No Charge Advice to the CREC on the Issue of Proposed Memorials

The Kinists continue to make a splash in the Ecclesiastical world. The splash is usually in the form of those reputed to be pillars in the church spitting out our name like someone spitting out a mouthful of petrol after a siphoning event gone bad.

It’s funny how Kinists are constantly referred to pejoratively as “Elijah One-tooth,” while at the same time it will be said that we are a bookish group who spend too much time in our libraries. It will be said that we are irrelevant since our numbers are so miniscule and yet whole denominations will erect confessional walls to make sure we are kept out.

The most recent seeking to raise confessional like walls against Kinism is the CREC — home of Pope Doug I. Now, the new word for a confession is a memorial and it looks to be the case that the CREC is going to try and raise a memorial to squelch all the white boy summer young guys in their denomination. I mean, you don’t speak to an issue unless it is threatening your bailiwick. Believe me, the CREC finds Kinism to be a real threat.

In light of all this we have two new proposed memorials that those reputed to be pillars in the CREC are pushing. The first one is titled, “On Ethnic Balance” and reads;

“We believe the human tendency to congregate around shared affections is natural and can be good — it creates the blessings of cultures and subcultures, for example. But as with all natural goods in a fallen world, there is a temptation to exalt it to a position of unbiblical importance, thus making it an idol. While an ethnic heritage is something to be grateful for, and which many be preserved in any way consistent with the law of God, it is important to reject every form of identity politics, including Kinism — whether malicious, vainglorious, or ideologically separatist/segregationist.”

Just a few observations;

1.) As Calvin said, “the heart is an idol factory.” So, yes, shared affections can become an idol. Anything and everything can become an idol. So, since anything and everything can become an idol then why pick natural affections as the one potential idol that needs to be warned against? Could it be as suggested above that more and more people are becoming epistemologically self-conscious about the normalcy of properly ordered affections and so the CREC, being led by those who remain locked in Communist Civil Rights era thinking are knee-jerking against the idea, fearful that if people start loving their own again that will inevitably be followed by legislation demanding “white only public water fountains?”

2.) Here is a definition of identity politics. Remember, the CREC is committing themselves as being opposed to those who operate per the definition that follows;

politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group.

I hope the CREC realizes that with the forbidding of “identity politics” they have just committed themselves to opposing legislation that supports quotas, diversity hiring, and set asides. I hope the CREC realizes that with this memorial they have put themselves in the position of opposing the Black Congressional caucus, the Hispanic Congressional caucus, the NAACP, not to mention black churches and black Universities everywhere. With this memorial the CREC is going to have to do something about CREC member Chocolate Knox saying things like, “Give me the black church or I die.”

But, perhaps, as I suspect, what the CREC is really going after white people daring to do identity politics. Maybe it is the case in the “thinking” of the CREC, as I suspect, that only white Kinists are guilty of embracing identity politics that never fail being malicious, vainglorious, or ideologically separatist/segregationist?

If that is the case then clearly the CREC is being racist against white people and that sure sounds like identity politics.

2.) Note how the above violates the law of non-contradiction;

On one hand ethnic heritage is something to be grateful for and which many be preserved in any way consistent with the law of God, but on the other hand that ethnic heritage — which is something to be grateful for — must reject the normative means by which we preserve the ethnic heritage for which we are grateful. Which is it old chaps?

3.) Sorry, but I have to ask if the CREC really means this. Can you imagine a Chinese church seeking to become a member church of the CREC with the stipulation that they intend to remain a Church that serves the Chinese people. Can you believe that such a application for CREC membership would be rejected? Neither can I.

The CREC with this proposed memorial is really going after white Christians who dare to love their own kith and kin. The CREC seems to believe that white Christians who would echo Chocolate Knox by saying, “Give me the white Church or I die,” are unlike Chocolate Knox idolaters.

The second proposed memorial of the CREC is on Anti-Semitism. Now, keep in mind that Pope Doug I has been making quite the big deal about how Jewish his family is recently. The cynic in me thinks that Pope Doug I is doing this because he is seeking to inure himself from charges of Anti-Semitism. If Pope Doug can get out in front of this issue by;

1.) Broadcasting that his grandchildren are descendants of Rabbi Cohn
2.) Damning by way of implication those who he deems as the true Anti-Semites
3.) Embracing a memorial on the subject

then Pope Doug I makes it harder for him to have the Anti-Semite card played against him. So, in order to clear himself he will throw others under the bus.

Hey … who ever said church politics were pretty?

Here is the proposed CREC memorial on Anti-Semitism

“We believe that conversion of the Jews is key to the success of Christ’s Great Commission, and it is incumbent upon us to pray and labor toward that end. While, apart from Christ, the Jews are as all others — alienated from God — they have remained an object of God’s care because the gifts and calling of God are irrevocable. God’s plan for converting them is for them to see Gentile nations under the blessings of Christ’s lordship, thus leading them to long for the same. Hence, the cancerous sin of Anti-Semitism has not place in God’s plan.”

A couple observations;

1.) If the Jews are the key to the success of Christ’s Great Commission it is hard not to see how all the focus of missions should not be placed upon the conversion of the Jews. This brings us back to the 19th century heresy called “Dispensationalism.”

2.) In the same vein when it is said that the Jews have remained an object of God’s care how else can we take this except to observe that God watches over Jews more than he does Intuits, Peruvians, or Ndebele. This wards of Anti-Semitism by embracing Philo-Semitism.

3.) This requires a unique reading of Romans 11 that isn’t accepted by everyone in the Reformed world.


All in all, this proposed memorial is just a return to the Judaizing so warned against in Scripture, as it makes the Kingdom of God Jew central and Jew dependent.

Here is my proposal for a memorial for the CREC. I hope someone will pass this on to Pope Doug and the Cardinals in the denomination in hopes that those men will come to his senses;

“We believe the human tendency to have disordered affection is natural in fallen man and is a result of the fall and an evil that men often fall into. Disordered affections create a conflict of interest in families, cultures, nations, and churches. As with all fallen men living in a fallen world, there is a temptation to call good, “evil” and evil, “good.” Alienism is guilty of this. We resolve to teach God’s people the biblical importance of loving their Fathers and Mothers and families without turning them into idols. Contrary to the zeitgeist we promise to esteem ethnic heritage reminding God’s people to be thankful for the families/tribes/nations He has ordained to set us in. In this context we resolve to warn all of God’s people against an Alienism, Xenophilia, and Oikophobia that would displace rightly ordered affections for disordered affections.”

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

6 thoughts on “No Charge Advice to the CREC on the Issue of Proposed Memorials”

  1. Very disconcerting. This is the test of conservative, non-covid-nonsense pastors and churches. I hoped the CREC would pass the test.

  2. How is it possible to “congregate around shared affections” without some degree of separation/segregation? These words have been given a negative connotation, but how does the CREC define them differently from congregating in a way that affords us a meaningful difference? If a given ethnic group is congregated in a given region/homeland, there is by definition some separation from other ethnic groups. Like you I suspect that this gives the CREC an excuse for not demanding that non-white homogeneous nations integrate while telling whites that it’s wrong for them to insist that their homelands aren’t invaded by ethnic and racial foreigners.

    The statement about “identity politics” also seems to miss the point. Gregory Hood’s recent article about the morality of white nationalism on AmRen is far more on point. Identity politics is an inevitable byproduct of empire. The globalist “powers that be” gain control by promoting the identities of protected minorities and tell them that their shortcomings are the fault of white people. Identity politics isn’t an issue in ethnically, racially, religiously, and culturally homogeneous countries because you don’t have to worry about the kind of conflict that is unavoidable in integrated societies like what we have today. Kinism is about avoiding the kind of circumstances that lead to “identity politics” being a concern.

    Finally, Deut 17:15 coupled with its application in David being of the same “bone and flesh” of those he ruled sure makes it seem like identity is important to national character. Is this the sort of “identity politics” that the CREC is condemning? Would it be wrong for nations to consider the well-being of their citizens more than those of foreigners? This is tantamount to arguing that the father of a family must consider the needs of all the children of other men’s families when making decisions about his own family. If the CREC concedes that countries can act this way toward their own generic citizens, but that this cannot have an ethnic or racial motivation behind it, then this means that they essentially do insist on integration and that “congregating” together was wrong in the first place. They are impaled on the horns of their own dilemma.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *