Catholicity, Orthodoxy, and Lordship
For Subscribers, I begin a three-part series on Romans 11 and the Future of Israel. I lay the groundwork for current discussions, and then offer the modern dispensational framework, and set the stage for supersessionist models in the upcoming article.
Nick Fuentes appeals to many young men because our youth is looking to attach their anger at something or someone to explain our massive lack of civil order. But many find the wrong enemy to attach their misdirected anger at civilization. Outrage has become the currency of choice for many in our day. But the outrage is not imprecatory in nature, seeking wisdom and justice from on high; it’s rooted in the imbalance of their theology, which only understands reactionism as a paradigm. It is undeniable that these men are seeking father figures. They are self-appointed popes submitting to a self-appointed pope. Their hatred of people groups is a subscription to an anti-creational and anti-redemptive structure and worldview.
When it comes to antisemitism (“the notion that Jews are uniquely malevolent and destructive in their cultural, economic, and political influence in the world”; see Douglas Wilson, “American Milk and Honey,” pg. xv), the issue here is not whether there are negative things to observe about Israel’s geo-political strategy; the point is that those who believe in Jewish tyranny are generally prone to insurrection ideologies. They are incapable of rational argumentation except to utter incomprehensible fragments attempting at lucidity. Here’s an example from Fuentes and the natural outpouring of antisemitic rhetoric:
“I don’t hate Hitler, you know, I mean, I don’t. I’m not in favor of genocide or whatever. But I look at Hitler as a statesman. Hitler didn’t kill my people or anything like that.” -Nick Fuentes
Fuentes is a product of misdirected anger. He attempts to give honor to whom honor is due by forgetting that we do not call good evil and evil good, and neither is Jesus calling us to praise Judas’ good deeds nor is the devil seeking compliments.
Fuentes attempts to harmonize his Jewish hysteria with his Catholic faith. But he repeatedly fails because he and those who follow him cannot think clearly because their lenses are putrid and that accompanies his analysis of everything. They need a scapegoat to vent their unrighteous indignation. They are the blind leading the blind.
The opposition to Moscow from various corners will likely continue in the days and months ahead. There is a happy momentum that is unhappy with speed limits. The fruitfulness of the worldview touching on every element of life is attractive. Until people see the Kuyperian batteries driving the Moscow train, they will remain dumbfounded about why a little town keeps driving the modern theological and political conversations.
The latest attempt by Baptist pastors to derail the Moscow train reflects a desperate movement to focus on minutiae in order to gain some cheap brownie points. But that case is doomed before it starts.
Christopher Hitchens did not need a sweet Wilson; he needed Gospel serratedness. So, he did get the kindness that should come with your fries, but he also got the rough edges that should come along with your Scotch.
When Jesus came to Jerusalem, one of the first things he did was to destroy all the hallmark cards written in his honor. People expected Jesus to walk in holding a sheep with flowing blond hair, sustaining his rhetorical discourse. But when he came in, he looked like Elijah and Knox. He saw all the revolutionaries gathering inside and outside the temple courts. He brought out his inner Jeremiah and scolded them with rhetorical and physical force. “The temple is for the nations, and you have turned it into a John Hagee fest filled with charts, and worse, you have gathered the thugs of Israel, including maybe even Barrabas, to lead the Bible studies.”
Jesus did not pull out Phil Vischer’s magic vegetables for a presentation. He pulled out his serrated rhetoric and went to town, tearing down idol after idol, table after table, and politician after politician. The religious leaders wanted baby Jesus then, but they got the mature God/Man wrapped in “Hell hath no fury” like a man called by the Father to speak truth to powers. Of course, there is time for kindness and gentleness to rule the day.
And I suspect Jim Hamilton and others would concur that there is time for the happy scolding of thugs. But in this calculated effort, I prefer to be Mark’s Gospel over the Gospel of Russell Moore. I prefer to use rhetoric to call people back to soberness in an age of drunken stupors by our elites, even within the church. And further, I have seen too often that those holding back have also been viciously silent when they should act like maniacal prophets screaming from the rooftops.
In the latest Perspectivalist episode, I discuss the role of circumcision in the argument for infant baptism. Our guest Adam McIntosh, published an intriguing article at Theopolis Institute arguing for a more consistent pattern for infant baptism throughout the whole Bible: https://podcasters.spotify.com/…/Season-4–Episode-6…
And over at Kuyperian Commentary, Rick Davis interviews the Presiding Minister of Council for the CREC, Virgil Hurt, on celebrating our communion’s 25th anniversary this September in Moscow, ID. and what he expects for the next 25 years:
The Lordship of Jesus is the battle cry of the day. Not the ethereal lordship that advocates for the church’s spirituality or the escapist ecclesiology, but the kind of Lordship that makes men’s beards come alive like Aaron’s. And it’s crucial for good Christian people to swallow this truth in one sitting.
Lordship was exclusively reserved for that soteriology category of systematic books in the evangelical eco-system. I call it “Sola Soteriologia” (let the reader understand). But to be quite provocative in a minuscule sense, individual salvation is not enough. We cannot be content with a God who takes men from Eden to the New World only to deliver men from hell. And if this sentiment is too shocking, therein lies the problem. We have become too content with soteriological discussions that never go beyond the individual status, and we never move on from it; we never ask, “what doth that salvation do to our environments”?
There is a prominent conference that takes place every year where the topic of discussion ranges from the sovereignty of God over salvation to the sovereignty of God over sanctification. The range is too predictable. And the fact that such conferences still manage to bring together thousands of people is a good thing, but it should not be the ultimate thing. Eventually, someone will have to ask, “Where do we go once we get to the land?” What is it, after all, that we do with all these laws that seem to pervert the sovereignty of God?
The path of least resistance is to remain quiet and not challenge the powers that be. The path of least resistance is to treat individual salvation as the end-all of human pursuits. But we must crave more. We cannot content ourselves with merely “chips.” We must declare loudly that they are the “Lord’s chips” like every other institution on planet earth. The earth belongs to the Lord and the fullness of it (Ps. 24:1), which means that the fullness of it goes far beyond our individual redemption. It must reach the ends of the earth. The cosmos needs the imprint of Christian men testifying to God’s comprehensive authority over all things.
Where we find ourselves at this stage of Church history is between cowardly and ordinary Christian men. Ordinary men are eager to see Jesus imprecating against false religious leaders and charging the gates of hell because that’s just who they are. It’s just ordinary stuff; it’s not radical. But cowardly Christian men have no boldness to fight the blessed state but willingly acquiesce to its program for us. We cannot, fellow conquerors, allow such ideology to pervade our churches and our little tribes.
We need the Lordship of Jesus over our cereal and chicken wings as much as our salvation. We must act as if everything that is not Jesus-tattooed is an act of aggression against the kingdom of heaven. If we think this is just business as usual, you will take the bait and drink contentedly of the world’s whiskey, which is always watered-down.
“Jesus is Lord” is not a baptized gnosticism, it is a dogmatism. It means what it says it means, and it means nothing less. Ultimately, it means we are in a “taking back” mode. The spoils belong to the children of men, and the “sola soteriologistas” get to watch us feast at the Lord’s table on earth as it is in heaven.
So thrilled to teach and spend time with these students!
TWO WEEKS TO THE EARLY BIRD DEADLINE.
Register by Feb 1 for $620. https://nsa.edu/called-conference
We are excited for Pastor Uri to be our keynote speaker for Called Conference 2023. Read his full bio below.
“Rev. Dr. Uriesou Brito serves as the Senior Pastor of Providence Church and has been at Providence since 2009. Born in Northeastern Brazil, he has lived in the United States for over 25 years. He earned a B.A. in Pastoral Studies from Clearwater Christian College, an M.Div. from Reformed Theological Seminary/Orlando, and a D.Min. in Pastoral Theology from RTS/Orlando. Brito is the editor of The Church-Friendly Family, author of The Trinitarian Father, and co-author of commentaries on Ruth and Jonah published by Athanasius Press. He serves as a board member of the Theopolis Institute and is the Senior Fellow for Pastoral Theology for the Center of Cultural Leadership. He blogs at uribrito.com and kuyperian.com. Uri has been married for nineteen years to his lovely wife, Melinda, and is the proud father of Abigail, Ezekiel, Ephraim, Elijah, and Ezra.”
Stephen Wolfe’s work attempts to place God in his rightful, public place in a nation. The question is not whether we should contemplate such a proposition but in what way such a proposition needs to be installed. The absence of God in the public square is the de facto law of the land (2). Wolfe argues in his introduction that the leaders of our Christian society function as passive participants in the public square giving room for Rousseau’s disciples to rule over us while we bask in our pietism.
The book’s purpose is to “enliven in the hearts of Christians a sense of home and hearth and a love of people and country out of which springs action for their good” (5). This rekindling of the oikos receives even more precision when he defines a particular kind of nationalism. He sets the stage for what will be developed through the leviathan of 476 pages:
Christian nationalism is a totality of national action, consisting of civil laws and social customs, conducted by a Christian nation as a Christian nation to procure for itself both earthly and heavenly good in Christ (9).
He delves even deeper in his precision by arguing for a particular brand of Christian nationalism. He makes it clear in a footnote that he is “advancing a more Presbyterian form of Christian nationalism” (9). Nevertheless, he is at ease with a pan-Protestant vision where other traditions can incorporate their distinct contributions to the overall project. Such nationalism seeks to obtain the heavenly good, namely in Christ (11). This distinctly Christian platform provides the impetus for a totality of national action, which ranges from acts of sacrifice to mundane affairs (12). Christian nationalism functions consciously of its Christian status, working to define itself based on that fundamental identity.
The nation, then, serves to protect the administration of Word and Sacrament and to encourage society to partake of these things and “be saved unto eternal life” (15). The complete good of the nation is at the forefront of such endeavor and the only good is that which derives its meaning in Christ.
Evangelical and Reformed readers may become somewhat skeptical of Wolfe’s work when they note that he makes “little effort to exegete the text” (16) since he is not a theologian or biblical scholar. Nevertheless, he assumes a Reformed theological tradition and believes that such conclusions are drawn from the text. Further, he grounded his labors in 16th-17th centuries Thomistic premises, which he affirms comes from catholic Reformed tradition (18). This is made even more apparent when he concludes that “revealed theology serves to complete politics, but it is not the foundation of politics.” (19). In Wolfe’s apologetic, natural law takes a preeminent role in forming a Christianized nation.
While there are many different versions of Christian nationalism, Wolfe offers a stirring introduction and argues for a nationalism framed around scholastic theology rooted in Reformational history. The heavily footnoted introduction sets the stage for his case. We will consider in chapter one whether his anthropology provides the foundation for such a noble pursuit.
There is a celebratory parade going on in certain camps exalting the virtues of grace over the Bible Belt religion. The strategy is to find ways to ridicule the training of many of us who grew up under mom and dad’s religious education in the South. They argue that we have been strangled by the legalism of local independent baptist/evangelical churches and therefore, we have suffered much for it. Of course, the political point is that such a generation created the evangelical Trumpers, and for many, that was and will always be a bad, bad, boy moment. But among these tribes growing up in the Scofield Bible generation, some made the great escape, and they can now tell the story of how grace transformed them from those religious meanies.
Russell Moore goes so far as to refer to this kind of religious upbringing as “toxic” and that those who remain Christians are examples of “survivors.” Now, a few footnotes:
First, many of us can sit down and share some stories that are cringe-worthy of our upbringing in independent churches and many of us probably have a share of stories that ruined our appetite for certain things. That is true.
Second, since I am in the Reformed persuasion side of things, I have plenty of humorous stories about eschatology charts and walking down the aisle for the 4th time in a week-long revival extravaganza and of being terrified–ahem, 1999!–that the rapture was coming.
Finally, I can also share how many of my friends were driven away from the church later in life as a reaction to what they perceived as rigorous and often graceless training. Much of their assessment is true.
Much could be added to this list and I have shared them on numerous occasions on various platforms. I join the frustration with what is considered and defended as “Fundamentalism” in my part of the world. In fact, my own father was a graduate of Bob Jones University and even had a subscription to “The Sword of the Lord.” When I was in college, I eagerly ran to my box to find the latest edition to read the latest sermon. I hope this proves that I was a teenage-mutant-dispy.
Now, here is where “Amazing Grace” meets “I Come to the Garden Alone:” the critique of Southern religion or Bible-Belt Religion fails because it assumes ideas of grace are somehow immune to abuses. It assumes that some alternative to fundamentalist religion was pure and provided the gravitas to carry us through our lives. It assumes that the only kind of fruitful training is the one that limits the boundaries of duties and increases the garden of grace.
While it would have been lovely to grow up in a richer theological environment, with festive sounds of Psalm-singing all around, I would not trade my history. My Bible-Belt upbringing made me cherish this phase of life and, in many ways, prepared me to embrace life with firmer conviction. You see, one of the things that folks like Moore fail to grasp is that the myriads of Bible verses we memorized were being used to form a backbone and a hunger for more; that Bible-Belt training prepared us to embrace healthier habits only because we knew our Bibles well. At one time, I had over 400 verses memorized and that sits within me like a balm for my soul, though I can’t remember all the commas and “thous” any longer.
While so much of the formation of the fundamentalist world is flawed, it shaped many of us to see the Bible as the authoritative revelation of God’s world, good ol’ hymn-singin’ as good medicine for the soul, and responsibility and duty as vital to formation. And, of course, we could add more, but you didn’t come from that world without grasping those three elements.
To speak of it as “toxic religion” is a simple way of dismissing it and treating it with utter contempt while showing how grace is better than all of that stuff. But “grace” has been used during this COVIDsteria season as a baseball bat to religious liberties and as a way of conveying “Love Thy Neighbor” in the most egregiously legalistic way possible. Moore and his tribe have joined the “grace” forces to ensure that such regulations and jabbery were instrumental in the re-shaping of society.
I am all about grace for breakfast, lunch, and supper, but when it is divorced from clear mandates and when it does not come shaped by a bold Christendom, I want none of it. And while some may claim they survived “that toxic religion” and now found this “grace-free religion,” I can guarantee you that the latter comes with a cost. What you claim as “survival” probably will produce a generation of teenagers who won’t survive leftism, but will feel the bern and certainly won’t be cheering for Brandon.
Ultimately, what we have here, is an example of ingratitude. Gratitude looks at the past and, despite all the flaws, can still see how God was shaping our humanity and providentially caring for our souls through Fanny Crosbie and AWANA. It’s really how we should look at our Bible-Belt past–with gratitude for that ol’ time religion.
So there I was minding my own business drinking one of the finest ports I have ever had with dear friends at a party, enjoying my time like the summer of ’69, and then a friend asks if I had listened to the Wilson/Detweiler conversation on the Veritas Vox podcast. Mind you, these two men are friends of mine on Facebook, and while I have known Pastor Wilson personally for a long time, Detweiler seems to be doing quite a stellar job in getting the word out that Jesus is Lord in the educational department. I suspect he has the tattoos to prove his record.
When my friend encouraged me to take a listen, he prefaced by saying that someone is pushing back against Wilson’s rhetoric. So, I put the information on the California side of my brain and then went home. That side, for the record, usually goes forgotten the next day for some reason. Then, as I was about to close the evening, another friend points out the debate with a link and all. At that point, the stars lined up and I knew it was a sign from God that I should take a take-up and listen. Where two or three are confirming…
The conversation, which I suspect was the first of two, touched on a subject quite familiar to Wilson and his tribe. Back in 2000, Wilson, Piper, Sproul, and a few others were on a panel at the Ligonier Conference. Piper used the opportunity to opine on Wilson’s serrated edge approach in the Credenda Agenda magazine. For Piper, Wilson went too far. Piper argued that we do not combat the evils of this age with superior force, haughty contempt, or satiric wit. We use holy tears to plead with men. We do not mock, we plead with deep affection for the lost to come and find refuge in Jesus.
Wilson can handle his own, of course, and he did so quite eloquently back in the day arguing that we must follow the rhetoric of Jesus as he opposed the religious leaders, which incidentally is the rhetoric of Elijah and the prophets as they attacked the Baalite religion in all forms in the Old Covenant. To take things just a step further, let’s just say that Adam should have gone all prophetic on the serpent, but he took the approach of some in our day and therefore plunged us all into a rhetorically confusing universe.
While we are at it, let’s contemplate that we are image-bearers and that there is a distinct method given to us for how we are to speak to the mockers of this age. A proper imitative theology would say that when God laughs at late-night salon gatherings by the elite–which he does in Psalm 2–our response should not be, “Well, that kind of approach is perfect, and we are not, therefore, we should stay back and wait.” Nay. We should corporately pull out our front-roll open mic laughter and let it roll– deep-belly, uncontrollable, horses and chariots sort of ha-ha-ha! Our mockery towards the evil schemes should be leading the charge, rather than timidly being expressed in the silence of ivy-league libraries.
I find that the psalms of imprecation can go a long way in teaching you what is acceptable and what isn’t. The songs of Zion should shape the volume of your laughter. I have chosen long ago–with Doug–that I like my volume robust and the kind that leaves an impression on the hearer for a day or two after the initial experience.
I am not here to add too much to that fine discussion because I think if you listen to the dialogue you will see that those two fellas have the gravitas of educational titans. But I am here to support the Wilson cause because Wilson has proven right again and again in his assessment of culture. He did so long ago when I thought he was on something rather than on to something. Whereas I was a bit too hopeful about my old denomination–the PCA–Wilson was already seeing that gayness no longer has the same meaning it did when Lucy and Ricardo talked about it. And, there is something really special when you are making the right kind of enemies. I can attest that Wilson’s collection is better than yours.
I think that the argument for tenderness and love in discourse needs to be present, but I think such discourses need to be selected carefully in our day. I am all about Latin hugs and kisses and sweet greetings among friends and even grandmotherly unbelievers. But Christopher Hitchens did not need a sweet Wilson, he needed Gospel serratedness. So, he did get the kindness that should come along with your fries, but he also got the rough edges which should come along with your Scotch.
When Jesus came into Jerusalem, one of the first things he did was to destroy all the hallmark cards written in his honor. People were expecting Jesus to walk in holding a sheep with flowing blond hair sustaining his rhetorical discourse. But when he came in, he looked like Elijah and Knox. He saw all the revolutionaries gathering inside and outside the temple courts. He brought out his inner Jeremiah and scolded them with rhetoric and physical force. “The temple is for the nations, and you have turned it into a John Hagee fest filled with charts and worse, you have gathered the thugs of Israel, including maybe even Barrabas to lead the Bible studies.”
May I say, boys and girls, at that moment, Jesus did not pull out Phil Vischer’s magic vegetables for a presentation. He pulled out his serrated rhetoric and went to town tearing down idol after idol, table after table, and politician after politician. The religious leaders wanted baby Jesus at that moment, but they got the mature God/Man wrapped in “Hell hath no fury” like a man called by the Father to speak truth to powers.
Of course, there is time for kindness and gentleness to rule the day. And I suspect Piper and others would concur that there is time for happy scolding of thugs. But in this calculated effort, I prefer to be Mark’s Gospel over the Gospel of Russell Moore. I prefer to use my rhetoric to call people back to soberness in an age of drunken stupors by our elites, even within the church. And further, I have seen too often that those who hold back have also been viciously silent when they should be the ones acting like maniacal prophets screaming from the rooftops.
Not everyone can be a Wilson, and as I have warned my congregation, young cage-stagers should keep their keyboards very discerning. They should do a whole lot of serving their communities long before they feel like they have earned the tables Jesus earned with his itinerant ministry. Many are not prepared to do what Wilson does, and how he does it. But I am glad that he is on my side, and I approve of his message.
A friend asked recently why so many have abandoned core principles of conservatism. Now, it bears observing that not all conservatism is created equal. I am not advocating for some strict approach to economic theory or models of warfare, though all these shapes the conservative agenda. I am advocating for a moral conservatism that fights and doesn’t move in the face of trendy hashtags.
Hence, the question of why folks like David French have fallen so far away from reality is an interesting case study. What we see in Mr. French is a reflection of what has transpired in the paradigm shift of folks like Russel Moore and Tim Keller. Other names could be added, but since these names rule the present conversations, they will serve as prime examples of how these things take place.
No one is minimizing the efforts of these men in some capacity for the kingdom. Russ Moore, for example, has been a great voice in the adoption/fostering revolution. Keller has added much gravitas to the larger apologetic discourse while operating in the most insane part of the Western world; the Amsterdam of civilization, New York City. And we can’t forget the contributions David French has added to the church like…
Now, the original question is fascinating because I think there are culprits that accelerated the political decline of these figures. I have three in mind, which can be applied to all sorts of kids playing provocateurs online, and they are:
First and foremost, Donald J. Trump. Trump made America great again by revealing the centrists for what they are: disinterested participants in Christendom. Centrists–you know, the folks who are dubious about who to vote for in an election and always desiring some instantiation of John F. Kennedy or Marcus Aurelius to rise from the ashes–add nothing to societal solutions because they vacillate between gay marriage and Tom Brokaw. That is, they never know what to stand for and therefore, they live in this ethereal world filled with potentialities like political Molinists. Centrism is the reason for the decline of these once stalwarts.
Now, I read a lengthy article from Keller recently where he does a fine job explaining why he loves mercy and justice so much, which is because the prophets love mercy and justice so much. Therefore, Keller argued, he is perceived to be a liberal by conservatives. I appreciate Keller’s interest in deriving a political agenda from the Old Testament prophets. I think more people should do that, but it is remarkable how picky Keller’s political ideology is. While he uses a buffet of texts from Isaiah about mercy and justice, there is little interest in engaging an economic theology from Proverbs and Psalms. “Imprecation?” No, thanks. Incentives to hard work and responsibility? Nada. The problem is not the texts about justice and mercy; the problem is that centrists find proof-texting delightful. I will take “mercy and justice” for a $1,000, Alex! Yes, but that mercy and justice need to be incorporated in a larger political view of the world.
This and other reasons always make me pause thrice (see KJV) when someone says they are not Republicans or Democrats. Almost always it is code for some idealized view of old Rome and Romanticism. It’s the centrist version of “Hold my beer while I show you the way!”
The “Donald” brought all these things to the forefront. I have written much about how all these political examples of “progress” (see my article on the “Myth of Progress”) began after the Trump election in 2016. Since then, many have fallen faster than David Frum from the conservative roller coaster. What Trump did was bring out the propensities of centrists to happily centralize government and give unto Caesar so much more than he actually deserves. Trump, who barely opined a linguistically sensical sentence, brought out of their caves the linguistically insane. How are the mighty fallen!
The second piece of the pie is Anabaptist theology. Since Rod Dreher’s “The Benedict Option” came on the market a few years ago, we have had a harsh acceleration towards Wendell Berryism. Now, I have added some positive things about the “BO” in the past and since I have a close connection with people very close to Dreher, I know many of the sentiments invested in that book. It is also worth mentioning that Dreher is Orthodox, as in the “road to Constantinople,” Orthodox. This comes with all sorts of sociological impetus-es. Still, the Benedict Option is a fruit of an anabaptist assumption, which I thought was dealt with quite well by Calvin in the 16th century. But apparently, many of these–Russell Moore, et. al.–operate in a significant “spirituality of the church” paradigm. This is a short way of saying that the church ought to stay away from politics, until, they spouse our “politics.” Pardon my modernized translation. I add that Dreher has made lots of helpful clarifications and I stand behind “Live Not By Lies” more so than the isolationist implications of Benedictine monasteries.
I have argued for the Boniface Option instead, which is a bit more intentional about making every thought captive. The argument for idealizing small communities and separating for the sake of re-education is good and wholehearted, but why it has attracted mostly those who have accepted amillennialism into their hearts is another interesting case for why anabaptist theology has gained so much interest in our day.
Some of these advocates are often allergic to conversations about big numbers, and they always view you with suspicion when your project starts to get attention. It reminds me of a historian of a certain denomination who once stated that the beauty of his denomination is that for 100 years it had not grown and therefore, it was not susceptible to compromise.
My general approach is that what is beautiful attracts, even if that attraction takes time to age well in a cellar. In other words, I can stand behind the premise that quick attraction kills, but beautiful things are seed planting investments and you should certainly question a few things if after many, many years that thing offers nothing more than a few dogmatic poster kids.
The other side of the muddy river offers you those whose numbers grow with the wrong kinds of disciples. You need a generation or two to see what doth ideas produce. You need to see if the disciples caught on to the thing, but it’s a sad thing when the disciples take an even bigger turn towards Amsterdam ethics. The Great Commission is a numbers game and David French is gaining the world, but producing disciples that will offer very little but niceties to the political discourse.
The third piece of this pie is the admiration paradigm; what I call admirationism ethics. Now, I don’t think we should purposefully make enemies of folks. But there is a spiraling downward impact that occurs when people find more in common with AOC and Pelosi than with Trump.
I do not believe Keller and others woke up one day and decided to make Joe Scarborough happy with their politics, but Joe does now admire them, and that trajectory happened because of 1,000 little moments of weaknesses. They believed that the discourse required pleasantries and alignment with Black Lives Matter. The beginning was fun. The cocktails were delicious but in the name of racial reconciliation, they allowed voices like Jemar Tisby to whisper into their ears that white people all share the same burden of tyranny. And then they felt that they needed to do something to show their benevolence towards the cause, and then they began to hate Republicans who voted for Trump, and then they started having kale drinks for breakfast. Something like that unfolded, more or less in that order.
The point of it all is that trajectories don’t happen overnight. David French will have to answer for his blatant guilt manipulations techniques and his ever-increasing terrible writing habits that seek to find some new Christian nationalist to hate.
Centrism, Anabaptism, and Admirationism are the culprits of this abandonment of core conservatism. That’s my meager attempt at solving this riddle. The anxiety of the left will do everything to stir anxiety among conservative-minded folks. Stay healthy, my friends. And don’t listen to the Frenches.