Category: Uncategorized

 

Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectability.

Two of the great watchwords of the Enlightenment were

1.) The inherent goodness of man
2.) The perfectibility of man

Both of these violate Conservative convictions and demonstrate again why only the Biblical Christian can be a consistent conservative. Even more we are beginning to see clearly that the Biblical Christian precisely because he is a Biblical Christian must be a conservative.

The Biblical Christian as conservative believes that man is fallen and because he believes that man is fallen he declaims against the Revolutionary notion of both the inherent goodness of man and the perfectibility of man. The Biblical Christian as conservative is deeply skeptical of any and all plans that hint at the Utopian. Even as a postmillennial, the Christian as conservative is suspicious of all non Kingdom of God attempts that are not organic with Kingdom of God principles to usher in some kind of social Utopia.

The last 150 years with their numerous mass graves dug by those who have believed in the perfectibility of man have given witness to the absolute folly of the pursuit of Christ-less social orders that have promised the immanentizing of the eschaton.

The Christian as conservative wants nothing to do with that.

Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked.

The necessity of personal property is taught as one of God’s commands when He declaimed “Thou Shalt Not Steal.” Obviously, one cannot be commanded to steal if stealing were not possible due to the existence of private property.

Christians as conservatives then insist that freedom and property are intertwined. The constant attack by the Bolshevik Marxists against private property ought to be enough by itself to establish this principle.

The ownership of property allows the Conservative as Christians to be Godlike as God Himself owns the earth and all the inhabitants thereof.

Ownership/Stewardship of property allows man to be generous and merciful. Ownership/Stewardship of property teaches us to own our goods while not allowing our goods to own us. The property-less man learns nothing of these human/Christian virtues.

The man who owns no property is by definition a slave and while slavery does not automatically read someone out of the Kingdom of God, slavery has always been seen as a condition which the Christian is to aspire to rise out of.

Finally, property has always been a means of establishing and protecting the trustee family as wealth is stored up in family lines over the generations. The Revolutionary State, desiring to be God walking on the earth, hates any competition and so does all it can to ensure that generational family property is seized by the State who would own all property.

Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism.

The voluntary community that the Christian as conservative upholds is the community that instant to the context in which the Christian lives. The voluntary community is that natural community that is inclusive of neighbor, local church, and the local polis — with its clubs, organizations, pubs, and small businesses.

The Christian as conservative finds the local voluntary community as natural akin to how a fish finds water natural. It is the contextual environment that God wherein has placed the Christian as conservative and as such it is where his loyalties first lie.

The Christian as conservative learns this principle from Scripture where over and over again we find articulated love of place and love of one’s own people. It originates first in the fifth commandment requirement to love one’s own Father and Mother and finds confirmation in Romans as Paul speaks of his deep love for his own race and again in Timothy where Paul says that if a man will not provide for his own household (extended family) he is worse than an infidel. These are all easily voluntary precisely because they represent where God has placed a person.

This is all contrasted with the Christian as conservatives unabashed hatred for the collective. The Christian as conservative hates the collective precisely because it destroys the sui generis of the local. The Christian as conservative hates  involuntary collectivism because the only way it can be accomplished is by non-0rganic methods that force unique individuals and unique places, with all their variety and diversity, into a pre-cut template from which there is no escape as designed by some wicked bureaucrat in some far away clueless cubicle.

 

 

“First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.”

As long as we insist that the only person who can consistently speak this way is the Biblical Christian I couldn’t agree more. However, I would add that by this definition no one outside of Christ — no one who does not confess Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior can possibly be a consistent conservative.  This is due to the fact that the existence of this enduring moral order is the God of the Bible’s enduring moral order and as such only those who have been reconciled to God in Christ can consistently advocate for this enduring moral order or live in harmony with this enduring moral order.

A small quibble here would be to note that the enduring moral order is made for God before it is made for man.

Human nature is a constant as long as we concede that the human nature in question if sinful apart from Christ and at the same time sinful and saint once in Christ.

We conclude therefore that only the Biblical Christian can be both consistent and conservative at the same time.

Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity.

Again, we must presuppose Biblical Christianity here and so insert the word “Biblical” as an adjective describing custom, convention, and continuity. The reason we must do so is that the Biblical Christian does not embrace custom, convention, and continuity for the sake of custom, convention, and continuity. Indeed, for the Biblical Christian custom, convention, and continuity are only to be esteemed as they rest upon and are reinforced by Biblical warrant. If custom, convention, and continuity do not have biblical warrant then they must be jettisoned for a new custom, a new convention, and a new continuity.

Custom, convention and continuity must always be measured by God’s authoritative word. To appeal to the idea that “We’ve always done it this way,” would be an end to the idea of “Semper Reformanda.”

We need to balance Kirk’s offering here with an observation by Dr. R. J. Rushdoony on this score;

“The ‘experience, traditions, and customs’ of a people are simply not enough to provide an epistemological basis for social order. Experience, tradition, and custom, must themselves be anchored in Biblical Christianity. If experience, tradition, and custom cannot be anchored in Biblical Christianity then they must be replaced by that which is seen as new but is yet rooted in Scripture.”

In 1988 after 70 years of Soviet rule in the Soviet Union would it have been proper to join with Kirk saying that custom, convention, and continuity are signs of being a conservative in the then existing Soviet regime?  I don’t think any right minded person would think that a worthy description of conservatism when custom, convention, and continuity can be leveraged in the name of a long-standing and established wicked custom, convention, and continuity.

Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription.

Kirk’s thought here is that we should prefer the long established wisdom of our forebears as handed down generation by generation over and above our novelty of insight leading to a comparative instant demand for change.

Again, this is true only as in relation to the Biblical Christian as that Biblical Christian has had the blessing of being in a line of Biblical Christians for generations.

However, this principle of prescription would be of little good to an individual whose generations prior were of non-Christians. We know this because of what God’s word teaches in I Peter 1:18;

“knowing that you were ransomed from the futile ways inherited from your forefathers, not with perishable things such as silver or gold,”

It does no good whatsoever for the non-Christian to follow Kirk’s principle of prescription if the principle of prescription means they keep on embracing the futile ways inherited from their forefathers.

Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence.

What Kirk is getting at here is that conservatives are careful about sudden and rash social order change. Following Chesterton’s advice Conservatives are slow to tear down fences until they first know why our father’s built the fence to begin with.

Revolutionaries are always in a hurry and their desire is for instant social order change. Revolutionaries thus are not prudent. They desire to cut down the mighty oak of an established social order and plant a new acorn and then see it age instantly overnight. Conservatives are slow and methodical when it comes to social order change trusting that their Christian forebears knew what they were doing.

Prudence, has perhaps never been more important when one realizes that in our epoch those who tout themselves as “conservative” are more often than not merely holding down the right side of the left and are therefore not conservative in the least.

Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety.

Here Kirk is inveighing against egalitarianism. Kirk understands that modern notions of egalitarianism and equality destroy variety and genuine diversity. The conservative understands that equality means uniformity and that uniformity is the very definition of Hell’s own social order. This principle of variety is in point of fact a plea for liberty in the sense that God is a God who causes men to differ;

We have different gifts, according to the grace given to each of us. Romans 12:6

It is the great Revolutionary sin to pursue equality and it is the great virtue of the conservative to acknowledge a liberty that allows men to differ according to their abilities, talents, and gifts.

R2K fanboy writes,

GOOD GREIF! How in the world could one come to such a conclusion that Islam is a threat to Christianity?

Bret responds,

Good Grief! How can anyone who knows anything about Church history not conclude that Islam can be a threat to Christianity in different times and places? Was Islam not a threat to the Northern littoral of Christian Africa before it overthrew Christianity in those places? Was Islam not a threat to the Middle East Christians of the Levant before Islam finally swept over those Christian peoples conquering them? Was Islam not a threat to Vienna before Joseph Sobieski won the day in 1683? So, I say again that Islam is once again a threat to Christianity just as it was in the examples given above.

Quit being dense.

R2K fanboy writes,

God has promised His Kingdom would advance, which means Islam, nor even the gates of hell will prevail against it. God has made no such promise of the United States. Therefore, with the Unites States, or without it, The Kingdom of God will continue to advance. It seems we have those who cannot separate The Kingdom of God, from the United States.

Bret responds,

It seems we have someone who never excelled at reading comprehension skills.

All because Islam will not ultimately prevail against the Kingdom of God does not mean that Islam cannot be a threat to Christianity in a particular time and place. One day Christianity will return to the Northern littoral of Africa and those lands which were once Christian and are now Muslim will once again be Christian once again. However, that does not change that before the sons of Allah rolled across the Northern Littoral of Africa that gates of hell did, for a season, prevailed against the Kingdom of God in those places in the sense that the Kingdom of God was not the ruling motif in those lands and Christ was not owned as Priest and King by majority of the population in those lands.

Having said that, given your lack of intelligence you’ve displayed so far, I sense I need to qualify the above paragraph by also saying that the Kingdom of God was still present among the Redeemed who still lived in those lands under the boot of Islam.

I completely reject your assertion that Christians are not told to take every thought captive to make them obedient to Christ and that II Corinthians 10: has nothing to do with all Christians taking every thought captive to the end of demolishing strongholds.

 

R2K fanboy writes,

Rushdoony seems to be credited with the reconstruction concept which would sort of demonstrate it is something rather new.

Bret responds,

1.) Rushdoony merely brought to light something that is inescapable and gave it a title. All men are reconstructionists in one direction or another. That has been true since the creation of Adam and Eve. After the fall, unredeemed men reconstruct all of life in a luciferian direction and redeemed men reconstruct all of life in a Christ honoring direction. Rushdoony merely recognized this and gave it a name. So the name (Reconstructionism) may be new but the idea that it is attached to is as old as time.

 R2K fanboy writes,

I have no interest in reconstructing culture. My interest is in preaching the Gospel, and allowing the Gospel to do it’s work, which will indeed affect the culture. If my interest was the culture, and I were successful in reconstructing the culture according to the Mosaic law, we would have a lot of good moral folks in hell.

Bret responds,

This is not an either or thing. Christians are told to disciple the nations, teaching the nations all that Christ has taught. That means that as we are heralding the Gospel, and baptizing the nations, we are discipling the nations so that they embrace the Mosaic law as the template by which they might have a just civil law order.

It is true that people can think that their outward righteousness to the 2nd use of the law is a sufficient hope for heaven but that is where the careful preaching of law and gospel come in so that people don’t have that false hope of trusting in their civil righteousness in order to be right with God.

 R2K fanboy,

Oh? So I am a coward because I am not taking up the same fight as you? Well, how about the fact that I am confronting you, and your ideas? In other words, I am indeed taking up a fight but not with those who are outside, but rather with those who name the Name of Christ.

Bret responds,

I beg your pardon. I should have included the truth that the only way to make a R2K pajama boy fighting mad is by introducing him to a Biblical Christians. The R2K fanboy will fight all day with those who insist on all of Christ for all of life.

R2K fanboy writes,

There is a tremendous difference between attempting to affect culture by enacting the Mosaic law upon the unregenerate, as opposed to preaching the Gospel, and allowing the Gospel to do it’s work.

Moreover, as far as my believing Christianity to be a “private matter” I have spent the last nine years almost daily debating with atheists. So then, I am not under the impression Christianity is a “private matter” but I am also not under the impression I am to force what it is I believe and am convinced of upon others.

Bret responds,

Again … We do not get to choose to either

A.) Preach the Gospel  (or)
B.) Reconstructing all of life to the glory of God

Secondly, if you won’t force what it is you believe and are convinced of upon others they will force what they believe and are convinced of upon you and your seed. Take your choice. You are operating with a Classically liberal world and life view and are trying to say that such a wicked template is a Christian norm. It is not.

 R2K fanboy writes,

  Again, there is a tremendous difference between not being a threat to the US, as opposed to Christianity?

Bret responds,

All false religions are a threat to Christianity and so should not be tolerated.

R2K fanboy writes,

My understanding is, there is the Church, which is a Holy nation, a royal priesthood, and there are the lost of the world. I also understand enacting the laws of God into the civil laws of the land has no power in the least to save the lost. Rather, it is only the Gospel which has the power to save. In other words, folks must, and have to be regenerated. Even Rushdoony agreed with this. Therefore, attempting to enact the Mosaic law upon the unregenerate has no effect.

Moreover, allow us to recall when there were those in Jerusalem who were insisting the Gentiles adhere to the laws of Moses that Peter stood up and said,

“Now therefore, why do you test God by putting a yoke on the neck of the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?”

It seems pretty clear here Peter is proclaiming that the law is a yoke of burden that even the Jews were not able to bear, and we are to place this yoke upon the unregenerate?

Bret responds

Well, this eliminates the idea that you might be a Seminary Professor because not even a Seminary Professor would make the category mistake that you have blundered into here.

1.) I do not believe that enacting the Mosaic laws and penalty for laws will redeem the lost. No one who is orthodox believes that. (And I am nothing if not orthodox.)

2.) Instead the argument for enacting the Mosaics (Sodomy is a crimes, Stealing is a crime, Murder is a crime, etc.) is to introduce lawful order. Enacting the 2nd use of the law is to the end of what is called the political use of the law (2nd use of the law.) This political or civil use of the law has as its purpose the restraining of evil. All admit that the law cannot change hearts so that the wicked become good but the law can limit lawlessness by its threats and promise of judgment for violators of the law. When used in this way the 2nd use of the law secures and protects the civil law order and serves to guard the judicially innocent from the wicked. (See Dt. 13:6-11:19;16-21; Rm. 13:3-4)

3.) Peter was saying that in terms of salvation the Gentiles could not bear the yoke of the law as a means by which the unregenerate could secure righteousness. Peter was not talking about the 2nd use of the law.

R2K fanboy writes,

Now, couple this with the fact that Paul asks the question, “what do I have to do with judging those outside”, and we have to wonder where in the world one would get the idea that the Church is to attempt to enact the Mosaic law upon those outside the Church? So then, it seems as a Christian I am free to associate with the immoral folks outside the Church, but am forbidden from associating with the immoral who claims to be a Christian.

Therefore, no matter what you would like to call it, there is definitely two different spheres. The regenerate, and the unregenerate, and enacting the Mosaic law upon the laws of the land will not change this fact.

Bret responds,

I never denied that the antithesis between the righteous and the unrighteous did not exist.

There definitely are two spheres. There is the sphere that is animated by those who belong to their father the Devil and the sphere that is animated by those who have the deposit of the Holy Spirit. However, as those two dwell cheek by jowl in the civil order some civil law has to prevail and the civil law that should prevail is God’s law enacted into the law code of the land.

Secondly, you are not free to have concourse with immoral folks outside the church. Elsewhere God writes, “Do you not know that bad company corrupts good character.” James 4:4 teaches,

 know ye not that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.

God says in Romans 13, “Hate that which is evil.”

Finally, when Paul talks about not judging those outside the Church he is speaking in the context of judging those inside the Church with judging including the idea of bringing Church discipline. Since those outside the Church cannot have church discipline brought upon them therefore in that sense and in that sense only we are not to judge those outside the church.