Some of the home schooling crowd in the US, loosely based around Vision Forum is in an uproar with accusations, threats and hacks on their blogs.
Vision Forum is a reconstructionist site run by Doug Phillips, the son of Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party.
The spat appears to have started at a church called Boerne Christian Assembly which is run by Doug Phillips of Vision Forum. It involves a couple who met in the military, married and eventually settled in Texas where they got involved with Phillips church.
JemsGems is the blog of Jen Epstein who, along with her husband Mark, are the focus of this dispute which appears to have begun about two years ago. Boerne Christian Assembly is independent and not under the authority of any denomination. The Epsteins apparently blogged about what occurred, others got involved.
Vision Forum also claims to have been under anonymous attack in November and December.
The Epsteins were excommunicated from Phillips church, banned from Vision Forum premises and now go to a Presbyterian church. Under the recent direction of the session of Elders they have pulled just about everything regarding Boerne Christian Assembly and Vision Forum off JensGems in an attempt to facilitate reconciliation. That might be difficult since Vision Forum is a business and Boerne Christian Assembly is not under Presbyterian jurisdiction. Â
As Jen writes, when things began, they were looking for the perfect church and thought they had found it.
Meantime, the larger controversy seems to continue to be played out. A blog called Ministry Watch which apparently followed their story was hacked this week, and accusations are flying. It’s difficult at this stage wandering over from an outsiders perspective to understand why things are so out of control.
Another home school blog called Little Geneva was also hacked and has gone offline.
There are other blogs that have been caught up in the conflict, this is after all in the end a rather small circle. The language is unfamiliar to an outsider, words like racist may be familiar, but Kinism is a new one. This is dark and ugly reconstructionist infighting.
Kinism is a relatively new movement backed by a small group of neo-Confederate, Christian Reconstructionist, white nationalist bloggers. Critics claim it is racist and anti-democratic.
Supporters, known as kinists, say the word kinism means “love of one’s own kind.” Kinists are primarily Reformed Christian apologists for Southern slavery and the antebellum South. They believe that God segregated the races after having dispersed mankind, following the biblical story of the Tower of Babel.
The Vision Forum wiki entry is currently under dispute.
Little Geneva wasn’t a homeschooling blog, it was a white supremicist/religious blogsite.
Doug Phillips is a pasty, painfully effeminate man in extreme denial about his true nature. In an attempt to forestall the dissemination of this information (as if it wasn’t patently obvious to all observers) he attempts to exert hypermasculine power in an extrabiblical manner against not just those he is in actual authority over, but all women. His attempts to banish “nags” and “churlish women” are obvious attacks against some female figure from his past. The truth will come out, if prior repentance has not occurred in that camp, it won’t be pretty . Judgment begins in the house of God. Selah. In His love He will do anything and go to any length to straighten us out. Should be interesting.
Doug also constantly attempts to assert his Jewishness and therefore his apparent “chosenness” by his laughably inappropriate use of Yiddish terms. Surely he is aware that Jewishness is maternally determined, making him unable to assert any claim in this area. Additionally, as a supposed Reformed scholar, he should understand the current status of Israel and the church well enough to not embarrass himself in this manner. There is apparently unresolved childhood identification and approval seeking issues here.
And Little Geneva was another site that stated it relied on scripture and logic, but adherence to either was never in evidence. It did assert unquestionably the enslavement of others as ordained by God. What an ass. Good riddance.
“in an attempt to facilitate reconciliation. That might be difficult”
Reconciliation in this case may be very difficult, but probably not for any of the things you mention. All it would take is some willingness on Doug Phillips’ part. I think it’s real obvious that Doug Phillips doesn’t want reconciliation. If he did he’d call his close friend Matt Chancey and tell him to take down that ridiculous Mrs. Binoculars site. That site is an obvious public expression of Doug Phillips’ contempt for the Epsteins, and by encouraging Matt Chancey to keep it up (Doug Phillips has linked to it from the Vision Forum web site, an obvious endorsement) he’s sabotaging any hope of reconciliation. In fact all that Doug Phillips and Matt Chancey are doing is provoking an escalation of hostilities.
You’re right about “things are so out of control,” and Doug Phillips bears 100% of the blame for that. Calling the Epsteins and Ministry Watchman “kinists” and “racists” was an incredibly dumb thing to do, a classic pot calling the kettle black move. Now Doug Phillips is being exposed for his own racism, and the evidence seems to be a whole lot more compelling that Doug Phillips is a racist than the Epsteins or Ministry Watchman are racists.
Joe Friday on Doug Phillips and Matt Chancey
Whirled Views on Doug Phillips and Racism
Doug Phillips has even written poetry and praised one of the most virulent racists of the Confederacy, Robert L. Dabney. In an obvious reference to Dabney’s pro-slavery book “A Defense of Virginia and the South” Phillips wrote “Hail Dabney, wise apologist, Defender of the South!” Dabney’s A Defense of Virginia and the South was written exclusively for the purpose of rationalizing and defending Southern slavery!
More on Dabney and Slavery
Julie, Dabney and Myself on Slavery
Lynn has other related articles on her blog worth reading too with a lot of interesting comments, including even some from a slavery defender, Greg Loren Durand, who actually has his own web site dedicated to defending slavery!
Is there a connection between racism, slavery and Christian Reconstructionism?
“…Greg Loren Durand, who actually has his own web site dedicated to defending slavery!
Is there a connection between racism, slavery and Christian Reconstructionism? ”
Oh, this is hilarious! I never thought that I was worth mentioning in someone’s blog, but there I am!
No, I’m not a “defender of slavery.” I’m just not an “attacker of slavery.” On my site that is supposedly “dedicated to defending slavery,” there are several articles written by ANTI-slavery authors. Take Nehemiah Adams, for example:
http://www.southernslavery.com/articles/religion_demise_slavery.htm
I believe that the subject of Southern slavery needs to be dealt with honestly, biblically, and in its historical context, not just by emotionalism and misinformed mud-slinging. Apparently, this “Karen” person feels that if someone doesn’t tow the “bash the South” line, he/she is a fair target for public attack and that she is somehow not bound by the Ninth Commandment when speaking of them. Typical.
Also, it is quite humerous to see “Karen” attempt to connect me with Christian Reconstructionism. She could easily have Googled my name (she did, in fact, do so last week to get the “dirt” on me) and found that I am a rather open critic of Reconstructionism:
http://www.crownrights.com/reconstruction
“Karen” obviously doesn’t like Reconstructionists, but she shouldn’t be so quick to judge them. I had first-hand experience with that crowd for ten years and I can assure you, they act just like her.
Is there a connection between racism, slavery and Christian Reconstructionism?
What I see when I go to sites like Vision Forum, is a commercial enterprise sucking in people with wish fulfillment – into a history that never existed. A religious Disneyland that suspends critical thinking skills, a la la land. Scratch the surface and the hate pours out.
What struck me was this statement at JensGems – “we left and began an intense search for the “perfect†church in 2000.”
That is heartbreaking.
Intense and perfect and two huge warning words.
To have spent your adult life and marriage in the military culture, to enter civilian life looking for something that doesn’t exist, is a set up for some big hurts, and sincere expectations will be preyed on by any two bit ‘ministry’ out here.
I can’t experientially respond, as a Canadian I had to look up ‘kinism’.
I think racism is alive and well, I think it is covert and overt, I think it can be sublimated.
The inherent beliefs in Reconstructionism leave it’s followers open to multiple abuses, and attracts abusers.
This is not an open system – it functions on power and fear.
Reconstruction is an antithesis to autonomy, followers believe the Bible is a literal book of governence. Reconstructionist founders (Rushdoony etc) are known racists.
So of course slavery is advocated today, as it was 150 years ago.
There is nothing new under the sun.
Well said, Bene.
But be careful who hears you say it… Reconstructionists apparently do not like criticism. I the past week, my Homeschoolblogger blog has been hacked and has had posts removed, and was subsequently disabled by the administrator; my Blogger blog has been tampered with, and people’s online signatures have been removed from their postings and replaced with “anonymous”, and, some folks are saying things like THIS:
http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1815
and THIS:
http://buriedtreasurebooks.com/weblog/?p=1824
No, Cynthia, they don’t like criticism. They pretend to be logical and scriptural until you point out that their thinking is neither logical nor scriptural … then it’s ad hominem all the way home.
Please realize that once an argument has degenerated into you being called “silly” and “contentious”, as well as someone pointing out each and every spelling or grammatical error that you have made, you have completely won the argument. If they had a pertinent point to make, they would surely have made it instead of calling you names like a pack of pueling toddlers.
It’s a shame too. Carmon is a pretty smart cookie and only becomes emotional and illogical very rarely, usually in relation to Sproul or his partners in licentiousness.
Greg,
I’m unfamiliar with your custom of addressing a person by putting their name in quotes, but I’m happy to reciprocate the courtesy.
“Oh, this is hilarious!”
“Greg,” I don’t know what you think is so funny, but I don’t think this is “hilarious” at all. I’ve never seen a “Christian” web site that’s more pro-slavery than yours.
You defend Southern slavery but you’re not a “slavery defender”? Now THAT IS hilarious!
Okay, “Greg.” Go ahead and tell us what we’re supposed to call you. Please come up with something better than “Non-attacker of slavery.”
Don’t try and make this about “bashing the South.” I’ve done no such thing, and I haven’t demanded or even encouraged anyone to do any such thing, and for you to accuse me of that is to commit the same “emotionalism and misinformed mud-slinging” that you say that I’m guilty of.
“Greg” you said, “Also, it is quite humerous to see “Karen†attempt to connect me with Christian Reconstructionism. She could easily have Googled my name (she did, in fact, do so last week to get the “dirt†on me) and found that I am a rather open critic of Reconstructionism.” I don’t know by what quack science you came to your conclusion but you’re wrong. I did not “in fact” Google your name for any reason, let alone to “get dirt” on you. Prior to today I’ve never seen that site you linked to. I’m not amused that you’d reference the Ninth Commandment and then turn right around and bear false witness against me.
“Greg,” I’m not at all surprised that you’d falsely accuse me publicly. “Typical” as you would say.
For the record, Karen, the site you are referring to contains articles from both pro-slavery writers and moderate anti-slavery writers. The very first article on the list is entitled “Religion and the DEMISE of Slavery”! My site is an attempt to offer an objective view of the subject from all perspectives except radical Abolitionism.
I’m sorry you feel my attempt to be objective is “pro-slavery,” but I have a right to object to the label.
I put your name in quotes because I didn’t know if that is really your name. Okay, it was unnecessarily obnoxious, and for that I apologize. But why would you feel the need to take a swipe at me on this blog when I wasn’t even here? I only found this blog accidentally through Google. Do you feel comfortable with what you did?
Greg, thanks for the apology (I think). I can’t help but notice though that you haven’t apologized for falsely accusing me of “digging dirt” on you. “Do you feel comfortable with what you did” in bearing false witness against me?
I find your site to be offensive Greg, so don’t be surprised that when I see a blog like this one talking about kinism/racism and its connections to Reconstructionism that I happen to mention your pro-slavery site. I say “pro-slavery” only because I certainly haven’t seen anything on it that is in ANY way whatsoever opposed to slavery for any reason. You don’t like the label but you haven’t said or done anything to not deserve it.
That’s just my personal opinion, and you of all people of course wouldn’t agree with my opinion about your slavery site being offensive. So feel free to be offended that I’m offended! I’m not about to take it personally Greg because you’re not the kind of man whose opinions I’d respect in the first place. You’re also not doing anything here or on Grace Indelible to in any way earn my respect. Just the opposite really. Not that you’d care about that either.
Nevertheless it’s not my intention to deliberately offend you. You’re entitled to your opinions, but I am too. If you don’t want me to call you “pro-slavery” or “slavery defender” then please provide a suitable label. If you’re not willing to do that then I’ll just continue using the label that from my own perspective most accurately suits you.
BTW I didn’t accuse you of being a Reconstructionist. I didn’t make a statement I asked a question, and it’s a legitimate question, “Is there a connection between racism, slavery and Christian Reconstructionism?” No need for you to get all uptight. All you had to do was answer the question honestly without falsely accusing me.
In my experience a lot of Reconstructionists are closet racists. I’ve read enough of Rushdoony to believe that he was a racist, and like you he defended Southern slavery. I’ll have to admit though that I haven’t spoken with or read many slavery defenders. Running across someone like you is a bit of a shock. I would have figured guys like you had died out many years ago. Most people would be really ashamed to do what you’re doing, especially since you’re likely to be called a racist a lot. Anyway, I really am trying to get over my shock, but it’s not easy.
Okay, Karen, I am sorry for saying that you were “digging dirt” on me. I guess I don’t know how that old article of mine came to be in your possession. It’s only available on one nearly-defunct website and can be located (I think) only by Googling my name.
Am I mistaken in thinking that you were the one who posted that article with the comment “You people are too much?” If so, I apologize for that, too. But how did you get it?
The correct label for my position is “moderate,” or “gradual emancipationist.” The “pro-slavery” position was held by John C. Calhoun and others: i.e. that servitude is the natural state of Negroes. Nowhere in anything I have ever written is stated such a sentiment. I have stated before, and I’ll do so again, that I believe the position of Nehemiah Adams to be the most biblical. If you wish, read “Religion and the Demise of Slavery.” That is a good summary.
Regarding Reconstructionism: No, there is no connection. Some Recons are pro-South in spite of their Reconism, but the two are completely incompatible. Also, I think that Rushdoony later changed his mind and started referring to the South as “covenant-breakers.” Or maybe that was Andrew Sandlin. Anyway, very few of the Recon leaders would defend slavery and nearly all of them bend over backwards trying to show they are not “racists.” Even Steve Wilkins and Doug Wilson have backed away from their plagiarized booklet on slavery.
“Am I mistaken in thinking that you were the one who posted that article with the comment “You people are too much?†If so, I apologize for that, too. But how did you get it?”
Greg, you asked this question over at Grace Indelible too. I don’t know what you’re referring to, and I hate answering a question when I don’t have a clue what you’re talking about. Why do you keep asking about a very specific comment without even posting a link to the blog article you’re referencing so I can figure out what you’re talking about?
Karen,
I am very sorry. I just went back and found the post and it was written by “momofgrace.” Your first comment to me immediately followed and I confused the two of you.
I guess that colored how I perceived you from that time onward and again, I apologize. I should have double-checked.
Leslie said– “Doug Phillips is a pasty, painfully effeminate man in extreme denial about his true nature.”
Are you saying what I think you’re trying to say about Doug Phillips sexual orientation?
Karen,
I’m a bit late to this party but I wanted to interject here. If you go back and wade through the articles at Greg’s site you will find that he is indeed telling the truth. There is a wide swath of opinion in the articles and some really interesting information that I certainly did not expect to find when I looked there. There are several articles by abolitionists from both the north and abroad that went to the south to directly investigate.
What is haunting is that once you get past some of the misinformation about slavery (both ways) it becomes impossible to ignore some very disturbing parallels between slavery and our modern welfare system which holds captive so many today who think they are free.