By seeking to build a multi-cultural, multi-creedal, multi-familial Globalist New World Order society in America we are seeking to do something that has seldom if ever been successfully done before in any time in human history. The history books do not show a civilization/society/nation that was multicultural, multi-creedal, multi-familial as able to sustain it self over the long haul. On the other hand history reveals countless examples of Multicultural / egalitarian failures whether one considers the Greeks, Romans, 1700’s-1800’s Poland, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union, Kosovo/Serbia, The Flemish and the Walloon of Belgium, or even the French Canadians in Quebec, etc. History does not support the idea that “multism” can work.
The dirty little secret however is that there really is no attempt to sustain the differences that come to the fore in a multi-istic culture. What is going on in the West is not the attempt to build a culture where all distinctions are honored. The differences, being hurled together, is only one phase on the way to a much grander project. The grander project, as pursued by the Internationalist Bankster elite, is to put all these differences they are slamming together into a New World Order blender to create a uni-culture, uni-creedal, uni-racial, New World Order. The goal is to move past the social construct that is mutliculturalism, multi-creedalism, and multi-familialism, to a socially engineered and arrived at cultural, creedal, and biological reality where all polarities of culture, creed, and race have been genocided precisely because they have been regenerated into a Universalistic slave melange.
The proximate purpose behind this attempt to create a Unitarian world where all cultures, beliefs, and colors bleed into one is accounted for by a pagan postmillennial desire to build a Utopian Kingdom of Man. Such Utopias are described in books like Huxley’s “Brave New World,” Zamyatin’s “We,” Muggeridge’s “Winter In Moscow,” and Orwell’s “1984.” The one unifying theme in these books is that pagan postmillennialist Utopia always creates Dystopian nightmare social orders. And so it already is, and will even more become, as the genocidal vision of the New World Order elite comes to the fore as driven by the current massive third world immigration into the West.
The ultimate purpose behind this attempt to create a Unitarian world where all cultures beliefs, and colors bleed into one is to create a mega-slave class for the 1 percent. This whole egalitarian internationalist New World Order project looks to genocide — especially of the West — and the subsequent creation of a Borg cattle people in order to be unto them what the Hebrews were unto the Pharaohs in building their pyramids and great cities. Included in this ultimate purpose is the rebuilding of a Babel that will glorify the god of sulfur and brimstone who is the one who has forever sought to turn God’s Eden into His Mordor.
The means by which this is all attempted is the social engineering of the league of Globalists, Socialists, Corporatists, Finance & International Capitalists as well as assorted Communists, Fascists and Fabians who have worked together, via the Hegelian dialectic, to bring all this about. By the means of welfare, housing allowances, mass immigration, affirmative action, redistribution programs, monopoly power, diversity programs, money printing ability, debt creation, etc. as combined with the threat of force the social engineering of this league has allowed their multi-ism to advance. However, should the day come when the money ceases to flow, or when the dollar crashes the untangling of this socially engineered knot will not be a pleasant sight to behold.
Contributing to all this has been much of contemporary Christianity of the West. One form of Christianity, having been long captured by this agenda, merely baptizes this Globalist agenda and wraps it all in the Cross. It insists that egalitarianism is taught by passages like Galatians 3:28 and insist that Jesus taught re-distributive Marxism. This school will appeal to passages like the Sermon on the Mount as proving that Jesus loves the poor only because they are poor. Whereas Scripture places the antithesis between the righteous and the wicked these Zombie Ministers place the antithesis between the poor and the rich and then label the poor as “righteous” and the rich as “wicked” regardless of their confession of Christ. Whereas Scripture explicitly defends the notion of Hierarchy these brain dead Ministers are at the front of the parade thumping for egalitarianism as taught in the Bible. Whereas Scripture defends the right of private property and personal ownership these dead walking Ministers insists the Bible teaches that because the early believers had all things in common therefore Government top down forced communalism is the social order taught in Scripture. This kind of Christianity is forever prattling about social justice quite without realizing or caring that the whole idea of “social justice” comes to us from the bowels of Marx and not the bowels of Scripture. This Zombie Christianity was funded by Rockefeller, preached by Fosdick, and embraced and slightly amended by the Liberation Theologians.
However, there is another form of Christianity that contributes to the success of multi-ists and that is the branch of Christianity that insists that God doesn’t care about all these issues, having left them to be ruled by Natural law. According to these co-laborers with the Zombies above, these Hyphenated Men insist that God doesn’t care if the family is destroyed in the name of egalitarianism. God doesn’t care if private property is attacked so that a classless society can be built. God doesn’t care about mutli-culturalism, multi-creedalism, and multi-familialism in the public square because God has determined that all of that is going to burn anyway and the Churches job is to get people saved. What this group of Hyphenatied Christians do is that they immanentize their eschaton. Believing that Christianity will be defeated in the end and that all is going to burn in the end anyway, they operate in such a way as to insure that all will burn and that Christianity will be defeated. As such they insist that God doesn’t have a clear word to speak against the Globalists.
And so Christianity is one of the chief vehicles that is working to bring about the agenda of the multi-ists, either by way of overtly assisting the project by wrapping it in the Cross or by refusing to fight against it by removing the Robes of Christianity from the conflict out of fear those robes will be polluted by the conflict. All such Christianities are to be denounced.
Finally, we can account for this Multi-ism has it is a reflection of Humanist theology. Humanism has made man, in his corporate expression, to be god. One thing that is characteristic of all gods is that they are unified in their person. As such the god of Humanism must have a Unitarian reality to reflect back to itself. The Unitarian God state must work to destroy all distinctions — all cultural distinctions, all creedal distinctions, all ethnic distinctions, all class distinctions. As the God of Humanism is Unitarian, so must be the God’s people. The way to arrive at this uniformity Unitarianism is by pushing the multi-cultural, multi-creedal, and multi-racial agenda so that uni-culturalism, uni-creedalism, and uni-familialism is arrived at.
Most all your posts are extra bases. This one is most definitely a home run!
Thank you Jeffrey.
Hi Pastor Bret,
Thank you for continuously firing away at the godless heresies that pervade the modern Christian church and for exposing and renouncing the pagan agenda to subvert Christ’s kingship. I am often refreshed after reading your stance on Biblical principles and appreciate the tone you take against those who prove themselves to be wolves in the church and pagan enemies of God.
However, while I firmly stand with you on the points you make in this particular article, I am curious as to how you tie it in with your understanding of kinism. I have contemplated your position at some length and am curious to pick your brain concerning the subject. I attend a Bible believing RPCNA church in California and have come to consider my brothers and sisters in the church as closer than that of my siblings who attend “churches”, which have shown themselves to be heretical and false. What’s more, is that our church, though small in number, represents several different cultures and ethnicities. The reason I bring this up is that, while I am completely against the babel-esque multiculturalism championed by secular humanists, I have trouble with the idea that Christian culture is trumped by any ethnical background. For example, if I were to have the option of giving my daughter away to an R2K’er who shared my ethnical background or a theologically sound Christian man who did not, which does kinism require? If this is a false dichotomy, what is a better way to frame the issue?
Given Christ’s Mediatorial Kingship, it seems that even our categories of culture are to be redeemed. Racial categories have historically been blurred, changed and manipulated. Thus, it seems that to use race as our foundational definition for culture is to miss the point. I would acquiesce that history has used race as a means of defining culture, but does that mean that the Bible defines culture that way? The new testament only speaks of Jews and Gentiles last time I checked. And, those categories are only used in relation to the fact that the new covenant is extended to both. The kind of language I have heard you use in previous posts is reminiscent of the mistake Peter made in Acts and he held his racial ties over and above the message of the gospel.
I bring this reply to this post because I want to know what you think the biblical alternative is to this barrage of “multi-isms” as applied to race. It seems like a cheap appeal to fallen categories to tell people to combat this by merely maintaining a loyalty to your race (especially when one’s racial background has little to do with the culture one identifies with).
To be clear, I am not suggesting that all racial ties are cheap and should be abolished. For, in many places race and culture are so interwoven that one is bound to the other. Rather, I am suggesting that Christ’s redemption of culture and his uniting of his people under the visible church involves the redemption of culture. A look at God’s law in the Old Testament suggests that there is acceptance of the alien both spiritually and physically in the culture of God’s people. This acceptance is, of course, based on the alien’s adherence to God’s law and not his or her racial background.
Dear Kelsey,
Thank you for writing and for your fair questions. I will try to take them in the order that they are set forth.
As we start this I would note that I never use the word “Kinist” as a self descriptor when dealing with people who are comparatively new to this subject since the word Kinist has managed to be burdened with all kinds of suspect baggage that in turn unduly burdens any conversation. Instead I refer to myself as a familialist. By owning this title nobody can come at me with their ill preconceived notions about “Kinism” and so I am allowed to self define myself.
Now to the subject matter at hand.
1.) Scripture clearly says the Kingdom of God is to be prioritized over even family. As such it is perfectly understandable if and when individuals have to leave their natural families and attach themselves to families that are diverse from their ethnic origin and yet share a common Christian faith. Even then though there remains a special longing for one’s own Kin. We see this expressed in Romans 9:3
We can well imagine what great joy St. Paul would have at the ability to worship with his own family if he only could.
2.) You talk about “Christian Culture” as if that is a singular entity. I would disagree with that. One can find various forms of “Christian culture” throughout time and when those varied cultures are examined they will be seen to be quite diverse, and yet they were are genuinely Christian culture. For example we could compare Charlemagne’s rule to the Puritan Commonwealth in the 17th century to Calvin’s Geneva and I’m sure we’d find all kinds of diversity and yet they were all genuinely Christian cultures. All of this to say that nobody is advancing the idea that Christian culture can be trumped by ethnicity. As the present postmillennial Kingdom continues to advance I fully expect there to be a cornucopia of different shades of Christian culture, all of which will be in keeping with the very real people groups humanness where that Christianity comes to full expression. There will be, at that point in time, unity in diversity.
3.) Let’s talk about “culture” a moment. Culture is defined as the outward manifestation of a people group’s inward beliefs. Notice there are two components here. There is the belief system that is being manifested and there is the people group through which the belief system is coming to the fore. It would be most unusual then to expect the Japanese or the Bantu to create the same exact Christian culture as the Inuit or the Paiute. Certainly there will be overlaps in expression but there will also be uniqueness that demonstrates the uniqueness of each people group. Each people group can create diverse Christian culture. In this manner, it is impossible for ethnicity to trump Christian culture as you suggest.
4.) In terms of your example I would quite agree that you have created a straw man false dichotomy. There are a great number of reasons that could disqualify a potential mate; picking two of them and saying “which would you rather…” is usually a strawman and ignores the fact that there are plenty of potential suitors which have neither of those disqualifications. If there aren’t, then one needs to perhaps move to a situation where a suitable mate for children might be more expected to be found. What familialism anticipates is for our children to marry someone who is a reflection of who they are in terms of faith and ethno-cultural categories. Marriage is made more complicated by any yoking that requires one to renounce their faith, upbringing, or family history in order to acclimate themselves to a new faith or a different upbringing or a different family history. It is possible for a Chinese female Christian to marry a Christian aborigine from Papua New Guinea but we both agree that there would be huge ethno-cultural hurdles to cross here that would make the marriage more difficult and so should be counted unwise.
All in all it really is less about race being the basis for culture and more that a race, comprised by ethnicities, as related through common ancestors, geography, and history, has similar cultures. It’s much more accurate to say that ethnicity is the basis for culture. Russians are white, but I have no desire to live in a Russian culture for a number of reasons. However, I would much prefer a Russian culture over, say, an Indonesian or Mongolian culture only because there would be less psycho-cultural and ethno-cultural distance for me to travel.
5.) Ethnicity is indeed a fluid, organic, changing concept that grows, merges, and divides again like a tree or a river. But that fact doesn’t make the concept of ethnicity irrelevant. The fact that the Pict don’t exist anymore doesn’t makes the concept of “Scot” irrelevant and we can still tell the Ohio apart from the Mississippi and the Mississippi from the Amazon. Tribes may change, grow, cease to exist, and get infusions from other groups, but you can still tell a Nord and a Bantu apart. We must be careful at this point do not fall into the fallacy of the beard (continuum fallacy).
6.) The Bible routinely defines culture by ethnicity and race. The Bible uses the word ethnos which is translated “nation” in Scripture and tells us repeatedly in the book of Revelation that Nations as Nations will exist in the New Jerusalem. Indeed we get to the end of Revelation and we find St. John inspired to write, “And the leaves of the trees are for the healing of the Nations.” Even in the new Jerusalem diversity in unity will exist. Even in the new heavens and earth we will be one spiritual people but retain our ethnic identity. Earlier, in the book of Acts we read,
26 And he (God) made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, 27 that they should seek God, and perhaps feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us
Calvin can write here,
Note how Calvin thought in terms of people groups (troop and band) having an appointed place, thus suggesting that Calvin understood the Bible to use ethnicity to define culture.
St. Paul himself can associate ethnicity and culture when, under inspiration can write, “12 One of the Cretans,[h] a prophet of their own, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.”[i] 13 This testimony is true.”
7.) I fear you are mistaken with your statement about the NT using only Jews and Gentiles as people group categories. To the Jewish Supremacist mindset of the Rabbis, there were only two categories: Jews and non-Jews (Gentiles). When the New Testament speaks of Jews and Gentiles, it’s saying “EVERYONE” in terms the Jews would understand rather than making an exhaustive categorization of racial groups. Just off the top of my head, the New Testament also speaks of Greeks, Cretans, Barbarians (Celts/Germans), Macedonians, Ethiopians, Syro-Phoenicians, and Scythians, so saying the NT only refers to “Jews and Gentiles” is incorrect from the start. And this is on top of the multitude of ethnic and racial references in the Old Testament.
Acts 2 indicates that there was a very healthy understanding of Nations in the New Testament.
Clearly there was a understanding of the diverse nations in the New Testament.
8.) I challenge you Kelsey, to find one post on Iron Ink where I have ever placed racial or ethnic ties above the Gospel. It just isn’t true that I have ever done that and that is simply because I would never do that because I do not believe that. Not even for a skinny minute. If that were true I wouldn’t have spent time in Zimbabwe doing mission work. I would not have allowed my daughter to go to Haiti for short term missions work. I would not have supported with funds continual missions work in Zimbabwe. You’ll forgive me if I’m a little thin skinned on this accusation but it really does grind me that I can’t get alienist type ideas about familialists out of people’s heads. All because one believes that racial and ethnic ties are real objective categories does not mean that one is prioritizing them over the Gospel.
And Peter’s mistake, recorded in Galatians, was that he was insisting that the Gentiles, in order to be Christian, had to embrace cultural Jewish table practices. St. Paul’s rebuke amounted to “one does not need to become a cultural Jew in order to become a Christian.” St. Paul was defending familialism in reminding St. Peter that one doesn’t need to leave their non sinful ethnic identity markers in order to be Christian. This is the same thing that familialism posits. One can retain those aspects of their ethnic identity that are not sinful and remain Christian. Sans Bono and U2, Christianity is not a faith that posits that all cultures, all ethnicities, all colors bleed into one. Christianity, unlike Marxism, does not insist that God ordained distinctions need to be eliminated.
9.) Race and ethnicity is not a fallen category any more than Husband, Wife, and children are fallen categories. They are God-given distinctions. Maintaining a preference for one’s extended family is our duty per the 5th commandment and per the reminder that “if one does not provide for his own (extended) household he is worse than an infidel.” I’m sure you will understand that such a loyalty to one’s family does not necessitate meaning that you wish other races and ethnicities annihilated. Neither does it mean that one no longer understands that their is a spiritual bond in Christ that is a reality with all those from every tribe, tongue, and nation who bow to Christ. In fact it is the familialist and only the familialist, who truly loves the peoples and wants these distinctions maintained. It is only the familialist who advocates for unity in diversity.
10.) Christ does redeem cultures but in redeeming cultures he does not destroy cultures. Christ does redeem nations but the redeeming of nations does not mean the elimination of those nations into a Christian amalgamated melange. Distinctions remain and those distinctions are God honoring. The elimination of distinctions has always been the project of the Marxists. Such advocacy of eliminating distinctions is not particularly Christian.
In terms of the essay that drove this conversation to begin with we must keep in mind that the corollary of Van Til’s “integration downward into the void” is “distinctions upward into the kingdom”. Thus, as the kingdom progresses we will see not only familialism take hold but other kinds of distinctions, hierarchies, and jurisdictions as well. So the issue is much broader than familialism, but the principles are the same: greater differentiation comes in the context of harmony increasing. Hell’s oneness is the oneness of the garbage scow where all is piled into a Gehenna heap, while a holy unity is that of the many parts of a complex entity that all work together in harmonious service to a common purpose — God’s glory.
In closing we should note that functionally speaking, atheistic social construct categories when it comes to race and ethnicity struggle because atheism, not having a transcendent reference point, must find their source of value in a undifferentiated matter. This constitutional essentialism cannot cope with the equality in diversity that Christianity advocates for Atheism must either deny diversity to grant all that same exact undifferentiated value, or it must recognize difference and then deny equality of value. So Atheists either believe in a master race or they pretend to deny differences between races and genders. Essentialism is Aristotelian, so to speak. Whereas Christian ethics allows multiple templates, or forms, of valued objects, seeking value in the Creator’s delight not the creation’s nature. Familialism can hold to the one and the many at once, alienism cannot.
Well, I’ve gone on long enough Kelsey. I trust you can see the point.
I do hope Pastor Bret or another articulate and Biblically-sound Christian can answer the previous post.
I am not theologically well-versed enough to make adequate arguments, though I disagree thoroughly with the point of view which says that race does not matter, we are all one in Christ, etc. etc.
As for the New Testament speaking only of Jews and Gentiles, there’s Revelation 7:9, speaking of many ‘peoples, nations, kindreds, and tongues.’ Of course the multicultist sees in this only universalism and ‘diversity.’
But the big question for the person who believes race irrelevant to Christianity is: were all our forefathers wrong in their attitudes? Are we superior in understanding the role of race and nation, in comparison to the previous generations of Christians? I see little evidence of that.
Pastor Bret,
I sincerely thank you for your generous, detailed and clarifying response to my post. Your definition of familialism and how it differs from kinism helped to better frame my understanding of the issues (particularly the prioritizing of familial values according to Scripture). Because of your response, I know that I should be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to race and family. Christ’s Kingship is coming and I am always delighted to learn more about how we ought to live and think accordingly.
With this in mind, what would be your advice to a Christian who finds himself in an urban melting pot? Given my understanding of your metaphor, my family is at the beginning of a new branch in our racial identity (my wife is a melange of european caucasian and my heritage is both central american and swedish). What should be our advice to our children when it comes to selecting a mate? Or what should be our aim, with respect to race, in selecting a mate for them?
Lastly, I admit that I have read a few of your previous posts on this matter with a foggy lens. I realize now that you have never placed race supreme, but rather have strongly advocated for its legitimacy as a God given category.
Thanks again for taking the time.
What should be our advice to our children when it comes to selecting a mate?
Your wife is Caucasian and I would wager that most people who meet you would place you in that same category as well. But maybe not. At any rate your children are predominantly white and that should be the direction you take. Do you have a good reason for another?