White Christian Family

As I mentioned in my March blog post, an "Evangelical" is, generally speaking, a Protestant or Baptist who believes that the Bible is God's word and the final authority for faith and life. (That's a gross oversimplification, but it's good enough for now.) Evangelicals have been known for opposing abortion ever since the Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade in 1973, but Cuckstianity has been changing that since about, oh, 2017 or so, and the change has really picked up steam this year.

Now, what might have caused a change in 2017, and what might be going on this year to trigger a shift in abortion beliefs among Cuckstians? Why, aren't you a bright student! You guessed it right off!

It's a shame, really, to see how easily people's supposed beliefs are determined by what or whom they love. A man might be totally opposed to abortion until the day comes when he hears that his own teenaged daughter is pregnant. Similarly, people who still call themselves pro-life (which itself is a weasel word) have begun making noises favoring "a woman's right to choose." As expected, these are also the guilty whites who whimper about how bad those other Evangelicals are who are voting for Trump. These things always come in packages; one error brings others in its draft. Their hatred for Trump triggers a hatred for their fellow Christians, which entails a hatred for those beliefs which their fellow Christians use to justify support for Trump.

The Bible basis for killing the unborn is flimsy and greatly outweighed by the arguments against it. That's why Evangelicals have been so united in their opposition to abortion for fifty years. Before Roe, things weren't so clear. Abortion wasn't so common, it wasn't discussed, and embryology (like ALL medical science) wasn't nearly so advanced. An educated Christian might say something like "I just feel like the fetus isn't a person until he breathes air." In light of today's science, such talk sounds like borderline mental retardation, but dumb talk about "feelings" was quite common among intelligent people back then. To boot, opposing abortion was considered a Catholic position, which meant, to Evangelicals, that it must not be biblical.

Abortion has been known throughout recorded history and there have been countless opinions on when it is allowed or forbidden. Now, however, it is scientifically undisputed that the embryo is fully human from the moment of fertilization and that nothing is added after that moment except nutrition; it does not become human at some mysterious time in the future.

What rights does this very young human have? It's a tricky question because it is arrived at philosophically. In savage cultures, a newborn received the rights of citizenship when he was "nested" (accepted) by the tribe. If rejected, he was disposed of. In ancient Rome, the father had all authority and he could reject a newborn and have him "exposed" outside the city where wild animals would kill and eat him. In such cases, the society wasn't denying that the newborn was one of their own species; they were denying that the newborn had a right not to be killed. In fact, the idea of "rights" was hardly known. Savages spoke of their "way," or custom.

The proabortion position reverts to this way of thinking: those who will be inconvenienced by a new baby get to choose whether he lives or dies. In a Christian society, you can't kill someone because he inconveniences you. Christian societies are very different from pagan societies at this point. And because a human's age does not affect his identity as a human, the right to not be killed applies to abortion at every stage of pregnancy. (For a more detailed discussion, see here.)

If Christianity is so clear about the right not to be killed, how do today's Evangelical proaborts justify their position? Well, as the sign supposedly said outside the ornamental iron blacksmithing shop: "All Types Of Fancy Twisting And Turning Done Here."

The first passage they appeal to is Exodus 21:22 where the law says that, if two men are fighting and a pregnant woman gets hit and her baby "departs" from her, but no further harm is done, the offending man will pay a fine; but if it goes beyond that, the offender will owe life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, etc. The debate hinges on the translation. Is there an implied "if the baby departs and survives" in the event? If so, it supports the antiabortion position by decreeing that, if the fighter causes the death of the unborn, he owes "life for life." But the proaborts want to make it say "if he merely kills the unborn baby, then he just pays a fine; but if further injury occurs (to the mother), then he will owe life for life, eye for eye, etc." There are good reasons for rejecting this proabortion interpretation; but even if one accepts it, it is a flimsy argument. See here for more detail.

The next passage is Numbers 5:11-31, The Trial by Ordeal for the wife suspected of unfaithfulness. If a woman is suspected of unfaithfulness, she is given a certain potion which will cause her belly to swell and her thigh to rot if she is guilty, but will leave her unharmed if she's innocent. The proaborts twist the passage to say that the woman will show pregnancy and the potion will trigger a miscarriage. The interpretation is untenable because (1) in the nature of the case, the jealous husband is due an immediate answer, not waiting for a pregnancy to begin showing, (2) a pregnancy wouldn't prove unfaithfulness, as the baby could simply be her husband's, and (3) the potion only contains dust from the tabernacle floor, nothing that would cause a miscarriage. The obviously correct interpretation is that the trial would promptly settle the matter through a miracle from God.

Evangelicals do not defend abortion because it's the Christian thing to do. They defend abortion because it might help Harris defeat Trump. An insulting joke has been around for some years now that says "You know you got the right religion when God hates the same people you do." Those who use the joke, though, seldom see the self-referential irony of it.

There's been a flurry of indignation over that wretched Super Bowl ad with the message "He gets us." The ad shows various scenes of modern Christians compromising with antichristians, while traditional Christians are depicted as being on the other side (the wrong side). If you haven't seen it and need some more detail, see here.

I call this error "cuckstianity," which is a portmanteau I made up, although I assume that many others made it up before I did -- I've just never heard it. It combines the word "Christianity" with "cuck," a word first used in the alt-right (remember them?) as a shortened form of "cuckold," meaning a man who is deceived into raising the illegitimate child of his cheating wife's paramour. To the alt-right, it meant Westmen who drank the suicidal slop fed to them by those who would take away their nation, wealth, and daughters -- and not necessarily in that order.

Cuckstianity, then, is my word for Christians who believe that the Christian thing to do is whatever the Marxists demand, and Christian doctrine is whatever the Marxists say we are to believe. This, of course, is not traditional Christianity. The cucks reject traditional Christians as white-supremacist heteronormative patriarchal colonizers. They apologize for the great Christians of the past who bequeathed their heritage to us, and they grovel in shame as they ask today's Communists and perverts to forgive and accept them as they offer up their nation, wealth, and daughters.

That's the background for my essay's topic "Why So Much Cuckstianity?" What on earth has happened to see this wholesale apostasy from original Christianity to a new religion that rejects and apologizes for the old?

My degrees and college teaching were largely in the history of Christian thought, so I am keenly aware that explaining anything requires explaining what went before, and that's a rabbit trail that leads back to the time of the apostles, and even earlier. To economize, let me focus on an era we remember personally: the '60s.

All the world over, so easy to see
People everywhere just wanna be free
Listen, please listen, that's the way it should be
Peace in the valley, people got to be free

There'll be shoutin' from the mountains on out to the sea
No two ways about it, people have to be free
Ask me my opinion, my opinion will be
It's a natural situation for a man to be free

Oh, what a feelin's just come over me
Enough to move a mountain, make a blind man see
Everybody's dancin', come on, let's go see
Peace in the valley, now they want to be free

This was recorded by the Young Rascals in 1968 and eventually sold four million copies. That's the only reason that I heard of it. It was very popular, but what does it mean? Faithful preachers in the '60s and '70s pilloried such babble mercilessly, comparing it to 2 Peter 2:19, "They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of sin and corruption." Ostensibly the song was about civil rights, but Marxists framed anything they wanted in those days as "freedom," as in "I want to be free to drive a Corvette" (therefore I have a right to a Corvette, and that right is being denied) or "I want to be free to live in your house." Using the word that way makes it meaningless. Shoutin' from the mountains, everybody's dancin', oh, what a feelin', all are substitutes for clear thinking. Know this: "They want to be free" means "They want your stuff."

Such nonsense from the '60s became enshrined in our national consciousness. No longer is it seen to be incoherent rabble-rousing. Instead, it has gotten elevated to the status of our guiding star. Like the North Star, we may never get there, but we keep pursuing, 'cause people got to be free.

The culture's mindlessness eventually had to make its way into how people interpret things. Traditionally in the West, interpretation was done through common sense, and disputes were settled by common sense. If the bank called you on the phone and complained that you were three months behind in your mortgage payments, it never occurred to you to respond, "Well, that's your interpretation, it's so easy to see/ it's a natural situation for a man to be free." Such a respondent would soon be living in his car whenever he wasn't shoutin' from the mountains or dancin'. The contract was written in plain language, and a white Christian was expected to read it with common sense and pay what he owed.

You can see the flim-flam at work in the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision on abortion. The Supremes didn't claim that abortion was a legal right under the Constitution. They couldn't even pretend that it was in the penumbra of the Constitution. They just grabbed the idea that the rays that emanate from the penumbra that surrounds the Constitution had in them the right to privacy, so it turns out that you can kill your child so long as you do it in private. That decision was overturned in 2022, the Court ruling that Roe and similar decisions were "egregiously wrong."

Ya think?

It was egregious flim-flam because such a method of interpretation could obviously be used to make anything mean anything. It could make "peace in the valley" mean that people want to be free. (See the lyrics above.)

More to our present point, such a mood of mindless interpreting is inimical to Christianity. Throughout its history, biblical religion has been presented as the revealed religion; and, since Moses (1500 B.C.), that revelation has always been aggregated in a body of texts called "the Scriptures." How do you know what God wants? Either you look in your heart (wrong) or you look in the Bible (right). But what if you look in the Bible and it contradicts what you feel in your heart? If you're a traditional Christian, you're outta luck; you just found out that God disagrees with you and you're going to have to adjust your thinking to his.

But if paganism has infected your thinking, you can just pretend that the Bible really means something that it never seemed to mean before. Then you can start start dancin' and shoutin' from the mountains "People got to be free!" and go ahead and do as you please, assured that God agrees with you. (For some reason, God never disagrees with Christian cucks.)

In American Christianity about seventy years ago there came a movement of men who called themselves "the New Evangelicals." (If you're not familiar with the lingo, "evangelical" in this case is roughly equivalent to a Bible believing Protestant.) They said that they differed from the old evangelicals in that

1. they were going to put a greater emphasis on higher education and intellectualism,
2. they would adopt the emphasis on "social" issues that liberals already had, and
3. they would use a strategy of infiltration rather than separation, believing that they could embrace liberal churches and seminaries and beat the liberals at their own game.

Well, bless their hearts, it didn't work. The whole operation was tainted by the notion that the antichristian world would accept them if they'd just become more like the antichristian world: intellectual, socialist, and tolerant. When faced with an unpopular demand from God's word, they would take a position that might best expressed by, "Why, we can't do that! What would Satan think of us if we did that????"

You may be asking "But if they believed the Bible, why didn't they obey it?" Why, silly child, they DID obey it . . . after they got done making it say what they knew in their hearts it ought to say.

I'm perfectly willing to admit that there have always been some differences between Christians regarding the interpretation of the Bible, but I draw the line at creating new interpretations that contradict 2,000 years of Christian belief and practice. But since the world was drifting in a Marxist direction, the New Evangelicals followed closely behind, hoping to gain the world's approval and win more souls to Jesus.

New Evangelicalism was formulated in the '40s and '50s, but its pernicious effects weren't evident until the national nervous breakdown of the '60s. That's when multitudes of churches, swept along by the mindless enthusiasm of rock music, renounced tradition and began looking, acting, and behaving like the antichristians. Since then the degeneracy has progressed inexorably. As the ship sinks, the cucks frantically try to save themselves by throwing more and more cargo overboard. When you've thrown out enough real Christianity, eventually you wind up with that wretched Super Bowl ad.

There are pastors on Gab who are still uncucked. A Gabber can heed them with profit, but they're still too few to solve our nation's problem. I don't profess to have a general solution, but every reader of this essay can take the first step by following Hebrews 11:7,

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.