RSS

Category Archives: Theology

Everyone who claims that only one side deserved condemnation at Charlottesville…

… is on the side of SJWs who hate Christianity and white people, like the tweeter highlighted in this conservative tweeter’s post:

If you are Christian, you ought to oppose unrighteous violence, period, and recognize when there’s blame to go around on more than one side. (Self-defence may be righteous violence, as may be a just war, etc.)

Advertisements
 
10 Comments

Posted by on August 20, 2017 in religion, spirituality, Theology

 

Dreher goes off the rails

I’ve long been of two minds about Rod Dreher.

On the one hand, he is a Christian who is solidly traditionalist conservative as regards social issues, and is a keen observer of the scene, and has demonstrated a decent grasp of the big picture, the implications of current events, as regards such matters. His ‘Benedict Option’ seems, from all I’ve read about it, to be a well-thought out analysis of and response to the culture war status quo. His Law of Merited Impossibility predicts and explains the usual prog pattern of pooh-poohing notions of ‘slippery slope’, till they come true: “That will never happen, and when it does, you bigots will deserve it!” We’ve seen this time and time again, if anyone has paid any attention to the culture war from the early 1990s onwards…

But on the other hand, he’s also the wannabe hippie who invented the ‘crunchy con’ term, and promoted it heavily a decade and a half or so ago, embracing the notion of granola-eating, organic off-the-grid conservatives who homeschool and embrace homeopathic remedies, etc. In other words, who have much in common with alternative lifestyle (heterosexual, monogamous) progs. And today, he’s known as a bearded, craft-brew-swilling, Eastern Orthodox (but anti-Putin) hipster-wannabe, who feels the need to police the right for the slightest trace of anything that progs might consider ‘racism’, and condemn it fiercely. He desperately wants to be accepted by progs, and this makes him go over the top frequently, esp. with regards to Trump.

Now he’s attacking the founder of his own magazine, Pat Buchanan, accusing him of a ‘shameful’, ‘disgusting’ ‘defence of white supremacism’:

I was stunned just now to read the disgusting, racist, indefensible thing that Pat Buchanan has written in his syndicated column in response to the Confederate statue controversy:

Looking back over the history of a Western Civilization, which we call great, were not the explorers who came out of Spain, Portugal, France, Holland and England all white supremacists?

They conquered in the name of the mother countries all the lands they discovered, imposed their rule upon the indigenous peoples, and vanquished and eradicated the native-born who stood in their way.

Who, during the centuries-long discovery and conquest of the New World, really believed that the lives of the indigenous peoples were of equal worth with those of the colonizers?

More:

“All men are created equal” is an ideological statement. Where is the scientific or historic proof for it? Are we building our utopia on a sandpile of ideology and hope?

I don’t see what’s racist about any of that. Surely nobody thinks that the explorers of yesteryear were racial egalitarians, and ‘all men are created equal’ is indeed an ideological statement. You don’t find that taught in Scripture, for one thing – but that’s precisely where Dreher goes completely off the rails:

With that, Buchanan repudiates not only the founding principle of our Constitutional order, but also a core teaching of the Christian faith, which holds that all men are created in the image of God. It is fine to disbelieve in egalitarianism as an ideology and as a basis for policy. Most conservatives do, and most conservatives rightly reject the idea that all cultures are equally good. And it is reasonable to argue against the puritan iconoclasts who would destroy monuments and historical memory in the name of a mindless, ideological dogmatism.

Ah, no; just because Scripture teaches that all men bear the Imago Dei does not mean that Scripture teaches that all men are equal in anything other than all possessing souls, and all equally needing to repent and be saved. It does NOT mean that all men are equal in intelligence, strength, character, morality, ability. No; all men remain individuals, yet members of groups simultaneously, and so it’s not unfair to judge people as members of groups; in fact, Scripture has Paul repeating and endorsing an ethnic stereotype, about Cretans, thus giving Biblical sanction for making broad generalizations about groups of people; whether it is ‘racist’ in modern eyes or not, the Bible is okay with such, so long as of course one doesn’t treat people unfairly and unjustly.

Dreher continues ranting and raving:

But that’s not what this is. Buchanan is not meditating on the tragic nature of history, as any conservative worth the name must do. No, in this column, Buchanan is defending white supremacy, straight up.

It is abhorrent, and must be rejected in the strongest terms by conservatives. If this is where the Right is going, it can go right off that racist cliff without me.

Oh please, settle down. Have a craft brew and relax. Pat Buchanan is just shrewdly acknowledging history, and correctly noting a paradox at the heart of America’s ideological commitment to classical liberalism; that it holds to an ideological principle which is demonstrably false. We could say that, because all men are equally sinners in God’s eyes but also equally made in God’s image, that all men deserve to be treated the same with no special privileges or partiality shown to some over others; indeed, Scripture especially emphasizes this in many different contexts, both socioeconomic and ethnic. Nothing wrong and everything right with that. But that doesn’t mean that all men are actually equal in anything other than their position relative to our common Creator. The phrase ‘all men are created equal’ is just classical liberal ideological cant. Buchanan is right.

The comments on his post are interesting. You have the usual progs he lets bloviate on his blog (while barring comments from the likes of even me, a mixed-race reactionary), agreeing with him and commending him for his stance, though some castigating him for it having took so long, etc. But there are also several commenters who think he’s gone off the deep end, which he clearly has, IMO.

By the way, how interesting of Dreher to link to a Townhall.com mirror of Buchanan’s column, rather than the one directly hosted at Dreher’s magazine’s own site, here. I can’t imagine why he would do that…

 
16 Comments

Posted by on August 19, 2017 in America, race, The Kulturkampf, Theology

 

How relationship raises the questions of religion

Great observation by Herman Bavinck, indeed. And thus, we see the absurdity of those evanjellyfish who eschew emphasizing that Christianity is a religion, calling it just a faith. After all, faith is just belief, but religion is living out faith in communion with other fellow believers, and the outworking of that faith in the world. Any ostensible Christian who de-emphasizes religion’s importance is missing out on the big picture.

memoirandremains

J.H. Bavinck:

As long as he is occupied with himself only and looks no further, he can fancy himself to be self-sufficient. But as soon as he becomes aware of his relationships, he becomes stupefied, and asks: What am I in this great cosmos? What am I over and against the norm, that strange phenomenon in my life that has authority over me? What am I in my life that speeds on and on–a doer or a victim? What am I in the face of that remarkable feeling that overwhelms me sometimes, that feeling that everything must change and that things are not right as they are? What am I over against that very mysterious background of existence, the divine powers? It is in this area of existential relations that man is confronted with the crucial matters of life–and one of these is religion. Religion convinces man that there are…

View original post 41 more words

 
2 Comments

Posted by on June 28, 2017 in religion, spirituality, Theology

 

Remember when Global Christianity was Shaming the Church in the West?

Remember when Global Christianity was Shaming the Church in the West?

Interesting; we’ve long been told how Christianity in the Third World is putting Western Christianity to shame. And maybe overall, it is. But the huge grown of the heretical ‘prosperity gospel’ in places like Nigeria and Brazil show that not all is well with the Church there, either… Something to be kept in mind, if/when we’re tempted towards jealousy…

Old Life

Fifteen years ago, bookies were betting on the Global South:

Today the Christian total stands at 360 million out of 784 million, or 46 percent. And that percentage is likely to continue rising, because Christian African countries have some of the world’s most dramatic rates of population growth. Meanwhile, the advanced industrial countries are experiencing a dramatic birth dearth. Within the next twenty-five years the population of the world’s Christians is expected to grow to 2.6 billion (making Christianity by far the world’s largest faith). By 2025, 50 percent of the Christian population will be in Africa and Latin America, and another 17 percent will be in Asia. Those proportions will grow steadily. By about 2050 the United States will still have the largest single contingent of Christians, but all the other leading nations will be Southern: Mexico, Brazil, Nigeria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Ethiopia, and the…

View original post 1,092 more words

 

Video: Muslim in Canada defends pedophilia

So Muslims in the West are still defending their founder’s marriage of a six-year-old girl, and consummation when she was age nine…

Their worldview is not compatible with ours.

It’s as simple as that.

Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar

They’re getting so bold, aren’t they?

I think the only sensible reply to this is Deus Vult.

“Silence is consent.”

The feminists say nothing.

This completely contradicts the notion of consent, which is a positive construct that must be actively given, in all law, so I would question the translation of that word. It must mean something else, Islam knows no such thing as consent. There is only its meaning, ‘submission’. Submission is never consensual, it is coerced. Coercion is like blackmail in another signed (non-marital) contract, it vitiates consent, it becomes invalid. One must be free to consent.

Lying about the conjoined medical phenomena of menstruation and puberty is another strike against reason.

This entire sham of a religion is merely an excuse for war. No other religion is warmongering. It is totally incompatible with the West and its culture and people.

View original post

 

More reasons to disagree with chaplaincies

From here:

Peter Berger notices a sector of American religiosity where true inclusion and diversity reigns — the military chaplaincy:

One particularly interesting development is that the military chaplaincy, in its Protestant group, is increasingly filled with Evangelicals, who feel more at home in the military than among largely liberal mainline clergy, whose concerns over gender and multiculturalism Evangelicals don’t resonate with. Some years ago I presided over a seminar dealing with whatever issues members of the seminar were concerned about. One of the seminar students was an Evangelical Air Force chaplain. This was the issue she wanted to think through: She served on a small base in the Arctic where she was the only Protestant chaplain. Of course she was not expected to perform religious services that did not agree with her own beliefs. But she was expected to facilitate services for any group of Air Force personnel. A group of Air Force women wanted to perform the rituals of Wicca, which defines itself as a modernized version of the old witches’ Sabbath. How, she asked, could she help organize a worship service of the devil without betraying the core of her Christian faith? I tried to convince her that the devil part was not to be taken seriously, that Wicca was a rather harmless form of nature worship—dancing naked in the moonlight and showing respect for menstrual blood. She said that the way I spoke about this showed I did not take the religious beliefs of this group seriously. I’m afraid she was quite right. In the end she had no choice unless she wanted to resign from the chaplaincy—so the would-be witches did their thing as facilitated by a nonsectarian Evangelical minister. (Religious freedom bears strange fruit, including the struggle of conscience of an Evangelical pastor ordered to go against her conscience by her commanding officer.)

Just more of the crap that happens with chaplaincies in the U.S. military these days (see previous examples here, here, here, and here), which, along with the aspect of in effect blessing the State’s wars, have made me wonder why churches bother sending chaplains to the military. (I’ve also wondered why should the State bother having chaplaincies, but I get why they do; to invoke God’s blessing upon their enterprise, though whether to use such to garner support for imperialism or to convince themselves they’re doing right, I don’t know nor care.)

 

Should traditionalist congregations rent space from organizations we otherwise find problematic?

In the Reformed tradition of which I am a part, many if not most of our churches have their own buildings, but some rent space for worship and/or midweek church activities in other spaces, of various kinds; sometimes in school gymnasiums (sometimes from Christian schools but other times from secular, public schools); other times in ethnic community halls, or service club / fraternal organization halls (e.g. Lions or Rotary; or Shriners / Masons, Orange Order, etc.). And other times, congregations rent church buildings belonging to other denominations, sometimes evangelical churches but more often than not old mainline Protestant churches; sometimes these are hardly used at all any more by the denominations to which they belong; other times they are still used regularly, and so our service times have to be planned to be sufficiently separated from their own, if possible, so you don’t have overlap of cars in the parking lot (space limitation issues), etc.

And I know this is not only true for my tradition, but for other Reformed denominations / federations, and not only, but there are many other cases of various denominations renting space in other churches. (For that matter, a Reformed church I previously belonged to had an Asian evangelical congregation renting space in it. And that scenario, of newer ethnic congregations renting older churches’ buildings, is fairly common.)

Returning to the specific subject of conservative, traditionalist churches renting space in church buildings belonging to often heretical, if not outright apostate, mainline Protestant denominations, or to secular public schools (which already get government money, and which all too often attack the beliefs we hold, and those students in them that are faithful believers), fraternal organizations we may find problematic (whether Freemasons or Orangemen or other lodges), part of me wonders: should we be giving them regular financial support this way, week by week? I mean, I understand the way elders in our churches must be looking at it: simply as an economic transaction. They have a space they’re not using or not using all the time at least; we need a space, therefore let’s rent from them. I get that, but OTOH, when I’ve been part of a congregation meeting in, say, a mainline Protestant church building, and I see their sign out front reading ‘Minister: Rev. Jane Smith’; their ‘inclusive’ songbooks or worse, ‘inclusive’ ‘Bibles’ in the pews (even though we’re not using them), their stupid multiculturalism-and-‘diversity’-promoting banners on the walls, and I think, many of these congregations are or would likely be struggling but get regular life-saving injections of money from us traditionalist conservative confessional orthodox Protestants, I wonder why the hell we are subsidizing our enemies. Same with when we meet in a secular, public school gymnasium; we’re giving more money to a beast that already has its own means of financing, including against our will, in the form of our tax dollars, and is often teaching godless, atheistic secular humanist anti-Christian worldview prog agitprop, against everything we believe; why should we give them one red cent more than is extorted from us by the State through our taxes?

If we can’t afford our own buildings at a particular time, shouldn’t we at least find a space to rent space from that either supports something we believe in (e.g. a Christian school gymnasium) or at least something we’re neutral towards (e.g. a Lions Club International or Rotary International hall)? Wouldn’t that be the most godly use of our money, even if it isn’t necessarily the cheapest place to rent? Would not God be more honoured by such a decision, rather than giving money to our enemies?

I mean, surely it’s one thing to buy an old building outright from an apostate / heretical mainline Protestant denomination that isn’t using it, giving them a one-time injection of wealth, then owning the building for ourselves thereafter; it’s another to regularly financially support those who oppose the true Triune God and His ways and His people and what we believe in, stand for, and practice, in our day to day lives, voting, etc.

Of course, until we have our own buildings, we could alternately meet in each others’ homes – like the early church did (see here, here, here, and here). (I’ve myself belonged to churches that have done this, and have found it a blessing.) I don’t know why that alternative isn’t more popular, given that it is directly Biblical…

 
21 Comments

Posted by on April 23, 2017 in religion, spirituality, The Kulturkampf, Theology