https://www.garynorth.com/public/23334.cfm
He was 'Scary Gary' to many – a reference to his cantankerous
style. An original member of the Theonomic Three and its last survivor, he
married RJ Rushdoony's daughter – a connection I know many did not make.
I encountered him early on in my Christian life. I remember
receiving materials in the mail from Still Waters Revival Books. They
tirelessly promoted the Theonomic line and in my files I still have many of
their pamphlets headed by Bahnsen, Rushdoony, and Gary North.
I've written elsewhere about my early struggles with
Theonomy. Having broken with the Dispensationalism of my upbringing I was
diligently studying the Scriptures and learning about the basic structures of
the Bible. Theonomy was still a 'hot topic' at the time (in the mid-1990's) and
I was encountering it everywhere – in the book catalog world, magazines, and
through others. Through one of my uncles, I came into contact with Steve
Schlissel in New York City and for years received his newsletters and cassette
tapes of his sermons.
I was never convinced of Theonomy but I was compelled by it
and challenged by its arguments. Their propaganda was aggressive and I'm
thankful in that it forced me to reckon with these issues. I knew they were
wrong – a basic reading of the New Testament told me their views of Old
Testament Law and Postmillennialism were in error, and yet at the time I
wouldn't have been able to fully elaborate as to why and just how wrong they
were – and are. Though the movement has changed its form and now exists in
various permutations, it's still very much alive.
I was further convinced of the movement's errors when I encountered
some of the horrendous exegesis of men like North. Bahnsen was much better and
more plausible and yet over time I came to better understand his errors as well.
Rushdoony's Institutes struck me as something of a mess and I wasn't impressed or
convinced to say the least. But North's exposition of texts like the Sermon on
the Mount demonstrated just how far these men were off the mark. They were in
fact at war with Christ's doctrines and imperatives in the Gospels – and
frankly their Judaized theology is at war with the New Testament and certainly
its ethics. Theonomy is about power, mammon, and ultimately violence in the
form of coercion, censorship, inquisition, and execution.
And this is where the errors of Bahnsen, and even the strange
and almost deranged views of Rushdoony seem tame when compared to North.
Decades ago North threw in with the Libertarian crowd, with Ron Paul, Rothbard,
von Mises, and the Austrian School of economics.
And yet there's a glaring problem here. Libertarianism and
Theonomy don't mix. And well do I remember twenty-plus years ago when the Theonomists
I encountered were utterly hostile to Libertarianism in both the social and
economic spheres.
When writing for Libertarian publications, North avoided his
larger Theonomic social theory which was authoritarian (even Totalitarian) – and
thus about as anti-Liberal and thus anti-Libertarian as you can get. In terms
of economics, he advocated the free market and was hostile to regulation and
yet, a Theonomic society necessarily censors materials and outlaws products it
deems to be immoral or in violation of their view of Law. That's a regulatory
environment. There is no free speech. There is no free expression. Creativity
is regulated. Even thought is regulated as seen in Calvin's Geneva. An
indiscreet whisper or comment could land you in the dungeon. Libertarian
economics are incompatible with this kind of social system. Apparently North
never understood this basic fact and his Libertarian allies (not knowing what
he was really about) never called him out on it. Had they done so, there would
have been a crisis and confrontation and North would have had to either
obfuscate his views or retreat. In reality he was an arch-enemy to their cause.
And it's also noteworthy that figures like von Mises plainly saw
that New Testament Christianity was utterly incompatible with their libertarian
notions. He was right! And thus they (figures like von Mises, Rand, and
Rothbard) were hostile to the Christian faith and here's the real irony –
technically under a Theonomic regime they would face censorship and punitive
action. Some of their writings would have potentially led to their execution.
Is it not strange that von Mises' legacy, his library and papers are housed at
Grove City and Hillsdale, two colleges with deep connections to the Christian
Right? You can't make this stuff up. I think it is but one point among a many
that demonstrates just how confused the Christian Right is and how badly it has
lost its way and has deviated from the pattern of New Testament doctrine and
ethics. North typifies this departure.
But North was slippery. The idea that he would produce an
economically-libertarian commentary on a book like Leviticus is just laughable.
For all their talk of Old Testament authority and epistemology, the Theonomists
(and especially North) were deeply affected by and shaped by the Enlightenment
and Classical Liberalism. He had more in common with figures like Locke and de
Maistre than the apostle Paul.
Again it's clear that most people in Libertarian circles didn't
understand him and what Theonomy was actually all about. He was their enemy. He
may have worked for Ron Paul and praised him, but if North was in charge of the
country, men like Ron Paul would actually be in danger. North was published on
Lew Rockwell's site which also touts Murray Rothbard. In fact he's something of
a guru for the movement and yet (in addition to his aforementioned hostility to
Christianity and religion in general) Rothbard wrote scathing denunciations of
the Puritans and their kind of overbearing moralistic and anti-liberal society
– the very thing North championed. In fact North's views largely exceeded those
of the Puritans.
It's clear they didn't understand what he was about and for
North – either he had no problem being deceitful or he was just plain
schizophrenic in his thinking. Either way it doesn't speak very well of him.
By all accounts he was a pretty cantankerous person and it's
somewhat ironic that both he and John Robbins (1948-2008) worked together for
Ron Paul in 1970's. They came from different and even hostile camps within the
Reformed spectrum and thus apparently didn't have a lot to say to each other. Both
camps are in error by my estimation and both men were undoubtedly two of the
nastiest people in the larger Reformed sphere. Apart from their cult followings
you'll be hard pressed to find anyone that has anything nice to say about
either of them.
My own interaction with North was unpleasant. I wrote him in
the 1990's because I was struggling with a few points and I heard he would actually
write you back. So I rolled the dice so to speak. I was curious. I wrote a
polite and certainly non-confrontational letter. I didn't even address
Theonomy. I was asking him some about some other Church-related questions. His
response was pretty cold and brutal. I remember being rather shocked by it. There
wasn't a pastoral or gracious bone in his body.
As a good mammon-loving Libertarian he certainly chased the
money – maybe not in his early days but his website was restricted by a
paywall, and over the years there was always talk of financial schemes –
sometimes of dubious ethics, at least to me.
He became quite famous in the lead up to Y2K, a point ignored
by his obituary. North subscribed to the Rushdoonyite form of Postmillennialism
along with its narratives. Other forms look for the 'golden age' to come
through revival. And yet others believe in social, cultural, and political
reform of the present Western system or Christendom as it's sometimes
erroneously referred to.
Rushdoony believed that this order was doomed and had to
collapse. Through homeschooling, forms of survivalism, and militant fecundity
or mass child-bearing, the Church would be prepared for that day. The West
would collapse and then as society was in a state of chaos this army of
Christian Theonomic culture warriors would step into the gap. Trained in all
the spheres of cultural governance they would lead the way and from the ashes
the new Theonomic golden age would emerge.
In these days of decline, Christians should homeschool,
breed, buy gold, and prepare for the hard days ahead. Many of this school still
believe that Christians will be able to outbreed the world. As birth rates
decline, if Christian families would have ten kids or so apiece – in a century
the Church can simply take over by sheer force of numbers. That's certainly a
different take on the power and role of the Holy Spirit in building the
Kingdom.
For the record I do believe Christians should homeschool but
for somewhat different reasons.
North believed the Y2K bug would be the catalyst for this cycle
to begin. On January 1, 2000 the world would collapse. Infrastructures would
fail, currencies would implode –civilisation as we know would simply fall
apart. Well do I remember people selling out and buying farms. I remember being
at a gathering of Calvinists in South Carolina in 1998 and a group of rather
pushy and obnoxious Theonomists were making the rounds and telling everyone
they should sell out and become farmers. Anything else was a waste of time
because it was all going to collapse because of Y2K. I laughed and yet in late
1999 I grew somewhat worried – not because of the Y2K bug but because there was
a growing hysteria surrounding it. I'm sure many remember this. I (and others)
began to worry that the angst and the hype it was producing might lead to some
problems. If some computers failed it might generate a social reaction or
over-reaction that could become dangerous. We've seen such problems emerge in
light of Covid and many will remember Johnny Carson's toilet paper comment in
the 1970's that caused a panic. It doesn't take much for things to quickly fall
apart.
North aggressively promoted this Y2K-collapse narrative. It
ranged far beyond Calvinist circles. I was hearing it from Dispensationalists
and other Evangelicals and they were specifically dropping Gary North's name –
wondering if I had ever heard of him. "Oh yes," was my reply.
When it all came to nothing, North pivoted and attempted to
disavow his role and at times he simply lied. He would not (to my knowledge) take
responsibility for his failed predictions or the harm they caused. His
credibility should have been forever destroyed but he soldiered on. I wonder
what happened to some of those families that bought farms and turned their
lives upside down because they listened to him?
His associations with Theonomy (and some of his revisionist
history) were bad enough, but he later went even further off the rails when he
associated with the semi-renegade Tyler, Texas faction and some of the wild
hermeneutics they produced. North was already given to that so it wasn't too
surprising. That group went the high-church route – vestments, clerical
collars, and the like. I'm not sure if North ever went along with them down
that road.
Few in the larger Reformed world had anything nice to say
about him and privately not a few pastors were willing to admit to me that they
doubted if the man was regenerate. I even knew a guy years ago who grew up in a
Theonomic home and at various times had Rushdoony, North, and others at his
house. He remembered not liking North very much. Not only was his manner
un-Christian, his thought was not characterised by Scriptural adherence or
influence. We can allow for disagreements, even substantial ones. But in the
case of North he simply misunderstood the Bible on a massive scale. The basic message
(it seemed) didn't get through.
And yet God is certainly more gracious than we are. I don't
pretend to know the heart of Gary North but his fruit was rotten to the core.
News of his death certainly made me tremble.
I certainly won't miss him but his death marks a cultural,
religious, and even personal milestone as it drives me back to my early
Christian days before Theonomy fragmented. I remember getting those pamphlets
and cassettes in the mail and wrestling with Postmillennial arguments, Preterism,
and the like. It forces me to recall and relive a season of life that was
challenging and interesting. I was in Italy at the time and would often read
through these materials while sitting in a coffee shop or riding a train on my
way to Venice, Rome, or Geneva.
Theonomy fragmented after Rushdoony's death in 2001 and has
since gone in many different directions. The original form has been lost but at
the same time its larger body of ideas has become mainstream and they remain
popular throughout Evangelical and Charismatic spheres. The movement was small
but hit way outside of its weight class (as they say) – something I'm sure
North was proud of. A small number of men influenced many and they in turn have
taken these ideas are run with them. I would be curious to know what North
thought about it all but I'm not sure I would consider his answer to be
sincere.
Rousas Rushdoony (1916-2001), Greg Bahnsen (1948-1995), and
now Gary North (1942-2022) – the original Theonomists are gone, but I'm afraid
their influence will live on for a long time. Hopefully the tide will turn and
men can properly learn of and from their errors.
See also:
https://networkinference.com/gary-north-y2k-guru-reflections/