Category: Ethnic considerations

Doug Wilson on How the White Romans Killed Jesus

“But if for some reason you are looking for the instrumental cause, the Romans were the ones who killed Him. To be more specific, white Romans were the culprits (Mark 15:15).”

Rev. Doug Wilson 
Pope of the CREC

*It is true that white Romans were the instrumental cause of Christ’s death.

 
*The Scripture though, lays the blame at the feet of the Jews who were the efficient cause of Christ’s death;

Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to these words: Jesus the Nazarene, a Man [u]attested to you by God with [v]miracles and wonders and [w]signs which God performed through Him in your midst, just as you yourselves know— 23 this Man, delivered over by the predetermined plan and foreknowledge of God, you nailed to a cross by the hands of [x]godless men and put Him to death.

And again,

I Thessalonians 2:14 For you, brothers and sisters, became imitators of the churches of God in Christ Jesus that are in Judea, for you also endured the same sufferings at the hands of your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews, 15 who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and [r]drove us out. [s]They are not pleasing to God, [t]but hostile to all people, 16 hindering us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved; with the result that they always [u]reach the limit of their sins. But wrath has come upon them [v]fully.

 
* Keep in mind that the Scripture records that for the White Romans Jesus prayed; “Father forgive them for they know not what they do.” The implication here is that the Jews did know what they were doing by crucifying their Messiah.

* This looks to me like Doug Wilson is trying to lessen the responsibility that the Scripture squarely places on the Jews for crucifying their Messiah by seeking to broaden the blame so that the Jews are seen as not being any more culpable than the “White Romans for murdering Jesus, the Christ.

While it is true, and must be preached, that it was the sin of all God’s elect of all races that crucified the Lord of glory, that fact does not make it less true that the Scripture records as a matter of historical fact that the Jews are the ones who God held culpable for crucifying their Messiah.

The good news of the Gospel is that this generational sin can be forgiven of all men, inclusive of Jew and Gentile, who sue for peace with God, in faith, by agreeing with and believing God’s record that Jesus can forgive their sin — both personal and corporate. Jesus has said… “Come unto me all ye who labor and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.” This is true for both Jew and Gentile.

Now, having said that, why does Doug Wilson continue to seek to diminish the guilt and responsibility of the Jews for crucifying their Messiah — and this in the face of the Scripture’s clear testimony to the contrary?

And let’s keep in mind that there are at least some Jews who pass all this off as a matter of their stand up comedy routine;

It is interesting here that Sarah Silverman says that “many people try to pass it (the crucifixion of Christ) off on the Romans.” This is exactly what Doug Wilson is trying to do.

From the Mailbag… Rachelle Smith Writes For Help Defending Kinism — Part II

Pastor Geoff writes,

Is he just saying Italians are good at pasta and Indians at curry?

Bret responds,
“No.”

Pastor Geoff writes,

Is he saying we should remain distinct based on physiological differences? If he is arguing for a separation of the races (which he does in other posts and comments), then he is dividing the family of God into unbiblical distinctives and is teaching something contrary to the gospel (Acts 17:26; Rom. 3:29; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:28; Gal. 2:12, 14; Rev. 5:9). Though his conclusion is not clear based only on this article, his other writings make abundantly clear what his objective is.

Bret responds,

Here the wheels finally completely come off of this chap’s argument.

I am dividing the family of God by merely suggesting that men should honor God’s distinctions among races? If I am, look what good company I am in Rachelle.

This from A. W. Tozer. One of my 20th century heroes in the faith;

“You can’t change my mind about God having made us the way we are. The yellow man and the white man and the black man. God made our races. I know the Marxists and the bubbleheads say: “Oh, that’s old-fashioned baloney! Everybody should get together and intermarry and pretty soon there won’t be races, and where there are no races there won’t be any hate, and if there’s no hate, there won’t be any war.” Oh, for cotton batting to stuff in the mouths of people who don’t know better than that!…

Let me remind you of the warbler, almost universally distributed in this country, and will you believe that there are 120 species of this bird called the warbler in the United States? One hundred and twenty varieties, with only the slightest differences of feather, or wing, or stripe or spot. In these 120 varieties, we are told, there is no crossing the line, they mate within their own racial strain, hatch and have little ones. Nobody puts them through college, but when they get big enough to hop out on the edge of the nest and begin looking for another warbler, they always pick one

like themselves, and stay within their own strain.

Now, you get a Communist or a starry-eyed American fellow traveler working on that, and he will say: “That’s an evidence of race hate, and it’s a proof those warblers hate each other!” Hate each other – your grandmother’s nightcap! They don’t quarrel, they never fight, they just go on living and warbling. They’ve got sense enough to know that God made 120 kinds of warblers just for fun to show what He could do, and He doesn’t mean for them to cross over and make one warbler out of 120!”

Or we could learn from another Christian minister who was theologically quite different from Tozer. In context here this minister is explaining why a denomination is splitting. Note the reasons that he gives/

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS)

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, who was one of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America could write elsewhere;

    “No human can measure the anguish of personality that goes on within the children of miscegenation… Let those who would erase the racial diversity of God’s creation beware lest the consequence of their evil be visited upon their children.”

    John Edwards Richards
    One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

    Finally Dr. Edwards adds,

    “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


So your “Pastor” Geoff says I am dividing the family of God into un-biblical distinctives and yet all of Church history screams with me that your Pastor Geoff is advocating a historically Marxist position. Maybe I will refer to him as “Red Geoff” the rest of the way? I know Red Geoff doesn’t intend to be doing the work of the devil, he doesn’t intend to contribute to the destruction of Western Civilization, and he only intends to be full of roses and pussy willows, but “Red Geoff” is just another “Pastor Lovejoy” of “The Simpsons” fame. What “Red Geoff” intends to do and what he is doing are opposed like heaven and hell.

“Red Geoff” says I am dividing the family of God into un-biblical distinctives. I have a number of Christian friends that belong to different races. They are kinists like myself. We have no barrier to fellowship. Being a Kinist does not divide the family of God. It merely recognizes these God ordained creaturely distinctives are God ordained. All because I might worship with a Mongolian Christian doesn’t mean I should think that our children should marry?

Theologian Dr. John Frame speaks to your “Red Geoff”

“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”


“Pastor Geoff continues on”

and (Pastor Bret) is teaching something contrary to the gospel (Acts 17:26; Rom. 3:29; 1 Cor. 12:12-13; Gal. 3:28; Gal. 2:12, 14; Rev. 5:9).

Bret responds,

Rachelle, your “Pastor Geoff” choosing these text suggests to me that you should not be entrusting your souls to his teaching. Choosing these texts to try and prove his point is a example of badly handling Scripture. Let’s consider these one by one;

1.) Acts 17:26 And He has made from one man every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings,

One man… many nations. Keep in mind that nations in the NT understanding means “a descent from a common patriarch.” This text supports my position Rachelle and not Pastor Geoff’s.

2.) 1 Cor. 12:12 For as the body is one and has many members, but all the members of that one body, being many, are one body, so also is Christ. 13 For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and have all been made to drink into one Spirit.

a.) Note it is Jews and Greeks how are Baptized into one body. Do you suppose that after Baptism they were no longer Jews and Greeks?

b.) One body… many members, which is exactly what I am advocating. One body comprised of many member nations.

c.) Of course this is speaking in terms of spiritual realities. Arguing that we lose our racial/ethnic distinctives because we are baptized into one body would necessitate that we also argue that we lose our gender identity because we are baptized into one body.

d.) St. Paul is speaking here of unity in Christ. There is a distinction between unity in Christ and a uniformity where all Christians wear some form of Mao suits because, after all, we are all one.

e.) With all believers everywhere, regardless of race, sex, or class, I am a member of the one body of Christ. However, as members in one musical band are all members in that one band not all are Trumpets, not all are Bassoons, not all are Saxophones or Piccolos. They are distinct yet complimentary. The same is true of the body of Christ. There are many parts (races/ethnicities) but one body.

3.) Gal. 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

https://ironink.org/2021/03/galatians-326f-the-indiscriminate-nature-of-the-gospel-and-the-foolishness-of-social-egalitarianism/

https://ironink.org/2012/06/galatians-328-egalitarianism/

4.) Galatians 2:12, 14;

https://ironink.org/2022/11/galatians-21-10-paul-titus-the-issue-of-circumcision/

https://ironink.org/2022/11/galatians-211-21/

5.) Revelation 5:9

9 And they sang a new song, saying:

“You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,

I completely affirm this. God will have a redeemed people from all peoples of the world throughout time. However, all the Kinist observes is that people are saved as God’s work in saving peoples. I now this is true Rachelle, because in the same book of Revelation we read that the nations come into the new Jerusalem as in their nations and that their the nations are all healed

Revelation 21:24 And the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor into it.

22:4 The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Nations as nations are all over the book of Revelation. We should not be surprised by this for as Theologian Dr. Martin Wyngaarden noted;

“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 nationality remains 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.”


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.”

Martin Wyngaarden

The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture — pp. 101-102.

But I suppose “Red Geoff” says every freaking Christian theologian before him were sinning by “dividing the body of Christ?”

“Red Geoff’s” problem, is the same problem of nearly all modern and contemporary clergy. That problem is that they can only think in terms of the individual. They have completely lost corporate categories. Clergy did not always think this way and Reformed clergy who are genuinely Reformed have NEVER thought this way. I’ve given plenty of examples already, but here is another one from a great Doctor of the Church of a past era;

Romans 11:17, 19, with its “branches broken off” metaphor has frequently been viewed as proof of the relativity and changeability of election, and it is pointed out that at the end of vs. 23, the Gentile Christians are threatened with being cut off in case they do not continue in the kindness of God. But wrongly. Already this image of engrafting should have restrained such an explanation. This image is nowhere and never used of the implanting of an individual Christian, into the mystical body of Christ by regeneration. Rather, it signifies the reception of a racial line or national line into the dispensation of the covenant or their exclusion from it. This reception of course occurs by faith in the preached word, and to that extent, with this engrafting of a race or a nation, there is also connected the implanting of individuals into the body of Christ. The cutting off, of course, occurs by unbelief; not, however, by the unbelief of person who first believed, but solely by the remaining in unbelief of those who, by virtue of their belonging to the racial line, should have believed and were reckoned as believers. So, a rejection ( = multiple rejections) of an elect race is possible, without it being connected to a reprobation of elect believers. Certainly, however, the rejection of a race or nation involves at the same time the personal reprobation of a sequence of people. Nearly all the Israelites who are born and die between the rejection of Israel as a nation and the reception of Israel at the end times appear to belong to those reprobated. And the thread of Romans 11:22 (of being broken off) is not directed to the Gentile Christians as individual believers but to them considered racially.”

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 – pg. 118

Red Geoff writes;

I found the Iron Ink blog and looked around at the content. And I want to say in no uncertain terms that this man is not behaving as a Christian.

Bret responds,

Here Red Geoff goes from being jejune to being just not nice. I’m telling you Rachelle, my feelings are so hurt now that I just don’t know how I can go on.

Allow me to return volley here. Red Geoff is wearing the robes of anti-Christ. He is being an apostle of Marx. Red Geoff is calling evil, “good,” and good, “evil,” and unless he repents his soul is in mortal danger.

All the evidence from Church history is on my side Rachelle. All the Biblical evidence, when not handled like a starving rat handles the meat when set loose in a butcher shop, is on my side. I am merely holding what the church has taught in all times and in all places where God has been pleased to grant the Church orthodoxy.

If your “Pastor Geoff” wants to sling around this kind of language then he should spend the time in finding all the quotes from Church history that supports his universalist humanist position. He might find some, but those he finds will be from Anabaptist nutcases as combined with the heretic Cathari, Albigensians, and Bogomils.

If I am not behaving like a Christian, Red Geoff is behaving like a madman.

Red Geoff writes,

He is unapologetically a kinist which is patently and obviously against the Bible’s teaching of the unity of the body of Christ.

Bret responds,

1.) Actually, to be precise, I am unapologetically a Christian – Kinism is just a part of basic Christianity.

2.) Patently and obviously against the Bible’s teaching of the unity of the body of Christ? LOL… only when looking through the lenses of racial Marxism. Quite to the contrary it is Red Geoff who is sitting the Scriptures on their head and making them say on this subject the exact opposite of what they do say.

Rachelle Smith writes,

He (Geoff) links to articles like, “Top Ten Reasons ‘Anti Semite’ Is a Compliment” in which the writer tries to redefine the term to make it ok.

Bret responds,

Well, when anti-Semite is now defined as “anyone who disagrees with a Jew” then, yeah, I have no problem with being “anti-semite.” Honestly, the sting of these names cast at me as coming from leftists, anti-Christs, have completely lost their sting. I respond now typically just by shrugging my shoulders and saying, “whatever, you idiot.” Imagine how bad St. Augustine would feel when insulted by a Manichean and you can begin to grasp how little this bothers me.

RS writes quoting Red Geoff,

He (Bret) equates kinism with the rejection of Darwinian social evolution, but in fact is a rejection of the texts I listed above. I am not saying things too strongly when I say this man (Bret) is teaching poison that will only serve to divide the body of Christ.

Bret responds,

This man is a 5 year old searching for a lost toy with a lighter in an ammo dump.

Red Geoff destroys the meaning of God’s word and then turns around and declared that I am rejecting the texts that he ham-fistedly offered as “proof,” of a position that is neither supported by Scripture, nor by two thousand years of Church history.

RS quoting Red Geoff

I would strongly encourage you to remove yourselves from the mailing list of this blog and not allow yourself to be influenced by such a man.
Bret responds,

Well, given that you have corresponded with me, after Red Geoff’s counsel, I see that you utterly rejected his counsel. Good for you.

RS quoting Red Geoff,

Though not everything he says is without merit (of course), he will not encourage you to embrace the body of Christ which is one and does not recognize distinctions of value and/or belonging based on race.

Bret responds,

Rachelle, I could only hope for you that you would have as many Christian non-Caucasian friends as I have. I have one chap who lives in Europe who phones me monthly who is perhaps, more a kinist than I’ll ever be. I have a Christian friend on the East Coast who I speak to every once in a while who is a kinist. I have a Filipino friend online who has been very generous to us over the years. We are all Kinists and we all belong to different people groups. We all understand that we are one in Christ but we also understand that our oneness in Christ does not destroy our creational distinctions.

You Pastor is not a wise man. That is my nice way of saying he is an idiot. You should flee for the good of your soul from this Pastoral hack.

RS writes quoting Red Geoff,

In fact, knowing you are sympathetic to such a man could serve to greatly alienate brothers and sisters in our current church and cause tremendous division. I’d be happy to sit down with you to talk through these things in more detail. Hope I didn’t say it too strongly. Love you lots.

Bret responds

Dear sweet Rachelle, I am sorry that you are now in this position. It takes great courage to swim upstream. You and your husband will have to decide what to do from here. I can tell you, that it is unlikely that you will find any other Church or clergy member who will be any better than your Red Geoff. So, you can keep these beliefs on the down low and get along, or you can sever yourself from this body and be lonely, like tons of people I know, who refuse to compromise on this issue.

However, Biblical Christianity, and so Kinism, will one day win out. Reality cannot be ignored without eventually snapping back.

If I can be of any more service to you and your husband let me know. Write me. Phone me. I am available to minister to you as I can.

The Blessings of Christ be upon you and your Kin,

Pastor Bret

 

From the Mailbag… Rachelle Smith Writes For Help Defending Kinism — Part I

RS writes,

I have been receiving emails from Iron Ink for about 2 yrs and I always enjoy reading them. I am trying to learn more about kinism. At this point it is a highly contentious term and I would like to know more about it. I believe that my husband and myself are of this persuasion but whenever race is brought up in conversation at our church, the claim being made is that it is sinful.

BLMc responds,

Rachelle, it seems at time that the only thing that the modern church can get outraged by any more is a truth that is clearly taught in Scripture;

https://thereformedconservative.org/ai_story_collection/on-natural-communities/?fbclid=IwAR0DzGsPf28-mx_o0NtwgXbI6s8YIPQaVmT5NEgCXP4fBzuQ0gChQA-_6TY

A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism

And has been so been universally held throughout Church history that it can be said that it is a doctrine that has been believed in all times and in all places where God has been pleased to grant the Church orthodoxy. The evidence is magnificently overwhelming that the Church has always been kinist.

https://www.amazon.com/Survey-Racialism-Christian-Sacred-Tradition/dp/B0CTKVNRMB/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2ITK8GFTO6SYO&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.7iYkqY9EgikRnF3WFhqTdeUWTw5fLBUEX8nVaGauE9XWlumcv2XjEVZoUGSQRAL7AX2uv6wXL2JYbPemruKuHfu9gTf6QeI1xr_quRLH0OqQU_nMnqdzjCLcM6pE-Z5Pqr7-GkOmN-OM0DNGiclYXCAsjk0g-epAM1Z8lVjBj6LAliiRvmxpHuN2BAqmqRWqUypD5ZkgkxOEDtgvE8h1KjcXDir4Y4aYpl095uC0Pfw.2s-FcGjCt9AhHLPfi8ezl9ELZvg9lm-ZNqnWKFZUkB0&dib_tag=se&keywords=A+survey+of+Racialism+in+Christian&qid=1709072263&sprefix=a+survey+of+racialism+in+christian%2Caps%2C136&sr=8-1

Even into the mid 20th century the Church was Kinist or, if one prefers proto-kinist. Indeed, up until the last 30 years or so we didn’t even need a term such as “Kinism” because what is taught by Kinism was once just assumed to be part and parcel of the idea of Christianity. So, while we will talk about Kinism here, let it be said that I’d prefer to just talk about standard Christianity because that is all Kinism is.

So, it is simply the case that those at your church who are saying that “Kinism is sinful,” are themselves in sin since they are calling evil something that God calls good.

Kinist is indeed a “contentious term,” but then so was “Christian” once upon a time.

Rachelle writes,

I don’t believe it is a sin. I’m not able to effectively defend the arguments being made against kinism because I am learning myself. Our eyes have recently been opened to so many things we thought we knew, from the War between the States, or what we thought we knew about the “Civil war” to what we thought we knew about Hitler and the Jews. All lies, especially the one about not seeing color and only whites are racist. I don’t know why my husband and I are being made aware of so many issues that the church seems to be completely in the dark about, nothing special about us, they just seem to be very real threats and you are the only one we have found to write about it plainly in your articles.

Bret responds,

It is not a sin. Indeed kinism is righteousness. Opposition to Kinism is wicked.

Don’t be too discouraged that you are not able to make counter arguments against those who berate you. We have all so grown up in this anti-Christ egalitarian mindset that it is only with difficulty that we beign to see through the shell game the opposition is playing on us.

There are others out there writing on this subject. Here are a couple good links;

https://tribaltheocrat.com/2013/08/what-is-kinism/
https://faithandheritage.com/blog/

Now, in providing these links I do not affirm that I agree everything that you will find in them. I would agree with much of it. However, all I’m trying to do here is to show that writing on this subject is not somehow unique to me.

Rachelle writes,

I recently got into a conversation at church about kinism, it got a bit heated. I was attempting to make a case that it is not sinful to be a kinist.

Bret responds,

Yes, conversations surrounding can get a bit heated. I have been involved in them for a very long time now. I am sorry that you are drawing fire for a doctrine that is essential to the Christian faith. I genuinely wish I could there be with you to defend you from the slings and arrows. I’ve been wounded myself repeatedly in these kinds of conversations. I have been consigned to the deepest hell by those considered pillars in the Church. All that for merely defending the faith once and forever delivered unto the saints.

RS writes,

I sent my Pastor your blog and asked for him to look at it and give me his thoughts. This is what he shared with me:

Bret responds,

Rachelle, I am going to tell you before I wade into this that your Pastor’s response is an absolute embarrassment to the historical Reformed faith. It is an embarrassment to him as it testifies he has little ability to rightly divide the Scripture. It is an embarrassment because it demonstrates an ill educated man. Geoff may be a nice guy. He may make great conversations and he may be able to run a great church service, but this reasoning below is beyond horrid as well will soon see.

Pastor Geoff writes

“I finally got around to reading through this article. My initial response is that there is nothing objectionable to noting differences between cultures or races on a very broad level. A couple of things that do create a fairly serious problem:

The derogatory tone toward his opponents (ie. “per this idiot podcast”) is not in line with 2 Tim 2:24-26. That same attitude comes out in his other posts and some of the comments that he makes on his blog. Most people that adopt this posture are struggling with pride, though I admit I do not know this man at all;

Pastor Bret responds,

First, as to the appeal to being nice (for lack of a better word) as found in II Timothy. I certainly agree. How could I not? But let us not forget that II Timothy must be read in conjunction with the not nice engagements we find in Scripture. Would Pastor Geoff say that St. Paul was violating II Timothy when he told the Galatians that he wished that they would go all the way and emasculate themselves. How about when St. Paul said of his opponents, “Let them be anathema (eternally cursed)?”

Then, of course there is the example of our Lord-Jesus who did not mince words with his opponents. “Whited sepulchers, filled with dead men’s bones.” Then there is this passage;

44Woe to you! For you are like unmarked graves, which men walk over without even noticing.” 45 One of the experts in the law told Him, “Teacher, when You say these things, You insult us as well.” 46“Woe to you as well, experts in the law!” He replied. “You weigh men down with heavy burdens, but you yourselves will not lift a finger to lighten their load.

Jesus is told basically, “You’re not being nice,” and He responds with another verbal left hook to the jaw.

John Calvin gives solid counsel on this matter;

“The pastor ought to have two voices: one, for gathering the sheep; and another, for warding off and driving away wolves and thieves. The Scripture supplies him with the means of doing both.”

So, Rachelle, I have two voices and I deal with packs of wolves on a continuous basis and when I deal with wolves I offer no apology for using direct and stern language.

This was the pattern of the Reformers. Luther and Calvin especially could be both salty and earthy when necessary.

Look, this is not some small subject. If we lose here Rachelle so that egalitarian Christianity covers the globe we will further descend into a new Babylonian captivity of the Church. The effort to avoid that is worthy of some directness and perhaps even invective.

Of course I struggle with pride. What son of Adam doesn’t? But to suggest that I struggle with pride because I’m defending Biblical Christianity must give way to a counter idea that I am full of zeal for God’s honor on this matter. At least I an not crafting whips in order to whip the backs of my enemies who are dishonoring God. And that is what opposition to Kinism is… it is dishonoring God. Opposition to Kinism is a means of destroying Christianity by the work of humanism that would erase all the distinctions that God ordained.

I mean, can’t people see where we are and how we got here? I can draw a straight line connecting the dots that began with the pragmatic denial of racial distinctions beginning with Virginia vs. Loving, to the unmaking of womanhood by the attack on the distinction of femininity engaged in via the Griswold vs. Connecticut and Roe vs. Wade decisions, to the attack on the distinctions required for sexual relations in Lawrence vs. Texas, and for marriage in Obergefell vs. Hodges to the current attack on distinctions between what even constitutes male vs. female. Kinism stands against this destruction of the distinctions that God ordains and the root of all these distinction denials began with Virginia vs. Loving. Historically, behind all our history stands the French, Russian, and Chinese Revolution which each and all warred against God ordained distinctions and all ended in rivers of blood and mountains of skulls.

The goal in all this? To destroy the distinction between God and man. In such a way man can finally ascend to the most high and proclaim his divinity. We will never roll back this warfare against God ordained distinctions until we roll back the first one. Pull the root and the plant will die.

So, this is not an intramural battle. This is not an unimportant issue. If we lose here Christians return to the catacombs. We can not ignore any aspect of this battle hoping to avoid the fight without being called “unfaithful.”

Rachelle, I sense you are groping towards this realization. I urge you to continue to pursue truth. I’m glad to answer any questions you might have.

Pastor Geoff writes,

It is unclear to me what the significance of this observation is simply stated on its own.

Bret responds,

Well, I think above I gave the significance of my observation.

Pastor Geoff writes,

What is he arguing to be the impact or importance of these broad “superiorities”?

Bret responds,

Let’s be clear here. It’s always been my position that superiorities and inferiorities run through all races. If one looks at the NBA or NFL one might rightly conclude that Blacks have a superiority in athletics. That is just one example of the importance of these broad superiorities. If one looks at the civilizations built by the Christian white man one might say there is a broad superiority that has some impact when compared to the civilizations built by the pagan Aztecs or by Genghis Khan or Pol Pot or Mao or some other Asian dictator, or even when compared to Christian Auca Indians, or the Christian Sawi of Papua, New Guinea.

The impact or importance of that? Well, I should think that is now fairly obvious.

Pastor Geoff writes,

Is he just saying Italians are good at pasta and Indians at curry?

Bret responds,

“No.”

The Consequences of Speaking Out Loud in Public What is Known to be True

Excerpt from a Tucker Carlson interview;

For example, there is a guy, Richard Frye — he is one of the top autism researchers in the world — and he has admitted, ‘Hey, all of us top autism researchers that vaccines cause autism but we’re just not allowed to talk about it. And so Richard Frye will never publicly talk about that vaccines cause autism because if he did his funding would go away and so it is a matter of self-preservation. He basically has to remain silent and he can do his work to combat autism but he just isn’t allowed to tell the world that vaccines cause autism. But he makes a decision, and his decision is based on sort of a risk benefit.

The reasoning is; ‘If I tell the world that vaccines cause autism, I am caput in terms of being a researcher’ he’ll never get any dollars of funding again, and I can’t help my patients. They’ll take my license away. They’ll take my funding away. They’ll destroy me. I will not be able to contribute any more as to what the cure is. So he basically remains silent for self-preservation. Now if he, and all of his peers were to get together in unison and say; ‘ ‘hey vaccines cause autism. We are the 20 top researchers in the world and we’re telling you vaccines cause autism. We need to stop this (denial). We need to let people know we need to let people know of the connection. That could possibly change everything or it could result in those twenty researchers essentially being disenfranchised, being kicked out of their jobs, not being able to help autistic kids anymore and so it is a risk for them and they don’t play the risk.

Steve Kirsch
Entrepreneur/ Researcher  

Now what Kirsch notes above is interesting and worth a post by itself but that will have to be done by some Medical Doctor who knows about vaccines and autism. The direction I want to take this is the sociological implications of this statement. If what Kirsch says above is true about hard science matters like the connection between vaccines and autism (and later in the interview he goes on about the connection between Covid vaccines and health related crisis after receiving the covid vaccine) then how much more true is this kind of phenomenon for matters that are likewise clearly true but are only historically substantiated and not scientifically substantiated?

There are now two long books that I know of which substantiate exhaustively, via the quotes of the Church fathers from history that Christianity and the Church has always, without reservation, embraced and taught some form of the doctrine of racial realism. Here is a link to the most recent release;

Yet, if one agrees with the Church fathers on this issue, nay, especially if one quotes the Church fathers on this issue one is a pariah in the conservative ecclesiastical community. Like the connection between vaccines and autism, the connection between kinism and Church history is indisputable and so unchallengeable.

But none of it matters. As Kirsch notes about Scientists working on autism and seeing a connection between vaccines and autism, so churchmen today dare not make a connection between church history and .ethno-nationalism without being utterly ruined.

I know of some cases where clergy are like the scientists that Kirsch describes in the quote above. They understand that kinism is the Biblical norm and what the church has believed in all times and in all places where God has granted the Church orthodoxy and yet they refuse to say that racial-realism is what God’s word teaches for fear of being destroyed. So, I get from them the assurance that they agree with me but they dare not say so publicly lest they be destroyed.

It is madness to believe that God’s Word and church history confirms something but that you dare not say out loud what God’s Word teaches for fear of the consequences. This used to just be called cowardice. I’m sure that instead the folks in question would prefer to use the word “prudence.”

Believing in Race Makes One A Darwinist?

I had a friend and supporter of IronInk write in asking me to respond to this article;

https://1819news.com/news/item/amie-beth-shaver-black-history-month.

I will write a few words but the articles I link below completely demolishes the premise of the article in the first link;

https://www.businessinsider.com/boy-needs-bone-marrow-transplant-mixed-race-finding-match-difficult-2022-3?op=1

We are told by the author of the article of her listening to a pod-cast. She learned from that podcast of;

“Their two-part Episode 19 – in which they discussed National Geographic  2018 article about race being a primarily made-up label with no scientific or genetic basis – reminded me about Acts 17:26.”

So, race has no scientific or genetic basis, per this idiot podcast (a view that is even heard from many if not most pulpits today) and yet the second article linked above clearly demonstrates that when one needs a bone marrow transplant suddenly race is real.

A USA Today article from 2019 also reinforces that idea;

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/05/30/family-3-year-old-leukemia-plead-bone-marrow-transplant-donor/1293400001/?fbclid=IwAR1Ga8b-ANH_miBY_912zk5uq7P0rRRJh-uOH2d9i-Y0ifu1bdPbkWdbfRo

“It’s difficult for any (multiracial) person to find a match on the registry,” Schatz said, explaining that while white people have a 77% chance of finding a perfect match on the registry, people of other racial and ethnic backgrounds have much lower odds.

Latinos, for instance, have a 46% chance of finding a match, and blacks have a 23% chance of a match, according to Schatz.

She didn’t know how likely it is to find a multiracial match though the registry, only that the chances are even lower for people like Ailani, whose life now depends on it.”

Look, though it seems painfully obvious, you can’t tell me that “there is no such thing as race,” or that, “race is a social construct,” or that, “race is merely about pigment,” (all jejune drippings we get from modern clergy as well as others) and then turn around and tell me that the genetic realities of race become an obstacle when doing a bone marrow transplant. Clearly, race exists and no amount of denial is going to change that reality.

Further, this also makes it clear that believing that race is real does not make one a Darwinist anymore than believing that “Fudruckers” is the best Burger joint makes one a hamburger. Darwin, and his intellectual heirs may have wrongly obsessed over race, and even made wrong conclusions and theories regarding race, but Darwin did not invent race anymore than Newton invented gravity.

Elsewhere in the first linked article we find,

  And when did people start buying into the hideous notion that one race was superior to another?

Superiorities and inferiorities run through all the distinct races. Look at the National Basketball Association (NBA) and you’ll discover by way of observation that Blacks are, generally speaking, superior athletes when compared to other races. Likewise, when one looks at building beautiful civilizations, one discovers that White Christians are, generally speaking, superior at building beautiful civilizations to other races. Secondly, all superiorities of all races in all fields is completely according to the God of the Bibles appointment and sovereignty so that no race should boast as if their superiority is by their genius absent of God’s ordaining decrees.

So, there is nothing hideous in the notion that differing superiorities and inferiorities run through different races.

In conclusion, we quite agree that there is indeed one human race but within that one human race God has, in His providence, created a diversity of races. Further, within the diversity of each race God has, in His providence, ordained a diversity of ethnicities within each race.

This is clearly hinted at in Acts 17:26

26 From one man he made all the nations…

One man… many nations. Keep in mind that nations in the NT understanding means “a descent from a common patriarch.”

God Himself is both One and Many and the creation that fell from His hand is likewise both One and Many. The reality of race is one illustration of the creational One and Many. The different races though descending all from their Father Adam are a portrayal of God’s unity and diversity.

So, remember there is just one race, and all the distinct races God ordained comprise the human race.