Correcting Dr. Bradley On His War Against Christendom Of The Past

Over here

http://bradley.chattablogs.com/archives/2012/07/adventures-in-m.html

Dr. Anthony Bradley continues with his complaint against Rev. Doug Wilson concerning Rev. Wilson’s lack of historgraphy skills in relation to the antebellum South.

In the piece above Dr. Bradley is offended at the instances where the antebellum South is embraced in an idolatrous fashion. And of course, where ever there exists Christians that have made an idol out of the Old South, all Christians would agree that such idolatry is a wicked evil sin that should be abjured. However, Dr. Bradley goes a step further by saying that this idolatry occurs in “many Reformed circles in America.” Many Reformed circles? Many Reformed circles? This seems to be a rather sweeping indictment against Reformed Christians. How does Dr. Bradley substantiate his charge? Has he taken a poll? Has he gotten on the mailing lists of enough Reformed circles wherein he might be able to make an reasonable guess?

Further Dr. Bradley goes on to say that this Idolatry has existed without much resistance. Really? I can only speak from my own reading but in much of my reading I see a great deal of resistance. For example several years ago the Reformed circle that is the PCA issued an apology for and expression of repentance from the alleged racist past of Presbyterians they see as their direct forbears. If a Reformed circle is offering this kind of apology, I don’t know how it could be said that they were at the same time making an idol out of the antebellum South. In point of fact if people would read all the heat in way of comments that Dr. Bradley’s observations have created they would see all kinds of resistance to this putative confederate idolatry.

None of this is to say that I agree with Dr. Bradley’s contention. It is merely to say that Dr. Bradley has made some sweeping charges here that he can not, in any objective manner, substantiate as being true. It’s just his opinion — an assertion without any grounding.

Dr. Bradley then opines that it would be best to consider the era of the antebellum South a “rubbish” for the sake of gaining Christ (Phil. 3:8) and his Kingdom. Well, sure, this would be true even for the person who could imagine belonging to the most perfect social order that ever existed. Would not that person count that as rubbish in order to gain Christ? Why I can even imagine that Dr. Bradley would count as “rubbish” his association with “Reformed Blacks of America,” for the sake of gaining Christ.

So what point is Dr. Bradley making with his “rubbish” comment? Is he suggesting that in order to have Christ Southerners must give up their Southern heritage? Is Dr. Bradley saying that the antebellum South of R. L. Dabney, James Henley Thornwell, John Lafayette Girardeau, and Benjamin Morgan Palmer was anti-Christ? No one is suggesting that the antebellum South was without fault or that the men just mentioned didn’t have blind spots, but to suggest that it was not a Christian culture worthy of respect and esteem is to damn God’s work among His people. The truth be known, the antebellum South, with all its warts, was the last muscular expression of Christian culture on a civilizational level the world has ever known. And yet even R. L. Dabney said, “A righteous God, for our sins towards Him, has permitted us to be overthrown by our enemies and His.” So, just exactly why should Christians with a Southern heritage count their birthright “rubbish?”

Fortunately, one can at the same time, Dr. Bradley’s opinions notwithstanding, hold on to their God given Southern heritage, without making it an idol, while at the same time gaining Christ.

Dr. Bradley seems to think that the fact that the antebellum South is to be seen as “rubbish” because it did not allow all blacks to be fully human. Yet many many of these enslaved blacks were Christian by confession. Now, certainly Dr. Bradley is not suggesting that blacks, ontologically speaking were sub-human. I think what Dr. Bradley is saying here is that blacks were not as human as they otherwise might have been if they had not been enslaved. Since blacks did not have the rights they were supposed to have, I think Dr. Bradley is saying that enslaved blacks in the antebellum South had less opportunity to experience all of what it means to be human than they otherwise would have had. In other words, their opportunity to experience the fullness of humanity was thwarted due to their enslavement. However, I do not believe that all because a person is a slave that means that, existentially speaking, they missed out on experiencing the fullness of being human. In the New Testament Paul, inspired by the Holy Spirit, gives instruction to both slaves and masters in order to regulate the institution along Christian lines. This inspired New Testament regulation of slaves and slavery proves that slavery is not ipso facto a denial of the rights of “full humanity” to blacks and at this point Dr. Bradley’s criticism against the Old South is really a criticism of the biblical view of slavery. As difficult as it is for moderns to hear, the fact that the Holy Spirit in the New Testament regulated the institution of slavery indicates that there is nothing inherently wrong with the master-slave relation. Thanks to the Gospel witness of many fine Southerners countless enslaved blacks, now part of the Church at rest, knew, while alive, all the fullness of being human. In point of fact, because they were in Christ, they recovered a full humanness that they would not have otherwise known had they never come to know Christ.

Dr. Bradley tells us that he is not accusing Rev. Wilson of racism but rather he is accusing him of insufficient historiography. One wonders though why Dr. Bradley even notices Rev. Wilson’s historiography except for the fact that said historiography gives aid and support to alleged racists. So, Rev. Wilson isn’t racist, but his historiography leads to putative racism? Curious reasoning there on Dr. Bradley’s part. (Note, we are not even pursuing whether there is an agreed meaning of the word “racist.”)

Dr. Bradley then speaks of the links that he provided for his preferred historiography. Dr. Bradley seems to suggest that Rev. Wilson’s historiography is suspect simply because it is controversial. But in the spirit of providing historiography might I recommend that those YRR / new Calvinist types who want to get up to speed also get a hold of a copy of “Born in Slavery: Slave Narratives from the Federal Writers’ Project, 1936-1938.” In these exit interviews by former slaves you will read many voices giving a different view of slavery then is commonly portrayed. In point of fact you will read many former slaves who, “make a case for such a thing as “virtuous” Southern Confederate values.” I would also recommend, “Roll, Jordan, Roll: The World the Slaves Made,” by Eugene D. Genovese, or, “The Tragic Era – The Revolution After Lincoln,” by Claude G. Bowers, or, “North against South; The American Illiad, 1848-1877, by Ludwell Johnson, or, “The Coming of the Civil War, by Avery Craven, or, “Lincoln, The Man,” by Edgar Lee Masters, or, “A youth’s history of the great Civil War in the United States from 1861 to 1865,” by R.G.B. Horton. Look, this era and the history surrounding this era is incredibly complex subject (the destruction of a great civilization usually is) and Dr. Bradley, by throwing out a few book suggestions from assorted Liberals, progressives, and non-Southerners, is being more than a bit simplistic by suggesting that Rev. Wilson’s historiography is simplistic all because Wilson’s reading isn’t the same as Dr. Bradley’s.

Dr. Bradley asks, “Why is there such interest in defending the South?” Perhaps the answer to that is found not in a longing for a return to slavery. Perhaps the answer to that question is found in the South’s insistence on limited government. In our current era, where Centralized government is running roughshod over state duties, family duties, and individual duties why wouldn’t people long for a time when, in principle, decentralized and diffused government is advocated. Perhaps the answer to why there is such interest in defending the South is found in the fact that the South was characterized by respect for families, the presence of chivalry, the last culture of honor, and the presence of a distinctly Christian church that had real influence for good among the population, both black and white. Despite Dr. Bradley’s suggestion that the defense of the South is about regret for loss of power and privilege perhaps it is explained by a longing for 5th commandment proper hierarchies and distinctions.

Dr. Bradley says that such a longing is insulting to blacks. Why? Can Dr. Bradley name one person in Reformed circles who wants to bring back the virtues of the southern social order along with black slavery? If we could find our way to a social order without black slavery and also without all the vices of cultural Marxism that we currently have what would be so terrible about that? What would be so terrible about a social order where civil government power was decentralized and diffuse? What would be so terrible about a social order that took seriously again the 9th and 10th amendment? What would be so terrible about a social order where family is healthy once again? What would be so terrible about a social order that once again found the Christian Church having a vibrant voice in the community? What would be so terrible about a social order that was once again agrarian? What would be so terrible about a social order uninfluenced by Jacobins, cultural Marxists, Corporatists, Fascists and other assorted collectivists? These virtues are hardly “rubbish.” Some might even say these virtues are Christian.

It is true that it is possible to make an idol out of the antebellum South. It is likewise possible to make an idol out of destroying all lingering memory of the antebellum South. Both tendencies should be avoided.

The Advantages Of Public Schooling

http://christwire.org/2011/08/is-homeschool-best-for-your-christian-child/

Any experienced non Christian parent is worried about what the children of Christians may be exposed to while attending home school. They often ask themselves, “Isn’t it time that we forced those children into the enlightened classrooms of our public schools.” Don’t those people know how they are ruining their children and that their children are better raised by strangers then by fundamentalist parents? Recently someone asked me to list the advantages my children have over a child educated by homeschooling Christian Nazis.

Here is my list,

1.) My child learns how to work in groups and how to get along with others. The public schools have taught them to rely on the group and to find their identity in the group. Why, just last week, little Lou-Ann came home and said that her peers at the school had decided to do something different as a group and together had decided to have a “Dress as a chaste and modest lady” day. I thought that was so cute and indicative of how Lou-Ann and her peers have learned how to work in groups. No more of the independent thinking that gets in the way of group progress.

2.) My girls learn how to put prophylactics on cucumbers and bananas. I find safety and cleanliness in food preparation to be important to me and so I think it is wonderful how the public school takes up home economics in the Kitchen and is proactive in protecting vegetables and fruit from Sudden Tainting Disease (STD’s).

3.) I love the creative new vocabulary my children learn in school. My boys now affectionately refer to me as (sniff sniff) Dad’s “Ho,” (doubtless short for my given name “Hortensia”) and the girls have taken to affectionately calling their Father, “pimp” (I think it is short for “paterfamilias”). Even I have picked up some of the kids language as when I am in a hurry filling out forms I simply put in “Ho,” when asked my name.

4.) I have come to appreciate the body art that my children learn at school. I’ve learned from my children the improvement upon the body beautiful that a hole in the ear can be or Chinese lettering across the chest. And my darling girl put the cutest little serpent on her right calf.

5.) The teachers have become special to me and my children, and boy do they love the kids. Why just last week I saw the History teacher giving my 13 year old Lisa an affectionate hug goodbye. He even kissed her but as he is from France, I know that was just a cultural demonstration. Also the 22 year old new lady English teacher has a very close relation to my 18 year old son. Just last week my husband and I came home from a business trip and she was at the house conjugating verbs with my son. Such dedication. Before that they were studying his reading assignment in D. H. Lawerence’s “Lady Chatterly’s Lover.”

6.) My children have learned that other cultures are just as valuable as their great great grandparents culture. They have learned the beauty of gangsta rap is just as full of rapture as the beauty of Bach or Mozart. They have learned that pants worn around the knees, thus revealing colorful boxer shorts, is just as stylish as a Tuxedo. They have learned that burning widows with their dead husbands is just as acceptable as letting widows stay alive after their husband’s death. They have learned that the definition of “theft,” or “loose” is culturally variant. They have learned that since one can find sodomy in animal cultures therefore we know that sodomy among humans is a beautiful thing. Funny thing is that they’ve especially come to see the beauty in Jewish culture. Viva la culture.

7.) The schools have made my children very smart. They have learned to read road signs if I slow down enough and they have learned how give change back for a quarter. They have learned that the world is melting. They have learned that Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, and Franklin Roosevelt were our greatest Presidents. They have learned how the white man has oppressed the world. They have learned about six million Jews being oven baked (Why, they even watched Schindler’s List in class), and they learned about how gays and lesbians, like the Jews, have been oppressed. They have learned how Christians have often been behind world wide oppression.

8.) The schools have excelled at teaching the children civics. They have learned that the Constitution is a document of negative powers, and being taught to be positive people they have learned that being negative is a bad thing and so the Constitution needs to be changed. They have learned that the State always has the people’s best interest at heart and they have learned that people have rights (health care, homes, food, peace, safety from guns, etc.) for which a good government must provide.

9.) They have learned how to support one another in grief. The school has taught them well to be sympathetic in the midst of the multiple suicides of their peers. Down this line, the school has taught them not to be judgmental and that they should support their peers who are sexually active with dead people, with farm animals and with dead farm animals. My children are the most non judgmental people I know. They will support anything.

10.) The school doesn’t get into all that “god stuff.” We pray at every meal (God is great, God is good, thank you God for this meal) and we don’t need the schools worrying about God. Even our preacher agrees with us on this score.

We are very thankful for our children attending public schools and we earnestly desire that home schooled children could experience all of this.

Caleb’s Baptism — Q. 15 — Heidelberg Catechism

Question 15. What sort of a mediator and deliverer then must we seek for?

Answer: For one who is very man, and perfectly righteous; and yet more powerful than all creatures; that is, one who is also very God.

Last time we left off Caleb we had seen that the Catechism had closed all doors against our being able to be our own deliverer. If we are going to be delivered from God’s just wrath against our sin nature and our sins, we need to start looking outside ourselves for that deliverance.

You will notice here the use of the word “mediator.” This is a word that is incredibly important in the Christian faith Caleb. A mediator is one who is a relational conduit between two parties who are at loggerheads. The role of the mediator is to represent each of the warring parties and their interests to the other party. A mediator is to be a honest broker in terms of the issues between the two parties and his purpose is to resolve the conflict between the two parties in such a way where the interest of each party is upheld.

So, we need a mediator to represent us before God in terms of His just case against us. We need somebody who will represent our position to God and who at the same time will represent God’s position to us. From our end, in order to find a mediator who can be our representative (i.e. — Federal Head) we need someone who is very man of very man (100% man), and yet a man who is without sin (perfectly righteous), and one who is God.

The next question will examine why this is so, but it is important to establish at this point that if we are going to be delivered from our sin and misery and delivered to our peace with God it is going to have to come to us by means outside ourselves. This reinforces the idea that our salvation must come to us as a matter of God’s work and not our own. Question 15 insists that if we are to be rescued from God’s just wrath we must “seek” a mediator.

However, the mediator we must seek must not only represent us between the two warring parties (God and man), the mediator must also represent God’s part. The important emphasis here is that man can not come to God without a intermediary and God can not look upon man without a intermediary. Secondarily, it is important to emphasize that the if the intermediary is sufficient for both parties then no other intermediary is necessary. I bring this out because many other expressions of Christianity will offer a multitude of mediators. If the mediator that we must seek for is sufficient then no other mediator is necessary.

Now, let us close this question by looking at just a few of the Scriptures that are offered to support the fact that our mediator must be (1) man, (2) man without sin, and (3) God.

The fact that the mediator we must seek to satisfy God’s just wrath against our sin must be man is seen by the fact that as it is man who has sinned it must be man who atones (makes the payment) for sin. I Cor.15:21 teaches us this clearly,

“For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead.”

It is man (Adam) who cast man into sin, and so if anyone is to deliver man from sin that deliverer must likewise be man.

Romans 5:19 For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

Christianity is a religion that demands that man restores what man destroyed, and if we are to be saved our savior must be a man.

However, this man must be different than all men since Adam, inasmuch as this man must be without a sin nature or sins of His own. If he is to be a mediator for God to us, one requirement is that He must be without sin. God will not deal with a mediator man who has sin and so the human mediator we are seeking must be perfect and without sin or flaw.

Scripture offers us this kind of human mediator,

2 Cor.5:21 “For he hath made him to be sin for us, who knew no sin; that we might be made the righteousness of God in him.

Heb.7:26 “For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

If the mediator had his own sin Caleb, he would have to pay for His own sin and so would be of no help to us as He becomes the one who bears our sins. No, if fallen man is to have a mediator that God will accept as a representative of fallen man then that man must be man without being sinful.

Finally the catechism insists that the mediator must not only be man, and man without sin, he must also be very God of very God. In the demand that the mediator we need is both 100% Man and 100% we find the Christian doctrine called the “Hypostatic Union.” This merely teaches that our mediator must be both man and God at the same time. That the mediator we need must be God is taught in the following passages,

(c) Isa.7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel (God with us).

Isa.9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Rom.9:5 Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.

Jer.23:5 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will raise unto David a righteous Branch, and a King shall reign and prosper, and shall execute judgment and justice in the earth. Jer.23:6 In his days Judah shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely: and this is his name whereby he shall be called, THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS.

So …

1.) God is opposed to man because of man’s sin
2.) Man himself is not able to appease God’s just wrath against sin
3.) Man must look for a mediator who can stand in the gap for sinful man
4.) This mediator will do for sinful man what he can not do for himself
5.) This mediator, in order to do what needs to be done for sinful man must be

a.) Man
b.) Man without sin
c.) God

Numerous Boy Scouts Return Their Eagle Awards

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/eagle-scouts-return-medals-over-organization-anti-gay-184508093.html

“Today I am returning my Eagle Scout medal because I do not want to be associated with the bigotry for which it now stands. I hope that one day BSA stands up for all boys. It saddens me that until that day comes any sons of mine will not participate in the Boy Scouts.”

Christopher Baker

I am an Eagle Scout. As such, I suppose I have a dog in the fight regarding the Boy Scouts of America allowing sodomites to serve as Scoutmasters in their organization.

To state the obvious, the sodomites aren’t really upset with bigotry as is said in the letter above. What the sodomites, and the useful idiots who support their sodomy are upset with is that people don’t share their bigotry. The sodomites are bigoted against anyone who would suggest that a morality that leads to a life expectancy for a 20 year old gay or bisexual man that is 8 to 20 years less than all men is something to be avoided like the plague. The sodomites are bigoted against anyone who would dare suggest that the best role model for very young men probably aren’t Scoutmasters who find other Scoutmasters to be pin up material for their tents. The sodomites are bigoted against anyone who doesn’t share their perverted moral code.

And speaking of “moral code,” in what moral universe do the former Scouts who are sending in their Eagle badges live in? When they were Scouts they took an oath,

Boy Scout Oath

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

Do sodomites really believe they are fulfilling their duty to some god when they engage in action that calls for the source of life to be surrounded by death? If there is such a god his name is Molech.

And since sodomy, as a lifestyle, cuts decades off a man’s life how does such behavior keep him “physically strong?” How is it that the sodomite is a “help at all times” to his co-sodomite with whom he is engaged? Especially when one considers the STD’s and ADIS that are typical in the sodomite community?

And what of the oath to remain “morally straight?” By what standard, and in what world, is sodomy embraced and said to be “morally straight?” Only in the world of Dr. Moreau or in our current culture, which amounts to much of the same thing as proven by sodomite former Boy Scouts getting all righteously indignant because the BSA doesn’t want their boys to be chaperoned by perverts.

When the writer of the letter above piously says “I hope that one day BSA stands up for all boys,” does he mean that he hopes that the BSA will one day stand up for boys who are rapists? Does he mean that he hopes that the BSA will one day stand up for boys who like farm animals? The point here is that the BSA must have a standard that excludes boys who will engage in certain kind of aberrant behavior. Sodomy is aberrant behavior just as is any number of other sexual perversions. If we are going to have Scoutmasters who are sodomites then why not Scoutmasters who are necrophiliacs or why not Jerry Sandusky as a Scoutmaster?

The Boy Scout Oath above includes a claim of fidelity to the Scout Law.

Scout Law

A Scout is

trustworthy,
loyal,
helpful,
friendly,
courteous,
kind,
obedient,
cheerful,
thrifty,
brave,
clean,
and reverent

As the Scout Oath talks about “Duty to God,” I take these adjectives to only find their meaning in reference to God and to be part of the duty that a Scout owes to God.

I could write reams on each one of these adjectives but I will only focus in on “obedient.” If a Boy Scout is to take his “Duty to God” seriously and be obedient then that obedience must be consistent with the way God speaks and the God of the Bible (the only God there is) explicitly says that sodomy is sin. If then the BSA is to be obedient, per their own Scout Law, they must exclude sodomite Scoutmasters from their troops.

And the fact that anybody has to provide an apologetic for why that is so, reveals how twisted our culture has become.

Worldviews Get In Everything — Even The Naming Of Battlefields

One effect of worldviews is that they shape everything from A – Z. Some of matters they shape are quite obvious. Other matters they shape are not quite so obvious.

One example of the “not quite so obvious,” is seen in how the naming of Battle sites was affected by Worldview clash between North and South in the “War Against the Constitution.” In that war, it is a more obvious worldview matter to see the vast differences between the two Battle Hymns. The Southern Battle Hymn (Dixie) spoke volumes about the Southern love of place and family, whereas the Northern Battle hymn was clearly ideological. However, even the name of the Battle sites reveal worldview realities.

As most people know the Battlefield sites were named differently by each opposing side in the contest. Most of the names that have stuck 150 years later are the names of the Battle as given by the Victors of the war. Even in minutia such as Battle site naming, it is the Victor who gets to write the history. It is important to realize though, that the different names for the Battle sites give insight into the respective worldviews of the contestants. The worldview that fired the Northern cause was some variant of Transcendentalism – Romanticism. In that worldview nature plays a central role in the understanding of reality. As such we should not be surprised to find the Northern naming of the Battlefields corresponding to some aspect of nature that identified the spot where the Battle took place. Northerners gave their Battle sites names like “Bull Run” (the name of a small stream in the area), “Ball’s Bluff, “Pittsburg Landing,” “Stone River,” “Chickahominy” (another little liver), “Pea Ridge,” and “Antietam” (a tributary of the Potomac). The Southerners on the other hand, following their agrarian worldview that prioritized a sense of place named those same Battles after places associated with the area. For the South, Bull Run was Manassas which was a railroad train Station nearby. “Ball’s Bluff” to the Yankees was “Leesburg” for the Confederates. Grant’s “Pittsburg Landing,” was Albert Sidney Johnston’s “Shiloh,” (named after a Church in the area). Rosecrans had his “Stone River,” while for Bragg and his men it was “Murfreesboro.” McCellan locked horns with Lee and named the battle “Chickahominy” (a little river), but for Lee that same battle was named after an area tavern, “Cold Harbor,” or alternately “Gaines Mill.” The Federals speak of the battle of Pea Ridge, of the Ozark range of mountains, but the Confederates call it after Elk Horn, a country inn. Antietam for the North was named after the area village “Sharpsburg” for the South. The North gave us “The Battle of Malvern’s Hill,” while the South named it “the Battle of Poindexter’s Farm.”

Confederate General D. H. Hill, after the war, suggested that the difference in the names reflected that the North named the Battles after the “handiwork of God”; while the South named the Battles after the “handiwork of man.” But I think this is a case where Hill’s worldview (Christian) is causing him to read the Yankee mindset through his grid. Given that the Yankee Armies were fired by the nature exalting worldview of Transcendentalism – Romanticism, it is only natural that their people, following their journalists, would name the places of Battle after nature. In the same way, the bards and poets of the South who wrote on the Battles, because of their Agrarian and Christian Worldview, named those Battles consistent with the Christian and Agrarian idea and sense of place. For the Northern elite nature defined reality. For the Southern Wise-men, reality was identified by its relation to a sense of place.

All of this is then seen to be consistent with the Battle Hymns of each of the contestants. “The Battle Hymn of the Republic,” is ideological and is consistent with other aspects of Romanticism – Transcendentalism (see – https://ironink.org/2012/04/transcendentalism-the-battle-hymn-of-the-republic/). Likewise the naming of the Battlefields after nature reveals the nature worshiping character of Romanticism – Transcendentalism. In the same way the Southern Battle Hymn “Dixie” zeroes in on the idea of place which is then followed by the South naming their Battlefields in conjunction with “place.” And of course the idea of “place” is central in Christian thinking.

Worldviews get into everything. Even something as seemingly benign as the name of Battlefields.