Trinity Sunday … The One & The Many

“For the highest thing does not tend to union only; the highest thing, tends also to differentiation. You can often get men to fight for the union; but you can never prevent them from fighting also for the differentiation. This variety in the highest thing is the meaning of the fierce patriotism, the fierce nationalism of the great European civilization. It is also, incidentally, the meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity.”

― G.K. Chesterton, Heretics

We no longer fight for differentiation. The fight “Christians” are fighting for now is a fight for the God of Unitarianism. “Christians” are the ones denying differentiation. They do so by embracing the heroes of Uniformitarianism. They Imagine along with John Lennon

Imagine there’s no countries
It isn’t hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion, too
And they sing along with U2
I believe in the kingdom come
Then all the colors will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes I’m still running
These are the troubadours of the Unitarian God and we sing along with them.
In the Church, we are showing our fighting for Union by the insistence that there is no differentiation in men. It has no reached the point where we argue that any differentiation between men and women biologically speaking is merely a social construct. Soon the argument will run, and it already running in dark subterranean places that there isn’t any differentiation between children and adults and that former differentiation is likewise just a social construct. But we started this fight against differentiation and for Union with the refusal to recognize that real differences exist between peoples and ethnos. Before that was the fight against the traditional Christian social roles of men and women previously acknowledged by patriarchy.

This is the cause of the Revolutionary. They fight for Uniformity and against all differentiation. This has been seen over and over again in History. We’ve noted it here before. Whether it was the Phrygian cap worn by the French Revolutionaries to communicate the leveling enterprise or the slogan of citizen which labeled all people alike. Whether it was the ubiquitous Mao suit as a leveling advertisement or the usage of “Comrade” to level men and women. Revolutionaries are hopeless Unitarians. They really believe that all colors bleed into one and they are fighting for that Unitarian goal. This promise of the Unitarian God was used by the Serpent in the Garden. His promise to our first parents was … The differentiation between you and God will disappear if you just eat.

But the Christian has been and is described as Trinitarian. We fight with all our being against the Unitarian impulse we see all around us. We are fighting for differentiation and in fighting for that we are fighting for the Character of God … we are fighting for the Trinity. It is the Uncreated Trinity that reminds us of created differentiation. When we insist upon distinctions we are at that moment being Christian. When we chastise the visible Church because it is advocating the unitarian impulsed of the World we do so out of love for what Gregory of Nyssa called, “My Trinity.”

Now, what does Chesterton mean when he ends his quote by saying, “It is also, incidentally, the meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity?” Chesterton is first telling us that God is both Union and Differentiation. God is both One and Many. When we lose either of these realities we fall into the heresy of Unitarianism. And this is where we are right now in the modern Church. We are functionally Unitarian… and this includes the Postmoderns, oddly enough.

Postmodernism, it is argued, is a philosophy that differentiates. However, I would say that Postmodernism does result in Unitarianism. The Union that Postmodernism finds in the universal lack of unity. Postmodernism gives us the negation of union as the means of unity. Both the Unitarian error and the Postmodern Diversity error bring about a Unitarian world. Unitarianism does so by the denial of the Trinity. Postmodernism does so by the unity found in the negation of unity. There is a Unity found and lived in the negation of unity.

And so the only way to escape from a Uniformity world that is absent the Many taught in Christianity is to find our way back to Trinitarian thinking. Trinitarian thinking allowed for differentiation between men and women in their roles, differentiation between men and women in their biological realities, differentiation between children and adults, and differentiation between people groups.

On this Trinity Sunday, we must fight hard for a return to the idea of God as One and Many because the loss of this understanding is creating a monochromatic world where colors, genders, ages, and peoples do indeed bleed into one.

A reading list for Memorial Day

A reading list for Memorial Day. Read these 10 books and you’ll never celebrate Memorial day again in quite the same way.

10.) Wilson’s War — Jim Powell
9.) FDR goes to War — Burton Folsom
8.) Stalin’s Secret Agents: The Subversion of Roosevelt’s Government — M. Stanton Evans
7.) Lincoln the Man — Edgar Masters
6.) Lincoln’s Little War: How His Carefully Crafted Plans Went Astray — Webb Garrison
5.) Naked Capitalist — W. Cleon Skousen
4.) Freedom Betrayed — Herbert Hoover
3.) Blacklisted by History — M. Stanton Evans
2.) War is a Racket — Smedley Butler
1.) Wall Street and the Bolshevik Revolution — Anthony C. Sutton

Bonus books

1.) Freedom Betrayed — Herbert Hoover
2.) Churchill, Hitler and the Unnecessary War — Pat Buchanan
3.) War is a Racket — Gen. Smedley Butler
4.) Hidden History; The Secret Origins of WW I — MacGregor and Docherty
5.) Prolonging the Agony;  How  the  Anglo-American  Establishment Deliberately Extended WWI by Three-and-a-Half Years — MacGregor & Docherty

A Discussion on Christian Nationalism w/ Perry & Whitehead

Perry and Whitehead define Christian nationalism as:

..a cultural framework—a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life … the ‘Christianity’ of Christian nationalism represents something more than religion. As we will show, it includes assumptions of nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism. It is as ethnic and political as it is religious. (p. 10)

BLMc responds,

Let us consider this for a second.

Since Perry and Whitehead want to begin with cultural frameworks let us spend a little time first talking about culture and then how culture will always express itself nationalistically.

I would contend that culture is defined as the outward manifestation of a people’s inward belief. To make that even pithier, culture is theology externalized. Yet a third way to speak about this is that culture is the consequence of some theology poured over ethnicity. The constant in these definitions is that culture is inescapably tied to theology.

If that is true (and it is) the cultural frameworks will always and inescapably include a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems since those realities are downstream of theology. Those collections of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems as a cultural framework will then always and inevitably be the result of some fusion with some religion becoming American civic life. The Christian Nationalist merely steps up to the microphone and insists that the inevitable fusion with religion that is going to occur — the fusion in question — be a fusion with Christianity as opposed to a fusion with some other religion. In other words, a Nation can’t exist apart from some religion creating its culture. The Nation itself, in terms of how it constitutes itself, is a living and breathing expression of religion. For Perry and Whitehead to imply that Christians shouldn’t desire a Christian Nationalism then is just a backdoor special pleading for some other kind of Nationalism that they favor.

The next step out from this is that what results in culture and theology being tied together, as they inescapably are, is always some kind of Nationalism. Even the Internationalist who says he hates Nationalism is advocating for Global Nationalism.

My point here is that Perry and Whitehead and Tim Keller and Russell Moore are one and all Nationalists. Their beef with Christian Nationalism is that it is not their version of Christian Nationalism. Their beef is that the Nationalism they are railing against is not the kind of Nationalism that they desire.

Perry and Whitehead and later Keller on steroids rails against nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity. Yet in all that railing all I hear is a plea on their part for a Nationalism that is alienist xenophilic, non-white supremacist, egalitarian, and sexually pluralistic. At least for Keller, he seems to think that this would be Christian nationalism at its best.


Next, where is the sin in some of these realities that Perry and Whitehead describe in their inquisition against Christian Nationalism? Where is the sin in abjuring multiculturalism in favor of the native? Is White Supremacy in lands settled and created by white people any more curious than Japanese Supremacy in the land that the Japanese ancestors settled and created? And as Scripture teaches patriarchy all Christian nations should have their social order structured around Christian patriarchy then patriarchy is a positive good. Finally, obviously, there is a great deal of horror in heternormativity. How could any Christian Nationalist ever desire that?

Perry and Whitehead start making it up when they suggest that Christian Nationalism is about authoritarian control and militarism. Remember, our Christian ancestors were the ones who created a divided government with checks and balances. That hardly sounds like authoritarian control. In terms of Militarism, we Christians were the ones who originally insisted that there should be no standing army and only a small navy.

Finally, as politics is downstream of theology and as theology creates culture as expressed by distinct peoples then of course Christian Nationalism is as ethnic and political as it is religious. So what?

When it is all said and done Perry and Whitehead are merely bitching that some people out there desire a different Nationalism as based on a different religion than they do. They want a Nationalism that is the exact opposite of what they are complaining about and as such they seek to criminalize the Christian Nationalism that makes them scream like Junior High girls seeing a mouse in the shower.

Article From Webzine Defends McAtee & Christian Nationalism

Since the Jericho March in December and the events of January 6th, “Christian nationalism” has become a bogeyman.  In the process, secular and Christian elites have fused indistinguishably and are working hand-in-glove to neuter Christianity as a public presence while simultaneously strangling the burgeoning nationalist movement in the crib.  The standard epithets—racist, nativist, white supremacist—are casually directed at white Christians yearning for nothing more than to live in the country of their grandparents.

A template has also been established. Rather than produce a robust biblical or theological analysis, an academic misconstrues and caricatures Christian nationalism, defining it as outside the parameters of historic orthodoxy.  Seeking accommodation with elites, celebrity pastors assume the efficacy of the given Politically Correct definitions and label any related viewpoints as heresy and a threat to the “moral witness” of the church. 

Writing in the New York Times, Thomas Edsall, citing Andrew L. Whitehead and Samuel L. Perry’s book Taking America Back for God: Christian Nationalism in the United States, ominously warned that, “It’s impossible to understand the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol without addressing the movement that has come to be known as Christian nationalism.”

Perry and Whitehead define Christian nationalism as:

..a cultural framework—a collection of myths, traditions, symbols, narratives, and value systems—that idealizes and advocates a fusion of Christianity with American civic life … the ‘Christianity’ of Christian nationalism represents something more than religion. As we will show, it includes assumptions of nativism, white supremacy, patriarchy, and heteronormativity, along with divine sanction for authoritarian control and militarism. It is as ethnic and political as it is religious. (p. 10)

Author and pastor Tim Keller, famous for his book The Reason for God, reviewed Taking America Back For God for the quarterly Life in the Gospel. “We must recognize that Christian Nationalism in its most pure form is indeed idolatrous,” Keller somberly intoned. “It looks to political power as the thing that will truly save us”

Russell Moore, leader of the Southern Baptist Convention’s Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, also denounced Christian nationalism as a heresy.  The wrath of God,” said Moore, “is revealed against ‘Blood and soil.’” 

And in February, 100 housebroken evangelicals signed an open letter “condemning the role of ‘radicalized Christian nationalism’ in feeding the political extremism that led to the violent insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6 by supporters of former President Donald Trump”

But who will enforce the new orthodoxy against the “heretics”? 
Though many Christian institutions have been browbeaten into conformity with the shibboleths of Cultural Marxism, a remnant of largely leaderless Christian nationalists persists in the hinterlands, resisting assimilation into a new Tower of Babel.  

Enter the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), abetted by Big Tech and a compliant press.  The scattered holdouts who refuse to bend the knee to Baal, even if they are culturally and politically powerless, must be targeted with public shaming and ritual humiliation.    

The SPLC, America’s most successful and prosperous hate group, recently released its 2020 Hate Map and Hate List.  Since 1971, the SPLC has raised hundreds of millions of dollars peddling the myth that Middle America is teeming with legions of hatemongers draped in Klan hoods waving copies of the Turner Diaries and the Bible.

As always, the SPLC chronicle of the “hate industry” includes immigration restrictionists.  VDARE, along with the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) and the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), made the cut.


But the SPLC casts a wide net.  Its definition of hate is elastic enough to encompass not just the Westboro Baptist Church and Aryan Brotherhood but also relatively bland Christian organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom, the Family Research Council, the Ruth Institute, D. James Kennedy Ministries (DJKM), and more. 

However, it is not merely large Christian organizations with national platforms that earn the “hate group” moniker.  In central Michigan, for instance, a small rural congregation (and its pastor, Bret McAtee) was named a “White Nationalist” hate group by the SPLC.

What are the criteria for being defined as a hate group?  Mark Potok, who spent twenty years with the Southern Poverty Law Center, told the Lansing State Journal that McAtee’s words, both spoken and written, are likely what landed the small church on its hate map.  Potok explained that it is about the ideology of the group or its leaders rather than concrete and specific acts: 

“Our criteria for a ‘hate group,’ first of all, have nothing to do with criminality, or violence, or any kind of guess we’re making about ‘this group could be dangerous.’ It’s strictly ideological. So we look at a group and we say, ‘Does this group, in its platform statements, or the speeches of its leader or leaders… Does this group say that a whole group of people, by virtue of their group characteristics, is somehow less?’”

Potok has said openly that the motivation of the SPLC is to destroy groups that it targets for ideological reasons.

“Sometimes the press will describe us as monitoring hate groups, I want to say plainly that our aim in life is to destroy these groups, completely destroy them,” Potok said at an event in Michigan in 2007.

Lamentably, with the pretense of objectivity, the SPLC is not just the arbiter of bigotry but also the media’s expert witness for evaluating “extremism.”  When the SPLC releases its Hate Map the media respond like Pavlovian dogs, producing salacious and often slanderous stories about the “racists” and nationalists allegedly terrorizing Middle America.  The purpose is to silence dissenters and exile social traditionalists and nationalists to the periphery of American life for the crime of articulating positions that were common, indeed almost universal, until the 1960s. And the hive descended upon pastor McAtee. 

Michigan Public Radio (MPR) claimed McAtee, “has maligned a panoply of persons and groups, including LGBTQ individuals, feminists, non-Christian immigrants…other pastors, and people who support diversity.”  The Fox affiliate in Lansing offered coverage and the Lansing State Journal (LSJ), said McAtee “frequently expresses racist, white nationalist, homophobic and transphobic views.”


MPR offered no quotations or links to buttress their claims.  The LSJ and Fox47 casually and carelessly ripped portions of McAtee’s blog posts from their broader context to build an indictment not supported by his words.    

Indeed, many of McAtee’s challenges to the smelly orthodoxies of our era were fairly standard conservative cultural critiques until quite recently.  Echoing the warnings of Sam Francis about Anarcho-Tyranny, McAtee said “diversity” is a weapon designed to produce statism.  Multiculturalism is built on an egalitarian foundation, fueled by envy, and wielded so as to further undermine the cracked foundations of the West.  

A “multicultural, multi-faith, multi-racial, pluralist diverse social order…is the death of the West and the God who made the West,” said McAtee.

Adding to his list of transgressions, McAtee has unapologetically argued that nationalism is natural, taught in scripture, and affirmed historically by the church.  

“God still deals with people as being members of nations, peoples, and races,” wrote McAtee.  “This is a very unsavory truth for the modern Evangelical with their love affair for the erasure of all the creation distinctions. God has not given up on nations anymore than He has given up on families from where nations arise.”

And here we get to the heart of the matter.  The “heretical ” teaching being attacked is Christian nationalism.  

McAtee and his congregation had a loose affiliation with the Christian Reformed Church (CRC).  The CRC has been in decline for decades, a consequence of its ongoing theological drift into apostate liberalism.  In 2018, McAtee was released from the CRC after a dispute over his teaching of “Kinism.”  In 2019, a CRC synod declared Kinists heretics.  What exactly is Kinism?

Kinism is a variant of Christian Nationalism that rests on a series of theological assumptions about social relations associated with traditional doctrines of Reformed Protestantism.  It begins with the assertion that men are inherently religious creatures and that all “government” is by definition theocratic in nature.  Whether personal or familial, church or state, every system and social order is necessarily faith-based and presuppositional rather than religiously neutral or empiricist in nature.  

Second, the normative order for families and nations, which are a product of extended families, is primarily racial and ethnic rather than propositional.  Culture is principally though not exclusively a product of people and place more so than ideas.

In this view, even multiculturalists have a “theocratic” view of authority and a tribal anthropology:  by the power of reason (their deity), they construct a global order which blends all racial and national distinctions into a single people, the race of Adam or humanity (their tribe). The dispute thus is over the teaching of holy scripture and the church.  Is cosmopolitanism, globalism or empire a Christian social order?  Or does the divine economy rest upon nations?

For 2,000 years, Christians have taught that national, ethnic, and language groups are not arbitrary human creations or social constructs, but divinely created entities that reflect the purposes and glory of God.

Nations arise organically as extensions of families and in the Old Testament nations are the descendents of a particular ancestor (See Genesis 10).  People organize themselves into distinct groups for the purpose of securing safety and providing a series of collective goods. Nations have a collective identity and a shared ancestry along with a shared worldview that is the product of a common language, religion, and customs. 

God created tribes, nations and races to have an affinity for their own people.  This is expressed in the words of St. Paul in Romans 9:3:  “For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh.”  A deep affection for one’s kinsmen is natural and good, indeed an outgrowth of the commandment to honor our fathers and mothers.  And nationalism is simply the self-conscious awareness that seeks to develop and improve the nation and to codify its existence with the laws, government, mores, and institutions that make civic life possible.

Scripture likewise teaches that nations serve the purpose of aiding man by pointing to greater transcendent realities.  Boundaries and nations are designed to point us to God himself.

“He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him.” (Acts 17:26-27)

Christ assumed the goodness of unique nations, teaching that the gospel does not flatten or eliminate nations.  He commanded the church to disciple nations as nations, not merely as individuals: “Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,  teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you” (Matt. 28:19-20).

The church–Protestant, Roman Catholic, and Orthodox–has also taught that nationalism is biblical, an aspect of personal piety, and a reflection of the goodness of God.  

“The Bible recognizes the validity and rightness of all the constitutional principles and impulses of our nature.” wrote Presbyterian Charles Hodge.  “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.”

Thomas Aquinas said:

Man is a debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God. Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one’s parents and one’s country [i.e., one’s people]. The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinfolk are those who descend from the same parents.

“Nations,” said Alexander Solzhenitsyn in his Nobel Prize speech, “are the wealth of humanity, its generalized personalities. The least among them has its own special colors, and harbors within itself a special aspect of God’s design.

It should also go without saying Christian Nationalism is not “White Supremacy,” but applies these biblical principles to all national groups–red and yellow, black and white.   The gospel of Jesus Christ is not an affront to this natural order and does not seek to overthrow it.  

McAtee Contra Pattengale on the Legacy of Dr. Glenn Martin on Tyranny

You can read the whole article I’m interacting with over at

The Capitol offense: A Christian professor’s warning 50 years ago

___

It seems today is a day to go after the Wesleyans. I didn’t plan it that way. As many readers of Iron Ink know Dr. Glenn Martin of Marion College was the closest thing I ever had to a mentor. As such you can understand my desire to see that the man is not misrepresented in the media. Unfortunately, that is what happened back on 27 January Religious News Service ran an article by an old friend, Dr. Jerry Pattengale, who was trying to tell us what Dr. Martin would have thought about the protest at the Capitol on 06 January 2021. I went to Marion College with Jerry. He was two or three years ahead of me. We were acquaintances — neither friends nor enemies. We both ran in the same circles sharing a common major.

Jerry did a fantastic job giving Dr. Martin’s eulogy in 2004. I was there and I wept as Jerry recounted the life of Dr. Martin. I was glad for Jerry’s words that day.

However, I am not glad for this piece that Jerry wrote in January. It mischaracterized Dr. Martin’s teachings on Government.

Jerry starts the article by reminding us of Martin’s conviction that the US Capitol was not impregnable. Martin was consistent on this score. He did not think that any institution was necessarily permanent. Martin taught repeatedly that only God is eternal.

Next Jerry quotes from Martin’s 2004 book, “Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500,” where Martin wrote,  that American Christians should “reverence government as a gift of God for the orderly procedure of man in a fallen world.” Martin went on to note that the reason is that “to deny government leads first to anarchy, but ultimately back to tyranny. Out of anarchy must necessarily come authoritarianism, because anarchy produces nothing but a vacuum, and a vacuum must and will be filled.”

This is all true but Jerry has absolutized Martin’s words in a way that Dr. Martin would not have countenanced. Actually, Jerry Pattengale in this article has not given us the whole Martin here. Having been a student myself of Martin and having sat under every course the man taught save one and having taken one on one projects for credit with Martin I would remind Jerry that Martin clearly articulated his support for the Southern uprising in 1861 against the Jacobins and the proto-Marxist Lincoln.

Jerry thus is cherry-picking from Martin and giving a twisted account of the Man’s convictions. I am not convinced that Martin would have said that there is never a time and a place for Godly revolt against ungodly government. Jerry’s words in this article suggest that is exactly what Martin thought.

Jerry is in error to state categorically that Dr. Martin believed categorically that all government should be reverenced. I don’t believe that Martin believed that. Certainly, a godly government should be reverenced but would Jerry have us believe that an ungodly government of the stripe of a Stalin or a Lenin or a Trotsky should be reverenced? How about Mussolini, or Mao? Jerry has to deal with the reality that at some point a biblical Christian has to draw a line to remind wicked magistrates that they are not in the seat of God. John Knox understood this principle. Oliver Cromwell understood this principle. The Huguenot Admiral Coligny understood this principle.  I believe Dr. Glenn Martin understood this as well as evidenced by his refusal to condemn the antebellum South.

There are many other things wrong with Jerry’s article. There are things we know now that we did not know when Jerry wrote this. One example is that we now know that LEO Brian Sicknick was NOT murdered at the rally on 06 January in DC. Jerry should have waited before drinking the Media kool-aid.

Jerry also suggests that Martin only feared that the liberal view would exalt the state. Martin repeatedly said that the liberal view had exalted the state and that we were living in times where the State had taken the place of “God walking on the earth.” Martin did not merely fear that the liberal view would exalt the state. The man directly said repeatedly that modern man had come to see himself as “living and moving and having his being in the State.”

Also, Dr. Pattengale suggests that Martin would have been squeamish about the vitriolic exchanges during the Trump impeachment hearings. Certainly, no Biblical Christian is happy about that but Martin no less than any other Biblical Christian would have been a realist about the nature of politics. He knew that politics did not follow the queen of marquess boxing rules. Martin knew that politics was a dirty game that included “any means necessary,” when pursued by the pagan. Martin did not live in some kind of idealistic world.

Pattengale goes on to say,

“The attack on city, state and federal property and the killing of innocent people in the process — including civil servant defenders such as Capitol police officer Brian Sicknick — is always criminal. Somehow, many Americans have digressed into calling the same criminal actions by different names.”

The simple fact of the matter is that we really do not know yet what happened on 06 January and it is unlikely we ever will. Many accounts tell us that Police Officers opened doors for the protesters. Other accounts insist that many of those pursuing the mayhem were not Trump supporters but were Antifa as imposter Trump supporters playing the devil’s game. Next, in the above-italicized paragraph, Jerry speaks of the killing of Brian Sicknick — a Capitol police officer. We now know that Officer Sicknick’s death had absolutely nothing to do with what happened on 06 January 2021. We now know that the whole narrative about Sicknick was a Marxist Media dog and pony show in order to increase the putative guilt of Trump supporters. The Marxists created that narrative to shame Trump and His supporters. Jerry should have waited before swallowing that torpid media narrative.

Next Jerry takes a swipe at those who have not yet been convicted of killing Ahmaud Aubrey. Clearly, Jerry is writing this piece from a left-of-center mindset. I promise you … Martin was anything but left-of-center. Jerry’s left-of-center mindset shows through again where he supports Peter Berger’s pluralism. Jerry, along with Berger, has not yet realized that the classical liberal worldview that birthed pluralism is dead dead dead. It only continues to exist as a Zombie now. Pluralism was never a particularly Christian idea — at least not as it has come down to us from its Endarkenment origins.

Jerry goes on to say how “Martin called biblical Christians to look first to Jesus to repair our society.” This is true. However, this looking to Jesus to repair our society doesn’t happen apart from the context of Biblical Christians pressing the crown rights of Jesus Christ in every area of life. A wicked government will stand against Biblical Christians who are looking first to Jesus to repair our society.

So, following one of Martin’s heroes Biblical Christians have to understand there comes a time when we reverence God by not reverencing the government.

The bottom line is that at a certain point there is not only the right, but the duty, to disobey the state.

(A Christian Manifesto, in The Complete Works of Francis Schaeffer, 5:468–69)

If Jerry disagrees with this he is falling into the same sacred/secular mindset that Martin warned against and that by making the government sacred and so not to be touched under any circumstances.

My old acquaintance Jerry ends by quoting Martin again as saying,

“All should reverence government as a gift of God for our orderly procedure in a fallen world.”

I think that Jerry is trying to rescue the tattered remains of the social compact that has glued Americans together for decades now by repeatedly invoking this mantra. We noted earlier that Jerry is misrepresenting Martin here. We would only offer here that our government is pressing down upon our brows chaos and not orderly procedure and as such Biblical Christians have a responsibility to start asking the question that the Southerners that Martin supported asked. That question is, “How long do we keep reverencing a government that is trying to kill us and our posterity.” If Jerry can’t see that our current government has been pursuing that for decades and now is pursuing it in spades, well, he’ll just have to read back entries to Iron Ink.

Dr. Glenn Martin is no icon for tyranny and I resent more than a wee bit Jerry trying to turn him into that kind of icon.

Postscript: I can see all kinds of people accusing me of writing this as a Trump supporter. I was not and am not a Trump supporter as many articles on IronInk will attest. I preached, from the pulpit, that Christians had no business voting for Trump. I thought, and still think, that Trump talked a great game but legislated as a 1960’s liberal. In brief, I did not support Trump because as a Biblical Christian I am a genuine conservative. Trump was and is no conservative.

It’s ok… not many people are.