<blockquote>
It all begins with a small, anonymous Twitter account. It has less than 50 followers. One of those followers is Stephen Wolfe, who occasionally “liked” some of the Tweets emanating from this account. A theologian by the name of Alastair Roberts, while working on his own criticisms of Wolfe’s book, became curious about this anonymous account. He did a lot of digging around on social media and <a href="https://alastairadversaria.com/2022/11/27/the-case-against-thomas-achord/">came to the reasoned conclusion</a> that this anonymous account is run by Stephen Wolfe’s podcast co-host and collaborator, Thomas Achord. And then Alastair said so publicly.
</blockquote>
You should go read the whole post by Brian Mattson. I feel like he ably captured the thoughts swirling around in my head in a more coherent manner than I ever would have been able to. But suffice to say that it was all, "shock, horror, that's not my account, definitely not, nope not mine" for days. Then, finally, after the smoking gun was found and the dust had settled, Thomas Achord fell on his sword in the lamest, most passive way possible.
<blockquote>
This is sordid business, and I apologize for having to bring it to your attention. Why does it matter? Well, Alastair Roberts explains why he thinks it matters, and I think he is right: there are actual, real, live white supremacists attempting to use “Christian Nationalism”—and classical Christian education!—as a Trojan Horse to help promote their deviant views. And the world has a right to know whether the author of The Case For Christian Nationalism is one of them. Guilt-by-association? It is certainly worthy of a little suspicion-by-association. This was not a case of “a friend-of-a-friend-of-a-friend” saying vile things. This, as I understand it, is Wolfe’s closest collaborator. And I frankly don’t find believable any of the “explanations,” such as they are—not Achord’s, and not Wolfe’s. It’s a matter of record that Achord was lying—brazenly so, and to my mind still is—and Wolfe’s (non)accounting of things simply does not add up.
Alastair Roberts (whom I greatly respect and admire) cares about the cause of Christian Nationalism and wants to empty out the Trojan Horse, or, to use another metaphor, drain the movement of its swampy elements. I do not care about the cause of Christian Nationalism—least of all Stephen Wolfe’s version of it—and wish it to die a quick and tidy death. I have done my part to help make that happen. But on this Alastair and I are aligned in lockstep: there is no room for racism or white supremacy of any kind in anything claiming the name of Jesus Christ, certainly not in a “Christian” vision of public and social policy.
</blockquote>
I, like Brian, do not care too much about the name Christian Nationalism or the broader movement <a href="#user-content-fn-1" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-1" aria-describedby="footnote-label">1</a>. Though, doubtless, some would want to lump me in with many who embrace the term. Indeed, I do not doubt there is significant overlap in what I believe and what Christian Nationalists tend to believe. Christ is Lord, Christ rules and reigns now, and men's governments and laws should legislate the morality of Christ and God's word rather than the immorality that comes from a bitter and blackened heart and those who curse His name. And yet there always seems to be a lot of "sordid business" surrounding this nationalism stuff. Guilt by association isn't always right. It takes wisdom and discernment to figure it out. But after enough times, you can start to put 2 and 2 together.
I've dealt far too much with <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinism">kinism</a> and racism in the reformed circles I run in and I, too, wish it to be swept away entirely from my sight. It doesn't look like that will happen in my lifetime.
<hr>
As somewhat of an aside — though certainly related to the nationalism conversation — I think one of the problems in the Christian Nationalism movement continues to be a high view of the "state" and a big government, top-down view of running the world. We moderns care a lot about things happening at a big, huge national level but not too much about what's going on in our communities. To be sure, what happens at a national level affects us far more often and to a larger degree than it should, and that causes us to care a great deal. But there's not a lot we can (or should) be doing from such a top-down position.
The U.S. is HUGE — both in population and land mass. There's just no way to properly and accurately represent all the interests at the national level. There's no way to have a shared identity and sense of "people" that the Democrats, Republicans, or the Christian Nationalists (probably Republicans?) wish to foist upon us. Are there usually things that most Americans can identify with. Yes and no. But the conception of those things will be different depending upon whether they are held in a big city, a small town, or the rural farm land. Each one of those groups has very different ideas and conceptions about being American, and they have very different interests. And because all the power is concentrated in a small group of governing officials and bodies, it doesn't really tend to work out well for anyone.
I don't think anyone, not Democrats, not Republicans, not Christian Nationalists, and not conservative libertarians (or Biblical libertarians or conservatarians, or whatever I try to call myself these days), is happy with the way things are right now. No one's interests are being served. The entire country is polarized along (falsely drawn) political lines and bad-faith argumentation. Our top-down authoritarian government has made us hate the other parties that do not serve our interests because each party is forced to vie for power to serve their own interests at the expense of others out of self-preservation.
The answer is not "nationalism" but localism. Remove the concentration of power. And as Christians we should focus on our communities, our local churches, the gospel, and righteous local leaders. No doubt, out of self-preservation, we should continue to vote in federal elections. But we should seek to be putting into federal power, those who would seek to reduce the size and scope of the federal government, not those who would use it as a battering ram for whatever political pets they or their constituents want.
Of course, when people hear localism, they also hear cliquishness and racism. And I don't deny that the human tendency toward suspicion, even hating the "other" is strong (sorry to use the "other" buzzword). But it's also strong — as we see now — at the federal level too. And it causes far more problems from the top down than it would from a position of less power and influence <a href="#user-content-fn-2" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-2" aria-describedby="footnote-label">2</a>. The thing is that Christian Nationalists tend to speak of our nation in a tribal sense. In a way, I'm advocating for real tribalism through localism, which is ironic. But I believe that focusing more locally would make for much better neighbors nationally. To use a very broad generalization, the city of New York trying to force their ways and their values on the rural areas of TN is precisely what has caused the rise in cliquish fear and aggravated the issues around the so-called "shared identity" of being American.
The answer of nationalism is to change the top-down thinking via authoritarianism. The correct answer is, in my estimation, localism <a href="#user-content-fn-3" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-3" aria-describedby="footnote-label">3</a>.
<h2 id="user-content-footnote-label">Footnotes</h2>
<ol>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-1">
Do not misunderstand me, I do care a great deal about Christ being the sovereign over all. <a href="#user-content-fnref-1" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-2">
Sin affects every human institution, since sinful humans are involved in every human institution. <a href="#user-content-fnref-2" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-3">
Of course, as a Christian, a healthy dose of the local church is also necessary! <a href="#user-content-fnref-3" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
</ol>

Brian Mattson — Sordid Business

The Nationalism Conversation

<blockquote>
Remember when all the noble people of the world stood up to denounce <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/08/opinion/joe-rogan-health-misinformation-solutions.html">The Covid Misinformation</a> perpetrated on Joe Rogan's podcast? It seems like ages ago, but in fact it was just this January! And okay, it also wasn't all the noble people. Mainly just a couple of old musicians, like <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/01/25/neil-young-gives-spotify-ultimatum-over-joe-rogan-disinformation/">Neil Young</a> and <a href="https://nypost.com/2022/01/29/joni-mitchell-removing-her-music-from-spotify-i-stand-with-neil-young/">Joni Mitchell</a>, who for a moment relived the glory days of the world's attention, as they hammered Spotify for their awful, awful decision to let a popular podcaster have outlawed conversations on outlawed topics. In defiance of <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2022/jan/31/joe-rogan-covid-claims-what-does-the-science-actually-say">The Science</a> and official consensus on Covid!!
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
…why is Spotify still trying to appease the likes of Young or Mitchell with these alarming blue warning bars pointing to information counter to that of health authorities in Norway, Sweden, and Denmark?
Because Covid in America remains a political struggle rather than a medical one, of course. A flame that continues to attract partisan moths. Despite an absolute embarrassment of specific calls that were at one time or another held by The Consensus of The Science turning out to be bunk. Does anyone need a reminder?
</blockquote>
This has been such a huge problem. Covid, whatever it was or wasn't, however it started, whatever real, physical effects it has or had on people, it has become entirely political here in the U.S.
<blockquote>
Capitalizing The Science and turning it into a <a href="https://world.hey.com/dhh/there-are-no-all-knowing-all-seeing-oracles-bc6ed1fc">consensus cult</a> has done more to undermine public trust in the House of Francis Bacon than even the atom bomb. It's cracked the reputation of scientists who turned dogmatists, and centers for disease control and prevention captured by political directives. It's brought eternal shame on musicians turned narrative cops, and the journalists that breathlessly backed the censorship protocol that was installed at the outset of this pandemic.
</blockquote>
This has been my problem for quite some time. Science makes a great servant but a terrible master. Covid became an inflection point where we have consistently been told to "trust the science" when the science suspiciously backs particular, partisan view points while bending over backward so far to accommodate those view points that it's a wonder "the science's" back doesn't break…

David Heinemeier Hansson: Why is Spotify still linking to the CDC?


DHH May Be Canceled, But He Makes Complete, Clear-Headed Sense

<blockquote>
Advocates of so-called Christian Nationalism now are mostly a part of a protest movement, even if they pretend otherwise. Secularists deny certain historical truths about America’s founding; the CN camp replies with excessive revisionism of its own. Secularists scream for the coerced removal of God from the public square; the CN camp replies with advocacy for some coercive notion of their own. Secularists scream that Christianity has no part of America’s identity; the CN camp seeks to merge Christian and American identities. I could go on and on. Things that ought to be acceptable at worst and commendable at best get taken to a place of authoritarianism or nativism out of a temper tantrum.
</blockquote>

The Shine Falls off Christian Nationalism

Bahnsen on Christian Nationalism

<blockquote>
What, dare we ask, are the allowable boundaries of respectable pluralism? In answering this question, David French is particularly unclear.
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
One of the most perplexing marks of our time is the defection of so many “conservatives” from the cause of conserving what Russell Kirk called “the permanent things.” If marriage is not conserved—if civil marriage is not conserved as a man-woman union—then nothing genuinely conservative can last, at least for long. Support for the Respect for Marriage Act is bad enough. The way David French frames his argument is worse. This is how conservatism dies, and this is how marriage is surrendered.
</blockquote>
My like of David French has come and gone during the time I was not publishing to this blog. But the fact is, I did like many things David French had to say during the Trump years and said so on my social media platforms. He was, quite frankly, a breath of fresh air much of the time. I, as another who, like David French, has never been able to support or vote for Trump, resonated with the things French was saying at the time. I agreed with French then and still believe Trump is a blight on Christian conservative's record, even though I believe God used Trump despite his wickedness to do one or two good things <a href="#user-content-fn-1" id="user-content-user-content-fnref-1" aria-describedby="footnote-label">1</a>
I mark the sour turn with French as starting at the end of the (first?) Trump era. French allowed himself to be broken by Trump and he has turned on Conservatives, Christianity, and I would argue, on Christ.
Of course, Mohler notes that there were some problematic things from French earlier (in the 2004 era). I can't speak to those. I became aware of French and started loosely following his work just before the Trump era.
I have recently reviewed some things that French wrote or said during that era that I liked, linked to, or promoted on my various platforms, and I still largely agree with all of it, so I am not the one who has changed.
A friend of mine said this morning when I sent him a link to the tweet I'll embed below, that French is a great example of someone losing themselves to <a href="https://theportal.wiki/wiki/Audience_Capture">audience capture</a>.
<blockquote>"Millions of Americans have formed families and live their lives in deep reliance on Obergefell being good law. It would be profoundly disruptive and unjust to rip out the legal superstructure around which they’ve ordered their lives." <a href="https://t.co/1dKjODsayq">https://t.co/1dKjODsayq</a>— David French (@DavidAFrench) <a href="https://twitter.com/DavidAFrench/status/1594426687885811712?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2022</a></blockquote> 
<a href="https://twitter.com/aaron_renn">Aaron Renn</a> also <a href="https://aaronrenn.substack.com/p/newsletter-70-why-you-should-be-careful">had some theories as to how this has happened to French</a>:
<blockquote>
All of us instinctively react against negative criticism. One of our most typical reactions is to double down, and to become hostile towards the person who criticized us.
I think this has played a key role in David French’s evolution since the Trump campaign. Imagine David French back in 2019. He’s minding his own business, standing in line for his caffe latte at Starbucks. His phone beeps and it’s a Google Alert, or perhaps a friend texting him to say “check this out.” The subject is an article in First Things, the leading conservative religious journal in the country, called “<a href="https://www.firstthings.com/web-exclusives/2019/05/against-david-french-ism">Against David French-ism</a>,” written by fellow conservative Sohrab Ahmari. Then thousands of people pile on saying how much they agree with Sohrab Ahmari about French and his approach being what’s wrong with the world.
</blockquote>
I realize that I'm just adding my voice to that negative feedback loop at this point, but it's gone so far with David French I don't know what else I could do.
The fact is, now, French is not someone I would ever link to or support in any way. But I would sure welcome a return of the 2015–2020 French.
<h2 id="user-content-footnote-label">Footnotes</h2>
<ol>
<li id="user-content-user-content-fn-1">
Not the least of which was to establish decent, conservative, originalist judges on the Supreme Court. <a href="#user-content-fnref-1" aria-label="Back to content">↩</a>
</li>
</ol>

Al Mohler and The parable of David French

French-ism

<blockquote>
You might ask why I would describe this paragraph on page 118 as the “end” of a 475-page book? Because the sentence that follows begins, “Having established these conclusions…” Since, as I will explain at length, Wolfe has in no way “established” these conclusions, everything that follows from page 118 to page 475 is essentially superfluous. There may be some material of interest—and some of it will elicit comment—but none of it reaches the heart of the matter.
</blockquote>
Brutal.
<blockquote>
Wolfe begins the book by exempting himself from the tasks of exegesis and biblical theology: “Some readers will complain that I rarely appeal to Scripture to argue for my positions. I understand that frustration, but allow me to explain: I am neither a theologian nor a biblical scholar. I have no training in moving from scriptural interpretation to theological articulation.”
</blockquote>
…
<blockquote>
Wolfe’s ambivalence toward the Bible has deeper roots, however, than mere feigned ignorance about how to do biblical interpretation. The fact is rather that he doesn’t think he needs to do any biblical interpretation in the first place. The irrelevance of the Bible to the task at hand—political theory—is deeply embedded in his own understanding of reason and revelation, nature and grace.
</blockquote>
What I find fascinating is that Wolfe sees the Bible and Biblical interpretation as not interesting or important to what he's writing about. Yet his work is being promoted by those of my acquaintance or who's work I have liked or am familiar with, who cast themselves in the Van Tillian or Kyperian traditions. In The Defense of the Faith, Van Til (perhaps famously) says:
<blockquote>
The Bible is thought of as authoritative on everything of which it speaks. Moreover, it speaks of everything. We do not mean that it speaks of football games, of atoms, etc., directly, but we do mean that it speaks of everything either directly or by implication. It tells us not only of the Christ and his work, but it also tells us who God is and where the universe about us has come from. It tells us about theism as well as about Christianity. It gives us a philosophy of history as well as history. Moreover, the information on these subjects is woven into an inextricable whole. It is only if you reject the Bible as the word of God that you can separate the so-called religious and moral instruction of the Bible from what it says, e.g., about the physical universe.
</blockquote>
I'm not sure how you can cast yourself in this tradition unless you are willing to apply the Bible and Biblical interpretation to everything, including the political realm.
Stephen Wolfe is also of a very two kingdoms persuasion. I do have friends of the two kingdoms persuasion. I would never say they weren't Christians. We can be friends and I even have some sympathy for some two kingdom thinking. Nevertheless, the primary influences in my life are not of two kingdom thought. Yet this book, which is clearly based on two kingdom theology, has taken my non-two kingdom influences by storm.
<blockquote>
If one consults, say, his academic Ph.D thesis looking for some deeper explanation, one finds more of the same: the crassest sort of dualism, with everything divvied up very neatly between “heavenly” things about metaphysics and salvation known by faith and “earthly” things like science and politics known by reason. In that work he even includes a flowchart dividing it all up that would get full marks from Professor Kant of Königsberg, who would then, of course, just tear the sheet of paper in half and throw the “heavenly” side into his fireplace.
</blockquote>
Because you like someone's conclusions (and I'm not saying I like all of Wolfe's conclusions, though I dare say I would fall in line with a great many of them) does not mean I agree with the means used to arrive there. Just because two opposed trajectories intersect, that is no reason to jump on the opposing train. If you jump off the train going in the right direction for the intersecting train going in the wrong direction, you will find yourself at the wrong destination.
And finally, somewhat relatedly, I made a meme, and Andrew Sandlin saw it somewhere and shared it 🙂.
<blockquote>I always knew Brian Mattson was a superhero. <a href="https://twitter.com/The_Square_Inch?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@The_Square_Inch</a> <a href="https://t.co/AT5HAWEX2m">pic.twitter.com/AT5HAWEX2m</a>— DocSandlin (@DocSandlin) <a href="https://twitter.com/DocSandlin/status/1594182974840311808?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">November 20, 2022</a></blockquote>

Brian Mattson

On Nationalism

<blockquote>
After the SWAT team broke down the door, they threw a flashbang grenade inside. It landed in my son’s crib.
Flashbang grenades were created for soldiers to use during battle. When they explode, the noise is so loud and the flash is so bright that anyone close by is temporarily blinded and deafened. It’s been three weeks since the flashbang exploded next to my sleeping baby, and he’s still covered in burns.
There’s still a hole in his chest that exposes his ribs. At least that’s what I’ve been told; I’m afraid to look.
</blockquote>
Why was this disgusting atrocity committed?
<blockquote>
My husband’s nephew, the one they were looking for, wasn’t there. He doesn’t even live in that house. After breaking down the door, throwing my husband to the ground, and screaming at my children, the officers – armed with M16s – filed through the house like they were playing war. They searched for drugs and never found any.
</blockquote>
Drugs. This is because of drugs.
<blockquote>
I heard my baby wailing and asked one of the officers to let me hold him. He screamed at me to sit down and shut up and blocked my view, so I couldn’t see my son. I could see a singed crib. And I could see a pool of blood. The officers yelled at me to calm down and told me my son was fine, that he’d just lost a tooth. It was only hours later when they finally let us drive to the hospital that we found out Bou Bou was in the intensive burn unit and that he’d been placed into a medically induced coma.
</blockquote>
This is outrageous — OUTRAGEOUS!
<blockquote>
Every morning, I have to face the reality that my son is fighting for his life. It’s not clear whether he’ll live or die. All of this to find a small amount of drugs?
</blockquote>
The "war" on drugs has never, ever been right, but this sort of thing shows just how crazy it actually is. This is tyranny, not freedom and it's disgusting, immoral, and wholly reprehensible.
I really liked this sarcastic comment made down in the comments section on the linked article. I don't often read the comments, but I happened to see this one and it was good:
<blockquote>
Look people, we can't have people putting plants into their bodies, your body is state property. You don't own yourself. If a few babies have to be blown up to keep that evil plant out of people's bodies than so be it.
</blockquote>
This is what we've come to as a nation. May God help us.

Alecia Phonesavanh — Salon

The War On Drugs Leaves 2 Year Old Fighting for Life

<blockquote>
Adrenal Fatigue is a very trendy diagnosis in the alternative health industry right now, and I’m seeing more and more clients who come to me having previously been diagnosed with it. I’ve noticed a troubling pattern that deserves to get some air time, so I’m talking about it here.
</blockquote>
It's likely to make some health minded folks mad, but this is really good and you need to read this.

Go Kaleo

Adrenal Fatigue or Starvation?

I know I've completely let this site go, and I hope one day to return it to some manner of glory. But I did want to let you know, if any of you still have this site in your RSS feeds, that <a href="http://infrequenttech.com/1">I recorded a podcast about iOS 7</a> and the iPhone 5C and 5S. Head on over and give it a listen in honor of the launch of iOS 7 tomorrow.

The Infrequent Techcast

Keep in mind that this Kirsten is a liberal columnist. It gives me hope that not everyone on the left is insane.
<blockquote>
“Get ready for pat-a-cake! Baby’s hands are now fully developed and he spends most of his awake time groping around in the darkness of your uterus. Brain and nerve endings are developed enough now so that your baby can feel the sensation of touch.” Let’s be clear: Davis has been called a hero for trying to block a bill that would make aborting this baby illegal.
</blockquote>
How is it heroic to champion a so-called right of someone to kill another? And what's more, that other person has no voice.
<blockquote>
In addition to the limit on late-term abortions, the Texas legislature sought to pass regulations on abortion clinics similar to what was passed in Pennsylvania in 2011 after the <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/16/yes-there-is-a-gosnell-trial-coverup-by-the-big-news-organizations.html">Gosnell horror</a>.
</blockquote>
You know, the Gosnell horror the pro-choicers were trying to say did not represent them and what they believe.
<blockquote>
So no, I don’t stand with Wendy. Nor do most women, as it turns out. According to a <a href="http://www.nationaljournal.com/congressional-connection/coverage/americans-narrowly-support-20-week-abortion-ban-20130626">June National Journal poll</a>, 50 percent of women support, and 43 percent oppose, a ban on abortion after 20 weeks, except in cases of rape and incest.
One can assume I am also not the only woman in America who is really tiring of the Wendys of the world claiming to represent “women’s rights” in their quest to mainstream a medical procedure—elective late-term abortion—that most of the civilized world finds barbaric and abhorrent. In many European countries, you can’t get an abortion past 12 weeks, except in narrow circumstances. <a href="http://www.gallup.com/poll/160058/majority-americans-support-roe-wade-decision.aspx">Gallup reported in January</a> that 80 percent of Americans think abortion should be illegal in the third trimester, and 64 percent think it should be illegal in the second trimester.
</blockquote>
...
<blockquote>
Human-rights movements have traditionally existed to help the voiceless and those without agency gain progressively more rights. Yet in the case of abortion, the voiceless have progressively lost rights at the hands of people who claim to be human-rights crusaders. Abortion-rights leaders have <a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/06/abortion-rights-community-has-become-the-nra-of-the-left.html">turned the world upside down</a>. They want us to believe that a grown woman is voiceless, that she has less agency than the infant in her womb who relies on her for life.
</blockquote>
Precisely! I could not agree more whole-heartedly with this.
Also recommended reading is her article titled, "<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/05/06/abortion-rights-community-has-become-the-nra-of-the-left.html">Abortion Rights Community Has Become the NRA of the Left</a>."

Kirsten Powers - The Daily Beast

Human Rights

<blockquote>
The day after the funeral, I was thinking about planting flowers at the grave for Mothers Day, and as soon as the phrase “mom’s grave” went through my mind, I was glad that I was alone in the house. For a while, I just sat on my bed and cried.
</blockquote>
And I cried reading this.

Elise - The Frugal Farm Wife

My Sister Writes About Mom

Follow the link for the audio recording of the service. My Pastor gave a REALLY great message. Go listen!

Heritage Church

The Baptism of Kaylee Marie

<blockquote>
While Gray argued that the unborn should be protected in law because abortion is the violent killing of innocent human life, Mercer argued that there is nothing ethically troubling about abortion, at one point suggesting that a baby isn’t a “person” until around 18 months of age.
</blockquote>
Man, my new little "not a person" sure is cute!
<blockquote>
Mercer agreed that the unborn are human beings, and that abortion is the deliberate killing of a human being, but argued that the notion of “human being” is not a “morally relevant concept.” Individuals are not special by virtue of their “species membership,” he said, but become “persons” and worthy of protection because they possess certain “ethically salient properties” such as the ability to experience pain or pleasure, self-consciousness, and rationality.
</blockquote>
This is wickedness, pure and simple. And while current typical pro-choicers may slam this guy as an extremist and not representative of the pro-choice position, this is where it leads. This is where we are headed.

Posts tagged “Linked” from the blog