McAtee Repudiates Dr. Jeffrey Stivason’s Article on “A Word to Kinists?” I

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word To Kinists

1.) Let’s be clear here. What Stivason, following Poplin, would have us to believe is that races should intermix and not remain in their allotted boundaries set up by God. This follows the clearly articulated belief system of the Marxists and cultural Marxists, who have likewise articulated this very same belief.

2.) It does not necessarily follow that all because someone believes that races should not intermix and should remain in their allotted boundaries therefore the person believing that premise also believes in racial superiority. That is a non-sequitur by both Stivason and Poplin.

3.) What could be the case instead is that Kinists believe that superiorities and inferiorities are present in all the particular races and as that is so those superiorities and inferiorities should be respected.

4,) Notice how we begin with Kinism and soon enough we learn that Kinism is a synonym with race realism. This is contrary to the ARP report which defines Kinism and race realism very differently at the beginning of the report. It seems these chaps can’t get their definitions down.

5.) The Apostle Paul clearly thought the Jews were superior to other peoples. Listen to how he speaks,

What advantage then has the Jew, or what is the profit of circumcision? 2 Much in every way! Chiefly because to them were committed the [a]oracles of God.

In having the advantage over the Gentile Paul is saying that the Jews were previously superior because they had the oracles of God.

Is God guilty of the terrible sin of Kinism?

DKQ – Richard Sibbes

“God ‘knows our souls in adversity,’ Ps. 31:7; so, should we know the souls of others, IF they be knit to us in any bond of KINDRED, or NATURE, or neighborhood or the like. That bond should provoke us; for bonds are the veins and arteries to derive comfort. All bonds are to derive good, whether bonds of neighborhood, or acquaintance, &c. A man should think with himself, I have this bond to do my neighbor good. It is God’s providence that I should be acquainted with him and do that to that him that I cannot do to a stranger. Let us consider all bonds and let this work upon us: let us consider their grievance is a bond to tie us.”

Richard Sibbes
Complete Works – Vol. III, p. 69

1.) Kindred bonds are the veins and arteries to derive comfort. Hence kin stand uniquely close to us and those not kin are not our veins and arteries wherein we derive comfort. Clearly, Sibbes is communicating that kindred bonds are ordinarily to be prioritized over non-kindred bonds.

2.) Note the category of neighbor and stranger. Sibbes concurs with the idea of the Ordo Amoris and teaches that we have more responsibility to our neighbor (the closer the neighbor the greater the responsibility) than we do to a stranger. This does not mean we hate the stranger. It merely means that God has ordained concentric circles of greater to lesser responsibility for men. The closer someone is to me in vital relationship and/or a shared doctrinally confessed faith the more I am obligated to look out for them. The further someone is to me in vital relationship and/or a shared doctrinally confessed faith the less obligated I am to look out for them. So, for example, I have a greater obligation to look out for the Reformed Christian over and above the Roman Catholic or the Arminian. So, for example, I have a greater obligation to look out for my children than I do for my cousins but a greater obligation for my cousins than for the stranger I bump into at the smoke shop.

“We see in the current of Scripture ordinarily that when God converted any one man, He converted his whole family. ‘Salvation this day come to thy house’ saith Christ to Zaccheus, Luke 19:9. When salvation came into his heart, it came to his house; all was the better for it. So the jailer, when he believed he and his whole house were baptized, Acts 16:33. When God blesseth the governor once, then it is supposed all the house comes under the covenant of grace. Abraham and his house were blessed Gen. 22:17.”

Richard Sibbes

Complete Works – Vol II, p. 354

1.) OT or NT, God deals with people in their familial covenantal structures. To leave the children outside of the covenant of grace, by not giving them the sign of the covenant is to particularize and atomize man, seeing him only as a sovereign individual. It is the error of the Enlightenment liberal worldview.

2.) Covenantal unity establishes Kinism. If the head of the house is drawn by irresistible grace than all in the household family covenant (Kin) are placed within the circle of the covenant of grace. This establishes again the idea that God Himself is a Kinist. People are not saved by blood relation but salvation tends to run in familial lines.

 

From The Mailbag – Pastor, Where Are We Supposed To Attend On The Lord’s Day?

Dear Pastor,

You’ve made it clear that NAPARC, CREC, the “Ogden Boys,” and Apologia, among others, are “over the falls” as you recently put it (besides the last one being Baptists). The question I put to you is what would you have the people in the pews actually do, who do not and cannot live in Charlotte, Michigan? Where are they supposed to go on the Lord’s Day?

Lancelot

Hello Lancelot,

First, on this score, let us cite the Belgic Confession of Faith;

Article XXIX. The Marks of the True Church, and Wherein
it Differs from the False Church

We believe that we ought diligently and circumspectly to discern
from the Word of God which is the true Church, since all sects which
are in the world assume to themselves the name of the Church. But
we speak not here of hypocrites, who are mixed in the Church with
the good, yet are not of the Church, though externally in it; but we
say that the body and communion of the true Church must be
distinguished from all sects that call themselves the Church.

The marks by which the true Church is known are these: If the pure
doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if it maintains the pure
administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church
discipline is exercised in chastening of sin; in short, if all things are
managed according to the pure Word of God, all things contrary
thereto rejected, and Jesus Christ acknowledged as the only Head of
the Church. Hereby the true Church may certainly be known, from
which no man has a right to separate himself.

My problem with the modern reformed “church” is that I am certain that where it is denouncing Kinism, and embracing egalitarianism it is at that point that the “pure doctrine of the gospel is not being preached therein.” No one would ever say that the Gnostics preached the pure doctrine of the Gospel, yet that is exactly what Egalitarianism is an expression. The current church, which disembodies man in regeneration/conversion by saying that God ordained distinctions are taken away in the Church is Gnostic. Ironically enough, it is also Marxist since the Marxists have forever been saying that their intent is to flatten all the distinctions among the nations. Is it possible for Gnostics and Marxists to give the pure doctrine of the gospel in the preaching and teaching?

Second, these denominations have anathematized themselves by anathematizing the race-realists. They have hurled their fatwas, Papal bulls, and anathemas repeatedly at the Biblical Christians. Should they expect that we who have been on the receiving end of their blasphemies now conclude anything else except that they are not true churches?

So, that sets the context for the question you ask and for the answer.

First, as to answering your question, if I were in the position of other folks around the country I would try to operate thusly,

1.) I would realize that not all congregations are equally bad. I would further realize that there might be yet congregations in these denominations that are positively good. If I were considering membership of a positively good one I would find out if that good congregation was sending money to the bad denomination and if that good congregation was sending money, I would attend there but I would not financially support the local congregation until it quit supporting the bad denomination. These denominations need to either repent or have their money source dried up.

2.) If there was a congregation that were not intolerable and if I had children, I might attend but I would not let the children go to Sunday School and I would make sure to debrief the children every week, as needs be, by asking them, in a kind of catechetical way, “So, what did we hear today from the pulpit that is not true?” Believe me, you could write hefty tomes’ on what is being said today by clergy that is not true.

3.) If there are no churches in your area that are at least tolerable (and I get phone calls from these people quite frequently) then I would start a home bible study and find good material. I would also, during that time together on the Lord’s Day, listen to one good sermon. (There are scads of them on line.) I would also designate my tithes and offerings to churches that are seeking to be faithful in a very difficult climate. Failing that, I would send tithes and offerings to para-Church organizations that you know and trust.

As a result of your home bible-study, it may be that God would be pleased to start a little church. If that is the direction that matters were heading I would find solid Elders in another church who could serve as kind of an umbrella for you in getting off the ground.

4.) What I would not do is continue to attend and support a ministry and church that is decidedly in opposition to my undoubted catholic Christian faith and worldview. These are not churches but are only referred to as churches by way of habit or courtesy.

Finally, please realize that in all this I doubtless have fault. My paradigm is likely tied too tightly and I see things and the implications of those things that will come to pass if what I see is not corrected. Seeing things that many others perhaps do not see probably tends to make me overly-critical.  I like to tell myself in my more optimistic moments that the church in the West is probably not as bumfuzzled as I tend to think it is.

There remain good churches and clergy out there. I am friends/acquaintances with more than a few. A few actually serve in NAPARC and CREC churches for now. So, all is not lost.

I am deeply sorry that you are in this situation. I daily pray for repentance for the church in the West. I daily remind myself that though the wrong seems oft so strong, God is the ruler yet.

And I know that it is true of me as St. Paul said;

“This is a trustworthy saying, worthy of full acceptance, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners – of whom I am chief.”

The Clarity Of Doug Wilson …. NOT

“Sorry. I know something about that also. I have been working with words for over fifty years now. I make my living with words. I have had editors who have not felt the need to flatter me. And I have heard from countless readers who somehow did not notice the fog bank.

I suggest that the fog—which is admittedly dense—is coming from somewhere else.”

Doug Wilson
Mudflaps, Talmud-flaps, Flaps About The Talmud

In this column Doug Wilson writes an article fueled with outrage complaining about people who write things who are filled with outrage.

Irony much Doug?
Pertaining to the quote above Gordon H. Clark used to say; “You don’t come to truth by counting noses.” This is the approach Doug is taking concerning his detractors. Doug is saying; “Hey countless readers like me therefore I must be clear in my writing …. I must be right in my opinions. I, can’t be the problem when it comes to people misunderstanding me. They clearly are the problem.”

Doug seems to miss that another possibility is that like himself, countless numbers of people are, along with him, in error. I mean, I’m sure that all the crowds at Bunyan’s “Vanity Fair,” thought their Mayor was both clear and right. Did that make the Mayor both clear and right?

Doug needs to be reminded of other people who worked with words for 50 years.

Lenin worked with words for around that long. Mao worked with words for that long. Castro was a real prince with words, having worked with them for that long. Edward Bernays was so good with words he sold WW I. Ivy Lee, likewise was a master propagandist.

Indeed, all propagandists work with words. Someone tell Doug … that manipulating people with words is not that big of a deal. Oh, and while you’re talking to him tell him that his outrage is as unseemly as the outrage he sees in others as they are outraged with Doug.

Discussing War With Justin Johnson

Bret wrote,

Things done to evil people by good men are by definition “good.”

Justin Johnson replies,

At scale it never works out all good at the micro level. That’s the point.

Not a reason to stop it. But no such shifts can happen without atrocity.

Bret replies,

Justin Johnson .. if it is atrocity that sets the world aright by God’s standard then it is not atrocity at all but blessing.

And God says it always works out for good at the micro level. Always. That is God’s point.

Justin Johnson

 Eventually it can. But there is no non messy way that doesn’t harm the innocent.

That’s my point.

Bret responds,

If you’re saying that in war Christians die unjustly … then of course there is no disagreement.

Justin Johnson writes,

 That’s true but not what I’m getting at. Collateral damage is not avoidable.

Bret responds,

Yes, Christian’s die unjustly as collateral damage. I agree.

Justin Johnson writes,

Death of all image bearers who aren’t evil is also terrible.

Quit pretending I agree. It’s unbecoming.

There are plenty of non Christians here who do not deserve death or or deportation.

As Lee said it is good war is so terrible or else we would grow too fond of it.

As someone who would never be a participant, and of advanced age, you should be the first to at least acknowledge the inevitable unjust sacrifices in such an endeavor.

Asymmetrical warfare is one of man’s most horrific creations. Whether used for good or evil.

Bret responds

1.) Death of image bearers who renounce and are opposed to Christ is not evil, because they are evil. Rather death is to them God’s justice. See what Jesus said in the Tower of Siloam incident (Luke 13).

2.) Quit being contumacious. It’s unbecoming.

3.) All non-Christians deserve death since the wages of sin is death.

4.) I’d probably agree that all non-Christians shouldn’t be deported though I would insist that they not be allowed to vote or contribute to political campaigns. I would also tax them at a higher rate.

5.) I quite agree w/ Robert E. Lee. What does that have to do w/ this conversation?

6.) I tell the people I serve here ALL THE TIME that war is the very last option that should ever be chosen unless it is the only option in a just war.

I’m sure you’re relieved that I tell them that.

I also tell them not to think in Arminian categories.

When the wicked perish, there are shouts of joy. Proverbs 11:10

Justin Johnson replies,

 Not sure where to start with the broad interpretation of such scriptures.

Your hermeneutic is clearly incompatible with mine and I’d guess irreconcilable.

Bret responds,

Justin Johnson … Not to worry … that’s only because your hermeneutic is errant.
😉
Peace

 Justin ends with the irresistible and boring  ad-hom, “OK Boomer.”