“Outside of Jesus Christ,” writes Doug Wilson of Moscow, Idaho, in a recent blog post, “racial harmony is a pipe dream.” We Kinists agree. The diverse races of men, having sprung from one blood, can have unity in diversity only to the extent that they worship their Creator, in whose triune being there is unity in diversity.

Unfortunately, Wilson believes that the races of men, once converted to faith in Christ, are no longer to be separate and distinct. He believes that God’s judgment at Babel alone dispersed mankind, and that this has been reversed by the blessing of Pentecost in Acts 2. He believes that though the Israelites were once separated from the Gentiles by necessity, now the Gentiles have been adopted into the covenant, and race and nationality are supposed to magically dissolve into one global Christian “race” or “nation,” contrary to the pattern we find not only in history, where nations are organically ethnic and religious, but also in Scripture, where tribes who worship the same God nevertheless maintain their own inheritance and marriage laws for the purpose of enforcing the tribal segregation that God himself requires.

If blood races and all of the associated boundaries, borders, and barriers are now merely social constructs that the gospel is supposed to erase, what does racial harmony mean? What is racial harmony without races? Can there be orchestral harmony without instruments? Booker T. Washington wisely said that the races of men “can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” This is very similar to the scriptural metaphor that there is one body of Christ but many unequal members. Unfortunately, men like Wilson who have been marinated in post-1950 racial hornswoggle are more likely to defer to the precepts of various communist agitators like MLK than the doctrines of the holy faith. On miscegenation, open borders, and other causes that are meant to dispossess and decimate the white race and its constituent nations, the pusillanimous pulpiteer of today opposes his righteous ancestors while fostering the agenda of his own Christ-hating enemies. The same people who engineered racial integration in the last century are now enforcing sodomarriage. This is not a coincidence, though precious few Christians in our time realize it.

In spite of this deplorable outcome, Wilson inconsistently criticizes “weak sister evangelicals who for some mysterious reason have adopted the secularist vision of racial harmony instead of the Christian one.” What exactly is the point of distinguishing between different “visions” of “harmony” if both result in white genocide and the end of Western civilization? Racial “harmony,” in Wilson’s “vision,” means not what the old-fashioned Christian understood it to mean, where distinct races and self-determining nations thrive under the Son, but rather racial amalgamation and degradation, which inevitably lead to the loss of familiarity, trust, and safety, crucial for the rearing of children and the formation of communities.

God Himself created the races and ethnicities of men and appointed their times and the bounds of their habitation (Acts 17:26). But today, the preachers of Alienism assert that God intends for the “gospel” to rid the world of his good works and replace them with a new creation. Wilson writes:

White and black cannot get along because their blood is red in common, but they can get along because Christ’s blood was red and uncommon, and was shed for the express purpose of making one new man out of the two, and in addition to make one new man out of the seventy. God is building a new humanity in Christ, and there is no new humanity outside of Him.

Did you catch the sleight of hand? Wilson is applying to race what was intended for covenant. This will be covered in more detail below, but it’s important not to lose sight of the central issue for the apostles in the New Testament, which was the spiritual divide that had existed between Israel and the Gentiles. The first eight chapters of the book of Romans are a long denial that national Israel is saved by race. Romans 10 clearly states that, far from boasting in their lineage, Israel would have to be saved just as the Gentiles would be saved, by believing on Christ. “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for the same Lord over all is rich to all who call upon Him” (Romans 10:12). This does not mean that all differences between Israelites and Greeks had been erased. Rather, there is no longer a covenantal distinction between Israelites and Gentiles who call upon the name of the Lord. In Romans 11, this is explained by analogy to an olive tree whose fruitless branches have been pruned and burned so that wild branches can be grafted. Where Wilson suggests the existence of a “new humanity” which is foreign to Scripture, Romans 11 shows that God does not cut down the old tree or plant a new tree alongside the old one. The grafted branches are not magically transformed into natural branches, as we know from horticulture. Rather, they are supported by the root (verses 17-18). Verse 24 confirms that genetic differences between natural and wild olive branches continue.

Wilson’s sleight of hand is very similar to what integrationists have done with the motto E Pluribus Unum, “out of many, one.” This originally meant that out of many colonies and states emerged a single nation. The sovereign states, very similar in their ancestry, religion, language, customs, and principles, voluntarily ceded power to a central authority. In our time, this slogan has been twisted to mean that out of many races, religions, and languages has emerged a single people, which is patently false and without historical precedent.

Wilson’s references to the “new man” and the “new humanity” are an old utopian song and dance. Christians have always believed that in Adam we were born and fell, and in Christ we are born again and live. In this sense, we can speak of the fallen “old man” and the redeemed “new man.” See Romans 6:6; Ephesians 2:15, 4:22-24; and Colossians 3:9-11 for references to putting off our former sinful conduct, no longer being slaves to sin, walking instead in true righteousness and holiness, and being renewed in knowledge, regardless of station. These passages are about God altering us spiritually, not physically. He doesn’t change the heritage and attributes that make us who we are. Christ repairs the damage that was done through Adam’s sin. “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). This is the extent of the transformation, from wickedness to righteousness. It doesn’t sever our fleshly connection to Adam or to anyone else among the concentric circles of loyalty into which we are born. Imagine the absurdity of ignoring the detailed biblical genealogies on the presumption that we are now of the “new” humanity.

The utopian New Man is a concept that has taken shape under a variety of ideologies through the years. There was Thomas Paine’s Liberal New Man, the New Man of the Utopian Socialists, and the Nietzschean Übermensch, who leads through his will to power and who has inspired countless self-indulgent fantasies in race idolaters. There was the Fascist New Man who has shorn himself of individualism, and the Marxist New Man and New Woman who would be so inspired by the virtues of communism that they would need no state or private property to fulfill their needs and desires. “Morality is a product of social development,” wrote Leon Trotsky. “There is nothing immutable about it.” Thus, Trotsky was one of the first to ever use the word “racism,” which has now become the most dreadful of all thought-crimes, according to the innovators of morality.

W.H. Auden mocked utopian fanaticism in his great poem, The Unknown Citizen. An excerpt:

He was married and added five children to the population,

Which our Eugenist says was the right number for a parent of his generation.

And our teachers report that he never interfered with their education.

Was he free? Was he happy? The question is absurd:

Had anything been wrong, we should certainly have heard.

It was always the goal of the utopians to replace non-ideal humanity with new and improved substitutes who would be model citizens, as the planners define model citizens. Alienist “Christians” have joined this old song and dance because they are egalitarians who despise God-ordained diversity. They hate it that people are naturally unequal. They hate it that inequality will never be cured or legislated out of existence. They hate it that a man’s children mean more to him than the children of another man. They hate it that bonds of loyalty are proportional to consanguinity. They hate it that nations have exclusionary borders. They hate it that races exist, and they long for the day when the races of men are bred out of existence and all people share the same race. This is why they like to say that “there is only one race, the human race.” But God does not bring us into the world to be raised by mere Adamites. We are raised and guided by our parents and extended families. This is why the law is fulfilled in loving your neighbor as yourself (Galatians 5:14). This is why a man who fails to provide for his kin is worse than an infidel (1 Timothy 5:8). This is why King David calls homogeneity a national blessing (Psalm 144:11) and why Moses calls heterogeneity a national curse (Deuteronomy 28:43).

Alienist “Christians” have abandoned ancient, sound doctrine. Those who fail to understand what the Bible teaches on the old man and new man are bound to succumb to heresies that mix an element of truth into age-old lies. Like Wilson, they are bound to spout nonsense about a “new humanity” that would warm the cockles of the most rabid Marxist.

Alienist Andrew Sandlin used to run a think tank whose website had the tagline: “Creating a New Kind of Christian.” I often wondered, “What’s wrong with the old kind of Christian?” You know, the kind who actually built civilization rather than destroyed it. Then Brian McLaren wrote a book called A New Kind of Christianity in which he advocates a “new way of believing.” Again, what’s wrong with the old way of believing?

McLaren answers the question in his book by distinguishing his liberal approach to biblical interpretation from what he calls the old “Greco-Roman narrative.”

What we call Western civilization is the project that grew from a marriage between the Greek philosophical tradition and the Roman political, economic, and military empire. (p. 37)

There are many valid criticisms for how the white race, as the historic standard-bearer of the faith, has leaned too heavily on reason, succumbed to duality, etc. But to McLaren, the worst part about the old kind of (white) Christianity is that it taught men that the Bible is a specific story containing specific rules.

To be a Christian – in the West at least, since the fifth or sixth century or so – has required one to believe that the Bible presents one very specific story line, a story line by which we assess all of history, all of human experience, all of our own experience. . . . We begin our quest for a new kind of Christian faith by questioning this story line. (p. 33)

Western civilization was built on the persistent and widespread belief that the Bible is, in the words of the Westminster Confession of Faith, our “only infallible rule of faith and practice.” Once this doctrine has been abandoned, the “new kind of Christianity” becomes thoroughly politicized, railing, for instance, against the genocide of politically correct (i.e., non-white) victims only.

[Genocide] has happened again and again in the past, from Genesis 7 to Deuteronomy 7, to American colonization, to the Holocaust, to the Rwandan genocide, to Darfur. . . . Genocide, it turns out, doesn’t really solve anything in Genesis, even if a character named “God” does it. (p. 109) [T]he fundamentalist God is exclusive, faithfully loving one in-group and rejecting – perhaps even hating – all others. The fundamentalist God is also deterministic – controlling rather than interacting. (p. 102) The character of God, seen in Jesus, is not violent and tribal. The living God is not the kind of deity who decrees ethnic cleansing, genocide, racism, slavery, sexism, homophobia, war, religious supremacy, or eternal conscious torment. (p. 118)

It will hardly surprise you to learn that McLaren’s “quest” for a “Jesus” of his own vain imagination, a “living God” who is inclusive rather than exclusive, loving rather than genocidal, pluralistic rather than holy, interactive rather than sovereign, leads him to conclude that he would do a far better job than the incarnated Christ of history, although he is humble enough to occupy the role of co-creator.

And perhaps our greatest loyalty should be directed forward, to a beloved future we are co-creating with the Spirit of the living God. To be loyal to the God who was, without being loyal to the God who is and to the God who is to come would be, it seems to me, only a 33 percent infection with a new kind of Christianity. (p. 258)

Hang on to something bigoted, because the leveling wind is blowing…

But what of “No one comes to the Father except through Me”? . . . Jesus isn’t making an abstract statement about the fate of unbelievers at the final judgment. . . . Clearly, taken in context, these words are not intended as an insult to followers of Muhammad, the Buddha, Lao-tzu, Enlightenment rationalism, or anyone else. Rather, the “no one” here refers to Jesus’s own disciples. (p. 221f.) We Christians could offer Jesus (not Christianity) as a gift to the world. . . . We would no longer envision a day when all other religions would be abolished and only our own will remain. (p. 215) In the tradition of the early Pentecostals, we can experience the fire of the Holy Spirit so powerfully that the dividing walls between races, classes, and denominations will burn away. (p. 228)

And hey presto, the “new kind of Christian” is unmasked to be the same old banal “New Man” of the Marxists and other utopian revolutionaries. You can read similar words from heretics of the same stripe, such as John Shelby Spong. In his book, A New Christianity for a New World, Spong denies that God is a being (p. 4) and therefore imagines God as a warm feeling.

[W]e human beings cannot know God; we can only experience God. Thus there is no way that we can say God is anything. (p. 237)

His newly reimagined “Jesus” thus becomes a doppelgänger for everything that Spong himself would do if he were God. Naturally, this entails rejecting blood covenants and the boundaries that are associated with them.

I see [Jesus] portrayed as one who was constantly dismantling the barriers that separate people from one another. . . . Jesus is portrayed as inviting people to put their tribal and xenophobic fears aside and to step across this boundary. . . . [I]n the biblical portrait of Jesus, we see him relativizing those dividing lines and calling people to enter the experience of non-tribal humanity. I believe that this is a major step beyond our evolutionary security system, reflecting a call to become that which we human beings have not yet ever been. It is an invitation to enter the ‘New Being’ about which Tillich speaks – a humanity without barriers, a humanity without the defensive claims of tribal fear, a transformed humanity so full and so free that God is perceived to be present within it. (pp. 131-133)

Notice that borders make us secure, which is why fences exist, but the brave “New Being” (there’s the old utopian lingo again) will break away from how men have always lived their lives and run off in a new, uncharted direction, free from tribalism and the incarnated Christ.

Being, life, and love transcend all boundaries. (p. 179) Jesus – who crossed every boundary of tribe, prejudice, gender, and religion – will be honored by those of us who, as his disciples, have transcended the boundaries of even the religious system that was created to honor him. (p. 182) The new reformation will not require Christians to abandon the Bible, but it will require that we remove from the Bible the tribal claims and the literalness that have so often been attached to Scripture. (p. 180) The realm of God is identified with life so it will confront the racism that diminishes the life of people of color. It will confront the entrenched patriarchy that diminishes the lives of women. It will confront the conscious and unconscious homophobia that diminishes the lives of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. It will confront the economically powerful in the name of the economically deprived. (p. 227)

It’s important to understand the subterfuge at work in what the preachers of Alienism write and teach. Don’t be deceived!

Now, let’s return to Wilson’s article and analyze the following verses offered by him:

“And they sung a new song, saying, Thou art worthy to take the book, and to open the seals thereof: for thou wast slain, and hast redeemed us to God by thy blood out of every kindred, and tongue, and people, and nation;” (Rev. 5:9). “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.” (Col. 3:11). “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” (Gal. 3:28).

From these verses he concludes:

We serve and worship a cosmopolitan Christ, and there is no cosmopolis apart from Him.

To understand why Wilson and his Alienist co-conspirators take verses about spiritual unity and use them in support of physical amalgamation, which is what he means by the word “cosmopolitan,” it’s helpful to look at Ephesians 2:14-15:

For He Himself is our peace, who has made both one, and has broken down the middle wall of separation, having abolished in His flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in Himself one new man from the two, thus making peace.

You can see how easy it is for those who have been marinated in Marxism to misapply this passage of Scripture. After all, the utopians seek the birth of a New Man, and here the Bible itself refers to a “new man” in Christ. It’s common now to hear race-mixers refer to a “new race” in Christ and even “new DNA” in Christ. The two things that are being unified are God’s people, who had the law, and those who were not previously God’s people, who did not have the law. The temple itself had excluded the latter from access. Under the new covenant, the partition wall that has been broken down is the division that excluded those who were outside the tutelage of the law. This is not an absolute unification but rather a unity of faith. The “one Lord, one faith, one baptism” of Ephesians 4:5 does not mean that we have one ecclesiastical hierarchy, one form of government, one language, one nation, or one race. Galatians 3:28 is explained in Acts 15, where God gives the Holy Spirit to the Gentiles, “purifying their hearts by faith,” and Israel concludes that “we shall be saved in the same manner as they.” It does not mean that racial, national, sexual, and other boundaries have been erased.

Christ reconciles the two sides (those with the law and those without the law) by accomplishing the requirements of the law in Himself, thereby slaying the enmity that existed between God and sinners. This is a covenantal reconciliation. Those who twist the orthodox meaning of this passage to support miscegenation, feminism, open borders, and other revolutionary ideologies are preaching not the gospel but refried utopianism, not to mention the Unitarian and Gnostic heresies that have plagued the Church for centuries.

The kingdom of God does indeed include people from many different countries and cultures. This is what Christians have always believed, for it is a constant theme in Scripture. John Calvin, in his commentary on Genesis 35:11, writes that God “promises that he will cause Jacob to increase and multiply, not only into one nation, but into a multitude of nations. . . . [F]or when, under Joshua, the people were apportioned into tribes . . . yet the body was not thereby divided; it is called an assembly of nations, for this reason, because in connection with that distinction a sacred unity yet flourished.” In the book of Revelation, we find that the leaves of the Tree of Life are “for the healing of the nations [ethnon]” (Revelation 22:2), and in the New Jerusalem, “the nations [ethne] shall walk by its light . . . and they shall bring the glory and honor of the nations [ethnon] into it” (Revelation 21:24, 26).

The same doctrine is beautifully expressed in The Bases of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church:

In addition to their sharing one religion, the unity of the people of God was secured by their ethnic and linguistic community and their rootedness in a particular land, their fatherland. [Israel as example.] . . . The universal nature of the Church, however, does not mean that Christians should have no right to national identity and national self-expressions. On the contrary, the Church unites in herself the universal with the national.

Geerhardus Vos, who is called by some the father of Reformed biblical theology, made the same case for ethnonationalism:

Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral. Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme. . . . [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.

From Thomas Aquinas…

God holds first place, for He is supremely excellent, and is for us the first principle of being and government. In the second place, the principles of our being and government are our parents and our country, that have given us birth and nourishment. Consequently man is debtor chiefly to his parents and his country, after God. Wherefore just as it belongs to religion to give worship to God, so does it belong to piety, in the second place, to give worship to one’s parents and one’s country [i.e., one’s people]. The worship due to our parents includes the worship given to all our kindred, since our kinfolk are those who descend from the same parents.

…to Robert L. Dabney, the testimony of the ages is raised in unison:

The diversity of tongues, character, races, and interests among mankind forbids their union in one universal commonwealth. The aggregation of men into separate nations is therefore necessary. . . . Our best way to advance the well-being of the race is to advance that of the portion of our race associated with us in the same society. He who extends his philanthropy so broadly as to refuse a special attachment to the interests of his own people, will probably make it so thin as to be of no account to any people.

Alienists, with their “New Man” utopianism, seek the unbiblical amalgamation of the different races and countries and cultures into a new deracinated chimera rather than sanctified peoples. Doug Wilson, Brian McLaren, John Spong, and countless others across the political and theological spectrum all agree that this must be done, contrary to the teachings of their own forefathers, because Alienists hate diversity and love uniformity.

“The great blessing at Pentecost was God’s reversal of Babel,” Wilson has written. In Genesis 9, God commanded Noah and his sons to fill the earth. This is a restatement of the creation mandate to Adam and Eve in the first chapter. The sin at Babel was disobedience to this mandate. If Wilson is correct that God has reversed his judgment of the sinful pride of the Babelists, then all races are destined to merge into one. But we know that Pentecost did not reverse the judgment at Babel. On the day of Pentecost, “devout men, out of every nation under heaven” heard the gospel, “every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born” – not in one language. As Dr. Francis Nigel Lee said, “Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality. . . . [N]owhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.”

Therefore, if the verses offered by Wilson advocate Alienist amalgamation rather than Kinist pluriformity, his “cosmopolitan” Christ could just as well be called a unisex Christ. And of course, this would be absurd, because we know that each Person of the Trinity is masculine. Each Person of the Trinity is also distinct, though unified with the others. God is not amalgamated, nor is this what He intends for His tripartite creation.

In a world that is intoxicated by the idea that there is a “universal brotherhood of Man,” the Church must either stand for Kinism or fall in with the Unitarian lust to make all things equal and reap the consequences.

The old heresies of Gnosticism and Unitarianism are as prevalent today in the West as they have always been in the East. Eastern mysticism, said G.K. Chesterton, is “an ecstasy of unity,” whereas “Christian mysticism is an ecstasy of creation,” of “separation and mutual surprise. . . . Whether you call the Eastern attitude an extension of oneself into everything or a contraction of oneself into nothing is a matter of metaphysical definition. The effect is the same . . . always suggesting the unification of the individual with the world. But there is quite another kind of sympathy; the sympathy with a thing because it is different. . . . For real love is an intense realisation of the ‘separateness’ of all our souls. . . . The same process of thought that has prevented nationalities disappearing in Christendom has prevented the complete appearance of Pantheism.”

For to us Trinitarians (if I may say it with reverence)—to us God Himself is a society. It is indeed a fathomless mystery of theology. . . . Suffice it to say here that this triple enigma is as comforting as wine and open as an English fireside; that this thing that bewilders the intellect utterly quiets the heart: but out of the desert, from the dry places and the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God; the real Unitarians who with scimitar in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not well for God to be alone.

In short, Trinitarians love diversity because they know the God who chose them. Why do the sheep follow the shepherd? Because they know his voice (John 10). Trinitarians view borders, boundaries, and barriers not as the means of isolation but as the means of cooperation and mutual edification.

Wilson then covers a list of what he views as white sins and black sins. The white sins that he lists are “chattel slavery” of blacks and abortion, which was allegedly instituted for the purpose of exterminating the black population. Both of these are sloppy and careless accusations.

As Dr. R.L. Dabney made clear in A Defense of Virginia, the accusation that Southerners owned black slaves as chattel property is false witness. The involuntary labor of the black slave was owned, not the person as a “thing.” Slaves in the South were protected by law as responsible moral agents, protected against violence even from their own masters, and were allowed to sue for liberty, which many of them did. While all of us undoubtedly wish that Africans had never been imported to the Americas as slaves, we cannot allow lies to be told about the ownership of “chattel.”

As Dabney writes:

We have nothing to do then, with discussing the economic results of a pagan system of slavery, never known for a moment in civilized America, which dehumanized the rational human agent into a “thing,” a mere “chattel.” The system we have to examine was as a labor system; the subjection of the labor, for life, of a certain alien and savage population defined by the law, irrespective of their optional consent, to the heads of white, free families, in a domestic government of the master; but under the limits and restraints of civil law. What were the economic results of this vigorous expedient, to which the Southern States resorted in order to protect themselves from the evils of the presence of this savage population? A presence which had not been elected by those States, but forced on them, while colonies, against their choice, by the slave trading laws of England and New England. Let the reader observe in passing that nothing more is needed than this correct definition of the relation, to make an end of the boastful argument of the Abolitionist. He argues that the relation was always and essentially wicked. The only premise which can furnish even a pretense for this conclusion is the following: That any human being’s property in the involuntary labor of another human must be always and essentially wicked. But when this is dragged into the light, its falsehood at once appears both monstrous and ridiculous. The parental relation clothes the parent with property in the involuntary labor of the child. The business relation clothes the employer with property in the involuntary labor of the apprentice. The marital relation may clothe the wife with property in the involuntary labor of the husband. There is not a legitimate government on earth that does not clothe the rulers with property in the involuntary labor of the citizens. What else is the right to tax, to exact military service? Thus this heady argument, which has incited to a frightful civil war, to the murder of a million men and to the final destruction of a free constitution, is found to be nothing but the blind pressing of a false issue. The evil thing which Abolitionism professed to attack had no existence except in its own slanderous accusations.

Centuries later, the lies continue from “ministers of the gospel” like Doug Wilson.

Wilson’s second accusation of white sinfulness is partly accurate. Abortion is horrific, and too many white people have been willing, even eager, to vote for representatives who have legally protected the “freedom to choose” murder. However, if Wilson lays blame for this sin at the feet of the white race, where are his demands that the black race must answer for the very prominent sins that they disproportionately commit? Christian ministers, of all people, should be careful not to be guilty of double standards.

Unfortunately, Wilson dodges the examples of sinful behavior for which blacks are famous and opts instead for psychobabble. The three vague examples of black sins that he lists are bitterness, resentment, and opportunism.

Taking these in order, you can see why Wilson is known for elevating weasel words to an artistic level. Behold:

When you have been terribly wronged, as blacks certainly have been, the temptation — and it is a pressing one — is to give way to bitterness.

Don’t forget that this is an accusation of black sinfulness! Blacks have not just been wronged, he says; they have been terribly wronged. How exactly they have been wronged, Wilson never reveals, but we can guess that it has something to do with Hollywood revisionism of benevolent domestic slavery that existed centuries ago in America, but not the brutal slavery to which blacks were subjected in Africa prior to this or even in modern times. We can guess that it also has something to do with whites paying to blacks merely trillions of dollars rather than tens of trillions of dollars, in the fanatical attempt to atone for slavery by equalizing all outcomes, contrary to nature and regardless of merit. Wilson implies that blacks have legitimate grievances, but he says that they should not attempt to settle the score, because scores never get settled.

Milquetoast accusation #2 for black sinfulness is resentment. Wilson chastises blacks for believing that when something bad happens to one of them, it must be the result of white racism. This is not really what irks Wilson, though. It is only symptomatic of the real issue, which Wilson is reluctant to articulate, namely that blacks continue to move together in racial formation despite the fervent attempts of white pastors to teach their congregations that race doesn’t really exist. Blacks believe very strongly that race exists, because they know that they exist, and they want to continue to exist. Blacks don’t accept the idea that their people and their interests are social constructs, no matter how long white charlatans like Dishonest Doug push the idea that God’s “mistakes” can be cleaned up by running the races through a blender. Blacks respond racially to the suffering of those who share their race, and support is offered on the basis of race.

Limp-wristed accusation #3 is opportunism in the form of blacks “allow[ing] race-hustlers like Sharpton and Jackson to speak for them, and in their name.” It’s true that Sharpton and Jackson are shakedown artists, always on the prowl for what their people can be given rather than what they can earn. But here again, Wilson is irked that black people move in racial formation. This is what he really thinks is sinful, but he’s apparently too bashful to admit it. This is why his list of black sins is vague and unquantifiable. He isn’t so timid about specifying what white people have done wrong. For example, he writes: “Affirmative action — another grievous white sin, just us being our patronizing selves.” Is this being done outside an evil white elite? Are the disenfranchised, unemployed, and underemployed Midwesterners who are groaning under the oppression of affirmative action also guilty of sin in “patronizing” bitter black laborers? Does Wilson recognize that these poor white folks have been “terribly wronged,” or does he view them as part of the problem?

Wilson writes of “the abortion industry’s contempt for black lives,” and you’ll recall that the abortion industry has been tagged as a white sin. But though crime statistics show that young black men themselves have a great deal of contempt for black lives – and the lives of everyone else, for that matter – this social scourge doesn’t supplant phony-baloney vices like “opportunism” on Wilson’s radar. Even when he writes, “It is a simple fact that black males are disproportionately incarcerated for violent crime,” he leaves open the question of why they are disproportionately incarcerated. He implies that “discrimination” against blacks could be as much to blame as blacks themselves actually being responsible for their own actions. And if it’s the former then – ka-ching! – it’s another white sin.

Wilson also tags the welfare system as a white sin that gives black women “strong financial incentives to not marry the father of their baby. And so we have gotten what we have paid for, which is a pandemic of fatherlessness in the black community. That pandemic is the bottom layer of our cycle of crime and lawless behavior.” While we don’t dispute this, there is far more to be said about the subject. Racial integration robbed black communities of solid black role models, including professionals, entrepreneurs, and homemakers. The problems of the ghetto can’t be analyzed without honest talk about how it became a ghetto. It’s not primarily an issue of subsidies, because even without generous subsidies, blacks in Africa have the same “pandemic of fatherlessness” and “cycle of crime and lawless behavior” and illegitimacy and disease as their cousins in America. Nor is it primarily a failure of religious missions. Blacks in America have heard the gospel for four centuries, and they are the most professedly Christian people on earth.

Wilson writes other strange and dishonest things that make us want to gawk and point. He admits that “the apostle Paul was once guilty of an ethnically insensitive slur” when he called Cretans “evil beasts, lazy gluttons, and liars.”

This testimony, he said, was true. Therefore, he said . . . rebuke them sharply so that they may be sound in the faith (Tit. 1:13). So anyone who believes that any racial group cannot be sound in the faith – that’s a racist. And anyone who believes that any racial group gets a free pass and does not have to respond to the authoritative Word of the Lord Jesus Christ – calling every color of sinner to repent and believe – that’s a racist too.

Here are definitions of racism which are entirely impractical when the term “racism” itself has become a catch-all which includes everyone from those who hate and murder those of a different race to those who acknowledge average racial differences in IQ. It’s a nonsense term. We Kinists agree that any racial group can be sound in the faith, and we agree that men and women of every race must repent and believe on the Word of the Lord, but it doesn’t keep us from being called “racists” too, even by those who know full well that it is sinfully bearing false witness against us to lump us in with murderers. We have biblical reasons for opposing miscegenation and wanting the races to survive, because we recognize kinship as a gracious gift from God.

In a companion blog post, Wilson continues the obfuscation, or as our farmer friends call it, spreading the bull butter. His first sentence, “The cross of Christ deals with real sins, not imaginary ones,” is amusing in light of the fact that he has been loath to rebuke any but white people with any degree of specificity.

The problem that must be overcome is racial animosity — hatred, spite, bitterness, and envy. . . . Because He rose from the dead, black men can repent of their envy, hatred, and resentment.

So the vague black sins that Wilson listed previously as bitterness, resentment, and opportunism are now called envy, hatred, and resentment. Would it be too much to ask why blacks hate whites and why they’re envious, and to either defend these as valid or condemn them as spurious? Why is Wilson so fearful of honest talk?

Because He died as a perfect sacrifice for sin, white men can repent of their insolence and contempt.

More mumbo-jumbo that has no point at all except to increase the word count of Wilson’s text. Where can this white insolence and contempt be found? Rare is the white man who despises the thought of different races shacking up. Even so, it is deliberately obtuse to assume that such dissenters are irrationally contemptuous. Everyone knows that a man’s career can end abruptly as a result of speaking out on such matters. Where is this fabled throng of insolent non-conformists and haters? Have white men hidden the gospel from other races? Have white men failed to educate other races? Have white men kept to themselves the greatest inventions and discoveries to grace mankind? Is it asking too much for Wilson to be specific? One would think that pastors would be practiced in the art of being specific. Bless me, what do they teach them at these seminaries?

Because of the nature of the message [of the death of race-hate in the death of Jesus], the color of the one preaching it is irrelevant. The only color that matters is how red the blood was.

Here we see why Wilson is fearful of honest talk. It would require rebuking black people themselves, from the greatest to the least of them, in specific terms for racial opinions and policies that are monolithic and unchallenged among them. Blacks do not believe that red is the only color that matters, nor did whites until relatively recently. The difference is that these monolithic black racial policies are consciously designed to dispossess whites of what their own fathers gave to them as an inheritance, whereas the white sins in Wilson’s purview of “racism” have actually been intended to benefit blacks. This is true even of slavery and abortion. The road to hell is paved with such good intentions, but one can oppose the evil of abortion without lying that Margaret Sanger intended to exterminate the black population. That deviless worked very closely with black leaders, including MLK. Likewise, one can oppose slave labor without learning Southern history from Quentin Tarantino.

As one who has crossed logical swords with Christopher Hitchens and has made somewhat of a name for himself as an amateur logician, it would be pleasant if Wilson could rein in the evasions and double standards, especially when he conveys that whites are guilty of the unintended harmful effects of their actions while blacks are not even guilty of the intended harmful effects of their actions. The latter is apparently to be excused because blacks “have been terribly wronged,” according to Wilson. As though white people have not. Consider this:

Of the nearly 770,000 violent interracial crimes committed every year involving blacks and whites, blacks commit 85 percent and whites commit 15 percent.

Blacks commit more violent crime against whites than against blacks. Forty-five percent of their victims are white, 43 percent are black, and 10 percent are Hispanic. When whites commit violent crime, only three percent of their victims are black.

Blacks are an estimated 39 times more likely to commit a violent crime against a white than vice versa, and 136 times more likely to commit robbery.

Blacks are 2.25 times more likely to commit officially-designated hate crimes against whites than vice versa.

The pressing temptation “to give way to bitterness” is not solely the domain of those who have appointed themselves the arbiters of “racial justice” just because they have learned that whining loudly about a troubled past can be rather profitable.

Suggesting that race doesn’t matter since we all have red blood, and so did our Savior, is as absurd as saying that sex roles don’t matter since we all have chromosomes. But this is not simply an exercise in documenting absurdity. It is rather to observe that Marxists and utopians can be found even in the pulpit, carrying out the desires of their father.

Consider what Frederick Engels wrote in The Principles of Communism, 1847:

What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities? The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.

Vladimir Lenin agreed:

In place of all forms of nationalism, Marxism advances internationalism, the amalgamation of all nations into a higher unity, a unity that is growing before our eyes. . . . The proletariat cannot support any consecration of nationalism: on the contrary, it supports everything that helps to obliterate national distinctions and remove national barriers; it supports everything that makes the ties between nationalities closer and closer, or tends to merge nations.

The Alienist “Church” of today has adopted these Marxist principles, and a “heretic” in their eyes is the one who respects divisions and foils their attempts at artificial unity. Deracinated individuals are now as vulnerable under the Alienist “Church” as were the subjects of the communist state. In both cases, the objective has been to remove intermediary hedges of protection, the strongest of which are the hedges of faith and heritage.

The movement toward integration is a denial of Christ. It is part of an effort to create one society in which there are no distinctions or differences. . . . For it is not the races only that must disappear and be brought into conformity with the requirements of a world-state: so with the sexes, so with parents and children, so with nations, states, tribes, and empires. All must go and be swallowed up in the maw of the great monad, theologically familiar to students of oriental mysticism as religion, and to traditional Christianity as Satan. ~ R.T. Ingram, Essays on Segregation The best things and best people rise out of their separateness. ~ Robert Frost The ancient fathers . . . were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance. ~ Augustine, City of God

Christians are in need of leaders who are willing to take a moral stand, regardless of how unpopular it might be. Spare us from life coaches in worship centers who are paid to speak what itching ears want to hear, who then congratulate themselves for their bravery in pushing conventional wisdom for which there is no danger of a price to be paid. Spare us from those who seek accolades and enrichment like a swine rooting through feces in search of a kernel of corn.