexuality and abortionists. <br /><br />It's not because of the politics that created the terrorist organization, or the failure of security agencies, or the gaps in government oversight, or the lack of attention by the Bush administration to anti terrorism concerns. It's cause we're not godly enough.<br /><br />This is a major problem in my eyes because it removes understanding of the actual factors that create the event, making finding effective solutions impossible. It's such an effective tool because it gives a clear cause of the problem and clear answer to its future prevention. It can also never be disproved.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08776341107818983309noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-45393017068056671892016-05-18T16:43:47.368-07:002016-05-18T16:43:47.368-07:00It may be a while. I wrote the first two before I ...It may be a while. I wrote the first two before I realized I needed a third, so I have to write that installment. For these ones, I write and re-write more than I do for my reviews - plus putting the links in takes time. :)Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-19401324131321758632016-05-18T16:41:37.678-07:002016-05-18T16:41:37.678-07:00Sounds good; looking forward to it.Sounds good; looking forward to it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262026016908169872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-76686341833337105232016-05-18T16:39:25.838-07:002016-05-18T16:39:25.838-07:00Thanks, Auto.Thanks, Auto.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262026016908169872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-48315259537050847162016-05-18T10:54:41.785-07:002016-05-18T10:54:41.785-07:00I'm hoping to address the issue of Science and...I'm hoping to address the issue of Science and Technology in a future installment. (#3 probably) In general, I believe Evangelicalism has a deep fear and distrust toward science, and the reason is not a mystery, in my opinion. <br /><br />Science - at least since Darwin and Lyell (and others) blew apart the idea of a literal Genesis - has made a habit of discovering truths which cause theological problems. Rather than wrestle with the theological problems - and maybe decide that the theology needs to be changed to reflect reality - it is easier to simply deny the existence of scientific facts. I'll be talking about presuppositionalism in a future post. Basically it is the idea that only a person who already accepts certain theological conclusions can know truth, so one can dismiss any discoveries that contradict what you already believe to be theologically true, because those "discoveries" are simply Satan's lies. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-35008708271315595272016-05-18T10:47:28.955-07:002016-05-18T10:47:28.955-07:00First of all, thanks for bringing to my attention ...First of all, thanks for bringing to my attention another postmillennialist approach. Some fascinating things there, particularly his list of the institutions of the Kingdom of Evil (Religious bigotry, the combination of graft and political power, the corruption of justice, the mob spirit and mob action, militarism, and class contempt) which must have particularly hit home during his own age (the robber baron/gilded age) and still resonate in our own new gilded age. <br /><br />"Where does it demonstrate any of the teaching and example of Jesus? It does not. Meanwhile, the genuine Kingdom of God continues to grow invisibly." I very much agree - and I also believe that there will be a great deal of shock at who turned out to be building the Kingdom and who turned out to be trying to shut the door in the faces of others. <br /><br />It's always a pleasure to hear your thoughts, Tim. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-45745865042766474812016-05-18T10:40:11.848-07:002016-05-18T10:40:11.848-07:00It does sound interesting. Another one on my list ...It does sound interesting. Another one on my list on that topic is Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism by Michelle Goldberg. I've read some excerpts, and I think she did her homework. <br /><br />Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-3725346050750809002016-05-18T05:00:41.279-07:002016-05-18T05:00:41.279-07:00I find it disconcerting that Science and Technolog...I find it disconcerting that Science and Technology is not one of the Seven Mountains. Is it because Science and Technology deal with things which _cannot_ be controlled -- like the motion of comets or chemical reactions, or is it because Science and Technology require actually knowing something in detail before one can credibly talk about it? otminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18024428875536064642noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-8854335852907717432016-05-17T18:51:55.529-07:002016-05-17T18:51:55.529-07:00Yeah, they ignore a lot of inconvenient facts abou...Yeah, they ignore a lot of inconvenient facts about the Puritans. One of the biggest being, oh yeah, they would have HATED the Constitution and with a passion, and would have thought most of the Founding Fathers were losers (even the Christian ones).<br /><br />I might have to go look for that Domestic Revolutions book. To be fair, the Puritans were reacting against some legitimately awful social problems in England at the time, but anybody who thinks that what they set up over here was all super-godly and functioned perfectly is…deeply optimistic.<br /><br />Another fun fact: they made it so hard to join their churches in MA (basically, tell us your testimony in excruciating uber-detail so we can decide whether you're really saved or not - and they wouldn't even take communion with other Puritans from English churches) that they ended up having rewrite the requirements in the 1660s so their own children could get baptized. Still couldn't take communion, but at least get baptized. Which makes the Salem incident even more embarrassing, because several of the people who were hanged were fully communing church members, i.e. the church itself had previously decided they were saved based on said excruciatingly detailed testimony.<br /><br />Autodidact, you would like John Fea's book Was America Founded As a Christian Nation?.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-56521776730965579812016-05-17T16:27:02.310-07:002016-05-17T16:27:02.310-07:00Autodidact, thanks for this amazing post.
I becam...Autodidact, thanks for this amazing post.<br /><br />I became aware of Rushdoony in the early 1970s through a fellow Christian college student, but I paid him no attention. Later, as a Christian bookseller, I was very aware of North and Barton. I disapproved of them, didn't promote them, and assumed their twisted extremism would fade away as no significant number of Christians would go for that. Was I ever wrong.<br /><br />I have never read Dominionism systematically, and I very much appreciate your pulling it together in a substantial way, along with its current political connections.<br /><br />I think one thing is clear: "The point of “dominion” is power and control. The ability to wield power and exert control over others." I can't believe it became so pervasive in conservative Christianity.<br /><br />Where does it demonstrate any of the teaching and example of Jesus? It does not. Meanwhile, the genuine Kingdom of God continues to grow invisibly.<br /><br />By the way, I do think one can be postmillennialist without being Dominionist. Consider the postmillennialist social gospel represented by Walter Rauschenbusch and others in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04262026016908169872noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-949559461901606502016-05-17T13:22:24.776-07:002016-05-17T13:22:24.776-07:00Stay tuned for part 2, in which I talk about the w...Stay tuned for part 2, in which I talk about the way that the Puritan Founding Myth has become the dominant narrative of American History for Evangelicals, actual facts be damned. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-22568132786793033232016-05-17T13:21:35.615-07:002016-05-17T13:21:35.615-07:00Outstanding points.
I remember when my sister wa...Outstanding points. <br /><br />I remember when my sister was in college (history major for a while) she came home and told us about the way that the "lower class" of the Puritan era actually had the kids attempt a pregnancy before marriage. Take that womb for a test drive before buying...<br />A lot of things weren't exactly like we have misremembered them, it turns out. <br /><br />You also make the great point that I have shouted for years: Nobody who worships the past envisions themselves as anything less than upper middle class. That goes for the Middle Ages, for the Victorian Era, and for the 1950s. Things look a lot different on the other side. Diary of an Autodidacthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11849157548643091986noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4051826042602269061.post-51850749712702430852016-05-17T13:08:06.542-07:002016-05-17T13:08:06.542-07:00Possibly a slight sidestep, but I'm reading a ...Possibly a slight sidestep, but I'm reading a book I picked up for cheap at a library sale--a history of American family structure called "Domestic Revolutions" by Mintz and Kellogg. I'm only up to Puritan times, but I found it fascinating to read:<br /><br />1. The Puritans were explicitly trying to set up a more stable family structure than existed in England at the time, based around patriarchy and sexual purity (all the familiar stuff), in order to have a Godly Community (TM). As you have pointed out, the Godly Community was all about power and control, and the Puritans weren't particularly interested in hiding that. (Marriages contracted by parents. Wives becoming legally non-existent during marriage. Adult children obeying their parents on pain of economic disaster. Government intrusion into making sure everyone does the right kinds of devotions. Actual removal from the community of Catholics and other infidels. All of it.) Result: Almost everyone got married. At the beginning they managed to have only about 10% of brides pregnant at the wedding. Many children were born. They felt the need to "provide for the poor" that in practice actually meant "get more servants for the winter plowing and they can't leave because they're poor and will starve if I don't feed them".<br /><br />2. HOWEVER, this state of affairs lasted precisely as long as it took for fathers to lose economic power over their children (mostly because more land opened up for farming): about 40 years. In the space of about a generation, suddenly 40% of brides were pregnant at their wedding.<br />40%.<br />In PURITAN NEW ENGLAND. (Maybe they weren't teaching abstinence properly, what do you think? Also, put that in your pipes and smoke them, ya Cotton-Mather-Loving Jonathan-Edwards-Fan freakazoids.)<br /><br />Anyway, I found it interesting that, essentially, if we had been paying attention, we could have realized that Christian Patriarchy and Dominionism (TM) has already been tested for us in the most "advantageous" circumstances (they literally had all the guns and all the food and all the power to hang infidels) and found ineffective at creating a Godly Community (TM) even by the slim "everybody's a virgin at the altar" standard.<br /><br />I'll also note that in such a tight-wound society--you can't flout Dad because he still holds the deed to your farm and if he kicks you out of town you will probably *starve* or get killed in the woods--it's not surprising that hysteria was on a hair-trigger. Everyone knows about the Salem Witch Trials, but there's an icky tension in general when you read Puritan accounts. Just because they didn't always hang a lot of inoffensive old women and girls doesn't mean they didn't regularly gang up on the weakest people in society.<br /><br />It's almost like this ISN'T the way God wants us to conduct society and He lets us live with the consequences of our actions, or something.<br /><br />Honestly, I want the people who don't see a problem with Dominionism in America to answer whether they think they're going to do a better job of it than the Puritans did. And if so, why? Surely not because the Puritans didn't do it *hard* enough?<br /><br />Or is it just that, honestly, they're kind of fine with how the Puritans did things, because in their head they picture winding up as Cotton Mather and not as Sarah Good?Breanna Teintzehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06857684157682898312noreply@blogger.com