Apologetics – Page 3

The Noble Savage & Its Continued Impact

In Rousseau’s worldview the one to be esteemed was the noble savage. The noble savage was the one untouched and untainted by Christianity or civilization. The noble savage hadn’t been polluted with the sin of the social order environment. He was the one in touch with his purified self.

Today the theory of the “Noble Savage” lives on in the Western worldview EXCEPT the noble savage is no longer the indigenous people so much as it is the warped and perverted. However, the virtue of the noble savage myth is still anchored in the one who hasn’t been tainted or polluted by Christianity or civilization just as was true of the indigenous people in the 17th century. As such the Noble Savage is now the sodomite, or the transgender or the pederasts or the feminists. These alone have been untouched by a sinful environment and alone can show the way to enlightenment and understanding.

Because this is so, the modern noble savage is raised up on the totem of social importance. The modern noble savage has more being than anyone else and so is admired and emulated.

Rosseau lives and the West dies.

Nationalism – because the magic dirt theory is just plain stupid.

“The World has never before known a godlessness as organised, miltarised and tenaciously malevolent as that preached by Marxism. Within the philosophical system of Marx and Lenin and at the heart of their psychology, HATRED OF GOD is the principle driving force, more fundamental than all their political and economic pretensions. Militant atheism is not merely incidental or marginal to Communist policy; it is not a side effect, but the central pivot. To achieve its diabolical ends, Communism needs to control a population devoid of religious and national feeling, and this entails a destruction of faith and nationhood. Communists proclaim both of these objectives openly, and just as openly puts them into practice.”

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

And yet legion is the name of the Christian clergy who are adamantly opposed to Christian Nationalism, opposed to nations being regulated by God’s Law-Word, opposed to Magistrates taking oaths of fealty to the Kingship of Jesus Christ, opposed to the overt presence of the vilest of idols in the public square and opposed to our children being educated in all disciplines in relation to the reality of the God who is and who reigns over all.

Of course all of this is driven by a dualism that separates out the Lordship of Jesus Christ as over the public square. Over one hundred years ago Dutch Reformed Theologian Dr. Herman Bavinck complained of the same;

“Therefore Christ has also a message for home and society, for art and science. Liberalism chose to limit its power and message to the heart and the inner chamber, declaring that its kingdom was not of this world. But if the kingdom is not of, it is certainly in this world, and is intended for it. The word of God, which comes to us in Christ, is a word of liberation and restoration for the whole man, for his understanding of his will, for his body and his soul.

. . . It [the Gospel] does not kill but makes alive. It does not wound but

heals. It is pure grace. And this grace does not cancel nature but establishes and restores it.”

Herman Bavinck
The Catholicity of Christianity and the Church

Clearly, those members of the clergy who oppose Christian Nationalism do not understand that Christ’s sovereignty is totalistic. Of course, these folks who oppose Christ and Christian nationalism don’t really oppose the general concept of religious nationalism. They merely oppose Christian nationalism. We know this because since there is no such thing as neutrality — I mean it is Jesus the Christ who said; “He does not gather with me, scatters” — there is no such thing as a non-god controlled public square. Even if our clergy lock out Jesus Christ and His Lordship from the public square by opposing Christian Nationalism, they still support the Lordship of some other pissant god. Most generally the pissant god in question is the State God who determines just how far any of the various public square gods can exercise their will in the public square. Sorry folks …. Jesus Christ doesn’t share dominion time with some other pissant god.

Clergy who oppose Christian Nationalism oppose the Jesus Christ of the Bible in favor of a toothless, fangless, tamed Jesus Christ of their own making are to be pitied because on that final day their made up Jesus is going to be meeting the real Jesus. It won’t be pretty.

The Inescapable Nature Of “Racism”

“Antiracism” permits many people to practice racism vicariously by adopting the cause of every race but their own.

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority

Think of those people who are advocating for more immigration or for amnesty or for open borders or for a muscular HB1 visa program. In that advocacy, those people have not avoided being champions for a particular race and they have not avoided being racist as against a particular people. They have not shed themselves of “racism.” Instead, they have taken up the cause for the stranger and the alien as against their own people. They are demonstrating that they desire the stranger and alien to rise higher than the native born. They have determined to render an inheritance to the stranger as opposed to their own children. What they have not done is eliminated their own ethnic bias. They simply now are biased against their people and are biased for those who are displacing their extended family.

“Racism” as it is cast about today had not gone away. They merely have embraced the most fashionable “racism” — “Racism” against their own kin and people. This is an example of self-hatred (oikaphobia) in favor of a muscular xenophilia (love of the stranger and alien). In all this we see that “racism” (stupid Marxist concept that it is) is an inescapable category. No-one ever rids themselves of racism. One merely eschews a non PC racism for a PC racism.

So, if racism is an inescapable category shouldn’t we have a proper order of loves that finds us properly prioritizing our own people, and that without hating those who do not land within the concentric circles of properly ordered love?

A Brief Analysis on Rev. Suave’s Video Explaining The Fracture Between Moscow & Ogden

Rev. Brian Suave, in the first half of the video explaining Ogden’s warfare with Moscow,

does a really grand job of giving the deep contextual background for the reason for the kerfuffle. The long and the short of it is that this battle is shaped by the century long percolating and simmering fight between the neo-cons (Trotskyites) and the paleo-cons as to the definition of “conservative.” This becomes important in relation to Christianity because Christianity is by it’s very nature a conserving and conservative faith.

The battle here has always been as between the moderate left (the Girondists of the French Revolution) who were viewed as “conservative” as compared to the hard left (Montagnards) and those few who genuinely belonged to the Ancien Regime — the old line conservatives. The neo-cons were referred to as “Trotskyites” because they believed that the Revolution should be ceaseless. The neo-cons today then are those who are on the right side of the left but who also believe that social revolution should be ongoing and continuous. There is no desire on the part of the neo-cons to return to the theology of the Ancien Regime, characterized as it is by a unique love of one’s own people, King, and country. The neo-cons have a Democratic impulse and Democracy has always been the hand-maiden for leftism. Neo-cons will never want to see any of the gains made by their continuous Revolutions rolled back. For the Moscow gang this most immediately means a absolute resolve to never see a return to a time when Bagels were seen as the enemy of the Church and of Christianity, as well as never countenancing the vanilla doctrine of Kinism that was held everywhere by all people at all times until the latest major expression of the perpetual revolution that was World War II. When folks like me and others advocate for an older Christianity that was Bagel wise and familialist in practice the cry that arises from Moscow and from James White, Joel Boot, Andrew Sandlin and their ilk is “FASCISTS,” or “NAZIS.” This libel on their part is confirmation that they are indeed Trotskyists and Girondists …. as well as garden variety idiots.

If you want to understand this bubbling war completely you have to start doing the heavy work of reading. You have to read Sam Francis, and Joe Sobran, and Garet Garett and Wimoore Kendall and Frank Meyer and Albert Jay Nock, and H. L. Mencken and M. Stanton Evans, R. J. Rushdoony and others. These men did not always agree with one another but I am fairly sure they all would have disagreed with the “new Christendom” that Doug Wilson is trying to fashion. It is the attempted fashioning of Doug’s “New Christendom” that is driving all the drama from his side. You see, the Ogden chaps just do not agree with Wilson’s vision of “New Christendom.” It strikes me that they prefer the older Christendom.

Upon viewing the Suave video on can say the following;

1.) Short of a remarkable providence the Kerfuffle is not going to end with Wilson repenting. Doug’s whole “Christian” world and life view is informed by the world that Wm. F. Buckley created. Doug has reinterpreted all of his Christianity through that lens. Buckleyism is Christianity for Doug and the Ogden boys, being anti-Buckley are, to Doug, anti-Christ.

2.) This contest is monumentally important to the future of both Christianity and the broader culture. If it is true that “as goes the church so goes the culture,” (and I believe it is) then whoever wins out in this contest (and oddly enough R2K is on the side of Moscow here in the broad contours of the matter) will define the church and the culture for another generation.

3.) Doug and James White and Boot and Sandlin etc are doing the work of the devil here. Because they have no ability to know who the enemy is they have no ability to resist the enemy. This necessarily means redefining Christianity per the worldview of the enemy.

4.) If you really support the cause of Christ you have to quit supporting all things Doug Wilson, White, Sandlin, Boot, etc. They are the enemy.

5.) Keep in mind that which is driving all of this is different theologies and so different understandings of Christianity. One might think upon reading this post that this is all political and doesn’t have anything to do with religion at all. That would a mistaken reading. Theology drives everything and the differences between Ogden and Moscow are being ultimately driven by considerably different theologies.

Alienism & Kinism … Some Considerations

Recently, the Alienism that stems from accepting the principles of Cultural Marxism has found itself trying to sweep Kinism off the scene by pejoratives. One podcaster did a podcast titled, “Kinism; Luciferian and Wicked.” Another “clergy” member in the RPCNA spent 56 mindless minutes haranguing and screeching his congregation in a sermon titled; “Against the Heresy of Kinism.” We definitely have their attention and personally I am flattered that they find us so dangerous that now they have to go to these silly extremes in order to try and quench the prairie-fire that is endangering their post-Endarkenment consensus “Christianity.”

I am actually hoping these harpy clergy continue on this path. Their rants are so mindless and so absent any substance that their arguments against Kinism are actually providing arguments for Kinism for those who aren’t completely brain dead. Their argument by vacuous assertion and impressive straw men, as well as their steady refusal to deal with all the quotes from Church Fathers and Church history can only strengthen the position of Biblical Christianity. Sooner or later the Alienists are going to have to deal with quotes like this recent one I just came across thanks to Dan Brannan.

We see here that St Isidore of Seville (6th century) argued that it was within the fundamental rights of a nation to prohibit miscegenation as recorded in his Etymologies (Origins) of Isidore of Seville;

vi.) What the law of nations is (Quid sit ius gentium) 1.) The law of nations concerns the occupation of territory, building, fortification, wars, captives, enslavements, the right of return, treaties of peace, truces, the pledge not to molest embassies, the prohibition of marriages between races. And it is called ‘law of nations (ius gentium) because nearly al nations (gentes) use it.”

In light of all this condemning Kinists to the deepest level of hell the question has arisen as to whether one can embrace Alienism (born of Cultural Marxism and the polar opposite of Kinism) and still be considered Christian. Now, of course distinctions have to be made here. We concede that while Alienism is, by definition, not Christianity, it certainly is likely that many Alienists are Christians. God’s grace reaches beyond all of the lack of sanctification that is doubtless characteristic of all of us.

We also have to make distinctions between the Alienists who are ideologues and so true believers –that is they who are epistemologically self conscious about their Alienism and those others who are merely useful idiots for the Alienists. We have great hope that many of the useful idiots for the Alienists are indeed Christian despite their useful idiot status. For example, I have great hope that Drew Poplin (the chap who preached that “Kinism is Heresy”) is indeed someone who, despite his utter and embarrassing nonsense is in Christ. I say this despite at the same time insisting that he has no business being within three blocks of a Reformed pulpit.

However, having said all that we Kinists still must insists that all those who are Alienists — epistemologically self conscious or useful idiots — that what they are espousing is NOT Christianity. And they must be told … “Shall we go on sinning that grace might abound? God forbid!” The doctrinal position of Alienism is anti-Christ. It is against the Christian faith and where consistently held to it is anti-Gospel inasmuch as tears at the structure of the Creature-Creator distinction with its egalitarian norms. Such egalitarian norms are either a consequence of a monism that is birthed by denying the Creator-Creature distinction or alternately is certain to lead to the eventual denial of the distinction between God and man. If there is no distinctions between creatures, born of monism, eventually there will be a energetic denial of the distinction between God and Man. The distinction between Creator-creature cannot survive a mindset that levels all God ordained distinctions between creatures. So whether the denial of all distinctions between creatures leads to denial of the Creator-Creature distinction or whether all distinctions between creatures is the consequence of the denial of the Creator-creature distinction the result remains a monism that in no way can co-exist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One can not be a Christian while embracing a monism that denies the Creator-Christian distinction. How deep can one be in this error and still consistently hold to the Gospel is not something I know the answer to. I do know that it is all Christian’s responsibility to say that “Alienism and the Gospel cannot consistently co-exist together.”

This is the same kind of issue that Machen was facing in the 1920s except then the issue was not Alienism born of cultural Marxism but rather the issue was Liberalism born of denying the transcendence and supernatural character of God (Actually, that stemmed from a monistic impulse as well.) Machen never tried to give a person by person examination as to just how deep the infection of liberalism was too deep in order for one not to be Christian. Instead, Machen wrote and preached that Liberalism was not Christianity … just as Alienism is not Christianity and cannot coexist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We see St. Paul do the same kind of thing in his epistles. He makes it clear in Colossians and in the Timothys that Gnosticism is NOT Christianity and is against the Gospel. Now, as to how much Gnosticism was too much Gnosticism in every individual case was not something we get in his writings. What we get is the Gnosticism is anti-Christ and so can not exist consistently with the Gospel.

We all know of congregations are flat up full of Cultural Marxism and the Alienism it produces. We would not blink an eye in saying “those people need to hear the Gospel.” On the other hand we know of congregations that are less infected and to those places we might say, “Well, while I don’t doubt that there may well be Christians among them, it is still the case that what they are holding in principle is against the Gospel and if given its head will overturn the Gospel in that place.”

What we believes about the whole of the Christian faith matters and this tendency to want to somehow cordone “the Gospel” from the totality of the whole Christian faith is not healthy and is unwise. The Christian faith is an organic whole and a severe error in one place is going to warp the Gospel — and warp it enough in some cases to drain the Gospel of being the Gospel.

So, on one hand we want to be generous with people in their confession of personal faith in Jesus the Christ, but on the other hand we do not want people to think that doctrine is unimportant so that “it really doesn’t matter what you believe about Christ as long as you believe.” God is not egalitarian and egalitarian Christianity if given its head means that a Gospel defined by Alienist/ egalitarianism is not a Gospel that can save.