Apologetics – Page 7

The Inescapable Nature Of “Racism”

“Antiracism” permits many people to practice racism vicariously by adopting the cause of every race but their own.

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority

Think of those people who are advocating for more immigration or for amnesty or for open borders or for a muscular HB1 visa program. In that advocacy, those people have not avoided being champions for a particular race and they have not avoided being racist as against a particular people. They have not shed themselves of “racism.” Instead, they have taken up the cause for the stranger and the alien as against their own people. They are demonstrating that they desire the stranger and alien to rise higher than the native born. They have determined to render an inheritance to the stranger as opposed to their own children. What they have not done is eliminated their own ethnic bias. They simply now are biased against their people and are biased for those who are displacing their extended family.

“Racism” as it is cast about today had not gone away. They merely have embraced the most fashionable “racism” — “Racism” against their own kin and people. This is an example of self-hatred (oikaphobia) in favor of a muscular xenophilia (love of the stranger and alien). In all this we see that “racism” (stupid Marxist concept that it is) is an inescapable category. No-one ever rids themselves of racism. One merely eschews a non PC racism for a PC racism.

So, if racism is an inescapable category shouldn’t we have a proper order of loves that finds us properly prioritizing our own people, and that without hating those who do not land within the concentric circles of properly ordered love?

A Brief Analysis on Rev. Suave’s Video Explaining The Fracture Between Moscow & Ogden

Rev. Brian Suave, in the first half of the video explaining Ogden’s warfare with Moscow,

does a really grand job of giving the deep contextual background for the reason for the kerfuffle. The long and the short of it is that this battle is shaped by the century long percolating and simmering fight between the neo-cons (Trotskyites) and the paleo-cons as to the definition of “conservative.” This becomes important in relation to Christianity because Christianity is by it’s very nature a conserving and conservative faith.

The battle here has always been as between the moderate left (the Girondists of the French Revolution) who were viewed as “conservative” as compared to the hard left (Montagnards) and those few who genuinely belonged to the Ancien Regime — the old line conservatives. The neo-cons were referred to as “Trotskyites” because they believed that the Revolution should be ceaseless. The neo-cons today then are those who are on the right side of the left but who also believe that social revolution should be ongoing and continuous. There is no desire on the part of the neo-cons to return to the theology of the Ancien Regime, characterized as it is by a unique love of one’s own people, King, and country. The neo-cons have a Democratic impulse and Democracy has always been the hand-maiden for leftism. Neo-cons will never want to see any of the gains made by their continuous Revolutions rolled back. For the Moscow gang this most immediately means a absolute resolve to never see a return to a time when Bagels were seen as the enemy of the Church and of Christianity, as well as never countenancing the vanilla doctrine of Kinism that was held everywhere by all people at all times until the latest major expression of the perpetual revolution that was World War II. When folks like me and others advocate for an older Christianity that was Bagel wise and familialist in practice the cry that arises from Moscow and from James White, Joel Boot, Andrew Sandlin and their ilk is “FASCISTS,” or “NAZIS.” This libel on their part is confirmation that they are indeed Trotskyists and Girondists …. as well as garden variety idiots.

If you want to understand this bubbling war completely you have to start doing the heavy work of reading. You have to read Sam Francis, and Joe Sobran, and Garet Garett and Wimoore Kendall and Frank Meyer and Albert Jay Nock, and H. L. Mencken and M. Stanton Evans, R. J. Rushdoony and others. These men did not always agree with one another but I am fairly sure they all would have disagreed with the “new Christendom” that Doug Wilson is trying to fashion. It is the attempted fashioning of Doug’s “New Christendom” that is driving all the drama from his side. You see, the Ogden chaps just do not agree with Wilson’s vision of “New Christendom.” It strikes me that they prefer the older Christendom.

Upon viewing the Suave video on can say the following;

1.) Short of a remarkable providence the Kerfuffle is not going to end with Wilson repenting. Doug’s whole “Christian” world and life view is informed by the world that Wm. F. Buckley created. Doug has reinterpreted all of his Christianity through that lens. Buckleyism is Christianity for Doug and the Ogden boys, being anti-Buckley are, to Doug, anti-Christ.

2.) This contest is monumentally important to the future of both Christianity and the broader culture. If it is true that “as goes the church so goes the culture,” (and I believe it is) then whoever wins out in this contest (and oddly enough R2K is on the side of Moscow here in the broad contours of the matter) will define the church and the culture for another generation.

3.) Doug and James White and Boot and Sandlin etc are doing the work of the devil here. Because they have no ability to know who the enemy is they have no ability to resist the enemy. This necessarily means redefining Christianity per the worldview of the enemy.

4.) If you really support the cause of Christ you have to quit supporting all things Doug Wilson, White, Sandlin, Boot, etc. They are the enemy.

5.) Keep in mind that which is driving all of this is different theologies and so different understandings of Christianity. One might think upon reading this post that this is all political and doesn’t have anything to do with religion at all. That would a mistaken reading. Theology drives everything and the differences between Ogden and Moscow are being ultimately driven by considerably different theologies.

Alienism & Kinism … Some Considerations

Recently, the Alienism that stems from accepting the principles of Cultural Marxism has found itself trying to sweep Kinism off the scene by pejoratives. One podcaster did a podcast titled, “Kinism; Luciferian and Wicked.” Another “clergy” member in the RPCNA spent 56 mindless minutes haranguing and screeching his congregation in a sermon titled; “Against the Heresy of Kinism.” We definitely have their attention and personally I am flattered that they find us so dangerous that now they have to go to these silly extremes in order to try and quench the prairie-fire that is endangering their post-Endarkenment consensus “Christianity.”

I am actually hoping these harpy clergy continue on this path. Their rants are so mindless and so absent any substance that their arguments against Kinism are actually providing arguments for Kinism for those who aren’t completely brain dead. Their argument by vacuous assertion and impressive straw men, as well as their steady refusal to deal with all the quotes from Church Fathers and Church history can only strengthen the position of Biblical Christianity. Sooner or later the Alienists are going to have to deal with quotes like this recent one I just came across thanks to Dan Brannan.

We see here that St Isidore of Seville (6th century) argued that it was within the fundamental rights of a nation to prohibit miscegenation as recorded in his Etymologies (Origins) of Isidore of Seville;

vi.) What the law of nations is (Quid sit ius gentium) 1.) The law of nations concerns the occupation of territory, building, fortification, wars, captives, enslavements, the right of return, treaties of peace, truces, the pledge not to molest embassies, the prohibition of marriages between races. And it is called ‘law of nations (ius gentium) because nearly al nations (gentes) use it.”

In light of all this condemning Kinists to the deepest level of hell the question has arisen as to whether one can embrace Alienism (born of Cultural Marxism and the polar opposite of Kinism) and still be considered Christian. Now, of course distinctions have to be made here. We concede that while Alienism is, by definition, not Christianity, it certainly is likely that many Alienists are Christians. God’s grace reaches beyond all of the lack of sanctification that is doubtless characteristic of all of us.

We also have to make distinctions between the Alienists who are ideologues and so true believers –that is they who are epistemologically self conscious about their Alienism and those others who are merely useful idiots for the Alienists. We have great hope that many of the useful idiots for the Alienists are indeed Christian despite their useful idiot status. For example, I have great hope that Drew Poplin (the chap who preached that “Kinism is Heresy”) is indeed someone who, despite his utter and embarrassing nonsense is in Christ. I say this despite at the same time insisting that he has no business being within three blocks of a Reformed pulpit.

However, having said all that we Kinists still must insists that all those who are Alienists — epistemologically self conscious or useful idiots — that what they are espousing is NOT Christianity. And they must be told … “Shall we go on sinning that grace might abound? God forbid!” The doctrinal position of Alienism is anti-Christ. It is against the Christian faith and where consistently held to it is anti-Gospel inasmuch as tears at the structure of the Creature-Creator distinction with its egalitarian norms. Such egalitarian norms are either a consequence of a monism that is birthed by denying the Creator-Creature distinction or alternately is certain to lead to the eventual denial of the distinction between God and man. If there is no distinctions between creatures, born of monism, eventually there will be a energetic denial of the distinction between God and Man. The distinction between Creator-creature cannot survive a mindset that levels all God ordained distinctions between creatures. So whether the denial of all distinctions between creatures leads to denial of the Creator-Creature distinction or whether all distinctions between creatures is the consequence of the denial of the Creator-creature distinction the result remains a monism that in no way can co-exist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One can not be a Christian while embracing a monism that denies the Creator-Christian distinction. How deep can one be in this error and still consistently hold to the Gospel is not something I know the answer to. I do know that it is all Christian’s responsibility to say that “Alienism and the Gospel cannot consistently co-exist together.”

This is the same kind of issue that Machen was facing in the 1920s except then the issue was not Alienism born of cultural Marxism but rather the issue was Liberalism born of denying the transcendence and supernatural character of God (Actually, that stemmed from a monistic impulse as well.) Machen never tried to give a person by person examination as to just how deep the infection of liberalism was too deep in order for one not to be Christian. Instead, Machen wrote and preached that Liberalism was not Christianity … just as Alienism is not Christianity and cannot coexist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We see St. Paul do the same kind of thing in his epistles. He makes it clear in Colossians and in the Timothys that Gnosticism is NOT Christianity and is against the Gospel. Now, as to how much Gnosticism was too much Gnosticism in every individual case was not something we get in his writings. What we get is the Gnosticism is anti-Christ and so can not exist consistently with the Gospel.

We all know of congregations are flat up full of Cultural Marxism and the Alienism it produces. We would not blink an eye in saying “those people need to hear the Gospel.” On the other hand we know of congregations that are less infected and to those places we might say, “Well, while I don’t doubt that there may well be Christians among them, it is still the case that what they are holding in principle is against the Gospel and if given its head will overturn the Gospel in that place.”

What we believes about the whole of the Christian faith matters and this tendency to want to somehow cordone “the Gospel” from the totality of the whole Christian faith is not healthy and is unwise. The Christian faith is an organic whole and a severe error in one place is going to warp the Gospel — and warp it enough in some cases to drain the Gospel of being the Gospel.

So, on one hand we want to be generous with people in their confession of personal faith in Jesus the Christ, but on the other hand we do not want people to think that doctrine is unimportant so that “it really doesn’t matter what you believe about Christ as long as you believe.” God is not egalitarian and egalitarian Christianity if given its head means that a Gospel defined by Alienist/ egalitarianism is not a Gospel that can save.

Drew Poplin Preaches 56 minute Sermon Against Kinism — What a Spectacle (I)

It boggles my mind that some young torpid clergy member would take 56 minutes to preach a sermon against Kinism and yet that is exactly what one Drew Poplin did in a RPCNA church in Durham, NC.

Below are from his posted notes.

“Defining the Term: Kinism is a heinous and heretical philosophy rooted in four general principles: (1) Race is narrowly defined and focused upon skin color and ancestral heritage rather than recognizing the reality of present societies; (2) Kinism holds to the permanence of race, following false evolutionary premises; (3) The belief that the intermarrying of races and peoples is immoral; (4) At the root of this is the abominable belief of white supremacy.”

Rev. Drew Poplin

1.) Kinists do not reduce race to the idea of skin color as if skin color is the only factor in race. Kinists do recognize Ancestral heritage believing as they do in the simple reality of real live biological genetics. God has made peoples to differ and part of that difference is encoded in particular gene patterns that end up making up different races.

Now, as Poplin continues he says that Kinists don’t understand the differences between ethnicity and race but it is really Poplin who is playing the thick one here. Kinist’s understand that ethnicity exists and that different ethnic peoples exist as belonging to distinct races. We get it Drew, that there are Germanic, Anglos, Saxons who are distinctly ethnic peoples but we go on to say that a broader category exists wherein each of these fall and the broader category is called “race.” Germans, Anglos, and Saxons are ethnic groups who belong each to the broader category of White people just as Hutus, Ndebele, Shonas, and Zulus are particular ethnic peoples who belong to a shared race. And all of them Drew belong to the largest category of the human race.

2.) Poplin makes a false assertion when he insists that Kinists follow evolutionary philosophy. Sigh. Poplin seems not to realize that long before the rise of Darwin or Evolution people examined the issue of races. Shakespeare examined the theme in some of his plays. Shakespeare’s dates predate Darwins. The Early Church Fathers wrote about race. Here is just one example;

“The ancient fathers… were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance.”

Augustine – (A.D. 354 – 430)
City of God, book XV, Chpt. 16:

Hey Drew … not everyone who believes in the reality of race is sniffing around the remains of the really dumb evolutionary theory. What other really dumb assertions do you want to toss from the Holy Desk Drew?

Indeed, Drew, Kinists don’t even hold that race is permanent understanding that over enough generations one line can go from one race to another race. However, this also proves that race is real as that breeding has moved a line from one very real distinct race to another very real distinct race.

Are you following me Drew?

3.) Kinists agree with all the Church fathers prior to 1950 or so that interracial marriage is at the very least normatively unwise and can often be sinful and immoral. I could give you a gazillion quotes but here is one from Machen’s friend, defender and colleague Dr. Clarence MacCartney;

“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

Dr. Clarence MacCartney – Presbyterian Minister
1879-1957

Does it give you any pause Drew that you are peaching from a pulpit a doctrine that no Church fathers, save possibly the heretical Anabaptists, taught or believed in? Any pause at all?

4.) Poplin again makes a dumb assertion when he ties Kinism with White supremacy. I know many non white people who are Kinists. Muhammed Ali (he was a famous black Boxer Drew) held Kinist principles, insisting that blacks should only marry blacks.

But, I will say it is true that Whites are supreme in some areas while clearly inferior in other areas. For example, I have concluded that modern day whites named Drew are vastly inferior at being Presbyterian clergy.

McAtee Contra Rev. Jim Cassidy’s Putrid R2K

“The anabaptist view of church and state is not two kingdom, but one. They want to apply Christian morality to the sphere of the magistrate. And since Christ said love your enemy and turn the other cheek, the state is to be wholly pacifist.

Unfortunately, the anabaptists are sorely mistaken. The Reformed have always recognized the legitimate role of the state to use coercive force, and to punish according to the lex talionis principle. They also recognize that Christian morality in love of enemy and forgiveness of sin is required of believers.

How do these two things sweetly comply? Only according to a Reformed version of two kingdom theology as you find, for example, classically defined in James Bannerman.

The basis and powers of church and state are distinct. The church’s basis is love and service empowered by the Word. The state’s basis is retributive justice empowered by the sword.”

Rev. Jim Cassidy

OPC Minister

Once again we see the Clergy get matters all bollixed up. Really, are we even surprised any longer?

1.) AnaBaptists, not wanting anything to do with”the world” were clearly two Kingdom. They understood that there was their own community and that there were those who were not part of their community. They believed one set of principles guided their own Kingdom they lived in while believing that another set of principles governed over those “outside the faith.” Can you say “Two Kingdoms” Jim?

This is the same reasoning R2K uses. There is one set of principles for the church realm, as set by God’s special revelation, and another set of principles for everywhere else as set by Natural Law. The only difference is that R2K calls that realm ruled by Natural Law “common,” whereas the Anabaptist call that realm not ruled by their community, “wicked.” In the end, R2K’s “common” looks a great deal like the Anabaptist’s “wicked.” We only have a changing out of the word used.

Now to be sure, inside the Anabaptist Kingdom the Anabaptists believed that God’s word applied to all matters but as they were (and are) terrible heretics are we surprised that they got that all bollixed up? All because the heretical Anabaptists misapply God’s Word to their living in their communities is that reason to think that God’s Word can’t be properly applied to all areas of life. Cornelius Van Til put it this way;

“All proper human activity is therefore activity within the Kingdom of the Christ.”

CVT

Christianity and Barthianism — p. 228

And again;

“You cannot expect to train intelligent, well-informed soldiers of the cross of Christ unless the Christ is held up before them as the Lord of culture as well as the Lord of religion.”

Cornelius Van Til

I quote CVT here because Cassidy likes to think of himself as a CVT fan. Cassidy clearly doesn’t understand CVT.One more from Van Til’s nephew;

The radical, totalitarian character of religion is such, then, that it determines both man’s cultus and his culture. That is to say, the conscious or unconscious relationship to God in a man’s heart determines all of his activities, whether theoretical or practical. This is true of philosophy, which is based upon non-theoretical, religious presuppositions. Thus man’s morality and economics, his jurisprudence and his aesthetics, are all religiously oriented and determined.

Henry Van Til

Calvinist Concept of Culture

2.) Cassidy is wrong to suggest that in the Reformed view the Magistrate has to always follow Lex Talionis in adjudication. That is clearly seen in Reformed Magistrates practicing commutation and pardoning for those who, according to the Lex Talionis, should received punishment. That this is Biblical is seen in Jesus parable of the unforgiving debtor where the Magistrate forgives the debtor his great debt.

3.) Love of enemy and Lex Talionis doth sweetly comply when in each case we exercise what is required of God’s law towards both our enemies and towards those who are before the magistrate, inasmuch as we do unto them what is assigned to us in our particular jurisdictions.

4.) When the State gives retributive justice empowered by the sword it is at that time practicing love and service empowered by the Word.

That is not to deny that Church and State have distinct functions. It is true that the Church proclaims grace while the State provides justice but there is false dichotomy in Cassidy’s thinking. When the Church practices discipline there is justice going on and when the State practices discipline there is love and service going on. It is merely that these look different in different jurisdictional realms. The State does not have the keys and the Church does not have the sword but they still, in a Biblical order, doth sweetly comply.

Cassidy’s R2K is heterodox at best.