From the Mailbag… Rachelle Smith Writes For Help Defending Kinism — Part II

Pastor Geoff writes,

Is he just saying Italians are good at pasta and Indians at curry?

Bret responds,

Pastor Geoff writes,

Is he saying we should remain distinct based on physiological differences? If he is arguing for a separation of the races (which he does in other posts and comments), then he is dividing the family of God into unbiblical distinctives and is teaching something contrary to the gospel (Acts 17:26; Rom. 3:29; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:28; Gal. 2:12, 14; Rev. 5:9). Though his conclusion is not clear based only on this article, his other writings make abundantly clear what his objective is.

Bret responds,

Here the wheels finally completely come off of this chap’s argument.

I am dividing the family of God by merely suggesting that men should honor God’s distinctions among races? If I am, look what good company I am in Rachelle.

This from A. W. Tozer. One of my 20th century heroes in the faith;

“You can’t change my mind about God having made us the way we are. The yellow man and the white man and the black man. God made our races. I know the Marxists and the bubbleheads say: “Oh, that’s old-fashioned baloney! Everybody should get together and intermarry and pretty soon there won’t be races, and where there are no races there won’t be any hate, and if there’s no hate, there won’t be any war.” Oh, for cotton batting to stuff in the mouths of people who don’t know better than that!…

Let me remind you of the warbler, almost universally distributed in this country, and will you believe that there are 120 species of this bird called the warbler in the United States? One hundred and twenty varieties, with only the slightest differences of feather, or wing, or stripe or spot. In these 120 varieties, we are told, there is no crossing the line, they mate within their own racial strain, hatch and have little ones. Nobody puts them through college, but when they get big enough to hop out on the edge of the nest and begin looking for another warbler, they always pick one

like themselves, and stay within their own strain.

Now, you get a Communist or a starry-eyed American fellow traveler working on that, and he will say: “That’s an evidence of race hate, and it’s a proof those warblers hate each other!” Hate each other – your grandmother’s nightcap! They don’t quarrel, they never fight, they just go on living and warbling. They’ve got sense enough to know that God made 120 kinds of warblers just for fun to show what He could do, and He doesn’t mean for them to cross over and make one warbler out of 120!”

Or we could learn from another Christian minister who was theologically quite different from Tozer. In context here this minister is explaining why a denomination is splitting. Note the reasons that he gives/

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS)

John Edwards Richards

  • The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.
  • The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.
  • The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.
  • The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

    John Edwards Richards, who was one of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America could write elsewhere;

    “No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

    John Edwards Richards
    One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

    Finally Dr. Edwards adds,

    “The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” ~

    Dr. John E. Richards

So your “Pastor” Geoff says I am dividing the family of God into un-biblical distinctives and yet all of Church history screams with me that your Pastor Geoff is advocating a historically Marxist position. Maybe I will refer to him as “Red Geoff” the rest of the way? I know Red Geoff doesn’t intend to be doing the work of the devil, he doesn’t intend to contribute to the destruction of Western Civilization, and he only intends to be full of roses and pussy willows, but “Red Geoff” is just another “Pastor Lovejoy” of “The Simpsons” fame. What “Red Geoff” intends to do and what he is doing are opposed like heaven and hell.

“Red Geoff” says I am dividing the family of God into un-biblical distinctives. I have a number of Christian friends that belong to different races. They are kinists like myself. We have no barrier to fellowship. Being a Kinist does not divide the family of God. It merely recognizes these God ordained creaturely distinctives are God ordained. All because I might worship with a Mongolian Christian doesn’t mean I should think that our children should marry?

Theologian Dr. John Frame speaks to your “Red Geoff”

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

“Pastor Geoff continues on”

and (Pastor Bret) is teaching something contrary to the gospel (Acts 17:26; Rom. 3:29; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:28; Gal. 2:12, 14; Rev. 5:9).

Bret responds,

Rachelle, your “Pastor Geoff” choosing these text suggests to me that you should not be entrusting your souls to his teaching. Choosing these texts to try and prove his point is a example of badly handling Scripture. Let’s consider these one by one;

1.) Acts 17:26 And He has made from one man every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

One man… many nations. Keep in mind that nations in the NT understanding means “a descent from a common patriarch.” This text supports my position Rachelle and not Pastor Geoff’s.

2.) 1 Cor. 12:12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

a.) Note it is Jews and Greeks how are Baptized into one body. Do you suppose that after Baptism they were no longer Jews and Greeks?

b.) One body… many members, which is exactly what I am advocating. One body comprised of many member nations.

c.) Of course this is speaking in terms of spiritual realities. Arguing that we lose our racial/ethnic distinctives because we are baptized into one body would necessitate that we also argue that we lose our gender identity because we are baptized into one body.

d.) St. Paul is speaking here of unity in Christ. There is a distinction between unity in Christ and a uniformity where all Christians wear some form of Mao suits because, after all, we are all one.

e.) With all believers everywhere, regardless of race, sex, or class, I am a member of the one body of Christ. However, as members in one musical band are all members in that one band not all are Trumpets, not all are Bassoons, not all are Saxophones or Piccolos. They are distinct yet complimentary. The same is true of the body of Christ. There are many parts (races/ethnicities) but one body.

3.) Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

4.) Galatians 2:12, 14;

5.) Revelation 5:9

9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

I completely affirm this. God will have a redeemed people from all peoples of the world throughout time. However, all the Kinist observes is that people are saved as God’s work in saving peoples. I now this is true Rachelle, because in the same book of Revelation we read that the nations come into the new Jerusalem as in their nations and that their the nations are all healed

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.

22:4 The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Nations as nations are all over the book of Revelation. We should not be surprised by this for as Theologian Dr. Martin Wyngaarden noted;

“Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will, therefore, be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.

And again,

“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”

“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.”

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria, and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Martin Wyngaarden

The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

But I suppose “Red Geoff” says every freaking Christian theologian before him were sinning by “dividing the body of Christ?”

“Red Geoff’s” problem, is the same problem of nearly all modern and contemporary clergy. That problem is that they can only think in terms of the individual. They have completely lost corporate categories. Clergy did not always think this way and Reformed clergy who are genuinely Reformed have NEVER thought this way. I’ve given plenty of examples already, but here is another one from a great Doctor of the Church of a past era;

Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception of course occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 – pg. 118

Red Geoff writes;

I found the Iron Ink blog and looked around at the content. And I want to say in no uncertain terms that this man is not behaving as a Christian.

Bret responds,

Here Red Geoff goes from being jejune to being just not nice. I’m telling you Rachelle, my feelings are so hurt now that I just don’t know how I can go on.

Allow me to return volley here. Red Geoff is wearing the robes of anti-Christ. He is being an apostle of Marx. Red Geoff is calling evil, “good,” and good, “evil,” and unless he repents his soul is in mortal danger.

All the evidence from Church history is on my side Rachelle. All the Biblical evidence, when not handled like a starving rat handles the meat when set loose in a butcher shop, is on my side. I am merely holding what the church has taught in all times and in all places where God has been pleased to grant the Church orthodoxy.

If your “Pastor Geoff” wants to sling around this kind of language then he should spend the time in finding all the quotes from Church history that supports his universalist humanist position. He might find some, but those he finds will be from Anabaptist nutcases as combined with the heretic Cathari, Albigensians, and Bogomils.

If I am not behaving like a Christian, Red Geoff is behaving like a madman.

Red Geoff writes,

He is unapologetically a kinist which is patently and obviously against the Bible’s teaching of the unity of the body of Christ.

Bret responds,

1.) Actually, to be precise, I am unapologetically a Christian – Kinism is just a part of basic Christianity.

2.) Patently and obviously against the Bible’s teaching of the unity of the body of Christ? LOL… only when looking through the lenses of racial Marxism. Quite to the contrary it is Red Geoff who is sitting the Scriptures on their head and making them say on this subject the exact opposite of what they do say.

Rachelle Smith writes,

He (Geoff) links to articles like, “Top Ten Reasons ‘Anti Semite’ Is a Compliment” in which the writer tries to redefine the term to make it ok.

Bret responds,

Well, when anti-Semite is now defined as “anyone who disagrees with a Jew” then, yeah, I have no problem with being “anti-semite.” Honestly, the sting of these names cast at me as coming from leftists, anti-Christs, have completely lost their sting. I respond now typically just by shrugging my shoulders and saying, “whatever, you idiot.” Imagine how bad St. Augustine would feel when insulted by a Manichean and you can begin to grasp how little this bothers me.

RS writes quoting Red Geoff,

He (Bret) equates kinism with the rejection of Darwinian social evolution, but in fact is a rejection of the texts I listed above. I am not saying things too strongly when I say this man (Bret) is teaching poison that will only serve to divide the body of Christ.

Bret responds,

This man is a 5 year old searching for a lost toy with a lighter in an ammo dump.

Red Geoff destroys the meaning of God’s word and then turns around and declared that I am rejecting the texts that he ham-fistedly offered as “proof,” of a position that is neither supported by Scripture, nor by two thousand years of Church history.

RS quoting Red Geoff

I would strongly encourage you to remove yourselves from the mailing list of this blog and not allow yourself to be influenced by such a man.
Bret responds,

Well, given that you have corresponded with me, after Red Geoff’s counsel, I see that you utterly rejected his counsel. Good for you.

RS quoting Red Geoff,

Though not everything he says is without merit (of course), he will not encourage you to embrace the body of Christ which is one and does not recognize distinctions of value and/or belonging based on race.

Bret responds,

Rachelle, I could only hope for you that you would have as many Christian non-Caucasian friends as I have. I have one chap who lives in Europe who phones me monthly who is perhaps, more a kinist than I’ll ever be. I have a Christian friend on the East Coast who I speak to every once in a while who is a kinist. I have a Filipino friend online who has been very generous to us over the years. We are all Kinists and we all belong to different people groups. We all understand that we are one in Christ but we also understand that our oneness in Christ does not destroy our creational distinctions.

You Pastor is not a wise man. That is my nice way of saying he is an idiot. You should flee for the good of your soul from this Pastoral hack.

RS writes quoting Red Geoff,

In fact, knowing you are sympathetic to such a man could serve to greatly alienate brothers and sisters in our current church and cause tremendous division. I’d be happy to sit down with you to talk through these things in more detail. Hope I didn’t say it too strongly. Love you lots.

Bret responds

Dear sweet Rachelle, I am sorry that you are now in this position. It takes great courage to swim upstream. You and your husband will have to decide what to do from here. I can tell you, that it is unlikely that you will find any other Church or clergy member who will be any better than your Red Geoff. So, you can keep these beliefs on the down low and get along, or you can sever yourself from this body and be lonely, like tons of people I know, who refuse to compromise on this issue.

However, Biblical Christianity, and so Kinism, will one day win out. Reality cannot be ignored without eventually snapping back.

If I can be of any more service to you and your husband let me know. Write me. Phone me. I am available to minister to you as I can.

The Blessings of Christ be upon you and your Kin,

Pastor Bret


From the Mailbag; “My Pastor Ignores the Issue of Marxism”

Comment left on Iron Ink that makes my head want to explode;


“Very disappointing that my pastor ignores Marxism intentionally, and at a university-focused church. A distraction I suppose, to piety.

I am glad you write about it. Many Christian kids are pulled from the faith due to it and its manifestations, yet he somehow sees it as a distraction.”



1.) I would bet the farm that his minister doesn’t preach against Marxism because his minister is absolutely clueless as to what Marxism is.

2.) It is ministerial neglect of the worst type to refuse to address the world and life view that is the chief assailant in keeping Christianity as a minority faith expression.

3.) We can’t eliminate the “follow the money” factor here. The minister doesn’t preach against it, because doubtless in a University setting he would lose key members of his congregations who are freaking “Christian” Marxists.

4.) If it really is true that “many Christian kids” in this congregation “are pulled from the faith due to Marxism and its manifestations” can you imagine what a degree of dereliction of duty this minister is going to be charged with at the great assize?

5.) Don’t miss the “a distraction, I suppose to piety” quip. The commenter is being sarcastic here. He is saying that what passes for Christian piety doesn’t want to get its hands dirty by actually dissecting and exposing a worldview that desires to kill the Christian faith.

6.) One would have to ignore Marxism “intentionally” if one were to not preach on it, since Marxism is ubiquitous — and especially so on a University campus. In other words nothing else explains not addressing Marxism on a University Campus church except that one is intentionally avoiding it.

7.) This refusing to speak on Marxism is driven by the minister in question being R2K. I know of this chap. I know he has been infected w/ R2K. His R2K theology is informing him that if he preached on Marxism, exposing it as the chief competitor to Christianity in the marketplace of ideas, then he would be getting out of his lane since a Christian minister should let natural law deal with matters that exist in a jurisdiction other than the church jurisdiction he has been assigned to specialize. Marxism as a competing world and life view just doesn’t come under his portfolio as a member of the clergy.

8.) Understand that this ministerial malpractice is no different than refusing to speak on the matter of Islam were one ministering in a Church in a Muslim culture. This is no different than refusing to speak on Talmudism were one minister in a church that existed in a Bagel culture. This is no different than refusing to speak on Fascism in a church that existed in a Fascist culture.

Well, maybe he would muster up the courage to speak against Fascism since there are some elements of Fascism that can be misconstrued as Christian and our minister in question could never allow that misunderstanding to continue.

This whole thing sickens me. We, as Christians, are in a fight with people who own a world view that is sworn to snuff out Christ and His people and yet this minister, of this somewhat large church refuses to speak on it.

This chap, and many in the clergy corps like him, are like “Talkative” in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.

To such clergy I say;

If you love your comfortable station better than honoring Christ, the perks of being respected and called “Reverend,” better than getting your hands dirty in this fight for your King, go from us in peace. We ask not for your wisdom or support. Crouch down and lick the Marxist hands which feed you. May your retreat not get in our way as we rush to the battle and may posterity forget that you were once called clergy.

A Horse By Any Other Name is Still Marxism — Pt. I

Many are those who believe Karl Marx to be categorized as an economic theorist. This is false. Marx, like all ideologues was a theologian and Marxism is a theology that competes with Christian orthodoxy. If we realized that all sociology, ideology, macro economic theorists, philosophers, can only be what they are because of the theological a-priories they have accepted to make their theorizing go, we should not make the mistake of not understanding that these men are theologians before they are anything else. This is true of Marx as hope to tease out a little bit here.

Marx’s subset in theology was anthropology. Marx was seeking to answer the question “What does it mean to be human,” apart from presupposing the God of the Bible. Marx is answering, “What is Man,” without considering God. Marx then answered the question by saying that man is “homo economicus.” Marx believed that man was an inherently social being who wrongly understood himself only in terms of his labor. Marx believed if man was to find his true nature he had to release himself from the chains of property, as driven by capitalism with its theories of division of labor and the ownership of private property. Marx followed Rosseau’s theological claim that “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” The chains that Marx sought to loosen men from were the chains of private property. In theological terms private property was man’s original sin and Marx was a sociological prophet seeking to release people from their chains of private property.

We see the theological component in Marx’s emphasis on Revolution. For Marx Revolution is to the proletariat what regeneration is to the Christian. Revolution is the means by which men die to themselves and are reborn as a “New Socialist Man,” finally stripped of all private property and the desire for private property. Revolution then becomes a religious rite for Marx and his followers. This notion of stripping people of private property via the sacrament of Revolution is central and is the key to understanding where we are right now in this cultural moment in the West.

As an aside, as we understand this, we will see why Dr. Gary North was absolutely nuts when he insisted, towards the end of his life, that Marxism had been defeated. Marxism has not been defeated, it has merely morphed into new channels as well shall see. The outer shell may look different but the essence remains.

This anthropology of the necessity for man to be rebirthed and experience renewal so as to become the “New Soviet Man,” or the “New Socialist Man,” or the “New Sustainable and Inclusive Man,” is all over the literature of the Marxist writers. It is another indication that we are dealing with theology here and not primarily economics or sociology. If we don’t realize that we will never be able to think right about our task at hand in championing the cause of our Lord Christ. Not thinking rightly about this explains why so many of our clergy corps has fallen into Marxist like clap trap when they support ideas like “race is a social construct,” or “race doesn’t really exist,” or “race is only about pigment levels and nothing else.” These are all statements that have as their foundation a Marxist anthropology as we shall see.

Marx believed that human beings were perfectly social entities who’s fall entailed being caught up in the snare of private property. Marx believed that the perfectibility of man could be achieved if only he could be delivered from the sin of private property via revolution. Marx believed that the proletariat were kept down by the bourgeoisie and could only return to the garden by Revolutionary activity that eliminated private property. Only then would the workers of the world unite so that they were no longer alienated from themselves. Only by Revolution could man be man again and so build his Utopia.

Here we see the core of the issue. Property is man’s primal sin and the elimination of property by way of Revolution that tears down the social order that countenances property is how man returns to paradise.

This, of course is clearly seen in classical Marxism where the oppressors are the Capitalists/bourgeoisie property owner who are guilty of oppressing the proletariat. Some of us know and understand this story and have seen it played out in history.

But what if the category of “property” is fungible? What if a nuanced Marxism arises that relocates and redefines property to be other than material extrinsic possessions? What if a Marxism arises that finds property as a defining characteristic of immaterial intrinsic qualities like race and gender? Well, then, consistent with Marxist theory a Revolution must occur that seeks to strip that intrinsic property from the oppressors so that they can not lord it over the oppressed who do not have those intrinsic property markers.

If the possession of extrinsic property leads to class warfare in order to loose the chains of men born free, then possession of intrinsic property like whiteness, or maleness, or heterosexuality likewise can, should, and must lead to race warfare to pull down the bourgeoisie oppressor white man who is oppressing the proletariat pigmented man, lead to the war of the sexes where revolution pulls down the bourgeoisie male oppressor oppressing the oppressed female gender, lead to the war of the proletariat pervert class who is being oppressed by the oppressor bourgeoisie heterosexual class.

You see the claims of property have changed but all the theory surrounding the varying Revolutions remains Marxist at its core. The oppressed vs. oppressor class category remains. The Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat conflict remains. The absolute necessity of revolution unto the destruction of social orders because of the sin of property remains. And though we have not spoken of it yet, the dialectical methodology that drives the Revolution remains. It’s all Marxism again all the way down.

Indeed, that the dialectical methodology is working is seen in the fact that the Revolution in classical Marxism has jumped the shark and is now operative for gender, race, sexuality. Marxist dialectics required that Revolution eventually find its way into other areas besides class.

All of this then demonstrates that the Marxist Revolution always leads to a leveling where any and all notions of property (both extrinsic and intrinsic) are destroyed. The old Saturday Night Live routine, “It’s Pat,” was prophetic in this regard.

Of course political tools are needed to eliminate private property. In order to eliminate extrinsic private property we see the rise of socialism and then communism. In order to eliminate intrinsic private property such as whiteness we see the rise of “Critical Race Theory.” In order to eliminate the intrinsic private property of heterosexuality we see the rise of “Queer theory.” In order to eliminate the intrinsic private property of assigned roles in femaleness and maleness we see the rise of feminism. From all of this we are reminded again that “the issue is never the issue, the issue is always the Revolution,” and the Marxist Revolution is about setting man free from all his social givens. If man was a text, Marxism’s goal is to release man from all context that defines the text.

Perhaps it is helpful here to employ the Roman Numeral system. Were we to outline this we would have;

I.) Marxism

A.) Classical — Communism
B.) Gender  — Queer Theory
C.) Sexual – Feminism
D.) Racial – Critical Race theory
E.) Able studies
F.) Fat studies

Or if we were Scientist we would talk about;

Genus — Marxism
Species — Classical, Gender, Sexual, Racial, Ableism, Morphism

The point to see here is that the chief opposition to Biblical Christianity remains Marxism, and one titanic application here is that when clergy like Doug Wilson, Voddie Baucham, J. Ligon Duncan, Albert Mohler, and countless others inveigh against Kinism or Christian ethno-nationalism they are that moment wearing the colors of team Marxism, and frankly are being anti-Christs. What other conclusion can be settled upon?

The ultimate goal is to abnormalize the normal and to normalize the abnormal so that man is free from his chains, free from any social givens, free from the defining hand of God.

Of course this isn’t going to relent. The dialectic continues. There are those out there now, continuing to press the boundaries of post-modernism, who are insisting that meaning and knowing are intrinsic properties that the intellectual bourgeoisie have and are using to oppress those clueless and dumb proletariat. This means that even meaning and knowledge must be deconstructed via the Marxist model of social order Revolution.

As near as I can tell, it is the Kinists alone who get the above in a consistent fashion and who alone are doing the grunt work of opposing the Marxists.

What Was Righteousness In 1973 is Now Sin In 2024

In 1973 a new Reformed denomination was being birthed. It eventually became known as the PCA. Dr. John Edwards Richards was one of the founders of that new denomination and Dr. Richards gave us some of the reasons why this new denomination was leaving the PCUS.

Causes of Separation in 1973

The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.

The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.

The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.

The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

“No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” 

Dr. John E. Richards

Dr. Richards perhaps knew that Marxists were pushing for a world and social-order that was the very opposite that he believed should be supported by Christians.  When you read the above it sounds like Dr. Richards was aware of the Marxist agenda. An agenda which was clearly put forth by Marxist “wise-men.”

1.) ”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?

The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”

~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847

2.) “The equality of races and nations is one of the most important elements of the moral strength and might of the Soviet state. Soviet anthropology develops the one correct concept, that all the races of mankind are biologically equal. The genuinely materialist conception of the origin of man and of races serves the struggle against racism, against all idealist, mystic conceptions of man, his past, present and future.”

—Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959
“The Origin of Man” (Moscow)Mikhail Nesturkh, Soviet anthropologist, 1959:

3.) “The aim of socialism is not only to abolish the present division of mankind into small states and end all national isolation; not only to bring the nations closer together but to merge them….”

Vladimir Lenin
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination — pg. 76

4.) “… Just as mankind can achieve the abolition of classes only by passing through the dictatorship of the proletariat, so mankind can achieve the inevitable merging of nations only by passing through the transition period of complete liberation of all oppressed nations, i.e., their right to secede. “

Vladimir Lenin 
The Rights of Nations to Self Determination 

5.) “Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…, can and must be done away with historically.” 

K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,
As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A
Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:

6.) “Full-scale Communist construction constitutes a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together until complete unity is achieved…. However, the obliteration of national distinctions and especially of language distinctions is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.”

Nikita Khrushchev

Today it has become passe’ and nekulturny to disagree with the Marxists on this matter and to agree with Dr. Richards. It is an odd thing that a whole new Christian and Reformed denomination in 1973 could be birthed based on issues that are now seen as non Christian in putative conservative Reformed Churches.

A “conservative” church in Pella, Iowa for example just adopted a tenet that I’m pretty sure that Dr. Richards and the people who, at that time, formed the PCA — having seen this kind of conviction in the denomination they were leaving — would have strenuously disagreed.

“Furthermore, we reject Kinism, which teaches that it is consistently unwise or a sin for people of different ethnicities or races to intermarry, and that civil societies ought to take steps to remain ethnically or racially segregated.”

I don’t know if Dr. Richards would have said it was sin for people of different ethnicities or races to intermarry but from the quotes above I know he would have certainly said it was consistently unwise.

There are two things that trouble me about this kind of thing.

1.) It seems to me that given enough time, truth will change because the Overton window moves to the left.  The PCA is formed because certain things they are seeing in the Churches they were leaving were understood by those leaving as being, at the very least “unwise.” Now 50 years later conservative churches are saying that the reasons why people left their previous denomination were unwise for doing so because their reasons were unbiblical and sin. This is lightning fast social change.

2.) Because of these kinds of social order changes people alive today who agreed with the convictions of Dr. Richards and those that formed the new denomination no longer can find a denominational church home. Bad theology hurts people and this theology that crept into the liberal churches in 1973 that required people to leave has now crept into what is thought of as Conservative churches and some people, who have a memory longer than 5 minutes, have no where left to attend church.

Understand when this Pella, Iowa church “rejects Kinism,” they are rejecting what the people who abandoned their previous faithless denomination believed in 1973 was standard Christianity. They didn’t call it Kinism then. They just called it Christianity.

Truth forever on the scaffold
Wrong forever on the throne 
But the scaffold sway the future
And behind the dim unknown
Standeth God within the shadows
Keeping watch above His own