“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.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.