Kevin DeYoung … Also Clueless When it Comes to Nationalism

“Is this (the conclusions in Stephen Wolfe’s book) really the direction we’re to be pushed by the gospel? Are we really to pursue a social ordering on earth so different from that which is present in heaven? Are we really so sure that our love for people like us and our ostracism of people unlike us are God-given inclinations and not fallen ones?”

Rev. Dr. Kevin DeYoung
PCA “Clergy”

1.) If Jesus is the Gospel than I’d say that, “yes” Wolfe’s book is really the direction we’re to be pushed to the Gospel;

22 And, behold, a woman of Canaan came out of the same coasts, and cried unto him, saying, Have mercy on me, O Lord, thou son of David; my daughter is grievously vexed with a devil. 23 But he answered her not a word. And his disciples came and besought him, saying, Send her away; for she crieth after us. 24 But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 25 Then came she and worshipped him, saying, Lord, help me. 26 But he answered and said, It is not meet to take the children’s bread, and to cast it to dogs.27 And she said, Truth, Lord: yet the dogs eat of the crumbs which fall from their masters’ table. 28 Then Jesus answered and said unto her, O woman, great is thy faith: be it unto thee even as thou wilt. And her daughter was made whole from that very hour.

This passage teaches the great grace of the Lord Christ to all men. It teaches the necessity to be importunate in prayer. It teaches the centrality of faith. And by today’s standard among the “clergy” and the Church in the West it demonstrates that Jesus was a racist and that He understood the idea of properly ordered affections. Keep in mind that “dogs” is a pejorative term that is not loaded with any expression of kindness.  

2.) DeYoung misreads the book of Revelation thinking that Revelation teaches that Heaven is an amalgamationist paradise, when in point of fact the book of Revelation teaches that the Saints are present in the New Jerusalem as belonging to their Nations (See Rev. 21).

23 And the city had no need of the sun, neither of the moon, to shine in it: for the glory of God did lighten it, and the Lamb is the light thereof. 24 And the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kings of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it. 25 And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there. 26 And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.

The New Jerusalem is not inhabited by atomistic individuals but by people as still belonging to their respective nations. Heaven is inhabited by the Church as that Church belonged to their respective nations. Thus, the New Jerusalem finds nations remaining yet distinct, yet together united in their worship of the great and magnificent Lord Jesus Christ. This is the concept of the One and the Many incarnated into the Church in the New Jerusalem.

DeYoung’s ham-fisted reading of Scripture, interpreting it to be a place where “all colors bleed into one” is irresponsible, and in this climate, criminal exegesis.

3.) I’d love to see a quote from Wolfe’s book where he is insisting that we need to ostracize people unlike us. Am I ostracizing people when I spend my paycheck providing for my wife and family? Am I ostracizing other women when I don’t bed them while only bedding my wife?

The “Conservative” Guru of the PCA writes,

Likewise, Wolfe’s argument doesn’t reckon with the way the Bible relativizes our sense of family (Mark 3:31–35), tears down dividing walls between people groups (Eph. 2:11–22), and presents a multitribal and multilingual reality (and hoped-for future) as a heavenly good (Rev. 5:9–10).

1.) I dealt with DeYoung’s eisegesis in #2 above.

2.) Next, the Ephesians passage. I am working here to expose why DeYoung shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near a pulpit;

The dividing wall in Ephesians is a reference to the Mosaic Law. Christ tears down the “dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances” (Eph 2:14b-15a).

When Christ died, God no longer imposed on Jews the rules that once separated them from Gentiles. The purpose of those aspects of the law has now been fulfilled. The laws that specifically divided Jew and Gentile are now done away with. It is not just the ceremonial laws that are now gone, but the old covenant to which they were intricately attached has been replaced by the new covenant. Under the new covenant God no longer imposes these expectations on his children. This arrangement grants Gentiles wide open access to enter the kingdom of God as Gentiles. Gentiles don’t have to become religio-cultural Jews in order to become Christian.

Further, in Ephesians Paul is not talking about generic ethnic divides but specifically the aspects of the law-covenant that divided Jew from Gentiles. Therefore, someone cannot impose ethnic distinctions onto Paul’s words. The apostle has something uniquely covenantal in mind.

Second, the dividing wall was originally the will of God. To take the word “hostility” in and apply it to racism is dangerous. The dividing wall to which Paul is referring is the Mosaic Law, and the Mosaic Law was God’s idea. He made the wall; then he removed it in Christ. The division that stood between Jew and Gentile in the Old Covenant was God’s will, not the by-product of human sin. “Racism,” (where it can genuinely be found) on the other hand, is the result of human sin and never is the result of what God commands. By applying Ephesians 2:14 to ethnic strife today you effectively turn God into a “racist.”

Third, did Christ remove, by his death, the various differences between cultures today? Not at all. Before Christ’s death, one culture may prefer beer. Another culture may prefer wine. After the death of Christ the first culture still likes beer and the second culture still likes wine. The death of Christ was not intended to move the needle on these types of cultural differences (except for the aspects of man’s culture that are sinful). Nor did it overturn other aspects of human relations grounded in creation, biology, and nature.

(Note: — The above 5 paragraphs were largely crafted by a chap who is now in hiding from the Stalinists cancel culture maniacs.)

Similarly Christ’s death did not remove the tendencies that belong to different ethnic peoples. Before Christ’s death Cretans were liars and gluttons. After Christ’s death Christian Cretans doubtless had to battle the besetting sin of lying and gluttony. The death of Christ does not destroy nature. For centuries McAtees have been hopelessly stubborn. I have been converted for decades now and a sinful stubbornness/defiance remains a besetting sin (ask my wife). The same is true for my children. It was true of my Father and it was true of his parents. This trait is in our genes. It is a characteristic long associated with the Scots. Peoples remain different, even after conversion. There is no sin in acknowledging that. Did Christ remove, by his death, the various differences between ethnicities today? Not at all.

(Note: In the previous paragraph we see why contra Doug Wilson that race/ethnicity is not merely about skin.)

We have the words of an OT scholar Martin Wyngaarden that bears on this issue. Please Rev. Dr. DeYoung listen to Calvin Seminary Dr. Professor Martin Wyngaarden from the 1960’s on Isaiah 19;

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 REMAINS NATIONALLY 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.” 19:25.

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.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.

3.) Now the Mark 3 passage

32 And the multitude sat about him, and they said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren without seek for thee.33 And he answered them, saying, Who is my mother, or my brethren? 34 And he looked round about on them which sat about him, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! 35 For whosoever shall do the will of God, the same is my brother, and my sister, and mother.

 DeYoung insists that the passage above relativizes our sense of family. I’d dearly like to hear DeYoung explain what he means by “relativizes.” If he simply means that the family can’t be raised above our union with Christ or that loyalty to family/people can’t rise above our loyalty to Christ who could ever argue? However, if “relativizes” means that family does not remain a priority, in its proper place, DeYoung has to deal with;

For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. But ye say, Whosoever shall say to his father or his mother, It is a gift, by whatsoever thou mightest be profited by me; And honour not his father or his mother, he shall be free. Thus have ye made the commandment of God of none effect by your tradition. Ye hypocrites, well did Esaias prophesy of you, saying,

Clearly, our Great Master and Lord, Jesus Christ, does not relativize family/people to the point that somehow they become eclipsed in our responsibilities to them.

Then there are the words of God that teach that family most certainly is not over relativized;

But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.

DeYoung and many like him are creating false dichotomies in order to avoid a Nationalism that is ethno by definition.

DeYoung is not a wise man on several matters. This is but one.

But why should be be the only clergy who is not wise in this regard?

I may have more in a future entry to say about DeYoungs misfiring in his analysis of Wolfe’s book.

The Stranger & the Alien/Foreigner in Israel

“I came across this quote from Gillespie in Aaron’s Rod Blossoming. It is actually from another author, John Seldon, in a book that I cannot find translated into English yet. If any one knows of a copy in English I would love to get it. The title is De jure naturali et gentium juxta disciplinam Ebraeorum.”

Online Friend

“In respect of members’ for, as Mr. Selden hath very well observed concerning that sort of proselytes who had the name of Proselyti Justitiae.” They were initiated into the Jewish religion by circumcision, baptism and sacrifice; and they were allowed not only to worship God apart by themselves, but also to come into the church and congregation of Israel, and to be called by the name of Jews, nevertheless they were restrained and secluded from dignities, magistracies and preferments in the Jewish republic, and from divers marriages which were free to the Israelites, even as strangers initiated and associated into the church of Rome have not therefore the privilege of Roman citizens.”

Gillespie
Aaron’s Rod Blossoming, pg 4

It is easy to see that Selden and Gillespie both rejected the “open borders” “easy citizenship” ideas that so permeate our culture, especially the church. No matter the religious standing in Israel, a “stranger” remained that in the civil realm, no matter their religious affiliation. Even “divers marriages” were kept from these “strangers and aliens.”

This quote tracks well from a portion of a sermon I did in 2015

So, what we see here, in this examination of the Hebrew word “ger” is that this idea of stranger, alien, sojourner requires context in order of us to understand how it is being used. Clearly in this Dt. 28 passage the word is being used in more of a discontinuity sense. We know this because God is saying that disobedience will bring the result that the alien — the one not belonging to the Israel as Israel — will rise higher and higher over them. A clear demarcation is being made between the immigrant and the native son.

The resident alien (ger) in Israel was never so integrated and assimilated into the Israeli social order that the distinction between citizen born and alien evaporated. The resident alien (ger) was held to the same law, could become part of the worship cult BUT they were always known as distinct from Israeli born. Hence they are continuously referred to as ger (stranger).

Having said this we should realize that clearly there is a immigrant class that is living among the people of God. This people are not to be oppressed. They are to be treated with justice according to God’s law and they are to be able to find a way in the land. However, they are clearly the “tail” of the social order.

We know this because the text teaches that the roles will be reversed for disobedience. They who were once the head will become the tail and those who were once the tail will become the head.

Some one judgment of God upon Israel’s disobedience is that God’s people will become strangers and aliens in their own land.

We should note here also that this text does away with notions of egalitarianism. All peoples in all settings are not equal. God speaks here of one people being a tail and one people being a head and says that He is the one that makes that to be the case and in here we learn that obedience to God’s Law results in being the head.

It is not Christianity that teaches egalitarianism but rather it is Liberalism as Machen noted,

“… one thing is perfectly plain—whether or not liberals are Christians, it is at any rate perfectly clear that liberalism is not Christianity. And that being the case, it is highly undesirable that liberalism and Christianity should continue to be propagated within the bounds of the same organization. A separation between the two parties in the Church is the crying need of the hour… The modern liberal doctrine is that all men everywhere, no matter what their race or creed, are brothers.”

J.Gresham Machen
Christianity and Liberalism, p.133 

Of course we have come to the point that we no longer think in terms of categories like stranger, alien, foreigner, and sojourner which means we no longer think in terms of family. If we take Deuteronomy 28 seriously and see our delight with the stranger being lifted above us we must at least ask ourselves if we are under God’s just punishment for our disobedience.

When we think of our own immigration issues we see that the result here is also that the head is becoming the tail and that the tail is becoming the head

Alienism is Kinism

Keep in mind that when Alienists wage war on Kinists they are doing it because they (the Alienists) are Kinists. The Alienists are Kinists is seen that they are championing the cause of their people (the stranger and the alien) over and above the people to which the Kinists belong to.

Alienists are Kinists and they hate the overt Kinists because Kinists do not consider their people to be the people to which the Alienists take as theirs. To use a Old Testament motif, the Alienist Kinists are the Jews whose people is everybody except the goyim Kinist Kinists.

Think about it. The Kinist impulse is to love a particular people, and inasmuch the Alienists refuse to count Kinists as their people, they likewise have the same impulse to love a particular people. The Kinist Kinists have a particular love for a particular people. The Alienist Kinist has a particular love for a particular people (everyone except the Kinist). The Kinist embraces the brotherhood of his people while affirming a very real spiritual union with all men from all tribes who are in Christ. The Alienist embraces the brotherhood of all men while excluding Kinist Kinists from any possible spiritual union in Christ. Both are expressing particular loves. The Alienist is a Kinist… just a distorted and disturbed one — one who calls evil “good,” and good, “evil.”

Alienism = Inside out Kinism.

Doc Sandlin’s Whine and Moan about Kinism

“That kinism and kinists have wormed their way into the mainstream postmodern Calvinian movement exhibits its deep defects. The Leftist accusation that conservative Christians are racist is a vicious slander. But tragically, not always.”

Doc Sandlin

When you think of Doc Sandlin think of Doc Brown in the “Back to the Future” series. You remember… the white haired guy whose hair was seeking desperately to escape his scalp, with the bug-eyed demeanor, and the irrational high pitched speech. That’s the way I think of “Doc Sandlin.”

It’s helpful to remember that back around 2003 or so, “Doc Sandlin” called the leftist singer Bono a “prophet.” This is the same Bono who crooned,

I believe in the Kingdom Come
Then all the colours will bleed into one
Bleed into one
But yes, I’m still running

You broke the bonds and you loosed the chains
Carried the cross of my shame
Of my shame
You know I believe it

[Chorus]
But I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for
No, I still haven’t found
What I’m looking for

Yessiree Bob… now there is a Christian Prophet we can all get behind.

Sandlin also said New York Times columnist David Brooks is “a national treasure.” This was after Brooks had written that he opposed any limits on abortion, even partial birth abortions, and called for gay marriage to be legalized, a dozen years before Obergefell.

Then there was that time when Andy got on the “Reformed Catholicism” train. Yep, Doc Sandlin was going to find a way, after 5 centuries, of melding Reformed thought with Roman Catholic thought. He envisioned the world– Protestant and Roman Catholic — being covered with his Reformed Catholicism.

Oh … and did I mention the time with Andy told everybody that Arnold Schwarzenegger for Governor was the clear Postmillennial vote?

 The point here is that Sandlin is not a particularly wise men. Neither is he particularly good at reading the cultural tea leaves. Neither is he a prophet or a son of a prophet. Only restraint and a sense of propriety keeps us from listing those things that Doc Sandlin is good at.

As it relates to the quote above, just keep in mind;

1.) Kinists and kinism didn’t worm into anything. I don’t know how much reading Doc Sandlin does these days but if the man would just pick up the book “Who is My Neighbor,” by Achord and Dow, Sandlin would realize that the Reformed (indeed Christianity itself) have always been kinist. Kinism, or some variant thereof, has been the expressed belief of our Theologians, Pastors, and laymen through the centuries until the last 60 years or so when real He-Men like Doc Sandlin came along to “fix our theology.”

2.) So, if there are any worms in the “Calvinian Movement” it is the slithering, slimy, backbone-less worms that are represented by Doc Sandlin, Alistair Roberts, Doug Wilson, Rich Lusk, Steve Hemmeke, Uri Brito, and the rest of the Wormy Worms and the Worms movement. Some of these people are such worms that instead of debating ideas they would instead go all worm like and doxx a good man and chortle and dance over his experiencing cancel culture. Others of them seem to purposely misrepresent what Kinists believe or resolve to misunderstand and misinterpret Kinists at every turn.

3.) Deep defects?

You can see that Doc Sandlin, when he is not supporting Reformed Catholicism and female law enforcement officers, moonlights as a stand up comic. Maybe the man is right though. Any Kinist who would associate with a movement that has Doc Sandlin as a mouthpiece is definitely teetering on having deep defects.

4.) Postmodern Calvinian?

Only a pseudo intellectual could come up with a phrase like that.

5.) The fact that any Christian (never mind a Christian of the “Postmodern Calvinian stripe) would take the charge of “racist” or “racism” seriously is itself a laugh riot. The word means nothing today. It is just a word the left hurls at someone when they are losing the debate. The fact that Doc Sandlin even worries about being called a “racist” by the left indicates just how far left the man is himself. Calling Calvinian’s “racist” today would be like calling Reformation Calvinists in the 16th century, “disrupters of the Church.”  I mean… the only way to respond to that charge is to say, “You say that like its a bad thing.” Really folks, except for the pink poodle owner types who gives a tinker’s damn what the left thinks of us?

6.) The problem Doc Sandlin (Andy) is that it is you and your types who are fouling up our movement. GET THE HADES OUT. Start your own damn movement called the effeminate, the limp wristed, and the pansy tush Calvinette’s movement. Our movement is for the remaining sons of the West.

Just Another Slander From Just Another Batty Female

One of the joys of being McAtee Contra Mundum is that the slander and libel is constant.

Today one Wendy Wilson decided to weigh in on a Peter Jones post and revealed herself as the stereo-typical hysterical woman who “heard it from a friend, who heard it from a friend, who heard it from another some ‘facts’ about McAtee.

As I can’t refute her on Peter Jones’ post since I am unable from seeing I thought I would try to calm her down here and help her get her facts right.

See interaction below;

Wendy Wilson writes,

Yes, kinist views should not be welcome in the church and those who vocally persist in them should be driven out. What does it profit a church to have its members embroiled in discussions about the supposed “functional inequality” of people on a “racial scale”?

 

Bret responds,

The profit lies in counseling against unwise marriages that because they are inter-racial are by definition functionally unequal on a racial scale as demonstrated by the documented higher percentage of divorce rates as between such marriages.

Also, if Wendy had read anything she would realize that the profit in discussing functional inequality among the races is found and discussed in the book “Bowling Alone.” That finding is that where people of other races live cheek by jowl with their functional inequality the consequence is significantly higher levels of social distrust.

Functional inequality is what diversity means. Japanese are not functionally equal to Rwandans who are not functionally equal to Intuits who are not functionally equal to Europeans. Nobody — individual or ethnic group — is functionally equal to any other individual or ethnic group. Only an irrational hysterical woman could say otherwise.

So, this is area #1 wherein we find Wendy’s hysterical response to be invalid.

Wendy Wilson writes,

At best this is a distraction, at worst it sets the stage for racial animosity. Kinism is Utopian in its own warped way, imagining that voluntary segregation will usher in peace instead of hateful and divisive tribalism.

 

Bret responds,

Note this is just an assertion without any supporting evidence.

Secondly, Windy presupposes here that Kinism as preference for one’s people automatically means hatred for other peoples. This is a errant presupposition. Since the presupposition is errant therefore the assertion about racial animosity is errant.

We would say that a kinist social order would usher in more peace as Robert Putnam demonstrates in his book “Bowling Alone.” Where kinism prevails there the social trust increases.

Windy writes,

The past oppression of racial groups cannot be ignored. History and context matter. It borders on the obscene to bring eating habits, as you did, and hobbies/interests, as Peter did, into this discussion.

Bret responds,

Yes, History teaches us that the white man, as well as other peoples, has often been terribly oppressed. See,

https://news.osu.edu/when-europeans-were-slaves–research-suggests-white-slavery-was-much-more-common-than-previously-believed/

As such I realize it would be good for all peoples involved to have a social harmony that is characterized by a homogeneous social order.

Windy writes,

People in the U.S. who prefer potatoes were never forced into their own schools. People who are more into chainsaws than IT work were never forced to drink at separate fountains.

Bret responds,

Typical kind of reasoning from an irrational woman. Ironic that the reality of functional inequality goes a long way towards explaining Windy’s lament.

Windy writes,

Bret McAtee was rightfully removed from ministry in the Christian Reformed Church.

Bret responds,

Now, I know about this one for sure. I was there. I was NOT removed from the ministry from the CRC. I requested my release (perhaps the only time in denominational history someone has asked to be released who had never been ordained) and the denomination granted my release. There was no discipline. No Church courts. No defrocking and this is because I was not guilty of anything.

Windy, once again, demonstrates she is absolutely clueless.

Windy writes,

That a handful of people of other backgrounds have a attended his church doesn’t begin to justify his positions.

Bret responds

Sure it does. It demonstrates that if people of other races and backgrounds agree with me that the position can hardly be labeled as “racist.” These people do justify my position.

Windy writes,

I used to be friends with him on FB and couldn’t believe the comments he and his like-minded friends would make. I remember him saying that although he liked some of Ted Cruz’s positions, he couldn’t vote for him because he wasn’t his kin.

Bret responds,

Windy is mad at me because I follow Scripture’s requirement?

“You are not to set over yourselves a foreigner who is not one of your brothers.”

 

Cruz is a Canadian. Look into it. He is actually not even eligible to be President were we to follow our own laws. But then neither was Obama.

Windy writes,

He’s also a vile anti-Semite. He and some of his FB friends shared conspiracy theories about Jews plotting to control the U.S. They also smeared Jews in other ways on grounds that Jews killed Christ.

Bret responds,

I do not believe that J are plotting to control the US since it is my belief that they already control many aspects of the US. They even admit it in many of their own writings.

Wendy Wilson is just out there doing what so many are doing and that is to smear me with slander and libel.

I pray that she would discover the joys of the 9th commandment.