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.

Top Three Defining Beliefs Of A Kinist … Of Kinism

What would you say are the top 3 defining beliefs of a “Kinist?” Could you briefly expand on each of those points for me? How specifically, or how actionably?

Scott Tungay

Hello Scott,

I think that Kinists would agree with me in saying that our top three defining beliefs are;

1.) Love for God

Specifically and actionably this means that Kinists believe that they have the privilege and responsibility to be part of Biblical churches where the God of the Bible is worshiped by means of Word and Sacrament.  Further, it means that they have their shoulders to the wheel in advancing the Kingdom of God and His Christ. The Kinist love for God means that there is no cordoning off a common realm from a grace realm wherein God is less interested in the common realm or wherein God rules the common realm in a less explicit manner. The Kinist love for God means an understanding that all of Christ is for all of life. The Kinist love for God means all that the Kinist does is sub species aeternitatis (“from the perspective of the eternal”) and as such is done for God’s pleasure.

The love for God actionably means doing what we can to make sure a Biblical Church is present so that the family can worship together and together grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

The love for God actionably means helping those in the community of faith who are in need as we can. The love for God means visiting the widow and orphan in their distress.

2.) Love for their Kith and Kin

Specifically and actionably this means that Kinists seek to honor God’s command to “Honor their Father’s and Mothers,” understanding that this commandment extends to generations past and anticipates generations yet to come. In loving our Kith and Kin we thereby also demonstrate our love to God (see #1 above). Love for Kith and Kin extends outwardly in concentric circles to those most intimately connected to us in our families. This is commonly called the ordo amoris. We prioritize our immediate family first, and then from their our love extends to the extended (Trustee) family and from there to those who belong to our ethnicity/race. This prioritizing of love for Kith and Kin is explicitly required of God’s people as seen in I Timothy 5:8. Those who object to this and who insist that we must love all people equally (the same) are living in defiance of God’s explicit instructions. This special love for Kith and Kin is seen most clearly in the actions of our Savior, who, while on the cross, makes provision for his own mother.

Actionably, this means storing up an inheritance for our children and grandchildren (Proverbs 13:22 — A good man leaves an inheritance to his children’s children …). Actionably it means taking care of our aged relatives as we can when they are in their dotage. Actionably it means that we do what we can to make sure that our adult children don’t have to launch into their beginning years with untold debt. Actionably it means that we do what we can to train our children to be adults so when they become adults they are not starting out without skills that translate into providing for and maintaining a home. Actionably, it means that we do what we can that our children choose wisely in marriage partners and if possible don’t move hundreds or thousands of miles away. Actionably, it means training our children to think like a Christian. We train them in worldview thinking so that they understand the difference between the way the heathen think and the way a Christian thinks. We train them in their undoubted catholic Christian faith teaching them the Bible, the catechism, and the Confessions. Be trained they can think through a brick wall and will not be fooled by the zeitgeist and are equipped themselves to train their children in the same way.

3.) Love of place

Specifically and actionably this means putting down roots. In our mobile and cosmopolitan times this is perhaps the most difficult to accomplish but it still should be our goal. We should see ourselves as belonging to a place as it belongs to us. This implies doing what we can to build community. The idea of community and place cannot be divorced from one another. This means knowing other families generationally as those families share our same place. This means, as possible, buying locally and supporting local businesses. 

DEI And WOKE In the PCA’s MNA II

The fact that the PCA is now a creature of the Left is seen by statements made by one of its trophy Blacks.  This man is Irwyn Ince who serves as the coordinator of the MNA to the tune of 300K a year. A denomination can go a long way proving it’s not racist by paying a black man 300K a year to head one of its central organizations. This is one way how organization secure their “get out of accusations of racist jail free cards.”

The PCA has been tripping all over itself praising this chap. The problem is Mr. Irwyn Ince seems to be infected likewise with the WOKE bug as seen by both some statements made and in statements made by his son in defending Dad.

In September 2022, the popular Christian X account “Woke Preacher Clips” unearthed a talk Ince gave in 2019, during which he claimed black people can become “black and tired” and experience “minority fatigue” around white people.

“So you’ve got to experience some spaces and times where you just don’t have to work so hard,” he said. “There is a grounding and a positive sense of belonging that can come from an ethnic affinity in a world of dizzying diversity.”

Now again, personally I get this and have no problem with this as long as sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. A white person ought to be able to say something like this quite without raising the hackles of the WOKE police.

Claiming black people are potentially subject to “trauma” being in a majority-white situation, Ince argued for the necessity of “some places of affinity space.”

“The likelihood is if you’re an all-white staff, you ain’t gonna be enough. Your church ain’t gonna be enough. They gonna wear out.”

It is exactly for this reason I would argue that the MNA should be working on planting Reformed churches for black folks with the goal of eventually spinning successful black Reformed congregations into their own denominations. Why should black folk have to put up with us boring white people?

Honestly, I think that could be a successful policy for church planting. After all as Dr. John Frame informed us;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

But the fat was not yet fully in the fire as the saying goes. In the midst of this brouhaha Irwyn Ince’s son stepped up to the plate to provide some excitement for the PCA mudville nine.

After journalist Meg Basham stirred the pot a wee bit noticing what she believed to be inconsistencies, Irwyn’s son Jelani dropped some WOKE bombs, making at least this blogger wonder if the acorn had dropped very far from the tree.

Dr. Jelani vented on TwitteX excoriating “white evangelical culture” as “unequivocally toxic and irredeemable.” Jeepers, you’d think that Jelani would have some nice things to say about white evangelical culture given that white evangelical culture is paying his father 300K a year to inject subtle WOKEism into white evangelical culture. I mean what does “white evangelical culture” have to do to get some street cred with Dr. Jelani? The chap even complained about the noticing going on around his Father as; “absolutely [sic] buffoonery.”

Dr. Jelani is a sociologist who apparently has not yet reinterpreted his sociology through a Christian grid. However he has provided his pronouns in his University bio which is something that I, as a Christian, always look for. Dr. Jelani went on to write on TwitteX;

“The worst of its (white evangelical culture) defenders work from the same playbook as segregationists and xenophobes. You think your culture is under attack, but to be honest: it lacks the imagination that would warrant copying.”

“For more years than I would like to admit, I have sat in your pews, read your books, listened to your sermons, [and] forced myself to enjoy those mid post-service potlucks and small group meetings.”

Besides that how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln?

Honestly, I’d love to meet Dr. Jelani’s often met segregationists and xenophobes. I just find it hard to believe that they really exist in the PCA. Most of what I see in the PCA is Marxist dupes and egalitarians. I am sure though that a sociologist professor at the University of Washington would likely thinks he sees segregationists and xenophobes when the ELCA and the Congregationalists meet in their annual meetings.

There was a good deal more of the same type of Cultural Marxist tripe that fell from Dr. Jelani’s pen on TwitteX. One wonders what dear old Dad thinks of Dr. Jelani’s defense? I suppose Dr. Jelani’s heart was in the right place, bless his heart.

Maybe this is all a negotiating ploy in hopes that Dr. Irwyn Ince will be able make a decent wage?

All the best to him on that score. Goodness knows that the WOKE workman is worth is wages.

DEI And WOKE In the PCA’s MNA — I

Recently the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) has been letting its true WOKE colors be seen. As often happens this WOKEism comes from the apparatchik, bureaucratic, and administrative bowels of the denomination.

First a bureaucratic arm of the denomination (Mission To The World [MNA] – A denominational agency that allegedly helps the denomination with Church plants and philanthropy) decided it was appropriate to put up a website instructing illegal aliens on how to evade being bagged, flagged, and tagged by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for return to country of origin. In other words a PCA bureaucratic agency served as an ally in order to aid and abet criminals. Now, the website was met with a storm of protest and was eventually taken down but it is clear that within the bowels of the PCA bureaucracy a criminal loving anti-Christian element exists and saying “I’m sorry,” and pulling down the website (repenting) doesn’t change the fact that there is a mindset that exists within the PCA that is not only errant but is criminal. How can one note conclude that the PCA is, in its bureaucratic entrails, a creature of the Left?

Following that imbroglio the PCA drew attention again for the action of a church (Resurrection Oakland Church — Oakland Ca.) that was prejudiced against white people. Let’s be clear here. I don’t really view it as being prejudiced in any kind of negative way but certainly we would have to say that in light of the current bogus standards of what constitutes “racism” a PCA Church with the black head of the MNA as a speaker had a luncheon wherein only black folk were invited has to be considered by WOKE standards as “racist.” Now, once again, I want to be clear here. I have not a scintilla of problem with this gathering except that it is the case that if white people were to legitimately want to have a fellowship meal and session exclusively with a prominent white speaker the black community in the Reformed church would go grape ape crazy. So, my problem is not with Dr. Ince having a fellowship meal with black people only. My problem is that sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. Further, my problem is all the ridiculous justifications that I have read for why it is acceptable for black folk to occasionally cordone (segregate?) themselves off from white folks but it is not ok for white folks to occasionally cordone themselves off from black folks.

The MNA, trying to thread the needle of repenting of its DEI visage by giving criminal aid to illegal immigrants while explaining why DEI is acceptable when applied to the acceptable practice of segregation for minorities said;

    “fellowship gatherings or events that center on the shared cultural experiences of ethnic minority brothers and sisters (are acceptable).”

The MNA went out of its way to also say that the organizers of ResOak’s Black Fellowship Dinner, which requested attendees to register, “did not prohibit or turn away anyone from attending.” Now if this doesn’t give you a good belly laugh nothing will. Of course they did not prohibit or turn away anyone from attending since after the announcement that “no white people were wanted” doubtless no white person wanted to attend. I mean why would any White person want to attend a “blacks only” gathering after they had been told explicitly, “Whitey stay home?”

Next the PCA tries to go all “marketing” in their messaging;

“Affinity ministries equip and encourage minority members who worship in so many of our churches. These ministries support shared cultural experiences for the edification of the whole body,” the committee said, going on to list some of the minority ethnic groups that make up “the dynamic diversity of the PCA.”

“We affirm affinity gatherings as a part of rejoicing in our unity and diversity,” the committee said, citing I Cor. 12 and Rev. 7.

Again, I don’t have any problems with a ecclesia within the ecclesia. What I have a problem with is daring to suggest that if White people desire to have an affinity ministry together in order to equip and encourage non-minority members who worship in many of our churches would somehow be an example of evil segregation and/or “racism.”

 In a separate statement, PCA Stated Clerk Bryan Chapell suggested that media covering the dissension within the denomination over such issues have shown an “‘inability or unwillingness to understand PCA leaders’ explanations’ of the difference between groups segregated by prejudice on the one hand, and affinity groups gathered to advance gospel witness on the other hand.”

This statement from Dr. Chapell is also rich with belly laugh material. If white people segregate than it is evil prejudice but if minority folk self-segregate then it is “affinity groups gathered to advance the gospel witness.” It is amazing that these people can’t see how transparently ridiculous these “distinctions” are.

All of this demonstrates the Church’s subtle and not so subtle contribution to the replacement agenda.

Next we are told;

“MNA offers specific ministries for several ethnic minorities, including one for Hispanics that claims the recent demographic change in the U.S. amid “loosened” immigration policies was “orchestrated by God Himself” to provide “an unprecedented opportunity” to fulfill the Great Commission.”

On this point I would love to know how the PCA knows that God has orchestrated the loosened immigration policies in order to provide an unprecedented opportunity to fulfill the great commission?

Did somebody in the PCA bureaucracy get a “word from the Lord?” I mean couldn’t it also be the case that God has orchestrated the loosened immigration policies in order to fulfill His promise to curse people who abandon Him per Deut. 28 where He promises those who disobey Him will become the tail and not the head?

Next, if the MNA were honest, they would see that it is the pagan immigrants who are converting American Christians to their third world ways and not American Christians who are seeing vast numbers of third worlders converted. Even this language italicized most immediately above is evidence of a leftist brain worm in the apparatchiks of the PCA. Loosened immigration policies certainly are the result of God will of decree but they are exactly contrary to God’s will of precept. Has God ever revealed, by way of precept, that a people as a people should break the 6th commandment and annihilate themselves by welcoming in the stranger and the alien so has to eat out the native born’s substance and steal the native born’s children’s inheritance?

“St. Patrick’s Day Family History”

My wife (Jane) is second generation Italian. Her Father came when he was an infant with his family to America in 1929. Recently, my wife’s Aunt (her Father’s Sister) sent a letter explaining the meaning of St. Patrick’s Day to the Lombardi family. I do not record this letter for solely sentimental reasons but also in order to make a point about what happens when centralized government controls a society and culture.

Beginning quoting letter from my wife’s Aunt Josephine (Jo),

“My father, your grandfather, Jane, never let us forget the meaning of St. Patrick’s Day for the Lombardi family. For Grandpa Lombardi St. Patrick’s Day was not a day to honor a saint, but rather it was a day to be remembered because March 17, 1929 was the day we arrived, as your Grandfather would tell his children, “to beautiful America.” Your Dad, Jane, was 10 months old, Aunt Jennie was 3.5, Aunt Anna was 2.5 and I was 6 years old. Aunt Lina was born the following September.

If my parents hadn’t decided to leave Italy because of the Fascist dictator, Mussolini, your Mom wouldn’t have met and married your father, and you wouldn’t be here. Think about it, the decision of my Father to come to America affected all his childrens’ lives.

Mussolini had imposed such a high tax on sugar that it was prohibitive and my father needed sugar to run his cafe. His cafe was sort of candy store where he served coffee. It was a social gathering place for the men of the town to sit and socialize with their friends that as they drank coffee.

Because Papa couldn’t buy sugar my father would travel to Naples where he could purchase saccharin on the black market. Saccharin was against the law because Mussolini wanted to collect taxes on the sugar. I know there’s no excuse for breaking the law, but my father’s livelihood depended on the business generated from the townsmen coming to drink coffee. Well, his brother-in-law also had a cafe on the same street, about two blocks away; and my father’s brother-in-law was practically going out of business for lack of sugar and customers.

My father confided in his mother when she questioned him. Grandma was sworn to secrecy about my father’s source of saccharin. Grandma’s oldest daughter was married to the cafe owner who was jealous of my father’s business. Grandmother told, my Aunt Elvira. I’m sure that Grandma meant it for good. Grandma wanted her son-in-law to go to Naples for saccharin with her son. Instead of going to Naples though, my father’s brother-in-law turned Papa in to the police. That was the deciding factor that forced my parents to leave Italy and come to America.

I can still picture the morning the the Police came to our home with their rifles drawn to arrest my father for having possession of illegal saccharin. However, Papa wasn’t there. My Father had been warned that his brother-in-law had turned him in to the police. My father went into hiding. I don’t know where he went to escape, but I do know as young as I was, I remember telling the police to get out of my house. I knew they didn’t belong there with their rifles drawn, looking inside closets and underneath beds, pushing doors open to other rooms and looking behind doors. Eventually they left. I also remember running from my home that was a short distance from my father’s store, crying until I reached the cafe and my mother grabbed me to quiet and comfort me.

I don’t know how many days after that we left in the middle of the night for Naples to board the ship, “The President Wilson,” to sail for America. My mother told me when I’d question her that they always kept their passports up to date. That’s why they were able to leave as fast as they did.

My father, (your grandfather) every year after would tell us this story and say to us in half broken English,

“I no want you to forget the day you arrived in beautiful America on San Patreeka’s Day, 1929.”

1.) Once upon a time people came here to escape tyranny and now we are turning this country into the kind of country that my wife’s Italian family sought to escape.

2.) Oppressive taxation always creates a black market.

3.) Immoral and Illegal laws have the the effect of making the citizenry involve themselves in moral illegalities.

4.) Heavy taxation destroys entrepreneurial activity.

5.) A Collectivist society will always turn into a society where all spy upon all.

6.) The sugar tax that would have destroyed the business communicates that collectivist societies are more concerned about the state’s livelihood vs. the businessman’s livelihood.

Addressing the Issue of Worldview With Jon Harris; A Conversation That Matters

We pause in examining the Mahler vs. Rosebrough debate to consider a 12 minute video that Jon Harris put out. Harris is a somewhat popular Christian podcaster and author that has joined the recent wave of Natural Law chaps to tut tut against the concept of worldview. In this video that I am responding (it’s on TwitteX) Harris explains why he no longer uses the term “Worldview” and in explaining that he is at the same time advocating to others that they perhaps should also give up on the reality of Worldview thinking.

Now, I am a convinced believer in the reality of Worldview. I was first exposed to the idea when I was a Freshman in Undergrad and I have pursued it and studied it and employed it ever since. I’ve read a great percentage of the material written on it as coming from the various Worldview schools and naturally enough I think Harris is dreadfully wrong here. Also, naturally enough, I have an interest in repudiating the dreadfully bad arguments that are now routinely raised against it. I am convinced that Worldview thinking is an inescapable reality. That is to say that I believe that this is the way that all people think.

I would submit the following few volumes that demonstrates convincingly that Worldview thinking is inescapable;

Thomas Kuhn — “Structures in Scientific Revolutions”
Vern Poythress — “Science and Hermeneutics”
Peter Novick — “That Noble Dream: The ‘Objectivity Question’ and the American Historical Profession”

First, Harris complains about the teaching in Worldview thinking that there is no such thing as a bare naked fact so that all facts are interpreted facts. Jon just doesn’t think that is true. The classic examples that suggests Jon is in error here is the discovery of a fossil as made by a two man team comprised of a Darwinian Evolutionist (DE) and a Christian Creationist (CC). The DE looks at this fossil they both discovered and concludes that this fossil is 100s of millions of years old and is a classic proof substantiating Darwinian Evolution. The CC, on the other hand, looks at the very same fossil and concludes that this fossil demonstrates that the earth is young and that God created in 6 days all good.

Now, the fossil is the fossil. It has not changed. What the difference between this duo of paleontologists is not the fact of the fossil they have before them. The difference is the different Worldview that each man adheres to before they were introduced to the fossil. The fossil is a fact to be sure but it is a different fact depending on the Worldview of the person examining the fact. Thus, we see that Jon is wrong and that all facts though they are facts in and of themselves can only be be facts as they are indeed interpreted as facts in keeping with the Worldview grid that appraises them.

Now, we are faced with the problem of “common notions,” that Jon brings up. Jon seems to think that both believers and unbelievers can have common notions. It is surprising to me given the cultural atmosphere that we live in that Jon would want to argue for common notions because if ever a time existed to prove that the idea of common notions should not be over-much banked upon, these are those times. Take for example, the once common notion that it was not possible for a woman to be born into a man’s body. Fifty years ago we could have rightly said, “now there’s a common notion if ever there was one,” and yet we all know today that in the West we are awash in people denying this common notion and insisting that, “yes men can be born into the body of women.” What about the notion that seemingly should be common that surgeons lopping off teen girl’s breast and prescribing testosterone to women because they are really men caught in the woman’s body? At one time the great common notion medical motto was “Do No Harm,” and yet we are living in a time where that common notion is no longer universally common and so is disputed. What about the common notion that was once more widely accepted that “women carrying babies in their wombs should understand that what they are carrying are indeed yet to be birthed babies?” As you know, this is no longer a common notion but instead what women are carrying are no longer un-born babies but instead are fetuses. We could give Jon a dozen more once common notions that are no longer common. How about the once common notion that it is boys can’t marry boys and girls can’t marry girls? How about the once common notion that we don’t provide litter boxes for furries (humans insisting that they are animals) in Government schools?

The reason that these notions are no longer common is because of the Worldview shift in the West. These once common notions were once common because the culture in the West was one where those who were not Christian in the West were still influenced by Christian categories and so had, with felicitous inconsistency, adopted Christian capital (assumptions / givens) into their thinking so as to assimilate in their thinking in line with a Christian Worldview. However, as the West has departed from its once Christian basis more and more people have become consistent in their anti-Christian Worldview and in doing so have deleted a good share of the Christian capital they once embraced with the result that common notions are getting less and less common, thus disproving Jon’s insistence that Worldview thinking is not true.

Jon also suggests that there are some bare essential truths (common notions) that come through to all people. Here we say that Jon is correct but only in a very constrained way. It is true that some bare essential truths come through but notice how the Confession phrases this when it writes about the Inadequacy of the Light of Nature;

There is, to be sure, a certain light of nature remaining in all people after the fall, by virtue of which they retain some notions about God, natural things, and the difference between what is moral and immoral, and demonstrate a certain eagerness for virtue and for good outward behavior. But this light of nature is far from enabling humans to come to a saving knowledge of God and conversion to him—so far, in fact, that they do not use it rightly even in matters of nature and society. Instead, in various ways they completely distort this light, whatever its precise character, and suppress it in unrighteousness. In doing so all people render themselves without excuse before God.

Similarly, Jon has against his notion of common notions Zacharias Ursinus in the commentary Ursinus wrote on the Heidelberg Catechism he wrote;

“Furthermore, although natural demonstrations teach nothing concerning God that is false, yet men, without the knowledge of God’s word, obtain nothing from them except false notions and conceptions of God; both because these demonstrations do not contain as much as is delivered in his word, and also because even those things which may be understood naturally, men, nevertheless, on account of innate corruption and blindness, receive and interpret falsely, and so corrupt it in various ways.”

Zacharias Ursinus
Commentary on Heidelberg Catechism

If fallen men, because of innate corruption and blindness, receive and interpret falsely notions and conceptions of God from natural demonstrations how much more so will men, because of the same innate corruption and blindness, receive and interpret falsely notions and conceptions about all other reality?

Now, in this video presentation of Jon’s, Jon suggests that Worldview thinking can make men lazy and instead of doing the leg work research that needs to be done on various subjects, instead just rely on a Christian Worldview to answer all subject matter. Here, Jon may be on to something. Once a Christian Worldview is firmly in place one does still has to do the research but here we would hasten to add that the research includes not only looking into the historical record of this or that event (as one example) but one also has to research the worldview of the people that they are researching about this or that historical event. So, when I do the leg work of researching the French Revolution (as one example) I am not only reading various historians on the French Revolution but I am also extraordinarily aware of the Worldview that the historian has who is chronicling the French Revolution. For example, I should trust the account of the Christian Hillary Belloc more than I would trust the account of Jaures who in his title tells us he is giving a Socialist view of the French Revolution. So, by all means, we agree with Jon that even once one has a Christian Worldview in place they must still do the research on any given subject in order to have a familiarity with the subject. Still, having a well based and thought out Christian Worldview is going to give one a ladder up in being able to quickly analyze all kinds of sundry information because they can read that information and instantly spot the Worldview that is undergirding the information in question. For example, if I know before I read a piece on hermeneutics (as an example) that the author in question embraces the Higher Critical Methodology I know that the author and I are likely going to disagree at significantly fundamental points. Similarly, if I read a piece on the Russian Revolution written by a Trotskyite, I know in advance that I am going to take exceptions to the history I am about to read. So, Worldview thinking can make one lazy I suppose, but it can also make one not have to work as hard wading through all the different perspectives on a host of different subjects since he knows rather quickly upon picking up any book, where presuppositionally speaking, the author is coming from. I know from the beginning the way he arranges his “facts” are going to be in accord with his Worldview.

Before we leave Jon’s insistence that there exists common notions as between believers in Christ and unbelievers in Christ let us ask ourselves what shared standard the Christian and the non-Christian has in order to share common notions? I mean, in order to have common notions, two people first have to agree that the standard by which they share the idea of “common” is indeed shared. What we see here is that the Christian and the heathen can not even have common notions about common notions since they each are living by different noetic standards. Jon is just wrong here.

Jon, in this video, insists that more often Christians need to gather data and do analysis in order to come to conclusions on this, that or the other. However, the problem is that this assumes that “the data speaks for itself.” I have no problem with the necessity to gather data. I do have a problem with thinking that data gathered is data that is Worldview independent. We refer to our fossil example above. The fossil is data gathered but that data gathered by itself does not inductively push us towards a conclusion that isn’t already deductively influenced.

Next Jon insists that too often what passes for a Christian Worldview among many is instead merely a cultural disposition that Worldview is being (wrongly) used to support. Jon is saying here (and I think rightly) that too often Christians use the idea of “Christian Worldview” to support cultural preferences that they have become accustomed to. This is a danger for all of us. It is the case that all of us want to bend God’s Word and the Worldview that extends from God’s Word so as to agree with our predisposition. I see the same thing Jon sees here. I see that many Christians have embraced the classical Liberal order and have overlaid that classical Liberal order with the authority of “this is supported by a Christian Worldview.” However, that just isn’t so. The classical liberalism that built the West and was largely a product in many respects of the Enlightenment project was never, at all points, consistent with a Christian Worldview. For example, the pluralism, that is inherent in the classical liberal social order is not Christian in the least and to be honest isn’t even genuine pluralism. Similarly, it can be easily argued that the first amendment is contrary to the first commandment. There is no freedom of speech to blaspheme God as just one example.

However, overturning this faulty Worldview “thinking” that Jon identifies   that finds people coating their errant cultural dispositions with the authority of a Christian Worldview has to be challenged by a truthful and Biblical Worldview as opposed it being attacked in a piecemeal fashion. It is the totalism of a Christian Weltanschauung that must oppose the totalism of the errant classical Liberal Weltanschauung that is masquerading as a Christian Worldview.

Unfortunately, Jon chooses the 2nd amendment to question the Christian-ness of the Christian Worldview. Jon seemingly thinks that it may not be as important to have a 2nd amendment provision in a Christian worldview, thinking as he does, that the 2nd amendment provision arose as being unique to an Anglo-Saxon culture. Unfortunately, as we have argued on this blog, I do think the duty to protect one’s self, one’s kin, and one’s castle is something that we find in Scripture and so needs to be part of a Christian Worldview among all peoples. However, there are other issues we have currently flying under the banner of “The Christian Worldview” that should be excised from a benuintely Christian Worldview. One example of that I would say is how what passes for a Christian worldview today insists upon egalitarianism. I am convinced from God’s Word that egalitarianism is diametrically at odds with a Christian Worldview and yet a major percentage of Churches and clergy in the West embrace egalitarianism in one form or another as definitively Christian.

Towards the end of the video Jon accuses those who embrace Worldview as being “Gnostic.” I take great umbrage at this characteristic. No one who is Worldview savvy is suggesting that salvation is dependent upon knowing the ins and outs of a Christian Worldview and in order to be Gnostic that is what we would have to be saying. Jon knows better than this. Instead, what Worldview thinking pursues is consistency across disciplines. Those of use who embrace the idea of Christian Worldview thinking understand that those who hold to a Christian Worldview are never as consistent as we’d like to be but we are striving to take all thoughts to make them captive to Christ and in making them captive to Christ we believe that there should be harmony that exists across the board in various disciplines.

Jon ends by suggesting that the fault of Worldview thinking is that it is too universalistic. Jon insists that he is too much of a particularist to embrace Worldview thinking that is singular, broad, and universal. We would note here that not all Worldview thinkers insist that one Christian Worldview has to be the same in all cultural expressions. We get, along with something Abraham Kuyper said long ago, that Christianity is going to have different expressions as existing among different people’s and cultures. They was a Samoan culture expresses a Christian worldview is going to vary somewhat from the way a Shona people own a Christian Worldview. One thing that the Kinists I run with understand is that since God is both eternally One and Many therefore there is going to be a Oneness and Mannyness temporally. There will be different variants of the one Christian World and life view as existing among different peoples and cultures. As such, we are along with Jon, particularists. We don’t expect all Christian peoples and cultures to be exactly the same. We do not insist that there is only one way of understanding the application of God’s Law in only one Christian World and life view. However, we also believe there will exist a singular Christian World and life view wherein there is found a harmony of interests as among the different expressions of that one singular Christian World and life view.

Jon is very congenial and insists that he is not pushing his views on dropping usage of “Worldview” on other people but clearly that is the effect of Jon publishing his reasons why he is dropping the usage of the word Worldview. He doubtless thinks that other people would be wise like himself if they would drop the usage of the idea of “Worldview” just as he has.

I merely disagree strongly with Jon and took the time to have a conversation that I hope matters.