Carl, Buster, and Hoy

I was born in 1959. As such I am old enough to have memories of the vets who fought in World War II. I knew three of them fairly well. All three of them were two generations older than me.  Two of the three were Buster McFadden and Hoy Bundrick.  I met them as connected to the first Church I served in Longtown, South Carolina. The third vet I knew the best was my own Grandfather; Carl Edward Jacobs.

Buster McFadden (John Clyde McFadden) was born in 1920 and my relationship to Buster was as the chief Elder in the first Church I served (Longtown Presbyterian Church). If it had not been for God raising up Buster in my life, it is, at least doubtful, that I would have ever ended up in the Ministry. I had been almost 2 years out of Seminary and all my resumes had been greeted with silence. Then one night out of the blue Buster phoned me and asked if I could fill the pulpit the coming Sunday. The chap who had been filling the pulpit for them (J. Tomlinson) was a couple years ahead of me in Seminary and due to some unforeseen circumstances JT was moving on and JT had left my name with Buster as a possible candidate to fill the pulpit. When Buster phoned I wasted no time responding with a energetic “yes,” to his offer. One week turned into two weeks which turned into two months which turned into a call to permanently Pastor the small rural Southern congregation. There are many many stories here but in this entry we want to focus on Buster.

I quickly learned that Buster was a WW II vet. He had fought in the Italian campaign and like many men who have seen combat he did not speak a great deal about his time in combat in Europe. He had mentioned buddies that had been seriously hurt and killed in a general way. I also remember Buster telling me how he used to get ribbed by this comrades for being a good old Southern boy.

Buster loved Longtown Presbyterian Church. He was the keyboardist for the hymn service even though he couldn’t read a note of music. He played all by ear. It was amazing to me how he could do that. Not only was Buster the main Elder and the Church musician he also mow the large church lawn weekly with a push mower. He would also often go with me when I did Church visitation and even occasionally hospital visits.

More than all this, in order to bring Jane and I and the girls (Anthony was not yet part of the family) out to Longtown SC, Buster arranged with the congregation’s approval to purchase a doublewide home and place it on the Church property as Church’s new Manse. He further provided a glorious front porch, children’s play house, and an out building for storage. Jane and I were convinced we had fallen into paradise. (If you knew where we had been living in Columbia SC, that would make more sense to you dear reader.)

One of my clearest memories of Buster was on a occasion when I was especially discouraged because I had suffered a particular loss in something I was pursuing. Buster, somehow had heard of my struggles and he showed up at the Manse and on our large front porch he addressed me.

“Get up. Get up. You can’t let this bring you down. You must rise above this. We need you here. Get up. Get up. Get up.”

I was shocked. This man of few words cared enough for me and for the Church that he would speak more at that time to me than he ever did at any one time in the whole time I served with him.

Like all of us Buster had his quirks. He always wore brown khakis — shirt and trouser and jacket. He didn’t much drive his brown khaki colored truck much over 45 mph up and down Longtown Road. He could be a real challenge to get around to this or that project that needed done. However, there wasn’t many other doing projects at the Manse or Church and so it is understandable if it took awhile for projects to be attended to.

Like any Grandfather, Buster loved his children and grandchildren and could often be found doting on them.

I can still hear and see in my mind’s eye Buster’s gentle laughter. He was a good man to have as my first Elder. He knew when I came there that I was still working through some Reformed issues in my mind (especially Baptism) but when I told him this he said, “Well, Bret, I will tell you what, if you promise to continue to do your reading and studying on these matters we will be patient with you coming around.” Within two years I baptized my three toddlers.

Yes, I know, from a Reformed polity position this was hardly according to Hoyle but it worked for me and I’m not sure any other arrangement would have worked. I thank God for Buster’s presence and patience in my life.

There in Longtown Buster had a friend named Hoy Bundrick. Hoy was also two generations ahead of me and had fought in World War II. More than once he told me the story of how he was with Patton in Europe and he figured having been with Patton in Europe he wasn’t going to be shy about asking Dot’s Father if he could marry Dot. It seems being with Patton in Europe filled Hoy with confidence.

Hoy, like Buster, was a good man. I slaughtered my first hog with Hoy and learned how to “use everything but the ‘oink.’ Hoy was routinely hosting pig roasts. He invited me to my first “Turkey shoot” and took me around the community introducing me to people that needed to be ministered to. Hoy consistently attended our midweek Bible Study, though he was true blue to his “Church of God — Anderson Indiana” connections. By that connection Hoy took me to my first “foot washing” ceremony. I’ve never done another one since.

Hoy loved Jesus and “the Lord” was always on Hoys mind. He would spend a good deal of time grilling me about this or that aspect of doctrine or denominational differences.

Hoy was also generous with his time. I was working two jobs (the Ministry and 30 plus hours a week with United Airlines in Columbia SC) and sometimes I didn’t know if I was coming or going. Hoy would, at those times, step into the gap and do this or that around the house. Hoy would cut the lawn, or fix this or that breakage (Air-conditioning, fans, etc.) in the Manse.

The thing about Buster and Hoy is that even though I was forty years their junior they always treated me with respect and honor. I never had to fight for my place with these men. Maybe it was a Southern thing. Maybe it was a military thing. Whatever it was they made me feel comfortable in my own skin. I did not have to put on pretensions with any of the congregation at Longtown SC. They loved Jane and I for who we were, warts and all.

The third WW II vet I knew was a man I knew the best of all three. His name was Carl Edward Jacobs. He was my Grandfather. Carl was born in 1916 and so when the war broke out he was 25, married, and with two children. Those men were a little lower on the draft board priority list and Grandpa Jacobs didn’t end up going to Europe until a little bit later. However, there was still plenty of fighting to be done.

More than Buster and Hoy, my grandfather spoke more about the war. However, this conversation didn’t happen until the last 5 years or so of his life. There were a couple thing particularly he confided to me in a conversation. I never coaxed this information. It just came in the context of a grandson talking to his grandfather.

The first arresting thing that Grandpa told me was about what happened to him during his time fighting in the Battle of the Bulge. Grandpa was driving with the Big Red One moving men and supplies around. If you remember the Bulge was the last large German offensive push. The German army now was exhausted and depleted of men and as such the German offensive was manned by soldiers who had seen either too many winters or too few. There was German boys fighting as soldiers.

My grandfather had captured some of them. He brought them back to the Commanding Officer to ask what to do with them. Now, if you remember the Germans came within a whisper of breaking through the Allied defensive perimeter and if they had it would have been a new war. As such matters were hot and heavy. This included the disposition of Prisoners of War. Grandfather had these German kid soldiers who were POW’s and he asked the C/O what to do with them. The C/O told him “Take them out back there and shoot them.” Grandpa Jacobs responded, “I can’t do that. I have boys back home not much younger than these boys.”

Grandpa Jacobs also said he was part of the liberating forces of some of the German concentration camps. He spent some time describing what he saw there. It left an impression on him. I don’t know if he realized that what he saw would be the inevitable result of any nation with prisoners who could no longer even feed their own soldiers on the front lines. I don’t subscribe to the modern narrative that the Germans were building death camps that were any more remarkable than the concentration camps of all other combatant forces in terms of attempting to kill people.

Grandpa Jacobs was decorated (Bronze star as I recall) for his valor during the Battle of the Bulge. It seems he helped clear a road for the trucks to get through after a superior officer had told him to “give it up, and turn back.” He was a determined man (some might say stubborn) so it did not surprise me in the least that he cleared the road after some Lewy told him to turn around.

I could never know for sure but I think Grandpa Jacobs wore some of the hardness of that war through the rest of his life. Granted, up to that point he had had a pretty hard life and so maybe it wasn’t the war but just hard-scrabbling it as a child in a really bad family life during the depression.

The man was a workaholic. To this day I’ve never seen a man work harder, morning, noon, and night as my Grandfather. There are many stories down this line that perhaps will be told another. Suffice it to say that being a dairy farmer found him up at dawn to milk, to then move on to the other chores (hay, chopping wood, silage, tending to the other crops, etc.) to be done to keep the farm afloat, to be followed by the evening milking. Today my standard for working hard remains the memory of how that man worked on the farm.

Hoy, Buster, and Carl — three men from what is called “the silent generation.” Three men whose lives ended up being bound up with what happened “over there.” Three good men who did not fight and watch their buddies die in order that this country would become what it now is. Were they alive still they all would take up arms again, only this time to overthrow the Communists in Washington and in every state capital in America.

They were good men. Not perfect but honorable and men today are not the men they were.

I thank God that I was given the gift of knowing each one of them.

Replacement Theory as Proxy War

Given that the attack on White people is a proxy war w/ the real intent of attacking the Lord Jesus Christ so as to roll him off His throne, any refusal to defend the attempt to replace and even extinguish White people when they are wrongly and summarily attacked is a refusal to defend the reign of the Lord Jesus Christ and thus demonstrates that such refuseniks are cowards and traitors to the Sovereign rule of Jesus Christ as well to their own people.

Yes … it is that serious.

If the Church can’t figure out that faggotry is sin, how do you expect it to figure out that Kinism is righteousness?

If running with the footmen makes the Church weary how shall it ever keep up with the chariots?

The Symbiotic Relationship Between Cultural Marxism and R2K

People often don’t see the cheek by jowl relationship between R2K and Cultural Marxism. Together they are the positive and negative movements to overthrow Christianity in the Church of Jesus Christ. R2K disallows the Church as from the pulpit to speak contrary to the agenda of the Cultural Marxists. This has the effect of creating a vacuum in the church on many subjects that then allow the input of the broader culture — saturated as it is with the teachings of Cultural Marxism — to take captive the thinking of God’s people in the pew.

So, negatively R2K holds back the Church’s ability to bring a “thus saith the Lord” to the cultural conversation allowing Cultural Marxist to positively fill the gap by giving a word of the Lord from their Lord Beelzebub via Universities, Secondary Schools, Media, and other sources.

Those who embrace and teach R2K hate Jesus Christ and should be excommunicated from His Church.

As God’s people we Christians are created in God’s image and so intuitively
desire to shape the world consistent with the image of God that we are. God has shaped us in His image and so we are rabid to shape the world in the image wherein we have been created.

Because there is no such thing as neutrality people will either seek to  shape all of life to the glory of God or they will seek to shape it in rebellion against God. In our living this neither ground that allows us to be neutral nor is there ground that is common in the sense that it neither honors nor dishonors the Creator God.

The church has failed to teach this simple truth robustly, leaving many Christians empty and desiring something that will shape the world in a God honoring direction. The Church, via God’s revelation, has answers to the problems that people can’t help but see but the Church has grown silent under the whip hand of Radical Two Kingdom Theology and the result is that God’s people look for answers from others who see the problems that the Christian sees only to be disappointed because Christ haters, even if they analyze the problem correctly, will always give incomplete solutions.

Marxism in it’s various forms offer terrible solutions, but because it actually seeks to do something about problems in the world, people flee to it. The church has the answer, but has failed God’s people in providing it because she has failed to preach the whole counsel of God to the whole of life.

Cultural Marxism will never be defeated and consigned to the sulfur pit until R2K in the Church is first cast into the lake of fire from which it originated.

From the Mailbox; Dear Pastor, What About Equity?

Dear Bret,

“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;

https://biblehub.com/hebrew/4339.htm

This link is also helpful;

https://strongsconcordance.org/results.html?k=equity

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.

Pastor Bret

 

 

 

R. Scott Clark’s Opining on Christian Nationalism Rejected — Part III

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?

https://nypost.com/2013/09/08/rfk-jr-s-sex-diary-of-adultery/

RSC writes,

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.