Category: Ethnic considerations

Robertson on the Relation Between Kin and Faith

“If you will not preserve your ancestral heritage, ultimately, you will not preserve your doctrinal heritage either. Honoring the former teaches us how to honor the latter. The two are inextricably intertwined. Thus, alienism ultimately destroys not only families but also all of Christianity.”

Wilmot Robertson

The Dispossessed Majority

 

The unipolar world that the NWO is going for by necessity not only means a coffee colored world where all colors bleed into one but it requires a hyper blended faith world where all faiths are put into a blender which is then hit at high speed. In a unipolar world distinction is the enemy. This is the ultimate explanation for the attempt at the erasure of genders. Uniformity must be achieved. And yet, even this is a proxy war for an even grander project and that is the millennium hold Luciferian project to erase the distinction between the Creator and the Creature. This is the ultimate strategy of the Uniformitarians.

And every time someone attacks a Kinist, at that moment they have entered into league with the Christ haters who are seeking to destroy distinctions. This is why Kinism is so important. This doctrine alone is standing against the raging Luciferian Alienists of our day. All clergy who resist Kinism are in principle advancing the agenda of Lucifer.

Andrew Sandlin & the Sey Marriage… Splashes Insults Everywhere

“Samuel Sey is a godly young Christian leader, and it’s tragically no surprise that his marriage to a faithful Christian woman has provoked opposition among the racists within “The New Right.” This reflects the growing re-paganization of a conservatism that has lost its tether to Christian culture. Opposition to interracial marriage is a tribalist, pagan idea. It’s inter- marriage the Bible opposes.”

Andrew Sandlin

Facebook Post

1.) Given the fact that Samuel Sey himself has insisted that he is NOT in inter-racial marriage I don’t why Sandlin is defending their non inter-racial marriage by referring to the Sey marriage as a “inter-racial” marriage.

2.) Is it “racist” for someone to observe that inter-racial marriages are not wise and so oppose inter-racial marriages since they;

a.) Have a higher rate of divorce
b.) produce children who will have split identities
c.) produce children who will have a more difficult time finding donor matches should they have medical problems

d.) do not find or provide support for the particular ethnic community that of which they will be a “part.” (See linked article)

3.) Actually it is Sandlin who is reflecting a growing paganization of a heretofore conservative ethos. The paganism that Sandlin is reflecting is Cultural Marxism and it reflects how Sandlin has lost his tether to millennium of Christian Culture as exhaustively demonstrated in Achord & Dow’s book, “Who is My Neighbor.”

Have I mentioned recently that everyone keeps ignoring that anthology and that to date nobody has answered this volume that clearly demonstrates that the Church Fathers throughout the centuries would have thought that Andrew Sandlin was a certifiable lunatic for advancing his position on inter-racial marriage.

4.) Support for inter-racial marriage is a New World Order pagan idea and Sandlin should be ashamed for giving it his full throated support.

5.) The Bible supports neither inter-racial marriages nor inter-religious marriage.

Andrew really should give this a read for proof that the Bible does not support inter-racial marriages;

https://thereformedconservative.org/ai_story_collection/on-natural-communities/?fbclid=IwAR3Xj8e1sGQg_mIEutESrPcM3QxaX7CGBy9LX1vwh_VJ7ku5J6n1sNycjRE

6.) Let me make it clear that I have no reason to doubt that Mr. & Mrs. Sey are fine Christian people. (Indeed, as of this moment I have more confidence that they are Christian people than I am convinced that Dr. Andy Sandlin is a Christian person.) Further, I am convinced that now that the Sey marriage has been contracted Christians should do all they can to support this unwise move on their part. What God has joined together let no man cast asunder.

However, at the same time Christian ministers should be working overtime to explain to their young people why this kind of inter-racial marriage is less than a good idea.

McAtee Corrects Dr. Owen Strychnine on Christian Nationalism & Kinism

Dr. Owen Strachan is the Provost & Research Professor of Theology at Grace Biblical Theological Seminary. Dr. Strachan also hosts the “Antithesis”  podcast and is author of the book, “Christianity & Wokeness.

Recently on Twitter Strachan lit out after Kinism tweeting;

“I see 2 forms of “Christian Nationalism” today: One that is problematically ethnocentric and traffics in sinful “kinism,” whatever other claims it may make: AVOID.

Kinism. Unblushing. Unhidden. Anti-gospel. Dead wrong.”

Bret responds,

One does wonder if Dr. Strychnine  is only upset with white Christian Nationalism or if Dr. Strychnine would fault a Christian Nationalism that was characterized by minority communities and churches. For example is Dr. Strychnine apoplectic over Kinist churches that are uniquely Korean, Hmong, or Black which are also, per Strychnine, problematically ethnocentric or is it only white Churches that are anti-gospel and dead wrong?

I suspect that Dr. Strychnine has only a problem with white Kinism and white Nationalism. I suspect that he would be perfectly fine with minority expressions of Kinism. I know I am. I am thankful for my friendships with minority member Christian Kinists.

However, Strychnine is correct in accusing Kinism as being unblushing. It is true that we are not ashamed of Biblical Christianity.

Dr. Strychnine goes on to say,

A second that is *not* sinfully ethnocentric and that’s focused on God’s law and public good: THINK THROUGH.

The first is associated with Stephen Wolfe’s “A Case for Christian Nationalism” and his broader program, which undoubtedly has “kinist” elements. The second is being pondered by many folks, alongside matters like theonomy, postmillennialism, and the role of the church and state.

Bret responds,

1.) If people become theonomists if they are consistent they will become Ethnocentric, Kinist and Christian Nationalist. Theonomy implies ethnocentrism, kinism and Christian Nationalism.

2.) I am pretty sure that Dr. Stephen Wolfe would be appalled at the notion  that he is associated with theonomy. I know that many theonomists are appalled at the notion that they would be identified with Wolfe’s Natural Law project.

3.) Dear reader you need to understand that kinism has become a acid test for Biblical Christianity. Those “Christians” who refuse kinism are to be suspect since somewhere in their DNA they have adopted Cultural Marxist (WOKE) categories. As Achord and Dow’s book “Who is My Neighbor” demonstrates what is called Kinism has been for a millennium Christianity 101. Get the anthology. Look at the quotes from Augustine, Aquinas, and the Reformers. Over and over again our Fathers were what Dr. Strychnine is warning against.

We end this entry by demonstrating Dr. Wolfe’s inconsistencies. Remember, it has been my point consistently that Wolfe’s problem is that he is all over the map on the issue of Christian Nationalism, particularly as it pertains to the ethnic component. We see that clearly in this quote and response;

“And thus while intermarriage is not itself wrong (as an individual matter), groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves.”

Stephen Wolfe
30 Sept. Twitter

Bret responds,

This is a wee bit confusing because if groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves then the expectation is going to be that the group is indeed going to insist upon the individuals who are part of their groups the truth that intermarriage is wrong. In doing so the group is taking up their collective duty to insure that their people separate and marry among themselves.

It doesn’t seem to me that one can argue that it is right for a group to act one way while saying that the individuals in that same group are not wrong for acting the opposite way.

R. Scott Clark Praises the Kinist J. Gresham Machen

Today R. Scott Clark, obviously having no sense of irony posted the following post on the Hiedleblog praising J. Gresham Machen, just a day after lambasting me for being allegedly guilty of the very same thing that he elsewhere exonerates Machen for being;

Machen Was Worth a Hundred of His Fellows

“We have lost a man whom our times can ill spare, a man who had convictions which were real to him and who fought for those convictions and held to them through every change in time and human thought. There was power in him which was positive in its very negations. He was worth a hundred of his fellows who, as princes of the church, occupy easy places and play their church politics and trim their sails to every wind, who in their smug observance of the convictions of life and religion offend all honest and searching spirits. No forthright mind can live among them, neither the honest skeptic nor the honest dogmatist. I wish Dr. Machen had lived to go on fighting them.’

Such was the tribute of novelist and former liberal missionary Pearl S. Buck who won both the Nobel and Pulitzer prizes. J. Gresham Machen was a critic of much of what she represented.”

BRAD ISBELL | “Some of Machen’s ‘enemies’ admired him” | March 21, 2023

Here is another quote from the Machen that Clark is affirming praise for;

“It is true some of them are ‘sticklers’ for the civil rights for negroes — it always makes me intensely angry to hear people talking glibly about equal civil rights for negroes when in many parts of the South those equal rights would mean that every legislator and every judge would be a savage of a type and 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. Gresham Machen
Letter to his Mother

R. Scott Clark is a magnificent hypocrite because he has on his blog a whole entry defending the orthodoxy of J. Gresham Machen, despite what Clark considers to be a racist letter to his mother, while at the same time casting modern day Machen Kinists into hell by referring to them as heretics.

Machen’s Letter To His Mother Or What To Do With Dead Sinners?

Obviously, Clark would never step up to the microphone and declare that on the basis of Machen’s social order beliefs that Machen, who was a 20th century Kinist, was a “heretic.” And yet that is exactly what the arch-heretic R. Scott Clark has done with 21st century Kinists. So Clark condemns 21st century Kinists as heretics but begs for understanding for 20th century Kinists like Machen. Bottom line Scotty is that either Machen was a heretic for believing what he believed or I am and all modern Kinists are not heretics for believing the very same types of things that Machen believed. You can not have it both ways. Either we are all in hell (like Machen per Clarkian reasoning) or on the way to hell (like living Kinists) for being heretics.

After all Scott, no heretic ever made it into heaven. Now, lots of people who were in error on this or that issue are in heaven but no heretic is in heaven.

Hey Scott … does Machen’s letter above disqualify him from heaven?

The War Heats Up; Road Runner McAtee Correct Wile E. Coyote R. Scott Clark Part V

R. Scott Clark (RSC) writes,

“They (The Kinists) not only ignore the plain teaching of Colossians 3 and Galatians 3.”

Bret responds,

Galatians 3:26f & The Indiscriminate Nature of the Gospel AND the Foolishness of Social Egalitarianism

Galatians 3:28 & Egalitarianism

RSC writes,

“They (Kinists) also ignore the plain teaching of Acts 10:15, where our Lord told Peter in a vision, “What God has made clean, do not call common” (ESV).”

Bret responds,

Except Kinists don’t call other races “common.”

This statement also implies that the 9th commandment challenged R. Scott Clark doesn’t realize that Kinists come in all hues. I have black friends who are kinist, yellow friends who are kinist, brown friends who are kinists, and on and on. So, once again, Scott is dissimulating about what Kinists believe.

RSC writes,

The next thing we read in Luke’s narrative is that Cornelius, a Roman centurion, wants to speak with Peter. Ordinarily, this would not be a good thing. A Roman centurion had a lot of authority and could have made Peter’s life not only uncomfortable but uncomfortably short. Peter explained to him, “God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean. So, when I was sent for, I came without objection. I ask then why you sent for me” (Acts 10:28b–29; ESV). The point of the vision was really about how Christians are to relate to one another across ethnic barriers. Kinism defies and denies the unequivocal teaching of God’s Word about the history of redemption and our new creation in Christ (2 Cor 5:17).

Bret responds,

That whole paragraph is SKUBALA. It is just not true.

RSC writes citing the CRC,

At Synod, in 2019, the Christian Reformed Church considered overture 7 (pp. 485–505) regarding Kinism. It adopted the following declarations regarding Kinism:

A. Declare that this is a grievous deviation from sound doctrine, a heresy: the Kinist teaching that interracial marriage is sinful, and the theological reasoning supporting this teaching.

Bret responds,

1.) At least as it pertains to me, which is the person the CRC was pointing at in all this, I have never ever said that “interracial marriage is sinful,” though I have said repeatedly that it is “normatively unwise.” I have also said repeatedly that once a inter-racial marriage is contracted that the local church should do all it can to support such a marriage if such a marriage exists in their congregation while at the same time reminding the congregation that the children of the congregation should not marry along inter-racial lines. To encourage such marriages would be to adopt Marxist principles for God’s covenant seed.

RSC citing the CRC,

B. Declare that this is a grievous deviation from sound doctrine, a heresy: the Kinist teaching that God has ordained separation in a religio-ethnostate, and the theological reasoning supporting this teaching.

Bret Responds,

See

http://www.thedailygenevan.com/blog/2022/11/17/naturalvsnonnatural?fbclid=IwAR0ly5u8bXFPlA-SWWztH1PbARSnLwaAwW-rflGjL3v5152ct66dz8c6eRg

RSC writes citing the CRC,

C. Declare that any office bearer who teaches or promotes Kinist theology is worthy of special discipline in accordance with Church Order Article 83.

Bret responds,

Now, the CRC may someday do this in the future but they did not do so with me.

RSC citing the CRC

D. Instruct the executive director to create, through the appropriate agencies, opportunities for education, instruction, and discussion so that church leaders and lay members can recognize and refute the heresy of Kinism in various social contexts where they may encounter it.

Bret responds,

I am looking forward to the day when someone trained by the CRC tries to refute Kinism, because it has not been done to date. R. Scott Clark certainly has not done so in is laughable and ridiculous two part series.

RSC citing the CRC writes,

According to article 74 of the Acts of Synod (pp. 818–20) for 2019, the Synod adopted those for declarations on this ground:

Ground: Kinist theology and practice is neither biblical nor Reformed. Rather, Kinism is a twisting of Reformed doctrine. The Bible makes clear that God’s ideal is a family of every tribe and nation being considered equal in every way. Kinist principles and praxis distort this truth.

Bret responds,

1.) As we have seen from the countless of quotes I have given in this series, Kinism in theology and practice is both biblical and Reformed. It is the Alienism (Marxism as applied to social orders) of R. Scott Clark and the CRC which is neither Biblical, nor Reformed, nor historical.

2.) “Equal in every way?”

Surely the CRC can’t be serious. This is pure hard egalitarianism. Surely all peoples are ontologically equal. Certainly no peoples are made of better dirt than other peoples, and so in that sense are equal. Certainly, all men are equal before God’s law. But to say that all peoples are equal in every way is just French Revolution lunacy. Superiorities and inferiorities run through all races, peoples, tribes, and nations and to suggest that all races, peoples, tribes, and nations are equal is the kind of denial of reality that is in the same league as saying girls can be boys and boys can be girls because they are equal in every way.

RSC citing the CRC,

Synod also adopted the following motion:

That synod, given the recent history of Kinist teaching in a particular church of the CRCNA, admonish councils and classes to promote confessional fidelity and mutually to pursue special discipline of an office bearer who is found to hold views contrary to our standards.

Bret responds,

1.) LOL … the CRC calls for special discipline of any office bearer who is found to be a kinist and yet when they could have tried to do that to me they passed. Is this their subtle admission that I was never an office bearer and so they had no jurisdiction over me?

or

2.) Is it an admission that they did not go after me because they knew they could not prove their case and exoneration would have been something that the Dutch Mafia who runs the CRC would have found mortifying?

RSC citing the CRC.,

Grounds:

a. The pastor who was teaching Kinist views was able to do so for several years without special discipline being successful.

Bret responds,

1.) I was never a Pastor in the CRC, though I did Pastor a CRC Church

2.) Special discipline was never successful because special discipline was never attempted. There were delegates at Synod 2019 who were asking why I was released instead of being disciplined. So far as I know they never got an answer to that question.

3.) And keep in mind that;

a.) When I was released from the CRC (though I was never in to be released) that the governing Church’s Pastor of the Church I served recommended and argued vehemently that I should be released with a “honorable release” as opposed to the “Dismissed” that released me.

b.) The Church that I Pastored unanimously voted to leave the CRC due to the CRC’s heretical stands, knowing full well who I am after ministering among  them for a quarter of a century.

RSC writes citing the CRC

b. By admonishing councils and classes to encourage confessional fidelity and special discipline when applicable, it sends a strong message from the broadest body of our denomination that Kinist teaching will not be tolerated in our churches.

Bret responds,

The CRC has no worries about Kinism in their midst. They are safely Marxist. I was the proverbial “One in a Million.”

RSC citing the CRC,

Synod adopted another overture offered from the floor:

That synod acknowledge, with lament, the historic tolerance and indifference within our Reformed theological tradition to perpetual hateful racial prejudice and the theological error of Kinism as well as the need to act as a prophetic voice on these matters in the present and future.

Bret responds,

AH… here we see the slight glimmer of admission that Kinism, or something very much like it as been part of the Reformed theological tradition. Naturally, quite to the contrary of what is written above, the kinism I’ve read of in Church history (See Achord and Dow’s Anthology, “Who Is My Neighbor; An Anthology in Natural Relations”) has never resembled hateful racial prejudice.

Maybe there has been “hateful racial prejudice” in the Reformed tradition but if it existed it would be hard to top the “hateful racial prejudice” that is being exhibited towards Kinists who are not Marxists.

RSC writes,

Make of the last clause what you will, Synod was clearly embarrassed by the existence of Kinism within the CRC for a decade and wanted to send a clear message that the CRC repudiates Kinism.

Bret responds,

1.) And yet, the CRC had every opportunity to bring charges against me and so run me through their Kangaroo court system. If the CRC really had wanted to send a clear message of their embarrassment regarding Kinism THAT is what they would have done. But they didn’t. Instead they merely dismissed me upon my request. (A strange action considering that I had never been ordained by the CRC.)

2.) Is it interesting that the “Conservative” R. Scott Clark is making common cause in these two articles not only with his arch-enemy Doug Wilson but also with a denomination that he excoriates; the uber-Liberal CRC. It seems that “Conservative” Wilson, “Confessional” Clark, and the uber-liberal CRC have all in common the desire to libel, slander, and rid the planet of Historic Christianity, which is, in the end, all Kinism is.

This has been proven exhaustively by Achord & Dow’s book “Who is My Neighbor.” It is also nicely set forth in the article linked above titled  “Natural and Non-Natural communities.”

RSC writes,

It is certainly a gross error, schismatic (as it separates what Christ has united), it is ugly and unbefitting of a Christian profession. Let no man cast asunder what Christ has joined together.

Bret responds,

Quite to the contrary it is the Alienism that condemns all the Church Fathers who were Kinist just by their virtue of being Christian. By abandoning the idea and truth of Kinism Clark and the rest of his ideological brood of vipers is abandoning the Christian faith. It is they who are vile and ugly beyond all recognition. It is they who are in gross error (and in Clark’s case not only on this count but also on the count of his heretical R2K). It is they who are the schismatics dividing the Church from its Christian past. It is they who are touting beliefs that are not befitting Christian men. It is they who have cast asunder what Christ joined together opting for some red stew because they were tired from hunting acceptance of the world.

And keep in mind this all started merely because R. Scott Clark wanted to smear my book, “Saved to be Warriors; Exposing the Errors of Radical Two Kingdom Theology.”