Quint Shivers

Texas actually did something like this, but better. Starting in the 1960s, thanks to Lady Bird Johnson and the Highway Beautification Act, Texas began planting native wildflowers along highways. Today, TxDOT manages about 800,000 acres of roadside and intentionally delays mowing until early summer after wildflowers have bloomed and dropped seed. Mowing late in the season allows the wildflowers to stay vigorous and not get crowded out by taller grasses or trees and shrubs. Take a drive along Texas highways in the Spring and you will enjoy a beautiful display of Bluebonnets, Indian Paintbrush, Coreopsis, Winecup, Mexican Hat, Indian Blanket, and more! Then thank Ladybird Johnson and TxDOT’s commitment to keeping Texas Highways beautiful.

Nice dinner with RC & Nel Slocum. Great Aggie, Coach & Man! Fun discussion about this wonderful rivalry!

Good to hear.

RT @GamecockFB: LET’S GO!!!

RT @not_our_guy: Do these guys share a culture?

I watched the full video, so as not to misrepresent. But their chosen highlight is worth noting. It is what *they chose* to put in the public square as a truth claim. Christ requires elders to be sober minded, above reproach, not partial in speech or conduct (Titus 1:7–9). In other words, mature in Christ. Are Brian and Eric being faithful to the Word of our Thrice Holy God? Let us examine their “truth” claims. Brian said: “Would they be permitted to participate in, embody and practice what I would call black culture generally in our church? The answer is absolutely not. Because the characteristics that mark black culture as a generalization… they are evil, murderous, violent, bestial people. They steal, they kill, they destroy. They are sinful to the core.” Here is the issue: Scripture does employ generalizations, but never in the way Brian does. Brian cites Titus 1:12, where Paul says, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons,” and tries to use that text as precedent for condemning an entire ethnicity as “black culture.” But his use of the verse is a textbook case of eisegesis, reading man’s prejudice into the text instead of faithfully drawing out God’s meaning. First, Paul is not speaking about ethnicity. He is quoting a pagan poet from Crete to describe the moral corruption of that particular society, and then he immediately says, “This testimony is true. Therefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith” (Titus 1:13). Paul’s goal was pastoral correction so that Cretans could be sound in the faith, not their exclusion as a race. To weaponize this verse to condemn blacks wholesale is to twist the text into the very opposite of its intent. Second, Brian trades biblical anthropology for Darwinian categories. Scripture declares that God “made from one man every nation of mankind” (Acts 17:26). All men fell in Adam (Rom. 5:12). Sin is covenantal, not ethnic. Sexual immorality, fatherlessness, and violence are indeed sins, but they are not “black sins.” They are Adamic sins. Scripture rebukes every nation for the same sins (Amos 1–2), and Israel itself is indicted as “worse than Sodom” (Ezek. 16:47–48). To single out one ethnicity is not exegesis. It is Darwinian theory, the same that the early Mormon church held. Note the irony: Brian says blacks can be church members only if they “repudiate their culture.” But the gospel demands repentance not from “blackness,” but from sin. Early Mormon prophets said these exact same things. But in contrast, true Christian culture is defined not by whiteness, but by Christ, the One who “ransomed people for God from every tribe and language and people and nation” (Rev. 5:9). That public statement alone reveals their heart. “The good man out of the good treasure of his heart brings forth good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure brings forth evil” (Luke 6:45). Also by his logic, “white culture” is guilty of institutionalized sin on a massive scale. White magistrates legislated and legalized prostitution, permitted child marriage, lowered the age of consent to as young as 7, enshrined sodomy into marriage, and sanctioned the murder of infants in the womb. Some of these laws persisted from the 19th century well into the twentieth century and some sins remain enshrined as law even today. Note also, the man who murdered Charlie Kirk was white. Is “white culture” therefore inherently sinful? Does Brian allow whites to sit in his pews? Not to mention, there is also a Planned Parenthood murder mill, performing abortions and even gender mutilation on minors, just down the street from @RefugeUtah. Ogden is 70% white. By Brian’s logic, is “white culture” responsible for that? Of course not. Scripture never divides sin by skin. (continued in comments)

I highly encourage anyone who reads this to go find a small town high school football game Friday night. Look around in the stands. Regular people like us don’t hate each other. It’s quite the opposite, actually. Don’t let them divide us. I fear that is their goal.

Texas A&M is the first university in the country to bring @bucees — Aggie-owned and operated — to campus! Starting Aug. 20, grab Beaver Nuggets, jerky & Buc-ee’s merch at three campus locations, no road trip needed. Get all the details: tx.ag/zpKRApw #Bucees #AggieDining #TAMU #AggieFamily

TCU in here with A&M, Houston, and UTSA like:

@CDHenry_PA Unfortunately, as homeschooling grows in popularity, we will start to see more and more ridiculous means and methods of using it e.g. I just recently discovered what ‘unschooling’ was. 🤦‍♂️

@CDHenry_PA 1. Diamonds and gasoline 2. The price of admission 3. A long way from your heart 4. Goodbye Normal Street 5. The Turnpike Troubadours 6. A cat in the rain Pay No Rent and The Housefire are just a tad better than Wrecked and Good Lord Lorrie

we don’t need American Reformer trying to bring themselves into the PCA world. on one level this is a new brand of parachurch involvement that needs to be discouraged for its focus on things that aren’t remotely gospel oriented. they want to bring a political bent to the PCA that is out of accord with Machen and the spirituality of the church. in time, and i say all this as a convicted postmillenialist, the end will be the degradation of the church and its officers on the alter of politics.

Two things can be true at once: 1) Not everything to your left is Critical Theory and not everything to your right is Christian Nationalism. 2) Critical Theory and Christian Nationalism are both bad ideas.

Folks like William Wolfe, Corey Mahler, Joel Webbon, the folks at New Founding/American Reformer (et al) think they're building off their reconstructionist, theonomic, patriarchal, Heritage American, and Christian Nationalist forebears (or, insert your favorite label) by saying things like this. But they're not. Without even providing what I think to be the Christian response, informed by the entire scope of Scripture's redemptive history/arc and the creeds and confessions of the past 1700 years, I think this will suffice. In episode 5 of season 1 (The Reconstruction of Nationalism), I spoke with Dr. Michael McVicar, who's *the* expert on the theological, cultural, and political background of everything these men stand for and on. Here's a summary of what he said, "Rushdoony, considered the father of the Christian Reconstructionist movement, would look at what's going on today and laugh. He'd laugh for two reasons: what they're doing isn't reconstructing (or deconstructing in order to reconstruct), and they don't even have the spunk to do it themselves." In other words: "I want to see this in my local Costco next" betrays Wolfe's lack of spunk. You see, it *sounds* vicious and steadfast and gritty and "America first," but in reality, it's cowardice. Wolfe (et al) want to see others do this, while they sit back and "vote" for all these measures and initiatives and "hard stance on immigration" legislation. They won't join ICE. They won't join a government agency and leave their cushy positions funded by groups who pay them to cause a ruckus online. They'll run for office and assign others to do their dirty work. But I guarantee you, they'd never do whatever it is these government workers are doing. Rushdoony was abundantly clear about those who cheer on the death penalty for blasphemers, sodomites, aborters, or whatever their favorite political talking point is, but wouldn't do it themselves, should effectively be quiet and sit down and let those with the courage to act behind their convictions to stand up and lead the charge. You'll never see them walk up to an immigrant family and say/do anything near what they say online. You will hear them behind a pulpit, lectern, podcast, or X broadcast and say them. But if push came to shove, I'm not convinced if they were handed the proverbial gun (in this case, arresting the family and shipping them oversees), they'd do it themselves. Maybe you agree with me, and maybe you don't. In ways I think this group of increasingly radicalized individuals are frightening, at least online, and that is leading to a lot of craziness, unrest, and downright horrific attacks on image bearers in the real world. But one thing I don't think they're ready to do, is get their own hands dirty. Maybe they'll prove me wrong, but until then, these posts from William (and others) are a joke. And I believe the Christian tradition passed down from the apostles throughout history to our day would back me on this. ΚΥΡΙΕ ΕΛΕISON

@khamenei_ir ایران هیچ قهرمانی در مسابقات قهرمانی SEC ندارد

Best to ignore #PCAGA hot takes from baptist scandal merchants. This is especially true when their attention seeking pearl clutching is nearly entirely based on not understanding Presbyterian polity. Mark and avoid.

Love you guys but this ain’t it. There’s no diplomatic solution to be had with the country who’s leadership chants “death to America” while their developing nukes

1/2 I not been a dispensationalist for nearly 25 years. I’ve been Jew-pilled for at least 10. But I’ve noticed a rising tide of what I’d call cage-stage anti-dispensationalism online. It’s loud, confused, and almost allergic to theological precision. These folks constantly equivocate on the word “Jew” and what it means, or “Israel” and what it means. They repeat simplistic claims our Reformed fathers wouldn’t have held, mixed in with conspiracy theories about modern Jews’ ethnic makeup, and self-defeating illogical claims, “They aren’t really Jews… but they killed Jesus.” It’s nonsense. Either they’re Jews, or they’re not. Pick a lane. Let me explain what I mean. The word Jew can refer to religion, ethnicity, or national identity, depending on context. So yes, modern ethnic Jews who practice rabbinic Judaism and reject Christ are not truly in covenant with God. They have no right to claim covenantal continuity with Old Testament Israel. The New Covenant is an expansion of God’s covenant of grace from one ethnic people and nation to all nations. That expansion was always the goal. God chose Israel to bring forth Christ, and through Christ, to bless the nations. Salvation is through faith in Christ. That’s why anyone—Jew or Gentile—who rejects Christ is cut off from the covenant. They may still be outwardly connected (baptized, circumcised, in the church, or descended from Abraham), but they are not part of the inward covenant of grace. The Jews, as a people group, were pruned from the vine because of unbelief. They don’t have even external covenant connect. The modern state of Israel, therefore, has no covenantal claim on God’s promises. Judaism today is not the religion of the Old Testament. It is, in fact, a heretical offshoot, an expansion of Pharisaism. It has a connection to the Old Testament religion only in the sense that heresies are always corruptions of truth. It is not the same faith as Moses, David, or Isaiah. It is what happens when you reject the Messiah and reshape religion around that rejection. Still, the ethnic people of Israel have not disappeared. That’s where the equivocation continues. Some people argue that the destruction of Jerusalem and the end of the sacrificial system marked the end of the Jews. That’s historically false. Jews existed outside Judea before and after 70 AD. Josephus, a Jew, is our best historical source for the destruction of the Temple. He tells us of rabbis who escaped and later helped form the Talmud. Jewish identity persisted, despite the collapse of the temple system. Yes, genealogical records have gaps. Yes, there was intermarriage. But that’s true of every ethnic group on earth. There is no such thing as ethnic “purity.” When people talk about their ancestry, they acknowledge mixture. There is no pure blood ethnic group. The same logic applies to Jews. They retained group identity. Ethnicity isn’t undone by genetic complexity. Even Jesus had Gentiles in His lineage. If you argue that intermarriage disqualifies Jewish identity, you’re going to have to explain why Christ is still called the Lion of Judah. He didn’t descend from “pure blood.” Church history is not on the side of those who deny the Jews’ continued existence. Our Reformed fathers knew this. That’s why the “Jewish question.” That’s why the Westminster Standards teach us to pray for their conversion. That’s why Calvin said the Jews would one day return to Christ. The Apostle Paul, in Romans, didn’t write about a hypothetical people. He wrote about his own kin—ethnic Jews—who had been cut off, but who would be grafted back in.