Gordon Interview w/ Wolfe IV

I.) “I know you don’t identify yourself as a Kinist right?

Rev. Chris Gordon
To Dr. Wolfe

1.) Nobody defines what a kinist is. If you’re ever in a conversation and somebody asks you; “are you a Kinist?” your response needs to immediately be … “Well, you tell me what you mean by the word “Kinist.”

2.) Both Gordon and Wolfe are scared to death of the Ordo Amoris which is all that Kinism is.

3.) Nobody in America in 1965 would have blinked at being called a Kinist. That’s because 88.6% of the US population was white.

4.) The only reason Kinism is abominated is because of the full throated embrace of multiculturalism as combined with the hatred of being white.

On the widespread hatred of white folks see…

II.) “When we start dismissing the concept of blood and soil because we habitually want to go straight to Nazi’s killing Jews we;re losing a basic human truth that is actually good for us.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
Interview w/ Rev. Gordon
Time Stamp 21:06

Gordon Interview w/ Wolfe III

Rev. Chris Gordon reasons that since a nation as a nation can’t be connected in membership to a visible church therefore it is wrong to use the language of Christian nation. Gordon also desires to make the definition of a Christian Nation as something that is uniquely applied to the State. Gordon confuses the nation with the State. It is possible, after all, for a Christian nation to be led by non-Christian magistrates. Such a situation would not last long, I suspect, but it is possible much in the way when a Protestant people would be ruled by a Roman Catholic Monarch.

Gordon’s problem here is that he will not concede that if a nation operates on the basis of Christian law and custom it can therefore legitimately be considered Christian in the sense that it is governed in a way consistent with God’s revelation and mores. Gordon is insisting that since a nation can’t be baptized and become a member of a particular church therefore a nation can’t be Christian. However, on this basis nothing can be Christian except for the individual. Education can’t be considered Christian since Education can’t be be baptized and become a member of a particular visible church. Law or Jurisprudence can’t be considered Christian since Law/Jurisprudence can’t be baptized and required to take membership vows.

Gordon’s problem here is his constrained definition of the word “Christian.” Gordon can’t seem to conceptualize that when individual Christians bring their distinctly Christian convictions with them in their various callings, those callings are injected with a Christian gravitas that was not previously present in those convictions.

Gordon seems not to realize the distinction between “structure,” and “direction.” It is true that we have these various “structures” as part of our society/culture (family, education, arts, law, politics, church, etc.) but the structures themselves always are going to be arcing in a particular religious direction. That religious direction could be Mooselimb, Bagel, Christian, Humanist, Marxist, etc. When the direction of a societies/cultures is consistent with God’s special revelation it is arcing in a particularly Christian direction and given that direction it can and should be called “Christian.” If the direction of the societal/cultural structures are arcing towards a “Mooselimb” or “Talmudists,” or “Humanist,” or “Marxist,” etc. direction they should be labeled accordingly.

Gordon’s failure to see the above results in his creating, at the very least in a defacto sense, a neutral common realm where no religious appellation can be fixed upon the peoples inhabiting and creating that culture. For Gordon, and all R2K, society/culture is by definition irreligious, non-religious, or a-religious.

Gordon Interview W/ Wolfe
Start appx. 17:30

Gordon Interview w/ Wolfe – II

“People are Christian by virtue to their connection to the visible Church.”

Rev. Chrissy Gordon
Interview w/ Dr. Stephen Wolfe

We need to note here that this is only true where people are connected to a true Church as defined in the Reformed Confessions. A true church is defined as one that rightly preaches the Word, that rightly administers the Sacraments and that rightly practices Church discipline.

Upon that standard, most people’s connections to most of the visible Church in the West today most definitely does not communicate that they are Christian. For example, given that Rev. Chris Gordon is adamantly R2K I would say the Church he Pastors is not a true Church since R2K denies, in the concrete, the office of “King” to Jesus the Christ. This would mean that the members of the Church he pastors should not be seen as Christian only because they are connected to his heretical church.

That is not to say that many (or even most) of the members of the Church Gordon Pastors are not Christian. They may indeed be. It merely means that I can’t measure their status as Christian by reason of their connection to his false church.

Rev. Gordon’s Interview w/ Dr. Wolfe — I

Rev. Chris Gordon reasons that since a nation as a nation can’t be connected in membership to a visible church therefore it is wrong to use the language of “Christian nation.” Gordon also desires to make the definition of a Christian Nation as something that is uniquely applied to the State. Gordon confuses the nation with the State. It is possible, after all, for a Christian nation to be led by non-Christian magistrates. Such a situation would not last long, I suspect, but it is possible much in the way when a Protestant people would be ruled by a Roman Catholic Monarch.

Gordon’s problem here is that he will not concede that if a nation operates on the basis of Christian law and custom it can therefore legitimately be considered Christian in the sense that it is governed in a way consistent with God’s revelation and mores. Gordon is insisting that since a nation can’t be baptized and become a member of a particular church therefore a nation can’t be Christian. However, on this basis nothing can be Christian except for the individual. Education can’t be considered Christian since Education can’t be be baptized and become a member of a particular visible church. Law or Jurisprudence can’t be considered Christian since Law/Jurisprudence can’t be baptized and required to take membership vows.

Gordon’s problem here is his constrained definition of the word “Christian.” Gordon can’t seem to conceptualize that when individual Christians bring their distinctly Christian convictions with them in their various callings, those callings are injected with a Christian gravitas that was not previously present in those convictions and as a result that cultural byproduct that the Christian individual is creating can indeed by considered “Christian,” in the sense that it is being animated by the truths of Biblical Christianity applied to some public square instantiation.

Gordon seems not to realize the distinction between “structure,” and “direction.” It is true that we have these various “structures” as part of our society/culture (family, education, arts, law, politics, church, etc.) but the structures themselves always are going to be arcing in a particular religious direction. That religious direction could be Mooselimb, Bagel, Christian, Humanist, Marxist, etc. When the direction of a societies/cultures is consistent with God’s special revelation it is arcing in a particularly Christian direction and given that direction it can and should be called “Christian.” If that culture is arcing consistent with another religion it should be called; “Mooselimb” or “Talmudists,” or “Humanist,” or “Marxist,” etc.

Gordon’s failure to see the above results in his creating, at the very least in a defacto sense, a neutral common realm where no religious appellation can be fixed upon the peoples inhabiting and creating that culture. For Gordon, and all R2K, society/culture is by definition irreligious or a-religious.

Gordon Interview W/ Wolfe
Start appx. 16:00