Category: Uncategorized

In the small city, I live in there is a “church.” (I use that word as a courtesy. The confession I subscribe to doesn’t allow me to really believe it is a church.) It is one of the oldest churches in the city and was built right across the street from the courthouse. It is one of those large buildings, breathtaking in scope, with high ceilings, and a sanctuary that once actually needed the seating for which it was designed. I’ve often wanted to preach there just for the opportunity for the building itself to hear, one more time, the soothing and startling tones of the Christian faith once delivered to the saints coming from the pulpit. I imagine it has been decades since this facility has heard those truths. It may be the case that the building would fall down from the stress of hearing those truths again shaking the rafters.

Anyway … in the front of this full-on WOKE church stands some regal maple trees and around one of these maple trees, someone in authority in the Church has decided to send yet another message of what a “safe” church they are by wrapping a rainbow flag around the girth of the tree. As such, every day countless numbers of cars drive by this church and witness this tip of the hat to political correctness foisted upon us by the church in question.

Of course, the flag on the tree serves as a sign to communicate any number of things. Some of what it is signaling is more obvious (we embrace as a lifestyle in this “house of God” what God consumed with fire in Genesis 19) and some of what the flag is signaling is less obvious. It is to the less obvious that we turn for a moment.

The flag is a sign sending this message about the “church” and everyone attending the church; “I, the Congregational Church, live here and I know what I must do if I am to fit into the zeitgeist. This flag bespeaks that I am behaving in the manner expected of me. You, citizens of the community, because of this flag sign know I can be depended upon to ape the culture and that in this regard I am above reproach. I am an obedient member of our current death cult in the West and therefore beyond being indicted.”

This message radiating by the flag sign is directed to the community, and at the same time, it is a shield protecting the church and those who attend from any accusation that it or they may be counter-cultural in any fashion. The flag sign is a virtue signal and screams conformity. The flag sign is also communicating to the church itself that it has bowed the knee to the idols of the day. It gives the church identity, dignity, and, morality even if each of those is twisted beyond recognition. It is the identity of the perverted, the dignity of the treasonous, and the morality of Mephistopheles. Even the ground under the building quakes at being responsible for being sat upon by such a monstrosity. Ultimately the flag is a display of loyalty to the zeitgeist. For those with eyes to see it is, in reality, the white flag of surrender.

If the zeitgeist suddenly lurched towards accepting pedophilia (a possibility not beyond the realm of probability) the church would soon likely put out a flag that would communicate that children are merely young adults capable of making their own decisions about intimacy and so likeminded people are “safe” in that “church.” Imagine any polymorphous perversity you can imagine and a flag would sure to be soon wrapped around that poor maple tree that stands in front of their building.

And, oh the irony in choosing a rainbow flag. That very symbol that was given by God by which God set as a sign that God would never again destroy the earth by water. Clearly, those who embrace such symbols forget that God has more means than just water by which he can visit judgment.

Every day I drive by it I see it leering at me as if it were possessed by some kind of Goblin or Wormwoodian demon. It cackles at me that soon every church and every government building and every business building will one day have flags emblazoned somewhere on their property signaling that conformity has now consumed all. In my mind’s eye, I see men wearing rainbow flag pins on the collars of their suit much as they wear the American flag pins now. I begin to think it will rise to flood level and wash over everything and then I remember…

I’ll have a Bloody Mary. The Bar Keep says… “You find a girl named Mary, and I’ll bloody her up.”

The Postmodernist responds … “But that’s not what I mean.”

The Barkeep says… “It is in my worldview.”

Last night I tied into a Postmodernist who is a “Seminary Resident” at one of the local liberal churches in Charlotte and the conversation was a laugh riot. See if you agree.

Adam Droscha said,

First of all, it is psychologically impossible to completely erode one’s worldviews or structures and systems of belief.

BLM responds,

That is a magnificently large non-truth. Our whole current University systems, exceptions notwithstanding, specialize in doing just this. There are also other examples. If one is conversant with Mao’s re-education camps or any of the communist’s dealings with interrogation one knows that the statement that “it is psychologically impossible to completely erode one’s worldview is crapola. Even well-delievered propaganda can completely erode one’s worldview.

AD writes,

Secondly, (1) pretty much all ideas are purely subjective. Even concepts of metaphysical categories, absolute/objective truths, etc. are always subjectively described, or subjectively thought of…..

all worldviews are subjective. There are not premodern and modernist objective worldviews, and a singular subjective postmodern worldview. Peoples’ worldviews have always been subjective.

Bret responds,

Jacques Derrida … Michael Focault … please call your office.

Of course, all of this Adam is just your subjective opinion and so not one I need to take seriously. 

Adam Droscha wrote,

Bret, psychologically speaking in the context of my conversation with Matthew, what I said is true.

Bret responds,

Well, only as your subjective worldview subjectively tells you it is true. Of course, if all worldviews are indeed subjective then any talk about true is qrxiye hiyhd auty,ty6 bnwopsm arf.

AD wrote.,

The human mind is hardwired–it was quite literally in the neurophysiology of the human body–to assimilate new information into existing frames of reference.

Bret responds,

Well, that may be the case in your subjective worldview but it is not necessarily the case in any number of other subjective worldviews.

Look, old chap, if all worldviews are subjective, as you insisted earlier, then there is no objective reference point that you and I can appeal to in order to find common meaning. In your subjective worldview, the word “colossal” could mean ‘purple’ wherein in my subjective worldview ‘colossal’ could be ‘menstruation.’

In my worldview, your statement is still nonsense as any familiarity with Mao’s reeducation camps or the work with POWs in prison camps or even any familiarity with the work of effective propaganda reveals as I noted earlier. You’re just wrong AD. Goebbel’s Ministry of Information proves that the human mind is malleable to an incredible degree. In point of fact, the novel 1984 labored to show how malleable minds were. Quick… how many fingers am I holding up?

AD wrote

Yes, critical theories and post-structural theories originate in academic circles. To say that there are university systems that specialize in “eroding one’s worldviews, or structures and systems of belief” is a pretty self-serving, sweeping, and propagandistic claim severely lacking in context and, as I’m sure, firsthand experience.

Bret responds,

You know nothing about me. Nothing about my research. Nothing about how I know about the University system. The above statement is ignorance of stilts. Not only that, you missed the part where I said: “exceptions notwithstanding.” I did not make a Universal statement. I made a general statement.

AD writes

Yes, I’m familiar with both Focault’s and Derrida’s work (which should not be flippantly lumped together), and I’ve studied both to an extent. Invoking them here changes what I said not at all.

Whose opinion you take seriously is up to you, man. But you inserted yourself into this conversation and chose to read my comments and reply. If you don’t take it seriously, go about your day. Just know the feeling is mutual.

Bret responds,

The only thing you are familiar with is your subjective opinion. In your worldview, no communication can happen because all worldviews are subjective. If all worldviews are subjective no communication can take place because the minute I receive your subjective Worldview my subjective worldview alters it into something else subjective other than your subjectivity.

And don’t you dare disagree with me because that is just your subjectivity telling you that I am wrong.

Go away … in your worldview communication is a myth.

Adam Droscha

Lol. Imagine being this immature and expecting people to take what you say seriously.

Bret, I see what you’re doing, and please understand that I’m trying to politely level with you here. In absolutely no intelligent, good faith conversation about the topics we’ve discussed here is your response considered a logical byproduct. If you are so ill educated, if your knowledge is so lacking, that you don’t know that subjectivity and objectivity are not polar opposites, and that subjective experience is essentially an a priori truism in philosophy, psychology, sociology, epistemology, communication science, and other fields, that is your own problem, man. Absolutely nothing you insinuated about communication breakdown resulting from acknowledging the subjectivity of experience and worldviews bears any reflection on reality. Good day to you, and may God have mercy in your soul.

Bret responds,

Meh … shrug … that’s just your subjective worldview talking. Come back when you have something more than a subjective opinion to offer.

It is so hilarious that you are shocked at the thought that people would take me seriously when at the same time I howling at the thought that anybody could take a ruddy thing you are saying seriously, or that you can even take yourself seriously. You freely admit that all worldviews are subjective and then expect people to take your words seriously. If everything is subjective Adam then you’re trying to communicate with me is like you being a man of water talking about a man of water in an ocean of water climbing out on a ladder of water into an upper story made of water. If all is subjective then all is the same. There is no ability to distinguish between what you mean and what I hear you as meaning. It’s water everywhere.

What you’re saying is that there is some subjectivity in your objective and some objectivity in your subjective? If that is so then you really can not call them subjective and objective but instead kind of subjective and kind of objective. But if objective gets in the subjective and subjective gets in the objective then what does subjective and objective even mean… and according to whom? By what standard can I or anybody determine how much subjectivity is allowed in the objective and how much objectivity is allowed in the subjective? And again, I say to you, this is all born of your subjective worldview. Were I to agree with you I could do so while disagreeing with you according to my subjective worldview.

You have no ground of authority Adam. No place to stand. You have turned all those fields you mentioned (philosophy, psychology, sociology, epistemology, communication science, etc.) into tarot card reading, necromancy, seances, mind-reading, and occultic levitation.

If the subjective experience is prior to any Objective then how could you possibly know what you are experiencing? You can’t talk about subjective without an objective to give identity to your subjective and you can’t whistle it either.

Adam Droscha

I’m sure you actually think that’s clever. Whenever my ignorances are exposed to me, it definitely helps my case to quit taking the conversation seriously. You should definitely keep doing that.

Bret responds,

Sorry, Dude, I don’t take the errant presuppositions of Humanism seriously. I am a Christian after all. We believe we have an objective word from God.

In the beginning, was the Logos and the Logos was with God and the Logos was God.

I’m doing all I can to mock you and you think I’m taking this seriously?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kh9PYtmVybU

The epistemologically self-conscious paedo-Reformed have often wished that Roger Williams would never have been let off the boat that brought him here. Baptists – even the best of them – with their contradictions and inconsistencies drive us nuts.

The series of quotes below from Dr. James White provides just such an example. White fancies himself a critic of Critical Race Theory, Intersectionality, and Cultural Marxism in general. Dr. White even signed the Dallas Statement which inveighed against the issues just mentioned.

That Dr. White looks to be on the side of the angels on this subject is seen by a tweet thread from 2018 where he wrote;

“If powerful (and wealthy) multi-national interests who benefit from cultural decline and degradation in the US find Neo-Marxism a useful tool for the creation of division and anarchy, should we stop identifying it for the fear of offense?”

James White – 2018 Tweet

“We who are opposing this very American, very sociological, but (we believe) very unbiblical movement do so because we see it requiring a new paradigm, a new way of interpreting the entire gospel message.”

Of course, we plebes who sit on the sideline and watch can’t help but cheer for these kinds of blows well laid. “Hip Hip Hooray,” and all that.

However, our cheering suddenly dies in our throats when we go on to read what else white says in the same tweet thread;

“The renewal that is the reality of true Christians is one that obliterates social, ethnic, and historical connections — the beautiful and radical unity that marked the apostolic message is based upon a truth that sociologists and politicians cannot grasp, and cannot overthrow.”

“Concepts of ‘whiteness’ or ‘blackness’ are DESTROYED by the radical equality of every sinner’s need and Christ’s perfect provision. Our identity is NOT determined by our ancestors—we have been transferred out of the kingdom where such relationships rule and divide.”

James White

Holy Bogomil Batman! What Cathari demon suddenly possessed White in that thread? Is James a secret member of the Paulicans? There is more of Jan of Leyden in those last two quotes than there is of Jesus Christ.

You see, this is what makes us go very slowly when we are around Baptists. They are prone to these kinds of crazy Ivans.

Let us examine briefly these last two quotes;

I.) The renewal that is the reality of true Christians most certainly does not obliterate social, ethnic and historical distinctions. That kind of sentiment is straight-up Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels.

You tell me, dear reader, who is Dr. James White channeling?

1.) ”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

2.) “The equality of races and nations is one of the most important elements of the moral strength and might of the Soviet state. Soviet anthropology develops the one correct concept, that all the races of mankind are biologically equal. The genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races serves the struggle against racism, against all idealist, mystic conceptions of man, his past, present and future.”

—Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959
“The Origin of Man” (Moscow)Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959:

3.) “The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together but to merge them….”

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination — pg. 76

4.) “… Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the dictatorship of the proletariat, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their right to secede. “

Vladimir Lenin 
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination 

5.) “Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…, can and must be done away with historically.” 

K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,

As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A

Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:

What White is advocating as Christianity, knowingly or unknowingly, is Communism.

II.) When White talks about unity in the quote above he is not talking about any unity that any Reformed Christian every embraced. Instead what the man is talking about is uniformity. White is talking about the unity of the garbage can/scow. It is the unity of everything being in a non-distinguishable mess of corruption.

Contrast White’s statement about the beautiful and radical unity that marked the apostolic message with a statement by John Calvin;

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

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

III.) While our identity is not absolutely determined by our ancestors it is simply the case that in many respects our identify is determined by my ancestors. Physical characteristics like my height, my eye-color, my IQ range etc. were all determined by my ancestors. The Gospel does not put me in some kind of Gnostic world where my physical identity makers as inherited from my ancestors goes away. In the same way, many non-physical characteristics inherited from my ancestors don’t disappear with inclusion into Christ. I am Scot-Irish. My stubbornness/determination comes to me naturally and the Gospel, while working to sanctify that stubbornness/determination is not going to make it go away. White is wrong.

IV.) When White says, “we have been transferred out of the kingdom where such relationships rule and divide.” he is once again in error. Certainly the wall of division that divided Jews and Gentiles has been broken down. We now all have access to the Father through Christ. However, that does not mean that we have been transferred out of the Kingdom, where for example, only one born of one’s own nation should rule that nation.

Dt. 17:15you are to appoint over yourselves the king whom the LORD your God shall choose. Appoint a king from among your brothers; you are not to set over yourselves a foreigner who is not one of your brothers

A foreigner many be a Christian but the fact that that foreigner is in the Kingdom of Christ does not mean that his relationship with Christ means that he can rule in a Kingdom with which he is not indigenous. Being a Christian doesn’t mean there are not going to continue to be proper divisions among Christians.

In the end White’s problem is that he is contending that Grace destroys nature whereas the Reformers always insisted, quite to the contrary, that Grace restores nature.

Honestly, it is hard to determine how one man in the space of a few minutes can vehemently oppose CRT while at the same time argue from the principles of CRT as if they are the very essence of Christianity.

“This is not just about what the government can do, this is about companies and individuals recognizing that the only way we get past misinformation is if we are careful about what we say and use the power that we have to limit the spread of misinformation.”

Vivek Murthy
Biden Administration U.S. Surgeon General
Complaining about Joe Rogan’s podcast on Alternative Medicines

Everyone knows that Big Tech is carrying the censorship water for the repressive tolerance (Marcuse) of the left. This is a dog whistle by the Biden administration for Big Tech to slap down any media platform that dares disagree with Big Brother’s narrative. Can you say censorship?

Biden’s Surgeon General,  Vivek Murthy is a second-generation Indian whose parents hale originally from Karnataka, India. Murthy is now in the US screaming as Surgeon General for an end to America’s first amendment guarantee of Freedom of speech. Murthy however is clever enough to insist that the FEDS not get their hand’s dirty censoring instead passing it off to big Tech as the FEDS attack dog.

How long until we get to some kind of social credit program that finds us, like the Chinese, being gigged for speaking our minds in such a way as to violate government standards?