Category: Alienism

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.