David Barton: There Are About A Dozen Colleges That Are Right

These days David Barton’s historical work would not well received at many colleges and universities. There are dozens of Christian academics, and many more outside of Christian settings, who have raised significant questions about Barton’s accuracy and conclusions. However on his broadcast yesterday (Oct. 16), he suggested that there are about a dozen Christian colleges which are receptive to him. Barton said:

There’s about a dozen universities out there across America that we know of and deal with that are right biblically cause they believe what the Bible says, they’re very pro-America, they’re very pro-Constitution, the Constitution that God was involved in that, that it reflects biblical values, and so those are the guys that are good to go to to get a perspective. And we thought you know, one of the theologian guys that is really good on this is also the president of a university, Oklahoma Wesleyan University which is a great university, one of these that’s, it’s right on the Bible, right on the Constitution, right on American history.

Barton then introduced Dr. Everett Piper as his speaker on theological liberalism.
For his part, Piper is glad to be endorsed by Barton, tweeting

What I get out Barton’s statement is that if you question Barton’s claims, then you are not right biblically, not pro-America, pro-Constitution, or right on American history.  Reminds me of his claim that those who question him are just repeating our pagan training.
I suppose it is encouraging that there are only 12 schools remaining that need to see the light.
I propose that there is a great divide between those (apparently) few evangelical schools which Barton approves and the others which he rejects. While we probably agree on many things, there may be a great difference in what students are learning in the history classes.

BBC's Stephen Fry Interviews Joseph Nicolosi

Stephen Fry of the BBC interviews Jospeh Nicolosi and a former patient (Dan Gonzales).
Nicolosi: “We resolve the conflicts behind the homosexual attractions, that’s what we do.”
Nicolosi covers familiar ground in that he claims homosexuality is the result of psychological trauma with the parents, particularly the father.
He still insists without any evidence that one-third are not cured, one-third gets some improvement and one-third experience significant change.
Sixty percent of his clients are teens.
Fry acknowledges that his dad was aloof but his dad was aloof with his brother, who is straight, as well.
Metrosexual?

Weekend Roundup: White Power Demo In TN, Transgender Prof Transitions From Christian College, IOTC At Liberty U., Senate Takes Lead In Shutdown Talks

 
Local public radio appropriately calls the League of the South rally in TN, a “white power demonstration.”
Azuza Pacific theology prof, H. Adam Ackley leaves the school via a mutual statement.  Ackley is transitioning from female to male.
John Lofton of the Institute on the Constitution presents the theocratic God and Government Project at Liberty University.
Looks like the adults have gotten involved in the Shutnado standoff. Maybe the Senate and the President can keep us from going over the cliff.
Update: The League of the South look pretty puny in this pic…

 

WMOT says about 50 LoS protesters attended the event.

Blog News: I'm Moving To Patheos

Not all of the details are final but I should be fully moved to Patheos by sometime next week. The new address is here: http://104.131.70.39/
Some details remain. All of the comments are not yet showing up there; this will be accomplished soon.  Some of the ancient embedded videos may not show up since they have been removed from their sources.
The comment system there is the Disqus system so to continue commenting you will need a free account with that service. You will get that information when you first begin to comment. Go ahead and try a comment there and see how it goes.
All of the links will still work and redirect the reader to the new location. All of the content will be there.
I want to say thanks to the dedicated folks at Patheos and elsewhere who have been working with me to make this happen.
I am looking forward to joining their group of diverse writers. Patheos offers a wealth of interesting content; I hope you will check out some of the other writers there. And by all means, keep pointing your browser my way

Institute on the Constitution, God and Government, and Christian Reconstructionism

Yesterday, the Institute on the Constitution dropped a press release about their God and Government program. From the Christian Newswire release:

The “Institute on the Constitution” has launched “The God And Government Project” the purpose of which is to remind elected officials, and those who seek civil government offices, that government is from God and their first duty must be to obey God and His Word (Romans 13.)

The folks at IOTC want citizens to use open mic time before city council meetings to tell officials that they need to use the Bible as the basis for civil law. IOTC encourages followers to use IOTC-prepared scripts.  See an earlier post on the subject and this article for more on what IOTC encourages their followers to do.
The GaG (appropriate) program is consistent with IOTC’s Christian reconstructionist worldview. During his course on the Constitution, Peroutka twists history to make it appear that the founders deliberately created a biblical form of government in line with IOTC views. In a current commentary on his IOTC website, Michael Peroutka makes a case that civil government officials are obligated to govern in accord with his view of the Bible.

Since civil government is ordained by God in order to protect God-given rights, then the function of civil government is to obey God and to enforce God’s law – PERIOD.
It is not the role of civil government to house, feed, clothe, educate or give heath care to…ANYBODY! (Or to operate a Panda-cam at the National Zoo.)

According to Peroutka, government can only do what he thinks God says government can do.
The IOTC website enshrines Rousas Rushdoony, the father of Christian reconstructionism. IOTC’s Director of Communications, John Lofton, calls Rushdoony his “theological mentor” on more than one occasion.  Rushdoony’s articles on theocracy and dominionism, politics, taxation, and religion in law are available along with many others. Mark Rushdoony’s (son of Rousas) speech on Christian reconstructionism is cited approvingly as well.
According to Mark Rushdoony, Christian reconstructionism sees the church as Israel.

In 1987 Ross House Books (which is now part of Chalcedon) published a book on covenant theology by Charles D. Provan called The Church Is Israel Now.That title sums up the heart of covenant theology, that the Christian church is heir of the promises to and the responsibility of the Hebrew nation of old.

Thus the proper society is ruled by an Old Testament style regime where the Christian reconstructionist’s understanding of the Bible is the basis for civil law. This is exactly what IOTC’s God and Government program promotes as the message followers should tell elected officials.
Even after his death, Rushdoony’s views are controversial. IOTC does not back away from this. On the IOTC website, readers are directed to an interview given to Bill Moyers in 1988 by Rousas Rushdoony.  In this interview, Rushdoony affirms that civil government should be based on the Bible, including injuctions that would lead to the death penalty for 15 crimes, including adulterers, homosexuals, and truly incorrigible sons.  Roll the tape:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paL2s4HJScg[/youtube]
Listen to the entire segment to get the context. The section on the death penalty is as follows:

Moyers: You’ve written that the Bible calls for the death penalty, and I’m just running down a variety of things as you can see. You’ve written that the Bible calls for the death penalty of some 15 crimes: rape, sodomy, adultery.
Rushdoony: Adultery because in the Bible the basic institution is the family. There’s no law of treason against the state. The Bible doesn’t even imagine anything remotely like that. But the basic institution is the family. And so, several of the death penalties are associated with the family and its life.
Moyers: So adultery was considered a theft of the family.
Rushdoony: It was, yes, it was treason to the family.
Moyers: Homosexuality.
Rushdoony: Yes, it was treason to the family.
Moyers: Worthy of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: What?
Moyers: Worthy of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: Yes.
Moyers: Deserving of the death sentence?
Rushdoony: Yes, that’s what Paul says.
…
Moyers: But you would re-instate the death penalty for some of these or all of these Biblical crimes?
Rushdoony: I wouldn’t—
Moyers: But the reconstructive society–
Rushdoony: I’m saying that this is what God requires. I’m not saying that everything in the Bible, I like. Some of it rubs me the wrong way. But I’m simply saying, this is what God requires. This is what God says is justice. Therefore, I don’t feel I have a choice.
Moyers: And the agents of God would carry out the laws.
Rushdoony: The civil government would, on these things.
Moyers: So you would have a civil government, based upon–
Rushdoony: Oh yes. I’m not an anarchist. I’m close to being a libertarian. But–
Moyers: But the civil law would be based on the biblical law. And so you’d have a civil government carrying out a religious mandate.
Rushdoony: Oh yes.

Given their reverence for Rushdoony and the link to this interview, I think it is a fair assumption that IOTC is in sympathy with these views. Since they won’t answer my requests for information, I will ask here publicly – IOTC leaders (Peroutka, Lofton), do you agree with Rushdoony here? Would you, in the government you are calling for, put people to death for adultery, homosexuality and the other crimes delineated by Rushdoony?
One thing I don’t need to ask about is the IOTC view of public schools. In the citation above, Peroutka says civil government has no role in education. Historically, reconstructionists have been strong supporters of Christian schools as alternatives to public education. One of the leading reconstructionists, and Rushdoony’s son-in-law Gary North, said this about the relationship between Christian schools and religious liberty (for a longer quote and commentary, see this article).

The major churches of any society are all maneuvering for power, so that their idea of lawful legislation will become predominant. They are all perfectly willing to use the ideal of religious liberty as a device to gain power, until the day comes that abortion is legalized (denying the right of life to infants) or prohibited (denying the “right of control over her own body,” after conception, to each woman). Everyone talks about religious liberty, but no one believes it.
So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God. Murder, abortion, and pornography will be illegal. God’s law will be enforced. It will take time. A minority religion cannot do this. Theocracy must flow  from the hearts of a majority of citizens, just as compulsory education came only after most people had their children in schools of some sort. But religious anarchy, like “democratic freedom” in ancient Greece, is a temporary phenomenon; it lasts only as long as no single group gets sufficient power and accepted authority to abandon the principle. Religious anarchy, as a long-term legal framework for organizing a society, is as mythical as neutrality is. Both views assume that the institutions of civil government can create and enforce neutral law. They are cousins, and people believe in them only temporarily, until they make up their minds concerning which God they will serve.

While I doubt this will ever happen, it seems clear that the IOTC and like-minded reconstructionists will keep on trying to make it a reality. For IOTC supporters who love the First Amendment, you have a rude awakening coming. As Peroutka and Lofton proclaim, civil law should obey and enforce God’s law, and by that they mean their interpretation of the Bible, both Old and New Testaments. Someone’s religion must be obeyed according to Rushdoony, and the folks at IOTC want to make sure it is their religion. For now, they will use freedom of speech and religion at city council meetings to get their voices heard but if ever they get their way, one cannot count on these rights remaining. If you really believe in freedom of conscience and religious liberty, then you cannot fully embrace IOTC’s GaG program. While the folks at IOTC want freedom of religion to speak at public meetings, they very openly proclaim that they want civil government to obey their religious views to the exclusion of all others.
In contrast, I want the reconstructionists to be able to speak their mind, but I don’t want civil officials to use one religion as the basis for their governing. In contrast to Peroutka’s odd construction, using one religion as the basis for civil law is prohibited by the First Amendment. Gary North says no one really believes in religious liberty. He is wrong; the framers most certainly did.