All bred within the Anglosphere should be familiar with the idiom “mending fences” which Oxford Dictionary of Quotations dates to a mid-seventeenth-century proverb. But remarkably, in the popular subverted culture, this saying seems to have outlived its own meaning, as it is now invoked antonymously: in the new vernacular, to speak of ‘mending fences’ means tearing down all fences, and condemning to hell any who would dare actually mend a fence. For the Alienist, the sentiment of Robert Frost’s Mending Wall — that “good fences make good neighbors” — is the definition of hate and the zenith of evil.
This comes across clearly in Ligon Duncan’s homily at T4G, “The Whole in Our Holiness.” Duncan takes the position that maintaining fences between peoples is a violation of the “second commandment” (by which he meant the second greatest commandment). More comically still, but in keeping with his transvaluation of language, he defines holiness (lit., “separateness,” or, dare I say, “segregation”) as its proximate antonym — amalgam.
Neither do Carl Trueman and the OPC prove any help at all. Carl dedicates an entire article contra PC virtue-signalling only to virtue-signal to the same people. And despite his dissembling, he does so on the exact same premises as the secularists he means to correct, or more accurately, to console. Truly, he concedes to the incoherent zen koans of the Left, saying, “We too hate hate.” He is a blind man attempting to lead the blind in pinning the tail on a donkey that isn’t even there.
Neither is Johnny Reasnor any aid in addressing the matter. He insists the maintenance of our fences is damnable heresy. And he proves his case by comparing Kinism to “ageism”. Because we all take for granted that ageism is a mortal sin. Er, don’t we?
More tragic than funny, though, his position contra ageism turns out to be the textbook apologetic for pedophilia promulgated by groups like NAMBLA since…well, since the term ‘ageism’ was coined in 1969. The term and concept were invented at the height of the cultural revolution by an alumnus of Columbia University (the literal homebase of the Frankfurt School of cultural Marxism), as one of the new sins alongside ‘racism’ and ‘sexism’, to replace the Christian sin paradigm.
Sanchez and Salant over at Reconstruction Radio certainly cannot speak to the question of distinctions, as they are now openly parroting the principles of third-wave feminism contra patriarchy! Will pink knit beanies be added to the apparel of neo-Reconstructionism? Stay tuned.
But lo, Jeff Durbin makes some decisive progress advancing the Alienist argument for ‘racism’ being an actual sin, saying, “’Racism’ is a wicked sin … biblically defined as hatred or tribalism.”
Sorry to burst your bubble, Jeff, but in Scripture hatred is neither synonymous with, nor even necessarily connotative of, sin. David professed his “perfect hatred” of God’s enemies (Psa. 139:21-22), and such sentiments are sung out of our psalters every Lord’s Day (Psa. 26:5; 31:6; 119:158, etc.). Indeed, Paul tells us that in order for love to be sincere, one must also hate what is evil (Rom. 12:9).
And ‘tribalism’? Seriously, have these folks never actually read the Bible? I guess the book of Numbers is a little slow by comparison to those Harry Potter novels the ‘woke church’ is so into.
But Jeff only takes two steps back when he attempts to critique Marxism from the standpoint of having granted all of its core premises; not to mention when he takes counsel on the definition of Marxism from Jewish neocon (read Trotskyite) David Horowitz. You know, the sort that infiltrated the conservative movement in the post-war years and forced the expulsion of all the actual Christian conservatives at the National Review and elsewhere? I know, all this is lost on Jeff.
Meanwhile, apostle of the new age supposedly anointed by the hand of an Israeli prophetess, Bojidar Marinov, continues laying his Axe to the Root of Reconstructionism. Here’s an encyclical his acolytes were recently passing around Facebook:
The inevitability of limited physiological diversity was designed by God into the very essence of human genetics. Human depravity, including the noetic effects of Adam’s rebellion however, has not passed to us genetically, but ontologically. Further, genetics do not and cannot not dictate culture. The presuppositions, which makes up the worldview of a society dictates its culture.
(While all may possess a common inclination to segregate as a result of Adam’s fall, in Christ, the second Adam, we have both the freedom and a new inclination to integrate. For we are all members of one body. Further, even though all members do not have the same function, injury to one member injures the whole body; thus we give special attention to care for weaker members.)
Because every elect tongue, tribe, people and nation is to be included in the kingdom of the triune God, kingdom society will of necessity be typified by homogenous diversity, which is itself a reflection of the one and the many.
Gibberish, I know. But we’ll get through this together.
First of all, to say ‘Human depravity, including the noetic effects of Adam’s rebellion, has not passed to us genetically, but ontologically’ is an incoherent statement hung on nothing. As if ontology was not inclusive of genetics. No, the federal view of Total Depravity is that we inherit sin “by natural generation” (WCF 6:3), i.e., genetically. In fact, the very words ‘generation’ and ‘genetic’ are of the same Greek root — genos — denoting lineal or racial descent.
This idea that ‘all may possess a common inclination to segregate as a result of Adam’s fall’ is the opposite of what we read in Scripture. The Bible rather depicts men’s impulse to integrate as the rebellion against Noah’s prophetic mandate of their separate destinies and identities in Genesis 9. And the Great Commission (Matt. 28), as well as Paul’s discourse at Mars Hill (Acts 17), and John’s visions of a plurality of ethne on the renewed earth only affirms the continued distinction of the nations into the Christian age and eternity.
And ‘in Christ, the second Adam, we have both the freedom and a new inclination to integrate’? It’s most strange that Christians never spied any such inclination to integrate until the unbelieving world compelled churches through state, media, and financial pressures to alter their doctrine. In fact, the first resolutions of mainstream churches sanctioning race-mixing came months after the radical leftist Warren Court required states to permit miscegenated unions in the Loving v. Virginia case of 1967. Only then did mainstream Christian denominations begin to sanction it. By the compulsion of secular humanists.
‘Because every elect tongue, tribe, people and nation is to be included in the kingdom . . . society will of necessity be typified by homogenous diversity …’ This is just self-contradiction. ‘Homogenous diversity’ is an oxymoron. And as covered, the distinctions he mentions disprove his own thesis. John’s reference to having seen those distinct groups in glory means that rather than being abrogated, those distinctions are solidified and perfected in eternity. His mention of multiple tongues alone proves this, because if integration and total homogeneity were the nature of the Kingdom he would have heard only one amalgamated language before the throne, not many.
To his credit however, James White foresees that the Critical Race Theory of MLK50 and T4G does the opposite of what it purports to do: while incantationally invoking ‘racial reconciliation’ throughout, CRT ensures that no reconciliation can ever be possible.
But Dr. White demurs from elaborating overly much on how this is so — because CRT ultimately demands total and perpetual social, civil, economic, and spiritual subordination of Whites to all others, but especially Blacks; beyond which, as we see manifest in present-day South Africa, it ultimately demands our extermination. This is what the polite White man is omitting. So as not to make a fuss, I suppose.
But neither does Dr. White’s own flavor of egalitarianism have any strength or basis from which to ultimately critique CRT. Because he grants its central assertion that our fences are sin.
Kinism alone offers the remedy in acceptance of the biblical paradigm: the law published at Sinai speaks explicitly in terms of a folk covenanted to God, and in every part assumes each clan and people to have their own territory (Ex. 20:10, 12, 17) distinct from their neighbors and foreign ethnicities. And this relation to the law is never abrogated in the NT, but extended, as the Great Commission beckons the nations to the new Sinai, Mt. Calvary, to be discipled as ethnicities in all things which He hath commanded, and all the ethno-familism that entails.
Fences are the physical demarcation of holiness. Be they between clans, neighborhoods, nations, or races, fences disambiguate the property and jurisdiction of one group from another; and so sanctified, remove said properties from the realm of contest. This is peace. This is the true and only means of reconciliation between the races, honoring the bounds of all peoples, and trespassing against none. Kinism is the Golden Rule applied. If Kinism grants White nations, heritage, and culture the morality of their existence, so too is it the only perspective that sanctions the existence of Black nations, heritage, and culture. And all others, besides.
The alternative that the Alienist calls ‘reconciliation’ — all claiming equal ownership and jurisdiction of what belongs to everyone else, or demand for the erasure of the White race, or all groups — is the precise design to bring about total war of all against all without remedy. Such atomization, clearing away all intermediary allegiances, is the social anarchy which leaves men in a binary relationship between the individual and the state. It is textbook Marxism.
But the fact that these neo-Christians cannot utter a coherent statement on these matters precludes them from debating us. They are all so tangled up in liberal newspeak that they can’t even find a way to take their own side in the argument. After all, what hope have they of proving a thesis which they cannot posit without simultaneously refuting it? And how might we hope to converse reasonably with people who are inimical to coherence and orthodoxy to the point that they can think of no reply beyond epithets and declarations of intent to do us all harm in their power? It may be that this sort come out naught but by prayer and fasting.
But this is why, despite the Alienists having the wind of zeitgeist at their backs and all the weapons of Mordor at their disposal, Kinism wins in the end. Because in a contest between genuine authority and arbitrary power, the existence of the latter depends upon the former, and cannot therefore ultimately overcome it. No matter the extremity of their programming, their worldview is at odds with Christ’s Kingdom of nations and the cosmos as He has made it. The Alienist center, then, cannot hold. Because it is not, nor can it be, true center.
His own flavor of Alienism notwithstanding, Tim Hurd has done a decent job at following the money to explain how the CRT has swept through the Reformed and conservative Evangelical communities so suddenly and swiftly. And he names names of international Marxist financiers behind the present subversion. As Kinists have been saying all along, these PC doctrines originate not organically from within our communion, but without the Christian worldview amongst our moneyed enemies.
All said and done, true racial reconciliation means ‘mending fences’ in the plain sense of the words, restoring and honoring the boundaries between the peoples under God.