Responding To Rev. Joe Spurgeon’s Latest Attack Of The Vapors

“I’m saddened that we squandered both Trump’s election and Kirk’s assassination to spend all the time talking about Jews. No repentance. No turning to Christ. Our people turned to a black boss girl to give them Q anon in another form.”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon

1.) Maybe Joe should repent for not talking more about the Christ-haters?

2.) Maybe Joe could connect the dots on how we might have leveraged Trump’s election and Kirk’s assassination together with the need to repent? Besides, I thought the televised Kirk lollapalooza was supposed to be evidence of all the repentance that was supposed to be happening?

3.) I think Joe needs to realize that before we can turn to Christ we must turn away from Bagels. That might require some more talking about.

4.) Joe sounds absolutely racist here? A black boss girl? Would it have been better if it had been a white boss girl Joe?

5.) Isn’t Joe talking about Jews in his comment here?

6.) Don’t miss the irony found in Joe’s concern for “our people.”

A Conversation With Darrell Dow On The State Of Protestantism

Darrell Dow writes,

I’m uncertain if there is tangible evidence rather than mere anecdote, but it appears that men with rightist convictions about politics and the world (e.g., revelation trumps reason, hierarchy is better than egalitarianism, human nature is not plastic, culture and politics are downstream from peoplehood, etc.) are moving toward Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Why? It seems that in the midst of chaos, uncertainty and alienation, they are seeking something that at least has the appearance of order, stability, and tradition.

Bret responds,

1.) There is severe contradiction here. We are told that men with rightist convictions are those who believe revelation trumps reason and yet Rome has never believed in Revelation, choosing instead to own a Thomist position where the intellect is not completely fallen and so reason can cooperate with revelation. Nobody who belongs to Rome as Rightist convictions when it comes to this issue.

2.) Another contradiction is to think that culture is downstream of peoplehood. Culture is theology poured over ethnicity. Neither are downstream of the other but together they forge the stream called culture. If we say that culture is downstream of peoplehood it seems we commit ourselves to a materialistic view of culture.

3.) The word “Appearance” above is key. Rome has always been about the smells and bells and as such shallow people are attracted to things that appear to have gravitas. However, Protestantism has indeed made a mistake here with their often strict iconoclasm (regulative principle-ism) or their often cheesy gimmicky “worship.” It is our own fault that people are leaving Protestantism given the embarrassingly shallow “Bad Neil Diamond concert” that is being offered up as worship in Protestant churches.

4.) People who are indeed fleeing to Rome and Constantinople to find gravitas will soon enough be disillusioned unless they are total mindless bots willing to follow fools in vestments.

DD wrote,

Modern Protestantism sanctifies schism. The slogans semper reformanda and the priesthood of believers, untethered from binding authority, create an ecclesiology in which schism is not a failure but a feature and can be recast as purification, growth, and mission. Every disagreement turns into a hill to die on as men seek to micro-manage the affairs of others rather than leaving that task to an actual priest.

Bret responds,

1.) Rome has every bit the schism in it that Protestants do. The only difference is that Rome is able to keep all this schism in a organizational unity. The unity Rome has is not genuine. Does anybody believe that there is ideological/”Theological” unity that exists between those who still esteem Trent and those who esteem Vatican II? Unity as between the Charismatic Catholics and the Dominicans? Yet Rome keeps all their schism in one tent and then BS’s people that, unlike Protestants, they have unity.

2.) In terms of solutions to problems … well, it all depends on which Priest one gets as to what solution one will get.

3.) This criticism sounds like someone who well understands our problems and wishes that there were other expressions of Christianity that didn’t have those same macro problems. However, Rome is every bit as schismatic, divided, and bedeviled with a lack of authority that anybody respects except as on paper.  How many people really believe that the Priest is the voice of god?

4.) Look, nobody hates more the current condition of the Protestant Church in America but the only thing that is worse than the current Protestant Church in America is the current Roman Catholic church across the world. Same goes for EO.

DD wrote,

Churches become provisional arrangements awaiting correction. An ecclesiocentrism where the church is the center of life becomes one more off-ramp to division. “Church planting” provides the moral alibi because, after all, division is not failure but multiplication! It’s not rivalry, it’s evangelism! The result is an ecclesiology in which impotence is spiritualized, authority becomes like a visit to the buffet, and the gospel is endlessly re-launched.

Bret responds scratching his head,

If you want to avoid ecclesiocentrism don’t go to Rome or Constantinople.

Generally speaking though, I completely agree here. However, I would only add that Rome is all the above minus ever having the Gospel. One could attend the ideal Roman Catholic Church or EO Church and there find the outward trappings to be just fine – even excellent … all the while putting their soul in the hands of demons.

Some people have never studied so as to understand how anti-Christ Rome and EO is. They have never done the reading. When one understands that … when one understands how demonic Rome is, one could never even hint at the superiority of Rome to the real abysmal and ugly failure of modern pseudo-Protestantism.

I do hear though that the Mormons are excellent at unity, church planting, and evangelism.

DD wrote,

On the other hand, one looks at the contemporary denominational landscape within Protestantism and wonders why any prudent group of men would join it at all. The institutions have proven unable either to maintain fidelity or to correct themselves without disintegration. Faced with corrupt and often dumb denominational bureaucracies, reasonable men do what reason permits—they leave! But because exit is the only available tool, it becomes the default setting. The result is not reform but exhaustion, kicking the can down the road for the next division.

Bret responds,

Unfortunately, all true.

DD writes,

Until we recover some credible form of authority–which involves something more than shouting Sola Scriptura– that can punish corruption without demanding perpetual schism, decentralization will remain both necessary and fatal. It’s the very definition of cutting off our nose to spite our face.

Bret responds,

Well, ideally Confessionalism is supposed to be that answer.

Still, in the end I would rather have the problems we have w/ our lack of authority than the problem that would present itself to a return to a time when the Church could be absolutely dead wrong and yet had to be supported upon pain of ostracization or worse.

Most of us hate the current zeitgeist in the Protestant church, but any idea that the false church … the demonic church … the Christ hating Church of Rome and Eastern Orthodoxy is an option that absolutely buries the needle on empty.

I have no problem with cursing the darkness. I just find it unacceptable to hint in any way that even darker darkness is preferred to the darkness we are properly cursing.

A Racial Review Of Rob Reiner’s “A Few Good Men”

Out of my deep respect for the memory of Rob Reiner (sarcasm off) I decided to view again “A Few Good Men.” A 1992 film where the white military officers are all evil or inept and the only pure people who exist as the film’s heroes are;

1.) An accused gung-ho black Sgt. in the Marine Corps
2.) A highly principled feminist attorney (Demi Moore)
3.) A black Judge
4.) A White Lt. Col. who shows his purity by killing himself
5.) a Jewish lawyer serving with Cruise on the defense team (character name – Weinberg)

Along the way in the film Tom Cruise is converted by Demi Moore to see the righteousness in not plea bargaining a sentence for the principled black Sgt. and his doofus white underling private who have been arrested for murdering a Hispanic soldier who is portrayed as a saint throughout the film. Throughout the film the white private from Iowa who is a few bricks shy of a full load is contrasted with the wise black Sargeant. The white private is a dunce and is clueless about what is going on, while the black Sargeant is principled.

The villains in the film are all military

1.) The biggest villain is Jack Nicholson’s character
2.) His villainy is shared by his underling, First Lieutenant Jonathan James Kendrick, played by Kiefer Sutherland

Of course both of these chaps are white and they are presented throughout the film as the problem with the Marine Corps and indeed, by extension, the problem with white people in general. White people just want to both kill off brown people, or failing that, they want to see them unjustly imprisoned as scapegoats for their crimes.

Now, being honest, I have little sympathy for US Military types since it is my conviction that the US Military has served for decades as the muscle for the New World Order (see Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s “War is a Rackett”). However, it is clear that Aaron Sorokin (Jewish writer of the film) is going after both the US Military and is tying the problem in the US Military with the presence of white people. “A Few Good Men,” is clearly an attack on white people.

The one white person who isn’t an explicit liberal in the film is played by Kevin Bacon. Bacon is the prosecuting attorney and he is depicted as being a guy who is caught in the wheels of the system. He does his job — a job that means he is trying to put away a black man and his dumb white farm boy friend for life for murder, and this despite his sense that he knows that something is amiss in the case he is prosecuting. It is Bacon’s character more than anybody else as the film unfolds how is “just following orders.” Again, a more subtle dig at white people, I would say.

The White people would get away with it all if only Jack Nicholson’s character was just a wee bit sane. But the white man’s sanity is so unstable and his vanity so grand that Col. Nathan Jessep (Nicholson’s character) can’t resist, while on the witness stand, from boldly and proudly confessing to his crime of ordering the black sargeant and the white Iowa farm boy to give a “code red” (illicit punishment) to the poor saintly Hispanic private that resulted in his death. Col. Jessep is immediately arrested and the Jewish liberal worldview is vindicated. The white lawyer played by Cruise is a hero because he has acted consistent with the feminism and Jewish worldview of the characters played by Demi Moore and Kevin Pollack.

Other racial scenes in the film include the point where the black judge is able to put Col. Nathan Jessep in his place by requiring Jessep to refer to him as “Your Honor.” Also Cuba Gooding plays a virtuous soldier who gives righteous testimony during the trial.

There is a bit of class warfare going on in the film as well. Cruise’s character is seen as being a upscale elite Harvard type born to the manor while his opponent (Nicholson) is portrayed as coming from a humble blue collar beginning. This theme is played off a couple times in dialogue between Nicholson and Cruise. Though they are each white they come from different worlds.

One has to like Cruise’s character. Flippant, irreverent, sarcastic, callow, and intelligent. Cruise’s character (Daniel Kaffee) is the perfect anti-establishment foil for spit and polish Col. Nathan Jessep. Because of this the viewer is pulled into supporting Kaffee while abominating Col. Jessep’s character (arrogant, self-righteous, grandiose, dismissive). In such a way worldviews of the viewers are subtly changed over time and with repeated similar messaging.

This film was released in 1992 but even then the worldview of WOKE and Jewish cultural Marxism was working its way into the arts.

Rob Reiner’s Cultural Marxist Jewish worldview is on parade in this film.

Wolfe Rightly Laments The Modern Reformed Clergy Scene

“Ministers and theologians across the (“conservative” “Reformed”) board see their role as tempering the will for political action.”

Stephen Wolfe

This is almost true. To make this 100% true one would have to say instead that;

“Ministers and theologians across the (“conservative” “Reformed”) board see their role as tempering the will for political action in overthrowing cultural Marxism.”

Ministers and theologians have no problem whatsoever with political pushing from the left and toward the left. Clergy and theologians have become agents and shills for the Cultural Marxist agenda. This is found to be the case inasmuch as they refuse to resist it as from the pulpit. They are letting this degraded swill of a culture continue to go unchallenged. Can you imagine a minister giving a series of sermons on the sin of Tattoos or the sin of the redistribution of wealth, or the sin that is the existence of the Federal Reserve. Those topics are NEVER touched by the overwhelming lion’s share of modern putative conservative Reformed clergy and by the refusal to address those issues and issues like them the Reformed clergy aid and abet cultural Marxism.

And I end here with a quote from Stephen Wolfe in his podcast. Wolfe is responding to DeYoung’s “Six Questions For Christian Nationalists.” At one point in both exasperation and lamentation Wolfe, being entirely serious could say of DeYoung’s argumentation;

“It’s really a silly argument and I am annoyed I have to deal with it again.”

Stephen Wolfe
Complaining about a Kevin DeYoung argument

Wolfe’s Accurate Appraisal Of Today’s Clergy Work

“Theology and sentiment are being used (by clergy) to shore up the prevailing system of the day.”

 

Stephen Wolfe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aZ4FAfBL2Bo 

The prevailing system of the day that Wolfe is rightly complaining about is the post-War/Warren Court consensus “liberalism.” Actually, by the time of the Warren court’s rise “Liberalism” was being used as a shoehorn to bring in legal Cultural Marxism. In other words, “Liberalism” was being re-interpreted through a Cultural Marxist grid. Cultural Marxism had been hard at work in these united States since the late 1930s. The Warren Court, via the civil rights revolution, implemented Cultural Marxist principles and by the civil rights revolution gave us a new Constitution. (See, Christopher Caldwell’s, “The Age of Entitlement: America Since the Sixties .)

Wolfe’s quote is accurate. It is indeed the case that;

“Theology and sentiment are being used (by clergy) to shore up the prevailing system of the day.”

Unfortunately Wolfe’s philosophical humanist Thomism is NEVER going to overthrow what legal Positivism has built under the Warren court since each and both rely on the principle of human autonomy. Wolfe rightfully repeatedly complains about the Warren court but the Warren court was likewise merely acting as autonomous agents implementing their desire. Wolfe has a different desire than the Warren court. Most of that desire I would agree with. However, the methodology that Wolfe is seeking to leverage in order to fight off the legal positivism that juiced the Warren court (and continues to juice legal minds) is afflicted with the same humanism as that legal positivism. With both Warren and Wolfe that which is legal (or should be legal) is mere projection of man said loudly. Neither Warren nor Wolfe anchor their epistemology (source of authority) in Scripture and as neither anchor their source of epistemology in Scripture both end up with subjective routes to their desired ends. Now, as I said, I like Wolfe’s ends. I do think that for the most part they are Christian ends. However, his methodology guarantees that he will not win out. Wolfe’s Thomis is a denial of the Reformed doctrine of total depravity and so can’t be Christian.

Wolfe rightly rails against the post-War / Warren Court consensus liberalism. The problem is that his Thomism doesn’t have the anti-septic power to deliver us from the scourge of humanism, precisely because his Thomism likewise is driven and authored by Humanism. Humanism will never cast out humanism.

What is needed is the disease delivering power of Theonomy. Only reliance on God’s Word can serve as an epistemological astringent that can deliver us from the poison of the post-War Warren court consensus.