Category: Culture

The Madness Of R2K On The Question Of Christian Nationalism

I.) Rev. Chris Gordon asks;

“Does the Bible require Governments to be Christian?”

Dr. David Van Drunen answers;

“No…. I would say, Jesus does not want nations to be Christian Nations.”

Bret responds,

Yet in Psalm 2 we read God speaking to Magistrates;

Now therefore, be wise, O kings;
Be instructed, you judges of the earth.
11 Serve the Lord with fear,
And rejoice with trembling.
12 Kiss the Son, lest He be angry,
And you perish in the way,
When His wrath is kindled but a little.
Blessed are all those who put their trust in Him.

I’m pretty confident that this passage is teaching that God requires governments to be Christian or else, given that the idea of Kissing the Son communicates the idea of submission and fealty.

2.) But Van Drunen (DVD) goes beyond that. DVD insists that God does not want (is opposed to) nations being Christian nations. Now, if God does not want something, we would usually say that that something that God does not want is sin. If that is accurate (and I don’t see how it isn’t accurate) then nations being Christian nations would be sin and conversely nations not being Christian nations would be righteousness in God’s sight.

Abounding Grace Podcast
Discussion with David VanDrunen on Christian Nationalism, Stephen Wolfe & Doug Wilson
59:30f Time Stamp

II.) “If you find Nationalism attractive, I’m not on board with you, but go for it. Just don’t slap the adjective ‘Christian’ in front of it (Nationalism) because you then put yourself in danger of 3rd commandment violation by taking the Lord’s name in vain (by) attaching Christ to this and I would say that Christ does not want Christian nations.”

Dr. David Van Drunen

Time Stamp — 59:30f

Bret responds,

1.) Here we learn that to embrace the idea of “Christian” nations is a violation of “Thou Shalt Not Take The Name Of The Lord Thy God In Vain.” Conversely, by eschewing the idea of a nation owning Christ’s Kingship, as seen in the laws enacted and Biblical requirements that must be submitted for Magistrates to serve, it must be true that to do so would be to walk in holiness unto the Lord. That is, by not, as by design and pursuit, seeking to have a Christian nation one is at that point being an exemplary Christian living in a Christian nation.

2.) Keep in mind that DVD would use the same reasoning against those who would advocate for Christian families, Christian Law, or Christian Education (to name just a few). In each case and in all cases to use that word “Christian” as an adjective puts oneself in danger of third commandment violation.

III.) “I asked David Van Drunen a question that I believe goes right to the heart of this issue. I asked him what God would think of a nation whose magistrate and people had become overwhelmingly (and sincerely) Christian, and who decided to confess Christ in the common realm, in the formerly secular realm. I asked if God would be displeased with that, and Van Drunen said yes, he thought God would be displeased with that.”

Doug Wilson 
https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/the-bozo-over-at-mablog.html

Bret responds,

If God would be displeased with what Wilson describes above the opposite must also be true and that is God would be pleased with a Christian people who decided not to confess Christ in the common realm, in the formerly secular realm.

This in turn means that God is pleased with a realm existing that does not seek to honor Him in all things.

Quite to the contrary we would insist that God intends for all the nations of the world to one day confess Christ – and that prior to His return. This is the promise of Scripture where the Holy Spirit teaches that “Christ must reign until He puts all things under His feet.” Nation would be one of the all things. The last thing the Lord Jesus Christ said was the command to “make disciples of all nations.” If a nation is discipled as unto Christ, thus fulfilling the great commission command, how can that nation not be considered Christian?

R2K consistently denies the idea of Christian nationalism and yet Scripture repeatedly demonstrates that even in the new Jerusalem we find the existence of Christian nations. They come into the new Jerusalem as Christian nations because they were Christian as nation prior to their entry into the new Jerusalem.

From the Mailbox; Why Do You Say The CREC Belongs To The Left?

Dear Pastor,

Can you tell me why you say that the CREC is a Christian denomination that is on the left? As a Pastor in the CREC I think I should know this.

Kent

Bret Responds,

Hello Kent,

Thank you for writing and asking.

Of course, I am speaking of the denominational spokesmen like Doug Wilson, Uri Brito, and Rich Lusk. Even if you’re not on the left yourself those people who are the face of the denomination you’re part of are on the left. If the wife I’m married to is a whore it says something about me if I stay married to her.

These are my observations thus about the CREC

1.) They are Alienists (multiculturalists). They insist that race does not exist or that race is a social construct. They keep pushing for documents to be accepted by the denomination that will codify those beliefs. Nobody of any stature before the rise of Franz Boas believed this. Franz Boas non-Christian Gnostic anthropology is what is informing the CREC’s push when it comes to race issues. This is a position on the left.

2.) Doug Wilson is on record as advocating voting for a female for political office (Sarah Palin). This is a position on the left.

3.) Doug Wilson has said

“Our family would be much more involved on an active personal level if terrorists overran Israel that we would if terrorists overran Vermont.”

This is a take from the left. It is a confusion of categories. It is a reversal of the Ordo Amoris to love the stranger and alien over your own countrymen. It is Alienism.

And if Doug insists that it is not Alienism because his wife, and grandchildren putatively have so much Jewish blood in them then it is Kinism which Doug derisively calls “skinism.” A derision that only rises as from the left.

Doug Wilson is the face of your denomination (whether you like it or not) and when he speaks he paints everyone who is part of the denomination. Doug is, as I have said repeatedly now, a man who is holding down the right side of the left, yet even as on the right side of the left he is on the left.

4.) The inclusion by the CREC of both Baptists and non-Baptists in one denomination is a position that only the left could embrace. Reformed Baptists and Reformed non-Baptists are different expressions of the Christian faith so significant that to combine them in one denomination communicates that the denomination doesn’t understand the idea of distinctions. This is a position of the left.

5.) Then there is the whole Federal Vision thing which is humanist to its core since it advocates works salvation. This is the position of humanism and so is on the left. Individual Pastors may not agree with Federal Vision theology but if they are in a denomination that salutes it they are in a denomination that is on the left.

6.) I know for a fact that Wilson has been phoning Pastors of other denominations in order to warn those Pastors against young men who the CREC have deemed unworthy because those young men took up race realist views. This is a position on the left.

You may be my Brother in Christ Pastor Kent and as such it is my responsibility to tell you that you are in a denomination that is on the left.

A Response To The CREC Knox Presbytery Propositional Declaration On Ethnic Balance

On Ethnic Balance

We believe the human tendency to congregate around shared affections is natural and can be good—it creates the blessing of cultures and subcultures, for example. But as with all natural goods in a fallen world, there is a temptation to exalt it to a position of unbiblical importance, thus making it an idol. While an ethnic heritage is something to be grateful for, and which may be preserved in any way consistent with the law of God, it is important to reject every form of identity politics, including kinism—whether malicious, vainglorious, or ideologically separatist/segregationist.

Knox Presbytery, December 1, 2022


Our Response;

On Propositional Declarations

We believe the human tendency to congregate around shared propositional declarations on certain positions is natural and can be good—it creates the blessing of cultures and subcultures, for example. But as with all natural goods in a fallen world, there is a temptation to exalt the making of certain propositional declarations to a position of unbiblical importance, thus making those propositional declarations an idol. While shared propositional declarations are something to be grateful for, and which may be preserved in any way consistent with the law of God, it is important to reject every form of identity politics, including propositional Declarationism – whether malicious, vainglorious, or ideologically separatist/segregationist.

 

 

A Response To CREC Knox Presbytery’s Proposal On Issue of Jews

“We believe the conversion of the Jews is key to the success of Christ’s Great Commission, and it is incumbent upon us to pray and labor toward that end. (1) While, apart from Christ, the Jews are as all others—alienated from God—they have remained an object of God’s care because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. (2) God’s plan for converting them is for them to see Gentile nations under the blessings of Christ’s lordship, thus leading them to long for the same. (3) Hence, the cancerous sin of anti-Semitism has no place in God’s plan.” (4)

CREC – Knox Presbytery
December 1, 2022

1a.) This whole statement is based on a misinterpretation of Romans 11. Romans 11 was future to Paul but has been fulfilled and so is past to us. The conversion of those who are (wrongly) referred to as “Jews” has nothing to do with the success of Christ’s great commission.

1b.) It is no more or less incumbent for Christian to labor and pray for the conversion of those who call themselves “Jews” then it is to labor and pray for the conversion of any other ethnic people group.

1c.) If the conversion of Jews as a people is “key to the success of Christ’s Great Commission” it would logically imply that Jews must continue to exist as a coherent and distinct people group. The eschatology offered here demands “Kinism” for Jews, right? And yet Doug Wilson continues to derisively refers to those who champion the Ordo Amoris as “skinists.” To be “saved” as a people necessarily demands existing as a people. Given Doug Wilson’s proud proclamation of the Jewishness of his own family this sentence in this proposal sounds vainglorious.

1d.) To say that conversion of the Jews is ‘key to the success of the great commission’ would mean the great commission is a failure until those that call themselves “Jews” are converted is absurd. Further to hang the success of the conversion of all nations on them as if it didn’t hang on the conversion of other nations just as much makes nonsense of the whole question.

2a.) God converted the Jewish Israel of God by AD 70.

2b.) God divorced Israel in AD 70. There remains no special relationship between what is now called “Israel” and the God of the Bible. This divorce was promised in the OT;

2 And He said, “Amos, what do you see?”

So I said, “A basket of summer fruit.”

Then the Lord said to me:

“The end has come upon My people Israel;
I will not pass by them anymore.  (Amos 8:2)

“Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom,
And I will destroy it from the face of the earth;
Yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob,”
Says the Lord.  Amos 9:8

And the coming dismissal of Christ hating Israel as God’s chosen people for their sin of rejecting their Messiah was made clear in the NT; Luke 13:1-8, Mark 11:12-25, Matthew 21:37-43. Finally, in AD 70 with the Judgment coming of Jesus against Israel, Israel as a nation which had previously served as the chosen people of God was served divorce papers. The ruination of Jerusalem and the Jewish abomination Temple were destroyed by the Roman armies of Vespasian and Titus. According to Josephus 1million Jews were slaughtered. This was God’s final word regarding National Israel. God may and does still call individual Jews but as a nation God is done with them. God is done with Israel as a nation or people. Now any Gentile nation that God calls and which then covenants with God can be one national expression of God’s people as long as they own the graciousness of grace and then walk increasingly but never perfectly in terms of obedience to God’s gracious Law-Word.

2c.) Then there is the whole issue of whether or not those currently referred to as Jews are indeed Jews. Israel itself has passed laws making it extraordinarily difficult for the “Jewish” inhabitants of Israel to do DNA testing in order to determine ethnic heritage. Could that be due to the fact that they don’t want the hoi polloi to know that they are not really ethnically “Jewish?” The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians have more Jewish blood in them then the Khazars, Edomites, Khazars, Turks, etc. who call themselves “Jews” now living in Israel.

3.) Fulfilled by AD 70.

4.) We really need a definition of the “cancerous sin of anti-Semitism” before we can comment much on this statement. Currently, anti-Semitism often seems to be defined as “disagreeing with a Jew.” In point of fact, per the CREC, I’m pretty sure this whole post is “anti-Semitic.”

There are two major points here.

1.) Modern day Jews in Israel are not likely even Jews

2.) Even if they are Jews the Scripture does not allow us to think that they, as in their unconverted Christ hating state, are still God’s chosen people, since God divorced them as a people in AD 70 — consistent with the statements of Scripture.

Ordered Freedom …. Christian & Heathen

Conservatism is best defined as an ordered freedom that reflects the Christian transcendent and revealed order. Of course, there can be no such thing as an ordered freedom that is not anchored in a Biblical worldview (transcendent and revealed order) since without a Christian and Biblical worldview there would be no way to define the concepts of order or freedom. This means that there can be no consistent conservatism that pursues an ordered freedom that is Christless since such a conservatism will, by necessity, inject the need for ordered freedom with a humanism that will either find order (i.e.- Tyranny) eating up freedom or freedom (i.e. – Licentiousness) eating up order.

Because humanism is the very opposite of Christianity it cannot find the integration point between order and freedom. Instead humanism (whether Roman Catholic, Jewish, Mooselimb, “Secular.” etc,) will always in the end using both order and freedom (as subjectively defined) as limiting concepts that have no real intrinsic meaning in and of themselves. Because humanism has no objective ballast all humanism can constantly offer is a kind of warfare between the notions of order and freedom as order and freedom exist as limiting concepts. For the variants of humanism
“order” always ends up as tyranny and “freedom” always ends up as anarchistic licentiousness. For humanism either “order” ends up as Statist collectivism and/or Statist command and control social order (think Chinese Social Credit system) or it ends up with a licentiate individualism where “each man does what is right in his own eyes.”

The difference here in the variant Humanism (whether Statist tyrannical ordered collectivist humanism or Democratic anarchist hyper atomistic individualism) are captured in the two competing novels “1984,” and “Brave New World.” Orwell, in 1984 captured the anthill/beehive social order that exists when Humanist order loses its head. For Orwell, freedom for the individual was a myth as the picture of Orwell’s ordered future was a boot stamping on a human face – for ever.’ Orwell’s future vision of reality is a reality where the humanist limiting concept of freedom has been eclipsed as humanist order has eaten up humanist freedom. Huxley, on the other hand, gave us a vision of the future where humanist freedom had eaten up humanist order — although interestingly enough, as still in service of the totalitarian State. In Huxley’s view man is controlled by the State by giving individual men the ability to instantly satiate all their lusts. Licentiate freedom is maximized and personal / individual order and stability are absent.

This push me / pull you between humanist order vs. humanist freedom is where the West is right now as it continues to descend into its post-Christian quicksand. The Biblical Christian is forced to declare to each side “a Pox upon both your houses.”

The Biblical Christian proclaims a pox upon the house of the humanist freedom as it witnesses the excesses found in perverted sexuality, the break-down of the family, the war against the value of life, the growth of the drug culture and the open borders society. At the same time the Biblical Christian proclaims a pox upon the house of humanist order as it witnessed, in recent years, the demands of the state to be vaccinated w/ death dealing vaccines, to don masks that made absolutely no difference, to social distance, to close down and ruin small businesses by their policies and to destroy people who did not play along with their mandated “order” policies. In heathen arrangements of social order the citizenry always gets the stick of both woe-begotten notions of order and woe-begotten notions of freedom.

There are those in the Christian community who would restore the proper relationship between order and freedom by appealing to Natural law theories. The desire for placing order and freedom again on a stable definition foundation is admirable. However, Natural Law itself is a construct of ancient humanism (Greek Sophism) and as such is subjective and being subjective it does not take into account the fallenness of men to read this thing called Natural law aright. Natural law theorists promise a return to Biblical notions or “ordered freedom” but the history of Natural Law is not promising as to whether or not Natural Law can deliver Christian ideas of “ordered freedom.” In point of fact, Natural Law, if consistent can’t even speak of “Christian ideas of ordered freedom” since Natural Law is not religiously identified as being uniquely Christian.

Instead, there must be a return to the law and to the testimony (Isaiah 8:20) in order for there to be a return to a Christian social order again where order and freedom find their natural harmony of interests. Until the West returns to God’s revealed law the decline of the West will continue as order and freedom continue to be at war with one another.