Anthony Bradley has been dishing it out pretty good of late against Doug Wilson, almost to the point of making Wilson look like Tom Reagan from Miller’s Crossing. Bradley is alarmed by Wilson’s neo-Confederate arguments. He believes Wilson harbors racism because of his defense of slavery. And Bradley is surprised — maybe even aghast — at the traction that Wilson has among the co-allies of the gospel. These musings have led Bradley to wonder about a conspiracy among Christian Reconstructionists to use social and political issues to gain new recruits, especially among the young, restless, and gullible.
It’s been about 20 years since I first encountered this stuff but I think the combination America’s secularism, masculinity crisis, growing socialistic public policy, and the like, have opened the door for Christian Reconstruction to avail itself to new generation of young Calvinists but not through the front door–”Christian Reconstruction,” “Theonomy,” and the like–but through the back door of apologetics, the family, masculinity, big government, and so on.
Bradley even speculates on a connection between Christian Reconstruction and Roman Catholicism in that both groups use social teaching to gain converts.
What makes Bradley’s criticisms of Wilson, Christian Reconstruction, and the Young Restless crowd odd is that Bradley himself follows the political script that those he criticizes use. Bradley is generally a fan of neo-Calvinism. I have also heard him appeal to the language of cultural transformation in his interview at Christ the Center.
In which case, the problem with Wilson, slavery, the Confederacy and Christian Reconstruction may not be the actual forms these efforts to Christianize the social order take. The problem may be any attempt to read a social order out of Scripture. For instance, it would be interesting to know what Bradley thinks of his fellow Manhattanite, Tim Keller’s programs of word and deed ministry. Or for that matter, what does Bradley do with the use to which the creators of apartheid put neo-Calvinism? Does the gospel have a social program that Wilson, for example, misses or distorts? Or does the gospel have almost nothing to say about a social order?
Either way, it might be helpful to Wilson’s bruised ego to see Bradley acknowledge both men’s common debt to Kuyper.
And for what it’s worth, part of the appeal of the Confederacy, at least among political conservatives as opposed to the Religious Right, is that the South did stand for an understanding of the United States that was closer than Lincoln’s or the Progressive’s to the Constitution. The phrase, states’ rights, generally receives smirks from those who assume it represents a defense of slavery or worse, racism. But the Constitution itself was not particularly clear on how to sort out the relative powers of the states and the federal government, which was a large factor in the sectional crisis. But if folks want to dismiss states’ rights as simply the cant of “Crackers” who wanted to keep African-Americans in place, they should consider the good that states’ rights might serve today when applied to gay marriage and abortion. That may explain some of the appeal of the Confederacy, though I don’t presume to speak for Doug Wilson.
56 Comments
Doug – How do you download “Black and Tan” for free? When I click on “Books” it says it is $15.
Bozeman writes about the “inductive” politics of the old school.
http://www.aplacefortruth.org/hopkins.htm
Samuel Hopkins and Slavery, by Charles R. Biggs
“The majority did not argue on behalf of slavery merely because they thought the Africans were less human, arguing from the curse of Ham in Genesis. The majority of the aristocrats who owned slaves in the time of Jonathan Edwards argued that slavery was a divine institution –an ontological institution which God had positively sanctioned in the Bible. The aristocratic class both Christian and non-Christian, argued that slaves had been held in bondage since Biblical times and that the
Bible implicitly and explicitly sanctioned the practice of slave holding. They argued that they did not own the slaves as beings in God’s image, but that they owned the slave’s labor. This was an important distinction for those of the upper class of this period.
Mr Sowers, again you show an inability to engage in the specfic problems found in SSAIW & Black & Tan. Yr response is an attack on the historicity is an attack by godless secular forces. “you side with God’s enemies.” Again you act as if the stakes were that of a debate on the doctrine of the Trinity. You get personal assuming I spend my time watching TV & peeing in my pants. (My mentioning of watching the Wire was in response to you writing abt how the Wire was unclean food. I can only assume that was a rip on DGH since I’ve never mentioned it before & he’s been clear that he’s a fan.)
Have I personally attacked you? Have I personally attacked Wilson? Have I called him a racist? I do believe that some racists have used SSAIW & B&T for their own benefit but that dosen’t make him a racist. I believe his 2 books are wrong but I don’t believe I’ve attacked him or you personally. You’re the one who continually makes this personal.
I’ve only said that SSAIW is abysmal history & that Black & Tan follows the same pattern.
Yes I knew that there were problems in SSAIW. Wilkins plagerized sections of it & Black & Tan was Wilson’s corrected work. But Wilson did not disavow the content of SSAIW & a careful reading of both shows that the basic arguemnt is still there.
Yes Genovese has been recognized as a leading scholar of slavery & the Old South but that dosen’t mean he’s the only one. Yet you & Wilson use him like a shield. All debate ends b/e Genovese says so.
Again if you want to take my beleif that SSAIW & B&T is bad history & a step backwards for racial reconciliation as an attack on the kingdom of God then so be it.
B Advant says: Have I personally attacked Wilson?
Yes, you said his work is crap. You’ve acted like he’s from Mars or something. And it wasnt until I jumped on you, that you started back tracking a little. But you are right, I still need to tone it down a few notches, so please forgive me, I’m out.
Erik, I read Black And Tan” could be downloaded for free at Blog and Mablog last week when this thing broke out.
Criticizing someone’s work is a far cry from attacking them personally.
Crap is not the word I used. I did say that SSAIW & black & tan is abyssmal history & toxic. SSAIW has been used by some to glorify the Confederacy & minimize the impact of slavery. And the negative impact it has on racial reconcialiation makes me wonder why a pastor who cares about the gospel would write something so toxic. Its easy for a pastor like Wilson who lives in lilly white idaho to call himself a paleo-Confederate. Those of us here in the South who care about building bridges have to pick up the pieces caused by works like SSAIW & B&T.
So if thats saying his work is crap then so be it.
Brother B. says: SSAIW has been used by some to glorify the Confederacy & minimize the impact of slavery.
So? Hasnt the Bible been used to justifjy all sorts of evil? Shall we out law the Bible as well? Maybe someone will take it out of context? Your seeing ghosts Mr. Avant, because your so programed by the PC crowd, you can’t handle the truth! In my humble opinion of course.