Reformed Reasoning On Immigration

Find the comedy in the below. The comedy is found in “how can anybody be so stupid?”

1.) Many Reformed ministers are at the leading edge insisting that illegal and legal immigrants are a good thing because it means that God is bringing the world to us to win them for Jesus.

2.) Yet the lion’s share of these same Reformed ministers have lost their own children to the Christian faith by the time those children graduate high school.

3.) So… these Reformed ministers who can’t even pass on their Christian covenantal faith to their own seed are telling us that the Church is going to convert the anti-Christ world invading America?

4.) Now add to the mix the alarming evidence that they are obviously full of horse hockey as one considers the contrary evidence that it is what very little remains of our Christian social order that is being converted to the idols that the immigrants are bringing with them as they invade this country. This truth is evidenced by the swelling number of Mosques, Synagogues, and Hindu Temples, not to mention taking over the civic apparatus of whole cities. Hamtramck, Mich. anybody? Hamtramck has elected an all-Muslim City Council and a Muslim mayor, becoming the first in the US to have a Muslim-American government. When I was an adolescent everyone in Michigan knew that Hamtamck was a Polish enclave. Now it is Muslim.

Well done on converting the newcomers.

The “conservative” Reformed church is insane.

The Decline of the Nouveau Reformed

Below is a quotation from a Roman Catholic priest. Contrast it with the current “leading lights” of Protestantism.

“Consequently at the same time as acknowledging the diversity and singularity of races, the Church rejects, equally with the racist assertions of radical racial superiority and inferiority, the tendency towards a depreciation and leveling of races found at the opposite extreme. It does this in the confidence that Christianity, grounded in reality and truth, is able to harmonize the affirmation of the radical unity of mankind with the recognition of racial diversity…There can therefore be no better way of combatting racism and racial discrimination, than by a sane and realistic acknowledgement of the facts of race and of historical and cultural inequalities” –

Bonaventure Hinwood
Race, Reflections of a Theologian, p. 103

“There is only one race. The human race. And so I think races — the whole concept of races — is problematic. The one human race is divided by language. divided by culture, divided by tribes, divided by history.”

Doug Wilson
Pope– CREC

“I use ‘ethnicity’ because, as we shall see, ‘race’ is not actually a positive biblical reality, but a construct. On this point, ironically, I agree with CRT advocates, much as many of them state that race is a social construct, but then practically operate in many senses as if it is real.”

Owen Strachan
Baptist — Need I say more?

“Concepts of “whiteness” or “blackness” are DESTROYED by the radical equality of every sinner’s need and Christ’s perfect provision. Our identity is NOT determined by our ancestors—we have been transferred out of the kingdom where such relationships rule and divide.”

James White

Another Baptist

“‘Race’ is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority.”

Dallas Statement on Social Justice

“One of the sad realities of antiracism is that it is 100 percent correct about race being a construct.”

Voddie Baucham
Yet another Baptist

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part V

“Inside our personal information bubbles, our assumptions, our blind spots, our prejudices aren’t challenged, they are reinforced and naturally, we’re more likely to react negatively to those consuming different facts and opinions – all of which deepens existing racial and religious and cultural divides.”

Barack Obama

Here we return to the final installment critiquing Dr. Alan’s Strange’s excoriating of Christian Nationalism (CN).

I open with the quote above because Strange at the 12:17 mark of his third installment on the subject says much the same thing. I can’t help but find it interesting that a putative conservative Reformed theologian agrees with a Marxist like Obama on critiquing the reading habits of Americans.

1.) It seems that Strange is trying to pry Christian people away from having convictions that he personally doesn’t like and so he says, “read from sources that don’t agree with you.” Now, I don’t have a problem with reading broadly. Indeed, I often read my enemies because in such a way I can more easily disembowel their arguments. However, this isn’t why Strange (or Obama) want you to read outside those who agree with you. Strange wants Christians to read outside of those who agree with them because only in such a way will people be pried away from positions that Strange doesn’t like.

I would encourage people to read broadly but only after they have anchored themselves in a Christian World and life view.

2.) Strange insists that “we have to put politics in its place,” but he does so via his own political jeremiad that insists that everyone salute his politics. Strange’s politics insist that Christians should not prioritize politics. The problem here is that the enemies of Christ has politicized everything. It is the enemies of Christ who have politicized life, sex, and death. As Christians are we not to respond to this pagan politicization by entering into the political sphere by pushing back? The enemies of Christ have taking politics as their theology and by the means of politics they seek to cover the globe with their anti-Christ theology. For Christians, at this time, to put politics in its place the way Strang envisions is to surrender the whole ball of wax. The consequence of Strange’s version of “putting politics in its place” is to be forced back into the catacombs. The consequence of Strange’s version of “putting politics in its place” is the final hegemony of polluted pietism in the place of a muscular Christianity that walks uprightly in the public square. The consequence of Strange’s version of “putting politics in its place” means that Jesus Christ takes a back seat to whatever god or gods is/are running the public square. I submit to you that Strange, however well intended the man may be, is issuing a call to treason against Jesus Christ.

3.) Strange pulls, the now tired claim, that CN is just WOKEism on the right as if ideas of CN or race didn’t long predate the rise of WOKEism. This claim, now made by many, is just idiotic.

4.) Strange makes a typical R2K move by insisting that Christians must return to the “spirituality of the Church,” where spirituality means “surrendering to the anti-Christ forces” in the culture wars. Strange, it seems to me, will only be happy when Christianity is not a force at all in the public square, when Christianity will be restricted to what happens during Worship on Sundays, when Christianity is publicly irrelevant. The man is petrified by the notion that Christianity may become once again militant.

Look, at the end of the day, the Christianity that Dr. Alan Strange is hawking is a different Christianity from the likes of John Knox or Puritan Pulpiteers in colonial American history. It’s not a Christianity in which I am interested. I find it to be cowardly and dishonoring to the Lordship claims of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part IV

Here we continue our series on Dr. Alan Strange’s podcasts concerning the depredations on the idea of Christian Nationalism (CN). I anticipate one more entry in order to finish this series.

Some have complained to me that I labeled Dr. Strange as a man of the left. I can come to no other conclusion about any man, despite their orthodoxy on any number of other subjects, that he is a man of the left when eschewing the idea of the explicit Lordship of Jesus Christ over a nation. Consider, as there is no such thing as neutrality, when one declaims against Christian nationalism the only options that remain is support for a nationalism that is driven by some anti-Christian religion or a internationalism that is driven by anti-Christ religion. (It is not possible for internationalism to be Christian.) Dr. Strange, and the other numberless hordes (Owen Strachan, R. Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, etc.) who are classical liberals are being driven by their Enlightenment faith and so can be considered nothing but “men of the left.” There is more of Robespierre, Danton, and Marat about these “Christian” men then there is Jesus Christ when it comes to their political theory. Hence, this is why I insist that Dr. Alan Strange is a man of the left.

Now to interact with Dr. Strange’s final podcast denigrating of Christian Nationalism;

1.) Strange, first lists his concern about the issue of how Christian Nationalism would imply coercion. This is true. Christian Nationalism would require coercion. Just as we Christians today, in the classical liberal model, are being coerced on any number of fronts to support our current state religion. Christians are being coerced to pay taxes to support the murder of the unborn, the murder of countless peoples in other lands because of our NWO guided military, the continued existence of our anti-Christ government schools and countless other projects. All governments are driven and inspired by a faith/religion vision and all governments in turn coerce people to salute that faith/religion vision. Christian Nationalism would be no different. We would coerce people — not to be Christian (only the Holy Spirit can do that) — but to operate within the confines of a Biblical Worldview and social order.

So, Strange, laments the possibility of coercion in the context of Christian Nationalism yet apparently he is willing not to lift his voice and do something about Christians being coerced to serve the agenda of our current state religion as it serves the gods of humanism. In the final analysis, when it comes to Governments, it is either coerce or be coerced. As Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, I have no problem saying, “Yes, Christian Nationalism would mean coercion.”

2.) Strange next insists that CN wrongly uses Scripture. This is basically a “anti-theonomy” argument. Now I agree with Strange that the Bible does not give us an exhaustive blue print for how social-orders are to be governed today. I do not believe that we should seek to repristinate OT Israel’s social order. However, I strongly disagree with Strange that the Scripture doesn’t speak to issues like proper tax rates (Strange mentions this). So, I agree with Strange that every political/social order issue can not be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” However, I disagree with Strange that many many political/social order issues couldn’t be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” For example, I do believe we should take the Scripture seriously that talks about taxation, that insists that a man should not dress like a woman, nor a woman like a man, that Magistrates should not have the capability to wage offensive wars, that Magistrates should be required to write out God’s law, etc. etc. etc. Strange’s strongly anti-theonomic position inevitably leads to “each man doing what is right in his own eyes.” It is a recipe for humanism.

3.) Strange, using an illustration for his position, next argues that the Scripture has nothing to say on whether or not the State should provide health care. This is a classic example of Strange being on the left. Scripture clearly denounces theft and the State cannot be involved in providing health care without stealing from the citizenry. State funded health care is anti-Christ and Christians should look with suspicion upon “Christians” who think like Strange. I don’t want to get too deeply in the weeds here but it is the jurisdiction of the family, and not the state to provide health care. Secondly, the prices of health care skyrocket when the state becomes the benefactor for health care. State funded health-care is not Christian.

4.) Strange next compares CN with Socialism and Communism by saying that his CN friends say “well, CN has never worked because it has never been tried by the right people.” Strange notes that is the same kind of logic that the Christian Utopians, Socialists and Communists use. I agree that is terrible logic. CN is never going to bring in Nirvana and that shouldn’t be our expectation. However, contrary to Strange the question isn’t “will CN bring in Shangri-La,” the question is will CN be closer to a God honoring social-order  than other political/social-order arrangements that are decidedly anti-Christ? (Understanding that all other political/social-order arrangements that are not CN will be anti-Christ — no neutrality.) The answer there is clearly and unequivocally “yes.” I would rather live with the follies of a Cromwell or Charlemagne or Alfred the Great than the follies of a Stalin, Mao, or Obama.

5.) Strange then agrees with another chap (John Ehrett) who insists that Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s CN sounds more like Nietzsche than it does Christ.  I have dissected that critique here;

McAtee Defends Stephen Wolfe Against Ehrett

Pope Doug’s Gaslighting II

“So I really do sympathize with many young kinists who have been maneuvered into a bad and untenable spot by the constant drumbeat of identity politics. So I don’t despise that kind of kinist, not at all. I love every bone in their heads.”

Pope “Ditches” Doug

1.) Note Doug wants to insist that Kinists are guilty of identity politics. Are the Japanese in Japan guilty of identity politics? Are the Han people in China guilty of identity politics? Were white people in America practicing identity politics when they wrote in the constitution, “… and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity”?

In other words, is it possible for white people to be for white people without be accused of practicing identity politics? Obviously it is but Doug has to throw that barb in, in order to suggest that Kinist are practicing Critical Race Theory.

2.) Don’t miss that Doug is calling young kinists bone-headed. He basically is saying that he loves them because, “dang it, they are young and can’t help but being led astray.”

Patronizing much Pope Doug?

Allow me to tag on here an account from a local Idahoan that has lived in Idaho much of their life. I am tagging this here because it gives a unique perspective. Keep in mind that the below is one person’s opinion and keep in mind that Doug doesn’t like people guessing at his motives. Fair enough, but that doesn’t make trying to figure out motives (what Doug calls Bulverism) automatically evil.

“Once upon a time, while my mother was growing up here, Idaho was a pretty obscure state (Idaho? Do people live in Idaho?) But during the 80s it became the area known for Richard Butler and his group. Things happened. A synagogue (that had recently moved here) was bombed (in retrospect I suspect that it was a ff) Idaho suddenly was portrayed as a haven for White supremacists. Adding insult to injury the population started being reported on as stupid, backwards rednecks (hilarious knowing my family’s history full of lawyers and professors). The richest (and most corrupt) man in town was a contemporary of my aunts and uncles. It’s an unspoken fact that he would resort to arson to get a property he wanted (his dad ran the newspaper). He despised the blue collar population and envisioned a wealthy resort town. So much so that he worked with the EPA and other government entities to shut down the local lumber mills and cripple the logging industry. Tried to annex my grandfather’s property because of the artesian well on it(lost that fight 😉). In collusion with Boise papers they cast a spell over the psyche of the state. They became embarrassed of who they were and desperately wanted to appear ‘sophisticated’ and ‘forward thinking'(I saw glimpses of that in my mom). It became a knee jerk reaction to repudiate anything ‘racist’. ‘We’re not like that!’ became their cry to the point of hysteria. It’s a sickness that has infected especially the generational Idahoans. It’s imperative that this is their message. They had an influx of liberal yuppies move in in the 90s that stoked and fanned the flames of this paranoia. These are the people that Wilson is surrounded by and is trying to placate. He fears the scorn.

There is though, a new thing they fear. The newcomers of the last 5 years (especially since covid) are not infected, more conservative and know that there’s nowhere else to run. I’ve seen them put more time, energy and money to battle the infection than any ‘local’. Wilson has chosen the losing side.

Of course, this is just my opinion and observation. But I’ve been here almost 25 years and spent my childhood summers here and remember the family stories.