Other Opposing Worldview – Page 3

McAtee Continues To Pick Apart Tchividijan’s Nonsense

“So much of what passes for “Christian influence” today sounds more like Christian control. We hear calls to “take back the culture,” “reclaim America for Christ,” and “restore Christian values.” But the kingdom of God doesn’t come by seizing cultural control. It doesn’t advance by force or fear. It spreads through weakness, confession, forgiveness, and love. “Christian nationalism” turns the Christian’s calling to serve into a crusade to conquer. It assumes that the kingdom of God is something we build, when the gospel says it’s something we receive. Grace frees us from the burden of “taking back” anything. The world doesn’t need our dominance — it needs our service. The gospel doesn’t build empires — it resurrects sinners.”

📷Tullian Tchividjian
Previous advocate for Anti-nomianism
Now Advocate for Anabaptist theology

1.) There is no such thing as neutrality. Either the Christian faith is in control or a Christ hating faith is in control. Hence Christian control when it is indeed Christian is a reality to be pursued and delighted in.

2.) Tullian is advancing the idea that we seize cultural control by not seizing cultural control. Tullian argues that the Kingdom will indeed be received and so come but it is only to come and be received “through weakness, confession, forgiveness, and love.” Tullian doesn’t have a problem with the Kingdom of Christ coming. His only insistence is that the Kingdom of Christ come as Christians pursue cultural defeat and surrender. So, Tullian wants Christian dominance as much as the person he is complaining about but only in his way — the way of defeat and surrender.

3.) Tullian is seeking to advance his view of cultural control by seeking to shame Christians who disagree with him. That’s not very forgiving or loving or a matter of weakness on Tullian’s part. If Tullian really wanted to be weak he would just shut up on this matter and go into his prayer closet and just pray for his view of the Kingdom to come to pass and so quite lecturing other people because in his lecturing of other people there is a lack of weakness on his part.

4.) Notice that Tullian is seeking to advance his version of the Kingdom by means of fear. The fear that Tullian is trying to stoke is the fear of being displeasing to God if we advocate for the Lord Jesus Christ who is King be owned as King. Tullian would have it that Christ is only going to owned as King when His people do not insist that Christ be owned as King. Per Tullian, only by living as if Christ is not King can the Kingdom be received.

5.) Notice the glaring false dichotomy from Tullian here;

“‘Christian nationalism’ turns the Christian’s calling to serve into a crusade to conquer.”

Who says that a crusade to conquer can not be a matter of service? When cultures are conquered for Christ those who are in bondage to crimes such as sex trafficking, abortion, sodomy, etc. are no longer living in the context where such things are allowed. They may not yet be redeemed individually, but they are no longer living in a culture that is contrary to God’s expressed law-order. Is not the change that would come by Christians conquering be a service to those who would otherwise be plowed under and destroyed by such illegal legalities that exist in anti-Christ cultures?

In brief, there is nothing inherently sinful in conquering and conquering can be done as a means of service. Tullian is involved in a false dichotomy here. It would be a good thing for Talmudic or Mooselimb cultures to be conquered. It would be a matter of service to the people in those cultures if Christ who is King were to be owned as King.

6.) Tullian has another false dichotomy when he puts receiving the Kingdom in conflict with building the Kingdom. Because all is of Grace it is simply the case that when building the Kingdom we are also receiving the Kingdom. If I build a house as a Christian I understand that God is the one who has given me all the resources to that end and so it can be said at one and the same time that as I build my house I am receiving my house. Tullian’s reasoning here is of a nature that we should not plant a vegetable garden to get vegetables because God will provide vegetables, or similarly, we should not seek to build a family by the normal means of having children because God will provide children. In the same way Tullian is saying we should not seek to build God’s Kingdom because we are going to receive God’s Kingdom. Tullian is operating from a completely pietistic/retreatist worldview where man doesn’t work out what God works in.

7.) Tullian gives us another gem with;

“Grace frees us from the burden of “taking back” anything.

Really? Grace frees us from the burden of “taking back” family relationships that were destroyed because of a previous absence of grace? Grace frees us from “taking back” the harm that was inflicted in our business relationship with consumers because of a previous absence of grace? Grace frees us to be obedient and being obedient means that we take back those matters (for God’s glory) that were so injured by the absence of grace. That sentence from Tullian is just really pietistic bloviating. It sounds good but it really has little meaning.

8.) As mentioned earlier, Christian dominance when it is Christian is a service that the world desperately needs. What the world or the church doesn’t need is the kind of Christian dominance by surrender that Tullian is pushing.

9.) Tullian ends with another false dichotomy;

“The gospel doesn’t build empires — it resurrects sinners.”

These two realities are not mutually exclusive. In point of fact the Gospel as it resurrects sinners does build nations. The two go hand in glove. Where the Gospel resurrects sinners the effect is going to be that those resurrected sinners are going to in turn, in obedience to Christ desire to live in social orders that are pleasing to Christ and His authority.

So, while the Gospel may not build empires, it certainly does build nations and social orders where the Gospel and the whole of Christianity is honored.

10.) In the end this is a debate about two very different visions of Christianity. I would insist that Tullian is dishonoring Jesus by not taking Christ’s office of King seriously. Indeed, I would say Tullian completely dismisses the idea of Christ as “Lord.” For Tullian Christ’s Lordship is a Gnostic kind of reality. It is the same kind of Kingship that one finds in R2K thinking. It is the kind of Kingship that says “Jesus is King in a non Kingly way.”

McAtee Contra Tchividijan On The Evils Of Christian Nationalism

“When you start blending the gospel with nationalism, you don’t just confuse categories—you corrupt the message. The gospel isn’t about reclaiming a country; it’s about redeeming people.

This kind of distortion doesn’t stay contained. It ripples out—generation after generation—leaving behind a trail of disillusioned people who think Christianity is about moral superiority and cultural dominance instead of forgiveness and grace.

Lord have mercy.”

Tullian Tchividjian
Billy Graham Grandson
Former Presbyterian

1.) Blending the Gospel with Nationalism?

Yet isn’t this what Jesus did when He told his disciple to teach the nations to observe all things that Jesus had taught them?

These chaps keep using the word “Nationalism” like it is this poison rag that is inconsistent with the Gospel. Yet, the Gospel has every intent of having all nations owning Christ as Lord. After all, Christ must rule until all things are placed under His feet …. including nations.

This also demonstrates the age old Baptist type behavior of insisting that the Gospel is only an individualistic thing. The Gospel is to have no corporate or Institutional impact. Individuals can be saved, so the thinking goes, but not families, ethnicities, nations or cultures.

Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if the Gospel is not blended with a proper and biblical understanding of Nationalism, that it is NOT the Gospel.

2.) The Gospel is about redeeming individuals and reclaiming countries. Does Tullian really believe that the LORD Jesus Christ is not interested in reclaiming countries. What does Tullian do with the idea that the Gospel has the power to restore “wherever the curse is found?” I suspect that Tullian, and all people who talk like this own a pessimistic eschatology. If they are postmills (and Andrew Sandlin talks this way) then they have contradictions all over their eschatology.

3.) One wants to shake Tullian, and his ilk, and ask them why they are so opposed to Nations owning Christ and upon owning Christ weaving into their constitutions and law order the teaching and standards of Biblical Christianity. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

4.) Christianity can be both about forgiveness and grace as well as about moral superiority and cultural dominance. A Christian people who are part of a Christian nation should be morally superior to nations who are anti-Christ and should also have cultural dominance over them until such a time as they repent.

Now, if Tullian is talking about the self-righteousness that can come from those who do not understand themselves sinners saved by grace alone then of course that kind of moral superiority should be abominated and the culture that produces should NOT have dominance but a people believing that they are morally superior and so should have cultural dominance – only because of Christ’s favor – while they continue to embrace that they are simultaneously sinner and saint are to be celebrated. All Christians should strive for that type of moral superiority and cultural dominance. It is a righteous thing and not evil in God’s sight that the righteous should rule over the wicked Christ hater.

Exposing Natural Law For the Cheat It Is (I)

^{John 1:4}In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. ⁵And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

Jesus Himself said;

“I am the light of the world.” (John 9:5)

The Apostle John said that Jesus;

was the true Light which gives light to every man coming into the world.

Of course we know that there was no fault in He who was “the light of the world.” So, the fact that men did not and do not comprehend the light is found in the fact, as John’s Gospel reveals in chapter 3;

¹⁹And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

The practitioners of evil know the darkness and they know the light. They cannot hate the light and refuse to come to the light unless they know yet suppress what they know about the light. The lovers of darkness remain in the dark because they prefer the dark over the light and as they remain in the dark they chant, “there is no light, there is no light.” This is because such men remain dead in their sins and trespasses. Their intellect, will, and affections each and all experience the total effects of the fall. It is because they are sons of darkness that they hate the light.

These Scriptural truths by themselves ought to give the Natural Law fanboys pause before pushing their Aristotelian non-Scriptural position that teaches that fallen man’s intellect is not completely fallen and so can read “Nature” (however that might be defined) aright. But there is more. The Holy Spirit can say in I Corinthians 2:14

¹⁴But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

Yet, despite this testimony of Scripture the Natural Law advocates now blanketing the church in the chemtrail “theology” of both the R2K Escondido crowd and the Dr. Stephen Wolfe Christian Nationalism crowd are poisoning the Church.

Over and over again the Scripture teaches that man, starting from himself and his own resources, runs from capital T truth. Scripture teaches also in Romans 8;

“… the carnal mind is enmity (warfare) against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be.”

Fallen man, as Paul says earlier in Romans as the wrath of God upon Him;

¹⁸For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, ¹⁹because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. ²⁰For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, ²¹because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.

When non-Christians consider anything that can be found in what people call “natural law” they invariably use what they find to further their sinful ends. So, for example, fallen man finds gender realities in Natural law and for a season fallen man may well conform to gender realities when living in a predominantly Christian shaped nation. But even in the times of “conforming” one does not find the non-Christian living out their gender to the glory of God. Instead, fallen men prioritize themselves and their needs above their spouses. Then, over the course of time, as we are seeing now in the West, natural man, using natural law and right reason insist that there are no gender realities to conform to. They insist that the idea that one man goes with one woman for life is antiquated and mistaken. They suppress even more overtly than their heathen fathers the idea of gender realities. They suppress the truth in unrighteousness. They prefer the darkness to light. They are at enmity with God. The idea that natural law is going to somehow be the means whereby men are going to give up their suppression, warfare, and preference for the dark is a Aristotelian fairytale – a fairytale that more and more of the Christian church is taking up.

At one time natural law theory taught that “Nature” was the objective, external, corporeal universe that was objectively out there and could be known by all men. There was no consensus on where these laws of nature came from. They just were … and these eternally existing natural laws which existed autonomously governed both the gods and men.

When the philosophical world was ruled by the empiricists the laws of nature along with the external, material, objective universe were just out there in the cosmos. But as the worldview of men shifted from empiricism to different forms of idealism this “out there-ness” view of natural law was eclipsed and in its place the idea of natural law shifted to being located to the internal, subjective, non-corporeal “mind” of man. Human reason itself became the locus of Natural Law. Autonomous man, starting with and from himself could name what the laws of nature were. In this evolution of natural law man even more clearly became his own god determining good from evil.

This has always been and remains the achilles heel of natural law theory. There is no stable definition of natural law. It varies from man to man depending on what philosophical matrix he is living in. It may be the case that the Romanticists/Transcendentalist, the logical positivist, the Deist, and the Utilitarians (to cite random examples) may all agree that Natural Law exists but given their differing philosophical pre-commitments they will never agree on just exactly what Natural Law is as it is concretely defined, and indeed will offer up contradictory definitions.

In the end there is no objective reality in the subjective construct that is Natural Law theory. To be sure God’s creation declares God’s truths. No one disagrees with that. The disagreement arises when the idea is advanced that men’s will and intellect is not so fallen that residual ability remains so that man can, starting with himself (as fallen), as his own beginning point, identify true truth. The objection arises that fallen man starting autonomously with himself will always identify as true truth a fallen “true truth.”

In order for Thomistic Natural Law theory to work force must be used to re-create consensus as to what Natural Law “clearly teaches.” In our current situation this will have to be a force that moves Natural Law away from existing as within each individual to a Natural Law that is once again pretended to be objective. Existentialism and postmodernism, as well as variant forms of Idealism will have to be squashed in order for non-Christian Natural Law to work again. I have no opposition to those being squashed but I remain opposed to a Natural Law that pretends to be objective but really remains somebody’s subjective inflated to serve as a pretend societal objective.

Instead, what we as Christians should pray for is for the West to return to its Scriptural foundation for truth. We must once again embrace the idea that “in thy Light we see light.” We must understand that the axioms of Scripture and necessary consequences of those axioms form our epistemological foundation as a people. The God of the Bible once again must be our starting point when it comes to true truth. Only by having God has our starting point will we reason with a God honoring methodology that results in God honoring conclusions.

Away then with all Thomistic notions of Natural Law. It was bad when the Stoics owned it and it was bad when the Muslims Ibn Tufayl and Averroes embraced it and it remained bad when Aquinas pinched it from Averroes and “Christianized” it.

McAtee Contra Justice On His Rant Against Presuppositionalism/Biblicism/Theonomy I

“but to the extent that it (Presuppositionalism/Biblicism) has replaced or removed rational argument and empirical observations, to the extent that it has eviscerated the category and utility of common notions, to the extent that it has functionally displaced or even, for some, denigrated the place of nature and natural law and natural theology, and, to the extent that all of this is embraced by professing Christians as an unassailable bulwark of “biblical” intellectual potency, it is not to be commended but to be condemned as an utter usurper.”

Mr. Cody Justice
American Mantle.

You know I’ve tried to play nice with this Natural Law crowd but they keep digging at Presuppositionalism, Biblicism, and Theonomy and as a result there is nothing left to do but to continue to do what we have done here before and that is to repudiate their accusations. I will have to say though, that it was brave of them some time ago to have Rev. David Reece debate Dr. Stephen Wolfe on the issue of Natural Law vs. Presuppositionalism /Biblicism. I highly recommend this debate because, while collegial and congenial, frankly David Reece bested Dr. Wolfe in this debate. It wasn’t even close. I suspect that Reece or any other Theonomist will not be asked back again to debate Dr. Wolfe on this subject.

As to the above quote;

1.) Presuppositionalism/Biblicism (hereafter P/B) has never sought to replace or remove rational argument and empirical observations. A read of the small book by Thom Notaro, titled, “Van Til’s Use Of Evidence” puts such calumny to death and reveals a profound misunderstanding on Mr. Justice’s part on P/B. This accusation rests on the old canard, long disproven, that P/B = Fideism. The P/B advocate is no more or less Fideistic than Mr. Justice or any other Natural Law warrior. The only difference is that Mr. Justice has a fideistic faith that presupposes man as man’s own beginning point while P/B fideistic faith that presupposes God as man’s beginning point. Both then use rational argument and empirical observation that winds out of those beginning points.

2.) Now, quite to the chagrin of Mr. Justice, we have to ask by what standard do we arrive at his idea of “common notions?” Common notions by what standard? Already here in Michigan I can hear the wailing of Mr. Justice and his gnashing of teeth because in the article that this above snippet is from grinds against the question of “by what standard.” It stands to reason that Mr. Justice would grind over this because that question puts the end to the whole notion of Natural Law. Now, I am not denying that Natural Law exists but, unlike Mr. Justice, I believe that fallen man’s mind is at enmity with God. I also believe in the Reformed doctrine called “Total Depravity.” Finally, I believe because the mind of fallen man is at enmity with God, thus revealing the truth of a total depravity that affected the whole man (including his intellect – sans Aquinas) yielding the truth found in Scripture that fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness. In the face of all these long accepted Reformed doctrines (Total Depravity, Noetic effects of the fall, A suppressing of the truth in unrighteousness) Mr. Justice and the Natural Law fanboys continue to thump for Aristotelian Natural Law theories.

In pursuit of clarity, I do not deny that all ground is common ground but I do deny that any ground is neutral ground. All ground is common ground because it is God’s ground and that never changes. However, all ground is not neutral ground because fallen man denies the fact that the ground is common ground because it belongs to God. The fallen man is seeking to usurp God’s claim and so suppresses the truth of what he can’t evade knowing. Hence, the idea of common notions is turkey offal.

3.) In light of all this we must ask Mr. Justice… “Who is the usurper?” It is true that the P/B has long usurped the Aristotle / Aquinas tradition but it is they who usurped Scripture. So, despite Mr. Justice’s cavailing we will continue to be glad to play the usurpers, to his tradition of usurping. I am glad to match Mr. Justice’s condemning of P/B by consigning to the depths of utter hell the whole idea of Natural Law/ Natural theology as it comes to us from the hand of Aquinas and Aristotle. It was one of those areas where the Reformation still had Reforming to do once it picked it up to “advance” the cause of Reformation.

4.) Just to be clear here … I do, as a advocate of P/B denigrate the place of nature and natural law and natural theology. I do so proudly and with all the cheekiness I can generate. It is an abomination. It is a blemish on the Reformed tradition and you can imagine the delight that I find in the fact that both R2k and this Wolfe Natural Law school both appeal to this same Natural Law to come to conclusions that are 180 degrees different. Where now your Natural Law Mr. Justice that is so obvious to be understood that we find Christian Ph.D’s at each other’s throats regarding how it should be interpreted?

5.) Mr. Justice assails P/B but, alas, his assailing is like so many BB’s off a battleship. Both Van Til and Gordon H. Clark refuted over and over again this whole Natural Law stand up comic routine. Their arguments remain as valid and cogent now as they were when they first made them. If people want to read a quick rebuttal I would recommend, Dr. Robert A. Morey’s book, “The Bible, Natural Theology, And Natural Law; Conflict or Compromise?”

The Difference Between Andrew Fraser’s “Ethnoreligious” Vision & McAtee’s Ethno-Christian Vision

Over at the link provided at the bottom of this page Andrew Fraser published an article that spilled some ink mentioning myself and Iron Ink. Upon reading the article my first thought was, “Given Andrew’s concerns in this article, I’m not sure why my name and my article dealing with dismissing the accusation that the Dissident Right is really ‘WOKE Right,’ even got into Mr. Fraser’s sites.” Most of his article dealt with the way he was dismissed and ignored by the “Right Response” chaps at a recent conference the Right Response guys held. It seems they refused Mr. Fraser the opportunity to set up a book table at the conference.

I should say at the outset that I am a wee bit familiar with Mr. Fraser’s works. Several years ago, I read, with great delight, his “Dissident Dispatches.” There was very little in that book with which I found myself disagreeing. As such, it was quite the surprise when Mr. Fraser should find himself disagreeing with me so strenuously.

It seems that Mr. Fraser thinks that the chaps at Right Response (Joel Webbon, Wesley Todd, and Michael Belch,) are somehow intellectually linked with myself. I would like to say here to Mr. Fraser that I’m pretty confident that’s not true, especially given the fact that they would move heaven and earth to avoid being labeled as “Kinists” while Rev. Andy Webb has called me “The Godfather of Kinism.”

Mr. Fraser, on the other hand, seems to embrace the idea of Kinism given what he writes in one of his analysis pieces explaining his recent book;

“Accordingly, in the Anglosphere at least, the postmodern restoration of Christian nationhood should be inspired by a neo-Angelcynn theopolitics best organized around four “orienting concepts”: process theism, preterism, kinism, and royalism.”

And he complains in that same analysis piece that;

Even Stephen Wolfe, the most prominent American Christian nationalist, downplays, when not outright denying, the intractably biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity. He has suggested, for example, that even black men such as Booker T. Washington and Justice Clarence Thomas (who happens to be a devout Catholic) have been assimilated into the Anglo-Protestant ethnonation.

So, on the narrow points of esteeming Kinism and thinking Stephen Wolfe is in error when Wolfe downplays the biocultural dimension of Anglo-Saxon identity Fraser and I are in league. If the blokes in charge of the Right Response conference knew of this conviction of Mr. Fraser regarding Kinism that would have been, by itself, reason enough for them to block Mr. Fraser from setting up a book table. For reasons that continue to completely mystify me, the Christian Nationalist movement remains scared out of their skin at the idea of Kinism. Alternately, they have no problem with the idea but the word itself makes them wet their pants with fear. They would, it seems, rather be flayed alive then to be associated with Kinism. Go figure.

In terms of the other three pillars that Mr. Fraser is building advocacy for his position upon (Royalism, Preterism, and Process Theism) I am personally indifferent to the first one (Royalism) am cautious about the second (Preterism) and am radically opposed to the third one (Process Theism).

I could easily live within a Monarchical system though I would prefer it to be a Constitutional Monarchy with the King hemmed in by the parameters of God’s Law. I have no problem with a healthy Partial Preterism though I remain convinced that Full Preterism is unabashed heresy. The Scriptures are unmistakable about the literal resurrection of the persons and physical bodies of those who have died — some to eternal misery, with the vast majority resurrected to eternal life in the renewed heavens and earth. The problems with Process of Theism are so vast that anybody who embraces it can no longer be considered a Christian. Process theism holds to a god that is a stranger to the God of the Bible. The God revealed in the Bible is immutable, eternal, impassible, and is taught to have aseity. The God of process theism to the contrary is a God who is affected by temporal processes and so therefore is mutable, time-bound, passable, and lacks aseity. This is the god of Hegel who is constantly becoming as he responds to mankind in history.

Of course by embracing Process Theism one can’t help but wonder if Fraser is a Christian in any traditional, orthodox, or historical sense. If the chaps at Right Response Ministries understood all this about Mr. Fraser it stands to reason they wouldn’t give him a book table to hawk his books. I wouldn’t either. Christians don’t promote non-Christianity at their conferences.

The somewhat ironic thing about this is that I agree with Mr. Fraser that what is needed is the Christ who is not only Universal but who is also particular. Christ is indeed a global Christ but He is a global Christ who rules over a confederated church that is represented by and comprised of many national churches. The New Jerusalem, we are taught, is populated by people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations. When Revelation 21 teaches that it is nation by nation that enter into the New Jerusalem we learn that Christianity is a faith that does not champion the Universal Jesus to the neglect of the particular Jesus. Because of this teaching there is no threat in my theology, as Mr. Fraser writes;

“Of an exclusive ecclesiastical allegiance to a generic cosmic Christ reducing the distinctive character of every earthly ethnoreligious identity to mere adiaphora (i.e., things inessential in the eyes of the church).”

And so I have no problem with what Mr. Fraser writes that “the rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation.” However, I would war against any ethno-Christian foundation that included process theism or full Preterism. Further, I would vigorously argue that one doesn’t need either full Preterism, or process theism, in order to have the rebirth of a folk Christianity that is Anglo-Protestant. Indeed, I would argue that any Christianity that is characterized by full Preterism and/or process theism would be anti-Christ and so anti-Christianity.

Mr. Fraser complains about a lack of particularity in current versions of Christian Nationalism and yet that complaint is what one would expect from a man who has the lack of the Universal in his theology. For Mr. Fraser there is no Universal to hold his particulars together into a cohesive whole. Without a Universal the particulars are not possible, just as without a “Uni” in University, there can be no “(di)versity.”

Mr. Fraser did me the courtesy of correctly stating my position when he disagreed with it. I do believe that;

“Biblical Christianity … believes in a universal ‘history directed towards the postmillennial end of God’s Kingdom being built up on planet earth’ in fulfillment of God’s plan ‘to have the Kingdoms of this earth become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.’”

And in that statement we find the presence of the Universal and the particulars. There is one Kingdom of God (Universal) that is occupied by the “Kingdoms of this earth” becoming “the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ.” Further, as mentioned earlier, these sundry and varied Kingdoms all come into the New Jerusalem on that final day in all their particular nationalistic glory.

^{Revelation 21:22}I did not see a temple in the city, because the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. ²³The city does not need the sun or the moon to shine on it, for the glory of God gives it light, and the Lamb is its lamp. ²⁴The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.

In the end, I quite agree with Mr. Fraser that “the rebirth of Anglo-Protestantism demands an ethnoreligious foundation,” though I would prefer the phrase “ethno-Christian.”

Much more might be said but I think this covers both my agreements and disagreements with Mr. Fraser. Given his embrace of Process Theism with its implicit Hegelianism I would lack kindness if I did not end with politely asking Mr. Fraser to consider repenting of such non-Biblical axioms.

Those wanting to read a more exhaustive explanation of Mr. Fraser’s position should read here;

Christian Nationalism vs Global Jesus: Projects of Peoplehood from Biblical Israel to the Collapse of British Patriotism

If more questions by the readers arise from reading Mr. Fraser’s article I would be more than glad to answer them.