Contents
Welcome to CN?
The closing line of JD Greer’s ‘Why I’m Not a Christian Nationalist’ in TGC.
“So, to paraphrase Roger Williams, give me as much Christianity as possible in our government and as little government authority as possible over my Christianity.”
Um. I think you just articulated the goals of Christian Nationalism, Mr Greer. Welcome to the club.Nate
Nate, you have a point. The civil government should have no authority in sacris, in sacred things. But it can and should have authority circa sacra, around sacred things. The reason why so many evangelical leaders are so muddy in their thinking on these issues is that their entire way of life was shaped when there was a surrounding Christian consensus. Now that we are in negative world, people are going to start reinventing the wheel.
The Brilliance of Ancient Man
To the esteemed Editor,
I enjoyed the article and thought I’d share some observations on this topic for your enjoyment and benefit.
(1) Terry Pratchett (author of the Discworld series and athiest) spoke of his preference for ‘the story of the rising ape over the story of the fallen angel.’ Many unbelievers know both stories and consciously choose their own story over God’s story.
(2) Joe Rogan has become a public proponent for the idea of advanced ancient civilizations through guests he speaks with including Graham Hancock, Randall Carlson, and more recently Filippo Biondi who has significant evidence that there is a LOT more going on under the pyramids than previously known. In contrast to these men, it has been interesting to hear of the pushback they receive for their ideas from within their own communities. It would appear that religious folks aren’t the only ones who practice blind dogmatism.
(3) I am curious to know (since I didn’t see an overt mention of it in the article) what you think of the idea that the fallen angels and/or Nephilim helped mankind develop technology; knowing that technology brings ease of life and all the more opportunity for sin.Jonathan
Jonathan, thank you. I do believe that the traffic between celestials and man did involve teaching and instruction, represented well in the myth of Prometheus giving us fire.
This is a fascinating post. I have always been a young earth creationist because I believe that God is supernatural. Not hard work for Him. Where did this information come from? Was it from meticulous research by Doug or is it published in a book? I would like to find such a resource for my library. Thanks.Tony
Tony, a lot came from reading the Scriptures closely. Other things I picked up here and there over the years. You might spend some time online research “out of place artifacts.” And one fun book you might want to get is The Genius of Ancient Man.
Your take on this, Pastor Wilson, is one that seems self-evident . . . once it is considered. As usual, I appreciate your novel viewpoint and your logical support for your conclusions. Of course ancient man must have had brilliance, even in his fallen state, to have accomplished the things you mentioned, as well as many others, and he must have had sufficient manpower available to develop his ideas into physical objects and structures. It seems obvious once it’s presented.
An aside: there’s a YouTube channel called Clickspring in which a talented machinist periodically demonstrates how ancient craftsmen could have manufactured the Antikythera Mechanism with what turn out to be surprisingly sophisticated handmade tools and methods. You might enjoy some of these if you find time to watch.EM
EM, thanks very much.
Birthright Citizenship and Abortion
Here’s something that just appeared at the end of a word salad in defense of birthright citizenship in a chat in a pro-life group I’m a member of (at least, the writer claims to be passionately pro-life—who knows?): “Taking away birthright citizenship might put a woman in jeopardy of being tempted to abort, because deportation would give her just too much to lose. This is the very reason I was so disturbed initially, when Trump was tweeting his intentions while simultaneously attending the March for Life [in 2020]. These two motivations are so very much at odds. The sentiment itself is anti-American and anti-woman. Protect Birthright Citizenship.” Wait, whut? If this writer is legit, I can’t help but think that this is the kind of “reasoning” by our supposed allies that leads to pro-lifers not being able to have nice things. What say you?Tracy
Tracy, your reaction is correct. Refusing to implement a policy because someone might do something bad within the framework of that policy is simply another way of saying that you are resolved never to make any policies.
I always appreciate your insights regarding the abortion battle. Here is a link to a response by Jimmy Evans that I believe you would find excellent.Melody
Melody, thanks.
The True Believer
You mentioned you’d reread Hoffer’s The True Believer on Michael Foster’s recommendation. I, too, had gotten it. I was intrigued by section 118, in which we might finally have answered why modern Christian art is imitative, propagandistic, and not . . . especially creative. I would love to hear your thoughts on the section (and the whole book if you are inclined to do an article).Kaylie
Kaylie, you might be mentioned this because of something I said on the Plodcast, and missed my article on it. Here is a link to that article. And as far as section 118 goes, I think he is right. It is a characteristic of the mass movement mentality to reduce all art to propaganda. At the same time, I think some of Hoffer’s examples are inapt. I once heard a speaker complain that John Calvin’s Institutes made no mention of the beauty of the Alps, right outside Calvin’s window. Right. And not one of the gospels mentioned the azure skies above the Sea of Galilee either.
Downstream Effects?
Quick question about the whole Lindsey Clancy mess. Do you think it’s just a coincidence that this absolutely Satanic incident took place in Massachusetts, the heart of the old Puritan Northeast? Do you see a connection between this atrocity and other dark events in Massachusetts Puritan history like the Salem Witch Trials? And, ultimately, are the gnostic excesses of the original New England Puritans in some way to blame for this event or at least the secular Northeast culture that it came out of? As always, your thoughts are highly-valued. Thanks and God-bless!Caleb
Caleb, these sorts of horrific crimes have always made their appearances everywhere. The thing that is downstream from the Puritans is the self-righteous and defensive reaction to this crime on the part of so many of Clancy’s defenders. But even that is not Puritanism, it is Puritanism corrupted. When Puritans lose Jesus, they become Unitarian wokescolds.
Odd Predicament
I’m curious to hear your thoughts on a predicament of mine.
I am a college student at a university that has mandatory chapel. We often have women pastors come as guest speakers. When this happens, I will read a devotional or a passage from the Bible instead of giving them my attention.
This past week, a woman came to our campus to lead our revival week, which included an extra chapel and optional evening services. Many of my friends reported that they were very encouraged by these services and found the messages nourishing. I ended up taking some pictures of their notes and feel as though I have missed out.
What are the limits of Paul’s prohibition in 1 Timothy 2? Is this command intended only in the context of the church? Is a chapel guest speaker exercising authority over me in the same way that a church leader would?
Would a female professor teaching a theology course violate this command?
Do I participate in wrongdoing by listening to (or otherwise receiving) the sermons of women who do not follow Paul’s prohibition, or does that wrongdoing rest solely on them?
Any clarity would be greatly appreciated.
In Christ,L
L, no, I don’t think you are missing out. Your first impulse has been the correct one. Continue to read edifying material during chapel, and offer it up to God as your obedience. This is not to say that everything these women preachers say must be false, or that a sovereign God couldn’t use something she says to, say, convert someone. My mother was saved in a revival meeting, and it turned out later that the revival preacher was a scoundrel. The fact that God can use it doesn’t make it right.
Wretched Man That I Am
I have a weird conflict in my brain.
I sometimes experience thoughts of vile, sinful immorality. My body wants to do those things, but at the same time I really know “That is wrong and stupid.” I am mentally aware and agree with all the things Paul and the rest of the Bible says about sin, but my sinful self still says “I want that fleeting pleasure.”
I have also come to equate capitulation to temptation as a statement of unbelief. When I sin, I am saying in effect that I don’t believe God.
I want to be at the point where when I have these intrusive moments, my immediate reaction is to connect that to a form of unbelief, and thereby strengthen my resolve to deny myself and simply “Press the I believe button”, knowing that even though my feelings are telling me one thing, that I simply need to cling to belief in Christ despite severe dissonance in the moment. I want that “belief reaction” to be more clear and at the forefront of my mind.
How do I do that?AP
AP, you understand this correctly. You learn to do that by continuing to do it. John Owen said a man should not expect any progress in godliness if he was not walking daily over the bellies of his own lusts. And speaking of John Owen, I would recommend him On the Mortification of Sin.
Why the KJV?
After all these years: KJV and still why?
Why after all these years, KJV still and why? I see you and some staff use it on Sunday. Why this over modern translations?Mike
Mike, here is the brief version. There are three basic reasons. 1. I believe the KJV is based on the best manuscripts; 2. I like the translation philosophy, which is one of formal equivalence and 3. The text is in the public domain, and not the possession publishing houses which restrict quotation and use.
Sabbatarians in the NFL?
I think your last comment in this video may be a possible solution. What should a gifted, Christian quarterback do as far as career aspirations? Go to a college close to a good church and then stay there for all four years. Rack up all kinds of records and make sure it is known the entire time that you will not be entering the NFL draft since they play on Sundays. Be so good in college that everyone watching wants to see you in the NFL. If enough talented, Christian athletes took this approach, i.e. assuming the center, I wonder if more games would be moved to Monday and Thursdays and perhaps even Fridays? At least enough that a similar situation to Sandy Koufax was created where there was the ability to work out a way to contribute without violating God’s commandments.
Just a thought.
P.S. Although to make that kind of a dent, it would likely require you to attend a Behemoth State University school, which is its own issue and perhaps not worth the opportunity unless the young man was so talented intellectually and physically as to be able to attend state school classes, football practices, and be enrolled online at NSA. :)Todd
Todd, thanks. Yes. Any way you cut it, this would be an uphill climb.
More on the Wiki Front
You forgot to mention the documentary that was made about the 2004 history conference.Jake
Jake, you are right. I did forget that.
On N.T. Wright Patronizing Americans Again
Capital Church and N.T. Wright video clip
I don’t know who the pastor of Capital Church is, but he certainly did a nice job of shining N.T. Wright’s shoes. Not to mention “smooching up.” Sheesh!Jack
Jack, well, to be fair, it is not often you get to talk to a former bishop who is also a rock star.
Historical Fiction for Kids
Recently heard your commendation of Howard Pyle’s Men of Iron. That was an inexplicable bright spot in my childhood. It divulged an entirely different forest to explore alongside the mythologies and fanciful tales that I mostly received. I wonder if you are familiar with Rosemary Sutcliff’s works, historical fiction for young people set in Britain from the Bronze age to the late ancient period. Prepared with an undergraduate Classics education, I was much taken with the cultural competence of her Roman period novel, The Eagle of the Ninth. She is generally reputed as “scholarly” but happily more interested in her story than its historicity. She did not set stories in the Medieval period because of her own preference for the Roman rather than that later religious setting. I have not read her Arthurian novels, which I think were her own treasure. Perhaps you know more of her, if not you would likely benefit from her. Here is an interview about her writing and historical resources; I think she would have been an enriching interlocutor.
Pax vobiscum.Ben
Ben, thank you. I have not read Sutcliff, but I do know that her Eagle of the Ninth has been read by the students at Logos. Thanks for the recommendation.
A Follow Up on Clary’s Loser Theology
Listening to Michael Clary’s “Loser Theology” this weekend on Canon+, I was impressed by his treatment of the Lord Acton quote that everybody loves to know by heart, but nobody (including me, up until now) can bother to examine closely.
“Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.”It’s short. It’s pithy. It overlaps Total Depravity (TM) to such a degree as to make it almost unassailable as a warning for Christians against seeking or assuming power.
But it does not stand up to the most straightforward and obvious attacks (obvious in hindsight—I apologize for being late to this line of reasoning): God is powerful. God is absolutely powerful. And yet, power has not corrupted Him.
“Well, we’re talking about humans,” the defenders might say. “Power corrupts humans.”
This is where Clary’s illustration of a rhinoceros in a crowd earns its keep. No one can deny that an ornery rhino has power. But it has no authority to wield that power. To take the analogy further, can you imagine someone (probably some purple-haired Karen or limp-wristed vegan) shaking a copy of the Constitution in front of the rhino’s face to stop it from wielding its power? I don’t know if rhinos can laugh . . .
Let me get to the point. We’ve established that:
Rhinos have power, not authority
They don’t respect paper authority
You know what they do generally respect, though? Enclosures. We keep them at zoos across the world. Zookeepers feed them. And in spite of the very rare case where a rhino rebels against the zookeeper, pretty much if you care for them in a certain way, they stay well behaved.
So my question for the United States is—what’s the equivalent of an enclosure in a post-Constitutional society?
The United States government has so far exceeded its Constitutional authority that, any righteous man who obtains the power takes the reins of a monster that is nigh uncontrollable; Leviathan does as Leviathan is going to do, and it’s going to resist even noble efforts—most recently through the judiciary and impotent Congress—to restrain it.
The inspiration behind this line of thought is partially because some (including people you know—Michael Knowles and Auron MacIntyre) have chided “fiscal hawks” for objecting on either fiscal sanity or Constitutional grounds when President Trump offered $5,000 checks for everyone if Republicans win the mid-terms, claiming we have to buy votes or “we” are going to lose.
Never mind for the moment that the left has perfected the art of exploiting envy, and if this ham-fisted way of fighting fire with fire is our best shot, it’s not going to go well for them.
They do have one point worth emphasizing (back to the point): The left has no constraints—no enclosure. The only principle is what they think gets them elected. If we adopt that principle, even in “winning,” we lose. But, as I said, the Constitution is a paper barrier. Even if we have the reins of power, the Leviathan continues chewing up an awful lot that we wish it wouldn’t, but couldn’t stop. So if the Constitution stops nothing, where are the limits of what we may or may not support, or may or may not do?Cam
Cam, thanks for raising all the questions. Boil it all down. Fighting fire with fire is a good way to become the enemy you are fighting. Or thought you were fighting.
Some Friendly Pushback on Candace
I’m writing this as someone who owes you much for your teachings and writings and sermons. I respect you greatly and because of that, it is very difficult to write this. It’s been something I’ve been pushing off for months, but I need to do it because no one else seems to be saying it.
I don’t think you have handled the response to Charlie Kirk’s murder well. Most of my frustration stems from your response to Candace’s approach—not because I am a Candace die-hard. I don’t particularly like the aroma she gives off, and she may very well be a plant. But she isn’t the only one putting scrutiny on the main narrative of what happened and there are legitimate reasons to be suspicious of the mainstream narrative.
You seem to reduce Candace’s main defense down to the fact that “Charlie came to her in dream” or “the lizard people” or “Sumerian time-travelers” but that is about as bad-faith of an representation of her as possible. You haven’t genuinely interacted with any of her evidence that she has documented over the past year. Which, if you want to just stay out of it, that’s completely fine. But you chose a side and then, I believe, dishonestly or incompetently reduced her position down to the previously mentioned points rather than addressing all of what she has said. So, because you spoke out publicly against Candace, I believe it is now fair to criticize your response publicly.
One of the articles you’ve cited as evidence that she’s a looney states that Tyler Robinson confessed to it, both to his parents and in the Discord messages. (A BBC article—since when are you a BBC guy?) But there’s a difference between confessing to a crime and turning oneself in. And it turns out that he plead not guilty to the charges at the pretrial when the mainstream media has been claiming that he has already admitted his guilt. Did you know that he was mirandized and arrested before the Discord messages were supposedly written? How could he have written those discord messages after he was arrested and gave up his belongings (phone included)?
What about the basic facts? A 30.06 designed for taking down big game from greater distances than 200 yards supposedly deliver the fatal shot to Charlie and the round lodged in a few inches of skin? Youtuber after Youtuber after Youtuber have proven that that type of round would rip through flesh much denser and bones much thicker than a human neck, even 3/8 inch thick steel. It would probably blow a human head off at that distance. (see this video for an example: ).
The article from PJ media you linked acts as if it was crazy to think that Israel may be involved in something like this without addressing any of the reasons people think that. Why was Bibi Netanyahu the first person to announce Charlie’s death? Why did Charlie’s security team feel the need to call Ben Shapiro’s security team and update them on Charlie’s state on the way to the hospital (from Ben’s mouth, not even Candace)? Why was Tyler James Robinson’s name and home address googled from Huntsville, AL a day before the murder? Why was his name also searched from the DC area before the murder? Why was someone searching the Losee Center (the building the alleged shooter fired the shot from)? What happened to the 4k camera evidence proving Tyler fired the shot? Can you say in good conscience that the footage provided in the pretrial identifies the figure running across the roof as Tyler Robinson beyond a shadow of a doubt? Or the footage in the stairwell?
They say his DNA was on the gun . . . of course his DNA will be on the gun, it’s his gun. It doesn’t prove anything—it’s not illegal to own that rifle.
My point with all of this is, there is so much more that Candace (and many others as well) have pointed out that doesn’t look right, smell right. But you reduce her case down to dreams, time-travel, and gut feelings. And then you imply that anyone who supports Candace is probably doing so out of Jew-hate, and you have implied that they need to repent. I thought that the CREC was more immune to having thought crimes, but this feels like thought crime even writing this post. I’m not a Jew-hater and I’m not black-pilled either. I’m just a guy who feels like something is off with this one, kinda like how you felt like something was off with the COVID crackdowns.
Crosspolitic said it’s not ok for Candace to “just ask questions.” But what about this question: one man’s life was already taken in cold-blood. Are we sure that Tyler Robinson deserves the death penalty? Is it provable beyond a shadow of a doubt? Or is another man about to lose his life unjustly? You might say that that’s what the trial is for, but you and Crosspolitic have already called out anyone pushing back against this narrative. You appear to be already certain that TR killed CK without even hearing the defense. Proverbs 18:17 says: “The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.”
COVID was only 6 years ago—have you forgotten? Why don’t you have the same type of scrutiny of your government in this situation that you bravely demonstrated during COVID? I remember you saying on a podcast back in the COVID days something like “I don’t know the full story behind how they’re lying to us, but I know which side is being censored.” Well, there’s one side that’s being told to shut up, that they’re anti-semitic, that they’re whackjobs, and that they’re dangerous.
This is yet another example of our as a people’s free speech being taken away and I believe you are not fighting so bravely as you have in the past.Anon
Anon, thank you for the kindness that is evident in your pushback. But here’s the thing: it is true enough that your letter contains many “plot points” that I don’t buy. But do you know who else doesn’t buy it? Tyler Robinson’s defense team. Judging from the pre-trial, none of these things that you mention are likely to come up as part of the defense in the full trial. Why not? Is his defense team in on it? Have they been paid off? Having said that, I believe that a full trial is necessary in order to convict Robinson of this crime (Prov. 18:17), and I also believe that the defense should be allowed to present the strongest possible case that they can assemble for exonerating Robinson. If this is so, then why hasn’t Candace been brought in as a consultant by the defense? Why aren’t they using her stuff?
If Tyler Robinson is a patsy, he would not have been selected randomly. Any entity powerful enough to frame him would also have been powerful enough to first amass substantial leverage over him and/or those he cares about.
A man being blackmailed behaves much differently than a man free to speak his mind.
what/where is the the video about capital church and NT Wright referring to? was it posted on Cannon plus? Twitters?
Bob, I believe that it is in reference to a Doug Reacts video
If you Google “capital church n t wright,” four videos from June appear as options.