1.) Today I learned that there are NAPARC clergy who are inching towards trying to drag a few known office holder supporters of Rev. Sam Ketcham into a ecclesiastical judicial process. These clowns are not going to give up until they are able to silence all opposition. Of course the purpose of all this is put fear into anybody who is part of NAPARC to keep them from the overturning the egalitarian/feminist structure that NAPARC has become.
Personally, I find this to be excellent news overall. Sure, it is bad news for the chaps that they are trying to incriminate but overall it is good news because the harder these clergy nincompoops strive to “shut it down” the more the Kinist movement (which is nothing but historic Christianity) is going to spread.
I’m sorry NAPARC but as Mr. Universe says in the film Serenity;
“They can’t stop the signal, Mal. They can never stop the signal.”
2.) Yesterday, I was chatting with a friend who lives in a different part of the nation. He has been looking for a church to attend that is Kinist friendly. He tried one out for awhile, he told me, and decided he would gently inquire with the Pastor about their views on racial realism. The Pastor, it turns out, was decidedly egalitarian and anti-Kinist. However, along the way the Pastor rabidly inveighed against your humble Iron Ink host. And this in spite of the fact that I don’t know this Pastor from Adam.
It seems, I have to face up to the fact that I really am, as Jerry Falwell used to say, a “pucker up or duck” kind of guy. People, when they hear my name either want to punch me or kiss me. (I promise you … I am certain it is more of the former.) A friend reminded me today that this was all good news since it means my message is getting out there.
Look, if people really want to shut me down and shut me up, all they have to do is to take the two anthology volumes that reproduce thousands of quotes on racial realism from the Early Church Fathers forward to about 1950 or so and explain how it is that all the Church through the centuries have been racial realists. Then you have to tell me that they were all, like me, “racist.” Then you have to explain how it is that all these “racists” are not going to be in hell.
3.) There have been “Christians” throughout Church history who have been egalitarians. These “Christians” we’ve normally referred to as Anabaptists. Prior to the Anabaptists they were called Cathari (also known as Albigensianism). These folks also embraced the idea that hierarchy and distinctions were sinful. After the Anabaptists there were another group in England that were egalitarians. These were known in history as “the Levellers.” The one thing these each and all have in common with the modern Reformed (NAPARC) church is the desire to flatten out all God ordained distinctions. So, the folks that snarl and bite at me and my mates might be referred to as modern day Cathari.
4.) Take encouragement my friends from the fact that just prior to the Reformation of the 16th century it was the case that the clergy were a despised class because they were so utterly worthless. Of course exceptions existed and God raised up these exceptions in order to bring transformative Reformation. Remember God delights in taking the things that are not to confound the things that are. Our God delights in using the weak things of the world to bring down the strong. Our God delights in using the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. Those that are holding the line are a small minority. Those that are clergy who are holding the line are an even smaller minority. Yet, these are the kind of situations the Lord Christ delights moving in that it may be seen that He gets all the glory. If I had to assess our situation now, apart from my undoubted catholic Christian faith, I would say it is totally and utterly hopeless. However, as a Christian I know my Church history and I know that the Lord Christ can flip the script overnight. That is what I pray for daily and I pray that I might be found faithful until such a time that the Holy Spirit works to the end of giving us Reformation and renewal.
The numbers in the conservative church in the West are against us. We are a decided minority. However;
Greater is He who is in us than he who is in the world … or the false church.
Speaking of feminist power, is it historically not justified to expect a PCA church to say a prayer that references and appropriately responds to the forces of evil in our local public schools?
Is the fact 90% of our church kids don’t go to a public school justification to not pray against the public school evil? My church has a public school a mile or less away but the September prayer for schools usually asks God to bless the schools and let peace happen. Couldn’t we at least offer prayer about the forces of evil at the public schools as a way of loving our neighbors? If not, why not?
I would be okay if we organized groups to picket schools similar to abortion clinics but I know that’s out of the question.
My prayer on this matter,
Great God of all mercy and grace,
We beg of thee to grant repentance to the Government schools and so bring Reformation wherein Jesus Christ is honored as King of Kings and Lord of Lords. Deliver the Government schools from the anti-Christ humanist curriculum that is used. Cause Christian parents to see the damage they are doing to their children by placing them in a peer oriented system. O Lord grant Reformation.
Further we pray that if it is not your will to grant Reformation. If it is the case that the Government schools will continue to wage war against you we pray that you would shut down these institutions. We pray that you would close the doors. We pray that the buildings would be abandoned and that the cause of these still wicked people would be throttled in the crib.
In Christ’s name we pray
Amen
Thank you, Pastor, for your continued service and battling for truth and righteousness. You offer much encouragement to the rest of us.
“Look, if people really want to shut me down and shut me up, all they have to do is to take the two anthology volumes that reproduce thousands of quotes on racial realism from the Early Church Fathers forward to about 1950 or so and explain how it is that all the Church through the centuries have been racial realists.”
This is a very good and legitimate move – it never hurts to have church history firmly on your side. But still, especially for Biblical Protestants, tradition must always be just a secondary source of support, at the end of the day. After all, the Jesuits also could appeal to tradition, and accuse the Reformers of betraying the ways of their ancestors:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edmund_Campion#Trial,_sentence_and_execution
“Campion and his fellow defendants were found guilty of treason. He answered the verdict:
“In condemning us, you condemn all your own ancestors, all our ancient bishops and kings, all that was once the glory of England—the island of saints, and the most devoted child of the See of Peter.””
The Bible is the ultimate battleground where the battle must be fought, and I think the quickest way to “cut the crap” and go straigth to the point in that area is to show the egalitarians that racial consciousness is, at the very least, an ADIAPHORA issue that Christian believers have freedom to have different views and opinions about, without getting anathema from neo-Pharisees who try to introduce extra-Biblical and anti-Biblical Enlightenment dogmas about “liberty and equality” into the church as a basis for excommunication. It will be the Second Reformation, against “Enlightenment” falsely so called.
The first Reformation was against excessive hierarchy (like giving RC priests blasphemous, idolatrous powers such as being able to pull down Christ from heaven into the Eucharist, and making the bishop of Rome the supposed rightful ruler of all earth) – it might be fitting that the second Reformation will be aimed against excessive equality, or democratic mob rule, instead of prelatical elitism. Like Moses let his blows fall first on the arrogant Pharaoh in Egypt, and then upon the rebellious Israelite rabble in the desert. Both the pride of haughty-minded superiors and the poisonous envy of inferiors must be rejected by those who want to serve God in spirit and truth.
Of course I agree that the primary argument needs to be from Scripture. That argument has been made countless times. When you combine the Scriptural argument with the historical argument there is no place for these people to hide. Keep in mind that the historical argument is itself inclusive of the Scripture argument since our Fathers appealed to Scripture in order to say that egalitarianism was wicked and that race was real. It is not like they just made these things up out of mid air.
I also agree that I would be satisfied if the matter could be adjudicated as adiaphora. If this is no longer pushed on people, people will, soon enough, naturally fall into obvious thinking habits.
The depiction of the first ethnic clash within the New Covenant would seem to indicate an “adiaphora” approach – the apostles did not consider this a meaningless issue, or a sinful issue, but they were still clearly annoyed that their great mission was getting sidetracked by secondary matters:
https://biblehub.com/acts/6-1.htm
1 Now in those days, when the number of the disciples was multiplying, there arose a complaint against the Hebrews by the Hellenists, because their widows were neglected in the daily distribution. 2 Then the twelve summoned the multitude of the disciples and said, “It is not desirable that we should leave the word of God and serve tables. 3 Therefore, brethren, seek out from among you seven men of good reputation, full of the Holy Spirit and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business; 4 but we will give ourselves continually to prayer and to the ministry of the word.”
And in the Old Covenant, the first egalitarian uprising against God’s way (if we ignore what the devil promised to Eve in the Garden of Eden) was led by Korah, Dathan and Abiram in the desert – the old “Geneva Study Bible” added this commentary:
https://biblehub.com/commentaries/numbers/16-3.htm
“And they gathered themselves together against Moses and against Aaron, and said unto them, {a} Ye take too much upon you, seeing all the congregation are holy, {b} every one of them, and the LORD is among them: wherefore then lift ye up yourselves above the congregation of the LORD?
(a) Or let it suffice you: meaning, to have abused them this long.
(b) All are equally holy: therefore no one should be preferred above other: thus the wicked reason against God’s ordinance.”
But since you mentioned the Anabaptists, it might be worth noting that egalitarian Christians are not entirely devoid of Scriptural support – they can point to verses like this, which, let us admit, must mean SOMETHING, and which were, moreover, greatly loved by Protestants in their struggle against Roman clericalism:
https://biblehub.com/matthew/23-10.htm
“10 Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ.”
Scripture always has to be interpreted in light of Scripture.
I love 1 John 4:4b!
May I humbly suggest that you use a lower case “h” for the second “he”? The father of lies is not to be elevated on a par with the triune God in any way.
Thank you for the correction Deb. I changed it right away.
Thank you.
Blessings to you and your ministry!
The funny thing is, I’m reading British literature at the moment and a book about C. S. Lewis. I was originally going to respond, “Capital!” (As in, great!) But I was afraid you would change it back to a capital H.
That’s funny.
I would NOT have changed it though because you were absolutely right.
The “dhimmi” aspect of this brouhaha should also be pressed forward in a clear and understandable manner. The defenders of PC establishment should be point blank asked whether it is the base fear of man that is truly motivating them – the fear that if they should tolerate “racial discrimination” and other forms of un-egalitarian worldview, they would lose their government grants, tax-free status and whatnot, as the godless secular power would come down upon them (besides their PC parishioners raising a ruckus and walking out if the “racists” were not duly denounced).
In other words, they should be asked if they really, REALLY believed, with solid Biblical basis, that all “racists” are in the danger of Hell-fire, or whether this pose of theirs is motivated by the fear of disciplinary PC punishment that would be meted out on their own selves, should they show any weakness, or perhaps even fellow-feeling, in the face of Kinist challenge.
They would lie if asked that question. They are not going to admit that their actions against Kinism are born of cowardice.
It still should be made clear to other people or third parties, at least, that such types are “kapo” collaborators who are merely delivering the will of higher-up powers – infidel powers, not the will of God – down onwards to their parishioners.
In all totalitarian systems, the lower-level functionaries must be energetic in struggling against dissidents, or it is they themselves who will get purged next. (During the Stalinist purges in the late 1930s Soviet Union, the party members had to show theatrical hatred towards their former friends who had been “exposed” to be spies, wreckers and enemies of the people – you could not throw your acquaintances under the bus fast enough in such cases.)
But sadly, this “distancing and denouncing” phenomenon could be seen even in the history of Christendom, as, for example, in the infamous 2nd Nicene council of 787 AD, which authorized and demanded image-worship. The servile Byzantine bishops who had once supported the iconoclastic cause turned their coats with cringeworthy alacrity after the political winds had changed and icon-worshippers had returned to power.
I do not wish to bash these Byzantine “general councils” too much, but sadly, any neutral observer, or even an enemy of Christian faith like Edward Gibbon, could see how dependent their outcome was on the winds of secular politics, as most churchmen would fawn on the side that was winning, no matter what (the role played by religious sentiments seems to have been primarily that it gave parties energy to keep on going even after setbacks, like the supporters of Nicene Trinitarianism kept on fighting even after being politically outmaneuvered by the Arian party during the reign of heretical emperor Constantius – and the Monophysites likewise did not stop struggling even though they had been defeated at the council of Chalcedon):
https://ccel.org/g/gibbon/decline/volume2/chap49.htm#Establishment
“After the death of Theophilus, the final victory of the images was achieved by a second female, his widow Theodora, whom he left the guardian of the empire. Her measures were bold and decisive. The fiction of a tardy repentance absolved the fame and the soul of her deceased husband; the sentence of the Iconoclast patriarch was commuted from the loss of his eyes to a whipping of two hundred lashes: the bishops trembled, the monks shouted, and the festival of orthodoxy preserves the annual memory of the triumph of the images.”
It’s hard to feel any respect for the anti-kinist clergy. They refuse to engage in honest debate with us, preferring to follow the secular leftist tactic of crying “racist.” The Bible explicitly states that God divided the nations (peoples of common descent), both in this life and the next. What is it about these passages that they don’t understand?
And it seems that kinism for white peoples is the only kind they abhor. For non-whites, group loyalty is just fine. Today we are facing the specter of white erasure across the globe, but these clergy don’t care. In the words of the Apostle Paul, they seem to lack all natural affection.
As the satanic globalists promote termination of the race that created Christendom, the anti-kinist clergy are all too happy to aid and abet them. Meanwhile, these pulpit poseurs will consign us to damnation if we dare to oppose our erasure. Just whose side are they on? It’s not an unreasonable question to ask.
Hello Roland
They are on Lucifer’s side. They are Lucifer’s agents.