Home » Kent Brandenburg (Page 13)
Category Archives: Kent Brandenburg
Normal Now Extreme and Dangerous
Extremism
In the first year of living back in Indiana, my wife and I tried fried chicken at two regional, renowned restaurants. When I say that, get in your mind very homey places like Wagner’s Village Diner in the small town of Oldenburg. It won the James Beard award in 2023 for its chicken. Why do these restaurants do better than others? They are extremists, compared to others. Each goes to far reaches to prepare the best chicken.
In reading through the Bible again, today I read in 2 Chronicles, where my schedule has me. In 2 Chronicles, Solomon builds the temple and at the dedication he offered God 22,000 oxen and 20,000 sheep. I was thinking, “That’s extreme. . . . in a very good way.”
Where I left off in my Bible reading today in 2 Chronicles 15, it says in verses 15-16:
15 And all Judah rejoiced at the oath: for they had sworn with all their heart, and sought him with their whole desire; and he was found of them: and the LORD gave them rest round about. 16 And also concerning Maachah the mother of Asa the king, he removed her from being queen, because she had made an idol in a grove: and Asa cut down her idol, and stamped it, and burnt it at the brook Kidron.
Today most people would call that extreme. Yet, it’s what God wanted — what should be normal behavior, but isn’t.
Extremism, a Pejorative
What is extremism anyways? Like when someone such as Mark Ward calls a godly individual an extremist and dangerous? Extreme compared to what?
In general, when someone calls someone extreme, he means it as a pejorative, a personal shot, probably implying some craziness to the person. However, Christianity has so declined, what was once normal is now extreme. Regular preaching of the gospel in our community, I’ve found, is extreme where I live in the Bible belt. For sure, it was extreme in California.
I attended public elementary school. My fifth grade teacher had a paddle hanging from his wall. He regularly swatted students for bad behavior. Now no public schools do that. Our Christian school was the last one to use corporeal punishment in California, a state of almost 40 million people. It’s considered extreme.
A “Balanced Approach”
One of Mark Ward’s favorites, Mark Minnick, preaches that ladies must wear head coverings in church. In 2015, he did an eight part series on it and is a favorite in “the head covering movement.” Is that practice extreme? Really, what Ward expects for non-extremism is something he wrote in support of fundamentalism in the MarchApril2017 of the FBFI magazine:
I am not willing to say that all Christians who listen to contemporary styles of Christian music are living in active, conscious rebellion against God. I do not believe that every Christian whose church has a praise band, a drum set, and tattooed worship leaders that I must abandon to Satan a la 1 Corinthians 5.
1 Corinthians 5, I agree, isn’t the best passage to use for separation over false worship, that is, offering the thrice holy God fleshly and worldly music as worship. He could use 2 Thessalonians 3, 1 Timothy 6:3-6, or 2 Timothy 2:20-22, because among other places that church violates Romans 12:1-2, 1 Peter 2:5, and 1 John 2:15-17 among other places. I know though. What I now believe and practice, men like Ward call an extreme form of separation. Expect more rock bands in church with the association of Mark Ward and others. It’s too extreme now to stand up against that like his alma mater once did. Now they take, what their newest president calls, a “balanced approach.”
Anyone who isn’t “balanced” is now extreme. Balanced means that you look at the “extremes” and find the sweet spot in the middle. The Bible doesn’t teach that. Interestingly, it’s only one extreme that gets most of the attention even from evangelicals such as Ward, who slides further from even a former fundamentalist mooring.
Jesus the Extremist and Danger to Religious Society
Jesus, while on earth, told people these things:
Matthew 5:19, “Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”
Luke 14:26, “If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.”
Matthew 22:37, “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”
Mark 9:42, “And whosoever shall offend one of these little ones that believe in me, it is better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he were cast into the sea.”
So much of the Bible is extreme compared to what people teach or say today. Jesus was considered an extremist by the religious people of his day.
When someone is dangerous, I believe Mark Ward means that he’s leading someone astray from the truth into something harmful. Nothing is more harmful for someone than eternal damnation. Thomas Ross mentioned how that Ward works for Logos Bible Software as a “ministry.” Logos publishes “Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, theologically modernist, and other damnable heresy.”
Ross is exactly right. Apparently Ward sees those groups as part of “the church” that Logos equips to grow (his words). They get silence, while those propagating and protecting faith in the perfect preservation of scripture receive reproach. This manifests the priority of keeping together ungodly coalitions instead of the truth. To use KJV terminology, making money off a false gospel is “greedy of filthy lucre.”
The Divine Expectation
Jesus in His culture was an extremist and dangerous. He was dangerous to the religious leaders. He threatened their popularity with the people and brought potential wrath of the Roman Empire. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus provided the Divine expectation of every “jot and tittle” of His Word. The Pharisees diminished the Divine standard so they could attempt to keep it on their own. Jesus illustrated the paucity of the Pharisaical approach in Matthew 5 and 6. It wasn’t just the keeping of God’s Word, but also the internal attitude and motive. You could murder someone by hating him in the heart and treating him with contempt.
I’m sure Ward would agree with the above verses from Jesus: their practice in real life though, extreme and dangerous. This is not believing what Jesus and the Apostles said. The author of Hebrews writes in 13:13: “Let us go forth therefore unto him [the Lord Jesus] without the camp, bearing his reproach.” I invite others to go forth unto Jesus without the camp and bear the reproach of “extremism” and “dangerous.” Return to normal and stand against the decline of true, biblical Christianity. While those reproaching double down on their reproach, remain steadfast in God’s will for the cause of Christ.
The Index on What Is Truth Is Repaired
Dear User of This Blog Site,
Suddenly the links were not working here at What Is Truth (kentbrandenburg.com). Not only was the index not working because of this, but the internal links in blog posts would not work. Wow. That’s tough after all that work. What did I do? I started attempting to fix every link one at a time. At the same time as this painful task, I decided to get the blog index updated for everything written up to the present day, rather than January of 2019. This would add to the index everything written between January 2019 and May 2024.
I got to the beginning of the letter “C” in my edits, when I decided to call my web host to see if I could have the host fix all these links all at once. It took, yes, ten minutes. I repeat, ten minutes, to fix everything I had spent about five hours so far attempting to repair. I’ve been clicking on links now for a few minutes randomly to see if they work. They do.
At the same time, I notice that my dashboard says that I have an outdated php and this will result in problems. I may not be out of the woods on this repair of the links. As of right now, reader, click away, because you can get to everything up to about August 2019, using the index here.
Sincerely,
Kent Brandenburg
The New Rising Hatred Against Israel in the United States
Jews are a relatively small group of people compared to the whole world. Israel is a tiny, little nation. They are a couple of gnats landing on a large person. Proportionally the Jews and Israel receive a very big, gigantic reaction from the rest of the world.
Admittedly, I notice the Jews every day even though almost all of my days now I speak to none, not a single Jew. I don’t have to go out of my way to ignore Jews. None live where I am.
On the other hand, during my time in California, on average Jews were more hostile to me than any other people. When I came to a door and saw a mezuzah shema (mezuzah means “doorposts”) on the doorpost, that meant a tough, very difficult situation was coming about 100 percent of the time. I want to have a good conversation with a Jewish person and it is very disappointing that most Jews treat someone like myself, who loves them, worse than anybody.
Even with the very poor treatment, I support Jews and Israel. My wife and I go out of our way to befriend Jewish people. I even understand their hostility. It isn’t merited, but it is understandable.
Why Israel and the Jews?
Maybe you have a hard time comprehending why so many people, especially young ones, right now are opposing Israel and the Jews. These are harsh and even dangerous times. It is widespread and many times violent. Maybe even stranger, Jews themselves are part of the opposition. Quite often the stories or the narratives contradict. The two or more sides or factions tell clashing stories.
My main point of writing this post is to answer why so much hatred for the Jews and for Israel, What could this be? What causes this? Here it is and not necessarily in this order: The most prevalent reasons, I think, I will present at and toward the end, not the beginning.
Contrasting Theologies
Supercessionism
One, differing and contradictory theological positions cause the hatred. Many Jews don’t participate in the theology that brings the incendiary treatment of them. They don’t believe anything, but it doesn’t make any difference. This as a section could be a very long explanation and discussion, almost an entire book.
I don’t think theology figures the degree of hatred that explains the present reaction to Israel and the Jews. Those who see Israel replaced by the church, called supercessionists, don’t hate Israel because of that usually. They aren’t still blaming the Jews for crucifying Jesus. Some Jews may think this engenders hot passion, but most people, even if they’re supercessionists, don’t care about this. They aren’t going to do what we see happening, just because of this theology. These people haven’t even heard of supercessionism.
Supercessionism could describe a theological position that forms a premise for violent activity against the Jews, but it doesn’t provide the main impetus for hostile activity against them. It can provide a kind of positional justification, but not the reason. I remember getting slapped in the face by a Sophomore, when I was a Freshman in high school, while on a field trip, looking at leaves for Biology class. When I asked him why, he said, “Because I wanted to.” Several reasons contributed to the slap I took from him.
Allegorization
The supercessionist allegorizes scripture. He can twist scripture by not taking it literally. Dozens or hundreds of positions arise from spiritualizing what God’s Words say.
A moderated form of supercessionism exists that supports Israel and the Jews. Those who take the attenuated position will support Israel, despite their Roman Catholic or Protestant ecclesiology. If someone is going to allegorize scripture, then he can take the direction of supporting Israel, despite thinking that God replaced Israel with the church.
Envy
Two, many unbelievers are flat-out envious of the Jews. They see Jews and Israel as a privileged caste. They’re jealous. On average they’re rich and successful by the world’s standard. Jealousy likes people losing what they have. Few to none are jealous of the Palestinians.
Satan’s Hate
Three, Satan hates Israel. This hatred manifests itself in Genesis 3 with the serpent bruising the seed of the woman. Sure, the seed is Jesus, but one cannot separate Jesus from the descendants of the woman and of Abraham. Satan gladly attempts sticking his thumb in God’s eye with the crushing of Israel and the Jews.
End Times
Four, we’re getting closer to the end. Let’s say that the future time when enemy nations surround Israel is December. The rising hatred of nations against the Jews is August. You’ve got to get to August to get to December. I’m not saying actual August and December, but a metaphor, like Thanksgiving coming before Christmas.
God’s Judgment
Five, God will bring more judgment on Israel. This goes back to Daniel 11-12. Israel didn’t want to go back to the land to rebuild the temple and the walls. They felt comfortable staying in captivity Yes, those people cried for the blame for Jesus’ death. The rest of history would give regular chastisement to Israel and the Jews. It would never be easy.
God is working His plan.with Israel to get the nation to the place where the enemies surround them. Now supportive nations like the United States hold back natural and supernatural world rejection of the Jews and Israel. More of that protection disappears, emboldening the opposition.
Woke Philosophy
Six, a woke philosophy dominates the education system. It’s a kind of zero sum game. Israel grabs and gets, and because it does, these other nations starve and diminish. It’s got a racial component to the darker skinned Palestinians. And there is a class warfare piece to it. Israel is upper class, getting favored status.
The idea too is that an international money cabal, led by the Jews, money grubbing and hungry, leaves other people without the privilege. The university types see themselves as with some revelatory enlightenment. They see through the deceit into the Jews. Jewish people join these in this, feeling ashamed to be a Jew. This is the main narrative being pushed to result in the widespread Jew and Israel hating.
A religious component enters from the Palestinian or Hamas, that accompanies the class envy. What they think is a true religion, Islam, Judaism discredits it. Their anger becomes its own self-fulfilling prophecy. And yet it hasn’t worked. Powerful nations try to annihilate the Jews and yet they go down in flames.
God Still Has a Plan for Israel
The Abraham and Davidic Covenants are still intact. They are operational. God still has a plan for Israel. Those who attack Israel do so against a warning from God. These nations haven’t been blessed and won’t, because they won’t accept these promises God made. They should favor God with favor for Israel, even if they don’t like what Israel believes and does.
Israel is not a threat to the world. Overall Israel provides great blessing to the world. I’m not saying Israel is saved. They will be. God will save Israel. In the meantime, we should hope Israel thrives.
A Useful Exploration of Truth about Christian Nationalism (Part Four)
Even though the Constitution protects against a state religion, it nevertheless projects a Christian nation. The God about which Jefferson referenced in the Declaration was the God of Christianity, who is the true God. The founders wrote a Constitution for a Christian nation. The Constitution envisions a Christian nation.
The Constitution limits the power of government based on the truth that rights come from God. Government does not give the rights that the Constitution protects. God does. This puts the true God, the God of Christianity, above the government of the United States. It also places the people of the United States under God, like the pledge reads: “one nation under God.”
The people or government of the United States cannot replace God with something else and succeed. The framework still stands and hinders a significant decline, but by replacing God the nation then essentially opposes itself. True believers will tell the truth about this, so not stay silent.
God blesses only nations whose God He is (Psalm 33:12). That is axiomatic. But I’m writing something here even more than that. The United States started as a Christian nation under the one and true God. To cease from that would make the United States a different nation than how and what it began. It would eliminate Americanism, the true nature of the nation according to its founding.
Declaration of Independence
Laws of Nature and Nature’s God
The United States declared its existence on the following self-evident truths. First,
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
This nation began with the dissolution of political bands to England. It declared that the laws of nature and nature’s God entitled it. This God is not some arbitrary God. In the context of the history of England and the United States, this was the Christian God.
All Men Are Created Equal and Endowed by their Creator with Certain Unalienable Rights
Second,
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
This nation declared that England did not give their rights. It was endowed with those rights by their Creator, who is the Christian God. The United States could rightly abolish the former colonial government and institute a new government on the rights the Christian God gave. The Christian God possessed higher authority than England and the new nation under Whom it stood. He gave them these unalienable rights and the right of independence.
Gettysburg Address
Dedicated to the Proposition That All Men Are Created Equal
Unless the nation made a new declaration, the United States continues a Christian nation. The founding principle of the Declaration of Independence faced a challenge during the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln gave the Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863 and he attached that time to its founding with his words in that speech. First,
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
To start, he didn’t use the name, “God,” like Jefferson did and the Founders signed their John Hancocks. But he agreed that “our fathers” were “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal,” referring to the Declaration of Independence again. By saying, “created,” he alluded to the Creator, the same Christian God of 1776.
Nation Dedicated to a Proposition
If I were to choose a key word in Lincoln’s address, I would pick, “dedicate.” His speech had three paragraphs and he used the word “dedicate” as crucial in all three. This connected the following two paragraphs to the first. The founders dedicated themselves to the proposition that God created men equal, so God gave men their rights by His creation. Even if the United States did not live out that proposition, they remained dedicated to living out that proposition. Second,
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
Civil Laws and Rights
A civil action is a legal dispute based upon laws. Old Testament Israel functioned according to civil laws. Civil rights essentially means the rights God gave according to His laws, having created mankind. The term comes from the Latin, jus civis, “right of the citizen.” The North and the South fought over a disagreement about the rights of citizens.
Lincoln said the Civil War was a test to see if a nation, dedicated to the proposition that God created men equal and gave them their rights, could endure. A Christian nation cannot endure if it rejects the Christian God. I believe this nation is in another struggle right now of the same nature as 1863. Lincoln uses “dedicate” twice. Was the nation dedicated to the proposition that it received its rights from the Christian God? Lincoln expressed that the nation could live because of those who gave their lives, a very nice turn of phrase. He came to dedicate a portion of the former battlefield as their final resting place.
Paragraph Three of the Address
Abraham Lincoln memorialized the cemetery at Gettysburg, the most crucial battle and turning point in the Civil War, according to the nation’s dedication to the Christian God. Third (this is one paragraph in the speech, but I’m dividing it into two),
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
Hallow or Sacred
In general, people today don’t use “dedicate,” “consecrate,” and “hallow.” “Hallow” is a form of “holiness.” Almost nothing is sacred anymore. No one wants hallowed ground. They don’t want to acknowledge anything as holy. More important are their own conveniences and privileges, living not for anything greater than themselves.
Lincoln would not use “consecrate” and “hallow” without reference to the Christian God. The ground at Gettysburg was not hallow because of a Lincoln speech. Hallow ground goes back to Exodus 3 and Moses’ encounter at the burning bush. The ground at Gettysburg was hallow because the reason that justified these men’s death. A great proposition, dedicated to the Christian God, hallowed their deaths. They didn’t die for self, for their own rights, but for rights vindicated by a biblical proposition. These were true rights that proceed first from Genesis 1 and God’s mandate.
Christian Nation
Consider again that Lincoln says, “we can not dedicate” and “to be dedicated here to the unfinished work” and “to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us.” What is the increased devotion the living were to take from the dead’s last full measure of devotion? He implied the dead at Gettysburg would die in vain without dedication to the proposition of a nation under the Christian God. The Christian God gave everyone their rights.
For a government to protect the rights of the people and be a government for the people, it must submit to the highest authority: the Christian God. This nation as a whole loses its dedication when it denies that God. It rejects its purpose for existence. No principle holds it together. How does it do that? Many, many ways that every Christian at least should understand.
I hope I’m expressing a legitimate idea or concept of Christian nationalism, based upon natural laws ordained by God, scripture, and history. Christians should not apologize for these laws, scripture, and history. It is the truth about the United States. May the one and true God, the Christian God, be praised!
More to Come
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part three)
Tucker Interview
After already publishing parts one and two in this series, Tucker Carlson teased an interview with Douglas Wilson. This is a boon for he and his brand. Immediately Wilson wrote a post to welcome the Tucker audience with links to his numerous ventures. This gives even greater importance to exposure of Wilson. The content of the Tucker trailer also dovetails closely with this series, because Wilson mentions the gospel.
Wilson surprised me with his representation of Christian nationalism (another still ongoing series here, here, and here). It differed from his norm (see my part three). He gave no hope for Christian nationalism in the United States, except through gospel preaching. In many expositions of Christian nationalism, I don’t remember his saying that. Maybe I missed it. Postmillennialists and theonomist-types like Wilson, who envision their bringing in a physical kingdom on earth, don’t usually convey utter hopelessness remedied only by hot gospel preaching.
Perhaps the whole interview (presently behind the Tucker paywall) will reveal more. Wilson sounded good about the gospel, but he left out infant sprinkling and child communion, something he mixes with the gospel. Shouldn’t he urge Tucker’s audience also to sprinkle its infants? It’s important in his vision of Christian nationalism.
Roman Catholicism
Not Sola Scriptura
Roman Catholicism passed down infant sprinkling among many other scriptural perversions. It condemned maybe as many people to Hell as any false doctrine. Protestants continued in a system of false interpretation and doctrine, albeit better than Roman Catholicism, yet still misleading.
Protestants point to the Latin, sola scriptura, scripture alone, as their heritage. Yet, tradition still guides much of Protestantism. Infant baptism isn’t scripture alone and this challenges the Protestant embrace of sola scriptura. Keeping significant aspects of Roman Catholicism, Protestants also point back to the Catholic fathers as theirs too. Wilson has pieced together a patchwork of belief and practice that required the beginning of a new denomination, the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches (CREC). Jesse Nigro in The North American Anglican writes in his analysis of Wilson:
[H]is trajectory has led him into the broader pool of “Reformed Catholicism” that Anglicans occupy.
Catholic Church
Nigro was praising Wilson. Protestants fork off the Roman Catholic line or trajectory, not in the succession of New Testament Christianity or true churches, separate from the state church, since Christ. Roman Catholicism and its stepchild Protestantism resembles little the belief and practice of the church of the New Testament. Scott Aniol writes in his review of Wilson’s book, Mere Christendom::
I am aware that Wilson’s church recognizes Roman Catholic baptisms and welcomes them to the Lord’s Table, but this Baptist considers Roman Catholicism a false religion.
In his book, Reformed Is Not Enough, Wilson wrote (pp. 73-74):
The visible church is also Catholic in an earthly sense, meaning that it is no longer confined to one nation, as it was before under the law. The visible Church is composed of anyone in the world who professes (biblically) to believe in the Christian faith. When they make this profession by means of baptism their children are attached with them. The visible church is to be understood as the kingdom of the Lord Jesus Christ. The Church is the household of God, and outside of this Church there is no ordinary possibility of salvation.
Baptism and Salvation
Later in his section on sacerdotalism, he writes:
Baptism and salvation are not mechanically or magically linked. But in the ordinary course of life, they are linked, and we are to speak of them as though they are.
Furthermore, Wilson writes (p. 111):
By means of baptism, baptism with water, grace and salvation are conferred on the elect.
Paedocommunion
Wilson and Child Communion
In addition to the heretical practice of infant sprinkling, Wilson endorses and practices child communion, inviting the toddlers to the bread and the cup. Wilson writes:
At the very center of the strong family emphasis that you will find in our churches, you will also find our practice of communing our children at the Lord’s Table. This is unusual in Protestant churches, and in some places it is even controversial. . . . [I]n our churches, the Lord’s Table is not protected with a profession of faith; the Lord’s Table is regarded as a profession of faith.
What do Wilson and others imply by children partaking of the Lord’s Supper? They can partake worthily because they have repented, believed, and received forgiveness of sins. Children who cannot believe, do not have the capacity to do so, are said to make a profession of faith through the Lord’s Table. However, the Lord’s Table is a table of examination. A man examines himself and then eats the bread and drinks the cup.
The Wickedness of Child Communion
1 Corinthians 11:27-28 say:
27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup.
So much contradicts clear scripture and biblical teaching with participation of children in the Lord’s Table. Wilson argues that paedocommunion follows paedobaptism, when he writes:
[T]he apostle Paul compares the entire congregation to one loaf of bread (1 Cor. 10:17). And it is our conviction that all who are bread should get bread.
This is a typical turn-of-phrase or rhetorical flourish intended to persuade in some doctrinal or practical position. Wilson sounds interesting, but he’s false. His teaching confuses the gospel. It brings God’s judgment down on unworthy partakers of the table. Finally, it corrupts the true nature of the church. One can truly say that paedocommunion is false worship. It is not an act of faith in God, but man-ordained, human innovation.
Government Intimidation Now In the United States Related to Persecution
While working on something else, yesterday I listened to portions of the Supreme Court arguments for and against the January 6 protestors. Elizabeth Prelogar, the Solicitor General of the United States, argued to the nine justices, representing the present government of the United States and its Department of Justice. I have to say, I would use the term “justice” loosely as it applies to the present government of the United States.
Fischer Versus United States
This case in the Supreme Court arose to a challenge of the prosecution of one particular January 6 protestor, Joseph Fischer, trying to defend himself against a federal statute applied by this Department of Justice against him. The law this justice department scoured from its laws to sweep up hundreds of protestors for significant and selective harsh prosecution was U.S. Code 1512 (c) (1) and (2), which reads:
(c) Whoever corruptly—
(1) alters, destroys, mutilates, or conceals a record, document, or other object, or attempts to do so, with the intent to impair the object’s integrity or availability for use in an official proceeding; or
(2) otherwise obstructs, influences, or impedes any official proceeding, or attempts to do so,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 20 years, or both.
This particular law hasn’t been used ever against protestors until this justice department selected it for use against January 6 protestors, which, as you know, were all Trump voters, perhaps in the realm of most extreme MAGA supporters.
I’m not defending what Fischer did. However, I believe these protestors, who represent the incorrect side of the political spectrum, do not receive equal justice. The other side gets away with such activity and even worse. The Democrat Party right now is afraid of what their own voters might do at their Convention if they don’t stop Israel from extricating Hamas from Gaza.
Selective Prosecution
I thought most of the conservative justices, six of them, did a good job at exposing the government and its prosecution. A majority of them will probably overturn the charge against Fischer and then all those against whom they used this law. If applied as Prelogar argued, this law would cover many transgressions of protestors on the Democrat side through the years, who did not see a whiff of possible prosecution. Even when I read the law, I think of Hillary Clinton hammering and acid-washing her hard drives to destroy evidence against her.
Justice Gorsuch asked Prelogar this question:
Would pulling a fire alarm before a vote qualify for 20 years in federal prison?
He referred to Representative Jamaal Bowman, Democratic Congressman from NY, who used a fire alarm in a Capitol office building, causing its evacuation last year, but he was not charged under the statute.
Apparently the federal government of the United States passed 1512 as a response to the Enron scandal in 2002, that involved massive document shredding and fraud. It’s original intent was never for prosecution of protestors of government policy and actions. Several Supreme Court justices exposed this transparent attempt to use the law and the government to single out these protestors to enact even more severe penalties. Even if they deserved some punishment for their actions, this type of prosecution results in a chilling affect on a large portion of American citizens.
Prosecution and Persecution
I write this post to use this prosecution as an example of government persecution. This government more than I’ve ever seen looks for laws to prosecute in more severe fashion political enemies. They might use another or various set of laws to prosecute something else for which they want their chosen outcome. This seems very easy to see.
The government protects, defends, and encourages vile and immoral activity. In many cases, it is not a terror to evil, but to good. Prosecution could equal persecution, when it proceeds from the government. It terrorizes a message that does not support its view of the world.
Equal Justice
The idea of “equal justice” is a bit redundant. Justice is equal. It reminds me of 2 Peter 1, where Peter uses the terminology “like precious faith.” No true faith is superior or inferior to another. It’s faith from above, all the same.
Lady justice portrays justice with two manifestations of equal justice. One, her scales are equal. On one side is the crime and on the other is the punishment. They are equal.
Two, she is blindfolded. She does not judge based on sex, religion, race, or socio-economic level. Everyone gets treated the same. The generally poor, blue collar Trump voters, whom Hillary called “deplorables,” receive uniquely harsh punishment because they support the wrong leader. The message is sit down and shut up. If you speak up, we will find a way to prosecute you.
When God said, “eye for an eye,” that’s equal justice — not “life for an eye,” but “eye for an eye.” The punishment meets the crime.
Christians Versus the United States
Christians do foresee the government selecting Christians for unique unequal prosecution and then punishment. Prosecutors “have it in” for Christians. Even if they do not win the prosecution, they bankrupt the Christian and damage him for the rest of his life. They make an example of Christians, sending the message to all other Christians, that they could do the same to them.
Our unique bubble in history, a time of freedom, could come to an end. This government, like the one Jesus and the Apostles faced, could make it harder to function as a true Christian in society. This is what Jesus said would occur to Christians, so this does not mean, cease from preaching and stop serving in public. No, it means that this bubble moment in the history of the world could end. Be thankful for the freedom you have. Use it. But also understand that it could end and it could end soon. Take advantage of the freedom now, while you have it.
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO (part two)
Over a decade ago I read a book by Douglas Wilson, that described a philosophy for his writing, represented in the title: A Serrated Edge. His and the Moscow, Idaho mood is portrayed by a serrated edge and the use of satire. Let me again announce that I accept Wilsonian written serration. It’s more interesting at least and sometimes more effective writing. Someone else once said, “The pen is mightier than the sword.” Maybe for Wilson, “His pen is equally mighty to a serrated knife.” Many of the targets of Wilson’s writings deserve their serration from his satirical analysis.
Strict Adherence to the Westminster Confession of Faith on Baptism
Douglas Wilson and his posse in Moscow, Idaho get attention with the style or mood of their writing and other operations. A focus on mood neglects serious problems, most notably their confusion on the gospel. Wilson and Moscow are strong adherents to the Westminster Confession of Faith (WCF), which says this (Article 28):
Baptism is a sacrament of the New Testament, ordained by Jesus Christ . . . . to be unto him a sign and seal of the covenant of grace, of his ingrafting into Christ, of regeneration, of remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God, through Jesus Christ, to walk in newness of life.
Furthermore, the WCF says (Article 28) that “by the right use of this ordinance the grace promised is not only offered, but really exhibited and conferred by the Holy Ghost, to such (whether of age or infants).” That is all salvific language applied to baptism. Wilson takes this very seriously in his view and preaching of salvation.
John Calvin, the Protestant and Reformed Forefather
Calvin’s Institutes
From what I read of Wilson, he does not believe that baptism guarantees future salvation for the one baptized. Neither does any Roman Catholic. Roman Catholics would say faith is necessary for salvation. They would reject “faith alone.” To clarify his position, Wilson wrote: “Baptism is an effectual means of salvation to worthy receivers.” John Calvin, whose theology Wilson follows, wrote (Institutes, 4:17:1, 4:15:3, 4):
God, regenerating us in baptism, ingrafts us into the fellowship of his Church, and makes us his by adoption . . . whatever time we are baptized, we are washed and purified . . . forgiveness, which at our first regeneration we receive by baptism alone . . . forgiveness has reference to baptism.
Calvin’s “Antidote” to the Council of Trent
Calvin also published (1547 Antidote to the Council of Trent, Reply to the 1st Decree of the 5th Session):
We assert that the whole guilt of sin is taken away in baptism, so that the remains of sin still existing are not imputed. That this may be more clear, let my readers call to mind that there is a twofold grace in baptism, for therein both remission of sins and regeneration are offered to us. We teach that full remission is made . . . by baptism . . . the guilt is effaced [and] it is null in regard to imputation. Nothing is plainer than this doctrine.
In the same publication Calvin continued:
We, too [as do the Catholics], acknowledge that the use of baptism is necessary—that no one may omit it from either neglect or contempt. In this way we by no means make it free (optional). And not only do we strictly bind the faithful to the observance of it, but we also maintain that it is the ordinary instrument of God in washing and renewing us; in short, in communicating to us salvation. The only exception we make is, that the hand of God must not be tied down to the instrument. He may of himself accomplish salvation. For when an opportunity for baptism is wanting, the promise of God alone is amply sufficient.
Wilson doesn’t distinguish himself from the teaching of his spiritual father, Calvin.
Thomas Ross’s Statement
Thomas Ross wrote in his book, Heaven Only for the Baptized?:
Those who think that infant baptism was the instrument of their receiving forgiveness, those who think that they received the sacrament as confirmation and evidence that they were already regenerated in the womb, and those who think they had water applied to them in infancy as evidence that they were certain to be regenerated in the future unless they consciously rejected the “sacrament” and its efficacy are underneath a terrible spiritual delusion. They will certainly be damned unless they recognize that their unbiblical religious ceremony did nothing beneficial for them, admit they are still lost, and then repent and believe the gospel.
With the Protestant or Reformed Catholics, this very serious problem relates to what Paul writes about adding circumcision to grace in Galatians 5:1-6. The Protestant or Reformed Catholics see infant sprinkling as New Testament circumcision. This does not proceed from the Bible, but from allegorization of scripture and tradition.
Galatians
The Galatians added circumcision to grace, which was enough for Paul to say in Galatians 5:2-4:
Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace.
No one should come close to what the Galatians did. Paul uses very strong language, saying, “Christ shall profit you nothing” and more. This is how they perverted the gospel to the degree that Paul wrote in 1:6-9 that it was “another gospel.” Those who preached it, he said, “let them be accursed.”
Infant Sprinkling and John Gill
Wilson wrote a defense on infant sprinkling, To a Thousand Generations: Infant Baptism – Covenant Mercy For the People of God. He wrote: “we must be content with nothing less than a clear biblical case requiring infant baptism” (p. 9). And yet, not one verse in scripture mentions infant baptism or sprinkling. Consider what 17th century English Baptist preacher or pastor John Gill wrote about infant sprinkling:
The Paedobaptists are ever restless and uneasy, endeavoring to maintain and support, if possible, their unscriptural practice of infant-baptism; though it is no other than a pillar of popery; that by which Antichrist has spread his baneful influence over many nations; is the basis of national churches and worldly establishments; that which unites the church and world, and keeps them together; nor can there be a full separation of the one from the other, nor a thorough reformation in religion; until it is wholly removed: and though it has so long and largely obtained, and still does obtain;
I believe with a firm and unshaken faith, that the time is hastening on, when infant-baptism will be no more practiced in the world; when churches will be formed on the same plan they were in the times of the apostles; when gospel-doctrine and discipline will be restored to their primitive luster and purity; when the ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper will be administered as they were first delivered, clear of all present corruption and superstition.
Cultural Stands Don’t Undo These Problems
Wilson may take a position closer to the Protestant or Reformed Catholics than his contemporary Reformed fellows do. He could argue that he is more consistent than them with the doctrine and practice. I respect the teaching of Wilson on many cultural issues. He helps on cultural and social ones. These are attractive to many evangelicals and even professing Baptists, their not hearing this in their own churches. Those, however, cannot undo the problems with the unscriptural doctrine I’m addressing. However, the Moscow troubles don’t end with infant sprinkling.
More to Come
THE MOOD IS NOT THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW, IDAHO
Several months ago now, popular reformed evangelical leader Kevin DeYoung wrote an article warning his proponents against Douglas Wilson and its “Moscow Mood.” Evangelicals in general would call “mood” a tertiary or secondary issue and let it slide. Apparently Wilson, his enterprise in Idaho, and supporters across the United States, don’t qualify for the same pass given for non-essentials. Evangelicals for certain have not historically punished the mood of institutions or figures.
Mood matters, but DeYoung and those agreeing with him are veering out of their normal belief and practice to punch at Wilson and his people. For that reason, it reads as a kind of “correctness” in the spirit of “political correctness” to modulate their norms in such a manner. Maybe it’s because Wilson strikes a popular note among a growing segment of evangelicals who are tired of leaning further left in capitulation to a declining culture.
Douglas Wilson takes stronger stands on cultural issues than popular evangelicalism, what some call, “Big Eva,” and lays down firm boundaries in ways that most evangelicals do not. He especially makes men feel more welcome in his orbit, speaking up on issues that rank-and-file evangelicals care about.
As DeYoung, I don’t want the influence of Wilson either, but for different and what should be obvious reasons that miss or avoid DeYoung and his constituency. I wouldn’t be writing this if Wilson wasn’t making headway. Folks like myself at least need to have an answer as we reach out to our areas for the Lord. Is Wilson style professing Christianity acceptable? Is it true? I contend in the main ways of discerning such questions, the answer is “No.” It isn’t. Why not though? Wilson and Moscow have a mood, but their mood is not the main issue.
WHAT’S THE PROBLEM IN MOSCOW AND THE WILSONIANS?
A biblical position will completely reject Roman Catholicism. Roman Catholicism represents total apostasy. Some Roman Catholics genuinely received Jesus Christ and have not left that ungodly institution. The institution though is absolutely apostate. Biblical Christianity does not trace itself through Roman Catholicism.
Neither is the Roman Catholic Church even a church. It has no authority. Whatever such authority it projects through its historical record also is faux authority. The trail of truth does not traverse through Roman Catholicism and yet for Douglas Wilson and the Moscowites, it does. Wilson takes his trajectory through Roman Catholicism.
Douglas Wilson calls himself a small “c” Catholic. He would distinguish himself from Roman Catholicism with his small “c.” What Wilson understands is that if you call yourself a Protestant, you are taking a line and trajectory through Roman Catholicism, so he embraces Roman Catholicism. That is easy to see. One Roman Catholic, who agrees with this assessment, calls him a “crypto-Catholic.”
Wilson wants to be consistent. He’s Catholic, but he’s reformed Catholic. He attempts to thread that needle as much as anyone out there. This depends then on a form of Roman Catholic and Protestant tradition, a unique hybrid of the two.
SACRAMENTS AND THE GOSPEL
Nothing illustrates Wilson’s Catholicism and its strain on the gospel and sola scriptura than his position on the sacraments. Moscow sprinkles infants and then welcomes children to the Lord’s Table. This bleeds over into the thinking on the gospel, because what’s the point of these sacraments for children? A recent trouble for Wilson was a decade or more controversy called “Federal Vision” and “Auburn Avenue” that looked very much like works salvation. Wilson since attempted to extricate himself from these theological movements he helped found and brought confusion on the gospel.
Wilson, since the federal vision fiasco, in public voiced a few times his loyalty to salvation by grace alone through faith alone. However, his own teaching had confused the gospel in a much greater way than Peter not eating meat with the Gentiles in Galatians 2:11-13. Wilson’s doctrine and practice continues to lead people astray on the gospel. He doesn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt on it. The gospel is far too important to obfuscate it. Many of his positions give strong association with Roman Catholicism and he considers himself a Catholic theologically and historically.
Don’t get me wrong, Wilson rejects many present components of Roman Catholicism and says so. However, his Roman Catholic-light takes a form of Catholicism before Roman Catholicism went even further off the rails. He doesn’t reject it wholesale. In that way, Moscow kowtows to Roman Catholicism.
VERSUS PERPETUITY OF TRUE CHURCHES
As part of the mood of Moscow, Wilson and his followers would mock Baptists in exactly what I’m addressing here. He would argue against a true line of separatist churches since the time of Christ, separate from the state church. He embraces the Roman Catholic Church as his mother church with a form of either evidentialism or historicism. Rome tells its own story of its own history that Rome preserved. The satire and mockery he uses very often becomes the substance of what he says.
Roman Catholics trace their lineage a long ways with a very visible history. They especially point to the “church fathers.” Those like myself, who see the true church through history in complete separation from the state church, possess less visible evidence for that line. Still, New Testament churches separate from the state church do have visible evidence, only less than Roman Catholicism. Those rejecting perpetuity of true churches point to examples of traceable error among those autonomous churches, separate from Roman Catholicism.
Christ’s Church Is Not a State Church
The primary basis for the true church, which is separate from the state church, is presuppositional. No one is neutral. Everyone has presuppositions from which he views history. The biblical presupposition is that, first, Christ’s church is not a state church. Wilson may deny that his church is a state church, but he takes his lineage through a state church. His eschatology and ecclesiology depend on state church doctrine.
The Gates of Hell Would Not Prevail Against True, New Testament Churches
Second, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself said that the gates of Hell would not prevail against His assembly [ekklesia means “assembly”] (Matthew 16:18). An assembly is not Catholic, but local. Jesus’ churches were and always would be local churches, not a Roman Catholic (universal) one. The truth was not preserved by the state church, but by Christ’s churches, which were always separate from the state church.
If the Roman Catholic Church was the true church, as Wilson believes, then where was the gospel for centuries? Jesus said He would build His church on the gospel profession or declaration: Jesus is the Christ the Son of the living God. The “Christ” of Roman Catholicism does not save to the uttermost. He does not provide full forgiveness of sins throughout all eternity. It is not a true church.
The presupposition from scripture, from the promise of Jesus Christ of the perpetuity of the true church, is the evidence. That church is not Roman Catholic, which is a false church.
INFANT SPRINKLING, THE WESTMINSTER CONFESSION, AND THE GOSPEL
Douglas Wilson wrote an entire book defending infant sprinkling, so he pushes that unbiblical doctrine on the world, treating it like it’s in the Bible. I know he would say he does not attribute salvation to infant sprinkling like Roman Catholicism, but where did he get infant sprinkling? He got it from Roman Catholicism. He didn’t get it from the Bible. It’s not in there.
More to Come
Recent Comments