“For a Christian to discriminate against non-Christians (in being hired for a job) — for any reason — apart from their ability to do that job would be a blight on the Gospel because what you are basically telling people is that Christianity is not really about the person and work of Christ but its really about whether or not you are a member of my tribe. (1) If we all behaved that way of course in a Muslim majority country like Indonesia Christians would have difficulty finding jobs and then in a Christian majority country non-Christians would be left out in the cold. (2) What we are telling non-Christians in that instance — far more important whether non-Christians can get a job — is that unless you join us you’re not privileged in this society and that is grossly, I think, to confuse the Gospel with a particular culture. (3) That will set the evangelistic enterprise back who knows how far. (4) This is always the problem.(5) When Christians are persecuted they are at their best and then Christians; the success of the Gospel is so great the salt and light is kind of scattered so widely that you begin to have Christian influence and then people start wanting Christianity to be privileged. And that is always — I believe we can justify this historically — is when Christianity itself gets into trouble and the salt begins to lose its savor.”(6)

Dr. M. Scott Horton
Online Roundtable Discussion
ZCRC(IMUS) Reformed Conference 2020

1a.) This is a non-sequitur. If I have two people applying for a job and they are both ably gifted to handle the job then why wouldn’t I discriminate in favor of the Christian? I know what ethics he will be bringing to the job which means as an employer I know he won’t steal from me. I know that the non-Christian if he is consistent with his worldview will do everything he can to take advantage of me as his employer. So, if I choose to discriminate in favor of the Christian in my hiring practices I am not communicating that Christianity is about anything besides the person and work of Jesus Christ. I am communicating that when it comes to employees, I prefer the ethos of the consistent Christian to the consistent non-Christian.

1b.) What is so bad about preferring one’s own tribe? There is, in R2K, this baked-in Alienism that seems to insist that we must discriminate in favor of the stranger and the alien. There is nothing evil about preferring someone who is from your own Christian tribe over and against someone who is a member of a religious tribe who is at war with the God of the Bible.

2a.) Let Horton go over to Riyadh University in Saudi Arabia and tell them he is a Christian who wants to teach comparative religions and just see how quickly the man is hired. He is certainly qualified to teach such a course. Why wouldn’t the Sauds hire him? Could it be because he says he is a Christian? (Whether he really is or not is not for me to say.)

2b.) Non-Christians seeking employment in a genuinely Christian country if there are Christians who are qualified to do the work should be left out in the cold. In point of fact, non-Christians should be employed only until the non-Christian can train a Christian to do his job and once the Christian was trained to do the job the non-Christian should be released from that employment and so once again be left out in the cold. One wonders why Christian employers should profit non-Christians at the expense of their brothers in Christ who may well need employment? If I am to do good to all men but especially to those of the household of faith it would seem that the preferring of the Christian over the non-Christian is required by God’s Word.

3a.) It is not possible to not have Christianity identified with a particular culture or cultures. Horton and his R2K ilk keep wanting to have their Christianity culturally unembodied as if Christianity is this ethereal like substance that just kind of wafts around culture without influencing culture. Of course, this mindset is driven by their R2K presuppositions that demand that it is not possible for a culture to be Christian since that would be a confusion of categories. So, if it is not possible for a culture to be Christian then per Horton’s theology (we are being respectful) it is terrible for any particular culture to be identified with Christianity. In point of fact, it would be un-Christian for any particular culture to be identified as Christian and twice so for a Christianity to be identified with a culture.

3b.) Just for the record, it is my conviction that R2K is that which is grossly confused on Christianity.

5a) If Dr. Horton genuinely believed that Christians are at their best when persecuted then he would go to Yemen or Saudi Arabia and preach Christ. Dr. Horton doesn’t do that and so I can only conclude that Dr. Horton doesn’t really believe the nonsense statement that Christians are at their best when persecuted.

5b.) People wanting Christianity to be privileged? You mean like privileging Christian families, Christian patriarchy, Christian ethics, Christian understandings of law and justice, or Christian education over “It takes a village to raise a child” families, pagan matriarchy, pagan ethics which allow for baby murder, or pagan understandings of law and justice which allow men to use women restrooms or Muslim education? Yeah… Christianity wanting to be privileged in a social order is a terrible thing, Mike.

6.) I’m just as confident that I can demonstrate historically that when Christianity is not privileged paganism is privileged and then social order really deteriorates.

Dr. Michael Horton is not a wise man. Not in the least.

And yet he is teaching a whole generation of ministers to be as unwise as he is.

God save us.

“They shall recline on jeweled couches face to face, and there shall wait on them immortal youths with bowls and ewers and a cup of purest wine (that will neither pain their heads nor take away their reason); with fruits of their own choice and flesh of fowls that they relish. And theirs shall be the dark-eyed houris [white maidens], chaste as hidden pearls: a guerdon for their deeds… We created the houris [white maidens] and made them virgins, loving companions for those on the right hand…”

Sura 56 verses 12- 39
Penguin translation by NJ Dawood

Throughout history, the white woman has been valued as at the top of the hierarchy of beauty. The painting, “The Slave Market” is an 1866 painting by the French artist Jean-Leon Gerome captures some of this reality. That painting depicts an unspecific Middle Eastern or North African setting where a Mussleman inspects the teeth of a white nude, female slave, doubtless captured as booty from some Muslim raid on a Christian caravan or city.

So desirous was white women that a key attraction for Muslims to sack and seize Constantinople was the prospect of taking white women as booty as recorded by the historian Raymond Ibrahim as he quotes historians previous. For over a thousand years it has not been uncommon for minorities to have one thing on his mind. Where can I find white women?

Indeed white women were so valued by Muslims during the Crusade era that the consequent inter-breeding found future Muslim emirs to be genetically largely white men.

Below is a quote from Sword & Scimitar making this same point.

“When Caliph Al-Walid in Damascus saw the great plunder harvested, he was delighted by ‘the resources of all the people of Spain… it’s riches and the beauty of its young girls.’ Because ‘the Umayyads’ particularly valued blond or red-haired Franc or Galician women as sexual slaves,’ which were harder to acquire from better fortified Byzantium, ‘al-Andalus became a center for the trade and distribution of slaves.’ In exchange for peace, north Christians sometimes even had to make annual tributes ‘not of money, or horses, or arms, but of a hundred damsels (all to be distinguished for beauty) to ornament the harems.’

To maintain the slave emporium reputation of Cordoba, merchants ‘would put ointment on slave girls of darker complexion to whiten their faces; brunettes were placed for hours in a solution to make them blond (‘golden’); ointments were placed on the face and body of black slave to make them ‘prettier.’ As for the sexual objectification of European infidels – which, as seen, meant portraying them as promiscuous by nature – slavers played up the fantasy in order to facilitate sales. According to a twelfth-century document: “the merchant tells the slave girls to act in a coquettish manner with the old men and with the timid men among the potential buyers to make them crazy with desire… [and] he dresses them all in transparent clothes.’

Forced or indoctrinated into being promiscuous, some of the hapless women appear to have done their job well. Due Cordoba’s status as a slave epicenter – practically every Muslim emir was born to a pale concubine – large numbers of sex slaves and forced prostitutes were always on public display trading their wares. Ibn Hazm may have had them in mind, and not the average cloistered female Muslim, when he wrote that women ‘have nothing else to fill their minds, except loving union [sex] and what brings it about, flirting and how it is done, intimacy and the various ways of achieving it. This is their sole occupation and they were created for nothing else.’

Something of this fantasy – where half-naked women lounge about in caliphal harems pining for their turn to see and please their masters – eventually passed into the West’s popular imagination. But it is more a product of fiction along the lines of the Arabian Nights than reality. Consider the life and times of Abd al-Rahman III (r. 929-961),. the Caliph most associated with al-Andalus’s ‘golden age.’ According to Muslim records, he once ‘threw himself upon’ on of his Christian concubine’s ‘face to kiss and bite her, and she got disgusted by this and turned away’; this ‘so provoked his anger that he ordered the eunuchs to seize her and put a candle to her face, burning and destroying her beauty.’ Similarly, when Abu Imran the executioner was summoned, he found his master ‘in the company of a girl, beautiful like an oryx, who was being held by his eunuchs in a corner of the room, who was asking for mercy.’ The caliph gave none: ‘Take that whore, Abu Imran, and cut her neck,’ the executioner obliged: ‘With one blow I made her head fly.’ The caliph gifted Imran with her jeweled necklace, adding, ‘May Allah bless it to you.’ When a nineteen-year-old Christian slave boy rejected his repeated sexual advances, Abd al-Rahman III had him slowly tortured and beheaded.”

Raymond Ibrahim
Sword & Scimitar – p. 172-173

I’ve been spending some time pondering what makes otherwise sane people do insane things like believe almost any level of civil government. I’m sure I’m the oddball but I grew up being taught that governments routinely lie. Then, when I attended college we had reinforced that very same truth. It was like a catechism.

Q.) What is it that civil governments do?

A.) Civil governments routinely dissemble, deceive, and lie.

Q.) What should be our attitude towards civil governments?

A.) Our attitude towards civil government should always be one of skepticism and distrust.

Civil governments lie like fish drink water, like vacuum cleaners suck, and like Schoenberg composed dissonance “music.”

My instructors both in my youth and undergrad had themselves taken an objective look at civil governments through the centuries and agreed with Lord Acton that “power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”

Now, at one time in my youthful naivete I had believed, before going into the ministry, that there may be some kind of exception for ecclesiastical governments but I was quickly dissuaded of that illusion upon preparing for the ministry, and then once entering into the ministry. Ecclesiastical government seldom has any more integrity than civil governments and is not to be given the benefit of the doubt in terms of trusting their ability to arrive at justice or in trusting their word as their bond.

The fallenness of man is ubiquitous and never more clearly seen then when fallen man comes together to congeal in governments. Sooner trust governments to lie to you then trusting a scorpion to sting.

So, given the above is true and obviously true upon any brief examination of almost any civil government why would people, in numbers exponential, live and act as if their civil government is telling them the truth? In brief, why are people walking around with cloth on their faces just on the basis that some idiot government apparatchik has listened to some idiot government scientist hack?

It is past disturbing to one’s equilibrium to go outside of one’s house. Even going to the mailbox finds one apt to bump into someone outside walking their dog alone while wearing a face diaper. If one ventures out to the grocery store it is like walking onto the set of “One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.” I fully expect to see Jack Nicholson in the bread and buns aisle and nurse Ratchet as a pharmacy check out gal. One is immediately hit by the fact that people believe the shizer they hear from their civil governments. They believe these “public servants,” who without being bejeweled by their office and title wouldn’t be trusted to guard the public latrine from theft.

Cloth face diapers are freakin’ everywhere. You turn on a football game and there the players are crashing into each other. Grunting and grinding they plow into one another – sweating and spewing as they are locked face to face in mortal gridiron combat. But by God you can bet that once they return to the sidelines the first thing they do is put on a cloth face diaper. Wouldn’t want to be exposed you know.

At one time they were actually telling people that if they copulated with strangers met on online dating sites they would be wise to wear a cloth face diaper while in the throes of their passion. After all, every precaution must be taken against passing on this scourge.

And people believe this shizer?

The unspeakable strangeness of it all finds the sane among us in danger of joining the public throng insane who are wearing the cloth face diapers as a symbol of their creeping insanity.

I know it won’t do any good at this point. Nor would’ve it done any good in March 2020 but this is my short plea for people to show their faces again. I mean, your face may not be much but it is a damn site better than any fancy high fashion face diaper you can use to cover yourself.

Of course I wonder what is it that makes people and whole social orders go bat-iguana crazy all at one time. Obviously, part of it is that people actually believe the American version of Joseph Goebbels’s Ministry of Propaganda. It should come as no surprise that people who have no time to scratch below the surface of popular information as dispensed by our Lugenpresse outlets, given their harried pace, end up believing Baskin-Robbins bullshit information flavor of the day.

Secondly, most people not being aware of the way worldviews work do not realize that information of any variety (including the Holy of Holy “science” information) is warped by the theology and worldview that is driving it. Facts are only as good as the narrative in which they are nestled in and the narrative itself is only as good as the theology and worldview that is driving it. Wearing cloth face diapers makes perfect sense in a bogus scientific narrative driven by a Marxist control the population worldview.

Thirdly, for many people, it is just a matter of not wanting to “rock the boat.” They figure at this point that a cloth face diaper is not that big of a deal and so they will comply. Of course these people fail to realize the nature of civil government to just be encouraged in more draconian behavior every time one scintilla of liberty is conceded to the civil government. Civil governments exist in order to expand and fill the globe. They have no instinct to restrict themselves and so you can bet that succeeding at putting the populace in cloth face diapers is foreplay unto injecting into them every god forsaken vaccine that can be thought. People, God bless their hearts, refuse to believe that cloth face diapers are promissory of a whole constellation of evil skulduggery that has long been contemplated and prepared for the populations of the West.

However, the largest reason for people wearing cloth face diapers I believe is the fact that people are, at heart, lemmings. They fear more than anything not fitting in. They fear standing out as different. They fear zigging when the rest of the population is zagging. It explains why Adam ate the forbidden fruit, knowing that Eve had done wrong. He didn’t want to be different. It explains why the poor fool in WW I went over the top of those damnable trenches at the sound of whistles in order to attack. “Everybody else was running into machine gun fire so why shouldn’t I?” It explains why modern art as created by pushing paint balls out of some skank’s vagina sells. Everybody else thinks its profound so I should think it is profound as well.

People, exceptions notwithstanding, are hopeless conformists and all the more so when the conformity called for is driven by desperate sinful behavior. I mean what else can explain covering one’s body with tatts or putting holes in one’s earlobes the circumference of basketball rims, or sticking sharp objects in the most tenderest of body orifices or fitting one’s self with a cloth face diaper except that “everybody else is doing it.”

Personally, it is pushing me to the edge. I’ve been exposed to mental hospitals that were far superior in group sanity than what I’m being forced to live in, in this current social order. I’ve had my daughters and grandchildren yelled at for not wearing cloth face diapers. I have had people try to lecture me on how wrong I am on refusing to comply to the insanity. If dirty looks were paint one could paint the Louvre with all the dirty looks I’ve been given for not wearing a cloth face diaper at some kind of public facility.

And, I fully know the corporate insanity is only going to get worse before it gets better.

I heard the bells on Christmas day
Ring out their warnings to keep away
from clergy “thought”
that Marxist twat
Denying peace on earth, good-will to men!

And thought I, as the day had come,
The enemy would swallow Christendom
They belch and fume
Good men consume
Denying peace on earth, good-will to men!

Still ringing, singing so as to betray
The evil intent of Clergy dziggetai
Beware their sin
And counsel grim
Embrace peace on earth, good-will to men!

Then from each black, hexed vile text file
Their manifestos truth revile
And with the sound
Of truth uncrowned
Denying peace on earth, good-will to men!

It was as if an earthquake rent
The sanity of Christ’s advent
And made me swear
At clergy everywhere
Who deny peace on earth, good-will to men

And in despair I bowed my head;
“There is no peace on earth I said”
For clergy are headstrong
And confuse the song
Of peace on earth, good-will to men

Then pealed the bells more loud and deep:
“God is not dead, nor doth He sleep;”
Clergy will fail
Good men prevail
Bringing peace on earth, good-will to men.

“One must be born again to the see the Kingdom of God, from this it follows that this sphere and everything pertaining to it, factually lies outside the horizon of the civil government and will always have to lie outside it, even when the magistrate is born again because the office does not get born again.”

Abraham Kuyper

1.) Kuyper makes the mistake of equating the Kingdom of God to the Church so that they are entirely synonymous. This is seen by his assertion that the civil Government can never belong to the Kingdom of God.

2.) The civil government and the Church both belong to the Kingdom of God. That the Church and the civil Government are distinct even when the magistrate is born again is based not on the fact that they are alien to each other as if one belongs to the Kingdom (Church) and the other doesn’t (Civil Government) but rather because the born again civil Magistrate is responsible in God’s Kingdom for justice while the born again Minister is responsible in God’s Kingdom for grace.

3.) The office is not born again because it is not possible for an abstract idea (an office) to be born again. That is just a stupid statement on Kuyper’s part.