What Kind Of Christian Nationalism Are We Aiming At?

“There is no question of ever accepting Nazi representatives in the Austrian cabinet. An absolute abyss separates Austria from Nazism … We reject uniformity and centralization. … Catholicism is anchored in our very soil, and we know but one God: and that is not the State, or the Nation, or that elusive thing, Race.”

Kurt Schuschnigg
Chancellor – Austria

Prior to Anschluss – 1938

Chancellor Schuschnigg was one of those chaps who was pro-German but anti-Nazi. Schuschnigg believed Austria to be a German state and he believed Austrians to be Germans. He was Chancellor atop a the rightist Christian social party.

Schuschnigg’s view above offers an interesting insight into Christian Nationalism. No one would have accused Schuschnigg of not being a Christian Nationalist. However, Schuschnigg (like the Chancellor before him who was assassinated by the Nazis) held a particular kind of Nationalism that was at vast variance with the National Socialists in Germany. That variance was so vast that Schuschnigg labeled it an “abyss.”

Now, part of the abyss was accounted for by the fact that Austria was Roman Catholic and Schuschnigg believed that the Germany he resisted was primarily Prussian Protestant. Schuschnigg rightly understood that a Roman Catholic people and a Protestant people can never mix. (The Nazis solved this by creating a “gottgläubig” category.)  Gottgläubig  was a Nazi religious term for a form of non-denominationalism and deism practised by those German citizens who had officially left Christian churches but professed faith in some higher power or divine creator. By creating this category the Nazis were able to make the Germans Nazis first and Christians second. In conjunction with this the Nazis created a Reichskirche and appointed Ludwig Müller as the first Reichsbischof (Bishop for the Reich). The role of Müller was to keep the Churches in line with serving the Party.

Now, it must be said here that the Churches at this time in Germany were, generally speaking, not historically orthodox . The Protestant churches had been shot through with Liberalism and a creeping Barthianism. Bonhoeffer, and Niemoller, for example were both trained at Seminaries that were anything but orthodox. Niemoller himself, had been a supporter of the rise of the Nazis for quite some time before re-thinking his position.

So, the Christianity in Germany was slammed together under one Nazi umbrella. This Nazification of the Church and the whole German people was to the end of what Schuschnigg lifted his voice against. In this Nazification was the aim of uniformity, centralization and the turning of the State/Party and Race into a God (idol).

However, it still remains the goal to have a Biblical Christian Nationalism. All because unbiblical expressions of Nationalism might exist, doesn’t mean that a Christian nationalism that is characterized by unity in diversity among one distinct people, and as governmentally decentralized can’t be championed. A Christian Nationalism that understands Biblical  jurisdictionalism/subsidiarity should be the goal of every Biblical Christian.

Also, we should add here that it is possible to prioritize one’s ethnicity/race without lifting one’s ethnicity/race above God as an idol. Schuschnigg writes of “that elusive thing, Race.” However, keep in mind that Schuschnigg wasn’t living in the multi-cultural/multi-racial hell that we are being forced to live in. Race, is not quite so elusive when you’re part of a people who are being sought out to be replaced.

This kind of statement needs to be made because I have been privy myself to chaps who want to make some kind of hero out of the Austrian Corporal. I have been privy to men who speak in glowing terms about National Socialism. This reveals a profound misunderstanding of history. The mustachioed Schicklgruber was no hero. Yes, we can cheer them for fighting the Bagels (who declared war on Germany first) but they hardly provide a role model upon which a Biblical Christian should aspire.

The creation of “Positive Christianity” by Germany in order to give a generic (neither Roman Catholic nor Protestant) theology provides one example as to why a Biblical Christian can not be a supporter of a renewed National Socialist Kingdom. In 1937, Hans Kerrl, the Reich Minister for Church Affairs in Germany, explained that “Positive Christianity” was not “dependent upon the Apostle’s Creed”, nor was it dependent on “faith in Christ as the Son of God”, upon which Christianity relied; rather, it was represented by the Nazi Party: “The Führer is the herald of a new revelation”, Kerrl said. No lover of Jesus Christ could ever embrace such a monstrosity.

By all means let us pursue Christian Nationalism. By all means let us vigorously practice the Ordo Amoris. By all means let us ora et labora with the purpose of ending the “White Replacement”project. However, we must not fall into the thinking of C. S. Lewis’ Dwarf character, “Nikabrik,” from Lewis’ novel “Prince Caspian.” Nikabrik, as you will recall, becomes so desperate to win out against the evil Telmarines that he calls on black magic to summon up the evil White Witch in order to deliver old Narnia from the Telmarines. Nikabrik’s pursuit is a warning against embracing past evil in order to fight off present evil.

The Protest Filed Against An OPC Overture by Ruling Elder Andrew Duggan

MAPARC (Marxist American Presbyterian and Reformed Churches) are at it again. Recently the OPC, feeling left out for not being as Marxist left as the RPCNA, ARP, and PCA, had a Presbytery file an overture that said; “Racists bad… We Marxist clergy good.”

There was one Ruling Elder named Andrew Duggan who was having none of the Marxism of his OPC Presbytery.  Duggan filed this protest with the Presbytery. This will mean that the powers that be in the OPC will be going after RE Duggan.

“I the undersigned respectfully protest the action of the Philadelphia Presbytery of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church in approving the following overture:

‘condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and…call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.’

The Scriptures referenced in the grounds do not support or teach a doctrine of broad equality. Acts 17:26 can no more be teaching an equality of nations by virtue of being of one blood than the equality of men and women who are also of one blood, and in marriage are one flesh. Furthermore neither 1 Corinthians 12:13 or Galatians 3:28 by including “bond and free” a necessary unequal relation with other men and other Christians cannot support a universal relation of equals vis a vis the 5th Commandment. Furthermore Galatians 3:28’s inclusion of “male and female” cannot serve as the ground of equality, which are by creation not equal, as the Apostle Paul elsewhere uses the superiority of men based on the order of Creation, Adam being formed first to establish the reason why women are to remain silent in the church. The logic of these grounds are the same as the enemies of the Gospel use to ordain women in their “churches”. Furthermore this condemns our fathers in the Faith and of The Orthodox Presbyterian Church most notably J Gresham Machen who not only privately expressed his segregationist views in a letter to his mother, but expressed his view of White Supremacy in his article “Mountains and Why We Love Them” published on OPC dot org.

‘There, in that glorious round spread out before you, that land of Europe, humanity has put forth its best. There it has struggled; there it has fallen; there it has looked upward to God. The history of the race seems to pass before you in an instant of time, concentrated in that fairest of all the lands of the earth. You think of the great men whose memories you love, the men who have struggled there in those countries below you, who have struggled for light and freedom, struggled for beauty, struggled above all for God’s Word.’

The superlative of ‘humanity has put forth its best’ speaking of Europe can mean nothing other than White people. This overture goes beyond the teaching of the Scriptures and our secondary standards, and binds the consciences of our members officers and church courts contrary to the Liberty we confess in the 20th chapter of our Confession of Faith.”

Accordingly I respectfully but most forcefully protest the overture to our General Assembly.”

Andrew P. Duggan

An Ode to Sage Tea; With apologies to Joel Barlow

Quatrain 1a

I sing the bitter I know, the taste I meet
My enduring of the potion my taste buds greet
The bitter of Sage Tea. Come dear mug
Flow down my throat, and serve as drug
The herb within thee, still angry at being picked
Come work thy magic and this illness evict
Thin my phlegm with thy noxious taste
And leave no malady that might be traced

David Irving; A Noticing Historian

“Judea as an enemy did not yet bulk large above Himmler’s horizon. He had excluded Jews from his elite SS as racially inferior, but he did not yet recognize the Jews as a noisy and virulent opponent of National Socialism.

He should have paid them more attention. Seen from the relative tranquility of the Twenty-First Century, the Jews of Europe figure disproportionately on each side of the Twentieth’s balance sheets of cruelty, both as perpetrators and their prey – as torturers and tortured, as murderers and victims. They had been comprehensively expelled for hundreds of years from many countries, including the most civilized. Although comprising barely 4% of Russia’s population, Jews were at the forefront of Moscow’s 1917 revolution. By the end of 1918, Jews filled 457 of the 556 top Bolshevik posts. Speaking to a Jewish audience in 2013, President Vladimir V. Putin himself mischievously underlined that eighty-five percent of the first Soviet government were Jews.

Perhaps they seemed far away. Far beyond Germany’s eastern horizon, the Bolshevik leader, Vladimir Ilych Lenin, himself of concealed Jewish origin, had fashioned this rootless, fanatical racial group into the most ruthless arm of his dictatorship. Jews had taken over leadership of the feared Cheka, the ‘All-Russian Extraordinary Commission for Combating Counterrevolution and Sabotage,’ ever since Lenin set it up by decree in December 1917. The Cheka and its unlovely successors, GPU and the NKVD, established outposts, largely officered by Jews, throughout the Soviet empire, a practice which would continue long after the coming water. Jews had notoriously provided the murderers who had cruelly ended the Romanov (Czar) dynasty. One Jew signed the warrant, and handed it to another Jew to execute; a Talmud student and Cheka agent carried out the actual killings, with two others. They shot, bayoneted, and bludgeoned to death the former Tsar, his wife, and their five children with their staff in the Urals city of Ekaterinburg (Sverdlovsk) one night in July 1918, then pillaged the bodies and attempted to burn them.

Published statistics showed that in 1934 Jews dominated Stalin’s security apparatus; 38.5% of its senior officers were of Jewish origin. Often they had Germanic names, which they as often concealed – Kamenev was born Rosenfeld, etc. A historian, Sever Plocker, also a Jew, estimated that these Jews were responsible for twenty million deaths. While their fellow-travelers in the West turned a blind eye, Lenin and Stalin preferred to rely on Jewish interrogators, executioners, and judges, as Plocker found. Genrich (Heinrich) Yagoda, the founder of the NKVD, alone had ten million lives on his conscience. He was replaced in 1936 by Nikolai Ivanovich Yezhov, a five-foot-tall Gentile who had taken a Jewish wife, Yevgenia Feigenburg. Yezhov came to an unfortunate end. His accomplice Lazar Moiseyevich Kaganovich outdid even him, while Leonid Reichman, the NKVD’s chief interrogator, would deservedly enter the annals of Red Terror. All were Jews. ‘Many Jews,’ summarized Plocker angrily, ‘sold their soul to the devil of the Communist revolution – and have blood on their hands for all eternity.’

Neither Himmler nor Heydrich had yet taken into account of this Jewish element of Bolshevik history. In Heydrich’s papers, now partly housed in Moscow, we find that for five years after the National Socialists came to power, he ranked the Catholics, followed by Protestants and freemasons as Germany’s most dangerous enemies. Judea – das internationale Judentum – come only seventh.”

David Irving
True Himmler – p. 299-300

DVD & “The Strange but Basically Harmless Habit of Bedding Animals”

“Since, the Mosaic covenant, as noted, was designed in part to highlight the ultimate penalty that every sin deserves, under the protological law of the covenant of Creation (and will be administered at the final judgment). God willed that some sins be met with punishment that can not be accounted for in terms of intra-human relations. These sins are abhorrent to God even if they may strike people today as insignificant (such as gathering sticks on the Sabbath) or as strange but basically harmless (such as sex with animals). In contrast to the Mosaic covenant, the Nohaic covenant explicitly ordains civil penalties only in terms of intra-human relations, and points to the Lex Talionis as the standard for human retributive justice. Thus the fact that contemporary civil law should rest on the Noahic Natural Law again has significant ramifications for thinking through the contemporary relevance of particular civil penalties under the Mosaic law.”

David Van Drunen (DVD)
Divine Covenants & Moral Order – p. 511

1.) Note the hermeneutic of a hard discontinuity between the Nohaic and Mosaic covenant. Hermeneutics of discontinuity are a hallmark of Baptist theologies.

2.) The idea of turning the Noahic covenant into a “common grace/Natural Law” covenant is completely innovative to Reformed theology as pursued first by Meredith Kline and later by David Van Drunen and the R2K fanboys. Nobody of any consequence, prior to DVD sought to bleed off the redemptive continuity found in the Noahic covenant vis-a-vis the other epochs of the one unfolding covenant of grace.

3.) By introducing a fracture here in the one unfolding covenant of grace, Kline and later DVD introduces a dualism into their theology whereby the Abrahamic covenant is seen as gracious, the Noahic is seen as common, and the Mosaic is seen as a return to the covenant of works, except when it is not. (R2K fanboys are forever dividing the Mosaic covenant into one of grace for the nation while at the same time being one of works for the individual.) This is a kind of subservient covenant but it is a complete innovation of subservient covenant theology prior to Kline.

4.) For DVD (the disciple of Kline) and for all R2K fanboys, the Mosaic covenant is like a scaffolding that falls away from the building once the New and Better covenant arrives. The Ten Words, particularly as applied to the public square, are eclipsed in a return to the Noahic common grace/Natural law covenant. The dualism remains as the Church is ruled by God’s special revelation while the public square is cordoned off from the Church and its representatives, and is ruled by Noahic Natural Law. These two realms (church and common) are sealed off from one another and the Church has no business speaking to the common realm and the magistrates in the common realm are to be hands off regarding the regulation of the Church within the Church.

5.) Notice, in the quote above, the playing off of the Mosaic covenant with the Noahic covenant. The Mosaic covenant, both in its Moral law and in the application of the Moral law is completely bypassed as a standard for the public realm in favor of Noahic Natural Law.

6.) Notice the Marcion move in the above quote. God wanted His people ruled one way in the old and worse covenant but now in the new and better covenant God has lifted those previous standards and now what was penalized in the old and worse covenant are now bypassed in the new and better covenant. God’s standard has changed and so we are dealing with a different God in the new and better covenant.

7.) DVD does look bad in this quote because God’s abhorrence for gathering sticks on the Sabbath and for bedding farm animals only applies as under the Mosaic covenant. We are now ruled by Noahic covenant & these sins are no longer so abhorrent to God so as to require the death penalty in the non-sacred realm. DVD, is saying here, that since the Mosaic covenant is no longer applicable and since we live under the Natural Law Noahic covenant when active in the public square therefore the civil realm is not required to make laws forbidding bestiality since such action is not a intra-human relationship.

8.) The whole appeal here is to Natural law, in the common square, as established, per DVD, by the Noahic covenant. Noahic Natural law does not necessarily require any kind of civil penalty for bedding farm animals, though if people bed farm animals and don’t repent God will visit their alone and intimate time with farm animals with judgment. God can and will exact penalty. The civil Magistrate shouldn’t exact penalty.

9.) One wonders if DVD himself finds bedding farm animals to be “strange but basically harmless.” It is a curious way to put the matter.