the real deal on Rushdoony

[kvanlaan]

I am not that familiar with Rushdoony and did some digging on him. I found some great and some disturbing stuff. Those who like him, love him. Those who hate him, hate with great passion. The whole "racist, holocaust denier" part worried me. I must admit that instead of reading through all there is to see online, I'd rather have one of the fine folks on here point me in the right direction.

Can anyone recommend a good online bio? I'd like a more objective view of him before I really get too far into his writings.

Many thanks!

 

[RamistThomist]

I am not that familiar with Rushdoony and did some digging on him. I found some great and some disturbing stuff. Those who like him, love him. Those who hate him, hate with great passion. The whole "racist, holocaust denier" part worried me. I must admit that instead of reading through all there is to see online, I'd rather have one of the fine folks on here point me in the right direction.

Can anyone recommend a good online bio? I'd like a more objective view of him before I really get too far into his writings.

Many thanks!

Online bio? You won't find an objective one. Most will be for or against. He didn't deny the Holocaust. He just denied that it was 9 million +.

This much needs to be said. It was primarily him who alerted and mobilized the conservative world to the evils of abortion (Francis Schaeffer had been reading Rushdoony for 20 years without citing him). It was primarily Rushdoony and John Whitehead who were defending Christian Schoolers and homeschoolers against the evils of statist government. Rush and others would testify in court when homeschoolers were being thrown in jail.

The best place to start would be John Frame's book review of him at Frame's website.

its frame-poythress DOT something. I forget.
here it is
http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1976Rushdoony.htm

A lot of people are threatened by Rushdoony because he forces people to examine their own presuppositions. I say this not as an uncritical follower of Rush. I disagree with him on a number of points (I would be closer to Greg Bahnsen, for one).

 

[RamistThomist]

and one other thing:

"Racist" is a term that is worse than useless. It usually means that somebody doesn't buy into the pagan worldview of the southern poverty law center. Most of the "civil rights" leaders in the past had massive theological problems (MLK jr denied the deity of Christ).

On the other hand, Rushdoony praised Negro preacher E.V. Hill for his heroic work.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

Do an archive search for racist and Rushdoony here on the PB. The topic has been addressed once. His IBL has a couple lines or paragraphs that (as I recall) are ripped out of context for disreputable ends, and character assasination.

As one who barely escaped the Armenian genocide, and whose family was decimated, it is a cruel turning of the tables on RJR to accuse him of holocaust denial. He doesn't accord them "sacrificial lamb" status, or automatically accept the "official numbers"--ergo, he must be a Jew-hater.

 

[RamistThomist]

We also need to understand that he comes from a different economic, social, and geographic background than many Reformed people do. This doesn't make his points right--I think he is off on a number of issues. He comes from an Eastern background but he is Reformed. That is not a normal combination. But hsi writing is generally clear and forceful. He gave me the necessary conceptual paradigms to defend the faith.

Read him. You would agree, as I understand it you homeschool your children, with the majority of what he would say. I don't know if I would start with Institutes, though. That took me about a year and a half to finish. I would probably start with his Mythology of Science (it can be found at VisionForum.com).

 

[RamistThomist]

Other good books to start with:

Foundations of Social Order is his book on the church creeds. Probably his best work. He shows the relation between the church's confession of her faith and political stability.

By What Standard? is his first book. He explores Van Til's thought.

Intellectual Schizophrenia is a masterpiece. He shows how modern American pagan thought must necessarily self-destruct.

 

[kvanlaan]

Many thanks to both of you. I am still digging around online (buying books from abroad four weeks before a $7500 baby delivery is just not in the cards) but at least I have a better perspective on things. I know that society in general will latch on to whatever it can in order to bring down a perceived threat.

 

[crhoades]

Gary North on Rushdoony's death.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north33.html

 

[Blueridge Believer]

I read Rushdoony on a regular basis. I believe he writes some good stuff. I part company with him on reconstructionism. Here is a link to a message by Joe Morecraft, who is a student of Rushdoony that gives a 30 plank outline of what he believes about reconstructionism. Death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers and a host of others as well as public beatings. Interesting for sure and I agree with some of it but after listening to it, it leaves you with the feeling that there is not much room for grace in his vision of a theonomic society.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=42906233130

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Wikipedia's article on Rushdoony, I think, is pretty straightforward.

I give him credit for his critique of statism and secular humanism, and what he did to promote homeschooling and Biblical education was invaluable. That said, with respect to my dear friends who are fans of his, I think few people within the camp have done more harm to the Reformed church in the 20th century than Rushdoony as the "father" (Ken Gentry's term) of the modern movement of Reconstructionism and theonomy.

Rushdoony on the Dietary Laws

Rushdoony charges Calvin with "heretical nonsense" and antinomianism:

Rousas John Rushdoony, The One and the Many: Studies in the Philosophy of Order and Ultimacy (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1971), pp. 262-63: "For this outer world, Calvin rejected biblical law. The world was thus in effect sundered from God and at this point given its own sovereignty and independence. . . . At the same time, Calvin strongly emphasized the duty of love. . . . This is virtually a doctrine of unconditional love; it has a vein of antinomianism in it. It is close to the position of modern liberals who believe in salvation by love. . . . . Combined with the inconsistent attitude on law, it gave ground for the development of a liberalism out of Calvin." Cf. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (Nutley, N.J.: Craig Press, 1973), pp. 9-10, 551

Rushdoony charges the Westminster Assembly with "nonsense"

 

[Blueridge Believer]

And thus therein lies the difference between the theonomic post-mill postion vs. the historic a-mill postion which is where I would side with Calvin against Rushdoony.

 

[RamistThomist]

The Wikipedia article is okay and level. There is a message in the "Archives" by Mark Rushdoony on his father. Not objective, to be sure, but still good.

And thus therein lies the difference between the theonomic post-mill postion vs. the historic a-mill postion which is where I would side with Calvin against Rushdoony.

Only the Rushdoony camp of theonomy. I wish Rush had never said those words (and for what its worth, he shows his heavy dependence and reverence for Calvin in his Systematic Theology).

Bahnsen and Nigel Lee, for instance, see the standards as consistent with theonomy (I don't want to debate it at the moment!). Gary North disagreed wtih Bahnsen on WCF 19.4.

Bahnsen also gave a pretty good analysis in his lecture on Calvin IV.XX.

 

[Kevin]

Wikipedia's article on Rushdoony, I think, is pretty straightforward.

I give him credit for his critique of statism and secular humanism, and what he did to promote homeschooling and Biblical education was invaluable. That said, with respect to my dear friends who are fans of his, I think few people within the camp have done more harm to the Reformed church in the 20th century than Rushdoony as the "father" (Ken Gentry's term) of the modern movement of Reconstructionism and theonomy.







Harm???

You have to explain that.

 

[Peter]

I read Rushdoony on a regular basis. I believe he writes some good stuff. I part company with him on reconstructionism. Here is a link to a message by Joe Morecraft, who is a student of Rushdoony that gives a 30 plank outline of what he believes about reconstructionism. Death penalty for homosexuals, adulterers and a host of others as well as public beatings. Interesting for sure and I agree with some of it but after listening to it, it leaves you with the feeling that there is not much room for grace in his vision of a theonomic society.

http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?currSection=sermonsspeaker&sermonID=42906233130

Ironically, as a non-reconstuctionist I agree with those things. Infact, sometimes I think I could use a public beating.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

Wikipedia's article on Rushdoony, I think, is pretty straightforward.

I give him credit for his critique of statism and secular humanism, and what he did to promote homeschooling and Biblical education was invaluable. That said, with respect to my dear friends who are fans of his, I think few people within the camp have done more harm to the Reformed church in the 20th century than Rushdoony as the "father" (Ken Gentry's term) of the modern movement of Reconstructionism and theonomy.







Harm???

You have to explain that.

I don't think it's necessary to explain my view yet again. There are numerous threads where I have outlined my objections to the unBiblical nature of theonomy (contrasted with theocracy). (If the citations to Rushdoony's scandalous comments aren't enough...) To summarize briefly, however, his rejection / confounding of the trifold division of God's law, I think, has generated an enormous amount of confusion in some minds about what laws of God are binding and what are not. That in itself is a terrible legacy. It has also lead to an enormous amount of controversy and division within the Reformed church between those in favor of theonomy and those opposed (see the Free Church of Scotland's 1997 declaration that theonomy is incompatible with adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith; the pro- and anti-WTS books on theonomy; the voluminous threads on this subject on the PB; etc.).

 

[RamistThomist]

Here is Frame's (and frame is a non-theonomist. that makes him right by definition--sort of how in an argument between a man and a woman the woman is always right).

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.

Later on today I will post most of Frame's preface to the Rushdoony Festchrift.

Ditto, let's not start another theonomy debate (Devin, you can email me). I do find it amusing to say that Rushdoony has done more harm. I would have thought some hyper-Klineans (Lee Irons) would have qualified. Since Irons would viciously disagree with Andrew's worldview.

 

[tewilder]

Rushdoony tended to get worse as he got older. For this see his commentary on Romans and Galations.

He denied the Covenant of Works. He taught that Christ was the second Adam in the sense of being the first of the new resurrected humanity.

He said that the Reformers were theologically correct, but interpreted Romans and Galations wrong. How this could be, when the Reformers were basing their theology on their biblical interpretation, he does not explain.

 

[bookslover]

Rushdoony tended to get worse as he got older. For this see his commentary on Romans and Galations.

He denied the Covenant of Works. He taught that Christ was the second Adam in the sense of being the first of the new resurrected humanity.

He said that the Reformers were theologically correct, but interpreted Romans and Galations wrong. How this could be, when the Reformers were basing their theology on their biblical interpretation, he does not explain.

Rushdoony usually gets credit for kick-starting the Christian home-schooling movement with his book "The Messianic Character of American Education" in 1963.

He also usually gets credit for giving birth to the modern theonomy (Christian Reconstruction) movement with his book "The Institutes of Biblical Law" (later known as volume 1) published in 1973.

I think it's interesting that, back in the late 1980s to middle 1990s, one had the impression that many people were thinking that theonomy was the "next big thing" that was going to roll over the Christian world. Today, that's not the case; now it's just another "flavor" in the Reformed world. With much of its original leadership either dead (Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Chilton) or having drifted away into other things (Jordan, North), the movement has, for lack of a better phrase, calmed down a lot.

Of course, these days we've got the Federal Vision folks to deal with. It's always something...

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Of course, these days we've got the Federal Vision folks to deal with. It's always something...

Sad but true.