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

Jeffrey Stivason

A Word To Kinists

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Is God guilty of the terrible sin of Kinism?

PCA Endorses Principled Pluralism … Speaks out Against Theonomy

According to the PCA’s Christian Nationalism Report…

(1) Religious pluralism is “entirely consistent” with the 1788 Westminster Standards: The document states,

“Some…mean…that Christian piety (per WCF 23.2) is best promoted and protected when the civil magistrate promotes and protects the free exercise of all religions. This position is entirely consistent with the PCA’s constitutional standards.” (p. 2721)

Compare this statement by the PCA to Article 36 of the Belgic Confession of Faith,

… “The government’s task is not limited
to caring for and watching over the public domain
but extends also to upholding the sacred ministry,
with a view to removing and destroying
all idolatry and false worship of the Antichrist;
to promoting the kingdom of Jesus Christ;
and to furthering the preaching of the gospel everywhere;
to the end that God may be honored and served by everyone,
as he requires in his Word.

Bret responds to the PCA blather,

It is impossible to embrace religious pluralism without embracing religious polytheism. Religious pluralism allows all the gods into the public square which, in turn, yields a public square that is, by definition, polytheistic.

Keep in mind also that a genuine “free exercise of all religions,” must include the free exercise of the religion that put the Satanist statue of Molech in the Iowa state house last year. The free exercise of all religion means the mushrooming of Sharia law, Mosques, and cows strutting around as holy in your community. The free exercise of all religion means Burqas (Muslims), turbans with blades in them (Sikh), and  tiny hats.

Per the PCA report Christian piety is best promoted and protected when the piety of false religions and false gods is unleashed.

(2) But views held by the Reformed Orthodox and even some American Presbyterians are “out of accord with the Standards.” The PCA document states,

“An officer who believes that the civil magistrate has the duty to suppress heresies… holds a view that is directly contrary to the text of WCF 23.3 as adopted by the PCA…. In the judgment of the Ad Interim Committee, such an officer is out of accord with the Standards on this point.” (p. 2721)

Bret responds,

Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who believes that a civil magistrate should put down the heresy of Mormon polygamy holds a view contrary to the WCF. Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who believes that the civil magistrate should put down the heresy of Muslim incestuous breeding holds a view contrary to the WCF. Here we are told that a Church officer in the PCA who holds to the Establishment principle is out of accord with the WCF.

And,

“A candidate who argues that the state should enforce the specific penal sanctions of the Mosaic judicial code (like capital punishment for idolatry, blasphemy, or heresy) has, in our judgment, crossed a boundary that the General Assembly has already established.” (p. 2724)

Bret responds,

This is a direct attack on theonomy.

I wonder … can a candidate say in an ordination exam,

“Well, since God’s word requires capital punishment for murder and kidnapping I believe those convicted of murder and kidnapping should be visited with capital punishment.”

Or

Must he say instead,

“Well, since principled pluralism hints at capital punishment for murder and kidnapping I believe those convicted of murder and kidnapping should be visited with capital punishment.”

 

Ghost Citations & Footnotes Keep Popping Up … Glaser & Friend Discuss

On 28 May I wrote this mocking Rev. Ben Glaser for completely creating both a citation and a footnote in his ARP moderator’s report on Kinism;

“Rev. Benjamin Glaser, in a recent article, reported that his wife agreed to his marriage to three other women while conceding that she would be glad to be a mother to all his children from various wives. 1

(1) Benjamin Glaser, “Happiness in a Household of Many Wives,” Westminster Theological Journal, accessed March 17, 2026, https://WestminsterTheologicalJournal.com/…/happiness…/.”
—

A friend put a laugh emoji on this and was messaged by the right honorable Benjamin Glaser asking why this was post was so funny.

The following exchange occurred between Glaser and my friend;

Glaser — Why is McAtee’s post so funny?

Friend — It’s a hallucinated citation just like what you posted in your ARP report. Do you have no sense of irony?

Glaser — “You think its funny to mock my wife? Do you have no shame? Disagree with me all you want, don’t bring my family or wife into this.

Friend – “Em, it’s not mocking your wife. It’s mocking you”

Glaser – “Tell my wife that who is balling (sic) her eyes out right now, and my youngest son who doesn’t understand the humor. You own that.”

Friend – “Yeah. McAtee’s story has all the credibility of your ARP study report on Kinism with its hallucinated citations.”

Glaser – “”I know what kind of man you are, and you have to live with that.”

Friend – “That’s a line from the Walking Dead, you hack. LOL”

ARP Report on Kinism Once Again Called Out on Inaccuracies – Girardeau Testifies

“No, my countrymen; let us prefer to suffer present affiction for righteousness’ sake rather than to incur the future punishment of national guilt. Let us keep our skirts clear. We can only do this by maintaining our identity as a people. And is this impossible? There is a race, which, coming down through the centuries enveloped with antagonistic influences and hostile nationalities, has stood out in perpetual protest against amalgamation with other peoples, and today preserves its characteristics, as the current of the great Western River flows into, without blending with, the multitudinous waters of the Gulf. Even so must we hold to our identity, or, as a people, we are undone. We may perish if we attempt it; perish we must, as a Southern race, if we do not. It is now almost the only hope that is left us.”

-John L. Girardeau, College of Charleston Special Collections Pamphlets, “Confederate Memorial Day at Charleston, S.C.: Re-Interment of the Carolina Dead From Gettysburg” (Charleston, SC: W.G. Mazyck, printer, 1871). Pg. 19

I post this because in the ARP Moderator’s report on Kinism they try to suggest that Girardeau would have agreed with the Benjamin Glasers of the world. In the ARP Moderators report they have the following to say about Girardeau,

We do not need to be on a side in the unrelated theological debates of the late Nineteenth century to see the point being made; that every Presbyterian, in fact, did not agree on racial issues before 1950, or even 1900. Similarly, John Girardeau dealt critically with Dabney’s view of black men and women in the South.23

All because Girardeau disagree with Dabney on how the issue of the freed slaves should be handled does not mean that Girardeau was an Alienist or would be on the side of the idiots like Glaser, Webbon, Poplin, et. al. when it comes to the Kinist issue. Indeed, a cursory reading of Girardeau makes it clear that Girardeau’s views were Kinist. The ARP cannot claim Girardeau as somehow supporting their idiotic ramblings on race and Kinsim.

Clearly the ARP not only created fake citations and footnotes they also clearly did not do their research.