Christian nationalism
Outline/chapters
You are here: trans, gay, pedo, all kinds of perversions,
ineffective cowardly church. Nihilism/atheism/anti Christianity in art, music,
film, etc.
Darwinism, feminism, the enlightenment, the French
revolution, secular humanism, nominalism, and Thomas Aquinas (francis
schaeffer)
Theonomy: three types of law. Civil, ceremonial, moral. What
is abolished? Fulfilled? What is required?
Kings and democracy and romans 13. What form of government
is prescribed in scripture?
Postmillennialism and the kingdom of Heaven.
Dispensationalism/amillennialism are soft gnosticism
Our history
Victory: the great commission as colonization and conquest
Journalist John Colapinto describes one of his interviews with David Reimer, an early subject of transgender methodology and sex reassignment.
I had come to Winnipeg to learn all I could about David
Reimer, but my chief interest was in his childhood—a subject that, when I
raised it, brought an immediate and dramatic change in him. Gone was the smile
on his face and the bantering tone in his voice. Now his brows gather together
above his small straight nose, his eyes began to blink with started rapidity,
and he thrust his chin forward like someone who’d just been challenged to a
fight. His voice—a deep, burred baritone—took on a new pitch and rhythm, an
insistent, hammering rhythm, which for all its obvious aggrievement and anger
also carried the pleading edge of someone desperate to communicate emotions
that he feared other could never understand. How well even he understood these emotions was not
immediately clear.[1]
After a horrifying circumcision accident, David’s parents
believed they could give him a somewhat fuller life as a woman than as a man.
Convinced by the congenial and charismatic Dr. John Money, an expert in gender
theory, they handed their son over to Money to be the subjects of what was both
an experiment and also a long male-to-female conditioning process, including
the possibility of surgery on David to construct an artificial vagina. Instead
of a happy young woman however, or even a damaged young man who bravely
accepted and adjusted to a tragic disfigurement, David instead became a
despairing, lonely, confused person struggling between two genders with a
desire to please those he cared for and yet somehow find his own place. Graciously
though, he also found an enormous amount of courage in this ordeal.
David’s parents, Ron Reimer and Janet Schultz, both
descended from Mennonite families. The Mennonite denomination of Christianity
follows a simple, unworldly life based directly on Christ’s Sermon on the Mount.
In the late 1800s, the Canadian government, eager to populate their empty
western regions, offered the Mennonites religious freedom, autonomous schools,
and exemption from military service. During this time both Ron’s and Janet’s
great grandparents settled in Manitoba.
Industrious and hard-working, Ron learned to cook and later operated
his own coffee truck to support his family in Winnipeg. Hazel-eyed beauty Janet
caught Ron’s attention when her roommate’s boyfriend brought a visitor by. As
they dated in the early 1960s, they compared backgrounds, and the similarities
in their respective stories amazed each other. They also discovered that they
complemented each other nicely.
Janet could compensate for Ron’s sometimes passive reluctance
to take decisive action; Ron, on the other hand, with his slow, considered
approach to life, could rein Janet in from her more reckless enthusiasm and
impulses. Together they made up a single entity stronger than either one of
them.[2]
In Winnipeg, the pair spent much of their time together in
Janet’s rooming house. There they conceived the twins, whom they eventually
named Bruce and Brian. Janet had just turned eighteen and Ron would soon turn
twenty.
Ron was nervous, but Janet refused to be anything but
optimistic. “I was so excited,” she says, “because all my life I’d been
dreaming, Oh wouldn’t it be wonderful to have twins?”[3]
Ron and Janet Reimer gave birth to identical twins Bruce and
Brian Reimer in August of 1965. Sometime after the twins reached the age of
seven months, they contracted phimosis, a common dysfunction where the foreskin
becomes temporarily sealed at the tip and prevents proper urination. Their
pediatrician recommended circumcision and Ron and Janet scheduled an appointment
at their local hospital.
With the usual attending physician unavailable, the
circumcision of the twins fell to general practitioner Dr. Jean-Marie Huot. Typically,
the physician will stretch the foreskin of the infant over a bell-shaped metal
shell for removal with a scalpel. Dr. Huot, however, decided to use a
cauterizing machine to severe the foreskin. The instrument sends a current
through a needle-like cutting tool that cauterizes the wound as the doctor
makes the incision,
a dangerous consideration, since it would bring perilously
close to the penis a current that could be conducted by the metal bell encasing
the organ. If, at the same time, the current to the needle were to be turned up
almost to the maximum, the results could be cataclysmic.[4]
Dr. Huot set the machine to minimum power and touched it to
the infant’s foreskin, which failed. Increasing the setting, the second attempt
also failed. Increasing once more, the
doctor touched the instrument to the foreskin.
“I heard a sound,” recalls Dr. Max Cham, the
anesthesiologist, “just like steak being seared.” A wisp of smoke curled up
from the baby’s groin. An aroma as of cooking meat filled the air.[5]
Dr. Huot had incinerated the infant’s penis.
Though a freakish historic blizzard had just hit Winnipeg,
the hospital called Ron and Janet and summoned them. They visited their son and
Janet asked the doctor, “Will it still grow, and he’ll just have a little
penis?” The doctor said, “No. That’s not how it works.” The burnt penis
eventually dried up and broke away, till nothing remained.
Bruce and Janet consulted multiple specialists but phallic
reconstruction remained in its infancy in the 1960s. Plastic surgeon Dr.
Desmond Kernahan explained to the Reimers that even if he constructed an
artificial penis from the flesh of Bruce’s thigh or abdomen, such an organ
would serve only as a conduit for urine and nothing more. Dr. G.L. Adamson,
head of the Department of Neurology and Psychiatry at the Winnipeg Clinic,
prognosticated that
[Bruce] will be unable to live a normal sexual life from the
time of adolescence. He will be unable to consummate marriage or have normal
heterosexual relations. He will have to recognize that he is incomplete,
physically defective, and that he must live apart.[6]
Distraught, desperate, broken-hearted and furious—Ron dreamt
of strangling Dr. Huot—the couple finally found hope in the person of Dr. John
Money, a specialist in gender theory and transsexual surgery from Johns Hopkins
University. Doctors at the Mayo Clinic mentioned a man in Baltimore who could
help the couple raise Bruce as a girl. They had not considered the idea but
upon witnessing the confident and charismatic Dr. Money on television, they had
second thoughts. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation aired an episode of its
current affairs program, This Hour Has Seven Days, on which Dr. Money
introduced Mrs. Diane Baransky.
The camera cut from Dr. Money and his questioner to a blond
woman who walked out onto the set. Dressed in a narrow skirt, high heels, and a
matching close-fitting jacket, she took a seat in the chair across from the two
men. A close-up shot revealed that her round, pretty face was expertly made up,
in the style of the mid-1960s, with heavy eyeliner, mascara, and foundation,
her mouth thickly painted with lipstick. Ron and Janet gaped at the TV screen.
It was their first glimpse, ever, of a transexual.[7]
Experienced in the treatment of children with ambiguous
genitalia, Dr. Money told the interviewer that he and his colleagues could make
children into whichever sex seemed best, and that these children could be
raised happily in that sex. Desperate for some hope for their son, Ron and
Janet believed Dr. Money was the savior they didn’t realize they needed. Janet
wrote to Dr. Money and he urged them to bring Bruce to his clinic in Baltimore
immediately.
Born in New Zealand in 1921, John Money came to America at
twenty-five years old, earned his Ph.D. in psychology from Harvard, then joined
John Hopkins. A mere fifteen years later, he was credited as the person to coin
the term “gender identity” to describe one’s inner sense of sexuality. The
international community held him as the undisputed authority on the psychological
ramifications of ambiguous genitalia and he made headlines for establishing the
John Hopkins clinic for transexual surgeries.
Yet for all his prestige as a prevailing authority,
scientist, and researcher, Money had his own share of profound bias. Raised by
an authoritarian father and strictly religious mother, he would later deride
his upbringing as that of “tightly sealed, evangelical religious dogma.” He
described his father as a brutal man who shot and killed the birds infesting
his fruit garden. At four years of age, his father gave him an “abusive
interrogation and whipping” over a broken window, which incident birthed in him
a lifelong rejection of “the brutality of manhood.” At only eight years, after
his father’s death, his mother and a cadre of spinster aunts raised him in an
atmosphere not only exclusively female, but one so despicable of men that he
later wrote,
I wondered if the world might really be a better place for
women if not only farm animals but human males also were gelded at birth.[8]
Money rebelled against the repression of his religious
upbringing, particularly regarding sexuality. The “pure realm of scientific
inquiry” freed him from the shackles of sexual norms and traditional morality.
In his book Sexual Signatures, he said, “There is plenty of evidence
that bisexual group sex can be as personally satisfying as a paired
partnership.” He also described his private life as “a give-and-take of sexual
visitations and friendly companionships with compatible partners, some women,
some men.” He published Lovemaps in 1986, a study of sadomasochism,
coprophilia, amputation fetishes, and other “paraphilias” in an effort to
destigmatize and decriminalize them. To Time magazine he said, “A
childhood sexual experience, such as being the partner of a relative or of an
older person, need not necessarily affect the child adversely.”[9]
To this man the Weimers entrusted both of their sons, as Money often required Brian’s
participation in his therapy sessions.
From studies and experimentation on hermaphrodite, or intersexed,
children, Money formed his theory that the upbringing and not the biology of a
child determines his or her sexual identity. Eventually he expanded his theory
to include all children, not just those born intersexed.
Many years later, Money would describe how he arrived at some
of his more radical theories about human sexual behavior. “I frequently find
myself toying with concepts and working out potential hypotheses,” he mused.
“It is like playing a game of science fiction.”[10]
In early 1967, Ron and Janet Reimer, ages twenty and
twenty-one, visited Johns Hopkins at Doctor John Money’s Psychohormonal
Research Unit. Money’s confident and professional manor made the Reimers
believe they and their son were in the best possible hands. Janet said, “I
looked up to him like a god. I believed whatever he said,” and Money said
exactly what the desperate couple longed to hear. He promised them that he
could give their son a perfectly functional vagina, “adequate for sexual
intercourse and for sexual pleasure,” though obviously he would remain unable
to bear children. He also promised that he would develop psychologically as a
woman and eventually find himself attracted to men. At first hesitant, the
couple inevitably gave in to what they perceived as the best chance for Bruce
to enjoy a somewhat fulfilling life.
Ron could not even imagine the humiliations and frustrations
that [Bruce’s sex life] would entail. As a girl and woman, though, Bruce
wouldn’t face all that. If what Dr. Money told them was true, he could live a
normal life, get married and be happy.
For the first step, a surgeon castrated young Bruce.[11]
Soon after this, the Reimers began the process of socializing Bruce as a
female. After the twins’ second birthday, Janet first put Bruce into a dress
she had sewn herself with material from her wedding gown. “It was pretty and
lacy,” Janet recalls. “She was ripping at it, trying to tear it off. I remember
thinking, Oh my God, she knows she’s a boy and she doesn’t want girls’
clothing. She doesn’t want to be a girl.” Similar scenes repeated themselves
all throughout this process.
When I say there was nothing feminine about Brenda, I mean
there was nothing feminine. She walked
like a guy. Sat with her legs apart. She talked about guy things, didn’t give a
crap about cleaning house, getting married, wearing makeup. She’d get a
skipping rope for a gift, and the only thing we’d use that for was to tie people up, whip people with it. She played
with my toys: Tinkertoys, dump trucks.
This toy sewing machine she got just sat.[12]
Other scenes effected enormous trauma on Bruce. At Bruce’s
castration, Money told the Reimers that they should visit his clinic once a
year for follow-up consultations. Money intended that these visits would “guard
against the psychological hazards” associated with child sex reassignment, yet
the Reimers believed these visits exacerbated more than alleviated the
confusion and fear that Bruce suffered. Clinical notes affirmed their beliefs.
Money’s private case files describe how Bruce reacted with terror on his first
follow-up visit at age four. In these notes Money says, “There was something
almost maniacal about her refusals [to be tested], and the way she hit, kicked,
and otherwise attacked people.”
“You get the idea something happened to you,” David says,
explaining the dread that engulfed him during those mysterious annual visits to
the Psychohormonal Research Unit, “but you don’t know what—and you don’t want
to know.”[13]
The consultations served to assist the Reimers in
reinforcing the feminine socialization of Bruce, yet they ultimately served to
reinforce Bruce’s instinct that he was not a girl and did not want to be a girl.
When asked to draw a person, Bruce drew a stick figure of a boy. When asked to
describe a “good dream,” he described a boy on a farm with a horse. Colapinto
describes how family, teachers, clinic personnel and even Money’s interview
transcripts all confirm that Bruce, though emasculated and engaged in this
psychosexual reassignment, consistently presented as the more traditionally
masculine of the twins.
Among the more grotesque methods of gender reassignment,
Money introduced pornography to the twins. He believed that children must
understand at an early age the differences between male and female sex organs.
Bruce, who later assumed the name David, recalls that Money showed them
pictures of adults engaged in sexual intercourse. “I want to show you pictures
of things that moms and dads do,” he would say. Money also had the twins mimic
sexual intercourse with each other, with David playing the female role. Brian
remembers Money introducing these activities when the twins were six years old.
Money would make Brenda assume a position on all fours on his
office sofa and make Brian come up behind her on his knees and place his crotch
against her buttocks. Variations on the therapy included Brenda lying on her
back with her legs spread and Brian lying on top of her. On at least one
occasion, Dr. Money took a Polaroid photograph of them while they were engaged
in this part of the therapy.[14]
Jane Fontane, who would later become David’s wife, describes
the effect this had on him.
[We] had just watched a TV documentary on CIA torture
involving electroshock to people’s genitals. He cried hysterically. He was
crying about John Money. I’d never seen him like that. I tried to comfort him.
David said Dr. Money made him go on all fours and made Brian go up behind his
butt. They were being photographed. He mentioned that very act.[15]
At the same time that Money subjected the twins to these
activities, Money also attempted to convince David to undergo surgery to create
an artificial vagina. Money hoped this would further David’s female conversion,
but David consistently resisted. David refused a genital exam, he refused to
discuss the issue of vaginal surgery, and he refused to take his hormone pills.
Even though David resisted visiting Money’s clinic in Baltimore, Ron and Janet
bribed him by promising a side trip to New York, but it was the last time he
agreed to such a visit.
During this visit, Money enlisted the assistance of a
male-to-female transsexual to convince David of the benefits of vaginal
construction surgery, yet David displayed the same negative emotions as usual—intense
anxiety, anger, and depression, all reflected in his Sentence Completion Test.
Compared to most families, mine’s…a loser…I think most
girls…aren’t very nice…I believe most women…aren’t very nice either…My feelings
about married life are…rotten…To me the future looks…bad.[16]
This low roiling despair turned to “pure, deep-running panic”
when Money introduced David to the transsexual. David instantly recognized the
person as a male, pretending to be female, complete with heavy makeup, female
clothing and hairstyle, and the artificially high-pitched feminine voice. The
person described to David the wonderful life post-vaginal surgery.
He’s telling me about the surgery…how fantastic it was for
him, and how his life turned out beautifully. I was thinking, “I’m going to end
up like that?”[17]
Money made his last direct attempt to David to convince him
to have the surgery, growing impatient as the discussion lingered and David’s
resistance remained steadfast. At the end, David asked, “Are you finished?” and
Money replied, “We’re finished,” with David hurrying and then running away,
hiding from Money and the transsexual, convinced that they would force the
surgery on him. He told his mother that if his parents ever forced him to see
Dr. Money again, he would kill himself.
Later David met a counselor sympathetic to his struggle. Elderly,
gray-haired, standing no taller than five feet one inch tall, Dr. Mary McKenty appeared
to David as a grandmother who “looked like she’d be baking cookies for her
grandchildren. She didn’t look like a typical psychiatrist.” While Ron and
Janet warmed to McKenty, David could not immediately bring himself to trust
her. After some period of testing, he accepted her as a confidant. As David
approached his 14th birthday in June of 1979, during a session with
McKenty, she notes that David “did not want to play games,” and instead began
to ask questions about his medical condition.
This marked the first time in Brenda’s ten-year standoff with
the medical profession that she ever voluntarily raised the issue of her
genitals and the fact that they did not resemble those of other girls. Brenda
told McKenty how her father had explained that a doctor “did something that was
a mistake.” McKenty asked Brenda what she
thought had happened.[18]
David explained that he believed his mother had beaten him
between his legs. For McKenty and her supervisor Dr. Keith Sigmundson, this
revelation marked a possible turning point in David’s situation. In Freudian
terms, David was expressing his “penis envy,” or some other bizarre
subconscious incestual desires and/or hostility toward one or more of his parents.
Sigmundson reasoned that this revelation signaled a universal fear shared by
all females and that possibly they were “getting somewhere” with David’s
transition to female. Sigmundson also considered that David’s comment revealed
something far less abstract and subconscious, but a simple and logical
explanation of his deformed genitalia and his mother’s guilt-ridden depression.
Brenda’s comment to McKenty could be interpreted not as her
imminent acceptance of herself as a girl, but its opposite: her recognition
that her earliest fears of maternal castration were incorrect and that now she
wanted to know what had really happened
to her; a sign, perhaps, that she was approaching the point at which she was
ready to embrace the boy she had always instinctively know herself to be.[19]
Bruce, who later took the name David, expressed his
acceptance of his parents’ role in the entire situation.
My parents feel very guilty, as if the whole thing was their
fault. But it wasn’t like that. They did what they did out of kindness and love
and desperation. When you’re desperate, you don’t necessarily do all the right
things.
Why David Reimer? Why do we need to know his story? As believers,
as Christians, as Americans, why does his story matter so much? The story of
David Reimer represents the awful convergence of the lies of our age—of feminism,
Darwinism, and self-determination. Feminism tells us that male and female are
not only equal in value and dignity, a truth which scripture tells us, but that
male and female are equal, period. Men and women are interchangeable and male
and female are gender constructs created by society and not by God, so that we
can transition between these constructs at will, with only a little makeup and
clothing, or merely by declaring it and insisting everyone else agree.
Darwinism teaches us that God has not created us in his image, but that some
random, purposeless process has evolved us from lifeless matter into this
complex, soulless, biological machine we call “man.” We are not special. We are
not different from animals, with purpose as God’s special creation, created to
love and serve him, to submit to his will and glorify him as created, but a
meaningless empty shell with meaning and purpose determined by itself, or by some
other meaningless empty shell.
Once Jefferson’s idea, “All men are created equal,” was wedded
to President Wilson’s idea, that all peoples are entitled to “self-determination,”
the fate of the Western empires was sealed. Wilson’s secretary of state, Robert
Lansing, saw it coming: “The phrase [self-determination] is simply loaded with
dynamite. It will raise hopes which can never be realized…What a calamity that
the phrase was ever uttered! What misery it will cause![20]
Colapinto writes that in the early days of David’s
transition, before some knew of the experiment’s dismal failure, the
surrounding medical and psychological community sat amazed as John Money
explained how he took a normal, healthy male child and transformed him into a
normal, healthy female child.
John stood up at a conference and said, “I’ve got these two
twins, and one of them is now a girl, and the other is a boy. [Money and his
team] were saying they took this normal boy and changed him over to a girl. That’s
powerful. That’s really powerful. I mean, what is your response to that? This case
was used to reinforce the fact that you can really do anything.[21]
We can do anything. We can determine ourselves, not only to
choose our destiny, but to uncreate God’s creation. “Do what thou wilt shall be
the whole of the law,” said satanist Aleister Crowley. “You will be like God,”
said Satan to Eve. We do not trust in God. We do not obey his word. This society,
the West, believes in itself, in individualism, in secular humanism, in
self-determination, not only that we are all equal to each other, but that we
are equal to God. We do not need to worship him, to trust him to determine us
and our future as we obey his word, but we can determine ourselves, and we have
determined ourselves into madness.
We have the solution. We have the Law of God. We understand
the form of government he expects. “You are the salt of the earth; you are the
light of the world,” said Christ. We are the salt which preserves against this
madness and corruption. We are the light that exposes this wickedness and
guides men to Christ by the word of God and the power of his Spirit. We have
the Great Commission, to bring the nations to heel as disciples of Christ, to baptize
and teach them his word. we do not have to suffer any of this
We’ve seen the effects of these philosophies—the French
Revolution, the death cult of communism, the perversion of science, and the
destructive, perverse, and murderous tide of feminism, pornography, and
abortion. These effects will never end; they will only increase. The wickedness
of man has no limit. While his heart conceives sin upon sin upon sin, the
perversions, the murder, the satanic rebellion of his works is only limited by
his strength, his mortal life, and his technology. As he increases these, he
increases his hatred of God and his destruction of himself, his children, and
all God has created.
Sadly, even Christian apologists, men who claim to defend
the faith against atheism and evolution and other nihilistic philosophies, all
begin their defense with atheistic premises. “Let us pretend God does not exist
and see what we can find with our sense and reason,” they say. C.S. Lewis did
this. Norman Geisler resurrected the approach, in which he also borrowed from
Thomas Aquinas, and all of Geisler’s apologist disciples do the same. If you
assume God does not exist, you instantly destroy all credibility to your
supposed position: God does exist. Why even bother? You’ve just declared that
God is not to be believed and his word is not to be trusted, but instead only
whatever rational arguments or scientific evidence you claim support his
existence. Why should anyone trust anything you say if you talk from both sides
of your mouth and do not even understand what it is you believe?
Author and philosopher Francis Schaeffer traces this descent
into insanity back to 13th century theologian Thomas Aquinas. Later
during the 17th century, we see it flourish and gain momentum during
the Enlightenment, and then finally, it reaches its bottom in the evolutionary
theory of Charles Darwin. We even see this subtly atheistic, anti-scripture,
anti-doctrine in the writings of Christian philosopher and apologist C.S.
Lewis. We no longer are souls, initially made in the image of God to serve and
to worship God, but we are biological machines, morally no better and no worse
than pond scum, superior in intelligence, utterly devoid of purpose, while at
the same time possessing the infinite potential of a god to remake, recreate,
and redefine everything contained in the word “man.”
Thomas Aquinas, the great philosopher and theologian. Thomas
Aquinas, second only to Paul in spiritual insight, second only to Mary in
virtue and innocence, bringing the irreplaceable wisdom of that pagan
philosopher Aristotle to the Church of Christ! Who could ever have possibly
guessed that we would find the roots of 21st century secular
humanism, this wicked, satanic civilization-destroying ideology, in this god
among men? Francis Schaeffer, that’s who and some forty or so years ago.
Yes, Francis Schaeffer told us that Thomas Aquinas removed
God from theology and gave us an atheistic framework for theology in his Summa
Theologica. How do we know God? By faith. From whence cometh this faith?
From God, and not from reason. But not according to Aquinas. Scripture tells us
that God grants faith, that God reveals knowledge, that he is light, that his
word is true and every man is a liar, and therefore every philosophy of men is
nought but lies. But what does Aquinas tell us? That he has equaled God in
dispensing revelation and this by the ever-amazing, ever-stupendous,
all-powerful, uncorrupted and incorruptible, power of reason. All of the
greatest Thomists of our age tell us this.
All that is of value, all that is enduring, all that is
really preserving orthodoxy is due to uh classical theology and classical
apologetics; but what is what is good and what is enduring um is due to
Aquinas.[22]
Norman Geisler was a classical apologist who built a legacy
of “defending the faith,” and he believed that if a man has statistical
certainty of 95% or more in a proposition, or a truth claim, or an ideology, he
could confidently place his trust in this proposition, or claim, or ideology.
Geisler believed that statistical certainty equaled faith.
[2]
Ibid, page 8.
[3]
Ibid, page 9.
[4]
Ibid, page 12.
[5]
Ibid.
[6]
Ibid, page 16.
[7]
Ibid, page 21.
[8]
Ibid, page 26.
[9]
Ibid, pages 28-29.
[10]
Ibid, page 34.
[11]
At this time, the Reimers and Money began to refer to the child as
“Brenda.”
[12]
Ibid, page 57.
[13]
Ibid, page 80.
[14]
Ibid, page 87
[15]
Ibid, page 88.
[16]
Ibid, 137.
[17]
Pg 138.
[18] Pg.
158.
[19] Pg.
160.
[20]
Buchanan, Pat. Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War: How Britain Lost Its
Empire and the West Lost the World, © 2008 by Pat Buchanan, Three River
Press, New York, pg. xv.
[21]
Colapinto, pg. 76.
[22] “Norman Geisler: Where would evangelicalism be today without Aquinas?”, published July 29, 2022 by Bill Roach. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=suA7Yt9q1AY
