Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
“It is natural for the Talmudist to reject all Godly or Biblical aspects of government and to promote atheistic and humanistic forms of government such as democracy, socialism, or communist regime. These political concepts stem from Talmudic and Babylonian philosophies of government whose end is total control and dominion.”
Charles E. Weisman
Who Is Esau-Edom?
“I’d rather be in a democracy than a state in which the government is officially Christian. Instead of trying to take power, I think what Christians ought to be doing is trying to renew their churches.”
-Tim Keller, Wall Street Journal
02 September 2022
1.) Understand what Keller has said here. He has said I’d rather be under a government that is non Christian than under a government that is officially Christian. Tim would rather have his magistrates be Christ haters than have magistrates who are in submission to Christ.
2.) Tim talks about how Christians shouldn’t “try to take power.” The question is “take power from whom?” Presumably, in Tim’s world Christians shouldn’t try to take power from non Christians and should be happy to be ruled by pagans.
3.) You know Tim, it is possible to both try and renew our Churches and in godly ways seek to take power.
Below is a question to Doug Wilson along with his answer. I culled this question and answer from a very interesting video below that I highly recommend.
—-
Dear Pastor Wilson,
What are your beliefs on concupiscence, and specifically, as it pertains to homosexuality?
Noah
Doug Replies;
Noah,
I believe that the stirrings of such desire are temptation, to be resisted but not confessed, and that indulgence and expression of such desire is to be confessed to God as sin. Under no circumstances should it be made an aspect of your identity.
Doug
———-
A few observations on my part now follow;
First a definition of concupiscence, since it is not a word we use a great deal today.
Concupiscence
kŏn-kyoo͞′pĭ-səns Noun
a.) A strong desire, especially sexual desire; lust.
b.) Improper or illicit desire; sensual appetite; especially, lustful desire or feeling; sensuality; lust.
c.) Strong desire in general; appetite.
As we examine Doug’s statement we note;
1.) There is a very thin line between temptation that is not yet sin and so to be resisted and temptation that already is itself sin and so needs to be both resisted and confessed. Indeed, we see that in the book of James;
But each person is tempted when he is lured and enticed by his own desire.
James 1:14
Here we see temptation itself is driven by a desire that is not God glorifying. So, we quite agree that not all temptation is sin and we agree that temptation is immediately to be resisted and that temptation need not to be confessed as sin though humans, being inveterate deniers of sin, probably would not be hurt by confessing more of their temptations as sin since sinful desire is what drives temptation. In terms of concupiscence in relation to homosexuality we should note that in Romans 1:26 Paul says Sodomites are given up to “vile passions,” which is to say that the disposition preceding Sodomitic acts is itself vile, i.e. sinful. As such I would be inclined to say concupiscence in relation to homosexuality should both be resisted and confessed as sin. Because of this I have a qualified disagreement with Rev. Wilson on his answer to Noah.
2.) Elsewhere on this subject Wilson has said;
“I don’t think homosexual orientation is a sin.”
This is an odd thing to say and in my estimation reveals how much peace even the conservative church has made with sodomy. I say this because I am fairly certain that Doug would not also say;
A.) “I don’t think pedophilia orientation is a sin”
B.) “I don’t think necrophilia orientation is a sin”
C.) “I don’t think that bestiality orientation is a sin”
The only reason that the initial sentence sounds reasonable to people is because most people have made peace conceptually speaking with the sin of sodomy.
On this issue of orientation we must understand here that Wilson is using “Revoice logic,” and Revoice in turn follows Roman Catholic theology as it insists that one is only culpable for what they choose. The upshot of this in this theological matrix is that if one has allegedly unbidden homosexual desire/orientation one is not sinning in that desire since that desire was not volitional.
However, here we see the Pelagian (Non-Reformed) anthropology glimmering through. The sinfulness of sin is not found in our volition cooperating with the sin. The sinfulness of sin is found in the reality of sin — chosen or unchosen — present in our lives. It is Pelagian to say that it is our choice that makes sin to be sin.
Keep in mind that in the OT there were sacrifices for unintentional sins. The unintentionality behind the sin did not relieve the sinner from the guilt that came with having committed the unintentional sin.
Just so now. The fact that homosexual desire is allegedly not combined with volition does not mean therefore that the homosexual orientation that is a consequent of the homosexual desire is not sin. It is sin and we are not helping people who have, for whatever reason, a disposition towards this kind of desire/orientation when we seek to let them off the hook of responsibility. Those people are responsible for the sin of homosexual desire even if their volition to that end is absent if only because God says such desire/orientation is sin.
Scripture teaches Christians on this score …
22 You were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; 23 to be made new in the attitude of your minds; 24 and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.
The choice for all sinners in all the permutations of their sinful desires/orientations is to put to death (starve to death) all corrupt desires/orientations whether those desires/orientations are volitional or not.
3.) Doug says that under no circumstances should it (homosexual orientation) made an aspect of your identity.
This is to be applauded. Now if only Doug himself would not under any circumstances make homosexual orientation a part of Christian’s identity. Doug has admitted his church has “Homosexual members.”
Go to 44:15 mark.
How is saying that not working to the end of making the orientation part of their identity?
Let’s be clear here. Doug is saying that same sex attraction (Homosexual orientation) is not sin. It is not sin because allegedly there is no volition in the orientation. Yet sin is sin not because human volition makes sin sin. Sin is sin because God says sin is sin. Keep in mind also that there is no way to prove the presence or absence of volition in any given person.
Now, a Pastor might say, “I have people in my congregation who struggle with the temptation of homosexual orientation but as they do not identify with their struggle except so as to admit and confess their sin, they never refer to themselves as ‘homosexual Christians.'”
As an aside let’s try to keep in mind that when we refer to the “Homosexual” community or just to “Homosexuals” by using that language we are giving ontological status to those who are what they are not because they are ontologically a particular way. Rather they are who they are because of their patterns of sinful desire. Indeed, it would not be too much to say that homosexuals don’t even exist — at least as in the sense that we use that word today. It is the work of Magnus Hirschfield and later Alfred Kinsey that created a whole new category of “homosexual,” as someone having some kind of unique ontological status.
Finally, let us admit that we destroy our language when we talk about things like “Homosexual sex,” or “Gay Marriage,” or “Homosexual intimacy,” as if we should think it even possible that homosexuals could have sex whatever they are doing or that it is even possible for two women to get married, or that it is even possible for sexual intimacy to occur outside it occurring as between a man and a woman in marriage. When we make our language bend to the zeitgeist by slamming these kinds of phrases together we are destroying our language and destroying our platform to defend the reality behind our language.
Behold the peaceful culture of the American Indian;
___________________________
“Given that human sacrificing and scalping were part of American Indian culture, but not mentioned in Government school textbooks, it is not surprising that the cannibalism that was also present in many tribes likewise is not mentioned. A little known fact is that the Mohawk tribe derived its name from its habit of eating human flesh. Alpheus Hyatt Verill writes: ‘ The Mohawks were notorious eaters of human flesh, and were called Mohowauock or man-eaters by the Narragansets. William Warren, a native of the Chippewas, noted in his History of the Ojibways (1852) that his people occasionally ate human flesh. In 1853 John Palliser wrote that the Sioux and Minitares had their women cut pieces of human flesh from slain enemy warriors. These pieces were then broiled and eaten. Eskimos, especially during times of stress, also consumed human flesh. The Pawnees would roast their prisoners for food. The French explorer, La Sale, reported that the encountered an instance in which the slaves of Indians were forced to eat their own.
In the 1670’s Father Chrestien Le Clercq described some Iroquois cruelties that often including forcing prisoners to eat their own flesh. The Roman Emperors, Diocletian and Nero, the two savage persecutors of the early Christians, ‘would hold in horror the vengeance, the tortures, and the cruelty of the Indians of New France [Quebec], and above all the Iroquois, towards their prisoners. Le Clercq noted that the Iroquois cut off the prisoners’ fingers, burned them with firebrands, tore away their nails, and made ‘them eat their own flesh.’
The Menace of Multiculturalism
Alvin J. Schmidt — pg. 48
_______________
The point of the quote and the book from which it is taken is to bring some perspective to the whole “the evil White Christian European” and all the damage that Western Culture has done. Doubtless we, like all cultures have our sin, but to suggest that other peoples have been more noble is just ridiculous. Western Culture is the greatest Culture that mankind has ever produced and that is so because Western Culture was shaped by Christianity.
When you talk about Western Culture you’re talking about the culture produced by a people who were intoxicated with the Lord Christ.
Next time someone wants to tell you about the evil culture of the white man you might want to recite the above. Our Forbears called them “savages” for a reason.
One of the consequences of the War of Northern Aggression was the destruction of the USA as a constitutional Confederated Republic as replaced by the consolidated National Union. One impact of that was the death of regionalism which had characterized America for its first 80 years.
Regionalism was to be replaced with Unitarian Nationalism. People would be known post War Against the Constitution not as Virginians or Pennsylvanians but as vanilla “Americans.” In that way the Jacobin war of 1861-1877 was a war against distinctions.
Here we are now 160 years later and the war on distinctions that was began in the garden of Eden, and could be traced through the French Revolution, the European Revolutions of 1815 and 1848, the Jacobin war in America beginning in 1861, and on and on that same long Revolution continues to be waged today. The Kinists understand this history and are doing all they can to stop the West from sliding further down a slippery slope that began centuries ago. The Kinists alone understand where this all ends if we don’t start returning to distinctions that the Jacobin left has been fighting to eliminate since the fall of the Bastille.
The Kinists see the big picture and the big picture is survival of man as man. There is no hatred for the other in the Kinist but a love for a civilization that never ceases its mad frenzy to eliminate distinctions.
But we have slid so far into the egalitarian maw that now even the conservative Church is in league with the enemy and screams Hari Kari that the Kinists are heretics. When they do so all I hear is the Revolutionaries in Paris demanding “off with their head,” or the abolitionists in New York breathing fire against the South or the Bolsheviks screaming “Workers of the World Unite,” or the denunciations in Mao’s re-education centers during the cultural Revolution. It’s all a piece as littered across the last 240 years.
The Alienists today are just the most recent incarnation of that Jacobin spirit. When I hear a Dreher or a Roberts or a Littlejohn or a Brito, or a McDurman or a Marinov or a Wilson speak if I close my eyes I can hear a Beast Butler, or a Sherman, or a Thaddeus Stevens, or a Sheridan or a Stanton or a Robespierre or a St. Just, or a Danton speaking in just the same way, with the twist that the former sprinkles their speech with Jesus talk.
But make no mistake about it. The Revolutionary spirit lives on and its ugly face has been seen quite without its usual mask in the recent desire to destroy the life of a mousey academic living in the Louisiana backwaters.
Rod Dreher decided to be the messenger of many of the worst aspects of the whole Achord affair. (Is “the Achord Affair,” our version of the “Dreyfuss Affair?”) As such he is fair game in this whole matter. Let us consider the hypocrisy of Rod in his excoriating of Achord.
1.) Dreher now lives in Hungary. Hungary is about the whitest of white Nations in existence which is doing all its can to pursue its Christianity and its ethnic roots. If ever there was a nation that was interested in White Christian Nationalism it is Hungary. Yet, here is Dreher living in the center of a nation that is the very epitome of what he is criticizing Achord for in his championing Christian Nationalism.
2.) Dreher talks about the putative moral failings of another man. These are failings that are only moral failings as existing in a New World Order social-order. There is no moral failings by Achord when you compare him to the Christian men he quotes in his book “Who is my Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations.” The irony here is that Dreher is accusing Achord of moral failings while being the embodiment of failing morally as seen in his recent divorce. Apparently its acceptable for a immoral man, when measured by God’s standards, to accuse a moral man of immorality.
3.) Consistent with #2 is Dreher talking about how is “wife” resigned her position with the school in question because of her horror at Achord’s beliefs. When he talks about his “wife” having to resign we are supposed to feel sympathy. Yet, Dreher is no longer married to this woman he is calling “his wife.” If Dreher has not sympathy for her as seen by his divorcing her why is he insinuating that the reader of his drivel is supposed to have sympathy for a woman he just cast aside? Note that Achord has not cast his wife aside.
4.) Dreher writes his Benedict Option advocating the necessity to “embrace exile from the mainstream culture and construct a resilient counterculture.” Well, if Dreher is going to embrace exile then let him shut the Hades up concerning those who are attempting to push pack against the current darkness. If Dreher is in exile let him stay in exile and not involve himself in the culture wars he has decided to exile himself from.
5.) Dreher advocates exile and yet when he decides to get back in the cultural ring, if only for a moment, it is to the end of punching to the right.
6.) Dreher, by his complaint, seems to communicate the thought that if he sacrifices his fellow Christian who are to the right of Dreher then somehow the left will admire him and play nice with him. I have news for Rod. If the Revolutionary left is ever successful the first people they are going to consume is useful idiots like Dreher. Dreher, ultimately, is cutting his own throat by going after people like Achord.
7.) Dreher complains about Achord’s book, “Who is my Neighbor,” yet to date nobody from the Christian community has engaged the material in that book. If Dreher was consistent he would have to say the Church father’s quoted in that volume are every bit the “racist” that he accuses Achord of being. If Achord is saying things consistent with the Church fathers how can he be accused of those things that Dreher is accusing him of?
8.) In the end the screeching at Achord by Dreher et. al. is a screeching at the Church Fathers and at Church history. They can be enraged at what the Church fathers have said all they like but in doing so they are communicating that they are sons of another Father (John 8:44-45) besides the Fathers throughout Church history. Indeed, they are the sons of the Fathers of the Cultural Marxist and Achord’s chief sin is that he is not a cultural Marxist.
9.) Dreher wrote a book titled; “Live Not by Lies: A Manual for Christian Dissidents.” I’m laughing so hard at the irony that my belly laugh is having a belly laugh. Dreher pens the aforementioned book and now we find the hypocrite living by lies as well as attacking a Christian Dissident. Rod, thy name is IRONY.
Fie upon the opinion of these Anti-Christs who are going after a man who merely is guilty of standing in concert with the Church Fathers who have gone before.
I would love to see Dreher, or Roberts, or Littlejohn, or any of these harpies actually tell us why the Church Fathers in the book, “Who is my Neighbor” are wicked men and then why the book is a wicked book.