Inspired by Rhett…
I am a British New Zealander, a Kiwi, with English, Scottish, Irish and French Mauritian roots, and I am Taranaki hardcore. I am an Anglican Christian, and would be considered by many as an evangelical Anglican, although I prefer the terms orthodox or Nicene. I was raised a Presbyterian, and have also been part of New Life, AOG, Charismatic restorationist, Apostolic, Third Wave Pentecostal, Open Brethren and Vineyard churches, and I have a Catholic heritage on my mother’s side.
I grew up on Jesus Music, influenced by the Charismatic Movement and the Jesus Movement. I am Reformed in theology, a five-point Calvinist and monergist. Some would dispute this on the basis of my epistemological and anthropological convictions, which are more existentialist than is typical of a Calvinist but nonetheless strongly rationalist, innatist, nativist, essentialist, idealist and realist. I am pragmatically episcopalian with a small e and catholic with a small c, but ideally primitivist, restorationist and emergent in my ecclesiology, while also having a strong covenanter Presbyterian heritage.
As a Christian I am a monotheist. Some would consider my views on the Godhead to be modalist, however they are Branhamist. In matters of origins I tend towards young-earth creationism, and I am theocentric, then anthropocentric, in my approach to metaphysics and ethics. In my approach to interpreting the Bible I am covenantal and dispensationalist, in matters concerning church membership I am a paedobaptist, and concerning the end times I am premillenial and pre-trib.
I am evangelical in expressing the faith to others, but not to the extent evangelism dominates my life. I am a Charismatic Third Wave Pentecostal and something of a mystic in my approach to spirituality, and also identify strongly with the Puritan and “holiness” traditions. I am also strongly agrarian, natalist and providentialist, considering farming and family of equal importance to evangelism, and identifying with the “Quiverfull” movement. Some would consider me a patriarchal male chauvinist for my masculist ideals, but the more appropriate label would be complementarian. Some might also consider me racist when in fact I am racialist, or homophobic when in fact I am heterosexist. I am fecundist, but more on religious terms than racial terms, and I am monoculturalist and nationalist, while also having colonialist sympathies.
I am liberal in that I identify with liberation theology, and see political concern for the public good, particularly the poor and oppressed, as essential to Christian life. As a result I am something of an activist. However I actually identify politically as a paleoconservative, but I am considered a liberal by neo-conservatives for my views on pornography, prostitution and globalism, and especially my environmentalist views for which many might call me a greenie or a tree-hugger. I am right-wing, and I am fundamentalist and dominionist inasmuch as I am innatist and believe in one philosophical, religious, moral and political truth that applies to all.
I am bicameralist in my ideas of government. I am a localist and a communitarian, but also a monarchist and a Tory like most of my ancestors. My family in Belfast has included Orangemen and unionists, however I am more of a Jacobite than an Orangeman.
I am a professional environmental planner, and an amateur philosopher, theologian, sociologist, anthropologist, theorist of religion, historian, genealogist and geographer. I am also a wikipedian and, of course, a blogger. And I am a born and bred farmer.
I am postmodern insofar as I reject the dominance of positivism, empiricism, pragmatism, globalism and industrialism inherent to modernism, and put an emphasis on relationships and subjective experience. I am also a conspiracy theorist and a revisionist in my approach to history. I am an aspiring evangelist and prophet, and somewhat apostolic, and in various ways I am a minister of God’s grace as an ambassador of Christ, a teacher of philosophy, theology and history, and, of course, a writer. I am also infrequently a poet, or am at least poetic. My tastes in art are realist and impressionist. In matters regarding facial hair I have beardist sympathies.
I am a narcissistic, sanguine, extroverted, process-oriented ENTJ. I am sensitive, but also thick-skinned. I am casual and relaxed, but also serious and intense. I am a paradox, a hypocrite and a sinner. I am also dogmatic, bigoted, narrow-minded, small-minded, sheltered, intolerant, judgmental, arrogant, moralistic, hateful, backwards, a prude and a redneck. But, most importantly, I am loved, and I am a lover; I am born again.
NOTE: I also identify with the tradition of Christian humanism, particularly in the vein of the Fathers of the Reformation: Erasmus, Luther and Calvin, and of modern author C.S. Lewis.
Monday, July 30, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

13 comments:
and a user of a thesaurus? or simply google?
I'd never heard of Branhamism before. The wikipedia article says this...
He taught that there is but One God who is Holy, and that God Himself is Spirit and thus the Holy Spirit, and he also taught that this God Who was the Father of Jesus, indwelt Jesus at the River Jordan and left Jesus in Gethsemane so that he could go to the cross as a mortal to bleed and die for the salvation of man.
He also taught that every son has a beginning, so the Son of God, also must by definition, must have a beginning. This is in contrast to the trinitarian belief in a co-eteernity between Father, Son and Holy Ghost."
wm. Branham was quite outspoken in his denouncements of Trinitarianism: :Let me say this with godly love..."Trinitarianism is of the Devil." I say that THUS SAITH THE LORD. Look where it come from. It come from the Nicene Council when the Catholic church become in rulership. The word "trinity" is not even mentioned in the entire Book of the Bible. And as far as three Gods, that's from hell. There's one God. That's exactly right.'
This is well outside the catergories of evangelical, Anglican, orthodox, Nicene, Reformed and Calvinist. Are you serious?
It's like you are running a marathon racing around an elipse that includes premodern, modern, and postmodern ideas, and the more frantically you run the more bizzare the ideas are that you pick up.
As you have slowed down recently you have taken a drink at the Anglican Church, and decided it's ok to be urban, but I am bracing myself for the second wind ;)
hmmm... actually didn't read and/or analyse wikipedia article, I'm going off what I heard in a sermon from a Branhamite minister...
God = Mind
Jesus = Word
Holy Spirit = Life
Don't really have time to explain/go into it at the moment, but it probably is the loosest thing in there I haven't made proper sense of. Esp cos Branham certainly didn't like the word "Nicene" whereas its something I identify with...
all these things though tend to go to extremes which people identify more often than the moderate versions...
but it's like all these things have a truth, and when you centre them in Christ and the scriptures and let everything left on the edge fall off you get a really big picture that can serve as a really useful normative axis...
but hey, I'm the sort of guy who likes boxes and frameworks, not everyone's like me. And God doesn't always do everything normatively... but I think all the things I hve listed above offer something positive, unique and true and are dialogues worth listening to...
Are you SERIOUS?! About the natalist and Quiverfull bits? Just clicked on a few of the links to find out what they meant and was surprised/appalled with what I found.
Why the suprise and appallment? These a reasonable views for a Christian who believes in an intelligent designer I would have thought...?
Just what percentage of Christians would you say share these particular views? Surely not many, if any. I do not find them appropriate or responsible in an era of over-population of the earth, enormous pressure on the earth (Read A Short History of Progress). We are living in an era (in this country at least) where live expectancy is 70-80 cf 20-30; where women are fertile for a longer period; where most children survive etc etc. I suppose you are not into intervention in matters of fertility/non-fertility? So, those of us who require caesareans in order to deliver babies would eventually die when onto the 7th or 8th baby - or maybe we shouldn't intervene with caesareans and allow babies and mothers to die earlier on - sort of a survival of the fittest - so that those who are good at 'breeding' would live and breed lots and those who are not would die young - like culling the ewes who only produce singles and who have trouble lambing. How would we fit all our kids into the car, safely? All very well in pre-industrial revolution times when most people lived and died within a very small geographical area and within a relatively small period of time.
(Hope I'm not too incoherent - am tired. Would be more tired if I had more kids to run around after. No would be dead by now.)
You raise some good points Sylphie.
I think the important thing to note is the base premise of these ideas - that raising children is a central aspect of human purpose and existence, and children are to be received as blessings. Further, these ideas are grounded in Judeo-Christian thought, not Darwinism, so if a mother's life was at risk then it would be wise to intervene. What natalism and the quiverfull movement stands against, primarily, is contraception for sole reason of personal ambition and "choice".
I don't know what percentage of Christians share these views, however you would be aware that natural family planning is integral to Catholic teachings, and the Catholic church continues to uphold the integral link between sex and reproduction. How many Catholics "on the ground" practice what the church teaches, however, I would imagine are very few. Lucyna, who comments here often, is one of them.
I know of one Christian family in our district who quite clearly hold to these ideals, and others who are at least willing to pursue them until their families are of a reasonable size.
Now, with regards to overpopulation, I have been brought up on the overpopulation thesis - I remember it being espoused even in my childhood Atlas. My mother had her tubes tied after just two children, and I remember when I was five another friends' mother had the same operation and the poor girl was in tears. Even back then I felt appalled about the way adults could do such a thing, and it felt like an insult to us as children. My mother went on to regret the operation, and today holds the same views as I do.
But yes, coming back to overpopulation, this was part and parcel of much of what I was taught in my "environmental planning" degree, but I couldn't help but reject it. It still just seemed so wrong to manipulate human sexuality into some sort of pleasure/intimacy button and not accept the God-ordained results. And even if overpopulation was to be a problem, natural family planning is apparently very effective among those who are disciplined, and I trust I could fall into that category.
Finally, I believe war is a far more ethical response to overpopulation than family planning, because those involved actually have the ability to engage in combat and survive. A foetus, or a spermae and an egg, don't have that same ability.
The basis premise at the end of the day is a respect for the sanctity of life, for which God is the only legitimate author and judge.
I agree and disagree about some things you have said: I especially agree with this bit: 'I think the important thing to note is the base premise of these ideas - that raising children is a central aspect of human purpose and existence, and children are to be received as blessings.' Absolutely.
I know a family for whom God said "the Lord will open the womb and the Lord will close the womb" - they believed to them, not trying to tell others to live this way. Then apparently God told them it was okay to use contraception - for health reasons (of the mother) this became important - however the last 2 or 3 children (of 5) were born in defeat of contraception, and the mother's health problems worsened.
I also have some background with NFP as a couple I lived with in a Christian community both taught and practised it - the only couple to be teaching it and the only non-RC people to be teaching it at that time - and we used to talk about such things - 'fertility awareness' - very much understood in so-called more primitive peoples than ours. And my husband and I have used this method - however - and I don't want to put too much detail here on the net! - there were medical/health problems for me which made it impractical.
As I understand the 'quiverfull' link, they do not agree with NFP either.
Personally I am not keen on the permanent solutions to contraception - again someone I know very much wanted more children but her husband went and got a vasectomy so that was that - surely a decision that should be shared - and I have been opposed to this course of action for my husband as even though it would not be medically a good idea for me to have more children, I don't believe that opportunity should be removed from any future spouse of his.
"It still just seemed so wrong to manipulate human sexuality into some sort of pleasure/intimacy button and not accept the God-ordained results." I don't think that is what we are doing, but trying to behave responsibly by not having more children than we can feed and clothe and fit in a car. As I said before, in a different age this wouldn't matter - the older children would look after the younger; not all of them would expect to be educated, especially the girls; not all would survive to adulthood. To me not controlling our sexuality and fertility responsibly makes us more like the animals we insist we are not.
Interesting the comment 'it felt like an insult to us as children'. I think most parents in this situation would surely never intend for their children to interpret this as an insult. I guess a child could resent younger siblings by thinking 'they've got me; why do they need anyone else' or think 'gee they want more children so they must really like having me and want to extend the experience' - just as children who are only children can be made to feel really really special or that the experience was so horrible that the parents don't want to repeat it.
(Or is this like if I send my daughter to boarding school (as we have) should she interpret this as because we don't want her here at home? No, it's because we want the best for her and we believe she is at the most appropriate school for her, given the options locally.)
It will be interesting to read your blog in 5 years time - 10 years time - to see if you are then married and with children and if your views on such matters have changed! I am always thinking of 'the other side' in discussions (ie so we praise God for answered prayer in one situation, so what do we do when it isn't answered in another, curse him?) and thinking things through to practical situations (hence the size of car determining maximum size of families, not like when I was a kid and there would be say 6 of us in the back seat of a Valiant going off to rugby practice).
Oh and I didn't even say anything about war being a more ethical response to over-population than family planning - are you serious? The ten commandments did mention the taking of life as in murder as in don't do it but didn't actually mention anything about onanism (if I have the spelling right and yes I am being deliberately anachronistic....
OK, so let me sort this out – so if I can feed, clothe, shelter and transport as many children as result from employing NFP then I’m fine? If I’m living off the land, with a ten-seater van with a Radio Rhema bumper sticker on the back, then I can fill my quiver and we can all breathe easy?
There was one other thing you mentioned – education. Obviously home-schooling goes hand-in-hand with the quiver-full, homesteader, lifestyle – and, the children re-learn what it means to share. I’m looking forward to the day when the only option for rural families will be grassroots home-schooling cooperatives. I’ll be keen to do the English and History segments… oh, and farming, when I get that down…
As for tertiary education, if the last 30 years is anything to go on then I hate to think what the academic standards of universities might be by the time my children reach that age. If one child shows a particular knack for medicine then by all means it will be a struggle to help that child into university. But it shouldn’t be such a struggle that it deprives another soul the basic right to simply have a life. But they certainly wouldn’t all need a university education, and if one does a mechanics apprenticeship and another goes to uni – there is a big disparity in terms of financing their respective educations.
Now when the 10 commandments talk about murder I’m pretty sure they’re not talking about war, or killing per se. Why? Because otherwise God goes on to contradict himself throughout scripture whenever he demands people or groups to be killed. How do we distinguish murder from killing? Murder is the unsanctioned taking of life by human malice. War is a sanctioned act because it is entered into on the terms of war, by two able parties. Now is contraception (per se, without reasonable grounds) more like war, or murder? Is contraception a sanctioned form of taking and/or preventing life, or unsanctioned? Are the human motives towards that potential life form benevolent or malevolent?
Anyway, aside from the war vs contraception (overpopulation) ethics debate, four decades of low fertility in Western countries, a lot of which may well be in response to the overpopulation thesis, is in fact setting us up for problems as big as global warming, namely those associated with caring for an ageing population from within a hyperinflated economy. Then we have the problem where the fashionably ethical and intelligent ones are low on fertility, while the uneducated and dysfunctional are breeding like rabbits. This is where my fecundist views kick in. I believe that if we want a better world then the biggest contribution we can make is the way we raise our children. And the more children raised well the better. Breed, for the cause!!
And I’ll bet you I can raise 16 kids (that’s how many my gg-grandpa had) within a smaller ecological footprint than most peoples’ 2.5!!
p.s. my gg-grandpa wasn’t a fecundist, he was a hopeless drunk and gambler, but among his daughters were a number of suffragists, one of his sons was mayor of Marton, and two of his great-grandsons were a pair of famous All Black brothers…
p.p.s. For the record I haven’t written in stone that I’m going to have 16 children. The good Lord might want to bless me with more than that!! Jokes…
Who says you are responsible only for your own family? Who is your brother? In this post-industrial revolution time, we can't all live off the land directly, so the people living on the land have to produce enough food for those working in industry or in hospitals or wherever...unless we want to turn the clock back and live like the Amish (as I understand it). And if we wish to return to simpler times - let's do away with electricity as then the people working in that industry will be able to return to and live off the land - then we have to accept the consequences in terms of higher mortality rates etc.
(actually wouldn't your quiver be empty as you have shot all the arrows?)
And wouldn't it be better to put our energies into transforming the dysfunctional and uneducated rather than selfishly looking inward and caring only for our own families?
I’m all for everybody returning to the land. That is what I mean when I say I am “agrarian”. One thing I want to do, and this is the first time I’ve put this in print, is develop a scheme to enable city-dwellers to relocate to a rural way of life. Develop some way of people being able to be small landholders, within a social and economic system that is largely locally self-sufficient and sustainable, but also produces for and trades with the wider economy. But most importantly I would love to develop this idea on Christian grounds, so such communities can act as ministering communities to the dysfunctional and uneducated.
There is something about large families that communicates a very deep love and joy, which can powerfully impact on the people that family touches. That is my vision.
Post a Comment