Marxism/Cultural Marxism – Page 3

McAtee Repudiates Dr. Jeffrey Stevenson’s Article on “A Word to Kinists” IV

For example, he (Sam Ketcham) has obviously confused means and merit. “Reformed theology readily affirms that God uses means (language, education, printing presses, roads, political stability). But Ketcham’s statement goes beyond means and speaks of “superior culture, language, and race” as contributing causes. Second, Ketcham reintroduces grounds for boasting—not in Christ, but in one race’s superiority to that of another. And third, to argue the gospel succeeded because of racial or cultural superiority implicitly denies that the gospel is equally at home in every culture, a point upon which Scripture insists (e.g. Col. 1:23).”

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word to Kinists

1.) Here Stivason is being disingenuous. Ketcham, clearly affirmed that all of this was caused by the Holy Spirit. However, the Holy Spirit uses secondary causes in order to achieve His ends. Ketcham nowhere even hinted that those spreading the Gospel have earned or achieved merit or preformed a meritorious work. It is NOT claiming merit by saying that a race, language, or culture is superior if one admits (as Sam has) that superiority is all due to God’s grace.

2.) Stivason’s boasting claim is just stupid. How can Ketcham be accused of boasting when he explicitly says that the Holy Spirit gave success. If Sam is boasting he is boasting in God’s favor and gifts. To God alone be the glory.

3.) Sam never argued that the Gospel succeeded because of racial or cultural superiority. Sam argued that the Gospel succeeded because of the Holy Spirit’s use of the racial and cultural superiority of those He gifted to the work to be accomplished. To God alone be the glory.

Stivason writes,

“But why does it always come down to skin color for the Kinist? Why not eye color, birth hospital, or shoe size? Perhaps another question. Why does Kinism seem to fixate on Blacks and Jews? The likeliest answer is that Race Realism is really race hatred masquerading as love for those who are actually despised.”

Jeffrey Stivason

What is Kinism

Bret responds,

1.) It comes down to skin color you idiot because skin color is the leading indicator for race, though race is not limited to the reality of skin color. For example, it is possible for a black albino to be birthed but the fact the albino does not have black skin does not prove that the person is not black. Are you trying to be stupid Stivason?

2.) Perhaps Kinists speak on blacks and Jews because blacks and Jews are a large problem in our culture. Have you seen the FBI crime rates for blacks? Have you not read on the history of conflict between Jews and Christians? The question might be turned on you Jeffrey, “Why do you ignore the social order problems related to Jews and blacks?” “Why do you fixate on Kinists when all Kinists are trying to do is to get you notice reality?”

3.) Committing the sin of noticing is not the same thing as race hatred, though that certainly would work well for you in all your hatred for Kinists.

4.) You do realize Jeffrey, don’t you, that there are those who are black, brown, yellow, and red who are also Kinists? I mean, Jeffrey, it is not only white people who are kinists. Aren’t you being kind of racist when you hint that only white people are kinists?

5.) Stivason’s very question, which he seems to think is a slam-dunk refutation of Kinism, only proves he has no idea what Kinism is. That’s the most charitable take possible on it because the alternative would be to assume that Stivason knows he is entirely misrepresenting the issue. We are assuming mere ignorance and arrogance on his part because that is more gracious than assuming Stivason to be a rabid Liar.

McAtee Repudiates Dr. Jeffrey Stivason’s Article on “A Word to Kinists?” III

“Brothers and sisters, the gospel may not make you able to jump higher or lift heavier weights, but it can and will sanctify your character, conforming you to the image of Christ; and to believe differently is serious error. It’s part of the Kinist heresy.”

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word to Kinists

1.) This is the teaching that grace erases nature. If owning the Gospel does not make one jump higher or lift heavier weights it likewise is not going to take away genetic predispositions touching genetically patterned character flaws. Now, what sanctification will do is have you embrace those realities about yourself as besetting sins, and sanctification will grant you grace to grow in resisting those peculiar temptations but grace does not alter who we are genetically. Grace does not change my genes so that now can jump higher or run faster and it does not change my genes so that the stubbornness of one descended from the Scots is eliminated after conversion. Grace may turn stubbornness into determination so one is conformed to the image of Christ but it does not erase that genetic predilection. Nature is real.

2.) Hence the heresy that Stivason is teaching here is Gnosticism. Material reality (Genetics) is waved away by this Gnostic elimination that the corporeal is real. Stivason desires to denies nature and nurture insisting that spiritual supernature make nature and nurture to be nothing. Grace destroy nature and nurture for Stivason. He is a Gnostic.

Stivason writes in his article,

Kinism, and by extension Race Realism, fails to understand something vital. Genetics are not the source of blessing. The gospel is the source of blessing. Samuel Ketcham illustrates this error in a Substack article titled “Race and Nature,” stating, “When the white man took the true religion around the world, the Holy Spirit made their mission effectual. But to deny that their superior culture, language, and race had anything to do with it—is foolish.” In this statement, Mr. Ketcham has undermined the Reformed gospel.

Jeffrey “Gnostic” Stivason
A Word to Kinists

Bret responds,

Is it not the creator God who was and is the source of our genetics? If the creator God is the source of our genetics then why can genetics not be a blessing from God as the source from whom all blessings flow?

For Stivason to insist that what Sam Ketcham wrote is denying the Gospel is just top shelf lunacy. First, Sam clearly and unambiguously says that “the Holy Spirit made their mission effectual.” Is Stivason actually saying that the Holy Spirit made their mission effectual apart from the superior aspects of the culture, language, and race which the creator God Himself blessed the white race? If Stivason is saying that Stivason is denying Biblical Christianity for Gnosticism.

McAtee Repudiates Dr. Jeffrey Stivason’s Article on “A Word to Kinists?” II

:Early on in their journey, Paul and Silas picked up a new protégé, Timothy, who was the product of an interracial marriage. His mother was a Jew and his father a Gentile. Yet, his reputation within the church is foregrounded. Timothy was “well spoken of” by the brothers. Put another way, Paul and the brothers did not rebuke Timothy’s mother for spoiling the bloodlines or mixing the races. Timothy was recognized as a godly and useful brother. The church loved him.”

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word to Kinists

Bret responds,

No Kinist would say that someone who is the offspring of a mixed race marriage could not be a godly and useful brother. Second, all because Timothy’s mother was not rebuked does not therefore mean that the Apostles thought marriage between Jew and Gentiles was a good idea to be pursued as normative.

Jeffrey Stivason writes,

Where does the Kinist obtain the idea of forbidding intermarriage? In other words, why shouldn’t races intermarry?

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word to Kinists

“To return to the Biblical doctrine, a wife is her husband’s helpmeet. Since Eve was created from Adam and is Adam’s reflected image of God, she was of Adam and an image of Adam as well, his ‘counterpart.’ The meaning of this is that a true helpmeet is man’s counterpart, that a cultural, racial, and especially religious similarity is needed so that the woman can truly mirror the man and be his image… Cross-cultural marriages are thus normally a failure.”

R. J. Rushdoony

“Institutes of Biblical Law” (Vol. 1), page 357

The Kinist would only add that “Cross-racial marriages are thus normally a failure.”

Also on this score we would quote Dr. John Edwards Rice, one of the founding fathers of the 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
One of the Founders of the PCA

PCA Endorses Principled Pluralism … Speaks out Against Theonomy

According to the PCA’s Christian Nationalism Report…

(1) Religious pluralism is “entirely consistent” with the 1788 Westminster Standards: The document states,

“Some…mean…that Christian piety (per WCF 23.2) is best promoted and protected when the civil magistrate promotes and protects the free exercise of all religions. This position is entirely consistent with the PCA’s constitutional standards.” (p. 2721)

Compare this statement by the PCA to Article 36 of the Belgic Confession of Faith,

… “The government’s task is not limited
to caring for and watching over the public domain
but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry,
with a view to removing and destroying
all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist;
to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ;
and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere;
to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone,
as he requires in his Word.

Bret responds to the PCA blather,

It is impossible to embrace religious pluralism without embracing religious polytheism. Religious pluralism allows all the gods into the public square which, in turn, yields a public square that is, by definition, polytheistic.

Keep in mind also that a genuine “free exercise of all religions,” must include the free exercise of the religion that put the Satanist statue of Molech in the Iowa state house last year. The free exercise of all religion means the mushrooming of Sharia law, Mosques, and cows strutting around as holy in your community. The free exercise of all religion means Burqas (Muslims), turbans with blades in them (Sikh), and tiny hats.

Per the PCA report Christian piety is best promoted and protected when the piety of false religions and false gods is unleashed.

(2) But views held by the Reformed Orthodox and even some American Presbyterians are “out of accord with the Standards.” The PCA document states,

“An officer who believes that the civil magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies… holds a view that is directly contrary to the text of WCF 23.3 as adopted by the PCA…. In the judgment of the Ad Interim Committee, such an officer is out of accord with the Standards on this point.” (p. 2721)

Bret responds,

Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who believes that a civil magistrate should put down the heresy of Mormon polygamy holds a view contrary to the WCF. Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who believes that the civil magistrate should put down the heresy of Muslim incestuous breeding holds a view contrary to the WCF. Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who holds to the Establishment principle is out of accord with the WCF.

And,

“A candidate who argues that the state should enforce the specific penal sanctions of the Mosaic judicial code (like capital punishment for idolatry, blasphemy, or heresy) has, in our judgment, crossed a boundary that the General Assembly has already established.” (p. 2724)

Bret responds,

This is a direct attack on theonomy.

I wonder … can a candidate say in an ordination exam,

“Well, since God’s word requires capital punishment for murder and kidnapping I believe those convicted of murder and kidnapping should be visited with capital punishment.”

Must he say instead,

“Well, since principled pluralism hints at capital punishment for murder and kidnapping I believe those convicted of murder and kidnapping should be visited with capital punishment.”

Observations on the Ecclesiastical Regnant Follies

I’ve been out of town visiting family and so haven’t been able to write on the whole Rev. Zach Garris imbroglio. However, I wanted to add my two cents worth. Jon Harris, on his substack page, has done a fine job giving the timeline of the whole Garris travesty. I’d recommend reading that to get the context of the whole injustice leading up to yet another NAPARC Kangaroo court.

1.) Denominationalism

Denominations are akin to political parties. As such a denomination – any denomination – is only as good as the faction running the political party/ denomination. This already teaches us that there is nothing automatically sacrosanct about a denomination or any denomination’s “decisions.” A denomination is only as good as the faction successfully whipping the vote.

Keeping the above in mind we must remember that most political machines from Tammany Hall, to Daley’s Chicago, to the Kansas City Pendergrass machine are thoroughly corrupt and exist to serve the interest of the political machine. Denominations are no different. I’ve been around them whether Wesleyan, Baptist, Presbyterian, Christian Reformed my whole life and I can tell you that the best of men who run them are at best men. At best. At worst, which is more common, they are oft times absolutely clueless. (This is itself an improvement on the many times I’ve seen and experienced the absolutely wicked.)

Denominations exist, like political machines, first and foremost, to continue to exist. Anything that threatens the political faction that is operating the controls of the denomination is going to be squelched. These people, one had to understand, are not about truth. They are about power and control.

Dr. J. Gresham Machen discovered this in 1936 when he (like Garris) was suspended and deposed from the ministry of the PCUSA. Machen’s sin was touching the denominational money source by starting his own Mission agency. Another Machen sin was his constant harping on how Liberalism (actually neo-orthodoxy) had entered into the denominational. Machen was challenging the political faction in control of the denomination and they bounced him for doing so.

Much the same is true of the whole Rev. Zach Garris case. This isn’t about truth. This isn’t about unwholesome speech. This is about a particular political faction (Kellerites?) exercising raw power.

Lyndon B. Johnson, while Majority leader of the US House once told someone lobbying him that the person could get anything he wanted in the US House of Representatives as long as he had the votes. The question was only whether or not he had the votes. Garris didn’t have the votes. The issue was irrelevant. Garris was found guilty for being Garris and not belonging to the political faction in control of the Rio Grande Presbytery.

2.) Political Correctness

Rev. Garris had the courage and misfortune to lay his metaphorical hand upon one of the PCA’s “magic negros,” who can do no wrong precisely because they are black. Rev. Garris dared to suggest that Dr. Anthony Bradley could not only be in error but danced with disaster by telling Dr. Bradley that “sometimes thing are too complex for a PhD to understand,” and “arrogance can’t stand banter.” These two quotes are why Garris was indefinitely suspended by the Rio Grande Presbytery. Together these two comments constituted “unwholesome speech.” Imagine all the smelling salts that would have been needed for these lady Presbyters if they had been alive when Luther and Calvin were alive. The speech those men sometimes used could fry bacon to a crisp.

But Bradley is black. If Garris had said the above to a white man everybody would have yawned and moved on. The facts have it that Bradley himself has spoken in rather low and base ways to Meg Basham but has anyone brought Dr. Bradley up on charges? Certainly not and that is because in politically correct PCA poker a black Marxist male (Bradley) trumps a mildly conservative white female (Basham). However, a white male (Garris) is always trumped by a black man (Bradley).

The PCA is full on in the WOKE stream. Sure, it’s not as WOKE as the Methodists but it is in the stream and is being carried by the current. This was seen in the support of many of the members of the machine in control giving full throated support to the revoice conference combined with their inability to discipline Rev. Greg Johnson.

Keep in mind though that the PCA is not unique in its being in the WOKE stream. In the last few years the CREC, CRC, OPC, RPCNA, ARP, have all demonstrated that they have been infected by the spirit of the age.

3.) The Harvie Conn & Tim Keller Effect

Both of these men were influenced by cultural Marxism as a world and live view. Keller was to Conn what Elisha was to Elijah.

Keller became a giant straddling over the PCA. His book “Generous Justice” was a primer teaching the social justice of cultural Marxism. Keller once famously said that,

“You don’t go to hell for being homosexual.”

This is just one example of Keller’s egregious tap dancing.

Conn and Keller come up here because it is the Kellerites who are the political faction who have the muscle in the PCA. To be sure there are those who oppose them in the PCA but at this point their numbers are vastly insufficient to stop the Keller political faction that controls the denomination. Keller’s followers are now to the PCA what the followers of Boss Tweed once were to Tammany Hall.

4.) The Loss of the Seminaries

All these votes in the PCA as coming from ordained men find their genesis in their Seminary training. Men like Sean Michael Lucas stalk the halls of the Seminaries. Men like J. Ligon Duncan say stupid things like,

“In conservative evangelical circles, oftentimes there’ll be a real concern about immigration, and especially, what? Illegal immigration…But here’s the thing. What if that is God’s plan to reverse secularization in the United States?”

Ligon Duncan
Chancellor & CEO — Reformed Theological Seminary

Recently the President of Mid-America Reformed Seminary said,

“My overall assessment — well let me just say this — I’d say it (Christian Nationalism) is a wrong-headed response to many of the cultural currents.”

Dr. Alan Strange
Mid-America Podcast

Recently it was reported to me that a chap, just graduated from Seminary, admitted he was a socialist during his ordination exam and when that matter began to draw attention the moderator made known that the issue of socialism was “adiaphora.” The chap was ordained as a socialist. My money is that this chap learned his socialism in Seminary. Maybe we should ask Dr. Carl Trueman about that?

Near the end of Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield’s life, Warfield was having a conversation with Dr. J. Gresham Machen. Machen expressed the conviction that “there might be a split in the denomination,” Warfield replied, “No. You can’t split rotten wood,”

The NAPARC denominations have become rotten wood. The Garris expulsion demonstrates that once again. Even if Rev. Garris wins on appeal the die is cast.