Ethnic considerations

From the Mailbag … Roger and Bret Continue Their Discussion On Kinism & Christendom

Pastor,

Thank you (and all) for your detailed responses. It warms my heart to know that there are real people, your friends, that are in community with each other and ready to risk it all to fight. It is especially helpful to know where to send money for support in the fight. I am sure that supporting a firearms group like the NRA or the one you mentioned will go a long way.

Note that I asked you about fighting for kinism, but you said fighting for Christendom in the title of your reply. Are these synonyms? What would you say to a Christian family that leaves a church where the pastor is more devoted to kinism than Christendom, if they are not synonyms?

Hello Roger,

Yes … they are synonyms.

One cannot contend for Christendom without contending for Kinism. Especially in our current context in the West where Christendom is being attacked via the means of attacking the family structure. Christianity is a faith that presupposes the family unit. Kinism is merely an extension of that presupposition carried out to each continuing concentric circle that ripples out from the family unit.

Since I hold that there is no such thing as Christendom (or Christianity for that matter) that has subtracted the centrality of family such as is found everywhere in Scripture, and since Kinism is merely another way of stating the doctrine of the Creator Creature distinction (an essential and primary truth without which the Christian faith cannot exist as the Christian faith) I would say to such a hypothetical family leaving such a hypothetical church having such a hypothetical pastor that they should rethink their understanding of Biblical Christianity.

Besides … this is surely a vastly hypothetical question since I am full of doubt that any Pastor exists who is more devoted to Kinism than Christendom. Indeed, since the WOKE assault that now servers as the point of the spear attacking Christianity, and Christendom it is simply the case that most Pastors are asleep at the switch.

Since Christianity has as an essential aspect to its reality what Kinism is championing your question is like asking “what if the Pastor at the Church is more devoted to the incarnation or to the penal substitutionary doctrine of the Atonement than to Christendom.” You see the implicit contradiction here don’t you? You have presented what is called a “false dichotomy.” How can a Pastor be faulted for being more devoted to a cardinal doctrine of Christianity without which Christianity can not be Christianity than he is to Christianity itself?

As to time spent on this one doctrinal aspect of Christianity Luther is reputed to have said;

“If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.”

Guess where that one point is now Roger? That one point is the point that Kinism is engaged in. If the Church loses here Christendom goes into declension (something R2K desires very much) and it is back to the catacombs while living in Dark chaos and old night. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the enemy will have been successful in a short term victory.

In Athanasius’ time the issue that was being attacked was the deity of Jesus Christ. In Augustine’s day the issue that was being attacked was whether or not man had Libertarian free will. In Luther’s day the issue was both Justification by faith alone and the what was the epistemological ground for the Church — Scripture or Tradition. Today the issue is also twofold

1.) Creator-Creature distinction and the means of attack is by attack the doctrines of Scripture that have been shorthanded to be called “Kinism.” (Which is merely Christianity 101).

2.) Theonomy or Autonomy. (These two issues are implied in one another just as the two issues at the time of the Reformation were implied in each other.)

Of course, as has been more than hinted at in the original response, most Christians seem not to have the capacity to understand the implications and consequences of this issue. Just as Athanasius, Augustine, Luther were the minority voices at their time so Kinists are the minority voices today.

But as Rushdoony said …

“History has never been dominated by majorities, but only by dedicated minorities who stand unconditionally on their faith.”

R.J. Rushdoony

Blessings Roger as you consider all this,

Bret

p.s. — FWIW The NRA is counter-productive to securing the 2nd amendment. If you want to secure the 2nd amendment don’t send your money there.

p.p.s. – If you really want to dig into this I can offer a few books that may help turn some lights on. Let me know.

Are The Jews Still The Chosen People? …. Are the Jews Today Really Jews?

Therefore I tell you, every sin and blasphemy will be forgiven people, but the blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

Mt. 12:31

You stiff-necked people with uncircumcised hearts and ears! You always resist the Holy Spirit, just as your fathers did.

Acts 7:51

Read in the context of the unfolding of Redemptive history these passages should be coupled together. In Matthew Jesus communicates that Blasphemy against the Son will be forgiven but blasphemy against the Spirit would not be forgiven. That Israel blasphemed the Son is clearly seen in their crucifying Jesus and by screaming…. “His blood be upon us and our seed.”

When we get to acts we see Stephen saying that Israel is now blaspheming the Holy Spirit as seen in always resisting the Holy Spirit. Throughout the book of Acts we see Israel blaspheming the Holy Spirit by rejecting the messengers of Christ. At this point there are multiple witnesses to this blaspheming of the Spirit.

In light of this Blasphemy of the Spirit, in AD 70 Christ serves divorce papers on Israel and cuts them out of the Olive Tree (Romans 11). Before that time the Israel of God among the Hebrews are gathered into Christ and so when the divorce papers are served in AD 70 it is true what was predictive in Romans 11 that “all Israel was saved.”

This reading fits with the multitudinous passages in the New Testament that communicate that God was done with (divorced) Israel. First we have the parable of the non-productive fig tree (Luke 13:6-9) which finds the servant conceding to cut down the barren fig tree (Israel) if it does not produce fruit after a year (it didn’t). Then there is Jesus cursing the fig tree, saying; “May you never produce fruit again (Matthew 21:18ff) .”

The most clear indication that God was done with the Jews is seen in Matthew 21:33-46. Here it is clearly and unmistakably taught that the Jews are divorced and cast out. In the story a landowner plants a vineyard, lets it out to farmers, and moves far away (33). The landowner represents God and the farmers represent the Jews (45). When harvest time comes, the owner of the vineyard sends servants to collect his share of the fruit, but the farmers beat, kill, and stone these servants (35). These servants represent the prophets (Luke 11:47) God sent to the Jews through the centuries, and how the Jews mistreated such prophets (Luke 13:34). Lastly the landowner sends his son to collect, but the farmers kill him also. This son represents God’s son Jesus Christ of course.

Jesus asks his audience in verse 40 “When the lord therefore of the vineyard cometh, what will he do unto those husbandmen?” His audience correctly answers “He will miserably destroy those wicked men, and will let out his vineyard unto other husbandmen ….” Jesus reaffirms this conclusion by saying in verse 43 “The kingdom of God shall be taken from you, and given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof.” Precipitated by their longtime disobedience, with the final straw being the killing of the son of God (Matt 23:37-38), the kingdom of God would be taken from the Jews and given to the Gentiles. In AD 70 the Lord of the vineyard came in His judgment coming and He miserably destroyed Israel, scattering them to the wind in the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem. In this judgment coming of the Lord Christ the Jews as a people were eternally divorced by God never to be grafted in again to the Olive Tree as a nation. Certainly, individual Jews can be, and praise God are saved but as a people God is done with the Jews.

So read Redemptive Historically, the blaspheming of the Holy Spirt was committed by Israel and they were cut off for that blasphemy (much as the faithless generation in Canaan was cut off from the promised land), just as Jesus had prophetically spoken as recorded in the NT.

As such we know that to interpret Romans 11 as still being future to us about a great ingathering of the Jews is a misinterpretation of the passage. The ingathering of Jews spoken of there in Romans 11 was future to Paul but past to us and indeed throughout the book of Acts, starting with Pentecost, we do see many Jews grafted back into the olive tree of Romans 11, and in the end all of Israel who was the Israel of God was saved before that AD 70 return.

Also, one has to consider the mistake it is to read Romans 11 as if it referred to physical Israel because in Romans 9 God had clearly stated that “not all of Israel is of Israel.” So, this idea that God still has work to do with the Jewish nation that is tied to His eschatological clock is just bollix. National Israel is in no way tied to God’s eschatological clock, though as postmillennialists we believe that what Jews remain upon the coming of Christ many will be saved as being part of other nations.

We note this final thought above due to the fact that it is an open question as to how many genetic Jews exist yet today. The book, “The Thirteenth Tribe” by Arthur Koestler, as one example, questions whether those whom we call “Jews” today are really, in fact, genetically Jews. Most of them seem to be from Khazaria or are Edomites. The ironic thing is that lately there are reports that the Palestinians in Israel who are being slaughtered by “the Jews” are indeed more Semitic than the Israelis killing them. Of course if it is true that those called “the Jews” today are Khazaria then the whole infrastructure of much of Evangelical and evene Reformed theology has the ground cut out from underneath of it. For the Reformed, if this is true, they will definitely need to re-adjust their interpretation of Romans 11.

From The Mailbag — Could You Give A “Back Of The Napkin” Explanation Of Kinism?

“Hey brother, when you have a minute could you sketch out for me a quick ‘back of the napkin ‘ explanation of kinism and what the opponents of kinism are all twisted up about. Just haven’t been able to nail it down. No rush, I know you are with family and it is Advent, so whenever you are inclined.

Thanks.”

Kyle Patrick

Hello Kyle;

Thanks for asking.

Remember, per your request this is a back of the napkin kind of explanation. Much more could be said.

Kinism is the doctrine that God, by His creative and providential work has set men in families, clans, tribes, and nations and because of that there is a natural and biblical requirement to prioritize and order our loves in just such a fashion.

Kinist do NOT deny that they also have responsibilities to those who share a common faith who are not in those concentric circles of natural responsibilities but they recognize that normatively we are to provide for our own relatives and especially for members of our own household, realizing that the man who does not prioritize his own Kin has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.

Further, Kinists do NOT believe that conversion strips a man of his race, nation, tribe, clan, or family. Instead, Kinists believe that grace restores nature and as such conversion and sanctification lifts us to be the best sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, Uncles, Aunts to our own people that God in creation intended us to be.

In brief Kinism is anti-Gnosticism.

Finally, people (especially Christian Clergy it seems) are all tied up into knots and hysterical about Kinism because;

1.) They were educated in Government schools and so have bought into the egalitarian swill.

2.) They think the civil rights era was all about Christianity when in point of fact it was all about Marxism.

3.) They are afraid of the peer pressure. Their children might not be able to marry just the right people. They might not get the promotion at work. They might get shunned by friends for believing Christian truths held for every generation by Christians until 1950 or so. Most people are basically cowards.

4.) They follow the crowd.

I hope this helps Kyle. If you have more questions I’d be glad to field them if I am able.

Ehud & Bret Tag Team On Kinism

“Even if imperfectly conceived under the various schools of paganism, race consciousness, nationalism, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws were normative in the ancient world. And the exceptions wherein integration was promoted were invariably in terms of the most aggressive anti-Christ imperial orders such as Babylon, Assyria, Babel, the Soviet Union, and the UN.”

Ehud Would

Faith and Heritage — pg. 327

I think we have to add the US, Europe, Australia, and South Africa to that list now.

God’s revelation teaches us that Nationalism is the Biblical social order and Nationalism by definition means a people descending from a common ancestor. Now, certainly Kinists understand that the pursuit of “one drop” rules is nonsense and so intuit that nations can exist while having within their borders those who do not belong to the core people group, but the fact that exceptions might exist doesn’t change the rule.

Also, it should be said here that Kinists pursue these truths out of love for God and love for others. It is not love to kith and kin to allow the social order to become mamzer. Indeed to be party to such is to hate God, our children, and our neighbor.

However, now we must realize that we have lived 60 years in the mad pursuit of a social order that is essentially a disintegration into the void. Our identity is increasingly become one of non-identity — a nihilistic approach if one ever existed.

Such a program, unless arrested, will end in blood and chaos. Empires always eventually fly apart. We have seen this in our lifetimes with the evaporation of the former USSR.

And whose purpose does this mass integration serve? It serves the goals and designs of Marxism, which is itself the theology of Hell. The end goal is the elimination of peoples, places, and family. If all are kin then nobody is kin.

Of course all this is driven by the desire to destroy the Creator-Creature distinction. If no horizontal distinctions exist as between peoples than the final assault on destroying the distinction between God and man is more easily achieved. Or, if one prefers, the destruction of horizontal distinctions is birthed by the present reality that the distinction between God and man has been blotted out. However, one argues this, the loss of peoples, places, and families is intended to pull Christ off His throne and destroy the faith once forever delivered to the Saints.

If we lose here we lose everything.

And that is why we will not lose. God will no more be mocked in 2024 in His world than He would not be mocked at the tower of Babel.

Those who fight against Christian Nationalism/Kinism/Ethno-Nationalism war against heaven. In this warfare against God Christians are especially going to be sorrowful and sorry for ever calling righteousness wickedness.

In my world, such people if upon being instructed in the Christian faith on this matter continue to insist on “cosmopolitanism,” “Liberalism” and “Alienism,” are outside the faith.

Joseph Spurgeon; Statement On Natural Affections — A Kinder & Gentler Antioch Declaration

So, Rev. Joseph Spurgeon has taken it upon himself to ink a new declaration for everyone to sign touching the issue of race, and WW II. It seems that in the Evangelical/Reformed world you just can’t be somebody unless you’re writing a new declaration.

I’ll be glad to admit that this one is superior to its previous bastard statement (Antioch Declaration) but this one still demonstrates that neither Joseph nor its signers realize what time it is.

I see this document as a “Kinder and Gentler” version of the Antioch declaration. George H. W. Bush would be proud.

Below are some of the highlights (lowlights?) of the new document being offered. It is hilarious that Doug Wilson and Uri Brito have signed this thing. Spurgeon expects anybody to sign a document on this subject who have repeatedly been given the mailed glove by these black knights?

Behold the document;

“I affirm that while the Allied powers rightly opposed the evils of Nazis, that some of their actions violated Christian principles of justice and morality.”

Joseph Spurgeon
Statement On Natural Affections
A Kinder and Gentler Antioch Declaration

Bret responds,

Some of the actions?

You mean like lying about the Bagel death totals, the lampshades made of human skin, bars of soap made out of Bagel fat, knowingly allowing the bombing of Pearl Harbor in order to have casus belli, like Operation Keel Haul, you mean like the post-war German death camps where over a million surrendering Germans died and where the Geneva convention was operated around by labeling POWs as “disarmed enemy forces,” you mean like dropping the Atomic bomb when the peace settlement that was accepted after the dropping of the bombs was the same that had been agreed to 6 months prior to the dropping of the bombs, you mean like getting in bed with Joe Stalin, you mean like giving Stalin all of Eastern Europe?

I could go on and on but to suggest that “some of their actions violated Christian principles of justice and morality,” is like saying that some of Charlie Manson’s groupies could sometimes go a little overboard.

In the end the Nazis were no more evil than the Allies in that conflict and likely even less so. One could even just as accurately write that “while the Nazi powers rightly opposed the evils of the Allies some of their actions violated Christian principles of justice and morality.”

Additionally, I reject the egalitarian ideologies of communism and secular liberalism promoted by some Allied powers, as these are contrary to biblical truth

Joseph Spurgeon

Statement On Natural Affections

A Kinder and Gentler Antioch Declaration

Bret responds,

Some Allied powers?

Which Allied powers didn’t promote Communism?

Inasmuch as all the Allied powers got in bed with the Christ hating Reds in that much they all promoted communism.

What Revisionist WW II History have you read? Any?

I affirm that marriage can lawfully occur between people of different ethnicities and races, as there is no biblical prohibition against such unions…

Joseph Spurgeon

Statement On Natural Affections

A Kinder and Gentler Antioch Declaration

Bret responds,

In our current climate this is an example of egalitarianism — a doctrine that another statement in this document said was not Christian. See below.

I affirm that children of mixed race are fearfully and wonderfully made in the image of God, possessing equal dignity, value, and worth as any other human…

Joseph Spurgeon

Statement On Natural Affections

A Kinder and Gentler Antioch Declaration

Just exactly who denies this? This implies that there are people out there in the Church who deny this… who are these people? Names please.

Still, I’ll stick with Dr. John Edwards Richards statement who as recent as 50 years ago could write these words explaining the Causes of Separation in 1973 where the PCA separated from the liberal PCUS.

(We are separating from;)

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
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

“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)

Look, we are in a position where the White race in general and the Christian White people in particular are fighting for their very existence. This document does not yet realize the peril we currently are in. Instead, it treats the wound of our situation lightly. This document, while an improvement over the Antioch Declaration will not provide a safe space for Christian White people in the Church or in this nation. What is required is a flame-thrower (Doug will like that reference) and all we are offered here is a glowstick.