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.

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?

Before listening to Mahler and Rosebrough debate I spent time listening to Deace goosestep Ray Fava through a struggle session. Having listened to those two back to back I was reminding how far ahead of the curve we Kinists were on these Christian Nationalism and “the Bagels are a problem” issues. We Kinists were debating these same exact issues against the proto-“Christian” Maxists 15-20 years ago. Even now you can go to the Iron Ink search engine and plug in “Bojidar Marinov” and find now dated and considerably  heated debate on the same subjects that Deace and Fava and Mahler and Rosebrough were debating. 15-20 years ago it was Kinists like myself, Dan Brannan, Mark Chambers, Davis Carlton, Justin Cottrell, Adi Schlebusch, and Colby Malsbury going hammer and tong against the “Christian” Marxist crowd of Stephen Halbrook, Bojidar Marinov, Daniel Ritchie, Joel McDurmon, R. C. Sproul Jr. and others. Back then those discussions were fierce fire fights between the same two camps now represented by Rosebrough/Deace on one side and Mahler/Fava on the other side. In the past I’ve gone at it with clergy like Joe Morecraft, Chris Streval, Doug Wilson and others on these subjects. The Kinists were here manning the walls on these subjects long before Spangler, Hunter, Garris, and other really good men showed up to lend support. We have been paying the same price for years that the more recent arrivals have sadly been having to pay also. That isn’t to say that all the folks arguing for Christian Nationalism or Kinism agree on everything, rather it is too note we have had the same enemies.

That was an observational aside. As far as the Mahler vs. Rosebrough debate I thought it was funny that at one point Mahler accused Rosebrough of being “Reformed.”  Mahler made it clear that, like all Lutherans, he believes that God knows the future without determining the future.

At one point Rosebrough wanted to dismiss nearly all of Church history on the subject of race and the Jews. Rosebrough noted that one can find all kinds of errant beliefs (he used the example of the perpetual virginity of Mary) held by Church fathers in history. Therefore, all because one can quote Church Fathers (and even Lutheran Church fathers like Luther, Walther, Maier and others) that doesn’t mean that their or the Christian Nationalist is correct. This of course is true. However, the problem Rosebrough has with this line of reasoning is that the testimony of the Church Fathers on this subject is so thick and so long-standing and so prevalent that it beggars the imagination that they were all in error. We have two anthologies out now that demonstrate that this doctrine of Kinism is one of those doctrines that has been believed by all people of all times in all places by the Church. If this subject is disputed let the Alienists produce a couple volumes of anthologies giving us quotes from the Church Fathers through history supporting the egalitarianism and the support of the Jews that is now characteristic of the Alienists. Anabaptists don’t count as Church Fathers and the quotes have to be older than 1960.

Next, Rosebrough demonstrated that he doesn’t understand the possibility that Scripture uses Canaan as a synecdoche for Ham when it came to the curse of Ham. Personally, I don’t have a settled position on the cursing of Ham but I recognize that it can play into this debate. Having said that I think one has to say it is possible that Canaan serves as a synecdoche for all the descendents of Ham. I would also add that merely because those from the lines of Shem and Japheth have themselves been enslaved over the centuries that does not negate the possibility that Ham and his descendants are uniquely cursed by Noah to that end.

Rounding off this section, there were a couple points that Mahler looked bad on.

First, Rosebrough was right in the whole hand amputation debate. If one takes Scripture as their standard it would be unbiblical to chop off of somebody’s hand for theft. Scripture does not teach that as a penalty for theft choosing instead restitution plus penalty for the crime of theft. Mahler was in error in arguing that the amputation of the hand for theft was a perfectly legitimate option in a Christian law order.

Second, Mahler is playing games when he says he has vowed to uphold the Constitution but then turns around and says there is nothing for him to uphold in his lawyer oath to uphold the Constitution since the Constitution has no meaning. If the constitution has no meaning and didn’t have any meaning when Mahler, as a lawyer swore to uphold it, then the man should not have taken an oath to uphold something that by his own definition can’t be upheld. Mahler kept insisting that “An oath to a document (Constitution) that can change doesn’t mean anything,” has to be met with two responses;

1.) Is that what they taught you in law school?
2.) Then how is it you weren’t bearing false witness when you took the oath since obviously the people requiring the oath believe that the Constitution has meaning?

Points for Mahler on the Ham curse possibility explanation. Points for Rosebrough on the discussion of penal sanction in the case of theft and for his exposure of Mahler’s weak position of taking an oath to uphold the Constitution.