PART XIV: Christian Reconstruction, ATI, Abuse & Submission – Godly Evil Men

Share

Screen Shot 2014-06-30 at 12.12.25 AM“...from “The Institutes of Biblical Law” by Rushdoony, Pg. 565-569 ] – “…Thus, not only are we under no obligation to tell the truth to a lawless enemy who is bent on doing us harm, or destroying us, but the requirement to tell the truth in a court of law is strictly governed by law……..As noted previously, we are not under any moral obligation to tell the truth to an enemy seeking to harm or destroy us. The duty to tell the truth is reserved for normal relationships which are within the frame­work of law, and to the proceedings of courts of law in church, state, and other institutions. Even here, however, there are limitations on the power of the court or the demands of other persons.”…”

On Saturday, Quoting Quiverfull had a link to an article by Nathaniel Darnell that basically apologizes for the evil godly men do.  I’ve read some truly vile reasons for ignoring or even quiet approval of sexual abuse but I think this is the very worst.  When so-called godly men no longer recognize the difference between good and evil, instead, clinging to their own agenda, then they are no longer godly.  They become the very evil they claim to want to battle.  Not only this, but they are advocating an agenda that literally violates the law.  Increasingly, especially when it comes to politics and ethics, the followers of Christian Reconstruction, Dominionism, far right hard-core Calvinism, and worshipers of R. J. Rushdoony, have reached the point where they are so arrogant, they  no longer think they need to follow the laws of man. They are godly men who are following the laws, not of God, but of Rushdoony and his agenda of insanity and hate.

There’s a very good reason for this.  Rushdoony says that a person doesn’t need to tell the truth, even under oath, if a person is trying to harm them.  It comes from Rushdoony’s magnum opus: The Institutes of Biblical Law, pp. 565-566:  Lying in some situations is permitted by ‘biblical’ law.  I guess they never bothered with the Ten Big Ones about false witness.

“…As noted previously we are not under any moral obligation to tell the truth to an enemy seeking to harm or destroy us. The duty to tell the truth is reserved for normal relationships which are within the framework of law, and to the proceedings of courts of law in church, state, and other institutions.

Even here, however, there are limitations on the power of the court or the demands of other persons. The Biblical law of testimony does not permit torture or coerced confessions. Voluntary confession is possible, but two or more witnesses are required for conviction. More strictly, confession is never cited in the law; its place in a court was apparently only in connection with corroborating evidence. Thus Achan’s confession required confirming evidence before he was sentenced and executed (Josh. 7:19-26). The voluntary aspect of Achan’s confession must be noted. Biblical law preserves the integrity of the individual against forced confession; the right of citizens to be protected from the power of the state to compel their self-incrimination does not appear outside of Biblical legal tradition…”

All of this is disgusting.  It is also rather fascinating.  By refusing to follow the rules of ‘man’ and governments, by following the rules that Rushdoony, Scary Gary North, Bill Gothard, and then Doug Phillips, Kevin Swanson, and so forth and so on are now advocating, they are violating one of the very teachings of Christ.  When confronted with the Rushdoonys, Gothards, Norths, and Swansons of his day, Jesus of Nazareth told them to render unto Caesar. In other words, he told them to follow the blasted laws of the country where they were living.   There were many in Judea who expected the Messiah to be a military leader, a revolutionary, someone who would lead them in rebellion against the Romans. They weren’t exactly happy when they discovered the Messiah was not about a physical revolution, but a spiritual one.

When dealing with Rushdoony, Christian Reconstruction, and the godly men who want to force Christian Sharia on us all, Rushdoony required the following things when dealing with witnesses, false witnesses and lies.

  • Uncorroborated testimony
  • Inconsistent testimony
  • A malicious lie
  • Hearsay, speculation, and opinion
  • Inaccurate testimony, however well-meaning
  • Tampering with evidence

In other words, because there were no witnesses to the perverted abuse of these young women, to godly pedophiles, godly incest, or godly rapists, well, it’s to be thrown out in court.  Christ mandated there be two witnesses. But when there were two witnesses to the so-called adultery of the fallen woman, he shamed the false witnesses. John M. Frame, in reviewing Rushdoony’s magnum opus, wrote the following:

“…Those who object to Rushdoony’s position on the civil law must examine themselves to make sure that their objections do not arise out of distaste for the law itself. There are various arguments against his view which arise out of legitimate exegetical and biblico-theological concerns (see below); yet it is hard to understand on the basis of those theological arguments alone the horror sometimes expressed at his position. Is it possible that to some extent these reactions arise simply because we don’t want a society which executes homosexuals, forbids hybridization and transplants (pp. 253ff), legislates against sexual intercourse during menstruation (pp. 427ff), etc.? If indeed we object to these laws as such, then we are questioning the wisdom of God, and that is sin. Moral offense at these statutes is moral offense at God’s word, his covenant rule. Whatever position we take on the present normativity of these laws, we must learn how to delight in them, to be thankful that God gave them to Israel, to covet the happiness which obedience to such laws must have brought to faithful Israelites. We dare not presume to oppose Rushdoony out of a humanistically tainted moral vision…”

In other words, we are to thumb our noses at the laws of this nation, and follow only what Rushdoony thinks the laws of God are. I do believe that Scary Gary wrote that ‘false witness’ is a deadly offense, especially against godly men.  So, the young women who brought what these godly men consider false witness, if their version of Theonomy were present, well, these young women would be executed.

One of the problems with Rushdoony and with Scary Gary and their cult is that they ignore the teachings of Christ.  The Sermon on the Mount doesn’t even exist to them.  There’s a reason – it doesn’t!

“...The Existential Perspective. We now focus upon the moral agent, the person who applies the law to situations. It is in this area that Rushdoony’s book is weakest of all. In fairness, it should be said that Rushdoony may well have regarded this area as outside the proper scope of the book. He declines to discuss the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount concerning lust and hatred on the ground that they are “not within the scope of the civil law” (p. 636). He might argue, therefore, that we should not demand of him, in this already lengthy book, a full account of moral agency, motive, heart-attitude, etc. I must, however, venture into this area, first, because what he does say about these matters is often misleading and, second, because his inadequacies in this area generate serious problems elsewhere in his system. The three “perspectives” are so interrelated that it is really not possible to treat one of them properly without some attention to both the others…”

The Sermon on the Mount is not needed?

“...Gary North argues that certain commandments in the Sermon on the Mount are “recommendations for the ethical conduct of a captive people” (p. 845, italics his). The commands to agree with adversaries quickly, to go the second mile, to turn the other cheek, in North’s view, are exhortations telling us how to ingratiate ourselves to unbelieving rulers while we ourselves are out of power. But once the unbelieving ruler loses power, that ethic no longer holds. In the latter situation, says North, the Christian should not go the second mile or turn the other cheek, but rather “should either bust him in the chops or haul him before the magistrate, and possibly both.” He says, “It is only in a period of civil impotence that Christians are under the rule to ‘resist not evil’.” Interesting exegesis! I had always thought these passages had something to do with loving our enemies! And I had also thought that we should love our enemies even when we are in power. These passages do appear in the same context as the command to love our enemies (Matt 5:43ff). On North’s view, the sayings of Matt 5:25 and 39–42 have very little to do with love of enemies; rather, they urge cynical political acts, policies to be repudiated once we get some political muscle. Well, I am not ready to condemn this exegesis, but I consider it strange in the extreme that North does not even mention the command to love one’s enemies or try to fit that into his interpretation. In fact, one wonders what positive bearing the command to love one’s enemies can have in such a framework. But North does not even seem to recognize the existence of a problem here. It seems to me that both Rushdoony and North need to do a lot more thinking in this area if the scripturality of their approach is to be demonstrated….”

This is the background a person needs to attempt to wade through godly Nathaniel Darnell (a former minion of the now defunct Vision Forum).  His premise is that Doug Philips and Bill Gothard have been wronged by the evil young women who dared attempt to do something to prevent their sexual atrocities.  Nathaniel Darnell, a godly man, Calvinist, and associate of the now disgraced Doug Phillips wrote the following:

“...God’s Word is clear that public sins should be condemned publicly. But conflicts that are private need to go through the Matthew 18 procedures before they are made public and anyone is condemned.

If a lady claims to have been sexually abused by another Christian, the first thing she should do is talk with her shepherds about what happened, so that they can help, comfort, and steer her in what to do next. If she is married, then that would mean speaking with her husband and possibly her church elder(s) privately. If she is unmarried, that would mean speaking with her parents and possibly her church elder(s) privately to have wisdom in what to do next. If she cannot prove that she was abused, then she should beware the consequences of Deuteronomy 19:16-21, which hold her accountable to the same penalty as the one she accuses, if she is proven wrong.

Her counsellors need to help her overcome the hurts she claims to have experienced, and there are many hopeful truths of Scripture that should be a source of encouragement to such hurt individuals. But our zeal to deal with their alleged hurts should not lead us to rashly jump to condemn someone else without following God’s process for proving guilt and bringing restoration.

James 4:11 commands Christians to “Speak not evil one of another, brethren.” Specifically, we should not be spreading gossip, slander, backing-biting, or other similar things. We should not even read or listen to such complaints if we are not tied closely to the alleged victim and/or part of the solution…..We can certainly sympathize when people who believe they are victims feel desperate and they desperately do anything that they think will get a response for help, but once wise Christians are there to help them, they need to guide them to a course more in sync with these directions given in Scripture for handling conflicts. Spreading internet gossip and slander does not help or bring healing or restoration to anyone. It does serve to embarrass the Body of Christ before unbelievers, which is something the Word of God discourages in I Corinthians 6:1….”

When do people garner enough courage to say that certain so-called godly men are pure evil?   They claim to be godly, honorable men of God, yet they advocate lying, cheating, and pandering to pedophiles, rapists, and sexual harassers.  Yes, we know that they do not value women.  That’s fine, but they need to value the law.  Problem is, they don’t do that, either.

Finally, what the hell is wrong with these people.  When crimes like this are committed, read crimes, i.e. criminal acts, you do not go to your ungodly leaders from church hell, you call the cops.  Get it, you go to the cops.  You report them for breaking the law.  What Darnell, the godly man is telling people to do is to break the law, to harass victims, and turn them into the criminal.  This is a cult.  The godly men in it, by their continued determination to defend sexual harassers, rapists, and pedophiles have set themselves apart from all that truly is good and honorable.

Philippians 4:8 Finally, beloved,

  • whatever is true,
  • whatever is honourable,
  • whatever is just,
  • whatever is pure,
  • whatever is pleasing,
  • whatever is commendable,
  • if there is any excellence and

if there is anything worthy of praise,think about these things

I love using the writings of Paul against these people.  What they advocate is neither honorable or just. It is not pleasing, and it is not commendable.  There is nothing in it worthy of praise…so, I guess their actions don’t pass Paul’s ‘means testing’.  What is being advocated here is evil.

Why do they keep getting away with it?

Why doesn’t someone hold these allegedly godly men to task?

 

Share