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 DeYoung on Christian Nationalism – IV

“Nationalism refers to a set of political and ethical commitments that arose at the end of the eighteenth century and was then shaped throughout the nineteenth century by romanticism and the industrial revolution.”
Kevin De Young
6 Questions for Christian Nationalists

The idea that Nationalism is what De Young says it is, is a fantasy. Nationalism has been around from Old Testament times. Nationalism is simply defined as the prioritizing of one’s people as descended from a common ancestor, sharing a common history, while owning a common religion. If De Young wants to talk about Modern Nationalism that is one thing but to suggest that Nationalism didn’t exist before Modern Nationalism is utter nonsense.

Ironically, by defining nationalism in terms of Jacobin thought, DeYoung is acting as a hostile witness against his own position. Because he admits his presuppositions on the subject lay aside the definition of nations found in genesis in favor of the definition cooked up by Liberal revolutionaries in direct defiance of Christianity. (Dan Brannan)

McAtee Contra DeYoung on Christian Nationalism -III

“(2) The most prominent book making the case for Christian Nationalism, though not without some merits, has many serious problems, including a blurring of nation and ethnicity, a decentering of the importance of the church, a call for a “Christian prince” to “suppress the enemies of God” and to install a “measured theocratic Caesarism,” and a final section that rails against everything from living under a gynocracy to the presence of overweight PCA pastors who (presumably) have low testosterone and chug vegetable oil.”

Kevin De Young
6 Questions for Christian Nationalists

1.) In the Bible, the word “nation” derives from the Greek word ethnos which can be translated “the same race or nationality who share a distinctive culture.” https://www.wordnik.com/words/ethnos
The Latin roots of nation convey a similar idea with respect to ancestry. One is naci, which means “to be born.” The other is nationem, which the Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed. 1989) defines as “breed, stock., race, nation.”
Nationalism, as the Bible conceives it, involves blood and lineage, not just culture and abstract ideals.

2.) De Young would have to give examples of where Stephen Wolfe de-centers the Church in Wolfe’s book for me to deal with that claim. I read Wolfe and I don’t recall a de-centering of the Church. However, I will say this, given the abysmal condition of the Church and clergy in the West today (including De Young) one could understand why Wolfe might well de-center the Church. If I could de-center the modern conservative Reformed church in the US today I certainly would.

3.) If one reads the original Belgic Confession 36 or the original WCF on the subject of magistrate one would see that contained therein is, at least the beginnings, of the idea of a Christian Prince to suppress the enemies of God.

4.) I wonder if De Young has checked his testosterone levels lately?

McAtee Contra DeYoung on Christian Nationalism – II

“(1) There is still no shared understanding of what the term means. Many proponents equate Christian Nationalism with support for some kind of church establishment and for the use of the state’s coercive power in matters of religion. I am opposed to both of these things.”

Kevin DeYoung
6 Questions for Christian Nationalists

1.) While, as a Christian Nationalist, I would not necessarily require an established church, I would require a religious establishment and the religion that must be established is the Christian religion.

2.) This means, following the original Article 36 of the Belgic Confession of faith, I would require the state’s coercive power in favor of the Christian religion.

3.) I would also remind De Young that all States use coercive power in favor of the State’s religion of choice. In the US today the state religion is humanism and the State uses its coercive power in favor of humanism. This is seen in decisions in favor of sodomite marriage, in favor pulling prayer from schools, in favor of abortion. De Young is kidding himself that the State (all states) ever does NOT act with coercive power in favor of its religion.

McAtee Contra DeYoung On Christian Nationalism – I

“In my 2021 article, “What to Do With Christian Nationalism,” I argued that there were two problems with Christian Nationalism.

First, no one agrees on what Christian Nationalism is.”

Kevin De Young
Sex Questions For Christian Nationalists

This is a red herring. Consider that there is no consensus on what it means to be a “Christian.” Because there is no consensus on what Christian means does that mean that there is no such thing as Christianity?

Now, I agree that it would be helpful to have a stable definition of Christian Nationalism but anymore I would also agree it would be helpful to have a stable definition of Christianity. Hells bells … it would be helpful if could have a consensus on the question, “What is a woman.” For example, SCOTUS Justice Ketanji Jackson Brown during her nomination process could not give us an answer to the question; “What is a Woman?”

If people can’t agree on what a Woman is does that mean there’s no such thing as a woman?

De Young’s argument here amounts to; “Because so many people are wrong about what Christian Nationalism is, therefore nobody can be right about what Christian Nationalism is, therefore there is no such thing as Christian Nationalism.”

The Sword & Conversion … Long Live Charlamagne & Hernán Cortés

“We don’t want anybody to convert at the point of a spear or the edge of a sword.”

Doug Wilson
Interview w/ Chrissy Gordon

1.) It is not possible to convert anybody at the point of a spear or the edge of a sword.

2.) It is however possible to convert people to cultural Christianity at the point of a spear or the edge of a sword and has been done many times in history. Charlamagne, for example, converted the Saxons that way. Over the course of time subsequent to this forced conversion to cultural Christianity many Saxons were genuinely converted to a genuine Christian faith. This kind of “conversion” should be pursued in a setting where Christianity is being challenged by false gods in a cultural setting.

The Aztecs likewise were “converted” in this matter by Hernán Cortés. It would not have been a felicitous virtue to practice sensitivity to Aztec feelings to allow Aztec culture to continue. Forced conversion to an outward cultural expression of Christianity was a positive good and God was pleased with those types of conversions to cultural Christianity.

God would be pleased today if, for example, Abortionists, Sodomites and Trannies were forced to convert to a cultural Christianity that they hate. God would be please today if, for example, the producers of kiddie porn and those who sex traffic children and women were forced to convert to cultural Christianity even it that was done at the point of a spear or the edge of a sword. God was pleased when the Donatists were forced back into the church.

There is nothing ignoble or un-Christian in the least in this historical practice.

3.) God is pleased with ruling in the midst of His enemies. God is pleased when the wicked are forced to bow the knee. God is pleased when the wicked are forced, even as despising, to practice an outward form of righteousness that they do not agree with internally.

4.) We are at the point in the West where one religion or another is going to achieve final hegemony. Whichever religion which will win out will be a religion that eventually forces the other side to convert to their religion either at the point of the spear or the edge of the sword. So, the question is only whether or not we will be holding the spear and forcing the outward conversions to a admittedly cultural Christianity or whether we, as Christians, will on the wrong side of the spear and sword having to choose between our own outward conversion to a false religion or death. Christians will either use force or they will have force used against them.

There is nothing unrighteous in following the example of Charlemagne or Hernán Cortés or the little council in Geneva in their decision regarding Severtus for that matter.