Politics – Iron Ink

Tucker Carlson on Collective Punishment

“So the idea of getting up and being like, all Muslims are bad, is literally no different at all from all Jews are bad, or all Christians are bad, or all Filipinos are bad. It’s all the same. It’s all unacceptable. And that worldview, that is the actual enemy of Western civilization, of the West.”

Tucker Carlson
After Party with Emily Jashinsky

Well, actually, that is NOT the actual enemy of Western civilization or of the West. In point of fact Christianity, which created the West has always embraced an anthropology that teaches that all Muslims, all Jews, all Hindus and all Humanists are bad being fallen. Further, consistent Christianity teaches that one can’t build a successful social order via mixing Tucker’s “good Christians, and good Muslims, and good Jews, and good Hindus, and good Humanists” as all jumbled together into some pretended whole. Good Muslims, and good Jews, and good Hindus, and good Humanists are not good precisely because the gods they serve and the religion that shapes them are in rebellion against the God of the Bible. What Tucker says above flattens out the distinctions that Christendom taught in making the West, to be the West. It is a non-Christian anthropology.

Now, Tucker may have been saying in the quote above that because Christianity has never taught holding whole people groups responsible for the actions of the individual terrorists in their midst it is not acceptable therefore for the West to now incriminate whole people groups and punish them collectively. Tucker may be saying that Israel, for example, should not punish Palestinians as a whole because some terrorist individuals among them do what terrorists do. This is something that may be more true in peace time than during war. If you look at the propaganda by the Allies against the Japanese during WW II, for example, you’ll see all kinds of examples of Japanese as a whole being punished for the sins of Hirohito’s Japan. Just consider the Japanese interment camps in the US. These were camps that are still held, by some, to have been necessary during war.

What is true in all this is the observation that there are plenty of enemies that seek the destruction of the West and that Christians should be wary of all these enemies (Jews and Muslims etc.). We should perhaps be disgusted by Israel’s ongoing genocidal treatment of the Palestinians but at the same time we should be disgusted by the Muslim’s constant chants of “Death to America.” Neither Israel nor the Muslim world are friends of the West. To paraphrase a famous movie line,

“The US does business with both Muslims and Jews, the US respects both Muslims and Jews… but the US should never trust Muslims or Jews to be American citizens.”

If Only I Were Organizing Webbon’s “Christ is King” Conference

There is a conference coming up in Dallas, Texas this year sponsored by Joel Webbon’s organization. The conference is called “Christ is King: America After Trump.” This conference has drawn all kinds of attention, both positive and negative. Today, a friend in Canada sent me an article by the self professed Chicken Farmer – J. D. Hall – wherein Hall argues in a blistering manner what hypocrites Webbon’s opponents are.

Speaking only for myself my critique of Webbon here is that he hasn’t gone far enough with his ecumenism. If I were organizing this conference I would not have stopped at inviting a Catholic (Calvin Robinson) who has personally told me that he does embrace Trent, and a Charismatic (Alex Jones) who has said that “God literally started talking to me,”

https://www.charismapodcastnetwork.com/show/charismanews/videos/alex-jones-said-this-about-god/

(3:46 mark)

I mean, if I were organizing the conference and if it was clear I could invite these chaps to speak I would go whole hog for the “Christ is King” conference. I mean, why not invite a high profile Mormon to speak at the conference? Someone like Sen. Mike Lee? I know for a fact that Mormons profess that “Christ is King.” I would also seek, in the name of ecumenicity, to rope in the Jehovah Witnesses. They are a little late to the “Christ is King” conviction but they believe that Jesus Christ is King and has been ruling in heaven since 1914. Both Mormons and JW’s tend to be social conservatives, so why bar them from the huge “Christian” political coalition that Joel Webbon is trying to build.

But… let’s not stop there. Years ago I had a Hindu friend (don’t gasp) I worked with. His name was Kartik Bavishi. Once we were having a discussion with a group of co-workers about Christianity and Kartik piped up and said, “I believe that Christ is God.” Certainly if my Hindu friend believed that Christ is God (being Hindu, he also believed that Buddha, Allah, and Sun Myung Moon, etc. were God) he certainly would have been able to say “Christ is King.” So, if I were organizing this “Christ is King” conference I’d rope in the Hindus as well. Kartik, like Usha Bala Vance, was very socially conservative, after all.

I mean, this conference, we are being told, is not serving the sacraments and is not preaching the Word. It is only concentrating on the political landscape after Trump and it is for all those who can confess that, “Christ is King.” If that is the case let’s get serious about our ecumenicism Joel and if we are going to invite the Catholics, and the Charismatics… if we are going to invite the Fishbacks and Robinsons, because even though Catholic, they at least say that “Christ is King,” let us be consistent and invite the Mormons, the JW’s, and the Hindus.

However, one group of Christians I wouldn’t invite to speak at the conference is the R2K boys since they don’t believe that “Christ is King,” except in a “spiritual sense.”

Since, satire any more is almost impossible to do, let me say here that all of the above is satire, except the R2K paragraph. I don’t think that a conference labeled “Christ is King” should be inviting Mormons, Hindus, JW’s merely because they say that “Christ is King.” In the same way I think it borders on blasphemous to have a conference titled “Christ is King” wherein one invites folks to speak who own a Christ as King who is a very different Christ then the one that is in Scripture and is at the right hand of the Father.

If Joel Webbon had merely titled the conference, “America After Trump” conference I would be far more sanguine about the lineup of speakers, but to label this conference, “Christ is King,” and then line up speakers who don’t own Christ as King even though they say they do is just not good form.

It is true that Joel Webbon is broadening is base by inviting who he is inviting but it is also true that Webbon is diluting the content of the message. For example, when Webbon does this he insures that I will never vote for anyone Webbon’s organization supports. (I’m one person, so I’m confident nobody is losing sleep over that.) That is because I believe that Christ is King and I’m not sure Webbon does. Can someone believe Christ is King and hold hands (even if only in politics) with those who say Christ is King but who have a different Christ as King then Protestants do? If we are going to thump for Christian Nationalism then let us as Protestants unfurl “a banner of bold, unmistakable colors with no pale pastels'”

Yeah, I get it. In politics you have to build coalitions. But if we’re going to build political coalitions can we just leave the language of “Christ is King” out of it?

McAtee Corrects Phil Johnson’s Awful Sermon on “Christian Nationalism” II

We continue to unravel Johnson’s blasphemous sermon. We do so because Johnson manages to hit just about every bad trope there is out there wailing against Christian Nationalism. We remember that the Christian Nationalism we are arguing for is a kind of Christian Nationalism were government is decentralized and where there is a plurality of different, though harmonious, governments being responsible for their own distinct jurisdiction. We also remember that since there is no such thing as neutrality that either we will have Christian Nationalism or we will have heathen nationalism. The idea that “Liberalism” can provide a neutral place has been proven to be a myth.

Phil Johnson (PJ) sermonizes,

“The underlying presuppositions of modern Christian nationalism are basically the same ideas that created state-run churches across Europe after the Protestant Reformation. And on the face of it, reforming government and society to make them more Christian, that may sound like a noble goal, right? I mean, if that were accomplished, it would make us and our lives much more comfortable.”

BLMc responds,

1.) PJ complains about state run churches, seemingly assuming that is what Christian Nationalism desires. He once again here makes the mistake of confusing ecclesiocentrism with the Christian Nationalist goal of Christo-centrism. I don’t personally know of anybody who wants the State running the Church or the Church running the state. All Biblical Christian Nationalists understand that the Church holds the keys and is responsible for opening and shutting the Kingdom of God, while the State holds the sword and is responsible for bringing justice in concert with God’s definition of justice found in Scripture. Two distinct, but not divorced, realms working in harmony since they each own a common Lord in bowing to Jesus Christ.

2.) PJ complains about “state-run churches,” but is he so blind as he is not able to see that at this very moment the vast majority of our churches are state-run. Here I am speaking of the Government schools that dot our land like so many cancer cells on a stage V cancer patient. Government schools serve as the current state run church in America. They are everywhere catechizing our children (including most Christian children) into the state religion of postmodern paganism. You can either have state run humanist churches in government schools or you can have the kind of state that leaves the family to be in charge of schooling, which is what a Biblical Christian Nationalism would champion.

PJ,

But I see two significant problems with that.

One, that is not the work Christ has given his church to do. It’s not an idea that you will find anywhere in the teaching of Jesus. It has more in common with the worldview of the zealots of Jesus time. Jesus himself never affirmed or encouraged zealotry. And in fact, at least one of the 12, Simon the Zealot, had to leave zealotry behind in order to follow Jesus. The Zealots were a political party that thought Rome had no business ruling over Israel. And when Jesus was asked about paying taxes to the pagan dominated government of Rome, Jesus response was an explicit denial of the central principle of zealotry. He said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars’s and to God the things that are God’s.” But Christian nationalism is basically proposing that the church needs to render to Christ the things that are Caesars.”

BLMc

1.) Here PJ is actually arguing that Caesar has something that uniquely belongs to him and not to Christ. In doing so PJ is carving out a zone for Caesar wherein Caesar can say to God, “this is none of your business. No trespassing.”

Remember, that the whole scenario where Jesus says, ““Render to Caesar the things that are Caesars’s and to God the things that are God’s,” was intended as a trap in order to implicate Jesus. If Jesus says, “pay the tax” He will incur the wrath of the people. If Jesus says, “don’t pay the tax” He will incur the wrath of Rome. So, Jesus says neither and gives a purposefully nebulous answer. He does not answer the question directly. I would say that since I am to render unto God the things that are Gods that means I have to render unto God, Caesar, since Caesar is God’s Caesar. Caesar does not get to claim ownership over any part of God’s world.

2.) I quite agree with PJ that God has not given to the Church the running of the State. However, since Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, Christ is to rule over the State. So, while the Church, as Institution, is not to run the State, Christians who own Christ as King are to rule in the State to the glory of God and so is to bring the teaching of Scripture to bear on the work of the Magistrate.

3.) Also notice here how PJ limits the teaching of Scripture to just the “teachings of Jesus” as if the rest of Scripture doesn’t count.

4.) We really must insist there is idolatry in what PJ is preaching here however well intended the man may be. When PJ argues that there are things that are uniquely Caesars that turns Caesar into an idol who must be obeyed over God in the areas that are uniquely Caesars.

Problem number two, Christian nationalism is simply a revival of the worldview that subjugated the entire Western world to the evils of the Holy Roman Empire back in the dark ages. And that was of course a social and political disaster that lasted for centuries. So the underlying idea of Christian nationalism is not anything new. It’s been tried and failed and tried and failed again and again and again. And I want to stress that all such experiments all of them without exception have failed. including all the best attempts at establishing Protestant governments that embrace biblical values and are built on a foundation of biblical law. In fact, all of them have failed spectacularly ….”

BLMc responds,

1.) With his reference to the “dark ages,” PJ reveals that he has been captured by the labeling that is done by the heathens in order to discredit Christianity. Actually, what is called “the dark ages” by enemy historian was a time where Christianity has significant influence. The enemy refers to this time as “the dark ages” precisely because it was so influenced by Christianity.

2.) PJ wants to insist that we shouldn’t pursue Christian Nationalism because Christian Nationalism has always failed. However, we might want to ask PJ which has failed more gloriously, Christian Nationalism or non Christian attempts at organizing social order? Would PJ prefer the failures of the Weimar Republic over the putative failures of Christian Nationalism? Would PJ prefer the failures of Communism over the failures of Christian Nationalism? Would PJ prefer the failures of 21st century American social order over the failures of Christian Nationalism? Would PJ prefer the failures of 19th century Chaka Zulu over the failures of Christian Nationalism. In other words, I will live with the failures of Christian Nationalism over and above living with the failures of all other non-Christian social order arrangements.

3.) PJ then proceeds to give a long list of Christian social order arrangements that have failed as if that proves that because they eventually failed they were never a success and were not superior to the failures that replaced them.

It is unsettling to a maximum degree to think that a Christian, living in the social order morass that we are currently in, would rather live in this social order hell (and it can go from bad to even worse) then have a return to Christian Nationalism. Phil Johnson would seemingly prefer to live with sodomy, trannie-ism, abortion, massive immigration of those who hate Christianity, etc. then to have a ruling class who sought to exalt Christ in all their decision making.

(After referencing Will & Ariel Durant’s history, Johnson says,)

Then Will Durant added this, which is a profound statement. No one has yet reconciled Christianity with government. That’s that statement sums up the problem nicely. No one has yet reconciled Christianity with government.

BLMc

1.) Will & Ariel Durant were typical liberals who interestingly also said,

“All strong characters and peoples are race conscious, and are instinctively averse to marriage outside their own racial group.”

I wonder if PJ would also salute that sentiment from the Durants?

2.) The Durants were not Christian in any Biblical sense of the word. Should we be surprised that non-Christian Historians would profess that “No one has yet reconciled Christianity with government?”

3.) If Christianity can’t be reconciled with government then that means that government is by definition inherently sinful. If government can’t be Christian all that is left is for government to be wicked. Does PJ really desire to embrace the idea that government is, by definition, wicked? Or, as Christian Nationalists would prefer to say that government is only as good or as bad as the character of men that serve in government. If godly men are magistrates governing by godly principles as defined by Scripture then government can glorify God. It is a wicked thing to suggest that the Christian faith cannot be reconciled with Christian rule.

Doug Wilson’s Support of Abortion

“No human fetus shall be subject to abortion after the scientifically determined age of viability… I do recognize that this is the mother of all incrementalist proposals. “

Doug Wilson
Proposed constitutional amendment.

1.) Wilson is a typical post WW II conservative. Post WW II conservatism is seen in the example wherein nobody seriously proposed reversing the New Deal, instead post WW II conservative always argued that the New Deal should be moderated and controlled.

Here we see that same impulse in Benedict Wilson. Wilson argues essentially that, ‘we shall not reverse abortion but we will make it reasonable and we will limit it by controlling it.”

2.) I’m sure Benedict Wilson reasons, “Well, we can never stop this cold so let’s start with making it ‘reasonable.'”

But the question that begs being asked here is, “reasonable by what standard?” Benedict Wilson steps right up to the plate and answers the question. The standard of reasonable is political pragmatism. Pope Doug argues,

“A strong majority of Americans are on the pro-abort side with regard to the first five weeks of pregnancy, and on the pro-life side in the last five weeks of pregnancy. “

This is pure John Stuart Mill / William James pragmatism. The greatest good as determined by the greatest number of noses. For anybody keeping score nobody ever suggested that pragmatism was synonymous with the Christian faith.

3.) Note that this is the same exact policy that Bill Clinton championed in the day that he wanted abortion to be “safe, legal, and rare.” This is what Pope Doug is arguing. He is arguing to keep abortion legal as long as abortion is rare. Presumably, Benedict Wilson would have to argue, given the fact that he desires to keep abortion legal, that abortions that occur would be safe – and this despite the idea of a “safe abortion,” has to be the mother of all oxymorons.

4.) All of this tracks with Wilson’s penchant for always trying to cut the Solomonic baby in half. For example, Wilson offers a “Christian Nationalism” where Mosques and Synagogues are allowed though there will be no Minarets or the Muslim Adhan. For example, Trinitarian illegal immigrant Christians at least are “trinitarian Christians” (and so presumably acceptable) while Muslims are not. No word by Wilson on so many Jews holding dual citizenship while serving in political office. This penchant of Wilson to always go after “half a loaf,” was stated explicitly when Doug himself testified he was not interested in being Rushdoony 2.0
but was trying to achieve being Rushdoony 0.5.

We learn from all this Doug is all about containment. Doug is so busy pacifying and then codifying the most recent innovation of the Liberal ethos (in this case abortion) that he doesn’t realize that he is making a pact with the Devil.

4.) Part of that pact with the Devil is that by means of a Constitutional amendment Doug is proposing giving the torture and murder of the unborn the absolute color of Constitutional Law. With a Constitutional Law on the books, as supported by the Benedict Wilson “Christian” community, the result would be that Christians have lent their approval to a proposal that amounts to “Thou Shalt Kill,” when a pragmatic majority pushes you to do so.

The dirty little secret about the Roe decision is that it was never the law of the land because court opinions do not establish law, they only interpret law. SCOTUS has no power to enforce its decisions and the legislative branch can overturn SCOTUS decisions by new legislation if they have the will do to so.

Section 1 Clause 1 of the US Constitution states, “All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.”

Given that “all legislative powers” are vested in the Congress of the United States, then no legislative powers are vested in either the Executive or Judicial branches. The judiciary, without any legislative power, cannot make law. It is for this reason all decisions passed down from the court, since its establishment under the US Constitution, begin with the header, “Opinion of the Court.” Understanding this fact makes it clear their decision in Roe v Wade is only their opinion applicable to that case and is not law.

However, what Benedict Wilson proposes would have the color of law and it would find Christians being employed to champion the passage of such a Benedict constitutional amendment. I can see the signs now on the picket line, as carried by Christians …. “Jesus Supports Killing Some Babies,” or “Christians For 2nd Trimester Abortions.”

5.) It is interesting that Benedict Wilson here uses the language in his proposed amendment the word “fetus.” This has always been the language of the pro-abortion hags and warlocks. Honestly, to use the word “fetus” gives away the whole argument as to why abortion is wicked. If what is in the woman is merely a “fetus” and not a human being made in the image of God then abortion is just a medical procedure after all. Yet, Pope Doug uses the word “fetus,” and by doing so gives away the store.

6.) Wilson, with this proposal, has shifted the protection of life from the fact that it is the image of God to the fact that it is scientifically determined. This is an embrace of scientism, where science becomes the arbiter of all truth. In Wilson’s proposal I can hear echoes of Anthony Fauci saying, “I am the science.” If it is science that is going to determine life and not the fact that God’s image is stamped on all of us then who is to say it can’t be scientifically determined as to who is and is not living life that is worthy of living? Surely that can also be scientifically determined also. Wilson has opened Pandora’s box here with the consequence that once the nose of science and “scientifically determined” is under the tent of determining life it will soon enough be the case where science will be the determining factor as to what constitutes all life. I am sure my Ella would lose out here.

7.) Benedict Wilson can say in his piece supporting this barnyard collation

From the moment of conception on, every child is a child, and to draw an arbitrary line, prior to which line you can kill the baby and after which you cannot, is an approach which is logically and theologically incoherent.”

So, Wilson admits before making an argument that is logically and theologically incoherent that his argument is going to be logically and theologically incoherent. However, that doesn’t matter because Wilson has given up on logical and theological coherence in favor of Utilitarian / Pragmatic illogic and humanist incoherence. Paraphrasing Don Corleone I want to say to Wilson,

“Wilson, come here. What’s the matter with you? I think your brain is going soft from all that comedy you’re playing with those FEDS who have paid you off.”

A final word about Wilson’s incrementalism. When has incrementalism in reversing liberalism ever worked in the political world? Incrementalism works fine in going from left to harder left but I would love to see some example where incrementalism worked in shifting the Overton Window to the right. To be honest, I believe that a better argument could be made arguing that the worse things become if they become instantly worse over night the quicker things will become better because people won’t tolerate it. I don’t support that argument but it is a better argument in my opinion than what Benedict Wilson is making.

Bodin on Sovereignty … McAtee Teases Out Implications

“If we insist that absolute power means exemption from all law whatsoever, there is no prince in the world who can be regarded as sovereign, since all the princes of the earth are subject to the laws of God and of nature, and even to certain human laws, common to all nations.”

Jean Bodin
16th century French Political Philosopher

Of course the implication of this is that the triune God alone is sovereign as the Scripture teaches and the implication of that is to observe that Biblical Christians are under no obligation to obey those stewards assigned by God to rule in their various jurisdictions if those stewards are commanding that which is contrary to God’s revealed Law-Word. This applies to Magistrates, Pastors, Elders, Husbands, Fathers, Teachers and Employers. Man is to be ruled by God and His revelation and not by man if he rules adamantly in opposition to God’s revelation.

Another implication here is that the triune God, as Creator, is not bound by His law for the creature. The triune God indeed has absolute power and having absolute power the great divine King is not subject to His law for His subjects. This is why Scripture teaches,

Does not the potter have power over the clay, from the same lump to make one vessel for honor and another for dishonor?

As sovereign the triune God of Scripture is not answerable to man. He is under no obligation to be “fair” as the creature counts fair. God’s law for the creature can not be turned against the triune God to somehow prove His unworthiness. To think that God is answerable to man because they are both under the law for the creature is to think like an Arminian. It is also to think like an egalitarian. God and man are not on the same plane. Rex Lex was always correct. Where it was rightly railed against is when the Rex in question was a mere mortal under God. The triune God does make the law for His subjects and in turn is not subject to His law for the creature.

Failure to understand this explains why men will act as if God is answerable or responsible to man. Humanist/Arminian man tends to think that the triune God has to answer the question of why bad things happen to “good” people. The Humanist/Arminian fails to remember that the triune God, being a good sovereign, always acts in His own interest and in doing so acts for the best interest of His people. That alone is often the answer that we have to accept as belonging to a good sovereign.

We currently live with ignoring all this. We have reduced the triune God so that He has to answer to us, so that His laws to the creature need to apply also to the creator. We have forgot the meaning of God’s sovereignty.

Finally, this quote puts an end to a small movement that desires to invest the State with all authority either through a Statist regime or through a return to monarchy. There is a desire abroad that would place sovereignty in a State that is on the side of the angels. However, a state once invested with this kind of sovereignty becomes God walking on the earth. Once a state claims sovereignty, no law can bind it. That is the nature of sovereignty. As such the only way out of our current Statist environment is not to champion for a state that is run by the “good guys.” No, the only way out of our current Statist environment is a return to jurisdictionalism (Sphere Stewardship) wherein God alone is owned as sovereign and the stewards appointed by the triune God in different ordained spheres rule as stewards consistent with His Law-Word.

As our founding fathers took up the motto against the crown of England, so let us believe again,

“No King but King Jesus.”