McAtee Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part VI

By way of introduction to this installment I think, from reading Lusk, that Lusk thinks that Kinists absolutize race/ethnicity/kin. I get that from his first paragraph of his essay when he mentions that Kinists take the love of people and place to an unwarranted, unbiblical, even idolatrous extreme. With this language Lusk demonstrates that he thinks that Kinists are involved in what we might tag as Familialolatry or Kinolatry. This is kind of darkly humorous when one considers that many Kinists have had to sunder their relationships with family members because their family members like Lusk are Alienists.  It is of course just ridiculous that any Kinist would absolutize their family over Christ.

Having said that though we should add that if it is possible to make an idol out of family (and it is) it is just as possible to make an idol out of the Church and so practice Churcholatry. This is where I see Lusk is tending with his ecclesiocentrism. I fear that Lusk is taking his love of the Church to an unwarranted, unbiblical, even idolatrous extreme.

Man’s heart is an idol factory and it can make an idol out of family, Church, spouse, children, and anything else you can imagine. Our love is to be focused on the Triune God and no love is to be lifted up over love to the One only God. Kinists understand that and most certainly do no seek to wrongly love their family. Lusk would be wise to turn down his rhetoric if he desires fruitful conversations.

RL writes,

“In an age that hates father, and therefore fatherland, many will find kinism attractive. In the globalizing, multicultural hellscape our so-called elites are creating for us, kinism might seem like a port in the storm — a way to bring order and stability back to a world that is falling apart. But kinism will not save Western civilization or build a better alternative. Only Jesus can do that. And if he does so, it will through the ministry of his church, not through a recovery of racial homogeneity.”

BLM responds,

Yes, Kinism will save Western Civilization because all Kinism is, is a return to Biblical Christianity. Kinism is the faith of out fathers. This truth Dow and Achord demonstrated exhaustively in their Anthology, “Who is My Neighbor;  An Anthology In Natural Relations.”

Just take a moment to listen to just some of the voices of the Fathers throughout Church History.

“Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral.

Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”

-Geerhardus Vos,
Biblical Theology

” [The] differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now. . . . [T]hese varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose. . . . God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3 (1872–73)

“All are not created on equal terms … This God has testified, not only in the case of single individuals; He has also given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, to make it plain that the future condition of each nation was entirely at His disposal.”

(Calvin, Institutes …,bk.iii, pp.206-205 Beveridge translation)

“We now reply to the question, Can we know the sense of the prophetic law of Noah with absolute certainty ? We answer most unequivocally, Yes. How, then, is it to be known ? By the perfect conformity of the fulfilment of the law to its legitimate interpretation. Has such fulfilment occurred? Most unquestionably. “Where is it seen ? In all quarters of the globe since the flood, but most sublimely in America. It is obvious in a universal and permanent trinity of races ; in their political inequality of condition; in the Christianization of all the Japhetic nations, and of no others ; in the occupation of the Shemitic wilderness of America by Japheth.”

Rev. Samuel Davies,
Dominion or, the Unity and Trinity of the Human Race, p.18

“The Church Catholic is one in Christ, but it is not necessarily one visible, all-absorbing organization upon the earth. There is no schism where there is no breach of charity. Churches may be perfectly at one in every principle of faith and order, and yet geographically distinct, and mutually independent. As the unity of the human race is not disturbed by its division into countries and nations, so the unity of the spiritual seed of Christ is neither broken nor impaired by separation and division into various Church constitutions. Accordingly, in the Protestant countries, Church organizations have followed national lines.”

-Rev. Thornwell, address to the PCCSA GA 1861

“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……

Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)

These five quotes are just a Whitman’s sampler of scores and scores of quotes from the Fathers we could have chosen from. The idea of Kinism is latent in all these quotes and demonstrates that Kinism is just historic Christianity returning to a later generation. Lusk desires to continue with the aberration of the last 60 years or so, but the the voice of the church through the centuries has been Kinsim.

Next, we note that Lusk is involved in yet another false dichotomy when he says that Kinsim  will not save Western civilization or build a better alternative. Only Jesus can do that. This, of course is assuming that Kinism and Jesus are in contradiction one with another. A point that we have repeatedly shown throughout this series of blog posts is in no way true. Jesus and Kinism imply one another. There is no Kinism without Jesus and there is no Jesus without Kinism. Once again, Lusk is just wrong in his baseless assertion.

Finally, we note that contra Lusk, if Jesus saves Western Civilization it will be through the ministry of His church that has embraced the biblical tenets of Kinism. A racial heterogeneous Luskian church infected with the globo-homo multicult agenda which celebrates all colors bleeding into one will never be able to have a saving word for a world which has likewise fallen to the same globo-homo multicult agenda. Saruman will never defeat Sauron. Lusk’s syncretization of CRT with Christianity can never win out.





McAtee Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part V — Behold Calvin the Kinist in His Own Words

RL writes,

Calvin held similar ecclesiocentric convictions. Calvin was a kind of exile in Geneva, and while in Geneva, he ensured the city accepted religious refugees from countless other European cities and lands. He also trained and commissioned missionaries who traveled to other lands, including South America. His love and concern were not limited to people of the same skin color but extended to all people groups. Yes, Calvin loved his homeland of France. But he left his fatherland precisely because his commitment to the the gospel, the cause of the Reformation, and the Protestant church trumped his love of his native country. In the introductory preface of his Institutes, addressed to King Francs, Calvin shows he embraced the cause of Christ above the cause of his nation:

Even though I regard my country with as much natural affection as becomes me, as things now stand, I do not much regret being excluded. Rather, I embrace the common cause of all believers, that of Christ himself – a cause completely torn and trampled in your realm today, lying as it were utterly forlorn.
BLM responds,

First notice here that RL is intimating that Kinists would never do what John Calvin did in welcoming in refugees who were being hunted down because they were Biblical Christians. In so doing RL seeks to paint Kinism with the darkest of colors. However, it is just utter tripe to hint that a Kinist would not, like the Kinist John Calvin, not help fellow Christians being persecuted by Christ haters. Love of family does not translate, despite Lusk’s best efforts, to hatred of fellow believers.

Second, Lusk says that Calvin left his homeland because of his commitment to the Gospel. Let’s keep in mind though that if Calvin had not left his homeland there can be little doubt that he would have been roasted on the bonfire of the French vanities. This is not to say that Calvin was not committed to the Gospel. It is to say that commitment to the Gospel is increased several fold when absence commitment to the Gospel means you need to flee your country lest you be killed.

In the quote that Lusk provides notice the phrase, “as things now stand.” Calvin, being a good Kinist, loved his France however “as things stood” during his life he knew that if he wanted to stay living above the ground he could not return to France. Lusk’s quote does not prove that Calvin was not a Kinist. Can anyone doubt that Calvin would not have returned to his homeland and his people if the cause of Christ had not been trampled in his beloved France being utterly forlorn?

RL writes,

Calvin knew he served a greater King than Francis – the Lord Jesus. He knew the church of Jesus Christ was primary home, and this ecclesial allegiance was to be maintained, whatever earthly, temporal loyalties had to be sacrificed. He put kinship with fellow churchmen above his kinship with fellow Frenchmen.

BLM responds,

Well, lets look at some of Calvin’s quotes and see if they can substantiate Lusk’s above claims.

“Now, we see, as in a camp, every troop and band hath his appointed place, so men are placed upon earth, that every people may be content with their bounds, and that among these people every particular person may have his mansion. But though ambition have, oftentimes raged, and many, being incensed with wicked lust, have passed their bounds, yet the lust of men hath never brought to pass, but that God hath governed all events from out of his holy sanctuary. For though men, by raging upon earth, do seem to assault heaven, that they may overthrow God’s providence, yet they are enforced, whether they will or no, rather to establish the same. Therefore, let us know that the world is so turned over through divers tumults, that God doth at length bring all things unto the end which he hath appointed.”

John Calvin
Calvin’s Comm. on Acts 17:26

At the point where Calvin says, “every people,” he has established that different people groups exist and that Christianity does not destroy the reality of people groups. Calvin implies a good deal more than that but at this point all we are seeking to sustain is that the Historic church, reaching behind the past 200 years understood that Christianity didn’t eliminate the idea of race, ethnicity, clan, and kin.

Again from Calvin the Kinist,

“He then promises that he will cause Jacob to increase and multiply, not only into one nation, but into a multitude of nations. When he speaks of ‘a nation,’ he no doubt means that the offspring of Jacob should become sufficiently numerous to acquire the body and the name of one great people. But what follows concerning “nations” may appear absurd; for if we wish it to refer to the nations which, by gratuitous adoption, are inserted into the race of Abraham, the form of expression is improper: but if it be understood of sons by natural descent, then it would be a curse rather than a blessing, that the Church, the safety of which depends on its unity, should be divided into many distinct nations. But to me it appears that the Lord, in these words, comprehended both these benefits; for when, under Joshua, the people was apportioned into tribes, as if the seed of Abraham was propagated into so many distinct nations; yet the body was not thereby divided; it is called an assembly of nations, for this reason, because in connection with that distinction a sacred unity yet flourished. The language also is not improperly extended to the Gentiles, who, having been before dispersed, are collected into one congregation by the bond of faith; and although they were not born of Jacob according to the flesh; yet, because faith was to them the commencement of a new birth, and the covenant of salvation, which is the seed of spiritual birth, flowed from Jacob, all believers are rightly reckoned among his sons, according to the declaration, “I have constituted thee a father of many nations.”

John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Volume 2, Chapter 14 

Here we see Calvin embracing the idea of many nations belonging as nations in the one Church. Abraham remains the Father of many nations as those nations are brought into the Church, nation by nation.


“…. delightful to every one is his native soil, and it is also delightful to dwell among one’s own people.”

John Calvin
Calvin’s Commentary – Jeremiah 9:2

Here we see a clear indisputable Kinist comment from Calvin.


“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”

John Calvin (Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3)

Here Calvin refers to men like Lusk as flighty and scatterbrained dreamers because he denies the kind of order among us that the Kinists alone are contending for.

McAtee Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part IV

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis writes about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

Here we find an example of how Rev. Lusk uses language in service of defending his Alienism. The man twists with panache the meaning of words so that when he is done they stand on their head for those with eyes to see. However, to those who don’t see his linguistic tricks and can’t measure out his piling up of contradictions he begins, if you can believe it, to make sense. Lusk was that way when he wrote on the Federal Vision heresy long ago and he remains that way now as he attacks Kinism.

We continue here our fisking of Rev. Lusk in his assault on Kinism.

RL writes

People and place do matter. Blood and soil matter. Biological and ethnic connections matter. We are not gnostics. But we are also not kinists. We are Christians, which means the blood of Christ is the ultimate tie that binds for us. The covenant is the most important connection we have.

BLM responds,

Lusk’s first three sentence above or merely a fig leaf. Except for these occasional throw away lines everything RL has written is pure on Alienism and bespeaks a hatred of blood and soil. It’s as if RL is saying that “People and place do matter. “Blood and soil matter. Biological and ethnic connections matter, as long as they don’t really matter.” How can “blood and soil” matter when RL keeps insisting that race is only about skin color. That constant refrain of Lusk’s testifies that his first three lines above are just insincere decorations to pull in the unsuspecting.

Clearly Lusk is indeed a Gnostic as we have pointed out repeatedly now. Lusk diminishes the corporeal in favor of his unbiblical ecclesiocentric paradigm where everything gets reduced according to its “spiritual” importance.

Lusk appeals to the blood of Christ but let’s keep in mind that the blood of Christ was the blood of a Hebrew who belonged to the line of David. We don’t have the blood of Christ apart from the blood and soil of Christ. In the same manner the blood of Christ which ties us does not first, in a Gnostic type manner, disembody us before it ties us — the Church together. We don’t come to Christ as atomistic individualistic integers.  We come to Christ in our maleness of femaleness. We come to Christ in our ethnicity/race. We come to Christ in the context of covenant family lines that God graciously calls. The blood of Christ does not work so as to destroy nature. Grace restores nature. It does not destroy it.

Next, let it be said here that because of Lusk’s Federal Vison writings I am not confident that Lusk, by way of Doctrine, is a Christian.

RL writes,

As Christians, we are churchmen. The church is not our only nation, city, and family — but it is our first nation, city, and family.

BLM responds,

Keep in mind with this sentence we see the ecclesiocentrism that Lusk’s Federal Vision has always been known for. Practically speaking Lusk is collapsing the various jurisdictional realms ordained by God — Family, Church, and Governments — into one. The Church is so esteemed that the family and Governments fade into the background. Of course such a reading was highly disputed by Rushdoony who gave the family the pride of place. I disagree with both RJR and Lusk. The Church and the Family are as necessary in import as the right and left leg are to walking. Allow me to say again here that the Christian Church does not negate the importance of Christian family. Nor does Christian family negate the importance of the Christian Church. Lusk confuses the biblical jurisdictions in his ecclesiocentrism with the result that when push comes to shove the Church, as in medieval Rome, always trumps all.

RL writes,

Kinists like to point to the example of John Knox, who prayed, “Give me Scotland, lest I die!” Obviously Knox had a deep, natural affection for his homeland. But note a couple things. First, Knox did not equate his “people” with a race but with a geopolitical nation. He did not pray “Give me white people lest I die.” Knox understood the Bible does not categorize people according to skin color, but according to nations, tribes, peoples, and languages, which can include genetic ties, but can also be much more permeable and fluid.

BLM replies,

Knox is appealing to God for the Scottish people. Lusk is merely going all red herring here.

That Knox did not pray “Give me white people lest I die,” only proves that white people as a whole were not being sought out for elimination. If white people in the 16th century were in danger of being replaced then Knox may well have prayed “Give me white people lest I die,” as the Scots were one subgroup among white people. As it was it was the subgrouping of the Scots that Knox could plead for.

And what could possible be wrong with praying, “Give me white people lest I die?” Are white people any less in need of God’s visitation of grace and mercy right now than any other people? Why is Lusk so put out that someone might pray … “Give me white people lest I die?”

Next, as long as the Bible can talk about the inability of the Ethiopian to change his skin (Jer. 13:23) I can rightly believe that the Bible does categorize people according to races despite RL’s protestations to the contrary.

RL writes,

Second, Knox was also an ecclesiocentrist, willing to leave his homeland for Geneva to escape persecution and to get better pastoral training. He loved Scotland but he was also willing to leave it if necessary. He loved his homeland but it was subordinate to other loves. His top priority was the gospel. He prayed for Scotland not merely because of his natural affection for his national kin, but because of a supernatural affection that drove him to want to see his nation discipled in terms of the Great Commission. But precisely because he put the gospel first, Knox could find deep spiritual kinship with men from other nations, like the Frenchman Calvin and the German Bucer.

BLM responds,

Right, Knox was ecclesiocentric because he fled so he might not be killed. Everybody knows that fleeing one’s homeland in order to not be killed is proof that one is ecclesiocentric. Lusk asks us to believe that Knox, who was fighting the ecclesiocentric beast that was the Roman Catholic Church, was himself also ecclesiocentric and this despite the fact that Knox did not pray, “Give me the Church lest I die,” but rather prayed “Give me my extended kin lest I die.”

I quite believe all loves need to be subordinate to love for Christ but that is not the same as embracing the foolish ecclesiocentrism that one finds among the Federal Visionists and the CREC.

Finally, Lusk’s intimation that Kinists would never embrace spiritual kinship with men of different races is just grandstanding. I have several kinist friends who are not White. Like Lusk’s Bucer, Calvin, and Knox, my friendship circle includes a black South African kinist, and a Filipino kinist, and a S. American black kinist. My extended family also includes blacks. When we have family reunions we do just fine. None of this however need negate for any of us the realities of how we belong to both a shared faith and our respective different family kin.

Darrell Dow Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part III

I don’t believe in reinventing the wheel when it comes to dismantling nonsense. As such in this post I yield to my fellow Michigander and one of my best friends Darrell Dow as Dow just demolishes Rev. Rich Lusk’s claim that Colonial America was not Kinist in its conviction.

Before turning it over to Darrell allow me to apologize if some find some of my responses jagged. You have to understand dear reader I have been going at this hammer and tong for over a decade now. It gets a bit frustrating when you have to answer the same questions and accusations over and over again. Rev. Lusk now shows up trotting out the same old tired accusations and arguments as if now that someone of his stature is making them somehow those arguments which have been repeatedly dismissed by Kinists over the years somehow gain more traction because they have fallen from his fingertips. It is well past aggravating. We Kinists keep returning the same service of the Alienists and all they can do is keep serving the same serve that was smashed returned for game, set, and match. Now combine this with the insults that come in our direction of being racist, or of identifying more with our people group then with Christ, or of being heretics and it just gets well past old — especially when we are the orthodox ones, bowing to the weight of Scripture and Church history.

Anyway, having said that we turn it over to Dow’s spanking of Lusk. Seriously, once Dow is done here with Lusk it becomes instantly apparent that Lusk should go sit down, shut up, and never write another work on this subject as long as he lives. This response reveals that Lusk is no better a Historian than he is a theologian.

Rev. Lusk wrote,

The question has been asked: Did the original American colonists have a kinist vision of people and place? I think the answer is quite obviously, no, they did not. The Europeans who came to America to settle the “new world” came precisely because they put faith ahead of their love for people and place. Leaving their native land, including many family members, behind in order to found a new civilization, they put their faith and their commitment to a purified church above everything else. The Europeans who settled on this continent were ecclesiocentrists rather than kinists, and if they had been kinists, they would have never left Europe. No matter how important people and place were in their minds, they put their commitment to the church ahead of them, which is why they were willing to leave people and place behind (much as biblical saints like Abraham and Ruth did centuries before).

Darrell Dow Responds,

Rich Lusk has written an article on race and nationalism. It should come as no surprise but there are numerous half-truths and logical fallacies, and good bit of misrepresentation. Untangling the various threads will take some work, but I want to begin by unpacking just one comment and comparing it with the historical record.

Lusk is effectively asking in the quote above if America’s Founders on the whole could be described as ethno-nationalists rather than propositionalists. In short, was citizenship tied to blood? Lusk claims that the answer is obvious, though he does not provide a single citation from any American statesman or early documents to make his case. He simply asserts that is true and expects his readers to believe it to be so. But is it? I’ll provide a sampler to help evaluate the claim. Note that I could have pulled MANY more quotes (see the link in the first comment). I begin with Revolution Era figures and also provide a number of citations from later figures. Again, this could go on almost indefinitely.

Let us begin with legislation offered in the state of Virginia by Thomas Jefferson which was designed to define citizenship in the commonwealth.

“Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That any alien, BEING A FREE WHTE PERSON, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof, on application to any common law court of record, in any one of the states wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such court, that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law, to support the constitution of the United States, which oath or affirmation such court shall administer; and the clerk of such court shall record such application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a citizen of the United States. And the children of such persons so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty-one years at the time of such naturalization,”

In a letter, Jefferson explains his concern with having too many German immigrants and the need to disperse them (Benjamin Franklin held this same view.)

“Although as to other foreigners it is thought better to discourage their settling together in large masses, wherein, as in our German settlements, they preserve for a long time their own languages, habits, and principles of government, and that they should distribute themselves sparsely among the natives for quicker amalgamation, yet English emigrants are without this inconvenience.” – Letter to George Fowler, Sept. 12, 1817

Alexander Hamilton who disagreed with Jefferson on many important questions in the life of the early republic, agreed with him on the debilitating consequences of immigration.

“The opinion advanced in the Notes on Virginia is undoubtedly correct, that foreigners will generally be apt to bring with them attachments to the persons they have left behind; to the country of their nativity, and to its particular customs and manners. They will also entertain opinions on government congenial with those under which they have lived, or if they should be led hither from a preference to ours, how extremely unlikely is it that they will bring with them that temperate love of liberty, so essential to real republicanism? There may as to particular individuals, and at particular times, be occasional exceptions to these remarks, yet such is the general rule. The influx of foreigners must, therefore, tend to produce a heterogeneous compound; to change and corrupt the national spirit; to complicate and confound public opinion; to introduce foreign propensities. In the composition of society, the harmony of the ingredients is all important, and whatever tends to a discordant intermixture must have an injurious tendency.”

Benjamin Franklin

“[T]he Number of purely white People in the World is proportionably [sic] very small… . I could wish their Numbers were increased…. But perhaps I am partial to the Complexion of my Country, for such Kind of Partiality is natural to Mankind.” – Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc. “Which leads me to add one remark: That the number of purely white people in the world is proportionably very small. All Africa is black or tawny. Asia chiefly tawny. America (exclusive of the new comers) wholly so. And in Europe, the Spaniards, Italians, French, Russians and Swedes are generally of what we call a swarthy complexion ; as are the Germans also, the Saxons only excepted, who with the English make the principal body of white people on the face of the earth. I could wish their numbers were increased. And while we are, as I may call it, scouring our planet, by clearing America of woods, and so making this side of our globe reflect a brighter light to the eyes of inhabitants in Mars or Venus, why should we in the sight of superior beings, darken its people? why increase the sons of Africa, by planting them in America, where we have so fair an opportunity, by excluding all blacks and tawneys, of increasing the lovely white and red? But perhaps I am partial to the complexion of my Country, for such kind of partiality is natural to Mankind.”

– Observations Concerning the Increase of Mankind, Peopling of Countries, etc.

Here is the language of the Naturalization Act of 1790, which the first Congress passed.

“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That any Alien being a free white person, who shall have resided within the limits and under the jurisdiction of the United States for the term of two years, may be admitted to become a citizen thereof on application to any common law Court of record in any one of the States wherein he shall have resided for the term of one year at least, and making proof to the satisfaction of such Court that he is a person of good character, and taking the oath or affirmation prescribed by law to support the Constitution of the United States, which Oath or Affirmation such Court shall administer, and the Clerk of such Court shall record such Application, and the proceedings thereon; and thereupon such person shall be considered as a Citizen of the United States. And the children of such person so naturalized, dwelling within the United States, being under the age of twenty one years at the time of such naturalization, shall also be considered as citizens of the United States. And the children of citizens of the United States that may be born beyond Sea, or out of the limits of the United States, shall be considered as natural born Citizens: Provided, that the right of citizenship shall not descend to persons whose fathers have never been resident in the United States .”

James Madison endorsed colonization and indeed later ran the colonization society.

“To be consistent with existing and probably unalterable prejudices in the U.S. freed blacks ought to be permanently removed beyond the region occupied by or allotted to a White population.”

Abraham Lincoln (who also supported colonization).

“I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality.”

Stephen Douglas.

For one, I am opposed to negro citizenship in any form. I believe that this government was made on the white basis. I believe it was made by white men for the benefit of white men and their posterity forever, and I am in favor of confining the citizenship to white men—men of European birth and European descent, instead of conferring it upon negroes and Indians, and other inferior races.”

Calvin Coolidge.

“There are racial considerations too grave to be brushed aside for any sentimental reasons. Biological laws tell us that certain divergent people will not mix or blend…. Quality of mind and body suggests that observance of ethnic law is as great a necessity to a nation as immigration law.”

McAtee Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part II

In Rev. Rich Lusk (RL) we learn that some people are more clever than they are intelligent.

RL writes,

There is certainly a connection between love of father (= patriarchy) and love of fatherland (= patritiotism). Kinists have that right. But the central driving force in history is the church, not any particular kin group.

BLM responds,

Of course Kinists have right the connection between patriarchy and patriotism. Kinists have an annoying habit of being right.

Once again, Lusk embraces the Christian faith as an abstraction, as if it can exist apart from and independent of particular ethnic groups/races. It is true that conceptually Christianity is a set of doctrines and confessional commitments. However, it is also true that the Christian faith in order to have hands and feet has to be incarnated into people groups. The Church that RL appeals to is a Church as it exists in a time and place as inhabited by a particular people. As such RL once again gives us a false dichotomy (do they sell false dichotomies in the CREC by the ton?) when he says that the central driving force in history is the church, not any particular kin group. The central driving force in world history for the last 1000 years (at least) has been the Church has it has been, by God’s grace alone, inhabited to the White European Christian. Now, to say this anymore is not considered in good taste and it definitely is now thought to be a hate fact but, as they say, it is what it is. It is the White European Christian Church who brought the Christian faith to pagandom. It is the White European Christian Church who claimed pagan lands for Christ. It is the White European Christian Church who gave us Christian Western civilization. It is the White European Christian Church that gave us the printing press, gave us the age of exploration, gave us the Reformation, gave us these United States as a Reformed nation, gave us the possibility of science in the best sense of that word, gave us Martel, Sobieski, Calvin, Knox, Cromwell, Viret, Beza, Rutherford, Augustine, Gregory the Great, Aquinas, Hus, Luther, Wycliffe, Warfield, the Hodges, Machen, Vos, Turretin, Lavellette, Whitfield, Lloyd-Jones, Clark, Van Til, Bahnsen, Sproul, Singer, Kuyper, Chalmers, Dabney, Thornwell, Girardeau, Palmer, Van Prinesterer, Bavinck, These are all men of the Church who are also at the same time men who were White European Christians. So, we see again that all because the central driving force of history is the Church that does not mean that no particular kin group, completely as in God’s providence, hasn’t also been a central driving force in history. Like so many of the Chieftains in the CREC Rev. Lusk specializes in false dichotomies.

RL writes,

Or to put it another way, water is thicker than blood. Spiritual kinship will always trump genetic kinship.

BLM responds,

Another false dichotomy. It is true that the water of Baptism is thick but keep in mind that God hath also said;

But the steadfast love of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting on those who fear him, and his righteousness to children’s children,

And again,

The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Of course blood alone does not save just as water alone does not save. However the thick water of Baptism is, in God’s grace and providence, runs in blood generations. Is water therefore really thicker than blood?

RL writes,

The Christian’s primary culture will always be the culture of the kingdom of God. “My people” are first and foremost those who are in God’s family, those who are in the covenant of grace, those with whom I will spend all eternity. This does not make personal identity an abstraction and it does not destroy localized connections. But it does situate my personal identity as a white, male American (or whatever) within the larger story of the kingdom of God, which is destined to overtake and transform all the kingdoms of the world (Rev. 11:15).

BLM responds,

That is not what St. Paul says in Romans 9:3. Paul can still speak of the unconverted Hebrew people as “His Kin” whom he loves with an especial passion. As such we have to qualify carefully on this matter of “My People.” Is the Iranian Christian in Christ that I don’t know really more “my people” than my Father who is a pagan? In some sense “yes,” and in some sense “no.” Careful distinctions have to be made here Rich.

And despite Rev. Lusk’s protestations to the contrary his argumentation does make personal identity a Gnostic abstraction and it does destroy localized connections. Lusk wants to have it both ways. He wants to hint that he is a little bit kinist while being whole hog Alienist. Sorry Rich … it is not possible to be a little bit Country and a little bit Rock -n- Roll.

In the last sentence Lusk tips his hand in how he views the Kingdom of God. Lusk views the Kingdom of God like we would expect an Alienist to view the Kingdom of God. He views it as an amalgamated multicult Kingdom where all the peoples are jammed together without kin or national distinction. This is not what we find in Revelation 21 where

24 The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it.

Notice it is the nations as nations that are walking by its light and it is the Kings are Kings over their respective nations who will bring the splendor of their distinct nations into the new Jerusalem. Further on in Revelation we learn that the “leaves of the trees are for the healing of the nations.” Once again it is nations as nations … peoples as peoples who are considered as gathered in the New Jerusalem. Scripture does not teach that we will enter into a multicult heaven but rather we will enter into the New Jerusalem as part of our Christian National and Church community. The Church we can conclude therefore is comprised as a confederation of nations having a one and many unity. The Oneness as found in our joint confession of the great and magnificent Lord Jesus Christ. The diversity found in the retaining of our assigned distinctive creational reality. We will no more lose our ethnicity in the Kingdom of God then we will lose our gender.

The Kingdom of God will indeed transform the Kingdoms of this world but He will transform them from pagan to Christian. He will not be transforming them by way of deleting from them their ethnic identity.

This quote of Dr. Vos points in the direction I have laid out above;

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

Geerhardus Vos
Dogmatic Theology Vol. 1 — 118

 Also, listen to Calvin Seminary Professor Martin Wyngaarden from the 1960’s on Isaiah 19 thus suggesting that it is you Rev. Lusk who is in error;

“Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will therefore be extended.”

Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.


More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, THOUGH EACH REMAINS NATIONALLY DISTINCT.”

For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.

Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. YET the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”

Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.