Category: Uncategorized

Here I find myself just a tad bit over 3 weeks out from open heart surgery. On top of that I have managed to contract a very slight, but still discernable cold. I am, to say the least, feeling blah and quite lackluster. I have been kicking myself about not blogging more but I have just not had the oomph to do so.

Until now. Leave it to that grand idiot Dr. R. Scott Clark to write with such determined torpidity and stylistic buffoonery to cause me rise out of my languid pose of recovery so as to expose his shallow offerings and lampoon his “insightful reasoning.”

Recently, at his blog, “The Heidelfog” Clark had yet another go at the concept of “Christian Nationalism.” Naturally, as Clark is a stupid man he is opposed to this Biblical concept. It is ironic that a man who wrote a book on “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” would insists that those who wrote the “Solemn League and Covenant” (a steroidal advocacy of Christian Nationalism if there ever was one) and were largely responsible for penning the Westminster Confession of Faith were foursquare opposed to any idea of Christian Nationalism.

I mean R. Scott Clark is trying to tell us that the guys who penned the following were against Christian Nationalism;

WLC#191 Q- What do we pray for in the “second petition” of the Lord’s prayer which is Thy Kingdom Come?

A – the Kingdom of God is to “be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.” 

Or

Q-108 which asks what are the duties required in the second commandment.

A – “the disapproving , detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”

The magistrate’s place and calling requires him to remove all false worship and all monuments of idolatry.

Or

Q-118 “What is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?”

The answer says that it is directed to other superiors, because “they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.”

Other superiors include the civil magistrate.

It looks to me like Dr. R. Scott Clark needs to recover the Reformed Confessions on the issue of Christian Nationalism because those documents clearly support Christian Nationalism.

But let us not deal merely in generalities. Let us dig into the subterranean chambers of Dr. R. Scott Clark’s and Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s idiocy. Let us take the time to pop their ponderous puss-filled pontifications on the position of Christian Nationalism. In order to do so we examine Clark’s 07 June offering on the same subject on his “The Heidelfog” wherein he quotes Dr. Kevin DeYoung to sustain his vile bile against Biblical Christianity.

First Clark argues that it was the end of sodomy laws combined with the rise of SCOTUS’s Obergefell vs. Hodges decision that made the way for the return of discussion supporting Christian Nationalism. Here Clark is only half right, which means he is completely wrong. Should we be surprised? It is true that pro-sodomy laws and pro-sodomite marriage may have lit the fuse to a return of conversation on Christian Nationalism but the larger issue was the realization of more and more Christians that their nation was embracing a Nationalism that was thoroughly pagan and anti-Christ. More and more Christians began to realize, because of the rise of sodomy and now Tranny-ism and child abuse sex change laws that their nation was indeed embracing a Nationalism but that that Nationalism was pinioned upon hatred of Christianity. So, instead of giving in to the rise of humanist Nationalism a chord was struck to once again begin thinking about Christian Nationalism. So, Clark is right about those issues driving conversation but he is wrong in not realizing that people began waking up to the fact that Nationalism is an inescapable category and that if we have to choose between a anti-Christ Nationalism where sodomy, Tranny-ism, pedophilia and sodomite marriage are expressions of the theology of the land and Christian Nationalism where Biblical morality is the law of the land they would rather rally around the flag of Christian Nationalism.

Clark then goes on to cite Paul Miller’s 2021 Christianity Astray article on Christian Nationalism as a beginning point of conversation on the subject. Clark ties together Miller’s work with Samuel Huntington’s writing on the same subject. Clark then goes out of his way to try and tie Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism” in with Theonomy — which Clark hates with all the passion of Juliet’s love for Romeo. Clark fails to mention that Wolfe goes out of his way in his volume to communicate that he is no friend to theonomy. Indeed, it is my conviction, as a general equity theonomist that Wolfe’s book fails magnificently precisely because he pins his Christian Nationalism on Natural Law’s anti-theonomic thinking. However, the fact that Wolfe goes out of his way to distance himself from theonomy does not stop the libelous R. Scott Clark from disingenuously seeking to tie Clark to Theonomy. (Alas, if only it were really true.)

Clark next appeals to fellow well educated chucklehead Kevin DeYoung for support for Clarks own vitriol. DeYoung pleas for rejecting Wolfe inveighing;

“The message—that ethnicities shouldn’t mix, that heretics can be killed, that violent revolution is already justified, and that what our nation needs is a charismatic Caesar-like leader to raise our consciousness and galvanize the will of the people—may bear resemblance to certain blood-and-soil nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it’s not a nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ.”

Now, I am 75% finished with Wolfe’s book and I would dearly love to have the page number where Wolfe expressly said that “ethnicities shouldn’t mix.” I wish he had said it. I was disappointed he didn’t say it. As such I’d love the exact quote from DeYoung.

Second, how can DeYoung be a Christian minister living in a land where we still routinely kill the unborn and even the newly born and contend that violent revolution isn’t already justified. On this basis alone I think any pulpit worth its salt would be ashamed to be filled by DeYoung.

Third, while I think it is dang near impossible for a Christian prince to rise in Weimerca I certainly would not be opposed if one did arise to set matters straight. I would love for a Protestant Christian Franco, Pinochet, or Salazar to take the helm in this country. Would that God would raise up a Alfred the Great, a Charlemagne, or a Cromwell to lead this country. Can anyone tell me why DeYoung is opposed to a Christian Prince rising up to destroy all the high places in the nation?

Do not fail to notice how DeYoung subtly suggests, via his “blood and soil” descriptor that all who disagree with him on this are closet Nazis. Can DeYoung please tell me why Christian Nationalism that Wolfe puts forth (and frankly which I think is weak sauce) is not a Nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ? Methinks when Kevin DeYoung talks like this Kevin DeYoung and Bret L. McAtee are serving different Christs because I think that Jesus Christ would be well pleased with that kind of Christian Nationalism.

At this point R. Scott Clark leaves off from quoting DeYoung and gives us more of his own blather. Red Clark, like any good Commie,  directly ties Christian Nationalism to Nazism, making explicit what DeYoung offered implicitly;

“Segregationism (known among theonomists as “kinism“) and the lust for a “charismatic Caesar-like leader” should cause any decent American’s blood to run cold. These two features were also essential to the very “blood and soil” nationalism of the Nazis. We fought and won a war against these very things. The idea that religious heretics should be put to death is a repudiation of the first amendment of the Constitution and constitutes an anti-American revolution. Miller has seriously understated the nature and intent of the most popular form of Christian Nationalism.”

Here, I, in a decent and warm-bloodily manner, note;

1.) There have been many many Christian Kings throughout history and many many Christian Kings whom God’s people loved. To suggest that a rise of a good Christian King should make any Christian’s blood run cold reveals again that R. Scott Clark is historically ignorant.

2.) Is it R. Scott Clark’s position that any people who want to retain their heritage, traditions, and even their common bonds of blood are automatically wicked? Is the desire to belong to a set people in a known place really the kind of realities that should make the blood of Christians run cold? I mean, I know that thinking that way makes the blood of Cultural Marxists run cold but why should we think that thinking in such a manner as to love people and place to the point of wanting people and place to carry on into the future is something that makes all decent American’s blood run cold?

Honestly, R. Scott Clark saying that about Kinism makes my blood run cold.

Quoting from Scott’s Libel against McAtee and Kinism piece;

Some are now also entertaining the heresy of Kinism, which is a feature of the darker corners of the Reconstructionist/theonomic/postmillennialist sub-cultures. The central tenets of Kinism, as given by one of its proponents are these:

Bret Responds,

Kinism a heresy?

“The ancient fathers… were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance.”

Augustine – (A.D. 354 – 430)
City of God, book XV, Chpt. 16

“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

” [The] differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now. . . . [T]hese varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose. . . . God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3 (1872–73)

“Brethren according to the Flesh.”

Romans 9:3

Paul had two classes of brethren; those who were with him the children of God in Christ; these he calls brethren in the Lord, Philip, i. 14, holy brethren, &c. The others were those who belonged to the family of Abraham. These he calls brethren after the flesh, that is, in virtue of natural descent from the same parent. Philemon he addresses as his brother, both in the flesh and in the Lord. The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature. It therefore approves of parental and filial affection, and, as is plain from this and other passages, of peculiar love for the people of our own race and country.

Charles Hodge
Commentary Romans 9

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS) 

• The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.
• The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.

  John Edwards Richards
  One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

  Look, I could go on with these quotes from the Reformed Fathers for dozens and dozens of pages. The snippet I have given above is enough to demonstrate the idea of Kinism and kinist like convictions completely eviscerates R. Scott Clark’s individual declaration that Kinism is heresy. One would think a Church historian would be more familiar with, well, er, uh … Church history.

  RSC next complains about a couple Kinist convictions listing them first;

1. 1. That sin is a universal deformity in human nature, and that no perfect society is possible this side of Heaven. That Christians should work to limit human error by seeking those conditions which are inherently productive of a harmony of interests, both in marriage and in society at large. That a harmony of interests naturally exists between people who are similar.

      Bret responds,

      Can there be any disagreement that a harmony of interests naturally exists between people who are similar? Dr. Clarence McCartney, co-worker with Dr. J. Gresham Machen, didn’t think so.
      

      “Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

      Dr. Clarence MacCartney
      20th Century Presbyterian Minister

      Next RSC complains about this Kinist tenet;
      

   2. That the God of the Old Testament, who forbade interracial, interreligious marriages to His covenant nation, is the same as the God of the New Testament. That marriage between parties who are not naturally congenial is unequal yoking. That unequal yoking in marriage or in society at large is destructive of Christian harmony, association, and growth.

      And then RSC critiques,

By “congenial” the author means “of the same race” and the “yoking” to which he refers is marriage. This was previously known as segregationism. Anyone old enough to remember or able to read a history text knows who George Wallace, Orval Faubus, or Hendrik Verwoerd were and what they did.

Bret responds,

They could also possibly be educated enough to read a history text and so know who E. Earl Ellis was;

“Segregation has the potential to develop into a partnership of mutual respect … Southerners often wonder whether integrationists are as interested in good race relations as in forcing a particular kind of race relations. The unfortunate fact is that ardent Christian integrationists, however conscientious, are one cause of the worsening race relations in the South today. Their moral superiority complex, their caricature of the segregationist as an unchristian bigot and their pious confession of the sins of people in other sections of the country have not been wholly edifying.”

And maybe Scott has heard of Dr. F. H. Henry? Dr. Carl F. H. Henry wrote that civil rights legislation ending segregation would be morally problematic,

“Forced integration is as contrary to Christian principles as is forced segregation.  A voluntary segregation, even of believers, can well be a Christian procedure.”

Dr. F. H. Henry
1957 Christianity Today Article

And maybe Church Historian RSC has heard of Church Historian Phillip Schaff?

“Wherever the governmental idea holds the mercenary so completely in check and yields to the influence of Christian morality, it may be a wholesome training school for inferior races, as it is in fact with the African negroes, until they are capable to govern themselves.”

Phillip Schaff
Slavery and the Bible, p. 24

So, whether RSC likes it or not, what Kinists defend is not so much this strange thing called “Kinism” as it is a defense of Biblical Christianity and its impact on peoples and social orders as held universally by the Reformed Fathers prior to the middle of the 2oth century or so. If RSC wants the Reformed Church after 1950 he can have it. I’ll take the Reformed from 1518 forward.

RSC next writes,

This is not to suggest that all Christian Reconstructionists, theonomists, or postmillennialists are Kinists. That is not true. Indeed, Joseph Morecraft, a leading theonomic Reconstructionist, and postmillennialist, has publicly denounced Kinism. It is also true that outside of those sub-cultures, one is not very likely to encounter Kinism, however,  inside those sub-cultures, it is more common. I learned about the existence of Kinism while researching the doctrine and practice of Doug Wilson, who has engaged in dialogue over the years with Kinists. The Anti-Defamation League has a helpful who’s who of the Kinism movement….

Bret Responds,

I’m sure that RSC has heard of the Gordon H. Clark quote that “we don’t come to truth by counting noses.” That Morecraft or Wilson or any other who are counted among those reputed to be pillars within the Church have abandoned the Biblical Christianity of their fathers in an attempt to do what RSC is doing in his desire to deny nearly all of Church history on this score really shouldn’t surprise anyone. There is a long historical record of Christians seeking to trim their sail in order to fit into the zeitgeist.

Next, we would note the utter astonishment that RSC would go to the ADL, an organization known to oppose the advance of Biblical Christianity to critique Christians is almost as insane as a boy saying that he is a girl.

RSC next writes,

The first I remember seeing anything about Kinism was on the website Little Geneva, which published a 2003 correspondence between Harry Seabrook and Wilson on slavery, racism, and Kinism. The former was an advocate of Kinism, and the latter has criticized aspects of Kinism. He has also engaged another notorious advocate of Kinism, who was removed from the Christian Reformed Church in 2019 for teaching this heresy. (Here RSC links to a Lansing State Journal article that references the Church I serve.) Charlotte Greco writes in the Lansing State Journal that this minister was dismissed from the Christian Reformed Church in 2019 for impenitently teaching Kinism. The CRC became aware that he was teaching Kinism in 2016 and finally declared it heresy, at Synod, in 2019. Rod Dreher has recently documented other examples of Kinism in connection to certain so-called Christian Nationalists.

Bret responds,

This issue was put before me in recent months as a couple of friends contacted me to ask about it or topics related to it. There is a self-published paperback volume that is being shared, in some small circles, devoted to attacking any sort of two kingdoms or (as I would rather say) twofold kingdom approach to Christ and culture and Christian ethics. Never mind that the phrase “twofold kingdom” is a direct translation of Calvin’s expression, duplex regimen.

Bret responds,

“If from this we may conclude that ethnic pluriformity is the revealed will of God for the human race in its present situation, it is highly questionable whether the Christian can have part in any program that would seek to erase all ethnic distinctions. That such distinctions may be crossed over by individuals may be granted, but it is at least questionable whether a program designed to wipe out such differences on a mass scale should be endorsed by the Christian. It is this line of argument that the average Christian segregationist uses to back his view. He fears that the real goal of the integrationist is the intermarriage of the races, and therefore the breakdown of the distinctions between them. Many who would be willing to integrate at various lesser levels refuse to do so, simply because they feel that such will inevitably lead to intermarriage of the races, which they consider to be morally wrong. . . .

The mass mixing of the races with the intent to erase racial boundaries he does consider to be wrong, and on the basis of this, he would oppose the mixing of the two races in this way. Let it be acknowledged that a sin in this area against the Negro race has been perpetrated by godless white men, both past and present, but this does not justify the adoption of a policy of mass mixing of the races. Rather, the Bible seems to teach that God has established and thus revealed his will for the human race now to be that of ethnic pluriformity, and thus any scheme of mass integration leading to mass mixing of the races is decidedly unscriptural.”

Dr. Morton H. Smith (1923-2017)
(For more see: Dr. Morton H. Smith on Christianity, Race, and Segregation)

Well here I find myself reminding myself of the maxim that “there is no such thing as bad publicity,” which is a good thing because bad publicity seems to be the majority report when it comes to reporting on me or matters concerning me.

Most recently, Dr. R. Scott Clark (RSC) wrote part I of what one can only presume is at least a two part (and maybe more) blog posts series on Kinism. In this post by RSC I am referenced more than once, though RSC demonstrates the ability to do so without actually mentioning my name. I have reached, it seems, the status wit Scott of “he whom shall not be named.”

I provide the link hesitantly because I hate to think of providing RSC any traffic, but because my quoting of him will seem so fantastic as to not possibly be true, I want to give those following along the ability to read for themselves what I am citing RSC as writing.

The CRC Is Right About Kinism (Part One)

Now, we should note at the outset that this post by RSC is a backhanded attempt to smear me so as to discredit my recently published book that demolishes Scott’s cherished Radical Two Kingdom “Theology.” IMO, Scott goes this route because he cannot deal with or overturn the actual arguments found in my “Saved to be Warriors; Exposing the Errors of Radical Two-Kingdom Theology.”

As anybody who has a pulse now knows, R2K is bleeding out fast. The substance of it is being slammed in so many quarters that it is taking more hits then the World Wide Wrestling Entertainment Federation’s “The Big Red Machine Kane,” who has lost more wrestling matches than anybody in WWEF history.

Most recently RSC tried to sell the idea that an overture sent to the PCA asking the Denomination to petition the FEDS and State governments;

“to renounce the sin of all medical and surgical sex change procedures in minors by the American healthcare system because they result in irreversible harm.”

Was out of order and not proper per RSC’s unique reading of the Westminster Confession of Faith. However, Scott seemingly thinking nobody was watching, got a smackdown of epic proportions. I don’t care for Scott and even I hurt for him watching this smackdown;

Today @RScottClark authored a post regarding an upcoming overture to the #PCAGA petitioning the government to renounce sins related to transgenderism. That article can be found here. 1/12 https://t.co/ARNYW3cxVT

— Once for All Delivered (@OFADpodcast) March 31, 2023

In reading through the above it becomes apparent, once again, that Scott plays fast and loose with any text he reads if he thinks he can manipulate the text to his ends. It is very postmodern of him to handle texts the way he does. That inability becomes a theme also in his latest diatribe against myself and Kinism which we turn to next.

Well, enough by way of introduction let us get to the meat of RSC’s libel against myself and Kinism.

First, Scott provides us with some definitions:

1. Theonomy holds that the civil magistrate should enforce the Mosaic judicial laws, that they did not expire with the Israelite state.
2. Christian Reconstructionism expects a coming collapse of civilization and a new, Christian civilization to be reconstructed along theonomic lines.
3. Postmillennialism looks forward to the conversion of all the nations and an earthly glory age of considerable length (one writer suggested 40,000 years) before the return of Christ.

   #1 Above is not accurate because Theonomy holds that the civil magistrate should enforce the Mosaic judicial laws, in their general equity. Please note dear reader that if this is not true in some manner then we have no solid basis for criminalizing bestiality. And indeed it has been, in the past, the very view of some who share RSC’s R2K convicition;

   “Not being a theonomist or theocrat, I do not believe it is the state’s role to enforce religion or Christian morality. So allowing something legally is not the same as endorsing it morally. I don’t want the state punishing people for practicing homosexuality. Other Christians disagree. Fine. That’s allowed. That is the distinction. Another example – beastiality (sic) is a grotesque sin and obviously if a professing member engages in it he is subject to church discipline. But as one who leans libertarian in my politics, I would see problems with the state trying to enforce it; not wanting the state involved at all in such personal practices; I’m content to let the Lord judge it when he returns. A fellow church member might advocate for beastiality (sic) laws. Neither would be in sin whatever the side of the debate. Now if the lines are blurry in these disctinctions,(sic) that is always true in pastoral ministry dealing with real people in real cases in this fallen world.”

   Rev. Todd Bordow
   R2K Pastor

   In short, the final word on Scott’s #1 above was written in 1996 by Martin Foulner and is titled “Theonomy and the Westminster Confession.” Foulner shows clearly in that book that many of the Westminster Divines if they were not Theonomists they were clearly something very close to what we call today Theonomy.  To my knowledge 27 years later no one has answered Foulner’s book.

   On RSC’s #2 above, RSC makes it sound horrid that a social order would be governed by God’s law. What is wrong with a social order governed by God’s law? If not God’s law Scott then who’s law? Now as it regards the Scott’s complaint about the Reconstructionist idea of a coming collapse of civilization one can only wonder if RSC reads the newspaper.

   Finally, in regards to RSC’s #3 we can take the time to list just a few of the Reformed luminaries throughout history who have owned the dreaded eschatology called “Postmillennialism.”

   The greatest theologian in the first 1500 years of the Church (Augustine) was postmillennial;

   In his book Prophecy and the Church Dr O.T. Allis gives this accurate outline of Augustine’s eschatology. “Augustine taught that the millennium is to be interpreted spiritually as ful­filled in the Christian church. He held that the binding of Satan took place during the earthly ministry of our Lord (Luke 10:18); that the first resurrection is the new birth of the believer (John 5:25); and that the mil­lennium must correspond there­fore to the interadventual period or Church Age” (pp. 3-4).

   Augustine, taking Rev. 20:1-6  as a recapitulation of what preceded in the book of Revelation and living, as he did, in the first half of the first millennium, understandably enough, took the 1000 years of Rev. 20 literally and anticipated the Second Advent of Christ  to take place at the end of that time-frame. He did not believe that Revelation 20:1-6 described a new age following sequentially from the events set forth in Revelation 19. Augustine believed this interadventual period might end about 650 A.D. with a great outburst of evil, the revolt of Gog, which would be fol­lowed by the coming of Christ in judgement.

   In short, Augustine regarded the millennium as a present spiritual reign by Christ in the earth and that the Second Advent of Christ would be at the end of this period, that it would be Postmillennial. So, Augustine believed he was living in the postmillennial age.

   Besides Augustine we can count the following as just a Whitman’s sampler of those who have been postmillennial of one stripe or another throughout history;

   Thomas Goodwin
   Richard Sibbes
   John Howe
   Samuel Rutherford
   George Gillespie
   David Dick­son
   Robert Leighton
   John Browm of Wamphray
   Jonathan Edwards
   Thomas Chalmers
   Three Hodges: Charles., A. A., and C. W
   W. G. T. Shedd
   R. L. Dabney
   B. B. Warfield

   In summary then, RSC’s complaint against Postmillennialism is just him carping about his own Church history.

   Hey, I thought that RSC made his stripes by being a Church Historian. Why am I having to tell him all this about Church history?