From The Mailbag – Page 2

Is Pastor Bret A White Supremacist or Just Opposed to Cultural Marxism?

Dear Pastor,

I’ve had some people writing me, knowing that I know you, asking if you are a White Supremacist. They seem to think the article below somehow proves that. I told them I would go directly to you as opposed to spreading vicious and unsubstantiated rumors.

In Defense Of Nationalism … In Defense of Basic Christianity

Thank you for your ministry to me and my family,

Chole

Dear Chloe,

Thank you for writing to ask.

I honestly am left completely befuddled that anybody could read that piece and come up with white supremacy. The word “white” does not show up in the piece and I even went out of my way to quote the white Marxists as opposed to Marxists of other nationalities and races in order to demonstrate that, in many cases, it is white people who are at the vanguard of cultural Marxism. (And of course, the article was about Cultural Marxism and its pushing of globalism before it was about anything else.)

I am tempted to conclude that those who could get white supremacism from the article linked are folks who are part of the cultural Marxist problem that we currently have in the Church but since I don’t know the people who are contacting you, I’ll take their query as being sincere and not as part of a larger agenda.

So, to be clear Chloe, I am not a white supremacist, although that won’t keep people who are cultural Marxists, or who have been influenced by cultural Marxism or who are just, in the words of Vladimir Lenin, “useful idiots,” for the Cultural Marxist agenda from making that accusation.

I believe in biblical nationalism for all peoples, tongues, and nations. Just as I believe that people from every tribe, tongue, and nation, will be part of the one Redeemed Church of Jesus Christ. However, that doesn’t keep me from noting Scripture, with all its talk of “nations” in the New Jerusalem (see original article),

^{Isaiah 2:2}And it shall come to pass in the last days that the mountain of the Lord’S house shall be established on the top of the mountains, and shall be exalted above the hills, and all nations shall flow unto it.³And many people shall go and say, “Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the Lord, to the house of the God of Jacob; and He will teach us of His ways, and we will walk in His paths.” For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem. ⁴And He shall judge among the nations, and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore.

We see this promise coming to fulfillment in Revelation Chloe, where we see recorded,

25 Its gates will never be shut at the end of the day because there will be no night there. 26And into the city will be brought the glory and honor of the nations.

The Dutch scholar Doctor Schilder comments on this

“And they shall bring the glory of the nations into it, into the new Jerusalem.” Revelations 21:26

“The universality of this covenant requires that not one race or people be left out. Yet during the old Testament times, there was one nation singled out of the many as the chosen people, such separation was but an ad-interim. We may look upon the covenant as then a march toward fulfillment, towards times when all nationS from the uttermost parts of the earth would belong to the covenant.

Klaas Schilder

Calvin Seminary Professor Dr. Martin Wyngaarden, who was one of the men I learned this from Chloe, was getting at much the same thing when he wrote in his book,

“Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will, therefore, be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

And again,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden
The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

And, not to put to fine of a point on it Chloe, the great Dutch theologian Dr. Geerhardus Vos also spoke about the importance of a Biblical Nationalism when he wrote in his Systematic Theology,

Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception, of course, occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — 118

So, Chloe, unless your un-named friends also desire to put Wyngaarden, Schilder, and Vos in the “White Supremacism” pokey, I’m not saying anything that they didn’t say first.

Further, Chloe, I believe, that in the varied Christian cultures that have existed, do exist, and might yet exist, in varying nations, that each will show its own particular stripe of strengths and weaknesses. In other words, different Christian nations will have different supremacies. One body… many parts. (A tried and trusted Biblical precept.) Given all the Scripture I cited in the original article in question, I should think that it was clear that the Scripture clearly teaches that Biblical nationalism is simply defined as a “proper love of our people and a proper love of our place.”

The Christian poet, Sir Walter Scott, was getting at this sentiment when he wrote,

Breathes there the man, with soul so dead,

Who never to himself hath said,

This is my own, my native land!

Whose heart hath ne’er within him burn’d,

As home his footsteps he hath turn’d,

From wandering on a foreign strand!

If such there breathe, go, mark him well;

For him no Minstrel raptures swell;

High though his titles, proud his name,

Boundless his wealth as wish can claim;

Despite those titles, power, and pelf,

The wretch, concentred all in self,

Living, shall forfeit fair renown,

And, doubly dying, shall go down

To the vile dust, from whence he sprung,

Unwept, unhonour’d, and unsung.

And far as love of one’s own people one only needs to consider the great Apostle Paul when he wrote,

³For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,

Obviously, Paul could have a unique love for his un-regenerated Kin and still retain a love for the Gentiles to whom he was an Apostle, as one born out of time. St. Paul had the kind of love for His own people, that is communicated by Thomas Babington Macauley in his “Horatius at the Bridge,

And how can man die better

Than facing fearful odds

For the ashes of his fathers

And the temples of his gods

Of course, our vision is of the nations being converted to Christ so that they are defending the Church of Jesus Christ.

I shouldn’t have to say it again Chloe but in case your friend missed it, I’m not defending garden-variety Nationalism. The Nationalism I’m defending and am insisting as always been the norm in the Church is Biblical Nationalism. A nationalism whereby the authorities in the differing jurisdictional realms which comprise the nation all pledge fealty to Jesus Christ.

The great Dutchman Abraham Kuyper provides another example for us Chloe,

“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now, this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……

Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)

Now, allow me a few lines to reverse this Chloe. The refusal of Christ-centered Nationalism leaves us either in an ugly man-centered nationalism (which in the previous article I distinctly abjured) or it leads to a man-centered internationalism. In our epoch that man-centered Internationalism is having its water carried by Cultural Marxism and is the danger that is most pressing in upon the 21st-century church in the West in terms of Worldview competition. Cultural Marxism by definition seeks to eliminate all distinctions that are ordained by God. The noble Dutchman Van Prinesterer, using incredible foresight, warned about this,

“Just as all truth rests upon the truth that is from God, so the common foundation of all rights and duties lies in the sovereignty of God. When that sovereignty is denied or (what amounts to the same thing) banished to heaven because His kingdom is not of this world, what becomes then of the fountain of authority, of law, of every sacred and dutiful relation in state, society and family? What sanction remains for the distinctions of rank and station in life? What reason can there be that I obey another’s commands, that the one is needy, the other rich? All this is custom, routine, abuse, injustice, oppression. Eliminate God, and it can no longer be denied that all men are, in the revolutionary sense of the words, free and equal. State and society disintegrate, for there is a principle of dissolution at work that does not cease to operate until all further division is frustrated by that indivisible unit, that isolated human being, the individual—a term of the Revolution – naively expressive of its all-destructive character.”

– Guillaume Groen Van Prinsterer
Mentor of Abraham Kuyper

But let me guess Chloe… Van Prinsterer was teaching white supremacy …. just like that nasty white supremacist McAtee.

A century after Van Prinsterer, another Christian, this time an Anglican Priest, wrote a very similar concern echoing Van Prinsterer.

“The movement toward integration is a denial of Christ. It is part of an effort to create one society in which there are no distinctions or differences. . . . For it is not the races only that must disappear and be brought into conformity with the requirements of a world-state: so with the sexes, so with parents and children, so with nations, states, tribes, and empires. All must go and be swallowed up in the maw of the great monad, theologically familiar to students of oriental mysticism as religion, and to traditional Christianity as Satan.”

T. Robert Ingram
Anglican Priest

Again… Ingram must have been a White Supremacist.

Chloe, this is the burning issue of the modern Church in the West. Will we follow the Reformation where God ordained distinctions were honored as coming from God or will we swallow the Anabaptist inspired swill of Cultural Marxism? The white supremacist John Calvin knew where the danger was,

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

Calvin Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3

Chloe, if I’m teaching white supremacism, then the Church from the 2nd century forward has been teaching white supremacism. It is only via the re-defining of words, as done by cultural Marxist Social Justice Warriors, pointing and sputtering, that it can be said that their accusations have any anchor in truthfulness.

Thank you for writing me.

Ask the Pastor … Guns in Church?

Dear Pastor Bret,

In light of recent tragic church shootings, should churches consider having members carry concealed weapons to church?

Thanks in advance,

Shawn Channing

Dear Shawn,

Thanks for writing.

I will answer this question in terms of the laws of the State of Michigan. In Michigan, Shawn, those with a concealed carry license cannot carry on any property or facility owned or operated by a church, synagogue, mosque, temple, or other places of worship, unless the presiding official allows concealed weapons. So, in Michigan, one can legally according to Michigan state law conceal carry in Church if one has secured the presiding official’s permission.

Some would counsel to consult law enforcement for expert advice and perhaps even training for those who desire it before the presiding official allows such carry and I would concur with that as long as it was only one factor in the decision-making process. People must realize that law-enforcement officials could well have an interest in making sure only they are the ones carrying weapons. All because someone is in law-enforcement doesn’t make them singularly able to provide counsel on this decision. The decision process should also realize that a Church that is declared as a gun-free zone is a church that is advertising to potential wolves that the gathering of the saints is also a gathering of easy picking sheep. The decision process should also include considering the many recent church shootings where the mortality rate may have been far lower if someone in the congregation where the shootings occurred had begun shooting back at the sociopaths who were discharging their weapons against judicially innocent church-goers.

Secondly, common sense teaches that owning and carrying a gun is a reasonable means of protection. A recent Pew survey reported that two-thirds of American gun owners cite protection as the major reason they own guns. Now, Shawn, some well-intended but misguided people might somehow extrapolate that Pew survey to mean that people are relying on guns as idols instead of relying on God for protection. Such thinking is most unfortunate. Carrying a weapon no more proves that one is not trusting in God than carrying a chainsaw proves that someone who wants a tree cut down is not trusting in God for the tree to come down. Carrying a weapon no more proves that one is not trusting in God than a Chef carrying a frying pan proves that the Chef is not trusting God for the meal to be prepared. A gun is a tool, much like a chainsaw or a frying pan. Having the proper tool for the proper job that might need to be done should not inch us towards concluding that the one carrying a chainsaw, a frying pan, or a gun, is treating that tool as an idol. Such reasoning is quite beyond suspect. American gun owners carry guns because that is one tool God has provided in order to to be protected.

Another truth we might offer here Shaun is that guns do not create the problems they solve. The problems guns solve are men with wicked hearts who wish to bring harm to us, our friends, or our families. Guns don’t create sociopaths who might well show up in Church to do harm. Guns are just one solution to sociopaths who might well show up in Church to do harm.

We should be a people who rely on God as we rely on more potential shooters as the solution to a potential active shooter situation. If we don’t rely on God this way we should seriously examine our hearts to ensure that we have not misplaced our faith by trusting in God in such a way that doesn’t include using all the tools that He has put at our disposal for safety. We need to be careful that we don’t become the butt of that well-known joke,

“Soon a man in a rowboat came by and the fellow shouted to the man on the roof, “Jump in, I can save you.”

The stranded fellow shouted back, “No, it’s OK, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me.”

So the rowboat went on.

Then a motorboat came by. “The fellow in the motorboat shouted, “Jump in, I can save you.”

To this, the stranded man said, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the motorboat went on.

Then a helicopter came by and the pilot shouted down, “Grab this rope and I will lift you to safety.”

To this, the stranded man again replied, “No thanks, I’m praying to God and he is going to save me. I have faith.”

So the helicopter reluctantly flew away.

Soon the water rose above the rooftop and the man drowned. He went to Heaven. He finally got his chance to discuss this whole situation with God, at which point he exclaimed, “I had faith in you but you didn’t save me, you let me drown. I don’t understand why!”

To this God replied, “I sent you a rowboat and a motorboat and a helicopter, what more did you expect?”

If we refuse to carry weapons to Church and end up getting shot by sociopaths in Church God may well reply to us upon our discussing the matter face to face with him,

“I sent you a Ruger, a Smith & Wesson, and a Glock, what more did you expect?”

Scripture clearly teaches that self-defense is biblically set forth (Exodus 22:2-3). To insist that one should not make provision to defend themselves so they might instead just trust God is its own kind of specious idolatry.

Finally, on this score, we should consider our history on guns in Church. There is a long storied history of guns in Church that even found, at times in history, guns be required by force of law to be carried to Church. In her book, ‘The Sabbath in Puritan New England,’ we learn this from author Alice Morse Earl,

“For many years after the settlement of New England the Puritans, even in outwardly tranquil times, went armed to meeting; and to sanctify the Sunday gun-loading they were expressly forbidden to fire off their charges at any object on that day save an Indian or a wolf, their two “greatest inconveniencies.” Trumbull, in his “Mac Fingal,” writes thus in jest of this custom of Sunday arm-bearing:–

“So once, for fear of Indian beating,
Our grandsires bore their guns to meeting,–
Each man equipped on Sunday morn
With psalm-book, shot, and powder-horn,
And looked in form, as all must grant,
Like the ancient true church militant.”

In 1640 it was ordered in Massachusetts that in every township the attendants at church should carry a “competent number of peeces, fixed and compleat with powder and shot and swords every Lords-day to the meeting-house;” one armed man from each household was then thought advisable and necessary for public safety. In 1642 six men with muskets and powder and shot were thought sufficient for protection for each church. In Connecticut similar mandates were issued, and as the orders were neglected “by divers persones,” a law was passed in 1643 that each offender should forfeit twelve pence for each offence. In 1644 a fourth part of the “trayned hand” was obliged to come armed each Sabbath, and the sentinels were ordered to keep their matches constantly lighted for use in their match-locks. They were also commanded to wear armor, which consisted of “coats basted with cotton-wool, and thus made defensive against Indian arrows.” In 1650 so much dread and fear were felt of Sunday attacks from the red men that the Sabbath-Day guard was doubled in number. In 1692, the Connecticut Legislature ordered one fifth of the soldiers in each town to come armed to each meeting, and that nowhere should be present as a guard at time of public worship fewer than eight soldiers and a sergeant. In Hadley the guard was allowed annually from the public treasury a pound of lead and a pound of powder to each soldier.

No details that could add to safety on the Sabbath were forgotten or overlooked by the New Haven church; bullets were made common currency at the value of a farthing, in order that they might be plentiful and in every one’s possession; the colonists were enjoined to determine in advance what to do with the women and children in case of attack, “that they do not hang about them and hinder them;” the men were ordered to bring at least six charges of powder and shot to meeting; the farmers were forbidden to “leave more arms at home than men to use them;” the half-pikes were to be headed and the whole ones mended, and the swords “and all piercing weapons furbished up and dressed;” wood was to be placed in the watch-house; it was ordered that the “door of the meeting-house next the soldiers’ seat be kept clear from women and children sitting there, that if there be occasion for the soldiers to go suddenly forth, they may have free passage.” The soldiers sat on either side of the main door, a sentinel was stationed in the meeting-house turret, and armed watchers paced the streets; three cannon were mounted by the side of this “church militant,” which must strongly have resembled a garrison. …

In spite of these events in the New Haven church (which were certainly exceptional), the seemingly incongruous union of church and army was suitable enough in a community that always began and ended the military exercises on “training day” with solemn prayer and psalm-singing; and that used the army and encouraged a true soldier-like spirit not chiefly as aids in war, but to help to conquer and destroy the adversaries of truth, and to “achieve greater matters by this little handful of men than the world is aware of.”

The Salem sentinels wore doubtless some of the good English armor owned by the town,–corselets to cover the body; gorgets to guard the throat; tasses to protect the thighs; all varnished black, and costing each suit “twenty-four shillings a peece.” The sentry also wore a bandileer, a large “neat’s leather” belt thrown over the right shoulder, and hanging down under the left arm. This bandileer sustained twelve boxes of cartridges, and a well-filled bullet-bag. Each man bore either a “bastard musket with a snaphance,” a “long fowling-piece with musket bore,” a “full musket,” a “barrell with a match-cock,” or perhaps (for they were purchased by the town) a leather gun (though these leather guns may have been cannon). Other weapons there were to choose from, mysterious in name, “sakers, minions, ffaulcons, rabinets, murthers (or murderers, as they were sometimes appropriately called) chambers, harque-busses, carbins,” …

The armed Salem watcher, besides his firearms and ammunition, had attached to his wrist by a cord a gun-rest, or gun-fork, which he placed upon the ground when he wished to fire his musket, and upon which that constitutional kicker rested when touched off. He also carried a sword and sometimes a pike, and thus heavily burdened with multitudinous arms and cumbersome armor, could never have run after or from an Indian with much agility or celerity; though he could stand at the church-door with his leather gun,–an awe-inspiring figure,–and he could shoot with his “harquebuss,” or “carbin,” as we well know.

These armed “sentinells” are always regarded as a most picturesque accompaniment of Puritan religious worship, and the Salem and Plymouth armed men were imposing, though clumsy. But the New Haven soldiers, with their bulky garments wadded and stuffed out with thick layers of cotton wool, must have been more safety-assuring and comforting than they were romantic or heroic; but perhaps they too wore painted tin armor, “corselets and gorgets and tasses.”

In Concord, New Hampshire, the men, who all came armed to meeting, stacked their muskets around a post in the middle of the church, while the honored pastor, who was a good shot and owned the best gun in the settlement, preached with his treasured weapon in the pulpit by his side, ready from his post of vantage to blaze away at any red man whom he saw sneaking without, or to lead, if necessary, his congregation to battle. The church in York, Maine, until the year 1746, felt it necessary to retain the custom of carrying arms to the meeting-house, so plentiful and so aggressive were Maine Indians.

Not only in the time of Indian wars were armed men seen in the meeting-house, but on June 17, 1775, the Provincial Congress recommended that the men “within twenty miles of the sea-coast carry their arms and ammunition with them to meeting on the Sabbath and other days when they meet for public worship.” And on many a Sabbath and Lecture Day, during the years of war that followed, were proved the wisdom and foresight of that suggestion.

The men in those old days of the seventeenth century, when in constant dread of attacks by Indians, always rose when the services were ended and left the house before the women and children, thus making sure the safe exit of the latter. This custom prevailed from habit until a late date in many churches in New England, all the men, after the benediction and the exit of the parson, walking out in advance of the women. So also the custom of the men always sitting at the “head” or door of the pew arose from the early necessity of their always being ready to seize their arms and rush unobstructed to fight. In some New England village churches to this day, the man who would move down from his end of the pew and let a woman sit at the door, even if it were a more desirable seat from which to see the clergyman, would be thought a poor sort of a creature.”

Alice Morse Earle, The Sabbath in Puritan New England (NY: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1891), 19-25.

From the Mailbag … “Is America Great or What?”

Dear Pastor,

“I believe in & love America. America is still the best country in the world to live in. I love it too. And I refuse to give up on God’s ability to call out His elect and build His church. We are the most fortunate people in history.”

Are my sentiments on the right track?

Rudy

Dear Rudy,

I guess it depends on what America you believe in and love. When it comes to American many people believe and love a myth. Americans, notable exceptions notwithstanding, are not a wise people. They are sheep who know more about the box score of the recent big basketball game then they know about the gazillion dollar deficit problem. They know more about their movie stars then they know how Hollywood is corrupting their thinking and morals. Americans tend to care more about Israel than they do their own country. They don’t realize that all the big media is owned by a handful of people who are feeding them propaganda day and night. They would rather be mesmerized by a talking head then put the effort in to pick up a book that gives background, detail, and which exposes the propaganda. They support a University system by sending their children to Institutions that are committed to indoctrinating those children into an anti-reality Marxist worldview. AND those parents get the privilege of paying for their children to be indoctrinated into Cultural Marxism. They trust in shrinks who by in large are themselves, psychopaths. Americans send their little children to schools that are staffed by teachers trained in these very same University Institutions with the purpose of training the little ones to be as brain-dead as the teachers are. Americans can tell you all about Miley Cyrus, Beyonce, and Taylor Swift but they know nothing about Samuel Davies, Johnathon Edwards, or John Taylor Gatto. Americans consume SSR’s in epic amounts not knowing the long-range damage figuring that long-range damage doesn’t matter as long as they are “happy.” Then they turn around and feed their children Ritalin to make Johnny and Suzie happy not knowing they may well be killing their own children. Americans insist that their children are vaccinated not knowing what poison is in the vaccines. They get the flu shot every year not knowing or caring what’s in the flu shot. Whatever history they know they get from the all-wise “The History Channel.” The clergy they listen to on Sunday may be even more indoctrinated than they are. A feat that is by no means easily arrived at. We are indeed a people who, in the words of Neil Postman, are Amusing Ourselves to Death.

But not to worry. As long as Americans can have all the sex they want with whoever or whatever they want, they will go to their graves as stupid people happy to be stupid.

I’d like to think that I love America also but my love requires me to see how America needs to repent and return to the God of the Bible who once made America truly worthy of love. Right now America is pretty ugly and my love for America requires me to plead with her to return to the only one who can make her lovely again.

Praise God for the remnant who are red-pilled and so are despised at every turn. Perhaps it is they who are the America you say you love?

Thanks for writing Rudy,

Pastor Bret

p.s. — Of course, I believe in God’s ability to call out His elect and build His Church. I wouldn’t be a Biblical Christian if I didn’t believe that.

p.p.s. — Regarding the bit about being the most fortunate people in history … well, certainly the 60 million children who have been tortured and murdered in their mother’s wombs probably don’t think they were part of the most fortunate people in history.

Ask the Pastor; “Can postmillennialists be pessimists — even in the short run?”

Dear Pastor,

Can postmillennialists be pessimists? To be more precise can we expect positive change in our time, or is all the “good stuff” still future?

John Hogue

Dear John,

Thanks for writing.

I guess I would start answering by saying it depends on how you are defining pessimistic.

I think some postmillennialists get accused of being pessimistic when in point of fact they are merely connecting the dots on the cultural landscape. If a Postmillennialist sees that one of the sovereign spheres in a culture is operating on a foundation of paganism/humanism then they are obliged to insist that no good is going to come in operating according to idols set apart for destruction. And by doing so they are operating according to a postmillennial motif in that they see that before godly altars can be constructed that will be Christ honoring the previous idols must be destroyed.Also, postmillennialists must be honest with the times they are given. They must not become pollyanna and thus condone wickedness by transmogrifying wickedness into something that is a harbinger that portends blessings. For example, I have seen certain postmillennialists encourage Christian to vote for wicked Republicans and then turn around and call other postmillennialists pessimists because they drew attention to the reality that the Kingdom isn’t advanced by supporting wickedness.

Keith Mathison (author of a couple books on Postmillennialism) once wrote that he was the most pessimistic postmillennialist that anyone would ever meet. By that, I think he meant that while he believed God’s Kingdom would conquer all he wasn’t going to excuse sin by being wrongly optimistic.

As far as your second question goes, I would say I / we can expect positive change in our time as God sovereignly awakens men to their rebellion against Him and grants them repentance and a fleeing to Christ. We must work in terms of that hope and live in the expectation that it will come to pass.

We should be careful though that in our postmillennial that we don’t allow the hope to give birth to a false expectation. I have listened to many postmillennial sermons/lecture from the 70’s and 8o’s that were predicting, for example, the end of public schools by the year 2000, or vast revival among the minority community just around the corner. Today, I’ve heard young millennials forecast the change of everything in their lifetime by means of pursuing just the right political activism. One can only crack up laughing when listening to these postmillennialists of 30 and 40 years ago and of today. You see, John, what happened is that they allowed their high millennial expectations to impinge upon their ability to be realistic about the cultural landscape.We can be optimistic about the future but it is optimism within God’s providence and God’s providence is operative not only in the future but is operative right now. God’s providence right now informs us that any imagined flowering of the already present postmillennial kingdom will require many uphill challenges that will require work.

We would do well, on this subject to remember the words of Gen. Robert E. Lee,

“The march of Providence is so slow and our desires so impatient; the work of progress so immense and our means of aiding it so feeble; the life of humanity is so long, that of the individual so brief, that we often see only the ebb of the advancing wave and are thus discouraged. It is history that teaches us to hope.”

The other side of this equation is that if we are unrealistically optimistic (Pollyanna) then the result will be vast discouragement when that which we so hoped for doesn’t come to pass.

So, what we have noted here is an unrealistic optimism for the future can lead to one of two mistaken reactions,

1.) Because we so desperately hope for the flowering of the already present postmillennial kingdom we begin to interpret that which is opposed to God’s work as part of God’s work in order to sustain our misplaced expectations and hope.

2.) Because we so desperately hope for the flowering of the already present postmillennial kingdom we begin to despair when we begin to realize that our expectations are not going to come to pass in our lifetimes.

As postmillennialists, we must continue to be hopeful in light of God’s sovereignty but we must also continue to accept the fact that God’s timing is His own.

As returning to your original question, I would say that it is not possible for a postmillennialist to be pessimistic, even in the short run. Our God is a great God and with God all things are possible. However, neither is it proper for a postmillennialist to be naive or Pollyanna.

To be honest, I have an easier time with C. S. Lewis’ Puddleglums, then I do with Susie Sunshines.

Ask the Pastor…. Strengths and Weaknesses of Postmodernism?

Dear Pastor,

In your opinion what brings the greatest concern with postmodernism and especially with the new generation Z.

Do you see any strengths of Postmodernism?

Thank you,

Bradley

Dear Bradley,

Good questions.

I.) Pomo’s Strength

1.) It not only deconstructs meta-narratives we know are true, it deconstructs meta-narratives that need to be deconstructed, such as Darwinian Evolutionary pseudo-science. Darwinism has been savaged by the Pomo’s and has really lost its status as the narrative of the West.

2.) Pomo reminds us of our creatureliness and that as creatures we cannot get outside of the universe in order to observe the universe and so know the universe. As such, there is always going to be subjectivity in our knowing. Creatures are subjective by definition and as such it must be admitted that the knowledge that we have of the objective has a tacit quality. Our knowledge is not only subjective as the pomo’s insist but neither is our knowledge only objective. See the works here of Michael Polanyi.

II.) Pomo’s weaknesses

1.) First, some would argue that pomo remains modernism but as on steroids, and there is a good deal of truth in that. Pomo like modernism interprets the world apart from God. As such pomo like modernism creates it’s own truths. The difference is that pomo admits it while modernism refused to admit it, choosing instead to embrace the nonsense of some kind of objective reality that can be posited by some kind of fiat act of the will via one kind of logical positivism or another.

2.) Pomo insists that there is no such thing as capital “T” truth but in doing so they demonstrate that Pomo’s capital “T” Truth is that there is no such thing as capital “T” Truth and that is every bit as much as a capital “T” truth as what modernity or any other meta-narrative ever wanted to offer. As such the broad claims of the pomo’s are myths.

3.) Pomo is irrational. So is modernism but Pomo doesn’t care and so doesn’t hide it like modernism does. Pomo’s today (self-conscious or not) embrace the most egregious and bald contradictions without caring one whit. They are irrational, and they love it so.

4.) Because Pomo’s think that they don’t care about capital “T” truth it is harder to get through to them with the Gospel or any true Truth in my estimation. When witnessing what you typically get is, “Well, if that works for you that’s nice.” As such to reach pomos you really have to understand that making them angry is the only way of doing so. (Angry because you have to really break up their worldview furniture before you catch their attention.) Even then they may not care. I’ve known more than one person I’ve engaged with who has said, “Yeah, I know I am in contradiction but I don’t care.”

5.) Pomo’s have no core in terms of character. If reality is what you make it then you can make up a new character and new reality every day. People who lie to themselves like this are sick people.

Thanks Bradley for the question,

Pastor Bret