Category: ecclesiology

AI Produced Special Moderator’s Committee on Kinism
and Race Realism

Westminster: Does Kinism align with the Westminster Standards?

No: It is first and primarily a violation of the communion of the saints (WCF Chapter 26). For Christians to intentionally segregate from other Christians based on ethnicity–in Sunday worship, marriage, schools, etc.–would be to not extend the kind of communion described below to those in Christ to whom that communion rightfully belongs:

Before we look at the butchery done to the WCF by AI and the ARP let’s first consider Dr. John Frame’s take on this matter. Frame has been a member of the PCA and so has himself subscribed to the WCF.

“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 inthe 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”

Here is the AI ARP document quoting WCF 26;

“All saints, that are united to Jesus Christ their Head, by his Spirit, and by faith, have fellowship with him in his graces, sufferings, death, resurrection, and glory: and, being united to one another in love, they have communion in each other’s gifts and graces, and are obliged to the performance of such duties, public and private, as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man. (WCF 26:1)

Saints by profession are bound to maintain and (sic) holy fellowship and communion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spiritual services as tend to their mutual edification; as also in relieving each other in outward things, according to their several abilities and necessities. Which communion, as God offereth opportunity, is to be extended unto all those who, in every place, call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.” (WCF 26.2)

Bret responds,

1.) Typos – Note that in the original ARP document both 26:1 and 26:2 are filed as 26:1. Also note the word “and” being used where the word “an” belong. I only note this to reinforce the truth that a sophomore in High School would be held to a higher standard for a final paper than these clowns.

2.) To suggest that the 17th century Westminster divines had in mind here issues surrounding Kinism is just lunacy on the part of the ARP.

3.) Kinists have no problem plighting their allegiance to the above statement. Black Kinists, White Kinists, Brown Kinists, Yellow Kinists, etc. all would insist that they hold to WCF 26:1 and 26:2.

3.) If the ARP is going to be consistent, based on their understanding of WCF 26 they would have to break up their current Korean ARP churches. Will they do that?

4.) Note the phrase in WCF 26, “as do conduce to their mutual good, both in the inward and outward man. “ Kinists would merely offer that the kind of race relations that Kinists promote is the very definition of what conduces to the mutual good, both in the inward and outward man, of all peoples considered, meanwhile contending that it is the Alienists such as we find infesting the ARP who are advocating a policy wherein the mutual good of the saints, both in the inward and outward man, is not being pursued.

In short the WCF 26:1-2 no more disproves Kinism than it disproves that Christians should be involved in building skyscrapers or submarines.

The AI produced ARP document continues,

It is also a violation of Westminster’s allowances of marriage. Westminster allows for inter-racial marriages as shown in WCF 24.3:

It is lawful for all sorts of people to marry who are able with judgment to give their consent. Yet it is the duty of Christians to marry only in the Lord. And therefore, such as profess the true reformed religion should not marry
with infidels, Papists, or other idolaters: neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as are notoriously wicked in their life, or maintain damnable heresies.

Bret responds,

We will start off here with a quote by Calvin to demonstrate how utterly idiotic it is to try and leverage the WCF to be the final word on interracial marriage,

“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin
(Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

1.) Clearly, if Calvin were alive today and writing about “some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers” he would have the ARP in mind.

2.) Again, we would note that the WCF is written in the homogeneous British Isles by a homogeneous people. The idea that we can take this document and force it to speak to our multicultural NWO moment in time is hermeneutically irresponsible. Does one really believe that the Westminster Divines would have had no problem with English male member of the nobility marrying a Hottentot peasant female? It’s just ludicrous to imagine.

3.) Given the ARP’s interpretation of WCF 24-3 there is nothing that would forbid a 85 year old female from marrying a 16 year old male or vice-versa as long as they were both Christian. Similarly, given the ARP interpretation it would be perfectly fine for a Christian brother and Christian sister to marry since that would likewise not be a unequal yoking.

People without common sense should not be allowed to get near a pulpit.

4.) I will say this much… WCF 24-3 forbids any orthodox Reformed Christian from marrying someone in the ARP given this phrase,

“neither should such as are godly be unequally yoked, by marrying with such as… maintain damnable heresies.”

This is due to the fact that Alienism is damnable heresy.

ARP document,

These violations mean that those who hold to Kinism or Race Realism violate their ministerial oaths, officer oaths, and membership vows.

Bret responds,

This AI ARP produced document means that people with low IQ should be avoided at all costs.

“A truly marvelous book. Sam (Alberry) writes as a pastor who himself struggles w/ same-sex attraction. Sam’s humanity shines through every page; his understanding of weakness under-girds the whole. A compassionate and compelling resources for pastors and elders to keep on hand, as this is an issue which will become more, not less, important.”

Carl R. Trueman

“Sam’s story is one of God’s goodness in the midst of same sex attraction, and is a powerful testimony for those needing encouragement in the face of this temptation.”

Doug Wilson

These words of praise for Alberry came out before it was found out that Sam wasn’t so successful in resisting temptation for other guys. These words of support and recommendation were written when some book by Alberry was released.

But what I want to point out here (again) is how all this normalized sodomite longings. Try to imagine a Carl R. Trueman or a Doug Wilson coming out with blurbs supporting some Christian Pastor who admitted to having “little boy attraction,” or maybe, “farm animal attraction.” You can’t imagine that because those perversions are so beyond the pale that no Pastor would dare either admit that they were attracted to little boys or to farm animals and no Pastor would dare come out in support of such a Pastor admitting such a thing who insisted he could still remain in the role as Pastor.

No, the only reason these blurbs were originally written or were once seen as being sane, is because sodomy has now been seen as acceptable. Because being sodomite has been accepted in the Christian conservative church it is the case that Pastors can serve as Pastors while at the same time admitting their sexual attraction is aimed at other men while other Pastors (Trueman and Wilson to name only two) could praise the Pastor with putatively controlled sodomite longings as somehow being estimable.

Somehow, it is now seen as being noble, sensitive, and caring to write things like Trueman and Wilson wrote above in support of a Pastor who admitted publicly that “I like other guys.” However, guys like Trueman and Wilson would never write the same thing about ministers coming out admitting that they are attracted to little boys or to farm animals. The only difference is, is that the former perversion is now seen as an acceptable perversion which we are now required to say, “Sam is a pervert but since he has his perversion under control, it’s all good.” Speaking this way demonstrated how noble, sensitive, and caring, Trueman and Wilson were. Trueman and Wilson would never speak the same way about a pretend Pastor Noberry writing a book admitting how the Holy Spirit had given him control over his continuing sexual attraction to little boys or farm animals.

And…. all I have written would remain true even if Alberry hadn’t decided to give in to his particular perversion.

The Reformed Church is dead. Long live the Reformed church.

The Massie defeat in the Republican Primary in Kentucky’s 4th congressional district reminds me that it seems one has to make a choice between being right and principled as opposed to swallowing hard having to be wrong so one can retain “leadership” position.

Massie was as principled as they come. I did not like his Libertarianism but there is no doubt the man stuck to his principles. That resolve contributed to his defeat at the hands of a Trump lackey.

This same principle applies in the church. Clergy can be principled standing on truth, resulting in getting tossed by either their congregation or their denomination or they can be compromisers in order to retain their position with the hopes of being able to steer the congregation in the future into a better place with the added benefit of keeping their jobs.

It is fairly obvious that most politicians and clergy are not like Thomas Massie who decided his principles were more important than continuing to give into a President who has repeatedly broken his word to the American public so that Massie could retain his seat. As a result, Massie was defeated by those who wanted to control him but couldn’t. Now his ability, at least for the short term, to have any input into the National conversation is gone, though his principles remain.

Joe Kent, who is now largely forgotten, made the same kind of decision as Massie. He gave up any influence he might have continued to wield in order to stand on his principles.

The conundrum here is found in the fact that if Massie were to have been willing to bend on his principles in order to retain influence, can it really be said that Massie owned those principles he abandoned in order to stay in power?

The lion’s share of clergy are not principled people like Thomas Massie and Joe Kent. They will not stand for the truth come hell or high water. Instead, desiring to keep their position, they will compromise. Some compromise could be understood but the kind of compromise that the putative white hat clergy are involved in right now is sinking the church and sinking the broader culture.

Having said this, I appreciate that clergy are in a tight spot. They have mouths to feed and a future to think of. Taking a strong stand on issues, like Machen did long ago, is a real launching out on faith in God’s ability to provide.

There are clergy, Elders, Deacons, and laity out there who have made a stand and are paying the price for making that stand. Greg Williams, Michael Hunter, Andrew Duggan, Phil Lovelady, Ryan Louis Underwood, the Holden Brothers, Sam Ketchum, etc. I receive phone calls from all across the country inquiring “what should I do.” I don’t have a ready or easy answer. I can only tell folks who phone me, “if you decide to stand on your principles be willing to count the cost and pay the price because your enemies are vicious Marxist dogs who will delight in ripping you apart.” Naturally, I want those who contact me to take a stand because until more come out of the shadows and raise their Ebenezer the promise of Reformation will continue to wane but I understand the incredible pressure that will descend if people determine to fight like Machen did long ago or like Massie and Joe Kent did recently.

I’d like to tell folks, “if you would just plant your flag and make a stand, all will be well.” I can’t and so don’t tell them that. In this life it doesn’t always end with, “and they lived happily ever after.” It may be the case that they have to pay a steep price if they make a stand on their principles. Machen was driven from his denomination in shame. Massie lost an election. Many other have lost a great deal more.

I do admire people for even wrestling with the tension despite how they eventually choose. I imagine Joe Kent spent many sleepless nights before deciding to resign. Most clergy don’t wrestle at all. They lick their fingers and stick them in the air to see which way the wind is blowing and tack in that direction. Those clergy that are even more inept than the finger lickers don’t even understand the issue. They are just floating downstream with the current, collecting their checks week in and week out.

It is not an easy path for someone who is continuing to grow in epistemological self consciousness. Such growth promises peril, and resistance.

Being postmillennial in my eschatology, I do believe the truth will win out. I do believe that there are deep and wide Reformations ahead of us. However, that path to Reformation is going to be blazed by those who were willing to hoist the black flag and wage war against the spirit of the age according to the principle of “no quarter asked for and no quarter given.” Goodness knows, the clergy enemy is waging that kind of war against the saints.