Blessing the Name of Achord While Extending a Fie Upon the Enemies of Dr. Achord

I don’t personally know Dr. Achord. I have profited greatly from his Anthology “Who is My Neighbor” co-edited with my good friend Darrell Dow. I have listened to him on his Ars-Politica podcast. I have seen him interviewed. And now I have read his explanation of what happened to this good and godly man in experiencing cancel culture as levied by those considered to be “pillars in the Church.”

This one cuts kind of close. As the readers here know, I was the target of a huge doxxing and cancel culture effort at the beginning of 2020. This was on the heels of a mighty struggle against the ecclesiastical structure that I was at the time associated with (and yet not really a part of) at the end of 2018. I don’t mind saying that those 18 months took the wind out of my sail. At the time I didn’t think I was going to survive that travail. All of it raked on my soul and frankly unmanned me. Only God’s mercy and grace brought me through. So, I know personally and up close what Dr. Thomas Achord may be going through.

Today Dr. Achord provided his side of the story in this matter here;

View at Medium.com

The reading of the above reveals that Thomas is a man of character. I can guarantee you that I would not be so generous as he is being.

And here Dr. Stephen Wolfe provides an explanation of this outrage;

Now, one’s temperature begins to rise when one realizes that those “Christian” men responsible for this Achord doxxing are not going to be held responsible in this life. This is one of those cases that we entrust that the guilty will get their comeuppance in that great and final day. God will make all accounts right.

I am going to mention here that some responsibility has to be laid at the feet of the Institution that allowed themselves to be stampeded so as to “resign” Dr. Thomas Achord. Dr. Achord seeking to pour oil on the waters bows out with grace. However, I must say that it seems it is the same kind of men who are in charge of our Institutions as who are out there doing the doxxing. Could not these men at the Institution in question and who agreed to  Achord’s “resignation” at least waited until the smoke of battle had cleared to assess what had really happened?

Another thing to consider is how weary I am with the “point and splutter” technique that remains so successful among our wussified culture. The whole thing is akin to a bunch of Jr. High girls screaming about a mouse loose in the lunch-room. The analogy is especially apt since those doing the doxxing are indeed acting like Jr. High girls. If they were men they would demand a duel or try to bring the man up on charges in some Church court. Instead they scream like little girls. Disgust is too mild of a word for what I feel for these effeminate creepers. It is the same way I felt about those who hid behind their media empire when blackening my name.

Today has been a somewhat hard day for me because all that has happened to Dr. Achord brought back to me the hard years of 2018-2020. I have finally arrived at the point that Thomas is already at and that is the reason he has my admiration. He got there much quicker than I did.

However, while we as Christian men seek to take these kinds of things in stride and with a sanctified aplomb we must also at the same time pray imprecatory prayers against the kind of wicked wicked men who would go to these ends to do the ruinous to god-fearing men. While we pray that they may know the joy of conversion, we at the same time pray that if they refuse to bend the knee that God would utterly destroy them.

If you want to do a good work you can go here to help support the Achord family until Thomas and his growing family gets back on his/their feet;

https://www.givesendgo.com/G9HF1?sharemsg=display&fbclid=IwAR0hEhJcGv7bZjbBS5DWyjBsuqWno7aBIQmj47wGtfYnYv9gUw6HEdKXEB8

Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “Breadcrumb Methodology?”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe discusses the blood ties between Moab and Israel as and example.

Then he says this:

“Nations today are NOT built around bloodlines stretching back to arch-patriarchs. But blood relations remain relevant to nations, when referring to one’s ancestral connection to a people and place back to time immemorial. The originating source for one’s affection of people and place is his natural relations–those of his kin. But the ties of blood do not directly establish the boundaries of one’s ethnicity. Rather, one has ethnic ties of affection because one’s kin conducted life with other kin in the same place. Christian philosopher Johann Herder was correct in saying that the volk is a ‘family writ large’. This is an apt description not because everyone is a cousin by blood, but because one’s kin lived here with the extended families of others for generations, leaving behind a trace of themselves and their cooperation and their great works and sacrifices. Blood relations matter for your ethnicity, because your kin have belonged to this people on this land–to this nation in this place–and so they bind you to that people and place creating a common volkgeist.”

Stephen Wolfe

Christian Nationalism — p. 139

When I first read the above I found it to be a word salad that is full of both implied and direct contradiction. I still find it perplexing unless…

I am rethinking Wolfe’s book in the context of all the Hub-bub it is creating. It is the darndest thing to see Wolfe getting hit by all sides. I have read reviews that claim that Wolfe is being a clever Nazi and comparing Wolfe’s book with Mein Kampf. (The good ole “ad-Hitlerum” logical fallacy.) Then there are people like me who don’t see Uncle Adolph (inside joke) but instead see Wolfe trying to avoid the inescapable “ethno” in the idea of Nationalism. I genuinely feel sorry for the guy getting hit by both sides like this. I hope the man makes some good money off the book  in order to offset all the grief he has been getting — even to the point of people destroying his friends livelihood in trying to pull Wolfe down by being associated with these alleged Nazi racists.

Because of all this fire from both sides I have been re-thinking what this book of Wolfe is. What is it trying to accomplish. What accounts for the methodology behind the book?

For the sake of argument just pretend you’re writing a book for an audience that is receptive to Nationalism but is on the fence regarding the ethnic side of it. Pretend that you as the author understand that the ethno in ethno-Nationalism is never going to fly in this politically correct, multi-cultural context. How would you go about writing a book that advances the ball on ethno-Nationalism while avoid the issue of the ethno? You know if in the book you state the obvious about Nationalism it will never even get published.

As such you decide to go all clever and describe all the accouterments of Nationalism in your book hinting strongly at the ethnic part and yet keeping it at arm’s length in terms of explicitly saying it. You get close to speaking about the ethno in ethno-Nationalism and then you beat a hasty retreat in order to avoid outraging the normies and the cultural-Marxist gatekeepers in the Western Church.

Instead you decide to drop all kinds of breadcrumbs to lead your reader, who may be hesitant to come to your conclusion if you said it overtly, to the conclusion that can’t help but be reached concerning ethno-Nationalism because the breadcrumbs you have dropped along the way in your book? Perhaps Wolfe is seeking to get people wet before he advocates swimming?

Now, this methodology is not for me, and I think it is better to throw a bucket of cold water on those who can’t swim. I think it is better to fastened your bold colors on the mast so that people know who you are from a league away. However, though it is not my style, and though I don’t think it is particularly effective, I can see other people believing this methodology might work.

Was Wolfe being this kind of clever in his book? Did he realize that most people embracing his broad outline of what Christian Nationalism is would then invariably embrace the ethno part of ethno-nationalism without him even having to be overly clear about his conviction on the matter?

I’m beginning to think this is a possibility. I think that Wolfe may have been going for conversion via the indirect route as opposed to going for conversion by my “in your face” route.

As an addendum please pray for Dr. Wolfe and Dr. Achord. Dr. Achord, a close friend of Wolfe’s was doxxed and fired from his job with the hopes that Wolfe could be found guilty by association with Achord.

Now, Achord has done nothing to be ashamed of in terms of what he has written if we were living in a sane world. But we are no longer living in a sane world. The Stalinists in the Church are in charge, and the Stalinists are insisting that if you do not embrace their vision of Christianized Cultural Marxism then it is “off with your head.” 

Achord is not the first victim of this bull fecal behavior and he won’t be the last.

Heidelberg Catechism Q.) 26 — God the Father Almighty; Creator of Heaven & Earth

Question 26: What believest thou when thou sayest, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?”

Answer: That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them;1 who likewise upholds and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence)2 is for the sake of Christ His Son, my God and my Father; on whom I rely so entirely, that I have no doubt but He will provide me with all things necessary for soul and body;3 and further, that He will make whatever evils He sends upon me, in this valley of tears, turn out to my advantage;4 for He is able to do it, being Almighty God,5 and willing, being a faithful Father.6
_______________

We recall as we come to question 26 that we are in section II of the Heidelberg Catechism which is titled “Our Deliverance.” This section is committed to explaining how great a salvation we have in Jesus Christ in delivering the Christian from their sin and misery (Section I). The methodology used to do so for the next 33 questions and answers is to break down the Apostles Creed as to what it precisely mean when one confesses the Apostles Creed.

We must say at the outset that this methodology foists precision on the mind. We learn, via this method, not only the greatness our our deliverance from our sin and misery but also what exactly the Apostle’s Creed means. This explanation of the Apostle’s Creed that is given in the HC separates Biblical Christians from those who are repeating the Creed with a foreign accent. Because of the precision of the explanation we will get in this section we no longer can accept a vanilla Christianity that has a “Kumbaya” feel. By the time the Catechizers are finished with this section certain expressions of Christianity are ruled as contrary to the intent of the Apostle’s Creed and the Scriptures. This is not accidental.

When the Creed was written it was written for a specific part of Europe that found people of different expressions of Christianity living cheek by jowl next to each other. One purpose of the Catechism was to educate those who would use the HC how it was that they were different from Roman Catholics, Anabaptists, and Lutherans. There are questions and answers in the HC while not explicitly mentioning the differences between Calvinism and these other sub-expressions of Christianity are clearly attacking these other sub-expressions of Christianity as being inadequate.

The HC is interested in teaching its students to be Calvinists. It does not apologize for doing so. In the process once the HC is understood the confessor will inevitably want to see other sub-expressions of Christianity re-think their errant view.

One more thing here. Because of the precision of the HC we are no longer allowed to think that just because ten people affirm the Apostle’s Creed that therefore all ten affirm the Apostle’s Creed in its proper meaning.  The catechizers are teaching here that reciting the words of the Creed is only significant inasmuch as those confessing the Creed are filling those words with the same meaning.

With that introduction we turn to the question;

Question 26: What believest thou when thou sayest, “I believe in God the Father, Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth?”

The Apostle’s Creed has three strophes that can be broken down according to each member of the Trinity – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. This reminds us that to affirm the Christian faith is to affirm a set of doctrines as gathered from Scripture. Christianity is the life of the mind before it is the life of experience, feeling, or emotion. The HC teaches us that in order to claim Christianity we have to know our doctrine — know what we believe and why we believe it and what we don’t believe and why we don’t believe it.

The central basic truth about the Father that all Christians to be Christian must confess is that the Father is “almighty” (Sovereign, Omnipotent) and that this Almighty God is the creator of the cosmos. This one simple truth is denied by everyone in the Christian community except for the Reformed. The idea that God the Father is almighty, is the heart that beats in Calvinism. The Calvinist, following Scripture, believes that God,

Isaiah 46:10 Declares the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are not yet done, saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure: 11 Calling a ravenous bird from the east, the man that executeth my counsel from a far country: yea, I have spoken it, I will also bring it to pass; I have purposed it, I will also do it.

For the Calvinist God is never envisioned as waiting upon man to react. God is always the actor and man is always the re-actor. The Calvinists believes that all depends upon the Sovereign God. The Calvinist believes that in God we live, and move, have our being.

The HC puts it this way in the answer;

Answer: That the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (who of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them;1 who likewise upholds and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence)2 is for the sake of Christ His Son, my God and my Father; on whom I rely so entirely, that I have no doubt but He will provide me with all things necessary for soul and body;3 and further, that He will make whatever evils He sends upon me, in this valley of tears, turn out to my advantage;4 for He is able to do it, being Almighty God,5 and willing, being a faithful Father.6

1.) Note that by referring to the Father as “the eternal Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,” chases off any notion of trinitarian subordinationism in the Godhead. From eternity past the Father has been the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. There never was a time when the Lord Jesus Christ was not eternally begotten of the Father. Right out of the gate Arian doctrine (Jehovah Witnesses) is ruled out of bounds.

2.) Note next that this Almighty Father is only known to us in relation to the Lord Jesus Christ. The Father can be known only through the Son and the Father and Son can only be known as taught in the pages of the Bible. If anyone wants to know the Father they must know the Son.

All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him. (Mt. 12:27)

3.) Thirdly, note that the Almighty God is the Creator God. The HC will go on to teach that the Son is known for His work of Redemption and the Spirit is known for His work of Sanctification. The Father is known for the work of Creation. However, these realities should not be too woodenly construed since any work of any member of the Trinity finds all the members of the Trinity participating. (This is known as the Doctrine of perichoresis.)

4.) When the HC teaches of God that;

“He of nothing made heaven and earth, with all that is in them; who likewise upholds and governs the same by His eternal counsel and providence”

They appeal to passages like, Gen. 1 and 2 as well as;

Ps. 33:6, By the word of the LORD were the heavens made; and all the host of them by the breath of His mouth.

Here we find eliminated the possibility of what has come to be called “theistic evolution.” The HC does not allow anyone who confesses it to believe in this 19th century doctrine that teaches that God co-operated with or orchestrated the Big Bang so as to create, by means of evolution with its mechanism of natural selection considered in its macro sense, the cosmos. This would eliminate men like Tim Keller from being accepted as a member in a church that embraced the HC.

5.) The troika of creation, sustaining (upholds) and governing is found in this answer. God is the creator, sustainer, and governor of His cosmos. This teaches us, contra to Deism, that upon creation God did not wander away leaving His creation to itself. No, The Father Almighty, not only created the Cosmo by His divine fiat Word also sustains (upholds) and governs His cosmos. This teaches that that the Father Almighty, “Maker of heaven and earth” is personal. He continues to be involved with His creation via the means of sustaining the cosmos as well as directly governing the affairs of men.

Ps. 115:3, But our God is in the heavens: He hath done whatsoever He hath pleased.

Matt. 10:29, Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? and one of them shall not fall on the ground without your Father.

6.) This answer also teaches us the distinction between God and His creation contra all expressions of pantheism. God is the creator God, distinct from His creation.

7.) Note in this question that those who confess the HC understand that God is only the God of anyone by means of their coming under the safety of Christ His Son.

“is for the sake of Christ His Son, my God and my Father;”

John 1:12, 16, But as many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on His name. And of His fullness have all we received, and grace for grace.

Heb. 1:3, Who (Jesus Christ) being the brightness of His (God the Father Almighty) glory, and the express image of His person, and upholding all things by the word of His power, when He had by Himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high.

Only those in Christ can call Almighty God their “God and Father.” Those who are not in Christ only know the Almighty God as Judge and as a celestial terrorist as against them. For those outside of Christ the “Almightiness of the Father” is only unto them the reasons for night sweats and nightmares. There is only safety from the Almighty Father as in Jesus Christ who purged our sins.

8.) Note that once in Christ we boast of our dependent relationship;

on whom I rely so entirely, that I have no doubt but He will provide me with all things necessary for soul and body;3

Christians understand that the Almightiness of God the Father is a source of rest and a reason to put off panic. We understand the truth of the Apostle’s creed teaches us that God is the God who provides. Being confident of that how is it that those who affirm and embrace the Almightiness of God could ever fear of what man can do to us? Because of this truth, the Christians who can get this truth in their marrow will be characterized as fearless — never cowering before men or their threats.

The embrace of this Doctrine throughout history explains why Tyrants have hated having Calvinists living in their Kingdoms. Calvinists do not bend to the capricious will of Tyrants because they know that God will provide them with all things necessary for body and soul. Tyrants have no means to instill fear in the garden variety Calvinist.

Rom. 8:15–16, For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.

9.) Note that the Catechizers affirm that God provides for us body and soul. This affirmation rules out any kind of Christianity that is characterized as being concerned only about our souls as if God is unconcerned with our physical existence. The God who provides for our souls provides for our bodily existence. God likes matter. He made it and so provides for it.

Matt. 6:26, Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

10.) God the Father’s Almightiness extends so broadly that it is understood that God, while not being the author of evil, is the one who controls everything that comes into the life of His sons and daughters. The evils that God, the Father, sends upon us, in this valley of tears are evils that turn to our advantage and so from the perspective of eternity are a blessing to us.

Ps. 55:22, Cast thy burden upon the Lord, and He shall sustain thee: He shall never suffer the righteous to be moved.

This is strong medicine. The Calvinist believes so absolutely in the Almightiness of God the Father that he understands that nothing comes into His life except through the hands of a sovereign God who loves us for the sake of Christ. For the Calvinist this is not a time plus chance plus circumstance world.

“Though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.”

For the Calvinist the Devil is God’s Devil on a long leash. For  the Calvinist God’s Sovereignty is not some after-thought. Again, as mentioned earlier this turns the Calvinist into human steel. He knows the world is personal and that it is chock full of God’s intention. If this is true and if God is a Father to His people — the Church, then what fear does the Calvinist have of a world, a devil, a circumstance that each and all belong to God the Father Almighty?

11.) Note that the Catechizers refer to this life as “valley of tears.” The Calvinist, while optimistic because of God’s Almightiness, names the world for what it is. The world is often a “valley of tears.” This reminds us to be realistic about what this world is. However, even in the valley of tears, evil is turns out to our advantage. As such, among the tears, there is continuous reasons to rejoice.

12.) The Catechizers round out this question by reminding us of the character of the God we serve.

for He is able to do it (turn all things to our advantage), being Almighty God,5 and willing, being a faithful Father.6

Note again here that God’s Almightiness is only a treasure to us — His people — in light of His being a faithful Father and He is only a Faithful Father in light of the fact that we flee to Christ to discover that the Almighty God is our Defense and sure help in time of need only because we are the younger brethren to the magnificent and glorious Lord Jesus Christ.

Rom. 8:28, And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to His purpose.

Rom. 4:21, And being fully persuaded that, what He had promised, He was able also to perform.

Matt. 6:26, Behold the fowls of the air: for they sow not, neither do they reap, nor gather into barns; yet your heavenly Father feedeth them. Are ye not much better than they?

HC question 26 has the effect of delivering us from effeminate non-Reformed views of the doctrine of God. The contemporary Christian world is awash is weak doctrines of God that deny, implicitly or explicitly, the reality that God is always angular and never will be made smooth. The God of the Bible is a ferocious God who can never be tamed, and yet this wild God is our God for the sake of Jesus Christ. This irrepressible, unpredictable, Almighty God is a God to His people whose intent is always to the end of glorifying Himself by pursuing His people’s good.

Is your understanding of God the Father Almighty, this understanding? If it is not search the Scriptures to see that these things are so.

Personally, I wouldn’t bother with worshipping any other explanation of God.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Doc Sandlin’s Whine and Moan about Kinism

“That kinism and kinists have wormed their way into the mainstream postmodern Calvinian movement exhibits its deep defects. The Leftist accusation that conservative Christians are racist is a vicious slander. But tragically, not always.”

Doc Sandlin

When you think of Doc Sandlin think of Doc Brown in the “Back to the Future” series. You remember… the white haired guy whose hair was seeking desperately to escape his scalp, with the bug-eyed demeanor, and the irrational high pitched speech. That’s the way I think of “Doc Sandlin.”

It’s helpful to remember that back around 2003 or so, “Doc Sandlin” called the leftist singer Bono a “prophet.” This is the same Bono who crooned,

I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colours will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes, I’m still running

You broke the bonds and you loosed the chains
Carried the cross of my shame
Of my shame
You know I believe it

[Chorus]
But I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for
No, I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for

Yessiree Bob… now there is a Christian Prophet we can all get behind.

Sandlin also said New York Times columnist David Brooks is “a national treasure.” This was after Brooks had written that he opposed any limits on abortion, even partial birth abortions, and called for gay marriage to be legalized, a dozen years before Obergefell.

Then there was that time when Andy got on the “Reformed Catholicism” train. Yep, Doc Sandlin was going to find a way, after 5 centuries, of melding Reformed thought with Roman Catholic thought. He envisioned the world– Protestant and Roman Catholic — being covered with his Reformed Catholicism.

Oh … and did I mention the time with Andy told everybody that Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor was the clear Postmillennial vote?

 The point here is that Sandlin is not a particularly wise men. Neither is he particularly good at reading the cultural tea leaves. Neither is he a prophet or a son of a prophet. Only restraint and a sense of propriety keeps us from listing those things that Doc Sandlin is good at.

As it relates to the quote above, just keep in mind;

1.) Kinists and kinism didn’t worm into anything. I don’t know how much reading Doc Sandlin does these days but if the man would just pick up the book “Who is My Neighbor,” by Achord and Dow, Sandlin would realize that the Reformed (indeed Christianity itself) have always been kinist. Kinism, or some variant thereof, has been the expressed belief of our Theologians, Pastors, and laymen through the centuries until the last 60 years or so when real He-Men like Doc Sandlin came along to “fix our theology.”

2.) So, if there are any worms in the “Calvinian Movement” it is the slithering, slimy, backbone-less worms that are represented by Doc Sandlin, Alistair Roberts, Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk, Steve Hemmeke, Uri Brito, and the rest of the Wormy Worms and the Worms movement. Some of these people are such worms that instead of debating ideas they would instead go all worm like and doxx a good man and chortle and dance over his experiencing cancel culture. Others of them seem to purposely misrepresent what Kinists believe or resolve to misunderstand and misinterpret Kinists at every turn.

3.) Deep defects?

You can see that Doc Sandlin, when he is not supporting Reformed Catholicism and female law enforcement officers, moonlights as a stand up comic. Maybe the man is right though. Any Kinist who would associate with a movement that has Doc Sandlin as a mouthpiece is definitely teetering on having deep defects.

4.) Postmodern Calvinian?

Only a pseudo intellectual could come up with a phrase like that.

5.) The fact that any Christian (never mind a Christian of the “Postmodern Calvinian stripe) would take the charge of “racist” or “racism” seriously is itself a laugh riot. The word means nothing today. It is just a word the left hurls at someone when they are losing the debate. The fact that Doc Sandlin even worries about being called a “racist” by the left indicates just how far left the man is himself. Calling Calvinian’s “racist” today would be like calling Reformation Calvinists in the 16th century, “disrupters of the Church.”  I mean… the only way to respond to that charge is to say, “You say that like its a bad thing.” Really folks, except for the pink poodle owner types who gives a tinker’s damn what the left thinks of us?

6.) The problem Doc Sandlin (Andy) is that it is you and your types who are fouling up our movement. GET THE HADES OUT. Start your own damn movement called the effeminate, the limp wristed, and the pansy tush Calvinette’s movement. Our movement is for the remaining sons of the West.

The CREC & It’s Ecclesio-olatry

The CREC crowd is out there insisting that when one is converted they are not only converted from death unto life but they are also converted from their old family to a new family discovered as and in the Church. Allow me to contend this is yet another example of grace destroying nature that is so ubiquitous in the CREC ecclesiolatry model that is owned by the CREC.

Below we find a Whitman’s sampler of quotes sustaining the claim above;

“I believe that familism is a pervasive error in American Christianity….In heaven, however, the family is not the nuclear, biological family. Jesus said that the natural family, not the state, would be the greatest enemy of His kingdom. The new family is the church. The parents are not the biological parents, but the elders of the church, who act for Christ. The natural, biological family is dead in Adam, and its children are born dead.”

James B. Jordan
(Biblical Horizons » No. 21: A Letter on Paedocommunion)

“Christian universalism takes concrete political form in a global communion of saints. It’s an ecclesial universalism. The bonds that connect Christians across national boundaries are deeper and stronger than bonds of blood or culture.”

– Peter Leithart
First Things — August 2022
Against National Conservatism

“Men and women are called upon to be separated from their natural identities as members of race and class and be given a new Spiritual identity by being added to the body of Christ in baptism.”

Mark Horne

“The Church is God’s greatest masterpiece. It is not a man-made institution; it is the creation of God the Father, Son and Spirit….The Church is made new by the Pentecostal fire of Acts 2. She is the undoing of Babel. Whereas in Babel God separated the families of the earth, in the Church Christ brings the nations of the earth together to form one holy and undivided family.”

The Church-Friendly Family
Randy Booth and Rich Lusk XVI
(This is from Uri Brito’s intro)

“We must affirm the supremacy of the Church among all the spheres and institutions of human life by placing ourselves within the life and mission of the Church.”

The Church-Friendly Family
Randy Booth and Rich Lusk XVII
(This is from Uri Brito’s intro)

“He even initially separates us from our family so that new families can emerge…The Church is an outpost of the kingdom of God. From there we are sent back to our families to establish outposts of the Church.”

Randy Booth and Rich Lusk
The Church-Friendly Family — p. 2

“We must come to see the Church as the primary family and our individual families as outposts of the Church…The Church, then, is the primary institution of society.”

Randy Booth and Rich Lusk
–The Church-Friendly Family — p. 20

“The Church is not an institution ordained to assist the family so that it can be a blessing to the world rather than a curse. The same is true for the State. The Church holds the place of primacy–always. If it is the Body of Christ, then there’s no other place for it.”

Randy Booth and Rich Lusk
The Church-Friendly Family — p. 21

First, we want to note that all of the above has a very Roman Catholic feel about it. Remember, Rome always insisted that were any Institution to have legitimacy it had to, in some fashion, come into the Church and so be under its umbrella of legitimacy. This kind of hegemony won its spurs when Henry IV went to Canossa to submit to Pope Gregory VII. There the Church had gained its primacy over the state and by extension over all things. The CREC looks to be demanding that the modern family go to Canossa to gain legitimacy.

Second, the admonition that we find in I Timothy 5:4f cuts against this ecclesiolatry model that is being pushed by acolytes in the CREC;

4 … But if a widow has children or grandchildren, these should learn first of all to put their religion into practice by caring for their own family and so repaying their parents and grandparents, for this is pleasing to God.

Note the centrality of the family in its proper role. The inspired Apostle is telling Timothy and the Church that it is the family’s natural role to be the first to provide for their own elderly over and above the Church.

Then there is the account in Acts 6 which demonstrates, just as I Timothy 5 demonstrates how much natural relations, not only character qualities, impacts the life of the Church and not the reverse of that which is being pushed by the ecclesiolaters in the CREC. Notice in Acts 6 that in the midst of conflict between ethnic lines (The matter of provision for Hebrews Jewish widows vs. the provision of Grecian Jewish widows in the Church) the Church chooses Hellenistic Deacons to address the needs of their Grecian widowed women-folk who were being overlooked (Acts 6:1, 5). This is communicating that family realities are not necessarily superseded once one is converted and comes into the Church.

Further the fact that the realities of nature ordained by God continue to have reality and impact in the Church is seen by the fact that women are not allowed to hold office in the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 14:34–35; 1 Tim. 2:12). and that quite without any denial that women have all the spiritual benefits of being united to Christ.

Indeed the centrality of the family as in its own nature sphere is not even eclipsed in the New Jerusalem where in the book of Revelation we see that the New Jerusalem is populated by the nations in their nations (Rev. 20-21). Even the resurrected and now glorified saints will not lose their familial or community identities that were characteristic of them in the fallen world (cf. Rev. 7:9). The nations as nations come walk in the new Jerusalem by the glory of God’s presence and light.

So, we see the error that the ecclesiolaters in the CREC are making in their hyper-prioritizing of the church. One is tempted to say that they are trying to immanentize the eschaton by pulling heaven down to earth but that is not even accurate as we see above since even in the eschaton the both family and church have an existence.

I am not familial-centric though that is what I’ll be accused of, but neither am I ecclesiocentric or an ecclesiolater. I believe that the Church and the Family are both ordained of God to work in a harmony of interest to extend the crown rights of Jesus Christ into every area of life. I believe the church and the family are the left leg and the right leg of walking the Christian life. Both are necessary and we are left crippled without both legs being the same length.