Picking At The Issue Of Culture

In the Christian anthropology man is being that is composed of two parts that are so closely integrated that some theologians have referred to man’s ontological reality as being a “modified unichotomy,” comprised of a corporeal dynamic (being made from the dust of the ground) yet also having a spiritual dynamic (God having breathed into him the breath of life). Some have referred to man as being a dichotomous being but this doesn’t quite capture it given that man’s body and spirit are so closely and intimately integrated. We can distinguish body and soul but we can ever isolate them or divorce them. God alone does that at death and then only for a season until our bodies as glorified will be reunited with our heaven dwelling spirits. Unichotomy is a clumsy way to express this union of body and soul (spirit) since the word itself means “One” and “to cut.”

I lead in with the above observation in order to talk about the problems with what we call “multiculturalism.” Multiculturalism, professing that it delights in a multitude of cultures in point of fact ends up creating a unitarian culture that disallows Christian culture since Christian culture is premised upon the conviction that inferior cultures should not be allowed equal standing with superior cultures. For example, while multiculturalism would insist that cultures that honor sodomite marriage should be protected, Christian culture would demand laws prohibiting such inferior cultural norms as existing among a Christian people.

The link between the first two paragraphs is that for multiculturalism, premised at it is on Marxist underpinnings, holds an anthropology that denies the Christian anthropology insisting instead that man is only matter in motion. Since man is only matter in motion and since there are no transcendent ethics by which man must be guided the multiculturalist seeks to create a culture that is unitary. Since man himself is definitely not a composite of body and soul and therefore is a unitary being then it is inevitable that man should build unitary cultures that disallow for any culture that insist that distinctions exist as given by extramundane God, who, according the to the multiculturalist worldview can’t exist because he is a spiritual being.

So, we have established thus far

1.) Multiculturalism is a euphemism that hides the unitarian uni-cultural agenda.

2.)  Man created as body and soul has implications for culture.

It is #2 that I would like to tease out a wee bit.

When we consider culture we have to consider it as being the product of both man’s corporeal and spiritual reality. This is why when asked the definition of culture my answer is typically, “culture is a particular people’s religion externalized.” This is a slight twist on the Calvinistic philosopher’s “culture is religion externalized.”  When we talk about what makes culture, culture we have to take into account our Christian anthropology which teaches that man is a modified unichotomy. We have to take into account that like man individually, culture is, a modified unichotomy expressing both man’s corporeal and non-corporeal realities.

Culture is the expression of men living in one geographic area that reflects both a shared genetic heritage (thus tipping the cap to man’s corporeal being) and a shared religion, belief system, worldview (thus tipping the cap to man’s non-corporeal being). Another way of saying this is that “culture is theology as poured over a particular people group.”

The implications of this are fairly obvious if this is an accurate assessment of culture. One implication is that where there is a particular culture that exists one cannot add too  that particular culture either a large injection of alien peoples (corporeal aspect of culture) or a large injection of an alien worldview (non-corporeal aspect of culture) and still at the end of that addition have the same culture that one started with before the addition was injected. The application here to massive third world migration to the formerly Christian West should be obvious.

Another implication is that just as one cannot add to a particular culture either a massive injection of foreign peoples or alien ideas and retain the same culture, in the same way one cannot delete or vastly diminish either a particular culture’s convictions/religion/worldview or it’s genetic heritage and still have the same culture after the deletion or diminishing.

The implication of pursuing an agenda of either massive addition or deletion as described above in any particular stable culture will be significant conflict as the new mix vies for hegemony in the new culture.

Now, there are many in the Christian community, who will insist that culture is only a matter of an abstracted large number of individuals owning a shared set of ideas. They do not believe that a shared genetic heritage should be considered an element for building stable Christian culture. The problem here, for these will intended but vacuous thinkers, is that they are denying the Christian anthropology as applied to culture that man is both body and soul. Instead, what they have is an anthropology, when applied to culture, that sees man as only the sum of his thoughts. Historically, this line of thinkinking has been known as “Gnosticism.” This line of thought is Gnostic because it does not take seriously the truth that man is an embodied being, opting instead to see man as a brain on a stick. This line of thinking belittles the corporeal realities that make for the manishness of man.

Dr. Adi Schlebusch offers insight here as to the historical foundations of this errant form of Gnostic thinking that has invaded the Christian universe of thought;

“This (Gnosticism as applied to defining culture) is the basic tenet of liberalism and this was central to the flaws of the Enlightenment. It is for this very reason that seventeenth- and eighteenth-century counter-enlightenment philosophers polemicized so heavily against abstract theories of human rights or the idea of the social contract as the basis of society. 

What the liberal philosophers of the Enlightenment, especially the eighteenth-century French philosophers sought to do was to rebuild a new society based on ideals. It fundamentally sought to de-root man from the so-called “chains” imposed upon him by created realities. In doing so, they often appealed to nature or man’s supposed state of nature which, according to them, had been corrupted by customs and habits imposed by tradition. It is for this reason that I believe the contemporary Neo-Thomist accusation against Theonomists that we are fundamentally liberal in our anthropology as a result of our skepticism about natural law, holds no water. The fact of the matter is that appeals to nature as justification for egalitarianism and a universal human fraternity was actually quite common during the Enlightenment, particularly in France. This is not to say that natural law theory is liberal in and of itself, but it has certainly historically been much more of a tool employed by liberals than Scripture has, for example.”

The opposite problem of a Gnostic definition of culture that insists that culture is only the sum total of how abstracted individuals think is the assertion that culture has nothing to do with any spiritual reality, insisting instead that culture is merely matter in motion. This materialist Marxist understanding of culture viewed man and cultures as being a biological machine(s) that could be shaped by the party in any direction it desired. In reality Marxism was the anti-culture culture because it was the anti-religion religion. Marxist culture remained the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs but what was manifested in Marxist culture was the Marxist religion that held that man was an economic being that could only be understood in terms of class warfare. Because man in Marxist religion and culture was only matter in motion man became dehumanized and having lost the manishness of man he lost those realities that make men, men; connection to family, clan, nation, church, and place.

Only Christianity can build stable culture because only Christianity has an anthropology that seeks to maintain the relation man as body and man as soul. Christianity then must do battle with the Gnostics in the church that says culture is only the consequence of what men in the abstract think and Christianity must do battle with the Materialists in the church who think that man is merely matter in motion.

What is interesting here is that even though man as material alone or man as spiritual alone are stark opposites in terms of anthropology in the end they both will build cultures that are unitarian and monistic. If man is merely one component then man will build a culture that is monochrome and unitary. So, even though spiritualist views of culture and materialist views of culture are seeming at opposite ends of the spectrum they end up building the same kind of ugly mulatto cultures. This is where we are right now with the rise of multiculturalism – a euphemism if there ever was one.

As a Christian the danger that I am dealing with now the most in the Christian church on this subject is the the Gnostic/spiritual side of the equation. More than a few are the clergy who seemingly believe that the results of Christianity, in terms of culture, will eventually be a world where particular nations  disappear because the gospel has been so successful that there is no longer a need for diverse nations or cultures. I call this “Christian Globalism,” and it is more prevalent than one might think. It’s almost as if the only reason diverse nations and cultures exist is because of sin.

From what we have said here we see that the finest culture can only arise where there is a dynamic interplay between Christian thinking and Christian genetic heritage. The fun thing about this is that because God has made peoples to be diverse different peoples, these different peoples when turning to Christ, will result in their thinking their thoughts after Christ, and the result of that will be a plurality of diverse Christian cultures, each and all expressing in ways distinct to their heritage strengths the glory of God.  Each and all of these cultures will esteem God’s law but the esteeming of that law will run through the prism of genetic distinctive heritage. In such a way the temporal one and many of culture(s) will reflect the One and Many character of God. With this shared owning of Christ the different distinct and different nations and cultures will together glorify the great and magnificent creator God just as a symphony orchestra with all it diverse instruments work together to produce majestic pieces of music.

 

 

‘Dios! Patria! Fueros! Rey! — God, the fatherland, local rights, and the King, in that order

“The political philosophy of the Traditionalist Communion (opposing the Spanish Revolution) rejected any strong central government, parliamentary or otherwise; except for national defense and foreign affairs, they wanted Spain governed by its separate provinces. (The Carlist motto was ‘Dios! Patria! Fueros! Rey! — God, the fatherland, local rights, and the King,) in that order.”

Warren Carroll
The Last Crusade; The Twentieth Century’s War For the Sake Of The Cross – p. 19

There are a good number of variant visions being cast in favor of Christian Nationalism. Recently, I’ve read one Christian Nationalist proclaim that given what we are up against in our own government that it is ridiculous to think any movement that is decentralized could successfully defeat the current Leviathan State. I will concede that is possibly true but be that as it may could I have my vision of Christian Nationalism come to pass it would be of the kind in the quote above. I still believe that power tends to corrupt and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I still believe that if we are able to cashier our current god-state with a centralized state that would work in the favor of Christians the end result would soon enough be a return to where we began. Like our Founders I do  not trust power to be concentrated in any one place and as such I would desire a Christian Nationalism has many power centers as lodged in the society.

Of course a multitude of power centers can never work where there is not a harmony of interest among the population and a harmony of interest can only arise where there is a common Christian faith and worldview as embraced by a kin people. Both a common Christian faith and worldview combined with a kin people can provide social order that will avoid the deep fractures that currently exist in what was once Christendom. Where there is a common Christian faith and worldview combined with a kin people then a decentralized arrangement can work. In that arrangement “God, the fatherland, local rights, and the King” can provide a solid foundation for social order.

Naturally, this kind of desire is not possible in our current arrangement in America where massive immigration has instead given us a country where there is no common faith and there is no one predominant kin people. Diversity of faith and/or blood will never be any social order’s strength.

A decentralized and diffuse jurisdictional approach where a people are characterized by a common faith and a common blood is the only approach to building social order where maximum institutional and individual liberty can be lived out. A decentralized and diffuse jurisdictional approach allows the institutions of family, church, civil-social, and others to flourish and that apart from a top-down approach where all authority is lodged in the State.

Fashions Change But Style Endures

In the last few weeks I’ve been in and out of a couple hospitals visiting folks. Of course, as clergy, hospital visitation is part of the calling and so I am not unfamiliar with this territory. However, I’ve noticed something recently that was reinforced by viewing video clips of the different denominational gatherings. Both the denominational gatherings and the hospitals I’ve been in recently are screaming at me that we are a different type of people than even a few short decades ago.

You see, I’m old enough now to remember hospitals from decades ago as well as denominational meetings from the same time frame. Hospitals a few decades ago were staffed by a very prim and proper staff. Nurses wore their white dresses with their nursing caps all wearing their nurse’s pins. Doctors, when making their rounds wore their white smocks with their names sewn into the lapel while wearing a button down collar and tie. Clergy, in a very similar manner attended their denominational gatherings in suit and ties. The few women present serving in support roles were all wearing dresses.

Those times are gone.

Both hospitals and denominational meetings are characterized, for the most part, by people dressed, comparatively speaking to the past, incredibly slovenly. I constantly finding myself arching my eyebrows by what I’ve seen in the past few weeks in both hospitals I’ve been in and by the attire seen at these denominational meetings. Of course, if it were merely a matter of attire I could probably care very little but I suspect that sloppy attire might possibly belie sloppy thinking.

Undergirding this observation is the irrefutably true observation of the difference in attire, in both pulpit and pew, when gathering to worship in God’s house. The clergy and laity in 1975 (randomly chosen) appear for worship dressed in their “Sunday best,” whereas clergy and laity appear for worship dressed like Hobos, Hippies and Hobgoblins. This belies a different view of not only “dress,” and what is happening in and with Worship but it belies low views of God.

I understand that we should be glad that people are in Church no matter their attire. If forced to choose between seeing people in Church dressed like beachcombers and beatniks or not seeing people in Church because they don’t want to dress the part I would obviously choose the former. But I would do so with sadness.

I’m not looking for a return to 3 piece suits or even the nurses white dresses and little hats of old. I merely desire professionals to dress professionally when working in their professional capacity. At this point I’d only ask people to think through this matter a wee bit.

Ben Glaser Inspired Gobbledygook Becomes NAPARC Foundation

Three  NAPARC Denominations (ARP, RPCNA, PCA) have affirmed the following nitwit statement which originally flowed from the fevered mind of one Rev. Ben Glaser;

“We do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by omission or commission.”

1.) Notice it is only “theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics” which is condemned here. I take that to mean that any sociological or anthropological or biological teaching that affirms these truths are acceptable.

2.) In the nurture vs. nature discussion this is a unequivocal denial of nature in favor of nurture as the explanation for the reason that peoples have the inclinations and dispositions that they have. We must conclude therefore this is a clear affirmation supporting Tabula Rasa (Blank slate) theory of the nature of man.

3.) The Scripture itself teaches that races are inferior in certain respects. For example, in Titus St. Paul says that “Cretans are always liars…” If lying is something that is true of Cretans (as St. Paul writes that it is) then that is an inferior trait that is true of Cretans and being inferior in this regard necessitates that those who are not Cretans are superior in this matter. St. Paul, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, is thus found in need of repentance per this Church pronouncement.

4.) Notice that this proclamation teaches that race does exist. Does NAPARC really believe that race exists? I believe that race exists but many in these clown denominations are denying the reality of race.

5.) The Westminster Larger Catechisms spends all kinds of time limning out the roles of inferiors and superiors to one another. This proclamation means that the WLC only applies to individuals and has not corporate application.

6.) This proclamation completely voids all studies that deal with IQ averages across races and ethnicities. This proclamation voids all explanations demonstrating why some athletes from different races are superior to athletes from other races in particular contests.

7.) By bringing the idea of “omission or commission,” a minister is found guilty if he doesn’t go out of his way to publicly agree with this proclamation. Silence on the subject, by a minister, finds him guilty of violating this proclamation.

From The Mailbag; Jacob Wonders About Kinist Weak Points – A Civil Conversation

Jacob,

Thank you for the civil interaction. So often people are breathing fire right out of the gate, thus demonstrating their inability to think through matters.

I will interact w/ your comment by fisking;

Jacob wrote,

Greetings Bret,

A small introduction – I am a Liberal Christian who occasionally reads your blog – primarily because you tend to distill the Christian Nationalist or Kinism movement down to its fundamentals in a very clear manner. Speaking of – this dog breed analogy was very insightful into how you construct your worldview.

Bret responds,

I wonder what you mean by “Liberal Christian?” That could be taken in numerous manners. Did you mean “neo-orthodox (Barthian)”, “Schleiermacher type Liberal,” “Libertarian Liberal” or something else?

Maybe a way to cut to the quick on this is just to ask if you believe in the verbal plenary inspiration of Scripture. Do you believe in the Supernatural — snakes talk, axe heads float, Jesus walks on water, virgins conceive, dead people resurrect and ascend into heaven etc?

My knowing where you are at on these matters will help me know who I am interacting with.

Jacob wrote,

First – my agreements. I also think that genetic, national, cultural, and regional divisions are natural and something to be celebrated. I love visiting a new country or region and observing all the minute differences in how they operate, how they build things, how they cook, how they live. While I also hold these differences should never cause us to consider one another as sub human – I do think each of these cultures should take pride in their unique traditions and strengths.

Bret responds,

Fantastic… we are agreed here. All races/cultures have strengths to be celebrated and weaknesses to be repented of while praying for increased sanctification in those areas.

Jacob wrote,

Another point of agreement is that sin can be communal and generational. Certain groups will struggle with certain sins more than other groups and certain sins are passed down from father to son. I also think we are beings with both spiritual and physical components and there are consequences to believing that.

Bret responds,

Again… fantastic. These points should be rather obvious realities (consider Paul’s observation about Cretans in the book of Titus) but somehow in a weird combination of mixing those worldviews that shouldn’t be mixable we in the West have combined Gnosticism (the material is bad) with cultural Marxism (matter is all there is) in order to repeatedly deny your observation above.

Jacob writes,

Onto some of my disagreements.

First of which is the black and white nature of what constitutes any societal division. In your dog analogy there are clear lines between breeds. However – as far as I can tell there are no universal divisions in the real world. You might claim that your country should be the dividing line- but there are plenty of international borders in the world that cut right through culturally similar people. All similar singular attempts have similar problems – groupings by language, by genetics, by religion, by climate, etc. all have some major exceptions.

Bret responds,

I agree here. For example there has always been “Bordermen” — that is those men who lived as having a foot in two worlds. However, the existence of such people does not disprove the general rule. I mean, if we don’t have an idea of a particular set race, culture, language, or religion then how could we ever identify that which is shaded, jumbled, or a mish-mash? One can only identify syncretism when one knows the different distinct particulars that are being syncretized.

No universal divisions? I can’t agree there. Clearly there is a universal division between the Japanese and the Ndebele. Many other examples could be given but perhaps I am missing your point.

In terms of nations there was a time when the etymology of the word was taken seriously;

“Nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe.”

Webster’s 1828 Dictionary

Yes, all have exceptions but you wouldn’t know what the exceptions were if you did not know first what the non-exception was.

Jacob wrote,

So you might claim that the real dividing lines are often a combination of multiple factors put together. Which I might start to agree with. Can groups merge or can they split? Are labradoodles – if there are enough of them – eligible for a new division all together? I guess I see the real world with real societies throughout history as messy – changing affairs and I don’t see the Kinist often acknowledging this. They tend to want to clean things up with nice clean current borders.

Bret responds,

As Kinism does not have a headquarters to send mail to, and as Kinism is a variegated movement it is not helpful, I think, to speak of Kinism as if it has a Universal agreed on position on all matters. So, I will just speak for myself as one Kinist.

I think what the Kinists I personally know want is fewer exceptions and more acknowledgement that exceptions can’t exist as exceptions unless there is a prior rule of thumb. The Christian Kinists look over the global landscape, as they are reading their history, their sociology, and their theology and they see a real live threat that there is an agenda being pushed by very powerful people and Institutions to put the whole globe (cultures, languages, faiths, races, etc.) into a giant blender with the purpose of going all U2 wherein “all colors will bleed into one.” Kinists, following Scripture, are foursquare and adamantly against this plan nicely articulated by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi back in the 1920s. This migration agenda was also written down in UN Documents in the 50s and 60s. This messiness, as you put it, is preplanned and some of us are resolved that going back to Babel is not a healthy decision.

I quite agree that history and cultural sociology/anthropology can be quite a messy affair but it becomes even more messy when there is a mass top down push that intends to make the messy affair even more messy. You can’t really believe that all this third world mass migration into the former White Christendom is coincidental or an accident? Certainly, many of the elite are seeking to gaslight Westerners on this issue but some people are not “gasslight-able”

Finally, on this score, as to your “Labradoodle” question, I would say it is possible though historically I don’t see it as being that prevalent or sustainable.

Jacob writes,

This brings me to my second disagreement – that of America. America did not start and certainly did not grow by being a monolithic cultural group. America has always been a messy conglomeration of cultures. We are the proverbial mutts in your analogy.

Bret responds,

Yeah, I don’t agree with this. I believe this is an errant observation on your part. I would recommend reading “Albion’s Seed” by David Hackett Fisher.

Here are a couple quotes that would suggest that you haven’t got this quite right;

Here is Founding Father John Jay’s opinion,

“With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”

“Heaven hath provided this country, not indeed derelict, but only partially settled, and consequently open for reception of a new enlargement of Japheth. Europe was settled by Japheth; America is settling from Europe: and perhaps this second enlargement bids fair to surpass the first; for we are to consider all the European settlements of America collectively as springing from and transfused with the blood of Japheth … “

(J.Wingate Thornton, The Pulpit of the American Revolution, as cited in Hall’s The Christian History of the American Constitution, p.382)

There are many more quotes like this from the founding fathers in the book “Who Is My Neighbor.” I don’t think your claims stands up to a close examination. We were never proverbial mutts until the 1965 Immigration and Nationality act.

Jacob wrote,

Which is actually another point in itself – your analogy did not account for mutts or the fact that genetic mixing can arguably produce the healthiest dogs even if they start to lose some of their specific strengths.

Bret responds,

I noticed your word “arguably,” and I would argue against your statement.

Jacob wrote,

I grew up in Texas on the Mexican border. I grew up as a white kid eating tacos and hearing a lot of Spanish spoken. And this wasn’t because of some DEI initiative –since European arrival Texas has been a mix of Indigenous, Latin, and European cultures. How do I draw a line around my self and someone from New Jersey that is stronger than a line around me and someone who I grew up but is of Mexican heritage? How do you reduce the culture of America to a white Englishman?

Bret responds,

So you take my “borderman” observation from earlier and say “I have lived that.” It still doesn’t make parts of Texas the norm.

Keep in mind also, that I am of the persuasion that America ought to be split up into several different nations so that your observation would be less of a problem. Indeed, I think at some point this is going to have to happen since America has become such a ethnically/racially and religiously divided country. We really no longer are a “nation” in any meaningful sense.

Jacob wrote,

My last point of disagreement is your application of the talents parable to national divisions. The tendency to want to rank cultures speaks far more of the parable of the splinter in the eye. If you want everyone to embrace national sins and don’t reflect on how your particular group sinned but instead constantly point out how other groups fall short in their sanctification – then I feel like you are doing it wrong.

Bret responds,

I have constantly and repeatedly said that white people must be the dumbest people on two legs on the planet as seen in their rebellion against God…. As seen in their unwillingness to see what is obvious all because they have embraced this silly notion of white guilt – as if white people are somehow uniquely guilty of racial crimes against humanity. If I don’t say that with everything I write you must understand I have said it so much I don’t always see the need to say it again, ad-nauseum. This nation is in the situation it is in because of stupid white people for several generations now just turning over their inheritance to other peoples and religions.

But that may well be all proper and fit since it can also be seen as God’s judgment against our wickedness against Him. It is not as if we have not earned being cast out of the land.

So, not to worry Jacob. I see our and my splinter with great regularity. But thanks for the reminder.

Jacob wrote,

If you tell me a pretty good analogy of a world of dog breeds but didn’t see yourself or your group as the Pitbull – again, I feel like you are missing the point. (Please correct me if I wrongly assumed that white American Christians were not supposed to be the Pitbulls).

Bret responds,

Nah… white American Christians are the collected retards of every breed…. exceptions notwithstanding.

Jacob writes,

Thanks for your time.
Jacob

Bret responds,

Thanks for the conversation. I will try to remember and pray that you will see the problems with your “Liberal Christianity.”

And thanks again for being so civil.