Truth forever on the scaffold, Wrong forever on the throne, Yet that scaffold sways the future, and, behind the dim unknown, Standeth God within the shadow, keeping watch above his own.
“Today I noticed that in both the ESV (which I read) and the KJV, the term “equity” is mentioned around ten times, whereas “equality” is mentioned only around once. These verses point out that God judges the peoples with equity and that judging with equity is a positive good. Could you explain the difference between biblical equity and the equity desired by the woke community that forms part of the DEI triad. Has that community bastardized a perfectly good biblical word and given it a contradictory meaning ? In short, if someone asks if I am in favor of equity, what should I say? Thank you for your time and attention.
Greg Settles Tennessee
Hello Greg,
This link to Strong’s Concordance suggests that equity is also translated as uprightness
https://biblehub.com/hebrew/5229.htm
Likewise this Hebrew word can be translated as equity, uprightness, even-ness;
Clearly, the way that the word equity works in the OT is differently than the way we use the word “equity” today. In Scripture equity guarantees that any judgment or justice will be done on the basis of uprightness or even-ness. Equity, in our current climate in the context of DIE (Diversity, Inclusion, Equity) means that any judgment or justice will be done in such a way to be uneven towards those who are gifted or talented vis-a-vis those who are not gifted and have lesser talents. So, I would say you are on to something when you ask;
Has that (DIE) community bastardized a perfectly good biblical word and given it a contradictory meaning ?
You finish by asking me;
In short, if someone asks if I am in favor of equity, what should I say?
I would probably answer that question by saying that, “Why, yes, by all means I am in favor of Biblical equity.”
Hope that helps Greg. Thanks for trusting me enough to ask your question.
In what remains in repudiating R. Scott Clark I will turn to a fisking methodology, taking Clark apart paragraph by paragraph.
R. Scott Clark writes,
De Young speaks positively of “cultural Christianity,” but it is not clear to me that what De Young wants is actually Christian. What he wants is for Christian leaders to “fight” the cultural decay of the West:
BLMc responds,
RSC mentions that Kevin DeYoung desires Christian leaders to “fight” the cultural decay of the West, but we have to ask, what standard are we using to define cultural decay? Clearly, as well will see, RSC will answer that by saying the standard needs to be a human standard. In other words, per RSC, there is no need to fight the cultural decay of the West via special revelation but rather the cultural decay of the West can be fought via Natural Law with an appeal to what can be considered a “common culture” that all humans share. The problem with that is that dog won’t hunt as Yuval Noah Harai reveals in this youtube clip where he argues that Nature teaches that sodomy is natural;
So, what will RSC do here? Yuval Noah Harai stands as a exemplary of cultural decay and yet here he is arguing for sodomy from the same standpoint which RSC argues against cultural decay. How will we resolve this authority conundrum? Will we appeal to Natural Law to answer if we should own RSC’s natural law or if we should own Yuval Noah Harai natural law?
No, an appeal to Natural law will not help us fight cultural decay
RSC expands on his position;
But people want to see that their Christian leaders—pastors, thinkers, writers, institutional heads—are willing to fight for the truth. You may think your people spend too much time watching Tucker Carlson, or retweeting Ben Shapiro, or looking for Jordan Peterson videos on YouTube, or reading the latest stuff from Doug Wilson—and I have theological disagreements with all of them (after all, some of them aren’t even Christians)—but people are drawn to them because they offer a confident assertion of truth. Our people can see the world being overrun by moral chaos, and they want help in mounting a courageous resistance; instead, they are getting a respectable retreat.
BLMc responds,
And the ironic thing here is that Clark and R2K are the one’s leading from the front in a highly non-respectable retreat. They are the ones insisting that there is no “thus saith the Lord” on issues from sodomy to tranny-ism to child grooming and surgical abuse, to cultural Marxism, to economic theft via redistribution theft schemes run by the FEDS, to etc. etc. etc. These issues demand a complete and total retreat and withdrawal from pulpits all across America. R2K pulpits are confidently asserting their “truth” that the Church must be silent on these issues.
It is breathtaking to here RSC lament the respectable retreat that the laity rank and file are receiving from their leaders in the Church when he is at the front of the line demanding the pulpits be silent on matters where God has clearly spoken.
RSC writes,
Here, the classical distinction between nature and grace would really help us. Nothing De Young desires here needs to be Christianized, as it were. The cultural resistance for which he is calling can be done under the rubric of nature. In the culture wars, Christians have the same concerns as non-Christians. This is because these are issues about the creational (or natural) order. This is what our founders understood but we have forgotten.
BLMc responds,
The bottom line is that nature is an inert thing if it is not informed and conditioned by grace. As Yuval Noah Harai demonstrates above nature is not static but requires interpretation. Cornelius Van Til might put have it this way; “There is no nature as fact without and apart from interpretation of fact.” The only reason that Natural Law ever worked in what was once Christendom is because those reading Natural Law were reading it as starting from Biblical presuppositions that were gained from knowing special revelation. Yuval Noah Harai, not having Biblical presuppositions reads natural law very differently, as one might well expect. That is because fallen man suppresses the truth of natural law in unrighteousness.
This is precisely what the canons of Dordt teach;
THIRD AND FOURTH HEADS OF DOCTRINE
Article 4
“There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”
When R. Scott Clark advocates for this Natural Law nonsense as he does he is in violation of his oath to uphold the canon’s of Dordt. Of course Clark weasels his way around Article 4 by making it say what it doesn’t say.
RSC writes,
Christians have a corner on theological truth, on saving religious truth—Jesus alone is the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through him (John 14:6). There is no other name given under heaven by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12) but we need neither “Christian Nationalism” nor “cultural Christianity” to get what we want. The LGBTQ agenda can and should be resisted on the basis of nature, reason, and natural law. Homosexuality is patently unnatural. The case for a genetic/biological cause for it has collapsed. It is the result of the corruption of nature, and most often the result of some sort of abuse or neglect.
BLMc responds,
Here we see Clark’s Thomistic/Aristotelian dualism on full parade. There are two paths to truth. There is a theological path to truth which yields salvation for the elect and then there is non-theological natural truth which yields all other forms of “truth.” And never the twain shall meet. Francis Schaeffer was right in his analysis on this subject in his little book, “Escape from Reason.” Clark and R2K are full on epistemological dualists. They bifurcate the realm of grace (church) from the realm of nature (common realm) and so impermeable is the barrier between nature and grace that there is no way that the great Reformed principle “grace restoring nature” dies on the vine.
And once again referring back to the youtube clip of Yuval Noah Harai, R. Scott Clark clearly doesn’t know what the blue blazes he is talking about when he says here, “The LGBTQ agenda can and should be resisted on the basis of nature, reason, and natural law. Homosexuality is patently unnatural. The case for a genetic/biological cause for it has collapsed.”
But you have to give Dr. R. Scott Clark credit. He excels in not knowing what the blue blazes he is talking about. At least the man is consistent.
RSC writes,
What Christians ought to do is to join with other citizens (e.g., Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.) in defending the Bill of Rights and the natural, God-given right to free speech, a free press, free association, and the freedom of religion protected therein.
BLMc responds,
Nobody disagrees with the idea of co-belligerence when it can be achieved. I protest with Roman Catholics all the time against abortion. I could even protest with Muslims against Tranny curriculum in government schools though I might be more inclined to join Muslims in an effort to close down government schools.
However, I would be slow Scotty in getting behind the serial adulterer RFK Jr. If a man can not be faithful to his wife he will never be faithful to his country. Are you arguing Scotty that Christians should vote for a man who has all the morals of a Tom-Cat? Is this what your natural law teaches you Scotty boy?
As De Young notes, most Christians were theocrats in the pre-modern and early modern periods, but there were exceptions that influenced the American founders. He calls attention to Samuel Pufendorf (1632–94), who argued for a form of toleration of religious heretics. Late in his career, John Owen argued for a very limited form of toleration. His fellow Oxford student, John Locke (1632–1704), whose Second Treatise was very influential on the American founders, also argued for toleration. Both argued that it was not the nature or vocation of the state to punish religious heretics. The founders agree. This is why I say that the Christian Nationalism project of Wolfe et al is un-American. I do not mean that they do not have a right to make their case, but I mean that their case is contrary to the ideology under which this nation was founded.
BLMc responds,
I refer RSC to Dr. Stephen’s Wolfe’s book “The Case for Christian Nationalism,” specifically the chapter titled, “Liberty of Conscience” in order for him to see what a fool he is making of himself.
Secondly, it is of interest to note that J. Gresham Machen did not agree with RSC’s line of reasoning. In a letter to the Governor of Pennsylvania Machen wrote in favor or Blue laws (required cessation of activity on the Lord’s Day). Is Clark saying that Machen was being un-American when Machen wrote to the Pennsylvania Governor,
“Will you permit me to express, very respectfully, my opposition to the Bill designated House Bill No. 1 regarding permission of commercialized sport between the hours of two and six on Sunday afternoons?
It is clear that in this matter of Sunday legislation the liberty of part of the people will have to be curtailed. It is impossible that people who desire a quiet Sunday should have a quiet Sunday, while at the same time people who desire commercialized sport on Sunday should have commercialized sport. The permission of commercialized sport will necessarily change the character of the day for all of the people and not merely for part of the people.
The only question, therefore, is whose liberty is to be curtailed. I am convinced that in this case it ought, for the welfare of the whole people, to be the liberty of those who desire commercialized sport.
The widespread prevalence of blue laws in this country put the lie to Scott’s assertion that early Americans were full of toleration for those who violated the first table of God’s law. Also, Scott might want to consider all those blasphemy laws on the books in that States in early America. Again, such a reality testify to the falsity of his claim about toleration in early America.
The idea that R. Scott Clark is a historian is right up there with Bruce Jenner’s claim to be a woman.
RSC writes,
We should agree with De Young’s rejection of Wolfe’s truly dangerous “theocratic Caesarism.” He is correct that Wolfe has quite misunderstood, misconstrued, and misreported the nature and intent of the American founders and he does a good job of showing how that is.
BLMc responds,
Again, theocracy is an inescapable category as we have established in this series and countless other times. Caesarism is more problematic because in my estimation the desire for a Christian strongman prince is likely misplaced until Reformation begins to bubble up from the bottom up. I am not opposed to the concept of Christian strongman unless he exists apart from a solid base of support from the rank and file citizenry. The reason I am opposed to Caesarism is because power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely and I don’t believe that any Christian prince would rule well if there were not checks on his power.
I trust people will see the nuance in the above paragraph.
Finally, in terms of Wolfe and RSC’s accusation that he has misread American history, allow me to say that I would rather be in the leaky ship of Dr. Stephen Wolfe than in the multiplied torpedoed hits of the ship of R. Scott Clark. We have, along the way seen the “abilities” of the historian R. Scott Clark and suffice it to say we have not been impressed in the slightest.
I have issues with Wolfe, which I may take up another time on Iron Ink, but the issues I have with Wolfe pale in comparison to the outright chasm that exists between R2K R. Scott Clark and myself.
“For some people being Christian means bringing people into a relationship with Christ. To others it means bringing people into a world view. That’s a big difference.”
Dr. Barry Hankins
Baylor University Evangelical Historian
“But we have the mind of Christ.” (1st Corinthians 2:16)
2 And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind… (Roman 12:2a)
Can you say “false dichotomy?” What does it mean to have a relationship with Christ that is absent a Christian Worldview?
I don’t know if Dr. Hankins really believes this himself or if he is just reflecting what some Evangelicals believe. Either way, one has to ask how people can die to self and live to Christ without a complete change in their worldview. Indeed, the very ideas of repentance and conversion mean the change of one’s worldview.
How can one go from living with self at the center of all things to the unseating of self and the owning of the Triune God as the center of all reality? How can one have a relationship with Christ unless their former worldview was completely obliterated — at least in principle?
How can one go from not embracing the trinity, God’s sovereignty, a Biblical anthropology, epistemology, ontology, axiology, teleology, etc. etc. etc. to embracing these truths and not have a worldview change?
Now granted a mature Christian worldview does not arise instantly in the freshly converted but all the same conversion means one is set on that path of worldview overhaul.
Honestly, I don’t even know what it means to be in a relationship with Jesus that is absent a worldview changed.
And frankly, anyone who insists that they are not interested in converts having a worldview change but are only interested in their having a relationship with Jesus are themselves likely not converted.
How do guys like Hankins (and their names are legion) get Ph.D’s?
Just as Machen, though sick with pneumonia was bound and determined to keep his word to travel to South Dakota to preach and support a new Presbyterian work there, so I have lifted myself up out of my post-operative open heart surgery rest and recovery regimen in order to answer the absolute inanities of R. Scott Clark and Keven DeYoung on the subject of Christian Nationalism. Aren’t you impressed?
There is nothing quite so as stirring and enlivening to one’s spirit and health has to have the opportunity to lance, like so many piece of vegetable and beef on a shish-kabob, the non-Christian musings of the highly functioning lobotomized clergy class.
R. Scott Clark notes the desire of DeYoung to have “some form of Christian Nationalism,” and then as the cheek to say that no one has ever answered his previous queries as to what it means to modify “nationalism” with “Christian.” Clark, ever the intellectual autistic that he is, insists that no one has ever given him a coherent response as to what it means to speak of “Christian” plumbing or “Christian” math. All I can say here is that if he has seen no coherent response to this it is because he is looking with his eyes shut. Here is my response to that question a couple years ago. It is not the first time I have answered this question for he who runs “The Heidelfog.”
Also, if R. Scott Clark would read my book he would see that I provide an answer for him again in that book in the chapter titled, “Transformation of Culture.” So, either R. Scott Clark is lying when he says he has seen no coherent response to his queries about how math, softball, or nations can be Christian or else his worldview won’t allow him to see an answer that everyone else can easily see.
Clark then insists that he is not a defeatist. All I can do is offer that such a statement is a real knee-slapper. Everything that Clark contends for in terms of his R2K social order project guarantees that Christianity will return to the catacombs. As I argue in my book in the chapter “Militant Amillennialism” R2K’s eschatology requires defeat. Quoting from my book, I note,
“The R2K eschatology is what I call a militant amillennialism. The Amillennial eschatology does not allow for the victory of the Gospel and Biblical Christianity in space and time. In Amillennial eschatology the return of Christ is a return characterized by a church that is under assault and is greatly diminished in the world. Christ returns to rescue the Church much like the US Cavalry rides in to save an almost depleted Fort Custer as surrounded by the Indians ready to make their final push to take the Fort. The R2K Amillennialists really believe this and so it is baked into their eschatology. Because they do not believe that victory is possible they have developed a theology under the tutelage of men like David Van Drunen, R. Scott Clark, Mike Horton, D. G. Hart, and others that by definition does not allow for victory. By creating a common square that, by definition, can not ever be anything but common the R2K Amillennialist has created a self-fulfilled eschatology. Since by definition the public square cannot be anything but common the public square cannot see the triumph of Christ in space and time in the public square. The is militant Amillennialism.”
Clark next insists that all he is arguing for is a return to the American project which means the restoration of secular government while pursuing a desire to re-frame the classical Reformed distinction between nature and grace.
We would note here that when Clark tells us that he desires to return to the American project what he is telling us is that he desire to return to the vision of the Enlightenment crowd numbered among the founding fathers. This is a vision that affirms neutrality as seen in the insistence that the State (as well as the national institutions) remains neutral when it comes to the issue of religion. Clark continues to not understand, and no power short of conversion can make him understand, that neutrality is a myth. Jesus Himself said that “he does not gather with me scatters.” Jesus Himself said that, “he who is not with me is against me.” Jesus Himself said, “You cannot serve two Masters.” Clark desires to serve Jesus as Master while having a neutral state that does not serve Jesus as Master. This is not only not Christianity that Clark is pushing this is anti-Christianity. Let it be said clearly that there is no such thing as a secular State/Government if by secular you mean a State/Government that is ruling apart from a standpoint of religion and ruling apart from some god or god concept. Clark’s idea of secular is the idea that Roger Williams (He of Anabaptist fame) instantiated in Rhode Island. R. Scott Clark as more in common with Roger Williams than he does John Calvin.
Clark next invokes the sainted Abraham Kuyper. Clark would be better served reading Philippus Jacobus Hoedemaker’s critiques of Kuyper on this score. After Clark is finished reading Hoedemaker he can then buy a copy of Wm. T. Cavanaugh’s, “The Myth of Religious Violence.” From that work he can learn that all his chicken little screaming about violence from Christian magistrates is just so much hooey.
Clark then offers a real eye-popper when he writes;
“As a historian, I am endlessly puzzled by the desire, expressed by Wolfe and others, for a return to a state-church. What do they imagine the outcome will be? They claim that they will get it right this time, though virtually all other attempts before them have failed. This reminds me very much of the Marxist claim that we should give that another run because the right people have not tried it yet.”
I too am a historian, though I never earned a terminal degree in the field. (If Clark is an example of a Historian with a terminal degree I thank God I never went on to get the terminal degree.) History was one of my under-grad degrees. I took all the historiography courses. I examined the different schools of history. I read the heavy hitters. So, as a historian I am endlessly puzzled by Clark’s inability to see that a state-church is an inescapable category. Our nation is covered with state-churches, supported with state-funds, manned by state-educated state-Priests. Somewhere in the vicinity of 90% of American children (ages K-12) attend these state-churches being indoctrinated thoroughly with the state religion. Yet, Clark is so jejune that he can suggest that we, in America, do not have a state-Church. It is amazing. Clark complains that too many people are like Marxists and yet the man can’t see that our state-Church pushes some one form or another of Marxism.
R. Scott Clark’s Christianity is completely novel. No Reformed person before Meredith Kline thought anything like this. As Dr. Stephen Wolfe has written regarding R2K;
“Van Drunen (Clark belongs to this school of thought), for example, resolves the ‘contradictions’ of traditional two kingdoms theology with a theological system that affirms post WW II norms of secularism, multiculturalism, and anti-nationalism. His political theology might rightly be called ‘post WW II consensus theology,’ and I suspect that historians, looking back at it, will conclude that his theology is highly historically conditioned.”
Van Drunen, D. G. Hart, R. Scott Clark, Mike Horton, Sean Michael Lucas, Matthew Tuininga, David T. Gordon, and countless others are spewing a “theology” that is perhaps 80 years old at best. It is completely novel and it is a theology that none of the Reformers or their descendants would recognize as Reformed. Yet, despite the truth of that these posers are all over the place screaming that they alone are orthodox. Jesus refused to turn stone into bread but these highly educated dunces have gladly complied.
Here I find myself just a tad bit over 3 weeks out from open heart surgery. On top of that I have managed to contract a very slight, but still discernable cold. I am, to say the least, feeling blah and quite lackluster. I have been kicking myself about not blogging more but I have just not had the oomph to do so.
Until now. Leave it to that grand idiot Dr. R. Scott Clark to write with such determined torpidity and stylistic buffoonery to cause me rise out of my languid pose of recovery so as to expose his shallow offerings and lampoon his “insightful reasoning.”
Recently, at his blog, “The Heidelfog” Clark had yet another go at the concept of “Christian Nationalism.” Naturally, as Clark is a stupid man he is opposed to this Biblical concept. It is ironic that a man who wrote a book on “Recovering the Reformed Confessions” would insists that those who wrote the “Solemn League and Covenant” (a steroidal advocacy of Christian Nationalism if there ever was one) and were largely responsible for penning the Westminster Confession of Faith were foursquare opposed to any idea of Christian Nationalism.
I mean R. Scott Clark is trying to tell us that the guys who penned the following were against Christian Nationalism;
WLC#191 Q- What do we pray for in the “second petition” of the Lord’s prayer which is Thy Kingdom Come?
A – the Kingdom of God is to “be countenanced and maintained by the civil magistrate.”
Or
Q-108 which asks what are the duties required in the second commandment.
A – “the disapproving , detesting, opposing all false worship; and, according to each one’s place and calling, removing it, and all monuments of idolatry.”
The magistrate’s place and calling requires him to remove all false worship and all monuments of idolatry.
Or
Q-118 “What is the charge of keeping the sabbath more specially directed to governors of families, and other superiors?”
The answer says that it is directed to other superiors, because “they are bound not only to keep it themselves, but to see that it be observed by all those that are under their charge.”
Other superiors include the civil magistrate.
It looks to me like Dr. R. Scott Clark needs to recover the Reformed Confessions on the issue of Christian Nationalism because those documents clearly support Christian Nationalism.
But let us not deal merely in generalities. Let us dig into the subterranean chambers of Dr. R. Scott Clark’s and Dr. Kevin DeYoung’s idiocy. Let us take the time to pop their ponderous puss-filled pontifications on the position of Christian Nationalism. In order to do so we examine Clark’s 07 June offering on the same subject on his “The Heidelfog” wherein he quotes Dr. Kevin DeYoung to sustain his vile bile against Biblical Christianity.
First Clark argues that it was the end of sodomy laws combined with the rise of SCOTUS’s Obergefell vs. Hodges decision that made the way for the return of discussion supporting Christian Nationalism. Here Clark is only half right, which means he is completely wrong. Should we be surprised? It is true that pro-sodomy laws and pro-sodomite marriage may have lit the fuse to a return of conversation on Christian Nationalism but the larger issue was the realization of more and more Christians that their nation was embracing a Nationalism that was thoroughly pagan and anti-Christ. More and more Christians began to realize, because of the rise of sodomy and now Tranny-ism and child abuse sex change laws that their nation was indeed embracing a Nationalism but that that Nationalism was pinioned upon hatred of Christianity. So, instead of giving in to the rise of humanist Nationalism a chord was struck to once again begin thinking about Christian Nationalism. So, Clark is right about those issues driving conversation but he is wrong in not realizing that people began waking up to the fact that Nationalism is an inescapable category and that if we have to choose between a anti-Christ Nationalism where sodomy, Tranny-ism, pedophilia and sodomite marriage are expressions of the theology of the land and Christian Nationalism where Biblical morality is the law of the land they would rather rally around the flag of Christian Nationalism.
Clark then goes on to cite Paul Miller’s 2021 Christianity Astray article on Christian Nationalism as a beginning point of conversation on the subject. Clark ties together Miller’s work with Samuel Huntington’s writing on the same subject. Clark then goes out of his way to try and tie Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s “The Case for Christian Nationalism” in with Theonomy — which Clark hates with all the passion of Juliet’s love for Romeo. Clark fails to mention that Wolfe goes out of his way in his volume to communicate that he is no friend to theonomy. Indeed, it is my conviction, as a general equity theonomist that Wolfe’s book fails magnificently precisely because he pins his Christian Nationalism on Natural Law’s anti-theonomic thinking. However, the fact that Wolfe goes out of his way to distance himself from theonomy does not stop the libelous R. Scott Clark from disingenuously seeking to tie Clark to Theonomy. (Alas, if only it were really true.)
Clark next appeals to fellow well educated chucklehead Kevin DeYoung for support for Clarks own vitriol. DeYoung pleas for rejecting Wolfe inveighing;
“The message—that ethnicities shouldn’t mix, that heretics can be killed, that violent revolution is already justified, and that what our nation needs is a charismatic Caesar-like leader to raise our consciousness and galvanize the will of the people—may bear resemblance to certain blood-and-soil nationalisms of the 19th and 20th centuries, but it’s not a nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ.”
Now, I am 75% finished with Wolfe’s book and I would dearly love to have the page number where Wolfe expressly said that “ethnicities shouldn’t mix.” I wish he had said it. I was disappointed he didn’t say it. As such I’d love the exact quote from DeYoung.
Second, how can DeYoung be a Christian minister living in a land where we still routinely kill the unborn and even the newly born and contend that violent revolution isn’t already justified. On this basis alone I think any pulpit worth its salt would be ashamed to be filled by DeYoung.
Third, while I think it is dang near impossible for a Christian prince to rise in Weimerca I certainly would not be opposed if one did arise to set matters straight. I would love for a Protestant Christian Franco, Pinochet, or Salazar to take the helm in this country. Would that God would raise up a Alfred the Great, a Charlemagne, or a Cromwell to lead this country. Can anyone tell me why DeYoung is opposed to a Christian Prince rising up to destroy all the high places in the nation?
Do not fail to notice how DeYoung subtly suggests, via his “blood and soil” descriptor that all who disagree with him on this are closet Nazis. Can DeYoung please tell me why Christian Nationalism that Wolfe puts forth (and frankly which I think is weak sauce) is not a Nationalism that honors and represents the name of Christ? Methinks when Kevin DeYoung talks like this Kevin DeYoung and Bret L. McAtee are serving different Christs because I think that Jesus Christ would be well pleased with that kind of Christian Nationalism.
At this point R. Scott Clark leaves off from quoting DeYoung and gives us more of his own blather. Red Clark, like any good Commie, directly ties Christian Nationalism to Nazism, making explicit what DeYoung offered implicitly;
“Segregationism (known among theonomists as “kinism“) and the lust for a “charismatic Caesar-like leader” should cause any decent American’s blood to run cold. These two features were also essential to the very “blood and soil” nationalism of the Nazis. We fought and won a war against these very things. The idea that religious heretics should be put to death is a repudiation of the first amendment of the Constitution and constitutes an anti-American revolution. Miller has seriously understated the nature and intent of the most popular form of Christian Nationalism.”
Here, I, in a decent and warm-bloodily manner, note;
1.) There have been many many Christian Kings throughout history and many many Christian Kings whom God’s people loved. To suggest that a rise of a good Christian King should make any Christian’s blood run cold reveals again that R. Scott Clark is historically ignorant.
2.) Is it R. Scott Clark’s position that any people who want to retain their heritage, traditions, and even their common bonds of blood are automatically wicked? Is the desire to belong to a set people in a known place really the kind of realities that should make the blood of Christians run cold? I mean, I know that thinking that way makes the blood of Cultural Marxists run cold but why should we think that thinking in such a manner as to love people and place to the point of wanting people and place to carry on into the future is something that makes all decent American’s blood run cold?
Honestly, R. Scott Clark saying that about Kinism makes my blood run cold.