McAtee & Josh Buice Discuss Christian Nationalism through the Prism of Mayberry’s Otis the Town Drunk and Sodom’s Hiram the Town Drunk

Honestly, I don’t know who Josh Buice is except to say he is the head of something called G3 ministries and I just learned that in the last 5 minutes. However, over on Twitter he is stirring the pot with Baptist type of reasoning.  When I learned that Buice runs G3 ministries I learned also that he was Baptist but I had guessed that before the Wiki article told me he was.

Here is Buice over on Twitter reasoning like a Baptist;

Even if you could baptize America, it still wouldn’t make America a Christian nation. The theological arm of the Christian Nationalism debate is extremely flawed. Nominal Christianity is not Christianity. Carnal Christianity is not Christianity. Our aim is Christianity.

Bret responds,

It depends on what one means by “Christian Nation.” Christian Nationalism has never believed that in order for a nation to be Christian every single member of the nation has to be a bible thumping, twice on Sunday church attending, Baptized Christian. Christian Nationalism instead envisions instead at least a sizeable minority of the nation being Christian so as to maintain the Christian cultural Institutions of the social order that they might remain Christian in orientation.  Christian nationalism quite understands that in a Christian nation it is altogether possible that much of the Christianity in that Christian nation might well be nominal and some of it even carnal. However, what makes a Christian nation a Christian nation is that objective the institutions of the nation are being shaped by Christian categories as at the very least a sizeable minority of Christians in the nation are the gatekeepers of the cultural and social institutions of the nation.

Let’s flip this around to explain it from another angle. Right now our nation is a humanist nation. All of our cultural civil-social intuitions have been captured by the humanist left (cultural Marxism) including the putatively conservative churches. However, clearly there remains in the US a sizeable number of Biblical Christians. Does the fact that there is a sizeable number of Biblical Christians in this country therefore provide proof positive that this country is not a Humanist Nation? Of course not. The country can be humanist while still having Christians populating it. It is humanist because objectively stated, all of the Institutions of America have been capture by the humanists.

In the same way, sans Buice, a nation can be objectively Christian and still only have a sizeable minority subjectively embrace the Christian faith that is operating objectively to make the nation Christian.

In brief, Christianity is both individual and corporate. A nation can be corporately Christian in an objective sense and yet only have a sizeable minority be subjectively Christian.

After Buice poste this a chap at Twitter named

@PaterFamilian perceptively asked Buice;
So, would you rather live in Mayberry or Sodom? If you’re unsure, ask your family.
 And Buice responded,

“Personally, Mayberry. But, I think it would be a disservice and theological error to refer to Otis Campbell as a Christian because his address was within that town.”

And now Bret responds again to Buice;

Certainly Otis is likely not converted and so doesn’t subjectively own Christ. However, Otis, Mayberry’s town drunk is a different kind of town drunk than the town drunk who would exist in Sodom. Think about it. Otis, while not subjectively a Christian, has been objectively influenced by Christian Mayberry as seen in the fact that Otis always locks himself up when he’s been on a bender, and always speaks deferentially to Andy and Barney. Does Buice really think that Hiram the town drunk in Sodom acts in such a Christian manner or does Hiram the town drunk in Sodom when he gets drunk go looking for little children to rape?

You see, the fact that Otis is not a Christian subjectively speaking in the sense that Otis has personally owned Jesus Christ is true as Buice notes. However, Otis is a Christian objectively speaking in the sense that he is part of a Nation that is being ordered by the Christian faith in its various institutions. Otis will be damned forever if he does not embrace Christ for himself. However, Otis’s sin will be constrained because he lives in the Christian town of Mayberry and so because he lives in the Christian town of Mayberry he can be considered a Christian in an objective sense even if he is not a Christian in a subjective sense.

Buice, like most Baptists has not thought this through.

Buice in the Twitter thread keeps telling people not to conflate nation and church. This is curious because no one on the Christian Nationalism side who is Reformed desires to do that. We understand and desire for the Magistrate to be a Christian who enforces Christian law and who handles the sword in a Christian fashion. However, we do not desire the Magistrate to leave his assigned jurisdictional realm and come into the Church to handle the keys of the Kindgom (word & sacrament).

So, it is quite possible to have a Christian nation where the nation is not conflated with the Church while both church and nation are decidedly Christian. And we are quite willing to say that such a Christian nation could possibly have many nominal Christians in said Christian nation. This is why the Church would continue to preach law and gospel to the nominal Christians of the nation who may well be sitting in their pews on the Lord’s Day.

So, Christian Nationalism most certainly does not conflate nation with church. Further, Christian Nationalism anticipates that there will be nominal Christians in a Christian nation and even perhaps nominal Churches. However the only alternative to that is to say we should have a non-Christian nation which has consistent Christ hating pagans such as Hiram the Sodom drunk on every corner.

In some respects, Otis — Mayberry’s town drunk — is a blessing.

The Unity of the Godhead As Embraced By Socialists

For the Socialist heaven on earth must present perfection and perfection requires unity among all mankind. This kind of unity is a “atheistic” pursuit born of the theological convictions of their atheism. It is theological because this drive for unity is connected to the socialist’s god concept. Theologically, we know that one attribute of godhood is unity in the deity and since there must be unity in all Godheads, and since man is now the “godhead man,” due to the atheism of the Socialist, man must be unified as a atheistic theological necessity. Unity, for the progressive (socialist), means universal submission to a single sovereignty, and unity in and of the world means universal submission to a single world government. In such a unity, required by both the theology and the teleology of Humanism, two or more distinct races living side by side as segregated, in distinct cultural communities is intolerable. It is intolerable because it defies both their theology and their eschatology.

Because the above is true, totalistic integration into a unified globalist order therefore becomes the Holy Grail for which all “noble” men must strive per the Marxist (socialist). In point of fact, total human integration resulting in total humanistic unity becomes a life and death issue for the Social Gospelers, and the Progressives. (Marxists all). Integration is the necessary step to be taken down the long road of the totalitarian perfection that is heaven on earth. Anyone who dares to question integration is obstructing the Humanist god and worse yet, the sure introduction of heaven on earth. Those who oppose unquestioned integration are thwarting the will of the collective man god and the progressive vision for the inevitable destiny of man. Such a person must be dealt with by elimination. He must be denounced. He must be destroyed.

All of  the above provides the backdrop for why biblical Christians who advocate for a Christian social order are so thoroughly hated both inside and outside the Church. We are the ones who are standing athwart this project, because of our Biblical convictions, and are saying that this kind of pursuit of a New World Order, whether expressed among families or nations is neither Biblical nor natural. Biblical Christians have no desire to be drawn into the ever consuming maw of the socialist beast which exists to gnaw away all distinctions among men so that a “New Socialist Man” can be created. The Biblical Christian realizes that man is not God either considered individually or collectively and because of that the Biblical Christian sees no necessity to live in a world where “all colors bleed into one.” In point of fact, the Biblical Christian is adamantly resolved that this thinking “shall not pass.”

Yet, Legion is the name of simpletons in “Christian” pulpits and behind lecterns in “Christian” Seminaries who have not thought this matter through and so are on the socialist “love train.”

“People all over the world (Everybody)
Join hands (Join)
Start a love train, love train
People all over the world (All the world, now)
Join hands (Love ride)
Start a love train (Love ride), love train”

God save us from well intended simpletons.

The Miserable State of the Clergy Seen in the Words of Tim Keller

“I’d rather be in a democracy than a state in which the government is officially Christian. Instead of trying to take power, I think what Christians ought to be doing is trying to renew their churches.”

-Tim Keller, Wall Street Journal
02 September 2022

“Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?”
 Henry II of England 
 Referring to Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury, in 1170 

1.) Understand what Keller has said here. He has said that he would rather be under a government that is non Christian than under a government that is officially Christian. Tim would rather have his magistrates be Christ haters than have magistrates who are in submission to Christ.

2.) Tim talks about how Christians shouldn’t “try to take power.” The question is “take power from whom?” Presumably, in Tim’s world Christians shouldn’t try to take power from non Christians and should be happy to be ruled by Christ-haters.  Has Rev. Keller ever considered that all power is derived from God, hence, godly men must pursue power  in order to honor God using power for righteous and godly ends — something that the Christ-hater can not do if he is consistent with his Christ hating worldview?

3.) You know Tim, it is possible to both try and renew our Churches and in godly ways seek to take power. The right honorable Dr. Rev. Tim Keller posits a false dichotomy when he suggest that Christians have a binary choice wherein they can either take power or they can renew their churches but they can’t do both. Has Tim ever considered that one piece of evidence that Churches are being renewed is that they seek to exercise godly dominion over the state apparatus?

Mike Horton … From Pink to Red

“Social Justice is not a conversation that anyone can opt out of; every day we are engaged in secular rituals that either support of threaten the good of our neighbor. Good theology creates a horizon for reimagining of our relationships to one another as well as to God. Toxic theology, or even good theology perverted in the service of empire and ideology, has had disastrous cultural effects.

Some culture warriors on the right have claimed recently that ‘social justice’ is code for secular humanism; its very mention should raise ‘Red’ flags. Part of that is due to the tendency sometimes to separate the Great Commission from the Great Commandment. The gospel does not relieve us of the duty to love God and neighbor…

Ultimately, I am called to [justice] because my neighbor is created in God’s image. As God’s image bearers, especially those whose voices are ignored or marginalized, these neighbors are God’s own claim upon me and my life. Through the cries of the ignored and marginalized, I hear God’s call ‘Adam where art thou?’ And I dare not generalize or deflect this summons, replying with Cain, ‘Am I my brother’s keeper?'”

Mike Horton 
R2K Wokey Fanboy
Modern Reformation Article
Justification and Justice

1.) Social Justice is a Marxist trope. The only Justice that exists is biblical Justice as measured against God’s explicit Law-Word. The very use of the language without strongly delineating it from it’s Marxist home is suggestive that Horton is wearing a uniform colored red.

2.) There is no such thing as “secular rituals,” if by “secular rituals” Horton means rituals that are not driven by religious and theological a-priories. There is no such thing as a “ritual” that is secular. The whole notion is oxymoronic.

3.) The whole sentence about reimagining horizons is mere sentimental gobbledygook. There is no need to reimagine relationships with God and Man. We have been told directly what that relationship is and that is to Love God and Man. The only standard to measure love to God and man and is to act towards each consistent with God’s Law. The honoring of God’s Law is the definition of love to God and Man and not Horton’s precious Social Justice and reimaginative horiozons.

4.) Bad theology always has a disastrous cultural effect. No Duh. We are seeing daily the disastrous cultural effects that Horton’s Radical Two Kingdom theology is having.

5.) It is precisely because the Gospel does not relieve us of our duty to love God and neighbor that we are required to spit every time we hear “Social Justice.” “Social Justice” is hatred for God and neighbor since “Social Justice” presupposes a cultural Marxist world and life view. Horton is a functional Marxist.

6.) No… ultimately I am called to Justice because God calls me to Justice. I am not ultimately called to justice because my neighbor has the Imago Dei. To say the former vis-a-vis the latter is the difference between being a humanist and being a Christian.

7.) Voices that are ignored or marginalized (i.e. — trannies, sodomites, Lesbians, minorities who form the Marxist neo-proletariat vanguard to overturn Christian social order, along with Pedophiliacs, Necrophiliacs, etc.) are ignored and marginalized because they hate Christ. I pray God that such voices are always ignored and marginalized.

8.) My neighbors are not God’s claim on my life. God’s claim on my life is by virtue of His being the Creator and my Redeemer. I don’t even know what it means when someone says “My neighbors are God’s claim on my life.” It is abstracted gobbledygook and means nothing. Sure sounds good though.

9.) Through the “ignored and marginalized: I don’t hear Cain’s “Am I my Brother’s Keeper” instead I hear God’s “Well done thou good and faithful servant.”

10.) Horton is a faithless shepherd. Stay away from this Cultural Marxist wanna-be.

 

Andy Stanley Does His Best Taylor Swift Impersonation

Yesterday while listening to the radio the DJ said that a few years ago it was reported that the pop singer Taylor Swift said something mind-numbingly profound;

“Sometimes I think that Love Songs are just poetry put to music.”

Recently, Rev. Andy Stanley gave us a similar Brainiac type statement while speaking at the Dallas Theological Seminary when answering a question from an interviewer about the historicity of Adam and Eve.

“The foundation of our faith is not the Scripture. The foundation of our faith is not the infallibility of the Bible. The foundation of our faith is something that happened in history. The issue is always, Who is Jesus? That’s always the issue. The Scriptures are simply a collection of ancient documents that tell us that story so when we talk about the Scriptures and especially the reliability of the Scriptures I think that any time that we can tie the Old Testament especially back to Jesus we have done everybody, Christians and non-Christians alike, an incredible service by letting them know you know what you can believe that the Adam and Eve story is a creation myth, so what, who is Jesus? To get to your point, when I deal with Adam and Eve, I am quick to say, “Hey this is one of those odd stories” This is that story you heard growing up about two naked people running around in the garden, and who can believe that? There are many creation myths. But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because of the Gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say. So what have I communicated, I have communicated that even if we talk about Genesis and the Garden of Eden, the issue is, “Who is Jesus? And I think any time that we can weave that small little apologetic in our teaching and preaching, it helps our high school students and it helps our college students understand the foundation of my faith is not an infallible Bible, but it is something that happened in history, Jesus came into the world, walked on the earth, represented God, was God, and rose from the dead. And that is a very, very important piece of, a very, very important part of our approach to the Scripture every single week.”

Bret responds,

Here Stanley tries to rip apart redemption from revelation. Sure, the foundation of our faith is something that happened in History (i.e. —  Redemption provided in Christ) but I could not know about Redemption apart from Revelation (Scripture). So Stanley introduces a false dichotomy between Redemption and Revelation suggesting that our foundation is the Redemptive act but denying the Revelation that communicates to us the reality of the Redemptive act and its meaning. It is the case that God not only acted in History in the person and work of Christ but also we have to understand that God also speaks (interprets) His acts in History through the Revelation that is in Scripture alone.

So, on one hand, we can say “yes” the “issue is always Jesus” but that issue can only be known to us by the fully inerrant, infallible, trustworthy Bible that has the quality of verbal plenary inspiration. For Andy Stanley to miss this simple truth either communicates that Stanley is a moron of epic proportions or that Stanley is epistemologically self-consciously pursuing an agenda that will leave him and his followers who embrace this thinking in Hell. Since I am a kind person who wants to think the best of people, I’ll conclude that Andy Stanley is a moron or epic proportions.

So, the foundation of our Faith is Jesus who can only be known by the Bible. The fact that Stanley desires to refer the Bible as “simply a collection of ancient documents” tells us all we need to know about Stanley as a trustworthy minister. There are all kinds of ancient documents laying around. Given Stanley’s statement why should the bible as being simply a collection of ancient documents, to be preferred above, say, the Bhagavad Gita which is also simply a collection of ancient documents?

Frankly, I find it amazing that such an idiotic statement by Stanley could fool anyone. But… such is the culture we live in.

I especially love this chestnut from the Stanley quote above;

“But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because of the Gospels, Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say.”

1.) Which being interpreted means; (My interpretation is in the bold)

“But here is why I believe this actually happened, not because the Bible says so, but because (THE BIBLE SAYS SO IN THE) Gospels. In the Bible in the Gospels Jesus talks about Adam and Eve, and it appears to me that He believed that they were actually historical figures, and if He believed that they were historical then I believe that they were historical because anybody that can predict their own death and resurrection, and pull it off, I just believe anything they say.”

a.) Consider that Jesus learned about Adam and Eve IN THE BIBLE.
b.) Jesus talked about Adam and Eve because they were IN THE BIBLE.
c.) Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection as we learn IN THE BIBLE
d.) Other ancient documents have Jesus saying things that are not recorded in the Bible. Why doesn’t Andy believe those things that are not IN THE BIBLE?

Really, the stupidity here is so epic that one can hardly keep a straight face while typing these words. Andy Stanley has NOTHING on Taylor Swift. Indeed, I am now wondering if anybody has ever seen Andy Stanley and Taylor Swift together in the same room at the same time?

2.) Yes, all of Jesus life, death, resurrection, and ascension has happened in history but the only reason I know this is because “the B-I-B-L-E tells me so.”

Really the guy is a giant Moron masquerading as a Pastor. I can’t believe what has happened to our ministerial corps. It’s like being part of a Zombie regiment.

But not to worry Andy … if the ministry ever goes south for you Pop Music can always use another voice.