Category: Uncategorized

1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life[c]—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

This is a passage that Christians have often mishandled and continue to mishandle today. The stumbling block is the word, “world.” What does it mean to love the world? What does it mean to love the things of the world? How does doing the will of God stand in opposition to loving the world.

When I was a young man, I grew up in a tradition that defined “the world” as anything that was associated with intrinsically sinful behavior. So, for example, people played cards while drinking and gambling and fraternizing with strange women and so in the Church tradition I grew up in, “playing cards with a standard 52 card deck” was “worldly.” As such the college I attended (which was connected with that Church Denomination tradition) forbade playing cards on campus, though playing Rook was perfectly acceptable. Another example was consuming adult beverages. Drinking was often associated with drunkenness, loose morals, floozy women, and broken homes. As such, by that association alcohol was considered “worldly” or “a thing of this world.” Again, like playing cards alcohol was forbidden. Other examples were dancing, and going to see any film. Now, keep in mind, not many of us paid attention to these rules but the rules were there all the same.

There is a way to answer the questions that we opened with about how to concretely define what it means to wrongly love the world and to wrongly love the things of the world and that is found in understanding the distinction between structure and direction.

In creation God created all things good. The whole structure of the Cosmos was created good and when we live in terms of God’s law within that structure created and ordained by God we are at that point living in the world but are not loving the world or the things of the world. As examples here, God created a world of beauty and when we love beautiful creations as created by artists that are consistent with God’s beauty structure we are not loving the world. However, should we fall into loving ugliness as beauty (a John Cage concert, or a Andrew Serrano art piece) we are at that time loving the world and the things of the world.

Another way to love the things of the world is to love the gift above the giver, so that if we start loving our art museum more than we love God we have abandoned the God ordained structure of the world for the world itself absent God. At that point we disobey John’s writ. We would say then, that there is a worldly way to love art that displeases God and a way to biblically love art that pleases God.

We have needs to understand that it is not the God created structure itself that is evil (dancing, alcohol, films, a deck of cards) but the direction of the heart that is plying these structures.

The structure of politics might be another example. God has created a world where there is a necessity to govern. A Christian can theoretically go into politics because it is a creational structure ordained by God. However, the Christian could fall into loving the world and the things of the world by altering the God intended direction of politics. Being a politician is not inherently sinful because politics is one of the structure God created the world with. However, sinful men can fall in love with the world and the things of the world and so by setting a direction for their politics which is contrary to God’s intent and law displease God in their politics. For example, Politicians need to heed the warning of John if they are headed in a anti-Christ direction with the Structure of politics by becoming a Stalin or a Mao. On the other hand Christian politicians properly loving a world structure of God’s creation would be Christlike by embracing politics like a Cromwell or a Kuyper. You see it is not that politics is inherently evil and so always to be avoided as a thing of the World. It is that politics as a World structure that God created can be taken in a Christ like direction or a anti-Christ like direction.

The point here is that in terms of structure (the vertical axis of creation) God created all things good. However men as fallen will set a direction (the horizontal axis depending upon mean’s heart) that is contrary to the creational structure and so will begin to love the world and the things in the world. Another way to think about structure and reality that might be helpful is to realize that structure is reality as God created and intended it to be, whereas direction is the disposition or lean (sinful or righteous) of men and women operating in those God created structures.

What we are seeing here is that there is nothing in the world that can not be received and handled with thankfulness as to its structure. There is nothing in creation that is inherently wicked as a structure There is a great deal that is wicked because of the direction that men move in, in terms of the structure.

Biblical structure as handled in a Biblical direction by a Christian will yield genuine art as opposed to postmodern ugliness, science as opposed to pseudo science, historians who begin with God and His revelation in writing history as opposed to economic determinacy as the foundation of their history writing, and social orders that have a harmony of interests vs. a conflict of interests. The structure is never the problem but rather the direction.

In this kind of understanding, even non-Christian can contribute to a positive direction of the cultural structure as they operate (inconsistently with their avowed presuppositions) in keeping with the majority direction as set by Christians in a culture. Non-Christians like Mozart, can create gloriously beautiful music. Their abilities move in a Christian direction because the structure around them is set because the culture itself is moving in a god-ward direction. A Mozart would still be loving the world and the things of the world because he loved the gift more than the giver but the music that the man made can be received as a good gift from God.

As we consider then what it means to love the world and the things of the world we must keep in mind the question of structure and direction. If we are moving in the proper direction we can handle dance (for example) as a structure from God to the glory of God. Dance won’t be reduced to some kind of sinful sexual grinding but will exhibit the beauty that reflects the glory of God and will be consistent with God’s character.

When we consider the issue of structure and direction we must also speak about Radical Two Kingdom theology (R2k). R2K gets this manner seriously wrong as the R2K boys insist that only biblical structure can exist as it relates to the Church as Institution. All other structures, regardless of the direction in which men handle them, will always be structures that are not Christian and can never be Christian. Institutions like family, law, arts, education, science, or politics will always be structures that are, at the very best, a-Christian. In R2K it is not possible for these structures to be God’s structures in the sense that they can be so directionally handled to the glory of God, and in keeping with His law that they can be considered part of God’s Kingdom. Per R2K they are and always will remain structurally inert. As such, even if these (per R2K) “common” institutional structures are handled by God-honoring Christians the structures themselves can never be Christian. The structures always remain (in R2K land) “common,” which is to say they remain neutral in terms of their Christian impact.

So, by embracing this notion of “structure” and “direction” we can at one and the same time deal a knock out blow to both the often seen otherworldiness of pietism and the refusal of R2K to honor Christ as King in all areas of life.

Summarizing then when we think of the admonition to not love the world or the things of the world we have to make distinctions in our mind. We need to remember that the idea of “world” in terms of structure and direction. As Christians we can affirm, as we have said, the World as structure in the sense that God created the world and everything in it and called it “very good.” This corporeal world that God created is a positive that Christians can and should delight in. After all,

This is my father’s world
I rest me in the thought
Of rocks and trees, of skies and seas
His hand the wonders wrought

The qualifier here though is that this is true only as the World as Structure is moving increasingly towards its “age to come,” new creation direction.

For you see, speaking of the World as structure it is always moving in one of two directions. It is either moving in terms of the first Adam or it is moving in terms of the Last Adam. When the World as structure has the direction of the 1^st Adam then we must we obey the words of John here.

1 John 2:15 Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. 16 For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life[c]—is not from the Father but is from the world. 17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

However, when the World as Structure is moving towards the Last Adam … towards it’s ever increasingly age to come consummation then we must embrace the World keeping in mind that God was in Christ reconciling the World unto Himself and remembering that the World itself is

itself will be set free from its bondage to decay and will obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God.

Direction and Structure … distinctions that we must keep in mind to avoid the anti-Christ other-worldliness found in many forms of pietism, the anti-Christ intentional de-Christianization of the common realm as taught by R2K and the anti-Christ syncretism of Christianity and cultural Marxism as taught by the ubiquitous Marxist clergy.

11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Baucham begins,

“He’s dividing the world … we see two groups here — gentiles in the flesh and the circumcision – Remember at that time you were (three things)

1.) you were without Christ,
2.) being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel
3.) and strangers from the covenants of promise

Because of that we had no hope and without God in the world.

Two things are are very important here

1.) It identifies the distinction that matter
2.) It identifies the division that exists.

Now these distinctions that matter are important because often times we talk about distinctions and we talk about being distinct from one another in terms of our race. Race is actually a social construct. The concept of race is not a Biblical concept. It’s not a biblical idea. It is a constructed idea. You won’t find the idea of races in the Bible unless you find it in the proper historical context where we see, 1.) That we are all the race of Adam. One race. One blood. We are all of the Race of Adam. There is less than a 0.2% genetic difference between any of us in this regard. In fact we are not even different colors. Technically from a genetic perspective, from a bio-chemical perspective, we are all actually the same color. Our color comes from our Melanin. We’ve all got melanin just to differing degrees. So it is not as if some of us are this color and some of us are that color. No we are just different shades of the same color. Some of us just have more melanin than others…. There is another separation that we do have here in Scripture. A real separation. The racial categories we have are artificial. They are not Biblical in nature. Nor are they genetic in nature. They are artificial based on people’s hair and their features and their skin color and things like that. That is artificial. It is not real. We have been convinced that it is but it is not real. But the Bible does talk about a real distinction and that is between Gentiles and Jews. Now racial distinctions are things we have made up to divide ourselves as individuals an it is crazy. It is logically inconsistent.“

Voddie Baucham
Sermon

This is so bad that one barely knows where to begin. Before we do however, let us stipulate that Rev. Baucham has, in many ways, been a fine servant of God and a valued minister of the Gospel. However, on this score all of what Rev. Baucham offers on race is just embarrassing. Let us examine this. My numbered comments will generally follow what Baucham has to say.

1.) Identifying the divisions that exist.

Voddie hints at idea that the Apostle only recognizes one division and that is as between Jews on one hand and Gentiles on another. And here that is true as far as it goes but we know from elsewhere in Paul’s writings that the Apostle has no problem saying that within the Gentile vs. Jew division there are distinctions within the Gentiles.

Acts 17:26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 

Notice that St. Paul speaks of a plurality of nations and boundaries thus demonstrating that Nation distinctions exist as among the Gentiles. We would also point out here that each nation would be occupied by a set ethnicity as one central component of a Nation is that it is comprised by a set ethnicity.

So, Gentiles vs. Jews is a God ordained distinction but so is National distinctions as existing within the Gentiles.

2.) “Race is actually a social construct.”

Voddie has done NOTHING to demonstrate this statement as coming from special Revelation (Bible).

One verse in the Bible undoes Voddie argument and then after that one verse a TON of natural revelation.

“Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.” Jeremiah 13:23

Jeremiah, by using this illustration is telling us that Ethiopians are black. Just as leopards are not lions as can be told by their spots so Blacks are not Hebrews as can be distinguished by their skin. This verse in Scripture teaches that race exists.

Natural Revelation then tells us that race is genetic if only because of things like bone marrow transplants and the fact of the prevalence of sickle cell anemia among blacks vis-a-vis other races and the fact that Pharmaceutical companies make medicines that are specialized for people for particular races.

In terms of bone marrow transplants see the subsection here

https://www.citizen-times.com/…/family-3…/1203940001/

And read about the “Difficulty of Mixed Race Bone Marrow Transplant.”

Now if race exists when it comes to diseases, bone marrow transplants and pharmaceuticals then race is NOT a social construct and Voddie is so far off the reservation that the Hubble telescope can’t locate the man.

3.) So, we have seen that “race” is a Biblical concept and idea. We have also seen that Natural Revelation teaches that race exists. The idea that race is a social construct is something we have only begun to hear with the advent of postmodern philosophy which in general does not believe in objective reality. If all is reduced to subjectivity then all is a social construct. If there is no objective Author then there is no objective meaning in the text and meaning therefore is a social construct. If there is no God then there is no such thing as objectivity in what and who we are or are not in terms of being human and therefore gender is a social construct. If there is no objective reality then everything is a social construct including race. This kind of nonsense was never considered until 1950 or so.

It is interesting that I’ve been hearing this more and more from ministers. One lecture I listened to allowed for ethnicity existing but not race and I found that strange since ethnicity is just a further subdivision of race just as races are a subdivision of the one human race. If we can have ethnicity based on blood why can we not have race based on blood?

Try to envision it this way. You have one large circle that is the human race. Within that one large circle you have smaller circles that represent the various races. (White, Black, Red, Yellow, Brown depending on what taxonomy one holds.) Then within those circles of race are other circles within those circles that represent different ethnicity’ that belong to differing races so that within the White race circle one might draw circles that represent Frenchmen, Englishmen, Austians, Dutch, Scott, etc. Within the Yellow race circle one might draw circles that represent Koreans, Chinese, Japanese, etc.

In insisting that race is a social construct Voddie, like much of our clergy is drinking from wells of Postmodernism.

4.) Voddie then plays with the science of genetics. He shouldn’t have done that. It may be true that the difference between “any of us is only 0.2%” in terms of race but in genetics that is not insignificant. Genetics is a slippery science and only professionals should invoke it. For example, did you know that people are 98.7% genetically the same as chimpanzees, but human men and women are only 98.2% the same? Does this mean that human men are more like chimps than they are like human females? So, Voddie can get away with talking about only 0.2% difference in terms of race and to the layman’s ear that seems to make his case. However, 0.2 % difference in genetics can be the difference between a Beethoven and a Manson.

5.) Voddie then goes on a tear regarding melanin. For the sake of argument I’m more than glad to concede that point to Voddie. However, when it comes to race it is just nonsense to suggest that race can be reduced to skin color or melanin content. We need to realize that race includes numerous other matters wherein people differ. Here are but a few differences between the black race and the white race. More could be easily mentioned.

Difference in forehead construction
Difference in thickness of skull
Difference in brain size
Difference in hair texture
Difference in nose construct
Difference in lip construct

And of course if physical differences obtain then it is reasonable to believe that cognitive, emotional, and psychological differences obtain as well. All people’s are not the same and what accounts for our differences can not be merely assigned to differences that arise from nurture or social construct. Genetics are real.

Now Voddie wants to insist that all these differences (and many other not mentioned) are all artificial. Further the man even says these differences are not genetic. (I had to scrape myself off of the floor at that point.) In his repeated insistence that all these differences were artificial all I could hear was the chant of some 1^st century Gnostic saying that “the material isn’t real.” I assure you all these difference are real and are not artificial in any sense. They are, together with other aspects, what make us who we are. To insist that these are all artificial is just Gnostic.

5.) This is “man is a cog” theology. Voddie is telling us that the Black man is a White man with Black skin and the White man is a Black man with White skin. It’s insane.

We are left asking ourselves, “Who is the one who is being crazy? Who is the one who is being logically inconsistent?

If it is the case that we are so far off base regarding our Anthropology how can we expect to be right in other areas of our systematic theology?

Eph. 2:11 Therefore remember that you, once Gentiles in the flesh—who are called Uncircumcision by what is called the Circumcision made in the flesh by hands— 12 that at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. 13 But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ.

Quoting Voddie Baucham on this passage in a very bad sermon portion,

“He’s dividing the world … we see two groups here — gentiles in the flesh and the circumcision – Remember at that time you were (three things)

1.) you were without Christ,
2.) being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel
3.) and strangers from the covenants of promise

Because of that we had no hope and without God in the world.

Two things are are very important here

1.) It identifies the distinction that matter
2.) It identifies the division that exists.

Now these distinctions that matter are important because often times we talk about distinctions and we talk about being distinct from one another in terms of our race. Race is actually a social construct. The concept of race is not a Biblical concept. It’s not a biblical idea. It is a constructed idea. You won’t find the idea of races in the Bible unless you find it in the proper historical context where we see, 1.) That we are all the race of Adam. One race. One blood. We are all of the Race of Adam. There is less than a 0.2% genetic difference between any of us in this regard. In fact we are not even different colors. Technically from a genetic perspective, from a bio-chemical perspective, we are all actually the same color. Our color comes from our Melanin. We’ve all got melanin just to differing degrees. So it is not as if some of us are this color and some of us are that color. No we are just different shades of the same color. Some of us just have more melanin than others…. There is another separation that we do have here in Scripture. A real separation. The racial categories we have are artificial. They are not Biblical in nature. Nor are they genetic in nature. They are artificial based on people’s hair and their features and their skin color and things like that. That is artificial. It is not real. We have been convinced that it is but it is not real. But the Bible does talk about a real distinction and that is between Gentiles and Jews. Now racial distinctions are things we have made up to divide ourselves as individuals an it is crazy. It is logically inconsistent.

Voddie Baucham
Sermon

This is so bad that one barely knows where to begin. Before we do however, let us stipulate that Rev. Baucham has, in many ways, been a fine servant of God and a valued minister of the Gospel. However, on this score all of what Rev. Baucham offers on race is just embarrassing. Let us examine this. My numbered comments will generally follow what Baucham has to say.

1.) Identifying the divisions that exist.

Voddie hints at idea that the Apostle only recognizes one division and that is as between Jews on one hand and Gentiles on another. And here that is true as far as it goes but we know from elsewhere in Paul’s writings that the Apostle has no problem saying that within the Gentile vs. Jew division there are distinctions within the Gentiles.
26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 

Notice that St. Paul speaks of a plurality of nations and boundaries thus demonstrating that Nation distinctions exist as among the Gentiles. We would also point out while here that each nation would be occupied by a set ethnicity as one central component of a Nation is a set ethnicity.

So, Gentiles vs. Jews is a God ordained distinction but so is National distinctions as existing within the Gentiles.

2.) Race is actually a social construct.

Voddie has done NOTHING to demonstrate this statement as coming from special Revelation.

One verse in the Bible undoes Voddie argument and then after that one verse a TON of natural revelation.

“Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? Neither can you do good who are accustomed to doing evil.” Jeremiah 13:23

Jeremiah, by using this illustration is telling us that Ethiopians are black. Just as leopards are not lions as can be told by their spots so Blacks are not Hebrews as can be distinguished by their skin. This verse in Scripture teaches that race exists.

Natural Revelation then tells us that race is genetic if only because of things like bone marrow transplants and sickle cell anemia and the fact that Pharmaceutical companies make medicines that are specialized for people for particular races.

See the subsection here

https://www.citizen-times.com/…/family-3…/1203940001/

And read about the “Difficulty of Mixed Race Bone Marrow Transplant.”

Now if race exists when it comes to diseases, bone marrow transplants and pharmaceuticals then race is NOT a social construct and Voddie is so far off the reservation that the Hubble telescope can’t locate the man.

3.) So, we have seen that “race” is a Biblical concept and idea. We have also seen that Natural Revelation teaches that race exists. The idea that race is a social construct is something we have only begun to hear with the advent of postmodern philosophy which in general does not believe in objective reality. If all is reduced to subjectivity then all is a social construct. If there is no objective Author then there is no objective meaning in the text and meaning therefore is a social construct. If there is no God then there is no such such thing as objectivity in what and who we are or are not in terms of being human and therefore gender is a social construct. If there is no objective reality then everything is a social construct including race. This kind of nonsense was never considered until 1950 or so.

It is interesting that I’ve been hearing this more and more from ministers. One lecture I listened to allowed for ethnicity existing but not race and I found that strange since ethnicity is just a further subdivision of race just as races are a subdivision of the one human race. If we can have ethnicity based on blood why can we not have race based on blood?

Try to envision it this way. You have one large circle that is the human race. Within that one large circle you have smaller circles that represent the various races (White, Black, Red, Yellow, Brown) depending on what taxonomy one holds. Then within those circles of race are other circles within the race circle that represent different ethnicity’ that belong to differing races so that within the White race one might draw circles that represent Frenchmen, Englishmen, Austrians, Dutch, Scott, etc.

Voddie, like much of our clergy is drinking from wells of Postmodernism.

4.) Voddie then plays with the science of genetics. He shouldn’t have done that. It may be true that the difference between “any of us is only 0.2%” in terms of race but in genetics that is not insignificant. Genetics is a slippery science. Did you know that people are 98.7% genetically the same as chimpanzees, while human men and women are only 98.2% the same? Does this mean that human men are more like chimps than they are like human females? So, Voddie can get away with talking about only 0.2% difference in terms of race and to the layman’s ear that seems to make his case. However, 0.2 % difference in genetics can be the difference between a Beethoven and a Manson.

5.) Voddie then goes on a tear regarding melanin. For the sake of argument I’m more than glad to concede that point to Voddie. However, when it comes to race it is just nonsense to suggest that race can be reduced to skin color or melanin content. We need to realize that race includes numerous other matters wherein people differ. Here are but a few differences between the black race and the white race. More could be easily mentioned.

Difference in forehead construction
Difference in thickness of skull
Difference in brain size
Difference in hair texture
Difference in nose construct
Difference in lip construct

And of course is physical differences obtain then it is reasonable that cognitive, emotional, and psychological differences obtain as well.

Now Voddie wants to insist that all these differences (and many other not mentioned) are all artificial. Further the man even says these differences are not genetic. (I had to scrape myself off of the floor at that point.) In his repeated insistence that all these differences were artificial all I could hear was the chant of some 1^st century Gnostic saying that “the material isn’t real.” I assure you all these difference are real and are not artificial in any sense. They are, together with other aspects, what make us who we are. To insist that these are all artificial is just Gnostic.

5.) This is “man is a cog” theology. Voddie is telling us that the Black man is a White man with Black skin and the White man is a Black man with White skin. It’s insane.

We are left asking ourselves, “Who is the one who is being crazy? Who is the one who is being logically inconsistent?

If it is the case that we are so far off base regarding our Anthropology how can we expect to be right in other area of our systematic theology?

“I used the phrase ‘Black Lives Matter’ in a social media post earlier this week. As happens each time I use the phrase, someone asks, ‘Why not just say “all lives matter?”’ Here is my quick response: When one of my four kids got hurt, it didn’t seem to make sense to say to them, ‘All my kids matter.’ In that moment, I embraced them and said, ‘You matter. Your pain matters. Your healing and return to health matters.’ That doesn’t diminish my love for my other kids. It expands my capacity to love as I live with another person’s pain.

Jesus did the same thing in his ministry. He didn’t say, ‘all people matter.’ He went to those who were hurting, who’d been denied a place at the table, who had been cast out of community and said ‘You Matter.’ Samaritans matter. Women matter. Tax collectors matter. Lepers matter. Did that mean he loved other people less? By no means. His life and ministry expanded the vision and capacity of his followers to love as they broke down the religious and cultural walls that had long divided people.”

Kai Nilsen


1.) When your child was hurting you didn’t hurt your other three children in order to relieve the pain of the one child that was hurting. “Black Lives Matter” as it works itself out, clearly implies and explicitly demonstrates, that in order for Black Lives to Matter, White Lives do not matter. I mean, it is not for no reason that small business owners are putting on signs in front of their buildings, “Black owned business.” The idea here is as Black Lives Matter don’t burn down this black business but rather find white businesses that don’t have this sign and burn those businesses to the ground.

2.) Black Lives Matter is a Marxist myth. If Black Lives Mattered then the organization Black Lives Matter would be burning down the Planned Parenthood facilities, the one place where it is being screamed that Black Lives are disposable.

3.) Jesus didn’t say, “all people matter,” because He understood that all people did not matter. He understood who His enemies were and He clearly pointed all His rhetoric and whip action at those people who didn’t matter. The idea that “all people matter” is a noxious weed that grows from the soil of “The Brotherhood of all Men,” and the “The Fatherhood of God over all Men.”

4.) The people that Jesus collected (Samaritans, Women, Tax Collectors, Lepers) were all people who had one thing in common. All these people who mattered (as Kai puts it) were people who were conversant with their sins or who needed to be brought face to face with their sins. Let me know when, in the context of all this Marxist mayhem, you find a member of Black Lives Matter who is conversant with their sins or who are willing to be brought face to face with their sins. They can start with “Thou Shalt Not Steal,” (As seen in their arson, looting, and pillaging.) Then they go on from there to the sin of envy. I guarantee you that at this very moment Jesus only thinks criminal lives Matter, as measured by His law, in the context of their repenting. If they refuse to repent these Black Lives Matter criminals are going to see just how well Jesus think their lives matter.

5.) The life and ministry of Jesus did indeed break down the walls that had long divided people. However, those walls were broke down so that the differing peoples might bow to Christ. Jesus does not love those who are outside of Christ. If White, Black, Brown, Yellow, and Red people will bow to Christ they can be sure that they are loved by Christ. However, as it is not possible for the true believers of Black Lives Matter to bow to Christ while remaining true believers of Black Lives Matter they can be sure that Christ and His true followers are their enemies.

Jesus hates Black Lives Matter as it is ideologically and theologically organized now. For Jesus, in terms of what men can know by looking, it is only Baptized Church Member Lives matter.

“Can you imagine scrolling past hundred and thousands of black Christians saying the same thing to find one or two black Chrsitian who say what you want to hear the way you want to hear it and thinking, ‘finally somebody gets it?’ We are not a monolith, but consensus matters.”

Dr. Esau McCauley — African-American
Assistant Professor NT Theology — Wheaton College

Can you imagine a putatively educated man arguing that we arrive at truth by counting noses? I mean, that is what consensus means. Consensus means that 50% + 1 = truth. By McCauley’s reasoning the consensus of the Jewish leadership proves authoritatively that Jesus was correctly crucified. By this reasoning the consensus of the English crown that the Americas must be forced to take slaves was correct. By this reasoning the consensus that the North was right for invading, raping, and pillaging the South was correct. By this reasoning the consensus among Revolutionaries that Lenin should come power was correct.

I have seldom come across a more stupid line of reasoning than Dr. McCauley’s that blacks like him should be listened to on their racial views simply because they are part of the black consensus that whitey is an evil racist.

Note, that McCauley’s lack of wisdom must be laid at the feet of Joel McDurmon likewise since McDurmon was supporting this “reasoning” on his social media platform.

Which brings me to a integrally related point and that is the use of irrationality as a motivating means for Revolution.

Marxist Revolutions are never logical or rational. Logic and rationality will never provide impetus to overthrow “the Man.” Marxist Revolutions are characterized by Alinskyite hackneyed mottos like “Forward,” and “Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity,” and, “As He died to make men Holy let us die to make men Free,” and “Eat the Rich,” and “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer,” and “All Power to the Soviets.”

These memes/mottos if considered in light of cold logic express the height of torpidity. For example; Forward to where? How can men who are kept equal ever have liberty? Christ didn’t have to kill anybody to make men Holy. How does envy fill my stomach? Being united in wickedness is not a plus. If I give all power to the Soviets what power do I retain?

Still, there can be no doubt that any Revolution will lose its steam if it tries to rationally explain itself. Instead it goes for the knee jerk emotions that the simpletons, who are always the vast majority in any nation, can thrive on. The last thing that Revolutionaries want is for people to actually pause to think about what is happening.

And so we get the most asinine reasoning on all kinds of fronts because only asinine reasoning need apply to keep the rank and file continuing with their long march through the institutions. Here is another one I saw this morning.

Conservatives a month ago: “Why should we listen to the government and stay home? You are all sheep. This is a free country.”

Conservatives today: “If you just follow the Government mandated curfew, the paramilitary police storm troopers won’t shoot you in the face. It’s simple.”

“Ummm … Except a month ago criminals weren’t trying to burn my house down and do me bodily harm.”

The instinct is to ask the creator of the above meme, “Have you ever heard of the idea that there might be a time when the Government is not doing its job by illegally requiring law abiding citizens to stay inside while also there are times when the Government is doing is its job by legally catching the criminal class?”

The thinking man must reconcile himself with this absolute full throated irrationality. The thinking man has to realize that it will do little good to demand that people be rational in times of Revolution. We are in this position in Revolutionary America we are in precisely because irrationality is what is called for in this season.

So, the thinking man who is a counter-revolutionary must embrace the opposite irrationality of the irrationality of the revolutionary. The thinking man must use mottos and themes that he himself knows are irrational as a means of animating his supporters to stop the supporters of irrational revolutionary.

When the SHTF the last thing anybody wants to appeal to is rationality.