Category: Apologetics

Word Games

The Marxist left has been doing this as long as I’ve been alive.

They are masters at controlling our language. They somehow manage to be the “word police,” dictating to us what words or phrases can’t be used. Control the language, and one controls what is societally acceptable and unacceptable, not only in terms of speech but also in terms of behavior. When the left forces us to use their language and their words they set up a hegemon over reality by controlling the way we speak. Keep in mind that the way we speak controls the way we think and when we are controlled in the way we think we are controlled in the way we behave.

The illustrations of this are abundant. Just recently we saw this logomachy at work when the chap who is serving as President spoke of, in his  State of the Union address, “an illegal immigrant,” who had murdered a young lady.

The following morning after the speech our handlers (the Lugenpresse / Corporate Media) was outraged. Were they outraged by the murder of this young lady by this illegal immigrant? Were they outraged by the border policy that allowed this illegal immigrant to be here? No, what the Lugenpresse was furious with the President about is that he referred to this murderer as an “illegal immigrant,” as opposed to their required “undocumented worker.” You see, if one uses the phrase “illegal immigrant,” per the Lugenpresse’s dictates one is a “racist,” or is suffering from xenophobia. If one uses the phrase “illegal immigrant” one is a social outcast, not fit for civilized company. So, by the constant drumming of this idea, the enemies of Christendom take from the friends of Christendom a perfectly good phrase that carries a perfectly fine concept. Over the course of time, we lose the conceptual category of people who are here in our country who have gained entrance in a criminal fashion.

Now our elite handlers are not playing games here. Eventually, those who retain the phrase “illegal immigrant” will be socially shunned. They may even experience forms of cancel culture. The left always seeks to put the bite on those who will not conform to their lexical tom-foolery.

Of course “illegal immigrant” is just one example. Other examples abound. Another example of a word that can not be used anymore is the perfectly fine word “sodomite.” Sodomite was long ago replaced by the word “Homosexual” which likewise was finally changed out for the word “gay.” The reason for this logomachy switcheroo is that the left understood that sodomite was such a graphic word that people found the word and the concept attached to the word instantly revolting and so it was changed out for the word “Homosexual.” In time the word “Homosexual” developed a negative connotation and so the masters of the Universe villainized that word and insisted that the word “gay” be used instead. The wicked brilliance in all this is admirable. Who would have ever thought that a word (gay) that meant jovial, and happy would be attached to such a disgusting lifestyle as sodomy? The cultural Marxist left is good at this game.

The marvel is, is that the Church follows right along. I challenge anyone to attend a denominational meeting and bring up the problem of “sodomites” and the need to resist sodomy as a policy without finding out very quickly some stuffed clergy telling you about how improper it is to use that word.

We could continue to multiply the examples of how our speech is governed. American Indian is now “Original Peoples” or “Indigenous Peoples” and don’t get caught using the word “Indian” among certain leftist group-think. A word like “patriarchy,” is now villainized and is verboten to use in a positive sense in certain Ivy League company. Indeed, in order to cleanse our minds of patriarchy we now have gender neutral hymn books and bible.

The concepts of B.C. & A.D. have been replaced by BCE and ACE in order to eliminate the taint of Christianity. Even putative Christian academics are now using this language in their academic treatises.

Of course the technique in changing our language and so changing our thinking and behavior is to villainize, scandalize, and berate our previous words, phrases, and concepts as being filled with the guilt of not being acceptable to our Cultural Marxist masters. Further, those who refuse to get their minds right are visited with being outcast. You see, our language is run through a worldview that competes with Christianity and seeks to overthrow it and the result is words and phrases are dropped in order to satisfy the standards of a worldview that is in competition with Biblical Christianity. Slowly and inexorably we, as a people, are changed from the inside out and become a different people that our Christian ancestors would not recognize.

Another example is the word “Kinist.” Kinist is a word coined in the mid-1990s to communicate what WASP Christians had believed for millennium on race relations (See Achord & Dow’s, “Who is my Neighbor,” and Storen’s “A Survey of Racialism in Christian Sacred Tradition.”) However, the cultural Marxist left, along with their clergy allies (I’m looking at Moscow) has villainized and scandalized this word so that it can no longer be used without people becoming somewhat timid concerning what might happen to them if they are known to be compatriots with someone who uses this dreadful, vile and scary word. And this, in spite of the fact, that I have bent over backwards in order to specifically point out what I am and am not saying.

An example of this treatment was seen online recently. Rev. Michael Shover gave an excellent sermon, and in that sermon Shover pointed out the dangers of the 1st amendment being embraced as more important than the first commandment. A firestorm erupted. What was interesting is that in this firestorm a bloke named Keven Johnson flung at Rev. Shover and Shover’s sermon, the epitaph “Kinist Pastor” in order to vilify anything Rev. Shover might say on any subject.

So, what is to be done about this? Well, we could invent new words (Oikophillia — “Love of One’s own Household”), we could just use old words (ethnonationalists, race-realist,) but of course you have to realize that whatever word we use the cultural Marxists are just going to scandalize, villainize, and fill with calumny any word a Christian reaches for in order to communicate this set of ideas. We cannot win by playing according to the left’s rules.

Because of this technique of emptying us from our language through the process of villainization and scandalization of perfectly good words, we have nothing to do but to play the man and to use all of our language and words doing all we can to violate the speech code that the left increasingly seeks to press down upon us and we do this as good soldiers of Jesus Christ. Of course, we have to be wise in how we go about all this, but if we just allow the left to determine what language we can and cannot use we will eventually find ourselves owning a diluted Christianity. I mean how much Christianity can there be left in someone who constantly plays by the left’s logomachy rules?

A closing word has to be added. We need to realize that we are in a war. The left has successfully taken over the role of cultural gatekeepers. This means that when we violate the code of the cultural gatekeepers there is the possibility of consequences the cultural gatekeepers will press upon us. For example, just this morning I learned of a chap who has already been sentenced to 10.5 years in prison for peacefully protesting an abortion clinic. He’s looking at an additional 10.5 years because he did the same at a second abortion clinic in the same area. By all accounts there was nothing at all violent in what he had done. However, he did violate the code of the cultural gatekeepers and he is now in staring at 21 years prison time, which amounts to a life in prison ruling given his age.

All of us, as Christians, who refuse to play by the rules of the cultural gatekeepers need to count the cost. We need realize that we are living in 2024 and not 1984 or even 2000. Matters have changed drastically and it is just a fact that anyone who wears their Christianity too boldly is going to run afoul of the cultural gatekeepers.

May the Lord Christ give us courage for the days ahead.

McAtee Challenges Dr. W. Robert Godfrey’s Amillennialism

“We must never lose sight of the real inheritance, which is not cultural influence. The real inheritance is the eternal kingdom that Jesus brings with him when he returns in glory.”

Dr. W. Robert Godfrey

Is the church in America idolizing politics and placing freedom above theology?

Abounding Grace Radio

1.) Keep in mind that culture is theology externalized. Since that is the definition of culture, Godfrey here is complaining that our desire for the externalization of Christian theology (culture) is not our (Christians) real influence. Does that make sense that a Christian theologian would say such a thing?

2.) Technically, Godfrey may be right that cultural influence is not our key inheritance. Technically speaking cultural influence is our key command as seen in Christ’s final words that we are to disciple the nations. (See Mt. 28:16-20)

3.) Note that Dr. Godfrey, in typical Amillennial fashion, sees the eternal Kingdom of Jesus as only being future. For Godfrey the eternal Kingdom is all not yet. There is no now. And yet Jesus said that He came to give life and to give it abundantly. The Kingdom, while having a not yet component also has a now component that the saints currently have. That our inheritance of the eternal Kingdom of Christ is explicitly taught in Scripture in Colossians;

“He has delivered us from the power of darkness and conveyed us into the kingdom of the Son of His love.”

4.) The optimistic eschatology of postmillennialism could never utter such words as the Amillennial Dr. W. Robert Godfrey. The whole statement breathes surrender and pessimism.

5.) Abounding Grace radio is an arm of R2Kism.

6.) We have to admit that it is possible to make an idol out of politics.

7.) Would Abounding Grace radio insist that the “Black Robed Regiment” during the run up to the American counter-Revolution was guilty of making an idol out of politics when it preached freedom from Reformed pulpits all across the colonies? I suspect had they been alive then they would have indeed censored those Reformed Pastors.

8.) The idea of placing freedom above theology is a non-sequitur since for Christians freedom is defined by theology. Freedom is defined as the ability to be obedient to God’s law Word. In other words if freedom was prioritized over theology than the freedom that might be achieved would not be freedom.

9.) Taken as a whole these two quips are really bad theology driven by bad R2K militant amillennial eschatology.

Heidi Complains That Christian Nationalists Believe Rights Come From God

“The thing that unites them as Christian nationalists, (not Christians because Christian nationalists are very different), is that they believe that our rights as Americans and as all human beings do not come from any Earthly authority. They don’t come from Congress, from the Supreme Court, they come from God,”

Heidi Przybyl
Guest on Talking Head MSNBC Show

Imagine my effrontery to believe that I am endowed by my Creator with certain inalienable rights, and as such do not have to wait, hat in hand, for some government, steeped in humanism and owning allegiance to Man as God said loudly, to determine for me what “rights” they will piece meal out to me.

The stupidity of this woman is a new low but it is revelatory of the mindset of our enemies. These people really do believe that “in the state we live and move and have our being.” These people really do embrace that since we have no god over us, the State is therefore god.

Of course, she really doesn’t believe that it is a problem for people not to believe rights come from the State. If the state took away the right to abortion, for example, can you imagine how loud Heidi’s screeching would be that “the Government has no right to do that?” Would Heidi, at that point, suddenly become a Christian because she would be acting in a way as to demonstrate her belief that “rights come from something higher than the state.”

Now, keep in mind in all this that R2K agrees with Heidi that rights don’t come from God — at least not directly. R2K believes that all rights come from Natural Law. So, Heidi and David Van Drunen have in common that Christians should not be appealing directly to God but to some other agency for human “rights.” Heidi believes the appeal should be made to the State. David Van Drunen believes the appeal should be made to Natural Law.

From the Mailbag… Rachelle Smith Writes For Help Defending Kinism — Part II

Pastor Geoff writes,

Is he just saying Italians are good at pasta and Indians at curry?

Bret responds,
“No.”

Pastor Geoff writes,

Is he saying we should remain distinct based on physiological differences? If he is arguing for a separation of the races (which he does in other posts and comments), then he is dividing the family of God into unbiblical distinctives and is teaching something contrary to the gospel (Acts 17:26; Rom. 3:29; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:28; Gal. 2:12, 14; Rev. 5:9). Though his conclusion is not clear based only on this article, his other writings make abundantly clear what his objective is.

Bret responds,

Here the wheels finally completely come off of this chap’s argument.

I am dividing the family of God by merely suggesting that men should honor God’s distinctions among races? If I am, look what good company I am in Rachelle.

This from A. W. Tozer. One of my 20th century heroes in the faith;

“You can’t change my mind about God having made us the way we are. The yellow man and the white man and the black man. God made our races. I know the Marxists and the bubbleheads say: “Oh, that’s old-fashioned baloney! Everybody should get together and intermarry and pretty soon there won’t be races, and where there are no races there won’t be any hate, and if there’s no hate, there won’t be any war.” Oh, for cotton batting to stuff in the mouths of people who don’t know better than that!…

Let me remind you of the warbler, almost universally distributed in this country, and will you believe that there are 120 species of this bird called the warbler in the United States? One hundred and twenty varieties, with only the slightest differences of feather, or wing, or stripe or spot. In these 120 varieties, we are told, there is no crossing the line, they mate within their own racial strain, hatch and have little ones. Nobody puts them through college, but when they get big enough to hop out on the edge of the nest and begin looking for another warbler, they always pick one

like themselves, and stay within their own strain.

Now, you get a Communist or a starry-eyed American fellow traveler working on that, and he will say: “That’s an evidence of race hate, and it’s a proof those warblers hate each other!” Hate each other – your grandmother’s nightcap! They don’t quarrel, they never fight, they just go on living and warbling. They’ve got sense enough to know that God made 120 kinds of warblers just for fun to show what He could do, and He doesn’t mean for them to cross over and make one warbler out of 120!”

Or we could learn from another Christian minister who was theologically quite different from Tozer. In context here this minister is explaining why a denomination is splitting. Note the reasons that he gives/

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS)

John Edwards Richards

  • The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.
  • The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.
  • The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.
  • The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

    John Edwards Richards, who was one of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America could write elsewhere;

    “No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

    John Edwards Richards
    One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

    Finally Dr. Edwards adds,

    “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


So your “Pastor” Geoff says I am dividing the family of God into un-biblical distinctives and yet all of Church history screams with me that your Pastor Geoff is advocating a historically Marxist position. Maybe I will refer to him as “Red Geoff” the rest of the way? I know Red Geoff doesn’t intend to be doing the work of the devil, he doesn’t intend to contribute to the destruction of Western Civilization, and he only intends to be full of roses and pussy willows, but “Red Geoff” is just another “Pastor Lovejoy” of “The Simpsons” fame. What “Red Geoff” intends to do and what he is doing are opposed like heaven and hell.

“Red Geoff” says I am dividing the family of God into un-biblical distinctives. I have a number of Christian friends that belong to different races. They are kinists like myself. We have no barrier to fellowship. Being a Kinist does not divide the family of God. It merely recognizes these God ordained creaturely distinctives are God ordained. All because I might worship with a Mongolian Christian doesn’t mean I should think that our children should marry?

Theologian Dr. John Frame speaks to your “Red Geoff”

“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”


“Pastor Geoff continues on”

and (Pastor Bret) is teaching something contrary to the gospel (Acts 17:26; Rom. 3:29; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:28; Gal. 2:12, 14; Rev. 5:9).

Bret responds,

Rachelle, your “Pastor Geoff” choosing these text suggests to me that you should not be entrusting your souls to his teaching. Choosing these texts to try and prove his point is a example of badly handling Scripture. Let’s consider these one by one;

1.) Acts 17:26 And He has made from one man every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

One man… many nations. Keep in mind that nations in the NT understanding means “a descent from a common patriarch.” This text supports my position Rachelle and not Pastor Geoff’s.

2.) 1 Cor. 12:12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

a.) Note it is Jews and Greeks how are Baptized into one body. Do you suppose that after Baptism they were no longer Jews and Greeks?

b.) One body… many members, which is exactly what I am advocating. One body comprised of many member nations.

c.) Of course this is speaking in terms of spiritual realities. Arguing that we lose our racial/ethnic distinctives because we are baptized into one body would necessitate that we also argue that we lose our gender identity because we are baptized into one body.

d.) St. Paul is speaking here of unity in Christ. There is a distinction between unity in Christ and a uniformity where all Christians wear some form of Mao suits because, after all, we are all one.

e.) With all believers everywhere, regardless of race, sex, or class, I am a member of the one body of Christ. However, as members in one musical band are all members in that one band not all are Trumpets, not all are Bassoons, not all are Saxophones or Piccolos. They are distinct yet complimentary. The same is true of the body of Christ. There are many parts (races/ethnicities) but one body.

3.) Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

https://ironink.org/2021/03/galatians-326f-the-indiscriminate-nature-of-the-gospel-and-the-foolishness-of-social-egalitarianism/

https://ironink.org/2012/06/galatians-328-egalitarianism/

4.) Galatians 2:12, 14;

https://ironink.org/2022/11/galatians-21-10-paul-titus-the-issue-of-circumcision/

https://ironink.org/2022/11/galatians-211-21/

5.) Revelation 5:9

9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

I completely affirm this. God will have a redeemed people from all peoples of the world throughout time. However, all the Kinist observes is that people are saved as God’s work in saving peoples. I now this is true Rachelle, because in the same book of Revelation we read that the nations come into the new Jerusalem as in their nations and that their the nations are all healed

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.

22:4 The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Nations as nations are all over the book of Revelation. We should not be surprised by this for as Theologian Dr. Martin Wyngaarden noted;

“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.

And again,


“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 nationality remains 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.”


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.”

Martin Wyngaarden

The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

But I suppose “Red Geoff” says every freaking Christian theologian before him were sinning by “dividing the body of Christ?”

“Red Geoff’s” problem, is the same problem of nearly all modern and contemporary clergy. That problem is that they can only think in terms of the individual. They have completely lost corporate categories. Clergy did not always think this way and Reformed clergy who are genuinely Reformed have NEVER thought this way. I’ve given plenty of examples already, but here is another one from a great Doctor of the Church of a past era;

Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception of course occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 – pg. 118

Red Geoff writes;

I found the Iron Ink blog and looked around at the content. And I want to say in no uncertain terms that this man is not behaving as a Christian.

Bret responds,

Here Red Geoff goes from being jejune to being just not nice. I’m telling you Rachelle, my feelings are so hurt now that I just don’t know how I can go on.

Allow me to return volley here. Red Geoff is wearing the robes of anti-Christ. He is being an apostle of Marx. Red Geoff is calling evil, “good,” and good, “evil,” and unless he repents his soul is in mortal danger.

All the evidence from Church history is on my side Rachelle. All the Biblical evidence, when not handled like a starving rat handles the meat when set loose in a butcher shop, is on my side. I am merely holding what the church has taught in all times and in all places where God has been pleased to grant the Church orthodoxy.

If your “Pastor Geoff” wants to sling around this kind of language then he should spend the time in finding all the quotes from Church history that supports his universalist humanist position. He might find some, but those he finds will be from Anabaptist nutcases as combined with the heretic Cathari, Albigensians, and Bogomils.

If I am not behaving like a Christian, Red Geoff is behaving like a madman.

Red Geoff writes,

He is unapologetically a kinist which is patently and obviously against the Bible’s teaching of the unity of the body of Christ.

Bret responds,

1.) Actually, to be precise, I am unapologetically a Christian – Kinism is just a part of basic Christianity.

2.) Patently and obviously against the Bible’s teaching of the unity of the body of Christ? LOL… only when looking through the lenses of racial Marxism. Quite to the contrary it is Red Geoff who is sitting the Scriptures on their head and making them say on this subject the exact opposite of what they do say.

Rachelle Smith writes,

He (Geoff) links to articles like, “Top Ten Reasons ‘Anti Semite’ Is a Compliment” in which the writer tries to redefine the term to make it ok.

Bret responds,

Well, when anti-Semite is now defined as “anyone who disagrees with a Jew” then, yeah, I have no problem with being “anti-semite.” Honestly, the sting of these names cast at me as coming from leftists, anti-Christs, have completely lost their sting. I respond now typically just by shrugging my shoulders and saying, “whatever, you idiot.” Imagine how bad St. Augustine would feel when insulted by a Manichean and you can begin to grasp how little this bothers me.

RS writes quoting Red Geoff,

He (Bret) equates kinism with the rejection of Darwinian social evolution, but in fact is a rejection of the texts I listed above. I am not saying things too strongly when I say this man (Bret) is teaching poison that will only serve to divide the body of Christ.

Bret responds,

This man is a 5 year old searching for a lost toy with a lighter in an ammo dump.

Red Geoff destroys the meaning of God’s word and then turns around and declared that I am rejecting the texts that he ham-fistedly offered as “proof,” of a position that is neither supported by Scripture, nor by two thousand years of Church history.

RS quoting Red Geoff

I would strongly encourage you to remove yourselves from the mailing list of this blog and not allow yourself to be influenced by such a man.
Bret responds,

Well, given that you have corresponded with me, after Red Geoff’s counsel, I see that you utterly rejected his counsel. Good for you.

RS quoting Red Geoff,

Though not everything he says is without merit (of course), he will not encourage you to embrace the body of Christ which is one and does not recognize distinctions of value and/or belonging based on race.

Bret responds,

Rachelle, I could only hope for you that you would have as many Christian non-Caucasian friends as I have. I have one chap who lives in Europe who phones me monthly who is perhaps, more a kinist than I’ll ever be. I have a Christian friend on the East Coast who I speak to every once in a while who is a kinist. I have a Filipino friend online who has been very generous to us over the years. We are all Kinists and we all belong to different people groups. We all understand that we are one in Christ but we also understand that our oneness in Christ does not destroy our creational distinctions.

You Pastor is not a wise man. That is my nice way of saying he is an idiot. You should flee for the good of your soul from this Pastoral hack.

RS writes quoting Red Geoff,

In fact, knowing you are sympathetic to such a man could serve to greatly alienate brothers and sisters in our current church and cause tremendous division. I’d be happy to sit down with you to talk through these things in more detail. Hope I didn’t say it too strongly. Love you lots.

Bret responds

Dear sweet Rachelle, I am sorry that you are now in this position. It takes great courage to swim upstream. You and your husband will have to decide what to do from here. I can tell you, that it is unlikely that you will find any other Church or clergy member who will be any better than your Red Geoff. So, you can keep these beliefs on the down low and get along, or you can sever yourself from this body and be lonely, like tons of people I know, who refuse to compromise on this issue.

However, Biblical Christianity, and so Kinism, will one day win out. Reality cannot be ignored without eventually snapping back.

If I can be of any more service to you and your husband let me know. Write me. Phone me. I am available to minister to you as I can.

The Blessings of Christ be upon you and your Kin,

Pastor Bret

 

From the Mailbag; “My Pastor Ignores the Issue of Marxism”

Comment left on Iron Ink that makes my head want to explode;

___

“Very disappointing that my pastor ignores Marxism intentionally, and at a university-focused church. A distraction I suppose, to piety.

I am glad you write about it. Many Christian kids are pulled from the faith due to it and its manifestations, yet he somehow sees it as a distraction.”

___

Observations

1.) I would bet the farm that his minister doesn’t preach against Marxism because his minister is absolutely clueless as to what Marxism is.

2.) It is ministerial neglect of the worst type to refuse to address the world and life view that is the chief assailant in keeping Christianity as a minority faith expression.

3.) We can’t eliminate the “follow the money” factor here. The minister doesn’t preach against it, because doubtless in a University setting he would lose key members of his congregations who are freaking “Christian” Marxists.

4.) If it really is true that “many Christian kids” in this congregation “are pulled from the faith due to Marxism and its manifestations” can you imagine what a degree of dereliction of duty this minister is going to be charged with at the great assize?

5.) Don’t miss the “a distraction, I suppose to piety” quip. The commenter is being sarcastic here. He is saying that what passes for Christian piety doesn’t want to get its hands dirty by actually dissecting and exposing a worldview that desires to kill the Christian faith.

6.) One would have to ignore Marxism “intentionally” if one were to not preach on it, since Marxism is ubiquitous — and especially so on a University campus. In other words nothing else explains not addressing Marxism on a University Campus church except that one is intentionally avoiding it.

7.) This refusing to speak on Marxism is driven by the minister in question being R2K. I know of this chap. I know he has been infected w/ R2K. His R2K theology is informing him that if he preached on Marxism, exposing it as the chief competitor to Christianity in the marketplace of ideas, then he would be getting out of his lane since a Christian minister should let natural law deal with matters that exist in a jurisdiction other than the church jurisdiction he has been assigned to specialize. Marxism as a competing world and life view just doesn’t come under his portfolio as a member of the clergy.

8.) Understand that this ministerial malpractice is no different than refusing to speak on the matter of Islam were one ministering in a Church in a Muslim culture. This is no different than refusing to speak on Talmudism were one minister in a church that existed in a Bagel culture. This is no different than refusing to speak on Fascism in a church that existed in a Fascist culture.

Well, maybe he would muster up the courage to speak against Fascism since there are some elements of Fascism that can be misconstrued as Christian and our minister in question could never allow that misunderstanding to continue.

This whole thing sickens me. We, as Christians, are in a fight with people who own a world view that is sworn to snuff out Christ and His people and yet this minister, of this somewhat large church refuses to speak on it.

This chap, and many in the clergy corps like him, are like “Talkative” in Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.

To such clergy I say;

If you love your comfortable station better than honoring Christ, the perks of being respected and called “Reverend,” better than getting your hands dirty in this fight for your King, go from us in peace. We ask not for your wisdom or support. Crouch down and lick the Marxist hands which feed you. May your retreat not get in our way as we rush to the battle and may posterity forget that you were once called clergy.