Earlier this month, Wes Huff set off a debate on the term Judeo-Christian during a promo for his questionable partnership with Jordan Peterson. Now Allie Stuckey is weighing in from her Relatapulpit to give her big-brained response in defense of Judeo-Christian as a term.
Stuckey reads Huff’s tweet and then summarizes the sides. She describes the side opposed to Judeo-Christian as the “hyper-patriarchal” “theobros” and also cited Stephen Wolfe, Joseph Spurgeon, Jack Posobiec, and Mostly Peaceful Memes. The count is at least 3 Evangelicals opposed to the term. On the other side, Stuckey cites the aforementioned Huff, Jordan Peterson, Owen Strachan, and Mike Winger. Somehow she thought it helpful to her case to appeal to a false teacher in Peterson and a feminist like Owen Strachan. She then veers into a trueism about the Jewish context of Jesus’s day.
As Evangelical Dark Web contributor, Defiant Baptist, summarizes:
Allie is emphasizing how necessary it is to understand the Jewish context of Jesus in order to really™️ understand who he is. But even more than that, she calls creation itself a Jewish idea BEFORE CHRISTIANITY, which is a major gaffe for someone that considers herself a teacher.
Stuckey doesn’t realize it, but she has adopted a hyper-dispensational perspective by implying that Christianity entered into the world 2000 years ago. Christ created the universe. Christ walked with Adam in the garden. Christ killed the first animal to make a covering for Adam. THE ENTIRE BIBLE IS CHRISTIAN!
The word “Jew” does not appear until Esther and is so briefly used as a term for God’s people both in Scripture and in history, compared to Hebrew, Israelite, and nearly 2000 years of Christian as the predominant term. Abraham, Moses, and Jacob were not Jews, let alone Noah and all the predelugian saints.
Stuckey believes there to be continuity between Ancient Judaism and Modern Judaism, denoting an entire misunderstanding of the argument. But her galactic intellect would reframe the debate as mostly trad-Caths opposing Judeo-Christians.
I see this a lot in the political context when it comes specifically to our foundation. Like you’ll see people say, “Oh, don’t say we have Judeo-Christian roots.” Don’t say it was a Judeo-Christian constitution or founding documents. None of the founding fathers were Jewish. Well, you know, it’s interesting. A lot of the people I see saying that are what you call traditional… [are] Catholic themselves. So if we are going to say we can’t call it Judeo-Christian because the founders weren’t Jewish—okay.
Well, we’re also not going to call it Catholic Christian because the founders weren’t Catholic. Like, they were Protestant. They were Protestant. So if we want to talk about exactly the belief system and the worldview of the founders and of the people who wrote our founding documents and the founding charters for the colonies, they were specifically Protestant Christians. Okay?
And so if we’re going to get into this debate of, “Oh, who was actually represented and what was the belief system represented at the founding, we can only use that terminology,” okay, let’s start using Protestant Christians. You want to go with Calvinist, we could do that. If you want to get really specific about what most of the founders actually believed about the sovereignty of God and the plan of salvation.
In a grandiose non-sequitur, Stuckey compares the Judeo-Christian to “Catholic Christian” as it relates to America’s founding generation. She actually thought she cooked with this clip that her social media team would highlight. At no point does it address the theobros, but rather pretends that the Catholics, Jack Posobiec mentioned, are the driving force behind opposition to Judeo-Christianity and not the Evangelicals who are publishing books and sharing much of the arrows in the fight against Jewish influence in the church.
To add to Stuckey’s historic ineptitude, Maryland’s founding charter was not Protestant. Maryland was founded as a landing spot for Catholics, although the Protestants wouldn’t let Maryland stay Papist for long. In any case, Stuckey mistakes the language of the Declaration of Independence as being universally agreed by Christians and Jews, when it is rooted in English Christian heritage, although with appeal to French sensibilities.
Additionally, the ontological equality of man is not a Jewish belief, yet it is a Christian belief. The Talmud muddies the water on the issue because the document views Jews as relationally superior to goyim. So in the end, Stuckey’s attempts to make America Judeo-Christian are an incorrect anachronism that is both devoid of history and unwilling to understand the arguments she is addressing.
The Relatapulpit, though broadcasting from YouTube, is Reddit tier.
Powered by RedCircle
