This next point is so basic to the Christian faith that no one should dare imagine to object. Yet the neo-churchmen do so routinely.
In chapter 32, Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead, we read: “and all the dead shall be raised up, with the selfsame bodies, and none other (although with different qualities), which shall be united again to their souls forever.” (WCF 32:2)
The fact that Alienists claim subscription to this proposition is frankly preposterous. Because they otherwise everywhere deny it, insisting instead either that the eternal state is such that we will have entirely different bodies (and identical one to another), or pass in a purely spiritual state devoid of all physicality forever. Because their egalitarian social theory demands a distinctly gnostic/Marxist eschaton.
When we respond to this with the descriptions of “every tribe, tongue, and nation” (Rev. 7:9) demarcated in heaven, and note that the leaves of the tree of life harvested there are “for the healing of the nations” (Rev. 22:2), they curse us through clenched teeth. To notice that John affirmed the continuance of nationalism in eternity (Rev. 21:24) repetitiously is, according to them, to announce yourself their enemy. To cite holy writ on this topic in conformity with the confession (which they claim as their own, mind you) only evokes from them anathemas against our ‘racist heaven’, incoherent accusations of genocide, and solemn pronouncements of damnation on our heads.
No matter how they may twist and contort, however, none can gainsay the fact that Christ rose bodily. To do so is to forfeit all orthodox articulations of the faith back to the Apostles’ Creed. None can therefore deny that it is an Israelite of the tribe of Judah and scion of David on heaven’s throne forever distinguished. This alone authoritatively validates the continuity of ethnicity and its eternal importance. And to grant this much is to grant the Kinist case in full.
Chapter 33, Of the Last Judgment, returns to the familiar and most offensive topic of chosenness: “The end of God’s appointing this day is for the manifestation of the glory of His mercy, in the eternal salvation of His elect; and of His justice, in the damnation of the reprobate, who are wicked and disobedient.” (WCF 33:2)
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.’”
Be it the Reformation, the early church period, or God’s dealings with clans and peoples throughout Scripture, salvation history is a protracted study in unequal election:
Apart from this election of individuals to life, there has been what we may call a national election, or a divine predestination of nations and communities to a knowledge of true religion and to the external privileges of the Gospel. God undoubtedly does choose some nations to receive much greater spiritual and temporal blessings than others. This form of election has been well illustrated in the Jewish nation, in certain European nations and communities, and in America. The contrast is very striking when we compare these with other nations such as China, Japan, India, etc.
~Loraine Boettner, The Reformed Doctrine of Predestination (1932)
Contrary to what is alleged by Alienists, this view is not new or reactionary. It well precedes both the diversity mania of our day and nineteenth-century politics. In fact, it was central to Calvin’s doctrine of election:
The singular kindness of God consisted in this, that He had been pleased to prefer them to other nations; as it is said in the psalm, ‘He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for His judgements, they have not known them’ (Ps. cxlvii.20). But I had good reason for saying that two steps are here to be observed; for the election of the whole nation, God had already shown that in the exercise of His mere liberality He was under no law [such as political correctness or egalitarianism], but was free, so that He was by no means to be restricted to an equal division of grace, its very inequality proving it to be gratuitous.
~John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, bk. 3, ch. 11
There are four groups who spurn this doctrine of election as ‘hateful’: heathen, free will absolutists (like Arminians), Alienists, and POC, generally. All do so for essentially the same reasons, the claim of unfairness:
One issue black people have with Reformed theology is its Eurocentric roots. Reformed theology came to America by way of European countries, including France, England, Scotland and the Netherlands. White, educated men crafted the teachings, wrote the books and led the churches. They did not have black people in mind.
This is the same argument they make with respect to government, entertainment, and in every other venue — that in order for anything to be meaningful to POC they “need” to see their own people in the lead. Otherwise, they feel deeply insulted by the whole field of endeavor.
But with respect to the Reformed faith the situation is more stark, still:
One of the most frustrating aspects of Reformed theology for black Christians is the fact that many Reformed believers condoned slavery or were even slaveholders themselves. All of their focus on meticulous exposition of the Bible didn’t lead them to conclude that people should not be property. Moving forward to the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s, Reformed Christians, like many conservative white evangelicals, were either silent about the struggle for black civil rights or they outright opposed it.
Given the history of slavery and racism practiced by white Reformed Christians, black people are an unlikely group to identify as Reformed.
But in this respect the POC who reject the Reformed worldview are at least interacting with the Reformed faith as it truly is. White Alienists, on the other hand, have tended to the most preposterous revisionism: a revisionism that denies the faith instituted, codified, and lived by the divines and the men of the Reformation era, and that even goes so far as to ‘blackwash’ every church father who lived in Carthaginian and Roman North Africa. Contemporary descriptions, paintings, and, in Augustine’s case, his self-identification as a Japhethite be damned. To hear so many of them tell it now, with the brief exception of the Reformation, Christianity never had any special predominance among Europeans, but was rather born a Black African faith. In their desperate overcompensation they go so far as to allege that in order for White Christians to find the true faith we must “evolve toward Africa”.
All so they can pitch a politically correct, new-age form of Christianity to tickle the ears and egos of the equatorial tribes. Pretty as their lies may be, they are apparent for lies to any with a scintilla of intellect and a speck of candor.
Not all Alienists go the same route, however. Some such as Joel McDurmon have accepted the politically incorrect reality of the Reformation and colonial eras. But only so as to denounce the fathers’ ethno-familism as anti-Christian anyway.
Be it the a pollyanna revisionism that casts the historic faith as working toward all the same goals as every secular HR department today, or, one that grants the divines’ nationalism only to condemn them as outside the Kingdom, both are wholly irreconcilable to the confession as it was held by the men who penned, instituted, and carried it to the furthest bounds of the West. And the POC liberationist perspective is something else again. Only the Kinist view is congruent with that old faith. Were they to stand up out of their graves today to weigh on the subject, the Kinist perspective is one they would recognize, but all the Alienist permutations of the faith would be utterly alien to them.
Everyone knows it. Even if they lack the honesty to admit it.