I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends; Ethan Holden On Transparency

“I’ve always believed in a “Flags Out Front” approach to things.

Meaning:

1. Be upfront and honest with what you believe politically, theologically, philosophically, and morally.

2. Don’t be afraid to put your views out in the open, especially the ones that people will find most controversial.

3. Fight for those views without apology.

4. Eventually, you will have the “Adam Carolla” or “Howard Stern” affect. Have you ever noticed how those two men can say anything they want, and nobody calls for them to be cancelled anymore? They used to….but not anymore. Why? Because they know that both of those men are too far gone to be scolded and scorned into changing their opinions. The sons of earth are shrewd in that way, and we should be too.

5. Don’t lie or obfuscate your views unless you are dealing with your enemies. You do not owe them any information. But your family, friends, and church leadership are not the folks that you want to hide your beliefs from. To do so is to put them in the same camp as your enemies.

6. If your more controversial “flags out front” views are not shared by your Elders, do not undermine them by trying to convert the congregants to your point of view. Sure, use your public platform to discuss what you want to discuss. But do not be a subversive.

7. Lastly, enjoy yourself! Don’t be a shrill, get wrapped around the axels, and self righteous. State your business, and have a good time doing it!

Raise the flag.

They are going to find out anyway.”

From the Mailbag; Rachel Challenges Pastor Bret On His Hot Take On Carlson Interviewing Wilson

Rachel J. Hill writes,

https://sashastone.substack.com/p/tucker-talks-to-doug-wilson

If the link above works, it will take you to a direct link to the full interview on Spotify. I understand you were reacting to the short trailer video but I would be curious to know if any of your critiques change after hearing the entire thing.

I personally completely agree with you on the ethnic nationalism issue. But it’s a moot point because of the way America is already compromised of so many different kinds of ethnic groups. Short of kicking people out, there’s no way you’re going to narrow the gene pool. Not only that, but the very idea of narrowing the gene pool as a proposition to achieve national unity is absurd because sinful nature still exists in every ethnicity. That’s why I am not opposed to the nationalism Wilson defined, when contrasted with the parallel options of tribalism or globalism.

I understand that there are people who only follow Wilson because of his snark and sarcastic language. He’s an “edgy” Christian who draws people who are tired of the weak ecclesiastical response to sensitive cultural issues. But as of yet, I have not found any of his videos on his blog to be contrary to the Gospel. Rather, they’re some of the most intentionally laid out guides to application for Christian living that come across.

Bret Responds,

Hello Rachel

You’ll not be surprised to find me disagreeing with you once again. I’ll respond to you point by point.

1.) I’ll try to view the whole interview you have linked.

2.) Not a moot point. Look up Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback.”

3.) Narrowing the gene pool is no more absurd than expanding the gene pool. Have you ever heard of Rudyard Kipling? Kipling makes my point for me on the advantages of a narrower gene pool. Sinful nature indeed exist in every ethnicity but that sinful nature in the way it expresses itself is going to be unique and distinct in every ethnicity. This is why Kipling could write;

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf–
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

4.) Wilson’s propositional nationalism is NOT nationalism. Wilson is NOT a Nationalist. He is for Empire. Now it may be a domestic Empire but it is still Empire. If you read the book “Bowling Alone,” you might understand the problem better.

5.) I don’t find Wilson edgy anymore. There was a time I used to but now the man is just off the Christian Nationalist reservation with his propositional nationhood, love for lab grown meat. dalliance with Federal Vision, and warfare against those who are for ethno-nationalism. (OH, and lets not forget his advocacy for a paedo to marry a virtuous young woman as if marriage could fix sexual perversity.) Wilson is merely trying to revive the classical liberal world and life view but he will fair here. That world and life view is never coming back. Too many different moving pieces in religion and ethnicity for that to ever work again.

6.) In terms of Christian living… I will concede that Doug has been helpful with some of those issues, but I prefer sticking with the original (i.e. –Rushdoony) as opposed to going for someone who has said he was trying to be “Rushdoony 0.5.” I’m not a big pale ale fan.

Thanks for the conversation Rachel. Tell Doug I said “Hey.”

Vox Day, Vox McAtee

Over here;

MAILVOX: In Defense of Doug Wilson

Vox Day answers a letter defending Rev. Doug Wilson. It is a magnificent response. Still, despite that I can’t help but wanting to have my own go at this letter defending the Pope of Moscow.

Doug’s Defender (DD) writes to Vox Day,

Firstly, I acknowledge your critiques of Doug, and recognise that he has some enormous Boomer tendencies.

 

McAtee responds,

Is this like acknowledging that FDR was a cripple? I mean, Captain Obvious much?

DD writes,

But.

He has a growing appeal to disaffected young evangelical men (of whom I belonged).

McAtee responds,

Nobody can disagree with that sentence above. However, Doug should be to disaffected young evangelical men what marijuana was to druggies in the day, and that is only a gateway drug to the real narcotics. Doug is the wine cooler that opens the way someday to Tennessee Sipping Whiskey. If one doesn’t move beyond Doug, one remains stunted in their Christianity.

DD writes,

He spearheaded an enormous push towards Classical Christian schooling, founded on Western Civilisation (including the Greco-Roman underpinnings).

McAtee Responds,

Not to be too technical, but you do realize, don’t you, that the Greco-Romans were pagans? Classical Education has some real merit but unless it is reinterpreted through a Biblical Grid all it produces is pagans who now how to argue. I’ve seen my share of graduates from the Moscow Greystoke Manor who embody my observation.

DD writes,

It’s a huge movement, that is reintroducing the youth to the Good, Beautiful, and True.

McAtee responds,

If that is true, than certainly enough, these youths will see that Wilson and the CREC is still not that for which they are looking. If these youths are getting a taste of the good, the true, and the beautiful than soon enough they will push on from the holding tank that is not quite the good, the true, and the beautiful that is the CREC.

Imagine if you will a large room of painting canvases all set next to one another. The very first painting canvas is covered with a very watery red. The very last painting canvas is covered with a bold fire-engine red. All the canvases between the first one and the last one are canvases that each are a little more red then the previous one but a little less red then the next one in the series. Pope Doug and the CREC represents the entry level red canvas. It has introduced you to the idea of “red.” However, if you are really captivated by Red you will push on from the entry level red and eventually you’ll look back at the entry level red and see that it really isn’t that red at all.

DD writes,

They have cleaned up church liturgy, and recaptured theological maximalism, with many offshoot ministries pushing phrases like ‘Rebuilding the New Christendom.’

McAtee responds,

Cleaned up church liturgy and taken us back, in many cases, to a liturgy that goes back to smells and bells. Further, your CREC has taken up the cursed cause of Ecclesiocentrism and the fact that you may not even know what that word means, means that you have miles to go before you sleep.

And in terms of Wilson’s vision of “Rebuilding the New Christendom,” let me just say that if Wilson is successful in doing so, then I’ll be praying that the New, New Christendom will soon come to replace Wilson’s version because Wilson’s “New Christendom,” looks an awful lot like the old Liberalism of 1950. Tell me, please, how is Wilson going to build a New Christendom while holding on to the idea of “principled pluralism?”

DD writes,

This is all important foundational work to waking up Christians. It has led to me creating a homeschool co-op teaching the Classical method, and we are exposing our children to the glorious things that the Christian West has to offer.

McAtee responds,

And now someone has to come along and shore up the cracks on Wilson’s foundational work. I promise you there is something much larger than a pea under all those mattresses.

If you want your children exposed to the glorious things of the Christian West make sure you teach them about Lepanto, the Crusades, Jon Sobieski, Jan Valjean, etc.

DD writes,

Ministries like G3 ministries are on the warpath against ‘kinism’ which has significant sway over the Reformed Conservative movements.

McAtee Responds,

Have you been sleeping? Wilson’s warpath against Kinism makes the G3 look like a bunch of boy playing cowboys and injuns.

DD writes,

Guys like Doug want more mainstream appeal, so they have opted to go soft on the racial issue. They have ousted guys like Thomas Achord, which shows they mean business.

McAtee responds,

It’s clear to everybody who has eyes that Pope Doug is going for the neo-con/New York Times crowd.

And you think “outing guys like Thomas Achord” is a recommendation for Wilson and his peeps? This is like saying that Sherman should get a medal for raping and pillaging his way to Atlanta.

DD writes,

But it is worth noting that there are more guys like Thomas Achord in these organisations who will eventually start speaking out. The time doesn’t seem to have come for that yet.

McAtee responds,

And Pope Doug is the one we are all supposed to be waiting on to give the signal when the time has come for all that? Trust me… the time will never come because Doug is merely a gatekeeper interested in pushing his brand.

DD writes,

I’m sure you’re aware that racism is perhaps one of the most unforgivable sins in the Evangelical church and will get a robust and powerful reaction from the Evangelical base (especially the Boomers). He is pushing young men in the right direction, and Christian Nationalism, as promoted by Stephen Wolfe, is gaining significant traction.

McAtee responds by quoting Vox Day,

“Stephen Wolfe’s Christian Nationalism is fake nationalism. It’s a religious form of civic nationalism that substitutes Christianity for US citizenship. He’s just another gatekeeper.”

Dear Pastor; Why Are You So Ornery?

“Some have complained that Luther was too severe. I will not deny this. But I will answer in the language of Erasmus: Because the sickness was so great, God gave this age a rough doctor … If Luther was severe, it was because of his earnestness for the truth, not because he loved strife or harshness.”

Phillip Melanchthon

Luther’s Funeral Oration

“I was born for this purpose, to fight with the rebels and the devils and to lead the charge. Therefore my books are very stormy and war like. I have to uproot trunks and stumps, hack at the thorns and hedges, and fill the potholes. So I am the crude woodsman who has to clear and make the path. But master Philip comes after me, meticulously and quietly, builds and plants, widows and waters happily according to the talents God richly given him.”

Martin Luther

Recently, a friend told me in a online conversation that I had gotten my orneriness back quickly following surgery. It was a good natured quip that found me replying that “McAtee is Scottish after all.”

Honestly though, his quip did sting a little. It is not my desire to be remembered someday as always being cantankerous, ornery, or curmudgeonly. In point of fact, I think, that most people who know me personally would not reach for those adjective first as descriptors.

Having said that I admit that I can get prickly, but I trust when the prickliness comes out there is some higher and greater principle that I see of being in danger.

God has gifted me with the ability to see the implications of ideas if left unattended. This means that my orneriness quotient rises in direct correlation to otherwise good people championing ideas that will end in bad results if not “nipped in the bud.” (A little Barney Fife lingo there.)

I don’t want to bring tension into relationships among the few of us who are left defending the gates by criticizing too sharply things that are said by my fellow gate defenders. However, I also do not desire for the gate defenders to have ideas that will lead to some bad outcomes if those ideas are allowed to fester.

It is not always easy to decide when to be irenic with the brethren and so let matters pass unspoken to, and when to go all “tomahawk chop” on people that are otherwise on your side. It takes discernment and I freely admit that I likely often fail here.

I do teach my students that one of the dangers of drawing one’s worldview net to tight is that one begins to see embers in thinking that one becomes easily convinced will turn into raging forest fires if not doused.

At the end of it all though, I am convinced that we are living in an age that generally speaking could use a little more orneriness. I’ll work on being irenic if more of you will work a little on being an old cuss like myself.

From The Mailbag — Define Marxism

I had a smart arse BLM dimwit demand I give her a definition of Marxism after I kept insisting that BLM was Marxist. It seems that she thought I was just throwing around words and didn’t know what I was saying.

So… I decided to indulge her. Here is my answer.

____

Marxism is based on a materialistic and atheistic philosophy that embraces the Hegelian dialectic (thesis/antithesis/ synthesis) as divorced from Hegel’s Idealism and uses the dialectic as its means to realize “progress.” Its intent is the arrival of Utopia and its effect is to level all distinctions into an egalitarian social order wherein there is no longer an oppressor vs. oppressed paradigm existing. Its result wherever it has been tried in history is rivers of blood as the state forces Utopia on unwilling men and women. Its chief technique in seizing power is terror. It is constantly at war with distinctions since distinctions violate their envisioned egalitarian order. Having no extra-mundane personal transcendent God Marxism practices moral relativism. Right and wrong are completely determined by the State in which men live and move and have their being. As such what is right today could very well be wrong tomorrow depending on the necessities of the State. (As seen during the WW II era when one minute the comrades are violently opposing the National socialists in Germany and then the next moment they are singing the praises of their Nazi allies and then flipping again to denounce the Fascists.) Marxism holds to the community of goods as seen in its maxim, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Historically speaking this has included women and wives so that women are considered property of the state to be passed around as needed. (See Alexandra Kollontai) The epistemology of Marxism is humanistic reason. The axiology of Marxism is the progress of the Soviet man. The Ontology of Marxism is time plus chance plus circumstance. The teleology of Marxism is the Kingdom of man.

Well, I could give you a good deal more but this should help you in your studies. I would recommend reading several books I have read if you want to learn more.

Francis Nigel Lee — Communist Eschatology

Fred Schwarz — You Can Trust The Communists to be Communists

W. Cleon Skousen — The Naked Communist

Alexander Solzhenitsyn — From Under the Rubble

Igor Shafarevich — The Socialist Phenomenon

When you get through with those come back to me and I’ll give you some more homework.

Or you could just get your undergrad degree in political philosophy like I did.

I trust your reading goes well.