…That’s us!
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?
I don’t think “affinity forbidden by the Word” in WCF 24.5 gives grounds for a confessional proscription of miscegenation. The passage says, “Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word.” It is speaking of relations which are too close for valid marriage, not relations which are too distant.
That being said, I am not really convinced that the WCF teaches the permissibility of miscegenation. It doesn’t really address the issue. This section was certainly written with the papists in mind, not Marxists. The “all sorts of people” in 24.3 was written to express that there is no one forbidden to marry by virtue of being a clergyman.
Interracial marriage was nowhere near an issue at the time, so I’d think it’s unreasonable to suppose that the confession addresses it.
Er…the first quote is from WCF 24.4, not 24.5.
The “Reformed Covenanter” has the brass to complain about not being addressed by his “proper title” and then launches into gutter talk. The site administrator of the Confessional Puritan board then proceeds with scatalogical language, and neither of them censor a member for suggesting that you engage in pederasty and bestiality. What fine Christian leadership. I am now thoroughly convinced of the error of Kinism. Confessional Puritans – why don’t you season your speech with salt as the Bible you enjoy playing with says, instead of that other s-word your leader is fond of – and purify your speech into something fit for civilised western Christian men? As for proper titles, how about juvenile, foul mouthed, whitened sepulchers, PhD?
I basically agree with you, Ben. This wasn’t an issue at the time, so it’s dangerous to treat the confession as a “living document,” the way liberals treat the Constitution, and read into it all kinds of things that were not even in the minds of those who wrote it.
So I think it’s fine to say that there is no “proscription,” but the phrase “affinity forbidden by the Word” indicates that there are reasons besides incest for restricting marriage. Our main point is that honoring the desires of our parents and foreparents in marriage (obeying the Fifth Commandment) is the most important thing we can do for the most important decision we make in our lives, and if this rule were followed, there would be miscegenation at all.
For both of these reasons, the WCF is not going to explicitly tell anyone whether “relations which are too distant” are inappropriate for marriage.
We struggle against the ebb and flow of wickedness, my brothers, while our enemies drink wickedness to the dregs. They accuse us of demon possession, yet utter obscenities without hesitation. God has made them deaf and blind, and so they wander in darkness…literally.
Good old Badonicus. He aroused the wrath of the the Reformitards because he wrote the Truth. Noah and the ark represent a restoration of God’s order according to Original Design. God gave the descendants of Cain 120 years to repent, which they did not. So the flood destroyed all except the last Adamite and his kin. The latest discovery to link Shemites, Hamites, and Japhethites into one family is the genetic background of King Tut: 99.6% WESTERN EUROPEAN. No Anthony Bradleys in the woodpile…
You know, the Reformitards are really quite amusing, in a Daffy Duck sort of way. They are really more obsessed with the flesh and satisfying carnal desires than the Kinists could ever be.
The way they throw around the word “racist”, you’d think it was in the Bible. They seem to know everything else that is or isn’t in Scripture and what belongs there or not! Can an Ethiopian change the color of his skin…
I agree with Ben and admin, the WCF does not directly address miscegenation.
However, if one has a comprehensively biblical view of the phrases ‘only in the Lord’ and ‘unequal yoking’, it shouldn’t take long to conclude that miscegenation isn’t biblical. Marriage ‘in the Lord’ means marriage which takes into consideration the whole counsel of God. Marriage that is not an expression of ‘unequal yoking’ considers every potential barrier and insuitability which may exist between a bride and a potential bride-groom. It enjoins upon mankind, therefore, the creation mandate of the pairing of ‘kind with kind’, and applies it to any percieved existence of inequality within marriage in a very broad way. Thus, we would not encourage miscegenation, or the pairing of the very young with the very old, or pairing the gifted with the not-so-gifted, or even necessarily a native white southerner with a confirmed white yankee. Inequality is inequality, and it presents itself in many different ways. Rather then fight the providence of God, and how He gives widely differing gifts unto men, let us cooperate with Him, thereby building strong, lasting marriages within many distinctive societies.
So, while I don’t believe the WCF addresses the subject directly, it does not leave the faithful without comprehensive guidance for marriage through invoking the principles of ‘only in the Lord’ and the avoidance of ‘unequal yoking’. All that remains to us is the theologically sound and consistent application of these. IMHO.
As stated earlier, Glenn Beck is getting information on the Bible from Anthony Bradley and Richard Land.
Land just went up to Capitol Hill to insist that amnesty be granted to millions of illegal aliens, and here are the Bible verses he used for support. He said we are to care for “the least of these among us” (Matthew 25:34-40), to care for the “strangers” who reside in our land (Leviticus 19:34; Hebrews 13:2) and to act justly and mercifully (Micah 6:8).
Thus do “Christians” promote nation-wrecking by pretending that duty to strangers trumps duty to our own people, and neither we nor the strangers are to be bound by the rule of law.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2010/07/16/southern-baptist-richard-land-campaigns-for-amnesty-on-capitol-hill/
It seems that our friend Kerry Culligan has done a good job stiring the melting pot on facebook!
http://www.facebook.com/kerry.culligan?v=wall&story_fbid=132677200104163&ref=notif¬if_t=feed_comment_reply
Yes, indeed. Thanks for the link.
Kerry’s page is very interesting. I think what makes it so interesting is that he attracts both viewpoints. The race-mixers who would never try to establish a dialog here will do so there because Kerry has an adopted Chinese daughter. If what he is in the process of learning encourages him to have the girl seek out a Chinese husband when she’s older, then it will have done a lot of good.
It’s hilarious to watch this cat Bojidar turn on Kerry for asking questions and posting from other sources. He can’t spit out the word “heresy” fast enough. I have a mental image of him pounding every letter on his keyboard. “South Africa’s problems come from the different religions, not from the different races… Anyone who believes inter-racial marriages are a bad idea is a heretic.” This guy is too much! I’ve lost count of how many pastors I’ve spoken with who don’t agree with me entirely but do agree that interracial marriage is a very bad idea. Heretics!
Robert Fort makes an excellent point about “cougar” marriages being a problem because the older wife is not going to follow the younger husband. Ask the parents of the two who want to marry if they approve, and if they’re being honest they’ll say no. So the Fifth Commandment takes care of the problem. Fort’s point is that cougar marriages are not mentioned in Scripture, and there is no categorical condemnation of them, as in the case of incest, but safeguards against them remain. The “Reformitards,” as Beauregarde calls them, look in their precious WCF to see if they can find the word “cougar.” Once assured that the word is not to be found therein, they resolve that God smiles on cougar marriages. As we wrote earlier, there is no lesson about marriage to be learned that does not first draw from the well of the Fifth Commandment.
David Opperman makes an equally good point about a Christian father who forbids his daughter from marrying a drug dealer. There’s nothing in Scripture about how taking a drug is a sin. But a father perceives what will prosper his daughter and what will destroy her, and it is a sin for the girl to reject her father’s wisdom. The race-mixers love to avoid the Fifth Commandment in this discussion, in part because it annihilates their biblicist arguments.
Robert Fort does a very good job of drawing this point out.
I noticed a comment there about how Kinists think miscegenation is worse than sodomy. If this has been stated somewhere, I’m not aware of it. All I know is that God destroyed the “oikoumene” for miscegenation and only two cities for sodomy. But I don’t think this implies that one is necessarily worse than the other.
I had a hearty laugh over Dan Ritchie writing of Kinism: “This thing needs to be stamped out quickly. Those advocates of this [non-damnable, but dangerous] heresy who belong to confessional churches need to be brought before the courts and admonished.” He should start by posthumously excommunicating his own grandfathers.
“Zulus would have created the same cultures and laws if they were Christian.”
“Based on moral considerations, Christian Britons were as great as Christian Zulus.”
“‘Racial purity’ has nothing to do with cultural stability or prosperity, as the examples of Egypt, China, India, Japan, the Aztecs, the Incas, Nazi Germany, and many others prove.”
“…as if family is anything else but a man and a woman under God.”
This dude Bojidar is killing me. Very entertaining.
Then Brannan, one of my favorites, joins the discussion. Bojidar was saying earlier that race is a social construct, and the boundaries can’t be scientifically identified. This is a fallacy refuted by “Loki’s Wager.” Brannan writes: “My inability to distinguish where the sea ends and the shore begins does not falsify the existence of either category.”
Then Brannan asks:
“If Calvin said miscegenation was always ‘born of lust’ and it amounted to men ‘trying to overthrow heaven’ and Henry called mixed-race children ‘monsters,’ and St. Augustine argued that we must have ‘special love of our kinsmen according to the flesh’ (just like St. Paul before him), you’d say they’re unbelievers?”
Instead of answering, Bojidar replies: “I have enough material to write a Reformed response to your baptized racism. I am starting writing a book on that.”
Excellent news! I can’t think of anyone who has been brave enough to do this yet.
Brannan asks him: “Will the illustrations be in crayon?” And Scott Terry writes: “I would love to know what your primary source material will be and which books you will be reading in order to refute our position.”
That is one long Facebook conversation, but it’s enjoyable to read.
The girlish hysteria of so many Babelists is not the sort of thing one expects from mature men. It’s all about “feelings,” and truth really isn’t a topic of their concern. Their main goal, it seems, is to go with the flow of worldly fashion.
They say they worship Christ, but it seems that they worship the goddess of this land, Equality, at least as much. Spawned from the sin of envy, Equality, in her revolutions, has drenched the world in blood. Still the humanists bow down to her, and sadly, so do many professing Christian who follow their lead
These Christians should realize that she is a jealous goddess, and to appease her they eventually will have to accept feminism, homosexualty and even the abolution of family ties. Race mixing alone just won’t do.
Sadly they are blind to the truth that to love the world (meaning its corrupt ideologies) is to hate God. Thus they, as righteous men, aim correct the mistakes of a sinful God by blending His distinct and varied creation into the blessed monochrome of Equality.
And a final thought. The Babelists claim that race is nothing more than skin color. But kin (as in kinism) is far deeper than skin. It is flesh, blood, lineage and rememberance. Ignoring their depth and power is folly.
Thank you, Admin, for your kind words. Praise from Caesar is always appreciated.
It was largely the work of this site, along with Little Geneva, which pulled me out of my own rainbow-colored delusions (admittedly, those delusions were much less severe than those of “UN Bojidar”). Back even when I disagreed with some of the stronger claims of Kinism, I still always appreciated the fact that both of y’all’s sites were intensely anti-Jewish and willing to tell the truth about blacks and Mexicans that the modern, faggoty church simply will not acknowledge.
I have been remiss in congratulating SWB on your work. But every time I think SWB has posted their all-time best article, the one after it will be even better. So in a way, my lack of an acknowledgment is really due to y’all’s ever increasing talent.
Thank you for your important work!
I love Mr. Marinov and have benefited from his contributions to American Vision in the past.
I’m just sorry things had to have happened this way.
I suspect we’ll see an article on this over at American Vision in the next week or so.
I loved the comments about Zulus! It’s as if in B.M.’s mind, no Zulu ever professed Chrstianity! I know it’s been posted somewhere in the archives about a Calvinist missionary complaining that the Gospel preached to the Zulus was simply too Arminian. I believe it was our good friend Harry that pointed out that many European Arminians never fell into that kind of depravity. While I staunchly disagree with Arminian soteriology, it is laughable for me to consider that my devoutly Arminian anabaptist ancestors would have been equally prone to rape and murder as the Zulus!
Bojidar also said that if his son rejected the faith then he would reject his son. I suppose the same would apply to his parents. Apparently Bojidar believes that the 5th commandment only applies to Christians. How sad!
Thanks, Robert! That really made our day. It’s a nice feeling to know when our efforts have not been in vain. You’re doing excellent work on Facebook, and we’re glad to know you.
Shotgun, I had never heard of him until now. I’ll have to look him up.
SF, exactly! This is the point we’ve made here for a long time. Which of our Christian forefathers, at any time in history, believed that the Fifth Commandment applies only to Christian parents? Yet this is what these race-mixers believe! They’re not preaching Christianity. They’re barely human, if blood means so little to them. Bojidar could have an anti-familism parody written about him.
Luther, the Babelists love to denigrate the gift of kinship, which is one of God’s greatest gifts to mankind, by pretending that it’s all superficial – “skin color.” This is why Doug Wilson calls us “skinists.” They’re mocking God too.
Oh, this is rich. Someone saw these comments posted on Bojidar’s Facebook wall, sent them to Robert, and he posted them at Kerry’s page:
Gary DeMar
Bojidar, so when will we see an article on the subject?
21 hours ago · Like Unlike ·
Becky Belcher Morecraft [Joe Morecraft's wife]
All too aware of them — yes, defriend me here and elsewhere!! will you be at the conference this week?
21 hours ago · Like Unlike
Stephen Halbrook
Bojidar, I second Gary’s question. Hope to see an article, a series of articles, or even a book.
21 hours ago · Like Unlike
Bojidar Marinov
I didn’t think it deserved an article, Gary, but if you say it does, I’ll write one.
20 hours ago · Like Unlike · 2 people
R.C. Sproul Jr.
Bojidar, Though I didn’t much like your brief article on the Ligonier conference, it has been a delight to read through your dismantling of these folks’ arguments. Thank you for fighting the good fight, and God bless.
The reason this is funny is because Joe Morecraft, Gary DeMar, and RC Sproul Jr are a few of the people who have been regularly called out by Kinists to defend their anti-national, unbiblical positions, and they run for the tall grass every time, without fail.
Sproul in particular is a race-mixer who, like John Piper (see below), claims that our blood ties are meaningless, and that faith is all that counts, which is completely contrary to what our Christian fathers believed.
Morecraft has also written that race is “insignificant.” Harry, who has tremendous respect for the man, wrote him a letter asking for clarification, and it was completely ignored, as though Morecraft threw it directly in the trash. Then Harry gave it to another minister and close friend of Morecraft’s, and he ignored it as well. Then, when this fellow was overcome with paranoia that Kinists were closing in around him (not true at all), he delivered three sermons that were all about the “heresy” of Kinism. Harry devastated every ridiculous argument that was raised in these sermons (link above).
Gary DeMar has also been frequently taken to task by Kinists, and he ignores all of it, even though he takes great pains on his radio show to respond in detail to his most asinine critics.
Now these jokers want Bojidar to do their dirty work for them! It’s just too hilarious for words. I hope he does his homework, but if experience is any guide, we doubt he will.
Now, to Piper. Beginning at 30:45 in this sermon, lying traitor John Piper says "God delights in" interracial marriage. He speaks the words "monoculturalism" and "monoethnicity" as though they are mental illnesses. In the notes, it says, "We are more related to Christians from other nations than to others of our own nation." The trouble for race-mixers who believe this is that God has designated that we be raised to adulthood in families of blood, not of faith, and we are expected to honor those filial bonds to a greater degree as they strike closer to home. This is true whether our family members are Christians or not. But more than likely, our families and extended families and tribes will largely agree on matters of faith, and this will work its way into our culture and customs, just as we have seen throughout history. These concentric circles of loyalty are how God has arranged for us to grope for Him and find Him. Piper gets this completely backwards. He reads about the gift of grace in 2 Tim. 2:25 and concludes: "Your ethnic distinctives, whatever they are, contributed nothing to the rise of faith in your heart." Come again? What’s this libertarian schlock posing as Christianity? Those who are close in blood are likely to be close in religion. This is why there would be almost no Buddhists or Sikhs or Hindus in this country if not for open immigration. Of course faith is entirely the work of God, but faith, as important as it is, does not dissolve our blood relations or vaunt itself against them. You would never say that you love your Christian sister more than your non-Christian mother, and if you do, as seems to be the case for Piper, I would be very worried. It is simply not true that "We are more related to Christians from other nations than to others of our own nation." Piper needs to learn a few things about God’s purposes in the world. He should become a Kinist and allow the truth to set him free.
In observing the filthy send off from Daniel Ritchie it made me nostalgic for the good old days of John Paulling. He at least could discuss issues in a more or less civil manner. I just love how Daniel again resorts to scatoloical name calling. I can’t believe how arrogant he has to be to simply quote his credentials, insist he be called by his proper “title” and say that he “has been defending theonomy for years.” From my brief interaction with him he would benefit everyone by simply never having any such discussions in the future. If he has such little control over his own temper no good can come from his five year old temper tantrums.
With regards to salvation and grace, it is absolutely true that we are saved exclusively by the grace of God, however the confessions whether Lutheran, Reformed, or even Catholic tell us that God always makes use of means when saving sinners. The means God uses are the Sacraments but he also uses the natural institutions of family, marriage, and race. Family in the sense of Christian parents duly raising their children in the faith (Acts 2:38-39). Marriage in the event that one spouse is a Christian and the other is not (1 Peter 3:1). Race in the sense of preventing lawlessness, restraining evil, and maintaining traditional society (Genesis 11:6, Acts 17:26-27). The gnostic Calvinists who posted on Kerry’s wall who were anti-Kinist seem to think that God saves sinners without any means whatsoever. The issue is grace but rather the means by which grace is dispensed.
Sorry I meant to say in the last sentence of my last post that the issue is not grace but rather the means by which grace is dispensed.
“These Christians should realize that (Equality) is a jealous goddess, and to appease her they eventually will have to accept feminism, homosexualty and even the abolution of family ties. Race mixing alone just won’t do.”
Powerful words of truth.
“Come again? What’s this libertarian schlock posing as Christianity?”
Indeed, we could say back at American Vision folks that if Kinists are trying to “baptize racism” (as some Kinists actually are doing – we must be careful not to be carried away by our own prejudices), then they themselves are trying to “baptize libertarian free-market capitalist worldview.”
Speaking of tensions within the Theonomic camp, Bahsnen once said (paraphrasing) that the Law of God is good, but it is a sharp sword that needs maturity to wield properly. If you give sharp scissors to a child, he is going to give a bad haircut.
DeMar, Ritchie, Morecraft, et al., are children with scissors.
I remember with Ritchie closed comments on his blog because “internet/blogging is being used by the Devil to cause havoc among Christians.. in recent months there has been an extremely nasty streak to comments that have appeared here, and I wonder if those who make them would be so bold as to say these things to my face?”
Nice to see the racist views of his fathers and Christendom bring him back into the Devil’s playground.
http://reformedcovenanter.wordpress.com/2008/12/23/comments-closed/
Reformed race-mixing without hysteria and vitriol is like a day without sunshine.
I’m learning a lot from Ritchie’s years of experience as a master debater. I’ll have to sign off my infantile rants with “say it to my face” more often.
Ritchie’s duplicity amazes me! He complains about nasty comments when all he contributed to the discussion on facebook was his histrionic screaming about “kinist bullshit.” Can he actually be serious? If someone doesn’t want to debate kinists here that’s fine. The least Ritchie could do would be to maintain self-composure. Dan Brannan is spot on when he says that you would’ve half expect kinists to have hacked Ritchie’s account in order to make him look foolish.
Silas, you might also learn to drop some f-bombs if you join the Ritchie School of Reformitard Debate. This will shock the opposition into silence, at which time you can claim victory over all heretics.
Anybody with a facebook account care to take this poll on Daniel Ritchie’s “Theonomy Resources” fan page?
Should we as Christians make use of Leon Trotsky’s invented word “racist” when dealing with Kinists?
- Yes
- No
- Who is Leon Trotsky?
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Theonomy-Resources/281180416039?v=wall&story_fbid=111923345525186&ref=mf
I am a member of a PCA church. It is funny how the leaders will flee from Kinism, but behind closed doors at meetings they agree with everything……
The case of Bojidar Marinov reminds me too much of what transpired with Jew Steve Schlissel. Bojidar comes from the formerly-Communist, Eastern Orthodox country of Bulgaria, which is mono-racial, mono-ethnic, mono-lingual and mono-cultural (I don’t know a whole lot about the man, so if I get any of this wrong, please correct me). Schlissel, of course, came from the foul Jewish culture of New York.
Consequently, there is much that would escape either one of these men. Both of them are smart, but there is a degree of cultural contamination with each one (and with Schlissel, convenantal contamination, too). Due to the level of prominence that Schlissel was raised to, he was in unfortunately position to help create the Federal Vision (not to mention the rest of his Judaizing ways). And with Bojidar, he is now in an excellent position to weigh in on the kinist issue, despite the fact that his whole background leads him to know nothing of the problems of race and race-mixing that we Southerners have seen in our own backyard.
Angus,
I gave up on the PCA when 76 percent of the grown men at GA in 2006 voted down an overture by Tim Warhurst that would encourage “all [the PCA’s officers and members to remove their children from the public schools and see to it that they receive a thoroughly Christian education, for the glory of God and the good of Christ’s Church.”
I believe it was swept aside 32-10 by arguments such as “I turned out okay,” and “What would the public schools be like without our little vessels of light.”
They chose the explicit covenant breaking of Molech worship over God’s law and covenant succession.
And, is there a pastor in the PCA whose catechism-memorized daughter doesn’t dress like a whore?
Amen Robert,
That kind of thing furthers my opinion that theology (and philosophy for that matter) should only be studied after one achieves a degree of mastery over the Earth.
How dare someone try to do theology if he can’t grow corn? And syllogisms are better written by calloused hands!
“Bojidar comes from the formerly-Communist, Eastern Orthodox country of Bulgaria, which is mono-racial, mono-ethnic, mono-lingual and mono-cultural (I don’t know a whole lot about the man, so if I get any of this wrong, please correct me).”
This is actually incorrect. Bulgaria has great minorities of Muslim Turks and also Gypsies.
“And, is there a pastor in the PCA whose catechism-memorized daughter doesn’t dress like a whore?”
Come on now. That’s unfair.
They’re hangin’ it out there for the Lord!
John Piper says that God delights in interracial marriage. I must repeat my previous thought by posing two questions.
Was God a sinner when He created the races of man? And does he delight when righteous miscegenating men correct His sinful mistakes?
You have to see this thread:
http://tinyurl.com/24azk4o
It is on facebook…According to some Theonomist “God hates racist”
Did Rushdoony ever perform an inter-racial marraige?
I don’t know. Good question.
Angus, can you copy and paste from that thread so that those of us without Facebook access can read it?
It’s amazing to me how our opponents believe that kinship can only be in faith. David was a man after God’s own heart, yet still he brokenheartedly cried “O my son Absalom!” when his wastrel son Absalom died.
Our race of kinsmen faces a demise, which, unlike Absalom’s, is totally undeserved. But so many of our Reformed (or is it deformed?) leaders seem completely unmoved by this injustice. In the words of the Apostle Paul, they seem to lack any natural affection–which Paul saw a grave moral failing.
One problem may be the tendency of the Reformed faith to stress intellect and abstraction at the expense of flesh and blood and heart.
Unrestrained by the limits of the physical, this intellectualism drifts into gnostic egotism. This was the path taken by the New England Puritans as they devolved into liberal humanists.
To bring some kind of vitality into their sterile abstract world, the liberals took to the embracing the primitivism of the Noble Savage. This accounts for their worship of the black race, and its presumed earthy passions. Rushdoony said they were seeking “grace from below.”
Our Reformed leaders, as gnostics, are following the same course. Rather than accept natural affections, they are allowing the unnatural affections of Babelism to fill the void.
What is at stake here is far more than race. If our deformers continue on their path, they will go the way of the Puritans, giving up faith in the incarnate Christ for transcendental delusions.
Admin, our adversaries have recently been emboldened due to the posting of some Rushdoony quotes over on their discussion board. I know we don’t absolutely agree with everything that Rush ever said on race, but I do recall that some audio clips of Rush conversing with Otto Scott definitely proved that both Rush and Scott believed in race and its significance. I was wondering if it would be possible to repost these clips sometime in the future.
Be sure to become a big fan of their new page “Christians Against Kinism” started up by Daniel Ritchie.
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Christianity-against-Kinism/125248210853113?ref=search
Don’t expect any of your comments to stand too long. Mine have not.
David New God hates racists.
18 hours ago · Comment · Like
Beth Peroutka and 20 others like this.
David New I know, I know, you can’t use that word because it was invented by Marx or Trotsky, or something like that. Well, who cares who invented it? It applies well to men who look down upon and deride others for their skin color, who arrogantly presume that they are superior for that reason alone. This is not Christianity, my friends.
18 hours ago · Like · 5 people
Alaina Kaszupski It is not man God hates for He loves all men in his grace & mercy, it is the sins of man. God hates racism.
18 hours ago · Like
David New No, God hates men also (Psalm 5:5).
18 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Suzanne Miral God is LOVE therefore He cannot hate. He is very saddened when he sees any form of injustice. It is satan who hates and who spreads hate.
18 hours ago · Like
Antonia Cunningham God hates men who are swift to shed blood, whether verbally or literally – whether it’s toward other races (as you mentioned, David) or toward their same race, which we see often also.
18 hours ago · Like · 3 people
Sandy Pineda I agree
18 hours ago · Like
Alaina Kaszupski Not convinced thru that verse. Ep2:4, 1John4:8
18 hours ago · Like
Mandy Sanchez I respectfully disagree. I know people who are Christians who struggle with racism. Probably some who aren’t even to the point of struggling. When we are saved, God does take out a heart of stone and give us a heart of flesh, but that doesn’t mean we are sinless. Some peoples feelings on this are so deep rooted that they really struggle with overcoming these feelings. I think God “hates” racism, but I do believe there are true Christians that still are overcoming this, and God doesn’t hate them.
18 hours ago · Like · 1 person
David New Struggling is one thing, justifying it is another.
“The LORD abhors the bloodthirsty and deceitful man.” Psalm 5:6
18 hours ago · Like · 4 people
ProverbsThirtyone Sista God is INDEED love, and because of that love, he must hate. God love the people of God yet he hates workers of iniquity. God love babies, so he hates those who murder the innocent. God loves justice so he hates those who pervert it. This is the established biblical pattern of God.
The issue of racism is all based in a respecter of persons …
See More
18 hours ago · Like · 7 people
Mandy Sanchez I don’t justify racism. My comment was about whether God hates racists.
18 hours ago · Like
David New Mandy, I was trying to distinguish between someone who “struggles with racism” and someone who proudly “justifies” racism. I wasn’t saying that you were trying to justify racism.
18 hours ago · Like · 1 person
David New I mean, I don’t think that God hates someone who is trying to reform their racist mentality, and thoughts keep popping into their head that they are penitent and ashamed of, but God does hate all who boast in and rejoice in their sin.
18 hours ago · Like · 3 people
Mary Khristyne Young who said love can’t hate? I say love must hate in order to truly be love.
God must hate evil (and evil doers) because he is perfect, loving, and just. Racism is simply a form of man loving himself (in a horrid way) and is a sin, so God must necessarily hate it.
18 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Bud Driver God hated all sinners!!!
18 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Herson Cruzifer @Alaina
Those verses that you have provided don’t even agree with you.
Ephesians 2:4 “But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love wherewith he loved *US*”
…
See More
18 hours ago · Like · 2 people
Phil Lovelady David…by your definition God hated Martin Luther and Rushdoony…correct? What is “Racism.” You tread thinly here. The Reformers, Ulster Scots, and Puritans all had views on race that would be politically incorrect by today’s standards…
18 hours ago · Like ·
David New Rushdoony did not hate men who were not his color, or because of their color. No one who does so continually is a Christian.
18 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Phil Lovelady OK..this is what I mean..Does Racism mean “hate?” By “who’s” standard or who’s definition of racism…it is a non word.
18 hours ago · Like ·
David New It is not a non-word. I defined it in the opening comment.
18 hours ago · Like
Mary Khristyne Young How can this even be a topic? we are talking about how much melanin people have? how curly their hair is? I see that it is an issue. but why???
18 hours ago · Like · 2 people
ProverbsThirtyone Sista It is unfortunate, but people today are blatantly racist, they just hide it well today because it is not “PC” to be a racist these days. It is never outwardly discussed, but the attitudes are still there, and yes we have a “Black” president, but racism has yet to go anywhere in America.
I am an African American woman, and while I wish racism would…
See More
17 hours ago · Like
Phil Lovelady We are to love our neighbor as ourselves and respect folks regardless of ones race…..but the topic of “racism” was never in the vocabulary of the Reformers….Am I a racist if I care about “my” people, culture and heritage? It seems that racism is limited to white people against all other people……Affection for ones’ race does not equate to hate of another race….
17 hours ago · Like ·
Phil Lovelady http://www.aconversationaboutrace.com/
17 hours ago · Like ·
David New People try to make these distinctions, Phil, but I am not sure they are legitimate. What do you mean by “loving your race”? Does that mean if you had to choose between helping a black man and helping a white man, you would help the white man? I do not think that is a godly criteria.
17 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Phil Lovelady David..I never said “loving my race.” …I said affection..
17 hours ago · Like ·
David New Pardon me, others have used the term “loving their race” in the last day or so. It comes down to how we treat or perceive our fellow man. Our benevolent disposition toward others should not depend on “race”.
17 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Phil Lovelady Caring about ones people does not mean you hate another people…I’m sure Proverbs Thirtyone Sista doesn’t hate white people, but she cares for black folks…Is that racist of her?
17 hours ago · Like ·
David New We should care for blacks and we should care for whites.
17 hours ago · Like
Phil Lovelady David – You are a smart guy….I can tell by your posts……Do you really think I am saying anything negative against other races? I posted a conversation about race….it is a good conversation…we are not being honest with ourselves here…Rushdoony had very strong views on race. That is a fact.
17 hours ago · Like ·
ProverbsThirtyone Sista ”Am I a racist if I care about “my” people, culture and heritage?”
No that doesn’t make you racist. I would make the same charge concerning African Americans.
If I can attempt to try to “define” racism and it’s effects, racism in this country anyway has involved a systematic disenfranchisement of a people using various ideologies and methods from…
See More
17 hours ago · Like
David New I have no idea what you are saying because I haven’t read the conversation yet. I have doubts that Rushdoony was a separatist. He was an Armenian, married to an American, and he performed at least one interracial marriage. I also judge that he was not a Kinist by his writings.
17 hours ago · Like
David New Well, Sista, I hate to break it to you, but percentage-wise, more black men owned slaves before the civil war than white men. According to the 1860 census, 26.2% of free black men owned slaves, as opposed to only 2% of white men.
17 hours ago · Like · 1 person
ProverbsThirtyone Sista Brother, who do you think sold all of those Africans into slavery to begin with? It was their own African people that’s who.
I am well aware of the fact that Blacks too owned slaves, I question those percentages you have provided, (because I’m just like that LOL) but lets not get it twisted… the institution of slavery in America was solely …
See More
17 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Julia Greer In the discussions I’ve read about it on your and some of your FB friends’ pages in the last few days, I haven’t found anyone who “hates” another race. I won’t use the term “racism” or “racist” because those are emotionally-charged terms used as a weapon by the politically-correct set — similar to the word “sexist,” which I also consider to be …
See More
17 hours ago · Like · 1 person
David New Julia: “In the discussions I’ve read about it on your and some of your FB friends’ pages in the last few days, I haven’t found anyone who “hates” another race.”
Me: Well, you have not seen what I have seen then Julia. I will say that I think that use of the N-word by white men in a derogatory manner is indefensible, and inherently hateful. But it got worse than that….
17 hours ago · Like
Julia Greer Fair enough, I haven’t read all the discussions you’ve been engaging in. I will not defend the N-word because I hate it; I consider it a vulgarity and it hurts my ears to hear it from either a black or white person.
I do know one older white man who has used that vulgarity only in reference to particularly scummy representative of his race (…
See More
17 hours ago · Like
Regina Barnes Kelley Tyndall Hi Julia- I had these same thoughts the past week and would be curious to see the answer to your question. I am NOT a racist- even though I live in the deep south and participate in Tea Parties- but my children were in swimming lessons this week and the only three white children in a class of 15. I felt “shunned” for a lack of a better term by the …
See More
16 hours ago · Like · 1 person
Julia Greer That’s a shame, Regina. I would venture to guess that you weren’t intentionally snubbed, or that anyone there “hated” you because of your skin color, but simply felt so at ease with others of their own race that it didn’t even occur to them to reach out to you. They were simply acting on a natural inclination that all humans have.
16 hours ago · Like
“One problem may be the tendency of the Reformed faith to stress intellect and abstraction at the expense of flesh and blood and heart.
Unrestrained by the limits of the physical, this intellectualism drifts into gnostic egotism. This was the path taken by the New England Puritans as they devolved into liberal humanists.”
Gary North (who himself opposed Rushdoony’s “kinist” tendencies) once called higher education as “the golden calf of American Presbyterianism”, and argued that mainstream American Reformed self-destructed by keeping stubbornly sending, out of intellectual pride, their youths to German universities for properly academic Ph.D. accreditation. Most of them were then infected with rationalist philosophy and Biblical “higher criticism”.
“Our race of kinsmen faces a demise, which, unlike Absalom’s, is totally undeserved.”
This actually is not quite true.
For the White race has to a large extent abandoned Jesus Christ, and is beginning to pay the price for its apostasy – much like the ingrateful pre-exilic Old Testament Israel was abandoned to the hands of its enemies. God drew away His protective shield.
“I also will laugh at your calamity; I will mock when your fear cometh; When your fear cometh as desolation, and your destruction cometh as a whirlwind; when distress and anguish cometh upon you.”
(Proverbs 1:26-27)
But in any case, I sincerely believe that OT prophets of doom have much contemporary relevance for Western traditionalists.
For we would like to see our nations and race to survive and prosper – and yet deep down, we know that our people would DESERVE to be punished for its impious outrages. All we can do is to pray to God that our people would survive the chastening without perishing utterly (Isaiah 6:11, Ezekiel 9:8).
OT prophets saw no contradiction in severely condemning their own people and cursing the pagan enemies of their people at the same time. They were waging exhausting two-front warfare against internal corruption and external aggression, just like we are today.
Petr,
Thank you for a very good exhortation.
Petr:
A good point you make. I should have phrased my statement differently. Yes indeed, white people deserve judgment, and that’s exactly what we’re getting. God is not mocked.
Nevertheless, we can’t be sure that we truly deserve destruction. Only God can decide that. For the sake of our godly fathers and the remnant living today, we must pray for His mercy.