Should Theology be in the Domain of Politics? — McAtee Undresses Wolfe

Over on X Stephen Wolfe offers a typical Natural Law kind of statement by posting;

“Christians need fewer theologian writing about politics. Politics, for Christians, should mainly be a discipline of non-theologians.”

Stephen Wolfe

From here Wolfe quotes from Francis Junius, a man who was trained to be a minister but left disgusted with the politics in the Church and his native country surrounding the controversy between Arminius and the supporters (including his own Uncle) who supported Calvinism.

“If any theologian labors concerning the matters relating to the ordering of human society, he wastes himself, and does the most serious injury to the God who calls him, to the Church for whose sake he has been called, and to her calling by being a busybody and meddling in others’ business which is insatiable ambition.”

Francis Junius
The Mosaic Polity — pg. 20

A few observations here.

1.) Wolfe’s position here, amazingly enough, apes the position of Radical Two Kingdom Theology (R2K). R2K, like Wolfe here, insists that ministers should stay away from politics. Don’t talk about abortion from the pulpit. Don’t talk about sodomy from the pulpit. Don’t advocate for sabbath laws in the social order from the pulpit. Don’t give reasons from the Bible as to why magistrates are in sin for pursuing an immigration policy that dilutes both the religion of the people and the original stock. Wolfe wants all this to himself and others like him. Wolfe desires for the elimination of “thus sayeth the Lord,” ringing from the Church. This is the same exact position of David Van Drunen –he of R2K fame.

2.) Wolfe being a Thomist and following the Natural Law school basically advocates here for the same kind of philosophy/ideology/theology that emanated from the pagan Enlightenment. Wolfe doesn’t need any stinking theology in order to arrive at his politics. Indeed, per Wolfe, politics should belong to non-Theologians (as if that were even possible). Wolfe is echoing the Endarkenment project and is advocating that man — starting from himself, by the use of right reason and natural law– can come to truth without any Scriptural revelation.

3.) Allow me to say, once again, that there are exactly zero academic disciplines that can be pursued apart from theology. Whether one is talking about sociology, education, judicial realm, arts, philosophy, politics, history etc. etc. etc. theology is inescapable and is the beginning point for all disciplines. There is no pursuing any discipline without theological a-prioris. This includes the Natural Law Thomists types who hide from themselves the theology that they are working from while insisting that they are not doing theology. Wolfe does this in his book, insisting in his book that he is not doing theology. I promise you… all any of us do, all the time (including Dr. Wolfe) is theology. It’s just either purposeful disingenuousness or a blindness of epic proportions to deny this.

4.) There are whole books out there connecting theology to politics. Martin Foulner’s “Theonomy & the Westminster Confession” is one such book. Dr. Glenn R. Martin’s “Prevailing Worldviews of Western Society Since 1500,” is another. R. J. Rushdoony, Francis Schaeffer, Gary North, and C. Greg Singer all connected what they wrote on politics to theology. Pray tell,  what does Wolfe do with the Black Robed Regiment in the American colonies during the run up to the War for American Independence?

Now Wolfe, hating the presuppositional school as being a Natural Law theologian (and I feel the same way about his philosophy as he does about my theology,) like his R2K bedfellows doesn’t want the presuppositionalists swimming in a pool (politics) he thinks should be exclusive to him and his R2K pool buddies but I’m here to tell you that he’s in over his head and is drowning.

5.) I understand how frustrated Wolfe is by so many clergy who are absolute dorks who are resisting him. However, the problem with these dorks is not limited to politics. These dorks rot at politics because they rot at theology. They shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a pulpit. Frankly, I’m surprised that God has struck many of them dead where they stand in their pulpits for resisting the Lordship of Jesus Christ over nations. However, the conclusion here isn’t to restrict a theology that touches every area of life (including politics) from the bailiwick of the pulpit.

6.) I have liked some of the conclusions that Wolfe has arrived at but I absolutely loath … despise … hate the man’s Natural Law methodology. We see the instability of it again in Wolfe’s echoing of the R2K school in his desire to eliminating theology from politics. Here we have R2K who insists that they are the voice of God’s Natural Law, and Wolfe who insists he is the voice of Gods’ Natural Law, and these two are at each other’s throats as to what Natural Law teaches. If the R2K Thomists, and the Wolfe crowd Thomists can’t agree on what Natural Law teaches how is anybody else going to read the tea leaves of Natural Law rightly.

Natural Law went the way of the Dodo bird because men began to see that it was clearly a thin and weak reed to lean on. Natural Law was eclipsed because it sucked wind as a theology/philosophy that could provide stability for a social order. The reason then, and the reason now, Natural law sucks so badly as a epistemological foundation is that it is completely subjective to whomever is reading Natural Law. This is proven, in spades, by the fact that the R2K fanboys, and the Wolfe fanboys, who both love them some Natural Law can’t stand to be in each other’s presence when it comes to working out what Natural Law really means.

Christian Nationalism & The Use of Force

“God’s law, and the punitive stipulations attached to it have never been rescinded.

The Gospel is to preached to all men. Those whom God has chosen from eternity will hear and believe.

God’s law is to be applied and upheld in every sphere of man’s endeavor. It is not meant to convert but to control the lawless and when necessary remove them from society. The state wields the sword and enforces the law but it must do so in submission to Christ the King.

The failure of the church to operate as described above is testimony to effeminacy. It is anti Christ.”

Mark Chambers 

This is the answer to the old canard from “Christians” insisting that Christian Nationalism (CN) should not be supported by Christians  because it implies the use of force. The argument is that CN is not legitimate because nobody can be forced to convert.

To the contrary CN can and should use force upon people in order to be installed. People have to realize that the force that CN must and should us is not intended to convert people, but rather force is intended to make the lawless respect the King’s law. Whether they will convert or not is the work of the Holy Spirit in the context of the preaching of the Gospel. That people will be forced to obey is the work of the Christian magistrates sword.

As such there is nothing desultory and there is no degradation to a Christianity which uses force to make people outwardly conform to the law of God, even if inwardly those people hate doing so. We do it all the time. We used force to make sure that people who might want to murder, rape, and steal don’t murder, rape, and steal. The fact that they are not doing the murdering, raping, and stealing that they might otherwise do if force wasn’t promised against them if they did so may make them hypocrites but that is irrelevant as to living in a social order within the bonds of God’s law.
They may secretly desire to disobey that which they are being forced to obey but they don’t and they don’t for the fear of force used against them if they do. That is a good thing.

The above explains how CN is not inconsistent with the usage of force. It is true that force can’t convert people but that is not it’s intent. The intent of force is have people obey God’s law outwardly whether they want to or not. And that would be a good thing.

The usage of force in the rise of CN is no different than the usage of force in a Christian family. 12 y/o Johnny may not like any number of the family rules but force will make sure that Johnny complies. Now, to be sure, the hope is that Johnny will one day enjoy and own the family rules but until that day arrives little Johnny is kept in line by the promises of consequences (force) if he does not comply.

“Christians” who bring up the canard about how the prospect of force in CN make CN a non-starter are not really complaining about the prospect of force. What they are complaining about are laws in God’s gracious Law-Word that they don’t want enforced. If they could force their law on the world (whatever that might be) they would be perfectly fine with force.

Think about it a second…. the Baptists are some of the Christians who are screaming the loudest about how the usage of force is not consistent with Christianity. These Baptists are therefore against CN. However, keep in mind that the pluralism that we have now that is kept as expressive of our social order by force is a pluralism that is an expression of Baptist theology. Pluralism is the child of Anabaptist thinking, so naturally many Baptists  oppose a CN coupled with the usage of force because that would mean the end of their preferred social order (pluralism) which is maintained by force.

In the end, force is an inescapable concept when it comes to how social orders operation. That force will either be put into the service of God’s law or it will be put into the service of some other god’s law (like polytheistic pluralism).

Jesus Use of Hyperbole in the Sermon on the Mount & Anabaptist Pacifism

Matthew 5:38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I tell you not to resist an evil person. But whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 If anyone wants to sue you and take away your tunic, let him have your cloak also. 41 And whoever compels you to go one mile, go with him two. 42 Give to him who asks you, and from him who wants to borrow from you do not turn away.

A few years ago (2015) the popular Baptist minister, John Piper wrote an article titled;

Should Christians Be Encouraged to Arm Themselves?

It was a typical Anabaptist pacifistic kind of examination considering the issue of self-defense. This passage in Matthew was featured predominantly. I was reminded of all this, this week, when I came in contact with another Anabaptist online discussing the same type of thing.

This online chap, in the course of the conversation rebuked me for suggesting that Christians had the God given duty to oppose wickedness, even if by force if necessary. This chap said to me with a pious flourish, “I trust God to protect me,” of course meaning I wasn’t trusting God to protect me since I advocated that it is a God honoring thing to protect the innocent even by deadly force if needs be.

Of course my answer here was, “And I trust God to provide for me, but I still plant a garden every year.”

This non-violence is typical of Anabaptist thinking. This insistence on turning the other cheek always and all the time is their motto. I even have seen it when Reformed clergy get together for their twice annual meetings (Classis) and I earned a great deal of enmity several years ago when I stood on the floor of Classis and communicated my shock that the whole room had embraced Anabaptist pacifism.

So, this is an issue I’ve logged some miles on. And it has been an issue you find in history. For example in the early American colonies the Quakers refused to defend themselves against Indian raids but they thought it perfectly acceptable to hire mercenaries to rout out the Indians who were raiding them.

Returning to Dr. Piper at one point in his article writes that the matter reduces to

“Can I shoot my wife’s assailant?”

He then proceeded to write,

“My answer is sevenfold.”

Now, when the question comes up as to whether or not I can shoot my wife’s assailant I hope I can simply say “yes,” as opposed to going into a long dialogue about the nuances of whether or not I can shoot someone who is intending to do my wife bodily harm.

But that is consistent Anabaptist pacifistic type thinking.

Dr. Piper went on to write in his 7 fold explanation,

“5) I live in the inner city of Minneapolis, and I would personally counsel a Christian not to have a firearm available for such circumstances.”

Topping it off with

“6) I do not know what I would do before this situation presents itself with all its innumerable variations of factors.”

I’m sure his wife found that very comforting.

This issue of pacifism is coming to the fore once again. Rev. Andrew Isker in his book on “The Boniface Option,” took all kinds of flack from the Anabaptist crowd for being “so militant” … so “in your face”… “so needlessly provocative.”

Indeed there are times when one wonders if Christianity has become some kind of ethnocide/suicide cult with the message being that “Christianity means you lie down and die.”

That this pacifistic kind of message is in the air accounts for a recent testimony from a 20something young man who told me;

“I grew up in a church that thought we had to be totally passive. When I became a fireman and had seen violence and defended innocents against it, and I used my aggression to be an effective first responder my church had zero answer to this and accused me of impiety and sin. It got so bad to the point they excommunicated me for refusing to be effeminate.

The glory of young men is their strength. Part of strength is the ability, desire and courage to stop violence and to rescue people.

A young man incapable of this is a terrible man.”

Christopher Eade

So, do the Anabaptist have this right with their invoking of the Sermon on the mount? Are we always and at all times to turn the other cheek to violence done against us and/or our loved ones. Does Christianity require Pacifism in order to be Christian?

And if we answer that question “yes,” what do we do with many of our Christian heroes through the centuries? Do we consign to disgust and maybe even hell people like Charles Martel who drove the Muslims back over the western Pyrenees lest all of Europe become Muslim, or Charlemagne who was familiar in the usage of violence against pagan tribes, or Alfred the Great, or the Godly Crusaders, of Oliver Cromwell or the Christians who followed Don Juan in turning back the Muslims at the battle of Lepanto, or Jean Val Jean who with a handful of Christian Knights against swarms of Muslims secured Malta against all odds for Christ or the black robed regiment who put the fire of the God of battle into their parishioners so as to war against the British?

Were the Anabaptist’s right and all these Christian heroes in sin for not turning the other cheek?

Well, of course you know I’m going to answer this question in the negative. Indeed it is my conviction that one reason the Church in the West has languished is because she has lost her militancy has being led by effeminate clergy who are sickened with the disease of Anabaptism.

So, lets take up the text this morning and ask if holiness is defined by pacifism in the face of those who would assail the judicially innocent. Must we teach our children that Christianity is a suicide cult?

When we come to the Sermon on the Mt. we find all kinds of extreme statements. Many of them we don’t take literally. We are going to look at some of these and then ask if we should take “turn the other cheek” literally all the time in every situation. I will tell you at the outset that what we are going to learn here is that Jesus was using a common rabbinical teaching tool known as “hyperbole” in order to accentuate an important point.

Hyperbole is “a figure of speech in which exceptional exaggeration is deliberately used for emphasis rather than deception.

We see hyperbole used in the OT, Isaiah 11

The wolf will live with the lamb,
the leopard will lie down with the goat,
the calf and the lion and the yearling[a] together;
and a little child will lead them.
7 The cow will feed with the bear,
their young will lie down together,
and the lion will eat straw like the ox.
8 The infant will play near the cobra’s den,
and the young child will put its hand into the viper’s nest.

Clearly, this is not to be taken literally. Rather the use of hyperbole is teaching that the Messianic age would be characterized by incredible peace and stability but no one thought that lions would begin eating straw like an ox or that infants would literally play near cobra dens.

We find hyperbole used likewise in the New Testament;

And the winepress was trampled outside the city, and blood came out of the winepress, up to the horses’ bridles, for one thousand six hundred furlongs.  Rev. 14:20

The point here is that the violence is going to be extreme. Everyone understands that we are not looking for literal rivers of blood running for sixteen hundred furlongs (200 miles).

In the same way Jesus is using this rabbinic technique to hammer home important points. Jesus is using hyperbole throughout the Sermon on the Mount.

The best known examples of this hyperbole that is slung around mindlessly from the Sermon on the Mount by many, including Christians, is the “judge not, lest ye be judged” and “turn the other cheek” passages. These get an inordinate amount of air-time. Even though the “judge not, lest ye be judged” passage is seen as hyperbole when Jesus elsewhere says in John’s Gospel,

Do not judge according to appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” 7:24

And St. Paul likewise can say on the matter of judging; I Corinthians 6:1f

 If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord’s people? 2 Or do you not know that the Lord’s people will judge the world? And if you are to judge the world, are you not competent to judge trivial cases? 3 Do you not know that we will judge angels? How much more the things of this life!

Clearly Christians are to judge in this life. Indeed it is not possible to not judge but the point of the “judge not” passage is that we are not to be a people who are overly censorious and critical in our analysis and evaluating of others.

The same kind of reality is presented to us in Jesus Sermon on the Mount;

Here are some examples;

1. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away… (5:29)

Do we really think Jesus wants us to pluck out our eyes and throw them away? No! He is speaking hyperbole to emphasize the fact that we must eliminate all obstacles to serving God.

Besides, if we think about it we all realize that it is never the eye that causes one to sin as if we only got rid of our eyes then we would not longer lust.

2. … if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away… (5:30)

Obviously Jesus isn’t expecting to have a flock missing their right hands. The point here is that sin is to be taken seriously.

3. But I say to you, Do not swear at all… Let what you say be simply “Yes” or “No”… (5:34-37)

Jesus himself honored the oath the High Priest placed him under in Matt. 26:63: “I adjure thee by the living God, tell us if you are the Christ, the Son of God” (in Leviticus 5:1, we have a reference to the “oath of adjuration” where the High Priest is revealed to have the authority to place someone under an oath to testify). If Jesus taught oaths to be unlawful or immoral, he would not have responded or he would have protested and made clear that he did not agree with the concept of oaths.

St. Paul swore oaths, or at least did not present everything as a simple “yes” or “no” as Jesus said in Matt. 5:37, in multiple places in the New Testament (see Phil. 1:8; II Cor. 1:23; 11:31; 12:19; Gal. 1:20). Jesus’ actual meaning was that oaths should not be necessary among the faithful because we should be known for our honesty; however, because of the evil that exists in the world oaths are very necessary. But you don’t get this from the actual words of Matt. 5.

4. Give to him who begs from you, and do not refuse him who would borrow from you (5:42).

Do we really believe Jesus meant we have to loan or give money to anyone and everyone who asks us? All Christians would be broke and unable to raise families! No! He uses hyperbole in teaching Christians should be known for their generosity.

No, the point here is that we are to be a people known for our generosity.

5. … when you give alms do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your alms may be in secret… (6:3-4)

Did Jesus really mean no one should ever know what we give? Then why would Jesus have commended the poor widow who gave the now famous “widow’s mite” in Mark 12:42-43? Or, why would the apostles have had a very public display of giving in Acts 5 when Ananias and Saphira were condemned for lying about how much they actually gave? This implies that everyone knew what each was giving!

The truth is, Christ was emphasizing that we should give for love of God and neighbor’s sake, not to be seen of men as a matter of pride.

6. … when you pray, go into your room and shut the door and pray to your Father who is in secret… (6:6)

Did Jesus really condemn praying in public here? If so, he would have been condemning himself! He prayed publicly in the Garden of Gethsemane (See Mark 14:36); he prayed publicly when he raised Lazarus from the dead in John 11:41-43. The apostles often prayed in public (see Acts 1:24; 4:31; 6:6; 20:36, etc.).

Jesus was here using hyperbole to emphasize that prayer should never be a performance to be seen by men.

7. Do not lay up treasures for yourselves on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven… (6:19-20)

Do we really believe that Jesus condemned banks and bank accounts here? This would hardly square with Jesus’ “Parable of the Talents,” in Matt. 25:27: “Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest.”

8. And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they neither toil nor spin; yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not clothed like one of these… will [God] not much more clothe you, O you of little faith (6:28-30)?

If we are going to argue that “turn the other cheek” must be taken in a strict, literal, and absolute sense, then it would seem we would also have to say Jesus is condemning farms, farming, or even planting seeds to grow food in these verses. After all, the birds don’t do that and God takes care of them!

Jesus would also be condemning the making of clothing. I suppose we should all remain naked and wait for God to clothe us, right?

Now, this last may seem really ridiculous. We all know God is condemning forgetting about our Lord and his providence in all of these affairs. But if we are going to take some of the Sermon on the Mount in a strict, literal sense, why not all of it?

Sum

The entire Sermon on the Mount can be summed up in Matthew 6:33: “But seek first his kingdom and his righteousness, and all these things shall be yours as well.” The idea here is God must come first in every aspect of our lives.

So when it comes to turn the other cheek, Jesus is not saying we should be doormats and pacifists. In fact, Jesus himself makes this clear in Luke 22:36-38 when he tells the apostles to “take up a sword” for self-defense. And while it is true that Jesus tells St. Peter to put away his sword later in verses 50-51, this was only after Peter lashed out offensively and against Jesus’ will. Jesus had already told the apostles that it was God’s will that he suffer and die (see Luke 9:44; 18:32, etc.). Peter was acting contrary to Jesus’ revealed will. But this does not negate the fact that it was Jesus himself that told Peter and the apostles to take up a sword to begin with. This implies the necessity of legitimate self-defense.

Jesus also praises the faith of the Roman centurion in Matt. 8:8ff. Never does he say that serving in the military is wrong, which it would be if he was teaching pacifism. The truth is: Jesus was using hyperbole once again in order to tell us that we are to be peace-makers. We should always seek peace even though sometimes self-defense or even war becomes necessary (cf. Eccl. 3:3, 8).

When we condemn the warriors in our midst for their lack of pacifism we are at that moment making Scripture contradict Scripture.

There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
2     a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3     a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4     a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5     a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing,
6     a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7     a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8     a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

Jesus was not a pacifist as seen in His crafting a whip that doubtless left painful welts and bleeding cuts as He harried the Jewish Bankers out of the Temple. Further, the Bible does not teach Pacifism. That is a Anabaptist shameful twisting of Scripture and it is one more reason why we detest the errors of the Anabaptists. This Anabaptist reasoning has turned Christianity into a death cult inasmuch we are being told from countless ministers like John Piper that the issue of whether or not a Christian can shoot someone who is assailing their wife is complicated.

Then there is the reality that the Anabaptist seek to weigh down with false guilt anyone who would dare disagree with their pacifism. The Church in the West has to get its mind right on this issue and that right soon lest those who are teaching that Christianity is a suicide cult end up winning the day.

Now, having said all that it is not my understanding that Scripture teaches we need to go looking for fights nor is it my understanding that we should twist the sermon on the Mt. so that it means the opposite of what it says. Christians should be known for doing all they can to live peaceable lives and to be the bringers of peace to volatile situations.

If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men. Rmns 12:18

Depart from evil, and do good; seek peace, and pursue it. Psalm 34:14

But there are times, and I fear we are living in such times, when,

a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

In short Pacifism is stupid and more importantly it is not the mind of God

Oh…. and unlike John Piper … if you seek to assail my wife or my children … I’m coming after you.

And God will be fully pleased with that.

 

Dr. Own Strachan Dunking Tank Part II

A little good natured humor at Moanin’ Owen Strachan’s expense;

Owen Strachan’s favorite bible story as a little boy?
Joseph & the coat of many colors.
Owen Strachan’s favorite bible story as an “adult?”
Joseph and the coat of many colors.

What’s the difference between Robespierre denouncing Lafayette and Owen Strachan denouncing  Bret L. McAtee?

Oh, about 230 years.

Owen Strachan … inveighing against preferring all beef hotdogs since 1983.

Owen Strachan… Insisted, even as a child, that those who don’t like PB and J sandwiches preferring instead only Peanut Butter or Jelly are exhibiting their sinful fallenness.

“Not so sure about that ‘only one way to heaven’ stuff. There is a lot of partiality in that idea.”

Owen Strachan

“It is egregious sin to say it is normative to wear matching shoes every day.”

Owen Strachan

Marriage has found me sleeping with my wife only. Pray for me Dr. Moanin’ Owen Strachan that I might be released from this preference bondage so that I might sleep with other women.

 

Owen Strachan calls on all Christians to pray for Amanda Gentry who has been making meals for her own kids before making them for anyone else’s kids.

Amanda being convicted cries out… “Pray for me.”

Amanda Gentry also confesses

“Father forgive me.

I packed my husband lunch without even thinking about other husbands’ lunch, that’s the depths of my depravity.”

Amanda Gentry
“In the Confessional Booth w/ Father Owen Strachan”
New on Paramount Online Streaming

File Under: Can you find the contradiction? I bet you can.

“Kinism is the partial (thus sinful) preferring of your own people over others.”

Owen Strachan
Substack Article

“It is not wrong to enjoy your own heritage, culture, and background. Neither is it wrong to prefer your family’s or country’s customs, habits, and traditions, or even—to flip this around—to enjoy them and preserve them at some level.”

Owen Strachan

Same Substack Article a few paragraphs later

“Put positively, (Kinism teaches that) marrying inside your ethnicity is a moral duty or a moral good.”

Owen Strachan
Substack Article

Yes, and we also teach that God is Holy, men and women are distinct, and the sacraments can only be found in the Church.

So shoot us already.

“I mean that the entire (Wolfe) project, unlike the NT, has little to do with the biblical gospel that unites believers & forms the one true holy nation of God (1 Peter 2:9).”

Owen Strachan

This presupposes that the one true holy nation (Church) of God isn’t a nation comprised of many nations. Strachan presupposes that the Church is going to be a globalist NWO body. In Strachan’s vision the way the Church opposes Sauron is by going all Saruman.

The Bible teaches that the Church is going to be a confederated Nation of nations. I know this because the Bible unequivocally teaches that the nations as nations continue to exist in the new Jerusalem.

“The argument made by this group (Kinists) is that failing to build the nation along ethnic lines will lead to societal chaos and even destruction.”

Owen Strachan

Ummm… Owen… Babe… Dude …  have you looked out your window recently?

“(This system of thought [Kinism] strenuously opposes the Western liberal tradition and its attempt to create nations around core ideas, not family & heritage.)”

Owen Strachan

Clearly Owen has not read our founding Fathers. Again, the man is a giant idiot. The Founding of America with its Western liberal tradition was never about creating a propositional nation such as Owen Strychnine suggests here.

“Against what the world tells us today from polar-opposite ideologies, we are not divided by blood as believers.”

Owen Strachan

I suppose we likewise are not divided by genitalia as believers either Owen?

“He (Wolfe) makes gospel identity secondary and ethno-cultural identity primary. This is a reversal of the biblical framework, which recognizes our status as Jew or Gentile (covenantal categories first, ethnic categories second), but puts our shared identity in Christ at the foreground. We are “one new man” in Christ (Ephesians 2:15); we are not tribalists or ethno-preservationists.”

Owen “The Idiot” Strachan

Similarly, following “The Idiot’s” example we could write;

“We are one new man in Christ (Eph. 2:15); we are not men or women or gender-preservationists.”

 

On behalf of all Kinists everywhere I would like to offer gratitude with all sincerity to Owen Strachan, Doug Wilson, Toby Sumpter, Jon Harris, Stephen Wolfe and numerous others who have done Kinist the favor of either so hyper-ventilating about how dangerous we are or having written and spoken in such a way that you are accused of the Kinism that you yourself say you loathe that more and more people are becoming aware of who we are. You folks alone, have raised the Kinist brand and profile in ways that we could have only dreamt. So, from the bottom of our hearts, we thank you and we want you to know what a deep affection we have for you given all your kindness to us.

Love to all,

Pastor Bret

Dr. Own Strachan Dunking Tank Part I

Remember going to the fair and there was always a booth where some clown was sitting on a collapsible bench over a water tank and he would scream insults at you as you passed by, minding your own business, in order to lure you into throwing baseballs at a target which would collapse his bench with the result of the clown being immersed in water?

Well, the clown Dr. Owen Strachan did something similar to that to me this week in an article he wrote on Substack. It seems Owen doesn’t like me much (imagine my chagrin) and as such Owed decided to take my name in vain, seeking to treat me like an anchor to put around other people’s neck so as to discredit whoever he connected to me.

So, in light of that, I thought I would play Walter Johnson to Owen Strachan’s clown routine and pitch a few baseballs at the metaphorical target in order to get Owen good and wet.

Alternately, this of this post as a kind of Dr. Owen Strachan slugfest;

“There are two major elements of this movement (Kinism) as I read it; multi-ethnic Christian nationalism and mono-ethnic Christian Nationalism.”

Dr. Owen Strachan 
Typical Baptist

Any one want to tell Owen that multi-ethnic by definition can’t be Nationalism unless it is a non-Nationalist civic Nationalism?

What a maroon.

Owen continues,

“In what follows, I seek to show that mono-ethnic Christian Nationalism should not be held by any true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Someone phone the Hungarians and let them know.

However, apparently mono-ethnic Judaism (Israel) is perfectly acceptable as Nationalism, and mono-ethnic communism is perfectly acceptable as Nationalism for the Han Chinese.

Owen is looking to get another Doctorate. This time in stupidity.

Continuing on;

“Andrew (Torba) I pray you understand the true biblical gospel, which has nothing to do with your kinist message of ethnic preservation and propagation. I say this in love: you are promoting a false gospel.”

Dr. Rev. Owen Strachan

Baptist Idiot (Tautology alert)

Yes, because the true gospel means that you ignore the ongoing attempted genocide of your people because of LUV. The true gospel means that we LUV our children enough to turn a blind eye to their being replaced. The true gospel means that we LUV God enough to ignore the 6th commandment. Everyone know the true gospel once embraced is a suicide pact.

“Real talk: You go against inter-ethnic marriage, you go against God.”

Rev. Dr. Owen Strychnine Strachan

Yes, indeed, everyone should marry other races. We should destroy our bloodlines to rebuild the Tower of Babel.

Also clearly Ezra and Nehemiah (ch. 9 & 13) were in terrible sin for their actions.

Continuing;

Owen Strachan in his Substack article faults Wolfe merely for daring to quote something on Twitter (X) that I, had in turn, quoted from the Harvard Law review.

Quoting Moanin’ Owen from his Substack article;

“Fourth, Wolfe has engaged kinist and white-nationalist voices in affirmatory terms. Here, for example, is Wolfe reposting a take on blasphemy from Bret McAtee:”

Here Moanin’ Owen invokes my name in connection with Wolfe in the attempt to smear Wolfe with little ole innocent me. The idea is “if Wolfe is connected to McAtee then obviously Wolfe is poison.”

Next Strachan writes,

“Bret  McAtee is not a widely-known voice, but he is an open kinist who was dismissed from the Christian Reformed Church for advocacy of such ideology. McAtee writes the “IronInk” blog. Here is how Alastair Roberts has described IronInk:

The Kinist Iron Ink blog describes ‘Who is My Neighbor” as follows: ‘This book is nearly 700 pages long and it provides one quote after another culled from authors (both Christian and Pagan) from Ancient History to modern times, which demonstrates that the doctrines of Kinism have been what all men in all time and in all places have believed.”
_______

Now some analysis:

1.) Thanks to the work of the Alienists like Doug Wilson and Alister Roberts and now Owen Strachan it is sure to be the case that Bret McAtee will soon indeed be a widely known voice. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you very much.

2.) It was not possible for me to be dismissed from the Christian Reformed Church since I was never ordained in the Christian Reformed Church. Strachan is just in error here. What’s new? He’s trademarked error.

3.) Note how Strachan refuses to consider the material in “Who is My Neighbor,” choosing instead to just damn all the evidence because I dare cite it as evidence. It’s as if this idiot is saying, “Clearly all the evidence in ‘Who is My Neighbor’ can’t be counted as evidence because McAtee recognizes it as evidence.”

4.) What’s a guy got to do to get his middle initial used? I mean I always sign my name Bret L. McAtee and Owen drops my “L.” My “L” is important to me since I was tabbed with that middle name (Lee) after Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Continuing with the brilliance of Dr. Owen Moanin’ Strachan;

“Kinism is the partial (thus sinful) preferring of your own people over others.”

Owen Strachan

So…. my preferring my own wife and children over other women and children not my own is sinful?

Does this man even think about what he writes?

Owen Strachan’s behavior at the G3 conference and in his Substack article is proof positive once again that the visible church needs to split apart. We need a movement to start different denominations that have has part of their confession an explicit allegiance to Kinism and/or CN. We could put in our confession;

… therefore we detest the errors of the political Anabaptists who would insists that the God of the Bible has to share sovereignty with all the other gods in the public square.”