Uncategorized – Page 72

Guillaume Faye on “Diversity is our Strength”

Ethnic homogeneity is the condition for civil peace and prosperity. As rightly noted by Aristotle, the peaceful and economically viable coexistence of ethnically different populations on a single territory is generally impossible. It leads to incessant conflicts, followed by a civil war in which the invaders attempt to replace the natives.

Guillaume Faye

Ethnic Apocalypse; The Coming European Racial War

The NWO and Great Reset advocates know this better than anybody which explains why they are using it as a weapon against Christian civilization. You really don’t think all this mass emigration from third world countries to heretofore predominantly white Christian Europe, North America, Australia is an accident, do you? Why do you think Brussels and the European Union is so angry with tiny Hungary? It’s because Orban understands the Faye quote and is acting in harmony with that idea.

The riots in the banlieue of Paris are testimony of the truth of Faye’s observation. The “Black Lives Matter” during the summer of 2020 in America likewise underscores Faye’s accuracy. All across old Europe those who are new are being used as a hammer to beat the head of the indigenous populations. They are serving as the shock troops of “The Great Replacement,” as it is implemented all over formerly Christian countries. Just as God promised, because of our disobedience we are being made the tail in our own homelands.

⁴³The stranger that is within thee shall get up above thee very high, and thou shalt come down very low. ⁴⁴He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him: he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail. ⁴⁵Moreover all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou hearkenedst not unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep his commandments and his statutes which he commanded thee:

A 1997 film “The Second Civil War,” captures some of this idea. Sold as a black comedy satire, the film ends up being a prophetic insight into how diversity drives national conflict. The film intended to mock people who believed similarly to the Faye quote but almost 25 years later if the film mocks anybody it mocks itself for mocking the idea that diversity is not our strength.

Evangelicals will typically say that observations such as found in this piece are a sign of a lack of neighbor love. However, if we continue to follow through with these practices (and it doesn’t seem likely any of this will be reversed) then we are demonstrating to our children a lack of love because by allowing the land to be filled with the alien and the stranger who hates Christ we are disinheriting our children of what would have otherwise been their legacy. I find nowhere in Scripture where Christianity is defined as some kind of death cult that says we love our neighbors best when we hate our children most.

Keller Defending the Marxists

When a Church has a creed that is Marxist

It can look for carcass upon carcass

When the Church gives its nod

And says Marx is all good by God

Then truth is darker than darkness

Like most leaders of the early evangelical left, Keller’s main critique of Marxism was its materialism, not its moral claims. Karl Marx’s solutions were incorrect because he grounded them in atheism and ignored the reality of human sin. However, despite these major flaws, Keller believed Marxist hearts were in the right place. He stated in a sermon at Redeemer:

“The people I read who were the disciples of Marx were not villains. They were not fools. They cared about people. . . there are vast populations, millions of people, who have been in absolute serfdom and peasantry and poverty for years and years, and there’s no way they’re going to get out. There’s no upward mobility. See, the people who read Marx said, ‘We have to do something about this.’ They weren’t fools.”

Tim Keller
Keller, February 16, 1997, “With a Religious Crowd,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, October 22, 2000, “Made For Stewardship,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive; Keller, July, 15, 2001, “Arguing About Politics,” The Tim Keller Sermon Archive.
From Online Article – Tim Keller & Progressive Evangelicalism

____

Can you believe someone who believes this and said this asinine tomfoolery in a Sermon has become one of the intellectual go-to guys in the Reformed world?

1.) Many of the biggest murderers and revolutionaries in history rose to power claiming to care about the poor and oppressed. The reality was another thing.

2;) Someone needs to ask Keller to provide some examples of where adopting Marxism has lifted people out of serfdom or provided them with upward mobility or personal liberty. The answer of course is … Nowhere.

Maybe Keller is like Trotsky – the fact that none of his predictions have come true just proves what a far-sighted visionary he was.

3.) Maybe Keller could give some examples of the disciples of Marx who were not villains. I’d love to see that list of names.

4.) I also seriously doubt that the disciples of Marx cared about people. Perhaps I could concede that they cared about people in the abstract but Marxists are famous for loving people in the abstract while hating the concrete individual.

5.) What does Keller do with the Holodomor “Harvest of Sorrow? What does he do with the Cambodian Killing Fields? What does the man do with the Chinese Cultural Revolution or Great Leap Forward? What does Keller do with the Vietnamese boat people or the Cuban boat people? Was being tortured and murdered in the most horrendous manner possible superior to no upward mobility?

6.) Keller belies a definite Limousine Liberal affectation here. He is all theory and refuses to see that Marxism is born of hatred and produces envy and the product of hatred where ever it is implemented.

7.) I’m completely bumfuzzled that a Reformed minister who says he loves Jesus Christ and His Gospel could say something this hateful and profoundly stupid. How does a man get through all the Christian training required to be a minister and still have this in his world and life view? Let Keller spend a week in one of the old Soviet Gulags and see if he’s so cheery about Marxism once he gets out. Honestly, if I heard a man say this in a pulpit I’d be trying to get his sorry Marxist ass defrocked.

8.) Like Finney before him, Keller doubtless had the best of intentions but Keller’s life and influence have been another example that good intentions pave the road to hell.

College Football and Covenantalism

I lived for over a decade in South Carolina, either in Columbia (the State capital) or just outside of Columbia. I did my seminary training at Columbia Biblical Seminary and I received my first Pastoral charge at a small rural Church named Longtown Presbyterian Church which was 45 miles outside of Columbia.

Over my decade in the South, I got a real taste of the deep South. One of my favorite stories concerns the first funeral I conducted in the rural South Carolina Church. After the committal service and just outside the gates of the Church cemetery (in the South you’re not really a church if you don’t have a Church cemetery on the grounds) a very elderly woman leaning on the arm of a very young woman hobbled up to me. I greeted her in a pastoral conciliatory fashion certain that she must be grieving. She inquired in a very deep and not friendly voice, “You’re not from around here are you?” I responded with, “No, Maam I’m not.” (I had lived in the South long enough by that time to know that one referred to ladies two generations older than you with the polite sobriquet, “Maam.”) She proceeded to query of me asking, “Where you from boy?” I kid you not. She called me “boy.” Doubtless, this was because she already knew the answer to her question. I answered honestly by saying, “I’m from Michigan Maam.” She raised up to her full height and said to me, “Just what I thought. A Yankee.”

I tried to lighten the moment by offering that I was from Southern Michigan but by the time I offered that attempt at levity she had already pivoted and was walking away from me, no doubt muttering about carpetbagging Yankee ministers.

One thing I learned about the South and that right quickly is that they loved their football. Why they loved football even more than University of Michigan fans. (I grew up during the time of the great Bo Schembechler). If you were a Southern male you were committed to some program (Alabama, Auburn, Tennesse, Georgia, etc., and of course being in South Carolina one was all in for the University of South Carolina Gamecocks.) In my first year in Seminary (1984) the Gamecocks rose to #2 in the national polls at one point. People were wild with Gamecock-mania. South Carolinians dubbed it “Black Magic,” because of the black uniforms that had been introduced that year.

Infants and toddlers were dressed in Gamecock onesies. People flew their pickup trucks with Gamecock flags flying in the bed of their trucks. The city shut down on Saturdays during the football game. The front page of “The State” became the Sports Section on Sundays and Joe Morrison (coach) could do no wrong.

All this is intended to lead up to a post on Infant-baptism. As it concerns southern college football no father says to himself when his son is born, “Well, I am a died in the wool Alabama (Roll Tide) fan but I’m going to respect my child and let him decide for himself if he will be an Alabama Football fan.” (I still prefer Bear Bryant over Nick Saban.) No, the son is born and the father wraps the child every night in a “Roll Tide” blanket. The child goes home from the hospital in the jersey of the latest Alabama superstar. The child learns from the tenderest of age about the great Bear Bryant and the litany of NFL stars that hailed from Alabama. The child eats, drinks, and sleeps University of Alabama football and may even reach a point where if Alabama is beat by Auburn the child may get in a fight with some lippy Auburn fan. The child lives in terms of Alabama football. (And unfortunately too many never out-grow this religion.)

The point is that covenantalism and infant-baptism are not dissimilar to all this. The rabid Christian father also immerses his child in the life of the faith. He teaches his children who the enemy is (cross-state rivals). The Christian father wraps his child in the colors of the “team” (Crimson Red). The Christian father teaches his child of the great legacy of the past and the great anticipation for the future. The Christian father’s life revolves around the centrality of the Kingdom and He teaches His son that his life also revolves around the Kingdom.

College football gives us an example of covenantalism (and unfortunately all too often of a rival religion to Christianity.) Christian parents clothe their babies not so much in college onesies as they clothe them in Christ in the waters of Baptism. Christian parents teach their children that Christianity is the home team worth fighting for. Christian parents impose upon their children Christianity, as the parents are commanded by God to impose. Christian parents don’t try to get their children to accept Jesus into their hearts, but rather giving their children the judgment of charity that their children are Christian they teach their children to be the Christians that baptism proclaimed them to be. Christian parents teach their children to sing the fight songs (the Psalter) of their team. Christian parents tell their children that they are part of the Christian family and so the children will be discipled into their undoubted Christian faith. Christian parents know that the children of parents follow the parents and the parents turn their children into what the parents are by passing down a faith to their children.

Baptist thinking makes no sense when it comes to their refusal to embrace covenantalism and paedo-baptism. It’s akin to telling a rabid Georgia “Dawg” fan that he dare not speak to his son of Georgia Football since the Father has to wait till the son is old enough to make up his own mind about what football team he will support. If there is no such thing as neutrality there is no such thing as neutrality in family life. We should raise our children to believe what we believe in and to be little replicas of Dad and Mom. We should obey God and give them the sign of the covenant communicating that “yes we do believe that this child is a sinner and is now claimed by God.” How much more should we do for our Christian children than what Southern College football fathers do for their children?

As for me … I root for anybody but Notre Dame.

Francis Schaeffer and the “Judeo-Christian” Tradition

Francis Schaeffer; On Christian Faith and Human Rights

schlife.pdf (classicapologetics.com)

In the link above Dr. Francis Schaffer is writing in the Simon Greenleaf Law Review. You can read the whole thing should you like. I have excerpted the sections I want to deal with below.

“And note that while some of the founding fathers were indeed deists, yet the general consensus of thinking was that the Creator was the Judeo-Christian God….

Or, one can even think of Benjamin Franklin, who is known as a deist and probably was, and yet as one reads his speeches in Congress and in other
places, one is profoundly impressed by the fact that though a deist he might have been, yet, nevertheless, his thought-forms were very much influenced by the Judeo-Christian concept of God. One of the distinctions of the Judeo-Christian God is that not all things are the same to Him. That at first may sound rather trivial, but in reality, it is one of the most profound things one can say about the Judeo-Christian God….

What is needed to produce the balance of form and freedom in government which we have enjoyed so thoroughly is the Judeo-Christian God who is the Creator of all else. The Judeo-Christian God to whom not all things are the same. The Judeo-Christian God who, as the Reformation affirmed, has spoken in the Scriptures.”

Dr. Fancis Schaffer

If one were to read the whole piece offered up by Dr. Schaeffer one would notice that nowhere does Dr. Schaeffer speak of Jesus Christ. Instead what Schaeffer references repeatedly is this mantra of “the Judeo-Christian God.” One wonders why the man wrote in such a manner.

The idea of a “Judeo-Christian God,” is a monstrous myth. This God does not exist since the God of the Jews is a different God from the God of the Christians. There also is no concept of a Judeo-Christian God because any concept of a Judeo-Christian God is in direct conflict with the Christian God.

In the same manner, there is no Scripture that speaks of the Judeo-Christian God.

Historically, it is also errant to speak this way because the God of the Jews was not fundamental in the organizing of America. There is simply not enough of a presence of Jewish people in the Colonies to speak of the influence of a Judeo-Christian God. Dr. Schaeffer’s language is a gross misrepresentation of the founding of America. America was influenced by Christian categories but certainly not by Judeo-Christian categories.

We have to understand that those of the Jewish faith serves a very different God from the God of the Bible. The Jewish faith takes the Talmud as its revelation and not Scripture. The interpretation of the Talmud of Scripture is in direct contradiction with the interpretation that Christians have given to the Scriptures. The contradiction is so stark that it really is an obscenity to speak in such ways as “Judeo-Christian.”

“Judeo-Christian” is syncretism at its best. It mixes distinct theologies together that are in point of fact at stark odds with one another. This is seen in the reality that between the two no elements of doctrine or belief are shared. Judeo-Christian is a syncretistic chimera beast that should be eliminated from Christian thinking. Francis Schaeffer should have never employed it. It was unfaithful for him to have done so. The incompatibilities are not limited to the fact that there is no possible harmony regarding the divinity of Jesus the Messiah between the Jewish faith as a whole and the Christian faith as a whole, there is also no possible agreement on the doctrine of how man is saved, and there is no sharing of religious Holy Days. The whole concept of who God is is strenuously disagreed upon between Jews and Christians.

Christians need to lose this phrase that has been dropped into our mind world by playing fast and loose with reality. Reality teaches as testified to by History that the Christian faith and the Jewish faith have led to repeated conflict between the two peoples formed by those faiths. Jews are forever complaining of their treatment at the hands of Christians and Christians have only to look to the New Testament to see how the Jews treated the expansion of the Christian faith. This conflict continues and we would be better served by this conflict coming out into the open on both sides than to be continually papering it over with phrases such as “Judeo-Christian.” Indeed the phrase “Judeo-Christian” serves to pacify Christians over matters they should not be pacified.

Dr. Schaeffer did much good but this retreat in this article was most unfortunate. It is difficult to believe that he didn’t know better.

SJW’ism vs. Kinism

Recently, I’ve seen the attempt on the part of the Reformed cognoscenti to try and make SJW’ism and Kinism flip sides of the same error. Mirror errors if you will. Kind of like what Nestorianism was to Eutychianism. This is followed by the requisite hair on fire screeching about how we need to rid both extremes from “our congregations.”

The problem is … is this just isn’t so.

In point of fact, it is like saying that Error and Truth are flip sides of the same heresy.

SJW’ism is boldly talking about the need to repent of whiteness. Indeed, recently we are hearing of the need to empty our Libraries of white man works because such Libraries are incipient “racist.” Kinism has no problems with non-Caucasians being non-Caucasians and would never call them to repent of their non-Caucasianism. If there is any call to repent it would be the call to repent of envy, repent of coveting, repent of jealousy, repent of cultural Marxism. There would never be a call to repent of being non-Caucasian. We would call white people to repent of the same.

SJW’ism is the heresy of seeking to deconstruct historic Christianity while redefining historic Christianity with the stuffing of Cultural Marxism and Liberation theology. Kinism is seeking to return to historic Christianity that identified the Creator God as the God who delights in distinctions precisely because He ordained them.

SJW’ism is the heresy of Unitarianism which leads to the pursuit of a reality that is a pure monad where all colors, genders, age distinctions, and appointed hierarchies bleed into one. Kinism is pleading to a return to the Biblical notion of the One and the Many, plays and revels in God’s ordained pluriform world, and hates, loathes, and castigates every attempt to erase the distinctions that God has ordained.

SJW’ism is the heresy of an Egalitarianism that leads to sameness and uniformity. SJW’ism advocates for an Orwellian slave order. Kinism desires a Biblical Freedom characterized by the desire for freedom in the context of revealed Biblical Forms.

SJW’ism embraces a Greek chain of being thinking where all existence shares in the same being-ness that God owns. How do I know this? I know this because in seeking to level all distinctions what is really being pursued is the elimination of how unfair it is for one person or people or gender to have more being than another person, nation, or people thus making them unequal. In their Egalitarian pursuit, they are trying to make sure everybody shares in the same amount of being. Because of their chain of being thinking the ultimate goal is to make sure that God and man have the same amount of being. Kinism rejects this chain of being thinking and embraces instead the Creator-creature distinction seeing in the Creator-creature distinction the fountainhead out of which all other differences flow out.

SJW’ism is extraordinarily “race” conscious. They are consumed with it. Everything is race to these people. Race for them has been absolutized and the elimination of it in favor of a coffee Latte colored mongrel race is the Nirvana for which they reach. Kinists are only race-conscious in response to this New World Order which seeks to Imagine there are no nations (and no religion too). In war, the ones defending themselves may seem preoccupied with war but you certainly must excuse the defenders for defending themselves if an enemy is reigning war down on them. Get the enemy to go away and those in the defense mode will go back to normative. It is not the Kinist who are going around on the offensive on the issue of race. We only have to defend ourselves because every mechanism out there is attacking the norm of ethnic distinctions. (Hollywood, Universities, Madison Avenue, Corporate America, The Mega-State, The “Conservative” Churches etc.)

Insisting that SJW’ism and Kinism are flip sides of the same error is like saying Dracula and Abraham Van Helsing are both problems that need to be eliminated. It’s like saying Santa Claus and Krampus are mirror problems that need to be both warred against. It’s like saying Underdog and Simon Bar Sinister are each part of the same problem. To say such things is just stupid. (Pardon my Calvin… Calvin’s favorite word was “Stupid”).

Kinism is just basic Biblical Christianity 101. A cursory reading of the works of the Church Fathers demonstrates that. SJW’ism, on the other hand, is of their Father the Devil who was a murderer and liar from the beginning.