Chapter 15 tells us that Repentance unto Life includes “endeavoring to walk with Him in all the ways of His commandments” (WCF 15:2), and this is “of such necessity to all sinners, that none may expect pardon without it” (WCF 15:3).
This, of course, grants theonomy as essential to Christian faith. But it also once again raises the question of how Alienists can be said to conform to the confession while spurning the ethnonational codes of Scripture. Of course, they will accuse me of setting up a straw man on this point because they insist the “land laws” passed away at Christ’s advent. This however, defies the agreed principle of Reformed hermeneutics, that unless otherwise overtly abrogated in the NT, all things legislated in the OT stand; else, as Bahnsen argued, we have no recourse even against things like bestiality.
Whether we consider the ethnic insularity codes, or the slave codes of the OT, none are rescinded or even perceptibly amended in administration in the NT. That is, besides their extension and application to all nations covenanted to Christ.
On these matters few to none can plead ignorance. Laying aside Scripture and systematics, they simply rage against these verities, reciting catechisms lifted from movies and bumper stickers written by atheists, Talmudists, and satanists.
But section 6 of the same chapter provides the Alienist the best opportunity to advance their case: “he that scandalizeth his brother, or the Church of Christ, ought to be willing, by a private or public confession and sorrow for his sin, to declare his repentance to those that are offended; who are thereupon to be reconciled to him, and in love to receive him” (WCF 15:6).
We’ve witnessed Alienists take advantage of parliamentary procedure, imposing upon this segment an assumption that scandal and offense are to be understood subjectively, and as categorical sin. A stance which, while entirely at variance with biblical and historic faith, just so happens to conform perfectly to the SJW mores of contemporania. Imagine that.
An example from my own experience in the OPC: Some years ago when it came out that government schools in Texas were leading American kids in the recitation of the Mexican anthem, this writer commented that our fathers fought at the Alamo to keep the Mexicans out of Texas. Which evoked outrage from a woman of the congregation who, though entirely White by ethnicity, regarded herself Mexican because her German parents lived in Mexico. According to her, I needed to confess the sinfulness of having uttered historical fact in regard to Texan independence, the Alamo, and the Mexican-American war. Yes, she and others present demanded my repentance of historical facts — facts which those same people would go on to confirm. In my mouth they were counted an offense, but strangely, in theirs their acknowledgement of those facts, too, was turned into an indictment against me. If they deemed it sin for me to say it, the confirmation of its factuality on their part also required my repentance. Because both offended them. And the elder board would shortly after invoke this section of the confession as “proof” of my obligation to apologize and repent.
Needless to say, I declined.
As the Scripture testifies that carnal man suppresses the knowledge of God, the gospel, Scripture, and truth in general (Rom. 1:18), offending secular sensibilities is clearly not what our Westminster fathers had in mind here. Aside from being a radical anachronism, such an approach to this text ultimately condemns the whole of the Christian faith. Which means the Alienist vantage here refutes itself.
No, the offenses which the divines had in view were foremost violations of God’s law, and penultimately actions or words that give the appearance of sin (the violation of those laws).
So when the Alienist attempts to turn this provision into a catch-all eleventh commandment against political incorrectness, it is they who are violating it in fact.
Chapter 16, Of Good Works, says:
Good works are only such as God hath commanded in His holy Word, and not such as, without the warrant thereof, are devised by men, out of blind zeal, or upon any pretense of good intention. (WCF 16:1)
Echoing 1 John 3:4, then, the fathers defined sin strictly as the breaking of God’s law. Which they set opposite all ‘blind zeal [and] … pretense of good intention.’ Thus juxtaposing Christlaw to the humanist-Jacobin egalitarian sentiment lately passed off in place of Christian ethics.
In the Catechism framed by the same men we find that the eighth commandment prohibits “removing landmarks” (WLC Q. 142). But today the moving of landmarks is a central endeavor of Alienist churchmen. Embracing the revolutionary ethos of ‘civil rights’, they preach the breaking down of all boundaries. Truly, no single event in modern history may more thoroughly fulfill the meaning of ‘moving landmarks’ than did desegregation. For ‘civil rights’ legislation and litigation removed the boundaries of our communities and the control of our own properties, respectively.
The fathers further elaborate that the Eighth Word requires “a provident care and study to get, keep, use, and dispose these things which are necessary and convenient for the sustentation of our nature, and suitable to our condition” (WLC Q. 141).
Desegregation, which moved the landmarks of our fathers, outlawed ‘the sustentation of our nature … suitable to our condition’ by violating our national covenant securing liberty “to ourselves and our Posterity” (U.S. Constitution), and “free White persons of good character.”
It also violated all our community covenants which, till that time, uniformly affirmed the sustentation of our nature by specifying who, by faith and folk, could reside in a given township. These integrationist codes infringed even on our personal properties as the shopkeep, tradesman, innkeeper, landlord, et al. were suddenly denied their rights to limit their contracting and association with those who would sustain their nature and condition. Worse still, they denied our very parental rights to organize our schools for the sustentation of our children’s nature and condition. All of which really formed a conspiracy of circumstance to deny heads of families that most fundamental right to direct the bridegrooming of children, heritage, and legacy which, from the Christian perspective, always aimed to safeguard the ethnic integrity of our clans.
Plainly, denying the right of the White store owner, innkeeper, landlord, et al. to choose those with whom he contracts is to deny him the discretion to steward the property which God has entrusted him, and it needlessly forces hazards not just upon his property, but upon him and his family, personally. Thus also denying what Blackstone termed ‘the primary right of self-defense’, the Alienist contradicts the Sixth Word, which requires us “to preserve the life of ourselves and others . . . avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any” (WLC Q. 135).
Fact is, few things approach the violence and lethality of ‘civil rights’. Which, in part, is why the fathers of all our Presbyterian communions were ardent segregationists.
That’s not my interpretation alone. Our Alienist adversaries very much know this and flagellate themselves in unending spectacles of penance that they may be seen by men and court the approval of the world. That is, so long as they aren’t engaged in conversation with conservatives. Then they deny any and all knowledge of this reality, and decry us as liars and reprobates for agreeing with the fathers of their churches. All of which is to say, the Alienist’s ersatz theory of good works is so contrary to the confession that they would only come to see these strange values therein after heathen forced the same on us at every level of society.
As the confession says, devoid of any theonomic justification for anti-White sentiment, egalitarianism, and multiculturalism, our churchmen have succumbed en masse to ‘the pretense of good intentions’. And as you know, thus was the road to hell paved.
In stark contrast the confession says, “These good works, done in obedience to God’s commandments, are the fruits and evidences of a true and lively faith.” (WCF 16:2)
For the sake of time, I won’t here elaborate all the ways it is so, but suffice it to say, any candid survey of God’s law will find it to exemplify not egalitarianism, but hierarchy and distinction: distinction between the rights and duties of men, women, fathers, mothers, children, clans, and slaves, all set in the context and presupposition of patriarchy and national/ethnic covenant. Can you say Kinism?
Section 7 of the same chapter goes on to state, “Works done by unregenerate men … are therefore sinful and cannot please God.” (WCF 16:7)
This, a point which enrages all carnal men, enrages also the Alienist churchman, and most minorities besides, when it is considered that the heroes of the multicult have all been heretics or unbelievers. None perhaps surpass the example of Martin Luther King, Jr., but he is one among a pantheon of false saints whom the liberal reveres: Malcolm X, Muhammed Ali, James Cone, Nelson Mandela, Rosa Parks, the Freedom Riders, all the members of the Frankfurt and Highlander Folk Schools, Abe Lincoln, John Brown and his abolitionists, and even Dietrich Bonhoeffer are all found to have been rank heretics, if not outright heathen.
And that over against the fact that all those most orthodox who lived contemporaneously with the aforesaid turn out to have been segregationists, ‘racists‘, and ethnonationalists — i.e., Kinists. Alienists then cannot abide the Confession as it is. The implications are simply too offensive to their real religious convictions.
For it leaves Alienist and alien alike in the most embarrassing position — precluding any honors to their true heroes while identifying all their most hated enemies as the champions of the Faith. And when the truth conflicts with their visceral affections, the truth falls casualty: even if wholly the product of secular humanist zeal, Alienists simply cannot bring themselves to condemn the ‘good works’ of abolitionism, civil rights, desegregation, and liberationism in general. Even if, by implication of their origin, the confession proclaims those works false and unpleasing to God, they insist them not only genuine and pure, but nothing less than the central objectives of Christianity in the social dimension.