From The Mailbag – Iron Ink

From the Mailbag; Rachel Challenges Pastor Bret On His Hot Take On Carlson Interviewing Wilson

Rachel J. Hill writes,

https://sashastone.substack.com/p/tucker-talks-to-doug-wilson

If the link above works, it will take you to a direct link to the full interview on Spotify. I understand you were reacting to the short trailer video but I would be curious to know if any of your critiques change after hearing the entire thing.

I personally completely agree with you on the ethnic nationalism issue. But it’s a moot point because of the way America is already compromised of so many different kinds of ethnic groups. Short of kicking people out, there’s no way you’re going to narrow the gene pool. Not only that, but the very idea of narrowing the gene pool as a proposition to achieve national unity is absurd because sinful nature still exists in every ethnicity. That’s why I am not opposed to the nationalism Wilson defined, when contrasted with the parallel options of tribalism or globalism.

I understand that there are people who only follow Wilson because of his snark and sarcastic language. He’s an “edgy” Christian who draws people who are tired of the weak ecclesiastical response to sensitive cultural issues. But as of yet, I have not found any of his videos on his blog to be contrary to the Gospel. Rather, they’re some of the most intentionally laid out guides to application for Christian living that come across.

Bret Responds,

Hello Rachel

You’ll not be surprised to find me disagreeing with you once again. I’ll respond to you point by point.

1.) I’ll try to view the whole interview you have linked.

2.) Not a moot point. Look up Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback.”

3.) Narrowing the gene pool is no more absurd than expanding the gene pool. Have you ever heard of Rudyard Kipling? Kipling makes my point for me on the advantages of a narrower gene pool. Sinful nature indeed exist in every ethnicity but that sinful nature in the way it expresses itself is going to be unique and distinct in every ethnicity. This is why Kipling could write;

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf–
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

4.) Wilson’s propositional nationalism is NOT nationalism. Wilson is NOT a Nationalist. He is for Empire. Now it may be a domestic Empire but it is still Empire. If you read the book “Bowling Alone,” you might understand the problem better.

5.) I don’t find Wilson edgy anymore. There was a time I used to but now the man is just off the Christian Nationalist reservation with his propositional nationhood, love for lab grown meat. dalliance with Federal Vision, and warfare against those who are for ethno-nationalism. (OH, and lets not forget his advocacy for a paedo to marry a virtuous young woman as if marriage could fix sexual perversity.) Wilson is merely trying to revive the classical liberal world and life view but he will fair here. That world and life view is never coming back. Too many different moving pieces in religion and ethnicity for that to ever work again.

6.) In terms of Christian living… I will concede that Doug has been helpful with some of those issues, but I prefer sticking with the original (i.e. –Rushdoony) as opposed to going for someone who has said he was trying to be “Rushdoony 0.5.” I’m not a big pale ale fan.

Thanks for the conversation Rachel. Tell Doug I said “Hey.”

Vox Day, Vox McAtee

Over here;

MAILVOX: In Defense of Doug Wilson

Vox Day answers a letter defending Rev. Doug Wilson. It is a magnificent response. Still, despite that I can’t help but wanting to have my own go at this letter defending the Pope of Moscow.

Doug’s Defender (DD) writes to Vox Day,

Firstly, I acknowledge your critiques of Doug, and recognise that he has some enormous Boomer tendencies.

McAtee responds,

Is this like acknowledging that FDR was a cripple? I mean, Captain Obvious much?

DD writes,

But.

He has a growing appeal to disaffected young evangelical men (of whom I belonged).

McAtee responds,

Nobody can disagree with that sentence above. However, Doug should be to disaffected young evangelical men what marijuana was to druggies in the day, and that is only a gateway drug to the real narcotics. Doug is the wine cooler that opens the way someday to Tennessee Sipping Whiskey. If one doesn’t move beyond Doug, one remains stunted in their Christianity.

DD writes,

He spearheaded an enormous push towards Classical Christian schooling, founded on Western Civilisation (including the Greco-Roman underpinnings).

McAtee Responds,

Not to be too technical, but you do realize, don’t you, that the Greco-Romans were pagans? Classical Education has some real merit but unless it is reinterpreted through a Biblical Grid all it produces is pagans who now how to argue. I’ve seen my share of graduates from the Moscow Greystoke Manor who embody my observation.

DD writes,

It’s a huge movement, that is reintroducing the youth to the Good, Beautiful, and True.

McAtee responds,

If that is true, than certainly enough, these youths will see that Wilson and the CREC is still not that for which they are looking. If these youths are getting a taste of the good, the true, and the beautiful than soon enough they will push on from the holding tank that is not quite the good, the true, and the beautiful that is the CREC.

Imagine if you will a large room of painting canvases all set next to one another. The very first painting canvas is covered with a very watery red. The very last painting canvas is covered with a bold fire-engine red. All the canvases between the first one and the last one are canvases that each are a little more red then the previous one but a little less red then the next one in the series. Pope Doug and the CREC represents the entry level red canvas. It has introduced you to the idea of “red.” However, if you are really captivated by Red you will push on from the entry level red and eventually you’ll look back at the entry level red and see that it really isn’t that red at all.

DD writes,

They have cleaned up church liturgy, and recaptured theological maximalism, with many offshoot ministries pushing phrases like ‘Rebuilding the New Christendom.’

McAtee responds,

Cleaned up church liturgy and taken us back, in many cases, to a liturgy that goes back to smells and bells. Further, your CREC has taken up the cursed cause of Ecclesiocentrism and the fact that you may not even know what that word means, means that you have miles to go before you sleep.

And in terms of Wilson’s vision of “Rebuilding the New Christendom,” let me just say that if Wilson is successful in doing so, then I’ll be praying that the New, New Christendom will soon come to replace Wilson’s version because Wilson’s “New Christendom,” looks an awful lot like the old Liberalism of 1950. Tell me, please, how is Wilson going to build a New Christendom while holding on to the idea of “principled pluralism?”

DD writes,

This is all important foundational work to waking up Christians. It has led to me creating a homeschool co-op teaching the Classical method, and we are exposing our children to the glorious things that the Christian West has to offer.

McAtee responds,

And now someone has to come along and shore up the cracks on Wilson’s foundational work. I promise you there is something much larger than a pea under all those mattresses.

If you want your children exposed to the glorious things of the Christian West make sure you teach them about Lepanto, the Crusades, Jon Sobieski, Jan Valjean, etc.

DD writes,

Ministries like G3 ministries are on the warpath against ‘kinism’ which has significant sway over the Reformed Conservative movements.

McAtee Responds,

Have you been sleeping? Wilson’s warpath against Kinism makes the G3 look like a bunch of boy playing cowboys and injuns.

DD writes,

Guys like Doug want more mainstream appeal, so they have opted to go soft on the racial issue. They have ousted guys like Thomas Achord, which shows they mean business.

McAtee responds,

It’s clear to everybody who has eyes that Pope Doug is going for the neo-con/New York Times crowd.

And you think “outing guys like Thomas Achord” is a recommendation for Wilson and his peeps? This is like saying that Sherman should get a medal for raping and pillaging his way to Atlanta.

DD writes,

But it is worth noting that there are more guys like Thomas Achord in these organisations who will eventually start speaking out. The time doesn’t seem to have come for that yet.

McAtee responds,

And Pope Doug is the one we are all supposed to be waiting on to give the signal when the time has come for all that? Trust me… the time will never come because Doug is merely a gatekeeper interested in pushing his brand.

DD writes,

I’m sure you’re aware that racism is perhaps one of the most unforgivable sins in the Evangelical church and will get a robust and powerful reaction from the Evangelical base (especially the Boomers). He is pushing young men in the right direction, and Christian Nationalism, as promoted by Stephen Wolfe, is gaining significant traction.

McAtee responds by quoting Vox Day,

“Stephen Wolfe’s Christian Nationalism is fake nationalism. It’s a religious form of civic nationalism that substitutes Christianity for US citizenship. He’s just another gatekeeper.”

Dear Pastor; Why Are You So Ornery?

“Some have complained that Luther was too severe. I will not deny this. But I will answer in the language of Erasmus: Because the sickness was so great, God gave this age a rough doctor … If Luther was severe, it was because of his earnestness for the truth, not because he loved strife or harshness.”

Phillip Melanchthon

Luther’s Funeral Oration

“I was born for this purpose, to fight with the rebels and the devils and to lead the charge. Therefore my books are very stormy and war like. I have to uproot trunks and stumps, hack at the thorns and hedges, and fill the potholes. So I am the crude woodsman who has to clear and make the path. But master Philip comes after me, meticulously and quietly, builds and plants, widows and waters happily according to the talents God richly given him.”

Martin Luther

Recently, a friend told me in a online conversation that I had gotten my orneriness back quickly following surgery. It was a good natured quip that found me replying that “McAtee is Scottish after all.”

Honestly though, his quip did sting a little. It is not my desire to be remembered someday as always being cantankerous, ornery, or curmudgeonly. In point of fact, I think, that most people who know me personally would not reach for those adjective first as descriptors.

Having said that I admit that I can get prickly, but I trust when the prickliness comes out there is some higher and greater principle that I see of being in danger.

God has gifted me with the ability to see the implications of ideas if left unattended. This means that my orneriness quotient rises in direct correlation to otherwise good people championing ideas that will end in bad results if not “nipped in the bud.” (A little Barney Fife lingo there.)

I don’t want to bring tension into relationships among the few of us who are left defending the gates by criticizing too sharply things that are said by my fellow gate defenders. However, I also do not desire for the gate defenders to have ideas that will lead to some bad outcomes if those ideas are allowed to fester.

It is not always easy to decide when to be irenic with the brethren and so let matters pass unspoken to, and when to go all “tomahawk chop” on people that are otherwise on your side. It takes discernment and I freely admit that I likely often fail here.

I do teach my students that one of the dangers of drawing one’s worldview net to tight is that one begins to see embers in thinking that one becomes easily convinced will turn into raging forest fires if not doused.

At the end of it all though, I am convinced that we are living in an age that generally speaking could use a little more orneriness. I’ll work on being irenic if more of you will work a little on being an old cuss like myself.

From The Mailbag — Define Marxism

I had a smart arse BLM dimwit demand I give her a definition of Marxism after I kept insisting that BLM was Marxist. It seems that she thought I was just throwing around words and didn’t know what I was saying.

So… I decided to indulge her. Here is my answer.

____

Marxism is based on a materialistic and atheistic philosophy that embraces the Hegelian dialectic (thesis/antithesis/ synthesis) as divorced from Hegel’s Idealism and uses the dialectic as its means to realize “progress.” Its intent is the arrival of Utopia and its effect is to level all distinctions into an egalitarian social order wherein there is no longer an oppressor vs. oppressed paradigm existing. Its result wherever it has been tried in history is rivers of blood as the state forces Utopia on unwilling men and women. Its chief technique in seizing power is terror. It is constantly at war with distinctions since distinctions violate their envisioned egalitarian order. Having no extra-mundane personal transcendent God Marxism practices moral relativism. Right and wrong are completely determined by the State in which men live and move and have their being. As such what is right today could very well be wrong tomorrow depending on the necessities of the State. (As seen during the WW II era when one minute the comrades are violently opposing the National socialists in Germany and then the next moment they are singing the praises of their Nazi allies and then flipping again to denounce the Fascists.) Marxism holds to the community of goods as seen in its maxim, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Historically speaking this has included women and wives so that women are considered property of the state to be passed around as needed. (See Alexandra Kollontai) The epistemology of Marxism is humanistic reason. The axiology of Marxism is the progress of the Soviet man. The Ontology of Marxism is time plus chance plus circumstance. The teleology of Marxism is the Kingdom of man.

Well, I could give you a good deal more but this should help you in your studies. I would recommend reading several books I have read if you want to learn more.

Francis Nigel Lee — Communist Eschatology

Fred Schwarz — You Can Trust The Communists to be Communists

W. Cleon Skousen — The Naked Communist

Alexander Solzhenitsyn — From Under the Rubble

Igor Shafarevich — The Socialist Phenomenon

When you get through with those come back to me and I’ll give you some more homework.

Or you could just get your undergrad degree in political philosophy like I did.

I trust your reading goes well.

Is Pastor Bret A White Supremacist or Just Opposed to Cultural Marxism?

Dear Pastor,

I’ve had some people writing me, knowing that I know you, asking if you are a White Supremacist. They seem to think the article below somehow proves that. I told them I would go directly to you as opposed to spreading vicious and unsubstantiated rumors.

In Defense Of Nationalism … In Defense of Basic Christianity

Thank you for your ministry to me and my family,

Chole

Dear Chloe,

Thank you for writing to ask.

I honestly am left completely befuddled that anybody could read that piece and come up with white supremacy. The word “white” does not show up in the piece and I even went out of my way to quote the white Marxists as opposed to Marxists of other nationalities and races in order to demonstrate that, in many cases, it is white people who are at the vanguard of cultural Marxism. (And of course, the article was about Cultural Marxism and its pushing of globalism before it was about anything else.)

I am tempted to conclude that those who could get white supremacism from the article linked are folks who are part of the cultural Marxist problem that we currently have in the Church but since I don’t know the people who are contacting you, I’ll take their query as being sincere and not as part of a larger agenda.

So, to be clear Chloe, I am not a white supremacist, although that won’t keep people who are cultural Marxists, or who have been influenced by cultural Marxism or who are just, in the words of Vladimir Lenin, “useful idiots,” for the Cultural Marxist agenda from making that accusation.

I believe in biblical nationalism for all peoples, tongues, and nations. Just as I believe that people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, will be part of the one Redeemed Church of Jesus Christ. However, that doesn’t keep me from noting Scripture, with all its talk of “nations” in the New Jerusalem (see original article),

^{Isaiah 2:2}And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord’S house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.³And many people shall go and say, “Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. ⁴And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

We see this promise coming to fulfillment in Revelation Chloe, where we see recorded,

25 Its gates will never be shut at the end of the day because there will be no night there. 26And into the city will be brought the glory and honor of the nations.

The Dutch scholar Doctor Schilder comments on this

“And they shall bring the glory of the nations into it, into the new Jerusalem.” Revelations 21:26

“The universality of this covenant requires that not one race or people be left out. Yet during the old Testament times, there was one nation singled out of the many as the chosen people, such separation was but an ad-interim. We may look upon the covenant as then a march toward fulfillment, towards times when all nationS from the uttermost parts of the earth would belong to the covenant.

Klaas Schilder

Calvin Seminary Professor Dr. Martin Wyngaarden, who was one of the men I learned this from Chloe, was getting at much the same thing when he wrote in his book,

“Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will, therefore, be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

And again,

“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.

And, not to put to fine of a point on it Chloe, the great Dutch theologian Dr. Geerhardus Vos also spoke about the importance of a Biblical Nationalism when he wrote in his Systematic Theology,

Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception, of course, occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — 118

So, Chloe, unless your un-named friends also desire to put Wyngaarden, Schilder, and Vos in the “White Supremacism” pokey, I’m not saying anything that they didn’t say first.

Further, Chloe, I believe, that in the varied Christian cultures that have existed, do exist, and might yet exist, in varying nations, that each will show its own particular stripe of strengths and weaknesses. In other words, different Christian nations will have different supremacies. One body… many parts. (A tried and trusted Biblical precept.) Given all the Scripture I cited in the original article in question, I should think that it was clear that the Scripture clearly teaches that Biblical nationalism is simply defined as a “proper love of our people and a proper love of our place.”

The Christian poet, Sir Walter Scott, was getting at this sentiment when he wrote,

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

This is my own, my native land!

Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,

As home his footsteps he hath turn’d,

From wandering on a foreign strand!

If such there breathe, go, mark him well;

For him no Minstrel raptures swell;

High though his titles, proud his name,

Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;

Despite those titles, power, and pelf,

The wretch, concentred all in self,

Living, shall forfeit fair renown,

And, doubly dying, shall go down

To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,

Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

And far as love of one’s own people one only needs to consider the great Apostle Paul when he wrote,

³For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Obviously, Paul could have a unique love for his un-regenerated Kin and still retain a love for the Gentiles to whom he was an Apostle, as one born out of time. St. Paul had the kind of love for His own people, that is communicated by Thomas Babington Macauley in his “Horatius at the Bridge,

And how can man die better

Than facing fearful odds

For the ashes of his fathers

And the temples of his gods

Of course, our vision is of the nations being converted to Christ so that they are defending the Church of Jesus Christ.

I shouldn’t have to say it again Chloe but in case your friend missed it, I’m not defending garden-variety Nationalism. The Nationalism I’m defending and am insisting as always been the norm in the Church is Biblical Nationalism. A nationalism whereby the authorities in the differing jurisdictional realms which comprise the nation all pledge fealty to Jesus Christ.

The great Dutchman Abraham Kuyper provides another example for us Chloe,

“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now, this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……

Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)

Now, allow me a few lines to reverse this Chloe. The refusal of Christ-centered Nationalism leaves us either in an ugly man-centered nationalism (which in the previous article I distinctly abjured) or it leads to a man-centered internationalism. In our epoch that man-centered Internationalism is having its water carried by Cultural Marxism and is the danger that is most pressing in upon the 21st-century church in the West in terms of Worldview competition. Cultural Marxism by definition seeks to eliminate all distinctions that are ordained by God. The noble Dutchman Van Prinesterer, using incredible foresight, warned about this,

“Just as all truth rests upon the truth that is from God, so the common foundation of all rights and duties lies in the sovereignty of God. When that sovereignty is denied or (what amounts to the same thing) banished to heaven because His kingdom is not of this world, what becomes then of the fountain of authority, of law, of every sacred and dutiful relation in state, society and family? What sanction remains for the distinctions of rank and station in life? What reason can there be that I obey another’s commands, that the one is needy, the other rich? All this is custom, routine, abuse, injustice, oppression. Eliminate God, and it can no longer be denied that all men are, in the revolutionary sense of the words, free and equal. State and society disintegrate, for there is a principle of dissolution at work that does not cease to operate until all further division is frustrated by that indivisible unit, that isolated human being, the individual—a term of the Revolution – naively expressive of its all-destructive character.”

– Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer
Mentor of Abraham Kuyper

But let me guess Chloe… Van Prinsterer was teaching white supremacy …. just like that nasty white supremacist McAtee.

A century after Van Prinsterer, another Christian, this time an Anglican Priest, wrote a very similar concern echoing Van Prinsterer.

“The movement toward integration is a denial of Christ. It is part of an effort to create one society in which there are no distinctions or differences. . . . For it is not the races only that must disappear and be brought into conformity with the requirements of a world-state: so with the sexes, so with parents and children, so with nations, states, tribes, and empires. All must go and be swallowed up in the maw of the great monad, theologically familiar to students of oriental mysticism as religion, and to traditional Christianity as Satan.”

T. Robert Ingram
Anglican Priest

Again… Ingram must have been a White Supremacist.

Chloe, this is the burning issue of the modern Church in the West. Will we follow the Reformation where God ordained distinctions were honored as coming from God or will we swallow the Anabaptist inspired swill of Cultural Marxism? The white supremacist John Calvin knew where the danger was,

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

Calvin Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

Chloe, if I’m teaching white supremacism, then the Church from the 2nd century forward has been teaching white supremacism. It is only via the re-defining of words, as done by cultural Marxist Social Justice Warriors, pointing and sputtering, that it can be said that their accusations have any anchor in truthfulness.

Thank you for writing me.