Alienism … Moving Towards A Definition

The goal in this piece is to begin to explain to people what “Alienism is,” both in theory and in practice. Most Alienists don’t think about their Alienism just as in 1830 America most Americans didn’t think about their Kinism. In both cases, there is no need to think about it anymore than a fish is required to think about the water he swims in. It is just the natural environment of the fish. Why should he even have to think about it? It would only be if the fish became challenged on the morality of his environment that he might have to think about it for the first time – if fish were concerned about morality.

So, both Alienism and Kinism posit the normalcy of unstated but assumed environment. Throughout history most have been especially attached to their homes, their place, their traditions and habits, and their kith and kin. However, there likewise has always been a percentage of people who never managed to fit in. And so there have always been crusaders who have not been able to look beyond the excesses that normal affections can sometimes bring – barriers that, with harshness and malice, block entry for the outcast. As a result the Alienist begins to look at the normal affections for home and kith and kin as well as this affection sometime gone awry and makes no distinctions between natural godly affections as proper and natural affections that are absent. The Alienist has no understanding for the properly outcast violator of taboos properly placed. The Alienist sees the hardship of the outcast without considering the reason why the outcast is cast out. And perhaps quite without realizing it resolves to bring the outcast back in even at the cost of tearing down the taboos that protect traditions, habits, kith and kin, and home and place.

The Alienist has the best of intentions here. He wants to relieve the heartache of the outcast but he does not consider the heartache he will create by eliminating the taboo that is eliminated when the outcast is normalized absent the surrender of that which made him outcast to begin with. Good intentions make people feel better but they really are quite irrelevant to the rightness or wrongness of what is being done. However, the Alienist seldom is concerned with the morality of their actions as long as the effect is that it makes them feel better about themselves, or stated alternately, the Alienist measures morality by the pursuit of their good intentions as arrived at by their feelings.  Ivan Ilyin’s book, “On resistance to evil by force,” deals with what I am trying to get at here . In chapters 11 and 12 he touches on the same subject. He states, speaking of the sentimental (or hedonistic) moralist;

“The moral brotherhood embraces all people without distinction of race and nationality, and all the more so regardless of their nationality: everyone deserves fraternal compassion, and nobody deserves violence; it is necessary to feel sorry for him that he does not have his own, and invite him to relocate and live among us in love and brotherhood. For man has nothing on earth that is worth defending with his life or death, nothing for which it is worth killing or dying.”

A few pages later Ilyin gets to the heart of the matter. He states, again speaking of the sentimental moralist;

“His religious doctrine is the product of a self-satisfied mind trying to exact Divine revelation from pointlessly affectionate compassion……..this means that he does not perceive man through God, but instead comprehends God through man.”

As such with a deep prejudice bordering on contempt of their own people they seek to be the soldiers doing the long march through the institutions to the end of eradicating the taboos established by Kinists so that kinism might be overthrown in favor of Alienism. Purposefully or not the Alienist sees the barriers taboos bring and the consequences of taboos broken and concludes not that people need to quit violating taboos but rather that taboos must be eliminated because they lead to people being ostracized.

Examples abound for what I am talking about. The crusader/do-gooder sees the heartache of those who have embraced the sodomite lifestyle. They ingest the propaganda put out by the sodomite community. They find examples where sodomites were excessively dealt with as outside God’s law parameters. They absorb the “studies” done by “experts” that show that sodomy is normal (Kinsey Report, Magnus Hirschfeld studies) and eventually even the conservative Church, which has for centuries heretofore denounced sodomy, begins to talk about how it can be “normal to be gay,” or how they have many members who are Gay, or how “side-B sodomy is legitimate.” At this point they have become Alienists. Now, their Alienism may not be to the same degree as other Alienism that can be found but it is Alienism all the same.

Another, less egregious example then that of sodomy is the issue of inter-racial marriage. The acceptance of this as being normative became the widespread gateway drug that allowed for the acceptance of sodomy, and now transgenderism. Despite the fact that people of all races were opposed to inter-racial marriage;

“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
Founding Father Presbyterian Church in America

Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.

St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28

The Alienist, having lost all sense of belonging to a people, is angered by any suggestion that marriage ought to have boundaries. Though this may be changing, to date, Alienists are opposed to marital relations that are too close (incest) but have no problem with marital relations that are too far away (excest) and so some of their most fervid contretemps are poured upon the Kinist who argues that opening the door to inter-racial marriage (excest) opened the door to same-sex marriage and who argues now that both inter-racial marriage and same-sex marriage are the door opening wider and wider to Transgenerism, pedophilia, and other sexually perverse excesses.

Instead of opposing these societal innovations that had been opposed for millennium by Christian people, modernity, where we find the ascendancy of “open-mindedness,” as bequeathed by the Enlightenment, has, in a full-throated manner, overthrown the wisdom of our Christian Fathers. This era of Alienism, instead of opposing societal innovations has given us a plethora of terms that castigate and censor the convictions of their Christian fathers. What was once the standard Christianity of our Fathers just 2-3 generations ago is now labeled by well placed “Christian” Alienists “leaders” as “skinism,” “skincest,” “racism,” “bigotry,” “xenophobia,” “prejudice,” “homophobia,” and “sexism.” This is not your Father’s Christianity.

When is the last time you heard some kind of pejorative moving in the other direction? When was the last time a word was coined for the hostility of minorities for majorities, the hostility of Alienists for Kinists, the hostility of deviants for normal people, the hostility of the Cultural Marxist for Biblical Christians. This is probably accounted for by the reality that the only way that social change can come about is by the need to turn into villains what is normative. As such the Alienists has an interest in turning normalcy into the abnormal by a usage of language to abominate the normal. And so, married people who have more than two children are contemptuously referred to as “breeders,” and normal people who like the opposite sex are now “cis-gendered,” implying that such a disposition is just one of a variety of possibilities. This is what is to be expected for those (Alienists) who have an interest in overthrowing what is normative for what is Alien. Societal change in any direction can not come without abominating the opposition who was previously the long accepted norm. If Christians want to survive this onslaught seeking to overthrow what little remains of our Christian social order then they better begin to get creative in thinking of ways to abominate Cultural Marxism.

So, Alienism, is committed to expanding the boundaries for who can be contributing citizens to the social order. Whereas the Kinist would have insisted that the boundaries are drawn in such a way as to forbid the involvement of the sexually perverse as well as delimiting, in some ways, the role of the stranger and the alien with the purpose of protecting the health and well-being of the core community. However, because of the amazing success of the Alienist it is now the case that the core community has become defined by the Alienists and they are now the ones protecting that core community from Kinists. If one embraces the beliefs of the Christian Church for millennium one now is increasingly locked out from being qualified to be a contributing citizen to the current Alienist social order.

This brings us to the observation that in many respects Alienism is just a form of Kinism turned inside out. The Alienists is just as intent as protecting his people as any Kinist. It’s just that for the Alienist his people are the sexually perverted, the feminists, the Academician, and the Cultural Marxist minority member and like the Kinists with his people who are Christian, straight, Nationalist, patriarch, and usually white, the Alienists will, in a very Kinist fashion, go the extra mile to protect “his people” from the evil Kinists – who in the Alienist world are the Alienists.

So, in the end there are two alternatives for basic attitudes towards social reality. The first of these we call Kinism. It is the disposition that love of place, home, people, family, patriarchy, God’s law, and the Christian faith that births honorable traditions, customs, and habits that society is built upon. At its best it is clearly God’s intent for His people. At its worse, when it loses its biblical moorings, it can become an unseemly Fascism or Aryanism. The other alternative for social reality construction is Alienism which favors the person who, for whatever reason, is opposed to kinism. This Alienism esteems the alien and stranger, the sexual pervert, the feminist, the person who has marginalized or dispossessed themselves because of decisions touching personal behavior. This Alienism attempts to overthrow the kinist social order by overthrowing what is accepted as normative in a Kinist world and life view. As we shall see in another essay, Alienism reaches its apex in expression in the context of one form of Communism or another. At its best Alienism can remind us of the necessity to be compassionate, without being affirming, to those who have purposefully outcast themselves because of their desire for eccentricity of one form or another.

McAtee Exposes Darren Doane’s Silliness on “Kincest”

“If you’re going to be this way (kinist) you might as well go all the way and have sex with your daughter.”

Darren Doane
Doug Wilson’s Media guy
Cross-Politic Podcast 

This reduces to, “If you believe in natural affections you should have sex with your daughter.” If it is a monumentally stupid thing to say and the sincerity behind the saying of it is a testimony of the absolute inability to reason with this kind of person. It would be the equivalent of me saying, were I a stupid person, “If you’re going to be this way (alienist) you might as go all the way have sex with your milk cow.”

Kinists, being Christian, have always esteemed God’s laws on consanguinity. As such the idea that Kinists practice what Doffus Doane calls “Kincest” is just so much brick throwing. It is ad-hominem at its worst.

Further, to be honest, Doane’s argument applies far more to the Alienist way of thinking than the Kinist way of thinking. It isn’t the Kinist saying “You can marry whoever you want so long as they are Christian.” That is the mantra of the Alienist and were they consistent with that mantra (thankfully they are not) they would approve of Fathers marrying Daughters as long as both were Christian.  The Alienist idea that “love is love” is the idea that if logically followed would lead to incest. It is Kinism with its principle that the weight of Scripture frowns on marrying both too far away in terms of race/ethnicity as well as frowning on marrying too close in terms of race/ethnicity. Kinism is actually the only view that prevents incest and excest.

Actually, I had never heard of this Darren Doane chap until he became connected with Doug Wilson’s world. Now, it seems he is a rock star in the Doug Wilson world.

It strikes me that Doane and Doug Wilson’s World are indeed worthy of one another.

The Joint Work of Liberalism & Alienism

When living in a liberal social order moral principles are required to be considered nothing but individual subjective opinions which are all equally valuable and equally valueless. The chief public value of a liberal social order is that no public value is allowed to have public value in the public square above any other value. This means that Liberalism gives birth to Alienism inasmuch as Liberalism alienates the liberal from the idea that objective moral values exist. If there are no objective moral values that circumscribe all men then all that is left is an alienism from all else besides the sovereign autonomous self who does the value choosing/determining.

This in turn means that the Liberal is alienated from all other norm making mechanisms. The Liberal is alienated from his own civilization/culture, the Liberal is alienated from any idea of transcendent truth, the Liberal is alienated from any notion of an extra-mundane God and the Liberal is alienated from reality and all this because it is the Liberal’s creed that each of these and all of these are person variable. All that is left to the consistent Liberal is his own alienation born of the conviction of the sovereign autonomous self that there are no objective moral values that can circumscribe the sovereign autonomous self. There is nowhere else to go except to an alienism that supports the Liberal’s instinct that there is no objective moral order to call home. This explains why the Liberal tends to embrace those very realities that are in conflict with those realities that were once his own. Having been alienated from his own civilization/culture, transcendent truth, God, and reality the Liberal begins to own as His own that which is alien to what he is now alienated. Liberalism alienates and in alienating turns the alienated one to love the strange and the alien.

For the alienated “consistent” liberal the norms that once normed his world are now the enemy. For example belonging to kith and kin, love of God and country, and a sense of place instead of being sources of comfort for the Liberal are now to he who has become the Alienist, sources of all evils, oppressions, and injustice. However all this righteous self-indignation of the Liberal/Alienist is in fact driven by a inward disorder within themselves born of their insistence that no objective moral order exists. Their outrage against the norms that once normed their world is in point of fact their attempt to prove their foundational liberal conviction that they are masters of their self-created universe where no objective moral values exist. In order to sustain their Liberalism wherein they are the sovereign and autonomous creators of all private value they must embrace an alienism that denies any previous macro norms that normed all norms.

So, consistent Liberalism leads to Alienism and Alienism is the love of the other; of the stranger and the alien. This Alienism then leads to a need to attack and destroy all previous owned norms so as to demonstrate that there exist no objective moral public values that all must own. There can be no yardstick or canon to which the sovereign, autonomous Liberal/Alienist self must be measured.

Examples abound that demonstrate what I am getting at;

1.) The Liberal idea that the sovereign autonomous self cannot be challenged in determining moral values translates into the loss of a self-control that bespeaks conforming to a standard outside. This lack of self-control in turns eviscerates all other sense of traditional values as found in family or community. This evisceration creates Alienism in family structures and serves as a destroyer of familial stability and harmony. The family is irretrievably harmed and the irony enters in when the Liberal/Alienist blames the destruction of family values on the antiquarian Christian notions of family.

2.) The Liberal idea that the sovereign autonomous self cannot be challenged in determining moral values translates into the creation of a new morality that is at war with the previous norms that the Liberal/Alienist is now fighting against. Consequently, their arises the anti-morality morality of the sodomite, the tranny, and the Drag Queen child groomers. Once this new morality of the Liberal/Alienist begins to unravel as it must, the hue and cry goes up that the chao that results is the fault of repressive Christian values.

3.) The Liberal idea that the sovereign autonomous self cannot be challenged in determining moral values translates into the denial of patriarchy and the Christian idea of male and female roles as a pervious Christian norm. The Liberal/Alienist insists now that men and women are interchangeable cogs or are merely social constructs. When this creates the social disintegration that it must the Liberal/Alienist doesn’t own his mess but instead screeches that the problem is that too much patriarchy still exists and it is that patriarchy that accounts for the social disintegration.

4.) The Liberal idea that the sovereign autonomous self cannot be challenged in determining moral values translates into the destruction of home in the pursuit of expanding America so as to make it more inclusive and more diverse. The Liberal/Alienist insists now that the previous Christian norm that a nation was related to common descent is passe and so the Liberal/Alienist seeks to prove their Liberal/Alienist credentials by destroying home.  When that vision begins to demonstrate the creaking and cracking of racial/cultural tensions the Liberal insists that the reason for the lack of success is that there remain to many people who do not share the Liberal/Alienist vision.

That this Liberal vision would eventually lead to a normative destructing Alienism was always the vision of the far-sighted consistent Liberals as seen in a bevy of quotes from earlier Liberals;

“Every child in America entering school at the age of five is MENTALLY ILL because he comes to school with certain allegiances toward our founding fathers, toward our elected officials, toward his parents, toward a belief in a supernatural being, toward the sovereignty of this nation as a separate entity. It’s up to you teachers to make all of these sick children well by creating the international children of the future.”

~Dr. Chester M. Pierce

“What the church has been for medieval man the public school must become for democratic and rational man. God will be replaced by the concept of the public good…The common schools…shall create a more far-seeing intelligence and a pure morality than has ever existed among communities of men.”

~Horace Mann

“The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new–the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism.”

~John Dunphy, The Humanist, January / February 1983

“Faith in the prayer-hearing God is an unproved and outmoded faith. There is no God and there is no soul. Hence, there are no needs for the props of traditional religion. With dogma and creed excluded, the immutable truth is also dead and buried. There is no room for fixed, natural law or moral absolutes.”

~John Dewey “Soul searching” Teacher Magazine, September 1933

We see with this flurry of quotes another connection between Liberalism and Alienism and that is the conviction that man is naturally good. If Liberalism and Alienism (the love of the “other” over love of one’s own) stand together on the premise that atomistic man is sovereign and autonomous they are intertwined on the conviction that man in inherently good. This conviction must demolish every other competing anthropology that would deny this idea of man’s inherent goodness. This means that Liberalism and Alienism must be at war with any Civilizational or cultural order that embraces the Christian notion of man as fallen and by nature sinful. Liberalism/Alienism will not be satisfied until all other competitors to its civilizational hegemony are laid to waste and anyone who stands in the way of the Liberal/Alienist doyens do-gooders are not merely wrong but they are standing in the way of progress and so must be utterly destroyed.

This explains the conflict present in the conservative Reformed Churches that currently exists. There are a smattering handful of men and churches who get this contest against the Liberals/Alienist who are now providing the leadership in Reformed Churches today. These Liberals/Alienists are not epistemologically self-conscious that they are doing the devil’s work but in their defense of women pastors, their glorification of transracial adoptions and miscegenation, and their support for ever increasing immigration, they are striking at the vitals of Biblical Christianity. They are in league with Rosseau, Locke, and de Sade, against Christ and His idea of love patriarchy, one’s own people, and place.

Of course in the end Liberalism/Alienism is just another front in the long war against Christianity. In the end this triumph of the atomistic sovereign autonomous self that embraces the idea of the inherent goodness of man and which leads to bald Alienism is just another attempt to roll God off His throne. It is an attempt at Christo-cide.

In brief, the success of Liberalism with its presupposition of the sovereign autonomous self that brooks no outside objective set of moral values has brought in its wake an Alienism which in turn has wrecked havoc on all previous norms based on the fumes of Biblical Christianity. This Liberal birthed Alienism is where we have come. It explains the inversion of all previous norms that normed all norms. This explains why Liberal/Alienist is seeking to wipe out the white man as it is the white man considered in respect to his civilization who is most closely associated with the idea of eternal norms that are outside to us and which come to us by divine authority. The assault on the white man is a proxy war for an assault on the God of the Bible. It is not the white man ultimately that the Liberal/Alienist is after. It is the Triune God who rules over all.

The deepest cut in all this is that the Liberal/Alienist has won out. They are no longer the contender/outsider who is seeking to win his championship belt. The Liberal become Alienist is the insider, the one who controls the levers of culture, the one who is seeking to snuff out the last dying embers of biblical Christianity. It is Alienism that is cool. Yet, still, Liberalism become Alienism still tries to represent itself as standing alone on the ramparts fighting the legions of zombie Christians seeking to force their standard on the world, when in reality a handful of Christians remembering the old paths of Scripture and the words and examples of their Fathers are left fighting as saboteurs seeking only, at this point, to slow down the blob that is Alienism — a blob that has covered media, entertainment, politics, education, religion, sports, medical industry, and Government and corporate America.

We ask only for God’s strength and God’s wisdom for such a day as we find ourselves in.


An Example of the WOKE Reformed Clergy … McAtee contra Barnes

Below is an example of something I posted earlier today. This post was intended as satire to the end of mocking the WOKE crowd. Instead I heard the screams of Rev. Doug Barnes taking exception. It seems that Doug took it not as satire but as another piece of proof of how racist I am.

First is my initial post and then Doug’s repsonse. Following that I will post my response to the good Rev. Barnes;

Bret’s initial post

You know you’re talking to a White Supremacist when you learn that

1.) They are employed full time
2.) They talk about books they’ve read
3.) They paid off their student loans
4.) They have a professional or technical degree
5.) They regularly attend a non-Pentecostal church
6.) They drive with paid up auto-insurance
7.) They have superior credit rating
8.) They’ve never been finger-printed by the Police
9.) They distrust the Government

10.) They remain married after 20 years and their children reflect all the previous

Now clearly, this is all spoken as if it might be posted by someone who is full on WOKE. Therein lies the satire. Personally, I believe everything above is normative. However, in 2002 the Smithsonian Museum told us that these kind of traits were examples of White privilege, White Supremacism, and systemic racism. Everyone (except maybe Doug) laughed then. I figured it would be another laugh for folks.

But Doug charged in to come to the defense of Jesus thinking I was attacking his Jesus.

Rev. Barnes writes,

Hmm … every one of those things is true of me and many of my peers who do _NOT_ embrace the heresy of white supremacism/kinism. Seems to be a flaw in your identification system. Here’s a helpful addendum:

You might be a White Supremacist if:

— You think some people are inherently inferior just because they come from a different branch of Noah’s family.

— You believe the dividing line of race is a legitimate way of predicting intelligence or morality.

— You see no irony in making such claims while claiming to serve the God who commands His followers to be humble servants of all men, thinking little of themselves (1 Pet. 5:6; Mark 9:35; Mark 10:42-45; Luke 14:10-11).

Some excellent passages to consider, over against the proud exaltation of those who are set apart merely by the shade of their skin and the (relatively recent) origin of their ancestors would include: James 4:6; Prov. 3:34; Isa. 2:11-17; Matt. 23:12. Go ahead — look them up, and let them evaluate your heart. OR … harden your conscience by condemning the messenger who brings God’s Word against the pride with which you exalt yourself.

Your choice.

Bret L. McAtee replied to my misdirected fellow member of the clergy,

#1 — does not apply to me — just ask all my Kinist friends who are also not white

#2 — See Charles Murray’s “The Bell Curve.”

#3 — Why Doug, are you claiming to be proud of your humility?

You keep on citing those passages. I do not think those passages mean what you think they mean in the context of this conversation. Unless of course you think that being humble means taking Christianity as a real life death cult.

I’m not sure what you have against the 10 listed above as they are merely what we would expect Biblical Christians to pursue. Or maybe your beef is with just Biblical Christians in general.

Here are some passages you can meditate upon or you can continue to kick against the pricks.

Romans 9:3, I Timothy 5:8, Revelation 21:24, Acts 17:26 (don’t stop half way).

(Oh .. and by the by … those lists were intended to be jokes at the expense of the WOKE crowd. Interesting that you took exception. I wonder what that says about you?)

Listen to Calvin Seminary Professor Martin Wyngaarden from the 1960’s on Isaiah 19 thus suggesting that it is you Doug who are jeopardizing the faith once and forever delivered unto the saints;

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.


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 REMAINS NATIONALLY 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.” 19:25.

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.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

Careful Doug how deep you want to go down this rabbit hole. The theologians from Reformed Church history support me and I have a gazillion of their quotes at my fingertips.

Look, Doug, I know you are being earnest and somewhere in your chest there is the conviction that you need to rescue Christianity from my “racist” claws.

Indeed, I do not doubt that you are concerned for my eternal soul. Just as I am for yours and the people sitting under your misdirected ministry.

Doug replied

Bret, I’m not trying to convert you. Just trying to prick the conscience of those listening to your racist folly.

 Bret rounded off the conversation;

Doug, It’s all good. I’m trying to do the same with all those listening to your Cultural Marxist folly.

Random Notes From Hoffmeier’s “The Immigration Crisis”

Were ancient territorial borders taken seriously and was national sovereignty recognized? The answer is emphatically “yes.” Not only were wars fought to establish and settle border disputes, borders were vigorously defended, and battles occurred when a neighboring state violated another’s territory. So, national boundaries were normally honored.

Numbers 20:16-21

Edom’s refusal to allow Israel to pass, even with Israel paying a Toll, was out of keeping w/ the socially accepted custom of offering hospitality to strangers in the ancient and modern Middle East. Still, it is worth noting that even a traveler — a foreigner — passing through the territory of another had to obtain permission to do so.

Judges 11:16-20

These episodes demonstrate clearly that nations could and did control their borders and determined who could pass through their land.

On the individual, family, and clan level, property was owned and boundaries established. Personal property and fields were delineated by landmarks — stone markers of some sort. For this reason, the Mosaic law prohibited the removal of landmarks. (Dt. 19:14, 27:17).

So the sense of National boundaries was merely an extension of the reality of property owned by individual, family and clan. During the period of the divided Kingdom (8th cent. BC) the prophet Hosea decried the leaders of Judah for seizing territory of her sister kingdom Israel by taking their boundary stones. (Job 24:2).

So we see that nation states, large and small in the Biblical world were clearly delineated by borders. These were often defended by large forts and military outposts. Countries since biblical times have had the right to clearly established borders that they controlled and were recognized by surrounding Governments.

The borders of countries were respected, and minor skirmishes and even wars followed when people and armies of one nation violated the territory of their neighbor.

All this meant that nations, including Israel had the right to clearly established secure borders and could determine who could and could not enter their land.

Cities and municipalities who offer sanctuary for illegal aliens do so without the support of Biblical law. Because Biblical sanctuary was only intended to allow the innocent party to get a fair hearing and trial, and not for the purpose of sheltering lawbreakers… Cities that provide a safe haven for illegal immigrants, while intending it to be a gesture of justice, are in fact misappropriating Biblical law.

James K. Hoffmeier
The Immigration Crisis — pg. 185

After finishing off one of my wife’s Christmas gifts to me — The Immigration Crisis by James Hoffmeier — I am confirmed in my intuition that the push for Amnesty as it is currently shaped is unbiblical and anti-Christian. Hoffmeier proves that a State is under no compulsion to have a generous immigration policy and does have a responsibility to protect its borders –just as States did even in the Old Testament. The texts used by leftist Christian organizations like Sojourners are ripped out of their context in order to guilt the laity into thinking being a good Christian means disinheriting one’s self and children.

The book of Joshua goes into great detail about the allocation of the territories of the Promised land to the tribes of Israel but the ger (resident Alien) did not receive their own allotment. The Ger (resident Alien — perhaps our equivalent of a perpetual Green card holder) could receive social benefits (i.e. — gleaning rights, a portion of the third year tithes) but they could never own land and so they forever would remain ger.

The resident alien (ger) in Israel was never so integrated and assimilated into the Israeli social order that the distinction between citizen born and alien evaporated. The resident alien (ger) was held to the same law, could become part of the worship cult BUT they were always known as distinct from Israeli born. Hence they are continuously referred to as ger (stranger).

So there was continuity between the native born Israeli and the ger but there was discontinuity as well.

In short the ger (stranger) would always be known as “other.”

In the Old Testament the alien (ger) was a person who entered Israel and followed legal procedures to obtain recognized standing as a resident alien. Hence ger (alien) is the term for legal immigrants. However, the ger (legal immigrants) in the OT were still distinct from those who were permanent residents (citizens). In the OT then there is a distinction between the alien (ger) the foreigner (nekhar or zar) and the permanent residents of the Israeli tribes.

One advocacy group for Amnesty, “Christians for Comprehensive immigration Reform, on the leftist Sojourners website quotes Leviticus 19:33,

“And if a stranger sojourn with thee in your land, ye shall not oppress him.” But the stranger that dwelleth with you, shall be as one of yourselves …”

And then based on this Scripture they declare, ‘we are working together to revive comprehensive immigration reform as soon as possible, because we share a set of common morals and theological principles, that compel us to love and care for strangers among us.’

This statement begs the question, does the word ‘ger’ (i.e., — alien, sojourner, stranger) aply to immigrants regardless of their legal standing? If people like the leftist Sojourners are going to cite Biblical passages to legitimatize their position, especially passages that deal with ger (aliens), it is imperative to know what the OT meant by the term ger. By misinterpreting (ger) much of the Christian church today as been lulled into a false position on Amnesty and immigration.