Dr. Own Strachan Dunking Tank Part I

Remember going to the fair and there was always a booth where some clown was sitting on a collapsible bench over a water tank and he would scream insults at you as you passed by, minding your own business, in order to lure you into throwing baseballs at a target which would collapse his bench with the result of the clown being immersed in water?

Well, the clown Dr. Owen Strachan did something similar to that to me this week in an article he wrote on Substack. It seems Owen doesn’t like me much (imagine my chagrin) and as such Owed decided to take my name in vain, seeking to treat me like an anchor to put around other people’s neck so as to discredit whoever he connected to me.

So, in light of that, I thought I would play Walter Johnson to Owen Strachan’s clown routine and pitch a few baseballs at the metaphorical target in order to get Owen good and wet.

Alternately, this of this post as a kind of Dr. Owen Strachan slugfest;

“There are two major elements of this movement (Kinism) as I read it; multi-ethnic Christian nationalism and mono-ethnic Christian Nationalism.”

Dr. Owen Strachan 
Typical Baptist

Any one want to tell Owen that multi-ethnic by definition can’t be Nationalism unless it is a non-Nationalist civic Nationalism?

What a maroon.

Owen continues,

“In what follows, I seek to show that mono-ethnic Christian Nationalism should not be held by any true believer in the Lord Jesus Christ.”

Someone phone the Hungarians and let them know.

However, apparently mono-ethnic Judaism (Israel) is perfectly acceptable as Nationalism, and mono-ethnic communism is perfectly acceptable as Nationalism for the Han Chinese.

Owen is looking to get another Doctorate. This time in stupidity.

Continuing on;

“Andrew (Torba) I pray you understand the true biblical gospel, which has nothing to do with your kinist message of ethnic preservation and propagation. I say this in love: you are promoting a false gospel.”

Dr. Rev. Owen Strachan

Baptist Idiot (Tautology alert)

Yes, because the true gospel means that you ignore the ongoing attempted genocide of your people because of LUV. The true gospel means that we LUV our children enough to turn a blind eye to their being replaced. The true gospel means that we LUV God enough to ignore the 6th commandment. Everyone know the true gospel once embraced is a suicide pact.

“Real talk: You go against inter-ethnic marriage, you go against God.”

Rev. Dr. Owen Strychnine Strachan

Yes, indeed, everyone should marry other races. We should destroy our bloodlines to rebuild the Tower of Babel.

Also clearly Ezra and Nehemiah (ch. 9 & 13) were in terrible sin for their actions.

Continuing;

Owen Strachan in his Substack article faults Wolfe merely for daring to quote something on Twitter (X) that I, had in turn, quoted from the Harvard Law review.

Quoting Moanin’ Owen from his Substack article;

“Fourth, Wolfe has engaged kinist and white-nationalist voices in affirmatory terms. Here, for example, is Wolfe reposting a take on blasphemy from Bret McAtee:”

Here Moanin’ Owen invokes my name in connection with Wolfe in the attempt to smear Wolfe with little ole innocent me. The idea is “if Wolfe is connected to McAtee then obviously Wolfe is poison.”

Next Strachan writes,

“Bret  McAtee is not a widely-known voice, but he is an open kinist who was dismissed from the Christian Reformed Church for advocacy of such ideology. McAtee writes the “IronInk” blog. Here is how Alastair Roberts has described IronInk:

The Kinist Iron Ink blog describes ‘Who is My Neighbor” as follows: ‘This book is nearly 700 pages long and it provides one quote after another culled from authors (both Christian and Pagan) from Ancient History to modern times, which demonstrates that the doctrines of Kinism have been what all men in all time and in all places have believed.”
_______

Now some analysis:

1.) Thanks to the work of the Alienists like Doug Wilson and Alister Roberts and now Owen Strachan it is sure to be the case that Bret McAtee will soon indeed be a widely known voice. Thank you, Thank you, Thank you very much.

2.) It was not possible for me to be dismissed from the Christian Reformed Church since I was never ordained in the Christian Reformed Church. Strachan is just in error here. What’s new? He’s trademarked error.

3.) Note how Strachan refuses to consider the material in “Who is My Neighbor,” choosing instead to just damn all the evidence because I dare cite it as evidence. It’s as if this idiot is saying, “Clearly all the evidence in ‘Who is My Neighbor’ can’t be counted as evidence because McAtee recognizes it as evidence.”

4.) What’s a guy got to do to get his middle initial used? I mean I always sign my name Bret L. McAtee and Owen drops my “L.” My “L” is important to me since I was tabbed with that middle name (Lee) after Gen. Robert E. Lee.

Continuing with the brilliance of Dr. Owen Moanin’ Strachan;

“Kinism is the partial (thus sinful) preferring of your own people over others.”

Owen Strachan

So…. my preferring my own wife and children over other women and children not my own is sinful?

Does this man even think about what he writes?

Owen Strachan’s behavior at the G3 conference and in his Substack article is proof positive once again that the visible church needs to split apart. We need a movement to start different denominations that have has part of their confession an explicit allegiance to Kinism and/or CN. We could put in our confession;

… therefore we detest the errors of the political Anabaptists who would insists that the God of the Bible has to share sovereignty with all the other gods in the public square.”

Reformed Reasoning On Immigration

Find the comedy in the below. The comedy is found in “how can anybody be so stupid?”

1.) Many Reformed ministers are at the leading edge insisting that illegal and legal immigrants are a good thing because it means that God is bringing the world to us to win them for Jesus.

2.) Yet the lion’s share of these same Reformed ministers have lost their own children to the Christian faith by the time those children graduate high school.

3.) So… these Reformed ministers who can’t even pass on their Christian covenantal faith to their own seed are telling us that the Church is going to convert the anti-Christ world invading America?

4.) Now add to the mix the alarming evidence that they are obviously full of horse hockey as one considers the contrary evidence that it is what very little remains of our Christian social order that is being converted to the idols that the immigrants are bringing with them as they invade this country. This truth is evidenced by the swelling number of Mosques, Synagogues, and Hindu Temples, not to mention taking over the civic apparatus of whole cities. Hamtramck, Mich. anybody? Hamtramck has elected an all-Muslim City Council and a Muslim mayor, becoming the first in the US to have a Muslim-American government. When I was an adolescent everyone in Michigan knew that Hamtamck was a Polish enclave. Now it is Muslim.

Well done on converting the newcomers.

The “conservative” Reformed church is insane.

The Decline of the Nouveau Reformed

Below is a quotation from a Roman Catholic priest. Contrast it with the current “leading lights” of Protestantism.

“Consequently at the same time as acknowledging the diversity and singularity of races, the Church rejects, equally with the racist assertions of radical racial superiority and inferiority, the tendency towards a depreciation and leveling of races found at the opposite extreme. It does this in the confidence that Christianity, grounded in reality and truth, is able to harmonize the affirmation of the radical unity of mankind with the recognition of racial diversity…There can therefore be no better way of combatting racism and racial discrimination, than by a sane and realistic acknowledgement of the facts of race and of historical and cultural inequalities” –

Bonaventure Hinwood
Race, Reflections of a Theologian, p. 103

“There is only one race. The human race. And so I think races — the whole concept of races — is problematic. The one human race is divided by language. divided by culture, divided by tribes, divided by history.”

Doug Wilson
Pope– CREC

“I use ‘ethnicity’ because, as we shall see, ‘race’ is not actually a positive biblical reality, but a construct. On this point, ironically, I agree with CRT advocates, much as many of them state that race is a social construct, but then practically operate in many senses as if it is real.”

Owen Strachan
Baptist — Need I say more?

“Concepts of “whiteness” or “blackness” are DESTROYED by the radical equality of every sinner’s need and Christ’s perfect provision. Our identity is NOT determined by our ancestors—we have been transferred out of the kingdom where such relationships rule and divide.”

James White

Another Baptist

“‘Race’ is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority.”

Dallas Statement on Social Justice

“One of the sad realities of antiracism is that it is 100 percent correct about race being a construct.”

Voddie Baucham
Yet another Baptist

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part V

“Inside our personal information bubbles, our assumptions, our blind spots, our prejudices aren’t challenged, they are reinforced and naturally, we’re more likely to react negatively to those consuming different facts and opinions – all of which deepens existing racial and religious and cultural divides.”

Barack Obama

Here we return to the final installment critiquing Dr. Alan’s Strange’s excoriating of Christian Nationalism (CN).

I open with the quote above because Strange at the 12:17 mark of his third installment on the subject says much the same thing. I can’t help but find it interesting that a putative conservative Reformed theologian agrees with a Marxist like Obama on critiquing the reading habits of Americans.

1.) It seems that Strange is trying to pry Christian people away from having convictions that he personally doesn’t like and so he says, “read from sources that don’t agree with you.” Now, I don’t have a problem with reading broadly. Indeed, I often read my enemies because in such a way I can more easily disembowel their arguments. However, this isn’t why Strange (or Obama) want you to read outside those who agree with you. Strange wants Christians to read outside of those who agree with them because only in such a way will people be pried away from positions that Strange doesn’t like.

I would encourage people to read broadly but only after they have anchored themselves in a Christian World and life view.

2.) Strange insists that “we have to put politics in its place,” but he does so via his own political jeremiad that insists that everyone salute his politics. Strange’s politics insist that Christians should not prioritize politics. The problem here is that the enemies of Christ has politicized everything. It is the enemies of Christ who have politicized life, sex, and death. As Christians are we not to respond to this pagan politicization by entering into the political sphere by pushing back? The enemies of Christ have taking politics as their theology and by the means of politics they seek to cover the globe with their anti-Christ theology. For Christians, at this time, to put politics in its place the way Strang envisions is to surrender the whole ball of wax. The consequence of Strange’s version of “putting politics in its place” is to be forced back into the catacombs. The consequence of Strange’s version of “putting politics in its place” is the final hegemony of polluted pietism in the place of a muscular Christianity that walks uprightly in the public square. The consequence of Strange’s version of “putting politics in its place” means that Jesus Christ takes a back seat to whatever god or gods is/are running the public square. I submit to you that Strange, however well intended the man may be, is issuing a call to treason against Jesus Christ.

3.) Strange pulls, the now tired claim, that CN is just WOKEism on the right as if ideas of CN or race didn’t long predate the rise of WOKEism. This claim, now made by many, is just idiotic.

4.) Strange makes a typical R2K move by insisting that Christians must return to the “spirituality of the Church,” where spirituality means “surrendering to the anti-Christ forces” in the culture wars. Strange, it seems to me, will only be happy when Christianity is not a force at all in the public square, when Christianity will be restricted to what happens during Worship on Sundays, when Christianity is publicly irrelevant. The man is petrified by the notion that Christianity may become once again militant.

Look, at the end of the day, the Christianity that Dr. Alan Strange is hawking is a different Christianity from the likes of John Knox or Puritan Pulpiteers in colonial American history. It’s not a Christianity in which I am interested. I find it to be cowardly and dishonoring to the Lordship claims of Jesus Christ.

Dr. Strange and the Multicult of Madness — Part IV

Here we continue our series on Dr. Alan Strange’s podcasts concerning the depredations on the idea of Christian Nationalism (CN). I anticipate one more entry in order to finish this series.

Some have complained to me that I labeled Dr. Strange as a man of the left. I can come to no other conclusion about any man, despite their orthodoxy on any number of other subjects, that he is a man of the left when eschewing the idea of the explicit Lordship of Jesus Christ over a nation. Consider, as there is no such thing as neutrality, when one declaims against Christian nationalism the only options that remain is support for a nationalism that is driven by some anti-Christian religion or a internationalism that is driven by anti-Christ religion. (It is not possible for internationalism to be Christian.) Dr. Strange, and the other numberless hordes (Owen Strachan, R. Scott Clark, David Van Drunen, etc.) who are classical liberals are being driven by their Enlightenment faith and so can be considered nothing but “men of the left.” There is more of Robespierre, Danton, and Marat about these “Christian” men then there is Jesus Christ when it comes to their political theory. Hence, this is why I insist that Dr. Alan Strange is a man of the left.

Now to interact with Dr. Strange’s final podcast denigrating of Christian Nationalism;

1.) Strange, first lists his concern about the issue of how Christian Nationalism would imply coercion. This is true. Christian Nationalism would require coercion. Just as we Christians today, in the classical liberal model, are being coerced on any number of fronts to support our current state religion. Christians are being coerced to pay taxes to support the murder of the unborn, the murder of countless peoples in other lands because of our NWO guided military, the continued existence of our anti-Christ government schools and countless other projects. All governments are driven and inspired by a faith/religion vision and all governments in turn coerce people to salute that faith/religion vision. Christian Nationalism would be no different. We would coerce people — not to be Christian (only the Holy Spirit can do that) — but to operate within the confines of a Biblical Worldview and social order.

So, Strange, laments the possibility of coercion in the context of Christian Nationalism yet apparently he is willing not to lift his voice and do something about Christians being coerced to serve the agenda of our current state religion as it serves the gods of humanism. In the final analysis, when it comes to Governments, it is either coerce or be coerced. As Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords, I have no problem saying, “Yes, Christian Nationalism would mean coercion.”

2.) Strange next insists that CN wrongly uses Scripture. This is basically a “anti-theonomy” argument. Now I agree with Strange that the Bible does not give us an exhaustive blue print for how social-orders are to be governed today. I do not believe that we should seek to repristinate OT Israel’s social order. However, I strongly disagree with Strange that the Scripture doesn’t speak to issues like proper tax rates (Strange mentions this). So, I agree with Strange that every political/social order issue can not be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” However, I disagree with Strange that many many political/social order issues couldn’t be resolved with a “thus saith the Lord.” For example, I do believe we should take the Scripture seriously that talks about taxation, that insists that a man should not dress like a woman, nor a woman like a man, that Magistrates should not have the capability to wage offensive wars, that Magistrates should be required to write out God’s law, etc. etc. etc. Strange’s strongly anti-theonomic position inevitably leads to “each man doing what is right in his own eyes.” It is a recipe for humanism.

3.) Strange, using an illustration for his position, next argues that the Scripture has nothing to say on whether or not the State should provide health care. This is a classic example of Strange being on the left. Scripture clearly denounces theft and the State cannot be involved in providing health care without stealing from the citizenry. State funded health care is anti-Christ and Christians should look with suspicion upon “Christians” who think like Strange. I don’t want to get too deeply in the weeds here but it is the jurisdiction of the family, and not the state to provide health care. Secondly, the prices of health care skyrocket when the state becomes the benefactor for health care. State funded health-care is not Christian.

4.) Strange next compares CN with Socialism and Communism by saying that his CN friends say “well, CN has never worked because it has never been tried by the right people.” Strange notes that is the same kind of logic that the Christian Utopians, Socialists and Communists use. I agree that is terrible logic. CN is never going to bring in Nirvana and that shouldn’t be our expectation. However, contrary to Strange the question isn’t “will CN bring in Shangri-La,” the question is will CN be closer to a God honoring social-order  than other political/social-order arrangements that are decidedly anti-Christ? (Understanding that all other political/social-order arrangements that are not CN will be anti-Christ — no neutrality.) The answer there is clearly and unequivocally “yes.” I would rather live with the follies of a Cromwell or Charlemagne or Alfred the Great than the follies of a Stalin, Mao, or Obama.

5.) Strange then agrees with another chap (John Ehrett) who insists that Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s CN sounds more like Nietzsche than it does Christ.  I have dissected that critique here;

McAtee Defends Stephen Wolfe Against Ehrett