Category: Ethnic considerations

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

Daily Kinist Quotes (DKQ)

Given the continued lobotomized lunacy of the NAPARC/CREC/SBS churches on the subject of Kinism (i.e. – racial realism, familialism, ethno-nationalism, White Christian Nationalism, etc.) I thought I would begin posting daily Kinist quotes (DKQ) in order to demonstrate how utterly braindead these “churches” are that are excommunicating, and deposing ministers over the Kinist issue as well as passing sundry language that is born of egalitarian, neo-Marxist thinking. We have established already at Iron Ink that the Church is now advocating for the very same thing that Marxists have advocated for throughout history. I have posted the Marxist quotes more than a few times. Marxists “intellectuals” would be very comfortable with the course that these denominations are pursuing. In point of fact these denominations would have to say on this point, if they were honest and consistent, that the Marxist were right when it comes to affirming a policy that pursues the elimination of nations and races.

I’ve already posted myriads of these quotes in a post here;

So Say We All … A Protest To Dr. Sproul 2.0’s Comments

I posted all these before two Anthology volumes were published that contain myriads upon myriads more quotes saying much the same thing that you will find in the above link. The volumes, “Who Is My Neighbor” and “A Survey of Racialism in Christian Sacred Tradition,” reveals that the current denominations are violating the principle of Vincent of Lerins which taught, that true Christian faith must be what has been believed “everywhere, always, and by all.” The Anabaptists, who were renown levelers, would be exceptions but the Reformed don’t consider them Christian.

As I have said before, so I say again now, this issue is to our time what the issue of the eternality of Christ was in the contest between Arius and Athanasius in the 4th century, what the contest was between Augustine and Pelagius was in the 5th century, and what the contest was between Luther and Eck was in the 16th century. If we get this issue of egalitarianism wrong here the Church of Jesus Christ will not get back on track until we finally do go back and get it right. The Reformed throughout the centuries have always fought against levelling and the erasure of God ordained distinctions because they knew that such levelling was both born of and led to levelling the distinction between God and man. Levelling the creature-creature distinctions can’t happen without levelling the Creator-creature distinction.

With all that said, I will, day by day, bring you at least one, but often a few, quotes daily demonstrating where the Church Fathers have been on this subject over the centuries. By doing so, you will see how out of step the contemporary Church (we use the word “church” only by way of courtesy) is.

“Each town should support its own poor and should not allow strange beggars to come in, WHATEVER THEY MAY CALL THEMSELVES, pilgrims or mendicant monks, (or immigrants – BLMc). Every town could feed its own poor; and if it were too small, the people in the neighboring villages should be called upon to contribute. As it is, they have to support knaves and vagabonds under the name of beggars….”

Martin Luther
Address to the Nobility of the German People

Now ask yourself, if Luther argued that strangers (whatever they may call themselves) should not be allowed into towns how much more is it the case that strangers (whatever they call themselves) should not be allowed into family lines via marriage?

Also, this quote shoots holes into the idea that we have to treat illegal immigrants in the same way as neighbor as we do deal with fellow Americans. One can argue that Christians must treat all men as neighbors but if one argues that way they must introduce the idea of gradation of neighbors. After all, if everyone is your neighbor, no one is your neighbor.

“What, there is to be no serf because Christ has redeemed us all? What is this? This means that Christian liberty is turned into liberty of the flesh? Did not Abraham and other patriarchs and prophets own serfs? Read what St. Paul has to say about servants, who at that time were all in bondage. Therefore this article is directly opposed to the Gospel and it is rapacious, for everyone who is a bondman to remove himself from his master. A bondman can very well be a Christian and have Christian freedom, just as a prisoner or a sick person can be a Christian, and yet is not free. This article proposes to free all men, and turn the spiritual kingdom of Christ into a worldly one, which is impossible. For a worldly kingdom cannot exist where there is no class distinction, where some are free, some are prisoners, some are masters, and some are vassals, etc. As St. Paul says in Gal. 3:28, that in Christ both master and vassal are one.”

Martin Luther
Admonishment to Peace on the 12 Articles of the Swabian (Anabaptist) Farmers
Works Vol. 46 – p. 39

Pretty sure that this counts as a quote that supports Southern slavery.