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.

Answering DeYoung’s Six Questions

DeYoung asks;

Question #1: Do you unequivocally renounce antisemitism, racism, and Nazism? antisemitism, racism, and Nazism.

That is to say, do you hold to any of the following: (1) a disdain for Jewish people and a belief that a secret cabal of Jews are responsible for a litany of evils in our world, (2) a disdain for non-Whites and a belief in the mental and spiritual inferiority of Blacks, and (3) an appreciation for Adolf Hitler and a belief that Nazis were the misunderstood good guys in World War II? I know I haven’t provided technical definitions for these isms or sought to substantiate my insinuation that all three are sinful and abhorrent. But that’s the point. Most people don’t need a lot of nuance to condemn Kevin  I commend Christian Nationalists like Doug Wilson who have called out these destructive sympathies on the right. It should be a simple thing to reject these ideologies and make clear that they have no place in conservatism, in Christianity, or in Christian Nationalism.

Bret responds,

Up until WW II it was a widely embraced consensus that a secret cabal of Jews were responsible for a litany of evils in our world. Men like Hilaire Belloc, G. K. Chesterton, Abraham Kuyper, and Winston Churchill spilled copious measures of ink on the problem of the Bagels. Government officials sent missives back to their respective governments detailing that the Russian Revolution was a Bolshevik Jewish Revolution. Church history is peppered with Church councils having to deal with the problem of the Bagels throughout the centuries. For DeYoung to pretend that our Fathers have not struggled with how to contain the Bagels given their propensity to be responsible for a litany of evils is just DeYoung whistling past the graveyard or it is a case of monumental and decided ignorance of history on DeYoung’s part.

In terms of DeYoung’s (2) above I can only direct him to read Charles Murray’s 1994 “The Bell Curve.” He can find it on PDF if he is interested.

In terms of my attitude towards blacks … it is best summed up by 19th century J. H. Thornwell;

“The Negro is one blood with ourselves — that he has sinned as we have, and that he has has an equal interest with us in the great Redemption. Science, falsely so called, may attempt to exclude him from the brotherhood of humanity…. but the instinctive impulses of our nature combined with the plainest declaration of the Word of God, lead us to recognize in his form and lineaments — his moral, religious, and intellectual nature — the same humanity in which we glory as the image of God. We are not ashamed to call him our brother.”

Dr. James Henley Thornwell

Sermon — Rights and Duties of Masters

In terms of DeYoung’s (3) above, I again accuse the man of historical illiteracy. Keep in mind that folks today who might be reconsidering Hitler might be doing so because they are also reconsidering Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, etc.

I for one view Hitler as a villain because I believe it is entirely possible that he was a creation of the same forces that crushed him. I believe he was created in order to be crushed. I don’t believe Hitler was a villain because of his desire to protect Germans from the Communist threat that was promised to pour over Europe. I also believe that the US joined hands with a mass murderer when they held hands with Stalin as allies in WW II and as such I have disdain for that generation of leadership. At least Patton got it right (too late) to note that, “we may have been fighting the wrong enemy (Germany) all along.”

DeYoung here is playing the struggle session card and is expecting folks to jump at his a-historical posturing. Folks can say, “If forced to choose between Hitler and Stalin, I would have chosen Hitler,” without thereby communicating that they are Hitler fans.

I encourage Rev. DeYoung to read Antony’s Sutton;

“Wall Street & The Rise Of Hitler.”

Maybe he will learn something that might be helpful to his ridiculous reading of history.

Which Came First; The Way R2K “Reformed” Chaps “Reason” Or The Way Baptists Reason?

“Is it true that there is “no neutrality” in the cosmos? Here are several thoughts on the “Christ vs. Chaos” mindset:

1. Yes, Christ is Lord. Amen!

2. Yes, all people are called to submit to Christ’s Lordship.

3. At the level of the human person, we really are in either Christ or chaos, then.

4. But this does not follow for institutions and nations and stores and the public square. These entities are nowhere Christianized in the New Testament.

5. Jesus does not teach that Caesar is “neutral,” exactly, but Jesus does teach us to render to Caesar what is due Caesar (Matthew 22:21).

6. So too does Peter tell us to honor the emperor (1 Peter 2) in an era when the emperor was decidedly not Christian.

7. All this means that while the public square isn’t “neutral,” it’s also not savable like the human person is.

8. Nowhere in the NT do governments or stores or schools get saved.

9. We believers seek to influence the public square and the cultural order in a serious way; that’s what being “salt and light” means (Matthew 5:13-14).”

Owen Strachan
Provost – Grace Bible Theological Seminary  (Baptist)

Bret Responds;

1.) For Owen, Christ is Lord except when Christ isn’t Lord. Christ is Lord over the individual but Christ can’t be Lord in any kind of Institution among men where the men in that Institution resolve together to operate that Institution as Christian Men.

2.) For Owen all people are called to submit to Christ’s Lordship until they start to work together in some kind of corporate endeavor. Once you put more than one person together with another person to sell widgets or Lemonade then the requirement to submit to Christ’s Lordship ends.

3.) Agreed, as far as Owen goes here.

4.) First here, note that Owen restricts his Bible to the NT. Quite to the contrary of Owen we note that the Scriptures are comprised of both the OT and NT.

Second, if “institutions and nations and stores and the public square” are not to be Christianized then what is left? Does Owen realize that Mooselimbs, Bagels, and Hindus are not going to reason that “institutions, and nations, and stores and the public square” are not to be Islamicized, Judaized, or Hinduized. So, Owen, like R2K, would argue for a religiously naked public square but will provide no answer to the conundrum that Mooselimbs, and Bagels, and Hindus, and Atheists will pursue with definite conviction a public square, a nation, and Institutions that are beholden to their demon gods?

Frankly, as I have said repeatedly in connection with R2K this kind of reasoning is not just off, it is monumentally stupid and worse yet it is dangerous because if pursued by all Christians as living in a multicultural setting it means the success of Mooselimbs, Bagels, Hindus, etc. to roll Christ off the throne in the public square. It means the persecution of the Christian faith. It means Dhimmitude status.

Look, the hour is late and we no longer can just smile and shake our heads at these R2K/Lutheran/Baptist idiots. Their theology is a theology of absolute abject surrender. It is a theology that is embraced by people who hate their children, hate their neighbors, and worse of all hate their God.

5.) It is true that Jesus said to render unto God the things that are God’s and to render unto Caesar the things are Caesar’s. This, by necessity, means that we, as Christians, must render Caesar and all he claims to God since Caesar is a thing that belongs to God. If Caesar can find anything that is uniquely is and not God’s and I will be sure to render that thing unto Caesar.

6.) It is true, that we are to honor the King. However, that honor due to the King does not exceed our responsibility to honor the King of Kings and so if it is the case that the Emperor becomes in his duties an “Anti-Emperor” then Christians are duty bound to honor the office of Emperor by throwing him out on his keister.

7.) If the public square is not neutral then the public square must be rendered unto Christ as King since the public square belongs to Him. We are sinning if, as Christians, we do not render the public square unto Christ. If Christian men and women render the public square unto Christ, I’ll be glad to let Christ worry about whether or not the public square is salvable.

8.) Christianity has such an effect that when it is introduced into the bloodstream of a nation, public square, or Institution it completely turns that nation, public square, and Institution on its head. See the account in Ephesus recorded in Acts 19:23f. There we see a city fighting against being saved.

9.) It seems that Owen desires Christians to salt and influence the public square much like the seasoning oregano season a tomato dish. Owen can’t envision where the salting and influencing rises to the point to be the dish served and not merely the seasoning.

I suspect that, like R2K, Owen is not postmillennial and so is retrofitting his theology to fit his a-priori eschatology.

McAtee Contra DeYoung on Christian Nationalism – VII

Kevin De Young asks of Christian Nationalists;

Do you unequivocally renounce antisemitism, racism, and Nazism?
When and how does the nation act as a corporate moral person?
What is the purpose of civil government?
What does it mean for the civil magistrate to promote true religion?
Was the First Amendment a mistake?
What is the historical example of the political order you would like to see in America?

The Christian Nationalist McAtee responds,

1.) When Kevin defines for me precisely what “antisemitism,” “racism,” and “Nazism” is I’ll answer this question. I will say that where real antisemitism, racism, and Nazism really exist I renounce them. I suspect however that what the pietist DeYoung identifies as “racism,” “antisemitism,” and “Nazism,” will find me laughing. Keep in mind that antisemitism has come to be defined as “anybody winning an argument with a Jew.”

Now, will Kevin renounce “semitic-philia,” “egalitarianism,” and “Cultural Marxism” as I define those?

2.) Whenever a Nation’s political leadership acts it is acting as a corporate moral person. For example, when a nation goes to war the whole nation is acting as a corporate moral person. For example, when a nation legislates approval of sex change operations it is acting as a corporate moral person. Kevin should look into the original idea of Federalism.

3.) The purpose of civil government is to glorify God and to operate in such a manner that reflect honor and respect for God’s Law-Word.

4.) See the Original Article 36 of the Belgic Confession of Faith

Article 36: The Magistrates

We believe that our gracious God, because of the depravity of mankind, hath appointed kings, princes, and magistrates,1 willing that the world should be governed by certain laws and policies; to the end that the dissoluteness of men might be restrained, and all things carried on among them with good order and decency. For this purpose He hath invested the magistracy with the sword, for the punishment of evil doers, and for the praise of them that do well. And their office is not only to have regard unto and watch for the welfare of the civil state, but also that they protect the sacred ministry, and thus may remove and prevent all idolatry and false worship;2 that the kingdom of antichrist may be thus destroyed and the kingdom of Christ promoted. They must, therefore, countenance the preaching of the word of the gospel everywhere, that God may be honored and worshipped by every one, as He commands in His Word.

Moreover, it is the bounden duty of every one, of what state, quality, or condition soever he may be, to subject himself to the magistrates;3 to pay tribute,4 to show due honor and respect to them, and to obey them in all things which are not repugnant to the Word of God;5 to supplicate for them in their prayers, that God may rule and guide them in all their ways, and that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty.6

Wherefore we detest the error of the Anabaptists and other seditious people, and in general all those who reject the higher powers and magistrates, and would subvert justice,7 introduce a community of goods, and confound that decency and good order which God hath established among men.8

5.) The first Amendment was not a mistake because it applied only to the FEDS. Does Kevin De Young admit that the doctrine of Incorporation wherein the Bill of Rights was applied to the States as opposed to the FEDS was a mistake?

6.) Early Colonial Virginia before the passing of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, which the noted patriot Christian Patrick Henry likewise opposed.

McAtee Contra DeYoung on Christian Nationalism – VI

“(4) Increasingly, the loudest voices arguing for Christian Nationalism are marked by juvenile insults steeped in online jargon from the dissident right. What’s more, some of these proponents traffic openly in racist ideology, antisemitism, and Neo-Nazi sympathies. The most strident Christian Nationalism proponents on social media are often a potent combination of oafery and demagoguery.”

Kevin De Young
6 Questions for Christian Nationalists

This is the standard fare from those losing the argument. It boils down to “our enemies are meanies who are not as educated and refined as we are and who don’t know their place.” The accusations of “racism” and “antisemitism” are accusations that tell us more about pietistic  accusers like DeYoung than it does about those being accused. Honestly, this kind of potent combination of oafery and demagoguery we see coming from De Young in the paragraph above is hardly worthy of our time and demonstrates how weak his position really is. He has been reduced to name calling and absurd pejoratives.

McAtee Contra DeYoung on Christian Nationalism – V

“Championing Christian Nationalism is not the same as recognizing that for most of American history many Americans would have thought of their country as a Christian nation. Paul Marshall helpfully distinguishes between religious nationalism and religion-infused politics. Religious nationalism refers to a movement or ideology “promoting the interests of a particular nation, a group of people who believe they have a shared historical, cultural, lingual, or religious heritage, and commonly wish to have a state that expresses that heritage.” This is not the same as asserting that religion has been a significant shaping force in a country’s history, nor is it the same as arguing for key political principles on religious grounds. Religious nationalism, by contrast, usually calls for the state to protect the religious interests of one group, while marginalizing or suppressing other groups. “In so doing,” Marshall explains, “it treats the members of the dominant religion and/or language, ethnicity, and culture as the core citizens and others as second class.”

Kevin De Young
6 Questions for Christian Nationalists

1.) De Young opens the article saying there is no agreed on definition of Christian Nationalism and now here he is pushing his (Paul Miller’s) definition of Christian Nationalism on people as if we have to accept his definition of Christian Nationalism (Religious Nationalism) as being THE definition of Christian Nationalism we have to work with.

2.) Despite that, I’d be glad to accept this definition of Christian Nationalism;

“Religious nationalism, by contrast, usually calls for the state to protect the religious interests of one group, while marginalizing or suppressing other groups. “In so doing,” Marshall explains, “it treats the members of the dominant religion and/or language, ethnicity, and culture as the core citizens and others as second class.”

Non Christians in the US should be treated as second class, just as, during this particular period, people of non-European descent should be treated as second class citizens. If we don’t prioritize our White Christian people at this point white christian people will go into abeyance.

“(4) Increasingly, the loudest voices arguing for Christian Nationalism are marked by juvenile insults steeped in online jargon from the dissident right. What’s more, some of these proponents traffic openly in racist ideology, antisemitism, and Neo-Nazi sympathies. The most strident Christian Nationalism proponents on social media are often a potent combination of oafery and demagoguery.”

Kevin De Young
6 Questions for Christian Nationalists

This is the standard fare from those losing the argument. It boils down to “our enemies are meanies who are not as educated and refined as we are and who don’t know their place.” The accusations of “racism” and “antisemitism” are accusations that tell us more about the accusers than it does about those being accused. Honestly, this kind of potent combination of oafery and demagoguery we see coming from De Young in the paragraph above is hardly worthy of our time and demonstrates how weak his position really is. He has been reduced to name calling and absurd pejoratives.