Ethnic considerations – Page 2

DKQ – Watson, Willard & Winthrop

Q.) “What do we call natural affections?”

A.) “Such as be among them of one blood and kindred as between parents and children husbands and wives, kindred, country, heathens, yea Christians also void these.”

Q.) (How) “does it differ from human and Christian affections?

A.) “Human affection is that whereby we embrace all men as men; natural affection is that whereby we embrace them which are nearer to us by blood; Christian affection is that whereby we love good men because they belong to Christ.”

Thomas Wilson

Puritan

A Commentary on the Most Divine Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans – p. 54

“There are diverse degrees of Neighborhood. The word ‘neighbor’ is very (comprehensive); it comprehends in it all with whom we may have any civil (Communion) and so the greatest and strangest, and (all) of men. And it involves all the several (nations) and religions. So, in this respect, some may be our nearer neighbors than others. A brother is nearer than a stranger, etc. Hence, there are necessary degrees of the Law. That we are to love all equally alike is asserted, and from (variance) of the relations with God hath (created) among men unto which are to be discharged by a special love one to another. Hence Psalm 16:3, ‘But to the saints that are in the earth, and to the excellent, in whom is all my delight.’ There are some who we ought to be more concerned for than others.”

Samuel Willard
Puritan
Body of Divinity – pgs. 584-585

“We are not bound to exercise mercy to others to the ruin of ourselves.”

John Winthrop

Life and Letters of John Winthrop – p. 183

Clearly the above quotes teach that we don’t treat all men the same though we do treat all men with charity and treating them with charity does not mean disadvantaging our own people.

Anybody who teaches you that we must treat all men as neighbors who doesn’t also teach that the Ordo Amors, by definition, means that there are different degrees of neighborliness is a false teacher. We are not required to welcome the stranger and the alien and that rejection would be neighborliness if it is in pursuit of not ruining our neighbors (Kith and Kin).

DKQ – Lancelot Andrews

How to order our loves among varying “neighbors.”

“In the ordering of our Love … we are to respect the conjunction by nature or grace in the duties of Love which we freely preform… We owe not so much to those persons with whom we have no Conjunction. Thus, we should prefer a faithful man before an infidel, because in the one there is only the image of God by nature, in the other it is both by creation and by regeneration … And among the faithful, we should rather do good to those of our own country, than to Strangers, because besides the bond of Religion, there is also a second bond of proximity and among them to our acquaintances before those who are unknown to us, because we have an easier entrance unto them and do them good by persuasion, etc. And among such, to our kindred and alliance before others… because we are joined and bound together as soon as we are born, and this bond cannot be dissolved as long as we live.”

Lancelot Andrews
1555 – 25 September 1626
English bishop & scholar, holding high positions in the Church of England during the reigns of Elizabeth I and James I.

The Pattern of Cathechistical Doctrine at Large – pgs. 320-321

Recently there was a kerfuffle on the issue of whether or not we are required to teach every man (including illegal immigrants) as our neighbors. The idea that was being championed by a few clergy was that as Christians we owe the same amount of charity to all people equally. Andrews makes it clear here that idea is just not true. Andrews (like so many throughout Church history) understood that there is a need to prioritize our love (Ordo Amoris). This means, by necessity, that we rank some people lower than other people when it comes to the responsibility, we have towards them and that translates into the truth that we treat some people with a less degree of neighborliness than we treat other people. This, in turn means, that we don’t treat all people the same and were we to embrace the egalitarianism that is required to try and treat all people the same that would mean that we would be disobeying God and His Word. It would be sin to treat an illegal immigrant the same way I treat my children or my kinsmen or my countrymen given what Andrews says above.

Now this is no argument to treat people who are further removed from our immediate concentric circles of obligation badly. It is merely to argue, as Andrews does and as all Christians did before they were bitten by the neo-Marxist egalitarian bug, that there are limits on each person’s time, wealth, and affection and because that is so not everyone is treated with the same degree of neighborliness.

Rev. McAtee Takes Alienist Rev. James Norris to the Woodshed

Over at the E-zine Reformation 21, one Rev. James Norris inks the typical bilge that tends to flow from Alienist ink pens. I haven’t repudiated everything Norris writes there but I have refuted enough here to demonstrate that his putative reasoning is of the Swiss cheese variety, which is to say Norris’ reasoning is full of holes.

Rev. Norris writes,

“It cannot be denied that that there has been a small, yet growing trend in the church in recent years for some young men to embrace racist views. They go by various names: Kinists, Racialists, Race Realists, Familyism and use terms like “Natural Community.” These views may be summarized as a belief that different races have not only different physical characteristics, but moral, spiritual, and intellectual qualities which are immutable and that the white race or races have superior qualities and therefore they oppose interracial marriage and insist that society and the church ought to be governed by those whom they claim have superior intellectual, moral, and spiritual qualities. In short: white supremacy.”

James Norris

Ref21 Webzine

Bret Responds,

1.) Small but growing? Probably not so small but definitely growing, and frankly we are scaring the pants off the James Norris types in their denominations. Here is what is going to happen. Eventually, given the irrational behavior of the putative conservative clergy against what the Church Fathers have taught throughout Church/Christian history, there are going to be new denominations arise that leave the NAPARC churches to gnaw on the bitter roots of their alienism, egalitarianism, and proto-Marxism.

2.) The fact that exhaustive research has been done (see the book “The Bell Curve”) confirms that different intellectual qualities are normative among different races. To refuse to concede that is just a matter of making noticing differences a sin.

3.) Moral qualities being immutable are likewise testified to by observation. Not only by observation but Holy writ itself testifies that moral differences exist as Scripture, inspired by the Holy Spirit, teaches that, “all Cretans are liars.”

4.) As to spiritual qualities differing and being immutable… Mr. Norris would have to explain exactly what he means by “spiritual qualities.” If by “spiritual qualities” Norris means that Kinists think that people from other races can’t be spiritual… well, that’s just a lie that Norris is spinning.

5.) This Kinist believes churches ought to be governed by the people group that they are comprised of. If it is a Korean church it should be ruled by Koreans. If it is a Hmong church that church should be ruled by Hmong. If it is a white Church that church should be ruled by whites.

6.) Speaking for myself, as a Kinist, I have always said that superiority and inferiority, in terms of differing abilities, will exist concurrently in different areas in different races. Although, I do believe that Christian whites have historically demonstrated that they are superior at building civilization than Christian non-whites. (Have there been any non-White explicitly Christian civilizations?)

7.) So, whites are supreme in the areas they are supreme in and other races are supreme in the areas they are supreme it. For example, white are NOT supreme in the NBA.

8.) As to interracial marriage … along with my Reformed Fathers prior to 1950 or so, I do agree that interracial marriage should be opposed by all wise Christians, though I have often consistently said that once a inter-racial marriage covenant is struck between two people who claim Christ the Church should do all it can to support that marriage short of allowing their children to inter-marry with the miscegenated children resulting from a inter-racial marriage.

____

“One matter that Ketcham and other Kinists repeatedly reference is something orthodox Christians need to face: There have been many Christians over the centuries who either held to racist views or who at some point said and/or wrote prejudicial remarks. We need to come to terms with this.

Reading Kinist literature, it quickly becomes apparent that appealing to authority is one of the primary arguments used to support their views.”

James Norris

Reformation 21 Webzine Article

Bret Responds,

1.) Not merely many Christians, but rather nearly all Christians before 1950 or so save for the Anabaptists and a handful of Covenanter nutcases. Nearly all of Church history is against people like Norris and the Alienists. Have any doubt? Just purchase a copy of “Who Is My Neighbor,” and “A Survey of Racialism in the Sacred Christian Tradition.”

2.) I would LOVE for Norris, or one of his Alienist compatriots to publish a book full of quotes from Church history that supports his egalitarianism and crypto-Marxism. Go ahead James … publish an anthology and show us your appeal to authority.

3.) Note what Norris has done here. He has accused Machen, Dabney, Thornwell, Luther, Calvin, Viret, Althusius, Turretin, etc. etc. etc. of being racist. The man has the cajones to indict pretty much all of church history. Only maniacs or madmen insist they alone are correct over all their Fathers.

____

“This highlights a fundamental error found that runs through the writings of many Kinists: they replace God’s covenants with race. For Kinists, many Old Testament prohibitions against marrying outside Israel are read not as prohibiting marrying outside the faith, but along racial lines, or some will simply claim that it’s both/and. Even if a token nod is given to covenant theology, it is done so in a way so that covenant texts can still also be applied racially, which they do in their opposition to interracial marriage.”

James Norris

Reformation21 Webzine

Norris’ reasoning fails here by not taking into account the books of Ezra and Nehemiah where the covenant is clearly also racial. There in Ezra and Nehemiah it is not only the foreign wives that are to be dismissed but it is also the covenant mixed raced children that are to be dismissed along with the foreign wives. If, as Norris errantly presumes, the problem with the marriages/children had only been about covenant God would not have required the covenant children to be dismissed along with the wives. Clearly, there was an ethnic/racial component to what is going on in Ezra and Nehemiah.

Perhaps, the most straightforward question that Norris’ silly argument needs to answer is, “How is it if in the Old Testament prohibitions were merely against marrying outside the faith, why were the Levitical priests forbidden from marrying outside the tribe of Levi?”

Alienists, such as Norris, argue that Kinists err by advocating for ethnicity/race over Covenant, but juxtaposing and contrasting covenant and ethnicity/race the way that Norris does, as if the Covenant stands naked apart from heritage, only eisegetically imputes to the Covenant the Jacobin/Marxist concepts of Egalitarianism and Propositional/Civic Nationalism. If Norris and his Alienist ilk were consistent with Norris’ line of “reasoning” and critique against Kinism as stated in the Norris quote above they would have to denounce infant baptism since infant baptism marries covenant with lineal descent. Infant Baptism is consistent with Kinism which doesn’t abstract covenant from lineal descent as if the two or not intimately related, yet because Kinists are consistent here the Reformed Gnostic/Alienists like Norris find the consistent Reformed to be an offense to their neo-Marxist “Reformed” “covenant” theology.

Alienists have been warned repeatedly regarding their error. They have been reasoned with till the cows come home. Kinists have answered their same objections over and over again. We are at the point now where these vicious Alienists need to be recognized as anti-Christs. Mark them out and avoid them. They are egalitarians and crypto-Marxist.

DKQ

“I say that we are bound to love as ourselves, all those whom we must hold as our neighbors. But it does not follow that I am equally bound to everybody. For the husband is more bound to his wife, and the wife to her husband, and the fathers and mothers to their children, and the children to them, and the brothers and sisters to each other, than to strangers. For this reason, St. Paul says ‘Do good to all, but especially to those of your own household.’ If, therefore, it is a question of a Christian, a Turk, and a Jew, I am more bound to the Christian than the other two; and must let the others help themselves, if I cannot help them at all. Similarly, in the law of God, many things were permitted to the people of Israel towards foreigners, which were not permitted to them in their own nation, such as usury and other things.”

Pierre Viret

Reformer

Instruction Chretienne II – pg. 768-769

Viret teaches, that while we must hold all as our neighbors, that does not mean that all neighbors are treated in the same neighborly way. This means that there exist differing degrees of “neighbor.” This means that while we might use the word “neighbor” for our relation to people we come across in a casual manner, we must assign a ranking mechanism to the word neighbor so that some are 1st rate neighbors, while others are 2nd rate, and some are 3rd rate, etc.

Think about it … if everyone is a neighbor in the same sense of the word neighbor that means no one is a neighbor, just like if everyone is our friend then no one is our friend. These words lose their meaning if they are applied universally and without distinction.

Rev. Joseph Spurgeon and Rev. Jerry Dorris and others were just in error on this subject a few weeks ago when the subject of “neighbor” was being tossed about.

___

“He tells them the charge of his master had given him, to fetch a wife for his son from among his kindred, with the reason of it (v. 37-38). The highest degree of divine affection must not divest us of natural affection.”

Matthew Henry

Commentary on Genesis 24:29-53 – pg. 134

What is interesting in Gen. 24 is that Abraham sends his servant to secure a wife from among his people so that Isaac doesn’t end up marrying a Canaanite woman. Still, even though Isaac doesn’t end up marrying a Canaanite pagan he does marry a woman from his own kindred who did not reveal themselves to be particular believers in the God of Abraham. (Consider Rebekah’s pagan brother Laban and her niece Rachel who later stole Laban’s idols.)

This teaches the Kinist idea that marrying from among one’s own people is a priority vis-a-vis marrying outside one’s people group. Of course, we are commanded to marry those who are Christian but the above suggests that marriage should be between Christians who belong to the same people group.

___

“The temper of some nations in more inclined to some vices than others.”

Matthew Henry

Commentary on Titus 1:12

Comprehensive Commentary – pg. 1360

Compare Matthew Henry’s statement (which is not unusual in the least in Church history) with the statement making the rounds in NAPARC churches,

“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.”

It sure seems likely to be the case that St. Paul in the book of Titus 1:12f would be required to repent for what he said about “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” Sounds like Matthew Henry agreed with Paul as against the NAPARC Keystone Clergy.

DKQ

“For some, on hearing that liberty is promised in the gospel, a liberty which acknowledges no king, no magistrate among men, but looks to Christ alone, think they can receive no benefit from liberty so long as they see any power placed over them. Accordingly, they think that nothing will be safe until the whole world is changed into a new form, where there will be neither courts, nor laws, nor magistrates, nor anything of the kind to interfere, as they suppose, with their liberty.”

John Calvin

Institutes, Book IV, ch. 20, pg. 1168

Calvin here is complaining about the Anabaptists who turned Gospel liberty into licentiousness. The Anabaptists earnestly desired to war against hierarchy and distinctions. The Reformed churches today are showing their anabaptist slips by disciplining men who are maintaining distinctions that have been held by all men, at all times, in all places.

When Calvin writes above that the Anabaptists, “they think that nothing will be safe until the whole world is changed into a new form, where there will be neither courts, nor laws, nor magistrates, nor anything of the kind to interfere, as they suppose, with their liberty.” I would note that the “nor anything” points to the current Anabaptist impulse in the Reformed churches to want to deny the reality of race. The current incarnation of NAPARC/CREC/SBC churches is to insist that Christian liberty means a world where “all colors bleed into one.” These denominations are levelers who insist that all because all men everywhere are commanded to repent that therefore all men who do repent lose their racial/ethnic identity and so can form one nation. These denominations are teaching that grace destroys nature when the historic teaching is that graces restores nature. When a Japanese man repents, he doesn’t lose his Japanese-ness in conversion. Instead, he increasingly becomes the best expression of what it means to be Japanese.

Depart the NAPARC/CREC/SBC churches.

“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