Quoting Quiverfull: Christian Homeschooling Parents Misunderstood Rushdoony?

Quoting Quiverfull: Christian Homeschooling Parents Misunderstood Rushdoony? August 6, 2014

classicaledby Gary North of both Persevero News and Gary North’s Specific Answers – The Classical Christian Curriculum: Marriage to a Corpse

(Trigger warning on the original article. Lots of Rushdoony quotes. If Rushdoony triggers you then be forewarned on reading the original article.)

Interesting thoughts on Christian education and the principles taught. Guess you really have to be careful with curriculum to keep from getting humanistic buggery influences in your education. 

The reason why I wrote my article showing what the classical religion was really all about, is because I wanted to make it clear that what is palmed off on parents as a classical curriculum is a warmed-over, G-rated whitewash of classical religion, classical philosophy, and classical politics. It is surely a whitewash of classical education, which rested on the gymnasium and the debauchery associated with it.

How was it that the unified worldview of Greece and Rome was at war, first with the religion of the Hebrews, and then with the religion of the Christians? How was it these rival worldviews fought to the death? How was it that syncretism was possible between rival religious worldviews and rival civilizations? How was it that the Greeks and the Romans, in their attempt to be consistent, recognized that Christianity could not be absorbed into the classical world? It was a war to the death. Nevertheless, these naïve Christian parents are shelling out money to sellers of necrophiliac curricula that clearly are theologically schizophrenic. They are an attempt to bring back the pre-1860 syncretism that Rushdoony warned was fatal to begin with, and which died at the hands of Darwinism.

Christian parents don’t know any of this. They had rotten educations. They have never studied classical religion and classical culture. They have never studied classical education. They don’t know what went on in the gymnasia.

QUOTING QUIVERFULL is a regular feature of NLQ – we present the actual words of noted Quiverfull leaders or their followers/enforcers and ask our readers: What do you think? Agree? Disagree? This is the place to state your opinion. Please, let’s keep it respectful – but at the same time, we encourage readers to examine the ideas of Quiverfull honestly and thoughtfully.

Comments open below

NLQ Recommended Reading …

Quiverfull: Inside the Christian Patriarchy Movement by Kathryn Joyce

13:24 – A Story of Faith and Obsession by M Dolon Hickmon

"So, a doctor who treats fertility claims success with repentance (and medical treatment)? Reminds me ..."

Infertility Caused by Sin?
"Her expert is the woman in her mirror."

Create a Better Brain Through Neuroplasticity ..."
"When’s the chapter on how animal feed is good for your brain? It’s got to ..."

Create a Better Brain Through Neuroplasticity ..."
"Good on your nurse friend! The Pearls and their ilk69 only know how to royally ..."

Create a Better Brain Through Neuroplasticity ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Nea

    Shorter version: with all the modern upstarts going down in flames, it’s time to learn to have more respect for the original crackpot. Look, he’s anti-gay too!

  • Mel

    Ok, this is a funny article – if Rushdoony is non-triggering for you. The author is trying – frantically – to white-wash history backwards to create a Judeo-Christian religion that was completely uninfluenced by “pagan” sources.

    ” How was it that syncretism was possible between rival religious worldviews and rival civilizations?”

    Outside of the obvious internal logic problem – syncretism IS the adoption of outside gods, cultural attributes, etc – Judaism started as a sacrifice-based religion (as was their neighbors) before becoming a rabbinic style. Christianity IS a sacrifice-based religion with Jesus as paschal victim. Christianity has co-opted all sorts of religious and cultural norms – most memorably the CP/VF stealing of Victorian mores and values.

    Plus, he slides over the real reason conservative Protestants started feeling “uncomfortable” in secular schools by the 1960’s: The secular schools in the US were required to actually be secular and NOT teach Protestant religion lessons at school. (That was the same reason the Catholic school system started shrinking by the 1970’s – Catholic kids could go to public school without being taught Protestant religious lessons. )

  • gimpi1

    WOW, so much wrong in just three paragraphs.

  • Trollface McGee

    I imagine the duder going, “yay I just downloaded this thesaurus app, it’ll go great with my word of the day… what’s my word of the day today? Oooh ‘necrophiliac’! I better get to wording!”

  • bekabot

    I hate to admit that my mind works this way, but I think I follow this guy’s reasoning.

    1. “Ancient culture was overthrown, not by Christianity, but by the industrial system and the financial system and by the critics of both of them. The overthrow didn’t start to get well underway until the 17th century or so and most of the work wasn’t done until the 19th and 20th centuries. The end is not altogether in sight, the way government-funded education has not yet been put down, but it’s fair to say that both of them are coughing along on fumes.”

    2. “Me and my crew are in the process of overthrowing the current system and its critics. Ancient culture, classical culture, has already been already overthrown, so what we plan to do is overthrow the overthrowers. Once we’re through we’re going to be in charge and we’ll be the masters of what culture there is. It won’t matter then if what we call ‘culture’ is sad or lame because it’s not going to have any competition. We’re going to get rid of the alternatives. The Romantics and Marxists were pikers and the Founding Fathers were fools. Mao was a bungler. We’re the people who are going to get rid of the past.”

    3. “Jesus doesn’t come into this except as a broker or factotum. Me and my crew are going to know how to make the best use possible of Him and His Name and after that we’re going to gently dismiss Him and pension Him off if he’s lucky. ‘Thanks for handing us the world, my brother, but now that your mission is completed you can go. Shalom, so long, and as we won’t need your help from now on we aren’t going to ask for it. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.'”

    4. “The Cross is a good sign under which to conquer. Once you’ve conquered, though, the Cross reveals itself as a burden. Once we no longer need the Cross (which was part of the old, syncretic world) we’re going to throw it away, but we’re only going to do that on our own behalf. Our subjects and inferiors must always be kept under the dominion of the Cross — Christianity is a servant religion and it’s going to be ideal for the hordes of servants we intend to keep on hand. But we’re not going to embrace the Cross ourselves, instead we’re going to impose it on those we intend to boss around.”

    5. “The particulars of how we’re going to accomplish the last objective are still murky. Western Culture is Western Culture, after all; the only culture the West has is the one it’s got. But, as we’re still in the process of overthrowing the culture the West has already got I suppose we can table the question of what we’re going to replace it with until the work we’re still busy with is done. Part of the idea, though would be to institute lots and lots of strictures, Biblical strictures, though as a practical matter we’re going to have to withdraw the Bible itself. Putting the Bible into the hands of the common ruck of humanity was a mistake: it gave the scoundrels ideas.”

    There you have my assessment of the reasons behind North’s and Rushdoony’s war against humanism. Their war against humanism isn’t a a battle against sin prosecuted in the name of the Cross, although that’s the version which is peddled to suckers. It’s the rationale behind a power grab undertaken by people who have (thank Heaven) an inadequate grasp of their own limitations. They can’t follow their plan because they haven’t got enough to work with but if they could put their scheme into practice I believe it would look something like the one outlined above.

  • And, boys and girls, is why he is known as Scary Gary, author of Ron Paul’s homeschooling curriculum. Let’s not only keep ’em barefoot and preggers, but also stupid and ignorant. Then we spoon feed ’em Ayn Rand’s psychopathic babbling. It’s much easier to lead and manipulate the brainwashed and those who basically don’t know much about anything.

  • Nea

    He’s also the author of most of the Y2K paranoia, which he’s tried so hard to scrub from the internet. That New Year’s Eve I’d printed some of the juicier bits, and we read them out loud to shrieks of laughter.

    By his own standards, he should have been stoned to death long ago for false prophecy. Why do his followers not notice his long string of wrong predictions?

  • gimpi1

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but doesn’t Scary Gary also favor torturous executions such as stoning and burning at the stake? Scary indeed…