McAtee Contra Dr. W. Robert Godfrey On Egalitarianism

America Christianity has had a long run of strength in our culture…. We were traveling and I found a book in a book store titled “The End of White Christian America,” and it’s not as analytical as I had hoped it would be but it is full of statistics in an interesting way showing how America is changing and the role of Christian values in America is changing dramatically and I thought; ‘How do we react to that? How do we feel about that?’ Well, some American Christians (and of course there ought to be an end to white America. America ought to be a multiracial country where everyone is equal) But how do we feel as Christians that it ought to be the end of a Christian America? And you know I think there are two basic reactions to that. One reaction that we see too often is a angry reaction. ‘I’m mad that we’re losing our prerogatives. I’m mad that we’re losing our influence.’ I’m mad that these people have changed my country.’

Now there is some legitimacy to anger in politics but fundamentally Christians aren’t called to be angry, and I think that we as Christians need to say at this moment, ‘Alright, if we’re going to be weaker then let’s pray to the Lord that that will actually be an occasion for us to be strong and lets act in love.”

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey
Westminster Seminary California
President Emeritus
Ligonier Ministries Teaching fellow
Samson Series, Lecture 10, 11

I don’t know what year this was given but that hardly matters.

1.) Note the almost casual way in which the most offending part is given. It is said as if “well, it is obvious that there ought to be an end to America as a white nation and of course America ought to be multiracial where everyone is equal.” It is said as if multiculturalism and egalitarianism are the most obvious truths in the world. It almost is so obvious that it hardly even needs to be noted.

2.) Look again at the two “ought” statements. By what moral constraint and standard are these ought statements leveraged? Who says; “there ought to be an end to white America? America ought to be a multiracial country where everyone is equal?” If the egalitarianism of Cultural Marxism is the moral standard then we understand where all this “oughtness” is coming from as emanating from Dr. Godfrey. However, where do we find in Scripture the idea that nations ought to be egalitarian?

3.) And what of this idea of “equal” that Dr. Godfrey invokes? He even says everyone should be equal. As children are part of everyone should it be the case that children are equal to parents? In a Biblical worldview are men and women equal? Whence this idea that all peoples, regardless or their race or gender are equal? Yes, we agree that all men are equally responsible to God’s law as in their station and calling. Yes, we agree that all men outside of Christ are equally subject to God’s wrath (though they are not even all equally fallen as the depths of some people’s fallenness is more depraved than others depths of fallenness). Equality is a mathematical term. Two 2 x 4’s are equal. Two quarts are equal. However as people are not mathematical equations two people are never ever equal. This statement of Godfrey’s is horrid and is the product not of Christianity but of Marxism.

4.) Scripture does at times call for anger. Scripture teaches “Be angry, and sin not (Psalm 4:4, Ephesians 4:26). Scripture also counsels repeatedly that we should be slow to anger. However, there comes a time when a lack of anger is not Christ honoring. Christians ought to be angry when God’s glory is diminished or cast away. That our homeland was founded by Christian god-fearing men who had a vision of Christ’s dominion in the new world that has since been cast aside for the sake of tolerating sin and making room for the alien, stranger and foreigner who seized it from citizens who were taught the importance of a ‘anti-christ’ tolerance should make us angry. In light of that reality, for Dr. Godfrey to say “well Christians shouldn’t be angry” is enough to make someone properly angry.

4.) Christians ought to be mad that Christianity is losing (has lost) its prerogatives and influence. Why would any Christian be  neutral or happy  that the prerogatives and influence of other alien anti-Christ religions have flourished above the Christ honoring prerogatives and influence of Christ? If Christians are to have “no other God’s before God,” then should they not be saddened, disappointed and, yes, even angry, that other gods are now before God in the public square?

5.) Note in all this Dr. Godfrey seems to see no correlation between the decline of Christianity in America and the decline of White America.

6.) That last sentence above from Dr. Godfrey is a whole semester of Jesus Juking in just one sentence.

7.) Yes, of course, we are to act in love. Just as I’m sure Samson was acting in love when he pushed out the pillars on the Philistines in his final loving act and just as David was acting in love when he loaded up that slingshot and just as Jesus was acting in love when He called the Pharisees “white washed tombs full of dead men’s bones,” and just as Elijah was acting in love when he partied with the prophets of Baal in the Kishon valley and just as Paul was acting in love when he told the Judaizers that he wished that they would go all the way and emasculate themselves.

8.) Paul’s discovery that “when I am weak, then I am strong,” was not an injunction to search out weakness and embrace it. It was an observation that when visited with weakness by God’s providence we can discover grace that works to make us strong.

9.) All that Dr. Godfrey says above is consistent with the R2K that the Seminary he was President of has pushed for decades now.

The Bolshevik Communist Attitude Towards Family & Children

Recently, we had a chap on Iron Ink pressing for the legitimacy of Government schools. He even raised the issue of proper socialization that homeschooled children suffered from. Today, in my reading, I came across a quote that exposes the silliness of that position he was advancing;

“The Communists did not even intend to stop with this totalitarian political power; they aimed to destroy the family as the last possible bulwark against their mind control. By 1921, they were specifically planning to take children away from their parents at the age of four and place them in Communist boarding schools where they would be properly ‘socialized.’

Zlata Zinoviev, wife of the President of the Comintern, declared that year:
‘Is not parental love to a large extent harmful to the child? … The family is individualistic and egoistic and the child raised by it is, for the most part, anti-social, filled with egoistic strivings. … Raising children is not the private task of parents, but the task of society.’

Warren H. Carroll
The Rise and Fall of Communist Revolution – p. 147

1.) Parents, note that if you send your children to government schools you are indeed exposing them to statist mind control.

2.) Note that the goal of the Communist “schools” was to properly socialize the Soviet children. This remains the goal of the Government schools.

3.) There are very few legitimate reasons to put Christian children in the schools that belong to Baal.

Children In The Covenant

“Yes, they’re infants, but they are his members. They’re infants, but they receive his sacraments. They are infants, but they share in his table, in order to have life in themselves.”

~Augustine,
On infant communion

“The NT’s restatement of the Fifth Commandment to honor parents (Eph. 6:2) assumes that children are born as covenant members, and thus parents are bound to to train their children in Christ (Eph. 6:4). When the law was first given to Israel (Ex. 20:12), children were included in the covenant (Gen. 17), and there is no indication that the law can be given to such children if they are not in the covenant. Paedobaptism teaches that Christian parents are bound by covenant to train their children in the faith…”

Rev. Zach Garris 

1.) It is true that there is no indication that the law can be given to such children except that they are in the covenant. However, it is also true that children not in the covenant are responsible to God’s law. Pagan children cannot say, “because I am not a covenant child therefore God’s requirement that I obey my parents does not apply to me.” However, heathen children need to see that they cannot obey their parents unless they are in Christ.

2.) And since Rev. Garris’ statement above is true covenant parents extend to their covenant children the judgment of charity and so extend to their covenant children from the tenderest of ages the privilege of coming to the Lord’s Table to commune. Baptized children of covenant parents have full membership in Christ’s church and so receive Word and Sacrament in both kinds. Rev. Garris properly here appeals to the OT structure to support the contention that children are in the covenant. However that same OT structure that Rev. Garris appeals to found the covenant children receiving the sign of the covenant (which Rev. Garris agrees should continue) and participating in the covenant meal (which Rev. Garris does not agree should continue).

This is called “Covenantus Interruptus.”

The Common Ground Between R2K & Doctrinaire Communism

“The (Russian) Orthodox Church already had martyrs to Communism: but Patriarch Tikhon (1865 – 1925), for all his earlier courage, was not to be among them. In June, the Communists broke him. He signed a statement declaring that his treatment had been justified because of his anti-Soviet attitudes, and that he had not suffered in confinement. He made this formal avowal of surrender: ‘I have completely adopted the Soviet platform, and consider that the Church must be non-political.’

But the blood of Orthodox Archbishop Benjamin and Catholic Msgr. Budkiewicz cried out from the ground against that.”

Warren H. Carroll
The Rise & Fall of Communist Revolutions – p. 164

What is interesting in this quote is that the Russian Communists, after the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 were insisting that the Churches in Russia must be, by way of doctrinal commitment, be non-political — that is to say they must not be involved in speaking to state policy.

In turn, the interest in that is found in the fact that such a Communist policy is the same policy that the R2K chaps from Escondido (Westminster West) and elsewhere in the Reformed denominational world insist must be the policy of the Reformed church. So, both the Communists and the Radical Two Kingdom “theologians” like David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Michael Horton, J. V. Fesko, D. G. Hart, Chris Gordon, T. David Gordon, Kevin DeYoung, ad infinitum, each agree that the Church must be non-political. (Never mind the consideration that if the church is non-political it is at that point following a extraordinarily political path.)

The Communists tortured Patriarch Tikhon in order to get his mind right on the subject of the “non-political nature of the church” and R2K does all it can to close the door against those who defy their Communist skubala that insists that the Church is necessarily obligated to be “non-political.”

Ecclesiastical Condemnation On The Sin of Noticing

Something interesting happened this past season of Reformed denominational confabs. The something interesting is the ruling by the RPCNA, the ARP, and the PCA, together agreeing to issue forth an anathema against the sin of noticing. Each of them put their stamp approval of the following statement;

That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.

Leave it to the Reformed to try and sweep back the incoming tidal wave of racial realism with a document inspired by the Cultural Marxism of the 1930s and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. This riff of midwittery above was put forth by one Rev. Benjamin Glaser though there is rumor that the palsied hand of Rev. Andy Webb was involved as well. Any party to the creation of this document as well as any party who voted for this to be accepted deserves to have a pointy dunce hat put on them and be consigned to some ecclesiastical corner to mull over the error of their ways.

Below I provide a brief analysis of this Tom Foolery;

1.) What is not condemned here is any sociological or cultural anthropological teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity. Apparently, if one casts their teaching in sociological or cultural anthropological terms one is safe from this foolhardy Presbyterian condemnation.

2.) Here we find a condemnation approved by a Church body and yet this condemnation is not based upon any notification of which sin has been committed so has to have this condemnation uttered. Presumably, this condemnation is due to the fact that someone somewhere has violated at least one of the ten commandments. Yet, nowhere above to we find the sin committed that has earned this condemnation.

3.) In point of fact what this “church” condemnation abominates is the sin of noticing. In point of fact it might be the highest point yet for inveighing against the sin of noticing ever issued by a church body.

4.) One thing we can be thankful for with this Church condemnation is the fact that it is apparently the case now that race and ethnicity are being acknowledged as real realities and not merely social constructs. I mean this is an improvement on what we have previously gotten from Doug Wilson and Voddie Baucham on the issue of race. Wilson wants to insist that race is a social construct and Voddie wants to say that race is merely about melanin levels. At least the three NAPARC denominations are granting that race and ethnicity are real.

5.) If there can be no superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristic then by necessity there can be no inferiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristic. This means that when it comes to immutable human characteristics these conservative denominations are 100% egalitarian.  It is not possible, per these esteemed clergy, that God has created the different races / ethnicities of men to be differentiated in their varying expressions of humanity.

6.) What would happen if someone arose within these NAPARC denominations insisted that while average Australian Aboriginal  intelligence is inferior when compared to average East Asian intelligence but insisted this while admitting all this may be mutable over enough time? Would anyone in the NAPARC denominations even care? Would they care if the same person said at the same time that the average white European intelligence is, on average, two standard deviation points higher than sub-Saharan Blacks in the US as long as the person saying this conceded that it might not be immutable and that 1000 years later this might not be true? Would such a person who believed this not be condemned by these ultracrepidarian Presbyterians?

7.) If these chaps are serious about condemning someone who holds these views how is it, if they can’t substantiate from Scripture why it is necessary to agree with them, that they have not added to what it means to obey the Gospel? How have they not added to the Gospel and in so doing anathematized themselves by doing so?

8.) Think about the numerous church fathers from church history these clowns have condemned. Off the top of my head these clowns have condemned Calvin, Kuyper, Hodge, Dabney, Schaff, Solzhenitsyn, Francis Nigel Lee, John Edwards Richards, etc. It really is monstrous when one realizes the level of avarice to the end of popularity involved in this pronouncement.

9.) This whole thing is perfectly ended with the stated need for repentance on the part of anybody who would associate with the teaching – either by omission or commission – that is condemned. Presumably, this would mean that if someone attends a church who themselves are unsure on the ideas condemned and found themselves friends or associates of someone who does believe these condemned ideas said person would have to repent just for associating with these sinners.

10.) This official condemnation also gives tyrant Pastors the ability to just remove membership of a member of their church if that member was to say, for example, something like, “Well, I think that Michael Hunter has some interesting points to consider in his article on Natural vs. non-Natural communities.” Such a person would be required to repent and if they refused, per this anathema, they would have to be cast out of the body should these nekulturny clergy be consistent with their words.