Category: Ethnic considerations

Spurgeon vs. Spangler … McAtee Referees the Contest

“This (having a church uniquely for whites) is antithetical to the gospel and to the New Testament. And I’m not saying this out of a commitment to a post war consensus or a liberal world order. The Church is not built along racial or ethnic lines.”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon
Protesting against Rev. Michael Spangler

Bret responds

First, lets quote Reformed theologian Dr. John Frame here,

“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”

Clearly Rev. Joseph Spurgeon doesn’t know what he’s talking about on this subject. Spurgeon has swallowed the presuppositions of liberalism and doesn’t even realize it. Now, Spurgeon’s liberalism may not be as extreme as Eli McGowan’s but it is the same liberalism all the same.

Second, one wonders if Spurgeon laments Korean Churches, Hmong Churches, or Black Churches. Does JS lament the existence of those churches?

Next, we might ask, “why is it that in Revelation 21 we find the Church entering into the New Jerusalem nation by nation if it is the case, as Spurgeon states, ‘the church is not built along racial or ethnic lines?'”

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon undaunted presses on,

“Segregating the church by race was what the Apostle Paul rebuked Peter for. Friend, you have gone off the rails completely. I don’t remember this being your position just a few years ago in the Genevan Commons group.”

Bret responds,

This is another example proving Spurgeon is wanting in his thought process.

Galatians 2 was not about what Spurgeon says. Gal. 2 was Paul saying, “One doesn’t have to become a religio-cultural Jew in order to be Christian.” The demand of the Judaizers in Gal. 2 was that the Gentiles had to give up their ethnic identity and become ethnically and culturally Jewish. This is seen in the Judaizers demand that the Gentiles give up their own dietary delicacies in favor of yucky Jew food.

Gal. 2 proves Kinism since Paul was supporting the Gentiles remaining Gentiles by not insisting that the Gentiles had to give up their ethnic identity by embracing Jewish identity.

Spurgeon owes Spangler an apology.

ARP Report on Kinism Once Again Called Out on Inaccuracies – Girardeau Testifies

“No, my countrymen; let us prefer to suffer present affiction for righteousness’ sake rather than to incur the future punishment of national guilt. Let us keep our skirts clear. We can only do this by maintaining our identity as a people. And is this impossible? There is a race, which, coming down through the centuries enveloped with antagonistic influences and hostile nationalities, has stood out in perpetual protest against amalgamation with other peoples, and today preserves its characteristics, as the current of the great Western River flows into, without blending with, the multitudinous waters of the Gulf. Even so must we hold to our identity, or, as a people, we are undone. We may perish if we attempt it; perish we must, as a Southern race, if we do not. It is now almost the only hope that is left us.”

-John L. Girardeau, College of Charleston Special Collections Pamphlets, “Confederate Memorial Day at Charleston, S.C.: Re-Interment of the Carolina Dead From Gettysburg” (Charleston, SC: W.G. Mazyck, printer, 1871). Pg. 19

I post this because in the ARP Moderator’s report on Kinism they try to suggest that Girardeau would have agreed with the Benjamin Glasers of the world. In the ARP Moderators report they have the following to say about Girardeau,

We do not need to be on a side in the unrelated theological debates of the late Nineteenth century to see the point being made; that every Presbyterian, in fact, did not agree on racial issues before 1950, or even 1900. Similarly, John Girardeau dealt critically with Dabney’s view of black men and women in the South.23

All because Girardeau disagree with Dabney on how the issue of the freed slaves should be handled does not mean that Girardeau was an Alienist or would be on the side of the idiots like Glaser, Webbon, Poplin, et. al. when it comes to the Kinist issue. Indeed, a cursory reading of Girardeau makes it clear that Girardeau’s views were Kinist. The ARP cannot claim Girardeau as somehow supporting their idiotic ramblings on race and Kinsim.

Clearly the ARP not only created fake citations and footnotes they also clearly did not do their research.

Daily Kinist Quote — R. J. Rushdoony & McAtee on the Noble Savage NAPARC

“Norman Mailer has pointed out that the modern outsider to God and law finds his hero in the Negro, whom he sees as a ‘natural and social adventurer sworn against respectability, conformity, dullness, and emotional timidity. The modern ‘white Negro’ is a man who imagines the Negro to be the ideal man, a natural anarchist and nihilist, and therefore social hero. Moreover, to gain the acceptance of the Negro, irrespective of his character, is to gain a victory against law and standards in the name of equality.

“There is indication already of another ‘civil rights’ offensive as a next step after the Negro: ‘the sodomite may be partially replacing the Negro as an object of liberal solicitude and the prime test of liberal tolerance. If there is no God and no divinely ordained law, then not only does perversion have equal rights, but actually, truer rights, because Christian morality is seen as an imposition on an a dehumanization of man, whereas perversion is an act of liberty and autonomy for this school of thought.”

“In any case, the goal is, whether directly or slowly total destruction of Christian civilization. Some have called for … a long period of chaos and revolution, and the total destruction of civilization.”

R. J. Rushdoony
Roots of Reconstruction – p. 618

Much of this began with the age of Romanticism and its infatuation with the idea of the Noble Savage. Initially the noble savage was identified with the American Indian. Because the American Indian was untouched by civilization, the American Indian bore a automatic nobility about him per the Romanticists. As time continued the noble savage mantle passed on to others. In Rushdoony’s time it was the American Negro that was seen as the noble savage. Precisely because he was not civilized, as seen by crime rates, the civil rights movement latched on to the cause of the American Negro and the championing of civil rights became proof positive of one’s own nobility. To support the noble savage in one’s midst was to clothe one’s self with nobility.

As Rush mentions, the status of “more of a noble savage than thou” eventually passed on to the sodomite. Until the rise of the Tranny, it was the sodomite and lesbian who were the noblest of all noble savages. To be friends with a sodomite or a lesbian proved how much humanity one had, just as previously having friends among Negroes once proved how broad minded one was. Now of course the class of people who get to be designated “the most noble savage of all the noble savages” are those who have had their breasts or genitals removed. Well, unless they are out positioned by the pederasts and pedophiles.

Of course, all this corresponds perfectly with the cultural Marxist work of the long march through the Institutions. The Cultural Marxists have recruited these very same noble savages as well as the adjacent noble savages to overthrow civilization. Cultural Marxism was a good fit with American Romanticism in this regard. As such, it is the case, that the noble savages have turned our whole former Christian civilization into a vast jungle of savagery.

Even our “Conservative” Christian churches have pursued this Noble Savage theme as seen in their embrace of “MLK 50” and their embrace of Side-B sodomy and their embrace of Rev. Greg Johnson and Sam “honest, I can resist temptation” Allberry. The Christian churches with their overt hostility to traditional, heritage and historic Christianity are doing all they can to rid themselves of people who would write honest prose as I have given here. If they hated Rushdoony when he was alive (and they did) how much more do they hate anybody today who dares quote RJR approvingly? The “conservative” Christian church in the West today with their thoroughly Romanticist/Cultural Marxist inclinations is aiding and abetting the end of Christian civilization all in the name of being “nicer than Jesus ever was.”

This is all proven by the fact that NAPARC churches today would NEVER ordain a Knox, a Calvin (read his pamphlet on the Jews), a Chrysostom, a Machen, a Van Til, Luther, etc. The modern conservative church today is the enemy of historic Biblical Christianity. If you’re in one of these NAPARC churches (yes, I understand there are always exceptions) you are supporting the very thing that Rushdoony warned of in the quote. If you are supporting NAPARC churches and clergy (or the CREC) then you are “Noble Savage adjacent.”)

DKQ …. Dr. J. Gresham Machen vs. Dr. Alan Strange

“It is true some of them are ‘sticklers’ for the civil rights of Negroes – it always makes me intensely angry to hear people talking glibly about equal civil rights of Negroes when in many parts of the South those equal rights would mean that every legislator and every judge would be of a savage type and the white men would be more unsafe in parts of this country than in most parts of the world where at least protection of his home government is to some extent with him.”

J. Gesham Machen

“What about the whole notion that nations think themselves better than the other nations? Do you think that is not a result of sin … that ethnic groups think their superior to other ethnic groups? BECAUSE THEY’RE NOT! We’re all made in the image of God. Somebody’s not better than the other. When Paul stood on the step of the Areopagus and he said, ‘God made all nations of one blood,’ Do you think the Greeks were standing there saying, ‘yes?’ They were, like, ‘SHUT UP. We’re Greeks. We are not like those Africans.’

Did they think that? Oh, we know they thought that.”

Dr. Alan Strange
President – Mid America Seminary

You’d think a President of a Seminary could think in proper categories.

Are all peoples equal?

Yes … inasmuch as all peoples are fallen
Yes … inasmuch as all peoples are guilty before the law

Yes … inasmuch as all peoples are creatures

In brief, when considered ontologically then, yes…”a fallen man is a fallen man is a fallen man.”

But even here gradations exist.

Though all peoples are fallen not all peoples are equally depraved in their expression of total depravity.

Though all peoples are guilty before the law some peoples have violated God’s law more egregiously than others (consider the Cretans in the book of Titus in the Bible) though all will be damned.

Though all peoples are creatures, God’s common providence has not made all people the same.

Are all peoples equal?

No … if by that you mean that all peoples have the same genetic predispositions

No…. if by that you mean that all peoples have the same potentials.

No…. if by that you mean that because all people are equal, they are interchangeable cogs that are by definition non distinct.

This is just ignorance on Dr. Strange’s part and is in agreement with Classical Marxist thought.

Obviously, Dr. J. Gresham Machen and Dr. Alan Strange do not agree. In today’s NAPARC church, if Machen’s views were known Machen would be excommunicated.