R. Scott Clark Platforms Lems … Embraces Doug Wilson’s View of Ethnonationalism

“Furthermore, once a government separates people into groups based on ethnicity, I can’t imagine such groups existing without any racism happening. As a Christian, I’m fundamentally opposed to any type of political theory or nationalist view that separates people based on ethnicity.”

Shane Lems

1.) Governments don’t typically need to separate people into groups because it is ethnic groups that create governments. What Governments do is slam different people’s together so that the Government can control by dividing and conquering.

2.) Clark doesn’t define “racism” so I have no earthly idea what he is talking about when he uses that word therefore it is not possible to respond to such non-defined claims.

3.) Clark says he’s “Opposed to all nationalist views?”

All Nationalist views?

Acts 17:26 From one man He (God) made all the nationS, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and HE marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.

4.) Here is something that R. Scott Clark and Doug Wilson (mortal enemies) have in common. Perhaps they could start a Bromance based on this shared view?

R. Scott Clark’s analysis makes the analysis of Alfred E. Newman look like genius.

More Firepower Against Natural Law Theory … Part I

Deuteronomy 30:11 “For this commandment which I command you today is not too mysterious for you, nor is it far off. 12 It is not in heaven, that you should say, ‘Who will ascend into heaven for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 13 Nor is it beyond the sea, that you should say, ‘Who will go over the sea for us and bring it to us, that we may hear it and do it?’ 14 But the word is very near you, in your mouth and in your heart, that you may do it.

15 “See, I have set before you today life and good, death and evil, 16 in that I command you today to love the Lord your God, to walk in His ways, and to keep His commandments, His statutes, and His judgments, that you may live and multiply; and the Lord your God will bless you in the land which you go to possess.

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.”      Isaiah 8:20

Here we have it explicitly said that God’s law is to be the standard by which all other standards are measured. We are responsible to God’s law. I should not have to say it, but the point here is not that we are saved by the law, or that we use God’s law as a ladder to climb into God’s presence or to curry His uncertain acceptance. The point here is that as Christians, who have been saved from the curse of the law’s demand that we could never meet and has been met for us in Christ, we should govern our lives consistent with God’s revealed law Word as found in Scripture or as arrived upon by good and necessary consequence as reasoning from God’s law.

This is the clear teaching of the Heidelberg Catechism;

Question 91: But what are good works?

Answer: Only those which proceed from a true faith,5 are performed according to the law of God,6 and to His glory;7 and not such as are founded on our imaginations or the institutions of men.8

Scripture and the catechism clearly point to the reality that we are to be governed in our daily lives by God’s law as revealed in Scripture. In the 21st century should Christians desire to know what it means to have the conversations of our life be pleasing to God then we need to have those lifestyles reflect walking in harmony with God’s law. This explains why the Psalmist delighted in God’s law both day and night.

However, another theory holds increasingly holds sway among platformed Christians, both of the R2K ilk, and of the Christian Nationalist ilk. That other theory is called Natural Law and it has a long and storied history. There is no use in denying that many throughout Christendom have appealed to Natural Law as a mechanism by which Christians should govern their life. This alternative theory to what we find commanded in Scripture finds Christians insisting that we are not to be governed by God’s explicit written law but rather we are to be governed in our living by a reading of Natural Law, which is a law written in God’s structured reality and stamped upon all men’s hearts. This Natural Law is to be the governing structure for fallen and redeemed men alike. As such what is posited is that fallen man can and will read Natural Law the same as men who are Redeemed and are now increasing, per their individual sanctification, epistemologically self-aware.

On the theory of Natural Law Christians and Non-Christians alike are to make a individual hunt for God’s law, by the usage of right reason interpreting this abstract Natural Law. Natural Law theory insists that men fallen and redeemed, can together use reason to arrive at truth that can then be crafted into public policy as social order guidelines for all people. Natural Law as mediated by the usage of right reason by all men — fallen and redeemed — is the foundation for all legal infrastructure in all jurisdictions (save the Church, which still uses the law found in Special Revelation) for the structuring of our living. In this theory God’s Special Revelation is not necessary for social order structure. Natural Law can do all.

The theory of the Natural Law aficionados is that while God’s revealed special revelation law  was obviously the standard for the Hebrew people of the Old Testament, something happened with the coming of Christ, followed by His finished work, whereby that law became obsolete. That law, so the Natural Law experts insist was ended when Israel as a people ended, with the consequence that mankind had to repair to the Natural law model.

Now, we should interject here that God’s word clearly teaches that all the law that prefigured, announced, and shouted Christ in the OT (called “ceremonial Law”) was fulfilled in Christi and since that was fulfilled that expression of the Law was no longer requisite and so we as Christians, for example, no longer sacrifice animals. However, there is never a word in Scripture that what is now called the civil (or judicial) law  given in the Old Testament became obsolete in the new and better covenant. Indeed, our Master Himself said;

Matthew 23:23 “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have neglected the weightier matters of the law: justice and mercy and faith. These you ought to have done, without leaving the others undone.”

So today, those who raise mint, anise, and cummin should be tithing on the increase of their mint, anise, and cummin.

The Westminster Confession faith affirms this when it offers in Article XIX,

To them also, as a body politic, He gave sundry judicial laws, which expired together with the state of that people, not obliging any other, now, further than the general equity thereof may require.


Anti-Natural lawists today insist that the phrase “general equity thereof” proves indisputably that the heart and stuffing of God’s civil (judicial) law remains applicable today.

That St. Paul thought the same as seen by his appeal to the law;

8Do I say this from a human perspective? Doesn’t the Law say the same thing? 9For it is written in the Law of Moses: “ Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain.” Is it about oxen that God is concerned? 10Isn’t He actually speaking on our behalf?

Paul, as inspired by the Spirit of the living God is doing the very think that the Westminster divines wrote in Article XIX. St. Paul is taking the general equity of that passage and applying it today, communicating thus that God’s Special Revelation and not Natural Law remains the standard by which all standards are measured.

So, for the Natural Law fanboys Israel was a caterpillar surrounded by the jelly of Special Revelation but when the caterpillar emerged from its cocoon as a butterfly in post Cross New Testament mankind sloughed off the necessity of Special Revelation and the Butterfly is nourished not by the special Law jelly in the cocoon but is now nourished by Natural Law and right reason. The Special Revelation of the OT has passed and the new has come with Natural Law.

David Van Drunen of R2K invention notes of Natural Law,

“The moral order inscribed in the world and especially in human nature, an order that is known to all people through their natural faculties (especially reason and/or conscience) even apart from supernatural divine revelation that binds morally the whole human race. “

[2 I believe the last clause, “that binds morally…” is intended to describe the moral order = natural law, rather than its nearest antecedent (“supernatural divine revelation”). I think that to make this clear Van Drunen should have put a comma after “revelation.” Or, better, he should have put a period after “revelation,” then written “This moral order binds…”]

Dr. Stephen Wolfe in his book Christian Nationalism writes similarly on pages 244 & 245;

“Societies, need, in other words, an ordering of reason — reason expressed as civil law.”

And again,

“Law is an ordering of reason by an appropriate lawgiver for the good of the community.”

“The Natural Law is an ordering of reason, consisting of moral principles that are innate in rational creatures, given by God, who is the author of nature.”

For Van Drunen and Wolfe (each Natural Law fanboys who are not happy with one another) God only authors Special Revelation law for OT Israel but not for contemporary man. Instead God authors nature which in turn authors a law that fallen and redeemed man together, starting autonomously from themselves, quite without presupposing God, reasons to by an act of the human will (fallen or unfallen).

The autonomy of man in all this is seen in Dr. Wolfe saying,

“A Christian nationalist must have the strength of will to affirm what is true, even if it doesn’t feel good to him. This is the main reason why I emphasized the will throughout this book…. we have to retrain the mind by the strength of will.”

As implausible as it seems, Wolfe is arguing there, that fallen man, with his fallen mind, must read a fallen nature and then by strength of his fallen will act in an unfallen way. And remember, this is done quite independent of the Spirit of God. This completely obliterates the truth of Romans 8:7f

Because the [a]carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, nor indeed can be. So then, those who are in the flesh cannot please God.




Chrissy Gordon on Moscow’s Mood … McAtee on Chrissy’s Mood

Well, about a month ago Rev. Chris Gordon wrote a piece attacking the attackers of Kevin DeYoung’s simpering piece complaining about Doug Wilson’s tone.

Gordon did us the favor of drilling down to the real nature of the controversy. Gordon and the Wimp Reformed establishment HATES postmillennialism. That is the real reason behind their loathing of Doug Wilson.

Now, having said that, I concede that Gordon has a point about Wilson’s Federal Vision pukefest theology but, let’s be honest here Chrissy, no one should be complaining about Federal Vision who doesn’t rail against R2K. But of course you won’t do that since you are sympathetic to R2K. So,
Gordon prefers his heresy over Wilson’s. Stalemate.

So, it seems the challenge is for Amills to practice Optimistic Amillennialism and so give up R2K and for Postmills to keep on practicing their edgy Postmillennialism while not allowing people like Wilson to get away with the Federal Vision crap he pushed.
Let everyone clean their own house. I tenaciously criticized Wilson and heretical FV in the day. Chrissy has not said squat about R2K heretical theology.

Who will take out the R2K garbage. I know Chrissy won’t.

Elsewhere Gordon offers,

“DeYoung expressed, “Pugnacity and jocularity are not the occasional and unfortunate by-products of the brand; they are the brand.” He’s exactly correct. As Christendom has collapsed in the West, Wilson has offered a vision that plays on the fears and emotions of those who are panicking. This is precisely why the mission of the church, all of the sudden, takes a drastic turn in its elevating of cultural transformation while ‘saving people from their sins’  becomes only a means to this greater end.”

Rev. Chrissy Gordon
R2K “Minister”

1.) Could anybody tell me what is wrong with toughness and humor (pugnacity and jocularity) being the type of Christianity one lives? Is this a case where people like DeYoung and Gordon are offended by having a sense of humor?

2.) The Reformed have always believed that “saving people from their sins” is only the means to a greater end. It is the Lutherans, historically, who believed that “saving people from their sins” was the end of the message of the Gospel. Contrary to Lutherans the Reformed always held that “saving people from their sins” was only a means to the higher end of a people determined to live for the glory of God. One of those ways people live for the glory of God is the cultural transformation that is the product of saved people seeking to live for the glory of God.

Whatever Gordon is expressing here (I think it is Lutheranism) this is not the way the Reformed have thought over the centuries.

In other words… Rev. Gordon is just flat out in error here.

R. 2K Clark Does His Best Eeyore Impersonation

“In the ensuing discussion on the Heidelfog, one theme has emerged: some American Christians are having a difficult time accepting their new status. They want Christendom back, and some of them want the government to enforce religious orthodoxy to some degree. More than a few either assume that America is a Christian nation or that it was and should be again.2 My postmillennial friends are confident that it will be a Christian nation before Jesus returns.3 Each of these approaches, however, consciously or unconsciously relies on Christendom as the paradigm.”

R2K Clark

BLMc responds,

1.) Keep in mind that per Scotty Boy, Christendom is literally impossible. Per R2K whatever was once called “Christendom” was never really Christendom because Christendom is not possible. So, given that, how can Scotty boy talk about wanting something back that has never been nor is even possible?

2.) I am left wondering as such, what exactly is it that American Christian’s want back? If Christendom is impossible what does Scotty boy call that which many Christian American’s want back? What exactly has been lost that, per Scotty Boy, we are trying to gain back.

I want Scotty to answer this because I suspect that however Scotty answers this there is going to be a tacit admission that Christendom is possible and if Christendom is possible than R2K is dead in the water. If it really is the case that Christendom once was, then there is no theological reason why Christendom cannot once again be. I don’t think R2K can admit that Christendom once really was since the R2K contingent repeatedly insist that Christian culture (Christendom) is not only not desirable, Christian culture is not possible.

3.) All Governments enforce a religious orthodoxy of some sort. All Governments descend from and support some God or god concept. This means that the Government that Scotty wants, whatever he might call it, will indeed be a Government that enforces some religious orthodoxy. (We know it will be a pagan religion since the last thing Scotty wants is Christianity being enforced by the Government.)

4.) It is irrelevant whether or not America was ever a “Christian nation.” It is irrelevant because “the Earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof,” which means that all the nations owe subjection to Jesus Christ regardless of their past. Not only that but Scripture also explicitly teaches Sovereign’s to “Kiss the son lest they perish in the way.”

But let me guess… Per R2K, Jesus died so that King’s are no longer required to give homage to Christ lest they perish in the way.

5.) Scotty hates Christendom but keep in mind that since there is no such thing as neutrality, that Scotty by hating Christendom, loves him some pagandom. With apologies to Robert Zimmerman, Scotty’s cultural vision is going to have to serve somebody. Now it may be the Devil or it may be the Lord, but his common public square is going to have to serve somebody.

“Whatever the pretensions of some within the confessional Presbyterian and Reformed (P&R) sideline denominations, they are, at best, marginal in American life. There are two kinds of sideliners in the P&R world: those who accept reality and those who do not.”

R2K Clark
Heidelfog blog

BLMc responds,

Understand that R. 2K Clark’s “reality” is tinged by those militant amillennial spectacle the boy has glued to his face. I can well imagine Clark’s voice being used for the Winnie the Pooh character Eeyore whining out, “Never-mind, it wouldn’t help anyway,” or “I don’t suppose it would end up mattering,” or “We’re all gonna’ die.”


Can you imagine R2K Clark being with Gideon’s army before the victory against the Midianites? R2K Clark is tugging on Gideon’s cloak and simpering… “But Gideon, you’re just not accepting reality.”

I would sooner listen to Mr. Magoo than I would to R. 2K Clark on the nature of reality.

R. 2K Clark ends his article pleading that we should be like Quadratus in our modern post-Christian culture. Quadratus (or possibly Polycarp — no one knows for sure) gave a reasoned defense of the Gospel before Magistrates mocking the idols and the idolatry of the pagan world. R. 2K Clark insists that were was no attempt to take over the political structures.

And w/ that statement we see how blind and deaf R. 2K Clark is. Just imagine if, at the apologetic and evangelizing of Quadratus the Magistrate had repented.

What next?

Well, obviously what would be next is that Magistrate would being ruling underneath the Sovereignty of King Christ.

R. 2K Clark doesn’t provide another way to engage with the culture than any culture warrior does. All culture warriors understand that the Gospel must be preached. However, they also understand that once Magistrates convert that consequence will be Christendom.

However, culture warriors, further understand that if wicked Magistrates don’t repent that the Scripture gives full allowance for a Christian people to overthrow their wicked magistrates.

And if R. 2K Clark  isn’t aware of that he might check out Christopher Goodman’s (an associate w/ John Knox in Scotland) work on Christian resistance to wicked Magistrates.

Rev. Larry Ball … Of Squirt Guns and Five Alarm Fires

Why Are Wilson’s Children Warriors?

In the above article Rev. Larry Ball gives analysis on the Moscow mood and in the doing of so he makes some observations about some current men on the scene. I think he views most of those he mentions by name as wearing different shades of white hats. I, on the other hand, only see different shades of black and gray.

I make my case below.

I think this article is disastrous. Rev. Larry Ball does not yet understand where the dividing line is. All those he salutes in the 6th and 7th paragraphs are part of the problem, and really are enemies to a full throated Biblical Christianity. They all treat the wound too lightly and each at different points compromise in their own way.

Now, it may be true that here or there they get a matter right and I suppose if one isolates that one or two issues they have right and stick with that on those issues one will be fine. However, if one is talking about a comprehensive and organic Biblical Christianity that is equipped to stem the tide, never mind roll it back, there is not a one of them, in Ball’s list, taken as a whole, that is the answer to our current malaise.

What matters it if you get this or that issue right when you end up giving back what you gained previously by being desperately in error on some other central issue?

Van Til used to use a metaphor about having all the different magnitude of the weaponry of the military pointed in the same direction in order to have maximum effect. These men Ball lists have some of the apologetic weaponry pointed in the right direction but elsewhere in their apologetic they are shooting at those who should be their friends.

Ball is correct that the Reformed faith needs to be providing answers on these cultural issues. Some clearly are not providing them in the least. Others are like Van Til’s “Mr. Gray” (See his article, “Mr. Black, Mr. Gray, and Mr. White”). What we need is more Mr. Whites when it comes to this battle. Ball’s list does not give us any Mr. Whites — nobody who is thinking comprehensively about the issues at had. There are no Rushdoony’s in Ball’s list.

One wonders if there are no Rushdoony’s on Ball’s list, because to be a modern Rushdoony is the kiss of death. Even when RJR was alive the mainstream “Conservative” Reformed establishment wanted very little to do with the man. How much less so must that be now, nearly 23 years after RJR’s call to glory?

Now, I am not idolizing RJR here. No, not at all. I think he was wrong on his dismissal of conspiracy theory. I think his constant optimistic prattling about victory just a few years away on this or that issue (homeschooling, minority revivals,) did not, in the end serve him well. Save for Otto Scott I do not think he surrounded himself with top shelf Lieutenants. However, those errors did not stop him from giving a comprehensive organic answer that, if he had been paid attention to and given heed, would have meant that we would not now be where we currently are in both our church moment and our cultural moment.

S, I don’t expect anybody to get it right always all the time. I don’t expect that. Shoot, I’ve even been known to get important matters wrong. (Hard to believe isn’t it?) However, some of the errors of those who are considered “the good guys” by Ball (Sandlin, Boot, Durbin, to name just a few) just are out to lunch on some pretty serious matters.

I know I am the playing the role of the canary in the mine shaft but I’m telling you if we don’t get the whole issue of race/ethnicity/WOKE correct as our Christian Fathers had it correct (See Achord & Dow’s book, “Who Is My Neighbor”) then being right everyplace is not going to matter. Ethno-Nationalism (Kinism) is the issue of our times. It is to us what Justification was for Luther and Calvin. It is to us what the eternality of Christ was for Athanasius. If all our ships do not sail in the same direction on this one issue we will all be blown out of the water by our enemies even if we are all sailing in the same direction on every other cultural issue.

The problem with the Moscow mood is not what Ball says is the problem. The problem with the Moscow mood is that it’s mood is only a grifter’s affectation. The real mood we need can be located in the troops with Martel @ Tours, or in the Polish Winged Hussar calvary with Sobieski @ Vienna, or in those sailors with Don Juan @ Lepanto, or in those Crusaders with Godfrey of Boullion during the 1st crusade. When we find clergy in the Church with that mood then phone me.

I applaud Rev. Larry Ball for attacking R2K but our attack needs to be broader. Much much broader. Ball treats the wound of God’s people too lightly. He has not understood how badly we are wounded right now.

He has brought a squirt gun to a five alarm fire.

Oh… and has anybody yet refuted all those quotes in the Achord & Dow book?