Category: Windows Into Worldviews
McAtee Analyzes Quote From “Conversations that Matter,” touching Soft-WOKE Churches
As long as seminaries fail to teach what the Bible assumes about nations and gender we will continue to have soft-woke pastors who think they’re just being biblical because “imago dei = egalitarianism” “every tribe, tongue, and nation = local church diversity telos” and “women can’t be in pastoral office = they can have any other leadership.”
The created order the authors of Scripture presumed is now universally forgotten in favor of blank-slate biblicalism.
We need history. We need reason. We need tradition. Not as final authorities but as tools and fences.
Conversations That Matter
1.) I’m sorry, but this not soft WOKEism. This is hard WOKEism. We have gotten so used to WOKE we ourselves are willing to call hard WOKE, “Soft WOKE.” Now, to be sure, doubtless there are even greater degrees of “WOKEness” but lets not allow ourselves to believe that the above is “Soft WOKE.” Churches and ministers that are that kind of WOKE should be abandoned with the purpose of saving your own soul.
2.) Of course Blank-slate Biblicalism is a non-thing. They really are not blank slate but are starting with WOKE presuppositions on their slate and so are finding it confirmed in Scripture. The problem is not that they are really “Blank-slate.” That is impossible. The problem is that their slate has scribbled all over it anti-Christ presuppositions.
3.) History, reason, and tradition are only as good as the theology they presuppose. They can not exist independently of theology. Our problem is not that we do not have history, reason, or tradition. Our problem is that Christian theology is not informing our history, reason, and tradition. Instead an alien theology is informing what we call “history,” “reason,” and “tradition.” History, reason, and tradition never exist independent of some a-priori theology. Therefore if history, reason, and tradition are going to help us at all we have to get our theology right, and we have to start explicitly connecting the dots between our history, reason, and tradition and our Biblical theology. If we don’t make those connections then history, reason, and tradition will not and can not serve as tools and fences.
4.) It is true that history, reason, and tradition can be tools but they are only useful tools if we see the connection between our history, reason, and tradition, and the theology that of which they are expressions.
Heinrich Bullinger on the Implications of the Unity of Scripture
“For the apostle Paul, speaking to the Hebrews, as concerning Christian faith, doth say: ‘These through faith did subdue kingdoms, wrought righteousness, were valiant in fight, and turned to flight the armies of aliens.’ Now, since our faith is all one, and the very same with theirs, it is lawful for us, as well as for them, in a rightful quarrel by war to defend our country and religion, our virgins and old men, our wives and children, our liberty and possessions. They are flatly unnatural to their country and countrymen, and do transgress this fifth commandment, whatsoever do (under the pretense of religion) forsake their country afflicted with war, not endeavoring to deliver it from barbarous soldiers and foreign nations, even by offering their lives to the push and prick of present death for the safeguard thereof.”
From collection of sermons preached in Zurich entitled “The Decades”
Consider the implications of this quote from one of the Princes of the Reformation;
1.) Clearly David Van Drunen and Radical Two Kingdom theology would insist that Bullinger was being irresponsible (and probably sinful) as a minister of the Gospel to be enjoining that Christians fight to defend their homeland and religion. The clear implication here is that the country that is being fought for (defended) is a Christian country. For R2K, it is not possible to have a Christian country.
2.) Similarly, R2K would bring Bulllinger up on charges for implying that a people (nation) can be so Christian that the people of that nation are responsible to take up arms to defend it against those who would overthrow their land and their religion.
3.) Notice how Bullinger draws together country, religion, liberty, possessions and people into one net. They are distinct, to be sure, but they also are inter-related. There is no Christian country populated by Christian people without liberty and personal possessions. They imply one another. For a Christian people (nation) to live without liberty and possessions is a giant oxymoron. A Christian nation is defined by the people therein having liberty and possessions.
4.) I am convinced that one implications of this Bullinger quote is that no Christian should be serving in the US Military since to serve in the US Military today would be to take up the cause to defend an alien religion and a people who have foresworn fealty to Jesus Christ. The current US Military is in the service of a god-state with aspirations to completely overthrow Biblical Christianity. It is in league with the New World Order.
McAtee Notes Leithart’s Irrationality
The Different Levels of Thinking & Thinkers
Men like Erasmus, Herbert Spencer, Neil Postmen, Kuyper, Bavinck, Karl Popper, M. Polyani, R. L. Dabney, R. J. Rushdoony etc. You and I probably won’t meet one of these in our lifetime.
After I first wrote this a friend from Australia offered a slight correction that I thought was quite good.