First, I’d like to buy a round of apologies for writing that precocious Dan Ritchie is affiliated with the school that posted his short article about the “heresy” of Kinism. I assumed, and this is never a good thing, because when I assume I always make an ass of you. Young Dan responds to our previous post under the title “Oh Foolish Kinists, Who Hath Bewitched You?” (For those who don’t know, this implies that we are “Judaizers” seeking to make salvation dependent on works of the flesh, or maybe just the flesh.) It’s quite a scholarly rejoinder, punctuated with pious reflection and…naw, just kidding. As we’re very accustomed to seeing, it’s a load of obligatory name-calling.
The “Kinist idiots whose heads are stuck up their asses” have “one of the most vicious, hate-filled, and unapologetically racist websites that I have ever seen.” Our “insane hatred of black people” and “idolatry of the South” are the fruit of “heresies.” We are “asses” and “racist idiots” who write “some of the most absurd and irrational rubbish I have ever heard.” We are nothing more than “a few impressionable and credulous idiots who lack the discrimination to discern between good and evil, and who lack the ability to seriously engage in critical-analytical thought.” Here’s a good one: “Kinism is a doctrine of demons.” Another, who is apparently speedballing on Christian charity, says we like to rape dogs. The deepest cut of all comes from one who calls us “jejune.”
Once you get past the name-calling, there is no substantial refutation of the points we’ve made or the serious exegesis we helpfully provided in a link, which Danny Boy withholds from his readers, naturally. Ditto for Theonomy Resources, source of the original post, where the moderator would not even approve a comment linking to our response. Obviously, there are no links to SWB because one glance at this website could cause a “confessional Puritan’s” eyes to melt away, like what happened to the Nazis in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Thus, Ritchie feels comfortable in rehashing a lot of ground that has been well-covered by us. He even lies, saying that the WCF’s “only…qualification” for marriage is “degrees of consanguinity.” He skips over the more general “affinity forbidden by the Word” like it’s not even there. He again asserts, without proving, that “to be unequally yoked in the context of marriage means [merely] marrying someone of a different religion.” The only response to our Rushdoony quote is to go in search of another Rushdoony quote, which doesn’t actually contradict the point Rush himself made, and to steer readers towards a commentary on the WCF. Since there is no condemnation of miscegenation in said commentary, this is supposed to serve as proof that racists don’t know the Bible very well. Many of you will recognize that this is what Reformed wingnuts do with Dabney and other great men, but they are never bold enough to be consistent and call these church fathers “heretics.”
Most conspicuously (pardon the Hispanic racial slur), Ritchie dodges our point about the Fifth Commandment like it’s a jellyfish in his bathtub. Likewise, he doesn’t even attempt to prove us wrong when we say that, on race, modern Christians disagree with their fathers in the faith and agree with the reprobate. He shouldn’t feel bad, because no one could possibly deny this. Instead, his response is: Oh yeah? Well, you agree with Hitler!
This is not far from the anti-reasoning of Anthony Bradley, the Michael Steele of Reformed Christianity, who is bellyaching again about how various Kinists over the years have given him negative reviews. As you might recall, this is a man who graduated with a doctoral degree from Westminster Theological Seminary, has been on the masthead of the Acton Institute think-tank, is now a professor at The King’s College, and is turning into a prominent spokesman whenever issues of race and Christianity arise. His quota career has only been of interest to Kinists because it illustrates the synthesis of Scripture with the ideas of revolutionary Jews like Boas and Marx. Whites who have sat at the feet of these teachers have been willing to dumb down their civilization, even while calling themselves “conservative.” Blacks have responded in entirely predictable ways. As Rushdoony said, the Negro respects only authority as brute force; compassion is interpreted as weakness. Though white men traded Christianity for Judeochristianity with the intention of helping others, diversities have responded by trying to destroy both the giver and the gift. Anthony Bradley’s popularity is based on his consistent theme that white churches and families must be mixed until nothing remains of their former identity. And while blacks routinely call their homogeneous churches “bastions of strength,” no white man must ever again be allowed to experience this luxury.
When Bradley was hired by Joel Belz and Marvin Olasky at WORLD Magazine, he played up the relevance, writing stereotypical odes to cars and cologne, and praising vile songs by Outkast, a band with some ideas on what to do with your daughter’s mouth. It was in this ostensibly Christian blog that Bradley swooned over meeting the radical Marxist, Cornel West. He called West a “genius” and gave West’s rap album this hilarious review: “In all modesty, this project constitutes a watershed moment in musical history.” He lamented the lack of “cutting edge” books “exploring Crunk and Reggaeton.” He often repeated his desire to convince white churches to start “worshipping” to hip-hop music. He even said that the Presbyterian Church in America “should be ruling” the jungle of hip-hop. (I think these wiggers and their “cowboy hip-hop” are not what Bradley had in mind.)
On more than one occasion, he wrote about his desire to live in Miami because white and mestizo women will dance openly with black men there.
Why move to Miami. Because the multicultural Latin scene is amazing(haha). The only other venue I’ve witnessed the diversity present in the Latin dancing scene (Salsa, merengue, bachata, etc.) would be hip-hop. In Miami, it’s Asians, Hispanics, African Americans, whites, all mixed in together enjoy a multi-racial moment. Getting back to that would be sweet…
I could get back into the Latin Dancing scene like I was in Philly, the ministry opportunites are incredible, it’s a hip-hop mecca, it’s a multi-racial, multi-cultural city. It’s perfect.
He only regretted that no church in Miami was willing to hire him.
If the right opportunity came I pretty sure I’d take it. But, that’s the problem. Who’s gonna hire a black dude with degrees from Reformed seminaries who wants to bring people to The Way in a fresh , creative, non-baby-boomer, non-seeker sensitive way, and pay him “real good” so he can get out of debt (haha)? Exactly, so for now I remain in Dutch Michigan.
By Anthony Bradley on March 6, 2005 9:50 AM
What a pity. He was on the cutting edge of the sex sermon craze.
Sex is good, right? God created it for us, right? Then why don’t we talk about it at church regularly?…
For example, Mars Hill in Seattle where Pastor Mark Driscoll says that they teach:
“[a] liberated marital sex and provide frank teaching on everything from why husbands enjoy oral sex to the different types of orgasms a wife can experience…” (from his book The Radical Reformission, 185).
…Why is there no frank discussion in conservative white evangelical churches, like Mark said about “oral sex” and “orgasms?”
Posted by Anthony at October 18, 2005 09:28 AM
The guidance of his more sensible parents was lost on this aficionado of pop culture.
In the new Kanye West video of “Touch the Sky” Pamela Anderson is his girlfriend and the video accurately portrays just how much black women HATE it when they see a white girl with a black dude.
As a prominent black pastor, now in Los Angeles, said to me 12 years ago, “Anthony, if you want to close off your ministry to the black community completely, marry a white woman.” It’s so true. Whew, black women really, really hate that. Whew.
The video’s funny. The ex-girlfriend’s friend responds in a common tone: “girl, I told you that as soon as he [got all successful] he was gon’ leave yo [butt] for a white girl.” One of my [family members] gave me very specific instructions one day: ”Anthony, whatever you do just don’t marry a white girl.” Being “successful” and marrying a white girl is anathema in the black community. I didn’t know what to say.
Posted by Anthony at February 23, 2006 07:57 AM
When a governor came out of the homo closet, Bradley criticized those who wanted him fired. He said sin affects us all, so we shouldn’t be too hard on the guy. But when a young lady was forbidden by her school from wearing a Confederate flag dress to her prom, and she sued her school because of it, Bradley wrote, “Why can’t people give the flag thing up? Her family are all probably good Bible-believing Christians too.”
More recently, Bradley had a moment of infamy in the limelight when, on Fox News, during the great rape hoax, he called all 47 of the Duke lacrosse players liars, called one of them a rapist, and implored them to come forward and “tell the truth about what really happened.”
Usually, he mentioned the PCA only to condemn it for its latent “racism.” In 2005, he lamented: “The PCA can’t seem to deal with its racist theonomists.” Officially, the PCA had already issued an ahistorical and unbiblical “Pastoral Letter” condemning both “racism” and our forefathers while “repenting” of bogus sins. (An aside: We fully agree with Bradley that this vague statement had nothing to do with actual repentance. The WCF requires specificity in repentance: “Men ought not to content themselves with a general repentance, but it is every man’s duty to endeavor to repent of his particular sins, particularly.”) This was not of concern to Bradley, however. He meant that churches had to follow through with disciplining acts of “racism,” which are now defined as anything black people find disagreeable.
Here’s a representative, approving quote from one of his posts entitled “White Evangelical Seminaries: White Supremacy’s Greatest Friend.”
“What deepens my anger today is the appalling silence of white theologians on racism in the United States and the modern world… From Jonathan Edwards to Walter Rauschenbusch and Reinhold Niebuhr to the present, progressive white theologians, with few exceptions, write and teach as if they do not need to address the radical contradiction that racism creates from Christian theology. They do not write about slavery, colonialism, segregation, and the profound cultural link between white supremacy and Christianity… White images and ideas dominate the religious life of Christians and the intellectual life of theologians, reinforcing the ‘moral’ right of white people to dominate people of color economically and politically. White supremacy is so widespread that it becomes a ‘natural’ way of viewing the world… As long as religion scholars do not engage racism in their intellectual work, we can be sure that they are as racist as their grandparents, whether they know it or not.” ~ James H. Cone, Charles A. Briggs Distinguished Professor of Systematic Theology at Union Theological Seminary, in his book Risks of Faith: The Emergence of Black Theology of Liberation, 1968-1998 (Beacon Press, 1998), p.130-132
He followed this quote with a concilatory “Hmm…this may explain a lot on both sides.” It sure does, Anthony, and it explains a lot about you; namely, that you believe evangelical seminaries are “White Supremacy’s Greatest Friend” until they agree with you that a healthy, sanctified church must resemble Babel.
Notice that the words “racism” and “white supremacy” are used here not to denote violence or even discrimination against blacks. No, the very fact that white images and ideas have dominated Christian thinking is racism (regardless of its asymptotic proximity to the truth), and since racism is a “sin,” it must not be allowed to survive in the Church. Racists must be disciplined, not for anything they actually do or don’t do, but because of what they believe. Again, this is the brute force authority of the black man. It is as far removed from white, Christian liberty as one could imagine. No dissent can be tolerated.
Chuck Colson also allowed Bradley to publish the above quote from black liberation theologian James Cone in Breakpoint Magazine. As I’m sure you recall, Cone made the news in recent years for being the mentor of Jeremiah Wright, who was a mentor of Obamination. Wright based his “church’s” vision statement on the writings of Cone, which include these gems:
To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores…
[W]hiteness is the symbol of the antichrist… Black theology seeks to analyze the satanic nature of whiteness and by doing so, prepare all nonwhites for revolutionary action… Christianity and whiteness are opposites…
Black theology refuses to accept a God who is not identified totally with the goals of the black community. If God is not for us and against white people, then he is a murderer, and we had better kill him. The task of black theology is to kill gods who do not belong to the black community…
Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy. What we need is the divine love as expressed in Black Power, which is the power of black people to destroy their oppressors here and now by any means at their disposal. Unless God is participating in this holy activity, we must reject his love…
The black theologian must reject any conception of God which stifles black self-determination by picturing God as a God of all peoples. Either God is identified with the oppressed to the point that their experience becomes God’s experience, or God is a God of racism…
If there is one brutal fact that the centuries of white oppression have taught blacks, it is that whites are incapable of making any valid judgment about human existence. The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods…
The coming of Christ means a denial of what we thought we were. It means destroying the white devil in us. Reconciliation to God means that white people are prepared to deny themselves (whiteness), take up the cross (blackness), and follow Christ (the black ghetto).
Bradley distances himself from these outrageous statements and has even written a book against black liberation theology. But how is what he teaches any different in the end result? Before we answer this question, let’s take a look at what Bradley is currently writing.
Here he commemorates the 50th anniversary of the Marxists in SNCC and “the Black Revolution that spread nationwide in its wake.” He writes, in beaming prose, “The reunion was an outpouring of powerful emotions, living history and inspiring visions of radical democratic change still needed in the politics of today.” I wonder why he did not mention a word about the Communists, revolutionaries, and proto-Black Panthers who founded SNCC or the Black Power conferences they continue to support. (You know what’s really hateful? When David Duke or Jared Taylor tries to reserve a hotel room.) Does it matter that SNCC’s leader, H. Rap Brown, considered terrorism to be “as American as cherry pie”?
Here Bradley asks, rhetorically, and in his trademark broken English, “Is the PCA being held hostage by white, Western (and Southern) cultural captivity?” He concludes that the Church must be “freed from its white, Western (and Southern) culture and norms” because a “church predominantly made of white people is [sic] church that will likely close its doors within the next generation.”
Here he is shocked to discover that the PCA was founded by “racists.” Then he adds this personal note:
For at least 6 YEARS I have been repeatedly, and regularly called “nigger,” “Anthony Bradley, the Negro Prince of the PCA,” “The Token Negro and Filthy Pervert and a Stain on the Bedsheets of Life,” “Anthony Bradley, the Affirmative Action Ph.D,” and other racial slurs all over the internet since some white Reformed people discovered me; and it has not stopped. I had no idea what I was getting myself into in the early 1990′s and nobody told me what to expect. I have been completely caught of [sic] guard and I’m lucky to get a shoulder shrug from people who knew this would happen. Why didn’t anyone tell us?…
Have you ever been called, “the Negro Prince of the PCA?” Don’t people understand that if I leave the racists win. [sic]
I don’t know what he’s talking about. This appears to be a reference to Badlands, which has been offline for years. At the time, Bradley was singing quite a different tune:
Here’s why I liked the racists: they single-handedly increased my “google rating” significantly. Now what will I do? Perhaps another racist will take the lead and increase my rating even more!
Posted by Anthony at October 24, 2005 09:40 AM
Amazingly, Joel Belz, the founder of WORLD Magazine, tries to cheer Bradley by posting a link to the Southern Poverty Law Center, than which there has never been a thicker hive of hatred and bigotry. Are you following along here? A black man is anguished that white people don’t like to learn from black people, marry them, or hand over the leadership of their churches to them. Then a white patricide, who for years gave the black man a public forum to pollute the faith, links to a story published by notorious Christ-haters and white-haters about the persecution of a fine man named Neill Payne for the Orwellian thought-crime of believing that “black people are somewhere between average intelligence and mentally retarded” (a certifiably true statistic, on average). In the PCA, as in the Church at large, handing authority to Negroes means that opinions are no longer a matter of “Christian liberty.” Here’s the story, and another one about the “racist” foundation of the PCA. Belz means for these articles to encourage Bradley because they suggest that European Christianity is about to fall into the dustbin of history, after which wedding photos will no longer be insufferably white. Belz apologizes to Dr. Bradley, the seminary graduate, for not warning him that old-fashioned, conservative white Southerners are racists. “I am sorry that we weren’t more up front with you about this matter when you joined us during the 1990s.” Who could have guessed, seeing as how every other denomination in existence has a similar history?
R.C. Sproul’s buddy, Ligon Duncan (an aspiring rap star himself), chimes in to inform readers that the once-noble First Presbyterian Church of Jackson, Mississippi, which he pastors, now has “interracial couples who are joyful and beloved church members and we are anticipating the union of a godly young couple (who happens to be interracial) in the next few weeks.” I’m sure James Cone is delighted.
This comment is a shining example of a young skull full of mush who is wasting his parents’ money.
Another seminarian writes: “More church discipline needs to be done against those who are racists & kinists precisely because their views are contrary to our creation in the imago dei and the unity of the Body of Christ…and that whole love your neighbor thing upon which the 2nd table of the law hangs. More pastors and Presbyteries need to hold people accountable for what they write on their blogs. One of the things that instills some hope is the growing commitment to adoption. Some PCA churches are creating cultures of adoption. We have not experienced any racism in the ARP or PCA for adopting a Chinese child. We expect the same if we adopt from Africa.”
Another writes: “From pulpits I’ve heard for decades a message insensitive to African-Americans. The message is that things used to be better, but at least since the 1960s they have gotten worse. Think how this must strike someone who knows only too well that their freedoms and prerogatives have improved fairly consistently in the last 50 years.” What else has improved?
Another equates slaveholders and segregationists with rapists. I suppose the slander could be worse, but I’m not sure how at the moment. At least he didn’t say anything about dogs.
Another writes that “kinism is little more than the last whisperings of a dying lot of bigots that have brought nothing but shame to the resurgence of Reformed theology in the 21st century.” Nothing else? Such ingratitude.
Then Nelson Jennings tells Bradley: “Slade’s book [about the PCA's racist foundation] and your blog have catalyzed further soul-searching and constructive discussion among our faculty at Covenant Seminary here in St. Louis.” He then grovels in pseudo-repentance on behalf of white people: “I am sorry for how I and others of us have failed you personally, both during your time among us and since then. I believe we have always stood with and defended you, but surely we have not done so adequately or properly. I know I and others have sought to understand your struggle amidst the attacks against you, but I know I did not seek enough or adequately… Thanks for your prayers for our faculty as we honestly, yet with our own baggage and shortsightedness, seek to follow Christ’s leading down the painful-glorious path that lies both behind and in front of us.”
Let me interrupt here to say that Bradley must be overjoyed when he reads this nonsense. He joins a white denomination for the express purpose of changing it irretrievably, and he knows he has succeeded because the bigwigs and illustrious potentates fall all over themselves to apologize to him for not stroking his tender ego more vigorously. They don’t actually repent of anything specific, but it sure sounds good, and that part about the “painful-glorious path” is a nice touch.
I’m still confused about these so-called “attacks.” All Bradley has said is that he has been called some names he doesn’t like. If I could go one day without being called a name like “dog rapist” or having some overblown slur used against me and my friends, I might feel like running for office. The names we’re called never fail to equate us with murderers, such as the Black Panthers who talk about killing “cracker babies,” and this happens even when we take great pains to have a polite and deferential conversation. For denying the religion of Equality, we are called by the same names used for criminals and pyschopaths, and no one has ever come to us and apologized for bearing false witness. If anyone has reason to complain of being mistreated, it’s us, not these thin-skinned cemeterians.
A couple of weeks ago, Bradley read here at SWB that he is “the feted token Negro of Reformed Christianity.” He didn’t like this, probably because he thinks that “feted” (highly esteemed) means “fetid” (an offensive smell). Despite his claim to having been “repeatedly and consistently” harrassed by Kinists for six years, this was one of the few times we have written about him. At any rate, his reaction was to chastise churches for not silencing people like us who dare to utter their opinions.
Reformed Christianity remains as [sic] safe haven for racists because few Reformed Christians have the fortitude to challenge racism in their churches and denominations it seems. If you are Reformed and racist you can just about guarantee that most Calvinist churches in America won’t even address the issue so you get off pretty easy.
Truth is irrelevant and liberty of conscience is irrelevant. The religion of Equality is all that matters, and those who dare to dispute it must be shut down. You really need to understand what he’s saying here; the people he wants to punish are guilty of nothing more than biblically-derived thought-crimes.
A few days ago, Glenn Beck proved that our word “feted” was well-chosen. Bradley appeared as a guest author on Beck’s show, and the subject was black liberation theology.
Actually, this is not the first time that those who have been criticized by Kinists have tried to get Glenn Beck to intervene on their behalf. Here’s an old clip of someone who called what has now become the third most-popular radio show in the country in the hope of exposing Kinists to millions as haters of mankind, probably related to Hitler. The caller was riled by one of the many brilliant observations of our friend, Badonicus, that God punished miscegenation to a greater degree than he punished sodomy. He destroyed two cities, Sodom and Gomorrah, which were filled with faggots, but He flooded the known world when the race of Sethites mixed with the race of Cainites. You can join the caller in dismissing this as “ridiculous” and you can qualify it to your heart’s content, but you can’t deny it.
Beck begins the show by introducing Bradley and then cutting away to a monologue. He does this to present his bonafides as a white man who can legitimately talk about race for an hour. Just to drive the point home, he seats Bradley in front of what appears to be a black producer with his dreadlocks in a cargo net. If Bradley had worn a sign bearing the word “token” on his chest, it would not have been any more obvious.
As Beck himself admits, this is his “weirdest show ever,” yet it’s refreshing to see how much he gets right. In parts it is almost like a sermon, and Beck is certainly correct that believing that Obama found Christian faith through the idolatry of James Cone is like believing someone could appreciate free enterprise by becoming a Marxist. But Beck is also extremely confused on several points, and since he says at the outset that he is getting his information from Anthony Bradley and Richard Land, I can’t help but think that Bradley is confused too. First, Beck claims that Jesus was a victor, not a victim at the hands of murderers. Actually, both statements are true. Beck says: “If He was a victim…then Jesus would have come back from the dead and made the Jews pay for what they did. That’s an abomination.” But this is precisely what happened in 70 AD. Not one stone of the temple was left upon another. An abomination? Does he know what that word means? On the other hand, I doubt that Bradley gave Beck the idea that “Jesus died for everyone who ever lived.” No Calvinist believes this.
In the process of showing the connection from Cone to Wright to Obama, Beck makes an issue of Cone’s idea of “collective salvation” versus the Christian idea of “individual salvation.” This point is the hinge on which the show turns. But while it’s false that personal salvation depends on collective salvation, as Obama puts it, Beck’s dichotomy is also false. The Great Commission is to baptize nations, not just individuals. See, for instance, Moses in Deut. 5, when he says the covenant at Sinai was made with “those of us alive here today,” even though the people to whom he spoke were not alive at the time. Nor do we await salvation in eternity; salvation is here and now as well, not just for us but for our people. White men like Beck have an easier time of making faith merely a personal matter because genetically encoded in every white man is a libertarian streak. Properly channelled, this can be a counterbalance on the hive mentality prevalent among the Chinese. If improperly channelled, it leads to nothing less than the destruction of civilization, as we are seeing before our eyes.
Cone’s anti-theology is discussed at length on the program. As shown above, the general thrust of Cone’s teaching is that white people can only be granted salvation if they relinquish the power to govern their own affairs and “identify” with the “powerless,” meaning, of course, black people. They can only be saved through massive transfer payments that “give back” what they have “taken.” But black people are far from powerless, and Bradley is living proof. For generations, they have benefited from special preferences, and there is no end in sight.
Again, even though Bradley has written a book opposing black liberation theology, how do his goals for the Church differ? Beck explains BLT in this way:
1. Identify something you want to control
2. Look to Marx
3. Look for a substantial number of victims
4. Infiltrate and corrupt institutions
Ever since Bradley joined what remained of the white, southern Presbyterian Church, he has contended that it must change to suit a polyglot world, or else white churches will go the way of the white race, which he assumes to be a foregone conclusion. Whites must grant quota positions to other races, who have had no part whatsoever in what we understand of orthodox, confessional Christianity; and finally, whites must hand over the churches to them to be mixed beyond recognition. Bradley has identified what must be controlled, he has looked to Marx (certainly not our fathers), he has found a body of Southerners who have been harangued for hundreds of years as oppressors and are eager to be recognized as victims, and with the complicity of the feckless leadership he is corrupting what used to be a healthy institution.
What’s the difference?