Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

McAtee contra Rev. Joe Spurgeon On The Comparative Ontology of Race & Sex

Let me say at the outset since some folks will find what follows to be controversial that I acknowledge that Rev. Spurgeon has a marriage that should be honored as Christian and so should be respected. The fact that I think that interracial marriage is normatively unwise and ill advised does not mean that where it is contracted that such a marriage should not be supported as much as possible short of endorsing such marriages and short of offering our own children to such marriages.

However, with that being said I have all of Church history before 1960 or so in repudiating Rev. Spurgeon’s offerings on the issue of race that we find below. Nobody, in all of Church history that I know of has ever come up with the logic chopping in order to justify interracial marriage as we find in Rev. Spurgeon’s offerings.

Indeed, two recent large anthologies of quotes from Church history substantiates that Rev. Spurgeon’s (as well as all Alienist’s) understanding of race and humanity is completely sui generis.

It would be nice if the Alienists like Rev. Spurgeon would admit that they are adamantly opposed to the received wisdom of the Church for two centuries on this subject but alas the Alienists remain silent on the Anthologies, “Who Is My Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations” and “A Survey of Racialism in Christian Sacred Tradition” by Alexander Storen. Both these Anthologies mock Spurgeon and the Alienists attempt to justify their aberrant view of race and humanity.

Rev. Joe Spurgeon writes (hereinafter RJS);

One of the accusations I sometimes get is that I’m inconsistent for affirming sexual hierarchy while denying things like white supremacy. People say, “If you believe in male headship, why not racial hierarchy too?” Or they accuse me of making sex primary while downplaying race, and call that a contradiction. But I want to explain why that’s not inconsistent at all.

BLMc responds,

1.) Keep in mind that Rev. Spurgeon is in a mixed race marriage and as such he has a pronounced bias for arguing the way that he does on this subject. Also, keep in mind that if we were to own RJS’s arguments as legitimate that would by necessity mean nations (or even families) would no longer be defined as what we find in the 1828 Webster’s dictionary;

Nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe.

In order to pursue a flattening of racial distinctions wherein theoretically the world could become one vast racial melting post RJS is willing to deny that racial distinctions can indeed mean superiorities and inferiorities in various races.

2.) To affirm that race is real is not necessarily to affirm White Supremacy though it might be to affirm White Supremacy in any number of different areas, just as might affirm Yellow Supremacy or Brown Supremacy in different areas.

3.) We will see here that Rev. Spurgeon is indeed involved in a contradiction and that his explanation while clever does not hold water. Whatever one makes of the mark of Cain or the blessings and cursings on the sons of Noah, one cannot doubt that there is some kind of hierarchy involved here even if one does not think it is racial, though through the centuries it has often been seen as racial.

RJS writes,

It actually rests on a biblical and philosophical foundation that distinguishes between what is essential to human nature and what is not.

BLMc responds,

Here we are being set up for the idea that Maleness and Femaleness is more important to who people are then any idea of race. By doing this RJS is setting up the idea that while sex is not malleable for human reality, race is malleable for human reality and therefor sexuality is essential for the mannishness man while race is not essential for the mannishness of man. However, here we would note that both sexuality (gender) and race were definitional of the manishness of man. Adam and Eve were created as genders and they were also created as the race they were as they fell from the hand of God. The fact that other races arose in God’s providence and ordination does not mean therefore that Adam and Eve were raceless. So, contrary to RJS we would say that both race and sexuality (gender) were endemic to man.

This idea that race isn’t essential to the manishness of man and thus isn’t as impactful as sexuality (gender) is to the psyche and disposition of individuals and peoples is part of what we call “Alienism.”  Our history here in the states, as just one example, suggests that it is just not true that race isn’t essential to persons and peoples. The history of South Africa also might be entered in to give testimony that there is ontological reality in the idea of race just as there is ontological reality in the idea of sex.

RJS writes;

 

The distinctions between sex and race are not the same. Both are real. But they are not on the same level. And to help us think rightly about this, I believe the language of classical philosophy—particularly the categories of substance and accidents from Aristotle—is extremely helpful.

BLMc responds;

We are being told here that distinctions do exist but as it comes to race they are distinctions that can be successfully ignored, unlike the distinctions between sex. But if God ordained distinctions exist (whether at creation or by providence)  is it proper to prioritize or ignore these God ordained distinctions?

Secondly, what RJS offers here concerning that the distinctions between male and female and the distinctions between races are not both essential to the mannishness of man is not supported by Scripture. Consider;

All nations whom thou hast made shall come and worship before thee, O Lord; and shall glorify thy name – Psalm 86:9

Here we see that just as Eve was made female by God with all the distinctions that includes, so the nations were made by God with all the distinctions that includes. If this is true of nations how much more true of races?

RJS writes; 

A substance is what something is in itself—what is essential to its being. An accident is a property or characteristic that a substance has, but which is not essential to its being. That is, accidents can change without changing the nature of the thing itself.

BLMc replies;

Here we are being teed up for the claim that sex is essential to our being but race is not essential to our being. This, by necessity, if accepted, would mean that (as I said earlier) that race can, compared to sex, be ignored because it is malleable while sex compared to race cannot be ignored because it is not malleable.

But is it an argument that we really want to make that the macro distinctions that God created us with and as should be ignored?

RJS writes,

With that framework, my argument is this: Sex—male and female—is not an accident. It is part of the substance of what it means to be human. Genesis 1:27 says, “God created man in His own image… male and female He created them.” You cannot be human without being either male or female. The male-female binary is foundational to humanity. It is how we were created to fulfill the mandate to be fruitful and take dominion. So sex is a property of substance, not an add-on. It is immutable and intrinsic.

Now contrast that with race. What race was Adam? What race was Eve? You can’t really say. And what race were their children? The truth is that race develops over time through ancestry, geography, and the providential unfolding of history. Race consists of inherited, accidental features: things like skin tone, bone structure, hair texture, other genetic features and even certain cultural traits that develop in communities over time. These are biologically real and passed down generationally—but they are not essential to what it means to be human.

BLMc responds;

Here I quote some correspondence from a friend overseas;

Spurgeon acknowledges the reality of racial differences but then dismisses them as accidental/incidental as opposed to the hard differences of male/female. Except that Scripture itself invokes FAMILIAL terms within a legal framework to describe kindred nations (thou shalt not despise an Edomite for he is your brother). In other words, racial brotherhood (inter-ethnic kinship) is to be understood in terms of Biblical family law. Therefore the Creational bonds of family run far deeper and greater than mere immediate family or even extended family. Indeed the same principles are in operation. And since family is Creationally foundational so too is race and ethnicity. Spurgeon’s arguments ignore what Scripture itself says about kinship and are therefore both false and irrelevant.

Also, RJS’s observations regarding biological sex isn’t exactly true. Mankind began with Adam even before Eve was created. This is a relatively minor point, but one that still bears on this conversation. This is important because all of his “reasoning” hangs on the fact that sexuality (gender) is more important than race as it relates to the manishness or man since Spurgeon is insisting that man wasn’t man until Eve was created. In brief, man was man before Even was created.

RJS writes;

This is why sex is ontologically higher than race. The male-female distinction is rooted in the very creation of mankind. There is no humanity without it. Race, by contrast, comes after. It is still natural, still real, and not merely a social construct—but it belongs to the category of accidents in the Aristotelian sense. It marks variation within the human race, not distinctions of essence between human beings.

BLMc responds,

Of course there is not a lick of Biblical support for this argumentation. What matters it if the distinction that God has placed upon men is by creation or by providence? Who is man that he should overturn those definitional and essential distinctions that God has placed upon us as humans? Understand that by this reasoning all mankind could well become a blenderized race, thus achieving one goal of the New World Order project.

RJS writes,

This distinction helps us avoid two extremes. On the one hand, we reject the liberal colorblind egalitarianism that pretends racial differences don’t matter at all. On the other hand, we reject the racial absolutism of the biodeterminist crowd that treats race as the most fundamental aspect of identity. Both are wrong.

BLMc responds;

1.) Under this arrangement how are we avoiding the liberal colorblind egalitarianism that pretends racial differences don’t matter at all. If racial differences mattered at all they would matter enough to determine the coupling of man and wife in marriage.  Spurgeon is arguing that race still matters but it doesn’t matter in the one area (marriage) where if it were to matter at all it would matter enough to consider such marriages unwise and ill advised at best.

2.) Notice how Spurgeon has labeled is opponents “biodeterminists” as if his opponents are all drinking from the well of Darwin or Herbert Spencer. One does not need to be a biodeterminist in order to believe that race is ontologically the equal of sex in who God has created mankind to be.

3.) In point of fact Spurgeon’s position does embrace liberal egalitarian notions. He wants to say “race is real” but at the same time say “but race doesn’t really matter that much.” If race doesn’t really matter as much as sex then why can’t race be a social construct?

RJS opines;

This also helps us when thinking about the structure of nations and the ordering of society. A nation is not merely an idea or a set of shared propositions. It is a people—a real and providentially ordered community bound together by more than just consent or ideology. While race is one of the accidental features that can shape a people, it is not the only one, nor is it always the most decisive. A people can be formed through shared language, lineage, customs, heritage, law, religion, heroes, and land. These are also accidents—not essential to humanity itself—but they are powerful instruments in the hand of God to forge real unity.

In fact, many of these accidental features can bind people together more deeply than race. The concept of a nation includes shared stories, a common legal and moral order, and a collective historical memory. You may have more in common with your neighbor who worships the same God, speaks your tongue, and lives under your laws than with someone who shares your genetic background but none of those things. For example, I share more in common with my black neighbor than a white man in Russia. So while race contributes to peoplehood, it must not be treated as the foundation of it. The stronger bonds of nationhood are forged by providence, not biology alone.

BLMc responds,

1.) Let us refocus on what, etymologically speaking, the word “nation” means;

Nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe.

So, on the one hand RJS wants to say that a nation isn’t propositional but he also wants to say then on the other hand that a nation isn’t blood and soil by insisting that race is only an accident of a nation and does not belong to its substance. If race does not belong to the substance of a people than all that is left for RJS is the reality of the nation being construed by agreed upon propositions.  Those characteristics that RJS offers as providing common bonds all depend normatively upon the fact that there is descent from a common progenitor.

Not even a shared religion can unite a people into a people. This was demonstrated in Acts 6;

 In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 

2.) I would contend that where racial harmony is absent in a significant majority expression in a nation there one will find a lack of a unifying motif to bind a people together. For example, Quebec, being French, has always had friction with the English Canadians.

3.) I can only speak for myself, but I do not take it as a given that I have more in common with my Black neighbor than I would have with a white man in Russia. I could easily not have enough in common with either of them to become friends. Generally speaking though, given the violent crime rates among blacks there may difficulty to have more in common with my black neighbor.

RJS writes,

 (The NT) does not uphold a racial hierarchy within the church. It acknowledges the ongoing existence of nations, tribes, and tongues—even in Revelation—but it does not rank them. It doesn’t assign spiritual authority based on ethnicity. So while distinctions persist, the church is not structured along racial lines, and we should not use race to exclude or subordinate fellow believers.

BLMc responds,

I am confident that when Paul said “All Cretans are liars” that statement should have been taken as a word of warning about placing Cretans in leadership positions.

Also, we have God’s Word to suggest that each people congregated in one set congregation should be led by their own people;

Deut. 17:15 –  you may indeed set a king over you whom the Lord your God will choose. One from among your brothers you shall set as king over you. You may not put a foreigner over you, who is not your brother.

So, we see that RJS is wrong here. God’s Word does speak to this subject. People will have to decide to listen to God’s Word or to listen to RJS.

RJS writes,

Therefore, it’s not inconsistent to affirm sexual hierarchy while denying racial hierarchy. Why? Because the nature of the distinctions is different. Sex is part of the substance of human nature—it is binary, immutable, and foundational to image-bearing. Race is an accident—real, significant, and influential in the civil realm, but not essential to human personhood.

So, for example: A man pretending to be a woman is rejecting God’s created order and trying to alter something essential to his being. But a man marrying into another racial group is not denying the substance of who he is. You can’t transition your sex. But racial lines can and do change across generations through intermarriage and the passing of time. That’s because race, while real, is an accidental feature of nature—not an immutable one.

 

And ultimately, Christ redeems nature—He doesn’t erase it. He restores the natural order, puts it back in its place, and teaches us to walk in harmony with it. That means we can uphold the reality of race without making it ultimate. And we can declare the truth of biblical patriarchy while rejecting racial supremacy.

There’s no contradiction here.

BLMc responds,

We have seen the contradiction in RJS’s woeful thinking. The Church Fathers never thought such contradictory thoughts on this subject as Rev. Spurgeon does.

1.) It is past hilarious that Spurgeon implies that interracial marriage is an example of God restoring nature when God, by nature, made a person to be the race they are. In point of fact a case could easily be made that interracial marriage does not restore nature.

Indeed, on this point RJS has none other than John Calvin against him;

“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].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

I will close here by quoting from my friend who lives overseas who brought this to my attention and who is even more apoplectic about this Spurgeon nonsense. (And I’m pretty exercised myself.)

So, race is essential to personhood and RJS denying that could easily be seen as merely a justification for his own marriage.

Look, in the end Rev. Joseph Spurgeon is suggesting that race be no barrier to marriage because being of one particular race isn’t essential to being human (whereas being male or female is)… over against this we need to point out that this is a nonsensical standard because someone with Down’s is just as essentially human as someone with a normal IQ … but that the qualitative difference, as opposed to any essential difference, is what discriminates between them. In other words, qualitative differences have just as much validity as essential differences.

Palm Sunday 2025

Luke 19:28 When He had said this, He went on ahead, going up to Jerusalem. 29 And it came to pass, when He drew near to [a]Bethphage and Bethany, at the mountain called Olivet, that He sent two of His disciples, 30 saying, “Go into the village opposite you, where as you enter you will find a colt tied, on which no one has ever sat. Loose it and bring it here. 31 And if anyone asks you, ‘Why are you loosing it?’ thus you shall say to him, ‘Because the Lord has need of it.’ ”

32 So those who were sent went their way and found it just as He had said to them. 33 But as they were loosing the colt, the owners of it said to them, “Why are you loosing the colt?”

34 And they said, “The Lord has need of him.” 35 Then they brought him to Jesus. And they threw their own clothes on the colt, and they set Jesus on him. 36 And as He went, many spread their clothes on the road.

37 Then, as He was now drawing near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen, 38 saying:

“ ‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!’
Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

39 And some of the Pharisees called to Him from the crowd, “Teacher, rebuke Your disciples.”
40 But He answered and said to them, “I tell you that if these should keep silent, the stones would immediately cry out.”

John 12:12-19
Mark 11:1-11
Matthew 21:1-11
Luke 19:28-44

As we consider this account we remember the earlier words of John the Baptist announcing Jesus as the Lamb of God who taketh away the sin of the world. With His entry into Jerusalem on Palm Sunday Jesus is in the chute, so to speak, of going to the Cross where He will take away the sins of His people. This marks the beginning of Holy Week and we call it Holy week because the events of this week all lead our Lord to the Cross.

The Palm Sunday account is unique in Scripture inasmuch as it is mentioned in all four of the Gospels. It is not common for one event to reported in all four of the Gospels. The fact that Palm Sunday is recorded in all four communicates its centrality to the Gospel account. With this action Jesus the Christ is purposely fulfilling one of the prophecies of the OT.

“Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion! Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem! Behold, your King is coming to you; He is just and having salvation, Lowly and riding on a donkey, A colt, the foal of a donkey.

Zechariah 9

Jesus rides in on a donkey because in this ancient culture Kings would ride horses during times of war but during times of peace Kings would ride donkeys. The Messiah Jesus comes to His people in humility to offer peace and His ride into town would have been understood in just that way.

Consider I Kings 1:33 where Solomon @ David’s direction rides to his anointing as King on a donkey;

33 And the king said to them, “Take with you the servants of your lord and have Solomon my son ride on my own mule, and bring him down to Gihon.

So, while this entering into Jerusalem on a foal of a donkey might well seem strange to us it was pregnant with meaning to the folks of that culture. The King has come and His terms are peace.

As the Lord Christ descends to enter the Holy City the crowd spreads their garments on the road just as the disciples had used their garments to cover the back of the foal of the donkey that Jesus rides in upon. There is a symbolism going on here. Jesus is being given what we would call a red carpet treatment. The Jewish officials of the city have refused to greet Christ with honor and so in a kind of populist uprising the rank and file of the city provide for Jesus their own royal entry. They do this because they do recognize that their Messiah King is in their midst. This greeting is a royal greeting. The kind of greeting one would expect a King to receive from His people.

And this royal greeting is proper because Jesus Himself is self-consciously entering as a King. In this pericope not only is the Zechariah 9 passage in play but less obviously so is the fact that Jesus is fulfilling King Jehu’s anointing as King in II Kings 9. There we read;

13 Then each man hastened to take his garment and put it under him (Jehu) on the top of the steps; and they blew trumpets, saying, “Jehu is king!” II Kings 9:13

In this entry, planned by Jesus to announce His Kingship, Jesus is the greater Jehu. Jehu rode to his kingship over his followers clothes to destroy the temple of the enemy Baal (II Kings 9:11-13; 10:18-28) the entry of Jesus upon the garments of those hailing Him will end with the making obsolete the vaunted Jewish Temple in Jerusalem.

The antithesis seems to be clear in this passage. We will either be those laying down our cloaks in the honor of the King or we will be those who in opposition to the King try to silence His praises.

When it comes to the life of Jesus theologians talk about how in His incarnation Jesus’ life goes from humiliation to exaltation. That is to say, that as you track the live of Jesus you see all humiliation reaching crescendo in the Cross. After the Cross then we talk about His exaltation beginning with His Resurrection, followed by His ascension and then His session at the Right hand of the Father. Phil. 2:5-11 traces this humiliation to exaltation.

When we come to Palm Sunday we might think that we are seeing part of the exaltation of the Lord Jesus. There is all this raucous celebration. Jesus is purposefully arriving as the King of the Jews. He is being received as the King of the Jews by the hoi polloi.

But there is something going on here that Matthew brings to our attention of this event that suggests that what we read of here is not part of Christ’s exaltation but is instead part of his humiliation.

Luke’s account tells us that while all this exuberance is going on Jesus the Christ reveals by His tears that this is not about His exaltation but His humiliation. Listen to the text;

41 Now as He drew near, He saw the city and wept over it, 42 saying, “If you had known, even you, especially in this your day, the things that make for your peace! But now they are hidden from your eyes.

This really is a study on contrast. On the one hand you have the populist uprising, on the other hand you have the city Fathers going around insisting on shushing everybody, and finally you have Jesus weeping.

But why do we say this is part of His humiliation?

Well, first we know, and Jesus knows, where this is all going. Remember, earlier Luke had recorded;

Now it came to pass, when the time had come for Him to be received up, that He steadfastly set His face to go to Jerusalem, Luke 9:11

He set His face like flint to go to Jerusalem because that is where the path to His humiliation apex lies. Jesus knows that the apex of His humiliation lays yet before Him in and at the Cross and this celebratory mood is only a well intended but misplaced enthusiasm. Misplaced because these folks want all the glory but none of the Cross. They want to be delivered, not from their sins, but from Roman tyranny. The delirious crowds have identified His office of King but they have misinterpreted it. He has not come as King to slay the Romans. He has come as King to be slain. The heights of exaltation cannot be reached without going through the depths of humiliation.

With this in mind it is significant that the Palm Sunday texts explicitly identify two of Jesus offices.

In Luke we hear;

“ ‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!’
Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

In Matthew there is this exchange;

10 And when He had come into Jerusalem, all the city was moved, saying, “Who is this?” 11 So the multitudes said, “This is Jesus, the prophet from Nazareth of Galilee.”

So this delirious crowd understood that Jesus came as King and they identified Him as a prophet but what they couldn’t own that which made them fall away when the tide turned was the fact that Jesus came as a Priest who would offer Himself as a sacrifice. They could go all hyper happy at the idea of King and Prophet but the notion of Christ as Priest who would offer Himself as a sacrifice for sins was something they only understood after the resurrection.

Jesus is coming as Prophet, Priest, and King. The crowds drop the Priest part and misinterprets the prophet and king truths.

So, all of this is humiliation for our Lord Christ. It was like having a party thrown in your honor when all along the people who are throwing the party are completely clueless of why it is you are to be honored.

Next this is humiliation for Jesus to see how they were bending and twisting the royal word of the King – the scriptures. The people use the texts and psalms in the praise they are giving to Jesus but the crowds are willing to accept the prophecy only as it seems to fit with their preconceived notions.

Listen to the way that Reformed theologian Klaus Schilder put this;

“Jesus therefore suffers acutely now…. “

And the “now” here refers to Jesus observing the frenzy of praise.

“the false interpreters of Scriptures are concentrated upon Him. This distortion is an earmark of that basic sin which is leading Jerusalem to its grave. Israel wants to shed its light upon Him, but He must illuminate Israel…. Whoever looks at the Christ in his own light withdraws himself from the influence from Jesus through the Word. Those who do this excludes himself from that influence, though He shout “Hosanna” a thousand times. To see Christ in our own light is to sin terribly, for it is to deny Him the right to minister His threefold office to us.”

We talk about this often here but the humiliation of Jesus here is discovered in the fact that this crowd is reinterpreting Jesus through their own sinful prism. They are making Jesus in their own image. They are shouting Hosannas but the Hosannas they are shouting too is to a Jesus who is not the Jesus who is before them, but a Jesus they have constructed in their heads.

And in that Jesus suffers the humiliation. How long had He been among them and yet they misinterpreted both His person, mission, and the Scriptures that spoke of Him? They could never accept a suffering servant Messiah. In this same vain Peter rebuked Him when Jesus spoke of going to the Cross.

21 From that time forth began Jesus to shew unto his disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised again the third day. 22 Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.

So, for this crowd there is no room for the Christ and no room for the Cross. Instead, they reinterpret Jesus, twisting the Scripture, thus committing linguistic deception and in that there is humiliation for Jesus the Christ.
As we mentioned just a moment ago, they want the Jesus that brings them all the glory. They are praising Jesus for the carnal good that He is going to do them. None of this praise is about praising God, but it really is about praising of self. Hosanna to God in the highest because of how I or we will be advantaged by the Messiah setting us on high.

You see they want the power but not the justice of God. They want the glory but not the suffering servant. Jesus has come into Jerusalem to satisfy God’s justice. God’s holiness has been set aside and through the centuries God winked at and overlooked man’s wickedness but now in this arrival of Jesus in Jerusalem we have the one who will do the Priestly work of offering up Himself to meet God’s justice against our sin. Yet, all that these crowds are crowing about is how the might of God is going to advantage them. There is not a word of praise for the one who will satisfy God’s justice, fulfill the righteous requirements of the law, and turn away the Father’s wrath. Not one word of praise for the one who will bring them peace with God by reconciling them to God through His bloody redemptive work on the Cross.

All kinds of praise for the might/power of God for what it can do for them but not a word about the rights of God against rebellious man in his sin.

And because of this Jesus weeps and the valley of humiliation continues on to the Cross. This is not exaltation. This is humiliation painted in cheerful colors.

On this score note the fickleness of this populist movement. Here they are frenzied for Jesus because of what He might do for them and yet only in a few days when Jesus is clearly being set forth as the one who satisfies God’s justice all they can scream is “Crucify Him.”

And we have to yet speak of the more wretched in this account. The scribes and the Pharisees are more wretched because they sin against a better knowledge here.

Here again we see the humiliation of Jesus the Christ.

There is humiliation also to be found in the enemies of Christ here. We know from the Scripture that already this crew was planning on Killing Christ and this due to the fact that the rise of the popularity of Jesus the Christ meant the diminishing of their influence. Just prior to this entry Jesus had raised the dead (Lazarus). Because of this the populist movement was in high gear and the Jewish deep state had to do something to erase this threat to their power. The rise of Jesus of Nazareth meant the removal from power of the establishment. So, Palm Sunday was very political;

John records the political side of all this;

“Then the chief priests and the Pharisees called a meeting of the Sanhedrin [their supreme court]. ‘What are we accomplishing?’ they asked. ‘Here is this man performing many signs. If we let him go on like this, everyone will believe in him, and then the Romans will come and take away both our temple and our nation’ John 11

And so Jesus must bear the humiliation of being resisted by those very people who were supposed to be the shepherds of Israel… supposed to be those people who should’ve been His greatest supporters.

But they were too interested in power and they too, like the crowds, missed the purpose of His coming, even though they ended up being used by God to be chief aids in the accomplishment of the Messiah’s mission.

It may be that the words from the Pharisees came in the context of all this rejoicing being within site of the Roman Citadel Antonia where the Roman garrison was housed in Jerusalem. Rome was always especially on alert during the religious festivals held in Jerusalem. And I can see the Pharisees urging Jesus to hush his disciples while looking with worry that the citadel might empty itself to forcefully disburse this crowd.

Jesus responds by saying … Look, if these should be silent a stone choir would raise their voice in praise. Even the stones would cry out … inanimate creation would burst forth in praise. It may be here that Christ is recalling the prophecy of Habakkuk.

“The stone shall cry out of the wall, and the beam out of the timber shall answer it”

Despicable men and yet how often have we been mute about the glories of Christ when we should be signing His praises. How often have we been silent when we should have sang like stones?

And so again we see humiliation. He is the great King. He is worthy of all this praise and more and yet He has to deal with the leadership who should be leading the praises and yet are doing all they can to shut this down.

This humiliation is an ironic thing. God uses these very men who are committed to doing all they can to grind Jesus into utter humiliation and yet it is by their work of opposing Jesus and by ushering Him into His crescendo of humiliation in the Cross that His exaltation is arrived at.

This is the eucatastrophe of the humiliation. In God’s providence the catastrophic visits the Messiah and yet out of this catastrophic the victory of God is achieved. Covering Christ with this humiliation the enemy aims at victory but through and because of this humiliation the catastrophe of the Cross is overcome in the exaltation of Christ – an exaltation that means that God’s justice is upheld, God’s people are delivered, and the age to come continues to overcome this present wicked age.

All this humiliation and yet at the end of it, it serves the purposes of exalting Christ.
The humiliation around Palm Sunday reminds me of the hymn we sang yesterday at Ross’s funeral;

Ye fearful saints, fresh courage take;
The clouds ye so much dread
Are big with mercy and shall break
In blessings on your head.

  1. Judge not the Lord by feeble sense,
    But trust Him for His grace;
    Behind a frowning providence
    He hides a smiling face.

     

  2. His purposes will ripen fast,
    Unfolding every hour;
    The bud may have a bitter taste,
    But sweet will be the flow’r.

     

  3. Blind unbelief is sure to err
    And scan His work in vain;
    God is His own interpreter,
    And He will make it plain.

Fisking Rich Lusk’s Multicultural “Christian” Nationalism

CREC ministers, typically, are epically bad when it comes to the issue of Nationalism. Rev. Rich Lusk is no different as we see in this post he placed upon TwitteX. In other posts you can find me disagree with Lusk on many different issues. Rich is definitely one of those really smart people who has the uncanny ability to articulate really dumb ideas. Increasingly, one comes across many of these types.

Rev. Rich Lusk (RL) writes;

It is not possible to take 16th century Reformational political theory and drop it into an American context unaltered anymore than it is possible to take the law of Moses and drop it into an American context unaltered.

BLMc responds;

I suspect there exist a few people who might argue that it is possible to take 16th century Reformational political theory and drop it into an American context unaltered, just as there may be a few people who would argue that it is possible to take the law of Moses and drop it into an American context unaltered. However, the number of such people on both counts are miniscule. As such, I take this opening salvo of Lusk to be a case where he is poisoning the well at the outset as against anyone who disagrees with what he says as he continues this missive. Lusk alone is the fountainhead of wisdom and anybody who would contradict him is a guilty of of being an antiquated nekulturny.

However, it is possible to take principles of 16th century political theory and advocate that the American context alter in order to adhere to a superior idea. After all, Rev. Lusk certainly doesn’t believe that the American context is inviolable in terms of political solutions that might find their origin from the 16th century political theorizing.

RL writes;

We cannot do with the Reformers what theonomists want to do with Moses because when it comes to politics, context matters and prudence is always necessary. Of course, biblical law should be an authoritative source of political wisdom and principles in every society. And we can certainly learn from and implement certain features from Reformational political theology – their political work is not irrelevant. But the American context is different — it’s different from ancient Israel and its different from 16th century Geneva.

BLMc responds,

Here RL takes gives back with his right hand what he took originally with his left hand. First, Rich said “you can’t use that antiquated stuff,” and now he says, “well, we can use some of it.”

Second, here Lusk invokes the use of “prudence” but of course we respond with; “prudence by what standard?” I suspect Rev. Lusk and Rev. McAtee would disagree strenuously on what is and is not prudent in this situation.

Finally, it is a rather Captain Obvious statement to observe; “The American context is different.” Does it pain anyone else when people blurt out painfully obvious statements? Yes, Rich, everyone who has a pulse realizes “The American context is different.” Does Rich really think that people exist who don’t realize today’s America is different than Calvin’s 16th century Geneva?

RL writes;

American problems call for uniquely American solutions. We have to deal with America as she actually exists in 2025. We have to play the hand we’re dealt. To give a couple examples: The American founders developed a system of limited government, checks and balances, federalism, individual rights grounded in nature and nature’s God, etc. We cannot simultaneously say, “the constitution is dead” AND honor our political forefathers. This is one reason why I have questioned the notion of a “Christian prince” in an American context — a “Christian prince” seems fitting in a European context, but not America. A Christian President, a Christian Commander-in-Chief — those would be fully American. But not a Christian prince.

BLMc responds,

1.) The first three sentences are more “No Duh” filler sentences.

2.) In terms of Rev. Lusk’s example;

a.) We can simultaneously say the constitution is dead (and has been since at least 1860) while still honoring our political forefathers. I guarantee you that if our political forefathers could be reanimated they would agree that their constitution is dead while hoping that we would honor them by agreeing with them that their constitution is dead and prompting us to return to the principles that made for their constitution.

b.) We could note that more than a few of our political forefathers wanted to make George Washington the Christian King of America.

c.) A Christian prince could easily be an American concept. Germany once had a Kaiser and the German context didn’t force them to continue with that. The same is true of Russia and any number of other contexts. The American context is not sovereign over what might need to be done in order to bring about ordered change.

d.) Now if we were to talk about the American context and moving forward I would suggest that the American context yields a perfect context for different secession movements that would break up these once united States. If we did that then we could have both Christian princes and Christian republics.

e.) The idea that the American context can’t support the idea of a “Christian Prince” is pure poppycock. Our Christian Prince could operate in the context of a Constitutional Monarchy. In such a way we might retain both a Christian Prince and Christian Commander in Chief.

RL writes;

There’s no need for Americans to hanker after European titles that we left behind a long time ago. We should work within the system our founding fathers gave us (and of course that system has provisions for change and adaptation). And yes, I’ve read Caldwell — I know we have gone through several constitutional revolutions, and the civil rights regime has created a new de facto order. But even rolling back what needs to be rolled back from the civil rights era has to be done in a way that works with and within our existing institutions.

BLMc responds;

1.) The idea of “Christian Prince” is hardly uniquely European.

2.) Again… we have not worked within the system our founding fathers gave us since 1860. (I too have read Caldwell, and Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens on the US Constitution.)

3.) Why does needed change have to work with and within our existing institutions? One could reasonably argue that if the existing institutions have bottomed out, then they need to go. Of course, one could also argue that the existing institutions can also be maintained while emptying them of their former function and filling them with a new function that gives the illusion of continuity, which is what was done after circa 1860, circa 1918, irca 1944, and and circa 1964. This is that for which Rev. Lusk seems to be arguing.

RL continues;

Another example: White Christian Nationalists will complain that no one accuses Japan of racism for wanting to be Japanese, so why is it wrong for whites to want to have a country of their own? Why is ethnonationalism ok in some countries but not others? But this misses the point, and the problem. American and Japanese history are entirely different. Racial identity politics will always function differently in America than anywhere else. America was multiracial from the days of the earliest settlers. We had black slaves here. We had Amerindians. America has to deal with the race issue differently from other nations because we have a different history. Advocating ethnonationalism here is a very different thing because our national story is very different.

BLMc responds,

Now, we begin to get to the nut of the matter for Rev. Lusk I believe.

1.) The question; “If Japan is not racist for wanting to be Japanese then why is it wrong for whites to have a country their own,” does not in the least miss the point. Not in the least. It is a legitimate question to consider and that especially in the American context that Rich finds so controlling. The American context finds these united States to be 88% white in 1970. In 1980 these united States was 83% white. In 1990 these united States were 80% white. It would seem the American context, per Lusk’s parameters of prudence, requires us to pursue a ethnonationalism that will once again stoke up these kind of prior percentages. If anything, it is Lusk who is ignoring the American context by suggesting that we shouldn’t pay attention to the necessity to be a overwhelmingly predominantly white nation.

3.) That American was biracial from its earliest days is just fairy tale talk. Sure, there was in these united States a sprinkling of this and that from other racial origins but biracial (really multiracial) in the sense of India? Never! This kind of advocacy on the part of Lusk is straight out of the Loving vs. Virginia Cultural Marxism playbook. A glimpse at the  Naturalization Act of 1790 in America bears out that Lusk is either ignorant or lying. In that Naturalization Act, the US Congress, with prudence, implemented requirements that doubtless took into account the American context. In that law naturalization was limited to “free white persons… of good character. Interestingly enough, for decades the US courts also associated whiteness with Christianity and thus excluded Muslim immigration into these united States until the 20th century (1944).

It is my conviction that Lusk is the one guilty of not taking into account the American context and is really suggesting that the American context that is really important in his opinion is the post civil-rights / post Hart-Celler Immigration act American context.

RL continues;

And before jumping to conclusions about what I am saying and not saying, I fully believe that we need to enforce our borders and deport illegals, we need to stop anti-white racialism, we need to continue dismantling DEI, we need to bring critical manufacturing back home, etc. But none of those things require us to frame the issues in terms of race. And none of those things will make America monoracial. They are all common sense proposals that serve the good of the nation. Period. Racializing everything is not the way forward.

BLMc responds;

1.) If we, per Rev. Lusk’s encouraging

Deport 30 million illegals
Stop anti-white racialism so that minorities don’t receive quotas
Dismantle DEI

This would mean that white ethno-nationalism is gaining traction. If this were to occur the race pimps would go insane and threaten to burn the house down. The race pimps would take these very actions that Rev. Lusk embraces and scream that America was turning back into a Klan nation. We wouldn’t need to frame any of this in terms of race in order for it to be framed by the left as a matter of race. Does Rev. Lusk think that the minority community that is so prevalent in the rank and file of the Cultural Marxist religion are going to silently sit by and not scream “RACISM” at the top of their lungs if this Euro-centric Christian policy was pursued?

2.) It may be true that none of these things will make America monoracial but it sure as Hades will once again put White Christians back in the overwhelming majority. Honestly, the absence of 30 million illegal immigrants, combined with the end of DEI WOKE and the roll back of the civil rights act (which was racial communism) would undo everything that the multicultural/multiracial left wants for this country. Rev. Lusk is just not being realistic in his analysis here.

3.) It strikes that Rich’s thinking is built on the mythology that says that anti-white racism (DEI) can be halted without the presence of white Christian consciousness which would drive whites realizing they have a need to act in harmony together in the attempt to replace/destroy them.

RL writes;

Trump won twice (or thrice), and did so without racialization. In fact, he sought to build a coalition that included blacks and Hispanics, and had more success than any other recent politician — and that’s because he knows coalitions are required in any movement if it’s going to be successful. The left *wanted* him to do racial identity politics, but he refused.

BLMc responds,

Like Nixon in 1968, Trump used a racial dog whistle in being elected. He talked about immigrants eating pets in Ohio. In the past he talked about the fact that we were getting all the immigrants from “outhouse countries.” It is true that Trump refused to give the Left an issue. He avoided that by using a dog whistle and by convincing the comparatively small number of minorities per their total numbers to vote for him due to the fact that this comparatively small number understood it really was in their best interest for the US to be a predominantly White Christian nation.

RL finishes;

Trump’s genius is that he’s shown a way forward, a way the right can win. I don’t see why some people want to mess it up by making it all about race. “White Christian Nationalism” is to “Christian Nationalism” what “Make White America Great Again” is to MAGA. Conservative blacks often point out that the best way to deal with race in America is to just stop talking about it. And I tend to agree: if we focus on building a *Christian* nation here (as opposed to, say, a *white* nation), the race issue will take care of itself.

BLMc responds,

1.) The whole idea of Nationalism (Christian or otherwise) implies race. Nationalism, coming as it does from the word “nation,” requires a geographic area populated by a people of a common descent or ancestor. When Rich argues that we need to lose the “White” in “White Christian Nationalism,” he is in essence arguing for propositional nationalism — that is a nationalism that is bound together not by blood but by a set of ephemeral and ever shifting ideas.

2.) The violent crime figure numbers tell me that “just not talking about race” is not a winning proposition.

In the end Rev. Lusk offers a solution that solves nothing. To be honest, in my estimation Lusk’s offering reads as if he has a plan to “Christianize the Tower of Babel.” Also, Lusk’s offering could be easily read as prioritizing the post-Civil Rights American context as the true American context that is to qualify and guide all action taken.

I resolutely reject this political analysis from Lusk. It’s not true. It’s not wise. It’s not Christian.

 

Johannes Althusius On Kinism

Kinism was endorsed by the founder of the Dutch Reformed Church, Johannes Althusius:

“There are two kinds of private and natural domestic association. The first is conjugal (conjugalis) and the second is kinship (propinqua). p. 29. Rights communicated among persons who are united in this natural association are called rights of blood (jura sanguinis) bringing together and sustaining advantages mutually among the kinsmen. Such advantages are, first, the affection, love, and goodwill of the blood relative and kinsman. Advantages and responsibilities are intensified as the degree of relationship among the kinsmen increases. Certain political writers eliminate, wrongly in my judgment, the doctrine of conjugal and kinship private association from the field of politics. These associations are the seedbed of all private and public associational life. The knowledge of other associations is therefore incomplete and defective without this doctrine of conjugal and kinship associations, and cannot be rightly understood without it.”

Johannes Althusius
‘Politica’ – pp. 30-1.

Baptist & Amillennial Blunders

“While it is true that the gospel does have ripple effects on society, it is wrong to equate the kingdom with those ripple effects.”

-Sam Waldron
Baptist Amillennialist

Waldron, along with Baptist Amillennialist Tom Hicks has written a book inveighing against Theonomy and postmillennialism. One position they take as Amillennialists is that the Kingdom of God is only identified with the visible church. Now, keep in mind that if it is true that there is no such thing as neutrality this Amillennial position means that all other Institutions of men that are not the visible church are, by necessity, outposts of the Kingdom of Satan. That which cannot be part of the Kingdom of God is always a part of the Kingdom of Satan and is always opposed to the Kingdom of God. This means, families, education, arts, politics, courts, medicine, and all the institutions that wherein these are contained all belong to Satan’s rule because according the Waldron, Hicks and countless number of Amillennialists the Kingdom of God is only identified with the visible church.

This is despite the fact that we are taught to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ. This position is held despite the fact that we are to pray that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven. This position is held despite the fact that all authority in heaven and on earth was given to Christ who then instructed us to disciple the nations. This stupid Amillennial position is held despite the fact that the gates of hell would not prevail in the Church’s work of extending the Kingdom.

The Amillennialist position is fine with Jesus being King over the Church. They are fine with Jesus being King over our individual personal lives. However, these poor chaps get stuck on the idea that the Lordship of Jesus Christ over the Church and personal individual lives, as that is multiplied by God’s faithfulness to build his Church, will necessarily mean that all the various institutions that are built up by converted men and women will thus become expressions of the Kingdom of God.

Waldron, instead wants to refer to all that as “ripple effects on society.” Apparently “Kingdom ripples,” are acceptable but actually being part of the Kingdom of God is verboten. One wonders where an acceptable Kingdom ripple ends and where an unacceptable Kingdom identity begins. Maybe we should begin a “Kingdom ripple police.” These Kingdom ripple police would make sure that ripples never became more than ripples.

Waldron needs to be reminded that Jesus was crucified for being the kind of King that the Romans found threatening. Rome would not have found Jesus being King to be threatening to their rule if they had believed that the Kingship that Jesus brought was only to be over a private religious organization (Church) or over people’s “hearts.” Pilate would never of hoisted Jesus up on the Cross if Jesus had been only some kind of private sphere King.

“If these arguments that I am making are correct then Christian Nationalism is actually Satanic. It is, in truth, Satanic Nationalism because it is a usurpation of Christ’s authority… The book of Revelation teaches that their is an unholy alliance between state religion and and overpowered civil government. Any government that claims authority over the Church’s orthodoxy and fills the church with reprobates is under the influence of the dragon and is speaking with the voice of the dragon.”

Tom Hicks
Anabaptist Amillennialist

1.) Hicks great presupposition here is that a nation’s government should allow for all the gods into the public square. Being Baptist, Hicks, by definition, believes in pluralism, which means he believes in polytheistic Nationalism. Since religion is an inescapable category all nations practice a nationalism as animated by some religion.

2.) Notice when one gives up Biblical Christianity the categories of good and evil end up being inverted. Once Hicks calls genuine Christian Nationalism, “Satanic Nationalism,” he now has embraced “Satanic Nationalism” as being Christian.

3.) Hicks is correct about the book of Revelation but all because a godless union of church and state persecuted the Church in the book of Revelation (something we would expect) that doesn’t mean all cooperative work between a Christian church and Christian State is evil.

4.) A Christian government correcting a Christian church that is giving up doctrines of the true Christian faith is a blessing. Obviously a government filling up the Church with reprobates would not be a Christian government and would, as such, have to be resisted. Hicks makes no sense.

5.) Hicks is speaking with the voice of the Dragon.

Hicks is speaking with the voice of the radical reformation (AnaBaptists). Below is a Puritan voice of the second Reformation – John Owen. It provides a correction to Hicks Baptist ramblings.

“Protestants teach unanimously that is it incumbent on kings to find out, receive, embrace, and promote the truth of the gospel, and the worship of God appointed therein, confirming, protecting, and defending of it by their regal power and authority; as also, that in their so doing they are to use the liberty of their own judgments, informed by the ways that God hat appointed for that end, independently of the dictates, determinations, and orders of any other person or persons in the world, unto whose authority they should be obnoxious.”

John Owen
Puritan

Hicks and Waldron are classic examples of problems one finds with amillennial, baptist, theology.  These guys think they are claimants to the doctrines of the Reformation and claimants of covenant theology. However, when it comes down to it, all you are left with when one embraces Baptist Amillennialism is discontinuity, dualism, and dispensationalism.