Machen Contra R2K … Christianity Opposes False Systems At A Thousand Points

“What has Christianity to do with education: What is there about Christianity which makes it necessary that there should be Christian schools? Very little, some people say. Christianity, they say, is a life, a temper of soul, not a doctrine or a system of truth; it can provide its sweet aroma, therefore, for any system which secular education may provide; its function is merely to evaluate whatever may be presented to it by the school of thought dominant at any particular time. This view of the Christian religion…is radically false. Christianity is, indeed, a way of life; but it is a way of life founded upon a system of truth. That system of truth is of the most comprehensive kind; it clashes with opposing systems at a thousand points. The Christian life cannot be lived on the basis of anti-Christian thought. Hence the necessity of the Christian school” (142,143).

“When we contemplate a type of Protestant orthodoxy that is content to take forlorn little shreds of Christian truth and tag them here and there upon a fundamentally anti-Christian or non-Christian education…[this is] humiliating to Protestantism” (143).

“Christianity should have an educational system of its own…Thus and thus only will the darkness of ignorance be dispelled and the light of Christian truth be spread abroad in the land” (144).

J. Gresham Machen (1881-1937)
Education, Christianity, and the State, edited by John Robbins, The Trinity Foundation, Jefferson, Maryland, 1987.

Machen was clearly a Christian social activist as this quote bears out. He saw that the Christian faith opposed pagan belief system at a thousand points. He understood that one of those points of contest was education. Today, other Reformed Church leaders are disagreeing with Machen on the totalistic nature of the contest between Christian thought and pagan thought. For example, recently Dr. G. D. Hart wrote,

“A Christian social activist is just as scary as a secular one. Thinking that Christians running things is better than non-Christians running those same things is frankly dishonest.”

What is humorous about this quote is that,

1.) Darryl is saying that Machen, as a social activist, was just as scary as Margaret Sanger as a social activist.

2.) Darryl, by implicitly insisting that Christians shouldn’t be social activists is doing his best impersonation of a social activist against Christian social activists.

Note that Machen, in the last quote provided, insists that Christianity should have its own educational system. Of course, such an idea is anathema to R2K, since for R2K, it is not possible for Education to be Christian since Education exists in the common realm. R2K may well refuse to ordain a modern day Machen for this kind of conviction that insists that Christian children should be educated with a distinctly Christian Education.

American Vision Joel McDurmon Supports Familialism

“The U.S. Constitution returned to the pre-1066 Anglo-Danish standard of “kith and kin.” The word “King” is related to the English “kin” which has an ethnic reference. “Kith and kin” means “same country and family.” Without this quality among a leader, there cannot be any true loyalty to the people. And while this sounds like a side matter, it is not: a ruler who identifies with the people almost as a family will fight to defend them and their liberties. A ruler, however, without that loyalty will more likely be less interested in defense. It’s the difference which Jesus taught between the shepherd and the hireling.”

Joel McDurmon
Famous Alienist

I’m glad to see Joel come around on this issue. I hope he will now repudiate massive illegal immigration which works to undo a people who desire to have leaders according to their kin.

The Tactics and Abnormality of Sodomy


Homosexual as a word was coined in order to deflect attention from the word of the time that was used, which was “sodomite.” The advocates of sodomy realized that they needed to move from the verb “sodomy,” which drew attention to the act to a noun like “Homosexual,” and later, “gay” which moved ones attention from the act itself to the identity of the person.

So, the word “Homosexual” was latched upon to divert attention away from the dirtiness of the act. Eventually “homosexual” had to give way to “gay” for the same reason that the word “sodomite” gave way to the word “Homosexual.” Now even the word “gay” has become dirty and so other terms are being sought out.

Notice here the language. New worldviews can be spotted by the way the language is changed or manipulated.

I.) Note that there is five stages by which a culture can be forced to accept deviance

a.) Tolerance of deviance

Here what is pushed is the virtue of tolerance. We might not approve of something ourselves but we are “big enough” to allow deviants in our midst. The purpose of tolerance is almost always to serve as means by which to buy time until that which is being tolerated is strong enough to force the toleristas to the next stage.

One way that a deviant behavior is normalized is by talking about it ad-nauseum. The advocates of deviance bring it up without fail. In the case of sodomy, the love that once dare not speak its name now won’t shut the hell up.

This reminds of Pope’s poetry,

“Vice is a monster of so frightful mien
As to be hated needs but to be seen;
Yet seen too oft, familiar with her face,
We first endure, then pity, then embrace.”

Alexander Pope

b.) Acceptance of deviance

In this stage the toleristas not only ask for toleration but also of acceptance. This is the demand to come out of the closet and be accepted in families, churches, employment, etc. This is the stage where the societal taboo of the behavior is removed so that the deviance is seen as odd but not repulsive.

A great means to accomplish this is the usage of the sentimental story. Sentimentalism is told in order to demonstrate how mean and cold hearted are those who can’t be sympathetic to those who want to normalize sodomy.

There is seldom appreciation for how the mainlining of behavior that is associated with disease, drastically reduced mortality rates, and Man boy love is hateful towards people.

c.) Celebration of deviance

“Gay” parades anyone?

Rainbow ribbon day

d.) forced embracing of deviance

Those who once asked to be tolerated in their perversity are now told that if they will not embrace the deviant as normal they will not be tolerated themselves. Those deviants once in the closet, have gone from tolerated to being those who are shoving those who object into the closet. Having gained the ascendancy they will not tolerate those who object to the destructive character of their behavior.

e.) Punishment for those who oppose deviance.

Economic opportunities are cut off from those who object. Finally, “Hate laws” are passed. The sodomites have come out of the closet and the Christians are the ones pushed into the closet.

II.) The Alternative to Marriage?

A.) The New Definition of Marriage

According to Lawyer Ted Olson, the Supreme Court has said Fourteen times that “marriage is a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.”

By SCOTUS’s own definition twin brothers could marry each other since twin brothers could love one another and desire privacy, association, liberty and being with the person thy love etc. Indeed, by SCOTUS’ definition Incest no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage. By SCOTUS’s own definition a Pedophile should be allowed to marry his child little boy lover since even in that situation “marriage would be a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.” Indeed, by SCOTUS’s own definition of Marriage Pedophilia no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage.

B.) The New Definition of Marriage — By What Standard?

We would also ask the SCOTUS, “By what standard or authority does SCOTUS dare restrict marriage to just one person that someone might love”? By what standard or authority does SCOTUS dare suggest that multiple marriage partners don’t likewise desire to be married in the context of privacy, association, liberty?” SCOTUS must answer the basis of authority by which they limit marriage the way that they do.

What we are seeing now is the replacing of the previous Transcendent Authority for the definition of marriage to the new standard of consensuality among two or more people who have secured the power of the State to support their perversity.

Unelected judges, all over the nation, by legalizing sodomite marriage, in essence, have changed the definition of marriage merely according to their fiat word. They are attempting to legislate reality from the Bench. This is social engineering at its best. Human beings are treated as malleable and can be changed in any way the God State desires to change them.

We really should not be too surprised at this. Any people who allowed their judges to redefine life (Roe vs. Wade) were eventually likewise going to seek to redefine all of reality including marriage.

Via this Judicial malfeasance, unelected Judges have sent “the public a message from the God-State” that natural and traditional families are no different or unique than any other human arrangement and that the family as defined from a Transcendent authority, are not to be preferred over and above disordered non-families. Further, this criminal malfeasance by Judicial diktat has pronounced that any consensual relationship between two or more people, regardless of gender, based on the way those people feel about one another, ought to be called “marriage.” The God State, acting in a supremely religious capacity, has declared war upon and against the legislative authority of nature and nature’s God.

Criminal Judges have pushed aside the complementarity of men and women in favor of whatever “feels” right. Marriages are no longer rooted in a transcendent Authority, biology and human nature, and if there is no transcendent Authority by which to objectively define and identify marriage then marriage is open to any immanent authority’s definition of marriage as long as that immanent authority has the power of the Tyrant State behind it to forcefully implement it’s new subjective fiat definition of marriage.

In short the State can no more redefine marriage, sex, and family, any more then it can turn the moon into Green cheese. All because the Civil realm calls disorder, sin, and perversity, “order,” “righteousness,” and “normalcy” that does not make it so.

C.) Marriage and Children

There was a time when it was understood that one of the prime purposes, if not the prime purpose of Marriage, was the fostering, bearing, and raising of children. Here is the language from one Church’s reading for Marriage,

“Marriage was established to extend the human race, to advance the kingdom of God, and to enrich the lives of those entering this state. To fulfill these purposes, a husband and wife must be lovingly devoted to each other, sharing responsibility for the nurture of the children the Lord may give them as his heritage and as parties to his covenant.”

The possibility of bringing children into the world and raising them is now longer unique to marriage. Because children have been divorced from their mom and dad, marriage is no longer about permanent relationships between a man and a woman for the sake of their children and each other. It is only about how spouses feel about each other.

Such an attitude reduces marriage to one of convenience.

Now, there is no doubt that the children of heterosexual marriage have longed suffered from the instability of impermanent marriages. The ironic thing here is that it is the same worldview that weakened heterosexual marriages is now the worldview that is offering sodomite coupling as being normal for children.

However, all statistics indicate that sodomite and lesbian marriages are famously unstable.

A study of homosexual men in the Netherlands published in the journal AIDS found that the “duration of steady partnerships” was 1.5 years.[1]

In his study of male homosexuality in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, Pollak found that “few homosexual relationships last longer than two years, with many men reporting hundreds of lifetime partners.”[2]

In Male and Female Homosexuality, Saghir and Robins found that the average male homosexual live-in relationship lasts between two and three years.[3]

As such, just as our social order, worked unto the destroying of children’s lives via the liberalization of Divorce laws in the 60’s-70’s so it is once again seeking to cause judicially innocent children to suffer its folly by creating sodomite families.

It should be noted here that the destruction of the family serves the interest of the God state. The God state is more secure the less competition it has. Strong family structure is a threat to the God state because it offers a different location for loyalty other than the God state. As such the God state has an interest in working to create weak family structures.

It would not be difficult to conclude given the trajectory of family law and tax law over the last 50 years that the goal of the law has been to destroy the traditional family. If one looks at the early history of Marxist Russia one can see parallels between the way they initially deconstructed family and the way we are currently deconstructing family.

State sanctioned Sodomite buggery (called “marriage”) is but another brick in that wall of destroying the notion of the Christian family. Sodomite marriage is not about creating more family. Sodomite marriage is about destroying the historic family.


Sodomy is an attack on

A.) The emotional and psychic integrated individual

Believe it or not the American Psychiatric association still labels Homosexuality as disordered. The LGBT individual is not right mentally. The very fact that they have the position on LGBT issues they have is proof that they are not well integrated in their character and personality.

B.) The Family

C.) The Nation

Most Importantly… GOD

We have not said much in this lecture about the centrality of God in all this. We have not done so because we don’t want people to think that somehow this is only an issue that religious people should be concerned about. However, at the end of the day this debate is all about what kind of God will we, as a people bow before? Will we bow before the Tyrant God state which is trying to create reality for us by its fiat legislation and Judicial decision or will we be a people who bow before the God of the Bible who spoke creation and reality into existence by His divine Word.

This debate is a debate between worldviews. Will Man be sovereign or will God be sovereign. Will man dictate reality by his fiat word or will God dictate reality by his fiat word. Will we bow to what God has done by deciding to give Eve to Adam for procreation or will we insist that we no better than God when we match people with the same reproductive organs in a complete redefinition of marriage.

1. Maria Xiridou, et al, “The Contribution of Steady and Casual Partnerships to the Incidence of HIV Infection among Homosexual Men in Amsterdam,” AIDS 17 (2003): 1031.

2. M. Pollak, “Male Homosexuality,” in Western Sexuality: Practice and Precept in Past and Present Times, ed. P. Aries and A. Bejin, translated by Anthony Forster (New York, NY: B. Blackwell, 1985): 40-61, cited by Joseph Nicolosi in Reparative Therapy of Male Homosexuality (Northvale, New Jersey: Jason Aronson Inc., 1991): 124, 125.

3. M. Saghir and E. Robins, Male and Female Homosexuality (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1973): 225; L. A. Peplau and H. Amaro, “Understanding Lesbian Relationships,” in Homosexuality:Social, Psychological, and Biological Issues, ed. J. Weinrich and W. Paul (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1982).

I get by with a little help from my Friends — Thomas Weddle On Constitutionalism

Every so often I will run something here written by a friend. This piece is by Thomas Weddle. Here Thomas explains why the current Federal Government is illegitimate. By extension this reveals that when Americans obey the Federal Government they are disobeying Romans 13:1-2.

This piece will require one to think through a different prism then one is accustomed. Read through it a couple times. See if you understand the central point that he is making.

In terms of the Federal Government Rebellion is our problem – just obey the Constitutions and laws, that’s the only thing missing, that’s what people, as individuals, refuse to do.

I believe God will bless obedience, He promises to in Scripture, and He’s not a respecter of persons. Christians, as individuals, have no excuse for sustaining their involvement in the rebellion against the established and ordained Constitutions and laws. I know a lot of people don’t like the Federal Constitution so they license their rebellion against it in their minds, if they want to change it there is a lawful way to do so. Nowhere does God promise to give us everything we desire on our own terms at all times, rather He instructs us to do what is right, overcome evil with good, and suffer patiently wrongs – suffering for righteousness sake is what is acceptable to God not suffering for doing wrong.

This claim that people can’t do what is right unless it’s some democratic thing is just the inverse claim of going alone with doing wrong because everybody else is. “I would obey the law if everybody else would too” is not valid reasoning.

I believe God blesses obedience and He curses disobedience.

Here’s the problem:

The American people are not constituent members of the Constitutional system of government anymore and they can’t do anything until they are. Rather, they sustain their secession from the several states and Federal Constitution to take up their citizenship and nationality in the Federal government itself via their individual voluntary political consent to the unlawful 14th Amendment. Nobody forces them to do that. Even after Reconstruction individuals taking up citizenship and nationality of the Federal government was voluntary – nobody was forced to do that. Of course they encouraged everybody too, in their Expatriation Act, but it’s voluntary. Really it wasn’t until the New Deal that everybody did that.

The Federal government was never, nor is it today, one of the several states of the Federal union. The American people voluntarily and willing empower it, instead of their several states, as their national government contrary to its establishment and ordination as a Federal government.

The Federal Constitution was not intended, designed, established or ordained to be a National Constitution nor does it restrict the plenary powers of a national government. The people of Michigan formed a state there, they created a constitution and restricted their national government and also became members of a constitution creating a federal government between the several states for certain limited purposes. That has never been lawfully changed, rather the people of Michigan decided to enjoin and sustain a political rebellion, form the Federal government into their new national government abandoning Michigan and have it overthrow and suppress Michigan’s constitutions and laws while sustaining residence there as foreign nationals. That has to end. That rebellion has to end.

Americans have consolidated themselves within the Federal government itself in violation of law and formed it into their national government. Nobody forces them to do that, they choose to – they can pick up and emigrate to Canada if they want to at any time, or they can pick and emigrate back to Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia &c also. It’s one’s inalienable right to do so protected by the Constitutions and laws. Move to New Zealand if you want to, that’s your right; but combining with New Zealand to overthrow the government here is something else entirely, that’s sedition and treason. So is combining with domestic enemies within the Federal government to overthrow Michigan, Indiana, Tennessee, Virginia &c too.

If you live in Michigan and wanted to claim the nationality of Tennessee you would need to move here, establish legitimacy as one of the people of Tennessee. Cutting a deal with Tennessee to invade and overthrow the state of Michigan and its laws so you can live there claiming the nationality of a Tennessean under its laws but residing in Michigan is rebellion and unlawful.

That is precisely what the people are doing with the Federal government though, that’s not lawful. They may not form an alliance with the Federal government itself to convert their right to emigrate into a letter a marque and reprisal to overthrow their several states impairing their Constitutions and laws (see Article 1 Section 10). The Federal Constitution only permits a Federal union of free and independent states, they may not secede to create a new confederation among them nor may they secede to convert the Federal government into a National Government over them.

Just because everyone else does that doesn’t mean we have to, we can choose to obey the Constitutions and laws as established and ordained. That is what God requires in Romans 13:1-2, He judges this rebellion against that establishment and ordination. He’s forgotten their children in abortion. He’s raised up women to rule over them. He’s made them servants of wickedness in this political economy. Most recently, He’s raised up the Sodomite amongst and over them. It’s time to repent, stop rebelling and start obeying – nobody else is, be different.

A state is people – there are hardly any people claiming their birthrights living in their respective countries. The several states (republican) are politically unpopulated – there’s not enough legitimate Michiganers, Indianans, Tennesseans, Virginian’s living in the several states whereby their Enabling Acts as republican states are even in force. Rather, their are foreign nationals residing there in puppet governments that are political sub-divisions of the Federal government. These are legal fiction “states wherein [federal citizens] reside,” while within the geographic territory of the several states in violation of Article 4 Section 3.

Americans will either awaken from this “state of denial” that they live in or they may find themselves floating on the USS State of Denial in international waters scratching their heads wondering what happened to them after they are deported.”

Supreme Court Definition of Marriage … An Examination

Yesterday on FOX roundtable format the questions discussed was perverted coupling.

Tony Perkins (taking the side of “no” to perverted coupling) questions Ted Olson

“What is the purpose of marriage?

Ted Olson (taking the side of “yes” to perverted coupling) responds,

“The purpose of marriage is what the Supreme Court has said Fourteen times. It is a fundamental right that involves privacy, association, liberty and being with the person that you love and forming a part of our community and being treated equally with the rest of society.”

By Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition two twin brothers could marry each other. Indeed, by Olson’s definition Incest no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage. By Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition a Pedophile should be allowed to marry his child little boy lover. Indeed, by Olson’s and SCOTUS’s own definition Pedophilia no longer exists as a prohibition to marriage.

We would also ask Olson, “By what standard or authority does Olson dare restrict marriage to just one person that someone might love”? By what standard or authority does Olson dare suggest that multiple marriage partners don’t likewise desire to be married in the context of privacy, association, liberty? Olson must answer the basis of authority by which he limits marriage the way that he does.

Upon Olson’s and SCOTUS’s definition what prohibits necrophilia or bestiality? After all, animals are persons too by the lights of many egalitarian Unitarians.

I hope that people, who still have a smidgen of rationality left, can see that Olson’s putative reasoning is stemming from a Worldview that denies the reality of distinctions. This “reasoning,” is John Lennon’s “Imagine” incarnated

“Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace..”

How different is that sentiment then,

“Imagine there’s no distinctions
It isn’t hard to do
No sex organs to worry about
And no gender too
Imagine all the people
Living Transgendered lives”

2.) Notice that Olson invokes three of the three French Revolution slogan markers. The French Revolution geared up madame guillotine to support “Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.” Olson likewise invokes each one of these as the standard by which marriage must be allowed. The sodomite agenda is just the next extension of the French Revolution.

3.) Olson insists that perverted coupling is a “fundamental right.” Where does that right come from? Who has given that right? By what objective standard does one appeal to in order to find this right?

Page 1 of 33112345»102030...Last »