Category: Apologetics

The Dangers Of Unharnessed Libertarianism

There is a sense among some Christians that movement Libertarianism provides a Christian response to various strands of the Marxism we currently face. (Cultural Marxism, Fabianism, Corporatism, Fascism, etc..) R. J. Rushdoony was under no illusion to that end. While Rushdoony advocated a form of Libertarianism it was always Libertarianism in a decidedly Christian and Theonomic social order. In other words, RJR despoiled the Libertarian Egyptians but he despoiled them while making the Libertarians serve the Christian worldview vision.

Repeatedly Rushdoony reminded us of Max Stirner who was one of the greatest foils to Karl Marx. Stirner was a kind of extreme prototypical Libertarian. He was Ayn Rand before Ayn Rand was Ayn Rand. Stirner was an Egoist, which means that he considered self-interest to be the root cause of an individual’s every action, even when he or she is apparently doing “altruistic” actions. This principle is the radii of all movement Libertarianism.

The centrality of the sovereign individual is seen throughout Stirner’s writing. A few examples will suffice,

“I am everything to myself and I do everything on my account.” [The Ego and Its Own, p. 162].

Even love is an example of selfishness, “because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me.” [Ibid., p. 291]

He urges others to follow him and “take courage now to really make yourselves the central point and the main thing altogether.”

As for other people, he sees them purely as a means for self-enjoyment, a self-enjoyment which is mutual: “For me you are nothing but my food, even as I am fed upon and turned to use by you. We have only one relation to each other, that of usableness, of utility, of use.” [Ibid., pp. 296-7]

Obviously this hyper individualism of Stirner — this emphasis of the many (individual by individual) over the one (collective) — was not something that Marx could countenance. Rushdoony notes of the collision of Stirner and Marx,

“The most vehement book written by Karl Marx was against Max Stirner; because Max Stirner pushed this idea to its logical conclusion, the meaninglessness of all things and therefore the legitimacy of all acts. He is the man who accused the atheists of his day of being closet Christians because they didn’t practice incest and other perversions, and Marx recognized that Stirner was right. But if Stirner were allowed to establish his thinking and successfully convert men to his position, there could be no socialist order. So he wrote a two-volume diatribe against Stirner.”

and elsewhere,

“Max Stirner was a logical, a consistent, atheist and an anarchist. And Max Stirner said in his book The Ego and His Own, that atheism required one to disbelieve in the validity of any law, because since there is no God there is no truth, no right, no wrong, no good, no evil, no sovereignty in the world, except man doing what he pleases. And in his book he turned on the atheists and the liberals of his day. He accused them of being closet Christians and he said ‘how many of you are ready to practice incest with your daughter, sister, or mother? Until you are, and if what I say horrifies you, you are simply manifesting the fact that you are a closet Christian. You are talking about not believing in God but you are believing in all his rules, you are still under theology rather than autonomy, And if you are still obeying your civil magistrate, your civil government, you’re still believing there is some validity to any law other than the biology of your own being.’”

Stirner absolutized Marx but he absolutized Marx in the indivdiualistic Libertarian direction.

Because of this Rushdoony saw that movement Libertarianism was but the opposite side of the coin to movement Marxism. Rushdoony saw that Libertarianism gone to seed was merely Marxism come into its own for the individual. Consistent Libertarianism was merely Marxism for the individual.

Now some will try to save movement Libertarianism by appealing to the “Non aggression principle.” They would contend we Christians can support Libertarianism as long as we apply the “non aggression principle.” The problem here though is that we must have some standard for what counts for “aggression.” And if we take what the Scripture, as God’s Law Word, teaches as God’s standard for aggression then we will find ourselves, as Christians, advocating for penalties that the movement Libertarians would insist fall under the rubric of the Non aggression principle.

This explains why the Christian dance with libertarianism needs to be thought through. Yes, there are aspects of Lbertarianism that Biblical Christians whole-heartedly embrace but those aspects are only embraced in the context of a bible informed Christian social order.

McAtee Contra Emergent Hugh Halter and Trinity Church Lansing Michigan Preaching

I don’t know who Hugh Halter is. Frankly, I would have been content to have never been pointed to his ramblings. However, a member of the Church I serve brought my attention to his ministry because Mr. Halter had spoke at the Evangelical Mega Church in Lansing Michigan. I listened to the sermon he preached there on 21 July 2013 and while there are areas to take exception (The Church is bigoted, and homophobic) with in the sermon there are more exceptions to take in Mr Halter’s blog post below.

http://hughhalter.com/blog/2012/08/08/hugh-bakes-a-cake-would-jesus-bake-a-cake-for-a-gay-wedding

This post is really quite confusing as it presents some truths in the context of half truths and some ideas that are not truth.

I thought I would dissect portions of Mr. Halter’s post in order to locate some of the fallacies.

Would Jesus Bake a Cake for a Gay Wedding?

by Hugh Halter

Last week, the national news posted a story about a bakery owner who chose not to bake a cake for a wedding between two gay men. It probably got some attention because it appeared to be similar to the well-publicized Chick-fil-a story. The stories were quite different in nuance, but nonetheless brought up very serious and real questions every Christ follower should take seriously.

I posted this question above and had over 3500 onlookers and a truckload of great responses within a few hours. I’ve tried to synthesize many of the responses down to a few simple thoughts that I hope will be helpful for those serious about incarnating their lives into the real world around us.

First, thanks for your respectful tone. Even though the Christian responses were a 50/50 split on the question, there were some great perspectives on both sides and I hope we all learned a few things.

Second, I know that many who read this will not be Christian in orientation. So forgive the “internal doc” tone. I am trying to speak to our own Christian tribe about how we view sin and people in the world. In Jesus’ time and obviously now, people often use the word, “sinner” in a derogatory way to label people that weren’t “in the know” or who didn’t live based on the same set of religious/moral/theological convictions that the establishment did. In Jesus’s time it was the Jewish religious system based on the Law of Moses, and today, it continues in many tribes of Christianity. For the sake of the argument, I’ll keep using the word “sinner” as it has been incorrectly applied, in hopes that we can at least agree that we all share the same problem. We’re all jacked by sin!

Bret clarifies,

1.) It is not true that “in Jesus’s time the establishment lived according to the Law of Moses.” In point of fact one of the realities of Jesus ministry was to constantly correct the establishment on how they had twisted the Law of Moses to mean what it did not mean. They did not live according to the law of Moses and that is one reason why Jesus constantly turned on the religious establishment. The problem of the religious establishment during Jesus day was not that they lived according to the law of Moses but rather it was that they didn’t live according to the law of Moses and then insisted that they were. And worse yet they were condemning people as “sinners” when those whom they condemned as sinners didn’t live according to their mutated version of Moses. So, Mr Halter is in error here and this error is significant as we will tease out more later.

2.) This is so true that Jesus treats the religious establishment as “sinners,” during His ministry. Are we to fault Jesus because He treated some people who were sinners as sinners?

And what was the difference between those Jesus treated as sinners and those who were ascribed with the title of “sinners” by the religious establishment? Well, one difference that we see in Scripture is that those who were ascribed with the title of “sinner” recognized they were sinners while those of the religious establishment refused to recognize themselves as “sinners.” Jesus could eat with sinners and publicans because they recognized themselves for what they were.

3.) Jesus is not opposed to Christians, who recognize their own sin, holding up God’s law as a standard for all people. St. Paul was a sinner yet he has choice words for certain sinners. St. Jude and St. John do as well. So, it is true, that we are all “jacked by sin,” but merely because we are all “jacked by sin,” that does not mean that we who are jacked by sin, who are saved by grace alone, are not to hold up God’s standard among men.

Mr. Halter continues,

I must also be honest with you and say that I, have to submit my wisdom under the wisdom of the revealed scripture in regards to all facets of life. I don’t understand everything, like everything, and will have a long list of questions to reel off when I see God, but I believe that He did design sexuality to be blessed within the bonds of heterosexual marriage.

However…

This article isn’t about trying to convince people of my view on this. This article is to address how any of us, of any persuasion sexually, theologically, or religiously, should treat each other. Especially how Christians should treat people that don’t believe what they believe. I will submit that anything that doesn’t reflect the original design of God is sin and that list is long. And if we for sake of argument can say that homosexuality is a sin, I believe how Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and maybe even greater offense to God.

Bret clarifies,

1.) Mr. Halter is on the record of saying that Homosexuality is sin. Of course he won’t say that, except to make reference to it “for the sake of argument.” Mr. Halter opts instead to say, “I believe God did design sexuality to be blessed within the bonds of heterosexual marriage.” Of course if that is true then it also means (though Mr. Halter would never ever say this either) that sexuality outside the bonds of heterosexual marriage is damned by God.

2.) Now in his sermon Mr. Halter suggests that all sins are equal, but here he says that some sins are not equal. In his sermon Mr. Halter emphasizes the necessity to overlook sins and not be judgmental regarding sins but here we see full judgmentalism. Does Mr. Halter have any idea how badly he is going to make people feel who have not treated the gay lesbian community the way he thinks the bible teaches that they should be treated. Obviously for Mr. Halter his non judgmentalism and overlooking of sin only applies to not being judgmental of the sins that he does not want to be judgmental of.

3.) When Mr. Halter says that the way the Christians have treated the sodomite community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and even greater offense to God is he talking here about the great offense of Christian Bakers not to agree to bake a cake for a sodomite marriage? Is that the great offense that God is so displease with? Taking a stand to not sanction societal public square acceptance of sodomite marriage is an action that God is offended with? Really?

Mr. Halter continues,

“The question of whether or not Jesus (The corner bakery owner) would bake a cake for a gay wedding? is posed so that we can finally talk about the dignity of each person’s story and how the love of God can break into all of our brokenness so that his revealed will and blessing can touch us all.

Bret clarifies,

1.) Before the sinner can find relief he must discover that his dignity is rags before a Holy and Just God.

2.) We already know how the love of God can break into all our brokenness. The love of God can break into all our brokenness by preaching law and Gospel. The Law reminds us of how God condemns us for our sin. The Gospel tells us that there is one way to escape God’s just condemnation. If anybody comes to Christ not having their dignity broken by God’s law they have not known God’s Gospel.

3.) There really are Arminian overtones in Mr. Halter’s words.

Mr. Halter continues,

“For dealing with the cake situation or other “grey zones,” here are a few anchors I try to keep in mind.

1) We don’t have to Condone or Condemn. In so many situations we often think that we have to pick either a stance of condoning (which we assume happens if we fail to confront or form real friendships) or condemning (which we assume is a necessary response if we simply speak the truth and call people to account for their behavior. ) Some think you should just “LOVE” without truth, and some think you should just “TRUTH” em’ regardless of love. What you’ll find in the life of Jesus is that he doesn’t pick one or the other. He did neither.

Bret clarifies,

This is not true as Scripture testifies everywhere. When Jesus encountered the Pharisees he condemned them. He called Herod, “a fox.” This was not complimentary. He called the Syro-Phoenician a dog. You think she felt condemned with those words? Jesus condemned Peter by calling Peter “Satan” once. Jesus did not condone the Woman at the Well (John 4). In point of fact he put his finger on her sexual sins. Jesus did not condone the woman caught in adultery. He told her to “sin no more.” It is true that Jesus ate with “sinners and publicans,” but those “sinners and publicans” that Jesus ate with understood that they were sinners and publicans. I meet very very few people today who would admit that they fell into the category of “sinner and publican.”

So, when Mr. Halter says “Jesus neither condoned nor condemned sin” he just doesn’t know what he is talking about.

Mr. Halter continues,

In John 1:14 it says that Jesus came into the world in the form of a man and helped us to see the glory of God because he was full of Grace and Truth. As an example of what he hoped every Christian would be, he showed how grace (non-judgment) and healing, restorative words of truth can go together like peanut butter and jelly. He was the most non-judgmental person you would have ever met, yet people wanted to hear what he had to say about their broken lives and when he spoke, people did change and turn from sin. Jesus even said that he “did not come into the world to condemn but to save.” And he did exactly that. People around him didn’t feel condemned but they responded to his truth.

Bret clarifies,

Grace and truth in John 1:14 is a reference to the covenant keeping character of God in the Old Testament of whom it was often said was full of mercy and truth (cmp. Gen. 24:27, Ps. 25:10, Prov. 16:6). To say that Christ is full of grace and truth is to say that Christ is God. Grace here does not mean “non-judgment.”

Jesus was non-judgmental to people who understood and embraced the idea they were sinners. The woman who washed Jesus hair with tears understood she was a sinner. The woman with the blood issue that Jesus healed understood she was a sinner. The Syro-Phoenician woman admitted she was a “dog.” She understood she was a sinner. One problem with Mr. Halter is he wants to accept the sinner and their sins without them accepting God’s pronouncement that they are sinners. God will never accept people who do not accept they are sinners and we do people no favors by letting them believe that their sins are not condemned. In point of fact, the only way I can offer the Grace of God in Christ to anyone outside of Christ is to expose their sin. Praise God that he daily shows me my sins of selfishness, and pride that I might be reminded that they are only buried in Christ.

Mr. Halter continues,

He regularly ate with the worst of the worst. Clearly, many would have pulled him aside and said, “Jesus, by eating with them, you realize that you are causing them to feel a false sense of acceptance by you, don’t you think it more wise to avoid letting them feel accepted so that they might come to their senses and stop doing what they are doing?”

In one such dialogue, he said, “I didn’t come for the healthy but the sick.” In that statement, he was saying, “to help the sick you have to be with the sick and by being with them in their sickness, I’m not actually making them more sick, but creating a pathway to pull help them out.”

Bret clarifies,

Jesus regularly ate with the worst of the worst who understood that they were the worst of the worst. They had been condemned their whole lives by people who were just as guilty of the sins that they were condemning the sinners and publicans for involving themselves in. Instead of offering to the worst of the worst a merit system that they could never fulfill Jesus spoke to these sinners, who acknowledged their sins, of a God who would not pile on them more requirements (as the Pharisees did) but instead who would offer forgiveness and rest to those who acknowledged themselves to be burdened and heavy laden.

It would be a terrible injustice to those who rebel against God to give them a false sense of acceptance. God is a judge to all those who rebel against God’s tender mercy. We do those who are in high rebellion against God no favors by suggesting that God is ok with their rebellion. In the same way we do no favor to those who are burdened with their sins to not tell them that the way to be released of their burden of sin is to trust Christ alone who has reconciled a justly angry God to sinners who embrace and acknowledge their sin.

From reading and listening to Mr. Halter I get the sense that he wants the Church to act as if sin is a minor inconvenience. I get the sense that Mr. Halter has never considered the Holiness and Justness of God. I get the sense that Mr. Halter thinks that God salvifically loves everyone. I have no authority or warrant to tell the Baker outside of Christ that God loves him with a salvific love, just as I have no authority or warrant to tell the sodomite couple that God loves them with a salvific love. I can tell them both that God commands all men everywhere to repent. I can tell them that can have rest from the burden of their sins if they will trust Christ. But I can not tell them, for I have not authority or warrant to tell them, that God loves them and has a wonderful plan for their lives.

Now, I quite agree with Mr. Halter that we have to be with the sick in order to offer a solution. That is one reason why I am writing this. I am seeking to be with the sick and what I am finding is that Mr. Halter is one of the sick. I am seeking to provide a way out for him. In point of fact one of the best places to be with the sick these days is to be with the sick people in the emergent movement.

Mr. Halter continues,

“In other words, being present with people in the mess of their lives, being true friends, fully accepting, is the way of Jesus. It is neither condemning nor condoning to make a cake or be at a wedding of people that don’t believe what we believe… It is simply being a friend.

Bret clarifies,

What Mr. Halter misses here is the public side of this whole issue with the cake bakers and the sodomite wedding. The cake bakers understand that this is more than a personal issue. This is a public square issue. The LGBT crowd is seeking to mainstream sodomy. They are seeking to force upon those who disagree with the sin of sodomy, to accept sodomy in the public square as a legitimate belief expression. There is nothing wrong with a Christian Baker to say …”Because of my love to Christ and His revealed authority I can not do this.” Mr. Halter’s reasoning would fault the Christian incense maker for refusing Caesar to make incense that would be required to be pinched as worship unto Caesar. Mr. Halter would say to the incense maker,

“Come, come … by filling this order of incense you are not condoning worship of Caesar.”

However, the incense maker like the cake Baker would be creating a means by which worship of Caesar is seen as acceptable public square activity. Even so the cake baker is creating a means by which sodomite marriage is seen as an acceptable public square activity. Neither Caesar worship nor sodomite marriage is an acceptable public square activity.

Mr. Halter is in serious error.

One can be a friend by accepting an invitation to have a drink or a cup of coffee with the sodomite couple. One can be a friend by taking them to a ballgame or a decorating party but one must think about the implications upon the public square and the social order by doing anything that gives tacit approval to the social order restructuring itself in a anti-Christ direction.

I hope this is a case where Mr. Halter merely has not thought through his position.

Mr. Halter continues,

To those who say that baking a cake communicates support for a non-biblical defilement of the institution of marriage, I’d suggest that we defile the institution of marriage all the time. 50% of the heterosexual Christian marriages end by defiling the institution through divorce. And good percentages of those who don’t divorce defile the marriage daily as men cheat on their wives through pornography. None of it is God’s intended design! In Matthew 5:28 Jesus went further, “You who lust in your heart after a woman have committed adultery!” In other words, don’t think just because you were married in a traditional heterosexual union, that you’ve done the institution justice and have the right to judge the next wave of people who will fail my design.”

In line with Jesus argument with the woman caught in adultery in John 8:1-11, Jesus would say to the non cake bakers, “You who have modeled a perfect marriage, go ahead and withhold the cake, but if you have ever sinned against my design of marriage, you better start whipping up some frosting!”

Bret clarifies,

Mr. Halter’s argument here is that since we all sin in our marriages therefore we should have no public square standard for what marriage is. This is a specious way of reasoning. It is like saying that all because everybody in a lifeboat sins therefore we better not pay attention to those chaps in the lifeboat who are sinning by trying to dig through the bottom of the port side.

Also, Mr. Halter gets John 8:1-11 completely wrong. When Jesus said he did not condemn her, the word “condemn” there is a legal term referring to a sentence in a court. Jesus is saying that there was no evidence upon which to find her guilty. The fact that she was a sinner is seen in Jesus admonition to her to “go and sin no more.” A judgmental bon voyage if there ever was one.

The Cake Makers are not in a legal court setting as the woman caught in adultery seemed to be. The sodomites were not in danger of being stoned to death by the cake makers. Mr. Halters reasoning is nothing but stupid.

Mr. Halter continues,

Look, God doesn’t need us to stick up for his created order of heterosexual marriage. The institution of marriage is set not because we do it correctly. It’s set because God created it and marriage will always be his idea. If we don’t stick up for the sanctity of life, life is still sacred because God says so. He’s a big boy and knows that this beautiful union that he intended between men and woman is going to be fraught with brokenness in almost every situation and so baking a cake is not the issue, but not baking the cake would most certainly create an impossible space of tension between Jesus and the people he would hope to influence.

Jesus must have known that advocating for ‘sinner’s doesn’t make them feel better about their sin. It actually opens their heart to someday turn from their sin!

Bret clarifies,

1.) God doesn’t need us to stand up for His righteousness and His righteous standards? Is Halter kidding?

2.) Halter again suggests that the best way to do evangelism is by ignoring sin. Curious evangelism.

3.) If everyone goes around murdering everyone should we not try to stop the murder rampage because even if murder is legalized, murder will still be murder according to God’s definition?

4.) I think Halter is afraid of being hated for the sake of Christ and the Kingdom. At least that is what it begins to look like. Don’t mention the sin of sinners to sinners because that would create an impossible space of tension between Jesus and the people he would hope to influence.

Jesus can only hope to influence sinners? Think about it.

Mr. Halter continues,

2) There is no sliding scale of sin

Bret observes,

That is not what Mr. Halter said earlier. Earlier, Mr. Halter said,

“I believe how Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community, in God’s eyes, may literally be of equal and maybe even greater offense to God.”

Notice the earlier sliding scale of sin.

How Christians have treated the gay and lesbian community is even an greater offense then the act of sodomy.

Hmmm … Interesting.

Mr. Halter continues,

“When I picture this bakery owner trying to decide whether or not he should bake a cake for a gay wedding, I have to ask, what his reasoning or motives are based on. In other words, why did he say NO? I can only think of three reasons.

First, he could have thought that by baking the cake, these men would be pulled deeper into sin so if he made a cake he would be contributing to their ungodly union and sinful lifestyle. Clearly this isn’t the issue and if he baked the cake, these two men would not be more gay or do more gay things? The cake is just a cake! So that can’t be it.

So maybe, as a Christian business owner, he believes that he should represent God in who and how he gives his services away? He might think that since God is clearly against homosexuality, I must display God’s view of sin and never give my services or products to people who are sinning in this way. But consider the hypocrisy if he really sticks to this consistently.

Since gluttony is listed as a sin twice as many times as homosexuality is listed, then he would have to deny giving a scrumptious buttery croissant to anyone that looks to be overweight. And pastors who buy this guy’s donuts should therefore also not serve donuts every week at church, or create two lines and force the more sturdy lot into the glutton free, fat free line. To not do this would be to help people sin, right?

Bret clarifies,

Halter again is entering into the “since we are all sinners therefore we cannot take any stands against any sins” argument. What Halter fails to realize is that there are not glutton societies around forcing upon our social order the official embrace of gluttony as a positive good that all must accept.

Yet, this is what the LGBT crowd is seeking to do. They are seeking to overturn what little remnants remain of Christianity in our current social order.

Of course by Halter’s reasoning Christian Bakers should be required, in keeping with their Christian testimony, to bake cakes for parties that celebrate pedestry or pedophilia or necrophilia. After all, why should anyone ever defend God’s righteous cause. God’s a big boy. He can defend himself. Besides, we wouldn’t want pedophiles or necrophiliacs to feel judged right Hugh? Why, baking a cake for a necrophilia party might be just the way to get necrophiliacs saved right Hugh?

Halter continues to drone on and perhaps I will return to finish off the rest but it is the case that it is yet more of Halter’s psycho agitprop, gobbledygook, half truths, and total misreading of Scripture.

Apologetics Into The Vacuum

Dear XXXXX

Translated — Dear (fill in name here)

It is a form letter. It is a form, “kind of, but not really apology” letter. There is probably one of these laying on the table of many many other readers around the county at this very moment.

“Thank you so much for your recent communication in which you express concern re “The Gonfalon” publishing of two controversial articles. We appreciate very much your response and receive it in the spirit of helpful and constructive reflection on the best way to conduct our conversations on such topics.”

Translated — We have to say something to the complainers that will make them think that their letters add some kind of impact so we’ll use words like “appreciate,” “helpful,” and “constructive.”

Note the Psychological tone here. Soft words. Disarming.

Note also one is never told in the whole letter, “We were wrong,” or, “Please forgive us,” or, “we are sorry for our error against you,” or, “We ask you to forgive us for promoting positions that violate our club charter and our club membership vows to defend the club charter.”

“We want to assure you that we hear you. It had been our intention, from the outset, to answer the opinions expressed in these recent articles. For example, in the September issue we have Dr. Perry Crook, a well-known NWO biologist, challenge Sellout’s assumptions re “Abiogenesis.” And my September editorial will address the issue raised by Dr. Alfred Kinsey. We have also reserved space in future issues of the magazine to publish further responses on these topics.”

Translated — We are going to make it all better by having some good works balance out our bad works. Does anyone believe that the good articles will be as strongly “traditional,” as the bad articles were strongly “Cultural Marxist?”

Note — Does anyone really believe that Hefner is going to repudiate Kinsey, root, branch and twig? We shall see. Further, I doubt Crook’s article will completely repudiate all notions of Macro Hypo Maturation that include the necessity to re-read our origins.

In the end the seed planted by these two articles that were published will remain firmly planted. The take-away, at best, will be …“You can be a evolutionist like Sellout and be a member of our club, or have the views that everyone in the club had prior to 1850, like Crook and be in the club.” Similarly, what is communicated is, “One can advocate fornication like Kinsey did in his article and be in the club, and one can be a sexual traditionalist and be in the club. All of these options are valid options. The club is big enough for every contradiction.” Hence, the Cultural Marxists win because the club charter and membership vows are seen as irrelevant.

On this paragraph we have to say also that the Editor, in our opinion, reveals that he is either incompetent or dissimulating. The reason we advance such a theory is that the Editor is telling us that in an article written in April there was a design to print a answering article in the September issue … and this without even announcing with the publication of the April article that there would be a forthcoming article to provide “balance.” If the Editor here is not dissimulating it proves he is incompetent, and if he is not incompetent it strongly suggests he is dissimulating. It stretches credulity for one to believe that the Editor is not either incompetent or dissimulating.

“Upon reflection, we realize that that’s too late and also that our selection of these articles did not help us to frame the discussion well. Although we believe such concerns may and should be raised if, as in these cases, they are being expressed widely among our club members, they should be raised (and answered) in a more constructive way that does not leave our readers wondering and concerned about the direction of the magazine.”

Translation — We got caught pushing the envelope to hard and to fast. That was not wise of us. Better to continue with our Fabian incremental approach.

Note — What discussion were they trying to frame? Were they trying to frame a discussion on whether or not our founding document is true? Were they trying to frame a discussion on the necessity to embrace modernity in all its glory? Just what discussion were they trying to frame?

How do they know these concerns are being raised among club members? Did they take a poll? Was their impression that these concerns existed from random conversations? Is their evidence for these concerns anecdotal?

Do they believe that if, for example, the desire to sleep with one’s dead Mother (Necrophilia and Incest) were a concern to some club members they therefore could write articles advocating for having sex with one’s dead Mother?

“In short, as editor I should have done better and I have learned from your response and the responses of others. Again, my sincere thanks for expressing your concerns. I pray that they will help us to serve you and our readership better in framing these conversations.”

Translation — More required groveling. “Are you satisfied yet?”

The Articles and the Editor’s response is a classic case example of how Marxist dialectics work. The Marxist keep shoving in the bayonet until they meet resistance whereupon they withdraw ever so slightly only to recoup their strength for the next bayonet charge. The Gonfalon is the hammer of the dialectic. It hammers so far and when the nail (readership) finally resists a blow, it recoups for awhile in order to marshal their strength for the next hammer blow.

Announcing IronRhetoric.Org

R2K for Dummies Podcast

I have now entered the realm of Podcasts. The new host site for the podcasts will be

Iron Rhetoric

My first podcast is on Radical Two Kingdom Theology. My podcast comes in the context of a freshly released paper that deals with the core theology of R2K.

A Booklet on Merit in the Doctrine of Republication

This paper, which deals with Mosaic Covenant Republication theory, is the foundation upon which R2K rests. If the covenant republication theory can be shown to be specious then the whole R2K project fails. This paper, written by three OPC ministers, reveals that the whole covenant republication theory is indeed specious.

The curtain is beginning to fall on the whole Klineian Escondido Westminster Ca. R2K project. It is dying the death of a thousand qualifications. It will not survive long among thinking people now that it is being examined closely in more and more quarters. Doubtless it will live on in the lacunae and backwaters of Reformed micro institutions much like one can still find a champion for Amyraldianism here or there.

Let us pray that the Federal Vision comes to the same end.

The Attack On Distinctions Is An Attack On The King

The West could have and would have never been the West if it had not influenced, informed, and shaped by the categories of Biblical Christianity. Today the West is in a war for its soul because there is a different Worldview that is animating it and that Worldview is at direct warfare with Biblical Christianity. Over the centuries, and especially since the “Enlightenment” the West has been attacked by sundry non Christian Worldviews but with the rise of Cultural Marxism all those previous anti-Christian worldviews have found their nadir and most potent expression. I would even say that with Cultural Marxism one has arrived at the full blossomed fruit of all the Christ hating worldviews that have been spawned since the Enlightenment. It has the emotionalism of Transcendentalism – Romanticism. The Egalitarian impulse of abolitionism. The viciousness of Jacobinism. The sense of inevitable progress of Social Darwinism. The confidence of inevitable victory of Marxism – Communism and the cocksure certainty of Unitarian Deism. Cultural Marxism is the grand inheritor of all the “virtues” of all the Christ hating worldviews that have gone before and by inheriting all those “virtues” it is poised to finally do what each failed to do in their turn, and that is the final destruction of that Biblical Christianity that made the West the West.

Cultural Marxism is of course, like all the worldviews that went before it, an ideology, but it is more than an ideology. Unlike the ideologies that went before Cultural Marxism understood that there was a direct correlation between cultural Institutions and conquering the West. As such, the cultural Marxist have, by design, attacked the cultural Institutions of the West in a “long march through the Institutions.” This long march through the institutions was designed to overthrow the influence of Biblical Christianity in every cultural nook and cranny of the West. So, from Theodor Adorno’s “Authoritarian Personality” which overthrew the idea of the Christian family, to Lord Keynes who overthrow the Biblical idea that debt was bad, thus overthrowing the foundation of Biblical Economics, to Magnus Hirshfield and Alfred Kinsey who glorified sexual perversion, to Franz Boas who advanced the idea of cultural relativism denying that cultures could be inferior or superior according to a Transcendent standard, to Sigmund Freud who anchored the meaning of reality (or such meaning as could be had) in the subconscious and unconscious of the individual, to the Social Darwinism of Frank Lester Ward who argued that man’s evolution and progress could be directed by man himself to the Educational theories of John Dewey and to a host of other examples what Cultural Marxism has done is to overthrow the West by overthrowing the Biblical presuppositions upon with the cultural institutions of the West were based. Now it is true that some of the names mentioned in this paragraph predated the rising of the Frankfurt School in Germany, from which Cultural Marxism arose, but all of the names mentioned above with their respective ideas were put in the toolbox of Culture Marxism unto the destruction of the West.

A key component in the toolbox of Cultural Marxism is its doctrine of Egalitarianism. Cultural Marxism, with its core doctrine of Egalitarianism, is a frontal attack on God’s Law and in how the West has been structured. The Ten Commandments are inoperative in a world where Egalitarianism is at the fore because Egalitarianism denies the very distinctions that God’s law regulates. If one denies those distinctions one denies the very concept of God’s law. Egalitarianism denies all distinctions while God’s law labels and creates the distinctions He demands.

Cultural Marxism with its Egalitarianism destroys the distinction between God and all other gods. God said,

“You shall have no other gods [b]before Me.”

But Cultural Marxism, wearing its officially religious garb, as it has crept into the Church, denies the distinction between the God of the Bible and all other gods. When putatively Chrristian men argue that there are any other ways of salvation besides Christ

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=_YkeKhA8BUw

they are denying the distinction between the God of the Bible and all other gods. If other gods can provide other ways to the same salvation then the teaching is that all gods are the same. All the gods lead to the final harmony of God.

This idea of denying the distinction of God vis-a-vis all other gods is seen also in R2K as they insist that in the public square all the gods must be given equal playing time. No god is to be before any other god. There must be a egalitarianism among the gods. This is the whole idea behind public square pluralism. There is a whiff of egalitarianism in R2K theology in their reasoning concerning the lack of God’s primacy in the public square.

Cultural Marxism, with its egalitarianism, also destroys the Creator creature distinction. God has said,

“You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.

“You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.”

Here there is a clear distinction that is being posited between the Creator and the creature. The Creator is of such a transcendent character and nature that the creature is to worship Him in a proscribed and distinct way. The Creator is of such a transcendent character and nature that even His name must not be sullied. Cultural Marxism, with its egalitarianism insist that the Creator creature distinction is a myth and so all law legislating man’s approach to god are irrelevant. Cultural Marxist Egalitarianism is an attack on distinctions and an attack on distinctions is an attack on both God and God’s law.

Though we will get to this in more detail later, it should be said even here, that Egalitarianism both begins and ends with an attack on the Creator creature distinction. All of the distinctions that the Cultural Marxists attack in the second table of the Law have as their goal forever finally destroying the the Creator creature distinction. If man as man is bereft of all the God given distinctions that makes him distinct from other men then there is hardly room for a God who insists that He is God distinct from the creature. In Cultural Marxism all colors must bleed into one. Even the colors that would color man as distinct from God.

In God’s fourth words He establishes distinctions among the days,

“Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is a sabbath of the Lord your God; in it you shall not do any work, you or your son or your daughter, your male or your female servant or your cattle or your sojourner who stays with you. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and made it holy.”

The Egalitarianism of Cultural Marxism destroys the Cultic Holy Day by suggesting that all days are the same, thus eliminating the distinction that gives Christian meaning to all the days. With the destruction of the Christian cultic holy day, all other days, which are non cultic holy days, lose their meaning. Interestingly enough it is also the case that with the elimination of distinctions between days of work and days of rest what one inevitably finds in cultural Marxism is a culture where there is no rhythm of work and rest. Instead what you find are cultures of sloth or cultures where the tyrant’s motto is “Arbeit macht frei” (Labor makes you free).

In my next post I will go on and look at egalitarianism in terms of the second table of God’s Law. However, we are already seeing that Cultural Marxism with its attack on distinctions is an attack on the authority of God’s legislating law word. On a more macro scale egalitarianism is an attack on all of God’s creative work of distinguishing. Whether we consider how God in His creation ordained distinctions between earth and sky, sun and moon, land and water, man and animal, male and female, what we continuously see is a God who is at war with a worldview that has as its defining center-piece the obliteration of distinctions. Even in the fall we see the first foray of the Cultural Marxist and egalitarianism as the serpent attacked the distinction between God’s legislating law word and Eve’s own legislating fiat law word. From Satan’s first assault on the throne — an assault that found him defying the distinction between himself and God — and an assault that found Satan insisting that “I will arise to the most high” what we find in Satan’s plan is the destruction of all God ordained distinctions. Egalitarianism is nothing less than Satan’s work to un-make God’s creation, God’s law-word, and God Himself.

And the fact that the visible Church is blind and dumb to this frontal assault is more then enough reason to be done with those visible Churches who are trying to baptize this abomination.