Wrap up on Wilson

I haven’t posted anything on the Doug Wilson rape/sex scandal in a while.  Most of his groupies will die for him and are beyond all reasonable means of persuasion.  Still, facts and analysis being what they are, this by far is the most penetrating set of critiques of the Moscow, ID theology.

Wrap on Wilson

I’ve added it to the side link page.

Perennialism and Cthonic forces

Although I had tended to see Julius Evola as something of a pagan, he did make some good points on “mysticism.”  One of the most dangerous things one can do is “open yourself to the beyond,” or let your reason go.  This opens the self to “cthonic forces.” This isn’t good.  It is descending to the lower levels.  You become less god-like and more bestial.

This sheds some light on demon possession.

This also explains a problem that arose in the 4th Political Theory.  Unlike the racist Western liberal, we believe each culture has its own Dasein, its mode of existing that doesn’t have to be determined by NATO and the World Bank.  Since each culture is finite and no one has a God’s-eye view on history, then there is a legitimate motion in each culture.

So far so good, but here are some problems.  What about widow-immolation in Hindu India?  What about female circumcision in Muslim Africa?  Is not our revulsion and, yea moral duty to stop it a form of Western hegemony?

Maybe.  But it doesn’t have to be Western hegemony.  Ancient Israel, by no means a Western Enlightenment outpost, condemned similar practices.  Whether Ba’al was a hypostasized god is beside the point. Those who worshiped him descended to cthonic levels and were violently opposed by the prophets.

One can probably find similar actions in other ancient societies.  So Perennialism offers a model of opposing cthonic practices but not from a standpoint of Western Liberalism.

The recons flee defeated on Christology

Here’s the context behind my recent post on Rushdoony.  I participated on a facebook thread where several kinist-reconstructionists were attacking Eastern Orthodoxy.  That put me in an odd decision, for I, too, have criticized EO.  But their arguments were just bad.  Like if people used these in a debate with a formidable EO apologist, they would get massacred and people would probably leave (rightly) for EO.

So I went to play Devil’s Advocate.  I did this for several reasons. Outside of selected texts from Rushdoony and Van Til, recons read little to nothing outside their own tradition. And also given the current evangelical debacle on the Trinity, I want to show that we should spend more time on Patristics questions than getting angry about big gubbment. So I asked the question:

Isn’t Rushdoony a Nestorian because he separated the flesh of Christ from the worship due to the Divine Person?

Correct Answer: Yes.  Rushdoony said that and Ephesus condemned that.

And this point there answers revolved around several charges:

  1. You are a monophysite for accusing us of nestorianism.
  2. Rushdoony didn’t say there were two dudes in Jesus.
  3. Nestorius didn’t really believe that because Harold OJ Brown said he didn’t.
  4. If you disagree with (3) then that’s just your opinion.

I’m just glad it was me and not Jay Dyer or Perry Robinson.  It would have been a massacre of colossal proportions.  So let’s look at the charges.

~1. I asked them repeatedly to prove where I mixed the two natures of Christ.  No answer.
~2. Never said he did, but that’s not the problem with Nestorianism. Until John Robbins and Gordon Clark, no one thought Nestorius posited two dudes in Jesus.
~3. Brown was a great guy and a fine ethicist.  He just wasn’t a patristic scholar and the guys I referenced (McGuckin et al) have read the original texts from Nestorius and Theodore of Mopsuestia.  Nestorianism posits two acting agents in Jesus.  Not two dudes in Jesus.  It also separates the Person of Jesus, which is what Cyril condemned and what Rushdoony did.
~4. So I asked them to show where my reading of Nestorian sources was wrong and why a non-specialist has them right.  No answer.

So here is what the debate looked like:

Jacob Aitken Okay, tired of defense. Now on the offense: Did Rushdoony worship Nestorian Jesus?

Recon 1: No. Jesus died in His Manhood, not His Godhood. Just like He slept in His Manhood, but not in Godhood.

Jacob Aitken But did not Rushdoony say that you must separate the flesh of Christ from his deity? He writes,


<<But the Council made it clear that only God could be worshipped; not even Christ’s humanity could be worshipped, but only His deity. The humanity of Christ is not nor ever could be deified” (Foundations, 41).>>


This is precisely what the 3rd Council rejected, as Cyril notes., “he Only-begotten Son, to be honored with one-adoration together with his own flesh.”” Rushdoony unwittingly quoted this on p. 40. But even Berkhof cndemns Rushdoony (not by name) on this point. This means that the human nature of Christ, from the very first moment of its existence, was adorned with all kinds of rich gifts, as for instance…the grace and glory of being united to the dinive nature of the Logos, also called the gratia emenentiae, by which the human nature is elevated high above all creatures, and even becomes an object of adoration…[that’s deification, as we say] (p. 324)

Recon 2.. have you read Harold O. J. Brown’s “Heresies?” He offers a different take on Nestorianism.

Jacob Aitken. Long ago. Prof Brown was my ethics prof. I understand what he is getting at, but the modern understanding of what Nestorius taught is fairly well established. He believed in two-acting subjects in the incarnation. Cyril and the Christian faith believed in one acting agent.

Recon 1. Did Jesus sleep in His Godhood?

Jacob Aitken Question doesn’t make sense. The divine person slept. You can’t abstract the natures, which is what Rushdoony did. And for what it is worth, that’s also Reformed Christology, too.

Recon 2: I think charges of Nestorianism are going to be forever the complaint of those who nestle in Eutychianism.  And Brown tells us that Nestorious was falsely charged though some of his followers may have been guilty of the charge.

Jacob Aitken And with all due respect to my professor, he is incorrect. Nestorius taught two acting agents in the Incarnation. He held that the hypostasis was the synthesis of two prosopa.

Recon 2: Says you. I’ll stick with Brown’s assessment.

Me: Well, it is what every scholar on NEstorius and Cyril says. I don’t know what else to tell you. Brown was a genius at ethics but he is no Patristics scholar. That doesn’t mean the scholars are right. But if someone labors hard in Syriac and such,t hen they probably are.

Recon 2Shrug ^ … you don’t come to truth by counting “scholar” noses.

Jacob Aitken No, but by examining the documents, which is what McGuckin et al have done.

Recon 2: Come on … I shouldn’t even have to type this. Scholars differ and disagree upon examining the texts. It’s why this game is so fun.

Jacob And if you can point out where McGuckin and Fairbairn interpreted the texts incorrectly, and where Brown interpreted the same texts correctly, then I’m open to revision.

Recon 2 I’ll get right on that. Nothing else on my calendar except to rescue a facebook thread.

Jacob: rescue the thread or don’t. You are the one that asserted something. You can back it up or not.

Recon 3:  Jacob: aye, but there is a direct correlation in your wavering between Eutychianism and Reformed theology. Perhaps you can’t perceive it, but it is there. Has much learning made thee mad?

MeWEll, then point it out to me. Because I don’t see you really keeping up with te arguments. Where have I posited a mixing of the natures? Be specific.

Recon 3You might be surprised, but this thread isn’t all I had planned for today. Trying to multitask a bit here. Hyperfocused individuals aren’t the most productive ones, I’ve noticed.

MeYou are the one that accused me of flirting with a heresy.

Recon 3Yeah, well, reading 1,000 books a month, a body has a tendency to float in between doctrines. Ever read Lovecraft? Most of his protagonists were destroyed by their lust for knowledge as well.

Jacob Aitken So I take it you can’t back up your insinuations?

Recon 3Hey, you were the one who came on this thread as an EO apologist, Jacob. If the shoe fits…

JacobSo, no, then?

The rest of the debate is glossing WCF 8, but doesn’t add anything new to the discussion.

On the Russian evangelism law

I find myself in an odd position.  I am in the reformational tradition (though I am not a 5 Point Calvinist) yet in the internet world I am known as a Russian supporter.  So what do I make of Russia’s new law to forbid evangelizing outside of church?  Sounds Draconian, right?  Here are my thoughts:

  1. I don’t think it was entirely necessary.  Russian Orthodox have little to fear from low-church evangelicals.  Historically, Russia has been ham-handed and incompetent in its dealings with counter-religious movements.
  2. Something like this law has been on the books for years.
  3. Scientology is a big-time CIA front, and this law is primarily designed at shutting down Scientology (which is illegal in Germany, btw).
  4. No country, even in our enlightened West, grants full religious liberty to its people.  In America a church has two options:  register with the IRS and get tax exempt status, or pay taxes.  If you choose the latter, you have a degree of freedom.  You can criticize politicians during election season and you won’t have to marry gays in 2018 (yeah, it’s coming but keep attacking Russia for taking away freedom).  If you choose the former you are tax exempt but fundamentally neutered on politics.

Charlie Daniels and the CREC Scandal

Read this and weep.

If you still support Doug Wilson, then repent.  Something about Jesus saying if you cause these little ones to stumble, then go to hell.

Charlie Daniels had said that the lowest form of animal life on this planet is a child molester. The second lowest is church leaders who protect them.

“As far as I’m concerned there ain’t excuse
For the rapin and the killin and the child abuse
I got a way to put an end to all that fast.
Just take them rascals out in the swamp
Put em on their knees and tie em to a stump
And Let the rattlers and the bugs and the alligators do the rest.”


And this is also the most perfect example of Southern “swamp” music.

Update on Wight-Wilson police report

This buries the Wilsonista case.  Wilson’s disciples tell me, “But you don’t know the whole story,” to which I reply, “Bulls*&%.  I do.”

Confession and Court Records.

Key excerpts:

Jamin Wight Contradicts Doug Wilson
Jamin Wight contradicts Doug Wilson on two key points:

  1. Jamin Wight states that he “was asked to move in with the Greenfields (February 2001) and have his room and board paid for in trade for working around the home”; whereas Doug Wilson claims the Greenfields “had bizarrely brought Jamin into the house as a boarder so that he could conduct a secret courtship with Natalie.” (Doug Wilson’s ‘Reluctant Response’)
  1. Jamin Wight states that the Greenfields forbade him from holding hands with Natalie: “the first time they ‘broke the rules’ . . . they held hands. . .”; whereas Doug Wilson claims “her parents permitted a certain measure of physical affection to exist between them (e.g. hand-holding).” (Doug Wilson’s ‘Reluctant Response’)

The 31-page police report contains no exculpatory evidence or testimony on behalf of Jamin Wight. The entire document — with the exception of Doug Wilson’s two-page letter — affirms Mr. Wight’s guilt in the matter of sexually abusing a minor. Mr. Wight admits his guilt several times in unequivocal terms.

An addendum to Neo-Jovinianism

Last year during the uproar on one of the many, many Doug Wilson scandals, I wrote “Against the Neo-Jovinians” where I argued that a semi-monastic life of disciplined ascetism is a better cure for pedophiles than, say, marrying them off so they can have more babies to abuse. I suggested that the pedophile should go live with some cranky monks for about 30 years to burn away the garbage.

I stand by that as common sense.  In one facebook debate a key Wilsonite pointed out that many monasteries suffered from sodomy.  And that’s true.  So I need to clarify what I meant.  When I said person x should go life with some monks, I didn’t mean in a communal, coenibitic monastery with a bunch of Wilsonites his own age.  That certainly is a recipe for disaster.

No, I meant something along the lines of going to life with five or six older (50 years +) men who can guide him.