There are some historical events wherein one is disallowed to have a contrary view to the received narrative of the WOKE/SJW’s. To have a contrary opinion on any one of these subjects or personages below is to move one to the outside of the Cognoscenti community. I submit that as Biblical Christians our takes on these historical events should be in contradiction to the received narrative as often as possible. In other words, to provide a couple examples, if 99.9% of the population believes that Abraham Lincoln was the greatest President ever, or if 99.9% of the population believes that the Crusades were a wicked endeavor that persecuted poor Muslims, then the Christian needs to re-asses his view if they are numbered among the 99.9%.
These events listed below are not intended to be exhaustive but I think they hit some of the major historical events that Biblical Christians should have a contrary understanding of vis-a-vis the accepted narrative.
Dr. Stephen Wolfe discusses the blood ties between Moab and Israel as and example.
Then he says this:
“Nations today are NOT built around bloodlines stretching back to arch-patriarchs. But blood relations remain relevant to nations, when referring to one’s ancestral connection to a people and place back to time immemorial. The originating source for one’s affection of people and place is his natural relations–those of his kin. But the ties of blood do not directly establish the boundaries of one’s ethnicity. Rather, one has ethnic ties of affection because one’s kin conducted life with other kin in the same place. Christian philosopher Johann Herder was correct in saying that the volk is a ‘family writ large’. This is an apt description not because everyone is a cousin by blood, but because one’s kin lived here with the extended families of others for generations, leaving behind a trace of themselves and their cooperation and their great works and sacrifices. Blood relations matter for your ethnicity, because your kin have belonged to this people on this land–to this nation in this place–and so they bind you to that people and place creating a common volkgeist.”
Christian Nationalism — p. 139
When I first read the above I found it to be a word salad that is full of both implied and direct contradiction. I still find it perplexing unless…
I am rethinking Wolfe’s book in the context of all the Hub-bub it is creating. It is the darndest thing to see Wolfe getting hit by all sides. I have read reviews that claim that Wolfe is being a clever Nazi and comparing Wolfe’s book with Mein Kampf. (The good ole “ad-Hitlerum” logical fallacy.) Then there are people like me who don’t see Uncle Adolph (inside joke) but instead see Wolfe trying to avoid the inescapable “ethno” in the idea of Nationalism. I genuinely feel sorry for the guy getting hit by both sides like this. I hope the man makes some good money off the book in order to offset all the grief he has been getting — even to the point of people destroying his friends livelihood in trying to pull Wolfe down by being associated with these alleged Nazi racists.
Because of all this fire from both sides I have been re-thinking what this book of Wolfe is. What is it trying to accomplish. What accounts for the methodology behind the book?
For the sake of argument just pretend you’re writing a book for an audience that is receptive to Nationalism but is on the fence regarding the ethnic side of it. Pretend that you as the author understand that the ethno in ethno-Nationalism is never going to fly in this politically correct, multi-cultural context. How would you go about writing a book that advances the ball on ethno-Nationalism while avoid the issue of the ethno? You know if in the book you state the obvious about Nationalism it will never even get published.
As such you decide to go all clever and describe all the accouterments of Nationalism in your book hinting strongly at the ethnic part and yet keeping it at arm’s length in terms of explicitly saying it. You get close to speaking about the ethno in ethno-Nationalism and then you beat a hasty retreat in order to avoid outraging the normies and the cultural-Marxist gatekeepers in the Western Church.
Instead you decide to drop all kinds of breadcrumbs to lead your reader, who may be hesitant to come to your conclusion if you said it overtly, to the conclusion that can’t help but be reached concerning ethno-Nationalism because the breadcrumbs you have dropped along the way in your book? Perhaps Wolfe is seeking to get people wet before he advocates swimming?
Now, this methodology is not for me, and I think it is better to throw a bucket of cold water on those who can’t swim. I think it is better to fastened your bold colors on the mast so that people know who you are from a league away. However, though it is not my style, and though I don’t think it is particularly effective, I can see other people believing this methodology might work.
Was Wolfe being this kind of clever in his book? Did he realize that most people embracing his broad outline of what Christian Nationalism is would then invariably embrace the ethno part of ethno-nationalism without him even having to be overly clear about his conviction on the matter?
I’m beginning to think this is a possibility. I think that Wolfe may have been going for conversion via the indirect route as opposed to going for conversion by my “in your face” route.
As an addendum please pray for Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Achord. Dr. Achord, a close friend of Wolfe’s was doxxed and fired from his job with the hopes that Wolfe could be found guilty by association with Achord.
Now, Achord has done nothing to be ashamed of in terms of what he has written if we were living in a sane world. But we are no longer living in a sane world. The Stalinists in the Church are in charge, and the Stalinists are insisting that if you do not embrace their vision of Christianized Cultural Marxism then it is “off with your head.”
Achord is not the first victim of this bull fecal behavior and he won’t be the last.
2.) It delivers us from R2K thinking inasmuch as we see that when Christians withdraw from the public realm false Gods claim ownership over that realm.
3.) It causes us to see that the corporeal enemies of the people we serve are intent on destroying them and their families via set policies pursued by nations, corporations, and agencies.
4.) It gives us insight into how spiritual forces in high places communicate themselves into this flesh and blood world in which we live.
5.) It casts us back on Christ who alone is able to defeat His enemies. But defeat them he has and so will. It thus gives us a roadmap on how we might be involved to that end.
6.) If we are called to resist we have to know who and what to resist. Books like this give us insight into that end.
“One-ism, (all-is-one) is an esoteric read on reality. It maintains that everything can be explained by everything else. There are no qualitative distinctions to be found in the universe. The world creates itself and humans are ‘co-creators’ along with everything else. In this system reality is One. Think of one big circle. Everything is contained within it; rocks, trees, planets, human beings — even God, as a kind of energy. Everything is connected to everything else. There is nothing outside the circle.
Two-ism (all is two) is an exoteric read on reality. It maintains that the world is made by a Creator who is uncreated and radically different from His creatures. There are two forms of existence: the created and the one who created it. The two, while deeply related, are qualitatively distinct. Think of two circles, connected but distinct and essentially different.”
Dr. Peter Jones
One or Two; Seeing a World of Difference — pg. 88
1.) What Dr. Jone’s labels as “One-ism,” is the idea where ontologically speaking, all reality participates in the same being. In most of these systems, one’s status in the social order is dependent on how much of that ultimate being they have unique to others who have less of this Oneist being. The Mahat system of ancient Egypt was a Oneist system. The Pharoah was at the top of beingness and everyone descended from Pharoah had a lesser measure of being than Pharoah possessed. Animistic, Pantheistic, Hindu, are all Oneist systems.
The 1996 film “Phenomenon” is a classic expression of this One-ist Worldview as is the whole “Star Wars” series.
2.) Since everything is one and so all share the same being the ability to make qualitative distinct distinctions is impossible. For example, if a man and a woman share in the same universal being who is to say that there exists a qualitative distinction between what, in a non-Oneist worldview, has always been understood to be “male,” and “female?” Since the Oneist worldview finds an impossibility to make qualitative distinctions we get the idea of sexual fluidity and/or fluctuating gender. Indeed, in any consistent One-ist worldview any distinction has to be seen as temporary or arbitrary. Not only do we see the incapability of making hard gender and sexual qualitative distinctions we are increasingly seeing in some quarters of our culture the desire to erase the qualitative distinctions that once distinguished a child from the adult. There is a push in some quarters to sexualize the child arguing that the distinction between child and adult is unhelpful and arbitrary. On all these points we hear that heretofore universally accepted qualitative distinctions are merely “social constructs.” In Jones’ words above, humans are co-creators and as co-creator humans create these putative ‘social constructs’ that provide qualitative distinctions that we now, as a more enlightened One-ist people, understand are no distinctions at all. We hear this same kind of language about nations. Distinct Nations, it is increasingly said, like gender, sexuality, and age are merely social constructs created by human co-creators who are free to uncreate what they had previously arbitrarily created.
Along this line, in One-ist worldview, religions likewise begin to break down and converge. Hard Ecumenicalism and a refusal to embrace the rough edges that segregate one religion from another becomes the watchword. Unity (really uniformity) becomes the be all end all passion. If all is one then uniformity is obviously the highest virtue and anyone who disturbs the pursuit of uniformity is a pebble in the shoe that must be eliminated. Of course, for the Christian unity is something that is never pursued. The Christian understands that unity is the residual byproduct of a common embrace of truth. The more people agree on truth, the more people will discover unity.
The demonstration of this mad pursuit for One-ist uniformity is commonly seen in the Revolutionary. Whether it was the One-ist leveling of the Bogomils, Cathar, Albigensians, and Ana-Baptists, whether it was the Phrygian cap in the French Revolution with the common leveling greeting to one and all, regardless of status or rank of “citoyenne,” whether it is the universal leveling greeting of “comrade” during the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, or whether it was the ubiquitous leveling Mao suit found in the post-Communist Chinese Revolution, the One-ist worldview passionately desires to press upon people uniformity. Uniformity in One-ist slovenly thought, uniformity in slovenly clothing, uniformity in One-ist speech pattern. If all is one then all are interchangeable uniform cogs in the One-ist world.
Actually, in a genuinely One-ist world, as consistently followed, language and communication would be utterly impossible since qualitatively distinct meaning is impossible in a consistently One-ist world. Perhaps this explains God’s confusing of the language at Babel. Babel was perhaps the greatest attempt to build a One-ist social order ever.
George Orwell’s novel, “1984” is a wonderful fiction that describes the pursuit of Revolutionary One-ism.
3.) The One-ist will, of course, appeal to “Science” as a support to their One-ist cause. However, what most people don’t realize is that convictions don’t change because of science but rather science changes because of our convictions. This is a huge subject and so I will merely recommend three books that explain what I am getting at here,
a.) The Structures of Scientific Revolutions — Thomas Kuhn
b.) The Philosophy of Science and Belief in God — Gordon H. Clark
c.) Hermeneutics and Science –Vern S. Poythress
An appeal to Science in order to prove One-ism will always be successful as coming from One-ist “Scientists.” Of course, if all is one, then anything and everything and nothing can be proven because no qualitative distinctions exist. One of the greatest failures of “Science” to give scientific heft to a distinctly non-scientific pursuit was the Soviet Union’s pursuit of Lysenkoism over Genetics. Lysenko insisted that he had overcome the qualitative distinction between Spring Wheat and Winter Wheat. He hadn’t and food shortages followed. “Science,” so-called, “proves” all kinds of things that just aren’t so. One-ism makes it easier for “Science” to do just that.
All of this to say that Science is only as good as the Theology that it is dependent upon and of which it is an expression.
4.) In Two-ism, because you have a distinct Creator and creature you also have other qualitative distinctions that are what they are because of how they have been named so by the Creator in His revealed Word. Genesis 1 is a long story of the Two-ist God making qualitative distinctions, and then God’s Law-Word goes on to make other qualitative distinctions which are definitely not social-constructs, though the One-ists will insist that God’s qualitative distinctions are instead really just so many social-constructs.
According to Bouwsma the idea of God’s creating qualitative distinctions was something well understood by John Calvin,
“The positive corollary of Calvin’s loathing of mixture was his approval of boundaries, which separate one thing from another. He attributed boundaries to God Himself: God had established the boundaries between peoples, which should, therefore, remain within the space assigned to them … ‘Just as there are in a military camp separate lines for each platoon and section,’ Calvin observed, ‘men are placed on the earth so that each nation may be content with its own boundaries.’”
John Calvin: A Sixteenth Century Portrait — p.34-35
I highly recommend reading Dr. Peter Jones’ books. He provides scintillating analysis of how the culture and the Church are slipping faster and faster into One-ist presuppositions that are not Christian in their origin. Postmodernism, for example, is a child of One-ist ideology. Postmodernism teaches that no grand narratives exist and that all personal narratives are social constructs. Reality is malleable. Qualitative distinctions do not exist except as man subjectively creates them.
When One-ism slips into the Church the traditional language is retained but emptied of its original Two-ist meaning and is re-filled with One-ist pagan content. Dr. Jones’, in is “One or Two,” demonstrates how the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 deconstructs One-ism while making the case that our church and culture is increasingly falling into Oneism.