I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth.
I believe in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord,
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the virgin Mary.
He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried;
He descended into Hades. The third day He rose again from the dead.
He ascended into heaven and is seated at the right hand of God the Father Almighty.
From there He will come to judge the living and the dead.
the forgiveness of sins…
All Christian soteriology presupposes Christian nomology. Any soteriology which posits another system of law, or denies nomology as such, cannot be called Christian. The gospel is meaningless apart from its interplay with the law- and vice versa, because unless one were able to keep the law perfectly (Christ), it becomes a meaningless standard for men. But God’s perfect standard unmet by men is met by the Son of God on our behalf; our sins are forgiven us on His merits, not our own. This interplay of law and gospel is essential to understanding the gospel.
Which is to say that the Christian conception of forgiveness assumes objective standards of morality. This standard of justice implied by the gospel is a matter of deep offense to carnal men; while they may not balk at the quasi-libertine slogan, “Jesus loves you,” the idea that Jesus vicariously atoned for men’s sins and grants forgiveness to those whom He wishes is tremendous insult. After all, it not only calls the criminal for what he is, but informs him that his only reprieve is in having his debt paid by another, far better than he. In theology we speak of Christ’s condescension as glorious, but carnal man reviles condescension. The higher the height from which condescension comes, the more an insult it is to him. To such a one God’s absolute goodness is itself the ultimate affront.
Amongst the reprobate, condescension is valued only when it is out of place, extended from the lowly to the high. By definition, that really isn’t a condescension at all, but a lawless ascension, which we might otherwise call a usurpation or revolution. And the more out of place and contrary to actual moral hierarchy, the more it is valued.
Where Christ’s covenant holds sway in society, this inclination is reversed. The condescension of any true moral aristocracy is there cherished. The higher the height from which such a condescension comes, the more it is honored. This gospel-driven social dynamic Christendom used to refer to as “chivalry.” “And without doubt, the inferior is blessed by the superior” (Hebrews 7:7). But such a gospel-oriented social order, in spite of its in-built graces, on account of its presuppositions of hierarchy, distinction, and moral absolutes, is reviled of carnal men.
Historically, that hierarchical and chivalric social order established by the gospel was always an offense to the carnal man, but especially to Jew, Gypsy, and African. Though it is easy enough to say that those strangers within our gates were, like Esau of old, not chosen of God to receive His gospel, we can plainly discern the nature of their objections, for their criticism has never ceased. Their hatred of the old world order, they tell us, is in response to Christian morality – God’s law and gospel: the biblical trustee family, marriage, patriarchy, property, kinship, citizenship, nationhood, all of the social bulwarks of Christlaw and the offer of forgiveness upon repentance to those who trespass. All of this is to them the definition of evil. When Christ offers to forgive their sins based upon their inability to fulfill His law, they hate Him above all.
As is clear, Christians recapitulate Christ’s condescension in every act of evangelism, and in some sense, by their every interaction with inferiors, but especially so in their interactions with heathenish peoples. The historical manifestation of that condescension toward Blacks has always naturally resulted in some form of paternalism – colonialism, slavery, sharecropping, and, in the throes of the White man’s apostasy, affirmative action.
This was Dabney’s thesis in A Defense of Virginia: he maintained, in keeping with both law and gospel, that the domestic slavery of the African under Christian White men was just such an evangelistic and discipleship-oriented condescension on the part of the White. It was clearly a great blessing to the Black in practically every conceivable way. But I need not prove that case at present. Suffice it to say that Dabney’s apologetic for the Christian order has stood for more than a century and a half unrefuted.
The reprobate defers to lawless revolution rather than the paternalism and chivalry implicit in the gospel. The White apostate may revile Christian condescension, but he does so on distinctly different terms than the African, the Mestizo, and others. While the White Alienist (in the assumptions of Jacobinism and cultural Marxism) may object to the paternalism of Christendom, the alternatives which they champion are simply condescension and paternalism in different forms. Where Christendom had vested the domestic realm with the paternalism over the African (Lev. 25:39-46), the White liberal violently excises the power and duty of the domestic realm only to replant that same power and prerogative in the state, a la the thirteenth and fourteenth amendments. It is a tyrannical usurpation, no doubt, but it is animated by a similar paternalistic inclination toward other races, albeit apart from Christianity.
Within the church, Alienism redirects Whites’ focus onto missions to Haiti, Africa, Mexico, South America, and “urban youth,” all of which, incidentally, claim Christ in proportions far outstripping the numbers even found in the Alienists’s own White neighborhoods. But if all those Black societies now claim Christianity in far greater ratios than our own White neighbors (and they do), what drives the Alienist obsession with taking the gospel to people who have had inundation of the same for hundreds of years, and presently profess Christianity in greater proportion than any other race? First, they feel (I say “feel” because they really don’t think about it) it atones for their White guilt in some way; but, second, in spite of the Liberian and Haitian populations claiming Christianity at around 90%, the Alienist doesn’t take the African’s profession of faith seriously. The Alienist simply doesn’t accept the profession of faith from other ethnicities as on par with his own. Even Blacks perceive this hypocrisy of Alienists claiming that all men are the same and simultaneously treating even Christian Blacks across the sea as if they were in more need of evangelism than the apostate Whites next door. The Alienist missiological fixation on already-evangelized Blacks is merely a refusal on the part of Alienists to accept that the African expression of Christianity as genuine. The Alienist sees the Christian Black more needful of his evangelical efforts than unbelieving Whites because even apostate White societies seem more Christian than those of long-christianized Blacks. Alienist missiology, no matter their protestations, presupposes White supremacy.
So does the other plank in their paternalism – interracial adoption. Plainly, they believe they can better impart Christian civilization to a Black child in an apostatized White society than the child’s own family can among their own people who all profess Christianity. Many of the African peoples from whom those children are taken do not consider it adoption at all, but abduction: man-stealing. A capital crime.
But the Alienists are deaf to these pleas from christianized Africans as much as from White Kinists, because they see their human-trafficking as the gospel externalized. To the Alienist, the forgiveness of sins entails a form and degree of paternalism and White Supremacy undreamt by the antebellum plantation owner. The White neo-churchmen’s view is that the gospel can only be imparted to the African to the extent that he is commingled culturally, socially, and racially with the White. This he may deny, but all his actions in regard to Blacks and other races prove the case rather conclusively. White Alienists seem to believe that the African is only truly christianized by closer proximity and association with White people. It isn’t just a matter of concern for the physical needs of a child, as it is cheaper to feed an African village in American dollars than to buy, import, and raise one African child in America.
If it were just a question of helping children, there are many, many Eastern European and Appalachian children in dire physical need. Strangely, when the White liberal claims to “have a heart” for a people, they seem oblivious to the fact that they have violated their own Marxian ethic which holds race to be imaginary; and it is never their own people for whom they develop such a love. Pursuant of these ends, they glibly waste kingdom resources, because the more they sacrifice, and the more alien the recipient of that sacrifice is, the more they feel that they are atoning for the all world’s darkest sins as emblemized by the dusky savage. This is not Christianity, but a messiah complex; not the gospel, but masochism.
When the Alienist process of atonement cannot purge the African adoptees of their endemic tendencies, their White caretakers simply declare those tendencies clean. For to do otherwise would overturn their entire ordo salutis. So their gospel, rather than atoning for trespass against the law, simply re-writes the law to omit all those particulars which evidence themselves as an offense to the African’s culture and native bent. But the fact is that the doctrines of grace, otherwise referred to as covenantalism, Calvinism, or Augustinianism, simply are the gospel. Those holy precepts are as compromised and distorted in White Alienism as they are in Black Liberationism or in the Pelagianism underlying each.
For Providence is an inherently Calvinistic concept, and God’s superintendent choice to have couched historic Christendom amongst the Japhetic tribes is an offense to all but the Kinist. As are the White man’s unique interplay with that history, and the theology and ethics resulting from that hereditary course of history prophesied by Noah (Gen. 9:27) well in advance of the tripartite division of mankind described in the table of nations (Gen. 10), which would be forced apart by God along those same racial lines in the wake of the failed Alienist revolution attempted at Babel (Gen. 11).
The apostles cited David’s Psalm 2 address of Babel as a foreshadow and type of the imperial coalition which came against Jesus:
Lord, You are God, who made heaven and earth and the sea, and all that is in them, who by the mouth of Your servant David have said: “Why did the ethnicities rage, and the races plot a vain thing? The kings of the earth took their stand, and rulers were gathered together against the Lord and against His Christ” (Acts 4:24-26).
There is simply no way to dismiss or ignore God’s acknowledgment of races in Scripture, as well as His providential condemnation of certain groups by name:
For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the ethnicities and peoples [laois: tribes, nations, races] of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done (Acts 4:27-28)
The Christian doctrine of the forgiveness of sins (the Doctrines of Grace) simply cannot be made sense of outside the Kinist frame of reference.
the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.
The resurrection of the body actually describes that which comes next in the creed: the life everlasting. Contrary to the gnostic imaginings of Alienism, the eternal state of the soul as set forth in Scripture from the beginning is that man, comprised of both flesh and spirit, is a living soul. Extracted of either aspect, flesh or spirit, we would no longer be speaking of a man.
Our flesh, though made incorruptible, which is to say, healed of the taint of sin, will occupy mansions, walk on streets of gold, and behold the throne of God with human eyes. Heaven is not like the Elysian fields, but a tangible, physical place in this cosmos, a place where Jesus’s flesh and bone presently reside. Though He is King of all kings, in body He remains forever heir to the royal house of Judah, blood heir to the throne of Israel. On the last day John assures us that there will be “men of every kindred, tongue, people [laos: tribe, race], and nation [ethnoi: ethnicity]” (Rev. 5:9; 7:9) around that throne to look on the God-Man whose human royalty acts as the unifying synecdoche for all human aristocracy.
This use of this word, “kindred” (Grk: phule), is alone so illustrative of the point, that elaboration seems needles. This English counterpart is one which connects two other very personal words in our language, “kin” and “kind.” Certainly, there are some more oblique, such as “kindergarten,” as derived from the German word kinder, which means “natural-born child,” or “one of my kind.” But this connotation between kin and kind (or kindness), as expressed in “kindred,” along with its relation to children in the German, makes for very warm familial terminology. Yet fallen as the churches are to Alienism, equal parts cultural Marxism and gnosticism, it seems some underscoring is necessary. According to Strong’s Greek Lexicon, phule is defined as “a tribe or race of people,” especially with reference to the tribes of Israel. One can also find a series of instances in Scripture where the word has this ancestral meaning, and for certain verses – namely Revelation 5:9 and 7:9 – the circumstances in question contextually and traditionally require the reference to extend to tribes beyond Israel.
Now, just based upon the context, alongside the words “people” [laos] and “nation” [ethne], it is apparent that these verses are addressing generic ethnic groupings. The apostle not only repeated the same phrase, but interwove it in such a way that it seems to have used at least three synonyms each time. Even the exception, “tongues,” is a cultural reference presupposing certain historical divides between peoples – especially from the Tower of Babel (Gen. 10 and 11) – things closely tied up with the lines of peoplehood.
John emphasizes that all of these things are represented in the eternal state of heaven, abiding forever, apparent and meaningful, just as Christ’s own flesh does.
So when we consider the resurrection and life everlasting, we are speaking again of something coherent and acceptable only from the Kinist frame of reference. For modern Alienism adamantly denies all of these things as carnality and denounces them as paganism. So too, for that matter, does virtually every non-White claiming Christ at present. Most have set aside orthodox assumptions in this area on the grounds that the creedal and biblical view of heaven is at odds with their social theory and politics today. Their “politics of guilt and pity,” based in envy, have caused them to reject the Christian heaven. For them who construe the kingdom mandate on earth as the abolition of race and distinction, the idea that those distinctions will stand forever hallowed does not sound to them like heaven, but hell.
The Apostles’ Creed is unlike all other creeds of other religions, whether humanist, Buddhist, Moslem, Hindu, or otherwise. . . . The Apostles’ Creed is radically different: it offers a synopsis of history, created by God the Father Almighty, requiring salvation by Jesus Christ, His only begotten Son, who entered, lived, died, and was resurrected in history, and is now the Lord and Judge of history. His holy congregation is operative in history, which culminates in the general resurrection and everlasting life. The whole creed therefore is a declaration concerning history.
Nothing then can be more alien to the creed, and to Biblical faith, than the dialectical separation of faith and history. To contrast the Jesus of faith and the Jesus of history is to talk the language of paganism, not Christianity.1
Christ’s advent was not a gnostic advent, nor was it a two-kingdomist, amillennial, or Alienist one, because each of these views, in its own way, completely strips Christ’s Kingdom from history, disallowing our recognition of its manifest expression in time. In fact, such persons would seem to object to the very Christian reckoning of time itself, hinged upon the divide between B.C. (before Christ) and A.D. (Anno Domini, “the year of the/our Lord”), by which all history rightly gains its context in relation to His coming.
In the case of the Alienist, the argument hangs upon the question of the folkish character of the Anno Domini. After all, it was Europeans who divided time in this way, opting for a solar calendar over the lunar, because life in the Northern regions had always inclined us more to solar observation than lunar, and we saw ourselves as passed out of night into the light of day. All of which we emblemized in the varied usages of the sunwheel as our covenant standard. The Alienist perceives the offense to the non-White here – that the Christian calendar just so happens to be the White man’s calendar, and for other peoples to interact with Christian forms as we know them, they are faced with the challenge of either adopting our cultural forms, disjointed from their own histories and affections, or reforming their own folkways according to a Christian context, as we did.
The calendar is but one example among many such issues. Consider also the question of modesty. What is regarded as modesty of dress amongst Scottish Christians will differ significantly from the compunctions of Nubian believers. It isn’t merely a matter of climate, but native inhibitions, and in some cases, long and much-loved traditions.
Rather than being the bearer of the politically incorrect news that other races must either adopt the White man’s superior cultural forms, or work toward the redemption of their own forms, Alienists simply deny the problem exists. Denying that our historic expression of the faith carries any folkish dimension whatever, they say all Christians share in one undifferentiated folk and culture. They say this not because it is true, but because the truth is so offensive.
The Alienist is deeply embarrassed by the fact that all the good historic councils of church history were convened by White men, that our Bible translations are the products of White men, that our hymns were all written by White men, that our musical forms, architecture, and art were all by the inspiration of White men, that the Crusades in defense of Christendom were all fought by White men (against Black and Brown men), and that the Reformation was argued for by White men only. All of the historic works of theology and Christian literature were penned by White hands. Christian history is, but for the most obscure anecdotal exceptions, White history. As much as they wish it otherwise, even the long duration of Christianity in Africa and Latin America, and among Blacks and Mestizos in America, is yet to yield any Christian theologians, missionaries, poets, or artists which our people have been able to accept as rising to the heights which we expect Christians to generally inhabit. Frankly, we are still struggling to confirm whether or not they have undergone real conversion.
This is why the term “Christendom” is so taboo: while it was sometimes used to refer to the Church global, it was more often used as a synonym for European civilization.
In spite of its deeply folkish character, as a summary of the Christian faith, the creed still has, as it stipulates, a certain catholicity to it. While couched in many tropes uniquely accessible to people of European heritage, Christendom has ever held the Japhetic perspective to be just that – a subjective point of reference (analogous to the Shemitic perspective in the Old Covenant) superintendently prepared, and sovereignly chosen of God, as the means and mode of translation through which His objective Law-Word would be brought to the world. As in the Israelite economy, there were certain godly aliens whose eyes were opened, but that did not change the fact that God’s work was foremost with those covenanted clans of Shemites.
The Kingdom, at length taken from national Israel, according to prophecy, was transferred to us, the sons of Japheth, who, inheriting the the tents of Shem (Gen. 9:27), are called true sons of Abraham by faith, and by the name Israel (one who grapples with God). Thus ingrafted, we became, like the Shemites before us, the caretakers of the covenant. All Christian history bears witness to this fact.
Today, though we have discipled even the most barbarous nations and taught them all things which God has commanded, we find their profession and manifestation of faith are greatly altered from our own. Even when they claim Christ, they seem to do so by a total inversion of the gospel: antinomianism, libertinism, fetishism, free love, socialism, Pelagianism, perfectionism, spiritism, occultism, and so forth. Taken together, Africans seem still, in every land where they are found, to abide in their native religion of voodoo, even if they call it Christianity.
Granted, there are many neo-Christian Whites today who align more with African values than with the gospel, but taken as a whole, it is just a fact that the traditional Christian faith as expressed here in the Apostles’ Creed resonates almost exclusively with the European soul. Though we find our own people slidden into deep apostasy presently, ours yet remain the torchbearers of Christendom. Though the Alienist may recite the words of this creed and superficially accept them, he cannot truly reconcile himself to them, because he denies all which undergirds and defines them. He is walking the razor’s edge of anathematizing himself.
- R.J. Rushdoony, The Foundations of Social Order, p. 4 ↩