Vanilla Christianity

Christian Reconstruction necessitates some necessary demolition to destroy these old views, critiquing the structures of our culture in order to “reconstruct” a proper view because they do not hold a biblical worldview. But primarily Christian Reconstruction is about building.

The basic principles of owning that Jesus Christ is the King (Reconstruction)

1.) Theo-centric thinking

This means a return to basic Calvinism where the Sovereignty of God over all of life is acknowledged. This means that we understand that from beginning to end when it comes to Redemption that God alone saves. It never means less than that but it always means more than that.

Scripture teaches that

Romans 11:36For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever! Amen.

I take this to mean that if all things are for God and through God and to God then all reality must be understood with the Triune God at the center. Herman Bavinck caught this in his book on Christian Worldview.

“To the modern autonomous person, to have to think of logical laws, to see nature as ruled by laws that are independent of it, and to recognize the truth as a power that stands above him and that lets itself be found only in a defined way seems to be unbecoming.

It is this autonomy and anarchy that the Christian worldview resists with all its strength. According to it, the human being is not autonomous but is always and everywhere bound to laws that were not devised by him but that are prescribed by God as the rule of life. In religion and morality, in science and art, in family, society, and state, ideas are everywhere, norms above him, which mutually form a unity and have their origin and expression in the Creator and Lawgiver of the universe. These norms are ideal treasures, entrusted to humanity, the basis of all social institutions. They are the foundation not only of our knowing and knowing about things but also of our willing and acting. They have authority in the academy but also in life. They are the authority for our head and our heart, for our thinking and our acting. And while the autonomy of the human severs the bond between subject and object, and thus in principle dissolves everything into chaos, it is theonomy, as the Scripture teaches us of it, that gives every creature its rightful place and provides its true meaning. Then nobody and nothing is isolate. No creature is autonomous, and no one may do what he wants, neither the man nor the woman, neither the parents nor the child, neither the government nor the citizen, neither the lord nor the servant. They are all bound by God’s law, each person in his own way and place. And not by contract or arbitrary will, not through coercion or the necessity of emergency, but according to God’s order they live and work together, and they are destined for each other and bound to each other. The divine thoughts and law are the foundations and norms, the goods and treasures the connection and organization of all creatures. To conform ourselves to that life, in intellect and heart, in thinking and acting — that is to be conformed to the image of God’s Son most profoundly. And this is the ideal and destiny of the human being. In maintaining the objectivity of God’s Word and Law, all Christians are agreed and should stand together unanimously in this age. The battle today is no longer about the authority of Pope or council, of church and confession; for countless others, it is not even about the authority of Scripture or the person of Christ. The question on the agenda asks, as principally as possible, whether there is still some authority and some law to which the human being is bound. That is the ‘reevaluation’ to which we are all witnesses; therein is the evolution taking place before our eyes. And in this struggle, every man of Christian profession should assemble under the banner of the King of Truth.”

Herman Bavinck

Christian Worldview — pg. 128-129

This necessarily means that we must be engaged in;

2.) Holistic and organic worldview thinking

If God is Sovereign over all and we are to take every thought to make it obedient to Christ then that means our thinking must be integrated and Holistic.

As I mentioned previously in passing what we have done in the way we think is to compartmentalize material so that we own Christ as King in theology but we relegate Him to irrelevance in other areas of thought. (Consider the examples we have given in previous weeks – Education, Psychology, Sociology, Law.) Scripture teaches that God’s people are;

5 To demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

“The Christian faith as a whole, as a unit, must be set over against the non-Christian faith as a whole. Piecemeal apologetics is inadequate, especially for our time. A Christian totality picture requires a Christian view of the methodology of science and philosophy, as well as a Christian view of theology.”

Cornelius Van Til

Christianity can never be separated from some theory about the existence and the nature of God. The result is that Christian theism must be thought of as a unit. We may, therefore, perhaps conceive of the vindication of Christian theism as a whole to modern warfare. There is bayonet fighting, there is rifle shooting, there are machine guns, but there are also heavy cannon and atom bombs. All the men engaged in these different kinds of fighting are mutually dependent upon one another. The rifle men could do very little if they did not fight under the protection of the heavy guns behind them. The heavy guns depend for the progress they make upon the smaller guns.

What CVT is saying here is that all must work in concert together over the whole range of thinking. Our Theology must inform our philosophy and our philosophy and theology must inform our history and these must inform our sociology, etc. etc. etc.

Instead, we too often have the big cannons pointed at the enemy while we are using our own air-force to strafe and bomb our own cannons. We argue for God’s sovereignty in theology while in biology we champion humanist evolution.

A few years ago the CRC Banner found a column that wrote,

“Traditionally we’ve been taught that Adam and Eve were the first human pair, Adam made out of dust and Eve from one of Adam’s ribs. But sustaining this doctrine is extremely difficult when we take seriously the human race as we know it today sharing ancestry with other primates such as chimpanzees. Where in the slow evolution of homo Erectus and homo habilis and homo sapiens do Adam and Eve fit? We will have to find a better way of understanding what Genesis tells us about Adam and Eve, one that does justice to Genesis and also to what the Bible teaches about their connection to Jesus.”

Of course, you see what is happening here. What is happening is the discipline of Science is at war with the discipline of Theology, and Epistemology. There is contradiction here. The thinking here is not holistic but instead is compartmentalized.

All of our thinking across the disciplines must bow to Jesus Christ in every area of life. Our thinking about Philosophy is not independent of our theology. Our thinking about Anthropology is not independent of our theology. Our thinking about Law is not independent of our Christian theology. Our thinking about biology is not independent of God’s revelation. Our thinking must be interdisciplinary. All our thinking on all subject fields is all integrated because all are submitted to Christ. This is what it means to be in submission to the King.

But this is not pressed in many quarters of the Church today. Instead what we get are those who are considered “wise-men” who talk about the necessity to live the “hyphenated-life” by which they mean the compartmentalized life. In the realm of grace, we have God’s explicit word Revelation but in the common realm, we operate by Natural law. This is another way of saying that God’s special Revelation is irrelevant to the public square.

In our need to integrate all of our thinking, we do not have to start from scratch. There have been those who have sought to think holistically. We can learn again from them. We can take up and read Augustine as he pilots us through Scripture. R. L. Dabney had the ability to do this kind of thinking. In Philosophy, we can take up Gordon H. Clark and CVT. Clark even had a book titled, “A Christian View of Men & Things.” You see what he has done there … he has told us in the title that there is an organic Christian view of all reality. He went on to write books on History, Language, Philosophy, Science, and tons more all being integrated and organic. There are the works of Greg Bahnsen which are particularly good demonstrating the centrality of God’s Law in all things. There is the work of C. Gregg Singer who writes wonderfully on History from a Christ-centered understanding. There is the magnificent work of the broadly hated R. J. Rushdoony who excelled in this Worldview thinking and did so well at applying God’s Law to all of life. There is Dr. Glen E. Martin who taught on the broad sweep of the Intellectual and Social History of the West from a Christian understanding. There are the works of Herman Dooyeweerd and we must not forget Ronald Nash or Francis Schaeffer or Herman Bavinck or Abraham Kuyper. And this is only the tip of the iceberg. It has been demonstrated… it has been done. But it is hard work and requires a lifetime of commitment.

These men didn’t agree on the details of everything. Even in broad-strokes, they would differ but what they were all seeking to do is think underneath the command of the Lord Jesus Christ in every area of life. They sought to think organically, owning an inter-disciplinary mind that integrated all areas of life under the Lordship of Jesus Christ.

3.) Presuppositionalism –

The OT starts with “In the beginning God…”

John’s Gospel begins with “in the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.”

In each case it is clear that the Holy Spirit is communicating that God needs to be the beginning and end of all of our thinking. The authors of Scripture only conclude God because they begin by presupposing God. They reason to God as from God and realize that they could never reason to God unless they started from God. The reason they engage is a reason that owns an apriori intellectual pre-commitment to the authority of God’s revelation as opposed to an apriori intellectual pre-commitment to man’s authority.

And so if Christians are once again to own Jesus Christ as Lord they must begin their thinking with God and His authority as their beginning point. This is contrasted with what commonly happens today and that is Christian man posits his own authority and reason as his Archimedian starting point and then reasons from there. To see the difference read C. S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity,” back to back with Martin’s work on Worldviews. Read Sproul, Lindsey and Gerstner’s book on Apologetics back to back with Bahnsen’s work on systematizing Van Til.

To own Jesus as King requires us to return to presuppositionalism in our thinking because we are fallen beings whose minds have been effected by sin. Even if we were not fallen, being mere creatures we would need to presuppose God and His Word before we could reason aright. Presuppositionalism turns away from the various forms of humanism that presuppose the negation of God and so says “I think therefore I am,” and affirms the reality of God and says, “GOD Thinks therefore I am and think.”

Modern Christians tend to lean into this matter as Dr. E. J. Carnell did who wrote;

“Bring on your revelations, let them make peace with the law of contradiction and the facts of history and they will deserve a rational man’s assent.”

Here Carnell is in essence making rational man whether regenerate or unregenerate judge over God and His Revelation. This is a humanistic presuppositionalism where man is presupposed as the one who crowns truth as King as opposed to submitting to the already crowned King’s Word. Of course, God’s word is never in contradiction but the idea of contradiction presupposes God’s revelation. God’s revelation is not sanctioned by Aristotelian categories of logic.

Alas, though, only a touch of God’s grace can work in man the willingness to begin and end with God in all his reasoning. Apart from God’s grace man will continue to own himself as his own starting point.

Presuppositionalism is just Reformed theology applied to our epistemology. In reformed theology, Christ is King over all. In Presuppositionalism God is sovereign as seen in being the starting point of all our thinking. Those who claim to be Reformed but who refuse Presuppositionalism demonstrate that they are Arminian right out of the gate.

Now, remember what we are talking about here. We have set out to demonstrate what it means to have Christ as King in all our thinking and doing. This is basic vanilla Christianity but as basic vanilla Christianity has been refused we now must give it another name and typically that other name is Reconstructionism. But again we say that Reconstructionism is just Christianity 101. It is what Christianity was once reputed to be as by way of normal. However, Christianity has strayed so far now we create these new labels to attach to people as a kind of warning to stay away from them because they are extreme Christians … why they are Reconstructionists.

Another aspect of Christ as King thinking… of being Reconstructionists is the embrace again of the realization that God’s Grace and Law doth sweetly comply in the words of Jonathan Edwards.

4.) This means in the Church we must teach the Solas again … that we are saved by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone.

“By grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God” (Eph. 2:8).

We must champion the grace of God as doing all the doing in salvation and then champion that God’s law given to the Christian as His guide to life is also God’s gracious gift.

Reconstruction … taking Jesus Christ as Lord.. means that we understand that in the Christian life God’s grace and God’s law are not in antithesis. We understand along with A. W. Pink,

“Christ has redeemed his people from the curse of the law and not from the command of it. he has saved them from the wrath of God, but not from his government.”

  1. W. Pink

    All because we are not antinomian like the R2K Moroni does not mean that we are anti-grace.

    We are as anti-Arminian as one can get. We teach the TULIP, we teach the Solas. We emphasize that no man can curry God’s favor by thinking he can keep the Law. But we also emphasize that once we cease from seeking to be saved by the law and so are saved by God’s free unmerited grace we walk in terms of God’s law since that is the standard for a people who are, as Paul says in Titus, zealous for good works.

    We would ask those who are so against God’s explicit law in the public square… “Shall we go on sinning that grace may abound?”

    5.) Limited and Constrained Government

    As Biblical Christian who own Christ as Lord we Reconstructionists are rabidly anti-Statist. This is because we believe that God alone is sovereign and as God alone is sovereign all other Institutions should be constrained and limited within the bounds of their assigned jurisdictions. Because we believe that unlimited and unconstrained Governments will always seek to become Governments who offer alternate humanist plans of salvation. This has been true from the ancient world to today. In the ancient world it was said;

    “Salvation is to be found in no other save Augustus, and there is no other name given to men in which they can be saved.”

Sounds pretty familiar, doesn’t it. This wasn’t just a sentiment given to Augustus but was common to all the Caesars. Caesar was God. Caesar was Savior. Caesar was Lord. Chilton makes this point,

“They claimed not only the titles but the rights of deity as well. They taxed and confiscated property at will, took citizens’ wives (and husbands) for their pleasure, caused food shortages, exercised the power of life and death over their subjects, and generally attempted to rule every aspect of reality throughout the Empire. (Days of Vengeance)

“Caesar is Lord!” was the mantra of the time. And it was precisely this issue that caused the Christians so much trouble. They weren’t killed because they worshiped Jesus. People were free to worship whatever or whomever they pleased. That is, if it didn’t disrupt the unity of the state, which again, was summarized by the cry, “Caesar is Lord”.

Consider the charges against Paul and his companions, brought by their Jewish opponents to the Roman authorities: “They are all defying Caesar’s decrees, saying that there is another king, Jesus” (Acts 17:7).

And it is true … we continue to say that there is another King Jesus and so we remain rabidly anti-statist. We understand that this is part and parcel of what it means to be Christian. It is our identity and it is our identity because we believe in the 1st commandment; “Thou Shalt Have No Other God’s Before Me.”

If we believe that if there is no God but God then the direct implication of that is that we are duty-bound to circumscribe, limit, and constrain all governments to their properly God-assigned jurisdictions. To allow governments to be unlimited and unconstrained is to willfully disobey the first commandment.

Those who take Christ as Lord … those who are Reconstructionists are those who do not abide the idea that in the state we live and move and have our being. We do not pledge fealty to the idea of everything for the State, nothing outside the state.

There is an immediate corollary to this anti-Statism and it is one that many people will not understand. Those who take Christ as Lord … we Reconstructionists … we Biblical Christians understand that we can not limit and circumscribe Government apart from being champions of hard money.

Hear me out.

Governments become unconstrained and unlimited by the creation of fiat money. When money is not tied to some hard standard then Government can create money out of thin air with the immediate effect that Government begins to expand its Godlike pretensions. No government can ascend to the most high unless it is able to create fiat money. Hard money is the way the Christian binds the Government down with the chains of proper jursidictionalism.

This necessity is taught by our own Heidelberg catechism;

110. Q. What does God forbid in the eighth commandment?

  1. God forbids not only outright theft and robbery[1] but also such wicked schemes and devices as false weights and measures, deceptive merchandising, counterfeit money, and usury;[2] we must not defraud our neighbour in any way, whether by force or by show of right.[3] In addition God forbids all greed[4] and all abuse or squandering of His gifts.[5]

[1] Ex. 22:1; I Cor. 5:9, 10; 6:9, 10. [2] Deut. 25:13-16; Ps. 15:5; Prov. 11:1; 12:22; Ezek. 45:9-12; Luke 6:35. [3] Mic. 6:9-11; Luke 3:14; James 5:1-6. [4] Luke 12:15; Eph. 5:5. [5] Prov. 21:20; 23:20, 21; Luke 16:10-13.

Fiat currency created by Government is counterfeit currency and the usage of fiat money has always allowed Governments to expand beyond their God-ordained limits and jurisdiction so as to aspire to de-God God and en-God themselves. Fiat currency is an attack on God.

Reconstructionists oppose then both unlimited Government because of the first commandment and anything that allows Governments to become unconstrained such as the creation of fiat money.

We believe this is a confessional issue so much so that it is as important as any other confessional issue. Idolatry is never to be countenanced. And we would say to those who do countenance it that we have no interest in your Christianity.

Why We Were Defeated In Afghanistan

In 2008 American troops confiscated, threw away, and burned God’s Word at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan. The Bibles were written in the Pashto and Dari languages, and the Defense Department was concerned the books might somehow be used to convert Afghans.

The incident became public in 2009. Lt. Col. Mark Wright told CNN such religious outreach could endanger American troops and civilians because Afghanistan is a “devoutly Muslim country.”

But there was another reason the Bibles were confiscated. Military rules forbid troops from proselytizing in the country.

“The decision was made that it was a ‘force protection’ measure to throw them away because, if they did get out, it could be perceived by Afghans that the U.S. government or the U.S. military was trying to convert Muslims,” Wright said in the interview.

_____________

1.) We wouldn’t force Bibles on the Afghanis but we would force modernizing their culture in a Cultural Marxist direction.

2.) We wouldn’t force Bibles on the Afghanis but we would kill them for following the precepts of their faith in expelling the infidel.

3.) We wouldn’t force Bibles on the Afghanis but we would fly the fag flag on our embassy.

It is absolutely ridiculous for modern armies to think they can win wars by killing people without killing the gods of those same people. We went into Afghanistan intent on killing as we go but we don’t want to kill the gods who make them the enemies they are? No war is successfully fought until the gods of the people whom war has been made against are slaughtered. The Christian God would have killed Allah dead but the gods of America (the FEDS) would not allow that to happen and so sought to kill the God of the Bible instead by burning His Word.

I have no tears left for pagan America. They have sewn the wind now let them reap the whirlwind.

Postscript — I was one of a minority of Americans who opposed the stupid Gulf War, to begin with. I never was a believer in the neo-con policy of “Invade the World, Invite the World,” and I was (and remain) convinced that 9-11 (the alleged causus belli of the Bush II Gulf War) had more to do with the American Deep State than it had to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Iraq and Afghanistan, like Lee Harvey Oswald before them, were mere patsies.

McAtee Examines One of Wilson’s Most Important Articles Ever Written

I really don’t have a thing for Doug Wilson, though doubtless, it may be beginning to look that way. I have also tried to be honest with myself about my critiques of Wilson not being born of envy. What Christian minister wouldn’t want his influence? At the end of the day though, nobody gets a “get out of having your position critically examined for free” card just because they present themselves as being on the right — and that even if multitudes of people really do believe that Doug is “hard right-wing.”

Today Doug posted an article on his website insisting that it may be “one of the most important things he has ever written.” Now, as Doug has long demonstrated over the years that he buys his cyber-ink and real-ink by the oil tanker this is bound to be a stand-up and notice piece that scads of people will tune into. As such it is worthy of being examined. We are happy to oblige here at Iron Ink. It is a dirty thankless job but somebody has got to do it.  I will not be examining the piece exhaustively so you will want to go and read the whole piece for yourself. I’m just going to hit the high parts the way that Babe Ruth would hit hanging curves.

Doug tees up his piece with a “water is wet” observation by telling us;


“…I do believe we are converging on a crisis moment in our nation, and the way we respond to that crisis moment when it comes will be critical.”

Jeepers Doug … did you have to look into your crystal ball to come up with that insight? I mean… I am left slack-jawed at how you pulled this deep wisdom out of your southernmost aperture.

Paging Captain Obvious.

Honestly, if Doug’s readers have to be told by their guru that we are converging on a crisis moment in our nation then we are deeper down the outhouse hole than anybody could have guessed. Once a people or readership is that far down the outhouse hole there is no time or ability left to man the ramparts.

A few sentences later Doug says,

 “How would that (bringing on a crisis) benefit anybody? Cui bono? Who stands to benefit from a deliberate dismantling and degradation of the American way of life? Surely no elected official, right?”

I think DW is being sarcastic here but I’m not sure. So, just in case he is not being sarcastic let me answer by saying that those who benefit are the legion (for they are many) authoring and behind the plans of the New World Order. These are the putatively elected officials who will benefit. Now, Doug, can’t yet talk about the NWO because that would be too conspiratorial for him at this point (wait a month and that might change) but we plebes in the fly-over country believe Klaus Schwaab and the Great Reset lads when they say they have a plan. We are not shy here in Michigan to talk about the NWO. I mean…  believing in the NWO is a piece of cake after learning that the FBI attempted to kidnap our Governor. (Why anybody would bother is beyond me.)

Doug next suggests that he is thinking like a chess player three moves ahead of the pack. Lou Costello, Jerry Lewis, Eddie Murphy were never so funny. I say this because the rest of what Doug writes suggests the man has been checkmated for 24 hours while he has been cleverly contemplating his next three moves.

And Doug’s big reveal?

The FEDS are trying to goad the citizenry into premature resistance so that martial law type of FED reaction can follow complete with (even more) repressive measures.

That’s it. That’s the Great and Awesome reveal of our mighty Moscow Magician. Remember … this is one of the most important pieces the man has ever written. Is anybody really surprised by this insight? Are we really at the point where the man who is thought to be the most conservative Christian leader in America genuinely believes that this is connecting the dots kind of material? If people find this “prophetic insight” of Wilson to be eye-popping and jolting we are indeed in deep weeds.

Next Doug suggests that the populace must not overreact to provocation because such over-reaction could lead to the elimination of the 2022 election cycle where the Democrats are sure to lose, thus producing the Messianic Republicans.

America … can you hear me laughing from Michigan? Does Doug think that if the Democrat majority is turned out of the House and Senate in favor of Republicans that is going to save the day?

1.) We are where we are at because a Republican President panicked and listened to Fuhrer Fauci and then made it clear before God and Man that he was a co-conspirator by pushing for this quackzine bull fecal matter. Does Doug think Republicans are going to save us?

2.) Republicans across the country in states like Georgia, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Arizona have been co-conspirators in the whole 202o election boondoggle and subsequent cover-up. Does Doug think Republicans are going to save us?

3.) Let’s remember some of the names of the Republicans who Doug thinks are going to save the day. Mitch McConnel. Lindsey Graham. Kevin McCarthy. Mike DeWine. How many Republicans have voting for these obscene stimulus bills, and budgets? How many years have Republican Lucy Politicians promised Republican Charlie Brown voters that this time she really is going to let Charlie Brown kick the ball? Doug must be smoking the very finest homegrown Idaho gold hemp if he thinks Republicans are the cavalry who are going to come over the ridge to save the day.

4.) Even if the Republican candidate intended to descend upon Democrats like Ghengis Khan descending down the Russian Steppes have we forgotten that 2020 taught us? 2020 taught us that Stalin was right when he said it doesn’t matter who votes but only who counts the vote. Has Doug forgotten so quickly that voting harder won’t change who counts the vote?

Now, on #4 Doug insists that it will be more difficult to cheat in 2022 than it was in 2020 because the same politicians who cheated in 2020 and then covered it up afterward have passed new election laws to make sure that cheating can’t happen in 2022. Something about Fox and Henhouses.

Doug continues to write as if things are as they appear to be on the surface. Doug seems to think that the Biden administration didn’t want to happen in Afghanistan what happened in Afghanistan. Doug might want to dip into this interview with Lara Logan who makes the prescient point that the Biden administration has gotten exactly what they desired in Afghanistan.

Doug, for whatever reason, has not gone down the rabbit hole and looks to be taking seriously that matters are what they are as they are presented upon the surface. The Biden administration wanted the chaos and mayhem. They organized this two-car funeral just fine Doug.

Doug’s overall advice is to “not take the bait.” By that, Doug means that we in middle America should resist the idea of resisting since that is what the criminal FEDS desire. On this much Doug might be right. He also might be wrong. If I am correct in thinking that elections don’t mean much then choices concerning resistance are more fluid. Besides, I’m not convinced there is not the will out there in middle America to resist whether before or after the election cycle. I hope there is.

Doug next complains that he is going to be accused of being … wait for it … someone who believes in conspiracy theories.

Oh, the shame of it all.

Doug … dude … if you’re not accused of believing in conspiracy theories you’re not even on the sidelines let alone in the game. Quit with your fear of people labeling you a “conspiracy nut.” The people who are going to be the Captains in the movement you are trying to lead have long proudly worn the label of conspiracy nut for years if not decades now. Quit trying to make the case Doug, that conspiracies surround us. If people do not see that by now they have tucked their heads up their southernmost aperture and they are never going to see it.

Along the way Doug offers,

” but they (the Deep State) have not yet gotten to the point where they have been willing to disregard the external forms of liberty. “

I’m going to start referring to Wilson as Rumpelstiltskin.

Was Wilson sleeping during this last election cycle? Has Wilson not been following the stymied audits in Arizona, Michigan, Georgia and Pennsylvania? To paraphrase a line from Jerry Lee Lewis, “There looks to me to be a whole lot of disregarding going on.”

Oh .. and Rumpelstiltskin, what of all those people arrested and buried in prisons without due process for your so-called “breach” of the capital? Are we not disregarding the external forms of liberty already?

Have you seen all that fencing around DC? Is that not disregarding external forms of liberty Doug?

For Pete’s sake … they’re masking our children when they aren’t quackzining our children. They are now threatening (in Allegan county Michigan) to take our children if we don’t follow the Michigan Health Departments Deep State Virus guideline. In Illinois Doug, a judge has taken a woman’s son because she refused to be quackzined. Come on Doug … quit talking to me about the threat of the FEDS completely disregarding our external forms of liberty.

Oh sure Doug … they can always disregard our external forms of liberty even more but we are already several exits past the FEDS disregarding our external forms of liberty. That ship has sailed.

Wilson is like the little kid that has arrived at a 100 car pileup on the Interstate and suddenly finds it important to start warning people about the possibility of a crash coming. “They will go further and completely disregard our external forms of liberty,” Doug warns, while judges are seizing children, people languish in prisons arrested for who knows what happened on 06 January — and they are there without habeas corpus. Children sit in cubicles at the local children’s penitentiary (sometimes mistakingly called government schools) and we are thinking maybe the FEDS will take even more of our external forms of liberty? Well, yes, the FEDS just going out in the street and randomly shooting people would be far far worse, but I’m pretty sure that our external forms of liberty are already being disregarded Rumpelstiltskin.

All of this is consistent when Doug writes,

“I am not advocating sedition against the United States. I am advocating resistance to something called the United States, but then only after the Klingons have taken it over. Surely there can be no objection to resisting the Klingons, right?”

Wait … Wilson believes that the Klingons have not yet taken over? This is the difference between Wilson and me. Wilson thinks the Klingons might well seize power. I think that the Klingons have for years been swilling our best booze and raiding the White House and Congressional food pantries and impregnating our women-folk.

Elsewhere the maven of Moscow offers,

“Always remember how the responsible voices like to coo to us. First, they tell us that situation x will never happen. Then they tell us that it might happen, but that it is too soon to act on it. To act now would be premature and irresponsible. And then they tell us, once it has happened, that it is too late to do anything about it now. We have to reckon with the post-Christian realities on the ground.”

I’m sorry, but let us look at the irony here. I certainly hope this is unintentional on Doug’s part.

1.) Wilson has said very recently that situation X is never going to happen (“The Great Reset is NOT going to happen.”)

2.) Wilson is now telling us in his most recent URGENT article, “It is too soon to act (against the Great Rest). Wait till after the 2022 election. To act now would be premature and irresponsible”

3.) What is next I fear is an Article from Doug arguing that “it is too late to do anything about it now. We have to reckon with the post-Christian realities on the ground.”

Et Tu Doug?

Look, even after saying all this, I want to believe that Doug wants to resist if that becomes necessary but I wonder if Doug is going to wait too long to pull the trigger. It is wise to caution against taking the bait when unready but it is also wise to say that if action is delayed too long against the Klingons the Klingons will be treating us like we are the aliens.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Pactum Institute Announces Research Assistance Project

Research Assistance – Pactum Institute

In School, in College or at Work, Christians are currently being bombarded with a Leftist worldview. The normative framework for research in contemporary society, regardless of the field, is unfortunately informed by anti-Christian theoretical viewpoints. In fact, there currently exists a prevalent bias against any research output from a distinctly Christian framework throughout the Western world.

This is where the Pactum Institute’s research assistance project comes in. If you or a family member are doing a research project for school, for university, for work or even for private purposes, we are here to help provide you with assistance in terms of the resources you need to counter Leftist views through rigorous scholarship. Our experienced scholars will provide you with the relevant information, sources, literature, as well as proofreading and editing services to ensure not only the academic integrity of your project (relevant to its desired level), but also that your project reflects a thoroughly Christian worldview. We also assist parents and/or communities with structuring their homeschool curricula.

By helping you, the Pactum Institute seeks to fulfill its mandate of constructively contributing to Christian scholarship all over the globe.

This service is provided at a standard fee of $8 per hour. For more information or to make use of this service, please contact us at research@pactuminstitute.com.

Contradiction between Evolution and the Idea of Inevitability of Progress

Given Darwin’s mantra of “survival of the fittest,” it is clear that Darwinian evolution is a worldview that intrinsically requires a “conflict of interest.” In point of fact the whole notion of a “harmony of interests,” would be bad news in a climate that insisted that advance is only achieved by the survival of the fittest. When one combines this with the reality that there is no mind behind the unwinding of evolution one must add that the survival of the fittest is a survival that happens completely by chance in a random universe.

Further, because of the randomness necessary in a mindless universe all “facts,” are uninterpreted facts and therefore are brute meaningless facts with no stable meaning. These brute facts, like the survival of the fittest, are facts without relation to any other facts as they likewise struggle to exist. Facts can be wiped out just as species can be wiped out.

Conflict is thus inherent and is the substance of worldview Darwinian evolution. Whether the conflict for survival among the fittest or the conflict among various facticities conflict of interest is the mother’s milk of Darwinian evolution.

But here we come face to face with another key doctrine of humanism and that is the idea of the inevitability of progress. If “conflict of interest” is characteristic of worldview Darwinism then how can progress be inevitable? Indeed, in a mindless world governed by time + chance + circumstance how can progress even be measured or determined? In a mindless world where fact itself is in a contest of survival, how can humanists even be sure that the inevitability of progress is a warranted good to be desired?

If evolution is mindless and governed only by time + chance + circumstance then any notion of progress is itself subject to evolution. Progress at one point of the march of evolution might be Stalin’s Holodomor while progress at another point of the march of evolution might be Huxley’s “Brave New World.” Because of this to speak of the inevitability of progress is an automatic non-sequitur in Evolution’s own world and life view.

Only Christianity posits a sovereign creator God who orders all things to the end and purpose of a harmony of interest found in glorifying God in all things (Romans 11:33-36). Only Christianity holds to all of the creation longing to glorify God (Romans 8:19f). Only Christianity envisions all things enjoying the service of the interests of God anticipating that day when Christ so reigns so that all things are put under His feet so that all things serve His interests. This is the inevitability of progress that Christianity presupposes.

So, advance by the conflict of interests is contrary to Christianity except as that advance is characterized by defeating those interests which are in conflict with God’s harmony of interests. Since those things that make for conflict of interests in God’s cosmos are doomed for failure we can anticipate the one-day dawning of the postmillennial vision where the harmony of interests that is a metaphysical reality by nature of God’s rule will overcome the conflict of interests introduced into God’s reality by man’s ethical attempt to overthrow Christ’s Kingship. This is the Christian reason for embracing the inevitability of progress.