Chapter 10, Of Effectual Calling, addresses a core offense to carnal man. In the same measure, it also proves irreconcilable to the PC zeitgeist and is especially adverse to the “social justice” perspectives of minorities. Because the confession’s insistence that God “predestinated” His people, effectually “determining them to that which is good” (10:1) means first that the gospel and salvation come only to those whom God wills. Which provokes all minds to consideration of “the fate of the unlearned.” Relative to which comes the “ignorance defense”: in the context of multiculturalism, this takes form as a hostile question — “What about those who never heard the gospel?!” And as Dr. Kennedy points out, by “‘Ignorance’ — they are usually talking about people in the midst of darkest Africa, or India, China, someplace like that.”
Yes, everyone perceives in the subject something especially impolitic with respect to church history no less than eternity. Historically speaking, it means God has chosen European nations — White people — to the near total exclusion of others for two millennia while leaving Africans, Indians, and Chinese in total darkness throughout most of that time. By consequence of which, all that we know as Christian orthodoxy and praxis bears an indelible association with European thought and society. And despite all the dissembling of White Alienists, this is the precise outrage minorities see in it.
The Arminian is outraged at God’s unequal calling of individuals, and the Alienist is outraged at His unequal calling of races. Inasmuch as races are composed of individual souls and souls are aggregated into races, these remonstrances are essentially the same and make up the central objection of the heathen against Christianity today. Essentially entwined with God’s sovereignty is His objective goodness and the chosenness of individuals and nations. Universally deemed by the heathen ‘Christian arrogance’ and ‘theological imperialism’ by Alienists in and out of the church, Calvinism is also openly decried as ‘spiritual racism‘ by Arminian-Alienists. Which is to say that even though they will deny it coming from us, we aren’t saying anything unique here — many of our opposition actually agree with us that the rejection of Kinism is the rejection of Calvinism. Because the two are conceptually inseparable. Thus it comes as a surprise to no one when Lecrae says outside the White community, “To drop Calvin’s name is to drop a curse word.“
Minorities perceive the implications of this doctrine which White Alienists suppress — that ‘chosenness’ is inherently discriminatory. Calvinism is the metaphysical institution of inequality between individuals, families, nations, and races.
In terms of Christian orthodoxy, culture, and history, that chosenness is manifest almost exclusively in European man and through European thought. It is the case, after all, that the New Testament was written originally in a European tongue, and the whole history of the creeds, confessions, catechisms, and doctrinal wars took place in the European context. So it is that everyone outside White Alienists see the Westminster perspective as Eurocentric and categorical “White Supremacy” in every dimension and to the greatest extent.
Even those schizophrenic Alienists inadvertantly admit this as they set out to ‘urbanize’ Reformed thought. (Peter Leithart, we’re looking at you.) This they do by reimagining the church fathers as Black men, and by casting it as a levelers’ gospel wherein Jesus comes to abolish all White nations and declare all unequal things equal.
But even these sudden manic revolutionary efforts in fact prove that, on some level, they know they are suppressing the truth about the Confession and historic Reformed thought. For if Westminsterian orthodoxy weren’t so Kinist in all its assumptions, their writing and preaching on the matter would not look so diametrically different from that of our fathers. What with PCA ministers weeping at the podium over “microaggressions” and OPC elders calling out “White privilege,” there’s simply no way to ignore their radical change in perspective, a change which just so happens to align them perfectly with the secular zeitgeist, interestingly enough.
Chapter 11, Of Justification, emphasizes that it is upon those whom “He also freely justifieth … for Christ’s sake alone … [and that] not by any other evangelical obedience” (11:1).
These lines were penned under the circumstance of colonialism, and the British colonies were principally filled with men committed to these sentiments. The understanding of all Presbyterians in the very era of the confession’s drafting was that Heaven had given the New World to the sons of Europe. Manifest Destiny and African slavery were taken for granted by the men of Westminster to be wholly moral.
As we know, however, the divines of that time are now, by Alienist lenses, counted the greatest fiends in history. In light of this, neither minorities nor White Alienists today can earnestly subscribe to the confession here. Irrespective of their profession, they would no sooner believe our slaveholding, Indian-fighting, pioneer fathers to be orthodox saints than they would Hitler. On account of social ethics, Alienists ultimately do not accept the first generations of confessional Presbyterians to have been genuine Christians. Regardless of our Presbyterian fathers’ professed trust in Christ alone, Alienist Presbyterians today insist that is not enough.
While 11:2 stipulates that justifying “faith … is no dead faith but worketh in love,” this begs the question of what love is. And as covered, those founding divines conceived neither racial segregation, slavery, nor racial defense against Indians the least contrary to love. Indeed, they were of common conviction that, subject to circumstance, Christian love mandated those very things.
This is not to say that they advocated anything like the radical two-kingdom theory lately promulgated in Lutheranism and the Escondido school. Not at all. Perhaps more than anyone, the Presbyterian isles stock were united in their conviction that the Faith must be manifest in every aspect of life and the life public. If they held slaves, killed Indians, and instituted ‘racist’ laws these were no accidents, but the express outworking of their Presbyterian faith — theonomy applied.
This is why none but Kinists can hold to the confession as Presbyterians did in the time of its ratification.
So then, in 11:5, where it says that when a covenant folk sin they are obliged to “humble themselves, confess their sins, beg pardon, and renew their faith and repentance,” the fact that they never counted ‘racism’ or ‘White Supremacy’ among their sins proves our point again.
In the same place we read that those believers who sin, though still justified, may “fall under God’s fatherly displeasure” until repentance come. We cannot help but note that apart from Whites, few truly affirm this. As a rule, Black and Brown believers refuse to recognize a God who can be displeased with them. Even while indicting White Christians for all the evils on earth, minority Christians cling to a libertine faith for themselves. This is why even in an open-and-shut case where a Black murders a young White girl by immolation (Jessica Chambers), a Mexican guns down a White woman in public (Kate Steinle), or a Black athlete is proven conclusively to have butchered a White man and woman (OJ Simpson), minority jurors will not convict minority murderers of crimes against Whites. This is nothing new. There’s long been a term for it — “Bronx juries,” upon whom defense attorneys have long relied for acquittals. The most devout Christian Black folk simply refuse to admit any guilt for their people in a judicial setting, let alone an ecclesiastic one. To their minds, to be Black is to be innocent. Yes, the stereotype proves thoroughly true: no matter the conspicuousness of their sin, Black folk are corporately resolved to say, “He a good boy. He dindu nuffin.” This is so both in and out of the church.
By contrast, Whites today tend to excess in the other direction — self-effacement to a fault. Therein our introspective tendency can become morose and the substance of White guilt, which, being a false guilt based on false ethics, is sin in itself.
Chapter 12, Of Adoption, relies upon an array of concepts pertaining to family life and social structure which are so inimical to certain cultures that they simply cannot comprehend them at all. At center are the concepts of fatherhood and sonship which are conceived by Africans, for instance, quite differently than by European peoples. Matriarchy being normative to most African cultures leaves their concept of fatherhood disconnected from heirship. Heirship is, for them, matrilineal. In which case, sonship takes a backseat to daughterhood.
Whether in the Congo or Atlanta, the typical African family is a central mother figure raising the offspring of several different men. Due to their promiscuity, the identity of fathers is unknown and often indiscernible. But for the same reason, it is taken for granted that most children in a community are closely related and therefore assumed a communal commodity. This they may insist to be Christian family life, but it entirely defies the Euro-Christian (and certainly Westminsterian) definition of family. Some have called Black social order tribal, but in truth, it does not fit this terminology, because a tribe is a grouping of clans comprised of families. Exceptions notwithstanding, Blacks, even if Christian, live in herds.
According to Reformed Blacks, to suggest that this is ungodly is a sort of “theological colonialism.” Which, in their vernacular, is to say sin.
But if the centrality of the biblical family eludes them, they cannot identify with its constituency like fathers and sons, as God’s Word presupposes them. Apart from the epistemic emissaries of family structure, the spiritual meaning of the same is lost on them. In which case, they certainly cannot comprehend the provisional relationship of adoption.
To the extent that White people concede to feminism in home (“If Momma ain’t happy, nobody’s happy”), church (female teaching/leadership, etc.), and society (careerism for women, women’s suffrage, etc.), so slips the epistemic anchors necessary to comprehension of the Confession for us as well.
But the fact remains that this conceptual dearth is normative to some ethne, but not others. If you’re unlikely to hear a sermon contra feminism from an Alienist pulpit, you’ll never hear one preached there contra the African family model or Black conception of fatherhood.
Meanwhile, what you will hear from Alienist pulpits on adoption are pretexts to anti-racism and mandates of interracial abduction/adoption: things entirely undreamt by our Westminster fathers.
God’s adoption of the Gentiles entails the abolition of the nations — particularly White ones, for some reason. So say Alienists. And as they tell it, because God has adopted White people into the household of faith, White people are obliged to adopt dusky antipodes and heathen seed. This position is so foreign to historic Presbyterianism and Christendom generally, that the first such case only occurred by way of the leftist program quaintly named “Operation Brown Baby” in 1947. It would not become a common phenomenon in Reformed circles until after the year 2000! Not only did Reformed churches come last to this practice behind every other demographic, but their doing so follows immediately behind legislation introduced in the mid-1990s forbidding placement of children on the basis of race and ethnicity! It’s really that new and really that forced upon us. Is it any wonder that the children of Knox began to see in the confession a case for interracial adoption only then? The Alienist view of the matter is simply at loggerheads with biblical norms
Of course, you’d never know it to hear them now as they insist this avante gard agenda to have ever been the church’s view of adoption. Absurd as that is.
And adoption into the household of faith — the confession’s foremost concern — was comprehended inside nationalism. That is, contiguous with the Great Commission (Matt. 28), nations covenanted to Christ were adopted into the commonwealth of Israel. As covenant nations they were part of His prophesied “Kingdom of nations” (Dan. 7:14).
Read Part 4