Uncategorized – Page 37

The Eternals — A Review

It is pretty common knowledge even upon its release that the newest entry to the Marvel Cinematic Universe, “The Eternals,” is full on WOKE. This review will reveal just how badly WOKE it is.

There are 10 Eternals in the film. Two Caucasian men. Two Caucasian women and six non-Caucasians. The Eternals are each a type of Demi-god who are created to serve the purposes of Arishem, who is a Celestial and godlike character. Interestingly enough the prefix “Ari,” etymologically means gatherer or best. Just as interesting the suffic “shem” is the father of a particular tribe in Biblical lore. So, placed together Arishem, the god featured in the film, “The Eternals,” means literally, “The best Shem.”

Arishem is a kind of god but he is a god who can’t seem to control his creation. First, he created a group of creatures that was supposed to protect human life by devouring creatures that devoured humans. However, these “Deviants” got out of Arishem’s control. It is the same with the Eternals. Arishem creates the Eternals but the main plot of the film is that the Eternals (except for Ikaris and Sprite) decide to revolt against the purpose for which they were created by Arishem. It seems Arishem is not a sovereign Celestial as his created beings violate their reason for being as falling from the hand of Arishem. This is a story where the creatures rise up to frustrate their creator’s will and they are to be saluted for doing so. Sound familiar?

The theme of “free will” is toyed with a great deal in this film as it is constantly examined whether the Eternals should submit to (by their perception) the irrational will of their creator (Arishem) or whether they should follow their own “free will” by doing what they perceive to be the best. Phostos (an Eternal we will consider below) is a sodomite, who in the film has a line, “I would not change a thing about who I am. I don’t exist for Arishem. I exist for my family.” Clearly the Eternal Phostos has decided to exercise his will against Arishem’s will. In the end the viewer is convinced that it was wise of the Eternals to not follow the will of their creator. The creature must create his own purpose and meaning independent of his creator in order to frustrate the evil purposes of Arishem. This is underscored by the line,

“Every time innocent lives have been sacrificed for the greater good (Arishem’s plan) it turns out to be a mistake. We have to stop (Arishem’s) Emergents.”

Of the two Caucasian men in the Eternals (Ikaris & Druig) Ikaris is the strongest of the Eternals and like all white men everywhere ends up being the treasonous bastard villain who has to be defeated by the combined efforts of the rest of the Eternals. Ikaris ends up committing suicide when his plot to foil the rest of the Eternals in saving planet earth fails. He also is guilty of breaking the heart of one of the non-Caucasian Eternals who he married (polyglot marriage). He is portrayed in the end as selfish.

Druig (the other white Eternal) ends up being cast as someone who doesn’t play nice with the rest of the Eternals. He splits from them and spends his time in a isolated rain forest where he controls the minds of the natives to do his bidding.

The two white females are “Sprite,” and “Thena.” Sprite ends up joining with Ikaris and goes all traitorous burying a knife through the body of the non-Caucasian Eternals hero — Sersi — in an attempt to foil saving earth. She is later forgiven and brought back into the Eternals fold. The other white woman (Thena) is a demigod Amazon type woman. She is cast like Athena in ancient mythology as a goddess of war. However this Thena is afflicted by the equivalent of PMS and she goes nuts trying to kill sundry Eternals. She kills the #2 villain in the film thus doing what no other male Eternal had been able to do.

Of the non-Caucasians the females Ajak is the initial leader. She has the super-hero gift of healing and serves as a kind of motherly spiritual leader for the Eternals. She provides a bridge between Arishem (the God) and the Eternals (the Demigods). She is eventually treacherously murdered by the white male Ikaris because she won’t go along with him in obeying Arishem in destroying all human life so that new life can come forward.

Sersi, the next non-Caucasian female then becomes the nominal leader of the Eternals. Sersi is a gentle soul that has empathy for humans though she carried a torch for thousands of years for no good Ikaris who broke her heart. At the end of the film this women discovers she has powers that she never realized that she had. She single-handedly stops the destruction of planet earth. Her downfall seems though to be for white men as her new love interest is also a white male. In future films that white male will also probably do Sersi wrong. You know how white men are that way.

The next non-Caucasian female Eternal is Makkari. Makkari is played by a deaf actress thus giving the film more WOKE points. Makkari has super human speed. Her main role in this film is that she ends up roughing up the white male Ikaris pretty good as he is trying to stop the earth from being saved.

Of the non-Caucasian males, Phostos is the genius who invents all kinds of things to advance civilization and then to help the Eternals defeat the Celestials. There is a kissing scene where he plants a passionate kiss on his non-Caucasian significant other sodomite. The film culturally appropriates normal family life thus suggesting that two sodomites can raise a little boy just like Ward and June Cleaver raised the Beaver.

Gilgamesh is another non-Caucasian male Eternal. He has the gift of strength. The actor pursued the role in order to be an inspiration to the younger generation as the first Korean superhero. He ends up being killed in battle defending the white female Eternal Thena who was going through one of her PMS crazy moments.

Kingo is an Indian (from India) Eternal. He is a star in Bollywood. He, along with his non-Eternal valet provides the comic relief in the film.

The film is not flattering toward the white Eternals while at the same time lifting up the non-Caucasian Eternals as being virtuous characters without fault.

Another attack on white people is seen in the scene where the 16th century Conquistadors are ravaging the Aztecs Tenochtitlan, pillaging, and murdering the poor innocent Aztecs. There is nothing in the film to suggest that the Aztecs were a demonic possessed, drug-addled, tribe who made routine the sacrifice of countless numbers of their neighboring tribes. Nope, it is just the evil white Europeans.

It is interesting that this film pursues the same plot in term of looming disaster as the plot in the Avengers “Infinity Wars.” In both plots there is the danger of the extinguishing of either a majority of humans (Avengers) or in “The Eternals” the extinguishing of all humanity so that new life can come forth. What is it about this Malthusian population reduction theme? Word is the next film will pursue this same theme by some villain releasing a virus from a secret lab causing untold death on planet earth from both the virus and the vaccine developed from Tony Stark labs.

In both films mentioned in the paragraph above the idea is that by pursuing chaos (widespread destruction) order will arise. This is called the “return to chaos” theory and is exemplified by evolution theory in the real world.

Turning to some incidental observations;

1.) The city of Babylon is portrayed as bliss
2.) One marriage and one funeral both accompanied by Hindu prayers
3.) Hints of the Occult in the “Tree of vision,” and the idea of becoming one
4.) Twisted theme of importance of franken-family
5.) Most hilarious dialogue;

Sersi — “I wonder if I did the right thing”
Kingo — “But you followed your heart. We all did”

Continuing to Build the Biblical Case For Kinism

The historical theology supporting Kinism with the book by Achord & Dow — Who Is My Neighbor — is now indisputable. There is no longer any room for denying that the Christian church until 1950 or so has believed everywhere at all times in every place the truth of Kinism. The Biblical theological case continues to be built that Kinism is just as certain. Today we take a biblical theological look that strongly teaches kinism.

Ezekiel 47 Then he [a man whose appearance was like bronze — Ez. 40:3] brought me back to the door of the temple; and there was water, flowing from under the threshold of the temple toward the east, for the front of the temple faced east; the water was flowing from under the right side of the temple, south of the altar….

⁶He said to me, “Son of man, have you seen this?” Then he brought me and returned me to the bank of the river.

⁷When I returned, there, along the bank of the river, were very many trees on one side and the other. ⁸Then he said to me: “This water flows toward the eastern region, goes down into the valley, and enters the sea. When it reaches the sea, its waters are healed. ⁹And it shall be that every living thing that moves, wherever the rivers go, will live. There will be a very great multitude of fish, because these waters go there; for they will be healed, and everything will live wherever the river goes. … ¹²Along the bank of the river, on this side and that, will grow all kinds of trees used for food; their leaves will not wither, and their fruit will not fail. They will bear fruit every month, because their water flows from the sanctuary. Their fruit will be for food, and their leaves for medicine.”

Ezekiel 47:1, 6-9, 12

Here we see that like the rivers in paradise (Gen. 2:10-14) which were a life giving force in Eden, Ezekiel prophesies that a day is coming that healing waters will flow from God’s temple. The consequence of this temple river will be life and healing. This is made all the more startling when one realizes that the sea that this temple river which brings life is emptying into is the Dead sea. The dead sea will teem with fish and upon the banks of the river will grow fresh fruit bearing trees which have leaves that will themselves be used for healing.

This prophecy reverses a sub-theme that we find often (not universally) in Scripture where waters (often seas) are symbolic for the presence of chaos (cmp. Genesis 1, 6, Exodus 15, Pslam 46, 65, 96, etc.). Here instead the temple river communicates the bringing of life and order. Ezekiel is being promised here, just as he was promised in Ezekiel 36 via the resurrection of the valley of dead bones, that a future day will arrive when the promised land will be returned to paradise. The sons of Jacob will once again live and have life and life abundantly.

The New Testament in the Apocalypse of John picks up this theme again in chapter 22. However, the restoration in Revelation is intensified and broadened to include the whole cosmos and all the nations therein.

22 And he showed me a pure river of water of life, clear as crystal, proceeding from the throne of God and of the Lamb. ²In the middle of its street, and on either side of the river, was the tree of life, which bore twelve fruits, each tree yielding its fruit every month. The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

The point that we want to especially elucidate is that the promised land that is to experience the vibrancy of life has moved beyond Israel and is now the whole cosmos and the benefactors of this has moved beyond provincial Israel to all the nations. All the nations as nations will be the recipients of abundant life and healing.

Of course this provides just one block in the Scriptural foundation for Kinism. Clearly the Bible, by the prophetic connection between Ezekiel and Revelation, is teaching here the continuance of the nations in their nations. The Holy Spirit connecting Ezekiel with Revelation is clearly and indisputably establishing the fact that all of the variegated nations as nations will be present in the New Jerusalem. If this is true (and it is) then how can we support any kind of program from the erasure of borders, to polyglot marriages, to transracial adoptions which serve as an attempt to destroy the nations as nations? To support such programs is to do battle with God.

This only underscores yet another block in the Biblical foundation for Kinism as recorded by Dr. Martin Wyngaarden where he notes of Isaiah 19;

¹⁹In that day there will be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar to the Lord at its border. ²⁰And it will be for a sign and for a witness to the Lord of hosts in the land of Egypt; for they will cry to the Lord because of the oppressors, and He will send them a Savior and a Mighty One, and He will deliver them. ²¹Then the Lord will be known to Egypt, and the Egyptians will know the Lord in that day, and will make sacrifice and offering; yes, they will make a vow to the Lord and perform it. ²²And the Lord will strike Egypt, He will strike and heal it; they will return to the Lord, and He will be entreated by them and heal them.

²³In that day there will be a highway from Egypt to Assyria, and the Assyrian will come into Egypt and the Egyptian into Assyria, and the Egyptians will serve with the Assyrians.

²⁴In that day Israel will be one of three with Egypt and Assyria—a blessing in the midst of the land, ²⁵whom the Lord of hosts shall bless, saying, “Blessed is Egypt My people, and Assyria the work of My hands, and Israel My inheritance.”

“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.

Of course the implication of all this is the Church has to cease supporting untrammeled immigration — both legal and illegal — from non Western nations as well as polyglot marriages into the “once upon a time” West.

Limerick Thoughts on Justin Castro

There once was a Canadian Maggie

Who was a communist loving Haggie

Married to a Pierre

Pursued a Castro affaire

And out popped a truck fearing faggy

There once was a woman named Maggie Trudeau

Who once took a Cuban as her boudoir Beau

Pierre was insistin’

That he was with Maggie assistin’

But everyone knows it was Castro

There once was a man named Fidel

Who made Maggie Trudeau his belle

Nine months later arrives Justin

Out of the womb he comes bustin’

Fifty years later he’s a Red givin’ Canada Hell

Is God Sovereign or Not? A Response to Molinism

Molinism insists that if God is exhaustively sovereign therefore man isn’t responsible at all for his behavior since, “God causatively determined it all.” Molinism suggests that man can’t be adjudicated guilty if God’s decree and providence governs all. Molinism is trying to rescue God, in their thinking, from being responsible for evil (though He remains despite their efforts just as evil in their thinking) while at the same time pinning the responsibility of evil upon man. However, God remains the ultimate causation of all things.

I form the light and create darkness,

I make peace and create evil;

I, the Lord, do all these things.’ — Is. 45:7

If a ram’s horn sounds in a city, do the people not tremble? If evil comes to a city, has not the LORD caused it? Amos 3:6

H7451 (Word Study) ra‛, רָעָה —

rā‛āh: An adjective meaning bad, evil. The basic meaning of this word displays ten or more various shades of the meaning of evil according to its contextual usage. It means bad in a moral and ethical sense and is used to describe, along with good, the entire spectrum of good and evil; hence, it depicts evil in an absolute, negative sense, as when it describes the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

God hardened Pharaoh’s heart. God was the ultimate causative agent in the treatment of Joseph by His brothers (Gen. 50:20). It was God who gave permission to Lucifer to pummel Job (Job 1:12). God sends an evil spirit to deceive kings (I Kings 22:22-23). It was God’s determined purpose to crucify the Messiah. (Isaiah 53:10, Acts 2:23). God sends a spirit of delusion that people may believe a lie (II Thes. 2). God is the ultimate cause of all things. If God is not the ultimate cause of all things then God is not God.

Now, this does not deny secondary proximate causes but those proximate causes are what they are because God is the ultimate cause. Secondary causation spins out of primary causation. People, may ask at this point; “How can man be responsible if God is the ultimate cause of all things,” and the answer includes observations like “this is what wicked men wanted to do,” and “having a sin nature this is but the outcome of that sin nature,” and those things are true but ultimately the answer to why men are responsible for their evil deeds if God is the ultimate cause is simply, “Because God says they are responsible.” God needs no other reason to hold men responsible except to say that they are responsible. Likewise, we have no other reason to hold men responsible then God tells us that they are to be held responsible when they violate God’s law(s).

In terms of the Molinist trying to deliver God from being accused of being evil the answer here is that the law of what constitutes evil and good is for the creature. It is enough for us to know that the Word of God insists that God is good. He was good when Joseph was thrown into the pit by His brothers, when accused of rape by Potipher’s wife, when thrown into a vermin infested jail in Egypt, and when Joseph was forgotten in that jail. God was good when He hardened Pharaoh’s heart before Pharaoh hardened his own heart. God was good when He created Lucifer. God was good when it pleased Him to bruise the Son. No matter what He does God never ceases to be good. That is a truth we have to take by faith because we don’t always see it in this veil of tears. This is the truth that Job teaches as Job learned this lesson from the whirlwind that was God’s presence.

Something else that needs to be observed here is that to be the ultimate metaphysical cause of evil is not the same thing as morally committing evil. To metaphysically cause evil deals with the how of its occurrence. Evil occurs because God has created it (Amos 3:6, Isaiah 45:7,)

Hosea 6:1 Come, let us return to the LORD. For He has torn us to pieces, but He will heal us; He has wounded us, but He will bind up our wounds.

Deuteronomy 32:39 See now that I am He; there is no God besides Me. I bring death and I give life; I wound and I heal, and there is no one who can deliver from My hand.

We admit this every time we attend a graveside service;

“The Lord giveth. The Lord taketh. Blessed be the name of the Lord.”

On the other hand on the issue of morally committing evil comes under the rubric of God Himself declaring by His law for creatures what constitutes good and evil. If God has not declared that it is evil for Him to be the ultimate cause of all things, including what we call evil, then who art thou O man to question God? Shall the clay rise up against the Potter and say why have you ordained reality this way? In brief, if God has done it, we would do well to learn with Brother Job to keep our mouths shut and to repent in dust and ashes.

If we embrace any other way of thinking we immediately run into some form of dualism with its Ying and Yang giving good and evil as equipoised perfectly against one another. This was the ancient religion of the Manicheans who believed the push-me, pull-you of good and evil would never be resolved. Augustine, by God’s grace, was delivered from this errant religion.

Now of course, that God is the ultimate metaphysical cause of all things does not mean that man can say in a twisted impersonation of Flip Wilson,

“The deity made me do it.”

Man must remember that though God is the ultimate cause of all things that we remain responsible to God for our lusts and sin and as we don’t know what God hath ordained for any of us (Christians) we would do well to believe that God has ordained for us (Christians) righteousness as opposed to believing that God has ordained for us to follow our wicked lusts. So, we must continue to resist the Devil (God’s agent — see Job) and flee to God. We must be convinced that in His providence God is going to keep us from being sifted by the evil one (His agent).

Scary Kinism Defined & Examples Given (Part VI — Final)

Mr. Mickey Henry wrote the original paragraphs answering the question “What is Kinism.” That can be found over at Tribal Theocrat. What I have been doing in this series is merely providing some commentary on what Mr. Henry originally penned.

XXI.) That atonement is an inescapable category for man. That if the true atonement of Christ is rejected, a substitute atonement will be sought elsewhere. That masochistic activity is often a false substitute means of self-atonement. That burden-bearing is one such masochistic activity. That transracial adoption is one common form of burden-bearing in the post-Christian church. That sacrificing one’s family to become a foreign missionary is another common form.

This is something that I have written on more than once on Iron Ink. See the below entries for commentary on point XXI

False Guilt, Atonement, & Modern Man

Consequences of Sin, and Guilt, as not Quenched in God’s Atonement

The idea of burden-bearing is the idea that once burdened with false guilt we somehow think we are responsible to save the world by ourselves bearing burdens we cannot bear thinking that by doing so we will both rid ourselves of false guilt while saving the world at the same time. One way this expresses itself commonly in the modern evangelical church is by the impulse to adopt transracially (across racial borders). Often when transracial adoptions occur they will sometimes be accompanied by a smugness that suggests because couple A has pursued this kind of adoption that they are automatically superior in some way to couples who have not pursued this kind of questionable activity. Trans-racial adoptions are not normative for the same reasons that polyglot marriages are not normative. They all seek to bring together what God hath separated. If we are not to separate what God hath joined together neither should we normatively seek to join what God has separated apart. Families, like marriages, are going to be stronger and more resilient the more they share a common heritage. Similarly, the more dissonance that is introduced into a family the more conflict that is apt to arise within the family. Certainly we would agree that if a solid black family adopted children from a troubled Chinese family that such a combination could well be promissory of a difficult adjustment period for the polyglot family as well as creating confusion in those Chinese children raised in a loving black home.

The other example Mr. Henry gives is one of the foreign missionary sacrificing their families for the sake of the mission field. Now, clearly every family that becomes missionary does not sacrifice their family to do so. However, that families have been sacrificed in the name of doing missions cannot be doubted. God never called anyone to send their children hundreds if not thousands of miles away to missionary schools for children for extended periods so that they could be free “to do the Lord’s work.” Parents are responsible to rear their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord and that can’t be done by absent parents who are “sacrificing for Jesus.”

XXII.) That adoption should be a rare event, and that orphans should always be cared for by the relationally-nearest family member willing to do so. That if no natural family is willing to care for the orphan, only then may a foster family be sought. That a foster family should only care for another’s child as a means of making the best of a bad situation, after the woman is beyond her child-bearing years and all natural children have left the home. That transracial or international adoptions should not occur.

The old proverb of “keeping it in the family” applies here.

Of course it should be everyone’s desire that adoption be as rare as possible if only because adoption means that somewhere along the line something has gone terribly wrong. That orphans in an ideal world would be raised by next of kin only makes sense in light of the fact that families operate best when they share the most in common. The further one gets away from the nearest family ties the less likely adoptees are going to be able to fit in and work in the context of their adopted families.

The logic in only adopting after all the natural children have left the home and the wife being past child bearing years is found in the reality that a home where there can be no competition between adopted children and natural children for the parent’s affection is obviously the best possible situation for adoption.

XXIII.) That besides treating all men in accordance to God’s Law, our only universal responsibility to others is to share the Gospel with them. That this responsibility is not borne by every individual, but collectively by the Church. That the social gospel is not the Gospel, and that relief efforts, as well as educational and medical missions, are often destructive of the spread of Christianity to foreign cultures. That our responsibility consists only of sharing the Good News of Jesus Christ. That the most effective missionaries are native missionaries, and that foreign missionaries should only be considered if no natives are available. That a foreign missionary should be single, or married but childless.

That the social Gospel is not the Gospel and that relief efforts as well as educational and medical missions are often destructive of the spread of Christianity is seen in the reality of the phenomenon called “rice Christians.” Rice Christians occurred in China and in other countries where the material benefits coming from Christian “conversion” gave incentives to the native born to make profession of Christ out of a desire for food and other material gain as opposed to doing so out of sincerity to know God and make Him known. Such “conversions” were destructive because they were never sincere and so melted away when the least hardships fell.

Another reason that social gospel missions is harmful is that it communicates that the blessings of the Gospel can come to a people apart from their obedience to God’s precepts. If Christian organizations go into deprived countries to build social-order infrastructure the lesson taught is that God’s blessings can be had apart from bowing the knee to God. This is not an argument for ignoring the wicked in their plight. It is an argument that Christians need to be careful that we don’t communicate that social-order sin has no social-order consequences.

In the book, “Missionary Methods, St. Paul’s or Ours: A Study of the Church in the Four Provinces” Missionary and author Roland Allen explicitly notes that St. Paul’s missionary methodology was to establish a beach head for the Church. Spend at most 6 months training the new Elders and then leaving to go elsewhere turning over the newly planted church to the Elders. Whereupon Paul would keep up correspondence in order to counsel the new Elders. This supports the idea that missionary should be temporary. The fact that missionaries should be comprised by men who are as close to as possible ethnically and culturally speaking to where the Church plant is taking place is again a matter of common sense. Men who have a more natural connection to potential church plants are going to be more successful in dealing with all that might arise in a new plant situation. This is no different than assigning ethnic Hellenist Jews to wait on tables in Acts 6 when Hellenist Jewish widows (speaking Greek) raised a complaint that they were being shorted vis-à-vis the Hebrew Jewish widows (speaking Aramean). Greek Jewish deacons were chosen to solve a Greek Jewish widow problem. In the same way planting churches should be done by those who are as close as possible ethnically and culturally to those among whom the church is being planted.

That foreign missionaries should be single men or married but childless couples is seen in the little book “Color me Green.” This book, written by children of Missionaries, tells the story of how missionary children struggle with a sense of belonging because they belong to too many places. They are blue because of their parents country of origin. They are yellow because of the country they were raised in. They feel at home in neither their home country nor the country raised in and so they are “green.” Children ought not to grow up divided against themselves.

I would add one disagreement here. I am convinced that it is the responsibility of each individual as members collectively of the whole Church to indiscriminately spread the Gospel whenever and wherever opportunity arises. One certainly does not have to go overseas to the mission field to do that.

All of the above is important to kinists because we hold that missions should happen, first, as much as possible in the context of natural affinity groups. Second, that the natural affinity group that is the family should not be sacrificed for the sake of missions when missions can be done without breaking up the family unit.

XIV.) That dispossession, barrenness, population decline, wealth transfer, mental blindness, and widespread self-destructive behavior are clear external signs of God’s judgment. That the proper response to this is not to bare our necks to His chosen instruments of castigation, but to reassert the crown rights of King Jesus, and our lawful claims under His kingship.

The first sentence above is substantiated by a reading of Deuteronomy 28:15-68. There we find a list of what God’s curses look like for his people’s disobedience.

The second sentence above refers to those who insist that God’s cursing upon us should be just accepted by the channels God uses to curse us. Rev. Doug Wilson has advanced this kind of position when he has written in the past;

“In the brewing culture wars, we ought not to stand with those seeking to ban same-sex marriage (or with those seeking to impose it).” “So we openly accept homosexual marriage in the civil realm as God’s means of undermining that civil realm, and we accept that He has done this in judgment for wicked fathering within the Church.”

Doug Wilson

Here the culture was on the brink of a full-on Luciferian assault against God, country, and family and Doug steps up to the mic and before God in heaven and man on earth instructs God’s people to openly accept homosexual marriage in the civil realm because like the prophets of old Doug has a pipeline to God and so knows that to resist same-sex marriage would be a mistake because Doug knows that God has visited us with the scourge of sodomite marriage because of wicked fathering within the Church.

Now, every minister can say that whatever comes into the lives of a people is providentially from the hand of God but no minister should suggest that he knows why God is providentially doing X, Y, or Z because of reasons A, B, C. No minister can crawl into God’s filing cabinet to get a definitive “this is that” reason. I don’t disagree that there is wicked fathering in the Church. I protest that Doug can make macro pronouncements about the mind of God concerning God’s providence — I protest Doug’s assumption to be a kind of Christian version of the Oracle of Delphi. Maybe instead God, in His providence, visited us with the scourge of sodomite marriage in order to punish us for hammerhead ministers making wild arse guesses about why God does this or that.

And to say that “we openly accept sodomite marriage?” What was the man smoking that day? Maybe God intended, contra Saint Doug, for Christians to rise up and resist magistrates who want to foist upon us the acceptance of sodomite marriage instead of just accepting it?

And now Trannyism is upon us. I can just hear the Oracle of Moscow now;

“In the brewing culture wars, we ought not to stand with those seeking to ban men in our women-folk bathrooms (or with those seeking to impose it).” “So we openly accept Trannys in the civil realm as God’s means of undermining that civil realm, and we accept that He has done this in judgment for not enough Christians agreeing with me about not resisting sodomite marriage.”

I can’t wait for Doug’s next “from on high” pronouncement on the coming pedophilia outbreak, not to mention, what God tells Doug about how Christians should resist the routine bedding of farm animals in the civil realm.