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.

Joel Webbon & His Claim That Hitler Was On The Right

“Hitler was one of the few bad guys on the right.”

Joel Webbon

1.) Hitler was a National SOCIALIST. Socialism, by definition, belongs to the left since it systematically is structured by Marxism. To argue that Hitler was a man on the right would mean that Deng Xiaoping (of China) was also a man of the Right since he wanted to bring reforms into China that would give Socialism a Chinese face. However, socialism is still socialism whether it has a German face or a Chinese face and as socialism it is most definitely NOT on the right.

2.) Now, one may argue that Hitler occupied the right side of the left and that the row between Stalin and Hitler was a row between the left side of the left and the right side of the left (International Socialism vs. National Socialism) but both Stalin and Hitler remained men of the Left along with FDR and Winston Churchill, as well as Franco and Mussolini. Any movement towards a statist collectivization (and here we include Abraham Lincoln and the Black Republicans in our own history) is a movement occupied by the Left. Any movement that would find a society or culture dominated and controlled by the State is a movement from and of the Left. Any movement that collapses society or culture into the State so that they are no longer distinct is a movement of the left.

3.) Hitler’s world and life view was consistent with all the major political heads at that time. That world and life view was captured by Mussolini’s statement;

“All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state”

Benito Mussolini

This is the religious confession of the Left. Nobody on the right would ever agree that “in the state we live and move and have our being,” and yet Webbon would have us believe that Hitler belonged to the Right. It’s just madness for a member of the clergy to be out there saying this kind of thing publicly.

4.) Hitler’s being on the left was also put on full display by his program of AktionT4 which found the State seeking to genocide the halt, the blind, and the disabled of all categories. Now, Hitler and the Germans learned this from the Americans (see Buck vs. Bell and Oliver Wendell Holmes’ idiotic statement that “Three generations of imbeciles is enough” thus justifying his vote to forcefully sterilize a woman) but how can anyone argue with a straight face in light of AktionT4 that Hitler was a “man of the Right?”

Read the reasoning of Oliver Wendell Holmes, and realize that this was the same reasoning that Hitler and the National Socialist would eventually use and keep in mind that the Germans managed to sterilize 400,000 women before their “Law for Protection Against Genetically Defective Offspring program” was halted;

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. […] Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

— Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927)

Webbon and his crew are constantly complaining (and rightfully so) that American clergy have been suckered by the court historians of WW II and yet Webbon and his crew go right on mouthing this inanity that Hitler was a man on the right. They might as well argue that Robespierre was likewise a man of the right because he realized how important religion was to a culture and because Robespierre tried to bring a religion back to the French people.

It’s all so ludicrous and uniformed. It’s just like something Doug Wilson would say.

A Quote On Kinism From The Legendary Lutheran, Walter Maier

Recently the Lutheran church, Missouri Synod, under the “leadership” of one Matthew Harrison has begun to reveal a decline that has doubtless been long in the making. As in so many denominations the Missouri Synod has been afflicted with creeping Marxism. One of the issues that has come to the fore in the denomination is some variant of Kinism. Kinists have been routed out of the denomination with the wildest controversies coming to the fore. All of this is a small part of the rise of Corey Mahler and his controversial Stone Choir podcasts.

In light of all that I thought a quote from the legendary Lutheran, Walter Maier would be of interest.  It is clear from this paragraph that the Lutheranism of Matthew Harrison (who has mixed race grandchildren) would not allow Walter Maier to be ordained in the Lutheran – Missouri Synod denomination.

After a paragraph long description of the marriage of a (white) Seattle girl to the Maharajah of Indore complete with a description of the steps she went through in order to convert to Hinduism, old Lutheran stalwart Walter Maier (1893-1950) wrote in his book “For Better, Not For Worse;

 

“Such interracial misalliances stand condemned before the forum of all clear thinking people. We agree with the verdict of Dr. Eliot, former president of Harvard;
 

‘Intermarriage between members of races that are not kindred is generally condemned by medical, sanitary, and eugenic authorities; so that the right policy in nations which include many different races is not fusion or blending or amalgamation, but a separate, parallel development of each race, acting in concord with the other races, but each preserving through many generations its own bodily and mental characteristics.

 

As evident as these principles are, however, we cannot be unmindful of recent efforts to overstep racial bounds. We believe that the Commission on Church and Racial relationships, maintained by the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America, has on occasion gone out of its way to encourage interracial marriages. This may be seen from statement in Information Service (published by the Department of Research and Education of the Federal Council of Churches of Christ in America) of November 13, 1926. Referring to the widely heralded Olivet Conference of that year, which was devoted ‘largely to the relation of Negroes and whites,’ this bulletin asserted; ‘Dr. George Haynes of the Federal Council presented the problem and illuminated with his very extensive knowledge every discussion of the week…. Nor was the question of intermarriage evaded. That was considered at length. It was felt that some pioneer spirits should take advanced steps in that direction…. After the discussion on intermarriage the group concluded that, if the individuals concerned fully realize the difficulties involved, mixed marriages may be highly desirable.’

 

In the furtherance of its own program, Communism has ardently encouraged interracial marriages; and this enthusiasm has colored the preaching and practice at some of our radical youth gatherings. For instance, an eye and ear witness at the American Youth Congress at Detroit brings this picture of the social mixing: ‘I cannot refrain from saying, simply and positively, that the most shocking thing I saw in connection with the Detroit Youth Conference was the social mixing of boy and girls of the black and white races…. While Clarence Hathaway expounded the doctrine of Communism, not three seats removed from me a white girl clung to the arm of, and openly petted with, one of the blackest sons of Africa I have ever sen. This was not an isolated circumstance.’

 

University lectures, with a flare for this new enlightenment, have based their advocacy on Negro and Caucasian marriages on the theory that the strains of negroid blood wills strengthen the white race. But these social revolutionaries will never be able to remove the insurmountable difficulties that are created by these interracial alliances. What of the children? What of the social restrictions?

This is yet another example of thousands of quotes from our Church fathers that demonstrate that Kinism was the assumed position of the Church until the civil rights revolution. Of course all of this was percolating before as the quote above demonstrates but the real rush of Matthew Harrison type thinking began in earnest somewhat after WW II.

Can it really be the case that all our fathers were wrong on this subject and that we are now reduced to having to believe the low intellects like Matthew Harrison and other ecclesiastical Alienists? Has truth changed from one generation to another?

 

 

Taking The Whip To Kevin DeYoung On The Issue Of “Political Punditry”

“Don’t get me wrong, we need some Christians (though, undoubtedly, not as many as we have now) to participate in the maelstrom of cultural commentary, just like we need Christians in every non-sinful area of human activity. Political punditry is a legitimate calling. It’s just not the pastor’s calling. The man who comments constantly on the things “everyone is talking about” is almost assuredly not talking about the things the Bible is most interested in talking about. That word “constant” is important. It takes wisdom to know when jumping in the fray might be necessary, but we don’t need pastors looking like a poor man’s version of the Daily Wire or the New York Times.”

Dr. Rev. Kevin DeYoung
Just Another Confused “Reformed” Clergy

There has been a good deal of noise in the past few years about how “Pastors need to stay in their lanes.” This originally came from the R2K crowd who insisted and insists still that Pastors shouldn’t speak to public square issues. Recently, Dr. Stephen Wolfe and the whole Thomist crowd has likewise been seeking to shame pastors into shutting up about any number of issues because any number of issues aren’t theology and Pastors should only speak on theology. I am hopeful that Wolfe and his crowd are saying their version of the R2K mantra because so many Clergy are indeed idiots who probably shouldn’t even be preaching on theology proper, never mind any other subject.

However, all of this complaint about Preachers “staying in their lane,” or “preachers not being political pundits” really is driven by the reality that these people complaining don’t see the organic nature of either theology or reality. Because reality and theology both are organic a minister doesn’t have to have a terminal degree in this or that subject matter in order to speak to the issue with wisdom. A minister doesn’t have to have a Ph.D. in economics to preach a sermon on how the Federal Reserve or Inflation is a violation of the 8th commandment. A minister doesn’t have to have attended the London School of economics to point out that the Scripture and the confessions rail against the usury we see in modern economic systems. A minister can preach a sermon on Just War Theory from the 6th commandment without having had to secure a degree on International Relations. These are but a few examples of dozens that I could give wherein a minister is quite in his lane were he to preach on these subjects at any given point.

Inasmuch as there is clear theological commentary in the Scripture on any given subject (and there seldom is not clear theological commentary in Scripture on any given subject) then the minister is called to be a political pundit, a sociological pundit, an economic pundit, a legal pundit, etc.

The problem here is that the Church by in large is abominating Worldview thinking which provides a foundation for understanding that both reality and theology are organically  intertwined. Worldview thinking grants us the ability to see that theology drives everything and as theology drives everything then theology as coming from the pulpit can speak to everything. Why should we leave God’s people in the pew to have to choose for themselves from a smorgasbord of contesting pundits who each might insist that, despite their differing punditry, they are all “speaking for the Lord.” Why shouldn’t God’s people hear a “Thus saith the Lord” from the pulpit on, for example, how to take care of widows, or how slaves should treat their Masters, or how Scripture requires money to have real value, or that God has created only two sexes, or that Kinism is God’s norm for peoples?

The problem we have from our pulpits today is that clergy are not trained to see all of life as organically related. Nor are they taught that everything is driven by theology. In point of fact there is a huge push now from both R2K and the Thomist crowd to insist that theology in point of fact does NOT drive everything. I guess, if I have to listen to a clergy member from that school, I wouldn’t want to have their punditry on just about anything. Indeed, I wouldn’t want to have to hear their punditry on how their are two ways to come to truth — we come to truth through faith which subject matter belongs in the church and through reason which subject belongs outside the church.

You see, DeYoung has quaffed the R2K poison. (Looking at some of his old articles demonstrates that.) Wolfe, being a Thomist, has likewise quaffed from the same receptacle. Because of that these chaps are forever telling clergy to shut up on any subject matter that isn’t narrowly defined as having to do with the individual soul or having to do with church life. Other areas like Jurisprudence, Education, Arts, Politics, International Relations, Economics, etc. are all areas that are outside the “grace realm” and so ministers should not preach on these matters. Never mind that they are each and all driven by theological considerations upon which the Scripture is quite clear.

I am glad that this type of thinking we see coming from so many of the “educated class” was not present among our clergy in the American Colonies as they resisted the tyranny of British Crown and Parliament. Famously known as “The Black Robed Regiment” the ministers of that time rose in their pulpits and gave the mind of God on the matter of British tyranny. DeYoung would have labeled it all “political punditry,” and waved his finger at them seeking to shame them.

Then there were the Crusade Preachers, led by Bernard of Clairvaux. They went across Europe preaching Crusade against both the Jews and the Muslims. I’m sure DeYoung looks back on that era and has a cow.

In the end DeYoung’s advice fails on three accounts;

1.) It implies that Pastor can’t speak on these matters since God has no divine Word on these matters.

2.) It implies that the Scriptures do not talk about every condition of man and as such defies the maxim; “All of Christ for all of life.”

3.) Kevin is guilty of the very same thing he tells others not to be guilty of. In this article Kevin is serving as a clergy political pundit who is telling others not to be clergy political pundits. Kevin is giving clergy everywhere political punditry by telling them to be a-political. Physician heal thyself.

Finally, I want to mention here a wee bit of how Kevin has tipped his hand here. He warns against clergy becoming poor men’s version of the New York Times or the Daily Wire. New York Times and Daily Wire? Has Kevin just revealed to us where he goes to for his punditry? Why didn’t Kevin say instead; “A poor man’s version of American Renaissance or the Barnes Review….or Human Events or the Occidental Review?”

In the end it is my conviction that Kevin is just a stale old neo-con and I for one am hoping he takes his own advice and steers away from political punditry from the pulpit and leave that kind of thing to experts like me.  😉

Thinking About “Spirit-Wrought Revival”

“One of the ways that we can know that the current vibe shift (which I most certainly welcome) is not yet a Spirit-wrought revival is that there is way too much accusation of others in it.”

Doug Wilson
CREC Pope

This quote got me to thinking in a couple different directions. First, is the obvious irony in the quote. Nobody is better at the “way too much accusation of others” than our own Pope Doug. Wilson has demonstrated repeatedly that the minute somebody else begins to get traction (read Ogden lads, Kinists, Spangler, McAtee, Seabrook, etc.) Doug is right there to accuse them of something. Physician, heal thyself.

The second thing I got thinking about is somewhat unrelated in terms of the point Doug was getting at. Doug wrote above about “Spirit-wrought revival” and that made me think about the general subject of Spirit wrought revival. I started to think if it would be remotely possible for me to agree with Doug upon his identifying “Spirit-wrought revival.” I mean I think Doug Wilson and the CREC are so bad on so many subjects that I can’t imagine that I would conclude that we are in “Spirit-wrought revival” if Uri Brito, Toby Sumpter, and Rich Lusk concluded we were in the midst of “Spirit-wrought revival.” In point of fact if those chaps thought we were in the midst of “Spirit-wrought revival” I might well conclude that we were in the clutches of old Scratch.

And that would not apply to just the CREC mavens. I can’t imagine rejoicing with the Thomists if they started chortling and praising about “Spirit-wrought revival.” Indeed, I would go into my prayer closet and pray that God would shut down their “Spirit-wrought revival.” A few years ago down in Asbury, Kentucky the Wesleyans were all writing about their “Spirit-wrought revival” going on at their College down there and upon witnessing (via video) what they were calling “Spirit-wrought revival” I thought I would wretch.

So, I can’t help but wonder if one man’s “Spirit-wrought revival” is another man’s concluding that “God has turned them over to their sin.”

But, keep in mind dear reader that I am a aging curmudgeon and there isn’t much out there, movement wise, where I would find myself cheering if they started believing that we were in the midst of “Spirit-wrought revival.”

Is Theonomy Naturally Libertarian? Rushdoony Weighs In

Recently, I’ve noticed the Thomists insisting that Theonomists are by definition Libertarian. The most recent one mouthing that is Thomas Achord. I’ve seen Wolfe regurgitate this in the past. It is so frequent that I think they are trying to make it a ear worm of sort. Repeat it enough and the normies will just spew it out. Here is the latest statement as coming from Achord;

“Has anyone explained why theonomy, seemingly naturally, took on a libertarian framework?”

There can be no doubt that many theonomists have a libertarian framework. However, the idea that theonomy took this on “naturally” is just bogus.So, we see that like all good lies there is some truth to the statement above from Achord. There were those in the Theonomic movement who read their theonomy through the prism of Libertarianism instead of reading Libertarianism through the prism of God’s Law-Word (theonomy). The biggest offender here was Gary North and Rush made a mistake not squashing his son-in-law on this score. But there have been others in North’s wake. Guys like Joel McDurmon, Andrew Sandlin, and Doug Wilson have strong libertarian tendencies.

But is it really the case that Theonomy is naturally Libertarian or is this just a way to discredit original theonomy? Well, R. J. Rushdoony is someone who knows a little about Theonomy as he can legitimately be said to be the grand-daddy of theonomy. Listen to Rushdoony inveigh against Libertarianism;

“Libertarianism today which passes for conservatism is really a radical relativism with regard to everything except man. It talks about free market economics, but it does not believe in economic law. There are libertarians for example in the Los Angeles area and most of you could think of several who conduct seminars in this area, in Orange County and here. They claim to be teaching a free market economy. They will use free market economists… but in effect what they are teaching is a free market for all ideas and practices.

So that, when you push these people they say that I do believe it, since I believe in this total free market, in the right of marxism to practice marxism, I believe in the right of homosexualism to practice homosexuality (and Hess is in favor of this), I believe in the right of cannibals to be cannibals, I believe in the free market of all the ideas and practices. In other words, everything is equally false and equally true. In such a philosophy there is no truth to free market economics because there is no truth outside of man. As a result his position is an absolutism with regard to man. Man is his own God and there is no truth outside of man, therefore no system of economics, no system of religion, no philosophy can be true, only man as he is whatever he is is the truth.”

https://pocketcollege.com/full.html
IBL06: Sixth Commandment
Coercion

The only Libertarian impulse that was characteristic of Rushdoony was his hatred of centralized and leviathan Government. Rushdoony, following Scripture, believed that Government should be diffused and variegated between self, family, church, local, state, and finally federal. What we are getting today from many Thomists is advocacy for a kind of Nationalism that is top down that would make Abraham Lincoln proud. There is a good deal of Leviathan impulse with some people who are advocating for a “Christian” Franco or a “Christian” Pinochet or even a “Christian” Mussolini. There is plenty of Statists right now running around under the banner of “Nationalism” who need to be hooked up to a paleo-libertarian IV drip. 

So the next time the Thomists try to suggest that theonomy is automatically Libertarian tell them that they don’t know what they are talking about. If they were honest that truth wouldn’t be news to them.