D. H. Hill On Love of One’s Own Place & People

“The Latin Poet has beautifully said that they who change their sky do not change their minds. The emigrant from his natal soil carries with him his old opinions, his old sentiments, and his old habits. In selecting a place for his residence in the land of his adoption, he seeks out some hill or vale which resembles the spot on which stands the dear old homestead far away. The new edifice is made as near alike as may be to the paternal building. His garden, his vineyard, his orchard, his grounds are fashioned after the models so fondly cherished in his memory. His style of living, his mode of thought, his habits, his manners, his passions, and his prejudices will all be unchanged. The accents that first struck his childish ear will still be heard with delight, and most joyfully will he meet some countryman from that loved land, with whom he may converse in his sacred native tongue. And still more grateful will it be to him to find a colony of his own people, where familiar tones will ever greet him, and where the worship and customs of his fathers will ever be preserved. And in fact, it is just because men do not change their minds with their sky that these colonies so frequently dot the surface of this mighty Republic.

To us there is something beautiful in this love for home and home associations, this clinging to the language, the religion, and the customs transmitted from generation to generation; and we never pass such a settlement from the Old World without the feeling that they who venerate the traditions of the past will respect the laws of the present, and that they whose hearts go out toward those of their own blood and tongue are the better prepared thereby to exercise benevolence toward all mankind. He who does not love his own family better than the whole rest of the world, who does not love the land better than all the countries on earth, is so far from being a Christian and patriot, that he is a monster utterly unworthy of trust and confidence. The Apostle Paul pronounces him to be worse than an infidel. So strong was sectional love in the great Apostle himself that he could wish himself accursed from Christ for the sake of his brethren, his kinsmen according to the flesh. Moses, the heaven appointed leader of Israel, who talked with God face to face, as a man talketh with his friend, went even beyond Paul in his devotion to his people, and did actually offer the request which Paul expressed his willingness to offer:

‘Yet now, if thou wilt forgive their sins; and if not, blot me, I pray thee, out of the book, which thou hast written.’

Among the sweet Psalms of David, the man after God’s own heart, and constituting a part of the sacred canon of Scriptures, is the touching lament of the captive at Babylon as the representative of the true-hearted Israelite, invoking a fearful curse upon himself if ever found wanting in love to his native land, ‘If I forget thee Jerusalem, let my right hand forget her cunning. If I do not remember thee, let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth; if I prefer not Jerusalem above my chief joy. ‘ Jeremiah, the holy prophet who was sanctified ere he was born, represents himself as weeping day and night for the miseries of his people. Nehemiah, while a member of the household of the King of Babylon, and occupying toward him the confidential relation of cup-bearer, had no relish for the enjoyment for the enjoyments of that most luxurious city when he heard the sad news from his native land. So profound was his grief that the imperious monarch noticed it, and was offended. ‘Wherefore, the king said unto me, Why is thy countenance sad, seeing that thou art not sick? This is nothing else but sorrow of heart.’ Then I was very sore afraid and said unto the king, ‘Let the king live forever. Let the king live forever; why should not my countenance be sad when the city, the place of my fathers’ sepulchers lieth waste, and the gates thereof are consumed by fire.’

With all these holy men of old, love to their own nation was a part of their religion, nor did they understand that modern philanthropy which consists in getting to the uttermost parts of the earth to seek objects of its beneficence, while squalor, ignorance, sin, and misery are all around it at home. One of this school, whose name is a household word throughout the civilized world, visited every abode of wretchedness in Europe but left his own son to become a maniac through neglect and cruelty. On the contrary, our Saviour spent his energies and his activities in Judea and Galilee. He left his life of labor, privation, and suffering passed away among his own people. His last instructions to his disciples were to begin their ministry at Jerusalem, the capital of his native country. His example hallows the sweet charities which begin at home, and sheds a fragrance around that hold feeling which burns in the bosom of the partiot for the land we love.”

D. H. Hill
The Land We Love — Vol. 1

My Time In Purgatory V — Final Installment

I wanted to take one more installment to tie up some loose ends and to give a peek into some of the Clown Reformed Church Characters I knew. I will change the names so that the average reader can see the person without knowing the name.

I.) Loose Ends

A.) In three or four places I’ve used some scatological language. I do not apologize for that because I do believe there is a time and a place for everything under the sun. The malfeasance, malevolence, and mendacity of the Clown Reformed Church deserves stiffer language than I tagged it with. When one considers their disregard for the sheep by ordaining women and by ordaining men who had no business being ordained the outrage over this assault on the Church of Jesus Christ should know no boundaries. When one considers how the CRC destroyed the career of a faithful minister of Jesus Christ for the ecclesiastical equivalent of jaywalking — and then had to bury the exculpatory evidence to get it done — one should be outraged. When one considers the dissembling, the chicanery, and the distortions, (only my inherent easy-going nature keeps me from saying “lies”) that the CRC invoked in order to sling mud at a doctrine (“Natural Relations” sometimes called “Kinism”) that the Church has embraced for 2000 years, as seen in a cursory examination of the historical record, (get the Dow & Achord book) it requires language that would make widow’s cringe and virgin’s blush. I probably haven’t been direct enough in these pieces.

B.) I said I would return to a couple of sentences in the letter recommending my honorable release from the supervising Council. Those sentences were;

“In recent times, however, Rev. McAtee’s writings have been appropriated by a movement within the Reformed community known as “Kinism.” Though Rev. McAtee claims no affiliation among them, because of appropriation of his intellectual property, he has over the past two years been linked by accusations with having common cause.”

a.) I need to say here I do not recall ever making this claim.

b.) If I did claim no affiliation among them it is because, as I said earlier in this piece, there is no organization for me to affiliate with. There are no Kinists who have membership cards that get them a discount on the cost of the next Klan meeting. (That’s a joke for the humor-impaired among us.)

c.) Clearly, if some people were appropriating my intellectual property, it would be because those people believed my ideas had an affiliation with their ideas.

d.) I have common cause with everybody who agrees with me.

C.) Touching the word “Kinism”

Many have opined that we need to dump the word because of how successful the enemy has been in slinging mud at it. For a time, I agreed with that and started using the word “Famialism.” Same content. Different word. One could also use words like, “oikaphilia,” “ethno-nationalists,” and “racial-realist.” However, I have resorted to using the word “Kinism” again because;

a.) it’s easier to spell

b.) I have determined that all because the enemy is successful in prejudicing the language I shouldn’t, therefore, give up on the language. There are many idiotic Christians that I don’t want anything to do with but on that basis, I don’t start using a different word besides “Christian” to self-identify. (But believe me I’ve considered it.) In the same way, there are some Kinists who are way over the top and so bring reproach on what I believe. However, I’m not going to quit using the word “Kinism” either because my enemies are purposefully distorting the meaning, or because there are some dopes out there who are mauling the word.

D.) Why I wrote all this

I probably would have never have returned to this if the Clown Reformed Church had not decided to continue its attack on me. I let it slide after the misrepresentations in their District meeting that dismissed me. I let it slide after the Synod that referred to the situation repeatedly going so far as to pass overtures against a strawmen’s caricature of “kinism.”  They essentially crushed something I never believed. They did all this without using my name or the Church’s name and yet one would have had to have been an imbecile to not know who they were going after. Still, I let it slide and did not respond. However, when the Clown Reformed Chruch decided to jump on the Southern Poverty Law Center comical denunciation of myself and the Church I serve I determined I had had enough. It is clear that they are never going to let this go and will trot it out whenever it is convenient for them to virtue signal. As such, I determined that even though I would never have the platform those people had, I had to set the record straight — if only for the people who were getting splashed with mud whom I served.

II.) Clown Reformed World Personalities

Those that I’ve already dealt with in some measure I won’t bring up again.

Brun Hilda — This woman was really the reason for the intensifying of much of what transpired in the last few years. She fancied herself an expert on theology and would even introduce herself in such a matter. “Hello, my name is Brun Hilda, and I’m an expert in theology.” The funny thing was that the woman didn’t even know the meaning of the word “propitiation.” Experts in theology know what “propitation” means. She attended some high brow Liberal University in the Low Countries and it showed. She was a social justice warrior and feminist beyond measure. She even lobbied for “Social Justice” sermons from her Pastor and when the man said “no,” his life soon became severely troubled.

Malcolm Z — Malcolm Z is an African-American and is perhaps the #1 Social Justice Warrior in the Clown Reformed Church. He is convinced that what the White Boer South African Farmers are facing in terms of attempted genocide is all lies. Like all SJW’s he walks around begging people to disturb the chip that is on his shoulder. He once visited the Church I serve and I witnessed many of the people invite him to stay for our fellowship meal. When he finally reported on the service all he could note is that he knew something awful was present because we prayed for the White Boer farmers during the long Pastoral prayer and how we would have accused him of heresy if he had brought his white wife and family to church. The chip on the shoulder doesn’t take much to disturb it.

Percy Blakeney — One of the few good guys in the story. Percy was conservative by way of instinct. Percy did all he could do to help me out when I was on the hot seat but he was in a tough situation himself. Trying to help out someone seen by everyone else as a dirty racist is not a good position to be in. However, he did the best he could in a tough situation short of sacrificing himself and his career. I counted him a friend though I have not seen him since the whole thing mercifully ended. He was a kind and jovial man. Quick with laughter and always ready for a good conversation. I owe him a debt of gratitude for alone fighting for me in a Kangaroo court situation.

Thomas Beckett — Thomas was another of the guys in a white hat. He is the minister who was executed for ecclesiastical jaywalking. Brun Hilda asked the question, “Who will deliver me of this meddlesome Priest?,” — and the Elder board and the District did the deed. Thomas spent some time in a Communist country as a missionary before going into the ministry and as such Thomas was one of the few guys who understood the dangers of Marxism in the Church. This is one reason why he refused to start preaching Social Justice sermons contra Brun Hilda’s demand. The main reason however was that Thomas understood that the pulpit needs to be reserved for the Gospel and he wasn’t going to muddle up the pulpit or the Gospel with Social Justice bilge. Thomas was in a difficult spot the moment he arrived at the flagship church because he was an orthodox man coming to serve a congregation that had been fed on Liberal Barthian Higher Critical preaching for decades by Dr. Rev. Dusty Lugnut.

A funny story here. Not long after Thomas arrived on the scene he asked me to serve as his mentor. I refused for several months reasoning that there was no way in Hades that a minister serving at that Liberal Church genuinely wanted me to mentor him. I mean would Karl Barth ask J. Gresham Machen to mentor him? I figured it was just not possible that Thomas could be anything but a raging liberal and I had had my belly full of them. Thomas finally won me over when at a meeting he mentioned something derisive about the Liberal nature of the Bannaner. Shortly, thereafter we started meeting. I can say in all honesty that Thomas was the only epistemologically self-conscious conservative minister that I met during my almost 25 years in the CRC. I still count him as a friend and we talk often. We’ve both been through the fires.

P. T. Barnum — P. T. was a very likable man who was conservative by impulse but woefully unable to defend his conservatism when pushed to the wall by even the most hackneyed liberal. P. T. was a businessman/salesman before he was anything else (like a minister) and he had the ability to put the meat in the seats. (Put people in pews.) And to be honest, he probably was able to give his people all they could handle in terms of food for their souls. I remember P. T. if only because I cringed when he reported he was going to have a traveling strongman troupe in to give the Gospel and they would do so while tearing in half, thick phone books and bending thick bars of steel around their necks.

P. T. provided a funny memory for me as one time his Church was responsible to host a District meeting. The host at these meetings was responsible to provide worship leaders. Well, P. T. on that Saturday provided an Evangelical lounge singer’s version of “Tony Orlando & Dawn.” I think it was the only time in 20 years that the liberal clowns and I shared a conviction and it was on not caring for the Evangelical version of “Tony Orlando & Dawn,” as worship leader. The libs would have preferred Meagan Thee Stallion and I would have preferred the Three Tenors.

Cyrano de Bergerac — Cyrano was a fresh Seminary grad who was unmarried. He got engaged after meeting a girl in an online chat room. I tried to warn him off said girl because she was not Reformed and had never heard of things like the Heidelberg catechism and other Reformed staples. He, of course, ignored me and was married. Only a few years later he was asking different ministers for counseling advice for a troubled marriage. I liked Cyrano. He had an inquisitive mind, even if he staked out some strange positions. He genuinely wanted to be God’s instrument in helping people in the Kingdom. I admired him because of his willingness to continue to work in a place that was small. Speaking from experience I knew those charges were sometimes discouraging.

There were more. Many more enemies but it would do little good to regale you will all the stories about their oddities and villainy. It was a terrible place to be in for over 20 years but I guess that is what purgatory is all about.

From the Mailbag; Dear Pastor, Doesn’t Unity In Christ Cover All Other Differences When It Comes To Choices In Marriage Partners?

Dear Pastor,

“If two Christians are seeking marriage, isn’t their unity in Christ greater than anything that divides them? Isn’t part of the beauty of the Church that God has called people from “all nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues” (Revelation 7:9)? If this is part of the glory of the Church, then surely it is right and good that it be reflected in Christian marriages. The Bible nowhere condemns interracial or other “unequal” marriages, outside of a marriage between a believer and unbeliever. Furthermore, it nowhere promotes marriage between “equals” as the ideal.”


Greetings Mark. Thanks for writing and thanks for your thoughtful questions.  I’ll take your points one by one.

1.) Yes, unity in Christ would be greater than anything that divides a man and wife. However, that doesn’t mean that therefore those other categories created and ordained by God are therefore unimportant. Unity in Christ between a Christian Princess from the House of Windsor as marrying a loin-clothed Christian Hottentot from the plains of South Africa still wouldn’t make such a marriage a wise marriage.

Think about it, if ‘unity in Christ is greater than anything that divides them,’ wouldn’t it follow that Christians should marry the first Christian they meet regardless of sex, age, current marital status, economic prospects, illness, disposition, assent, ad infinitum? After all, if being a Christian is the only criteria for a husband and/or wife the first Christian you come across should find you popping the question. I mean, all you need is unity in Christ.

2.) Emphasizing “Unity in Christ” the way you do so that such unity negates very real corporeal and class differences is suggestive of thinking in a Gnostic type fashion. It is as if you are saying that who God has created us to be in our culture, race, values, and classes are all insignificant if only there is “unity in Christ.” That is a very Gnostic way to reason. We are who we are because of how God has creationally and corporeally situated us. Unity in Christ doesn’t destroy or make irrelevant those categories. To think that “Unity in Christ” makes our creational categories insignificant or irrelevant as to deciding on whom to marry is to put one in the orbit of Gnosticism.

3.) Yes, part of the beauty of the Church is that God has called people from every tribe, tongue, and nation. However, it is my conviction from reading Scripture that He calls people from every tribe, tongue, and nation in their tribes, tongues, and nations. In other words, God’s church is comprised of people from every tribe, tongue, and nation but the church is not comprised of an aggregate of individuals from every tribe, tongue, and nation. Instead the Church is comprised as a confederacy of all tribes, tongues, and nations as people exist in those tribes, tongues, and nations. Marriage should normatively occur between two people from the same tribe, tongue, and nation resulting in covenant children who will add numerically to the elect among their tribe, tongue, and nation which belong to God.

4.) If God has called people in every tribe, tongue, and nation, is it really the case that God desires every distinct tribe, tongue, and nation to be amalgamated via marriage so that every tribe, tongue, and nation loses their God created and ordained distinctiveness? It is my conviction that Scripture does not allow us to believe that given how those very tribes, tongues, and nations in their distinct tribes, tongues, and nations are present in the New Jerusalem.

5.) God cast the nations asunder at Babel, so what right does any man have to suggest they should be reunited by a casual disregard for the tribes, tongues, and nations in which He has sovereignly placed us?  

6.) As I said it is part of the glory of the Church. However, it is not part of the glory of the Church to slam together what God cast asunder. Christianity has never taught or sung along with John Lennon when he sang, “Imagine there are no countries. It isn’t hard to do.” And “no countries” is where your reasoning ends up as your Christianity eventually ends up in an amalgamated stew. Nations still exist in the New Jerusalem as Revelation repeats even into chapter 22. If we amalgamate then how can the “leaves of the trees be for the healing of the Nations” (Rev. 22:2)?

7.) The Bible may not explicitly condemn inter-racial marriage but allow me to point out that every example of godly marriage we have in scripture is between people of the same race or of a closely related ethnicity.

Esau married Hittite women and they were a grief of mind of his parents.

Among the line of Promise, Isaac married a cousin, Jacob married cousins. Judah’s marriage to a Caananite woman was a source of grief and his two eldest sons were so wicked that God slew them. Judah’s heir of promise ran through his offspring by his daughter-in-law Tamar. Joseph’s Egyptian wife raises questions as to whether she was a Hamite, but was likely Hyksos, a Semitic people.

Some will point to Nu 12 and Moses “Cushite” wife, but the woman in question was Zipporah, kindred Midianite, not an Ethiopian.

Samson was finally destroyed by his Hamitic wife Delilah.
Solomon’s apostasy took root with his Egyptian (Hamitic) and other foreign wives.

8.) The Bible nowhere explicitly condemns jumping out of an airplane without a parachute and yet God has given enough sense that people know that jumping out of airplanes without parachutes is not a good idea. In the same way 2000 years of Church history teaches me that inter-racial marriage is not normative and generally speaking, is not a good idea. A book you might want to consider buying here, in order to see how the Church has spoken on this issue for 2000 years is Achord & Dow’s “Who Is My Neighbor; An Anthology In Natural Relations.”

9.) The Bible does promote marriage as only for those with shared common ground. When the Bible says that Eve was a helpmeet suitable for Adam the idea communicated there is that she was a reflection … a mirror to Adam. This is why Adam could say… “She is bone of my bone and flesh of my flesh.” He said this because she was a mirror to him. So, the bible does promote, contrary to your statement, marriage as a reality that should occur as between two people who have a harmony of background and beginnings.

Thanks again Mark for writing.


Pastor Bret


Diversity’s Dirty Little Secret Exposed

“When considering the broad theme of Oneness, it is important to note that this is not about imposed cultural sameness for the crushing of expression or creativity. Tolerance and openness exist for cultural, ethnic, social, personal, sexual, and religious identities. Diversity is encouraged, so long as divisive exclusivity — ‘separateness’ or ‘two-ness’ — does not threaten the fabric of anticipated harmony. In fact, distinctive cultural sensitivities and personal tastes are respected so long as they remain within the mosaic.”

Carl Teichrib
Game of Gods; The Temple of Man in the Age of Re-Enchantment – p. 13

Understand what is being said here. The Monistic Uniformity that we are headed for will allow the appearance of diversity but only if that diversity contributes to the major theme of Monism. You can be sexually perverted in any direction you like (hence Diversity) but you will not be allowed to say anything that insists that such a thing as sexual perversion exists because that would be to interject a Separateness or Two-ness of right and wrong into the Monism that can not be questioned. So, people will be allowed diversity in perversion and abnormality but they will not be allowed any diversity that suggests that there is a standard by which all diversity must comply. In such a way the opponents of Two-ism can claim diversity while all the while pursuing Monism (Oneism).

Marriage as Mirroring Partners

Dr. Anthony Flood explains in a very simple fashion why marriage across religions, race, culture, or even class is not a good idea;

“Aquinas’s principle states that the greater the similitude, the greater the stability and permanency of the love. The greater the permanency of the love, the greater the real union the lovers seek and likely obtain. Thus, a greater similitude prima facie affects a greater real union between friends. The ultimate rationale for this principle draws from the relation between unity and union. As unity is the principle of union, the closer two things are naturally, the closer they can be through love. At the level of persons, the closer a relationship with another person comes to unity the stronger it will be. Since self-love arises immediately from substantial union, we can say that the more of a lover’s love for the beloved approaches one’s own self-love (and vice versa), the greater the loving union between them will be. In other words, the most stable and permanent love relationship will be the one that approximates most each person’s love of self. “

Anthony Flood
The Metaphysical Foundations of Love — p. 35

Kinists do not discourage marriages across racial lines because they hate people. They discourage marriages across racial lines because they love people. They know the lack of racial similitude between bride and groom will likely be a future friction point and so fracturing point of the marriage. The goal of entering into marriage is for each partner to have a partner who is in a multitude of respects a reflection of themselves. The more harmony of interests between the one male and one female marriage candidates the more likely that the marriage will be a success. Introducing vast differences in race, or class, or religion, or culture, or values as in each party coming to the marriage altar is a sure-fire means to guaranteeing that the marriage will fail or at the very least not be as happy as it otherwise would have been if those differences had been taken into account before the marriage was entered via covenant.

Now let me anticipate an objection to the quote as coming from earnest Christians. I can hear many protesting at Dr. Flood’s recommendation of the necessity of self-love. I will only say here that if you want a guarantee that a marriage will fail marry somebody who doesn’t have a healthy and Christian love of themselves. When Dr. Flood talks about “self-love” he is not talking about narcissism. He is merely saying by way of metaphor that people who are comfortable in their own skin should marry people who would likewise be comfortable in their skin if they had to be.

Doubtless, there are inter-racial marriages that work, as well as marriages across class lines and culture lines and religious lines that work. Praise be to God for those marriages. However, I’ve also seen healthy three-legged dogs who run well, but that doesn’t mean that we should promote either inter-racial, inter-religious, or inter-class marriages or the cutting off of the legs of dogs. The fact that something odd or unusual works isn’t a recommendation for continuing to pursue the odd and unusual.