Linguistic Deception

Until the days of Magnus Hirschfield men who copulated with one another were tagged with the biblical word “sodomite.” Eventually, the word “sodomite” was changed out for the preferred word “homosexual,” with the intent to sanitize somewhat the bestial nature of the predilection. Eventually though, even that word was found to be too base and disgusting and so the word “gay,” was lighted upon in order to neutralize the detestable behavior so as to be found acceptable.

However, even that was not sufficient for the social engineers in our midst. Even co-opting a word that once meant “merry” and “happy” didn’t go far enough in mainstreaming a behavior that once found God destroying cities because of the prevalence of said behavior. No, another bridge had to be crossed in order that a mentally unbalanced group could be seen to be “normal” and that bridge to normativity was used language as a weapon to marginalize and diminish those who insisted that sodomy as hiding under any word was insane, sinful, abnormality.  And so the word “Homophobic” was birthed.

The advantage of coining the word “homophobic” to describe those who point out the twistedness of sodomite behavior was a genius linguistic move. In the ability now to label and complain about “homophobes” the table was now successfully turned and it was those who thought normally who were now the ones who were seen as social deviants and derelicts. Now the problem in society was not the sodomites, homosexuals, and gays. No, the problem in society are the homophobic who must be either re-educated or become social outcasts themselves. It is the homophobic who are the haters and who constitute a social disease that must be eliminated.

Then there is the reality that the word “homophobic” doesn’t even describe the reality of the situation. People who are opposed to faggotry are not fearful of sodomites. If they were fearful of sodomites they would keep their mouths shut and not say anything. Rather people who are opposed to the ghey lifestyle understand that it is the destroyer of civilization when it is allowed to be given sanction and celebrated. Really, if the truth was known those who oppose sodomy should be known as “homo-philes” since opposition to sodomy is the most loving disposition one can take in relation to the practice of sodomy. It is nothing but pure hatred for sodomites and those judicially innocent who will be lured into their lifestyle to accept sodomites as being normative. Just as one does not love a disobedient and errant child by not disciplining them so a society or culture does not love the sodomite by communicating that their aberrant behavior is not aberrant. It is love for the sodomite that causes the Biblical Christian to raise their voice against the perversion that is sodomy.

This linguistic deception that we are speaking of here, of course, does not end with the movement from sodomite, to homosexual, to ghey, to homophobe. No, this social engineering tool has been used repeatedly to move the Overton window leftward on what is counted and not counted as socially acceptable.

A recent linguistic weapon that has been unleashed against Western Civilization in the hopes of destroying it is the term “White supremacy.” This sobriquet is hurled at white folks for preferring their own people, culture, customs and history. It is thrown like a javelin in the face of people who want to maintain the ways of their Christian fathers. Now, the ironic thing here is that those who are doing the hurling are those who we might rightly label as “Multi-Cultural supremacists.” Their complaint of “white supremacy” is born of their hatred of white people due to the mixed multitude pursuit of multi-cultural supremacy.

Remember, there is no such thing as neutrality. As such the end of white supremacy (which is simply the age old habit of all peoples to prefer that which is familiar and known) is the rise of multi-culture mixed multitude supremacy. The complaint against “white supremacy,” is in fact a linguistic tool to untether white people from the normal and godly instinct to want to protect Christian civilization as it has been built by Christian white people over the centuries.

Think about it this way. Nobody in China or Japan complains about Yellow Supremacy. Nobody in Nigeria complains about Black Supremacy. However, in countries settled by the White man there is a hue and cry to end White supremacy and, as hinted at above, this is only because there is a desire to turn the Christian white man into a slave who becomes a hewer of wood and a drawer of water.

Ultimately, as has been said before many times on Iron Ink, this attack on the White man and “white supremacy” is a proxy war against Christianity. In God’s sovereign providence and completely by grace alone it is the white man who has been perfumed with Christ and having the smell of Christ about us we have built great civilizations that were anchored in the tenets of Biblical Christianity. Naturally enough, Christ hating civilizations and men hating Christ and Christianity are now insisting on the need to end “White supremacy, but what they are really after is rolling Jesus Christ off of his throne so that ugly cultures can be built in honor to the gods of the mixed-multitudes. These are gods who delight in seeing wombs scraped of life, gods who delight in surgeons cutting off breasts and penises, gods who delight in statutory raised to honor those who excelled in casting off the “chains” of Biblical Christianity.

Of course the potency of this movement to overthrow “white supremacy” comes not primarily from the mixed multitude, though there are plenty of haters here. No, the primary potency of this movement comes from white people who have been turned into Orcs, Goblins, and Necromancers by consuming (usually quite unknowingly) the premises, assumptions, and presuppositions of the Marxists. These useful idiots and Shabbos Goy have been employed to pour dross into Biblical Christianity so that our churches spew the ugliest and most vile lies from pulpits thus turning Christianity into a repellent and poisonous sludge stew. These useful idiots and Shabbos Goy have been employed to normalize the abnormal so that nearly of all our Institutions are tripping over themselves to see who can first hoist the rainbow flag while putting kitty litter in all our public places so that the Furries among us can feel welcome. These Shabbos Goy and useful idiots have spent generations crafting legislation that weakens the central Christian Institution of family so that normal family life is now seen as a key expression of white supremacy that needs to be eliminated.

But it all begins with linguistic deception. The subtle changing of our language to push us, societally, in a certain aberrant direction. Statist education becomes known as “public-schooling.” Equality (which itself is poison) morphs into the pursuit of equity. The glorious and dignified work of keeping hearth and home is dismissed as “oh, you’re just a housewife,” as if such a role is worse than being imprisoned. Formerly, when one was convicted of a crime they went to prison or jail. Now they go to a “correctional facility.” The Department of War (a properly labeled office if there ever was one) was changed out to the more benign “Department of Defense.” “Father,” and “Mother” on official documents has now become “Parent 1” and “Parent 2.” I am sure that soon enough the word “parent” will be eliminated for something thought to be less offensive. And let’s not even begin to mention the laundry list of acceptable labels for the sexual deviants. My favorite among these is how “pedophile” is now known as a “minority attracted person.”

When the language changes it is a precursor to a cultural change that is coming in its wake. Keep your eyes peeled for these subtle and sometimes not so subtle changes because they are going to only accelerate in their arrival upon the cultural scene.

Le clergé dans les affaires

“Therefore let the one who thinks he stands firm [immune to temptation, being overconfident and self-righteous], take care that he does not fall [into sin and condemnation].”   

I Corinthians 10:12
(Amplified Bible)

I was 16, way back in 1976, when for the first time I witnessed, up close and personal, the crash and burning of a minister (youth) due to sexual infidelity. It was a royal mess and looking back on it over the years my sympathy and compassion for all parties has only grown together with my sorrow for the injured parties and anger at the ones inflicting injury. The Senior minister of the Church was left with the impossible task of trying to hold the work together since people in the congregation had a dozen views of what did and did not happen and who was really at fault. A young marriage with young children was scuttled. The popular youth minister in question, who had a huge influence on a rather large youth group,  was out of work leaving behind him a large group of High Schoolers who were more than a little disillusioned with Christianity. I was disappointed, to be sure, but frankly in 1976 I was so trying to survive my own sitz-im-lieben that I didn’t have enough time or energy to get overly distraught by other people’s naughty behavior.  Still, I was not so self-involved to not be able to see that this behavior had sent shock waves through the Church.

Since that summer of 1976 I have seen repeatedly, both up close in Churches I was connected to and from far away as more of a spectator the damage that marital unfaithfulness does in the Church when that unfaithfulness is contracted within the church. Now again, with the case of the former Rev. Stephen Lawson the Church is party to having to bear the shame, along with Lawson.

Naturally, when clergy are involved in sexual infidelity the blowback is even more intense. All of us who are clergy have to hear the refrain of “typical clergy, they think they are better than us and just look.”

Perhaps, the first thing that should be said then is, “we are not better than the laity.” The best of us are only unprofitable servants seeking to do what we ought. As you have known for sometime now, as clergy we are marvelous at disappointing you, of not living up to your expectations, and of being in need of grace as much as any of you who are not clergy. St. Paul was not kidding when he wrote, “Here is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance; Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners, of whom I am chief.”

That admission does not excuse Lawson. Neither is it an attempt to do so. The sin of sexual infidelity combined and then dwarfed by the sin of climbing into the pulpit to preach as God’s spokesman while involved in said infidelity is beyond words. Beyond words, but not beyond forgiveness.

The challenge here is how to be, at one and the same time, squarely against sin, while realizing “there but for the grace of God, go I.” After all, Elders are required to be “gentle” and being gentle is a must when a man is repenting. (And it is my assumption here that Lawson has repented and is repenting.) If we only rail about the sin we come across as the self-righteous prigs we so easily can be and too often are. If we elide too quickly past the sin we may treat the sin too lightly and so not communicate the necessary warning to others.

Then there is the factor that leadership is ideally supposed to be held to a higher standard. Paul writes Timothy that the Overseer is supposed to be “above reproach,” and the “husband of one wife,” and Lawson has read himself out of both those qualifications.

Look, I bleed for the man. I know what I am capable of. I bleed for his wife. At this age she is supposed to be enjoying the sunset of children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren, and some kind of slowing down. Instead, she has to deal with this five alarm fire. Then there is “the other woman” who though responsible as well may well have swooned into the illicit relationship based upon some misguided admiration for “the man of God.” Alternately, it is possible that she was and is a real Jezebel. Have we mentioned all the hurt now that his children and grandchildren are dealing with given the devastation this has wrecked? Have we mentioned the congregation he served and the countless others across the nation that may well have looked up to Rev. Lawson? Really, the impact I witnessed first in 1976 remains the impact when this kind of sin bomb goes off. The hurt and shattered lives makes my soul ache. The greatest ache is that the name of the ever glorious God is brought into disrepute.

So, it is with mixed emotions I write about this. Fear, because the ability to write about this kind of event is so fraught with getting it wrong, thus doing even more damage. Sorrow, because of the trail of tears this thing leaves in its wake. Shame, because Christ’s name is dishonored and because I realize that I am perfectly capable of the same thing. Anger, for the obvious reasons. Funny, these are some of the same emotions I had in 1976.  All of it makes me fleetingly toy with getting out of the ministry before I do something this wicked.

Some have written on this subject, probing the question, “How could this happen.” On that score, let’s be honest — this kind of thing is getting fairly common. While writing I can think of a half-dozen plus other similar high profile clergy that have been caught in this particular snare over the last 10 years or so.

The answer to the “why” questions are both simple and complex. At the simple end of things man has a sin nature that is only eradicated with his death. Simple explanations also include the truth that “stolen watermelon is more sweet.” The more complex range from living in a culture that drips with perverse sexuality, to the fact that high platformed clergy begin to believe the adulation that they are covered with (they begin to believe their own press clippings) and believing that no longer take heed, to the fact of the ego sizes that are often characteristic of too many clergy (can you say “narcissism?”) I am tempted to also offer as a possibility the lack of accountability but, frankly, it seems accountability anymore only works to keep orthodox men from being orthodox as heterodox men love holding the orthodox “accountable.”

Be sure of this though. Nobody who gets in this situation gets in it apart from a mega dollop of self-deception. The clergy who gets into a strange bed, while simultaneously maintaining the ability to climb into the pulpit week after week, really is a man to be pitied. He has seared his conscience while grieving the Holy Spirit. He has crossed some kind of Rubicon that one wonders how many return from.

But there is grace with God. Our Baptism reminds us that there is no sin we cannot return from if we will only do the grace given hard work of repentance.

Petition God, as I have been, that He will be honored in all this, and keep in mind that there is no reason why this couldn’t be you or I.

What To Expect To See At The Annual Halloween Reformed Ball

What costumes they’re wearing this year to the annual Halloween Ball?

1.) James White is dressing up as a Crusader.
2.) Al Mohler is dressing up as Winston Churchill
3.) Russell Moore is dressing up as a Christianity Today Editor
4.) Sean Michael Lucas is dressing up in a R. L. Dabney costume
5.) Doug Wilson is dressing up as Confederate Sec’y of State Judah Benjamin
6.) John Piper is dressing up as a Ferret
7.) Aimee Byrd is dressing up in what her son recently modeled
8.) R. Scott Clark is dressing up as Oliver Cromwell
9.) Michael Horton is dressing up as a CIS Gendered white dude
10.) D. G. Hart is dressing up as court jester
11.) Toby Sumpter and Jared Longshore are wearing Doug Wilson costumes
12.) Michael Foster is wearing his Elmer Gantry costume
13.) Matt Walsh is dressing up as a raw dairy salesman
14.) Thabiti Anyabwile (aka – Ron Burns) is dressing up as a KKK Clansmen
15.) Francis Collin is dressing up as a Christian Humanitarian
16.) David Van Drunen is dressing up as a 16th century AnaBaptist (John of Leiden)
17.) Rachel DenHollander is dressing up as dutiful housewife
18.) SBC pastors are dressing up as strict moralists
19.) Stephen Wolfe is dressing up as Klaus Schwab
20.) Chris Gordon (AGR) is dressing up as the anchorman from “The Simpsons.”
21.) Kevin De Young is dressing up as Tim Keller
22.) Greg Johnson is dressing up as a Anita Bryant
23.) Matthew J. Tuininga is dressing up as a Dutch Theologian
24.) Reggie Smith is dressing up as the head butler of a Plantation home during the ante-bellum South era.
25.) Clay Libolt is dressing up as a Theonomist
26.) Ken Bieber is dressing up as “a reliable source.”
27.) Owen Strachan is dressing up as an patriotic American
28.) Rev. Aldo Leon is dressing up as a Kinist
29.) Rev. Brenda Kronemeijer‐Heyink is dressing up in one of these;https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-a-portrait-of-a-young-muslim-woman-covering-her-face-by-a-black-veil-89138149.html

30.) David French is dressing up as a tabloid journalist
31.) Rod Dreher is dressing up as a faithful loving husband and father

It ought to be quite the affair.

Me?

I’ll be the guy dressing up as Doug Wilson wearing a “Have You Hugged A Bagel Today?” T-Shirt while carrying a tankard of “Pale Ale” around with me.

Charlotte Michigan’s “Festival of Occult”

 Reporting on Charlotte’s “Festival of Oddities.”

For the past few years now Charlotte, Michigan in hopes of attracting tourists to the town has held what they have called “A Festival of Oddities.” That title is definitely a euphemism. A more accurate title would to have it be called “A Festival of the Occult.”

Because this year found the added twist of asking a Drag Queen Troupe to perform I was contacted as a minister to see if I would be outraged enough to protest this festival. Of course, as it doesn’t take much to tip over the needle on my outrage-meter I agreed to do what I could and so I showed up to protest this making Charlotte synonymous with Sodom-Gomorrah.

It started with meeting a central locale to pick up the necessary protest signs.  I picked up my sign and walked away saying… “Well, I’m off to make people angry.”

One of the good women there piped up and said … “Oh but we want to show them the love of Jesus.”

I internally rolled my eyes and responded;“Do you really think these people are going to read this sign and feel the love of Jesus?”

I had scoped out the Festival briefly before picking up my sign and said to myself, “When this kind of thing can take root in small town America you know the country is toast.”

What did I see at this version of Vanity Fair?I saw a young lady with a mid-riff T-Shirt that said “Slut for Halloween.” By the looks of her it was easy to believe the advertisement. I saw Drag Queen wearing a HUGE Tiara walking around all in black. I saw a man and woman wearing matching outfits while pushing a baby carriage. They were all tatted and pierced up and the matching outfits (she in a skirt and he in a shirt) had as the material the faces of all kinds of different mass murderers and serial killers in the fabric. I saw “guys” with gauges in their ear lobes with the lobes going down to the shoulder. I almost forgot to mention the young lady with sky blue hair and in a mini mini skirt walking around the “Festival of Oddities” with a four foot tongue flicking lizard (Iguana?) draped across her shoulder. I had to do a double take on that one. I’ve never seen that before. Goth was definitely the fashion style embraced by most of the participants.

Of course that is just a Whitman’s sampler of what I witnessed.

Next comes the various booths.There was one booth where the vendor, who, by his own testimony, was  a Warlock. The Warlock makes and sells human part replicas complete with the gory blood. He was also selling plastic models of aborted babies as well as various plastic lifelike human organs. It was all very realistic. Dismembered hands, arms, and feet were for sale. Just the gift for that loved one who is difficult to buy for. I was shocked and stood there dumbfounded. I eventually was able to ask Mr. Warlock if he could actually make a living selling this stuff. He curtly answered “yes.”

Another booth found a lady who sold herself as a “ribbon reader.” I had never heard of ribbon reading before and so I asked her “what is ribbon reading.” She told me that for $20.00 dollars she will read what color you present yourself as then tell you about what that means for you. There were booths for palm reading, booths for automatic writing, booths for tarot card readings…. there were booths there for just about any occultic thing you could possibly imagine. There were booths specializing in spell casting. Booths where one could pet your favorite snake. Think of it all as C. S. Lewis’ “Screwtape Letters,” being wildly successful.

I was there, of course, to protest the Drag Queens and to do so I carried around three signs displaying each one intermittently. My signs read;
“Grooming Is For Pets”
“Don’t Be A Drag”

“Hate Evil, Love Good”

Keep in mind that the Drag Queen performance was being sold as “family friendly.” Yeah, and Dracula is really just a chap who runs a blood bank.

As I carried my signs I received the usual vitriolic stares. One woman referred to be a “weird religious zealot.” Another portly woman (some kind of Board Member of the Festival) chased me off the Courthouse grounds telling me I was trespassing. She was, of course, very snotty. Yet another Jezebel like woman asked me why I had a problem with Drag Queens. I told her, “God’s Word prohibits that behavior” and cited the appropriate text. Jezebel promptly told me, “that’s just your opinion.” I responded, “Actually that is God’s declaration on the matter and I am better off listening to Him than listening to her say Drag Queens are wholesome.” She then told me … “The Bible is Bullshit and the Drag Queens are going to put on a wonderful performance.” I told her, in parting, “I am amazed that a 50 year old woman like yourself can not discern the obvious unnaturalness of Drag Queens.” She swore at me and turn and departed. I told her in parting that she needed to repent. This is all pretty typical behavior one gets when one protests wickedness.

I was disappointed by the lack of support from the Churches. Now it is true this protest only had 48 hours or so to put together a showing but still the turnout was pathetic. Ainger Bible Church provided most of the personnel protesting. However, I was the only clergy there protesting and I was told by someone in the know that a couple of those reputed to be “conservative pastors” who have gone on the record with the Mid-Michigan media to denounce me in times past told the organizer of the event that “we are too afraid of the backlash.” Rev. Randy Royston was the name of that coward. Another coward was Rev. Andy Shaver who one suspects didn’t carry signs of protest because it would have hurt his campaign to be a Michigan State congress-critter. I think John Bunyan would’ve named them “Talkative” and “Hypocrite” if Bunyan were around writing today. Shaver did show up to pray with the group thus burnishing his “I am Holy” credentials but he was AWOL when it came to actually protesting. Just more evidence that the visible Church is DEAD.

Charlotte has something like 23 Churches and I was the only Pastor who could see that this “Festival of Oddities” has something worthy to stand against? Look, I’m as much a coward as the next person but there are times when cowardice has to be put in the rear view mirror so one can quit themselves like a man.

I did meet a few laity out and protesting and had a decent conversation with a David Zastrow on Rushdoony, Bahnsen, and Reconstructionism. Jonathan Potter was there handing out tracts. It took courage for Jonathan to organize this and to hand out tracks since he is a businessman in Charlotte who works closely with some of those who were responsible for putting together this “Festival of Oddities.” Well done Jonathan!

Of course it is my prayer for many of those Christians protesting that the Lord Christ would open their eyes to what they are missing in their Baptist “Christianity.” Having said that, at least they were out there making their faith practical. That is more than what can be said for the 23 odd other churches in Charlotte who declined to get involved.

In finishing up I had my eyes opened once again to how deep the declension is in America. Not only are we holding Vanity Fair Carnival for the Occult we can’t even get the Church to manfully respond except for a very few brave souls.

Ah well… as it was in the days of Elijah, so it is in the days of McAtee. 😉

Yet God still reserves 7000 who have not bowed the knee to Baal.

Postscript — While praying in preparation I did find myself wondering if Jesus would have wept over the Canaanites that were about to be destroyed at His command. In other words, I was struggling with what love looked like in that debauched setting. Should I weep over them as Jesus did Jerusalem or should I have the compassion God had for the Priests of Baal on Mt. Carmel.

Maybe and probably both.

Is Christ King or is He only Kind of King? — McAtee vs. Duncan & Hart

In the biblical worldview, the believer’s redemption in Christ is not limited to personal salvation from sin guaranteeing him entry into heaven at death. It must also include a universal perspective. Otherwise redemption reduces to anthropology, nullifying the material order created by God. Such reductionist theology truncates Christ’s saving work accomplished in the cross-resurrection-ascension event, which undermines the ultimate new creation age to come.

Ken Gentry

We are one day removed from Palm Sunday 2024 with its ringing endorsement of the fact that Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. However, 24 hours later we are left asking many of those who insist they are Reformed  what they think the Kingship of Jesus Christ concretely means.

There is a large branch out there in the Reformed world who want to recite that Christ is King right up to the point where the idea of Kingship has any teeth. At that point the idea of “Kingship” is suddenly redefined in a very Gnostic direction. “Christ is King,” they say, “just so long as He is not intent on actually ruling as the alone King.” “Christ is King,” they chant “just so long as King Christ has no legislative Law-Word that we have to pay any attention to in our family order, social orders, and law orders.” “Christ is King,” they dutifully recite, “just as long as Christ has no territorial claims over any nation or over any footage on planet earth.” The Kingship of Jesus Christ for this group is esoteric, abstract, and invisible. The best that they offer for the impact of Christ’s Kingship is the insistence that Christians should demonstrate their belief in Christ’s Kingship by being nice and making room for a pluriform of competing gods in the public square.  “Christ is King” for these crypto-Gnostics means a pluralistic social order where Christ as King as to compete for the table scraps of recognition from the God-State, along with the demon gods of Islam, Molech worship, Talmudism, and Salt Lake city fantasies. The Gnostic Reformed insist with us that “Christ is King,” but then turn around and define Kingship to mean “not Kingship.”

We are seeing this all over the Reformed world today. Most recently it came out in spades with an interview of Establishment figures Dr. J. Ligon Duncan, and a podcast including Dr. Darryl G. Hart. If you  listen to these back to back it will take your breath away in turns of the animated hostility for traditional and historic Reformed views. Duncan goes especially after Theonomy and Reconstructionism. Hart has a wild hair growing over the possibility of Christian Nationalism, though he manages to make clear his loathing for theonomy type movements.

Duncan’s approach to the issue is almost comical.

He opens by insisting that mocking and slander are not Christian ways to deal with issues and then proceeds to slander fellow Christians who take Christ’s Kingship seriously all the way through the section he speaks on that subject.

Next Duncan tell us that King Christ was not a mocker and yet in His ministry Jesus mocks Herod by calling him a “she-fox.” The Pulpit Commentary offers here;

“The epithet “she-fox” is perhaps the bitterest and most contemptuous name ever given by the pitiful Master to any of the sons of men.”

Ellicott’s commentary reveals,

The word was eminently descriptive of the character both of the Tetrarch individually, and of the whole Herodian house. The fact that the Greek word for “fox” is always used as a feminine, gives, perhaps, a special touch of indignant force to the original.

We learn thus, that a Chancellor of a flagship seminary does not know what he is talking about on this particular mocking issue as it relates to the life of Jesus, and we haven’t even bothered to consider the treatment Jesus gave to the Pharisees. If all that is too complex for Dr. Duncan as it touches the issue of the appropriateness of mocking, perhaps he might consider Who is speaking in Proverbs 1:26; “I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh;”

Duncan goes out of his ways that the bible teaches that there are different ways to be faithful, and that is true. However, Duncan doesn’t mention that the Bible also teaches that there are different ways to be unfaithful. It is my opinion that Duncan’s work in this interview is one example of how to be unfaithful.

As one continues to listen to Duncan boast of his creating a Christ, Culture, and Contextualization course that he taught one realizes that Duncan has embraced the contextualization model of Christ with culture. This paradigm can be understood by accessing Niebuhr’s book on “Christ and Culture” where Niebuhr gives different paradigms for Christians engaging culture. Niebuhr’s five views are: 1. Christ Against Culture, 2. Christ of Culture, 3. Christ Above Culture, 4. Christ and Culture in Paradox, 5. Christ the Transformer of Culture.” Clearly Duncan’s “Christ of Culture,” paradigm is one that liberals have embraced for quite some time. Duncan’s offense at the Reconstructionist paradigm indicates that Duncan is for appeasement. This is diametrically opposed to Scripture which finds Jesus teaching, “He who does not gather with me, scatters.”  We know that Duncan is for appeasement given the tongue lashing and the slander he visits upon theonomy and reconstructionism.

Duncan insists that those who disagree with him are doing what they are doing because “a lot of it is ego and envy,” and a lot of unimportant people trying to be important. Yet, in my estimation Duncan’s ego and self-importance is just dripping off the interview. Honestly, I don’t mind being critiqued but the mean-spiritedness of Duncan in his words against those who take God’s Law-Word seriously was palpable.

Something else here that doesn’t ring true. Duncan says he gave up on critiquing Theonomy in 1996 or so because it was dead. However, in the archives on Iron Ink you can find a piece from 2009 where Duncan was again slamming theonomy. In this interview Duncan says that theonomy has risen from the grave like a zombie. Yet another slander from Duncan comparing a Reformed movement with the living dead.

Here is the fact of the matter. As much as he might like to, Duncan cannot kill the Theonomy/Reconstructionist movement. (Though Moscow aberration of it might kill it.) The Theonomy/Reconstruction movement may be dead for the Boomers and those over 50 even. At 64 I am a relic and a Dinosaur … one of the elder statesmen of the movement. However, I am seeing the rise of a 20-40 somethings who are never going to accept Reformed-Surrender theology. They are not going to be taken off to the gulag camps without a fight. They are no longer going to salute the post-WWII consensus that Duncan and Hart (and most of those reputed to be pillars in the Church) cherish with their whole beings. The Enlightenment version of the Reformed faith with its bastardized version of the Westminster Confession of Faith is in a nursing home and the prognosis is not good for its long term health.

Ducan, Hart and their ilk are wedded to pluralism but let’s consider what pluralism has done. I’m old enough to remember the residuals of Christian America. I’m old enough to remember the theonomic blue laws that found every business, park, and amusement shut down on Sundays. I’m old enough to remember how on good Friday every year all the businesses would close at 12noon in order to attend noon good Friday services. I’m old enough to remember distinct male and female roles that were premised upon Christianity. I’m old enough to remember the necessity to refer to your elders as “Mr.” and “Mrs.” I’m old enough to remember Sunday being enforced as a day of rest. And remember, these were only the residuals of a Christian American that was already in its death throes. Darryl Gnostic Hart in his conversation asks, “what could it possibly mean for a nation to be Christian” and I offer the above as a partial answer.

At appx. the 49:40 point of the interview with Duncan he begins to mock fellow Christians. Irony much Lig? From there Duncan goes on to say that the Reconstructionist understanding of Christ’s Kingship has no possibility of being implemented in any possible world. First of all we would ask, “Lig, not being God how could you possibly know that?” Second we would ask, “Even if you could somehow know that is true would that mean therefore that Christians should cease to continue to advocate for the crown rights of Jesus Christ?” Third we would ask, “If it is possible for Sharia to be the law of nations why is it impossible to think that God’s better law could not be the law of nations? Is the Allah stronger than King Jesus Lig?”

Next Duncan trots out the old canard that Reconstructionism/Theonomy is not a Reformed view. These chaps have been trying to sell that nonsense ever since this ker started to fuffle. A book that came out early in this debate was “Theonomy; An Reformed Critique,” and in that book the authors try to sell the bilge that Theonomy/Reconstructionism was not Reformed. The fact of the matter is, is that it is the surrender monkeys found among the Reformed Establishment who are the ones holding to a Reformed faith that isn’t particularly historically or traditionally Reformed. Can anyone look at the original Westminster Confession on the Civil Magistrate or the original Belgic Confession of Faith on the Civil Magistrate, and tell me with a straight face that either the Westminster Divines or Guido de Bres would have recognized the pablum that Duncan and Hart are trying to sell as “historic Reformed Christianity?” To suggest that the Divines or de Bres would have agreed with Duncan and Hart is just gaslighting at its best.

Much more could be said but others have probably already said it. I come to this, as I said earlier, as an Elder Statesman to this debate. I’m a year older than Duncan. I wasn’t following the debates at ground zero but I was pretty close to ground zero. I know the players. I have read around all sides. I know Duncan and Hart are peeing on us and trying to tell us it is just rain. Don’t you believe them.

My fellow believers in Jesus Christ, either Christ is King with all that Kingship means or He is a the Gnostic King of Duncan and Hart and most of those reputed to be pillars in the Church.

Palm Sunday tells me that Jesus Christ is King and that His  Kingship is tangible.