Category: Ethnic considerations

Dissecting The Cultural Marxist CREC Proposal On Race Relations

This is the statement on Nations that the Knox Presbytery of the CREC (Pope Wilson’s presbytery) will propose for consideration at their general conference next year. If it’s accepted, it will become official doctrine.

“We condemn any doctrine that God has established any barriers to marriage for individuals based on ethnicity or skin color, prohibits or holds marriages between different ethnicities in contempt, or seeks to promote ethnic-based divisions in society. We view them as inherently divisive and contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. We affirm that mankind is created in the Image of God; hence, no ethnicity is inherently more sacred or sinful than another, and all ethnicities can be in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, interethnic marriages, churches, and commonwealths can exist and flourish in the present age.”

We have said repeatedly on Iron Ink that it is not possible to get to multi-culturalism apart from multi-racialism with multi-faithism being the eventual result. Here the CREC offers a doctrinal statement that will continue the recent decades push in the West to miscegenate. This miscegenation will result in a multi-racialism which in turn will support the multiculturalism that is now so increasingly typical in the West.

All of this, in its origin, was and is the project of Cultural Marxism. The goal of Cultural Marxism was to destroy the West from the inside out. The way the Cultural Marxists intended to do that was to destroy the Christian Institutions of the West. Marriage is an Institution that the Cultural Marxist have sought to destroy and whether the CREC likes it or not the Institution of Marriage in the West in our history is the joining of one White Christian woman with one White Christian man. Now, of course, exceptions have always existed and those exceptions should be treated as marriages by a Christian people. However, on the whole exceptions should remain exceptions and this attempt by the CREC to join the Cultural Marxist chorus should be rejected.

The British statesman Edmund Burke once wrote, “When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated.” The CREC here is seeking to contramand ancient opinions and rules of life as they were set forth by our Christian forebears. That this is true is seen by the reasons elucidated by one of the Fathers of the PCA for separating into a new denomination;

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS) by 
Dr. Rev. John Edwards Richards

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)

Elsewhere Richards could write prophetically of the CREC (as well as most other Reformed “conservative”denominations) in 2025;

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” 

Dr. John E. Richards

I continue to find it stunning that in 50 short years the theology of the clergy and church has reversed itself so thoroughly from thousands of years of Church history. We have gone on from our Father’s frowning on interracial marriage in 1973 to marking out the grandchildren of those Fathers as those who are beyond the pale in terms of Church fellowship. In 1973 they left because of the issues above. In 2025 they are insisting that the grandchildren leave because they still agree with the reasons of the Father’s leaving as given above. The views of the CREC articulated above were seen as divisive in 1973. In 2025 those who disagree with the CREC are the divisive ones. Who ever thought that white people wanting their children to look like them would be divisive?

Who knew that God was pleased with and even requires multiculturalism?

If one can’t seek to promote ethnic-based divisions in society, as is stated in this proposal, one has, by default, removed any obstacles to multiculturalism’s insistence that it must be allowed as by Divine warrant.

Notice the use of the phrase “skin color” in the proposal above. This phrase has been chosen because of the insistence that “race” can be reduced to be  only about skin color. This is a subtle insistence that there is no such thing as race, as if different races wouldn’t still be different races if they all had the same skin color. This is right out of the Franz Boas playbook in denying the objective reality of race. Boas contributed to the Cultural Marxist cause.

Next, I know very few people who would argue that any ethnicity is more sacred or sinful than another. This is a red herring and it is seeking to make the opponents to the Cultural Marxism of the CREC look evil. All those within the Reformed Church (or who were in the Reformed church before being cast out for believing what their Fathers believed) have been arguing that racial distinctions should be recognized and honored believe that all peoples are created as image bearers of God. The idea that Christian Kinists or race-realists believe some races/ethnicities are inherently more sacred (set apart as holy) or sinful than others is just horse manure.

Next one wonders how it is that doctrines that promote ethnic-based divisions in society are … contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, any more or less than promoting gender-based divisions in society are … contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the declaration by the heralds of the King that now is the appointed day of salvation because of the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ followed by the command that all men – regardless of race – everywhere repent. Neither Rev. Michael Spangler, Rev. Michael Hunter, Rev. Ryan Louis Underwood, Rev. John Weaver or (the worst of them all) Rev. Bret L. McAtee would deny the Gospel to men of every race, tongue, tribe, or nation. This claim that promoting ethnic based distinctions in society are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ is more horse manure. In order to believe this one would have to argue that the greatest ministers, and evangelists in church history have been those who were contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Moving on we note that nobody denies that and all ethnicities can be in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. What we deny is the wisdom of all ethnicities being in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. We agree with Reformed theologian John Frame who said;

“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”

Finally, no one doubts “that interethnic marriages, churches, and commonwealths can exist and flourish in the present age.” The question is not whether they can exist. The question is whether or not they should exist. Our forefathers did not think so, as has been made abundantly clear in two different large anthologies;

Who Is My Neighbor; An Anthology In Natural Relations
A Survey Of Racialism In Christian Sacred Tradition – Alexander Storen

Let it be said again. Our Reformed and Christian Fathers were against what the Church in the West (this time the CREC) is pursuing and embracing in terms of miscegenation and multiculturalism, multi-racialism and multi-faithism.

Believing That Race Is Real Is A Gospel Issue

“Now of course, belonging to a people (nation) is always more than being descended from a common ancestor but it is never less than that. The chief addition to belonging to a nation is embracing a shared faith/religion. This explains why many people have a short definition of nation that reads; “A nation is particular ethnos who share a common religion which together creates a common culture (law, customs, language), as normatively sharing a common geographic setting.” Clearly, like Israel of old, the foreigner may dwell among a particular people but the foreigner will always be understood by himself and the people as a foreigner – even as treated with dignity.”

Reed M. Walters

To dismiss as important the issue that race is real simply because it is not directly related to the gospel is foolish and it is foolish because the issue of race is directly related to the Gospel. To deny race is part of the egalitarian push to deny distinctions. The ultimate distinction that the consistent egalitarian who denies race wants to deny is the distinction between God and man. It ought to be obvious now that this is where all this distinction denying is leading. First we started with the denial of the distinction between races and now we are denying the distinction between male and female. How can people not see that it won’t be long till the egalitarians  overtly stating what they are secretly presupposing and that is that there is no distinction between God and man?

If there is no distinction between God and man then there can be no Gospel. So, dismissing the issue of race because it is not directly related to the gospel is a non-sequitur that can only be championed by people who have no ability to do consequential thinking.

Clergy who deny the existence of distinctions in races and yet affirm the existence of the distinction of God and man are just one generation from their children being consistent.

Now, can people be saved by the Gospel who remain practitioners and champions of egalitarianism? Only God knows but I would think that it depends on far they take their egalitarianism. You see, egalitarianism is another religion, with another definition of sin, another definition of Jesus, another definition of salvation, and another definition of sanctification. How wrong must one be before they are so wrong that they can’t be Christian?

Only God knows. But why try to press the boundaries to find out?

Culture, Peoples, and Beliefs

“The idea that some cultures are better than others and that some are worse than others was the most common Christian thing until our brains were broken and we were forced to pretend not to know things.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe
X post

Bret responds

The above is true but it is more true than Wolfe might even like to admit. Culture is not something that drops out of the sky. Culture is the result of a particular set of beliefs as embraced and lived out be a particular ethnic people group. This is why we can say that culture is theology externalized. When we say that culture is theology externalized we are noting that a particular ethnic group have owned a particular theology and they are, as a particular people living out that particular theology. This is why it can also be said that culture is the outward manifestation of a particular people groups inward beliefs.

Because culture is one part genetics and one part plausibility structure as owned by that genetic grouping it is the case that should either of those two factors be changed out, the result will be a different culture. So, if one changes either the people group who are doing the believing or if one changes out the set of beliefs that the particular people group believe the consequence will be a different culture. This explains why if you have different races occupying the same geographic space that there will be conflict even if those different races hold the same beliefs. There will be conflict because genetics matter and genetics are one of the two factors that comprise culture. The same is true if you flip the scenario. If you have the same racial/ethnic people group occupying the same geographic area but some of the people in that people group own a different religion there will be conflict that rises up between the varying belief systems. For example, White people who embrace Marxism, living cheek by jowl with white people who embrace Biblical Christianity will not get along.

Now, imagine what we are trying to do now in the West. We are trying to put together in the same geographic space different peoples groups with different religious beliefs. We are trying to place alien Mooselimbs, Jews, and Indians (dot not feather) Hindus, etc. together with white Christians into one living space and we are expecting that there is going to be harmonious culture. It is as rational as to geld a horse and then expect it to be fruitful.

Let us add to what was said above; since cultures are a combination of particular people and their particular beliefs this necessitates thinking that some particular people(s) and beliefs are better than other particular peoples and/or beliefs. If one culture is superior to another culture or if one culture is inferior to another the reason for that superiority or inferiority is going to be found in one of the two realities that comprise culture. Culture A is going to be superior to culture B either because the people themselves are a superior people or the beliefs of the people in culture A or superior to the beliefs of people in culture B or some combination of the two.

We cannot argue that cultures are superior or inferior to other cultures without arguing also that the reason this is so is because a combination of distinct ethnic/racial people groups and their beliefs are at the same time superior and/or inferior to another.

Now, because of the West’s revolutionary egalitarianism we don’t like saying or observing these truths that used to be accepted as a matter of fact. In America the civil rights legislation of the 1960s prohibited us from thinking the obvious. But the denial of the obvious doesn’t make the obvious go away. Peoples are different and different peoples build different cultures. Beliefs are different and different belief systems build different cultures. Different peoples with the same belief system will build different cultures. People who are the same with different belief systems will build different cultures.

This really isn’t that difficult… unless you’re an egalitarian.

Ecclesiastical Condemnation On The Sin of Noticing

Something interesting happened this past season of Reformed denominational confabs. The something interesting is the ruling by the RPCNA, the ARP, and the PCA, together agreeing to issue forth an anathema against the sin of noticing. Each of them put their stamp approval of the following statement;

That the 221st General Synod of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church do on this solemn day condemn without distinction any theological or political teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristics and does on this solemn evening call to repentance any who would promote or associate themselves with such teaching, either by commission or omission.

Leave it to the Reformed to try and sweep back the incoming tidal wave of racial realism with a document inspired by the Cultural Marxism of the 1930s and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s. This riff of midwittery above was put forth by one Rev. Benjamin Glaser though there is rumor that the palsied hand of Rev. Andy Webb was involved as well. Any party to the creation of this document as well as any party who voted for this to be accepted deserves to have a pointy dunce hat put on them and be consigned to some ecclesiastical corner to mull over the error of their ways.

Below I provide a brief analysis of this Tom Foolery;

1.) What is not condemned here is any sociological or cultural anthropological teaching which posits a superiority of race or ethnic identity. Apparently, if one casts their teaching in sociological or cultural anthropological terms one is safe from this foolhardy Presbyterian condemnation.

2.) Here we find a condemnation approved by a Church body and yet this condemnation is not based upon any notification of which sin has been committed so has to have this condemnation uttered. Presumably, this condemnation is due to the fact that someone somewhere has violated at least one of the ten commandments. Yet, nowhere above to we find the sin committed that has earned this condemnation.

3.) In point of fact what this “church” condemnation abominates is the sin of noticing. In point of fact it might be the highest point yet for inveighing against the sin of noticing ever issued by a church body.

4.) One thing we can be thankful for with this Church condemnation is the fact that it is apparently the case now that race and ethnicity are being acknowledged as real realities and not merely social constructs. I mean this is an improvement on what we have previously gotten from Doug Wilson and Voddie Baucham on the issue of race. Wilson wants to insist that race is a social construct and Voddie wants to say that race is merely about melanin levels. At least the three NAPARC denominations are granting that race and ethnicity are real.

5.) If there can be no superiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristic then by necessity there can be no inferiority of race or ethnic identity born of immutable human characteristic. This means that when it comes to immutable human characteristics these conservative denominations are 100% egalitarian.  It is not possible, per these esteemed clergy, that God has created the different races / ethnicities of men to be differentiated in their varying expressions of humanity.

6.) What would happen if someone arose within these NAPARC denominations insisted that while average Australian Aboriginal  intelligence is inferior when compared to average East Asian intelligence but insisted this while admitting all this may be mutable over enough time? Would anyone in the NAPARC denominations even care? Would they care if the same person said at the same time that the average white European intelligence is, on average, two standard deviation points higher than sub-Saharan Blacks in the US as long as the person saying this conceded that it might not be immutable and that 1000 years later this might not be true? Would such a person who believed this not be condemned by these ultracrepidarian Presbyterians?

7.) If these chaps are serious about condemning someone who holds these views how is it, if they can’t substantiate from Scripture why it is necessary to agree with them, that they have not added to what it means to obey the Gospel? How have they not added to the Gospel and in so doing anathematized themselves by doing so?

8.) Think about the numerous church fathers from church history these clowns have condemned. Off the top of my head these clowns have condemned Calvin, Kuyper, Hodge, Dabney, Schaff, Solzhenitsyn, Francis Nigel Lee, John Edwards Richards, etc. It really is monstrous when one realizes the level of avarice to the end of popularity involved in this pronouncement.

9.) This whole thing is perfectly ended with the stated need for repentance on the part of anybody who would associate with the teaching – either by omission or commission – that is condemned. Presumably, this would mean that if someone attends a church who themselves are unsure on the ideas condemned and found themselves friends or associates of someone who does believe these condemned ideas said person would have to repent just for associating with these sinners.

10.) This official condemnation also gives tyrant Pastors the ability to just remove membership of a member of their church if that member was to say, for example, something like, “Well, I think that Michael Hunter has some interesting points to consider in his article on Natural vs. non-Natural communities.” Such a person would be required to repent and if they refused, per this anathema, they would have to be cast out of the body should these nekulturny clergy be consistent with their words.

Examining Doug Wilson’s Argument For The Differences Between Races

“Not that many centuries ago, my ancestors were engaged in idolatry, human sacrifice, and mindless superstitions… [but] their descendants would be building cathedrals and writing symphonies. The gospel is the issue—grace, not race.”

Doug Wilson

Wilson exposes his Gnosticism with this quote. However there is some truth in what Wilson writes here as seen in I Peter 1:18

Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

I Peter 1:18

However, Wilson tries to make these kinds of texts prove too much. Wilson’s problem here is that he wants to insist that culture is only a product of what occurs in the thinking that goes on between people’s ears without taking into consideration that men in their variegated existence are composite beings whose genetic inheritance impacts the way that thinking they do is processed.

Wilson’s naked fathers once visited w/ the Gospel are not going to build cultures that look the same as the culture that Mongolians or Hutus build who are visited by the Gospel. History has demonstrated that white people visited with the Gospel build superior cultures compared to non-white people who have been visited with the Gospel. By God’s grace alone White people have been the civilizational carriers of Christianity. This explains why white people are so hated. They are so hated because they are perfumed with the perfume of Christ on a civilizational basis that has never been true of other races.

Herein we find the Gnosticism in Wilson’s (and others) thinking. They refuse to take the manishness of man in his diversity seriously. They think that if all men think all the same way (if they all think Gospel thoughts) they will be all the same building all the same exact cultures.

THAT is both GNOSTIC & IDIOTIC.

Yes, Wilson’s later ancestors (well, the non-Jewish ones … Doug likes to boast of his Jewish admixture) were building Cathedrals and writing symphonies and yes that was all of God’s grace. However, God’s grace was not only found in their regeneration and so change of thinking patterns. That grace was also found in the genetic inheritance (race) that God in creation and in His providential ordering determined they would have. To deny this is Gnostic, and frankly, on this subject, Doug is Gnostic.