Societal Law-Order & Cultural Evangelism

If you want the advancement of the Gospel and the growth of the Church to get significantly smothered in your state or your city all you have to do is to let your state go blue. This is not my opinion. This is what the data shows. If you show me a map of the most progressive areas of our nation followed by showing me a map of the regions in our nation that have the fewest churches you’ll discover quickly that you’re looking at the same exact map.

What this teaches us is that a Red State that has a law order structure that reflects to one degree or another a Biblical ethic/morality will be a State whose law order is serving as a significant and powerful tool for for what we might call pre-evangelism. In such states the laws of the state are creating in people what might be called a “plausibility structure” that serves the purpose of creating a context wherein Christianity is intuitively understood — because of the law order context — to be the carrier of the good, the true, and the beautiful.

This should not be difficult to understand nor controversial. If a child is reared in a societal Sharia law-order context, then Islam is going to be the religion that the child is pushed towards. If a child is reared in a societal Talmudic law-order context, then Judaism is going to be the religion that the child is pushed toward. If a child is reared in a societal Marxist law-order context then Marxism is going to be the religion that most readily makes sense to the child. Finally, if a child is reared in a Christian societal law-order context then the Christian faith is going to be that religion that the child is going to be pre-evangelized by.

None of this is to say that a societal Christian law order will automatically make converts to Jesus Christ. It is only being said that a societal Christian law-order will saturate the citizenry in the parameters of a Christian world and life view thus resulting in the Gospel proclamation having a Christian societal context that will serve the end of making the Gospel more readily understood.

Now, there are dangers here to be sure. The chief danger in having a societal Christian law order is that the citizenry may well think that this cultural Christianity that is driving the societal Christian law order will be the very definition of being a Christian. It is possible that citizens dwelling in a society shaped by a Christian law order will be satisfied with their own righteousness resulting in the refusal to own their own personal rebellion against a Holy God. However, that rebels might continue to rebel is no reason to be opposed to the building of a societal Christian law order.

This leads us to suggest that if we are serious about the Great Commission we need to understand that part of what it means to “disciple the nations” is to not only to do the work of Evangelism but also it means to do the work of advocating for a societal Christian Law order that will reflect the beauty and justice of Christianity in the larger social order. This reflection of Christ in the Law order will itself have the effect of doing the work of pre-evangelism.

This explains, why I hate R2K so thoroughly because R2K is opposed to Christian clergy, as God’s spokesman in the pulpit, advocating for a societal Christian Law order. R2K insists that the clergy be silent about such issues, arguing instead that only Christian laymen can be involved in such advocacy as members of organizations that may well push for Christian laws in this or that area. The problem here though is that R2K will then allow that theoretically they could also have laymen who are members of their churches who belong to organizations that advocate for “Christian” Marxism. As another example R2K churches could have laymen in their churches who are members of organizations that advocate for the 2nd amendment and as well as those who advocate for stricter gun laws. All of these people could exist in one R2K congregation because the clergy never gives a “thus saith the Lord” from the pulpit on the issues that have been used as examples. R2K, by ignoring cultural issues promotes the de-Christianization of the social order.

So, the real live data is showing us that when political conservatism spreads more people become Christians and when political progressivism spreads more people become adamantly opposed to Christianity.

This really isn’t that difficult to understand since Christians have always understood that law has a tutorial role in shaping the way people think and act. Christians have always understood that the law has a didactic function. The legislating of laws, in marking out right and wrong, in any social order, also teach the citizenry what is good and evil. A nations Law-order, therefore, is a tuning-fork that will work to resonate in the citizenry to the end of fine-tuning their conscience(s).

A Biblical Law-order provides the opportunity for the citizenry to reverse engineer that Law-order and so arrive at the person who is the ultimate foundation of that Law-order – The Lord Jesus Christ. So, a Biblical Law-Order calibrates the mindset of the citizens of a nation by saturating that citizenry via its laws with a Christian content and context. By providing this plausibility paradigm pre-evangelism occurs.

Of course the opposite is true as well. If a conservatism that is anchored in Biblical principles pushes people towards the God of the Bible, then a Progressivism that is anchored in cultural Marxist principles pushes people away from the God of the Bible. The truth of this is seen in the people that our Government schools produce. Because our Government schools are built upon a Cultural Marxist paradigm students are inclined to hate the sound of Christianity.

Because there is no such thing as neutrality, as Christians we must either support Law-Order systems that are explicitly Christian are we will support Law-Order systems that are explicitly anti-Christ. We will either prime the pump of the conscience(s) of the people towards Christ or we will prime the pump of the consciencs(s) of the people towards anti-Christ.

That this same principle applies to not only questions surrounding Law-Order but other areas as well is readily seen. The way we educate, the Art we put forth, our family structures, etc. will either push people towards Christ or push people away from Christ. The whole cultural apparatus is pre-evangelism and either we pre-evangelize people towards Christ and His Gospel or we pre-evangelize people towards anti-Christ and that damnable anti-Gospel.

All of this begins to explain why evangelism cannot be solely individualist and atomistic. Evangelism does have to set forth to all men everywhere but evangelism also must be done as “discipling the nations.”

Making Distinctions Regarding The Mormon Massacre & The Left

3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” Luke 13

 

By now most people know that there was an awful attack on a Mormon worship facility in Michigan where four were murdered. There has been a great deal of confusion on how Christians should respond to this.

Jesus Christ’s response to a similar tragedy to call on people to repent. That is the same word that Christians should speak to Mormons during this time. Yes, we must be compassionate but being the very nard of compassion is telling them they must repent of their anti-Christ religion. We cannot allow them what they have been angling for, over the course of many years now. We cannot allow them to be seen as Christian because of this wickedness. That this attempt to meld Mormonism is part of the agenda following this event in Grand Blanc, Michigan. For example US Sen. Mike Lee, Republican from Utah posted;

“I’m a follower of Jesus Christ.”

US Sen. Mike Lee

Utah Republican

 

Mike Lee is a Mormon. Mormons follow some chap named Jesus Christ who has the same name and title of the God-Man in the Bible. However, all because the Mormon Jesus shares the same name with the Jesus Christ doesn’t mean he is worshiping the same person. In point of fact the Jesus of Mormonism and the Jesus of Biblical Christianity have only one thing in common and that is the name “Jesus.” Believing the Jesus of Mormonism will leave one eternally damned.

As Christians we cannot allow Mormons to use this firebombing of one of their pagan worship centers to try and pass themselves off as Christians. Ask yourself, what if instead of a Mormon worship place being burned to the ground it had been a Satanist worship place being toasted? Would Christians like Meghan Basham (author of “Shepherds For Sale”) be posting things like this;

Guys, I take doctrine very seriously. But if you think the right time to pick a fight on doctrine is when someone’s house of worship has just been set on fire, and several of their people killed and wounded, well, that’s just called being awful.

Meghan doesn’t realize that Mormonism is just another version of Satanism. One wonders if Meghan thought Jesus was just being awful when he said after the fall of the tower of Siloam that “unless his listeners repent they will likewise perish?”

Mormonism posits the following anti-Christian doctrines;

1.) Jesus and Satan were brothers
2.) Jesus Christ was not eternally God of very God but only became God
3.) The Mormon God at one time was not God but likewise became God
4.) Mormons add to God’s Word with the “Book of Mormon” & “The Pearl of Great Price”
5.) The Mormon concept of Atonement includes the idea of “blood atonement” where man can pay for his own sin by the shedding of his own blood.
6.) For the Mormons  like the Son, the Holy Ghost was a “spirit child” born to the Father. This is anti-trinitarian.

So, what has been so far is one side of how Biblical Christians should be responding to this massacre in Grand Blanc at a Mormon Church. Christians should, out of compassion, be telling living Mormons that they should repent lest they likewise perish.

The other side of this massacre is to realize that in the eyes of the unhinged left who we live cheek by jowl with this is an attack on Christianity and if the unhinged left’s response to the death of Charlie Kirk is any indicator the left is reveling over this attack on the Mormon place where they worship their pagan God. Leftists, idiots that they are, are measuring this as yet another victory against Christianity. Because the left conflates Mormonism with Christianity, seeing them as one and the same, we must denounce this act of barbarity. We denounce this massacre not because we are defending Mormonism. Our word to Mormons is “repent, lest ye likewise perish.” We denounce the massacre because the left thinks that once again they have gained a victory over Christianity. Our word to the left is;

“Those who live by the sword shall die by the sword,” (Mt. 26:52) as well as “repent, lest ye likewise perish.”

Dissecting The Cultural Marxist CREC Proposal On Race Relations

This is the statement on Nations that the Knox Presbytery of the CREC (Pope Wilson’s presbytery) will propose for consideration at their general conference next year. If it’s accepted, it will become official doctrine.

“We condemn any doctrine that God has established any barriers to marriage for individuals based on ethnicity or skin color, prohibits or holds marriages between different ethnicities in contempt, or seeks to promote ethnic-based divisions in society. We view them as inherently divisive and contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. We affirm that mankind is created in the Image of God; hence, no ethnicity is inherently more sacred or sinful than another, and all ethnicities can be in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, interethnic marriages, churches, and commonwealths can exist and flourish in the present age.”

We have said repeatedly on Iron Ink that it is not possible to get to multi-culturalism apart from multi-racialism with multi-faithism being the eventual result. Here the CREC offers a doctrinal statement that will continue the recent decades push in the West to miscegenate. This miscegenation will result in a multi-racialism which in turn will support the multiculturalism that is now so increasingly typical in the West.

All of this, in its origin, was and is the project of Cultural Marxism. The goal of Cultural Marxism was to destroy the West from the inside out. The way the Cultural Marxists intended to do that was to destroy the Christian Institutions of the West. Marriage is an Institution that the Cultural Marxist have sought to destroy and whether the CREC likes it or not the Institution of Marriage in the West in our history is the joining of one White Christian woman with one White Christian man. Now, of course, exceptions have always existed and those exceptions should be treated as marriages by a Christian people. However, on the whole exceptions should remain exceptions and this attempt by the CREC to join the Cultural Marxist chorus should be rejected.

The British statesman Edmund Burke once wrote, “When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated.” The CREC here is seeking to contramand ancient opinions and rules of life as they were set forth by our Christian forebears. That this is true is seen by the reasons elucidated by one of the Fathers of the PCA for separating into a new denomination;

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS) by 
Dr. Rev. John Edwards Richards

The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.

The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.

The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.

The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

Elsewhere Richards could write prophetically of the CREC (as well as most other Reformed “conservative”denominations) in 2025;

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” 

Dr. John E. Richards

I continue to find it stunning that in 50 short years the theology of the clergy and church has reversed itself so thoroughly from thousands of years of Church history. We have gone on from our Father’s frowning on interracial marriage in 1973 to marking out the grandchildren of those Fathers as those who are beyond the pale in terms of Church fellowship. In 1973 they left because of the issues above. In 2025 they are insisting that the grandchildren leave because they still agree with the reasons of the Father’s leaving as given above. The views of the CREC articulated above were seen as divisive in 1973. In 2025 those who disagree with the CREC are the divisive ones. Who ever thought that white people wanting their children to look like them would be divisive?

Who knew that God was pleased with and even requires multiculturalism?

If one can’t seek to promote ethnic-based divisions in society, as is stated in this proposal, one has, by default, removed any obstacles to multiculturalism’s insistence that it must be allowed as by Divine warrant.

Notice the use of the phrase “skin color” in the proposal above. This phrase has been chosen because of the insistence that “race” can be reduced to be  only about skin color. This is a subtle insistence that there is no such thing as race, as if different races wouldn’t still be different races if they all had the same skin color. This is right out of the Franz Boas playbook in denying the objective reality of race. Boas contributed to the Cultural Marxist cause.

Next, I know very few people who would argue that any ethnicity is more sacred or sinful than another. This is a red herring and it is seeking to make the opponents to the Cultural Marxism of the CREC look evil. All those within the Reformed Church (or who were in the Reformed church before being cast out for believing what their Fathers believed) have been arguing that racial distinctions should be recognized and honored believe that all peoples are created as image bearers of God. The idea that Christian Kinists or race-realists believe some races/ethnicities are inherently more sacred (set apart as holy) or sinful than others is just horse manure.

Next one wonders how it is that doctrines that promote ethnic-based divisions in society are … contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, any more or less than promoting gender-based divisions in society are … contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the declaration by the heralds of the King that now is the appointed day of salvation because of the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ followed by the command that all men – regardless of race – everywhere repent. Neither Rev. Michael Spangler, Rev. Michael Hunter, Rev. Ryan Louis Underwood, Rev. John Weaver or (the worst of them all) Rev. Bret L. McAtee would deny the Gospel to men of every race, tongue, tribe, or nation. This claim that promoting ethnic based distinctions in society are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ is more horse manure. In order to believe this one would have to argue that the greatest ministers, and evangelists in church history have been those who were contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Moving on we note that nobody denies that and all ethnicities can be in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. What we deny is the wisdom of all ethnicities being in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. We agree with Reformed theologian John Frame who said;

“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 in the 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”

Finally, no one doubts “that interethnic marriages, churches, and commonwealths can exist and flourish in the present age.” The question is not whether they can exist. The question is whether or not they should exist. Our forefathers did not think so, as has been made abundantly clear in two different large anthologies;

Who Is My Neighbor; An Anthology In Natural Relations
A Survey Of Racialism In Christian Sacred Tradition – Alexander Storen

Let it be said again. Our Reformed and Christian Fathers were against what the Church in the West (this time the CREC) is pursuing and embracing in terms of miscegenation and multiculturalism, multi-racialism and multi-faithism.

McAtee & Fuentes Exposing the Republican Grift

Long ago in my reading I came across a description of a Billy Sunday Revival meeting. Billy was having some of his revivals during the draft era of WW I. In my reading the author was describing how Billy would get the young men “saved” and then the counselors were told to take the young men from the altar where they got “saved” to back behind the podium-stage where these young men could then sign up for military service in the US military in order to fight in W.W. I. Billy’s revivals, in these cases where not really about Jesus but were about using Jesus to fill up the ranks of the US military. Jesus was a gimmick. Jesus, in those Billy Sunday revivals were like the adds you used to see on TV where they were selling product X for 39.99 whereupon the announcer would say … “But if you buy now, you’ll also get products “Y” and “Z” for the same low price. Billy might have said … “Not only do you get Jesus but you get to fight for your country also.”

Well, something similar to that happened on the 21 September at the Charlie Kirk llamapalooza/extravaganza. Jesus was used as the bait in order to hook people into supporting the Republican party. Whereas Billy gave you military service with your Jesus, the Republican party this past Sunday night gave the viewers the Republican party with the views Jesus. “Not only do you get Jesus, but if you buy now you also get being a supporter of the Republican party at the same low low price.”

This was all pure marketing, and manipulation.

Now, I don’t doubt that there are people who were genuinely redeemed last Sunday night. I have no doubt that God will use the death of Charlie Kirk and the Kirk llamapalooza in order to draw people to Himself. I fully acknowledge that Christ was proclaimed by some of the speakers Sunday night. For all this we can be thankful. However,  none of that changes that what happened last Sunday was a con put on by first rate Republican grifters, using Jesus as their rallying point. These chap couldn’t give a horse’s ass about the resurrected, ascended and reigning Lord Jesus Christ except as a means of bringing people into the Republican party. If these politicians thought hooking the name of Charlie Kirk with Satanism would balloon the size of the Republican base they would have a lollapalooza standing with Satan on the side of Charlie Kirk.

Nick Fuentes caught some of what I am getting at above in his analysis of the Kirk llamapalooza

“If you want Christ to be at the center of your politics, he can’t be a fucking gimmick. He’s not a slogan. When we say ‘it’s all about Jesus,’ we are not doing it with our right hand in the air like ‘alight everybody, let’s go and vote Republican.’ No, this is literally life and death. Life and death, for you and and me, for the GOP, for America. It’s something we take more seriously than anything. And so when they’re getting up there and saying ‘Alright, stand up and say you believe in Jesus and scan the QR code and then collect your voter registration,’ it comes across flippant. It comes across as borderline sacrilegious and maybe while well intentioned -maybe it comes from a good place but I don’t like where it is going and where it is going is weaponizing an earnest seeking of people. You have a lot of young people and a lot of even older people — decent people in America – who saw evil take the life of a good man and they were moved to action because we don’t want to see evil takeover our society, and they’re being funneled into this voter registration now. People are coming to this event seeking God weeping and affected and they’re getting fundraising non-profit bullshit which if you’re in the political world you know what that is. You’re getting a girl coming up with an I-pad saying; ‘get I can your email? Ok, we’re going to send you an email. Scan the QR code. We are going to get you set up. Here’s your bag.’ And it’s like ‘can we give them something real?’ To me that came across as cynical, calculated, opportunistic, and exploitative and that’s what politics is but don’t do that in the name of Jesus Christ and don’t do that with the death — don’t do that with the funeral.”

And while we are on this subject, I see a good deal of this kind of grift going on in the “Christian” social media world as well. People, in my opinion, are striking stances on various issues, insisting that somehow these stances are all about Jesus when in point of fact Jesus is incidental to the (sometimes even correct) stances they are taking. There is a huge amount of grift out there in the “ministry” world right now and as always the counsel is to the consumer, “Let the buyer beware.”

Can Propositional Nations Work?

“American nationalism, no less than German, was born out of a core ethnic and religious identity. Over the next 225 years, that identity has been called into question, modified, and expanded but never entirely lost. It has framed the current struggle over what it means to be an American.

The creation of the American identity began even before the revolution. There was a sense of common ancestry and belief that underlay the difficult transition from colonial Britain to revolutionary America and to the ‘we the people’ of the Constitution. In his plea for a United States, John Jay described this basis for the new nation;

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice, that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country, to one united people; a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established their general Liberty and Independence.

This country and this people seem to have been made for each other, and it appears as if it was the design of Providence, that an inheritance so proper and convenient for a band of brethren, united to each other by the strongest ties, should never be split into a number of unsocial, jealous, and alien sovereignties.”

John Jay
Federalist no. 2

In 1790, when the first census occurred, about 90% of white American settlers were British in origin – 82% were English. An even higher percentage of them were Protestants. Not all settlers had sided with the revolutionaries against the British, but the revolutionary victory in 1783 had consolidated the understanding of settlers as ‘Americans’ as distinct from ‘Britons’ or ‘English.’ While the framers of the Constitution would resist the term ‘nation’ – they preferred ‘union’ – what came into being after the Revolution was, however fractured into states, a new American nation where most of the inhabitants felt a sense of kinship.”

John B. Judis
The Nationalist Revival – p. 48-49

Pat Buchanan notes something similar as Judis notes above when he wrote;

Should America lose her ethnic-cultural core and become a nation of nations, America will not survive. For nowhere on this earth can one find a multicultural, multiethnic, multilingual nation that is not at risk. Democracy is not enough. Equality is not enough. Free markets are not enough–to hold a people together. Without patriotism, a love of country and countrymen not for what they believe or profess but for who they are, “Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.”

Pat Buchanan
State of Emergency

Right now, all across the West, the attempt has been made and is being made to deny the need for a common ancestry as definitional of what a nation is. Our “leaders” have and continue to insist that a nation can be constructed along the lines of the citizenry having only in common a commitment to a shared set of propositions. This program fails because propositions are only as good as the people who are interpreting those propositions. For example, one needed proposition to be an American, it is reported, is the affirmation that “all men are created equal.” I can affirm that but when I affirm that I do not affirm that the same way somebody else might. Someone else might affirm that equality means the need to make sure, by way of legislation, that all people have the same starting point. Yet another person might affirm that equality means that all people have an equality of outcomes and that such a program should be pursued by way of legislation (equity). I, however, take the phrase that “all men are created equal” to mean only that all men are equal before the law and that all men are equally held to be sinners before God. I hold that “all men are created equal” was a statement that in its original context merely meant that all Englishmen were created equal with one another in terms of political rights. This is but one example how various men can all affirm the same proposition while that phrase has radically different meanings. Propositional nations will never do because they cannot work because men — especially from different races, cultures, and faiths, — will always fill those propositions with different meaning.

And so, a nation can only succeed when it is comprised of a citizenry with a shared blood and a shared faith. Out of those two realities will then arise a shared culture, heritage, and history. Not even differing languages will by itself divide a nation that has a shared blood and a shared faith though it will make matters more complex.

If the West does not realize this simple truth the West is going to go into the abyss because as Buchanan notes above;

“Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold.”