Robertson’s Case for Genealogical Unity

I’ve often heard it claimed that the Bible makes no reference to someone’s physical characteristics when determining anything important.

Usually this is an overly-general statement intending to generate a scholarly sounding rebuttal to real or imagined forms of “racism.”

When pointed out that the entire covenantal system is predicated on blood-relations among people-groups, the usual response is to deny, deny!  “The covenant was certainly not about physical ties,” they say…“but rather, it was about an intellectual assent to spiritual ideals!” Or else they’ll just say that it was a “spiritual” covenant, and leave their debate opponent wondering at the ambiguous phrase.

I was of the opinion that the genealogical administration of the covenant was so well-established in Christian literature that it needed only assertion as a quick reminder.  I didn’t suspect that I would have to argue for it!  To be fair to my sleeping brethren, perhaps we wouldn’t have to argue were the topic approached from a non-threatening direction?  It is the implication of genealogical unity that, when pointed out, causes the disturbance.

O. Palmer Robertson’s book “The Christ of the Covenants” presents a succinct and clear argument for the unity of the covenants, specifically their genealogical unity.  I’ll sum up his case here, and Christians can wrestle with God over the implications:

He begins by claiming that the genealogical unity is seen in the “seed-concept” found in (Gen 15:18; Exod. 20:5, 6; Deut. 7:9; and II Sam. 7:12)

There are two specific verses that highlight this unity in a dramatic way, says Robertson, and they are:  Deut. 5:2,3; and Deut. 29:14.

Deut 5:

In Deut. 5:2,3, Moses affirms that the covenant of Sinai was made with “those of us alive here today.”  The problem is, the people being addressed were not alive during the covenant at Sinai!  The text indicates that Moses is clearly implying that the promises at Sinai apply equally to the blood descendants.  To get a better sense of what is being said in these verses, Robertson offers this restatement: “…with us, the Christians of the twentieth century, all of us alive in Christ today, God made the covenant at Sinai.”

Deut. 29:

Moses assembled all of Israel onto the plains of Moab, including women and children (according to verse 11).  But, in verse 14, Moses says that he is addressing both “those who stand here with us today in the presence of the Lord our God and with those who are not with us here today.” Moses is extending the covenant promises to those not yet born!

There are many references in the Bible to a genealogical unity of the covenants, but Palmer chose the above two because of their dramatic and clear presentation of the concept.

In closing, it must be noted that Robertson is very quick to acknowledge that this in no way invalidates a “grafting” and “pruning” process.  While true, he admits, non-blood related peoples could be grafted into the covenant; the covenant itself is established through blood relation.  Unlike the exegesis of democrats, Robertson’s view of covenant relationship is not one of abstract intellectual assent but is based firmly in blood relations.

Robertson concludes:

While the “pruning” principle may threaten any who would be presumptuous, it does not intend to suggest that God’s grace works against the natural order of creation.  The grace of God in salvation is not against creation’s order; it is against sin.  The Christian must avoid being lured into a nature / grace dichotomy as he considers the working of God in salvation.  Redemption has the effect of restoring the order of creation, and the solidarity of the family is one of the greatest of creation’s ordinances. The genealogical character of redemption’s activity underscores the intention of God to work in accord rather than in discord with this creational ordering.

- pg. 40 (The emphasis is mine.)

Hide n Seek in the Wood of Pious Doctrine

A friend of mine recently made the following comment:

Instead of hoping that some radical humanist, communist, pornographer or Abdul al Facil Muhammed akbar a Hadid Mustafa “comes to Christ” (although that’s up to God) wouldn’t it be better to realize that Christ didn’t die for everyone and then know what we are up against, seeing that there is an antithesis!

R.C. Sproul Jr responded negatively and began to instruct my friend in the finer points of Christian doctrine.  I don’t intend to recount the short discussion between Mr. Sproul and my friend, but rather, I want to post my  comments to Mr. Sproul.  Comments which were ignored in favor of a continuing debate over doctrinal nuances in Reformed dogmatics.

I doubt my words will affect any change in Mr. Sproul’s countenance, though I hope they do.  Who can say what God will decide?  My conscience is clean.  I have spoken my heart for once instead of keeping silent:

Gentlemen,

I’ve recently learned of the sin of Meroz! Am I a Laodicean to hide my conscience while I hear evil spoken?

Despite personal intimidation or other excuses born of a coward’s heart, I’m bound to suggest that Mr. Sproul’s theology in this matter arises from popular whims instead of the word of God thought true by our ancestors.

It’s reported to me from various sources that he would gladly wrest the faith from our race and hand it to the barbarians who are wont to rend and destroy it. Indeed, the covenant is open to all, but does that make physical bonds less?

I wish that ministers today would not forsake the politically incorrect “many” in order to save a faux and gnostic “one.”

It’s a sad theological hair that gets split in service of disguising egalitarian bias. Furthermore, it’s a sad Revelation that’s used as covers for fornication with Satanic doctrines.

One may remain aloof (as the pagans do) when challenged with accusations that lay outside popular credulity and let society’s embrace of one’s silence act as a comforting way to steal legitimacy from the offending claim. The Christian has no such comfort when evil is presented within his conscience’s jurisdiction…so take care that your hearts burn with jealousy of His honor and not the honor of that pagan society which some embrace.

I’ll not be a Laodicean!

We must honor God’s hierarchy in nature, and not turn an ignorant eye to it lest we end up slaughtered like our brothers in South Africa and find that what little meat is left on the corpse of Christendom has vanished…leaving Christ a skeleton bride.

Eager Spring! (An Earth Day Book Review)

For those agrarian minded folk who are looking for a deeper explanation of life than what is commonly found in eschatological literature, I highly suggest Owen Barfield’s “Eager Spring.”

In fact, there have been times when I wanted to scream at the typical Christian author:  “DAMNIT MAN, I want to FEEL LIFE…not just TALK ABOUT IT!”

Ours is a world of abstracted meaning, where blood-bonds and organic ties to nature are poetic non-realities policed by the apologist!  Perhaps children and a few women are allowed to roam the garden, but men; us manly, Christian men; we are destined for the dry halls of abstracted intellectualism!  Our God is one to be systematically dissected and examined.  Woe to the man who feels!

In this sort of blood-less world, families are intellectual organizations held together by fiat declaration!  The extended family doesn’t exist unless it exists within the realm of abstracted unity;  unity between individuals concerning political or religious ideals.

I can literally find no reason to live here.

Nietzsche says of this world that God (within it) is dead, and thus, man must forge his own meaning!  He must thrust his desires upon reality!  Dostoevsky observes similarly:  “if God is dead, then ANYTHING is possible!” This is the world of abstracted intellectualism…devoid of ANY transcendent meaning!

There literally is nothing to live for other than arbitrary ends…

No Christian can accept this!  It is at THIS point where our regenerated hearts cry out; “NO FURTHER!”  We have to shout at the abstracted Christian intellectuals: “STOP!“

But what can we say after “stop?”

Owen Barfield artfully presents a suggestion:

The story line of Eager Spring is simple.  Maybe too simple for the abstracted zombie?   A romantically involved college couple meet some old guy near their college campus.  He is intent on planting acorns and the couple form a relationship with him.  This relationship effects the couple differently, and life eventually drives them apart.  The woman (Virginia) becomes an environmental activist and falls sick after handling harmful chemicals.  While sick, she writes a story.   The end.  So what?

This is where the Christian heart yells:  “STOP!“

The story is really about Virginia’s (Vi for short) intellectual journey towards a realization of ultimate meaning in life!  She stumbles onto the tie between her life and the Earth…her place in the cycle of good and evil.

Eager Spring is more than just a story about a couple.  It is a presentation of Barfield’s theory about human history and our place as individuals within it.  It’s a story about the constant struggle between good and evil, and how the forces of good are seeking a return to the Earth; replenishment;  Life!  And how the forces of evil are seeking abuse; rape:  Death!

Vi is changed from her path after touching the transcendent!  A meteor from outside her experience arrives and enables her to battle the forces of evil!  (This is especially clarified in the last third of the book when we finally read Vi’s work of fiction…a work that characterizes and presents, through allegory, Barfield’s view.)

While not as profoundly Christian as I would like, Barfield is asking the right questions and presents an eschatological structure whereby our tie to kin and nature could be coherently articulated within a Biblical framework.

This book gets a 5 out of a possible 5 stars on the Shotgun book scale.  Barfield’s deep thoughts promise to influence my writing for years to come.

Wielding Emily

(I wrote this in response to an article at AlternativeRight.  The author promotes a retreat from contemporary society; abandoning white women to neo-feminism. I think Christian men should die fighting for the archtypical woman and wield her bravely, as God intended. Read the article here: http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/the-case-for-open-borders/#dsq-comments )

The Forging

In a sultry garden divine bellows work
bringing gasps of pain from human clay.
Knowing not his anguish produces
The wondrous gown of fairest day.

The Craftsman creates from soil and rib,
A thing of beauty and of war.
Heaving from our father’s chest
A white-hot blade; a gleaming sword!

“To be wielded my son, in times of evil,
Never forsaken when times are good,
Focus always your thoughts upon her,
And use her true as brave men should.”

Instruction for how to wield her rightly
Comes to the man from angelic divines.
Tempered by the God of beauty
This fair sword overwhelms the eyes.

Her blade was sharper than a rugged stone
Into it she was thrust by the creators hand
Pierced through the heart of the rock,
Forever chastened there to stand.

Beauty of Emily

Never has a sword been forged
That matches Emily’s renown.
A glance at her fills men with passion
Their hearts run over; their lusts abound!

Weakness forgotten; old
They see glory in her blade.
Who can wield this heart-strong weapon
That the God of war has wisely made?

Her beauty slashes at man’s constitution
He who holds her conquers all.
As long as the sword arm is steady
Emily’s hero will never fall.

Holding her is holding terror
Yet she remains in rock held tight.
She fills the eyes with brash compassion
And cares not for a weak man’s plight.

To Capture Emily

It is said that a man of royal intention
With virtue worn as clothes
Is the only one who can tame her
and pluck her from the captive stone.

But evil men cast their eyes on Emily
And see her pretty blade.
They lust for her adornments
So wicked copies of her were made.

Scythes and daggers with twisted edge,
Serrated blades to rend and kill
These horrible objects mock the blade
That’s trapped in rock and helpless still.

Men laugh at the rock that binds the sword
They hate the Creator’s skill
They despise poor Emily standing,
trapped in the rock and helpless still.

Her image is written upon faux blades
She’s used in combat not as herself
Spoken for by the mouths of monsters
Emily remains a hidden wealth.

Wielding Emily

Surrounded by hoards of starving savages
Emily remains bound in stone.
Her image raped from the tops of mountains
One brave Christian approaches alone.

He hears the cries of wicked tongues
Feels the sting of their poison blades.
Through the gauntlet the hero trudges
If he dreams of Emily, he must be brave.

Forcing his way through the writhing masses,
He reaches up his hand.
Gently taking Emily’s hilt
He draws her out then makes his stand.

Diving into the evil crowd,
He wields her as an expert bladesman.
Never neglecting the cries of Emily
And letting her always aid him.

Monsters flee before this sight.
None can blame them for acting wisely.
While hidden in the darkest recess
They nurse a hate for her completely.

But if ever an ending can be happy forever
It’s the one between a man and blade.
For while the Christian knight wields Emily
The rapists are stuck with daggers in shade.

All Praise to the God of Clowns!

All praise to the god of harlequins and fools
The god to whom chaste clowns kneel to!
Through fickle fire and downcast sequins,
The clown God frolicks while frantic flocks seek him!

Seeking through ruin pain and despair,
Their cartwheels lie, their laughter; an air!
Providence and pain produce divine works of art,
And true men mourn while his minions take part!

But the clown god dances on through the circus,
His motley flock bellowing with self-righteous purpose!
They follow their god as chaotic companions,
Hell-bent and laughing with pious pretensions.

While dancing and spinning around in chance,
The fools skip to the center by happenstance,
And their eyes are drawn to a sanguine sight.
A bloodied and broken body hung from the heights.

At this joke the clown god finds no humor.
His gay dancing becomes hate-filled candor.
The painted smiles and high-handed hues
Turn to frowns, trite teals and blues.

For this man declares the clown god foolish
Razed his work and turned it to rubbish!
No piqued praise to the broken man hanging!
His trecherous touch would take all our laughing!

So, give all praise to the clown god of fools.
His rabid followers enamoured by a tragic ruse.
While a broken body hangs above the motley masses
Crying for the careless clowns who threw off His calling.

Abhor Egalitarianism!

I’m always on the lookout for ways to help Old Dixie.

We unreconstructed folk answer objections, right misconceptions (and weave through emotional confessions) quite frequently!

But the one issue at the bottom of all the controversy is a radical (and unbiblical) doctrine of social egalitarianism to which our opponents are religiously devoted.

The mere idea that class distinctions and aristocracy exist in a free society is Hell to the egalitarian. They don’t see beauty in the old social norms of Dixie; they don’t realize the honor and chivalry inherent in that sort of place! No sir! They don’t appreciate fields or workers, but see only opportunity. (Their eyes rape the land AND the workers!)

This is terrible!

Clarity is found from an odd source however:

Richard J. Ellis is a self-proclaimed liberal democrat who sees the harmful effects of this doctrine on liberalism. He connects the dots between the egalitarianism of the Unitarians and their desire to destroy the entire social structure of Old Dixie:

Radical abolitionists did not seek just the end of slavery; they sought the end of the Old South. “The whole social system of the Gulf states,” said Wendell Phillips, “is to be taken to pieces, every bit of it.” (See Ellis “The Dark Side of the Left: Illiberal Egalitarianism in America.)

The very nature of Southern culture drove them mad! My anscestors could not be allowed to live as they had been living, and had to either change, or die!

The gospel of egalitarianism was spread through old dixie by filthy mouthed soldiers and the call of war trumpets.

Now we hear this same gospel from the mouths of our children.

There should be a special brand of soap made to clean this horror from their mouths! We could call it: “Truth: cleansing away egalitarianism since 1865!”

Ellis shows that when the elementary nature of man doesn’t conform with the ideals of the egalitarians, these Satanists respond in the same way their Unitarian forebears responded to Dixie! They hate man and wish him eradicated!

The Egalitarian hates fallen man because the egalitarian hates the all-sovereign God. They don’t want the grace of Christ! They can’t stand this idea that some men are forgiven and others aren’t! To deny God, they must posit that all men are, at base, good. All deserve salvation!

In response I’ll end by citing an ominous observation made by Irving Babbit in his book “Democracy and Leadership”:

“…when one starts with the assumption that men are naturally good and virtuous, one ends by wishing to kill them all.”