Toby Sumpter On Superficial Divisions

“The multicultural globalist want to blend all culture into a bland humanism, but the blood-and-soil types end up insisting on superficial divisions. Covenant is the key to earthy and biblical unity and diversity, of what we might call a Protestant feudalism and Christendom.”

Toby “No Legs Yet Walking” Sumpter

I.) Nothing At All About Blood?

1.) “The Promise is to you and to your children….” Acts 2:39

2.) Gen. 12: 2 I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you; and all the families of the earth will be blessed through you.”

3.) God is known as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (note the patrilineal descent) and not the God of Abraham,  Hiram, and Malik.

4.) Gen. 24:2 One day Abraham said to his oldest servant, the man in charge of his household, “Take an oath by putting your hand under my thigh. 3 Swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not allow my son to marry one of these local Canaanite women. 4 Go instead to my homeland, to my relatives, and find a wife there for my son Isaac.”

Keep in mind that the wife that was later married by Jacob from these same relatives of Abraham  was beset with the same pagan mindset as was true of the local Canaanite women as seen in her running off with Laban’s household gods. We note that so that we see that it wasn’t as if the people of Abraham were God-fearers unlike the local Canaanites and their women-folk.

5.) Do keep in mind also that there is a reason for all those genealogies in Scripture that demonstrate that Jesus the Christ was the son of David, the son of Abraham.  (Matthew 1) In point of fact Jesus remains the Lion of the tribe of Judah at this very moment with DNA typable blood at the right hand of the Father.

6.) Ezra and Nehemiah and their decrying of mixed marriages and children anybody?

7.) “I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.” Jesus the Christ

Now before I am accused of suggesting that blood is the only consideration allow me to disavow that. I am only saying there that the covenant is not a Gnostic covenant. Grace, because of God’s ordination, typically runs in generational familial lines. Blood is not everything but neither is it nothing. Jesus enemies during his earthly ministry made descent an idol. Today the enemies of Biblical Christianity make descent to mean nothing as if grace does not, because of God’s free assignment, run in generational lines.

II.) Nothing At All About Soil?

So much for all those promises about “the promised land.” And what about our one day “inheriting the whole earth?”

So, it is not at all about blood and soil and yet Christ had to come from the tribe of Judah. It’s not at all about blood and soil yet Paul can say in Romans;

“the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.”

And Jesus will say to the Samaritan woman in John 4;

22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

What is hilarious is that these same people like Old Toby will deny all categories of blood and soil while still insisting that those reputed to be blood Jews still have a glorious future ahead of them misinterpreting Romans 11. Still others want to say that the blood Jews are going to rebuild the temple on the glorious soil of Jerusalem.

Old Toby’s “thinking” (we’re feeling generous in calling it “thinking) gives us not only propositional nationhood but also propositional covenant theology. This is Gnostic covenantalism. The fact that it comes from putative Presbyterians demonstrates how far many of the Presbyterians have gone in grace destroying nature.

Again, my point in all this is to say “Old Toby is wrong.” Covenant has to do with blood and soil. My point is that while blood and soil are not everything neither are they nothing. For Pete’s sake that is proven by the 5th commandment. That is proven by the fact that the Holy Spirit can say;

“if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

I Timothy 5:8

Finally, note this clergy member said that family ties are nothing but superficial divisions. Good gravy, if that isn’t the theme song of the Globalists among us I don’t know what is. I find it shocking that a Presbyterian — the folks who historically believed that the best method of Church growth was by having large families — is telling me that family ties are superficial divisions. It is shocking as hearing P-Diddy saying “sex should be saved for marriage.”

Family is not everything. We must give up family if necessary to follow Christ but family is so important that God uses the idea of “family” to define how the church members should inter-relate.

And yet for Old Toby it is a “superficial division” — kind of like being a Michigan or Michigan State fan.

 

01 October, 1983

On this date in 1983 in Lewiston Maine we find a world waking up to a day already beginning to feel the morning crispness of New England Autumn. The leaves are already changing upon the many trees surrounding the local Baptist Church.

The Church parking lot is filling up as the daughter of the long serving minister of that rather large Baptist Church is being wed. The groom is largely known as “Jane’s fiancé,” and after the service he will be known as “Jane’s husband,” to the inhabitants of that area.
During the ceremony one of the best men, having clipped a large and quite unflattering photo of some now long forgotten single female missionary to the inside of his suit jacket keeps flashing that photo at me during the wedding vows, opening his jacket just enough for me to catch a glimpse of Brun-Hilda while I’m trying to keep a straight face while saying my vows to Cinderella standing next to me. Thanks Rick.

We had asked Jane’s Dad NOT to use the phrase, “I plight thee my troth,” because when he had used it during the wedding rehearsal it had brought the house down. We were unlearned kids and found the phrase “plight thee my troth” to be both indecipherable and funny to the ears. I mean, I had no idea, at that age, what I was plighting in that trothing. Rev. Lombardi did promise to not use that phrase, determining to use “I promise you to be faithful,” which is a loose translation of “I plight thee my troth.” These many years later I now know that traditionally, the troth is a promise or⁤ pledge ⁢of faithfulness and loyalty between two ‌individuals.‌ It is a solemn commitment to honor and uphold the‌ vows exchanged during⁣ the marriage ceremony. In ⁤essence, the ‌troth is ⁤a​ symbol of the unbreakable bond‍ and devotion shared between the​ couple as they​ embark on their journey together as partners in life. However, in 1983 “I plight thee my troth,” might just as well meant to me, “I promise to give you indigestion daily.”

So, we did ask Rev. Lombardi after the rehearsal not to use that phrase given its unfamiliarity to us. However, the day of the ceremony Jane and I found ourselves reciting after Rev. Lombardi, during the reciting of the vows, to “Plight our troth” to one another. My Father-in-law was a determined that no man was going to marry his daughter without “plighting his troth.”
Of course at the point in the ceremony when the plighting and trothing came up again my groomsmen found this irresistibly humorous and I could see they were struggling to keep composure. I made it through that section and 41 years later Jane and I have kept the plighted troth vow.

Jane’s Dad was first and foremost a minister. Being a minister and having a full attendance in the church the day of the wedding he could not resist announcing, during the wedding, (think kind of commercial interlude here) that the Church was holding its annual missionary conference starting later that evening (we had a morning wedding) and “wouldn’t it be nice if all the visitors attending the wedding from out of state planned on attending the Missionary conference.” Dad could never let a crowd get away.

I can still see in my mind’s eye Jane walking down the aisle on October 1, 1983. She wore a dress she had made while serving as a short term missionary in Ivory Coast, Africa. She was a vision out of some legendary fairy tale. Her beautiful Italian features were on full glow. Forty One years later today I still can not believe that I married the belle of the ball.

It’s been a great forty one years. I have repeatedly thanked the Lord Christ for the fact that “for me the lines have fallen in pleasant places.” Jane and I have faced a good number of challenges but never in our marriage. Our marriage, by God’s grace, has never been on the rocks or uncertain. Like any couple we’ve had our disagreements but those disagreements have never become more than just that. The have never become hard feelings sustained over long periods of time. I’m confident that is because she knew from the beginning that I am always right. 😉

Anyway … Happy 41st Anniversary to the finest woman who walks the planet. Having zero regrets I could only wish we could do it all over again.

And now in 2024, Jane, I once again plight thee my troth.

Addendum

There were a few other happenings that day that still remain memorable.

First, I had to tell more than a few inquiring people asking about my family, “no, that woman over there is not my sister. That is my mother.” My Mom aged very slowly.

Jane’s Mom did not approve of my groomsmen friends antics and spent the wedding rehearsal seeking to reign them in with decided disapproving looks. It didn’t work. In fairness to Jane’s mother my friends and I were a trial for anybody who belonged to the generation ahead of us. Hey, what can I say? Good wine takes awhile to age.

During the Wedding reception three of the groomsmen (Rick, Kevin, and Duane)  serenaded Jane and I with a rousing version of a few verses from the song, “I wish I were single again.” That elicited a few guffaws.

Groomsmen

Steve DeNeff — Best Man
Rick Deisler
Burt McAtee
Kevin Batman
Duane Ford
John Lombardi
Bill Johnson

Bridesmaids

Jerri Fox
Donna Fredette
Terri Lombardi
Kerry Bartley

Have We Gone Too Far With This Christian Nationalism / Kinism?

 

As the heat has been turning way up recently on the Christian Nationalism debate (people use all kinds of different phrases for that debate) lately, I have noticed more than a few people trying to find the middle of the road. These are the “split the middle” types seeking to insist that all sides on the debate are in error.

I offer two quotes as examples;

“The reason that there is so much heat (instead of light) being generated surrounding some aspects of Christian Nationalism is partly because of two ditches that need to be avoided:

One side seeks to ‘ethni-tize’ everything (or make it all about ‘clanship’ as David Schrock has said), ultimately mimicking some sub-biblical philosophy, and the OTHER side seeks to spiritualize everything – to untether natural relations – and disparage family, land, or any shared historical affinities.

Both are unbiblical and idiotic.”

Jim Brushtune
Reformed Baptist Pastor

“Kinism is a poisonous, unbiblical overreaction to the left’s social justice and CRT.”

Jay Antelo
Reformed Rican

First, we might note that this is a little evidence that the Overton window is shifting ever so slightly on the subject. As recent as just a year ago, people would not have suggested that there was some truth in Christian Nationalism insisting that the problem with CN is that it has gone to far. A year ago people were still, in the main, raining down anathemas on all ethno-nationalism type of arguments.However, one has to realize that this “middle of the road” nonsense is just not sane. Keep in mind that in the last 60 years or so we have lived through social revolutionary times and each decade as seen that Revolutionary activity push the culture increasingly to the left. Because this is so, any counter-revolutionary activity (such as Christian Nationalism) in any degree looks Revolutionary to the leftist Revolutionaries and the hoi polloi rank and file who have had their minds captured by the left.

This means that the least push for Christian Nationalism/Kinism/racial-realism or ethno-nationalism is going to be seen by the hoi polloi middle as something that is automatically extreme no matter how slight that push is. As such, the “middle of the roaders” who desire to say that we have to deal with two extremes are seeking to codify where the left’s revolutionary impulse has taken us over the last 60 years. To be sure, they may want to undo the most recent push of multiculturalism with the success of the trannie and sodomite leveling but they would never want to go back to the days when the US was a 88% white and largely Christian nation. Why, that would be to make everything about “clanship” or, alternately, that would be a poisonous unbiblical over-reaction. In the words of guys like Andrew Sandlin or Doug Wilson that would be akin to “Nazisim.”

And yet that is the world that for the first twenty years of my life that I lived in. Now, to insist that world was a good place and to be preferred as having greater stability as compared to and with what we have now is considered turning everything into clanship and practicing a poisonous unbiblical over-reaction.

Championing what we were in 1980 societally is not Nazism, no matter what Doug Wilson or Andrew Sandlin tell you. Those of us who desire a Biblical Christian Nationalism that honors the various white Anglo-Saxon Christian regional flavors that used to characterize these united States is not trying to ethnic-ize everything. Instead it is merely to want to honor our Fathers who combined a love of nation with a love of their own respected regions (regionalism).

So, beware the “split the middle” type arguments. The numbers of those arguing for the “Nazi” position are so minuscule there is no need to take them seriously. Oh, there is no doubt, that those Nazi minority types out there will be pointed too as “classical Christian Nationalism” but that is all done to poison the Christian Nationalism pool.

Those who are seeking to reason that people (Kinists, Christian Nationalists, ethno-nationalists, racial-realists) on all sides are wrong are themselves wrong.  The Christian Nationalists are not seeking to ethnic-ize everything and the Kinists are not a unbiblical poisonous reaction, though those on the moderate left and the far left want you to think so.

From The Mailbag — Pastor, Kinism isn’t a Salvation Issue”

Dear Pastor;

“Kinism isn’t a salvation issue and so Pastor Bret you are in error to make it such an issue.”

 

Herod Knave

 

Dear Herod,

Well, as the first heresy that was fought in the NT even and has been fought tooth and nail ever since was Gnosticism and as it is this same Gnosticism that is driving opposition to Kinism I would say you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Alienism vs. Kinism is indeed a salvation issue when you realize that it is a heresy (Gnosticism) that is pushing the opposition to Kinism.

Dear Pastor;
“Kinism isn’t a salvation issue and so Pastor Bret you are in error to make it such a hobby horse.”
Herod
Dear Herod,
Well, as the first heresy that was fought in the NT even and has been fought tooth and nail ever since was Gnosticism and as it is this same Gnosticism that is driving opposition to Kinism I would say you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Alienism vs. Kinism is indeed a salvation issue when you realize that it is a heresy (Gnosticism) that is pushing the opposition to Kinism.

Dear Herod,

Well, as the first heresy, Gnosticism, that was fought in the NT forward (see Colossians and I John, as well as I Timothy) and likewise has been fought tooth and nail ever since and as it is this same Gnosticism that is driving opposition to Kinism I would respectfully say you just don’t know what you’re talking about. Alienism vs. Kinism is indeed a salvation issue when you realize that it is a heresy (Gnosticism) that is pushing the opposition to Kinism.Gnosticism is the disease Herod, and opposition to Kinism is one symptom. St. Paul under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit certainly thought that Gnosticism was a salvation issue.

Next, when we consider that opposition to Kinism is not only Gnosticism but also a Egalitarianism that levels and destroys God ordained hierarchies and distinctions so that eventually the outcome of this will be the destruction of the distinction between God and man I think we must conclude Herod that this is a salvific issue. When considering these matters, Herod, one must not only look where we are but where a particular mode of though will take us. Anti-Kinism will eventually take us, unless manfully opposed, to the destruction of the distinction between Creator and Creature. Alienism (that which opposes Kinism) is a distinction eating world and life view and it is indeed aiming at the destruction of Biblical Christianity. If it were to be given its head there would be no salvation to be seen as necessary.

Thanks for writing,

Pastor

Schlebusch and McAtee Answer A Putative Conundrum by Natural Law Enthusiast Stephen Wolfe

“How do anti=natural law folks contend w/ the story of Abimelech and Abraham (Gen. 20) in God says that King Abimelech had ‘integrity of heart’ (v. 6), and he appears to have a sort of fear of God ( v. 14-15), a degree of civil righteousness (v.4), and clearly had knowledge of justice (v.9)?

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

1.) Dr. Adi Schlebusch answers,

Groen van Prinsterer on the traditional nature of General Revelation:

“Natural law is not known from reason. But, people say, look at much wisdom the ancients had! For sure. But they derived it from tradition. I mean not to say that they had actually seen the Books of Moses, but rather that their wisdom came from that same divine revelation that was written down in Scripture, albeit mediated by tradition.”

2.) Bret continues;

Anti-natural law types do not say that all pagans have zero notions of civil righteousness. Indeed, we would say that any pagan who has zero notions of civil righteousness will need to be locked up. (And given the recent P. Diddy revelations and before that in 2016 the Pizzagate revelations we are now at the point where we desperately need to start locking people up.) Similarly, anti-natural law types do not deny that the pagan will, buffet style, pick and choose that from natural law that can be used to get their Christ denying worldview off the ground and operating. The Christ-hater will use natural law to climb up into God’s lap in order to slap him in the face. So, anti-natural law types note that the Christ-hater is very selective as to what he will “learn” and not “learn” from natural law. For example, the natural law advocate at a early stage of departure from God’s reality may well say “adultery is wrong,” yet, 40 years later, because they have no anchor in special revelation (God’s Law Word) will now have no problem with sodomite marriage. Natural law hasn’t changed over that course of time but the Christ hater, being blown about by cultural relativism have given up that particular notion of natural law formerly embraced. This is because the carnal mind is at enmity with God (Romans 8:7). Luther offered long ago that anything noble that the Christ-hater did should be counted as “splendid vices.”

So, what anti-natural law types deny is that the pagan will be consistent in what he says he learns from natural law. Remember, at every turn the pagan will disallow natural law to instruct him in complete righteousness and so the anti-Christ types natural law like a wax nose that he can accept or not accept according to his liking as that liking is influenced by the cultural around him. The greater the culture becomes unhinged from God’s revealed law word the more likely the garden variety Christ-hater will choose to drop natural law options that he might have previously accepted.

The denigration of our own culture bears this out. In previous generations in the West, influenced as it was by God’s special revelation, those who were not Christians borrowed capital from Christianity to inform their reception of certain natural law categories — yet without embracing enough of them to be genuinely walk in righteousness as God counts righteousness — while dismissing other natural law categories at their whim.

All of this to say that, as I’ve noted before that what is called Natural Law can be seen as working in a culture highly influenced by Christianity but this is only due to the fact that the larger culture is shaped by special revelation. Natural law in these cases is “seen as working,” but it is not really what is working. What is working is that the Christ-hater is borrowing capital from the Christian worldview. Later, then we turn around and point back and call that “borrowing” natural law.