Dr. Alan Strange’s Strange Jeremiad … A Response

“Something has happened, particularly in the post-covid world and I’ve been dealing quite a bit with this. There is a general populism, anti-establishmentarianism, anti-elitism, anti-intellectualism that is taking aim at our churches and your leadership, our governments and every sort of thing and it’s a lot of people on the right joining into this… this is something on the far right. And it particularly pertains to us. It is confessional Reformed churches of all sorts of churches that need to address this kind of thing Mr. Chairman. So, I think we are in a moment where other churches have been dealing with these matters.. and they (ARP, PCA, OPC, RPCNA) have kind of given this to us on a plate….
 
This (CN & Kinism) is something very much on the right. Let’s not deceive ourselves. This (ARP statement on race) is something that in God’s providence falls to us and I think we need to see it and we need to seize the occasion and stand with our fellow churches that have gone before us in NAPARC.”
 
Dr. Alan Strange
President Mid-America Seminary
Begging URCNA to Adopt Ben Glaser’s Napkin notes

1.) Let’s consider what the something is that has happened that President Strange so strongly laments. The something that has happened is that the Boomer world (of which Strange is a member) no longer exists. The Boomer world was a world of tightly controlled information that allowed massive amounts of propaganda to become “group think.” That tightly controlled information matrix shaped and conditioned the Boomer mind. What happened post-covid is that the lid was blown off the managerial group think because it became easily reported and detectable the amount of mass deception that had occurred to create the covid scam. Once people clued in to that deception all other previous deceptions began to be exposed. The greatest of these deceptions — and a deception that accounts for people on the right becoming anti-establishmentarian and anti-elite was the deception that has been dubbed “the post-war consensus.” (Personally, I prefer “the post-enlightenment consensus.) Strange, being a sold member of the Boomer era cannot wrap his mind around the intellectual shift that has occurred in those a generation or two younger than he is.2.) The anti-establishmentarian mindset that Strange complains of is the consequence of increasing numbers of people learning what some of us have known for decades and that is the absolute corruption and fraud of the establishment — including that in the Church. People are increasing anti-establishment because they have come face to face with the contribution of the visible church to the the lie that was the post-war consensus. Strange’s posturing, advocating, and thumping against the Ordo Amoris and Christian Nationalism only reinforces the very anti-establishment mind set that he so earnestly wars against. Strange, in this speech, and in other speeches he has done provides the very foundation of anti-establishment that he so earnestly laments.

3.) Much the same could be said of the anti-elitism that is in the air that Strange complains of. Ironically, Strange is exhibit A for the reason people are becoming anti-elite. There is Strange with all his education, and all his status, begging people to become as elitist as he is. One would think that by now the Church officials would get a clue that the only reason people are edging towards anti-elitism is because the elite are so damn frequently wrong.

4.) Next up is Strange’s wringing his hands of “anti-intellectualism.” This accusation is especially choice if only because the anti-intellectuals right now are the very elites who are accusing everyone else as being “anti-intellectual.” It is the very marrow of anti-intellectualism to ignore all that has been written by Reformed Fathers of the past on the subject of Race and Christian Nationalism. Blokes like Strange keep making pronouncement as if they are Moses on Mt. Sinai, but the pronouncements they make are against centuries and centuries of church theologians and intellectuals. Come, come, Dr. Strange, who are the real anti-intellectuals here? Physician heal thyself.

5.) Yes, all this is indeed a “general populism.” But where else is there to turn when the putative “thought-leaders” are so abysmally clueless because they are stuck in a propaganda fog that is now being blown away by the winds of reality?

6.) Strange is correct when he suggests that those of us who are done with the classical liberal worldview that he is trying to establish are “taking aim at our churches and your leadership, our governments and every sort of thing…” As counter-revolutionaries we plan to restore Biblical Christianity and if that takes tearing down your house in order to once again honor Christ as King over every nation we have no problem doing so. Strange mentions “taking aim at your leadership.” I’m here to tell you that somebody needs to do a mercy killing by taking aim at the current inept and bogus leadership. Not since the Reformation as the clergy been so utterly torpid and jejune, while at the same time being intoxicated with their own sub-Christian authority. Dr. Strange, you would grow to be an old man by listening to all my stories about clergy abuse. It’s about time someone took aim at the current leadership.

7.) Next up, Dr. Strange claims all this challenge is coming “from the right.” Allow me to suggest that only a man on the left would ever suggest that what the right is seeking to accomplish is somehow sinister. Strange, strangely says not only that all which he denounces is from the right but he goes on to say it is from “the far right.” Allow me to suggest that Dr. Strange would absolutely loosen his bowels if he ever really came face to face with someone on the “far right.” As it is, he is safe because what is being proposed from me and my mates is not from the right or even the far right. What is being proposed is merely Biblical Christianity.

8.) Next Strange dares refer to how God’s providence has brought to them this historically unique moment. While I recognize God’s providence in all things, I would say that this is an example of God using Satan to accomplish yet unknown divine ends. Strange’s dirge noting God’s providence is more akin to God’s providence that gave Paul a thorn in the flesh. Yes, it was from God but it was all still born of Satan’s messenger. What Strange and his Jacobin hordes are promoting is nothing but that which is baked in sulfur and frosted with the coals of hell. If Strange’s vision (and NAPARC’s) is successful Biblical Christianity will go into abeyance until God is pleased to let Strange’s generation die in the wilderness.

9.) What else can all this NAPARC folly be except an example of how “God is turning us over,” for our folly? And, we deserve it! We in the West have sown the wind and now God has been pleased to force us to reap the whirlwind. We have no reason to complain. We have only to cover our mouths and say, “All the ways of the Lord are just.”

Yet, there are a few … a remnant, who are prophets in the wilderness lifting their voices so as to be shut down by the elites and by the establishment. We will continue to cheerfully take up our crosses, find ourselves experiencing the joy of battle, and press on for the crown rights of King Jesus … even as over the visible”conservative” “Reformed” “churches.”

Rev. Larry Ball Raises The Warning …. McAtee Gooses the Warning

The Reformed and Evangelical Church has been asleep for nearly 100 years. It is an interesting fact that before 1962 homosexuality was considered a criminal offense in all 50 states. Since then, the Nursing Father has become a malevolent murderer, and yet our denomination rushes ahead almost with rage to declare Christian Nationalism as the greatest and last danger to face modern man.

I don’t write this with any malice or malevolence. I appreciate all the hard work the Committee has done. I think they tried to be fair and confessional. I just think there is a major problem in the middle. It’s an American problem and now it is a Christian problem. The Religious polytheism endorsed by the Committee is a prescription for the death of a nation. It may take a few generations, but it is coming. If Christ is not ruler over all, then he is not a ruler at all.”

Rev. Larry Ball
Aquilla Report

Rev. Ball is a good man. He is polite and cautious in his statements. These are qualities that I have not yet developed. At my age I don’t suppose these qualities will be cultivated. People trapped in a 5 alarm fire aren’t in need of politeness or cautiousness.

You see, I don’t think the PCA Ad-Interim committed on Race tried to be fair or confessional. If they had tried to be fair or confessional they would not have ignored Q. 108 of the WLC. Unlike Rev. Ball, I also am convinced that we are not waiting for our nation to be dead. It is dead already. The NAPARC (CREC, CRC, SBC) pronouncements on CN/Kinism are merely a reflection of that death. All this egalitarianism is not leading to death. It is announcing that the church and nation are dead.

As far as I’m concerned, the NAPARC churches, taken as a whole (no doubt exceptions exist in individual congregations) are ICHABOD …. the glory has departed. They have been weighed in the balances and found wanting…. MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN. They are full of dead men’s bones, fit for neither carrion nor ghouls. They make Mordor look like taking a trip to Disneyland. Flee now or witness your children / grandchildren whither and die.

In this same vein over on X Dr. Stephen Wolfe is declaring this generation of Presbyterians to be “the dumbest generation of Presbyterians ever.” That saying a good deal given how dumb previous generations of Presbyterians have been.

Understand that all of this white hot rage by Presbyterian clergy towards white people who are trying to salvage their civilization happens at a time when

1.) Ireland is burning to the ground because the Irish understand the attempt being made by their own Government to replace the white Irish.

2.) In the US the fraud and mayhem committed by the non-white community against the white community continues to balloon.

3.) The stranger and the alien continue to take over communities in the US such as Frisco, Texas, Dearborne, Michigan, Lewiston/Auburn, Maine, and Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota… to name only a few.

Yet despite the death of the West and the replacement of the WASP, the NAPARC denominations are most animated by the incredible danger of the white Christian desiring to remain white and Christian.

Look, there is nothing in Scripture that requires a people, in order to be considered Christian, to commit ethnocide in order to establish their sanctified bona fides.

If there remain any clergy/Elders out there, or any laity with any influence the time for passivity has passed. The time for protecting yourself by being silent has passed. If you won’t nail your colors to the mast now it will be too late. Quit with your timidity. Now is the time to stand.

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon Insistence That All Local Churches Must be Willing to be Polyglot – Part I

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon writes (Hereafter RJS)

“Michael Spangler (whose ordination was revoked by his former Presbyterian denomination) and his followers argue that the error of Peter in Galatians 2 was only about Judaizing and therefore has nothing to do with ethnicity. They argue that because the underlying heresy was justification by works, Paul’s rebuke has no application to modern attempts to divide Christians along racial or ethnic lines.

But this misses the point entirely.”

Bret responds,

1.) Note how RJS seeks to poison the well by going out of his way to mention that Spangler’s was ordination was revoked without also telling us that on this point Spangler’s denomination formed a Kangaroo court in order to revoke his ordination.

2.) We should remember here that Spurgeon is not only arguing against Spangler but he is arguing against long recognized reformed theologian Dr. John Frame who wrote,

“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”

3.) That the Church may indeed be divided along ethnic lines is clearly taught in Scripture in Revelation 21,

22 But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. 23 The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine [l]in it, for the [m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. 24 And the nations [n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor [o]into it.

Here we see that it is the nations by nations that come into the new Jerusalem. The church is constituted as a nation of nations. One body… any member nations.

RJS writes,

No one denies that the Judaizers were teaching a false gospel. The question is how Peter participated in that error. Peter did not deny justification by faith with his mouth. Peter did not begin preaching salvation by circumcision. Peter’s sin was his conduct. He withdrew from Gentile believers and separated himself from them.

Why did Paul rebuke him so publicly?

Because Peter’s actions communicated something false about the nature of Christ’s church. His separation suggested that faith in Christ was not enough for full fellowship among God’s people. A dividing wall had been rebuilt where Christ had torn one down.

Bret responds,

Pretend that Peter and Paul had been eating with a bunch of converted Jews who were no longer trying to keep the ceremonial law in order to be justified, before the Judaizers arrived. Pretend that Peter pulled away when the Judaizers showed up and Paul spoke harshly to Peter for pulling away from the Jewish non ceremonial law table arrangements.  The issue for Paul was NOT ethnicity. Paul would have been just as upset with Peter if Peter had pulled away from eating with converted Jews  by the self righteous Judaizers. Spurgeon has misunderstood Galatians 2.

RJS,

In his article on race realism, Spangler spends much of his time defending propositions that are not actually in dispute. Churches are often homogeneous. Churches are often shaped by language, nation, culture, and providence.

Different peoples have different histories, customs, and strengths. None of that proves his point.

The issue is not whether churches are often homogeneous. The issue is whether race and ancestry may become a principle of ecclesiastical separation.

A church that happens to be predominantly one ethnicity is one thing. A church that is intentionally organized around ethnicity, and which directs otherwise qualified Christians elsewhere because of their race, is something very different.

Bret responds

Quoting from a source that wishes to remain anonymous,

What Spangler et al are pushing back against is NOT the occasional exception or visitor but what is tantamount to ethnic invasion and replacement attempting to seek legitimacy in local churches whose foremost duty is to its own people and their God-given covenants of blood and kin.

Once again, Spurgeon is engaging in categorical conflation. A right to the general church doesn’t mean a right to all individual chapters and iterations of said church. An ancillary situation brings this into greater clarity: a stranger may be invited to family worship but cannot demand admittance. National and ethnic considerations clearly intersect with church worship. A Japanese Christian could not simply fly to Germany and demand membership and voting rights in a German church. He could visit or become a non-voting member who submits himself to the local customs and habits but his foreign expression of being mediated by his racial and cultural identity make him incompatible with the duties and privileges of full membership.

RJS writes,

Spangler appeals repeatedly to prudence. He argues that separation may be justified by social tensions, cultural differences, immigration, national concerns, or the preservation of a people. But the Judaizers also had prudential arguments. They wanted peace between Jews and Gentiles. They wanted continuity with ancient customs. They wanted to avoid scandal among conservative Jews. They wanted to preserve a distinct people.
Paul did not deny that tensions existed. He did not deny that practical concerns were real. He asked a different question: Was Peter’s conduct in step with the truth of the gospel?

Bret responds,

This is an untrue observation on Spurgeon’s part.

The prudential reasons that Spangler has for distinct bodies of people never excludes the doctrine of Justification by faith alone from any of the distinct bodies that might form, whereas the putatively prudential reason the Judaizers had for distinct bodies was the denial and elimination of the doctrine of justification by faith alone. That can hardly be considered a valid prudential reason. Spurgeon error here is monumental.

I would also doubt that the Judaizers ever wanted peace with Christians, except on the terms of denying the faith. Nothing Spangler writes denies the faith.

RJS writes

That is still the question.

A nation may have concerns about preserving its culture, customs, language, and people. Families certainly have an interest in preserving their own heritage and lineage. But the church is not a nation, and it is not an ethnic association. The church is the assembly of those united to Christ by faith.

Bret responds

The church universal certainly is not a single nation but the church is a nation of nations. We see that throughout scripture. We have already mentioned the Revelation 21 passage earlier. Here we quote from NT theologian Martin Wyngaarden,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

Spurgeon isn’t escaping this “nationing” of the church. Spurgeon merely desires each individual church to be able to be a polyglot national church.

The missing context to a whites’ only church, that RJS seems to miss is that it should be normative on a national scale that immigration is so vanishingly small that in a white country whites only is the default. The current social order of racial and ethnic leveling and forced integration is itself illegitimate and so forces white churches into making choices that they should not have to make in the first place.

RJS writes,

The New Testament recognizes nations, tribes, tongues, and peoples. It does not make ancestry a term of communion.

Bret responds,

Again, Spurgeon misses the point. The Church universal is a nation of nations but not all local churches must turn themselves into outposts of the United Nations.

We repeat what Frame offered earlier,

“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”

Spurgeon vs. Spangler … McAtee Referees the Contest

“This (having a church uniquely for whites) is antithetical to the gospel and to the New Testament. And I’m not saying this out of a commitment to a post war consensus or a liberal world order. The Church is not built along racial or ethnic lines.”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon
Protesting against Rev. Michael Spangler

Bret responds

First, lets quote Reformed theologian Dr. John Frame here,

“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”

Clearly Rev. Joseph Spurgeon doesn’t know what he’s talking about on this subject. Spurgeon has swallowed the presuppositions of liberalism and doesn’t even realize it. Now, Spurgeon’s liberalism may not be as extreme as Eli McGowan’s but it is the same liberalism all the same.

Second, one wonders if Spurgeon laments Korean Churches, Hmong Churches, or Black Churches. Does JS lament the existence of those churches?

Next, we might ask, “why is it that in Revelation 21 we find the Church entering into the New Jerusalem nation by nation if it is the case, as Spurgeon states, ‘the church is not built along racial or ethnic lines?'”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon undaunted presses on,

“Segregating the church by race was what the Apostle Paul rebuked Peter for. Friend, you have gone off the rails completely. I don’t remember this being your position just a few years ago in the Genevan Commons group.”

Bret responds,

This is another example proving Spurgeon is wanting in his thought process.

Galatians 2 was not about what Spurgeon says. Gal. 2 was Paul saying, “One doesn’t have to become a religio-cultural Jew in order to be Christian.” The demand of the Judaizers in Gal. 2 was that the Gentiles had to give up their ethnic identity and become ethnically and culturally Jewish. This is seen in the Judaizers demand that the Gentiles give up their own dietary delicacies in favor of yucky Jew food.

Gal. 2 proves Kinism since Paul was supporting the Gentiles remaining Gentiles by not insisting that the Gentiles had to give up their ethnic identity by embracing Jewish identity.

Spurgeon owes Spangler an apology.

Evidence that the Revolt Against the Managerial Class (in this Case, Clergy) is Beginning

Recent text from a high level white collar professional from the South who is an Elder in a PCA church,

—-

“While I’ve long held out hope, I now see the PCA as a lost cause. My sibling alerted me to the PCA report on Christian Nationalism and correctly described it as ‘Monstrous.’ I’m still working through the report in a detailed fashion and there’s so much objectionable there.

Our PCA Presbytery is very sound and will reject or ignore much of the report. When I was ordained as a RE I took no exceptions to the 1788 WCF because a clear reading of those changes, while somewhat regrettable, in no way provided confessional support for the present day anti-theonomy and anti-ethno nationalism now being rammed down our throats.

For the record, I WILL NOT take any exceptions and DO not agree that my beliefs are out of accord with the PCA constitutional documents.

Looking forward to more of your work on Iron Ink / Rhetoric.”

—
If anyone doubts that the WCF is friendly to theonomy track down the booklet, “Theonomy and the Westminster Confession,” by Martin Foulner.