McAtee Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part I

I’ve been away for awhile with various matters drawing me away from Iron Ink. However, Rev. Rich Lusk has a way of bringing me back to my love of writing. This is not the first time I’ve had a go at something Lusk has written on Kinism. Last year on the same subject we find

McAtee Contra Lusk’s Gnosticism

Lusk and I also in years past have tangled on his support of the heresy of Federal Vision across different sites on the web. I’m not a big fan of Rich and I suppose he is not president of my fan club — such as it is.

Before I engage Rev. Lusk’s offering let me say that my Spidey senses are tingling on the matter of the CREC (Doug Wilson’s own personal paedo-creedo denomination) and Kinism. That is to say that there is some circumstantial evidence that begins to suggest that there is unrest in what is thought to be the last Elven home (Rivendell) of “conservative” Reformed denominationalism. Members of the CREC keep turning to the issue of Kinism in denunciation which makes one think there must be some kind of threat of Kinism prospering in the denomination. I  mean, why else do CREC types online keeps returning to the subject?

Rev. Lusk (Hereafter RL) writes,

Love of people and place is virtuous. It is good to love one’s family, and love of one’s family easily extends to a love of nation, which is largely an extension of the family. One way to honor my mother and father (and grandmother and grandfather, etc.) is to honor the land in which I was born. Cultivating love of people and place is an application of the fifth commandment, among other things.

BLM responds,

This paragraph is pure on Kinism. I’m glad to see Lusk confessing what the Scripture routinely teaches.

RL writes,

(1) But kinists take the love of people and place to an unwarranted, unbiblical, even idolatrous extreme. (2) For the kinist, “my people” comes to mean primarily people of a certain skin color. (3) Skin color becomes more essential to identity than faith. (4) Skin color becomes synonymous with culture, so that defending one is the same as defending the other. (5) Kinists want to build a racially homogenous civilization because they believe racial unity is the key to social harmony. (6) But this is a misplacement of the antithesis, which divides people not according to skin color but according to their spiritual state.  (7) Biblically, it is faith rather than skin color that is determinative. (8) To put it in concrete terms: I would much rather build a culture with Clarence Thomas and Voddie Baucham (who share my faith but not my skin color) than Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi (who share my skin color but not my faith). (9) Culture is not tied to skin to skin color in the way kinists seem to think. (10)Insofar as culture is the product of religious conviction (which it always is), white people do not share a common culture because not all white people share a common faith. (11) And many people with other skin colors might be much closer to some white people in culture because they do share the same faith. (12) God’s Word requires us to make careful distinctions. (13) Further, the Great Commission requires the Christian faith to permeate every nation — indeed, every culture and subculture — with the gospel. (14) If kinists claim that cultures should remain homogenous and closed off to all outside influence, they make the mission of the church impossible. (15) The Great Commission requires a certain level of cross-cultural intermixing and influence. (16) That is not the same thing as the borderless, multi-cultural “new world order” the globalists dream of, but neither is it identical to the racially segregated world he kinists want.

BLM responds,

(1.) I always get a jolt by reading what Alienists say kinists believe. It is akin to reading Arminians describe what Calvinists believe or listening to Baptists tell me what covenant means.

But, I must admit that just this morning I demonstrated my idolatrous extreme by entering my kinist shrine which I have in my house (all kinists have shrines to their ancestors in their homes). Once in my shrine I went through the steps of my idolatrous extreme by lighting candles and reciting chants to my ancestors. This was only after I forced my children to recite their ancestors names back to me going back 15th generations.

(2a.) Lusk writes in his first paragraph about how it is proper to love one’s own nation and yet he seems to forget that etymologically to love one’s own nation means to love those who are descended from a common ancestor. Webster’s 1828 dictionary notes,

 “nation as its etymology imports, originally denoted a family or race of men descended from a common progenitor, like tribe…”

Now obviously, it is very unusual any more to be able to limit “nation” to this definition what with immigration, and conquest or forced intermixture, it still remains the case that nation by etymological definition means what we find italicized in the definition above.

If all men in a nation are descended from a common ancestor then obviously skin color is going to part of that dynamic. Therefore, Lusk has a serious contradiction between his first paragraph and the first sentence of his second paragraph.

(2b.) Next on this score Lusk goes all reductionistic on us by suggesting that people groups can be reduced to being just a matter of skin color (melanin level). This is the constant nonsense that emanates from the communication hole of Alienists. Kinists reject the suggestion that a people group is primarily only about skin color. Certainly skin color may be one particular aspect about a people group but to suggest that is all that Kinists care about is just stupidity parading as profundity.

(2c.) Is Lusk going to fault the Apostle Paul when he speaks of the special love for people of his own race in Romans 9:3? Has the Holy Spirit in that passage suddenly found himself involved in an  unwarranted, unbiblical, and even idolatrous extreme?

For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my people, those of my own race — Romans 9:3

(3.) This is utter bull feces. The Kinist raises Christ above all other considerations. They can sing with Luther, “Let goods and kindred go,” unlike the Alienist who having no love for kindred think it no big deal to “let kindred go.” However, all because Christ must have the preeminence that does not mean that therefore there shouldn’t be a proper natural affection for one’s own people just as we find in St. Paul.

There is an implied false dichotomy in what Lusk writes. His false dichotomy is that a person can only love Christ or he can only love his God ordained extended family as if those two loves are necessarily exclusive and contradictory.

It is interesting that Lusk would never warn that maleness or femaleness not become more essential to identity than Christ. All Christians immediately understand that their maleness or femaleness is part of their identity that they have as in Christ. However, Lusk seemingly thinks that somehow we should automatically separate our belongingness to our people as not being part of our identity in Christ as if grace doesn’t automatically restore nature. Lusk is positing a false dichotomy here between grace and nature and thus demonstrates what he has been accused of before in the Federal Vision debate that he is a latent Gnostic.

(4a.) Once again Lusk continues with his reductionistic nonsense by constantly referring to races and peoples are merely a matter of “skin color.”

(4b.) While one’s ethnicity and/or race certainly is not exactly synonymous with culture it is also the case that the two can not be disentangled from one another. To think that culture has nothing to do with race as Lusk is proposing once again finds the door opened to bringing forth the charge of Gnosticism against Lusk. To suggest that culture and race have nothing to do with each other defies the definition that culture is the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs. Culture is comprised of two realities; i.) a people groups genetic disposition — who God has created a people to be and ii.) what it is that people group believes regarding ultimate reality. To suggest that culture is only about what goes on between the ears of assorted and random individuals is just nothing but Gnosticism. It is a dishonoring of the corporeal side of who we are as humans as God as God has created us.

(5.) Kinists do not believe that racial unity is the only key to social harmony. However, they do believe it is one key to social harmony. Certainly, racial unity absent worldview/faith unity is not going to yield social harmony. However, we see in Acts 6 that neither does faith unity as existing among different people groups necessarily yield social harmony. So, we see that Kinists believe that social harmony is best achieved by the presence of both racial unity as combined with worldview/faith unity.  Therefore, here we have established that Lusk is just in error with his assertion.

(6.) The antithesis is drawn so as to distinguish who is in Christ and who is not in Christ. The Reformed antithesis is not about what makes for the best social order circumstances. As John Frame has noted with regard to both Society and Church (which is a much smaller subset than a nation)

“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”

(7.) Biblically it is faith and not skin color that is determinative of who is in Christ. All agree with Lusk there but that has nothing to do with what makes for the greatest harmony among a nation and its social order.

(8.) Who can disagree with what Lusk says in #8 above? However, that does nothing to disprove the issue at hand. It may be true that I would rather build a culture with biblical Christians of other ethnicities/races than I would to try to build a culture with pagans who belong to my own ethnicity/race but it is even more true that people from different races/ethnicity would prefer to build a culture with Christians from their own race and ethnicity than with Christians from a WASP race/ethnicity. And there is not the slightest thing wrong with that or un-Christian about that. Being in Christ doesn’t mean that grace destroys nature so that being in Christ means that all nature differences and distinctions no longer exist. It is perfectly acceptable, for example, for Koreans to want to worship with other Koreans vis-a-vis worshiping with WASPs. It is perfectly acceptable, for example, for the historic American Black Churches to desire to remain an entity that remains Black. All of this is about natural affections that God made.

(9.) Another Gnostic statement from Lusk. Culture and ethnicity/race while distinct are not divorced and are intimately tied together.

(10.) See #4b above.

(11.) And many ethnicities/races might be even closer still to their own Christian peoples/races than they are to WASPs because those people of other ethnicities/races shared the same faith with their people.

Note again here though the Gnostic Lusk reducing ethnicity/race to “skin color.” This is like reducing the meaning of Christianity to people agreeing only on the statement “I love Jesus.”

(12.) And here I continue to wait for Lusk to make the careful distinctions necessary instead of the hatchet job he is making of all this.

(13.) Elsewhere we learn that water is wet.

(14.) No Kinist is so stupid as to believe that social-orders can be hermetically sealed off so that heterogenous influences don’t weigh on particular social orders. Only Alienists could be stupid enough to think this way.

(15.) Lusk needs to read Roland Allen’s “St. Paul’s Missionary Methods and Ours.” In that book Lusk would learn that St. Paul would stay something like 6 months in different lands before he would push on to the next land. In that time St. Paul would entrust the nascent church to indigenous leadership so that the Church planted there would be kinist. There would thus be comparatively little intermixing and influence.

(16.) What the Kinist pray for is for all the nations — all the distinct ethnic/racial peoples that God has ordained to exist to find themselves all swearing allegiance to Jesus Christ as in their nations.

 

From the Mailbag … Jack takes Pastor Bret to the Woodshed … Bret Demurs.

As I look at the list of authors you seem to adhere to, who are the usual suspects tied to Christian reconstruction, it is no shock at all you speak out against folks like Horton, because it is a necessity on your part. It is also not a shock to see one who is tied to Christian reconstruction twist what one has to say, because it has been my experience to witness this being the case. As an example, in the quote you supply by Horton, he does not in any way say, “Islam is not an external threat to the United States.” Rather, what Horton actually said was, “Islam is not an external threat to Christianity.” Let us look at the quote you supply again,

“Islam is not an external threat in the United State to Christianity”

There is a tremendous difference between saying, “Islam is not an external threat IN the United States” as opposed to saying, “Islam is not an external threat TO the United States” as you have Horton saying. In other words, Horton is saying, Islam is not in any way an external threat to Christianity in the U.S. If you are under the impression Islam is a threat to Christianity, then I would have to wonder who you think is in charge? In other words, if it is Christ who is advancing His Kingdom, then how can Islam, or anything else be a threat to this advancement? The bottom line here is though, Horton does not say anything, “about Islam not being an external threat to the US” as you have him saying. Therefore, one is not reading very carefully. Or are they are being less than honest about what was actually said?

Allow me to end here by saying, I have no stomach at all for, Christian nationalism, Christian reconstruction, Federal vision, and the like. I have no interest in engaging in the culture wars. Because you see, while a large portion of the Church has been so preoccupied with what is going on outside the Church, with the likes of science, the homosexuals, abortionists, and what Disney World is doing, it has failed to actually nurture those inside the Church. It is a fact that the Church has involved itself in the culture wars, and it is a fact the Church has lost the war. The Church lost the war, not because of science, homosexuals, abortionists, and Disney World, but rather because the Church itself has produced more atheists, than any of these other perceived threats, because the Church is more concerned about culture, (what was going on outside the Church) than it is about what was going on inside the Church. Therefore, while the Church was so busy outside, it’s children were leaving the Church in droves, as atheists. Maybe it is time for the Chruch to worry about those inside the Church, ensuring the flock is thoroughly equipped, getting the Gospel correct, in order for the flock to go out in order to share the true Gospel to a world in desperate need, instead of being under the impression that law has the power to save us as opposed to Gospel.

This sort of reminds me of when Paul said,

“For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?”

So then, it does not seem as if Paul was concerned with the behavior of those outside the Church. Rather, his concern seems to be with those inside. Just before Paul said this, he had this to say,

“I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person.”

Again, where is the focus? Is it with the culture war? My point is, maybe it is time for the Chruch to focus upon those who name the Name of Christ, instead upon those who do not? In this way, instead of the Church boycotting the likes of Disney World, who does not name the Name of Christ, we would instead boycott those ministries who do name the Name of Christ who are preaching a false Gospel forbidding any of our members from supporting such ministries. If this were the case, it would have been impossible to have such ministries as, Praise the Lord Club, Oral Roberts, Joel Osteen, Kenneth Copeland, and the like. Instead, we are concerned about Disney.

Jack O’Neal Hanley

1.) As I read your comment I see that you are a fanboy of some kind of version of Radical Two Kingdom theology. It’s not a shock that you speak against people like me or that you have a bad case of understanding historic Biblical Christianity as that is a necessity for your Weltanschauung.

2.) Reconstruction is basic Christianity. Reconstruction is an inescapable category. By your refusal to engage the culture wars (culture is merely religion externalized) you are, by your retreat, reconstructing the culture in a non-Christian direction inasmuch as your absence allows the wicked to reconstruct religion externalized as they like without your loyalty to Jesus Christ being advanced in the culture (which is defined as religion externalized). All who reconstruct by not reconstructing are cowards. That’s right. I called you a coward. A Nancy boy. A Pajama boy. One of Christ’s soldiers who refuses to engage the enemy under a cloak of pietistic “but we’re not supposed to hate that which is evil and cling to that which is good.” We’re not really supposed to take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.” We’re not really supposed to be “pulling down strongholds, 5 casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ.” You say to me … “Don’t you know that Christianity is a private matter. It is not supposed to impact the public square.”

3.) Your sophistry is epic. On the one hand you fault me for saying that Horton did not say the Islam was not a threat to the US while on the other hand you say that because God is sovereign therefore Islam can not be a threat to Christianity in the US. But if God is sovereign than it is also true that Islam can’t be a threat to the US. If God is sovereign Islam was never a threat to the northern littoral of Africa in the 7th century and neither was Islam ever a threat to Christianity in the Northern littoral of Africa in the 7th century. Indeed, we may as well lose the word “threatening” since God is sovereign. God is sovereign therefore stupidity is no threat to your ability to reason. God is sovereign therefore the enemies design on His Kingdom can never be spoken of as a “threat.”

The fact that I might think that Islam is a threat to Christianity is grounded in the on the ground facts we are living. It is not a confession that Islam will stop God’s Kingdom advance. It is not surrendering. It is merely saying that God has ordained means to His sovereign ends and those sovereign means to His sovereign ends means conceding that certain areas are threatening.
As another example, when I say your kind of stupidity is a threat to Biblical Christianity, I don’t mean that in the end, I think your kind of stupidity might actually conquer all, though there are some days when my faith is smaller than other days.

4.) Yes you have no stomach for nationalism, Christian Reconstructionism, Federal Vision and the like. And you probably gag at the notion of shooting firearms, eating hot peppers, bench pressing weights, getting dirty or competing in any arena. I imagine when you filled out your Passport form when it asked for your sex you checked “other.”

And just for the record… this blog is filled with anti-Federal Vision posts. That was a swing and a miss on your part.

5.)  “Failed to nurture those inside the Church”

LOL … I’ve heard your Escondido preacher-boys preach. Don’t try to tell me that they are “nurturing the Church.” The Escondido boys traverse land and sea to win a single convert, and when he becomes one, they make him twice as much a son of hell as they are. The Escondido boys are poisonous sacks infecting the whole visible Church with their Gnosticism and their Reformed Dispensationalism. If they win out the Church will either collapse until the Augean R2K stables are cleaned out in some certain future day or the Church will end up being a pale reflection of the culture (religion externalized) as it already currently is.

6.) “It is a fact that the Church has lost the culture wars.”

a.) Can you give me a brief time period when the Church was fighting the culture wars? The Church has been filled with pietists and quietists and retreatists like you for decades if not centuries in America.

b.) Since God is sovereign how can you dare say that the Church has lost the culture wars? Here, I would have to wonder who you think is in charge? In other words, if it is Christ who is advancing His Kingdom, then how can the Church lose the culture war? (Psst… that’s a “you’ve been hoisted on your own petard argument.)

c.) Certainly the Church as asleep has lost the culture wars. Certainly the Church as disobedient has lost the culture wars. Certainly the Church effeminate has lost the culture wars.

7.)

“The Church lost the war, not because of science, homosexuals, abortionists, and Disney World, but rather because the Church itself has produced more atheists, than any of these other perceived threats, because the Church is more concerned about culture, (what was going on outside the Church) than it is about what was going on inside the Church.”

The Church lost you tihspid because it quit being salt and light to the area where religion is externalized (culture). The loss began way back in the American revision of the WCF where the American Presbyterians anabaptized the document by playing with the section on the Magistrate. The church lost because it turned Christianity into a privatized affair that is only relevant as between the individual and God and as occurring in the individuals “heart.” The Church lost because in the movement from Princeton to Westminster the pestiferous Dutch theologians with their ruinous Amillennialism changed the Reformed narrative from Postmillennialism to Amillennialism. Because of this the Church thinks it is winning when it is losing. “It’s the way it is supposed to happen according to the Bible,” says the militant Amillennialists. “Jesus is going to come rescue us just when it looks like we are swirling the drain.” The Church lost because it didn’t intellectually engage with the myth of Scientism. The Church lost because it didn’t insist that Homosexuality and infant murder remain capital crimes. The Church lost because it lost the backbone of men like Calvin, Knox, Rutherford, Cromwell, and Goodman. The Church lost because they got more of their theology from Walt Disney than they did Groen Van Prinisterer.

Finally, my little plaything, lets keep in mind that it was only because of the above explanation that the Church needed to start addressing Abortion, Sodomy, Disney, and Scientism because those came into the Church because the Church refused to FIGHT.

8.) “Getting the Gospel correct”

LOL … yep boys… belly up to the R2K bar where Reformed Dispensationalism and Rot Gut Lutheran Law and Gospel are the house specials. At the R2K “Bar & Grill” we will teach you the proper ordo salutis. We will teach you the proper view of Lapsarianism. We will teach you a High Presbyterian ecclesiology. At the R2K Bar and Grill you’ll be able to learn to recite the Westminster catechism (the long one even) but what you will never ever be equipped to do is to take that sharp sword and know how to use it. All we teach you will be abstractions. Concrete praxis need not apply. Worldviews? We don’t do no stinking worldviews. After all, we are too busy getting the Gospel correct.

I despise the R2K Gospel. I spit on it. Any Gospel that apriori diminishes and negates the Mediatorial Kingship of Jesus Christ over every area of life is complete emesis. Any Gospel that says that there are some areas wherein Christ’s Kingdom never touch so as to be Reformed along Biblical lines is a treasonous proposition.

9.) “Law has the power to save.”

Insert loud buzzer sound.

Insert announcer’s voiceover: “I’m sorry Mr. Hanley you guessed wrong on the subject you chose: “What do Reconstructionists believe.” We are sorry to inform you Mr. Contestant that now Reconstructionists believes that the Law saves. You can now continue on with the game and experience ever increasing embarrassment and shame at being so consistently in error or you can quit now with your tail between your legs and save whatever little dignity you have left.

 No Reconstructionists believes the law saves. However, basic Christianity does hold to the 2nd use (politicus usus) of the law and so there is a place for Christians to insist that the Magistrate rule by God’s law and God’s law alone. You do remember John the B. telling the Pagan Herod that he was not to have his Brother’s wife? Stupid John the Baptist… didn’t he know that the law did not have the power to save Herod?

Dude, your categories are so buggered up that I’d have to reconstruct them before I could thoroughly show you how completely wrong you are.

We agree … the law has no power to save. We do not agree that because God’s law in it’s first use cannot save therefore we should not employ God’s second use of the law as in the civil realm.

10.) “the Church itself has produced more atheists, than any of these other perceived threats,”

Now, I’m going to resist listing the prominent Reformed Pillars of the Church and their sons by name who have gone off the rails because I’m a polite guy. But I can think of five just off the top of my head. All of these sons were nurtured in the Church that you envision and all of them went belly up doctrinally or morally.

Which son can we NOT add to that list? I know … we can’t add Mark Rushdoony, son of the Reconstructionist R. J. Rushdoony.

11.) Now in terms of your spoof texting:  Here i am Bubba … judging you who is in the Church just as you are Judging me who is in the Church. How’s that going for you?

12.)  That’s God’s law is totalistic and applicable to all men is seen in Jonah’s ministry to pagan (non-covenant) Nineveh. It is seen in Daniel’s declaration to Nebuchadnezzar. Let’s remember the pagan Canaanites whose cup of wickedness was not yet full when God spoke to Father Abraham but when it became full God judged them for their violations against His law-Character.

It is seen in Paul’s words to Timothy;

“Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,”

Now … go away before you begin to irk me.

AP Lugenpresse Expresses the Vapors Over the Rise of Not Particularly Christian White Nationalism

https://apnews.com/article/2022-midterm-elections-pennsylvania-religion-nationalism-8bf7a6115725f508a37ef944333bc145

Pity then mock the poor “intellectual” who fears the rise of “Christian White Nationalism.” It is precisely that he has spent his life seeking to obliterate and bury. Yet, despite all his efforts he is now writing articles about the rise and threat of Christian White Nationalism. He must be stone cold petrified at even the whiff of Christian White Nationalism since he knows that Christian White Nationalism alone can sink his hopes for his Luciferian New World Order. Furthermore, he knows, that should such a reverse happen at this late hour it would by necessity mean the pulling down of his own social order house and possibly his very life.

Just imagine if AP News came across the 100 proof variety of Christian White Nationalism. They would first wet, and then soil their pants. The Christian Nationalism they are whining about in the article is the watered down hooch. What they are scared of in the article is some variant of Dispensational, Pentecostalism, or squishy Evanjellyfishism. Just imagine how out of their minds they would be if a Calvin, Knox, Rutherford or Goodman showed up at the party.

Of course, before Christian White Nationalism can arise it must be driven by a Christian Church teaching garden variety Christianity — you know the kind of Christianity that built the West. Since that is true before there can be counter-Revolution in the social order there must first be counter-Revolution in the Church. There are many clergy that must have done to them what Friar Tuck does to the conniving money hungry Bishop in Kevin Costner’s Robinhood. They must be defenestrated — preferably, metaphorically. Christian White Nationalism will not return in the Social Order before the foundation is recognized again in Christian White Churches.

We see this assault against Christian White Nationalism by Doug Wilson in his CREC denomination. Recently the Maven from Moscow posted;

“So the need of the hour is repentance and reformation—and the reformation as outlined above is going to be genuinely radical. It will go to the root (radix), and so it will be radical reformation. Simple reaction to all the regnant follies may seem more radical, at least initially, but it is actually just the radicalism of a Kleenex fire. I am talking about all those possible Nietzschean reactions, of the sort that you can find among the proud boys, or the alt-right, or with white boy summer memes. “

Pope Doug Wilson I

Doug, “there is no such thing as races” Wilson never misses the opportunity to bang on some form of race-realism or ethno-Nationalism” and in the above we see that impulse again. This is especially seen when it is realized how the “White Boy Summer” memes have just been crushing the Alienism of Doug “open the borders” Wilson.

I am here to tell you there will be no Reformation as long as the ideology that Pope Doug is selling is the currency in the Reformed Church. One wonders what world Pope Doug is living in? Is he still caught in the 1960’s Lugenpresse civil rights matrix narrative? Is he still drinking the swill from Brown vs. the Board of Education? Is he still caressing his Martin Luther King poster every morning? The man is unhinged on this issue — that is, he is completely divorced from the reality that Christians are living.

The NWO, Great Reset Crowd is obviously seeking, in the words of Clare Ellis to “Blacken Europe.” It doesn’t take many power of observation to see the same attempt is being made here. Note that the real agenda behind this blender reality pursuit is to deconstruct what little remains of Western Christendom, and Pope Doug, along with his alleged R2K opposition is paving the way for this Christian Replacement to occur.

You see what is interesting here is I also have no tuck with the Alt. Right and much of the Proud Boys but I have no tuck with it as arguing from the Christian Right and not the pagan left where Pope Doug is.

At the end of the day the man is embracing the deracinated, globalist, non-Christian, vision that the NWO and Great Reset and Agenda 2030 are advocating. Pope Doug is playing Sauruman to Klaus Schwab’s Sauron. Praying that God would raise up for His people a Gandalf type.

Let’s be clear here. I think what Wilson envisions is the same New World Order type of reality that NWO is after with the exception that Doug envisions this blender globalist reality to be Christian. So, the difference between Wilson (and his former running mate Leithart) and say someone like Justin Trudeau is that whereas for Trudeau the eventually globalist cosmopolitanism that arises by the mixing of all is aimed as being anchored in some kind of Luciferianism/humanism whereas for Doug the elimination of the Nations will birth a cosmopolitan coffee latte Kingdom of God that covers the globe. I think Doug thinks that nations will go into eclipse once Christ’s Kingship is established.

And if I’m right about this then Doug will understandably continue to seek to immanentize the eschaton that he envisions. Which means he’s not going to give up on his Alienism since it is how he envisions the coming success of postmillennialism.

I’d kind of like to hope that Pope Doug is not doing so intentionally but clearly, regardless of intentions, New World Orderism is what Pope Doug is pushing.

But… it’s not to late Pope Doug. If you will just repent you too can still enjoy the White Boy Summer.

It may be that in God’s inscrutable providence that the era of Christian White Nationalism and the Christian West is over. It may be that it will no more return than Czarist Russia or the Ante-bellum South. If that is so, God has something even better for the future. But until such a time that is clear we as God’s people — White or non-White, need to pray and work to the end that God would restore Christianity to the previous Christian White nations of the West.

Returning to the story linked we find some interesting statements:

 “Scholars generally define Christian nationalism as going beyond policy debates and championing a fusion of American and Christian values, symbols and identity.”

Scholars are atwitter at the notion of Christian nationalism but they have no problem with the fusion of American and Humanist values. The reader should go look up the Humanist manifestos (they are the Humanist version of Creed or Confession) and see how much fusion has already occurred between American and Luciferian values. But of course the “Scholars” in question who are writing about the dangers of Christian nationalism and are sweating nervously about potential fusion of American and Christian values are themselves practicing Humanists/Luciferians whatever they may protest to the contrary. No Biblical Christian wakes up with the night sweats worried that a country may desire to bow the knee to Christ.

“Christian nationalism, they (scholars) say, is often accompanied by a belief that God has destined America, like the biblical Israel, for a special role in history, and that it will receive divine blessing or judgment depending on its obedience.”

Well, since Christians believe that God has destined everything then of course postmillennial Christians would believe that God has destined America for a special role in history. What is unsaid in that quote above is that these scholars believe that America’s teleology is guided by time + chance + circumstance. They hate the idea that God is sovereign. They hate the idea that all men everywhere are commanded to repent. They hate the idea that the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the waters cover the sea. They hate that the rock carved out of the Mountain mentioned in Daniel crushes all those nations that don’t pledge fealty to Christ.

Let it be said here also that White Christian Nationalist believe that every nation as inhabited by all the races of men finds God having for them a plan for them wherein they will glorify and honor the God of the Bible.

Finally, Scripture clearly teaches that God sanctions for rebellion and rewards obedience. That is Christianity 101.

Let us pray that it will be genuine Christianity that is restored in America and not this rotgut Pentecostal/Dispensational crap that we find so routinely among us. It is only the Christianity of the Reformation that can once again successfully inform a successful Christian White Nationalism.

Responding to Rev. Steve Hemmeke’s Take on His One Hour Reading of “Who is My Neighbor” — Part III

Steve Hemmeke is a Pastor of a CREC “church” in Livingstone Michigan. This is the final part of examining Steve’s “insights” into a 650 page Anthology that he looked at, by his own admission, for one hour. In that one hour Steve knows all about what Kinists believe. This series demonstrates that Rev. Steve, on this subject, is absolutely clueless.

Rev. Steve Hemmeke writes,

Doing this contributes to keeping the tyranny of the state at bay (a prevailing motivation of most kinists). Mediating institutions are needed: church, art guilds, faithful extended families, universities, non-profit organizations, social groups, etc. Find ways to build these up. There were several quotes in this book by Communists, who sought to blur and eliminate natural distinctions, to eliminate mediating institutions, so it would be easier to control the masses. There’s something to that. But the way to counter it isn’t to promote segregation. We may need walls to protect the church or societies, but they need to be permeable.

Bret responds,

1.) There’s something to that? There’s something to that?

It has been the goal of the Marxist from time immemorial and it remains the goal of the Cultural Marxists to put all mortal distinctions in a blender and hit the “fast” button. It is most certainly not just a slight “there’s something to that matter.” That’s like saying “there’s something to the idea that sex has something to do with pregnancy.” The goal to blenderized everybody is the lay of the land in the West today. It is not a mere passing thought we can wave our hands at.

2.) Despite the fact that there are a gazillion quotes where we find the Church fathers promoting segregation.

“Segregation or separation is thus a basic principle of Biblical Law with respect to religion and morality. Every attempt to destroy this principle is an effort to reduce society to its lowest common denominator.”

R.J. Rushdoony

“A voluntary segregation, even of believers, can well be a Christian procedure.”

Carl F. H. Henry 

If from this we may conclude that ethnic pluriformity is the revealed will of God for the human race in its present situation, it is highly questionable whether the Christian can have part in any program that would seek to erase all ethnic distinctions. That such distinctions may be crossed over by individuals may be granted, but it is at least questionable whether a program designed to wipe out such differences on a mass scale should be endorsed by the Christian. It is this line of argument that the average Christian segregationist uses to back his view. He fears that the real goal of the integrationist is the intermarriage of the races, and therefore the breakdown of the distinctions between them. Many who would be willing to integrate at various lesser levels refuse to do so, simply because they feel that such will inevitably lead to intermarriage of the races, which they consider to be morally wrong. . . .

The mass mixing of the races with the intent to erase racial boundaries he does consider to be wrong, and on the basis of this, he would oppose the mixing of the two races in this way. Let it be acknowledged that a sin in this area against the Negro race has been perpetrated by godless white men, both past and present, but this does not justify the adoption of a policy of mass mixing of the races. Rather, the Bible seems to teach that God has established and thus revealed his will for the human race now to be that of ethnic pluriformity, and thus any scheme of mass integration leading to mass mixing of the races is decidedly unscriptural.

Dr. Morton H. Smith (1923-) (For more see: Dr. Morton H. Smith on Christianity, Race, and Segregation)

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
    One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).

What does Rev. Steve do with all these quotes and many others like them? Does he just keep on using the word “segregation” as some kind of “scare” word?

And on this score, no one is advocating building legislated impermeable walls. All that is being advocated is a freedom of assembly for all people. Get the government out of passing legislation that forces integration. Allow people to decide for themselves who they have social concourse with. Is that so scandalous?

Rev. Steve Hemmeke writes

Too many liberal churches insist on no walls or boundaries at all. Everyone is welcome, no matter what you advocate for. Some conservative churches in response have a Checkpoint Charlie, shooting anyone attempting to cross the Berlin Wall they erect. The proper response is to fence the Lord’s Table each Lord’s Day properly, with the basic gospel. The dividing line is Christ, not kin.

Bret responds,

The dividing line is indeed Christ and not kin. We are to love Christ above all else including family. However, that does not mean that family ceases to exist as a category that we are responsible to in our living. Is Rev. Steve saying here that Christians must cut off all kin who are not Christian because the dividing line is Christ, not kin? Do my responsibilities to my non-Christian kin end because of regeneration?

Rev. Steve writes,

There are many such recent immigrants today in the middle class that we should rejoice over, patriotically, not despise or separate from.

Bret responds,

Here the curtain is pulled back. Rev. Steve believes that kinist’s despise people from other races. What is curious is that I think it is Rev. Steve that despises both other people and his own kin by his position. His position puts everyone in a difficult social-order setting as Robert Putnam demonstrates in his book, “Bowling Alone.” It is not a kindness to forcefully create a multi-cultural and multi-racial society. It is Rev. Steve who is guilty of despising people and not Biblical Kinists. It is Rev. Steve who, though full of good intentions, who is practicing hate.

And just to make a point … right now I despise Rev. Steve (a white man) far more than any imagined despise Rev. Steve’s construct would attribute to me in relation to my friends from other races.

Rev. Steve writes,

I am quite aware of the cultural relativistic dangers of woke-ism, and of the mass immigration of those who are intent on subverting our culture, etc.

But racial segregation, or even a milder definition of Kinism, is NOT the way to fight it.

Bret responds,

And on the authority of Rev. Steve alone we are supposed to accept his conclusions.

These idiots are going to get us all killed in the most massive civil war that one can possibly contemplate and that all because they want to be nicer than God.

Dow & McAtee Take On the Ecclesiastical Regnant Follies

“Below are a series of quotations from Reformed pastors and theologians defining “race”. Note their agreement with the purveyors of Critical Race Theory.
 
 
It is, of course, true that all people belong to the human race (Acts 17:25). However within the one human race, varying “races” exist — each fully human, each Image Bearers of God, but each a distinct expression of the one human race. Together they communicate the idea of the “One and the Many” character of God. Taking one additional step, within these broad racial groups (think in terms of large extended families) there exist different ethnic groups, tribes, and families.
 
 
Here is how a Roman Catholic explains this idea based on the teaching of his church:
 
 
“Consequently at the same time as acknowledging the diversity and singularity of races, the Church rejects, equally with the racist assertions of radical racial superiority and inferiority, the tendency towards a depreciation and leveling of races found at the opposite extreme. It does this in the confidence that Christianity, grounded in reality and truth, is able to harmonize the affirmation of the radical unity of mankind with the recognition of racial diversity…There can therefore be no better way of combatting racism and racial discrimination, than by a sane and realistic acknowledgement of the facts of race and of historical and cultural inequalities” –
 
Bonaventure Hinwood
Race, Reflections of a Theologian – p. 103
 
 
This is all quite conventional and was obvious to everyone with a pair of eyes until roughly three weeks ago. Whatever Doug Wilson’s dimmer acolytes may say–or your pastor–holding such views does not constitute heresy.
 
 
“There is only one race. The human race. And so I think races — the whole concept of races — is problematic. The one human race is divided by language. divided by culture, divided by tribes, divided by history.” — Doug Wilson
 
 
“I use ‘ethnicity’ because, as we shall see, ‘race’ is not actually a positive biblical reality, but a construct. On this point, ironically, I agree with CRT advocates, much as many of them state that race is a social construct, but then practically operate in many senses as if it is real.” –Owen Strachan
 
 
“Concepts of “whiteness” or “blackness” are DESTROYED by the radical equality of every sinner’s need and Christ’s perfect provision. Our identity is NOT determined by our ancestors—we have been transferred out of the kingdom where such relationships rule and divide.”~~James White
 
 
“”Race’ is not a biblical category, but rather a social construct that often has been used to classify groups of people in terms of inferiority and superiority.”

Dallas Statement on Social Justice

 
 
“One of the sad realities of antiracism is that it is 100 percent correct about race being a construct.” –Voddie Baucham
 
Darrell Dow
 
McAtee adds
 
We are living in a bleeping madhouse on this issue in the “conservative” Reformed church as we few sane people left in the Church are suffering under the politics of guilt and pity as it has come into the Church.
 
Should one hold to the historic position on race that the Church has embraced at all times and all places up until 1950 or so one is considered a heretic or a racist. When one produces the quotes from the Church greats who have gone before they are never interacted with. Nobody even pauses when you march Charles Hodge, Geerhardus Vos, J. Gresham Machen, Augustine, Aquinas, Francis Nigel Lee, Morton H. Smith, A. W. Tozer, Dagg, Dabney, Cyprian, etc. etc etc. up to the microphone to give testimony that you are saying the same exact things they said on the subject. Modern clergy seem to be so daft that they can’t realize that races were understood as corporeally real and existing long long before Charles Darwin came along with his foolishness. Nope… none of it matters. If you insist that races exist and should be taken seriously you are considered, by our modern divines as “racist,” “Darwinist,” and  worst of all, clearly a not nice person.
 
It is not as if all this is not monumentally important. Indeed, I would say it is so important that anyone who denies race as existing has forfeited their privilege to be piloting a pulpit. I mean if someone can’t get Christian Anthropology 101 right how are they going to get anything else right? These people don’t seem to realize that error does not exist in a water tight compartment unaffecting all other disciplines of theology.
 
It is a hard time right now to be in the ministry because of this madness. Pray for the Church that God might be pleased to give in Reformation in its head and members.