BLMc vs. TGC

The Gospel Coalition (TGC) continues to be the outpost for cultural Marxism as seen most recently in this column

TGC Mistake #1

“As I reflect on the unjust deaths of these black image-bearers.”

BLMc corrects

It has not been established by a jury that either of these deaths were unjust and for Holmes to make this bald assertion means the man desperately needs a Watson to keep him on track. The Arbery case is especially dubious as being characterized as “unjust,” and the Minneapolis case finds us agreeing that the death sure looks unjust but as we know video is seldom the whole story. Is it too much for Holmes to wait for a jury to have their say on what case is and is not just?

TGC Mistake #2,

“While so much progress has been made over the last decade, we still have such a long way to go.”

BLMc responds

This has become such a trope that it is accepted without push back. I’m pushing back. First, I disagree that much progress has been made over the last decade. The last decade has seen racial relations in the US become as raw as they have been since the race riots of the 1960’s. The last decade as seen Barack Obama fanning the racial flames at every possible turn, from Obama’s “The Cambridge Cops acted stupidly,” (before even knowing the facts of the case) to Obama’s “If I had a son he’d look like Trayvon Martin.” (Hopefully if Obama had had a son he would not have acted like Trayvon Martin who a jury decided was justly killed. Then in the last decade where all this progress is supposed to have been made we have the whole Michael Brown incident where a young thug was justly shot by a white cop Brown was seeking to pulverize. There are other examples but to suggest that we’ve made progress in race relations over the last ten years is a knee slapping howler.

Second, if this is progress, you’ll excuse me if I also disagree with TGC that we “still have a long way to go.” Actually, I might agree that we have a long way to go but I’m pretty sure the long way I want to go is the opposite direction of the long way to go in which Holmes wants to go.

TGC Mistake #3

While it certainly has its place in some commentary, we won’t experience progress if the only people we listen to are the people who “take race out it.”

BLMc corrects

Right … because how would the Cultural Marxist agenda ever continue to advance if race was taken out of it? If we take race out of it then we can’t blame Whitey. If we take race out of it then we will not be able to practice liberation theology.

But let’s leave race in it and then break down our crime rate in the states. Let’s leave race in it and then look at the per capita abortion rate per race. Let’s leave race in it and examine our inner city urban problems. Let’s leave race in it and …. you get the idea.

TGC mistake #4

“it (racism) is still threatening black lives across this country.”

BLMc corrects

1.) Notice the cultural Marxist technique of trying to laden white people with false guilt.

2.) The racism that is threatening blacks across this country is the soft bigotry of low expectations routinely practiced by leftists who don’t think blacks can get jobs based on ability and so they create affirmative action programs and set aside quotas … who don’t think blacks have the native ability to get into Universities and so instantly have added a couple 100 points just for being black on the SAT entry admissions test… who don’t think blacks can reach the character required for civilized behavior and so look the other way when black on black crime is committed. This is the only racism that is threatening blacks across this country.

3.) What about the racism that is still threatening white lives across this country? Ever heard the name of Jesse Smollett? Mohamed Noor? Try reading the book, “White Girls Bleed A Lot,” and tell me again about the racism that is still threatening black lives across this country.

TGC author Holmes continues on in this vein seeking to subtly foist false guilt on white people while refusing to take a look at the other side of the coin in terms of the problems of race relations in this country. He tells stories about how scared his wife is for the possibility of their son being killed by some evil white Cop. Pregnant through the rest of the article is the idea that Whitey is a demon that minorities need to spend all their lives designing how to escape.

I utterly reject this Cultural Marxism narrative.

Keep in mind that Holmes is some muckety muck working at Reformed Theological Seminary. He likely got the position based on some affirmative action program or due to some WOKE White liberal “Christian” feeling guilty about his own position at RTS and how unfair it is that more unqualified minorities don’t have jobs in “Christian” Seminaries.

The Curious, Quite Authentic Inability To Think

“However monstrous the deeds were, the doer was neither monstrous nor demonic, and the only specific characteristic one could detect in his past as well as in his behavior during the trial and the preceding police examination was something entirely negative: it was not stupidity but a curious, quite authentic inability to think.”

Hannah Arendt
Speaking of Adolf Eichman

Arendt’s observation on Eichman here is fascinating if only because this phenomenon she locates is ubiquitous currently. If Arendt is correct about Eichman we might even be justified in labeling our culture “The Eichman Culture.”

There is, perhaps, a connection between the cultural environs in which Eichman was raised and in our current cultural environs. That connection may well be the presence of the Prussian model for education. The Prussian model was known for its ability to inculcate conformity in students and over time eventually matriculated to America and other countries. (Including Austria where Eichman was educated.) The Prussian education model was adopted by an oppressive Prussian system that wanted to brainwash its citizens into loyalty.

The American “Educator,” Horace Mann brought the Prussian model to America, though in bringing the model here even Mann admitted, “The Prussians were using public education to crush the independent spirits of their children and ensure loyalty to their leader.”

Herein lies the potential connection between Adolf Eichman and, to use Arendt’s words, “(his) curious, quite authentic inability to think,” and our current Eichman culture in which we are now living and have been for quite some time. Just as Eichman was formed by a Prussian educational model so as to learn to check his thinking (reasoning) ability at the door so modern Americans have been trained like so many circus seals, to do the same in our public education system.

What else accounts for the absolutely ghastly exhibition of instant conformity by so many Americans to the diktats of the State during this Wuhan virus except that we, as a people, have been, via the public educational system, brainwashed into loyalty?

Alternately, perhaps the fact of the repeated heavy dosages of Huxley’s Soma by the American public accounts for the “Night of the Living Dead” unthinking Zombie like behavior that is characterized by the Zombie’s curious, quite authentic inability to think.” Perhaps it is a combination of both being publicly educated and taking large doses of Soma that accounts for American torpidity in the face of the most egregious outrages.

Consider, despite the facts that

1.) The statistics, from right out of the gate, never came close to being representative of the future impact of the disease. Some very smart people were saying this from day #1 and this was out there in the information glut to be discovered.

2.) It was soon apparent that it was blue states which were curiously overwhelmingly more affected and infected than red states, thus communicating soon after this plannedemic started, that more was in the air than a virus.

3.) This plannedemic curiously arrived right on the heels of the failed attempt to impeach the President and strangely timed to impact the upcoming Presidential election.

4.) The scores of decades long and consistent train in the same direction of the US Government lying to the American people

Despite these known or soon known facts Americans have chosen to agree to their own economic seppuku (self-disemboweling) as opposed to telling various Governments to go “bugger themselves.” What else can explain this absolute Eichmanian impulse to remain characterized by our “curious, quite authentic inability to think?”

But wait … there’s more. Eight weeks later we continue to cling to our Eichmanian “curious, quite authentic inability to think,” despite the fact that we have,

1.) Almost 40 million Americans filing for unemployment benefits.
2.) Upwards to over 40% of our small businesses never reopening.
3.) The Bill of Rights (1-10) being stamped out before our very eyes.
4.) Invoked a social distancing which has alienated us more than ever.
5.) Endangered the health of non-Wuhan people by denying them accessibility to needed hospital treatment.
6.) Fostered a climate where suicide, depression, domestic violence, anxiety, dejection, despondency, loneliness, etc. have all spiked.
7.) Universally masked ourselves, even to the point of wearing the damn things when we are alone in our vehicles or are out riding our bikes and/or walking.
8.) Universally masked ourselves despite the fact that the damn things are nearly irrelevant.
9.) Quite possibly have insured a world wide depression
10.) Created a “Stasi” like informant culture that finds the drones eagerly on the lookout for those who actually do think so that the jejune drones may turn them in to the proper authorities.

Despite all that, I still routinely stumble on conversations like what is found below;

(Eichmanian “curious, quite authentic inability to think,” Drone says);

“I really don’t get why so many folks are all angry about mask-wearing and *still* saying people are wearing masks because they are afraid. From the beginning, all I heard officials and medical professionals saying was that it reduced the risk of the wearer spreading the virus, not getting it. So why do people keep banging on the idea that mask wearers are doing it to protect themselves? They’re doing it to protect others, or at least that’s supposed to be the reason for doing it and has been from the beginning. What’s the big deal?”

Who then, despite being given evidence of all that’s been said above, plus,

1.) Masks don’t work
2.) Asymptomatic transmission is a myth
3.) The WHO says “If you are healthy, you only need to wear a mask if you are taking care of a person with COVID-19”
4.) Masks that are not fitted cause more illness

Still, despite all those realities, the Eichmanian Drone in the end says,

“I find it a low-impact consideration, especially given its apparent controversy these days. I find it better to err on the side of caution for something that has the potential to negatively impact others; and that applies regardless of whether or not anyone thinks masks are effective. To me, that does not seem like an unreasonable accommodation.”

End conversation.

There is just no curing this kind of defiance of the facts. We have a whole nation of Eichmanian drones upon whom no logic…. no facts …. no science will make any dent. They are indeed infected by the “curious, quite authentic inability to think.”

Keep in mind dear reader that this is not an affliction that merely affects us peasants — no, indeed. Some of the most shining examples of people I’ve ever met afflicted with the “curious, quite authentic inability to think,” have been Ph.D.’s working as Professors or Lawyers or Doctors. One’s “learning” or position or status has little to do with sidestepping the “curious, quite authentic inability to think.” This is a malady that is occupationally and educationally omnipresent in our culture. It crosses lines of gender, class, race, education, occupation, and religion. (Just try having an intelligent conversation with the average Reformed cleric).

And so those of us that somehow were able to escape, by God’s grace alone, the impact of the Prussian education model as well as the heavy dosages of Soma just have to plug along reminding ourselves after every contact with the Eichmanian drones that “on the island of the insane only the sane are considered insane” and that only God’s grace can pull them out of living in jejune-ville.

Now, in closing, I remind myself that one consequence of this article will be to send the Eichmanian drones into a fit because if there is anything an Eichmanian drone knows it is that in no way is he or she and Eichmanian drone.

Here’s the point: While those in Big Government and Big Media are of course responsible for all of these types of pain and the fundamental transformation of the country that, some are candid enough to admit, they hope it brings about, culpability lay not with them alone.

The masses of Americans who have bought hook, line, and sinker, without a moment’s hesitation, the Zombie tale of an Apocalyptic Virus are as well responsible for the immense suffering that their endorsement has left in its wake.

Singer on Historiography

“Without the Biblical doctrine of God, a valid interpretation of the realm of history is impossible. It is the sovereign God who created the world, and by His creation brought history into being. In creation God gave meaning and purpose to the world. It is ONLY in this setting that man can meaningful interpret and understand history. In his understanding of the Trinity, Augustine furnished the Christian study of history with an insight lacking to classical students. The Trinitarian God in Augustine solved the problem of the one and the many in ancient philosophy and made history possible to a Supreme Being rather than to fate or chance. It is this Supreme Trinitarian Being who created man in his image, and thus conferred meaning and purpose upon human existence. History is not subject to the dictates of fate, which is neither the beginning nor end of the historical process, and which cannot give to it any purpose. In these doctrines, Augustine rescued historiography from the grip of the classical concept of determinism which could only render history meaningless and irrational.”

C. Gregg Singer
Christian Approaches; Philosophy / History – p. 28-29

Without a Sovereign God determining history and meaning, all man is left is history by impersonal fate or impersonal chance. Interestingly enough, when God is eliminated from Historiography then fate and chance together work as limiting concepts that provide the framework in which history is penned. So, despite the idea that fate and chance are opposites, fate and chance work together as two wash-women taking in each others wash off the line. Pure chance will finally slip into fate and pure fate will finally slip into chance.

All of this means that we must read history through a definitively Christian theological gird which means that we will come to different conclusions from historians who are not epistemologically self-consciously Christian. Historical events then will be for the Christian historian interpreted diametrically differently then for the non-Christian.

Even The Greats Get It Wrong from Time To Time

“You can never Christianize society. It is folly to attempt to do so. I would even suggest that it is heresy to do so. Man must be born again.
How can they live the Christian life if they have not become Christians? Good fruit can only come from a good tree, a good root; and the idea that you can impose a Christian life or culture upon non-Christian people is a contradiction of Christian teaching.”

Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones

1.) Of course this presupposes a pessimillennial eschatology. No one who was post-millennial would ever say such a thing. Pessimistic millennial views routinely pooh pooh the idea that Christ can be victorious in space and time history to the point that whole cultures and societies are so leavened with Christianity that they can genuinely be referred to as “Christian societies.” A Christian society does not mean, that every single person alive in that society is Christian but it does mean that Christianity has so leavened a society that the standards in that society (the expectations if you please) are informed by Biblical Christian categories.

2.) If one could never Christianize society, per Martyn Lloyd Jones (MLJ) then why preach the Gospel? It is simply the case that the successful preaching of the Gospel (as granted by God) will always lead to the Christianizing of society. How could the multiplication of countless conversions among one people group not lead to the Christianization of a society?

3.) The irony of a man who grew up during the last breaths of Christendom saying this is rich. The irony is furthered by the fact that he grew up in the British Isles… one of the places where God was pleased to breathe out Christian society.

4.) You see, this statement assumes that the preaching of the Gospel will always result in such a meager response that Christianity will never create a legitimately Christian society. It assumes that Christianity will always be a “back of the bus” religion as it pertains to its impact on social orders. It assumes that societies will always and forever be pagan societies. (What else can they be if they are not Christian?)

5.) Heresy to aim at Christian civilization? The Doctor at this point desperately needs a house call. Was Augustine heretical when he wrote “City of God,” which did more to Christianize Europe than anything ever written? Were Ulfilas and Patrick, and Boniface heretical in their work in Christianizing the Goths, Ireland, and the Germanic tribes? Were Clovis, Charlemagne, and Alfred the Great heretical for being instrumental in creating, politically, Christian lands and peoples? The Doctor’s statement is breathtaking in its denial of the history of Christianity. MLJ is suggesting that some of the grandest Christians ever were heretics.

6.) Of course individuals cannot live the Christian life if they have not become Christians. Did MLJ really believe that in order for a society to be Christian every single person without exception in that society had to be Christian? However, one can still have a Christianized society even if not all are converted. One can easily envision Christians capturing the levers of a social order and then moving that society towards a Christian ethos. As just one example, if Christians were able to leverage their influence in the law realm, they could bring to bear the the politicus usus of the law to the end that a society could run along a Christian world and life matrix when it comes to its criminal and statutory code. This would have the effect of Christianizing the society in an objective sense even if subjectively many in that society remained unconverted.

7.) The imposition of a religion upon a culture happens routinely in most societies. For example, the West was once overwhelmingly a Christian civilization but a handful of humanists were able to impose the religion of humanism on Western civilization. The same is true of Russia. Russia was once an Eastern Orthodox civilization and it had imposed upon it by a very small percentage of its Jewish population Bolshevism. MLJ is just in error here when he says, “the idea that you can impose a Christian life or culture upon non-Christian people is a contradiction of Christian teaching.”

The problem is that modern Christians, since the Enlightenment have lost their nerve. Having so redefined Christianity to be about the inward look that seeks to only slay individual peccadilloes it has lost the outward look to seek dominion in all areas of life in keeping with God’s standards. Christianity has largely become an effeminate religion and the Doctor’s quote reinforces that effeminate stance by wrapping it up in words like heresy and contradiction. There was a time when Christianity was masculine, outward looking, and dominion oriented. Men like Charles Martel, and John Sobieski, and Jean “Parisot” de la Valette had no problem defending Christianity as a civilization. Now Christianity doesn’t even want to speak in terms of Christian society or Christian civilization.

I love Lloyd-Jones. I have been significantly influenced by the man. I’ve read a large number of volumes written by him. I expect to shake his hand when I become part of the Church at rest. I am satisfied that he now knows how errant this statement was.

Rev. Doofus & Wearing Masks

Dear Pastor,

You think Rom 13 is the most abused passage of scripture these days, but I think the “Golden Rule” is a close second. Even worse, what happens when morons conflate the two like pastors arguing for masks. Why can’t this same argument be applied in favor of forced vaccinations and enforce quarantine? What is best way to rebut people who use “love thy neighbor” as passive-aggressive means for compliance on the matter of wearing masks?

Robert in Houston

Dear Robert,

I am going to answer your question by disemboweling this article below with its ridiculous assertion that if Christians really love their neighbor they will wear masks because that’s what Jesus would do. The guy who wrote the article is both a Pastor and an Ph.D. which explains his absolutely horrid reasoning skills.

By way of introduction, I am persuaded that we need to make the case that what they are calling love is hate and that our actions are indeed what is love. Those who are invoking the golden rule as the reason to wear masks need to have the same argument politely shoved down their pietistic throats. And that is not that difficult to do.

The “golden rule requires us to wear masks” crowd are the haters of their neighbors since masks don’t stop the virus. There are multiple studies out there that can be easily tracked down as done by professionals in their Medical fields that demonstrate that masks, as worn in a public setting, do not work. So, how can I be loving my neighbor when I am wearing a face covering that doesn’t protect them?

Rev. Doofus in the article linked above argues that even if masks are likely to be a means by which we re-infect ourselves we should still wear masks since we are to prioritize the health of others over our own health. But if the masks don’t work that makes this line of reasoning specious.

If masks really worked and were demonstrated to genuinely reduce the spread of the plannedemic I would support wearing masks. What Christian wouldn’t? But the fact is that

1.) This whole Wuhan virus narrative is skubala
2.) Masks don’t work.

Also, we must ask Rev. Doofus how far his argument goes in terms of doing things out of love for neighbor? Does love for neighbor mean that we are disobeying Jesus if we refuse to receive vaccines for our neighbors sake… for refusing the “necessity to contact and trace” thus surrendering our own privacy and the privacy of our neighbors … for refusing to go to FEMA camps built to house Wuhan infected … for refusing to let the authorities take our children out of our homes to keep them safe from Wuhan? How far does “love for our neighbors” take us in allowing the State to play the tyrant? Wouldn’t it be love for neighbor to say “NO” to all of this since a Tyrant out of control Government will end up hating on our neighbor more than we could ever imagine?

Has Rev. Doofus ever imagined that the State is taking advantage of his incredible naivete? What if the mask wearing was to induce our acceptance of future invasions? Is it love for neighbor to allow a series of invasions that incrementally grow the size of the State so that our neighbor’s liberty and well-being is threatened?

Contrary to Rev. Doofus I believe it is the very essence of love, in this situation to not wear a mask. Further, I believe that it is Rev. Doofus is the one that is being hateful towards his neighbor. By wearing the mask Rev. Doofus is reinforcing the panic and fear theme of the false Wuhan virus narrative. It is hateful to inclucate fear and panic in our neighbors. By wearing a mask Rev. Doofus is being hateful to his neighbor because by accepting the false Wuhan narrative virus he is by extension supporting the shut down of the economy. It is hateful to reinforce a narrative that shuts down his neighbors economy since by doing so Rev. Doofus is being spiteful to his neighbors who are being made jobless and potentially penniless from the the economic shut down. Has Rev. Doofus never read anything about the Great Depression? By wearing that mask Rev. Doofus is supporting a return to the Great Depression. Is that love of neighbor?

So, I can take all the Scripture that Rev. Doofus set forth in that link above and turn those passages on him to demonstrate that he is being anti-Christ like by hating his neighbor.

That article linked above is mortifying in terms of its embarrassment level. I can’t believe a Pastor could write such drivel never mind someone with a Ph.D.

Now some will complain of my “lack of respect” for calling this man “Rev. Doofus.” I do lack respect of a man who seeks to use God’s word so as to shame other Christians who don’t strap on masks. The man seeks to laden people with false guilt who have the ability to see through the fog of disinformation that he’s unable to see through. Why aren’t people accusing this chap of a lack of respect… for God no less?

The man needs to repent by writing another article apologizing for his previous density.