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.

Concerning Perversion

“(In regards to AIDS) the priorities of the public health establishment, who after all are bureaucrats as well as ‘scientists,’ would appear to be (1) to protect the ‘community’ of deviants from public outrage and discrimination; (2) to pursue heroic curative and preventive measures to save the deviant ‘community’; and (3) to protect the decent public, insofar as it does not conflict with Priority 1….

We are all sinners and fall short of perfection, and we are enjoined to stand ready to extend our hand to our repentant fellow creatures. But I do not detect very much repentance, as opposed to regret and resentment, among the representatives of the ‘lifestyle’ that has put us all in danger. In fact in heeding the admonition not to stigmatize (this ‘lifestyle’), we are all actually throwing up obstacles to repentance.”

Dr. Clyde Wilson
From Union To Empire — pp. 234-235

1.) The disease of AIDS and the ‘lifestyle’ that is associated with it has become a politically protected disease and ‘lifestyle.’ This in turn has made it a culturally protected disease and ‘lifestyle.’ Culturally, it is considered bad form to stigmatize perverted behavior. Indeed, one who does attempt to put a stigma upon perversion is more often than not the person who becomes stigmatized by our culture.

2.) The pursuit of the legitimacy for homosexual marriage is really just a cover for the pursuit of the legitimacy of all homosexuality. Homosexuals aren’t really interested in marriage. The whole idea of monogamy is completely counter intuitive to the desire for the complete removal of all sexual norms that so many in the pervert community desire. What Homosexual marriage achieves is the not the normalizing of monogamous homosexuality but rather the normalizing of homosexuality in all its expressions. When homosexuals get the right to marriage then just as unfaithfulness is no big deal for heterosexual marriages so unfaithfulness will be no big deal for homosexual marriages. Homosexuality, in all of its multifaceted expression of perversion will be normalized with the institutionalizing of homosexual marriage.

3.) The necessity to decry the perversion that is homosexuality does not come from a sense of inherent righteousness or superiority from those who decry it but rather from a realization that certain taboos in cultures must be maintained lest individuals in the culture be exposed to things that would not otherwise be exposed to were the taboos to remain strong. Since Wilson is correct in noting that, “we are all sinners,” it must be the case that if public standards of decency are to obtain then it must be sinners, seeking to uphold the standards of Scripture, who are the ones who raise the banner of decency in the face of those who would redefine decency.

4.) We must hold out Christ as the only hope for those who have been wounded by perversion. Christ came to rescue all types of sinners from all types of sin and we must be forward not only in proclaiming God’s hatred of perversion but also His willingness to forgive who sue for peace.

5.) We do perverts no favors by trying to making peace between their perversion and the Christian faith. In many quarters of the Church today there is a mad rush to prove how acceptable the Church can be towards unrepentant perverts. We accept the sinners at the cost of rejecting the Savior. It used to be the case that we would only accept changed sinners but now it is the case that we will only accept a changed Savior. Jesus must change to get over His previous hang up against unrepentant perverts, and if He won’t … well, we can always find a different chap, who is more amenable to these perversions, to hang the “Jesus” name tag on. The new chap wearing the “Jesus” name tag will have the good sense to accept perverts and reject those who reject perverts.

A Standard Quote From Mencken On Education

“The aim of public education is not to spread enlightenment at all; it is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States, whatever the pretensions of politicians, pedagogues, and other such mountebanks, and that is its aim everywhere else… Their purpose, in brief, is to make docile and patriotic citizens, to pile up majorities, and to make John Doe and Richard Doe as nearly alike, in their everyday reactions and ways of thinking, as possible.”

H. L. Mencken
Raconteur & 20th Century Libertarian Man Of Letters

First Day Of School

The seasons roll by. Here in Charlotte, and in many other locals around the nation Government schools have started recently. This is always a time of angst for me as I observe the multitude of children who begin another year of learning to think in ways foreign to the Christian faith. Combine this with the fact that a whole subculture is created where children and young adults, because of the time they spend together, end up aspiring to be like their peers and not like their families or like adults. Now sprinkle the exposure to disease that is brought about by cramming hundreds and thousands of children into one building. (Head lice or H1N1 flu anybody?). Now lightly top with exposing our children to possible immoralities like getting the snot kicked out of them on a school bus by animals

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/illinoisnews/story/60D37B6EC5FF4711862576320011605B?OpenDocument

or of being seduced by a nymphomaniac school teacher

http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=53859

or of being exposed to violence at school

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0777958.html

not to mention the every day basic cruelties that happen — which we have become inured to — when you create a “Lord of the Flies” community.

I admit it. I don’t get it. I don’t understand why parents willfully put their children in these environments. Parents will even say how painful it is to watch little Johnny or Suzie go to school without even realizing that they are inflicting the pain on themselves. Why shed tears as you watch your children go to school when you could dry your tears and experience the joy of watching your children grow up as you educate them yourself?

Recently, someone commented to a parent that was weeping over their child’s first day of school by saying,

“Nothing harder or sweeter then seeing kids grow up!”

The problem here is that when you send your children to government schools to be raised one is not “seeing them grow up.” Why do we believe there is a bitter sweetness in sending our children to be educated and raised by people, who, in the preponderance of cases, we don’t even know? The comment above is nothing but foolish sentimentalism. Somewhere along the way we got in the habit of doing something destructive to our children and now we speak about it being “sweet.” It’s like getting in the habit of hitting oneself every morning with a ball ping hammer and then going on to glowingly speak about how refreshing such a quaint little habit is.

I know I’m in the minority. I know I am not liked for having this conviction. I also know that the reason I am not liked for having this conviction is because people know I’m right and they hate both my being right and the wrongness of what they are doing to their children.

I’ll be glad to live with being despised because of this if people would just begin to follow their instincts and quit sending their children to government schools.

“Racist” — The Last Refuge Of The Defeated Cultural Marxist

The following stories are just a smattering of the “news” stories that are circulating in the “shape the public mind through false information” business. You will notice that there is a theme of alleged racism that unites all the differing stories.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/15/congressman_people_will_wear_white_hoods_if_wilson_not_rebuked.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/09/14/obama/

http://prospect.org/cs/articles?article=stuff_some_white_people_dont_like

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2009/09/15/carter_claims_there_is_racist_tone_against_obama.html

http://www.newsweek.com/id/214989/page/1

I could, with great ease, multiply many times over this theme of racism that has suddenly surfaced with great repetitiveness in the American Pravda media.

Why this sudden uptick in “White Americans are Racist” stories? The answer is found in fact that the accusation of “Racism” has recently been the chief means of leverage for advancing an anti familial-centric organizing of men, anti-American sense of nationality, anti-Christian faith, and anti-Western Civilization agenda. These traits that advocate the importance of a Christian sense of family, A Christian idea of country, The Christian faith, and Western civilization have, for decades now, been labeled as “White” and those who embrace family, country, Christian faith, and Western civilization have been attacked as “Racist.” The Cultural Marxists sense they are on the edge of thoroughly re-making America by legislative fiat and the resistance that has suddenly resurfaced — a resistance driven by the remnant memory of Christian civilization — has them reasoning that the only way such resistance can be beat back is by the taming charge of “racist.”

The experiment of civilization built upon Cultural Marxist tenets, pursued now for the last sixty years, is on the verge of collapse. The only way it can be propped up is by a force that has always been latent in its revolutionary praxis. This force first exhibits itself by the means of seeking to confine men by means of words like “racist,” and “intolerance.” When this verbal hostility fails (and it looks like it will fail) the next step is hostility by means of arms. I will be surprised if the current tension in America between the Cultural Marxists and those who have not yet been thoroughly brainwashed by the cultural Marxist agenda will not end in some kind of violence.

The fact that the disagreements that are dividing America are ideological and cultural more then they are racist is seen by the existence of a small percentage of minorities who prioritize the Christian concept of family, and who have a love for God, country, and Western Civilization. There does exist within America many minorities who hate the cultural Marxism that is destroying their people.

However having said that, it must be admitted that America has a racial problem to go with its ideological, and cultural problem. The minority community has been largely co-opted by the Cultural Marxist mindset and ethos. America’s social engineering programs, based on Cultural Marxist ideology, and implemented heavily among the minority communities has failed with the result that the minority family cohesiveness has been decimated, ressentiment against whites has been nourished, educational performance has declined, and allegiance to and support for the cultural Marxist state has been fostered. The overwhelming percentages of minorities voting for candidates who offer more cultural Marxist programs as a solution for already failed cultural Marxist agendas is the proof that America has a racial problem.

There is also a racist problem among white people but it is not the white people that so often are accused of “racism.” The racist problem that I’m speaking of is the racism that believes that minorities are so inept, so stupid, so unworthy, that no minority can make it without their cultural Marxist massa’s twisted soul killing benevolences extended to minorities through the redistribution of other people’s wealth, and the artificial quota system that proclaims that minorities can’t successfully compete against whites apart from artificially inflating minority scores. Our universities, government agencies, and “churches” are filled with these kind of white racists. The 40 year attempt by white racist Cultural Marxists to empower the minority community has instead done what all racism finally does and that is it has enslaved, impoverished and kept ignorant large swaths of the minority community.

The recent charges of “racism” being promulgated by the American Pravda media and the American cultural Marxist politicians will not succeed in 2009. The race card has been so overplayed that it has lost its bite. Indeed, speculation arises that the tension raised by introducing the charges of “racism” may have the opposite effect than desired creating a hardness of heart towards wherever the minority plight is legitimate.

Response To My Representative — Congressman Schauer

Dear Congressman Schauer,

Thank you for your form letter response to my personal letter to you regarding the prospective health care legislation that is creating such a stir throughout the nation.

Before I respond to the details of your letter allow me to register one small disappointment. I was most disappointed that you refused to have a town hall meeting in your district during the August recess. Certainly, Congressman, you can’t actually believe that those district wide phone calls were a legitimate replacement for a town hall meeting. The conference call methodology, which was characterized by canned questions chosen in advance, was successful only at distancing yourself from your constituency by muting your opposition. Do not think for a second that your district is any less volatile than the thousands of other congressional districts across the nation on the issue of Democratic attempts to force fascism upon this country all because you manipulated the process in your district.

Now allow me to turn to your letter.

First, you note that over a million residents of Michigan are living without health insurance. You do not tell me how many of those over one million do not want health insurance. Many young people choose to go without insurance, preferring instead to spend their dollars on other interests. Congressman, the fact that you assert, in a unsubstantiated fashion, that over 1,000,000 Michigan citizens do not have health insurance means very little unless you break that number down between those who do not have health insurance because they don’t want it and those who do not have health insurance because they can’t get it.

Secondly, you do not tell me where in the Constitution you find the authority for the Federal government to socialize health care. As a US Congressman who has taken an oath that you, “will bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution,” surely you have justified in your mind how a Federal takeover of health care is Constitutional. I would dearly love to see your reasoning on this.

Next you tell me that you desire a “uniquely American solution” to our health care situation. I am suspicious that you must have tested this phrase in a focus group setting because I notice that you use it several times in this letter and you used it several times in your “town-hall” phone conferences. Allow me to suggest that it is not possible to find a uniquely American solution to our health care woes by doing anything that has either the Federal Government taking over health care or that puts the Federal Government in the position of eventually taking over health care. That sir, as you know, is socialism and it is a contradiction of the worst variety to embrace any form of socialism (i.e. – Fascism, Cultural Marxism, Communism) as a “uniquely American solution.”

Congressman Schauer, if you really desire a “uniquely American solution” to our health care woes you will pursue policies that will allow the market to do its work. You will allow insurance companies to compete across state lines. You will introduce tort reform. You will reconnect the consumer with his medical dollars spent. You will create tax free medical savings programs. You will decrease the government regulation upon the health care industry which has created our problems to begin with. You will create legislation that will allow small businesses to ban together in order to access the same cost advantage from Insurance companies that large companies get due to their size. So, you can see, I am in favor of doing many things that will help the citizens of Michigan.

Your letter to me implies that you support the public option. Please understand that at least some of your constituent understand that if a public option is crafted into this bill that means the eventual end of choice, which you say you support. Such language also means the end of private insurance options, which you also say you support. Keep in mind Congressman, we are not all blind to the slippery way that people like you use language.

As you consider your vote keep the following things in mind.

* Is the bill Constitutional? Where does the Constitution allow the Federal government to believe that all citizens have a “right” to health care?

* You say you want a bill that promotes personal responsibility. Will any bill that “promotes personal responsibility” also at the same time disallow health care or lessen the opportunity for health care by those who don’t follow the personal responsibilities guidelines as set by the Federal Government and its legislation?

* Does the plan you support shift control from insurance companies to the Federal Government? As bad as insurance companies are Congressman, I would rather deal with their bureaucrats then Government bureaucrats.

* In your desire to vote for a bill that does not raise the Federal deficit do you realize the impossibility of that without either a sweeping tax increase or severe restrictions as to who can receive health care or both?

In closing Congressman, I realize how much pressure the Democratic leadership must be bringing upon you to vote for socialized health care. Allow me to remind you Congressman how narrow your victory margin was in the 2008 Congressional race. I can say, with almost certainty Congressman, that should you vote for a Marxist health care plan that will be produced by a Democratic majority your 2010 race will be more of an uphill battle than your previous one.

Sincerely,

Bret L. McAtee
Pastor — Charlotte Christian Reformed Church