Deconstructing R2K

“I’m doing something with this that I don’t know of any other previous Reformed theologian has done exactly what I’m doing.”

Dr. David Van Drunen

This book is dedicated to the proposition that Radical Two Kingdom theology is not Reformed. There is little argument here with historic Reformed 2K theology. The argument here is pointed at Radical Two Kingdom theology of the type being produced now by nearly every brick and mortar “Reformed” Seminary in America, finding its real impetus from a Seminary in Southern California.

The goal in this humble volume is to do something akin to what both J. Gresham did in “Christianity and Liberalism,” and then later what Cornelius Van Til did in “Christianity and Barthianism.” As Dr. Machen said in his introduction;

“The purpose of this book is not to decide the religious issue of the present day, but merely to present the issue as sharply and clearly as possible, in order that the reader may be aided in deciding it for himself.”

And this writer thinks the same way about R2K as Van Til spoke about Barth in his preface to his magnum opus;

“The present writer is of the opinion that, for all its verbal similarity to historic Protestantism, Barth’s theology is, in effect, a denial of it.”
I claim not to be the equal of Machen or Van Til. Not even close. The touchstone between myself and my betters is the desire to strangle the heresy du jour while it yet remains in the cradle. In my wildest most expansive dreams I would do to R2K what President Andrew Jackson’s recorded on his deathbed that he did to the the second National Bank when he was reputed to have said; “I killed the Bank.”

The word “radical” itself derives from the Latin radix meaning root. The radicals in Radical Two Kingdom land have birthed a theology that completely attacks the roots of traditional and historic Reformed theology. In this reformulation the R2K boys have completely rejected temperance and moderation in their push to redefine the Reformed faith. In attacking the roots of the Reformed faith the consequence is that the whole tree of the Reformed faith is changed into something that it heretofore has never previously been. Like any arch-heretic throughout history, Radical Two Kingdom theology is done in the context of the fierce insistence that they alone are preserving the faith once and forever delivered unto the saints. In all of this there is a disorienting push me, pull you between their simultaneous claims that they are both staying true to the tradition of the faith while at the same time insisting that they are indeed theological innovators.

The Jesuit trained chief guru of R2K explicitly does just this at the 37minute mark of the below linked interview.

https://reformedforum.org/podcasts/ctc633/

Within just a few short seconds Dr. Van Drunen manages to invoke that he is on the side of the angels (Voss, Kuyper, Bavinck) while at the same time admitting that he is being innovative. Now add to this that you will see quotes in the subsequent chapters from the types the Van Drunen invokes that will testify that they would have never have recognized Van Drunen’s theology as related to their Reformed theology. If you follow at all the R2K debate within the Reformed church you will find this “push me – pull you” phenomenon repeatedly.

This push me-pull you argumentation has been identified by some as an informal fallacy called the Motte and Baily argument technique. R2K makes some outlandish claims that reveals their real out of bounds theology (the Bailey). However when they are called out on the transparently ridiculous claims they hightail it to safer ground (the Motte) insisting that they were merely advancing traditional historic 2K arguments. If the Bailey is more controversial territory, the Motte is a modest and easily defensible position. It all becomes very convenient as it becomes a device whereby legitimate charges of heresy can be easily snuffed out by insisting; “that all I was saying was ….” From there the R2K boys can claim that their original transparently ridiculous claims have not been refuted. Failing that the R2K boys will act all butt hurt because the R2K critic has been unreasonable for attacking an imagined Bailey when all they were championing was a long accepted Motte. You see the trick here is conflating the push me with the pull you / the Motte with the Bailey. It is as clever as Hades.

To repeat what was said earlier the problem that is being attacked in this book is not historic traditional 2K theology (the Motte). Instead what is being attacked is the Bastardized version of 2K known now popularly as R2K (the Bailey).

So as to be clear as to what is and is not under assault in this volume let us take a look, in this introduction of some of the differences between historic traditional 2K theology and R2K “theology.”

R2K desires to split the two kingdoms as between the grace realm (Institutional Church) and the common realm (everything else that does not pertain to the Church). The grace realm is to be ruled by God’s special revelation while the common realm is ruled by natural law. This bifurcation is the steroid application of “Law vs. Gospel” thinking to literally every area of life. The common realm is law. The grace realm is Gospel. Never shall the twain meet.

The problem with this is when Calvin talked about the Two Kingdoms this is not what the man had in mind. The reality of the Two Kingdoms is not as simplistic as the R2K fanboys desire to make it. Calvin’s vision of the Two Kingdoms can not be reduced to a common realm that is ruled by natural law and a grace realm ruled by gospel. First of all in this arrangement one wonders where the Kingdom is that Paul says we were delivered from (Colossian 1:13)? Perhaps R2K should become R3K?

Calvin was far more nuanced in his explanation of two kingdom theology. Consider:

In 4.20, Calvin writes:

Still the distinction does not go so far as to justify us in supposing that the whole scheme of civil government is matter of pollution, with which Christian men have nothing to do. Fanatics, indeed, delighting in unbridled license, insist and vociferate that, after we are dead by Christ to the elements of this world, and being translated into the kingdom of God sit among the celestials, it is unworthy of us, and far beneath our dignity, to be occupied with those profane and impure cares which relate to matters alien from a Christian man. To what end, they say, are laws without courts and tribunals?

But what has a Christian man to do with courts? Nay, if it is unlawful to kill, what have we to do with laws and courts? But as we lately taught that that kind of government is distinct from the spiritual and internal kingdom of Christ, so we ought to know that they are not adverse to each other. The former, in some measure, begins the heavenly kingdom in us, even now upon earth, and in this mortal and evanescent life commences immortal and incorruptible blessedness, while to the latter it is assigned, so long as we live among men, to foster and maintain the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church, to adapt our conduct to human society, to form our manners to civil justice, to conciliate us to each other, to cherish common peace and tranquillity.

All these I confess to be superfluous, if the kingdom of God, as it now exists within us, extinguishes the present life. But if it is the will of God that while we aspire to true piety we are pilgrims upon the earth, and if such pilgrimage stands in need of such aids, those who take them away from man rob him of his humanity.

(Institutes 4.20.2)

Here we see where R2K departs from Calvin on two kingdom theology. Per Calvin the spiritual kingdom touches on the eternal life that is begun in us; and “it is not to this kingdom” that the external worship of God belongs, but rather the external worship of God belongs to the kingdom of courts and tribunals “so long as we live among men” (having the purpose of) “maintaining the external worship of God, to defend sound doctrine and the condition of the Church…”

Calvin is unmistakably clear here: “the external worship of God belongs to the civil or temporal kingdom.” This statement stands in shark contrast to the claims of the R2K fanboys. For Calvin the worship of God and the condition of the Church are matters of public concern that belong, in R2K language, to the common kingdom. Tell it not in Gath. Publish it not in the streets of Askelon. Proclaim it not in the citadels of Escondido.

Clearly there is a distinction between the two kingdoms but the distinction is not the divorce that R2K envisions.

The purpose of this book is not to wade into the the various nuances of two Kingdom theology throughout history. A subject that probably is fitting for some doctoral dissertation. The purpose is to show that R2K’s insistence that their understanding of 2K theology is the traditional historic Reformed 2K is completely bunk. Further, the purpose is to examine what R2K “theology” does to the various theological categories of Reformed theology.

Perhaps the most grievous injury to the Reformed church that R2K inflicts is to mute the prophetic voice of the pulpit. Because R2K insists that the pulpit must be silent about all that lies in R2K’s “common realm” the minister therefore has his tongue cut out from him in inveighing against the moral meltdown of our broader culture. Because of the “theology” of R2K God’s people have no compass … “have no thus saith the Lord” echoing from the pulpit and so are left blind and dumb as to how to lean into the pagan culture we are now living in. A mist in the pulpit leads to a fog in the pew. And R2K loves it so.

R2K theology also guarantees that no future Calvin, or Knox will ever be ordained to Reformed pulpits. Can you imagine a young John Calvin trying to defend these statements before a R2K infested Presbytery?

“The Lord does not give Kings the right to use their power to subject the people to tyranny. Indeed when Liberty to resist tyranny seems to be taken away by princes who have taken over, one can justly ask this question; since kings and princes are bound by covenant to the people, to administer law in truest equality, sincerity and integrity; if they break faith and usurp tyrannical power by which they allow themselves everything they want: is it not possible for the people to consider together taking measures in order to remedy the evil?”

John Calvin

Sermon I Samuel Chapter 8

I have read a volume of sermons by Calvin from Deuteronomy 27 & 28. The volume is entitled “The Covenant Enforced.” Upon finishing it I pushed away and said to my imaginary R2K Seminary Professor, paraphrasing Lloyd Benson to Dan Quayle; “I’ve read John Calvin. Sir, you’re no John Calvin.

Go ahead and read Calvin’s sermons Deuteronomy 27 & 28. Upon reading it I sincerely don’t understand how R2K can even begin to argue that it is an expression of Calvinist theology. The theology of John Calvin as exhibited in this volume (and this is not the first Calvin I’ve read) screams at David Van Drunnen, mocks R. Scott Clark, laughs at Mike Horton and sticks its tongue out at J. V. Fesko. Whatever these men are, they are in no way partakers of Calvin’s Calvinism. Based on these sermons alone John Calvin could not be ordained in many Presbyterian Presbytery today because he would be accused of not having a proper understanding of the distinctions between law and grace.

Calvin does see much of the OT civil law as applicable today. Calvin does see the law coming to people groups and nations and not just to individuals. Calvin does believe that the Magistrate has a responsibility to enforce God’s Law — and that from both Tables. Calvin does not put law and grace in absolute antithesis. God’s Law-Word has a place as a guide to life in the Christian’s life and that Law-Word should resound from the pulpit just as much as the Law-Word in the role of a street lamp to expose sin.

Like it or not Calvin was the worst of all things.. Calvin was a pioneer Theonomist who believed that cultures of all nations needed to be Reconstructed in the direction of God’s revealed Law-Word. Calvin did not hold to a “Law Gospel” hermeneutic as that is currently defined. Calvin was neither Lutheran nor Anabaptist.

If Calvin were alive today he’d make me look like a wimp in this book with his thunderings against the modern antinomian R2K Reformed Church.

The book before you begins by looking at the implications of R2K for several standard Reformed theological categories. In Chapter 1 we take a look at the Epistemological problems of R2K. In chapter 2 we consider the inherent dualism in R2K. Chapter 3 finds us looking at R2K soteriology vis-a-vis Reformed soteriology. In chapter 4 it is on to considering R2K covenantal malfeasance. In chapter 5 we map out R2K’s belief that religion is an escapable category for magistrate and state. In chapter 6 we are on to matters eschatological. Chapter 7 finds us exploring R2K from the mouth of the R2K fan boys. In Chapter 8 we look at R2K and its views of family life. In chapter 9 we take a peek at R2K’s theocratic fears. In chapter 10 we briefly consider some of the “proof” texts R2K appeals to in order to support their cause. In Chapter 11 we consider R2K’s transformation-phobia. In chapter 12 we spend a little bit of time looking at the history of ideas mapping out the strange ideological bedfellows of R2K. These chapters are followed by several appendixes where I provide some of my apologetic encounters with some of the R2K “theologians.”

Pull up a chair, pull out your highlighter, and let’s have a go.

Heidelberg Catechism Sermon — Lord’s Day 30 (Q. 81-82)

This morning we are going to have a sermon based on the Catechism. Preaching the Catechism, once upon the time, is something you would find every Lord’s Day in at least one of the Sermons – morning or evening.

So, as we come to the Table of our Lord we turn to Lord’s Day #30. You can find that in the back of your Psalters if you wish to follow along. We will be looking at Questions 81 & 82.

The Catechism has already spent some time looking at the Eucharist. Here in Q. 81 it asks us;

Question 81: For whom is the Lord’s Supper instituted?

In asking this question the implication is clearly that the Table is not intended for just everyone. The table has a definite audience for which it is appropriate.

Interestingly, when it answers this question the first clause is;

Answer: For those who are truly sorrowful for their sins,6

Here, we are reminded of the Hospital nature of the Church. The Church is a place for healing and comfort. It isn’t always to be a gymnasium where the strong work out. Nor is it to always be an armory where people are armed for the battle. The Church, as the Eucharist proclaims is also a hospital where sin sick sinners, who are sorrowful for their sins come and find the medicine of the Eucharist to eat the bread of forgiveness and to drink the drink of Eternal life.

The catechizers – Olevanius and Zacharias – give us the Scripture to support this part of the answer;

6 Matt. 5:3, 6, Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled.

This “Poor in Spirit” is to whom the Eucharist is pointed. We come to the table as those who understand our sin and further are genuinely sorrowful for our sin.

Brethren, it is so easy for us – especially in this Gomorrahian culture – to fall into the habit of seeing the sins of everybody else and become blind to the reality that we are ourselves sinners. I know I fall into this. We being looking around and see what a mess everything is and we begin to think that we are pretty good.

But the catechism here cuts off at our knees and reminds us that those who are to come to the table are those who are sorrowful for their sins.

So, the question that requires being asked is… “Are you sorrowful for your sin?” “Do you recognize that you are a poor sinner, like all other poor sinners, except that you have been favored with grace?”

It is true that we are more than conquerors. It is true we are defined as those who, along with St. Paul, are forgetting those things which are behind and are pressing ever onward to the high calling of God in Christ Jesus. But the same Paul who could rejoice in those realities could also say that he remained the chief of sinners.

And so we come to the table truly sorrowful for our sins.

We see ourselves besotted with pride. We see our self-centeredness and our desire for self-aggrandizement. We see that we love ourselves above our love to God and our love to our kin, friends, and fellow saints. And we are truly sorrowful that we do not meet the standard of God’s Holy righteousness that we are always called to.

We cannot be a people overwhelmed by God’s pardon over and over again unless we are also the people who are at the same time overwhelmed with our sin.

This disposition has the felicitous consequence of working in us what we all so desperately need and that is the need to be familiar with the virtue of being humble. If we are truly sorrowful for our sin, then it is less likely that pride will be a sand that gets in the gears of all of our relationships.

But the catechism does not stop there… it goes on to say that we come not only as genuinely sorrowful for our sins but also we come trusting that these sins are forgiven for the sake of Christ and further that their remaining impact (infirmities) are covered by His passion and death.

7 Ps. 103:3, Who forgiveth all thine iniquities; who healeth all thy diseases.

So there is a dialectic in the table … a push me pull you if you please. On one hand we come truly sorrowful for our sins but on the other hand we also come trusting that the sins we are truly sorrowful for are forgiven for the sake of Christ.

So we see here that the table preaches Christ. It reminds that God is Holy. That man is sinful. That the only medicine for our sin is Christ in our place. Christ for us. Christ our righteousness. Christ as the one who reconciles us to God. Christ as our mediator and sacrifice. Christ as our redemption and ransom.

So, as you often hear me say, we come to the table convinced that we are great sinners but yet not without knowing that Christ is a greater savior.

And so is married a right estimation of ourselves and a right estimation of Christ for us, the hope of glory.

And yet we are not done yet with the Catechism’s question about for whom the Lord’s Table is instituted.

And who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy;8

Here we are taught that the table has a medicinal effect. It has the effect of strengthening our faith when taken in faith for those who come with that desire. The table is to those who earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened and their lives more holy what eating a power pellet does for certain video game characters. You know… they eat the pellet and they find themselves filled with a greater strength than they had had heretofore.

Those are the people for whom the Lord’s Table is instituted.
1.) For those who are are truly sorrowful for their sin
2.) For those who at the same time are trusting that these sins are forgiven for the sake of Christ and further that their remaining impact (infirmities) are covered by His passion and death.
3.) And who also earnestly desire to have their faith more and more strengthened, and their lives more holy;8

1 Pet. 2:11–12, Dearly beloved, I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works, which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation.

Notice then that the table speaks to Christ outside of us when it talks about how are sins are covered for the sake of Christ while at the same time the table speaks of Christ in us when it talks about the desire to have our faith more and more strengthened and our lives more Holy.

The Catechism thus is not lopsided. It speaks both to the finality of Christ for us outside of us and to the ongoing sanctification wrought by the Spirit of Christ in us as our faith is more and more strenthened.

Before pushing on let us note that if all this is already true then why would any Christian be casual about attending consistently a Church where Word and Sacrament – the means of Grace – are faithfully set forth?

Anyway …. Q. 81 ends with a warning;

but hypocrites, and such as turn not to God with sincere hearts, eat and drink judgment to themselves.9

Ps. 50:15–16, And call upon Me in the day of trouble: I will deliver thee, and thou shalt glorify Me. But unto the wicked God saith, What hast thou to do to declare My statutes, or that thou shouldest take My covenant in thy mouth?

If the table is medicine for the believer who is truly sorrowful for their sin it is also like eating plutonium enriched uranium and drinking some of Putin’s famous poisoned tea for those who hypocrites who take the table not turning to God with sincere hearts.

The table is a high risk, high reward reality. It is a high risk for those who are professional Christians who are merely playing at Christianity and it is a high reward for those who are sincere in their faith.

Brother and Sisters I can’t see into your heart. I don’t know … and can’t know for sure who and who might not be being sincere – who is and who is not playing the hypocrite. But God knows… and I promise you that the table is the last place you want to be gambling.

If you are here and insincere in your faith … if your attitude about sin is casual … if you are just playing at Christianity please have mercy on yourself and don’t come to the table.

Titus 1:16, They profess that they know God; but in works they deny Him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate.

Now, having faithfully given this warning, allow me to say again that the table is for sinners. It’s just not for sinners who are content to remain in their sin. The table is not for those who have no interest in pursuing Christ. But the table is for those who are weary and heavy laden. It is the place where, along with the Word, find Christ and His promises that there is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.

So, it is not my intent to scare you away from the table little flock. However, neither is it the case that I can allow you to come to the table without being a faithful shepherd giving the warnings of Scripture against an approach that amounts trying to have both fellowship with devils while having fellowship w/ God.

91 Cor. 10:20, &c, But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils.

1 Cor. 11:28, &c, But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.

Question 82 continues to clarify the matter flipping the approach from Q. 81. Q. 81 asked who is the table for. Q. 82 asks the Q. “Who is the table not for.”

Question 82: Are they also to be admitted to this supper, who, by confession and life, declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly?

The catechism is nothing if not thorough. Who is to come. Who is not to come.

You might think this is Captain Obvious territory. Yet, the Church is full of people who come to the table who by confession and life declare themselves unbelieving and ungodly.

Note how the question breaks this down.

Those whose confession (their thinking) and those who are ungodly (their behavior) are not to be admitted to the table.

Answer: No; for by this, the covenant of God would be profaned and His wrath kindled against the whole congregation;10 therefore it is the duty of the Christian church, according to the appointment of Christ and His apostles, to exclude such persons11 by the keys of the kingdom of heaven till they show amendment of life.

Note here several matters,

This question presupposes that the Church has a role in determining who and who does not come to the table. We get this by the wording “Are they also to be permitted.” This implies that there is some kind of authority that is permitting and not permitting.

The answer then gets explicit when it talks about it being the duty of the Christian Church, according to the appointment of Christ and His apostles, to exclude such persons11 by the keys of the kingdom of heaven till they show amendment of life.

11Matt. 18:17–18, And if he (the person who doesn’t belong at the table) shall neglect to hear them (Church officers), tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.

I’ve had to be a part of banning people from the table twice. It is never easy to go through this process but love for God, love for the sinner and love for the whole congregation requires such action when necessary. And to be honest, I’ve probably failed terribly for not pushing that envelope more often. There is nothing more than the prospect of Church discipline that will turn someone vehemently hostile.

So, who is it that should be banned from the table per the Catechism answer?

1.) Those whose confession is wrong
2.) Those whose life (behavior) is wrong

The confession error would include anyone who is promulgating doctrine that is contrary to our confessions. So, for example, Arminians, Unitarians, WOKE Christians, R2K etc. should not be allowed to come to the table per this Q & A.

If Luther had succeeded at excising James from the cannon Luther should not have been allowed to come to the table. Similarly, if anyone advocates adding to the cannon beyond the list we find in the Belgic Confession would likely have to join Marcion for deleting from the cannon by not being permitted to come to the table.

But it is not just confession but it is life as well.

And here the questions are more difficult.

It is easy to say that, for example, those who support abortion w/ no repentance, or those who are homosexual or transgender w/o repentance are not to be permitted in coming to the table. However, what about Christians who send their children to Government schools who have both been warned and who can make other arrangements? Does this raise itself to the level of not permitting someone to come to the table? Now … we see how difficult this matter can be.

The catechism tells us what will happen if the Church and her officers don’t do our work here. What happens is that the

God’s wrath is kindled against the whole congregation;

People in Corinth were coming to the table who should not have been coming to the table and St. Paul tells them.

1 Cor. 11:30–31, For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep. For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged.

There are corporate covenantal consequences for allowing those who flaunt God’s grace either by errant confession or life. God’s wrath is kindles against the whole congregation.

Congregation, you should want your church officers to take this seriously lest you be part of a congregation where God’s wrath is kindled because people are coming to the table who are turning God’s grace into license.

Clearly, we should add here, that if you are part of a congregation where the officers aren’t meeting their responsibilities in this area you should think deeply about being part of that congregation.

101 Cor. 10:21, Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord’s table, and of the table of devils.

Which is just to say you can’t have feet in both worlds without consequences.

But let us end by reminding ourselves that all of this is so God’s name – His covenant – might not be profaned. It is all in pursuance that God and the things of God might be kept sacred.

We do not want to scare anyone away from the table. We want to communicate that the grace of God is generous and plenteous for those who are truly sorrowful for their sin. It is only those who have hardened themselves against God’s standard – only those who desire to turn God’s grace into a license to sin who are warned off from the table – for their own sake and the sake of the congregation and most importantly for the sake of God’s reputation.

And so as we head to the table we say Come and find satisfaction in Christ. Come and be reminded that a smoking flax He will not snuff out and a bruised reed he will not break. Come … taste and see that the Lord is good. Be fed by His grace and find here the medicine of grace to continue the fight.

The Canker Work of Political Correctness

Political Correctness is the anti-standard standard, a negative device designed to overthrow traditional (Christian) mores and Institutions. It does so by arguing that the previous standards were arbitrary, oppressive and characteristic of those who colonize. The PC crowd then masqueraded their anti-standard standard in the guise of the demand that academic freedom and tolerance must be allowed to “enlarge” beyond the previous constraining standard that limited the teaching context to the traditional mores.

All of this explains much of the reason behind the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s grandstanding on January 15, 1987,  at Stanford University’s grand main entrance, chanting with 500 Stanford Students the uber poetic,

“Hey hey, ho ho,
Western Civ has got to go.”

Jackson and company were protesting Stanford University’s introductory humanities program known as “Western Culture.” For Jackson and the protesters, the problem was its lack of “diversity.” As a consequence to this romper room protest Stanford’s faculty and administration raced to appease the protesters, and Stanford’s course of “Western Culture” was formally replaced with a new course labeled, “Cultures, Ideas, and Values.”

The new program included works on race, class, and gender and works by ethnic minority and women authors. Western culture gave way to multi-culture. The study of Western civilization succumbed to the Left’s new dogma, multiculturalism.

Notice here that the Stanford’s previous standards here were not expanded so much as they were replaced. The demand of the students most certainly did not lead to more diversity. Instead, the demand of the students eventuated in a remaining narrow curriculum except as channeled in a different direction.

Once the standards were expanded so that for example, students in the University were reading Black Rappers, Native American Hieroglyphics and Lesbian Literature  as being equivalent in value to reading Chaucer, Shakespeare, and Milton the West was in principle finished as Universities around the country moved to being Multi-diversities finding their “Uni” in the lack of “Uni”. By “expanding the standards,” the old Christian standards were tossed and new standards were introduced and codified since at the end of the day the idea of absolute standards is limited to the time available for what is seeking to be accomplished by the University.

By hiding their demands and this agenda behind the full throated enlightenment cry for academic freedom the Politically correct crowd tore down the previous standards implemented new PC standards and forced the Institutions that built the West to become the Institutions that would now tear down the West.

And conservatives were party to this because they did not know how to answer this demand for “free speech” rooted as they were in the classical liberal worldview.

The proper response should have been “Your expansion of standards can go bugger themselves.”

Chambers Gives Us Another Slightly Different Take on Wilson’s Nigerian Anglian Woman

I think that after listening to the criticisms leveled at Doug Wilson for his view that he has more in common with a Nigerian Anglican woman than with his white pagan neighbor, it is quite likely that (Doug) the wordsmith will come back and say that he was speaking qualitatively rather than quantitatively. That he is speaking of importance rather than numbers. That a shared faith is more important than all other considerations. And I think that both parties are missing an element of covenant, i.e. that the Caucasian race is a covenant people. It is the Caucasian that took the Gospel from Asia Minor into Russia and across Europe and eventually to the Americas and reaped the blessings associated with it. Western culture, by which all the world has benefited is the product of the Caucasian Christian mind. Discipling the nations has been quite as Kipling described it, the White Man’s Burden, and we have been blessed with the promises of Deut. 28 because of our faithfulness. Who can deny it? We are a covenant people and there is a shared covenant bond between each of us and the members of our race as a whole. But the modern western church has a truncated individualistic view of covenant and no longer thinks in broad covenantal terms. Even the unity of the family, the basic building block of culture, is being obliterated. One need only look at the second half of Deut 28 to see it. The alien will rise higher and higher while we sink lower and lower. They will be the head and we will be the tail. We were blessed as a covenant race and now like Esau, having rejected our birthright, we are being likewise judged for our apostasy.

Israel is our example. When the alien was in the land he was subject to the stipulations of God’s law and reaped both its benefits and punishments. He was treated fairly. And though the alien could claim and serve the true God, there was a distinction drawn. He was not allowed to own land, he could not rule, and Israel was forbidden to go after foreign wives. Inter-marriage was not allowed. Why do we imagine that things are different now? Yes we share Christ with all those who bow the knee but that does not eliminate all the other God ordained distinctions. He set the boundaries of the habitations of all peoples. Who do we think we are to violate them?