From the Mailbag: John Holzmann Writes Telling Me I Am Being “Deeply Offensive”

Dear Pastor Bret,

 I don’t understand how and why you get so hot and bothered about some of the issues concerning which you seem to get hot and bothered.

Here you say (correctly, I think), that “Of course that message is ‘not white, black, green or blue.’” On the other hand, you then go on to say, “The question at hand is, ‘which kin group . . . has been . . . serving as the bulwark against moral insanity in America?’” And, for some reason, you seem intent on defining the “kin” in racial/racist terms: “[W]hether Dr. White wants to admit it or not, the answer to that is the White Anglo Saxon Christian people.” Really? “‘[T]he‘ White Anglo Saxon Christian people”? This “people”?

No non-White Anglo Saxon Christians (in other words, only White Anglo Saxons) have been opposing moral insanity in America? And, somehow, it is the White Anglo Saxons’ “peoplehood”–you know, their being White and Anglo Saxon–that fitted and enabled them, somehow, uniquely, to stand up for their high standards? It is their kinship in racial and ethnic identity that leads to such moral righteousness? And we ought to recognize this kinship–and make sure to exclude righteous brothers and sisters in Christ–brothers and sisters of other racial or ethnic backgrounds–from honor for their courageous stands?

I am concerned that you are confusing certain realities to the detriment both of the morally confused White Anglo Saxons who may claim to know the Saviro but really don’t . . . as well as to the detriment of our Christian brothers and sisters of other racial and ethnic heritages who find your (seriously confused) declarations deeply offensive.

John Holzman

Pastor Bret responds,

Friend John Holzmann,

I don’t know how you or any Biblical Christian can not get hot and bothered by the things I get so hot and bothered about. So, I guess we are even on that score.

I don’t define  the current contest in solely racial terms because I clearly offer, in the piece you are complaining about, that it is White Anglo Saxon CHRISTIANS who are the bulwark and not merely White people. White non Christians (normies) are clearly contributing to the moral insanity.

I don’t define the current battle in solely racial terms because I’m not “defining” anything. I am merely noticing the facts. All one as to do to find those facts John is to look at the minority groups, group by group, to see  the percentages by which they vote for the party of moral insanity (DEMS). (Though just to be fair, I thoroughly despise Republicans as well, but at least they work at fooling the White Anglo Saxon Christian.)

I am defining the current battle primarily in racial-theological terms because that is the indisputable reality. Now, when something is defined primarily or generally it doesn’t mean “universally.” I never said that there weren’t minority people who weren’t in the fight with the White Anglo Saxon Christian (WASC), I merely agreed with Stephen Wolfe that WASCs are the serving as a defense or safeguard (bulwark) against moral insanity.

Here is Wolfe’s statement again in case you missed it.

“White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America…. It is simply true that white evangelicals, as a group, have been essential to the success of the GOP and conservative causes, and they remain the most reliable voters for those opposing woke and trangenderism…. “Lone bulwark” means that the absence of the white evangelical bloc would torpedo us into moral insanity. There is no other group (that I’m aware of) whose absence would cause this.”   Stephen Wolfe

The point here John is that were one to take WASC’s out of our societal mix the culture would go belly up. This is indisputably true and it no insult to Christians who are not white unless one is dallying with being WOKE. Are you dallying with being WOKE John?

And I clearly said in my piece that WASCs were not made of better dirt. Did you skim the piece or read it John? I wrote in the piece:

The question at hand is, “which kin group, as completely in God’s providence and grace, quite apart from any idea that they are made of anything but dirt, has been that kin group who are serving as the bulwark against moral insanity in America?” And whether Dr. White wants to admit it or not, the answer to that is the White Anglo Saxon Christian people.

Please forgive me Rev. Dr. White (and now John Holzmann) for committing the sin of noticing.

Nobody is excluding anybody here. Why some of my best friends are minority Christians. (That’s a throwback to the 60s joke though I’ll doubt you will get it).

You have completely misread my piece John and it has been my long experience that people who do that still are infected with cultural Marxist categories. I have said nothing (nor has Wolfe) that is pejorative to minority Christians. One can only come to that errant conclusion if one is reading what I am saying with colored glasses on (pun only slightly intended).

Wolfe’s OP and my agreement has not only been demonstrated statistically but also taken for granted by people who hate white evangelicals. It’s even in the front page of books their books!

See Kristen Kobes DuMez’s book, “Jesus & John Wayne.”

So, in the end I am confusing nothing John. If anybody finds anything I write offensive on this post than it is because they are taking offense, and not because I am giving offense. If I don’t say these things in this climate I will definitely be offending my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

Just ask my minority friends who share a Christian worldview. 😉

John… give this a read. It might help

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2022/11/17/naturalvsnonnatural

And view this to see the danger WASCs are in

https://odysee.com/@Counterpoints:5/the-truth-about-the-great-replacement:d1

James White Attacks Stephen Wolfe …. McAtee can’t Resist

James White on Twitter;

There is absolutely, positively NO PLACE in Christ’s Church for “white,” or “Asian” or “Black” or “Latino” or anything else *used as a divisive label.* The unity of the body is in the singular, undivided, indispensable righteousness of Christ, NOT in skin color, kin, tribe or nation.

Bret responds,

1.) What counts as a divisive label? When Stephen Wolfe speaks something that is objectively and indisputably true on a Twitter thread that;

“White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America…. It is simply true that white evangelicals, as a group, have been essential to the success of the GOP and conservative causes, and they remain the most reliable voters for those opposing woke and trangenderism…. “Lone bulwark” means that the absence of the white evangelical bloc would torpedo us into moral insanity. There is no other group (that I’m aware of) whose absence would cause this.”

Is that being “divisive” per James White? I think it must mean that in White’s World because he posted these comments in response to Wolfe’s observation.

So, I wonder if Rev. Dr. White might explain just exactly how such an observation is creating divisiveness in Christ’s church?

The inspired St. Paul could say that “All Cretans are liars.” Per Rev. Dr. White should St. Paul be sanctioned for that allegedly  divisive comment?  What about when Jesus called the Samaritan woman a “dog.” Should Jesus be sanctioned for that allegedly divisive comment?

2.) The Rev. Dr. White has a false dichotomy above. It is true that the unity of the body is found in the righteousness of Jesus Christ but that does not in turn mean that Christian people can’t also find a unity in “skin color, kin, tribe or nation.” Listen to Dr. John Frame on the matter;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers inthe faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

White makes the popular mistake in that opening comment of thinking that somehow grace destroys nature. A Yellow man becomes a Christian and suddenly his Yellowness disappears, with all the implied cultural and racial heritage, into the Christian regenerating ether. Why can’t these people like the Rev. Dr. White realize that we can have both a unity with our Christian Kin that is unique but doesn’t violate a confederated unity with our fellow Christians who are not of our people and place?

Again, keep in mind, that the church has only begun to think this way with the rise of the Civil rights movement. Never, in the Church’s history has anyone ever thought like James White and his ideological clan on this subject except perhaps the Anabaptist levelers.

Rev. Dr. James White going all declarative writes;

“I will NOT stand with anyone who seeks to undermine that unity with the use of such labels. I stood up in 2018 after MLK 50 and said the EXACT same thing. One man called for an “ecumenical council” to condemn me as a heretic for daring to say the Lord’s Table is a place not for ethnicities or labels but solely as a place for focus upon Christ.”

Bret responds,

1.) Really, very few care who James White will or will not stand with. I think they call this “attention seeking behavior.”

2.) White is not angling for unity here. White is thumping for uniformity. There is a HUGE difference between the two.

3.) I’m not going to comment on the last sentence above because I suspect I need more context to know what really went on there. Still, if the Lord’s Table is not a place for labels, I think that means the Rev. Dr. James White is all good with paedo-communion since the work of disallowing toddlers to the table requires the work of “labeling” them.

Rev. Dr. White writes;

The only bulwark against the moral insanity of the West is found in *fidelity to Scripture as the revelation of God and its proclamation of Christ as Lord of the nations, the sole and only way of peace with God, and hence the only way of peace amongst men.* That message is not white, black, green or blue. I have far, far, FAR more in common with a Chinese pastor standing firm in the face of CCP torture than I do a white evangelical whose commitment to Scripture is weaker than his commitment to a political party or cause.

Bret responds,

1.) Here White snipes at Stephen Wolfe’s comment above. I don’t want to put words in Wolfe’s mouth but I suspect that Wolfe would say (and I know I would say) that the reason that  “White evangelicals (as a group) are the lone bulwark against moral insanity in America” is precisely because of their, in White’s words, “fidelity to Scripture as the revelation of God and its proclamation of Christ as Lord of the nations, the sole and only way of peace with God, and hence the only way of peace amongst men.*”

As such the Rev. Dr. White has given us the fallacy of a false dichotomy. False dichotomies are all the rage these days among those reputed to be pillars in the Church today.

2.) Of course that message is “not white, black, green or blue.” However, that is not the question at hand, though we are certainly thankful that the Rev. Dr. White has cleared that up for everyone. The question at hand is, “which kin group, as completely in God’s providence and grace, quite apart from any idea that they are made of anything but dirt, has been that kin group who are serving as the bulwark against moral insanity in America?” And whether Dr. White wants to admit it or not, the answer to that is the White Anglo Saxon Christian people.

Please forgive me Rev. Dr. White for committing the sin of noticing.

3.) But the question is does White have more in common with a WASP pastor who is his cousin standing firm in the face of the American Unipolar Party than he has in common with a Chinese pastor standing firm in the face of the CCP? I doubt if the Rev. Dr. White would get anywhere near to answering that question.

The Rev. Dr. White writes,

It is time we all took a deep, deep breath, backed up about a year or so, and said, “Let’s try this again, slowly, carefully, without the influence of undo emotion, and let us in grace and love toward fellow believers think this through.” As soon as it comes to our using ethnic groups as meaningful cohorts rather than the unity of the body in the gospel, we will know we have lost our way!

Bret responds,

It is time that those reputed to be pillars in the Church took a deep, deep breath, backed up about a year or so, and said, “Let’s try this again once we read Dow and Achord’s book, ‘Who is My Neighbor.’ Let’s read it slowly, carefully, without the influence of the emotions of Cultural Marxism coursing through our veins. As soon as it comes to the inability to admit creational categories exist within the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ we will know we have lost our way and instead are following the way of old Slewfoot who has convinced us that Bono was inspired when he wrote;

I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colours will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes, I’m still running

 

Elder’s Rule … Laity Submits

Acts 20:38 — Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood.

I Corinthians 16:15 I urge you, brethren—you know the household of Stephanas, that it is the firstfruits of Achaia, and that they have devoted themselves to the ministry of the saints— 16 that you also submit to such, and to everyone who works and labors with us.

I Thessalonians 5:12And we urge you, brethren, to recognize those who labor among you, and are over you in the Lord and admonish you, 13 In love, hold them in highest regard because of their work. Live in peace with one another.

I Timothy 5:17 Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and doctrine.

Hebrews 13:7 Remember those who [a]rule over you, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose faith follow, considering the outcome of their conduct….

17.) Obey those who [e]rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.

The function and role of an elder is well summarized by Alexander Strauch in his book Biblical Eldership:

“Elders lead the church [1 Tim 5:17; Titus 1:7; 1 Peter 5:1–2], teach and preach the Word [1 Timothy 3:2; 2 Timothy 4:2; Titus 1:9], protect the church from false teachers [Acts 20:17, 28–31], exhort and admonish the saints in sound doctrine [1 Timothy 4:13; 2 Timothy 3:13–17; Titus 1:9], visit the sick and pray [James 5:14; Acts 6:4], and judge doctrinal issues [Acts 15:6]. In biblical terminology, elders shepherd, oversee, lead, and care for the local church” (16).

Obvious truths we have learned from the Scripture we have cited;

1.) There exists and has always existed a God ordained hierarchy not only in the home where husbands are to rule their wives and children, and not only in the civil realm where Magistrates are to rule the citizenry, but also in the Church where the Elders are to rule the laity.

2.) This truth in turn reminds us when discussing all of this of the necessity to understand Jurisdictionalism. There are these sphere of jurisdiction that God has appointed and in those spheres of jurisdiction God has named different authorities. These jurisdictions are important to keep in mind since the respective authorities in the differing jurisdiction must seek to honor the distinct jurisdictions.

For example, as an Elder, I do not have the authority to come into your home and rule your home unless for some reason you have grossly abdicated your legitimate authority by no longer ruling your home “in the Lord.” At that time the Elders will come to you, point out the appropriate Scripture that someone is walking contrary to, and then will ask you to repent. This is the kind of action that we see the Apostle Paul call for in I Corinthians 5;

 It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even [a]named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are [b]puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord [c]Jesus.

Here St. Paul is taking up his authority as an Elder to correct both an individual in the Corinthian congregation but also the Church as a whole.  St. Paul later in II Timothy gives Timothy the Elder to do this very same kind of work:

16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction,

Now obviously this kind of authority, like all authority can be abused. The maxim, “Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely” does not find any exceptions among those who are Elders in Christ’s church. So, when we insist, with Scripture that the role of the Elder is to engage, when necessary, in reproof and correction of the flock Elders should understand that power can go to their head. This is why, we have a plurality of Elders so that no one Elder is holding all the authority.

So we see here that one area in which an Elder rules in the Church and one area therefore upon which the laity are obliged to submit (Hebrews 13:17) is when it comes to the area of morals and doctrine. The Elders are to be the gatekeepers for the proper thinking (Doctrine) and proper morals (Behavior) as among God’s people. This is why St. Paul told the Church in Corinth to excommunicate the man who was sleeping with his step-mother. It is why Scripture repeatedly calls Elders to guard what was committed to their trust (I Timothy 6:20-21).

The Church is the Bride of Christ and it is the role of the Elders to protect the purity of the Bride.

Now, of course Elder’s fail and given this high and holy calling they can’t help but be hypocrites since they themselves can never reach the standard that is placed upon all God’s people for holiness of living and thinking. Yet, despite that reality Elders are called to rule and the laity is called to submit.

Now, what we have seen so far?

1.) We have seen a wee bit what Elders are called to do in their role as God’s appointed leader of the Church.

2.) We have noted that the role of the laity is to submit when their Elders are ruling them as “in the Lord.” Now, if an Elder comes to you to speak on some matter of course the initial route is not likely going to be instant ultimatums but rather the course is going to be one of reasoned conversation. The exception to that is if someone here would be doing something extreme like sleeping with their stepmother or advancing Radical Two Kingdom theology among the saints.

3.) We began to look at the notion of jurisdictional spheres and tried to emphasize that the authority of an Elder rests in the jurisdictional sphere of the Church just as the role of the Father/Husband rests in the jurisdictional sphere of the home.

Let’s talk about that one just a wee bit more.

The jurisdictional spheres as found in the Scripture means there are boundaries for authority. Jesus Christ is the only one who has all authority. Any authority here whether exercised by husband, Elder, or Magistrate is authority that exists in a very circumscribed sphere.

So a Magistrate cannot enter the Church and based on his authority as a magistrate violate the jurisdiction of the Church by presuming to rule in the affairs of the church unless the Church has grossly abdicated its legitimate authority by no longer ruling the Church as “in the Lord.” In the same way Elders in the Church cannot enter the civil sphere of the Magistrate and on the basis of his authority as an Elder violate the jurisdiction of the Magistrate by presuming to rule in the affairs of the civil order unless the Magistrate has grossly abdicated its legitimate authority by no longer ruling the civil order as “in the Lord.”

So, we have these spheres of jurisdictions and we have proper authorities ruling in each jurisdictional sphere. Conceptually this is not difficult to understand. Practically, if the God ordained rulers of each sphere rule as “in the Lord,” there is not going to be a problem in honoring those jurisdictions or the authorities therein. However, when one sphere gets out of whack that makes matters often very difficult.

For example when one jurisdiction ceases ruling as “in the Lord” then eventually authorities from another jurisdiction are going to have to interpose into that errant jurisdiction and set matters right. This is called the doctrine of interposition.

But let us not get to far afield from where we are at this morning. We will talk, I think, more about interposition in a later sermon. Right now let’s concentrate on the fact that the Church is a jurisdictional sphere of authority where God has placed a structure of hierarchy so as to have a ruler and ruled ecclesiastical order.

We have seen that Elders in the Church have ruling authority. This is indisputable from the Scripture that we have looked at. However, we pause to note again this stated hierarchy because it is in some sense disputed in some circles. Among the Anabaptist movement today one will learn that there is a leveling when it comes to the roles of leaders. In the Anabaptist movement (Mennonites, Amish, Brethren,) there is the principle that there is no such thing as interposition of human authority since the New Covenant. This means that the role of Elder in those Christian communities are going to be more egalitarian.

As such Anabaptist churches and Christians have a view of ecclesiastical authority that is going to be very different from the view of ecclesiastical authority as found among Roman Catholics who go to the opposite extreme. If the Anabaptist have a tendency to level all hierarchical structure in the Church, Rome and ecclesiastical models like Rome tend to absolutize ecclesiastical authority in the Church so that Priests, Bishops, Cardinals and Popes are seen as being vested with uber-authority that is not to be questioned.

The Reformed understanding of the role of Elders as a rulers was that of a ministerial role and not a magisterial role such is found in Rome. The Reformed understanding of the role of Elders as a rulers was that of the Shepherd of the flock who is a sheep himself with real authority  and not as just some kind of life coach such as might be found among the Anabaptists.

And because the Elder has real authority to lead, to lead by serving, and to rule the flock is called upon to submit as they are “ruled in the Lord.” We’ve seen that in the Scripture this morning. We also see it in our Confessions;

“All men are in duty bound to join and unite themselves with the Church, maintaining the unity of the Church;3 submitting themselves to the doctrine and discipline thereof; bowing their necks under the yoke of Jesus Christ;4

Belgic Confession Article 28

Now let us talk a wee bit more about what Elder authority looks like and how does it apply?

And for the answer to that we have only to reference our own Heidelberg Catechism as it faithfully teaches Scripture.

Keys

Question 82: Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who, by confession and life, declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly?

Answer: No; for by this, the covenant of God would be profaned and His wrath kindled against the whole congregation;10 therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and His apostles, to exclude such persons 11 by the keys of the kingdom of heaven till they show amendment of life.

Question 83: What are the keys of the kingdom of heaven?1

Answer: The preaching of the holy gospel, and Christian discipline,2 or excommunication out of the Christian church;3 by these two, the kingdom of heaven is opened to believers and shut against unbelievers.

We learn here that by sound preaching the Elders exercise their authority. This would mean that every Lord’s Day upon your attendance at Morning, and Evening service as well as Sunday School  you are at that point practicing a submission to the Elder’s authority by sitting under the preaching of the Gospel.

As to Christian discipline, the word discipline in the Greek is paidea and it means to instruct or correct. Elders have the responsibility to instruct and correct the flock. This can happen as easily as in a casual conversation and it can happen as officially in official Church discipline. Most often it should happen in casual conversation. The more drama that is injected into the context of Christian discipline the less likely there will be a satisfactory result.

Question 85: How is the kingdom of heaven shut and opened by Christian discipline?

Answer: Thus: when according to the command of Christ,8 those, who under the name of Christians, maintain doctrines or practices inconsistent therewith,9 and will not, after having been often brotherly admonished, renounce their errors and wicked course of life, are complained of to the church or to those10 who are thereunto appointed by the church;11 and if they despise their admonition, are by them forbidden the use of the sacraments;12 whereby they are excluded from the Christian church and by God Himself from the kingdom of Christ; and when they promise and show real amendment, are again received as members of Christ and His church.13

Q. 85 here demonstrates again that the Elder is to rule and one means of ruling is to admonish (to lead, to have charge over) and the rule of is to be submitted to by the flock because a lack of submission means excommunication.

Now, having noted all this lets be realistic about Elder’s ruling and the flock submitting in today’s Church. I’ve been at this long enough now to know how this works in real life. When there is something that needs correction I go to the person in question and they blow me off. For example there have been numerous times over my 35 years in the ministry that I would challenge people about a tender subject and they would essentially tell me to mind my own business. If the matter is serious enough such as someone sleeping with their stepmother what happens is that somewhere along the path to excommunication they just up and leave and join the church down the block who doesn’t care about where they were because the other church is just happy for the new meat in the seat. Because, that is true the authority of the Elder in today’s church is largely irrelevant in the every day life of the Church.

And yet not irrelevant to God. Elders should take up their authority even if they know it will have little impact because in doing so they are being faithful to God even if there is little or no submission on the part of the laity and even if there is little or no fruit as a consequence of seeking to exercise Godly authority.

Finally, all that being said, as an Elder, I recognize how hard it must be for the flock to submit to Elders today given the character and lack of wisdom that we as clergy and Elders demonstrate today.

All of this is a matter we should be diligently in prayer about. The Church in the West is a mess and only God can deliver us now.

The good news is that in His time He will certainly do that. God will, in His time once again raise up good men to be Elders who wield authority with humility, yet with boldness. God will, in His time once again raise up laity who will see that their safety and well being lies in submitting to godly Elders. God will, in His time, renew, reform, and revitalize His Son’s bride so that she is once again without spot and without blemish.

May it happen in the lifetime of some of us in attendance today.

McAtee & Josh Buice Discuss Christian Nationalism through the Prism of Mayberry’s Otis the Town Drunk and Sodom’s Hiram the Town Drunk

Honestly, I don’t know who Josh Buice is except to say he is the head of something called G3 ministries and I just learned that in the last 5 minutes. However, over on Twitter he is stirring the pot with Baptist type of reasoning.  When I learned that Buice runs G3 ministries I learned also that he was Baptist but I had guessed that before the Wiki article told me he was.

Here is Buice over on Twitter reasoning like a Baptist;

Even if you could baptize America, it still wouldn’t make America a Christian nation. The theological arm of the Christian Nationalism debate is extremely flawed. Nominal Christianity is not Christianity. Carnal Christianity is not Christianity. Our aim is Christianity.

Bret responds,

It depends on what one means by “Christian Nation.” Christian Nationalism has never believed that in order for a nation to be Christian every single member of the nation has to be a bible thumping, twice on Sunday church attending, Baptized Christian. Christian Nationalism instead envisions instead at least a sizeable minority of the nation being Christian so as to maintain the Christian cultural Institutions of the social order that they might remain Christian in orientation.  Christian nationalism quite understands that in a Christian nation it is altogether possible that much of the Christianity in that Christian nation might well be nominal and some of it even carnal. However, what makes a Christian nation a Christian nation is that objective the institutions of the nation are being shaped by Christian categories as at the very least a sizeable minority of Christians in the nation are the gatekeepers of the cultural and social institutions of the nation.

Let’s flip this around to explain it from another angle. Right now our nation is a humanist nation. All of our cultural civil-social intuitions have been captured by the humanist left (cultural Marxism) including the putatively conservative churches. However, clearly there remains in the US a sizeable number of Biblical Christians. Does the fact that there is a sizeable number of Biblical Christians in this country therefore provide proof positive that this country is not a Humanist Nation? Of course not. The country can be humanist while still having Christians populating it. It is humanist because objectively stated, all of the Institutions of America have been capture by the humanists.

In the same way, sans Buice, a nation can be objectively Christian and still only have a sizeable minority subjectively embrace the Christian faith that is operating objectively to make the nation Christian.

In brief, Christianity is both individual and corporate. A nation can be corporately Christian in an objective sense and yet only have a sizeable minority be subjectively Christian.

After Buice poste this a chap at Twitter named

@PaterFamilian perceptively asked Buice;
So, would you rather live in Mayberry or Sodom? If you’re unsure, ask your family.
 And Buice responded,

“Personally, Mayberry. But, I think it would be a disservice and theological error to refer to Otis Campbell as a Christian because his address was within that town.”

And now Bret responds again to Buice;

Certainly Otis is likely not converted and so doesn’t subjectively own Christ. However, Otis, Mayberry’s town drunk is a different kind of town drunk than the town drunk who would exist in Sodom. Think about it. Otis, while not subjectively a Christian, has been objectively influenced by Christian Mayberry as seen in the fact that Otis always locks himself up when he’s been on a bender, and always speaks deferentially to Andy and Barney. Does Buice really think that Hiram the town drunk in Sodom acts in such a Christian manner or does Hiram the town drunk in Sodom when he gets drunk go looking for little children to rape?

You see, the fact that Otis is not a Christian subjectively speaking in the sense that Otis has personally owned Jesus Christ is true as Buice notes. However, Otis is a Christian objectively speaking in the sense that he is part of a Nation that is being ordered by the Christian faith in its various institutions. Otis will be damned forever if he does not embrace Christ for himself. However, Otis’s sin will be constrained because he lives in the Christian town of Mayberry and so because he lives in the Christian town of Mayberry he can be considered a Christian in an objective sense even if he is not a Christian in a subjective sense.

Buice, like most Baptists has not thought this through.

Buice in the Twitter thread keeps telling people not to conflate nation and church. This is curious because no one on the Christian Nationalism side who is Reformed desires to do that. We understand and desire for the Magistrate to be a Christian who enforces Christian law and who handles the sword in a Christian fashion. However, we do not desire the Magistrate to leave his assigned jurisdictional realm and come into the Church to handle the keys of the Kindgom (word & sacrament).

So, it is quite possible to have a Christian nation where the nation is not conflated with the Church while both church and nation are decidedly Christian. And we are quite willing to say that such a Christian nation could possibly have many nominal Christians in said Christian nation. This is why the Church would continue to preach law and gospel to the nominal Christians of the nation who may well be sitting in their pews on the Lord’s Day.

So, Christian Nationalism most certainly does not conflate nation with church. Further, Christian Nationalism anticipates that there will be nominal Christians in a Christian nation and even perhaps nominal Churches. However the only alternative to that is to say we should have a non-Christian nation which has consistent Christ hating pagans such as Hiram the Sodom drunk on every corner.

In some respects, Otis — Mayberry’s town drunk — is a blessing.

The Unity of the Godhead As Embraced By Socialists

For the Socialist heaven on earth must present perfection and perfection requires unity among all mankind. This kind of unity is a “atheistic” pursuit born of the theological convictions of their atheism. It is theological because this drive for unity is connected to the socialist’s god concept. Theologically, we know that one attribute of godhood is unity in the deity and since there must be unity in all Godheads, and since man is now the “godhead man,” due to the atheism of the Socialist, man must be unified as a atheistic theological necessity. Unity, for the progressive (socialist), means universal submission to a single sovereignty, and unity in and of the world means universal submission to a single world government. In such a unity, required by both the theology and the teleology of Humanism, two or more distinct races living side by side as segregated, in distinct cultural communities is intolerable. It is intolerable because it defies both their theology and their eschatology.

Because the above is true, totalistic integration into a unified globalist order therefore becomes the Holy Grail for which all “noble” men must strive per the Marxist (socialist). In point of fact, total human integration resulting in total humanistic unity becomes a life and death issue for the Social Gospelers, and the Progressives. (Marxists all). Integration is the necessary step to be taken down the long road of the totalitarian perfection that is heaven on earth. Anyone who dares to question integration is obstructing the Humanist god and worse yet, the sure introduction of heaven on earth. Those who oppose unquestioned integration are thwarting the will of the collective man god and the progressive vision for the inevitable destiny of man. Such a person must be dealt with by elimination. He must be denounced. He must be destroyed.

All of  the above provides the backdrop for why biblical Christians who advocate for a Christian social order are so thoroughly hated both inside and outside the Church. We are the ones who are standing athwart this project, because of our Biblical convictions, and are saying that this kind of pursuit of a New World Order, whether expressed among families or nations is neither Biblical nor natural. Biblical Christians have no desire to be drawn into the ever consuming maw of the socialist beast which exists to gnaw away all distinctions among men so that a “New Socialist Man” can be created. The Biblical Christian realizes that man is not God either considered individually or collectively and because of that the Biblical Christian sees no necessity to live in a world where “all colors bleed into one.” In point of fact, the Biblical Christian is adamantly resolved that this thinking “shall not pass.”

Yet, Legion is the name of simpletons in “Christian” pulpits and behind lecterns in “Christian” Seminaries who have not thought this matter through and so are on the socialist “love train.”

“People all over the world (Everybody)
Join hands (Join)
Start a love train, love train
People all over the world (All the world, now)
Join hands (Love ride)
Start a love train (Love ride), love train”

God save us from well intended simpletons.