Marxism/Cultural Marxism

Fisking Rich Lusk’s Multicultural “Christian” Nationalism

CREC ministers, typically, are epically bad when it comes to the issue of Nationalism. Rev. Rich Lusk is no different as we see in this post he placed upon TwitteX. In other posts you can find me disagree with Lusk on many different issues. Rich is definitely one of those really smart people who has the uncanny ability to articulate really dumb ideas. Increasingly, one comes across many of these types.

Rev. Rich Lusk (RL) writes;

It is not possible to take 16th century Reformational political theory and drop it into an American context unaltered anymore than it is possible to take the law of Moses and drop it into an American context unaltered.

BLMc responds;

I suspect there exist a few people who might argue that it is possible to take 16th century Reformational political theory and drop it into an American context unaltered, just as there may be a few people who would argue that it is possible to take the law of Moses and drop it into an American context unaltered. However, the number of such people on both counts are miniscule. As such, I take this opening salvo of Lusk to be a case where he is poisoning the well at the outset as against anyone who disagrees with what he says as he continues this missive. Lusk alone is the fountainhead of wisdom and anybody who would contradict him is a guilty of of being an antiquated nekulturny.

However, it is possible to take principles of 16th century political theory and advocate that the American context alter in order to adhere to a superior idea. After all, Rev. Lusk certainly doesn’t believe that the American context is inviolable in terms of political solutions that might find their origin from the 16th century political theorizing.

RL writes;

We cannot do with the Reformers what theonomists want to do with Moses because when it comes to politics, context matters and prudence is always necessary. Of course, biblical law should be an authoritative source of political wisdom and principles in every society. And we can certainly learn from and implement certain features from Reformational political theology – their political work is not irrelevant. But the American context is different — it’s different from ancient Israel and its different from 16th century Geneva.

BLMc responds,

Here RL takes gives back with his right hand what he took originally with his left hand. First, Rich said “you can’t use that antiquated stuff,” and now he says, “well, we can use some of it.”

Second, here Lusk invokes the use of “prudence” but of course we respond with; “prudence by what standard?” I suspect Rev. Lusk and Rev. McAtee would disagree strenuously on what is and is not prudent in this situation.

Finally, it is a rather Captain Obvious statement to observe; “The American context is different.” Does it pain anyone else when people blurt out painfully obvious statements? Yes, Rich, everyone who has a pulse realizes “The American context is different.” Does Rich really think that people exist who don’t realize today’s America is different than Calvin’s 16th century Geneva?

RL writes;

American problems call for uniquely American solutions. We have to deal with America as she actually exists in 2025. We have to play the hand we’re dealt. To give a couple examples: The American founders developed a system of limited government, checks and balances, federalism, individual rights grounded in nature and nature’s God, etc. We cannot simultaneously say, “the constitution is dead” AND honor our political forefathers. This is one reason why I have questioned the notion of a “Christian prince” in an American context — a “Christian prince” seems fitting in a European context, but not America. A Christian President, a Christian Commander-in-Chief — those would be fully American. But not a Christian prince.

BLMc responds,

1.) The first three sentences are more “No Duh” filler sentences.

2.) In terms of Rev. Lusk’s example;

a.) We can simultaneously say the constitution is dead (and has been since at least 1860) while still honoring our political forefathers. I guarantee you that if our political forefathers could be reanimated they would agree that their constitution is dead while hoping that we would honor them by agreeing with them that their constitution is dead and prompting us to return to the principles that made for their constitution.

b.) We could note that more than a few of our political forefathers wanted to make George Washington the Christian King of America.

c.) A Christian prince could easily be an American concept. Germany once had a Kaiser and the German context didn’t force them to continue with that. The same is true of Russia and any number of other contexts. The American context is not sovereign over what might need to be done in order to bring about ordered change.

d.) Now if we were to talk about the American context and moving forward I would suggest that the American context yields a perfect context for different secession movements that would break up these once united States. If we did that then we could have both Christian princes and Christian republics.

e.) The idea that the American context can’t support the idea of a “Christian Prince” is pure poppycock. Our Christian Prince could operate in the context of a Constitutional Monarchy. In such a way we might retain both a Christian Prince and Christian Commander in Chief.

RL writes;

There’s no need for Americans to hanker after European titles that we left behind a long time ago. We should work within the system our founding fathers gave us (and of course that system has provisions for change and adaptation). And yes, I’ve read Caldwell — I know we have gone through several constitutional revolutions, and the civil rights regime has created a new de facto order. But even rolling back what needs to be rolled back from the civil rights era has to be done in a way that works with and within our existing institutions.

BLMc responds;

1.) The idea of “Christian Prince” is hardly uniquely European.

2.) Again… we have not worked within the system our founding fathers gave us since 1860. (I too have read Caldwell, and Jefferson Davis and Alexander Stephens on the US Constitution.)

3.) Why does needed change have to work with and within our existing institutions? One could reasonably argue that if the existing institutions have bottomed out, then they need to go. Of course, one could also argue that the existing institutions can also be maintained while emptying them of their former function and filling them with a new function that gives the illusion of continuity, which is what was done after circa 1860, circa 1918, irca 1944, and and circa 1964. This is that for which Rev. Lusk seems to be arguing.

RL continues;

Another example: White Christian Nationalists will complain that no one accuses Japan of racism for wanting to be Japanese, so why is it wrong for whites to want to have a country of their own? Why is ethnonationalism ok in some countries but not others? But this misses the point, and the problem. American and Japanese history are entirely different. Racial identity politics will always function differently in America than anywhere else. America was multiracial from the days of the earliest settlers. We had black slaves here. We had Amerindians. America has to deal with the race issue differently from other nations because we have a different history. Advocating ethnonationalism here is a very different thing because our national story is very different.

BLMc responds,

Now, we begin to get to the nut of the matter for Rev. Lusk I believe.

1.) The question; “If Japan is not racist for wanting to be Japanese then why is it wrong for whites to have a country their own,” does not in the least miss the point. Not in the least. It is a legitimate question to consider and that especially in the American context that Rich finds so controlling. The American context finds these united States to be 88% white in 1970. In 1980 these united States was 83% white. In 1990 these united States were 80% white. It would seem the American context, per Lusk’s parameters of prudence, requires us to pursue a ethnonationalism that will once again stoke up these kind of prior percentages. If anything, it is Lusk who is ignoring the American context by suggesting that we shouldn’t pay attention to the necessity to be a overwhelmingly predominantly white nation.

3.) That American was biracial from its earliest days is just fairy tale talk. Sure, there was in these united States a sprinkling of this and that from other racial origins but biracial (really multiracial) in the sense of India? Never! This kind of advocacy on the part of Lusk is straight out of the Loving vs. Virginia Cultural Marxism playbook. A glimpse at the Naturalization Act of 1790 in America bears out that Lusk is either ignorant or lying. In that Naturalization Act, the US Congress, with prudence, implemented requirements that doubtless took into account the American context. In that law naturalization was limited to “free white persons… of good character. Interestingly enough, for decades the US courts also associated whiteness with Christianity and thus excluded Muslim immigration into these united States until the 20th century (1944).

It is my conviction that Lusk is the one guilty of not taking into account the American context and is really suggesting that the American context that is really important in his opinion is the post civil-rights / post Hart-Celler Immigration act American context.

RL continues;

And before jumping to conclusions about what I am saying and not saying, I fully believe that we need to enforce our borders and deport illegals, we need to stop anti-white racialism, we need to continue dismantling DEI, we need to bring critical manufacturing back home, etc. But none of those things require us to frame the issues in terms of race. And none of those things will make America monoracial. They are all common sense proposals that serve the good of the nation. Period. Racializing everything is not the way forward.

BLMc responds;

1.) If we, per Rev. Lusk’s encouraging

Deport 30 million illegals
Stop anti-white racialism so that minorities don’t receive quotas
Dismantle DEI

This would mean that white ethno-nationalism is gaining traction. If this were to occur the race pimps would go insane and threaten to burn the house down. The race pimps would take these very actions that Rev. Lusk embraces and scream that America was turning back into a Klan nation. We wouldn’t need to frame any of this in terms of race in order for it to be framed by the left as a matter of race. Does Rev. Lusk think that the minority community that is so prevalent in the rank and file of the Cultural Marxist religion are going to silently sit by and not scream “RACISM” at the top of their lungs if this Euro-centric Christian policy was pursued?

2.) It may be true that none of these things will make America monoracial but it sure as Hades will once again put White Christians back in the overwhelming majority. Honestly, the absence of 30 million illegal immigrants, combined with the end of DEI WOKE and the roll back of the civil rights act (which was racial communism) would undo everything that the multicultural/multiracial left wants for this country. Rev. Lusk is just not being realistic in his analysis here.

3.) It strikes that Rich’s thinking is built on the mythology that says that anti-white racism (DEI) can be halted without the presence of white Christian consciousness which would drive whites realizing they have a need to act in harmony together in the attempt to replace/destroy them.

RL writes;

Trump won twice (or thrice), and did so without racialization. In fact, he sought to build a coalition that included blacks and Hispanics, and had more success than any other recent politician — and that’s because he knows coalitions are required in any movement if it’s going to be successful. The left *wanted* him to do racial identity politics, but he refused.

BLMc responds,

Like Nixon in 1968, Trump used a racial dog whistle in being elected. He talked about immigrants eating pets in Ohio. In the past he talked about the fact that we were getting all the immigrants from “outhouse countries.” It is true that Trump refused to give the Left an issue. He avoided that by using a dog whistle and by convincing the comparatively small number of minorities per their total numbers to vote for him due to the fact that this comparatively small number understood it really was in their best interest for the US to be a predominantly White Christian nation.

RL finishes;

Trump’s genius is that he’s shown a way forward, a way the right can win. I don’t see why some people want to mess it up by making it all about race. “White Christian Nationalism” is to “Christian Nationalism” what “Make White America Great Again” is to MAGA. Conservative blacks often point out that the best way to deal with race in America is to just stop talking about it. And I tend to agree: if we focus on building a *Christian* nation here (as opposed to, say, a *white* nation), the race issue will take care of itself.

BLMc responds,

1.) The whole idea of Nationalism (Christian or otherwise) implies race. Nationalism, coming as it does from the word “nation,” requires a geographic area populated by a people of a common descent or ancestor. When Rich argues that we need to lose the “White” in “White Christian Nationalism,” he is in essence arguing for propositional nationalism — that is a nationalism that is bound together not by blood but by a set of ephemeral and ever shifting ideas.

2.) The violent crime figure numbers tell me that “just not talking about race” is not a winning proposition.

In the end Rev. Lusk offers a solution that solves nothing. To be honest, in my estimation Lusk’s offering reads as if he has a plan to “Christianize the Tower of Babel.” Also, Lusk’s offering could be easily read as prioritizing the post-Civil Rights American context as the true American context that is to qualify and guide all action taken.

I resolutely reject this political analysis from Lusk. It’s not true. It’s not wise. It’s not Christian.

This & That — Boomers, Scientism, Church Courts

On The Boomers

I am not a Boomer, though I fall in the rough age bracket. Actually, I fall kind of in-between Boomers and Gen. X, but sociologically speaking as Boomer and Gen. X are described I am definitely Gen. X. My parents were more characteristically Boomers.

Having a foot in both worlds though maybe I can make some comments on some of the things of which the Boomers are accused by subsequent generations.

First, subsequent generations need to be careful about the broadly placed accusations made against Boomers. Not all of them grew up with a silver spoon in their mouths. Not all of them think that other generations are whiny and shiftless. Some of the Boomers understand that subsequent generations got a raw deal and have a right to be angry. Finally, on this score, there are Boomers who agree with much of the younger generations analysis and so are not your enemies.

Second, because the above is true subsequent generations should make alliances with Boomers where they can. Some of those Boomers have been fighting about many of the very things about which subsequent generations are incensed, and they were fighting when the subsequent generations were yet in diapers. In other words, my counsel to the younger generations is don’t make enemies where you don’t need to make enemies. Every generation has a remnant. Find the remnant and learn from them.

Third, don’t dismiss Boomers just because they say you’re wrong on this or that particular issue. For example, I know a number of Boomers who hate centralized Government. This means they are not going to agree with many in the younger generation who think that if we just had a Christian prince centralized government would be positive. They will disagree with younger chaps who want to insist, as I read this morning for example, that Christian Nationalism cannot live with paleoconservatism. Boomers can disagree with y’all on this or that plank of the agenda without being total enemies.

On Scientism

Shifting gears, I wanted to note for readers here (and this in light of some recent comments) that we don’t do Scientism here. Scientism is the idea that Science is some holy grail of truth by which all should abide. Scientism is a religion wherein it is claimed that the postulates of “science” with its native empiricism is the only source of knowledge. We don’t believe that science is the Queen of the Sciences and we believe that any science is only as good as the theology that drives the science in question. I find it my delight, for example, in mocking science as displayed by the Lysenkoism that resulted in countless numbers of death due to starvation — all because they were “following the science.”

The Liberal Atlantic Monthly draws the wrong conclusions but the substance of what they write about in terms of Scientism is spot on;

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/12/trofim-lysenko-soviet-union-russia/548786/

All of this translates into skepticism regarding what is called “the cult of the experts.” Frankly, Scarlett, I don’t give a damn about what “the experts say.” Sure, I’ll quote folks and studies here but only as those folks or studies are doing what I understand to be credible science. No Trofim Lysenko science need apply. This means, if you post a study on this or that subject you should not expect me to say, “well, that’s the end of the conversation, I guess.” So, for example, you are not going to want to come around here telling me who “science proves anthropogenic climate change and that means the end of the world.” Sorry, that’s all bollix driven by Lysenko like science. The same thing is true regarding what science says regarding the merits of vaccines. Sorry…. I just don’t believe your science and no study is going to change my mind because you’re beginning with presuppositions about the nature of reality that I do not share and the true science is on my side. I mean… any time the poseurs have on their side Anthony Fauci saying, “I am the science,” you know that they have a weak hand.

So, by all means, “science” but “scientism” need not apply. The fantasy world of Charles Darwin and evolution should really be the end of appealing to Science as some kind of conversation stopper.

On “Conservative” “Reformed” “Church” “Courts”

It is my conviction that the Associate Reformed Presbyterian denomination dealing with Rev. Michael Hunter and the Presbyterian Church of America dealing with Rev. Zach Garris are now boxed into a situation where they have to discipline Rev. Hunter and Garris since the outcome of those denominations not doing so would mean they would be labeled “racist” denominations, and since avoiding the label of “racist denomination” is something to be avoided more than going to hell Hunter and Garris will be railroaded. The denominations have no choice since they themselves have in the past, by implementing WOKE polity and by the personnel they’ve allowed into their denomination adopted the Cultural Marxist / WOKE world and life view. These denomination cannot let Rev. Hunter and Rev. Garris go without discipline in some form since to do so would be to let loose all the demons in their denominations that they have allowed in over the prior years.

I know what they are going through now and will go through, having gone through it myself and as such I have large amounts of compassion for these men who have now joined guys like myself and Michael Spangler to be canaries in the coal mine of these compromised and Christ hating denominations, but this continued persecution of all orthodox Reformed and Protestant clergy should be a warning to all Christians in these “Reformed” and “Presbyterian” denominations. The modern church in the West — Reformed and otherwise — worships egalitarianism, especially in racial matters, and will not allow this idol to be touched by anybody who commits the sin of noticing on issues like race, feminism, the history of Christianity and the Bagels, and Cultural Marxism in general.

My word of advice to those in the large box store “Conservative” denominations (as well as many smaller Reformed denominations), for whatever it is worth, is “get out while you can. Why should you be supporting denominations that are aiding and abetting the destruction of the White Christian race?”

1964 Rushdoony Nails The Purpose Of The Hart-Cellar Act — McAtee Expands

“The purpose of the Hart-Cellar immigration law of 1965 was threefold.

First, it was described by NY Republican Senator Javitz as ‘the civil rights legislation for the world.’ Now, had we so described the bill, we would have been accused of misrepresentation, but we have the authority of Senator Javits that this bill is ‘the civil rights legislation of the world.’ In other words, it will establish, as a civil right of any person, anywhere in the world that they have a right to come to the United States, that immigration is no longer a privilege, a right which we hold and which we extend as a privilege to whomever we choose, but a civil right of anyone in the world. This then is the first function of the Hart-Cellar 1964 Immigration Act.

Its second function is to transfer immigration control from the legislative branch to the executive, so that the control of immigration, which has historically been in the hands of congress will be transferred to the administration.

Third, the law would be basically secondary to the president’s wishes, so that the basic law would be the will of the president, and it really would be a blank check. There would be no effective prohibition of anyone, whether subversive, mentally defective, a prostitute, a pervert, anyone would have the right to come into the country. There would be no effective bar.

This then, is the nature of the Kennedy-Johnson bill (Hart-Cellar Act). The likelihood of passage is very, very great unless a storm of protest overwhelms congress and compels them to surrender their present inclination to accept the bill. The purpose of this immigration policy then is to unify man, to bring about the unity of the godhead. Its purpose, and its premise, is not economic but religious. It is theologically rooted in this religious dream, the United Nations.

R. J. Rushdoony
Pocket College Lecture — 1964 Lecture

If ever the title of “Prophet” should be laid on someone that someone should be Rushdoony.

If we fill in the blanks just a wee bit more we would say now;

1.) The unification of man, as desired by the Globalists in these uS – a unification that RJR insists was inspired by the desire to have a unified manhood (world population) serving as god — was to be achieved by massive emigration patterns from the third world to the first world.

2.) Think of the purposeful change in immigration patterns as the pursuit of the lowest common denominator in order to level the nations. This is immigrational socialism.

3.) This vision of the Globalists that RJR exposed in 1964 could only be brought about by both the re-configuration of global populations via emigration AND massive propaganda agenda to push miscegenation once those populations have been re-arranged. As such, miscegenation, serves alongside the purposeful emigration agenda. Man will be melded, via marriage and breeding, into a singular non-distinguishable interchangeable cog. Once achieved it is a small step to Global citizenship in a New World Order.

4.) Because all of this is, as RJR writes above, was a part of the dream of the Globalists this means, by necessity, the homogenization process cannot be restricted to racial homogenization via miscegenation, and cultural homogenization via the same process, but also what also must be pursued in religious homogenization. A globalist New World Order requires not only a homogenization of race and culture but also requires a homogenization of all religions into one. Of course, this means the overthrow of distinctive Christianity which is being accomplished via the “Christian” churches refusal to speak out against Globalism (Babelism). As sure as night follows day you can count on the fact that Christianity will increasingly be less and less distinctive (than it already is) from other religions.

5.) If immigration is a civil right of anyone in the world then by necessity America cannot be anything but a propositional nation. If immigration to America is a civil right of anyone in the world then America cannot be a place defined by a people sharing a common ancestry and heritage, a common history, a common Anglo culture or even a common language.

6.) The ultimate purpose for all this was to destroy Christianity and this remains the ultimate purpose for all this. Those in the Church who cannot see this are co-conspirators in the silly attempt of rolling Christ off His throne.

DEI And WOKE In the PCA’s MNA II

The fact that the PCA is now a creature of the Left is seen by statements made by one of its trophy Blacks. This man is Irwyn Ince who serves as the coordinator of the MNA to the tune of 300K a year. A denomination can go a long way proving it’s not racist by paying a black man 300K a year to head one of its central organizations. This is one way how organization secure their “get out of accusations of racist jail free cards.”

The PCA has been tripping all over itself praising this chap. The problem is Mr. Irwyn Ince seems to be infected likewise with the WOKE bug as seen by both some statements made and in statements made by his son in defending Dad.

In September 2022, the popular Christian X account “Woke Preacher Clips” unearthed a talk Ince gave in 2019, during which he claimed black people can become “black and tired” and experience “minority fatigue” around white people.

“So you’ve got to experience some spaces and times where you just don’t have to work so hard,” he said. “There is a grounding and a positive sense of belonging that can come from an ethnic affinity in a world of dizzying diversity.”

Now again, personally I get this and have no problem with this as long as sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. A white person ought to be able to say something like this quite without raising the hackles of the WOKE police.

Claiming black people are potentially subject to “trauma” being in a majority-white situation, Ince argued for the necessity of “some places of affinity space.”

“The likelihood is if you’re an all-white staff, you ain’t gonna be enough. Your church ain’t gonna be enough. They gonna wear out.”

It is exactly for this reason I would argue that the MNA should be working on planting Reformed churches for black folks with the goal of eventually spinning successful black Reformed congregations into their own denominations. Why should black folk have to put up with us boring white people?

Honestly, I think that could be a successful policy for church planting. After all as Dr. John Frame informed us;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

But the fat was not yet fully in the fire as the saying goes. In the midst of this brouhaha Irwyn Ince’s son stepped up to the plate to provide some excitement for the PCA mudville nine.

After journalist Meg Basham stirred the pot a wee bit noticing what she believed to be inconsistencies, Irwyn’s son Jelani dropped some WOKE bombs, making at least this blogger wonder if the acorn had dropped very far from the tree.

Dr. Jelani vented on TwitteX excoriating “white evangelical culture” as “unequivocally toxic and irredeemable.” Jeepers, you’d think that Jelani would have some nice things to say about white evangelical culture given that white evangelical culture is paying his father 300K a year to inject subtle WOKEism into white evangelical culture. I mean what does “white evangelical culture” have to do to get some street cred with Dr. Jelani? The chap even complained about the noticing going on around his Father as; “absolutely [sic] buffoonery.”

Dr. Jelani is a sociologist who apparently has not yet reinterpreted his sociology through a Christian grid. However he has provided his pronouns in his University bio which is something that I, as a Christian, always look for. Dr. Jelani went on to write on TwitteX;

“The worst of its (white evangelical culture) defenders work from the same playbook as segregationists and xenophobes. You think your culture is under attack, but to be honest: it lacks the imagination that would warrant copying.”

“For more years than I would like to admit, I have sat in your pews, read your books, listened to your sermons, [and] forced myself to enjoy those mid post-service potlucks and small group meetings.”

Besides that how did you like the play Mrs. Lincoln?

Honestly, I’d love to meet Dr. Jelani’s often met segregationists and xenophobes. I just find it hard to believe that they really exist in the PCA. Most of what I see in the PCA is Marxist dupes and egalitarians. I am sure though that a sociologist professor at the University of Washington would likely thinks he sees segregationists and xenophobes when the ELCA and the Congregationalists meet in their annual meetings.

There was a good deal more of the same type of Cultural Marxist tripe that fell from Dr. Jelani’s pen on TwitteX. One wonders what dear old Dad thinks of Dr. Jelani’s defense? I suppose Dr. Jelani’s heart was in the right place, bless his heart.

Maybe this is all a negotiating ploy in hopes that Dr. Irwyn Ince will be able make a decent wage?

All the best to him on that score. Goodness knows that the WOKE workman is worth is wages.

DEI And WOKE In the PCA’s MNA — I

Recently the Presbyterian Church of America (PCA) has been letting its true WOKE colors be seen. As often happens this WOKEism comes from the apparatchik, bureaucratic, and administrative bowels of the denomination.

First a bureaucratic arm of the denomination (Mission To The World [MNA] – A denominational agency that allegedly helps the denomination with Church plants and philanthropy) decided it was appropriate to put up a website instructing illegal aliens on how to evade being bagged, flagged, and tagged by the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for return to country of origin. In other words a PCA bureaucratic agency served as an ally in order to aid and abet criminals. Now, the website was met with a storm of protest and was eventually taken down but it is clear that within the bowels of the PCA bureaucracy a criminal loving anti-Christian element exists and saying “I’m sorry,” and pulling down the website (repenting) doesn’t change the fact that there is a mindset that exists within the PCA that is not only errant but is criminal. How can one note conclude that the PCA is, in its bureaucratic entrails, a creature of the Left?

Following that imbroglio the PCA drew attention again for the action of a church (Resurrection Oakland Church — Oakland Ca.) that was prejudiced against white people. Let’s be clear here. I don’t really view it as being prejudiced in any kind of negative way but certainly we would have to say that in light of the current bogus standards of what constitutes “racism” a PCA Church with the black head of the MNA as a speaker had a luncheon wherein only black folk were invited has to be considered by WOKE standards as “racist.” Now, once again, I want to be clear here. I have not a scintilla of problem with this gathering except that it is the case that if white people were to legitimately want to have a fellowship meal and session exclusively with a prominent white speaker the black community in the Reformed church would go grape ape crazy. So, my problem is not with Dr. Ince having a fellowship meal with black people only. My problem is that sauce for the goose is not sauce for the gander. Further, my problem is all the ridiculous justifications that I have read for why it is acceptable for black folk to occasionally cordone (segregate?) themselves off from white folks but it is not ok for white folks to occasionally cordone themselves off from black folks.

The MNA, trying to thread the needle of repenting of its DEI visage by giving criminal aid to illegal immigrants while explaining why DEI is acceptable when applied to the acceptable practice of segregation for minorities said;

“fellowship gatherings or events that center on the shared cultural experiences of ethnic minority brothers and sisters (are acceptable).”

The MNA went out of its way to also say that the organizers of ResOak’s Black Fellowship Dinner, which requested attendees to register, “did not prohibit or turn away anyone from attending.” Now if this doesn’t give you a good belly laugh nothing will. Of course they did not prohibit or turn away anyone from attending since after the announcement that “no white people were wanted” doubtless no white person wanted to attend. I mean why would any White person want to attend a “blacks only” gathering after they had been told explicitly, “Whitey stay home?”

Next the PCA tries to go all “marketing” in their messaging;

“Affinity ministries equip and encourage minority members who worship in so many of our churches. These ministries support shared cultural experiences for the edification of the whole body,” the committee said, going on to list some of the minority ethnic groups that make up “the dynamic diversity of the PCA.”

“We affirm affinity gatherings as a part of rejoicing in our unity and diversity,” the committee said, citing I Cor. 12 and Rev. 7.

Again, I don’t have any problems with a ecclesia within the ecclesia. What I have a problem with is daring to suggest that if White people desire to have an affinity ministry together in order to equip and encourage non-minority members who worship in many of our churches would somehow be an example of evil segregation and/or “racism.”

In a separate statement, PCA Stated Clerk Bryan Chapell suggested that media covering the dissension within the denomination over such issues have shown an “‘inability or unwillingness to understand PCA leaders’ explanations’ of the difference between groups segregated by prejudice on the one hand, and affinity groups gathered to advance gospel witness on the other hand.”

This statement from Dr. Chapell is also rich with belly laugh material. If white people segregate than it is evil prejudice but if minority folk self-segregate then it is “affinity groups gathered to advance the gospel witness.” It is amazing that these people can’t see how transparently ridiculous these “distinctions” are.

All of this demonstrates the Church’s subtle and not so subtle contribution to the replacement agenda.

Next we are told;

“MNA offers specific ministries for several ethnic minorities, including one for Hispanics that claims the recent demographic change in the U.S. amid “loosened” immigration policies was “orchestrated by God Himself” to provide “an unprecedented opportunity” to fulfill the Great Commission.”

On this point I would love to know how the PCA knows that God has orchestrated the loosened immigration policies in order to provide an unprecedented opportunity to fulfill the great commission?

Did somebody in the PCA bureaucracy get a “word from the Lord?” I mean couldn’t it also be the case that God has orchestrated the loosened immigration policies in order to fulfill His promise to curse people who abandon Him per Deut. 28 where He promises those who disobey Him will become the tail and not the head?

Next, if the MNA were honest, they would see that it is the pagan immigrants who are converting American Christians to their third world ways and not American Christians who are seeing vast numbers of third worlders converted. Even this language italicized most immediately above is evidence of a leftist brain worm in the apparatchiks of the PCA. Loosened immigration policies certainly are the result of God will of decree but they are exactly contrary to God’s will of precept. Has God ever revealed, by way of precept, that a people as a people should break the 6th commandment and annihilate themselves by welcoming in the stranger and the alien so has to eat out the native born’s substance and steal the native born’s children’s inheritance?