# Benedict Option (Rod Dreher)



## RamistThomist

Dreher, Rod. Benedict Option.

I see myself as a friendly critic of Rod Dreher. I think he consistently makes good points, but I also think he is really good at riding the wave of crucial opinions, even if they happen to be correct. It’s hard to review this book. Do you remember that episode of “Arrested Development” where Gob gets hired as a consultant to a rival company? He was supposed to supply good ideas for the company. Having no clue what he was doing, he got his brother Michael to give him ideas. Michael gave him around thirty ideas. Gob presented them all at once. That’s kind of how this book is. I am going to focus primarily on his views of “intentional communities” and “education.”

He begins by noting that Big Business will side with the sexual revolution over conservative morality every single time. We’ll come back to this point, as it ties in with his criticisms of the GOP. What Dreher doesn’t realize is that the types of people who have always pointed this out were populists and nationalists. They also voted for Trump.

This next part of the book approaches dangerous waters. This happens whenever someone attempts a genealogical explanation of the current ills. In other words, the problem with x today can be traced back to y’s influence over 600 years ago. Whatever good points he might make, this is almost impossible to prove. For Dreher, as for Radical Orthodoxy and Brad Gregory, the problem is nominalism. I agree that nominalism is a problem. But to trace the loss of realism as creating the Renaissance, Reformation, and all the way to the sexual revolution today is impossible to prove. So far, Dreher’s book is an updated version of Francis Schaeffer, and parts of it are quite good.

Is the Benedict Option saying we should live in intentional communities where we won’t be persecuted? Not exactly, though Dreher makes clear that he doesn’t rule it out. On one hand, he notes that you don’t have to move to the hinterlands to “Be the Benedict Option.” Local communities need skilled workers in jobs that are rewarding, if difficult, and don’t force one to violate his convictions. On the other hand, one suspects Dreher wants more than that. He rightly points out that Christians who live in communities that are close to the local church are more close-knit communities that can help one another in trouble. Very true.

I am very wary of intentional communities. It just seems like post-evangelicals are LARPing. The potential for abuse is high. By saying that I am not saying that makes intentional communities wrong. I am simply pointing out a built-in weakness. According to theory, proper church government models and civil government models have built-in checks to accountability (at least they did before the 2020 election). Intentional communities are vague on that point, though some usually subscribe to a vague, if sometimes legalistic, church covenant.

Dreher is certainly aware of that. In 2015 he wrote a fine article criticizing and calling attention to the sexual abuse scandals in Moscow, ID. He noted that he had once considered Moscow a viable example of a Benedict Option community. Moscow, ID is indeed a clear example, but for darker reasons.

All of that, regardless of the pros and cons of such a position, is meant to carry water for something else: Christian education. I think this is the most controversial, albeit interesting, part of the book. Like many conservatives, Dreher calls attention to the failing public schools, both morally and academically. Nothing new there. What about private schools? Dreher is just as hard on them. Private schools do not provide a specifically Christian education and are more often country clubs for rich people’s kids. The morals might not be as bad as public schooling, but they are getting there. 

Well, what about specifically Christian education? That’s still not good enough for Dreher. He points out--with some justification--that Christian education is simply the standard subjects with “Jesus on top.” He has a point there. How do you “Christianly” teach the Pythagorean theorem? You can say you are “doing it for the glory of God,” but the formula didn’t change.

Well, what about homeschooling? He likes the idea. The problem, though, and this is a legitimate point, is that homeschooling isn’t for every student, it requires a certain level of discipline from the parent, and it requires both a two parent household and the ability to live on a single income.

Therefore, the only possible alternative left is the classical education model. There is a lot I like about the classical model, yet I don’t share the “it will save Western Civilization” mindset. Classical models begin--some, anyway--with the proper mindset to education. We shouldn’t ask of an education, “What can I do with it?” Rather, we should be aware of the inevitable question, “What will this education do to me?” Further, I like how in the humanities the classical model is better able to integrate Jesus and the Western tradition. Classical models correctly see education as transmitting virtue and wisdom.

In terms of history, writing, and literature the classical model is superb, far excelling the others. However, I have seen from personal experience, from a noted classical school, that when students get into some public and charter schools they are years behind in math. Granted, this probably depends more on student and teacher. I just see classical models as stronger on the humanities that STEM.

And that raises another issue: several key advantages of the classical model can be accomplished on one’s own. With a good library you can read the exact same classics. Bloom’s or Cambridge Companions can provide scholarly interaction with these sources. You can learn Latin on your own with youtube helps. Wheelock’s and many Catholic sources have great Latin helps. You don’t need a specific school for that. 

That raises another point. As is the case with seminary professors and Hebrew, how many of the students continue to read and translate Latin? Unless they continue it, what was the point? Sure, it gives them better verbal skills on tests and an entry into the Romance languages. But even in those languages, do they continue?

I like much about the classical model. I just have my reserves. I think its strengths often can be found elsewhere.

I understand how this book is popular. Dreher is a very good writer and he put his finger on numerous key problems. I think part of my frustration with the book is that he comes across as sloganeering and doesn’t always develop and analyze his own points. For example, he correctly notes that many Christian schools (and worldview talk in general) simply do the curriculum but say “It’s Jesus’s Curriculum,” which actually does nothing to change the pedagogy. That said, he doesn’t always explain how the Benedict Option integrates math and science in a Jesus-worldview without doing the same thing. 

Elsewhere, he makes many good points about the coming crisis that Christians will have to face, and how we might have to seek employment in ways that require us to work with our hands. To be honest, I like Dreher’s vision a lot more than the standard gentrification models of The Gospel Coalition. If read with a very critical eye, this book will get one thinking about possible future models of Christian existence.

Reactions: Like 5 | Informative 1


----------



## VictorBravo

BayouHuguenot said:


> It just seems like post-evangelicals are LARPing.



Thought-provoking review, Jacob. But what is "LARPing?"

I looked it up and came up with "live action role-playing."

I still don't know what that means. I assume it has to do with computer games?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

VictorBravo said:


> Thought-provoking review, Jacob. But what is "LARPing?"
> 
> I looked it up and came up with "live action role-playing."
> 
> I still don't know what that means. I assume it has to do with computer games?



It's basically playing pretend, like what Thoreau did at Walden Pond.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## hammondjones

BayouHuguenot said:


> Unless they continue it, what was the point?



I get that with Latin. My kids are doing a _very_ small amount of Latin. I expect it to go unused in their actual lives. 

In my mind, I liken it to learning binary representation in mathematics. You grow up and all you know is decimal, and it seems like that is all there is. But one day you start using base-2 or base-16 and you realize that number systems are much more general that you thought, and that base-10 is just one option. So, for me, part of education is going from the specific you know to the generalization. That is certainly a major theme in mathematics, anyway, which is my training. 

Similarly, with regards to language, English is just one language, and doesn't have all the other features of other languages (or it did and lost them). E.g., I didn't really understand indicative/subjunctive until I started learning Spanish. So, I think Latin can be a useful foil for learning English (we do this in English, but they do it this way in Latin), but in that the choice of Latin is somewhat arbitrary.


----------



## VictorBravo

BayouHuguenot said:


> It's basically playing pretend, like what Thoreau did at Walden Pond.


Ha! I read Thoreau when I was in high school and wanted to try the same thing. I kind of did it, in a Montana farming sort of way.

When I was 20 I visited Walden Pond outside of Concord MA and realized the truth of what you say.


----------



## RamistThomist

I like Latin. I mean, I really enjoy it. I love fun songs to memorize declensions. But in the truly classical models, the students _spoke _Latin to each other, so there's that. Since I mentioned it, this is one of the best videos on youtube.


----------



## hammondjones

BayouHuguenot said:


> But in the truly classical models, the students _spoke _Latin to each other, so there's that.



Oh, I see. I'm not familiar with that. Seems like a waste of time.


----------



## RamistThomist

hammondjones said:


> Oh, I see. I'm not familiar with that. Seems like a waste of time.



It does improve brain power and makes an easy transition to Spanish.


----------



## VictorBravo

hammondjones said:


> Oh, I see. I'm not familiar with that. Seems like a waste of time.





BayouHuguenot said:


> It does improve brain power and makes an easy transition to Spanish.



Not to mention that Latin is superior to and more useful than Esperanto.

Besides, it sounds like a geeky-fun thing to do.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

VictorBravo said:


> Not to mention that Latin is superior to and more useful than Esperanto.
> 
> Besides, it sounds like a geeky-fun thing to do.



I am not going to link it, but there is that legendary scene in Tombstone between Doc Holliday and Johnny Ringo.

Reactions: Like 3 | Amen 1


----------



## arapahoepark

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am not going to link it, but there is that legendary scene in Tombstone between Doc Holliday and Johnny Ringo.


In vino veritas!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## hammondjones

VictorBravo said:


> Not to mention that Latin is superior to and more useful than Esperanto.



William Shatner never did a movie in Latin, though. Point for Esperanto.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## LadyCalvinist

Jacob, I am curious. What do you think is the best educational model?


----------



## Andrew35

I too appreciate much about the classical model, but Latin is an overrated status symbol, at the grade school level. Most people I know who came out of that system find it kind of useless, and wish they could have spent that time and energy on a modern foreign language, which would carry many of the same cognitive benefits.

IB was a good system, but they're going woke, and were always humanistic anyway. Christian schools have always been weak at math and sciences, whether classical or no.

I tend to think much of the problem with Christian schools is the "worldview thinking" that's taken over. The best Christian School I taught at, that regularly won awards as the best private school on the region, didn't say a word about worldview in their entire curriculum, to my knowledge.

I see positive elements in traditional Catholic education, classical education, the (old) IB, and east asian education models. (In China I was told, "We're not really better at math. We just have better teaching methods.)

If we could synthesize the strengths of these systems, with teachers instructing who had deep knowledge of their subject matter, we could really have something special.

But that brings up another problem... We have to be honest: most teachers were not exactly at the top of their class. In the US at least, it's become a haven for underachievers, with many of the strongest quickly moving into administration.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## JM

I listened to the audio book and enjoyed it. Dreher's new book looks good to.


----------



## RamistThomist

LadyCalvinist said:


> Jacob, I am curious. What do you think is the best educational model?



Hybrid, probably. There is no one size fits all. We homeschooled my daughter until 3rd grade. It worked fine. It wouldn't for everybody, though. We then switched her to a generic private school for various and sundry reasons

I do like Dorothy Sayers' trivium method. I think there is something to that. 

As to the supposed Hebraic method of Deut 6, that's great for some subjects and only works for small classroom environments. Current pedagogy says students learn best when hands-on engaged. Or even a socratic dialogue. That might be true, but it only works for small (very small) classrooms.


----------



## ZackF

The Benedict Option (TBO) and Live Not By Lies (LNBL) are worth reading. The second book is better. It is more refined, helpful and not so in the clouds. In LNBL, Dreher has interviewed survivors of totalitarian regimes on how they kept their cultural and religious flames burning without giving off smoke signals and getting caught. Sometimes they got caught anyway and some were killed. 

I agree Jacob, education is challenging. We homeschool to give a Christian education but we understand we're blessed. We are able to live on my salary and my wife wanted to do it. She had no career ambitions once she married. We respect history and our ancestors. We are certainly influenced but not ruled by them. We have no interest in reenacting something in the past that will not prepare our children for living in this present age. 

There is indeed a thin line between intentional communities and intrusive compounds. It can get ugly quickly.

Reactions: Like 3 | Informative 1


----------



## Stephen L Smith

hammondjones said:


> I get that with Latin. My kids are doing a _very_ small amount of Latin. I expect it to go unused in their actual lives.





BayouHuguenot said:


> It does improve brain power and makes an easy transition to Spanish.





VictorBravo said:


> Not to mention that Latin is superior to and more useful than Esperanto.


The Swiss Canton of Grisons has Romansh as one of their official languages. Romansh is a descendant of Latin.


----------



## RamistThomist

I can no longer recommend Dreher after this. I categorically condemn his works and anything good he said, was said better by Richard Weaver and the like. I thought that for all his goofiness, he was better on freedom and tyranny than, say, Russell Moore or James K. A. Smith. He isn't. He is no different.

Reactions: Like 4 | Informative 1 | Sad 1


----------



## Susan777

Jacob, I’m glad you see this. Dreher has never been a conservative. His political principles have always been grounded in an old, worn liberalism. I used to read his stuff then I began to see how he would end up framing any particular argument with liberal presuppositions. I could respect him if he were a libertarian but his whiny “that’s not very nice” stuff eventually led me to drop him. I will give him this—he sure knows how to throw the red meat out to his audience. It’s a daily feast of outrage but I guess it’s what pays the bills.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen

I’m reading Live Not by Lies right now and have enjoyed it so far. I didn’t know about his other views though.


----------



## arapahoepark

BayouHuguenot said:


> I can no longer recommend Dreher after this. I categorically condemn his works and anything good he said, was said better by Richard Weaver and the like. I thought that for all his goofiness, he was better on freedom and tyranny than, say, Russell Moore or James K. A. Smith. He isn't. He is no different.
> View attachment 7688





Susan777 said:


> Jacob, I’m glad you see this. Dreher has never been a conservative. His political principles have always been grounded in an old, worn liberalism. I used to read his stuff then I began to see how he would end up framing any particular argument with liberal presuppositions. I could respect him if he were a libertarian but his whiny “that’s not very nice” stuff eventually led me to drop him. I will give him this—he sure knows how to throw the red meat out to his audience. It’s a daily feast of outrage but I guess it’s what pays the bills.


Admittedly, I have read little of him aside from the occasional article which, if I recall, I seemed to mostly agree with. I can't remember what about though. I was planning to read his Live not By Lies until this.
Can you elaborate on his views still being tinged with liberalism (aside from the obviously bizarre tweet)?


----------



## JM

It has been my experience that American Orthodox Christians are liberal. Dreher, to me, is like a Jordan Peterson. More popular than he really deserves but he does have a few good ideas.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777

arapahoepark said:


> Admittedly, I have read little of him aside from the occasional article which, if I recall, I seemed to mostly agree with. I can't remember what about though. I was planning to read his Live not By Lies until this.
> Can you elaborate on his views still being tinged with liberalism (aside from the obviously bizarre tweet)?


I read the book and it’s worth the read although it’s somewhat slow moving. It’s as if he really didn’t have quite enough material so he stretched out some of it at the end to come up with the needed word count. I can’t elaborate with specifics about his non- conservative instincts. They were just my impressions over the years I read him. Actually, he reminds me of George Bush.


----------



## Pilgrim

BayouHuguenot said:


> I can no longer recommend Dreher after this. I categorically condemn his works and anything good he said, was said better by Richard Weaver and the like. I thought that for all his goofiness, he was better on freedom and tyranny than, say, Russell Moore or James K. A. Smith. He isn't. He is no different.
> View attachment 7688


LOL. He deleted the post. He's a whole lot better than Moore and Smith. But the thing is, who is Aitken and why should we regard him and what works he condemns and endorses? Evidently he's some guy who wishes he had been there to bust into the Capitol with the rest of the goons. (That's the context of that post. That's where those people were coming from.)

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Timmay

BayouHuguenot said:


> I can no longer recommend Dreher after this. I categorically condemn his works and anything good he said, was said better by Richard Weaver and the like. I thought that for all his goofiness, he was better on freedom and tyranny than, say, Russell Moore or James K. A. Smith. He isn't. He is no different.
> View attachment 7688



In fairness he deleted that tweet and apologized for it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

He deleted it because he was getting negative backlash. That's not exactly contrition.

True, I am a nobody compared to Dreher. that's fine. Still, people do take my recommendations seriously, which is why I can no longer recommed Dreher.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## J.L. Allen

BayouHuguenot said:


> He deleted it because he was getting negative backlash. That's not exactly contrition.
> 
> True, I am a nobody compared to Dreher. that's fine. Still, people do take my recommendations seriously, which is why I can no longer recommed Dreher.


Thank you for working through it. I’ll finish LNBL and take what is helpful. There are several people I find to be something of a broken clock; they are right twice a day.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob said in the OP (re TBO), "If read with a very critical eye, this book will get one thinking about possible future models of Christian existence."

And that's true. I had some trouble discerning if Rod was a regenerated person – given some of the "spiritual" things he spoke of – and should I take him as such. I did not come to a solid conclusion, which is perhaps wise when seeking to assess a fellow professing believer's state.

With respect to "possible future models of Christian existence", and the "thickening" of community – giving it spiritual robustness and depth – through catechizing its members, particularly the youths and children, so that they actually know what the church believes and cleaves to, this was sound.

So many in churches today may be members, but they are not solid in faith, knowledge, and "living it out". So I sought to understand how such a vision of Christian community could be developed in the context of some smallish (approx 100 members / attendees) local churches I knew well. I'm still pondering it.

I'm also looking into the "house church" movement, as there are some in my area. I am wary, though, of any sort of Christian community where there is no preaching by an anointed, knowledgable, seasoned servant of Christ. This sort of preaching has been *the* hallmark – the single most important thing – of the Reformation's contribution to the church being organized and run according to God's word.

So, I am still pondering how the church will best be "organized and run" when we are delegitimized, disenfranchised, and possibly criminalized when our cultural and political adversaries get the power to do such. When our tax exemptions are rescinded, and who we are allowed to hire as staff – including ministers – will have to conform to state codes alien to the faith, and so forth. In short, "possible future models of Christian existence". This is what we need to be thinking about, that we not be taken by surprise, and blindsided.

Mod: this thread might be better moved to the coffee shop forum, and not public.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

I am weary of house church movements because it sounds too much like Doug Phillips and Rushdoony. The father acts as prophet, priest, and king. Really creepy stuff.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## py3ak

Pilgrim said:


> who is Aitken and why should we regard him and what works he condemns and endorses


Who is Dreher and why should we care what he writes? Or, for that matter, who is Poe and why should we care what he likes or dislikes?

If this had been a serious question, the answer would be the quality of his work. If he assimilates good information and makes reasoned and thoughtful points on it, that is of value no matter what else is true about him.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Susan777

Well who is Aiken and who is Poe? Oh, never mind.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

The Benedict Arnold Option = Let's turn our back on trying to transform the world and hide away.

I think we need to be MORE involved in all areas of life and not less. Especially politics.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## RamistThomist

The irony here is that I am generally skeptical about how much good some spunky worldview Christians can do in politics. You aren't going to take down the deep state. Dreher just wants to friendly up to the Deep State so that they spare him in the purge.


----------



## Pergamum

BayouHuguenot said:


> The irony here is that I am generally skeptical about how much good some spunky worldview Christians can do in politics. You aren't going to take down the deep state. Dreher just wants to friendly up to the Deep State so that they spare him in the purge.


Christianity triumphed over Rome and the Germanic Tribes and the Norse. Why not triumph over the Jewish Bankers and Lizard people, too?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Jerusalem Blade

Jacob, re your post #30, I can appreciate your weariness of past abuses & failures, but what are we going do – i.e., how gather – when we can no longer do so in traditional meetings in church buildings (if you can envision that coming – and I _can_)?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## J.L. Allen

The biblical governance of the Presbyterian model works quite well with house churches. No need to have men unqualified for ministry. Let them that are called be ordained. Train them, lay hands upon them, support them. Presbyteries become neighborhoods and towns instead of entire regions. Services consist of a few families meeting at houses that can accommodate them. This is very much how it was in the apostolic age and just beyond.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> Christianity triumphed over Rome and the Germanic Tribes and the Norse. Why not triumph over the Jewish Bankers and Lizard people, too?



You won't do it by getting elected to office. That was my point.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Jerusalem Blade said:


> Jacob, re your post #30, I can appreciate your weariness of past abuses & failures, but what are we going do – i.e., how gather – when we can no longer do so in traditional meetings in church buildings (if you can envision that coming – and I _can_)?



It needs to be strictly regulated by church courts, otherwise it is only a (sometimes literal) breeding ground for abuses.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Andrew35

Pergamum said:


> Christianity triumphed over Rome and the Germanic Tribes and the Norse. Why not triumph over the Jewish Bankers and Lizard people, too?



Or, how about we turn the Jews against the Lizard people?

https://tenor.com/p3im.gif

No... that doesn't work so well, does it?


----------



## RamistThomist

This might put me in the minority, but I believe we live in the final days of prophecy. We aren't going to be taking back society.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

Pergamum said:


> The Benedict Arnold Option = Let's turn our back on trying to transform the world and hide away.
> 
> I think we need to be MORE involved in all areas of life and not less. Especially politics.



It is literally not possible to be more involved in politics than evangelicals as a whole have been in the last 40 years. 

If you haven’t been privy to ministries who basically teach that you need to “get saved,” vote Republican and maybe don’t imbibe, and don’t really teach or emphasize anything else other than donating, you need to get out more. That by far has been the practice of most evangelical churches, where “discipleship” of the youth tends to equate to pale imitations of worldly entertainment, abstinence and voting Republican. Not that voting Republican is wrong! But there has been an outsized emphasis on it, with the idea among far too many being that everything will be OK if we just get the right people into office. 

Now that the ballot box seems to have failed at a time in which fundamental freedoms are at risk, you see what you saw at the Capitol last week. I doubt that’s the last we’ll see of it. All that is going to do is hasten the loss of those freedoms. And more people than I would have expected are defending it. I’m in a FB group where Reformed ministers are equating those goons with the Founding Fathers. 

The QAnon cult seems to be sweeping through the churches. I know at least one RB pastor who has been promoting it for about a year or maybe more. My FB feed is filled with it. And by and large these are people who seemed sane and more or less sound a few years ago. 

Perhaps the biggest problem is that Christians have largely been trying to fight a culture war at the ballot box. That’s way too late in the process. It’s also why nothing really seems to change even though Republicans win elections. There should have been much more of an emphasis infiltrating academia and related things 40-50 years ago. And even constitutional law, which is dominated on the “conservative” side by libertarians (think Gorsuch, whose betrayal was as bad as Roe and Griswold) and Catholics, many of whom aren’t really that conservative. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Reactions: Amen 2


----------



## Taylor

Pilgrim said:


> Perhaps the biggest problem is that Christians have largely been trying to fight a culture war at the ballot box. That’s way too late in the process.


It's also too _high_ in the process. Culture is "won" or "taken back" in the family. Yes, voting matters. Being involved in local politics also matters. But a republic only works with a moral (i.e., _Christian_) populace, and that begins in the family.

Reactions: Like 6 | Amen 2


----------



## Pilgrim

py3ak said:


> Who is Dreher and why should we care what he writes? Or, for that matter, who is Poe and why should we care what he likes or dislikes?
> 
> If this had been a serious question, the answer would be the quality of his work. If he assimilates good information and makes reasoned and thoughtful points on it, that is of value no matter what else is true about him.





py3ak said:


> Who is Dreher and why should we care what he writes? Or, for that matter, who is Poe and why should we care what he likes or dislikes?
> 
> If this had been a serious question, the answer would be the quality of his work. If he assimilates good information and makes reasoned and thoughtful points on it, that is of value no matter what else is true about him.



Sure. But I don’t post about lizard people and Hollywood elites harvesting adrenochrome, which is one of the cornerstones of the QAnon cult. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim said:


> It is literally not possible to be more involved in politics than evangelicals as a whole have been in the last 40 years.
> 
> If you haven’t been privy to ministries who basically teach that you need to “get saved,” vote Republican and maybe don’t imbibe, and don’t really teach or emphasize anything else other than donating, you need to get out more. That by far has been the practice of most evangelical churches, where “discipleship” of the youth tends to equate to pale imitations of worldly entertainment, abstinence and voting Republican. Not that voting Republican is wrong! But there has been an outsized emphasis on it, with the idea among far too many being that everything will be OK if we just get the right people into office.
> 
> Now that the ballot box seems to have failed at a time in which fundamental freedoms are at risk, you see what you saw at the Capitol last week. I doubt that’s the last we’ll see of it. All that is going to do is hasten the loss of those freedoms. And more people than I would have expected are defending it. I’m in a FB group where Reformed ministers are equating those goons with the Founding Fathers.
> 
> The QAnon cult seems to be sweeping through the churches. I know at least one RB pastor who has been promoting it for about a year or maybe more. My FB feed is filled with it. And by and large these are people who seemed sane and more or less sound a few years ago.
> 
> Perhaps the biggest problem is that Christians have largely been trying to fight a culture war at the ballot box. That’s way too late in the process. It’s also why nothing really seems to change even though Republicans win elections. There should have been much more of an emphasis infiltrating academia and related things 40-50 years ago. And even constitutional law, which is dominated on the “conservative” side by libertarians (think Gorsuch, whose betrayal was as bad as Roe and Griswold) and Catholics, many of whom aren’t really that conservative.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Sure, we could both work harder and smarter.


----------



## Pergamum

Pilgrim said:


> Sure. But I don’t post about lizard people and Hollywood elites harvesting adrenochrome, which is one of the cornerstones of the QAnon cult.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


The Reptilians want you to doubt. That is how they capture and harvest your children for adenochrome.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Pergamum

BayouHuguenot said:


> You won't do it by getting elected to office. That was my point.


Wilberforce helped stop the slave trade by being in office.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

Pergamum said:


> Wilberforce helped stop the slave trade by being in office.



True. I don't think we will outvote the Lizard people. Remember, it's who counts the votes. That's why voting is now seen for the farce it is.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> Sure. But I don’t post about lizard people and Hollywood elites harvesting adrenochrome, which is one of the cornerstones of the QAnon cult.



I was thinking the elites were harvesting adrenochrome long before QAnon came on the scene. To be sure, I think what we call "lizard people" are demonic entities (the Nachash) in skin suits. Their control over the government is indirect.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## ZackF

Pergamum said:


> Wilberforce helped stop the slave trade by being in office.


While true, it came about after decades. His office was a vehicle to make contacts and gain a platform to change minds. I don’t see that much today.


----------



## JM

BayouHuguenot said:


> True. I don't think we will outvote the Lizard people. Remember, it's who counts the votes. That's why voting is now seen for the farce it is.









I think we've listened to/read the same podcasts/blogs lol

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pergamum

ZackF said:


> While true, it came about after decades. His office was a vehicle to make contacts and gain a platform to change minds. I don’t see that much today.


Some of these folks have been in Congress 40 years. Is that not enough time to make a difference?


----------



## ZackF

Pergamum said:


> Some of these folks have been in Congress 40 years. Is that not enough time to make a difference?


That my point. Wilberforce wasn’t an empty suit. He was a believer and had a mission while at the same time knew change would be a plod.


----------



## py3ak

Pilgrim said:


> Sure. But I don’t post about lizard people and Hollywood elites harvesting adrenochrome, which is one of the cornerstones of the QAnon cult.


I understand. Dead flies make ointment stink, and not everyone successfully resists the sweet siren song of Dale Gribble. But questions of prestige and respectability should not be confused with questions of truth and accuracy.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## VictorBravo

py3ak said:


> and not everyone successfully resists the sweet siren song of Dale Gribble


And I have learned, Ruben, that I am hopelessly ill-equipped to engage "culture."

Once again I had to google something to know what is talked about. And, no doubt, once again Google has added to my "clueless" dossier.

Oh--I stand corrected. It was Bing that I used for searching.


----------



## py3ak

VictorBravo said:


> It was Bing that I used for searching.


There is no wrong way to encounter the greatness of one of our most significant archetypes.


----------



## Puritan Sailor

ZackF said:


> That my point. Wilberforce wasn’t an empty suit. He was a believer and had a mission while at the same time knew change would be a plod.


I don't want to belittle the accomplishments of Wilberforce at all, but he lived in a different time, when Christian morality was still the predominant moral consensus of the culture, and his call to consistent treatment of those made in God's image still resonated with enough people to make a difference. We don't have that moral consensus or worldview anymore. At best, we may find some political cobelligerents with those who still believe in a universal moral standard and definition of human nature (i.e. Islam, Judaism, Mormons, etc.). But the anti-Christian left has no common ground to work with here at all. They have an a priori presupposition that Christianity is oppressive and white supremacist, and therefore must be silenced without dialogue. That worldview is completely irrational nonsense, driven by strong emotion, but it's still there, and they control the reigns of power now (government, education, media...). Pretty soon, it won't matter if you get elected to office. If you don't pass their litmus test, you will be removed from office. Sadly, the Marxists have been more effective at making disciples than the Church has been lately. We need to rethink our engagement strategy for now. I think Dreher (in his Live Not By Lies) at least is asking the right sort of questions, even if we may not agree with all his answers. How does the church hold together, stay on task, and effectively resist until this "progressive" storm has self-destructed like the other oppressive regimes of the past? Learning from Christians who suffered under communism is certainly a good place to start. Just thinking out loud. Certainly open to feedback from others here.

Reactions: Like 10


----------



## Pilgrim

Puritan Sailor said:


> I think Dreher (in his Live Not By Lies) at least is asking the right sort of questions, even if we may not agree with all his answers. How does the church hold together, stay on task, and effectively resist until this "progressive" storm has self-destructed like the other oppressive regimes of the past? Learning from Christians who suffered under communism is certainly a good place to start. Just thinking out loud. Certainly open to feedback from others here.



I agree. People don't like one or two of his answers (I doubt anyone likes them all) or don't like something he tweets or blogs and just want to dismiss him altogether. He's also not guilty of being some kind of neo-anabaptist and doesn't counsel some kind of total withdrawal from the public square. As I understand it (and he isn't real clear at times on the BenOp, and I think some of it is probably wrong) he is mainly calling for a change in emphasis, arguing that too much hope has been put into political activism while professing Christians of all types are often blind to how the culture and technology is affecting their kids, how spiritual formation or discipleship or whatever is often non-existent.

As seen with a post above, he'd be better off to keep his thoughts to himself at times, but, for better or worse, putting so many of his thoughts out there (including all of the info on his family--something I'd never do) is how he has gotten all of his book contracts except maybe for the first one. And he's developed this niche where professors and others who are in the "closet" send him info on the latest outrage in academia or the corporate world. I wouldn't be surprised if others were warning of a social credit system coming to the USA, but I'm not aware of them.

I think he might not actually be pessimistic enough when it comes to saying that it will only be "soft totalitarianism" rather than the more familiar "hard totalitarianism" as seen in the USSR, Nazi Germany, and Red China. But with all of the surveillance and "woke capitalism" and academia etc in concert with the state, it may not be necessary. (With the social credit system, China is not going to have to resort to the methods of the 1960s either.) After the Capitol "riot" or whatever you want to call it, Dems, including the types who ended up decrying the Patriot Act, are going to push for increased surveillance and other crackdowns. This is despite the fact that some of the offenders had openly posted what they had in mind. With a social credit system, a lot of people are going to get the idea without having to go to a gulag or reeducation camp.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Pilgrim

Here's a good interview he just did with a former Army Lt. Col. who is also Eastern Orthodox. Even though they are both EO, this is good with regard to various devices spying on you, etc. and how you can try to minimize that. It's something that I've been thinking of recently. Big Brother is indeed watching, and in ways that many of us might not recognize. (Despite all the wrong they do, the reporting of NYT and WaPo has been pretty good on tech and privacy.)









How To Prepare For Coming Crackdown - The American Conservative


Real-world advice from former military intel officer who says it's not paranoia, but prudence




www.theamericanconservative.com





This one is good too.









America's Woke Elite Monoculture - The American Conservative


The temptation for ambitious minds captive to American ideals of success to conform -- and to lie to themselves about it




www.theamericanconservative.com


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> Here's a good interview he just did with a former Army Lt. Col. who is also Eastern Orthodox. Even though they are both EO, this is good with regard to various devices spying on you, etc. and how you can try to minimize that. It's something that I've been thinking of recently. Big Brother is indeed watching, and in ways that many of us might not recognize. (Despite all the wrong they do, the reporting of NYT and WaPo has been pretty good on tech and privacy.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How To Prepare For Coming Crackdown - The American Conservative
> 
> 
> Real-world advice from former military intel officer who says it's not paranoia, but prudence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This one is good too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> America's Woke Elite Monoculture - The American Conservative
> 
> 
> The temptation for ambitious minds captive to American ideals of success to conform -- and to lie to themselves about it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.theamericanconservative.com



As much as it pains me to say it, I agree. It isn't simply Woke Commies any more. Both socialism and aspects of a market economy have merged with Big Tech

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## TylerRay

I grew up on a street where I was related to more than half of the people living there. My great, great grandfather owned all of that land, and it was subdivided between his children (he had 12) and grandchildren over time. I have thought of trying to emulate his example in the interest of planting a natural Christian community over the course of a couple of generations. Obviously, it would be necessary to have a church nearby, and possibly a school. @BayouHuguenot, do you think that the natural development of such a community would keep it from many of the common pitfalls of "intentional communities?"

The goal would be the preservation of a Reformed heritage, similar to the way that the people belonging to the NRC and FRCNA churches have been able to preserve their distinctiveness without absolutely cloistering.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist

TylerRay said:


> @BayouHuguenot, do you think that the natural development of such a community would keep it from many of the common pitfalls of "intentional communities?"



It is certainly better. There are pros and cons. If not watched, it could quickly develop the traits of a tribal community, but I don't think that is necessary.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Pilgrim

BayouHuguenot said:


> As much as it pains me to say it, I agree. It isn't simply Woke Commies any more. Both socialism and aspects of a market economy have merged with Big Tech


As much as it pains me to say it, I agree with Gary North that "socialism" (or Marxism) isn't what we're dealing with. Unless the government owns the means of production, it isn't socialism. I'm not sure if there is anyone in national office today who can really be said to be a socialist. Not even Elizabeth Warren is a real socialist. That probably goes for Bernie too, even though he has identified as one for years. Warren is a capitalist who favors more regulation and a strong welfare state. If someone were to tell me that the UK after WWII (where the gov't owned the means of production in some industries, if I'm not mistaken) was more socialist than the Scandinavian countries are, I wouldn't be shocked. (That said, I wonder if North missed the local official in Seattle or somewhere else out west who said something like "We want nothing less than full communism" a few years ago.)

Woke capitalism is the much bigger threat. Wall Street has their man in the White House. We see that the hedge funds reasserted their control yesterday with Game Stop (where what amounts to a populist uprising was causing them to lose millions) and at least in the short run aren't real concerned with repercussions. They aren't real worried about socialism. But most of them are all for caving into wokeism even if they aren't woke themselves. A socialist or Marxist millionaire is a contradiction. 

Who you've got to worry about is the 22 year recent grad working in HR who is looking to ferret out "whiteness" and "hate speech" and "transphobia" etc. Many older people who suspect that's wrong will remain quiet lest they get lumped in with the deplorables. It was happening before, but this merger of capitalism and wokeness came to the forefront with RFRA in Indiana where the government was forced to do an about face, the bathroom bill in NC, and any other time when something like that is proposed. Why did the corporations used to listen to the American Family Association? Because they were afraid they'd lose money if they didn't. It's the same reason why they bow down to the Human Rights Campaign now. Plus, most of them probably agree a whole lot more with the HRC than they ever did with the AFA.


----------



## Charles Johnson

BayouHuguenot said:


> I am weary of house church movements because it sounds too much like Doug Phillips and Rushdoony. The father acts as prophet, priest, and king. Really creepy stuff.


Doesn't Beeke also say that fathers act as a prophet, priest, and king? Maybe others take it too far, but Beeke strikes me as quite grounded.


----------



## RamistThomist

Charles Johnson said:


> Doesn't Beeke also say that fathers act as a prophet, priest, and king? Maybe others take it too far, but Beeke strikes me as quite grounded.



I know some of his associates in the Family Integrated Church movement say that, which I find very disturbing.


----------



## Charles Johnson

BayouHuguenot said:


> I know some of his associates in the Family Integrated Church movement say that, which I find very disturbing.


And if he just means that a father governs his house (king), teaches his family (prophet), and prays for them (priest)? Certainly I don't think a father should be an autocrat, a Joseph Smith, or an Aaronic priest, but can't these words be understood in a sound way?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## arapahoepark

Charles Johnson said:


> And if he just means that a father governs his house (king), teaches his family (prophet), and prays for them (priest)? Certainly I don't think a father should be an autocrat, a Joseph Smith, or an Aaronic priest, but can't these words be understood in a sound way?


I think the terms would carry too much qualification.


----------



## RamistThomist

Charles Johnson said:


> And if he just means that a father governs his house (king), teaches his family (prophet), and prays for them (priest)? Certainly I don't think a father should be an autocrat, a Joseph Smith, or an Aaronic priest, but can't these words be understood in a sound way?



Intellectually, they can be distinguished and made to sound okay. Given the track record of guys like Scott Brown, Phillips, RCjr, and the like, I am still wary. A priest mediates. Pastors can pray (still wrong for a father to be the pastor), but a priest mediates.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF

BayouHuguenot said:


> Intellectually, they can be distinguished and made to sound okay. Given the track record of guys like Scott Brown, Phillips, RCjr, and the like, I am still wary. A priest mediates. Pastors can pray (still wrong for a father to be the pastor), but a priest mediates.


We, any Christian, can intercede but not in the way a priest does. We all are priest prophet and king in that sense.


----------



## Pilgrim

I can't remember if the father as prophet, priest, and king (or even simply the father as priest) was discussed on this thread or another recent one. As others have said, it seems that older writers may have used this terminology as an analogy whereas more later writers are taking it pretty literally. The result is that there are husbands who literally think that they will give an account to God for their wife's relationship toward God (her sanctification if not justification) and things like that.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist

Pilgrim said:


> I can't remember if the father as prophet, priest, and king (or even simply the father as priest) was discussed on this thread or another recent one. As others have said, it seems that older writers may have used this terminology as an analogy whereas more later writers are taking it pretty literally. The result is that there are husbands who literally think that they will give an account to God for their wife's relationship toward God (her sanctification if not justification) and things like that.



You summarized it perfectly.


----------

