The Christian Technologist & Craftsman

Recently, Chalcedon gave a good post, tailored to the need of Christian technologists, craftsmen, and other specialists who plan to use their brains and hands and tools to expand the Kingdom of God.

Extensively quoted below, from Martin G. Selbrede’s article The Smiths of Zechariah:


It’s not without reason that R. J. Rushdoony’s comments on Zech. 1:18–21 continue to speak to our era. The passage is addressed to God’s embattled flock, surrounded on all sides by enemies (the “four horns” of verse 18) intent on scattering her. God’s people “had begun their task of reconstruction,” but “their efforts at reconstruction seemed feeble … and they were deeply discouraged … As they turned from one side to the other they saw only hostility” for “they were totally encircled by enemies. They were a handful, some 40,000 against millions.” God acknowledges to His people that “indeed, you are surrounded by power.”1

God appoints four smiths or craftsmen, viz., workers in wood, iron, and stone (rendered “carpenters” in the KJV) to fray the horns, or as Rushdoony puts it, to “dehorn every horn.” Rushdoony entitled this vision “For Every Oppressor a Destroyer,” summarizing it thus: “The powers are around you but God has already appointed the destroyers. Have no fear. Your task, therefore, awaits you.” God has appointed the means for destroying those hostile to His Kingdom.

Rushdoony prefaces his discussion of this vision by pointing out the “two great evils that have characterized human activities in culture after culture and plague us even in the Church.” These are quietism (which degenerates into a mysticism leading to a “total withdrawal from all things”) and the “kind of activism that feels a responsibility for the whole world” that amounts to playing God, requiring perpetual vigilance to prevent the world from disintegrating. Both evils involve the individual in identifying themselves as God (either in ceaseless action or in transcendent unconcern), which Rushdoony illustrates.

The activist believes “the world will not function if they do not keep up their perpetual concern, their perpetual activism. Such activism is, of course, playing at being God. It is wrong and it is foolish.” We will return to this point of Rushdoony’s shortly, but we must also note what other commentators have seen in this vision concerning the fraying of the horns, what W. S. Lewis calls the peculiar nature and peculiar instrument of God’s defense against the horns:

Not other “horns” to push against these; not other men of war to overcome these; but artificers only, men of peace.2

Lewis suggests that “the best defence at that time to God’s people” was to be “engaged in building,” and that this is the appointed means for toppling all the horns of the enemy: faithfulness. In other words, not by might nor by power but by what Rushdoony elsewhere called “the spirit-filled men.”3 The task of building, of reconstruction, ultimately voids and breaks the power of God’s enemies. The word translated “smiths,” charashim, involves skilled work done quietly:

charashim … denotes silent thought or attention; [in some forms] to contrive, devise in silence; hence applied as a noun to an artificer of any kind, and to any work which disposes to silent attention. Thus, to potters wares, Lev. 6:28; Job 2:8; and in many other places. So also to plowing, Deut. 22:10; Prov. 20:4, which requires constant attention to make “the right-lined furrow.” Let it be remembered that in ancient times such works were more esteemed than the useless ones we have learned to admire.4

[…]

1. Quotations taken from the second chapter of Dr. R. J. Rushdoony’s commentary on Zechariah, forthcoming.

2. Spence, H. D. M. and Joseph S. Exell, ed., The Pulpit Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1950), vol. 14, chapter on Zechariah by W. J. Deane and W. S. Lewis, p. 9.

3. Rushdoony, Rousas John, Exodus (Vallecito, CA: Ross House Books, 2004), pp. 457–461.   

4. Clarke, Adam, Bible Commentary (New York, NY: Abingdom Press, n.d.), vol. 4, p. 771.


“For Every Oppressor a Destroyer.”

I like the sound of that.

Every Christian should.

Not other “horns” to push against these; not other men of war to overcome these; but artificers only, men of peace.

We are not Muslims, and we are not Secularists.

We are Christians.

So let us fight – and win – as Christians, Servants of the King.

Advertisements

Atheists Dump Darwin

PIt looks like Our Secularist Masters are starting to ditch Darwin. A few are even talking and posing like broad-minded free speech warriors – after shutting down Christian opposition to Darwin, of course. Like it matters now, as the Darwinians have already shifted science from “the search for truth, whatever it may be” into “protect my atheistic presuppositions.”

The only real change is a new band of fresh, new, reality-denying (“gender is a construct!”) anti-Christians taking over from the aging, comfortable, reality-denying (“things create themselves!”) anti-Christians.

Despite this, I am confident that the scientific endeavor will continue. Without government funding, and without media support, and outside the Academy, which will openly become nothing but the Statist-Progressive ideology re-education centres they always were implicitly.

After all, it was the Darwinians who insisted that “humans are just a pack of animals“: modern liberals have merely taken this explicitly anti-Christian viewpoint, and pushed it forward.

This lack of support and funding will hurt reality-seeking (as opposed to cowardly grant-seeking and tenure-seeking) scientists for the next generation.

I happen to believe that truth-seeking researchers — especially the toughened Christian ones, who have adopted to life outside of the sheltered and protected Inner Ring — will keep their integrity and bravery, stay optimistic, continue to work hard, and maintain standards for evidence tied to testable reality, not a self-adoring, anti-reality ideology.

Such scientists will build a great deal of strength, which will be needed to face the even tougher challenges of the future.

More knowledge + More power + More determination = Even greater challenges sent by God to test and purify and strengthen your mind and spirit!

Postscript: Did you really think that these delusional, self-destructive atheistic fools — both the “things make themselves” and “my feelings and my words shapes reality” types — were the main enemy?

Please!

These Mighty Enemies, backed by the Right Sort, are just teddy bears, toys to build up the strength and discipline needed for the real challenges coming to us in the future!

Stop whining, dump the fear, and get serious.

Fight and fail greatly, learn & teach,

Fight and fail somewhat, learn & teach,

Fught and win a bit, learn & teach,

Fight and win mostly, learn & teach,

Fight and win totally.

Praise the Lord!

And on to the next stronghold of Satan,
with a grin and a sledgehammer.

(After all, why do you think Darwin is being abandoned by the atheists?
Because the Right Sort said to do it?

NO!

Darwin is on his way out, because

  1. Committed Christians point-blank refused to give up, and refused to be intimidated into silence.
  2. The truth will come out.
  3. The refusal to kneel to lies and falsehood delivers results… eventually. After a price has been paid.

In the meantime, Peter Vlaming is my new hero.  “Let the lie come into the world, let it even triumph. But not through me,”  Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote in Cancer Ward.  Vlaming is the teacher in the Virginia case.  He lived Solzhenitsyn’s dictum in real time, and he refused to knuckle under to the tyranny of the progressives who dominated the school board.  And he suffered for it.  Solzhenitsyn would not have been surprised.  Indeed, he predicted this very thing, because he, of all people, knew that refusing to participate in lies would be costly.  In Live Not by Lies he wrote:

And the simplest and most accessible key to our self-neglected liberation lies right here: Personal non-participation in lies. Though lies conceal everything, though lies embrace everything, we will be obstinate in this smallest of matters: Let them embrace everything, but not with any help from me . . .

Some, at first, will lose their jobs. For young people who want to live with truth, this will, in the beginning, complicate their young lives very much, because the required recitations are stuffed with lies, and it is necessary to make a choice.

But there are no loopholes for anybody who wants to be honest: On any given day any one of us will be confronted with at least one of the above-mentioned choices even in the most secure of the technical sciences. Either truth or falsehood: Toward spiritual independence, or toward spiritual servitude.

And he who is not sufficiently courageous even to defend his soul — don’t let him be proud of his “progressive” views, and don’t let him boast that he is an academician or a people’s artist, a merited figure, or a general –let him say to himself: I am in the herd, and a coward. It’s all the same to me as long as I’m fed and warm. . . .

You say it will not be easy? But it will be easiest of all possible resources. It will not be an easy choice for a body, but it is only one for a soul. No, it is not an easy path. But there are already people, even dozens of them, who over the years have maintained all these points and live by the truth.

So you will not be the first to take this path, but will join those who have already taken it. This path will be easier and shorter for all of us if we take it by mutual efforts and in close rank. If there are thousands of us, they will not be able to do anything with us. If there are tens of thousands of us, then we would not even recognize our country.

If we are too frightened, then we should stop complaining that someone is suffocating us. We ourselves are doing it. Let us then bow down even more, let us wait, and our brothers the biologists will help to bring nearer the day when they are able to read our thoughts are worthless and hopeless.

And if we get cold feet, even taking this step, then we are worthless and hopeless, and the scorn of Pushkin should be directed to us:

“Why should cattle have the gifts of freedom?

“Their heritage from generation to generation is the belled yoke and the lash.”

From Refusing to Participate in a Lie Can be Costly; Just Ask Peter Vlaming
by
Barry Arrington

Christians are not called to be cattle.

Christians are called to be free.

And God spoke all these words, saying

“I am the Lord your God,
who brought you out of the land of Egypt,
out of the house of slavery.

You shall have no other gods before me.”

Exodus 20:1-3, English Standard Version

How Christianity Invented the Future

Just some comments on the original article, How Christianity Invented the Future by Bojidar Marinov. It’s derived from the post from my Traveller sci-fi blog, with some fictional elements deleted.

Even if you go to Wikipedia and read the article on “Future,” you will see that that article is quite short, with a few sketchy paragraphs on each of the disciplines of physics, philosophy, and religion, and half of the article devoted to side issues like art styles, and music and literary genres that have adopted the concept as foundational (like futurism and science fiction). It even lacks serious references for additional reading: no books, only a few references to marginal encyclopedias and newspaper articles. To compare, the article on “Mysticism,” for example, is about 8 times longer, very detailed and comprehensive, and has about 150 references, all to serious academic studies.

So, despite the enormous importance of the Future as a concept to our civilization (and to our storytelling), Academia doesn’t like to define it as a philosophical concept.

Can you guess why?

Now, there is a good reason why modern philosophy – especially modern secular philosophy – is incapable of even beginning to define the concept of the future. That reason is that modern philosophy has fallen victim to its foundational premise: that whatever definition or logical rule we use, it cannot refer us us back to anything supernatural, or to any other and higher reason or mind outside and above the human mind and human experience. Everything man uses to define himself and the world around himself must be based on “natural” assumptions, meaning naturalistic assumptions. All the foundations for our definitions must be grounded in man’s direct sensory experience. You know the regular atheist excuse for an argument: “If I can’t see your God, then He is either non-existent or irrelevant.” Philosophers know that such excuse is rather primitive and low-brow, and they seldom use it directly, it is still, as a philosophical presupposition, embedded deeply into the modern secular thought. So when it comes to definitions of things that require some open display of non-sensory faith, philosophers are rather timid to take up the challenge.

“I can’t touch the future: therefore, it doesn’t exist!”

And it is not just modern secular philosophers. All pagan religions follow the same pattern. Well, of course, all pagan religions are by default naturalistic, given that their “gods” are simply part of the universe itself, and therefore are under the same limitations as man in terms of definitions. How can a pagan god, limited in his very being to the position of simply another being within space and time, experience the future so that he can define it? … So pagan religions never talk about the future, it is never a concept that they either define or visualize. In fact, to a great extent, it is something they are afraid of.

[My Traveller sci-fi chat deleted – AP]

[Marinov discusses the Aeneid, a beautiful Roman work that is grounded in the fear of the future.]

Then what was the promise for the people of Rome in it, and what was the appeal of Octavian’s reign? It was not progress. It was stagnation. The more things changed before that, the worse the world had become. Octavian came with the promise that nothing will ever change again. The old golden age was gone. A new one was not coming. The only hope was that time would somehow freeze and there won’t be future. And that’s what Octavian promised to do. In fact, that was a major part of his propaganda campaign. His main adversary, Mark Anthony, served him with the main propaganda pitch by fleeing to Egypt and becoming a lover to Cleopatra; all that Octavian had to do is declare that Anthony wanted to introduce changes, and bring Egyptian customs to Rome. Right there, Anthony lost all his appeal with the people of Rome. No one wanted changes. Everyone was afraid of what the future would bring. Octavian’s promise of eternal stability and no future changes was all that the people wanted.

[An anti-future sci-fi space empire] started exactly when the Western Roman Empire fell, in AD 473.

“Coincidence? I think not!”

They hated the future and change so much that whenever anything new appeared, they made sure they destroyed it. When an inventor showed Emperor Tiberius a new metal he created out of dust – which must have been aluminum – Tiberius had him executed. The steam engine was known for two centuries in the ancient world but no attempts have been made to put it to productive use. The Chinese culture made an amazing number of discoveries very early in its history, and yet, the government and the culture never applied them to mass use, and in fact, by the early 20th century, the average Chinese lived no differently than his ancestors 20 centuries earlier. And I am sure I don’t have to explain to my listeners the Buddhist and Zen-Buddhist views on time. In short, time is an illusion for them. As is all existence, of course.

The Jews, of course, were the sore thumb. They not only believed in time, they eagerly expected the future. They counted the years to that future. Their prophets tried to examine it, and some even to fast forward to it. Some, like Simeon and Hannah, lived in the Temple waiting to see the future. But their view was still stagnant. Given that the future was focused on a specific single event: the coming of the Messiah. What after that? The Jews didn’t know.

Marinov is correct… but don’t count out the Orthodox Jews just yet. With four kids per couple, they are still a people with a plan for the future!

Christ not only delivered the redemption. He also delivered a view of the future shocking to everyone, including the Jews. On one hand, he was the fulfillment of the expectations of the Jews. On the other hand, however, he was the destruction of their expectations. From a Jewish perspective, history was supposed to end right there, at the coming of the Messiah. He was supposed to defeat His enemies and establish the Throne of David, and rule over the world. And the world was supposed to enter the same stagnant state that the Aeneid postulated about the reign of Augustus: everything would be perfect, nothing would change anymore. That’s what the disciples expected of Jesus, as is obvious from their reactions to His eschatological passages: “Are you going to restore the Kingdom now?” Or, “Who of us will be greater in the coming Kingdom?”

Jesus, however, had a different view of the future, one that would shock both Gentiles and Jews. He scandalized the Gentiles by saying all their past to which they clung so religiously was nothing. That the future was that mattered. That change is not demonic and dark, but is the only way they can enter the Kingdom of God and find purpose. That God had prepared for them – if they trusted in Him – unspeakable blessings, that the past knew nothing about. All your poets, philosophers, kings, heroes, gods and semi-gods were blind. There was no Golden Age in your past. The future is what matters.

Especially the Far Future, as any believing Christian could tell you.

All believing, victory-oriented Christians can agree: leave the Golden Age conservative whining for the pagans.

That was a war. When you read all the Roman edicts against the Christians, what is the main argument there, sometimes repeated three or four times in the same edict? That Christians did not follow the ancient ways and did not honor the past and the ancestors. They had higher expectations of something the Gentiles did not understand: the future.

The Rapture-ready masses, fearful of the future, have FAR more in common with the pagans than they think.

The scandal was much graver for the Jews, however. They were OK with a faith in the future. The scandal that Jesus brought to them was not that the future is important. It was that the event they have been waiting for was not the end of history but rather its beginning.

The Jews, in the end, were just a door God used to physically get into History.

Still, there is something about them… after all, it is God that opens the womb, and it is the Orthodox Jews — not White Americans or Black Americans or even Christian Americans — who are having the kids.

Something to consider, hmm?

Either way, the vision Jesus introduced of the future was a shocking novelty, and Christians were specifically persecuted for it. We won’t understand it unless we understand that for the pagan world, the future was demonic and was to be feared. In fact, all change was demonic and was to be feared. And here was this new religion which not only disrespected the past but it also promised cosmic and gigantic changes on earth, and its followers were actively involved to make those changes and to build that new civilization they wanted, the Kingdom of God. They were somehow sure that those changes would bring something new and better, and were so committed to bring them about that they were willing to die for the privilege. Even an avowed enemy of Christianity like Karl Marx acknowledged this unique view of history and the future. In his address to the Hague Congress in 1872, he said the following (take note of the language of “new” and “old”):

Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.

That’s where he got his idea of change and optimism for the future: from the Biblical idea of Heaven on Earth. And then he rightly mocks Christians for abandoning their own idea

There was a time when Christians walked with their head up high, shaping the future. Instead of crawling on our bellies before Our Betters, begging for mercy, hoping that things will Just Stop Changing.

It’s long past time to straighten our spine, and walk upright like a man. Rather than crawl and beg like a dog.

But the reality is, before modern Christians abandoned that idea, the only bearer of a true concept of the future – or of any concept of the future at all – was Christianity. Everywhere where Christianity touched, it was met with opposition not so because people were hostile to the idea of a Savior Who gave His life for His people, but because they realized that Christianity meant death to their concept of history. It demanded a full break up with the past, a full commitment to the future, and an uncompromising belief in the benefits of change. Any change. In culture after culture, we see the same motif as we saw in the Roman edicts against Christians: “Christians abandon the heritage of the past and dishonor the ancestors.” When King Boris I moved to Christianize Bulgaria in the 9th century, that was the only objection of his nobles: This is a war against our past. And my native country wasn’t an exception. No matter where you are from, when you look back at the history of your ancestors, you will see the same pagan refrain: Your Christianity dishonors our past.

Yes, it does. It does it because it presents to you a God who is above time and has created time, and He controls past and present and future. And He commands you to abandon your past and your pagan heritage, and instead of heritage and looking back, He invites you to adopt a hope, a faith, and looking forward. Your past is worth nothing

[Sci-fi chat about a vast space empire that tried to stop the future from arriving… and failed.]

What is worth everything is the things that God has prepared for you, what no eye has seen and no ear has heard, and no human mind has conceived (Isaiah. 64:4; 1 Cor. 2:9). Christianity radically shifted the focus of men from the past to the future, and thus created a radically new mentality, one that has never existed before. And it scared the daylights out of the pagan culture. Or, rather, scared the darkness out of it. You want to know where the original idea of progressivism came? It was from Christianity. Modern Progressives have simply stolen the idea and have stripped it of its Christian roots. And, they have only done it because Christians have abandoned the idea of progress.

When Christians start looking to the Far Future with confidence, instead of a craven and cowardly fear, they will rise to be what they should have always been.

If want to know what a culture thinks of the future, see how it treats its young people. Does it trash them, bash them, and distrust them? That culture has lost its vision of the future. Does it trust them, uplift them, encourage them, arms them with purpose and vision? That culture has broken its chains with the past, has abandoned its idolatry of the ancestors, and has adopted an optimistic outlook.

It is for this reason why, when we look at the days of Christendom in Europe and North America, we see that the majority of the important figures in those centuries were men in their 20s and 30s. Luther was 34 when he nailed the 95 theses. Calvin was 21 when he broke openly with the Roman Catholic Church, and he was 27 when he fled Paris and settled in Geneva. By that time, he already had written half of his Institutes – at least the first version. The majority of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were young men that today wouldn’t even be seriously considered for political office. Men joined the military or the Navy at unbelievably young ages – some even starting at 9, and some reaching commanding ranks by the age of 16. This speaks much about these young men, but it speaks even more about the society around them which saw no issue with giving them authority over older men. Benjamin Franklin was 70-year-old at the time of the American Revolution, and he worked with young men 50 years his junior, and discussed politics with them, and issued proclamations with them, and we never ever see him even mentioning this gigantic age gap between him and his co-workers and co-conspirators. Never even a condescending word or a patronizing tone. Same thing with George Washington or some of the other older men among the revolutionaries. To compare, Lafayette was only 20 when he joined the Revolution; and yet, we see no hint of any distrust or patronizing of the Frenchman by any American Founding Father.

When you love and welcome the Future, you love, respect, strengthen, and honour the young.

When you hate and detest the Future, you do your level best to carve it up before it is born.

(Or at least poison the youth, if you can’t kill the future under cover of law.)

… it was the church that had dropped the ball. Pessimistic eschatologies – amillennialism and premillennialism were already creeping in. By the beginning of the 20th century, the church had surrendered to pessimism. And with it, the Western civilization.

And Christians learned to crawl, and beg, and fear the Future… and human Masters.

Time for a change.

Intelligent Design 3.0

(Thanks to Uncommon Descent for the tip)

The times, they are a’changing…. complete with a flourishing ID Underground.

What does this mean for Christians? Mainly, that by around 50-100 years, Darwinianism & Atheistic Materialism will be discredited.

This is a big step forward – no more dehumanizing “people are really just disposable animals” illogical cant from Our Betters, for one thing.

But really, that’s already happening: today’s SJWs still loathe Christians, but also have no time for atheists who Challenge the Narrative. Being merely anti-Christian/atheistic will not protect you.

And in truth, even before Darwin, most educated people in the West were not seven-day Creationists (as I am). Instead, they were more deistic in their thought, or a mix of the Bible and the local Spirits/Old Ways.

Summary

Merely acknowledging reality, that the universe is designed/created, is not enough.

The identity of the creator – Jesus Christ – must be acknowledged as well.

And – unlike intelligent design – the truth of Christianity cannot be deducted solely by clear thinking and careful research. Some degree of faith is needed, as well.

…and…

It is always possible to cheerfully agree with every doctrinal and historical point of the Christian Faith… and simply decide that you will not kneel, worship, and obey Jesus Christ, even though He is everything he says he is.

“Knowledge — even accurate and true knowledge — does not save.”

That being said, I strongly value good and true knowledge far, far higher than a worthless pack of murderous lies.

Learn from the Failure of Others

To set the stage: a snippet from North’s The Christian-Muslim Confrontation in Dearborn: What Nobody Wants to Admit:

A group of Christians went into Dearborn to carry “Jesus” placards.

Placards have a place in picket lines, where confrontation is expected. They do not change anyone’s mind. They make a statement.

When it comes to Christian-Muslim relations, which have been bad since approximately 680 AD, placards convey no new information.

If the sign-carriers were trying to provoke an incident for media purposes, their tactic worked.

OK, so we know the scene of the fight. Now, I am unsure if the Good Guys played their hand right: it depends on their goals. (To annoy the Media, or to expand the Faith into Islamic-held areas?)

But one thing I know I don’t want Christians to imitate: the opposition to the Gospel. To continue quoting North, on the Muslim opposition:

These children are not dedicated to Islam. They are not dedicated to anything of substance. They remind me of the teenagers in Northern Ireland in the years of continual violence. There, gangs of “Catholics” and “Protestants” shot each other, detonated car bombs (the unique invention of Irish violence), and plotted revenge. But could any of them recite a catechism? Could any of them give a history of Catholic-Protestant confrontations? No. They were poorly educated lower-class kids with no economic future.

I do not see this incident as the future of Muslim-Christian relations in the United States. These children will not grow up to become [cell – AP] group terrorists. They will grow up to be lower-class Americans, with bad jobs, welfare checks, low birth rates, and no hope for the future.

These are kids with a hostile attitude that invokes the militant side of Islam, but without the dedication to be militant. Someone could build a gang out of these kids. He could not build an army committed to a millennium of confrontation.

This was a local phenomenon. I do not think this country will have as many of these dysfunctional neighborhoods as France does. If it ever does, it will be the result of the welfare state, as it is in France.

I suspect that, with the rise of the welfare state, Islamic failure is only growing to grow… in Europe, as well as America. And perhaps even back in the Middle East…

Of course, the welfare state – an intensely secular institution – is hostile to Christianity, as well. The gelding, corruption, and widespread extinction of Christianity among the working & lower classes in Europe & America can be directly traced to the corruption of the Welfare State, and it’s desire to create dependency on the State (not God) and eliminate the father as the breadwinner (and so destroy the family: “mission accomplished” among blacks and Muslims, by the way).

…however…

There are enough Americans — yes even specifically White Americans — who despised the handouts to provide a strong foundation to rebuild the Faith in America. A useful base to rebuild from, after the Welfare State collapses in bankruptcy.

(Not so much in Western Europe, I suspect: but there were enough in Eastern Europe to make some kind of recovery.)

Islam in America has broadly failed: even now, the solid majority already support same-sex marriage, thanks to their Democratic friends. (Just as many Black Americans back abortion – which mainly their unborn children get to suffer from – thanks to their Democratic ‘friends’.)

Both roads leads to extinction.


Let me focus on this:

These are kids with a hostile attitude that invokes the militant side of Islam, but without the dedication to be militant. Someone could build a gang out of these kids. He could not build an army committed to a millennium of confrontation.

It won’t take a millennium of dedicated Christian opposition to overthrow our contemptuous Secularist Masters. Serious, ever-strengthening, no-compromise postmillennial (a.k.a. success-oriented) Christian opposition to Secularism would result in a comprehensive victory in less than a century: possibly as soon as a 40-year generation.

It will take longer to break Islamic lies, than to break self-destructive Atheistic lies. But even here, I don’t think it will take more than 500 years or so to finish the job, assuming we don’t slack off or go cower in a corner.

What we need is commitment, and a vision of victory, in time and on earth. We need to be postmillennial winners, not premillennial/amillennial losers and sellouts.

With faith, prayer, sacrifice, the ability to learn and to repent, and lots and lots of hard work, comes victory over any and all forms of evil.


A postscript: It looks like YouTube decided to suppress the YouTube that shows the Christian/Muslim confrontation in Dearburn. Typical Establishment fantasies, hiding from reality.

Don’t imitate those fools, Christian!

Black Americans: Culture & Wealth

I like American Vision’s focus on the social gospel, racism, and social justice. It is edifying, Biblical, and speaks well for the future of Christian Reconstruction. A very welcome counterpoint to the influence of the kinists!

But while reconciliation between White and Black American Christians is definitely desirable in the eyes of God, Black Americans must also get to work – especially as their repentance of their own rebellion against God will benefit themselves greatly.

Even if the wicked and corrupt kinists triumph in the current battle within Christian Reconstruction, that merely means that Christian Reconstruction (as a movement) will dwindle and die, like all the other cross-waving God-haters. I pray that the kinists will fail in their drive to corrupt the Faith, though, and cast their lot with their true brothers, the crooked-cross literally God-damned Nazi failures.


Aside: The victory of the kinists is something I strongly doubt, actually: the glory days of white supremacy are long dead, and the white birthrate will continue to crater so long as they insist on placing idols of Race or Nation above the Law-Word of God.

The Lord your God will make you abundantly prosperous in all the work of your hand, in the fruit of your womb and in the fruit of your cattle and in the fruit of your ground. For the Lord will again take delight in prospering you, as he took delight in your fathers,

Deuteronomy 30:9, English Standard VErsion

God opens the womb. Something for both White Americans (who are still falling below replacement births) and Black Americans (who are just fallen below replacement levels) should keep in mind.

Stand on the Lord’s side, and inherit the land. Stand against Him, and be disinherited.


Back to the point:

The point being the need of Black Americans to change their own culture, to be in conformity to God’s Commands, and thus receive God’s Blessings.

I ran across a well-argued article by Coleman Hughes, titled Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap. It points out the ways Black Americans defeat themselves, before even rising to compete against Whites and Hispanics in the marketplace. (Nevermind the Jews or Chinese!)

(Also see: $15 Trillion for What? The War on Poverty )

Socialist Red Herrings

From Mr. Hughes’ article:

In his Atlantic essay, Coates argues that slavery is central to explaining American affluence. “Nearly one-fourth of all white Southerners owned slaves,” he writes, “and upon their backs the economic basis of America—and much of the Atlantic world—was erected.” The wealth gap, therefore, “puts a number on something we feel but cannot say—that American prosperity was ill-gotten.”

But slavery is hardly the root cause of America’s prosperity. If it were, then we would expect American states that practiced slavery to be richer than those that did not. Yet we see precisely the opposite. The South, where slavery thrived, was “the poorest and most backward region of the country,” according to the economist Thomas Sowell.1 This remains true today. A recent analysis of census data found that Northeastern states, which forbade slavery, “are among the wealthiest,” whereas “states in the Southeast are among the poorest.” Nor is the disconnect between slavery and wealth unique to America. Similar disparities have emerged in Brazil, where the formerly abolitionist southern region has been, and continues to be, wealthier than the formerly slave-owning northern region.2

Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap. by Coleman Hughes

Slavery does not enrich a nation. Surprise, surprise.

(Insert: gasps of shock by innumerable socialists… as the Red Aristocracy relax in their safe government positions, and the masses toil and starve in the Fields of the People.)

Coates’s mistaken view about the origin of American prosperity is part of a larger fallacy about national wealth in general: the assumption that if a nation is wealthy, it must have stolen that wealth from somebody else. To the contrary, a nation’s wealth has more to do with the economic system it adopts and the set of skills its citizens possess. The example of Singapore is instructive: although it was raided by Portugal in the seventeenth century and colonized by Britain in the nineteenth, today Singapore is wealthier than both Portugal and Britain, in terms of median wealth per adult. By the same measure, not a single one of the nations that made Atlanta Black Star’s list of “Top 6 Countries That Grew Filthy Rich From Enslaving Black People” would make the list of top six wealthiest countries today. Indeed, they would rank 9th, 11th, 12th, 21st, 24th, and 30th. The wealth of modern nations was not plundered; it was, and continues to be, created.3

Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap. by Coleman Hughes

Socialists don’t like to talk about Singapore, or Hong Kong, or Japan. Christians should.

Remember: our goal is to be a blessing to the world, not a curse like the Socialists are. We should teach the people to get rich by obeying God and serving the customer at a good price, not starve and oppress them while shouting about our moral superiority!

The second factor offered as an explanation for the wealth gap is the exclusion of blacks from a set of New Deal policies designed to promote homeownership, income growth, and wealth accrual. […] But this story, though based in truth, has been massaged to give the false impression that benevolence from the state is a prerequisite for wealth accrual.

Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap. by Coleman Hughes

Christians would be wise not to look to mighty human masters for wealth – be that master a private slaveowner, or a bureaucratic Servant of the People.

The Bible makes it clear that righteous men leave an inheritance to their grandchildren. It also says that wealth is accumulated in order for righteous people to inherit it. The righteous will inherit the earth (Psalm 37:29). This means that they will inherit enormous responsibility. This is eschatologically certain. It is a prophecy. Jesus confirmed it. “Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth” (Matthew 5:5). The meaning is not that wimps will inherit the earth. It means that people who are meek before God will exercise dominion. This means that covenant keepers must strive for mastery in their fields. They must therefore strive for success. This is a moral requirement. It is not optional.

Christian Economics, Teacher’s Edition by Gary north

Gods people are expected to WIN.

OK, back to the article:

The prevailing progressive narrative also gives short shrift to the history of immigrant groups succeeding in the face of racist hostility and without help from the government. Baradaran, for instance, criticizes the “pervasive myth that immigrant success was based purely on individual work ethic.” To the contrary, she claims, “most immigrants’ bootstraps had been provided to them by the government.”13

But history tells a different story. Starting with the California Alien Land Law of 1913, fourteen states passed laws preventing Japanese-American peasant farmers from owning land and property. These laws existed until 1952, when the Supreme Court ruled them unconstitutional. Add to this the internment of 120,000 Japanese-Americans during World War II, and it’s fair to say that the Japanese were given no bootstraps in America. Nevertheless, by 1970 census data showed Japanese-Americans out-earning Anglo-Americans, Irish-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, and Polish-Americans.14 For Asian-Americans on the whole, an analysis of wealth data from 1989 to 2013 predicted that their “median wealth soon will surpass the white median level.” If wealth differences were largely explained by America’s history of favoring certain groups over others, then it would be hard to explain why Asian-Americans, who were never favored, are on track to become wealthier than whites.

Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap. by Coleman Hughes

Black Americans ascribe far too much power to human masters… and far too little respect to their TRUE Maker, Master, and Judge!

Why fear men, when you can fear God instead?

Recommendations…

Conspicuous by its absence in the progressive account of the racial wealth gap is any active role for blacks themselves. Reading Baradaran, Rothstein, and Coates, one gets the impression that there is nothing blacks could do to improve their lot—outside of asking the government for radical policy solutions. But there are things that blacks can do. Indeed, there are certain elements of black American culture that, if changed, would allow blacks to amass wealth to a degree that no government policy would be likely to match.

Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap. by Coleman Hughes

It will always be easier for Black Americans to whine and pout and point fingers, instead of rolling up their sleeves and getting the job done.

Of course, this whining and pouting and finger-pointing is encourages by the Democrats, who have perfect the art of creating comforting, pleasing chains around Black necks and hands and throats. “Trust the welfare state… Our Master in Washington will always care for you…”

Depressingly, there are plenty of Republicans who are into racism: yes, even many who are within the camp of Christian Reconstruction carry that stink about them. And for as long as that’s true, Blacks will not listen to them, regardless if their advice is good or evil. “Why listen to people who have always hated and despised us… hate and despise us right now… and will always hate and despise us?”

In general, I encourage Black Americans to get up on their feet, regardless of what White Americans say or want or do. But I admit, things would be a LOT easier if even such a small minority as White Christian Reconstructionists held out a hand to help them, rather than push them away or push them down!

1. No More Bling

No element of culture harms black wealth accrual more directly than spending patterns. Nielsen, one of the world’s leading market research firms, keeps extensive data on American consumer behavior, broken down demographically. A 2017 Nielsen report found that, compared to white women, black women were 14 percent more likely to own a luxury vehicle, 16 percent more likely to purchase costume jewelry, and 9 percent more likely to purchase fine jewelry. A similar Nielsen report from 2013 found that, while only 62 percent of all Americans owned a smartphone, 71 percent of blacks owned one. Moreover, all of these spending differences were unconditional on wealth and income.

[…]

The upshot: the fact that blacks spent more on cars, jewelry, and clothes explained fully 20 percent of the total racial wealth gap.

To make matters worse, spending patterns are just one part of a larger set of financial skills on which blacks lag behind. […]

Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap. by Coleman Hughes

You gotta get rid of the bling, man!

Many find it hard to confront such data. People worry that discussing behaviors that blacks disproportionately engage in represents a backslide into white supremacy and racist stereotyping. Ibram X. Kendi expresses this concern in his New York Times bestseller Stamped from the Beginning: “When you truly believe that racial groups are equal, then you also believe that racial disparities must be the result of racial discrimination.”15

But this makes no sense. Is it racist to observe that whites are more likely to drive drunk than blacks are? Is it racist to assert that black immigrants in the UK outscore comparable white Britons on standardized tests? Is it racist to observe that black American culture has produced a higher number of musical icons than Asian-American culture has? And if it’s not racist to mention these facts, then why is it racist to mention the same kinds of facts when they run in the opposite direction? Moreover, cultural differences can even cause disparities between groups that belong to the same race, as with the aforementioned wealth disparities between black Americans and black Caribbeans living in Boston, or the nearly 4-to-1 income ratio between Taiwanese-Americans and Hmong-Americans. Discussing the different patterns of behavior that underlie such intra-racial disparities cannot be racist, by definition. Race and culture, though often correlated, are entirely different concepts.

Just like no person is born knowing how to brew beer or play basketball, no person is born knowing how to build wealth. These skills must be taught.

Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap. by Coleman Hughes

So why isn’t the Church — especially victory-oriented Reconstructionists — teaching these skills to believing Blacks?

  1. Because Satan told us not to teach Black people: it’s far more pleasing to watch them trash around in their failures.
  2. Because we prefer to fear and cringe before Black Christians, instead of fearing God and His Judgement.
    1. This is rank blasphemy, by the way, since we all know “you worship what you fear.” God’s men are only to fear GOD!

The salient question should never have been who to blame for blacks’ predicament, but who is able to fix it. If the problem were simply a lack of cash, then the government would be the ideal candidate. But if we learned anything from the explosion of violent crime and single motherhood following welfare expansion in the late 1960s, it was that cash transfers cannot solve a problem that the absence of cash didn’t cause. Herein lies one of the many issues with reparations: it would not address the root causes of black underachievement. Fans of the concept should ask themselves: what will happen the day after reparations are paid, when black students still spend less time on homework than their white peers, blacks are still making poor financial decisions, and two out of every three black kids are still living in single-parent homes? On that day, I’d hope to see progressive scholars acknowledge that they had been asking the wrong question for 50 years. But I would not be shocked to hear them insist that, if only the reparations checks had been a bit larger, black America’s problems would have been solved.

Those who agree that top-down cultural reform is naïve might still object that bottom-up reform is equally quixotic. How, exactly, does one go about changing something as complex and distributed as culture? On this point, the history of formerly lagging ethnic groups is instructive. Whether measured by rates of alcoholism, high school graduation, or income, Irish-Americans used to lag far behind other American ethnic groups.23 As one point of reference, the incarceration rate for Irish-Americans was five times higher than for German-Americans in 1904. The response? While some Irish leaders blamed society, others, notably those in the Catholic Church, launched an inward-looking campaign to change behavioral patterns within the Irish community.24 Similar efforts were made by acculturated German-American Jews, whose stern programs of assimilation for their less-cultured Eastern European co-religionists included giving them “pointed lessons on the use of soap and water,” according to Sowell.25

Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap. by Coleman Hughes

If Christian Reconstructionists — regardless of race — won’t point out to Black Americans the new mental framework they need, in a respectful, humble way Blacks won’t reject out-of-hand, then I recommend that they turn to the Jews. Or the East Indians. Or even the (increasingly Christian) Chinese!

But in any case, looking up with longing to the dying Welfare State isn’t going to cut it.

On the racial wealth gap and similar issues, we seem to have reached a political stalemate. The Left, which has the power to start an intelligent conversation about culture, refuses to admit that culture accounts for many of the racial gaps typically ascribed to systemic racism. The Right, which acknowledges the role of culture, is too far from the media channels through which blacks tend to communicate, to have any chance of starting a robust conversation about culture in the black community. On one side we have ignorance, and on the other, impotence. And stuck in the middle we have the next generation of black Americans, who will grow up far more likely than their non-black peers to hold values inimical to wealth-building because the previous generation could not figure out how to speak honestly about black American culture.

Black American Culture and the Racial Wealth Gap. by Coleman Hughes

“Those who take responsibility gain authority.”

Helping Black Americans get into the middle class (and a notable number to get rich!) is a surprisingly effective way to gain cultural and political power and authority.

Hint, hint.


CONCLUSION

The free market does not make men good. It does encourage them to serve the consumer. It forces losses on them if they are less efficient in their service than their competitors. The free market society is not a dog-eat-dog world. It is a dog-serve-master world. The consumer is the master.

Scrooge served the market well in both phases of his career. He did not wind up in poverty in phase two. Dickens understood that Fezziwig had the right approach.

In Sim’s version of the story, Fezziwig goes out of business because he cannot compete in the new world of capitalism. Dickens never hinted that this was the outcome of Fezziwig’s good cheer. My guess is that Fezziwig died rich. If he treated his employees well, he was probably in the habit of treating his customers well.

May that be truly said of us, and all of us! And so, as Tiny Tim observed, God bless Us, Every One!

Dining with Scrooge, by Gary North

“Be killing sin or it will be killing you.”

This is just a collection of links, noting how much work Christians – especially Christian Reconstructionists – need to do to repent and heal in regard to racism. Needful work: how can we grow to fill the world, if we still grip tightly to superficial differences amongst ourselves… and so neglect and diminish the real differences between those who are on the Lord’s side, and those who aren’t?

Be Killing Sin: The REAL Future of Christendom (guest post):

Cherishing Idols

Why doesn’t the Christian Reconstructionist movement grow and replicate itself? Why are we still reading and regurgitating Rushdoony, but not progressing past memorization and recitation of ideas? Because we are holding sin close to our bosom and it is killing us. We are remaining static, ever the same, never changing, never growing, showing that at our core we are opposed to our postmillennialist ideas. Instead of seeking to put in the work to change things when it hurts most, we accept the world as it is today. Instead of acting on how it ought to be and establishing justice in line with God’s Word, we merely talk a lot about it. When it hurts our pride or may potentially lessen our numbers, we won’t apply it.

Some of you may be aware of the kinist thread that has long run within Christian Reconstructionist circles….

[…]

Those whom we see as celebrities, we aren’t willing to rebuke because of the cost that comes with holding Scripture higher than we hold them, their word, their reputation, and their friendship. They’re not willing to give up unrighteousness, sacrifice a possible friendship, or stand for truth and justice. But this kind of sacrifice is central to the Christian life. So how can clinging to idols be “The Future of Christendom”? No, it will be the death of Christendom.
Today’s kinism would become tomorrow’s hatred of the foreigner and the sojourner, directly contrary to God’s Word on the matter as our nation turns away Christians and the lost from receiving help and hearing the Gospel on our very doorstep. We have much more to lose by holding this particular idol than who can marry whom. The impact of this belief has victims far and wide in expanding circles of harm. As our pastor once so wisely insisted, what we believe informs what we do. We must be willing and able to hear righteous rebuke, even from the little people. We must be willing and able to have our agendas, ideas, affections challenged and even destroyed for Christ. We must be willing to admit that God is true, and every man a liar, and where they err, we must rebuke them in loving loyal opposition, and when rejected, we must depart from them, handing them over to be convicted by the Holy Spirit, or left to their destructive sin.

D. A. Carson on the “hard case” of racism:

This acknowledge would, I think, be in perfect keeping with the warning by which Carson closes this section, which is worth our attention here at the outset: “certainly we must not be perceived to be knee-jerk reactionaries who are dragged into racial reconciliation kicking and screaming, bringing up the end of the pack, the last to be persuaded” (p. 107). The sad truth is that for the majority of their existence, the conservative Protestant and Evangelical churches have only arisen to the level of being dragged kicking and screaming at their better moments. Much of the time was instead fierce opposition. I would happily join Carson’s warning here with a 100,000-watt bullhorn: if our lampstand has not already been removed over this issue, now is the time to get sanctified on it.

The anti-semitic fringe of the American Right:

There are of course anti-Zionists who are not anti-Semitic. Some of them are Jews. Some are Orthodox Jews who believe that biblical Israel will not be re-established until the Messiah comes. So, they do not accept the equation of Israel with the modern State of Israel. On the movie screen, a good example of this outlook – maybe the best – is the Hasidic rabbi in The Chosen (1981) who speaks contemptuously in 1948 of “Ben-Gurion and his henchmen.” He was an anti-Zionist.

But the ex-site member slipped up. He made it clear that he was talking about a race, not a political special-interest group.

“Did Ron ever declare a similar distaste for black supremacists? Zion supremacists? Cino supremacists? Latino supremacists? Did he denounce the oft-stated aims, visions and exclusivity of their racially and ethnically focused organizations – several of which receive gov’t. protection and largess?

He let his guard down. His bile spewed out. He was not talking about a political defense against a misuse of government money to benefit a special-interest group. That was what Ron Paul always talked about in Congress. No, they have race and ethnicity in mind.

This is white supremacy, and it is a curse of the political Right. It has been for a century.

ANTI-SEMITES ON THE LEFT

The Left has had its share of anti-Semites. If the Left did not give him a free ride, Karl Marx would be notorious. In his tirade, On the Jewish Question (1844), he waxed eloquent.

“Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew.

What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money.”

[…]

Can you imagine some untenured professor going into print with something like this? He would be removed from the classroom within 24 hours.

To see how the Left squirmed, take a look at this attempt to evade the obvious by the Western Socialist in 1960. It responded contemptuously to a list of Marx’s anti-Semitic statements presented by Dagobert Runes. Runes had a Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Vienna. He was the translator of Marx’s essay. He was a distinguished philosopher. He showed how Marx never wavered from his language. Marx referred to his intellectual adversary Ferdinand Lasalle as a “Jewish nigger.” Marx was a racist. For evidence, see the book by an ex-Communist scholar, Nathaniel Weyl, Karl Marx: Racist (1979). It had to be published by a conservative book publisher, Arlington House. No academic publisher would touch it. Used copies cost hundreds of dollars. For a good survey of Marx’s racism, read the article by economist Walter Williams, “The Ugly Racism of Karl Marx.”

Hitler is the most famous of the Left-wing anti-Semites, or would be if the Left had not successfully re-written history to turn him into a Right-winger.

As an aside, Peter Hammond is entirely too close to those crooked-cross people. If Christian Reconstructionists want to grow — in blessings, numbers, influence, excellence — we can’t tolerate such people in the camp. They must repent, or they must leave.

“Screw the optics,” and other dangers of the anti-“cultural Marxism” crusade

Some are also not so secret, or at least like Robert Bowers, they crack, and the secret gets spilled, along with a lot of blood. “All Jews must die” was accompanied by a social media post that said, “Screw your optics, I’m going in.”

“Optics” here refers the public façade. The reference is to his compatriots who believe like he believes, but keep up a politically correct (enough, anyway) façade, and use code language to keep their secret. Bowers, however, snapped: screw the façade, it’s time for some solution, at least. He was tired of hiding his antisemitic hate behind acceptable conservative and Christian labels. He was tired of playing that game. Fighting “Cultural Marxism” within the system had to give way to some real solution to the real problem.

This is the danger of theological and ideological movements (and their associations) such as I have described and called out in the links above. They are tied to historical and social realities that are far more dangerous than the façade indicates. There is chaos just below the surface. These movements are flirting with fire right near the fuse, and the leadership is either blind or does not care. Both are recipes for a tragedy.

One of the telling (to me) evidences of how widespread these feelings may be is the unimaginable silence against them among so many key conservative Christian leaders. This very well may be an indication that there is some knowledge that many among the donor base of many organizations still hold anti-miscegenation, racist, or anti-Jewish sentiments. Speaking out against these topics would mean a blow to the flow of funds from so many traditionally conservative readers.

“Casino Jack” and the evils of the Evangelical Industrial Complex

I have now for many years watched the nature of conservative news reports, emails blasts, email list rentals, campaigns, click bait, rage porn, conservative red meat, political junk for sale, etc., not to mention the big movement orgs like pro-life, pro-gun, pro-family, pro-marriage, pro-religious liberty, pro-police, anti-drug, and many others. I don’t think that I buy very much of it anymore, let alone get impressed or riled up. I think it is virtually all fake. At the bottom of most of it is someone personally lining their nest, building an empire, enjoying power, fame, and illicit sex. Payoffs and abortions follow this sort of life. There are a few who are motivated by ideological reasons, usually with fringe elements at the root. Most are not.

Jesus said we will know the true sheep from the ravening wolves “by their fruits” (Matt. 7:15–20). For all of their well-written ad copy, all of the appeals to fear about what “radical leftists” are threatening and how they will destroy this country if we don’t act now, all baptized in fine veneer and Bible language, there is not one single major accomplishment on behalf of conservative or Christianity that any of them can point to in the living memory of anyone who reads this.

The only major advancement on any major issue that conservatives have seen since WWII was the reduction of corporate taxes from the insane heights of the FDR era. That’s it.

By their fruits you shall know them—and they don’t have any fruit.

I suggest that genuine reconciliation on race, as described below, would produce fruit.

A defense of my defense of Mohler’s slavery report

So, it is important not to engage in the straw man of calling this an endless attempt at repentance. It is not. We could take plenty of space explaining what role it does fill, but simply noting the difference here is important. So, for people who ask, “How many times do we have to keep repenting?,” the answer is, “Once.” Now, can we talk about sanctification, building relationships, growing in grace and holiness together in the body? Can we talk about bearing one another’s burdens, the mind of Christ, the rule of love, giving, empathy, unity?

And that is how Christian Reconstruction can inherit the future.