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 Aaron Renn on “Nationalism”

People just can’t quit talking about Christian Nationalism and Kinism. Recently I read an interview piece with Andrew Sandlin and Joe Boot. Upon completing it I had to make sure I wasn’t reading a Norm MacDonald comedy routine. I may bring that to IronInk for analysis. On the other hand I can’t keep up with all the vacuous mindlessness out there on the subject of “Christian Nationalism,” and “Kinism” that needs to be critiqued.

However, in this post I am taking the time to critique another piece by Aaron Renn that can be found here;

Nationalism Isn’t American

Nobody will be surprised to learn that I find almost all that I read from the cognoscenti to be worthy only of mouse bait status. Renn is no different. See if you agree with me.

“As Georgetown professor Joshua Mitchell has shown, wokeness shot rapidly through American culture because it exploited Protestant religious themes that are embedded deep in our public consciousness, whereas Marxism never got traction because concepts like “class” don’t resonate in America. “

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds

1.) Leave it to a Georgetown Intellectual to conclude that somehow wokeness gained traction because it could exploit Protestant religious themes. I guarantee you if we looked at these Protestant themes the Georgetown professor is suggesting could be used by wokeness to worm its way into our public consciousness we would find that these putative Protestant themes are in point of fact Liberal themes that were like parasites that had attached to Protestantism. There is nothing in genuine Protestantism that makes a way for wokeness.

2.) The odd thing about this quote is Renn doesn’t seem to realize that wokeness is a form of Marxism. Hence, Marxism has resonated here but I would submit that the reason Marxism resonates is because we are no longer and have not been for quite some time a Christian people.

3.) I think the success of the Democratic party for the last 90 years or so is proof positive that the idea of “class” does indeed resonate in America.

“Whatever our challenges are today, they are certainly less serious than those of the Civil War or Great Depression.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

I think this a terrible reading of US history and our current place in that history. Now, to be sure, the War Against the Constitution, as well as the Great Depression were two very “serious” and difficult times of challenge in our country’s history but to suggest that where we are is less serious than those historical events belies a seriously tin ear as to the precipice we currently are upon. We have over 30 million illegal aliens in our country and our border is non existent. We have a debt that will never be paid off. We have two hot wars that we are arcing towards getting sucked into. The gap between the haves and have nots is greater than any time in several generations. We have an elite who are in point of fact an occupying force that clearly are not interested in representing the interests of the American people. We are setting on a racial powder keg that could explode at any moment. The Institutions of the US such as Universities, Families, and Churches are shredded in terms of supporting and maintaining a stable social order. Now, Renn would say to me, as he says in his “Nationalism” piece that this is all “apocalyptical thinking,” but naturally enough I find him playing with matches in a dark room filled with dynamite singing, “Don’t Worry, be Happy.”

The rest of Renn’s piece underscores my conviction that Renn is not very historically savvy. For example, elsewhere he can say;

“Repeatedly throughout American history, in times of crisis, our leaders have managed to take extraordinary action when necessary and to refresh our institutions to address new challenges. Lincoln did so during the Civil War. Teddy Roosevelt did so with his trust busting, as did FDR with the New Deal.”

Now, I’m not completely sure, but in my reading it looks to me that Renn is complimenting Lincoln, TR, and FDR, on how they handled great challenges. If that is what Renn is saying I’d say this is a misreading of history and doesn’t take into account the unmitigated disaster these Presidents were and how each and all of them were committed to continue to fundamentally transform the US Constitution. Lincoln was a tyrant. TR was a known progressive. FDR worked the Fascist side of the street.

If Renn thinks that current American leadership could work the magic that Lincoln, TR, and FDR, worked when they faced challenges all I can do is explain why that is stupid analysis and then pray God that current leaders don’t face our challenges the way that demonic trio faced challenges.

“What we need today, perhaps, is a modern-day FDR—a thoroughly American character who built solutions that would appeal to the people of this country.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

How can anybody take seriously anybody who would write a sentence like the one above?

Just for the record… FDR created the problems to which he offered “solutions” that only made the original problems twice as bad. Secondly, the only reason FDR “appealed” to the people of this country is because he first paid them and then set them against one another is a frenzied fit as to who was going to get first and primary access to the money he stole from the American people through his taxation policy as coupled with inflating the money supply.

“But terms like “nationalism” or “Christian nationalism” join the Left in abandoning these historic symbols in favor of ones that don’t resonate. So I believe it is a mistake to embrace this and other such language. The authentic American cultural and political tradition provides us all the resources we need to meet the challenges of today.”

Aaron Renn

McAtee responds,

Christian Nationalism doesn’t resonate? Renn says that despite the US Constitution being concerned with “securing the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.” Does Renn know what “ourselves and our posterity means?” Is not such a phrase “Nationalism” in embryonic form?

Or what about the Naturalization Act of 1790 where the law limited naturalization to “free White person(s) … of good character”, thus excluding Native Americans, indentured servants, enslaved people, free black people, and later Asians. Is there not a foundational notion of Nationalism in such language?

As late as 1921 we could read Vice President John Calvin Coolidge writing something that sure sounds like Nationalism;

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend. The Nordics propagate themselves successfully. With other races, the outcome shows deterioration on both sides. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

Vice President John Calvin Coolidge

Good Housekeeping — 1921

In light of this a many many more examples that could be easily provided does Renn really want to stake out the position that “terms like “nationalism” or “Christian nationalism” join the Left in abandoning our historic symbols in favor of ones that don’t resonate.”

This is the first time I’ve take the time to analyze something written by Renn. I know he is supposed to be “all that and a bag of chips,” but this piece ranks right up there with what you’d hear in your average Owen Strachan sermon.

Renn is just terribly off in his article on Nationalism. I am coming to the conclusion that one can determine the bonafides of someone’s intellectual capacity based upon how they handle the question of Christian Nationalism. It seems to me that Renn fails just like Wilson, White, Strachan, Ainol, Boot, Sandlin, etc.

The Placing of Robert E. Lee in Hell… a Cultural Analysis

“The task of history, therefore, once the world beyond the truth has disappeared, is to establish the truth of this world.”

Karl Marx

“The march of Providence is so slow, and our desires so impatient; the work of progress is so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.”

General Robert E. Lee

In the last week a statue of Gen. Robert E. Lee, on his horse Traveler, was melted in effigy in a fiery furnace heated, we were told to 2250 degree Fahrenheit. This was something that could have been done quite apart from fanfare and hoopla, as the enemies of Lee and what he symbolizes had already achieved victory a couple years prior with the removal of the Lee statue from the public square in Charlottesville, Virginia. However, old feuds run deep and the descendants of the victors of the War of Northern Aggression were compelled by their hatred to add insult to injury and so one of the communiques of the Marxist left (The Washington Post) felt it necessary to rub large amounts of salt in a very old wound by placing a photo of Lee burning in a hell like furnace. This was the Jacobin Left gleefully rubbing the noses of Heritage Americans in Jacobin triumph and our defeat.

My immediate thought upon seeing the photo and reading the article was, once my rage passed, “and this is what they wish they could do with all of us who find this action to be a testimony to vile Marxist revolutionary behavior. What does one expect from Marxist pigs but Marxist grunts?”

In this smelting of Lee we see once again the Marxist disciples of Marx reaching to accomplish what Marx spoke of in our lead in quote. The Left is working on the task and has been working on that task, since its inception in Genesis 3, of scrubbing away the world beyond the truth so as to establish their truth of this world. As such the melting of Lee is not merely an attack on Heritage Americans, it is also an attack on the Biblical metaphysics that gives meaning to reality in favor of a humanist epistemology wherein history and Marxist historians are given the task of “establishing ‘truth’ in this world.”

They have been at this task, hammer and tong, in regards to Gen. Lee at every turn. Consider that in 2021 the Cathedral of the Rockies finished replacing a stained-glass windowpane that the church felt was racist and non-inclusive. The offending stained glass window featured Robert E. Lee standing shoulder to shoulder with Washington and Lincoln. Lee was changed out here for the first Black female Bishop in Methodism with Boise ties. Lee was probably pleased to be finally removed from having to be in the same windowpane as Lincoln.

Also in 2021, Robert E. Lee IV, a descendent of the General, made some news ripples when he denounced his forefather by offering to whatever microphone he could find that, “We have made my ancestor an idol of white supremacy, racism and hate.” One wonders who the “we” is that RGL IV is referring to? This same descendant of Lee was quoted in 2016 in the Washington Post, “of the shame he felt over his great-great-great-great uncle’s legacy.”

A great irony in all this is that Lee himself was relieved that slavery had ended. The man, if we are to take his own words seriously, was pleased that slavery had ended;

“I am rejoiced that slavery is abolished. I believe it will be greatly for the interests of the South. So fully am I satisfied of this, as regards Virginia especially, that I would cheerfully have lost all I have lost by the war, and have suffered all I have suffered, to have this object attained.”

However, to the Marxist gods this is irrelevant. History will be what they and their “historians” say it is, and may the truth that is beyond this world be damned.

In all this we need to keep in mind here that Robert E. Lee is not the only one who is being tossed upon the bonfires of vanity either by way of removal, destruction, or defacing. The symbols of Western Civilization and American History are everywhere being cast aside. Everyone from Maj. Gen. Philip Schuyler — he of American War of Independence fame, U.S. Grant, to Christopher Columbus, to George Washington to Juan Ponce de Leon, to abolitionists Matthias Baldwin, and John Greenleaf Whittier. At this point it is past obvious that this is not merely an attack on the Old South but it is an attack in revolt against every semblance of civilization and order that has any whiff of Christianity in favor of the anarchy of old chaos and dark night.

Anybody who is familiar in the least with the nature of Revolution understand that once the revolutionary mindset gets rolling that eventually the Revolution eats its own. The Revolutionaries started with the statues raised to the honored confederate dead but the frenzy extends now even to 19th century abolitionists who may have been animated in their opposition to slavery due to their Christian principles.

Also lets not miss here that all the pilloried statues have one other thing in common and that reality is that all the symbols of the West being pulled down are of white people. For those with eyes to see all this statuary removal is clearly a concrete expression of the desire to rid the West of the white man, and the irony here is that a great percentage of those pulling down the statuary are white people who don’t realize that soon enough the Revolution is going also thrown them on the bonfires regardless of how many white statues they helped pull down.

Those who are aware of the way worldview warfare works understand that this current phenomenon of pillorying the statues of our heroes is in no way something new. If one looks at the era of the Reformation one finds the Reformers tearing down Roman Catholic statuary left and right. If one looks at the era of the rise of the Revolution in France or the Bolshevik Revolution one finds statues and symbols being pulled down. Even in the war against Iraq one of the streaming images instantly broadcast was of an American tank pulling down a statue of Saddam Hussein. One way a person can know that their is worldview change in the air is by seeing what we are seeing now and that is the assault on the symbols of the people who are being replaced.

This brings us to the observation of George Orwell;

“The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.”

The attack of Gen. Lee as well as the pulling down of the symbols of the Christian West is, proximately, in the service of destroying the Christian White man and behind that is the ultimate purpose and that is the stripping from Jesus Christ the title of “King of Kings and Lord of Lords.” The Marxist mob hates Christ and because they hate Christ they hate the Christian White man who has been, in God’s providence, the carrier of Christian civilization and so the fragrance of Christ. That fragrance is deeply hated by the Left and so they cast us all in Hell by snapping a photo of Lee’s face as red hot and molten. There is very little more that these Marxists demons could do to inform us that they intend to wipe out anybody who opposes the Revolution.

In one respect this disrespect to Lee, Christianity, and Jesus Christ is a good thing. It is a good thing because it draws a bright line between the seed of the woman and the seed of the serpent. This kind of thing establishes the anti-thesis between those who are of their Father the devil and those who are on the Lord’s side.

We are approaching a crescendo on this matter. Pat Buchanan summarized this nicely a few years ago;

“In half a lifetime, many Americans have seen their God dethroned, their heroes defiled, their culture polluted, their values assaulted, their country invaded, and themselves demonized as extremists and bigots for holding on to beliefs Americans have held for generations.”

When the crescendo finally arrives you can be sure that, just as during previous historical crescendos on this count there will be blood in the street, just as there was blood in the streets in Paris in 1789, in the streets of Harper’s Ferry in 1860, in the streets of Moscow in 1918, in the streets of Budapest in 1919, in the streets of Peking in 1949 and in the streets of Havana in 1956 Whenever these Revolutionary Christ haters are able to expand their Revolutionary mindset the blood begins to flow by the gallon.

For those with their ears close to the ground, none of this is surprising in the least. With the success of the Civil Rights movement, animated and financed as it was by the Communist International and by Marxist philosophy the hand-writing was on the wall. Then in the 1980’s when the Marxist Martin Luther King was officially placed in our pantheon of heroes it was only a matter of time till American heroes who stood for the principals exactly opposite to those of King would be pushed out of our pantheon of heroes. King is taken out of the closet and is replaced in the closet by Lee, Jackson, Washington, Jefferson, etc.

So, the Jacobin war of Northern Aggression continues apace. It never really ended and it will not end until Christianity and the white man is wiped out and incinerated in just the same way that one of the greatest Americans of our history was incinerated.

In the end this casting of Gen. Robert E. Lee into Hell was a testimony to the greatness of the man. The man was so great… such a Christian hero, that he now is, to the left, the embodiment of the Christian White man. All of the Christian virtues that the Jacobin left so deeply and viscerally hates are distilled in the great Robert E. Lee. Even after his death 153 years ago he remains the bete-noire of the Jacobin left here in these united States of America.

It is my prayer that those responsible for this desecration of Robert E. Lee… for this further cynical attack on Biblical Christianity, for this attempt to further attempt to snuff out the Lordship of Jesus Christ will result in an eternity of their seeing that red and molten image of Lee ever before them.

Sic semper tyrannis.

McAtee contra E. Michael Jones’ Description of Lutheran Theology

A Roman Catholic describes his understanding of Reformed soteriology. McAtee returns the favor.

“According to Lutheran theology, sin is not removed from the sinner through confession, penance, and a firm resolution not to sin again. Sin is ineradicable, but God in His mercy covers it with His grace as ‘snow covers shit.’ Grace does not perfect nature because nature cannot be perfected. Instead, it maintains a tension between corrupt nature and it’s redemption that Hegel would later describe with the term ‘Aufhebung,’ which is an essentially untranslatable term, meaning roughly both to exalt and maintain.”

Dr. E. Michael Jones
Hollowcaust Narrative — p. 210
Idiot Roman Catholic

Of course the flip side of this is;

“According to Roman Catholic theology, sin is removed from the sinner through confession, penance, and a firm resolution not to sin again only to find that such an arrangement is a lie since always sin comes back so that the sinner has to continue to go to confession, penance again and again and again because the Roman Catholic penitent’s resolve not to sin again is like shit that covers snow. This means that the Roman Catholic is never done with sin and that all his rigamarole is just so much play acting that has absolutely zero impact on either his sin nature or his actual sin. For the Roman Catholic sin is also ineradicable but by the legal fictions that are Rome’s sacramental system it is pretended that sin is dealt with. Grace does not perfect nature because nature is always having to return to Rome’s blasphemous sacramental system where grace is like just so much water in a leaky bathtub. Rome’s “grace” can never clean the poor supplicant because by the time the supplicant leaves the confessional booth he is more dirty than when he arrived since all that sacramental grace has leaked out of the human container.”

Should Theology be in the Domain of Politics? — McAtee Undresses Wolfe

Over on X Stephen Wolfe offers a typical Natural Law kind of statement by posting;

“Christians need fewer theologian writing about politics. Politics, for Christians, should mainly be a discipline of non-theologians.”

Stephen Wolfe

From here Wolfe quotes from Francis Junius, a man who was trained to be a minister but left disgusted with the politics in the Church and his native country surrounding the controversy between Arminius and the supporters (including his own Uncle) who supported Calvinism.

“If any theologian labors concerning the matters relating to the ordering of human society, he wastes himself, and does the most serious injury to the God who calls him, to the Church for whose sake he has been called, and to her calling by being a busybody and meddling in others’ business which is insatiable ambition.”

Francis Junius
The Mosaic Polity — pg. 20

A few observations here.

1.) Wolfe’s position here, amazingly enough, apes the position of Radical Two Kingdom Theology (R2K). R2K, like Wolfe here, insists that ministers should stay away from politics. Don’t talk about abortion from the pulpit. Don’t talk about sodomy from the pulpit. Don’t advocate for sabbath laws in the social order from the pulpit. Don’t give reasons from the Bible as to why magistrates are in sin for pursuing an immigration policy that dilutes both the religion of the people and the original stock. Wolfe wants all this to himself and others like him. Wolfe desires for the elimination of “thus sayeth the Lord,” ringing from the Church. This is the same exact position of David Van Drunen –he of R2K fame.

2.) Wolfe being a Thomist and following the Natural Law school basically advocates here for the same kind of philosophy/ideology/theology that emanated from the pagan Enlightenment. Wolfe doesn’t need any stinking theology in order to arrive at his politics. Indeed, per Wolfe, politics should belong to non-Theologians (as if that were even possible). Wolfe is echoing the Endarkenment project and is advocating that man — starting from himself, by the use of right reason and natural law– can come to truth without any Scriptural revelation.

3.) Allow me to say, once again, that there are exactly zero academic disciplines that can be pursued apart from theology. Whether one is talking about sociology, education, judicial realm, arts, philosophy, politics, history etc. etc. etc. theology is inescapable and is the beginning point for all disciplines. There is no pursuing any discipline without theological a-prioris. This includes the Natural Law Thomists types who hide from themselves the theology that they are working from while insisting that they are not doing theology. Wolfe does this in his book, insisting in his book that he is not doing theology. I promise you… all any of us do, all the time (including Dr. Wolfe) is theology. It’s just either purposeful disingenuousness or a blindness of epic proportions to deny this.

4.) There are whole books out there connecting theology to politics. Martin Foulner’s “Theonomy & the Westminster Confession” is one such book. Dr. Glenn R. Martin’s “Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500,” is another. R. J. Rushdoony, Francis Schaeffer, Gary North, and C. Greg Singer all connected what they wrote on politics to theology. Pray tell, what does Wolfe do with the Black Robed Regiment in the American colonies during the run up to the War for American Independence?

Now Wolfe, hating the presuppositional school as being a Natural Law theologian (and I feel the same way about his philosophy as he does about my theology,) like his R2K bedfellows doesn’t want the presuppositionalists swimming in a pool (politics) he thinks should be exclusive to him and his R2K pool buddies but I’m here to tell you that he’s in over his head and is drowning.

5.) I understand how frustrated Wolfe is by so many clergy who are absolute dorks who are resisting him. However, the problem with these dorks is not limited to politics. These dorks rot at politics because they rot at theology. They shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a pulpit. Frankly, I’m surprised that God has struck many of them dead where they stand in their pulpits for resisting the Lordship of Jesus Christ over nations. However, the conclusion here isn’t to restrict a theology that touches every area of life (including politics) from the bailiwick of the pulpit.

6.) I have liked some of the conclusions that Wolfe has arrived at but I absolutely loath … despise … hate the man’s Natural Law methodology. We see the instability of it again in Wolfe’s echoing of the R2K school in his desire to eliminating theology from politics. Here we have R2K who insists that they are the voice of God’s Natural Law, and Wolfe who insists he is the voice of Gods’ Natural Law, and these two are at each other’s throats as to what Natural Law teaches. If the R2K Thomists, and the Wolfe crowd Thomists can’t agree on what Natural Law teaches how is anybody else going to read the tea leaves of Natural Law rightly.

Natural Law went the way of the Dodo bird because men began to see that it was clearly a thin and weak reed to lean on. Natural Law was eclipsed because it sucked wind as a theology/philosophy that could provide stability for a social order. The reason then, and the reason now, Natural law sucks so badly as a epistemological foundation is that it is completely subjective to whomever is reading Natural Law. This is proven, in spades, by the fact that the R2K fanboys, and the Wolfe fanboys, who both love them some Natural Law can’t stand to be in each other’s presence when it comes to working out what Natural Law really means.

Christian Nationalism & The Use of Force

“God’s law, and the punitive stipulations attached to it have never been rescinded.

The Gospel is to preached to all men. Those whom God has chosen from eternity will hear and believe.

God’s law is to be applied and upheld in every sphere of man’s endeavor. It is not meant to convert but to control the lawless and when necessary remove them from society. The state wields the sword and enforces the law but it must do so in submission to Christ the King.

The failure of the church to operate as described above is testimony to effeminacy. It is anti Christ.”

Mark Chambers

This is the answer to the old canard from “Christians” insisting that Christian Nationalism (CN) should not be supported by Christians because it implies the use of force. The argument is that CN is not legitimate because nobody can be forced to convert.

To the contrary CN can and should use force upon people in order to be installed. People have to realize that the force that CN must and should us is not intended to convert people, but rather force is intended to make the lawless respect the King’s law. Whether they will convert or not is the work of the Holy Spirit in the context of the preaching of the Gospel. That people will be forced to obey is the work of the Christian magistrates sword.

As such there is nothing desultory and there is no degradation to a Christianity which uses force to make people outwardly conform to the law of God, even if inwardly those people hate doing so. We do it all the time. We used force to make sure that people who might want to murder, rape, and steal don’t murder, rape, and steal. The fact that they are not doing the murdering, raping, and stealing that they might otherwise do if force wasn’t promised against them if they did so may make them hypocrites but that is irrelevant as to living in a social order within the bonds of God’s law.
They may secretly desire to disobey that which they are being forced to obey but they don’t and they don’t for the fear of force used against them if they do. That is a good thing.

The above explains how CN is not inconsistent with the usage of force. It is true that force can’t convert people but that is not it’s intent. The intent of force is have people obey God’s law outwardly whether they want to or not. And that would be a good thing.

The usage of force in the rise of CN is no different than the usage of force in a Christian family. 12 y/o Johnny may not like any number of the family rules but force will make sure that Johnny complies. Now, to be sure, the hope is that Johnny will one day enjoy and own the family rules but until that day arrives little Johnny is kept in line by the promises of consequences (force) if he does not comply.

“Christians” who bring up the canard about how the prospect of force in CN make CN a non-starter are not really complaining about the prospect of force. What they are complaining about are laws in God’s gracious Law-Word that they don’t want enforced. If they could force their law on the world (whatever that might be) they would be perfectly fine with force.

Think about it a second…. the Baptists are some of the Christians who are screaming the loudest about how the usage of force is not consistent with Christianity. These Baptists are therefore against CN. However, keep in mind that the pluralism that we have now that is kept as expressive of our social order by force is a pluralism that is an expression of Baptist theology. Pluralism is the child of Anabaptist thinking, so naturally many Baptists oppose a CN coupled with the usage of force because that would mean the end of their preferred social order (pluralism) which is maintained by force.

In the end, force is an inescapable concept when it comes to how social orders operation. That force will either be put into the service of God’s law or it will be put into the service of some other god’s law (like polytheistic pluralism).