Windows Into Worldviews

A. A. Hodge & McAtee on “The Universal Assimilating Power of National Life”

If the national life in general is organized upon non-Christian principles, the churches which are embraced within the universal assimilating power of that nation will not long be able to preserve their integrity.

A.A. Hodge
19th Century Reformed Theologian
“The Law of the Kingdom”

1.) Think of a culture or social order as a habitat wherein the creatures that dwell therein are defined by that habitat. If you change the habitat you will change the type of creatures you find in the habitat. When Hodge talk about “the national life” he is talking about the cultural habitat where people dwell, and live. Hodge is talking about their environment, or if you prefer, the infrastructure of their living.

Rev. Zach Garris gets at this somewhat when he wrote,

“If you are a Christian, especially in the West, there’s a good chance you come from a long line of Christians. Some of these were only nominally Christian or part of corrupt traditions, but God still used such things to pass on the faith you now hold. The God who keeps covenant works through Christian peoples and Christian nations to save the elect.”

Zachary Garris

Now, what makes up Hodge’s “national life?” As we have styled it, what makes up a cultural habitat or a social order environment? Clearly, the answer to that is our public institutions, our customs, our holidays, our habits, our laws, our fashions, our music/arts, our family life, etc. All of these make for what Hodge calls “the universal assimilating power of a nation.” Hodge’s “national life” make us who we are. Most men are like chameleons who will blend into the background against which you place them. Hodge is further saying that if all of that national life (our habitat) is organized around, and so dependent upon non-Christian presuppositions (Hodge’s “principles) the result will be churches that begin to reinterpret Christ and Christianity through the prism of that principally non-Christian national life.

As an aside to continue to tease out Hodge here, that is what has happened in the West. The most recent “conservative” Synods and General Assemblies of the NAPARC churches has revealed that. Having been saturated now for a three generations (or more) in egalitarianism/liberalism the Churches are now reinterpreting Christianity through those non-Christian principles while calling it “Christian.” Ever since the Marxist inspired “Civil Rights” era the nation has owned the non-Christian principles of Cultural Marxism that drove the “Civil Rights” era with the results that even our conservative Churches (exceptions notwithstanding) are havens for Cultural Marxism in varying degrees. All the recent denunciations of Christian Nationalism proves that in spades, as does the constant seeking to sand off explicit patriarchy by NAPARC churches.

2.) Note the hidden premise in Hodge’s quote that all national life of all nations will be organized consistent with some theological principles. Hodge understood that no nation can be organized consistent with no theological principles or with all theological principles as their principle for organizing national life. All national life must be organized around some theological principle, whether that theological principle is Christian, Hindu, Humanist (Atheist), Muslim or Pantheistic. No nation exists that has not been organized consistent with some theological principle, and so no national life has ever been organized without some a-priori theological principle. Even within a nation and its national life there is no such thing as neutrality and theology remains the Queen of the sciences, and or culture and social order.

3.) As to the idea of “assimilating power,” let it be noted that implicit theology, as found in a culture/social order will swallow most people whole. This is because most men haven’t the ability to consider their culture/social order as looking at it from the top down. All of us, being part of the culture/social order end up, to a lesser or greater degree, assimilating into that culture/social order. As the Borg used to say to those who were their most recent conquest, on “Star Trek; The Next Generation, “Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.” Assimilation is what culture/social orders do, particularly healthy cultures/social orders, and they do so based upon the theology that is informing the culture/social order.

As another aside, this is why I so vehemently oppose Government schooling. The danger in Government schooling for Christians is not so much the curriculum (though that is serious) but it is the assimilation that goes on in the little political hives called public school by means of peer interaction. Christian children are learning what is normative based upon what their heathen peers believe and express what is normative.

4.) All this forces us to conclude that some form of Christian Nationalism has to be championed and pursued by those who are Biblical Christians. To not do so as R2K and all Anabaptists (but I repeat myself) suggested is to turn the keys of the culture/social order over to some false god and false theology. To not seek to actively pursue Hodge’s national life being organized around Christian principles is to commit idolatry, if only by passive means.

5.) Right now the national life of these united States is organized around non-Christian principles, specifically the Jewish Noahide laws. This has been for quite some time but it was officially stated in 1991,

“Congress recognizes the historical tradition of ethical values and principles which are the basis of civilized society and upon which our great Nation was founded … these ethical values and principles that have been the bedrock of society from the dawn of civilization, when they were known as the Seven Noahide Laws.”

H.J.Res.104
102nd Congress (1991-1992)

A Little More on Tucker’s Interview with Mr. “Mooselimbs were Very Kind to Christians”

So here’s the question that has been rattling around in my brain in the last 24 hours. Keep in mind that I am a first rate cynic as you read this and I believe that everyone has an agenda they want to push and I think Tucker’s agenda is to defeat the Bagels at whatever the cost even if it means holding hands with the Mooselimbs.

I can’t help but wonder if in that interview between Tucker Carlson and J. D. Hall, was the price that a comparative nobody like Hall had to pay in order to be platformed by Tucker was coming out with that utterly jejune statement about Mooselimbs being kind to Christians? I mean Hall, while having some presence in the Christian world is insignificant compared to most of the guests that Tucker Carlson invites. (Though it is true that Tucker had a conversation with Andrew Isker at one point also.) I can see a kind of quid pro quo existing between Tucker and J. D. Hall going something like this …

Tucker – “I’ll invite you on the show but we need to be clear here that one purpose of this show is to cast the Mooselimbs in a more positive light vis-a-vis the Bagels.”

J. D. Hall – “I think I can do that.”

Another piece of this puzzle is to ask, “Was Tucker really so historically vacuous to as be taken in by that statement that Ottoman Mooselimbs were kind to Christians ?” I mean you don’t have to have a Ph.D in Ottoman Empire History to know that was a whopper of a falsehood the minute it poured over J. D. Hall’s lips.

Consider that neither J. D. Hall, nor Tucker Carlson are stupid people. It seems to me a mind boggling proposition that both Hall said that and that Tucker just swallowed it hook, line, and sinker. It strikes me that this whole thing was really good propaganda.

Another test here is to see if Tucker will correct this. Tucker is forever saying that he gets things wrong and he is glad to admit when he gets things wrong. Well, this piece was as wrong as it gets. Will Tucker go on his channel and say … “Look, we try to get things right here but sometimes that doesn’t happen. With that in mind I need to apologize to my viewers for something that was said in my interview with J. D. Hall.”

I think such a statement as coming from both Carlson and Hall would do a great deal to rescue their future credibility. If Hall keeps defending his statement here and if Tucker doesn’t correct it, I will be tempted to file them as suspicious when it comes to their future takes.

Alienism Embraced By The Reformed World As Infected By Arminianism

The Arminian, given his atomistic individualism, rejects the significance of his race and people, by claiming that God does not deal with nations. The Arminian rejects the significance of his family/recent ancestors, by claiming a non-existent libertarian free will and so he finds it comparatively easy to reject the covenantal nature of salvation in a Godly covenantal line. We see thus that the Arminian’s libertarian free will combined with his atomistic individualism works in him a heightened ability to just disregard the boundaries that God has set for man. He has become just an individual, floating in a sea of multi-colored individuals, with no past, no special connection to kin, with each individual serving as their own god/means of redemption. Because of this the Arminian is especially prone to being an Alienist.

This is doubly true for the Arminian Baptist, who, because of his Baptist teaching. This is a Baptist upbringing that denies continuity in the way that God has structured salvation by cutting the NT off from the OT. In the OT it is undeniable that God works salvation in covenantal lines. When God says,

Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He is God, the faithful God, who keepeth covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His commandments to a thousand generations…

Deuteronomy 7:9

And;

But from everlasting to everlasting the loving devotion of the LORD extends to those who fear Him, and His righteousness to their children’s children— / to those who keep His covenant and remember to obey His precepts.

Psalm 103:17-18

The Reformed believers has the expectation that God will be faithful to His promise to the God to us and to our seed. The Arminian Baptist on the other hand, as seen by their refusal to mark their children in Baptism with God’s mark of ownership, teaches their children, that the child must ask Jesus into their hearts, thus communicating that God does not work in covenantal/generational lines. By stripping the covenantal nature away from redemption what is communicated is that while the child may indeed belong to God as a result of their “sinner’s prayer,” he most certainly has not been irresistibly drawn by a God who works in family lines and keeps his covenant to a thousand generations. The covenantal continuity is gone. The sense that God works normatively (though not exclusively) in covenantal lines disappears.

As such the Arminian Baptist is more easily prone to Alienism. (Here the Reformed Baptist has major contradictions in their system since they also have aversion to covenantal continuity as seen in their agreement with Arminian Baptists to not baptize their children.) Alienism is that, until recently, that unspoken doctrine that teaches that there does not exist strong cords of attachments that bind the generations together by means of God’s covenantal faithfulness. Arminian Baptists especially, have trouble wrapping their heads around the Biblical doctrine of Kinism that is built upon the foundation of God’s covenantal/generational faithfulness. Alienism, consistent with the Arminian Baptist soil it grows out of, presupposes that God does not work in covenantal lines. It presuppose discontinuity between the Old and New Testament.

It is a devilish system that had the accelerant of Dispensationalism poured on it. Dispensationalism was an accelerant because Dispensationalism is a system of radical discontinuity. I suppose we ought to be thankful that the mainline Dispensationalists were able to beat back the Bullingerite Dispensationalists. Still, while the Dispensationalists infected all of the denominations in the 20th century the slice of Christendom most infected were the Arminian Baptists.

However, no one has yet plumbed the depth of the infection of Arminian Dispensationalism on the body of Christ. I submit the unwillingness of many of the “conservative” “Reformed” denominations to see what their forefathers saw in terms of the covenantal unity of a particular race, ethnic group, and family is the result of Arminianism via Dispensationalism infecting the Reformed world. The Reformed have, whether by the influence of the Dispensational influence, or rather by the influence of Marxist categories (which have also been stridently Alienist) has resolved to make war on their Father’s Kinism. This has been repeatedly seen in the past few years but now it will be put on parade in the RPCNA trial of Rev. Sam Ketchum. The Reformed, by their recent pronouncements on race, recent booklet written against Kinists, and their resolve to put Ketchum on trial have put their Arminian, Dispensational, and/or Marxist bona fides on display and demonstrated all the anti-Christianity that exists in their putative Christianity.

I mean, just look at all the quotes from the Reformed Fathers from Church history as chronicled in the 2nd edition of the anthology “Who Is My Neighbor.” Just look at all the quotes from the early Church forward on this matter in the commpendium, “A Survey of Racialism in the Christian Sacred Tradition,” by Alexander Storen.

A Racial Review Of Rob Reiner’s “A Few Good Men”

Out of my deep respect for the memory of Rob Reiner (sarcasm off) I decided to view again “A Few Good Men.” A 1992 film where the white military officers are all evil or inept and the only pure people who exist as the film’s heroes are;

1.) An accused gung-ho black Sgt. in the Marine Corps

2.) A highly principled feminist attorney (Demi Moore)

3.) A black Judge
4.) A White Lt. Col. who shows his purity by killing himself
5.) a Jewish lawyer serving with Cruise on the defense team (character name – Weinberg)

Along the way in the film Tom Cruise is converted by Demi Moore to see the righteousness in not plea bargaining a sentence for the principled black Sgt. and his doofus white underling private who have been arrested for murdering a Hispanic soldier who is portrayed as a saint throughout the film. Throughout the film the white private from Iowa who is a few bricks shy of a full load is contrasted with the wise black Sargeant. The white private is a dunce and is clueless about what is going on, while the black Sargeant is principled.

The villains in the film are all military

1.) The biggest villain is Jack Nicholson’s character
2.) His villainy is shared by his underling, First Lieutenant Jonathan James Kendrick, played by Kiefer Sutherland

Of course both of these chaps are white and they are presented throughout the film as the problem with the Marine Corps and indeed, by extension, the problem with white people in general. White people just want to both kill off brown people, or failing that, they want to see them unjustly imprisoned as scapegoats for their crimes.

Now, being honest, I have little sympathy for US Military types since it is my conviction that the US Military has served for decades as the muscle for the New World Order (see Maj. Gen. Smedley Butler’s “War is a Rackett”). However, it is clear that Aaron Sorokin (Jewish writer of the film) is going after both the US Military and is tying the problem in the US Military with the presence of white people. “A Few Good Men,” is clearly an attack on white people.

The one white person who isn’t an explicit liberal in the film is played by Kevin Bacon. Bacon is the prosecuting attorney and he is depicted as being a guy who is caught in the wheels of the system. He does his job — a job that means he is trying to put away a black man and his dumb white farm boy friend for life for murder, and this despite his sense that he knows that something is amiss in the case he is prosecuting. It is Bacon’s character more than anybody else as the film unfolds how is “just following orders.” Again, a more subtle dig at white people, I would say.

The White people would get away with it all if only Jack Nicholson’s character was just a wee bit sane. But the white man’s sanity is so unstable and his vanity so grand that Col. Nathan Jessep (Nicholson’s character) can’t resist, while on the witness stand, from boldly and proudly confessing to his crime of ordering the black sargeant and the white Iowa farm boy to give a “code red” (illicit punishment) to the poor saintly Hispanic private that resulted in his death. Col. Jessep is immediately arrested and the Jewish liberal worldview is vindicated. The white lawyer played by Cruise is a hero because he has acted consistent with the feminism and Jewish worldview of the characters played by Demi Moore and Kevin Pollack.

Other racial scenes in the film include the point where the black judge is able to put Col. Nathan Jessep in his place by requiring Jessep to refer to him as “Your Honor.” Also Cuba Gooding plays a virtuous soldier who gives righteous testimony during the trial.

There is a bit of class warfare going on in the film as well. Cruise’s character is seen as being a upscale elite Harvard type born to the manor while his opponent (Nicholson) is portrayed as coming from a humble blue collar beginning. This theme is played off a couple times in dialogue between Nicholson and Cruise. Though they are each white they come from different worlds.

One has to like Cruise’s character. Flippant, irreverent, sarcastic, callow, and intelligent. Cruise’s character (Daniel Kaffee) is the perfect anti-establishment foil for spit and polish Col. Nathan Jessep. Because of this the viewer is pulled into supporting Kaffee while abominating Col. Jessep’s character (arrogant, self-righteous, grandiose, dismissive). In such a way worldviews of the viewers are subtly changed over time and with repeated similar messaging.

This film was released in 1992 but even then the worldview of WOKE and Jewish cultural Marxism was working its way into the arts.

Rob Reiner’s Cultural Marxist Jewish worldview is on parade in this film.

A Response To CREC Knox Presbytery’s Proposal On Issue of Jews

“We believe the conversion of the Jews is key to the success of Christ’s Great Commission, and it is incumbent upon us to pray and labor toward that end. (1) While, apart from Christ, the Jews are as all others—alienated from God—they have remained an object of God’s care because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. (2) God’s plan for converting them is for them to see Gentile nations under the blessings of Christ’s lordship, thus leading them to long for the same. (3) Hence, the cancerous sin of anti-Semitism has no place in God’s plan.” (4)

CREC – Knox Presbytery
December 1, 2022

1a.) This whole statement is based on a misinterpretation of Romans 11. Romans 11 was future to Paul but has been fulfilled and so is past to us. The conversion of those who are (wrongly) referred to as “Jews” has nothing to do with the success of Christ’s great commission.

1b.) It is no more or less incumbent for Christian to labor and pray for the conversion of those who call themselves “Jews” then it is to labor and pray for the conversion of any other ethnic people group.

1c.) If the conversion of Jews as a people is “key to the success of Christ’s Great Commission” it would logically imply that Jews must continue to exist as a coherent and distinct people group. The eschatology offered here demands “Kinism” for Jews, right? And yet Doug Wilson continues to derisively refers to those who champion the Ordo Amoris as “skinists.” To be “saved” as a people necessarily demands existing as a people. Given Doug Wilson’s proud proclamation of the Jewishness of his own family this sentence in this proposal sounds vainglorious.

1d.) To say that conversion of the Jews is ‘key to the success of the great commission’ would mean the great commission is a failure until those that call themselves “Jews” are converted is absurd. Further to hang the success of the conversion of all nations on them as if it didn’t hang on the conversion of other nations just as much makes nonsense of the whole question.

2a.) God converted the Jewish Israel of God by AD 70.

2b.) God divorced Israel in AD 70. There remains no special relationship between what is now called “Israel” and the God of the Bible. This divorce was promised in the OT;

²And He said, “Amos, what do you see?”

So I said, “A basket of summer fruit.”

Then the Lord said to me:

“The end has come upon My people Israel;
I will not pass by them anymore. (Amos 8:2)

“Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are on the sinful kingdom,
And I will destroy it from the face of the earth;
Yet I will not utterly destroy the house of Jacob,”
Says the Lord. Amos 9:8

And the coming dismissal of Christ hating Israel as God’s chosen people for their sin of rejecting their Messiah was made clear in the NT; Luke 13:1-8, Mark 11:12-25, Matthew 21:37-43. Finally, in AD 70 with the Judgment coming of Jesus against Israel, Israel as a nation which had previously served as the chosen people of God was served divorce papers. The ruination of Jerusalem and the Jewish abomination Temple were destroyed by the Roman armies of Vespasian and Titus. According to Josephus 1million Jews were slaughtered. This was God’s final word regarding National Israel. God may and does still call individual Jews but as a nation God is done with them. God is done with Israel as a nation or people. Now any Gentile nation that God calls and which then covenants with God can be one national expression of God’s people as long as they own the graciousness of grace and then walk increasingly but never perfectly in terms of obedience to God’s gracious Law-Word.

2c.) Then there is the whole issue of whether or not those currently referred to as Jews are indeed Jews. Israel itself has passed laws making it extraordinarily difficult for the “Jewish” inhabitants of Israel to do DNA testing in order to determine ethnic heritage. Could that be due to the fact that they don’t want the hoi polloi to know that they are not really ethnically “Jewish?” The fact of the matter is that the Palestinians have more Jewish blood in them then the Khazars, Edomites, Khazars, Turks, etc. who call themselves “Jews” now living in Israel.

3.) Fulfilled by AD 70.

4.) We really need a definition of the “cancerous sin of anti-Semitism” before we can comment much on this statement. Currently, anti-Semitism often seems to be defined as “disagreeing with a Jew.” In point of fact, per the CREC, I’m pretty sure this whole post is “anti-Semitic.”

There are two major points here.

1.) Modern day Jews in Israel are not likely even Jews

2.) Even if they are Jews the Scripture does not allow us to think that they, as in their unconverted Christ hating state, are still God’s chosen people, since God divorced them as a people in AD 70 — consistent with the statements of Scripture.