# What Thinketh Y'all of Robert Dabney?



## Grymir

Hi everybody. I've recently begun reading Robert Dabney's Sacred Rhetoric. It's a pretty good book. It just adds more to my opinion that people don't write books with such depth today. I've seen a few of you mention his name. I've read the wiki article, but I need a theologians perspective on his writings. Any thing will be appreciated.


----------



## RamistThomist

One of the greatest American theologians hands down. I have read Sacred Rhetoric several times. He was also an acute political observer. He predicted the Patriot Act. He also lived one of the most heroic lives in American history.
SermonAudio.com - Life of Robert L. Dabney


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I agree that he was a great theologian. This work is highly recommended: The Sensualistic Philosophy of the Nineteenth Century Considered » Naphtali Press » Store

It's like reading a presuppositional critique of naturalism before it was called presuppositionalism.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## PuritanCovenanter

I have spent more time in his Systematic Theology than any other Systematic Theology. I love him.


----------



## Kevin

I am a big fan as well. Sprinkle has some very nice editions of several of his works.


----------



## DavidCPorter

I have found Dabney's Systematic Theology a great help in preparing a training course for new elders. I believe his grasp of Reformed Theology to be second to none.

Yours in Christ


----------



## Contra_Mundum

As a theologian, he rates very high. He was incredibly prescient concerning certain trends.

He was a "man of his time and place," ante- and post-bellum South; and (if we would like a drop or two of charitable judgment ourselves) we should remember that, even while we assuredly want to distance ourselves from any of his racist remarks. I have *never* come across any of them in his theological material, but he did say and write some things which, in our time, grate upon our sensibilities. But I do not think you will find such in the vast majority of his compendious writings.

I bring up this last point, because someone (even a "person of color") could read and love Dabney, and then have some acquaintance of theirs blindside them with: "But he's an old southern racist! What are you reading him for?" Better to know ahead of time.


----------



## Grymir

Thank you all so much!! I know what book I'm gonna read next!! Sensualistic Philosophy. Thanks Semper. And Ivanhoe, thanks for the sermon! I've got some goood listening ahead this weekend. I get soo tired of modern fluff, that to have somebody who might grate on sensibilities would be refreshing. I miss the old etiquette of saying to a debating opponent "Due to my worth opponents lack of knowledge, you can see how he came to his conclusions." You're thoughts on the subject are greatly appreciated. That's one of the reason's I'm here at PB. I've got nobody with deep theology that I can talk to or ask questions to. Thanks.


----------



## DMcFadden

Contra_Mundum said:


> As a theologian, he rates very high. He was incredibly prescient concerning certain trends.
> 
> He was a "man of his time and place," ante- and post-bellum South; and (if we would like a drop or two of charitable judgment ourselves) we should remember that, even while we assuredly want to distance ourselves from any of his racist remarks. I have *never* come across any of them in his theological material, but he did say and write some things which, in our time, grate upon our sensibilities. But I do not think you will find such in the vast majority of his compendious writings.
> 
> I bring up this last point, because someone (even a "person of color") could read and love Dabney, and then have some acquaintance of theirs blindside them with: "But he's an old southern racist! What are you reading him for?" Better to know ahead of time.




I don't know about his other works. But, Dabney's _Systematic Theology _does not contain anything I could find that involved ugly racism. He did, however, as you observed, say things that will grate against modern sensibilities. His use of slavery as an example of the ineffectiveness of fear as a motivator will cause more than a raised eye or two by those of us outside the south. Still, in a VERY thick book, it is amazing that the man who was a "person of his time" did not engage in such political discourse during his writing of his theology.

For example, practically the only time he touches upon the subject in his major work is when he observes:



> Indeed, slavery itself showed, by the occasional instances of tyranny, which occurred, that fear was an inadequate principle; the rod by itself never secured industry and prosperity on a plantation; but the best examples of success were always those, where kindness was chiefly relied on, (with a just and firm authority), to awaken in the slaves affection and cheerful devotion (p. 374)



And, even though he wrote an entire biography on Stonewall Jackson, the man's name does not appear once in his _Systematic Theology_.

Outside of his systematics, you can find plentiful references to slavery. For example, _The Southern Church And The Presbyterian Alliance_ deals with the "foul slander" and "libels" by the northern Presbyterians against those in the south over the issue of slavery. In his _Anti-Biblical Theories Of Rights_, Dabney declares:


> The Scriptures indisputably declare, in both Testaments, that it is not always essentially unrighteous, since they legitimate it under suitable circumstances, and declare that godly masters may so hold the relation as to make it equitable and righteous.



In 1861, Dabney wrote the following:


> How horrible is this war to be, of a whole North against a whole South! Not to dwell on all its incidents of shame and misery, let us ask, who are to fight it out to its bitter issue? Not the tongue-valiant brawlers, who have inflamed the feud by their prating lies about the “barbarism of slavery;” these pitiful miscreants are already hiding their cowardly persons from the storm; and its brunt must be borne by the honest, the misguided, the patriotic men of the North who in a moment of madness have been thrust into this false position.


_On The State Of The Country_

As a loyal southerner, Dabney viewed the abolitionist senetiments in the north through a different lens than notherners did.


> True, they thus contradicted at once the word of God, the law of their own church as settled for all parts of it by their own Assembly of 1845, and the constitution whose integrity alone could give the North any pretext of right to rule or judge in the South.


_Fraternal Correspondence_

Dabney saw the problem of northern "agitation" as a threat to one's very means of making a living:


> Thus again is illustrated the fact that abolitionism is virtual agrarianism. The new progeny of the old heresy will, in due time, convince the antislavery plutocracy of New England and Britain of their folly, by showing them that the same arguments which were suited to overthrow our right to the labor of our lawful bondsmen, are equally good to destroy their rights to their lands, factories, mines, ships, warehouses, and incomes.


 _The Sabbath Of The State_

If you want some of the best Reformed theology anywhere, get Dabney's _Systematic Theology_. But, don't expect him to be politically correct or to reflect 21st century attitudes on mid-19th century conflicts. And, stick to his theology, not his defense of the south. That is where you will find the greatest number of racist statements.


----------



## Mayflower

Contra_Mundum said:


> I bring up this last point, because someone (even a "person of color") could read and love Dabney, and then have some acquaintance of theirs blindside them with: "But he's an old southern racist! What are you reading him for?" Better to know ahead of time.



When i was reading the next artical about Dabney and the comments of Contra Mudum, i was thinking about the next Bible vers :

*1 Corinthians 13:2 *
And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, *I am nothing*. 

See:
R.L. Dabney (from racist churches):

Through Vision Forum, Doug Phillips sells books on Robert Lewis Dabney, who was Stonewall Jackson’s chief of staff and chaplain during the Civil War. After the war, Dabney wrote a book called A Defense of Virginia, which even over a hundred years later is considered one of the most racist books ever written. Dabney considered black people to be a “morally inferior race,” a “sordid, alien taint” marked by “lying, theft, drunkenness, laziness, waste.” He considered slavery to be ”the righteous, the best, yea, the only tolerable relation” between blacks and whites. He condemned the “abhorrent amalgamation of [white] children with blacks” and actually argued that it was better for blacks to be enslaved than not since it was better for their minds and their health. Dabney called the attempt to educate all Negroes “mischievous,” “tyrannical,” “useless,” “impracticable,” and “dishonest.”

Here are some choice quotes from Dabney:

It is well known, that, as a general rule, [Negroes] are a graceless, vagabondish set, and contribute very little to the support of the State by which they are protected. They are not citizens, never can become citizens, and wherever found in large numbers they are an expense and a source of trouble…

The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity…

The offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South.

How does Doug Phillips regard Dabney? He calls Dabney “the greatest southern theologian of the 19th century.” He exclaims: “Hail Dabney, prophet of the South, our great apologist… And so with joy we doff our hats and shout from every mouth: Hail Dabney, wise apologist, defender of the South!”

In Doug’s lecture on Dabney, he says Dabney was “formulative” to his way of thinking. He introduces Dabney as one who would be “in the front lines at Gettysburg, charging toward the Yankees.” Doug calls Dabney “the greatest defender of Southern heritage, Christian faith, and common sense.” He praises Dabney “for being bold enough to say things that others today are afraid to say.” He laments that Dabney is “resented by those Christians who don’t want to hear his prophecies.” He said we may be uncomfortable with Dabney’s conclusions, but we are “left with no other option but to run and hide - we can’t deny it - or simply to embrace the truth…” He calls Dabney “a prophet in the fullest sense,” and after announcing that he might name his next child after Dabney, recites a poem he has written for the occasion entitled, “Hail Dabney, Prophet of the South.”

Doug Phillips also edited a book entitled Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks.

Oh, but we’re just getting started.

Link:
R.L. Dabney « Racist Churches

More:
Racist Churches


----------



## Grymir

Mayflower, I went to the Racist churches link in your post. I didn't see any footnotes to quote where the stuff came from. But I was more shocked that that website automatically pulled my name and e-mail address and it filled out a form... Yikes!

DMcFadden - I appreciate a heads up. your quote "If you want some of the best Reformed theology anywhere, get Dabney. But, don't expect him to be politically correct or to reflect 21st century attitudes on mid-19th century conflicts" That's the kind of stuff I'm looking for. It allows me to get inside the heads of people in different times in different circumstances. That last quote in his Fraternal Correspondence is eerie. These are things we need to hear and think about. I despise political correctness. Does it show in my posts? Thanks for giving me a foretaste of things to come.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

PuritanCovenanter said:


> I have spent more time in his Systematic Theology than any other Systematic Theology. I love him.





DavidCPorter said:


> I have found Dabney's Systematic Theology a great help in preparing a training course for new elders. I believe his grasp of Reformed Theology to be second to none.
> 
> Yours in Christ



I started reading a bit of his ST a while back, but found it very philosophical and decided just to keep it for reference. Is it worth trying to read it from cover-to-cover?


----------



## RamistThomist

Mayflower said:


> Contra_Mundum said:
> 
> 
> 
> I bring up this last point, because someone (even a "person of color") could read and love Dabney, and then have some acquaintance of theirs blindside them with: "But he's an old southern racist! What are you reading him for?" Better to know ahead of time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When i was reading the next artical about Dabney and the comments of Contra Mudum, i was thinking about the next Bible vers :
> 
> *1 Corinthians 13:2 *
> And though I have [the gift of] prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, *I am nothing*.
> 
> See:
> R.L. Dabney (from racist churches):
> 
> Through Vision Forum, Doug Phillips sells books on Robert Lewis Dabney, who was Stonewall Jackson’s chief of staff and chaplain during the Civil War. After the war, Dabney wrote a book called A Defense of Virginia, which even over a hundred years later is considered one of the most racist books ever written. Dabney considered black people to be a “morally inferior race,” a “sordid, alien taint” marked by “lying, theft, drunkenness, laziness, waste.” He considered slavery to be ”the righteous, the best, yea, the only tolerable relation” between blacks and whites. He condemned the “abhorrent amalgamation of [white] children with blacks” and actually argued that it was better for blacks to be enslaved than not since it was better for their minds and their health. Dabney called the attempt to educate all Negroes “mischievous,” “tyrannical,” “useless,” “impracticable,” and “dishonest.”
> 
> Here are some choice quotes from Dabney:
> 
> It is well known, that, as a general rule, [Negroes] are a graceless, vagabondish set, and contribute very little to the support of the State by which they are protected. They are not citizens, never can become citizens, and wherever found in large numbers they are an expense and a source of trouble…
> 
> The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity…
> 
> The offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South.
> 
> How does Doug Phillips regard Dabney? He calls Dabney “the greatest southern theologian of the 19th century.” He exclaims: “Hail Dabney, prophet of the South, our great apologist… And so with joy we doff our hats and shout from every mouth: Hail Dabney, wise apologist, defender of the South!”
> 
> In Doug’s lecture on Dabney, he says Dabney was “formulative” to his way of thinking. He introduces Dabney as one who would be “in the front lines at Gettysburg, charging toward the Yankees.” Doug calls Dabney “the greatest defender of Southern heritage, Christian faith, and common sense.” He praises Dabney “for being bold enough to say things that others today are afraid to say.” He laments that Dabney is “resented by those Christians who don’t want to hear his prophecies.” He said we may be uncomfortable with Dabney’s conclusions, but we are “left with no other option but to run and hide - we can’t deny it - or simply to embrace the truth…” He calls Dabney “a prophet in the fullest sense,” and after announcing that he might name his next child after Dabney, recites a poem he has written for the occasion entitled, “Hail Dabney, Prophet of the South.”
> 
> Doug Phillips also edited a book entitled Robert Louis Dabney: The Prophet Speaks.
> 
> Oh, but we’re just getting started.
> 
> Link:
> R.L. Dabney « Racist Churches
> 
> More:
> Racist Churches
Click to expand...


The link, by its very name, is biased. As for the quotes, when we quote someone, we give things like where we found the quote. The website is a joke and lack of scholarship. The quotes, assuming they are legit because the author failed to cite sources, are taken out of context.


----------



## AV1611

Daniel Ritchie said:


> I started reading a bit of his ST a while back, but found it very philosophical and decided just to keep it for reference. Is it worth trying to read it from cover-to-cover?



Same here. I was not impressed by his treatment of the Lord's Supper.


----------



## Mayflower

[/QUOTE]The link, by its very name, is biased. As for the quotes, when we quote someone, we give things like where we found the quote. The website is a joke and lack of scholarship. The quotes, assuming they are legit because the author failed to cite sources, are taken out of context.[/QUOTE]

Jacob, i understand your piont, and iam agree that they should cite the sources, but is it than still a yoke and reading the qoutes of Dabney as a lie ? 

And is these quotes are not a lie, how do we view Dabney than ? Are we as reformed believers many times not honouring a theologion because of all the knowledge and wisdom he got from the Word of God, and not being critical of these so-called claims were forexample Dabney is being accused of as a racist ?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Ivanhoe said:


> One of the greatest American theologians hands down. I have read Sacred Rhetoric several times. He was also an acute political observer. He predicted the Patriot Act. He also lived one of the most heroic lives in American history.
> SermonAudio.com - Life of Robert L. Dabney




I listened to this message last night. Very good. Made me appreciate the man more.


----------



## Romans922

Carl Trueman says, Reformation21 » Lured out of hiding


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ralph,

Bruce already "warned" that Dabney had some views that we might disagree with. I don't think we need to try to defend them. I neither agree with his position on slavery nor his view of black men but that does not mean that his entire corpus has no theological value to us. 

Luther wrote some wicked things about the Jews and moralists will always value truth by the quality of the person that states it because they see truth as flowing from the intrinsic righteousness from within man. 

Remember that Dabney and Luther both looked outside themselves and not within for their righteous standing before God. That does not excuse their sins but it does mean that, by their faith in Christ, those sins are atoned for. The moralist may be upright and faithfully give his 10% to the Church, never smoke, never drink any alchohol, and have all the correct attitudes toward black men and people of every race but if his righteousness is grounded within then he will perish in his sins. 

This, of course, is utter foolishness to the world that can't possibly fathom that Mother Teresa may have perished in her sins but a man with multiple wives, who committed adultery, and then had the husband of his lover killed in battle to cover his sin could be called a man after God's own heart.

I think we ought to be brutally honest about the sins of a man named Dabney. I don't consider the fact that he had silly notions of the capacities of black men to be nearly as sinful as his efforts, contra Girardeau, to exclude professed Christians of another race from membership in the Presbyterian Church. Nevertheless, his salvation and your salvation rests on a foreign righteousness. That's something that the world will never accept but that you ought to remember before you think there's nothing to be gained from a man with sinful failings. Those are precisely the men that Christ has redeemed.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## Semper Fidelis

SouthernHero said:


> All this whining and apologizing... RacistChurches.com? You guys are too much.



I do hope you're not being so imprudent as to imply I am either whining or apoplogizing. I actually don't need the links to validate what I've read from well documented Presbyterian history about Dabney and his efforts to restrict black membership from the Southern Presbyterian Church. Per my previous post, it is not an immaterial thing that he did so, but being aware of it doesn't make his writings useless.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

SouthernHero said:


> Sure. Everytime I see a Dabney post (on PB or anywhere else) I always know exactly where the conversation is headed. So predictable. It's sad.



Would you care to elaborate further after removing the chip from your shoulder?


----------



## Mayflower

SemperFideles said:


> Ralph,
> 
> Bruce already "warned" that Dabney had some views that we might disagree with. I don't think we need to try to defend them. I neither agree with his position on slavery nor his view of black men but that does not mean that his entire corpus has no theological value to us.
> 
> Luther wrote some wicked things about the Jews and moralists will always value truth by the quality of the person that states it because they see truth as flowing from the intrinsic righteousness from within man.
> 
> Remember that Dabney and Luther both looked outside themselves and not within for their righteous standing before God. That does not excuse their sins but it does mean that, by their faith in Christ, those sins are atoned for. The moralist may be upright and faithfully give his 10% to the Church, never smoke, never drink any alchohol, and have all the correct attitudes toward black men and people of every race but if his righteousness is grounded within then he will perish in his sins.
> 
> This, of course, is utter foolishness to the world that can't possibly fathom that Mother Teresa may have perished in her sins but a man with multiple wives, who committed adultery, and then had the husband of his lover killed in battle to cover his sin could be called a man after God's own heart.
> 
> I think we ought to be brutally honest about the sins of a man named Dabney. I don't consider the fact that he had silly notions of the capacities of black men to be nearly as sinful as his efforts, contra Girardeau, to exclude professed Christians of another race from membership in the Presbyterian Church. Nevertheless, his salvation and your salvation rests on a foreign righteousness. That's something that the world will never accept but that you ought to remember before you think there's nothing to be gained from a man with sinful failings. Those are precisely the men that Christ has redeemed.



Thanks brother for the explanation, i really understand you and iam agree, but still it's for me hard to understand that these men like Dabney hath such a evil and horrible view on the black race and being a full racist.

What i understood from Luther, was that in the beginning he was not at all against the jews, but when the reformation broke out, that he thought that now finally the Gospel could come to the jews, but he was so dissapointed
that he saw that the jews were still rejecting the Gospel, and so he wrote these very evil words against the jews.

I was also shock to read from you, that Girardeau rejected black people from memberschip from the presbyterian church, i did not know that.

From the calvinistic site theologions write so clearer and deep against the errors and heresies like arminianisme, why are there same voices are raised against the evil and horrible teachings from these presbyterians????????????? Is it only because they wrote so great about predestination and the others thingson doctrines of grace, so that the evil teaching of their racisme is a minor issue ?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Romans922 said:


> Carl Trueman says, Reformation21 » Lured out of hiding



Yet again, I was not impressed by Dr. Trueman's comments. I still read him in spite of his Socialism. The man needs to learn to be more forebearing; Dabney and Thornwell got things wrong, but they were only sinners like the rest of us. I suspect, however, that the reason why Dr. Trueman is so hard on people with suspect racist views is because racism is about the only sin recognised by secular humanists.

Read my rebuttal to his statements regarding R.J. Rushdoony:

Was R.J. Rushdoony A Racist? Answering Carl Trueman « Reformed Covenanter

The Slander of R.J. Rushdoony « Reformed Covenanter

More on the Slander of R.J. Rushdoony by Colin Tayler « Reformed Covenanter


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Romans922 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carl Trueman says, Reformation21 » Lured out of hiding
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yet again, I was not impressed by Dr. Trueman's comments. I still read him in spite of his Socialism. The man needs to learn to be more forebearing; Dabney and Thornwell got things wrong, but they were only sinners like the rest of us. I suspect, however, that the reason why Dr. Trueman is so hard on people with suspect racist views is because racism is about the only sin recognised by secular humanists.
> 
> Read my rebuttal to his statements regarding R.J. Rushdoony:
> 
> Was R.J. Rushdoony A Racist? Answering Carl Trueman « Reformed Covenanter
> 
> The Slander of R.J. Rushdoony « Reformed Covenanter
> 
> More on the Slander of R.J. Rushdoony by Colin Tayler « Reformed Covenanter
Click to expand...


Yes, the Trueman piece was quite painful to read. He needs to do a little better work than simply dismissing eminent scholars like Eugene Genovese. It is one thing to refute someone, it is quite another to ignore the arguments by waving the hand.


----------



## RamistThomist

Also, racism, according to some sources, is a marxist term. I am not a racist. I work with 99% black children and love many of them dearly. But do you watch liberal politics? Do you want to silence the southern Christian? Just call him a racist and the ball game is over. Don't even worry about proving it. The fear of being labeled a racist is the most powerful political tool today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Mayflower

Ivanhoe said:


> Also, racism, according to some sources, is a marxist term. I am not a racist. I work with 99% black children and love many of them dearly. But do you watch liberal politics? Do you want to silence the southern Christian? Just call him a racist and the ball game is over. Don't even worry about proving it. The fear of being labeled a racist is the most powerful political tool today.



Dear Ivanhoe,

But how do you view Dabney and Girardeau as a racist or not a racist ?
What do you mean with " to silence the southern christian ?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ivanhoe said:


> Yes, the Trueman piece was quite painful to read. He needs to do a little better work than simply dismissing eminent scholars like Eugene Genovese. It is one thing to refute someone, it is quite another to ignore the arguments by waving the hand.



His comment implying that JH Thornwell was not a great mind is simply ridiculous. Moreover, he complains that these men never said anything original. What about Thornwell's view of RC baptism or Dabney's theological defence of slavery? These are two of the best defences of these positions. Moreover, Southern Presbyterians at this time did not want to be theological innovators; they wanted to uphold the old paths of Reformed truth. Is that really so bad?


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Ivanhoe said:


> Also, racism, according to some sources, is a marxist term. I am not a racist. I work with 99% black children and love many of them dearly. But do you watch liberal politics? Do you want to silence the southern Christian? Just call him a racist and the ball game is over. Don't even worry about proving it. The fear of being labeled a racist is the most powerful political tool today.



One wonders is the secular humanists would have called Paul a racist for saying that "the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons". Criticism of an ethnic/national group is not the same thing as a belief in out-and-out racial supremacy.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

PS Who is Carl Trueman talking about when he refers to "Delboy"? - this was a character in a British sitcom called Only Fools and Horses, which was about a group of plucky capitalists who sought to make a fortune selling stuff at markets.


----------



## Mayflower

Daniel Ritchie said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, racism, according to some sources, is a marxist term. I am not a racist. I work with 99% black children and love many of them dearly. But do you watch liberal politics? Do you want to silence the southern Christian? Just call him a racist and the ball game is over. Don't even worry about proving it. The fear of being labeled a racist is the most powerful political tool today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One wonders is the secular humanists would have called Paul a racist for saying that "the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons". Criticism of an ethnic/national group is not the same thing as a belief in out-and-out racial supremacy.
Click to expand...


Dear Daniel,

We are discussing about Dabney, so if his quotes are from him, would this not be a full racist, and what about Girardeau who did exclude professed Christians of another race (Black people) from membership in the Presbyterian Church ?

And are these views of Dabney and Girardeau not a criticism of an ethnic/national group, and a belief in out-and-out racial supremacy ?

Here again are some choice quotes from Dabney:

It is well known, that, as a general rule, [Negroes] are a graceless, vagabondish set, and contribute very little to the support of the State by which they are protected. They are not citizens, never can become citizens, and wherever found in large numbers they are an expense and a source of trouble…

The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity…

The offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Brother

Forgive my ignorance, but I once read that Girardeau  was the minister of a black congregation? Don't get me wrong, I am not condoning their views that were sinful. I think Dabney was somewhat racist at times, but that does not mean that he has nothing good to say in other unrelated areas of theology. 

Concerning Dabney's comment "It is well known, that, as a general rule, [Negroes] are a graceless, vagabondish set, and contribute very little to the support of the State by which they are protected." I would not have that much problem with a man saying something like that _if it was accurate_; just like if someone said "the Irish are drunkards" - it does not mean that the person is an anti-Irish racist, but the are making a just criticism of a national group. However, some of the other things Dabney says are un-Christian in my opinion, and do him no favours.  




Mayflower said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> Also, racism, according to some sources, is a marxist term. I am not a racist. I work with 99% black children and love many of them dearly. But do you watch liberal politics? Do you want to silence the southern Christian? Just call him a racist and the ball game is over. Don't even worry about proving it. The fear of being labeled a racist is the most powerful political tool today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One wonders is the secular humanists would have called Paul a racist for saying that "the Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons". Criticism of an ethnic/national group is not the same thing as a belief in out-and-out racial supremacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dear Daniel,
> 
> We are discussing about Dabney, so if his quotes are from him, would this not be a full racist, and what about Girardeau who did exclude professed Christians of another race (Black people) from membership in the Presbyterian Church ?
> 
> And are these views of Dabney and Girardeau not a criticism of an ethnic/national group, and a belief in out-and-out racial supremacy ?
> 
> Here again are some choice quotes from Dabney:
> 
> It is well known, that, as a general rule, [Negroes] are a graceless, vagabondish set, and contribute very little to the support of the State by which they are protected. They are not citizens, never can become citizens, and wherever found in large numbers they are an expense and a source of trouble…
> 
> The black race is an alien one on our soil; and nothing except his amalgamation with ours, or his subordination to ours, can prevent the rise of that instinctive antipathy of race, which, history shows, always arises between opposite races in proximity…
> 
> The offspring of an amalgamation must be a hybrid race incapable of the career of civilization and glory as an independent race. And this apparently is the destiny which our conquerors have in view. If indeed they can mix the blood of the heroes of Manassas with this vile stream from the fens of Africa, then they will never again have occasion to tremble before the righteous resistance of Virginia freemen; but will have a race supple and vile enough to fill that position of political subjugation, which they desire to fix on the South
Click to expand...


----------



## RamistThomist

Dabney could have made an empirical observation. Dabney also criticised Southern slave-owners for not Reforming slavery according to biblical guidelines. Funny how detractors never mnetion that...Oh right, Genevose pointed that out and we can just dismiss him.


----------



## Grymir




----------



## SRoper

SemperFideles said:


> I don't consider the fact that he had silly notions of the capacities of black men to be nearly as sinful as his efforts, contra Girardeau, to exclude professed Christians of another race from membership in the Presbyterian Church.





Mayflower said:


> I was also shock to read from you, that Girardeau rejected black people from memberschip from the presbyterian church, i did not know that.



I think you need to reread what Rich wrote. He said Girardeau and Dabney held opposing views.

I don't really have much to add, but I observe that there has been a lot of politically correct language in this thread. "...he did say and write some things which, in our time, grate upon our sensibilities..." "...don't expect him to be politically correct or to reflect 21st century attitudes on mid-19th century conflicts..." Why all this pussyfooting around? Why not just say that his exclusion of blacks from the church was wicked and contrary to the Law of God?


----------



## Civbert

Dabney was a racist. So was Lincoln. So were most people at that time in history. 

Can we still profit from reading the writings of Dabney? Did his racism corrupt his other views? These are legitimate concerns. 

I think I will simply accept that Dabney was a racist. And I also think I can profit from reading his works on theology.


----------



## RamistThomist

Civbert said:


> Dabney was a racist. So was Lincoln. So were most people at that time in history.



Lincoln was the biggest white supremacist of the 19th century.



> Can we still profit from reading the writings of Dabney?



Yes.



> Did his racism corrupt his other views? .



No.

And I think many people will say, in a reactionary fashion, oh, but he is a racist. Then they will fail to see his chilling political predictions which came true in our century. They will miss out that he thought deeply, and wrote more clearly, to a broken people.

And if we are to pass blame, we need to be fair. Dabney could never have accepted the arguments of the Abolitionists. The abolitionists of that day were Jacobin, Unitarian, proto-Communists bent on destroying, not slavery, but the Southern people.


----------



## py3ak

I found his article on the Sabbath to be very clear in both thought and phraseology, and eminently helpful. However, the times that I have dipped into his systematic theology I have not found him very helpful. Wasn't the systematic theology taken down from notes?


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Afterall, by the law of God everything that man does will rise and fall. Praise be to God for the blood atonement!


----------



## CDM

"What Thinketh Y'all of Robert Dabney?"

I second the notion that he was one of the best American Theologians in history. I may disagree with some of his political views and his views on other races but, like I do with other writers (especially those in the Lord) I give the benefit of the doubt up and until I read all of what he says on a matter. I wish others would do the same. Either way, I have yet to meet the man that I was in complete agreement with anyway.

I'd also mention that the manufactured machismo of the modern North American male would shriek and crumble when face to face with a man like Dabney. Fortunately for them, the Dabney’s of this land are dead and man-boy eunuchs abound.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SouthernHero said:


> I'm in no way saying that I agree with everything Dabney ever said or wrote. I just hate to see the works of these men obscured and marginalized because, as someone said above, "racism" (as anyone chooses to define it) is now the unpardonable sin.



Exactly, this is what I have noticed; in secular humanism the unpardonable sin is racism. A man can be an adulterer, a sodomite, an idolater even a murderer...just as long as he's not racist.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Blueridge Baptist said:


> Afterall, by the law of God everything that man does will rise and fall. Praise be to God for the blood atonement!


----------



## puritan lad

Daniel Ritchie said:


> in secular humanism the unpardonable sin is racism. A man can be an adulterer, a sodomite, an idolater even a murderer...just as long as he's not racist.



Sad but true. This was quite apparent in the Mark Furman, er..., I mean, O.J. Simpson trial.


----------



## Grymir




----------



## Contra_Mundum

Girardeau was on the OPPOSITE side of the issue from Dabney; please read Rich's post carefully.

In Girardeau's predominately black church in Charleston, prior to the war, the blacks sat in the pews, the whites in the gallery. Girardeau cultivated both a vocabulary and a cadence catered to his black audience, and imparted to them the riches of Reformed piety, as every minister ought to do--he knew his flock. It was the arrival of the Yankees, and their shocking disregard for the church--yes, even the black church--that prevented further effective ministry by Girardeau. So very little has changed, as I see, in 150 years of state belligerence.


As for the esteemed Dabney, he may be read with tremendous profit.

The fact is, I don't know why people join this board, if they do so to join the conversation or to work for its disrepute or downfall. So, if someone says "I know nothing about this Reformed theologian, Dabney; but I like what I've read so far," I don't know if such a statement is real admiration, or bait. Hence my preemptive answer. He's a good, solid theologian; and he made some comments that race-baiters would love to plant like a stinkweed in the garden of any Reformed man or woman who dares to publicly praise him. So, I'll just say it out in front: he was not without flaws. And which of us is without sin?

Those of you with thin skin, who feel the need to defend Dabney and get all bent out of shape when this issue comes up--get over it. You made a mountain out of a molehill. This is an international forum; it's a place to open minds, not close them. It is not a little Reformation ghetto, where we pimp our heroes, and airbrush their faults.

I'm OK that not all of you feel the need to maintain the reputation of the PuritanBoard as a place with a clearcut identity, mission, and reputation. But for those of us who have that responsibility, we aren't going to apologize for either the good or bad of Dabney or anyone else. Nor will we gloss it.


----------



## NaphtaliPress

For an article on Girardeau and some of the other white ministers that sought to provide ministerially for black congregations, The Confessional Presbyterian 3, "Presbyterians in the South and the Slave: A Study in Benevolence," _by C. N. Willborn, Ph.D. _A shorter version is online I think at PCA Historical Center, but for $18 you get a lot of other good material and the longer version in CPJ 3.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Contra_Mundum said:


> Those of you with thin skin, who feel the need to defend Dabney and get all bent out of shape when this issue comes up--get over it. You made a mountain out of a molehill. This is an international forum; it's a place to open minds, not close them. It is not a little Reformation ghetto, where we pimp our heroes, and airbrush their faults.
> 
> I'm OK that not all of you feel the need to maintain the reputation of the PuritanBoard as a place with a clearcut identity, mission, and reputation. But for those of us who have that responsibility, we aren't going to apologize for either the good or bad of Dabney or anyone else. Nor will we gloss it.



The difference between Scriptural biography and most modern Christian biography is that the Bible paints sinners - even redeemed sinners - to use Cromwell's term "warts and all". The failings of the saints in the past should encourage us to persevere in spite of our sinful ways.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

SouthernHero said:


> I'm in no way saying that I agree with everything Dabney ever said or wrote. I just hate to see the works of these men obscured and marginalized because, as someone said above, "racism" (as anyone chooses to define it) is now the unpardonable sin.



Yeah, because excluding black congregations from full membership in the Church is such a "loose definition" on something that is sinful. I didn't use the word racist. I called him someone who committed grave sins as a Church men based on faulty views of the capacities of black men. I also stated that it doesn't remove him from consideration for reading him with profit on other matters.

I'm not sure what you find "sad" and "predictable" in this thread. Is the sad and predictable thing in this thread that, because Dabney is associated with the South, *you* get bent out of shape that his sins come to the fore? I wonder, when you read Galatians 2, if you get bent out of shape at the "sad" and "predictable" behavior of Paul toward Peter when he rebuked him to his face. Why did God inspire such a thing only to keep throwing it in our face that Peter committed some horrific sins as if we can't read Peter with any profit?!



Contra_Mundum said:


> Girardeau was on the OPPOSITE side of the issue from Dabney; please read Rich's post carefully.


Thanks!



> Those of you with thin skin, who feel the need to defend Dabney and get all bent out of shape when this issue comes up--get over it. You made a mountain out of a molehill. This is an international forum; it's a place to open minds, not close them. It is not a little Reformation ghetto, where we pimp our heroes, and airbrush their faults.


Exactly so. Who cares whether Lincoln and others had a variety of sinful views as if that excuses another man's behavior?

If one finds these discussions silly and sad, please PM me so I can relieve your pain in having to participate in a board that allows the open discussion of the sins of Civil War heroes. You'll find another thread, in fact, where I commit the heresy of disagreeing, on military terms, that the sun rose and set on Stonewall Jackson's military genius.


----------



## Grymir

Hello all!! I've been waiting all day at work to get home to weigh in on this. Chompin' at the bit. I can't believe this. Usually I'm the blunt one getting into trouble. Contra, I assure you I had no idea this was going to happen. I downloaded his sacred rhetoric book, and I have a deep philosophical bent. He seemed to know his philosophical stuff. There is nobody whose theological opinions I value in my area that I can go talk to like I did in Texas. That's one of the reason I joined the PB. Y'all have brains. So I wanted to know more. Wiki articles don't cut it for me for in-depth theological analysis. The explosion that followed is a real blessing for me. I like to hear all views, think on it, and then tell those who disagree with scripture they are wrong, and those who agree with scripture they are right.

Now on to the rest of y'all. Daniel is right. We have sodomites in our land and we can't call them evil? A racist theologian? big deal. Being a homosexual is a sin singled out to show how far somebody is from God. (Rom 1). To call somebody racist and discount his views is actually a logical fallacy, (Argumentum ad hominem, the ad hominem abusive variety specifically). When Daniel said his work was deeply philosophical and he put it down to use as a reference, I was like WEEEE! This guy I need to read! I hope people 100 years from now don't discount me because I think all the liberals need to be thrown out of the church. Contra Mundum and SemperFideles I want to thank you two especially. I asked about his theology. You answered me theologically. So did you Ivanhoe. You especially peaked my interest in his political analysis. Mangum you are so right, man-boy eunuch's abound in our land.

Ya know, Karl Barth (Barfth) was a nice guy, but his writings are full of errors (i don't dare call his writings theological, the are of a devotional level at best). This Dabney fellow has a few 'peculiarities' but his theology sounds good and reformed. 

Hmm,

Nice guy = Bad theology
Not so nice = Good theology

Thanks everybody for you input.


----------



## DMcFadden

SRoper said:


> I don't really have much to add, but I observe that there has been a lot of politically correct language in this thread. "...he did say and write some things which, in our time, grate upon our sensibilities..." "...don't expect him to be politically correct or to reflect 21st century attitudes on mid-19th century conflicts..." Why all this pussyfooting around? Why not just say that his exclusion of blacks from the church was wicked and contrary to the Law of God?





> Sure. Everytime I see a Dabney post (on PB or anywhere else) I always know exactly where the conversation is headed. So predictable. It's sad.



Wow! Touch a nerve of regional partiality and we explode quicker than if the deity of Christ were being denied!

I'm sorry you found my language politically correct (that would be a first for me). Frankly I meant what I said. Try reading some sections of Luther and if it doesn't "grate on your sensibilities" I would worry about you. My point was not to condemn Dabney but to defend him by arguing that we should not "expect [Dabney, Luther, or any number of writers of bygone eras] to reflect the kinds of sensitivities of people today. Our culture has changed. Try viewing a movie from 50 years ago where it seemed like everyone was smoking, including the physicians. It is a little bit jarring. Listen to WWII newsreels about the "Japs" or even a Martin Luther King, Jr. speech referencing the "negro." 

My original post said that there was NO ugly racism in his systematic theology and only one passage (by my count) that spoke even obliquely about race. His racial views (sinful, time-bound, insensitive, or all of the above) are limited to his shorter works. And, as some have observed, much of his stridency was due to the fact that the northerners he was fighting against included an unholy mix of unitarians, theological liberals, and other theological latitudinarians. Some of his social views were cultural, others were flat out sinful, some were driven by political realities on the ground, and some were common to people in his position in his part of the country. I think Dabney is a GREAT theologian and will continue to use his work as one of the best of the bunch. I never said he was perfect, just a great theologian.

As to the second quote, sorry to have miscommunicated. I like Dabney. My citation of quotes from his writings was simply to admit that he held views common to his age and location but that they were not present IN ANY WAY that could be detected in his systematic theology. Your dismissal as "so predictable" does not accurately describe some of us who admit finding a few passages articulating sinful views in his writings.


----------



## ChristianTrader

SRoper said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't consider the fact that he had silly notions of the capacities of black men to be nearly as sinful as his efforts, contra Girardeau, to exclude professed Christians of another race from membership in the Presbyterian Church.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mayflower said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was also shock to read from you, that Girardeau rejected black people from memberschip from the presbyterian church, i did not know that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think you need to reread what Rich wrote. He said Girardeau and Dabney held opposing views.
> 
> I don't really have much to add, but I observe that there has been a lot of politically correct language in this thread. "...he did say and write some things which, in our time, grate upon our sensibilities..." "...don't expect him to be politically correct or to reflect 21st century attitudes on mid-19th century conflicts..." Why all this pussyfooting around? Why not just say that his exclusion of blacks from the church was wicked and contrary to the Law of God?
Click to expand...


The reason that you see such language is that Dabney said a number of things that strike against modern Christian sensibilities, outside of his comments on racial superiority/inferiority, that just needed/need to be said. 
It is not a simple case of pussyfooting around.

CT


----------



## SRoper

DMcFadden said:


> I'm sorry you found my language politically correct (that would be a first for me). Frankly I meant what I said. Try reading some sections of Luther and if it doesn't "grate on your sensibilities" I would worry about you. My point was not to condemn Dabney but to defend him by arguing that we should not "expect [Dabney, Luther, or any number of writers of bygone eras] to reflect the kinds of sensitivities of people today. Our culture has changed. Try viewing a movie from 50 years ago where it seemed like everyone was smoking, including the physicians. It is a little bit jarring. Listen to WWII newsreels about the "Japs" or even a Martin Luther King, Jr. speech referencing the "negro."



I think you missed my point. The language you originally used was carefully selected so as not to offend those who love Dabney. Dabney's position on blacks in the church does not simply "grate on [our] sensibilities" as if we are all delicate ladies at a dinner party and some uncouth individual just picked up the wrong fork. No, Dabney's position was a sin against God and man and showed a lack of love for the brethren. It was my observation that politically correct language can be found in the employ of conservatives just as easily as liberals.

You think Dabney has a lot to offer? Fine, I don't disagree. But let's not minimize sin in an attempt to make sure he is more widely read.


----------



## SRoper

ChristianTrader said:


> The reason that you see such language is that Dabney said a number of things that strike against modern Christian sensibilities, outside of his comments on racial superiority/inferiority, that just needed/need to be said.
> It is not a simple case of pussyfooting around.
> 
> CT



Thanks, you are certainly correct that some of what he wrote is simply alien to us and not necessarily sinful.


----------



## RamistThomist

While some of us may be too quick to defend Dabney, I see among some Presbyterians a tendency to criticize him just to prove "we not racist." I saw a prof just rail against Dabney for 15 minutes when we were discussing Dabney on the atonement. Was it because Dabney had Arminian views? No, but the prof didn't want to seem soft on racism so he felt the need to bash Dabney for a good little while, never mind it had nothing to do with the topic.

Or take the ) good scholarship of Sean Michael Lucas. Lucas did groundbreaking work on Dabney. But Lucas wasted too many key moves on the meanie parts of Dabney. Was Lucas' judgment correct? In a sense it was, but what did Lucas have to gain from retreading old ground? Nothing really. This kept Lucas from having a really good book. 
http://www.puritanboard.com/f90/robert-lewis-dabney-southern-presbyterian-life-25008/

DISCLAIMER: And lest anybody gets really upset, I believe Dabney's exclusion of blacks was wrong and sinful.


----------



## DMcFadden

SRoper said:


> I think you missed my point. The language you originally used was carefully selected so as not to offend those who love Dabney. Dabney's position on blacks in the church does not simply "grate on [our] sensibilities" as if we are all delicate ladies at a dinner party and some uncouth individual just picked up the wrong fork. No, Dabney's position was a sin against God and man and showed a lack of love for the brethren. It was my observation that politically correct language can be found in the employ of conservatives just as easily as liberals.
> 
> You think Dabney has a lot to offer? Fine, I don't disagree. But let's not minimize sin in an attempt to make sure he is more widely read.



Scott,

Oops. You are correct. I did misunderstand your point. After a LONG day of board meetings and some pretty anxiety producing moments at work, I read through the ton of posts WAY too fast. I'm just not used to re-fighting the civil war. Where I come from, it almost never comes up in conversation at all so my ability to "read between the lines" and catch the nuances is pretty near zilch. It seemed that some of the posts were stimnuulated at least in part due to regional pride being offended.

I used the language on purpose, not to pussyfoot for the Dabney-ites, but because often when you read somebody from a different era, there are parts that just sound jarring. I make no brief for putdowns based on race and am happy call sin sin. However, it is simply too easy to cherry-pick the sins of other eras without taking into account the environment in which the writer/thinker lived. That's evident in my ultimate bottom line on Dabney:



> Some of his social views were cultural, others were flat out sinful, some were driven by political realities on the ground, and some were common to people in his position in his part of the country. I think Dabney is a GREAT theologian and will continue to use his work as one of the best of the bunch. I never said he was perfect, just a great theologian.



Life is too short not to cherish the great contributions made by imperfect people (e.g., Luther, Calvin, Dabney, Hodge, Machen, Sproul, etc.).


----------



## Kevin

Daniel Ritchie said:


> SouthernHero said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm in no way saying that I agree with everything Dabney ever said or wrote. I just hate to see the works of these men obscured and marginalized because, as someone said above, "racism" (as anyone chooses to define it) is now the unpardonable sin.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly, this is what I have noticed; in secular humanism the unpardonable sin is racism. A man can be an adulterer, a sodomite, an idolater even a murderer...just as long as he's not racist.
Click to expand...


----------



## Kevin

BTW anyone care to define "Racist"?


----------



## Grymir

yea, anybody who like Jeff Gordon!!


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Kevin said:


> BTW anyone care to define "Racist"?



Sure, if you'll provide an agreed upon definition of the word _Evangelical_.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

Without meaning to sound thin skinned, the comments of Carl Trueman did offend me somewhat. I ain't a Southern Presbyterian, but he just slammed a noble tradition. Here are his comments for anyone who has not read them yet:



> OK. The temptation to emerge from my lair proves too great. I must say, helping Delboy out is insufficient reason (haven't the English spent the last 600 years selflessly protecting the Welsh from harm at great expense to the English taxpayer? And are they grateful????), but any man south of the Mason-Dixon who doesn't list Dabney and Thornwell on his ST syllabus deserves some respect. Three criticisms of these `giants' of the South spring to mind:
> 
> 1. I've never read anything useful by them that cannot be found better stated elsewhere. Is there anything they say that is (a) original and (b) worth saying? This was the question I asked Hollywood heartthrob and Dabney expert, Rob Lowe, at his WTS PhD exam some years ago. Still waiting for a compelling answer on that one.....
> 
> 2. The slave/race thing rather spoils them, esp. RLD -- Dabney was nasty even by the desultory standards of the nineteenth century; and I just don't buy the Eugene Genovese line on southern culture which has been used as one way of circumventing the problem. And isn't it strange how the only people I know who are inclined not to see this as a problem are middle class white presnyterian guys.....
> 
> 3. What a pair of tedious prose stylists! Berkhof (note the spelling, Del) wrote a dictionary; dictionaries are meant to be boring; that's the deal. But these guys wrote continuous prose that is too often as wooden as it comes -- except, of course, when Dabney is hating, which he does do exceptionally well at times. Compare them to the eminent Victorian, John Henry Newman and the point is obvious -- theology can be literature, but not where these two gents are concerned.
> 
> Read Augustine, Calvin, and Owen -- yes, they can at times be boring; and Owen's style can be too Latinate; but they are at least great minds; and seeing a great mind in action is always worthwhile.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

> You'll find another thread, in fact, where I commit the heresy of disagreeing, on military terms, that the sun rose and set on Stonewall Jackson's military genius.



The irony of that is that the last person who would want us to be uncritical of the military genius of Stonewall Jackson is Stonewall Jackson himself.

What I admire most about Stonewall and General Lee is not that they were perfect, but the way they responded to the mistakes they made.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

I agree Daniel. I think your "distance" from the American culture makes my comment hard to understand. There are some that cannot hold two truths together: that men are imperfect and can be, at the same time, admirable. I admire men but am not uncritical of them. There are some scholars that visited Command and Staff College when I attended that made the keen observation that it takes a few centuries before we can really begin to learn lessons from our own history (in some cases longer). The Civil War is still too very close to Americans and we're unable to look at certain things without "taking sides". Some things you might think "What's the big deal?" are very person for many.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

SemperFideles said:


> I agree Daniel. I think your "distance" from the American culture makes my comment hard to understand. There are some that cannot hold two truths together: that men are imperfect and can be, at the same time, admirable. I admire men but am not uncritical of them. There are some scholars that visited Command and Staff College when I attended that made the keen observation that it takes a few centuries before we can really begin to learn lessons from our own history (in some cases longer). The Civil War is still too very close to Americans and we're unable to look at certain things without "taking sides". Some things you might think "What's the big deal?" are very person for many.



I suppose there are still some people living whose grandfathers (or at least great-grandfathers) fought in the civil war? 



Moreover, I recall reading in the first volume of Shelby Foote's history of the ACW (this was a long time ago) that the nickname "Stonewall" was not originally a compliment. Can anyone confirm this?


----------



## RamistThomist

Daniel Ritchie said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Daniel. I think your "distance" from the American culture makes my comment hard to understand. There are some that cannot hold two truths together: that men are imperfect and can be, at the same time, admirable. I admire men but am not uncritical of them. There are some scholars that visited Command and Staff College when I attended that made the keen observation that it takes a few centuries before we can really begin to learn lessons from our own history (in some cases longer). The Civil War is still too very close to Americans and we're unable to look at certain things without "taking sides". Some things you might think "What's the big deal?" are very person for many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suppose there are still some people living whose grandfathers (or at least great-grandfathers) fought in the civil war?
> 
> 
> 
> Moreover, I recall reading in the first volume of Shelby Foote's history of the ACW (this was a long time ago) that the nickname "Stonewall" was not originally a compliment. Can anyone confirm this?
Click to expand...


Some people state that General Bernard Bee (I might have gotten the wrong general? ) used the phrase "Stonewall" in anger because Jackson did not advance his troops to help Bee, but rather stood like a "stonewall." At least that is what a few historians say. I tend to read it as a compliment in light of the available evidence.


----------



## SRoper

DMcFadden said:


> Scott,
> 
> Oops. You are correct. I did misunderstand your point. After a LONG day of board meetings and some pretty anxiety producing moments at work, I read through the ton of posts WAY too fast. I'm just not used to re-fighting the civil war. Where I come from, it almost never comes up in conversation at all so my ability to "read between the lines" and catch the nuances is pretty near zilch. It seemed that some of the posts were stimnuulated at least in part due to regional pride being offended.
> 
> I used the language on purpose, not to pussyfoot for the Dabney-ites, but because often when you read somebody from a different era, there are parts that just sound jarring. I make no brief for putdowns based on race and am happy call sin sin. However, it is simply too easy to cherry-pick the sins of other eras without taking into account the environment in which the writer/thinker lived. That's evident in my ultimate bottom line on Dabney:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some of his social views were cultural, others were flat out sinful, some were driven by political realities on the ground, and some were common to people in his position in his part of the country. I think Dabney is a GREAT theologian and will continue to use his work as one of the best of the bunch. I never said he was perfect, just a great theologian.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life is too short not to cherish the great contributions made by imperfect people (e.g., Luther, Calvin, Dabney, Hodge, Machen, Sproul, etc.).
Click to expand...


Thanks, Dennis. I wasn't used to re-fighting the Civil War either until I moved to the South.


----------



## ChristianTrader

SemperFideles said:


> I agree Daniel. I think your "distance" from the American culture makes my comment hard to understand. There are some that cannot hold two truths together: that men are imperfect and can be, at the same time, admirable. I admire men but am not uncritical of them. There are some scholars that visited Command and Staff College when I attended that made the keen observation that it takes a few centuries before we can really begin to learn lessons from our own history (in some cases longer). The Civil War is still too very close to Americans and we're unable to look at certain things without "taking sides". Some things you might think "What's the big deal?" are very person for many.



I do not think that closeness has much impact. I think it is more of an issue of whether or not one side or one individual is portrayed as demon spawn. A person is going to be more willing to give an inch if they know the otherside will not try to use that inch to steamroll them.

CT


----------



## Semper Fidelis

ChristianTrader said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Daniel. I think your "distance" from the American culture makes my comment hard to understand. There are some that cannot hold two truths together: that men are imperfect and can be, at the same time, admirable. I admire men but am not uncritical of them. There are some scholars that visited Command and Staff College when I attended that made the keen observation that it takes a few centuries before we can really begin to learn lessons from our own history (in some cases longer). The Civil War is still too very close to Americans and we're unable to look at certain things without "taking sides". Some things you might think "What's the big deal?" are very person for many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that closeness has much impact. I think it is more of an issue of whether or not one side or one individual is portrayed as demon spawn. A person is going to be more willing to give an inch if they know the otherside will not try to use that inch to steamroll them.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


Whether or not you "think" closeness has much impact, a number of scholars think otherwise and I agree with them based on many examples of an unwillingness to view cultural icons uncritically. A perfect example of "closeness" was when A&E interviewed about 1000 historians to have them list the 100 most important people of the last 1000 years for a special show at the end of 1999. They collated each list to number them from 1-100. Princess Diana actually made the list and there were a number of people during the show that noted that a hundred years from now most will wonder what folks were thinking to stick her on that list (along with Stephen Spielberg). Incidentally, Calvin, Luther, and Hitler were in the top 10 so it was a pretty decent list in the main otherwise.

Furthermore, I'm not sure what you think you're implying CT but nobody here has, a single time in this thread, even come remotely close to implying Dabney is "Demon Spawn". I do not, at all, appreciate the characterization and you better guard your tone.


----------



## RamistThomist

SemperFideles said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree Daniel. I think your "distance" from the American culture makes my comment hard to understand. There are some that cannot hold two truths together: that men are imperfect and can be, at the same time, admirable. I admire men but am not uncritical of them. There are some scholars that visited Command and Staff College when I attended that made the keen observation that it takes a few centuries before we can really begin to learn lessons from our own history (in some cases longer). The Civil War is still too very close to Americans and we're unable to look at certain things without "taking sides". Some things you might think "What's the big deal?" are very person for many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that closeness has much impact. I think it is more of an issue of whether or not one side or one individual is portrayed as demon spawn. A person is going to be more willing to give an inch if they know the otherside will not try to use that inch to steamroll them.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not you "think" closeness has much impact, a number of scholars think otherwise and I agree with them based on many examples of an unwillingness to view cultural icons uncritically. A perfect example of "closeness" was when A&E interviewed about 1000 historians to have them list the 100 most important people of the last 1000 years for a special show at the end of 1999. They collated each list to number them from 1-100. Princess Diana actually made the list and there were a number of people during the show that noted that a hundred years from now most will wonder what folks were thinking to stick her on that list (along with Stephen Spielberg). Incidentally, Calvin, Luther, and Hitler were in the top 10 so it was a pretty decent list in the main otherwise.
> 
> Furthermore, I'm not sure what you think you're implying CT but nobody here has, a single time in this thread, even come remotely close to implying Dabney is "Demon Spawn". I do not, at all, appreciate the characterization and you better guard your tone.
Click to expand...


I think what he meant by "Demon Spawn" is that if you look at the link from the racistchurches website, or go to the drivel by Morris Disease and Southern Poverty Law Center, you will find those mentionings of Dabney.

Hermonta didn't claim anybody on this thread called Dabney that.


----------



## Semper Fidelis

Ivanhoe said:


> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that closeness has much impact. I think it is more of an issue of whether or not one side or one individual is portrayed as demon spawn. A person is going to be more willing to give an inch if they know the otherside will not try to use that inch to steamroll them.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not you "think" closeness has much impact, a number of scholars think otherwise and I agree with them based on many examples of an unwillingness to view cultural icons uncritically. A perfect example of "closeness" was when A&E interviewed about 1000 historians to have them list the 100 most important people of the last 1000 years for a special show at the end of 1999. They collated each list to number them from 1-100. Princess Diana actually made the list and there were a number of people during the show that noted that a hundred years from now most will wonder what folks were thinking to stick her on that list (along with Stephen Spielberg). Incidentally, Calvin, Luther, and Hitler were in the top 10 so it was a pretty decent list in the main otherwise.
> 
> Furthermore, I'm not sure what you think you're implying CT but nobody here has, a single time in this thread, even come remotely close to implying Dabney is "Demon Spawn". I do not, at all, appreciate the characterization and you better guard your tone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I think what he meant by "Demon Spawn" is that if you look at the link from the racistchurches website, or go to the drivel by Morris Disease and Southern Poverty Law Center, you will find those mentionings of Dabney.
> 
> Hermonta didn't claim anybody on this thread called Dabney that.
Click to expand...


And yet he attached _my_ quoted text to make that point. My assertion is that if a man is going to claim a mischaracterization he better be very careful who he is quoting when he does so.


----------



## Pilgrim

SemperFideles said:


> Ivanhoe said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SemperFideles said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not you "think" closeness has much impact, a number of scholars think otherwise and I agree with them based on many examples of an unwillingness to view cultural icons uncritically. A perfect example of "closeness" was when A&E interviewed about 1000 historians to have them list the 100 most important people of the last 1000 years for a special show at the end of 1999. They collated each list to number them from 1-100. Princess Diana actually made the list and there were a number of people during the show that noted that a hundred years from now most will wonder what folks were thinking to stick her on that list (along with Stephen Spielberg). Incidentally, Calvin, Luther, and Hitler were in the top 10 so it was a pretty decent list in the main otherwise.
> 
> Furthermore, I'm not sure what you think you're implying CT but nobody here has, a single time in this thread, even come remotely close to implying Dabney is "Demon Spawn". I do not, at all, appreciate the characterization and you better guard your tone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think what he meant by "Demon Spawn" is that if you look at the link from the racistchurches website, or go to the drivel by Morris Disease and Southern Poverty Law Center, you will find those mentionings of Dabney.
> 
> Hermonta didn't claim anybody on this thread called Dabney that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet he attached _my_ quoted text to make that point. My assertion is that if a man is going to claim a mischaracterization he better be very careful who he is quoting when he does so.
Click to expand...


In general everyone should be mindful of this. I know I have thought someone was disagreeing with me because they quoted my post when at times that is not what they were doing. The other day someone thought I was being critical of them personally in the politics forum the other day when I wasn't.


----------



## lwadkins

I decided to ignore all that was said in this thread because it was written by sinful persons.  Oh, by the way, ignore this post for i am also a sinner.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ChristianTrader said:


> I do not think that closeness has much impact. I think it is more of an issue of whether or not one side or one individual is portrayed as demon spawn. A person is going to be more willing to give an inch if they know the otherside will not try to use that inch to steamroll them.
> 
> CT



Hermonta

What is your view of Prof. Trueman's comments concerning R.L. Dabney et al?


----------



## Pilgrim

Here are a couple of articles from Dabney I posted to my blog a while ago: 

Confessional Presbyterianism


----------



## ChristianTrader

Daniel Ritchie said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that closeness has much impact. I think it is more of an issue of whether or not one side or one individual is portrayed as demon spawn. A person is going to be more willing to give an inch if they know the otherside will not try to use that inch to steamroll them.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hermonta
> 
> What is your view of Prof. Trueman's comments concerning R.L. Dabney et al?
Click to expand...


Very, very biased. I basically would not trust anything that I see him write, unless I saw it by someone that I trusted more.

CT


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

ChristianTrader said:


> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> I do not think that closeness has much impact. I think it is more of an issue of whether or not one side or one individual is portrayed as demon spawn. A person is going to be more willing to give an inch if they know the otherside will not try to use that inch to steamroll them.
> 
> CT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hermonta
> 
> What is your view of Prof. Trueman's comments concerning R.L. Dabney et al?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very, very biased. I basically would not trust anything that I see him write, unless I saw it by someone that I trusted more.
> 
> CT
Click to expand...


I wish he would stop blogging as it prejudices me against him; though some of his other work is excellent.


----------



## Pilgrim

Daniel Ritchie said:


> ChristianTrader said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel Ritchie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hermonta
> 
> What is your view of Prof. Trueman's comments concerning R.L. Dabney et al?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very, very biased. I basically would not trust anything that I see him write, unless I saw it by someone that I trusted more.
> 
> CT
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wish he would stop blogging as it prejudices me against him; though some of his other work is excellent.
Click to expand...


 The vain and light hearted jesting that at times has come to dominate that blog has really turned me off and I rarely check it unless someone links something from it.


----------



## py3ak

On the other side of things, I appreciate Professor Trueman's sense of humor, his reading of Orwell and Marx, and his gracious condescension in making a guest appearance on our ex-dog's blog. 

I think it is one of the great strengths that we have, for instance, on this board that male model and practically Shandean humorist Bob Vigneault delivers an inimitable comic monologue from time to time.


----------



## Grymir

Hi Pilgrim! Nice Blog entry's. I enjoyed them. It gives me a good taste of some Dabney reading to come. Thanks.


----------



## Pilgrim

Here are a couple of sites with Dabney material: 

An R. L. Dabney Anthology

R.L. Dabney-P B Ministries


----------



## Grymir

Thanks Pilgrim! Mega Dittos to you. I'm now reading 'The Attractions of Popery'. Great stuff - Grymir


----------



## B.J.

If you are not from the South, than your opinion is irrelevent. In other words, you have no frame of reference, your a Yankee. Your like the clanging of symbols.


But don't feel bad....If not for the Grace of God, I'd be a Yankee too!


----------



## DMcFadden

B.J. said:


> If you are not from the South, than your opinion is irrelevent. In other words, you have no frame of reference, your a Yankee. Your like the of clanging symbols.
> 
> 
> But don't feel bad....If not for the Grace of God, I'd be a Yankee too!



 Very funny . . . but kindof scary, B.J. Sortof like any film by the Coen brothers.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

B.J. said:


> If you are not from the South, than your opinion is irrelevent. In other words, you have no frame of reference, your a Yankee. Your like the clanging of symbols.
> 
> 
> But don't feel bad....If not for the Grace of God, I'd be a Yankee too!



I am an Ulsterman/Irishman and a supporter of the Confederate States of America (currently occupied). Does my opinion count?


----------



## B.J.

> I am an Ulsterman/Irishman and a supporter of the Confederate States of America (currently occupied). Does my opinion count?





Daniel,
Hmmmm....I suppose! If you endorse the C.S.A and our efforts to free ourselves, then yes. But the first time I hear some sort of Yankee myth, its the bayonet for you.


----------



## Grymir

Hey, I was in Texas for 20 yrs. Dabney's stomping ground even. Austin that is. Now that I've read him. He's great!! Not like the lame stuff thats out today, or as we say, he shoot's from the hip and asks questions later. (Allowed under Texas law)


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

B.J. said:


> I am an Ulsterman/Irishman and a supporter of the Confederate States of America (currently occupied). Does my opinion count?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Daniel,
> Hmmmm....I suppose! If you endorse the C.S.A and our efforts to free ourselves, then yes. But the first time I hear some sort of Yankee myth, its the bayonet for you.
Click to expand...


As it happens I am working on an essay on why both sides fought [-]the civil war[/-] in the war of Northern aggression.


----------



## B.J.

Daniel,
Let me read it once your done. By the way, have you seen the Civil War debate between Rev. Peter Marshall & Rev. Steve Wilkins? It might be a helpful source.


----------



## Presbyterian Deacon

I just finished reading a book entitled:

Robert Lewis Dabney: A Southern Presbyterian Life, by Sean Michael Lucas (P & R Publishing, 2005).

Dr. Lucas teaches church history at Covenant Theological Seminary.

It is a fair treatment of Dabney's strengths and weaknesses, and ends with a most interesting comparison of Dabney with Abraham Kuyper.

I recommend this book to any interested in reading and learning more about Dabney.


----------



## Reformed Covenanter

B.J. said:


> Daniel,
> Let me read it once your done. By the way, have you seen the Civil War debate between Rev. Peter Marshall & Rev. Steve Wilkins? It might be a helpful source.



The contents of that essay may be found in a number of threads in the Politics and Government forum.


----------

