Critiquing Crawford Gribben Interview on Kinism

I am picking apart a segment of this video because I think it misrepresents Kinism and kinists.

If you want to listen to the section I’m dealing with you must go to the 30-minute mark and start there and listen for appx. 10 minutes.

The person being interviewed is Crawford Gribben who is a  historian of early modern religion, with a particular interest in Calvinist literary cultures. He is connected to Queen’s University in Belfast. Recently he wrote a book titled; “Survival and Resistance in Evangelical America: Christian Reconstruction in the Pacific Northwest,” and in the linked interview above he is speaking on this book.

For this book, Gribben interviewed some Kinists in the Northwest area. I know several of them and so I asked them about Gribben’s observations on this interview.

1.) “The kinists I met love Rushdoony and they did quote some pretty unfortunate statements that Rushdoony made on race.”

I note this one first in order to demonstrate that Gribben should be considered a hostile witness when he makes observations on kinism. I’ve read tons of material by Rushdoony and I have yet to come across a “pretty unfortunate statement on race.” As such, Gribben’s observation on Kinism should be taken with a large grain of salt. Gribben obviously has an ax to grind for Political Correctness if he thinks RJR made pretty unfortunate statements on race.

2.) “The way the kinists presented themselves is that they were cool. They were not hicks from the sticks. They were very cool people.”

LOL … what did he expect? Little gnome-like creatures arising up out of the earth dressed in Confederate Battle flag garments drinking moonshine? Was Gribben surprised that the Kinists were intelligent, well dressed, and practiced hygiene? This is almost insulting in the way that it communicates how shocked he was that kinists were not troglodytes.

3.) “The kinists met for worship in a forest.”
This one is hilarious.  I talked to one of the chaps that interviewed with Gribben and they said all they told him is that the location of where they would meet sometimes to worship was an old lodge in a forest.

Is Gribben by this description reaching for the ancient idea of Jove’s (Dona’s / Thor’s) pagan oak worship in ancient Germanic times? By this description is he trying to tie kinists to those who once worshiped in sacred groves? Never mind that modern elites (Bohemian Grove Society) do themselves gather in forests to worship their deities.

4.) Kinists are very secretive people. Very worried about publicity and very happy to talk but also very concerned about what would happen as a consequence of that speech.

This should not be that surprising given how everything that Kinists say is twisted beyond recognition once our enemies get a hold of it. I myself am happy to talk but am also concerned about where I am going to end up while speaking the truth. My kinist friends are no different. When we live in a cancel culture as being driven by the fruitcake SJW’s, Alienists, and Marxists how could we not be concerned about what would happen as a consequence of our speech?

5.) “Kinists desire to live in monocultural communities.”
Let’s be clear here. The only other option to monocultural homogenous communities is multicultural heterogeneous communities. So, yes, like mankind throughout all time until the last 50 years or so Kinists see cultural homogeneity as a good thing and something that they desire not only for themselves but also for all men. Ironically enough, our enemies also desire to live in monocultural communities. The communities the SJW’s desire to live in are cultures without any people who dare disagree with them. So, desiring to live in a monocultural community is not odd in the least, and if Dr. Gribben thinks it odd he is the one who is odd for thinking that.

6.) “Those Kinists in N. Idaho loved Doug Wilson’s ministry. They just wish he was more consistent.”
Again, per the chap I knew who spoke with Gribben there is no way they would have said they loved Doug Wilson’s ministry. Doubtless, kinists agree that Wilson, from time to time, can get matters correct but to say that they love Doug Wilson’s ministry is just not typically true of Kinists. Instead, they tend to see Doug as someone who waits to see which way the wind is blowing and then hurries up to throw up his position consistent with what the left side of the right is tacking towards.

7.) “I’m not sure when it comes to RJR and the Kinists if it is a case of cause and consequence or merely correlation. I’m just not sure.”
Let’s be honest. The kinists are the only ones who are the natural ideological heirs of RJR. There is cause and consequence here. The others who won’t accept kinism are just poseurs trying to steal RJR’s glory and refusing to accept that he was a typical man of the 1st half of the 20th century, who like all Christian men throughout history (See Achord & Dow’s Book, “Who is My Neighbor”) believed that men should prioritize their own clan, tribe, and nation, above the stranger and the alien.

Alternately, Crawford’s ambiguity on this point could be, in itself, a subtle challenge to the Alienist Reconstructionists. If Gribben is not sure then that means that it might be the case that Kinism is indeed the natural consequence of RJR the cause. If that is the case, then Alienist Reconstructionism is itself the bastard child who has no ideological legacy in the writings of RJR.

8.) “The Kinists we talked to were the most up to date on Frankfurt school theory.”
Well, this means that the Kinists are the most epistemologically self-conscious because they alone are familiar with the designs of the enemy against the Christian faith.

Honestly, if Gribben is accurate here this speaks badly of the rest of the Alienist Reconstructionists camp. If they are not the most up to date then they don’t realize what they are facing and in a battle that means annihilation.

9.) “The Kinists I talked to believed in racialism and not racial supremacy.”
This is just to say that the kinist thinks all men from varying races should have their homeland and live among their own people. Kinists do not believe that anyone people group is universal supreme in every area. Kinists do not believe that anyone people group should be ruling all the rest. Unlike the Alienists and Marxist we are not advocating that all people bleed into one.

A Flurry of Rapid & Brief Observations on R2K

1.) David Van Drunen, the malevolent genius behind R2K was trained at a Jesuit Educational Institution where he learned the classical Roman Catholic philosophical divide between nature and grace. He then, quite obviously took that Thomist divide learned at his Jesuit Roman Catholic school and created a Reformed expression of it in his creation of R2K.

Personally, I am of the conviction that one cannot be Christian and R2K even if their Reformed soteriology is perfect.

2.) R2K teaches that Education, Law, Politics, Art, etc. are all common realm phenomena that are ruled by Natural law. However, if one pauses to think about this just a moment one realizes that these (Education, Law, Politics, Art, Family, etc.) are abstractions. These things do not exist concretely apart from people as Educators, Lawyers/Judges, Politicians/legislators, Artists. So, R2K, concretely speaking is teaching that men as lawyers/judges, men as Educators, men as Artists, etc. are not to be governed by God’s revealed Word. These flesh and blood people are not to be guided in their respective fields by God’s special revelation but instead are, in agreement and consultation with concrete Hindu Educators, Jew Judges, Atheist Artists, and Satanist Legislators to come to a consensus on natural law ao that they as Christians can be governed by in these respective fields.

Such Princeton Tower Club “thinking” is shocking and yet our pulpits are filled today with morons who are touting this god-forsaken theory as truth.

3.) R2K is a theology perfectly cast to avoid confrontation with Idolatry and false religions. Whereas earlier Missionaries would challenge the false gods in public demonstrations R2K says, “The idols in the common realm are not to be addressed and defied by the Institutional Church since that would be to get clergy out of their lanes.”

 

R2K is heresy. When is some denomination going to stand up and say “R2K is heresy?”

4.) R2K teaches that the Jurisdiction of King Jesus and His revealed word is limited to the Church realm. Any Jurisdiction that King Jesus has in the common realm is present by a common grace, a common providence, and a common (Natural) law. R2K thus is teaching that in the common realm Jesus has delegated His rule to an abstraction called Natural law.

5.) R2K teaches that there exists a statist orthodoxy as taught in Government schools that the Church Institutional should not raise its voice against even when the statist orthodoxy is contrary to Christian orthodoxy.

6.) R2K loves to talk about a common kingdom where people of all faiths meet and have social intercourse around a common set of shared values as all based on Natural law.

However, the problem here is increasingly clear. As sodomites are now marrying and adopting children, as queers show up for Drag Queen story hour to read to our children, as women have to compete against biological men in women’s sports, where is this so-called common realm where Christians can enter into a common kingdom?

Clearly, the R2K project has never existed in a time where its fruit is seen to be more absent. Natural law as defined by R2K as a governing mechanism upon which law orders for whole peoples has never more gloriously failed than the failure it is undergoing now and yet there is David Van Drunen, Mike Horton, D. G. Hart, and R. Scott Clark still thumping for it like they have concrete examples where R2K has worked as positioned in Christ-hating social orders. There they are all thumping for R2K like adolescents for the first time having a young pretty thing speak pretty things in their ears.

If this is true (and it is) why are R2K churches and ministers still being supported?

Get out, before you experience a Sodom and Gomorrah type of visitation from God.

7.) In the way that R2K treats the Bible, the Bible becomes ecclesiasticized — trapped inside the four walls of the Church — and even there the Bible is not allowed to speak to public square issues outside the Church.

8.) Because R2K insists that the Institutional Church is not allowed to speak to civil Institutions such as education, family, law, arts, international relations, etc. the consequence is that Christians attending R2K churches become bipolar in their thinking. In the Church realm, they are Christian but in the so-called secular realm (a realm created and sustained by R2K type thinking) the Christian can be a humanist in education, a Sharia fan in law, or even a polygamist in family life. If God’s word does not speak to the common realm as stated from the pulpit then the laity may come to any conclusion they like in these realms as long as they can in some creative way attach their positions to Natural law.

9.) When God’s word is ecclesiasticized so that it cannot be applied to all of life (per R2K) the Church immediately becomes politicized as the laity become vectors for various humanist thinking diseases that descend from theologies and gods that are not Christian.

So, R2K’s attempt to cordon God’s special Revelation from every area of life finally leads to a politicized church where each member votes and advocates and does in the public square what is best in his own eyes.

10.) R2K excels at thumping the formal authority of the bible. This is the authority that teaches the infallible, verbal plenary inspiration of the Bible. However, R2K fails in embracing the material authority of the Bible. This is the authority of the Bible wherein its applicability to all of life is embraced. Another way of saying this is that R2K holds the Bible as abstractly authoritative but it is horrid in concrete application.

11.) Whenever R2K starts up with the idea that there is no such thing as “Christian stir-fry,” or “Christian plumbing,” or “Christian diaper-changing,” they are at that point advocating, contrary to Christian thinking, that there is indeed such a thing as neutrality. R2K when it argues this way is saying in essence, “See, all of the common square is neutral and so we should not insist on Christian law, or Christian Education, or Christian family, seeing those matters as just as neutral as stir-fry, diaper changing, and plumbing.

First, we should note that suggesting that Christian law does not exist because Christian diaper changing does not exist is a leap of magnificent proportions that only a very stupid person could make.

Second, we would argue that there is such a thing as a Christian diaper changer. Imagine if non-Christian parents changing out dirty diapers didn’t apply diaper rash medicine with the result that the child in the diaper is miserable having a severely burned bottom. Would that baby complain, if he could, about his parents not practicing Christian diaper changing? Would not failing to apply diaper rash medicine in the context of changing the diaper not be a violation of the 6th commandment?

Neutrality is a myth and that is as true about diaper changing, plumbing, and stir-fry as it is about Law, Education, and Business.

12.) R2K cuts off the story of Redemption with Christ crucified. They fail to see that the resurrection, ascension, and session of the Lord Christ continue the Redemption narrative in terms of absolute Kingship. Jesus Christ is not only our Great High Priest but He is also a Great High Priest who is King of Kings and Lord of Lords over every principality and power. To give a Gospel that so wrongly centers on the Crucifixion so that it only tells the story of a dis-empowered Great High Priest who is not ruling as the Mediatorial King as very God of God is to do a great disservice to both our soteriology and our doctrine of Jesus Mediatorial Kingship.

R2K gives us a Jesus who is a Gnostic King. In R2K thinking Jesus rules over our spiritual lives but Jesus dare not flex His authority in culture, family, education, law, politics, etc. R2K has divorced Jesus’s office of Priest from His office as King. That is a grave sin when pointed out and still continued in.

13.) In our sins we seek to alienate God’s creation from Him. R2K “theology” supports our work of alienating God’s creation from Him as R2K refuses to allow Christians to be Christ’s Kingdom people joining in the work, under Christ’s Kingship, of taking every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ. In R2K every thought is not brought captive because many thoughts are never intended to be brought captive and as such, all of creation remains alienated from God. R2K turns Christ’s Kingship into the Kingship wherein His people don’t live and move and have their being in light of Christ’s ascension and session and as such God’s creation remains alienated from Him except in some Gnostic sense.

Finlayson’s Attack On Theonomy in His Book on Chalmers

“It is important to note here that this post-millennialism (that Thomas Chalmers embraced) must not be confused with the school of thought known as theonomy or Christian Reconstructionism, which was popularized in America in the 20th century. Thomas Chalmers and Disruption-era Free Church were not interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law. Rather Chalmers believed that the gospel had the power to transform nations and cultures as people came to saving faith in Christ and lived out their faith in the world.”

Sandy Finlayson 
Chief Scottish Man — p. 141

So, I typically get a good deal of reading done when on Holiday. Today I finished off a short biography on Thomas Chalmers. Chalmers was a Scottish-worthy Christian Preacher in 19th century Scotland. I first learned about him when I listened years ago to the George Grant History series covering that era. Learning a little bit of Chalmers from Grant I decided to someday learn some more so I picked up this biography by Sandy Finlayson.

Finlayson, on the whole, does a good job laying out the basics of who Chalmers was and why he was important. Per a quote provided by Finlayson Chalmers was one of the greatest orator preachers of all time.

However,  I am going to rip Finlayson a good one for the one paragraph cited above because it is an outright libel against those who embrace theonomy and Christian Reconstructionism. This slur on theonomy has been dismissed consistently know for 40 years and yet this shizer still shows up from the pen of the Reformed establishment blue-bloods who were born with a silver foot in their mouths. These Reformed establishment types look down their long powdered noses and at every opportunity go after the rank -n- file blue collar Reformed who hate the antinomianism of the Reformed elite with a firey passion.

Finlayson noted that Chalmers was a postmillennialist and then immediately noted that Chalmers was not a postmillennialist like those nasty theonomists. Finlayson then goes on to do a complete hatchet job on theonomy giving a definition that in no way corresponds to reality.

I’m telling you the blue blood antinomian Reformed are messing their pants they are so scared of theonomy.

1.) No theonomist has ever been “interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law.” To the contrary theonomists believing the scriptures account of eschatology as summarized in postmillennialism hold that men upon conversion will desire to be ruled by God’s Law and so the antinomianism of Finlayson and the Seminary snobs will come to a blessed end.

2.) However, having said that we recognize that those who remain unconverted in a Christian social order will complain, gripe, and bitch about how they are being ruled by  “Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law,” just like Finlayson is snorting about in the paragraph above. Of course, they will have that complaint. That is always the complaint of those who are being ruled by God’s just law. What is amazing is to hear a Seminary Prof. agree with the wicked’s complaint.

3.) Let’s just pretend for a moment that what Finlayson complains about was really the case. Let’s pretend that theonomist really were interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law. Even if that were true would that be so bad in light of how the dregs of humanism are being forced on society through the radical imposition of autonomous man’s crafting of positivistic law? Is the forced torture and death of 1 million babies a year in America superior to a pretend forced theonomic order where Doctors and Mothers guilty of presenting their children for abortion would receive the death penalty? Is this current forced humanist order something that Finlayson the antinomian approves of over a forced Christian order that would push the LGBTQ agenda back into the closet, would end Drag Queen Story Hour at our public libraries, and would make adultery a crime again? Only some kind of pervert would reason like Finlayson reasons here.

4.) Let’s keep in mind that King Alfred the Great once upon a time was interested in a Christianity that was forced on society through the radical imposition of Old Testament civil law,” and then demonstrated that by placing in whole chapters from the Pentateuch to be used as the means to govern his Kingdom’s law order. (The famous “Book of Doom.”)

5.) Finlayson seems to think that law is a neutral category. Law always descends from the God or god concept of a people. Show me a people’s laws and I will tell you who the God is of those people.  As such Biblical Christians should advocate for only God’s laws to be the law of the nation. What better laws are to be found than God’s laws? If we will not be ruled by God’s laws we will be ruled by the laws of Muslims, Hindus, Satanists, Jews, Atheists, etc.

6.) Finally, Finlayson tells us that;

“Rather Chalmers believed that the gospel had the power to transform nations and cultures as people came to saving faith in Christ and lived out their faith in the world.”

Which is exactly what the Theonomist believes and as such I must conclude that Chalmers was a Theonomist. The only difference between Theonomist and false teachers like Finlayson is that theonomists believe that “living out our faith in the world,” means championing for God’s law being the measure by which all measures are measured.

The fact that this paragraph could find its way into this book demonstrates who fearful the Reformed blue-bloods are of being washed out to sea by the tidal wave of those Reformed rank and file who believe that God’s law is to be preferred over the Shinola we currently have for law in this land. I hope I live to see the Reformed elite washed out to sea.

 

Poems for the Church Militant

Zwingli died with a battle-ax grasped firmly in both hands
Fighting against God’s enemies in a noble Reformed stand
Knox filled Mary with the fear of the warrior God above
Charles lost a head in height learning Cromwell’s tender love
The lesson to be learned by every child, woman, and man?
If you have wicked who need slaying put a Calvinist in your plan

_________

It’s not the numbers that determine the outcome of the fight
It’s not the leaders nor strategy nor the arrayed military might
It’s the will and belief by which common men are born along
It’s kith and kin and esprit de corps, it’s the vigor in their song
It’s all about the God they serve, that brings triumph over wrong

Grandpa Floyd Persails

My Father’s father had died in 1952 when my Father was 15 and his death was a relief to my Father and Grandmother as by all accounts my Father’s Father’s best friend was the bottle and his greatest triumph was in beating his 2nd wife and their son. Carl McAtee had been a violent force in their lives.

The man I knew as my Grandfather on that side of the family came into our lives somewhere around 1967. His name was Floyd Persails and he was a good man with the kind of quirks that all of us have.

Floyd made a career working in the Buick plant in the city where he raised his family; Flint, Michigan.

Second marriages, even in 1967 could be fraught with family issues. Even adult children can feel threatened by a parent having a new spouse. And I think those tensions existed between Floyd’s children and my father as Eva’s only son, but I was only 8 at that time and those tensions didn’t impact me. I liked Grandpa Persails. What was there not to like?

The man grew gigantic gardens. I retain fond memories of helping him in the Garden. Grandpa Floyd wore a brown pith helmet to ward off the sun and I fancied myself his Gunga Din. Part of the garden was a huge plot of sweet corn. Grandpa would take the tractor out pulling behind him a huge cart and my brother, sister, and I would fill up the cart with sweet corn so that it was huge and overflowing. We would then sit perched atop the sweet corn as he wound the tractor back to the house. From there we would spend hours shucking corn and we would eat ourselves stuffed with sweet corn that he boiled in a huge pot outside. Out of the pot onto the plate and quickly in between a folded slice of bread as we applied generous amounts of butter.

The garden didn’t end with the sweet corn, though admittedly that may have been the high point for me. Grandpa Persails would also make huge vats of tomato soup from garden tomatoes as well as potato soup from his garden potatoes. What I wouldn’t give to have another cup of each in 2021. My grandmother delighted in her husband’s garden tomato sandwiches — a couple of slices of tomato between two pieces of bread with a little mayo and salted and peppered to taste. Now that was good eating.

When Grandma married Floyd Persails her house had no running water. Floyd soon fixed that has he built a bathroom addition to the small house and brought in running water. Even for a 10-year old that was nice as it was an end to that nasty outhouse with its Sears-Roebuck catalogue toilet paper.  Eventually, Grandpa built a four-car garage onto the house which was kind of funny because that made the garage as big as the house.  However, Grandpa kept busy in that garage as it soon became cluttered up as garages often do. Indeed, he was so busy he eventually brought a small house-trailer and put it on the property. In that house-trailer, he put all his caning material and opened a small business of caning chairs.

Oh… and he was an auctioneer also. His indecipherable speech at auctions mesmerized me. How could anyone know what they were buying or how much they were paying? I never understood a word he said as an auctioneer.

Grandpa Persails had a big personality. I suspect he came from a family of big personalities. He had a brother named Fred, I met a few times while visiting and Fred likewise had a big personality. They had a sister also, whose name slips my mind who likewise was no shrinking violet in the personality category. When those three got together all the oxygen was sucked out of the room by those huge personalities.

Visiting Grandma and Grandpa (they were only 45 minutes up the road) usually included playing Aggravation. Grandpa made a huge board that fit the kitchen table and drilled the holes in their appropriate spots. Grandma always chose the white marbles and Grandpa always had the black marbles. Everyone else randomly took whatever colors were left. We spent many evenings as children playing Aggravation with Grandma & Grandpa Persails. Again, I wish I could go back and play just one more game with them.

I don’t recall Grandma and Grandpa being particularly church-going people. It’s possible they may have been and I just didn’t know. However, every meal was preceded by a table blessing as led by Grandpa Persails.

Bless us, O Lord,
And these Thy gifts
Which we are about to receive,
Through Thy bounty
Through Christ our Lord we pray.

Amen.

I remember when I was about 17 something shocking happened. Grandpa asked me to lead the meal prayer and after that first time, it wasn’t uncommon for Grandpa to ask me to ask the meal prayer. To this day I don’t know why he made this decision. I never remember any of my siblings or anybody else being asked to give the table prayer. I promise that he had no reason to think that I would end up in the ministry. It was the furthest thing from my mind at 17.

When I was about 20 Floyd had to have some serious surgery and I, being in a in-between time of life was elected to shepherd Grandma during this time. As such, I spent a good deal of time at the hospital with Grandma and Grandpa. The one thing I remember the most was Grandpa trying to get his Doctor to try a piece of hard candy that Grandpa especially enjoyed. Every time that Doctor showed up for rounds Floyd would badger the Doc about trying this great hard candy. Finally, the Doc relented, just to shut Floyd up about the candy. Grandpa gave the Doc a piece of the candy and the Doc just tossed it in his mouth and began to crunch away. Of course, the idea behind hard candy is to suck and enjoy but as the Doc was being condescending he thought he would just crunch away and get it over with. The problem though is that the Doc had not bothered to take off the clear wrapper around the hard candy. Grandpa started laughing immediately while trying to tell the Doc he had to take the clear plastic wrapper off but by that time the Doc was to proud to fish the hard candy out of his mouth to get the wrapper off since that would have been a royal mess. Even I was laughing at this point knowing that the Doctor had so much pride he was going to swallow that damn hard candy — wrapper and all — because he was too proud to take the candy out of his mouth. Just a funny memory.

At the beginning of this piece, I mentioned that Grandpa Floyd had quirks. One of his quirks had to do with a framed picture. This picture was large, especially as it was placed in the center of Grandma’s very small living room. Keep in mind the house as a whole was small and was only rescued by having a second story where we could sleep when visiting overnight. For years I stared at that large picture directly over the television in the tiny living room having no earthly idea who that woman was. Only later did I learn that that picture was a picture of his first wife “Hazel.” At the same time, I learned that painting had created some friction in the marriage. What second wife wants the main attraction of her home to be a portrait of her husband’s first wife? I am now roughly the age they were then and I have to say that at this age I look back and still think that was a strange thing for him to do. Doubtless, he loved his first wife, but he should’ve found a better way to keep his memory ever before him.

Years later as I learned more, I began to admire Grandpa Floyd’s hatred for FDR. Whenever FDR’s name would come up the man would go into an absolute rant. Of course, at that early age, FDR was just a name to me. However, now I look forward to ranting with Grandpa Floyd in Heaven about the hell stationed FDR.

Floyd Persails was a good man. He filled a necessary gap as “Grandpa” for his stepson’s children wonderfully. It is a shame that in later years my Father and Floyd had a serious and significant falling out when my Grandmother died. Things happened at her death that often do when families are blended and my Father and Floyd’s children came to serious loggerheads about the estate. That put me and my siblings in the position of either supporting our Father or Grandpa Floyd and that decision wasn’t really difficult given some of the unfortunate things that happened surrounding Grandma’s funeral.

I was 24 when Grandma died and flew back from Maine for the Funeral. Matters were already tense when I rolled into Tekonsha, Michigan. I saw Grandpa a few times over the weekend of the funeral but after Grandma’s funeral, I never saw or heard from or contacted Floyd Persails again.

At this age, I now regret that.