In a veritable orgy of moral exhibitionism, the 44th General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church in America ratified Overture 43, a resolution ostensibly about racial reconciliation, but whose true purpose was considerably less high-minded.   In response, a group of laymen known as the Concerned Presbyterians distributed a flier to the parking lots of a number of PCA churches.  Predictably, the enlightened gatekeepers of the PCA were not pleased that their Byzantine bureaucracy had been bypassed, and the case made directly to the pew warmers.  While 99% of the PCA’s reaction has amounted to little more than point-and-sputter, Utopian globalist Rev. Gregory A. Ward repurposed an essay he’d written for the recently published compendium Heal Us, MLK:  A Call for White Guilt, Privilege Checking, and Virtue Signaling in the Church (well, that may not be the actual title), and posted it on the PCA-oriented blog, Vintage73.  Fellow Concerned Presbyterian, Clive Sanguis, has written a point-by-point rebuttal to Ward’s screed, and I obtained his generous permission to post it here. ~ Mickey Henry

This is a point-counterpoint rebuttal to Kinism, Racism, and Morton Smith by Gregory Ward, published at Vintage73. Ward proposes to make it “explicitly clear that there is no way to defend Kinism, or Racism for that matter, from the Bible.” Each assertion of his will be followed by a response.

Statement: Racial integration and intermarriage multiplies rather than reduces diversity in mankind.

Response: When individuals decide to marry contrary to the will of their fathers and forefathers, they aren’t creating racial diversity. They’re creating bastards who don’t belong to any people. Communities and societies grow organically from common descent and faith, shared principles, and generational familiarity and destiny. Organic communities are, as the word suggests, common. Kinship breeds cooperation and trust, creating an environment where families can thrive and children can grow. Where everyone does what is right in his own eyes, which was the first rule of Sodom, there is strife and bloodshed, and ultimately extinction. The places where races and religions mix are marked first by a police state and then by anarchy and war. It pleased God to create the races and divide the nations – for all things unfold according to the purpose of His will (Eph. 1:11) – and this has had the effect of minimizing conflict and helping men to seek for God and find him (Acts 17:26-27). Segregation is simply the act of ensuring that miscegenation does not bring discord to families and cultures.

Later, Ward writes: “But saying that God in his providence is sovereign over all the variations and distinctions of mankind is unhelpful and a bit misleading.” This makes no sense, coming two paragraphs after Ward writes, “I do not see a problem with ethnic and racial pluriformity in mankind because God intended it to be that way.” He means that any two (presumably Christian) people who mix their blood are doing a good thing, and God intends it to be so. But the constant references to division and separation in Scripture, and by Paul in Acts 17, Ward dismisses by declaring, “it is not Paul’s point to demonstrate that God has deemed all of these divisions good.” This is a red herring. Ward isn’t willing to entertain the possibility that maintaining any divisions and differences for those who are in the Lord is good. Not a single one.

Argument: Morton Smith misinterprets Acts 17:26-27, failing to understand the intent of the verses, because the Bible is not teaching that division of peoples is a good thing but rather is “merely describing the world as it is.”

Response: The apostle plainly writes that God marked the appointed times and boundaries of peoples throughout history, and he did this so that men would seek for him and find him. There is cause and effect in these verses. No honest appraisal of the verses could conclude anything other than that God is the author of physical divisions which paradoxically result in spiritual unity. Only a trinitarian could apprehend how both the One and the Many could prevail in this case. It is lost on a unitarian. Those crucial words – so that – are lost on Ward, whose position amounts to the idea that God established boundaries so that we could derive satisfaction in dismantling them, in the name of “love,” of course. Kinists maintain that working against God’s decrees and purposes in the world is not love but hatred.

Argument: “[I]f God is sovereign over the nations and their seasons and boundaries, then he also approves of all divisions regardless of their potential connection to, and involvement with, sin… If the distinctions were good, why judge the nations?”

Response: Disobedient nations have not been judged because they have distinct heritage and culture, and because their boundaries separate their property from the property of others. The nations are judged for their sin. Ward is suggesting that nationhood might have served the purpose “of calling mankind back to himself,” but “it does not follow that the nations, their boundaries, and their ethnic distinctions are necessarily good.” We are told in Acts that God himself bounded lands for appointed times, which implies the changing nature of national borders. The reason is obvious, to minimize conflict with foreigners. Of course, some tribes may be in rebellion, and judgment will eventually fall on them. But it bears repeating: Ward isn’t willing to entertain the possibility that maintaining any divisions and differences for those who are in the Lord is good. Not a single one.

Statement: The table of nations following the Flood and the account of the Tower of Babel are “essentially useless for establishing any sort of endorsement by God of different ethnicities.”

Response: Christians disagree on how we should apply the lesson of Babel today. Some believe that Pentecost reversed Babel. Kinists deny this, because on the day of Pentecost the nations were sanctified for the preaching of the gospel as every man of Israel present, “out of every nation under heaven,” heard the gospel preached in his own tongue. The languages were not miraculously blended into one. As Francis Nigel Lee taught, Pentecost rejects the notion of one language and one nation of the Christians of the world being sent forth to conquer the world for Christ.

Argument: “God did not intensify ethnic or racial pluriformity [at Babel]. He intensified linguistic diversity… It does not follow that just because God intensified linguistic diversity that he necessarily caused an increase in ethnic or racial pluriformity.”

Response: What other groups of people, anywhere, at any time in history, divided linguistically, did not follow different courses of social evolution? The question answers itself. Ward seems to think that men did not disperse until the judgment at Babel, which he considers to be merely linguistic. But the mandate to fill the earth is found in the first verse of chapter 9. The table of nations in chapter 10 documents “the families of the sons of Noah, according to their generations, in their nations; and from these the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.” Not until chapter 11 do we encounter the rebels at Babel. It’s not hard to understand. Families, generations, and nations divided, according to the command of God through Noah, prior to God confounding languages at Babel.

Statement: “[J]ust because God pronounced a judgment on the sin at Babel, it does not follow that the results of that sin and judgment should not be overcome by the Gospel.”

Response: Ward assumes that the cure is not much better than the disease. An assumption does not equate to proof. He likens the judgment at Babel to divorce, a less than ideal prescription for the sin of rebellion. But this does not prove the case that dispersal of the nations is less than ideal. As Morton Smith writes, “we may conclude that ethnic pluriformity is the revealed will of God for the human race in its present situation.” Therefore, “it is highly questionable whether the Christian can have part in any program that would seek to erase all ethnic distinctions.” We can see God’s hand in how history has actually unfolded. Why would we think that his will is not to be found in how the world actually works but is found rather in social experiments that are scarcely more than half a century old?

It’s true that judgment does not necessarily imply sanctity on the instrument of judgment. God used the Assyrians to attack his people and then punished the Assyrians for,+ among other things, attacking his people. But in the case of the Assyrians, we are told as much by God himself. Ward might sincerely wish that the judgment at Babel was intended by God for reversal in time, erasing all former distinctions, so that Christians could, thousands of years in the future, form a global government with one language and one artificial culture, and only the very best in surveillance equipment to maintain the police state. But his wishes have no support in Scripture. In fact, Scripture teaches just the opposite.

Moreover, consider the logical hash contained in the statement: “[J]ust because God pronounced a judgment on the sin at Babel, it does not follow that the results of that sin and judgment should not be overcome by the Gospel.” I could likewise say, “Just because a speed limit is posted, it does not follow that roads should not be outlawed.” What? One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Statement: “Smith fails to grasp the significance of the Gospel with respect to race because he reduces the impact of the universality of the offer of the Gospel to the spiritual realm.”

Response: Ward reveals his unitarianism by elevating to Reformed doctrine the idea that one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism equates to one Race, one Nation, one Language. Most heretics have progressed beyond this to now include one Sex. As Kinists have warned for many years, if you believe that Galatians 3:28 necessitates physical unity for spiritual unity then the erasing of sexual differences logically follows (“nor is there male and female”). Obviously, sexual differences and roles continue and are warranted by Scripture itself. Ward earnestly wants to believe that race is now meaningless, and so are ethnicity, nationhood, and any other form of kinship. But the Bible does not contradict itself.

Statement: Smith “suggests that God moves Jacob and his sons from Canaan to Egypt because of their failure to remain separate in Canaan… There is no indication that this sojourn in Egypt is for the purpose of ethnic, or even religious, purity.”

Response: Amazingly, Ward answers himself with a question that reveals God’s preservation of Israel, preventing the chosen people from being absorbed into surrounding nations: “As Smith rightly observes, they are given a specific area in which to live, the land of Goshen. However, does this mean Israel was really isolated ethnically?” Um, yes, and Joseph guaranteed it. Canaanites may have also been enslaved, and a mixed multitude did leave Egypt with the Israelites, but we hear no more of such a multitude after 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. We don’t know many details, but some surmise that the mixed multitude returned to Egypt.

Statement: “Joseph took an Egyptian wife” and his “two sons Manasseh and Ephraim, the fathers of two of the twelve tribes of Israel, were of mixed blood. They were half Israelite and half Egyptian. Clearly ethnic segregation was not what God had in mind in this case.”

Response: The Hyksos were Semites (Arameans) who were called “Shepherd Kings” by the native Egyptians. It seems likely that Joseph served a Hyksos king, so closely related to Israel that Joseph’s own brothers didn’t recognize him, because he looked like one of the locals. Joseph was able to fit in as a member of Pharaoh’s household.

Asenath was from Goshen but was called an Egyptian, even as Moses is called an Egyptian in Exodus 2:16-19, and even as Ruth is called a Moabitess.

The new king mentioned in Exodus 1:8 likely reversed the Goshen land claims and struck Joseph from all of Egypt’s records. It was known that the Israelites would naturally ally themselves (by blood!) to their Asiatic cousins, who were the enemies of the New Kingdom, and so they were enslaved.

Calling Manasseh and Ephraim “half Israelite and half Egyptian” is much like calling Timothy half-Israelite and half-Greek. The Greek side was every bit as much from Israel (see the “Hellenistic Jews” of Acts 6:1).

Statement: “[T]here was both need and opportunity to circumcise the foreigners that originally joined Israel in the Exodus… [N]either ethnicity nor race was key for defining who was a part of the tribes of Israel or who participated in their defining communal ritual, the Passover. Rather, circumcision was the key for defining who was a part of Israel during the Exodus, the wanderings, and the settlement of the Promised Land.”

Response: No Kinist has argued that circumcision was limited only to Israelites by blood. Ward actually supports the Kinist case here. All peoples should be bound in one spiritual communion by the covenant, but the covenant does not merge all peoples physically. Circumcision did not erase tribal affiliation or prerogative. Foreign slaves held in perpetuity were also circumcised, but this didn’t make them citizens of Israel. They were protected by laws ensuring that they would be treated equitably, but they could not legally own tribal property or benefit from inheritance, and if they were held as slaves, they weren’t released from slavery in the Jubilee. The Gibeonites are a good example of this. There were other political, social, and economic barriers in place between citizens and strangers, such as the charging of interest.

Ward is simply in error when he writes: “The only segregation that the LORD instituted in the Old Testament was for purity of religion, not purity of race or blood.” God segregated the twelve tribes from each other and prevented intermarriage between them to protect respective inheritance. Numbers 36:6: “Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe.” This is supported by extrabiblical sources such as Tobit 4:12: “My child, avoid all loose conduct. Choose a wife of your father’s stock. Do not take a foreign wife outside your father’s tribe, because we are the children of the prophets. Remember Noah, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, our ancestors from the beginning. All of them took wives from their own kindred, and they were blessed in their children, and their race will inherit the earth.”

Strangely, Ward believes that Joshua’s need to circumcise the second generation after the Exodus proves that the recipients of the circumcision were Egyptians. This novel view is not to be found in the commentaries, which places it in the same fantasy realm as the fictional black wife of Moses, a story that Alienists love to tell around the campfire. In the commentaries, the second generation of Israelites is circumcised because circumcision had fallen out of practice in Egypt and had last been performed prior to the Passover celebration at Sinai. It is explained clearly in Joshua 5:5 that the people who came out of Egypt had been circumcised, but those who were born in the wilderness had not. This has nothing to do with whether there were or were not “foreigners among the Israelites during the Exodus.”

Statement: “[T]he prohibition of intermarriage with the peoples of Canaan has nothing to do with racial integrity.”

Response: To prohibit intermarriage between one group and another group has the obvious effect, whatever the reason behind it, of preventing genetic amalgamation. This much is not debatable. As for the reason, Ward is convinced that the prohibition to intermarry with the Hittites, Girgashites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, Hivites, and Jebusites “is only about religious purity.” He bases this assurance on Deut. 7:3-4: “Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.”

Undoubtedly, idolatry is in view as the inevitable result of miscegenation, which again makes the case for Kinism. But if mixture were allowable otherwise, if there were qualifications for converting these foreign nationals, how might God have changed the phrasing? Was it really necessary to “destroy them totally,” as God commanded? If circumcision was all it took to turn one into an Israelite, why was it necessary to go to such extremes? Could not exceptions have been made for those who were in covenant with God? Ward is forced to broad jump over the words: “Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons.” That’s the command, and obedience to the command is determined by blood, not by faith. Contained in the command is how to obey it. If it were simply and solely a matter of idolatry and false belief, evidence of circumcision and sacrifice and profession of covenantal adherence could easily separate the wheat from the chaff.

Statement: “Ezra 9 and 10 and Malachi 2:10-16” are not “about racial purity. In both cases the issue is that they are intermarrying with people that worship other gods…”

Response: Just as Ward previously argued that Deut. 7:3-4 “is only about religious purity,” he claims that these passages from Ezra and Malachi are concerned solely with religious purity, not exclusion of blood. He writes: “If they had taken wives from the neighboring peoples that had converted to Judaism and united themselves to God, this would not have been a problem.”

First, there are no solid examples given of wives taken from foreign covenant nations. How would this have been practical in light of Deut. 20? When you march up to attack a city, make its people an offer of peace, unless they’ve converted. If they accept and open their gates, all the people in it shall be subject to forced labor and shall work for you, unless they’ve converted. If they refuse to make peace and they engage you in battle, lay siege to that city, unless they’ve converted. When the Lord your God delivers it into your hand, put to the sword all the men in it, unless they’ve converted. As for the women, the children, the livestock and everything else in the city, you may take these as plunder for yourselves, especially if they’ve converted.

Second, ancient Israel’s faith in the eternal God bears no resemblance to Judaism, the self-worship of the anti-Christian, pederastic rabbis and their perverted Talmud.

Again, it begs the question of how the seven Canaanite nations could have been allowed to demonstrate evidence that they should not have been slaughtered, if idolatry was the only concern and not also loss of heritage and national identity.

When the people of Israel intermarried with Babylonians while in captivity, Ezra and Nehemiah recovered the law and decreed that the foreign wives and the mixed children should be sent away. There was no theological examination given, no exceptions made even for covenant children, not even respect given to the marriage covenant. This is not explained solely by caution to prevent idolatry, as Ward pretends. Who would have been more likely to raise the children in a way that was pleasing to God: the Israelites restored to their land and law, or Babylonian exiles with more idols than Laban could store in his garage? If faith is all that matters, they would not all have been sent away. And if faith is all that matters in these examples, the Bible contradicts itself. Ezra and Nehemiah commanded the people to get rid of their unbelieving wives and their children too. The apostle Paul commands in 1 Cor. 7:13 that believing wives should remain with their unbelieving husbands. Alienists like Ward who have answers that contradict what their godly ancestors believed don’t even attempt to make biblical sense of what they argue.

Finally, in Nehemiah 9:2, “those of Israelite lineage separated themselves from all foreigners…” This was in keeping with Deut. 23:2: “No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of their descendants may enter the assembly of the Lord, not even in the tenth generation.” No qualifications are given and no examinations are allowed for idolaters, because idolatry is not the litmus test. The litmus test is the forbidden mixed-blood marriage.

Argument: Rahab is proof positive “that people of foreign blood were welcome to join Israel.”

Response: The name Rahab is Hebrew and predates the incident at Jericho. The name appears twice in Job, the oldest book of the Bible. The Israelite spies were able to communicate easily with Rahab in Jericho. She is in the “Hebrew Hall of Faith” (Heb. 11), in a book called “Hebrews.” She is a Hebrew heroine because she saved her people. Rahab easily assimilates to Israel, though we know that it would have been forbidden by Deut. 7 and 23 if she did not have Hebrew lineage.

Perhaps Rahab of Jericho and the Rahab who was Ruth’s mother-in-law are not the same woman. The conquest of Canaan and the fall of Jericho began around 1400 BC. The events of Ruth were in roughly 1380-1050 BC. David was not born until about 1041-990 BC. Let’s say that there were about 385 years from Rahab of Jericho to David. The Bible lists only four generations (Boaz, Obed, Jesse, David) in this timespan. Perhaps some generations are omitted, but Ruth 4, Matthew 1, and Luke 3 all confirm the same number of generations from Pharez to David, with nothing added to or subtracted from the four generations from Rahab to David.

Argument: Ruth is proof positive “that people of foreign blood were welcome to join Israel.”

Response: Ruth is called a Moabitess for the same reason that Laban is called a Syrian in Genesis 25:20 and 31:20 and 31:24. Since he descended from Abraham’s brother Nahor, Laban is clearly a Syrian by geography, not by blood. Likewise, in Deut. 26:5, the Israelite is to recite that his Hebrew father was Aramean (Syrian). Matthew Henry, in his commentary on Hosea 1, writes: “[Hosea’s] surname was Ben-Beeri, or the son of Beeri. As with us now, so with them then, some had their surname from their place, as Micah the Morashite, Nahum the Elkoshite: others from their parents, as Joel the son of Bethuel, and here Hosea the son of Beeri.”

Ammonites and Moabites were descended from the incestuous union of Lot and his daughters. Israelites were forbidden from marrying either. If King David’s own grandmother, Ruth, was a genetic Moabite, are we honestly to believe that there was no national dispute, even after Moses commanded that there should be no treaty or friendship made with Moabites? Does not the PCA argue for the validity of infant baptism in part because there was no outcry or fervor in suddenly excluding infants and young children from the new covenant?

Ward suggests that “Ruth’s faithfulness to Naomi and to the Lord (Ruth 1:16-17) gain her entrance into Israel by marriage to Boaz.” Are we honestly to believe that such a serious prohibition was ignored simply because someone showed evidence of faith? If so, why was this not good enough for all of those Babylonian wives and their mixed children? It makes no sense! With such a poor understanding of Scripture, it’s not hard to understand how Alienists support illegal aliens in breaking American law. They believe that all of Israel assisted Rahab and Ruth in breaking the law!

It’s always perplexing to see the same Alienist arguments presented uncritically and illogically, as though sheer repetition makes the arguments unimpeachable. Keep in mind that even if these examples were to be granted as valid, which would be quite a leap, it is a fact that they are being used by Alienists in the attempt to justify miscegenation, open borders, and the erasure of not only nationhood and the distinct cultures and peoples that give the world its vitality and character, but also of every boundary stone that the Golden Rule has in its purview. It is no less than the burning desire on the part of the Alienist that my kith and kin must die off by being absorbed by other peoples or by those who belong to no people, regardless of our will to survive. This is genocide, and it is Satanic.

Argument: Galatians 3:28 cannot be only about spiritual unity. It also has the intent of bringing Greeks and Jews together physically. “[Paul] is counteracting bigoted notions that would cause divisions between Jewish Christians and Greek Christians. This verse is polemical, and it would have daily, practical impact on their social interactions. It simply cannot be reduced to spiritual unity… He is uniting disparate people in one faith… To be united religiously in the Greco-Roman world was to be united socially and culturally and even professionally.”

Response: Here is R.J. Rushdoony explaining that the early church was segregated, sometimes for ethnic, linguistic, or moral reasons, and the apostles saw nothing wrong with it.

Ward gives no evidence for how Judeans and Greeks and Scythians and various others hitched their wagons together except to say, “it is hard to imagine that intermarriage would not occur…” Since so much hope for a one-world government and all the colors bleeding into one is hanging from this novel Alienist worldview that runs contrary to how history has actually unfolded, you would think that an example of some sort could be offered to show that spiritual unity in Christ among diverse peoples translated to the abandonment of national self-determination on the basis of shared Christian faith. Yessiree, Bob, that would be meaty. But no, there are no examples to be found, just a vague reference here and there to intermarriage. And remember, Ward gives vast weight to these vague references in determining the future of the world, whereas the detailed genealogies in Genesis are “essentially useless for establishing any sort of endorsement by God of different ethnicities,” and are “at most etiologically descriptive.”

We know that the small amount of intermarriage that did occur, prior to modern advances in transportation and communication and corruption of morals, did not greatly alter national development except when nations exceeded their bounds, became empires, and absorbed conquered peoples, usually to horrible outcomes. The American Empire today is participating in this invade-the-world, invite-the-world program.

Where is the evidence for Ward’s thesis, that spiritual unity leads to physical unity in myriad ways, such that to prevent different peoples from joining to each other is to work against God’s purpose in the world? Where is the evidence that all the reasons given in Scripture for the God-ordained purpose of segregation and the security in homogeneity that it provides are now obsolete, and to support divisions of any kind, no matter the reason, is “bigoted”?

Ward never gets around to dealing with the rule that ruins his entire genocidal theory – the Fifth Commandment. As a father, I reserve the right to reject a suitor for my daughter’s hand in marriage for any reason whatsoever that I consider to be in my daughter’s necessary interest, regardless of whether she agrees; and she has the duty to obey my wishes in this most serious of all decisions for her life. No Alienist has the right to tell me that race is not a disqualifying factor in my blessing for marriage, or that the wall of separation that I erect between my daughter and every other man on the planet save one is “bigoted.”

The Fifth Commandment brings it all into perspective. Never has a white man been born who wants his child to marry outside the race.

Marriage is the basis of community, and to suggest that blood bonds are irrelevant to marriage is to miss the entire point of marriage, which is for the wife to be a helpmeet to her husband. If blood is irrelevant to marriage, and if Rahab the harlot was in Christ’s own lineage, it stands to reason that a father is in sin if he disqualifies a former harlot as a potential daughter-in-law on the basis of her former profession alone. Alienist theology is no less absurd.

Consider Jeremiah 35. If a father does not even have the right to prohibit the marriage of his young daughter to a very old man, much less to a man of a different race, why did God praise the Rechabites for being obedient to the will of their father, Jonadab, even though their father’s command was to abstain from things that are not sinful: drinking wine, planting crops, and building houses? Alienists would rebuke Jonadab for being in sin for enforcing rules that are not found in the Bible. And God would disagree:

Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: “Because you have obeyed the commandment of Jonadab your father, and kept all his precepts and done according to all that he commanded you, therefore thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel: ‘Jonadab the son of Rechab shall not lack a man to stand before Me forever.'”

Ward’s revolutionary, egalitarian opinions find wide agreement in the world today. He risks nothing by what he believes and teaches, and the church he pastors is unlikely to suffer financially for it. No one who dances in step with popular fads will experience public scorn. Ward parts company with his own Christian ancestors on the matter, and it is to them that we Kinists appeal. To take a moral stand and agree with them would be to risk his career, his reputation, friendships, and maybe even his marriage.

Statement: The issue of racial intermarriage never comes up in 1 Corinthians 7.

Response: Why would anyone expect this chapter to cover every possible angle on marriage? The Bible doesn’t go into great detail, if any, on things that even animals understand instinctively. This is why we’re told in 1 Cor. 11:14 that nature itself teaches us that long hair on a man is shameful (presumably what would allow him to be mistaken for a woman). But 1 Cor. 7:17 does have this relevant note: “But as God has distributed to each one, as the Lord has called each one, so let him walk.” We don’t have the right to contend with the Almighty and correct him (Job 40). God created the races, and it is within the people to whom we belong that we should be content.

Statement: The issue of racial intermarriage never comes up in 1 Timothy 5, when discussing the issue of the remarriage of younger widows.

Response: The same chapter tells us that “if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.” How racist to suggest that our “own” extend beyond our household!

Statement: The issue of racial intermarriage never comes up in 2 Cor. 6:14, when Paul exhorts Christians to be not unequally yoked with unbelievers; “the concern is about faith, not race.”

Response: This is based on Deut. 22:10, which forbids plowing with an ox and a donkey. Using different animals for a joint task will hurt both of them. Two believers of different temperaments or gifts or aptitudes or heritage or location or maturity could also be unequally yoked. Again, this is where parents should guide their children into what kind of person would be most appropriate for them. Race is most certainly a consideration, but to suggest that a general statement by the apostle on the extreme case of being yoked to an unbeliever renders all other unequally yoked combinations as inapplicable is asinine. What are they teaching in the seminaries?

Statement: “[T]he goal of Jesus and Paul is to bring unity of a social and physical nature, and not just a spiritual unity to the diverse members of the church…”

Response: There is no argument or evidence presented. Where is the proof that Jesus and Paul sought to physically amalgamate the nations and races and tribes? This is the opposite of what we’re shown in the Bible, and it is contrary to experience. Free things can achieve a unity, wrote G.K. Chesterton, but tied things cannot. Good fences make good neighbors, wrote Robert Frost. In our time, the Church has become so deceived that good is called evil and evil good.

“Man is now defined as humanity rather than the individual, and this great one, humanity, to be truly a unity, must exist as one state. In this picture, any assertion of individuality, local or national independence, or the reality of races, is viewed with hostility and as a sign of mental sickness; it is an assertion of plurality which challenges the reality and unity of the universal.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, The One and the Many, p. 17

As Mickey Henry has summarized the situation: “Without a transcendent source of unity, our society is attempting to create an immanent one.” And the emasculated Church is following close behind, revising its doctrines for the sake of popularity. The religion of the West used to be Christianity. Now it is Equality.

Statement: Kinists “espouse a sort of racial pragmatism that is contra to the Gospel’s efforts to dismantle all lines that divide people in the name of peace and harmony…”

Response: God himself has been the author of division, and he has explained his intentions rather well. The gospel brings spiritual unity to the redeemed from all nations, but Ward has not even presented a single shred of evidence, much less constructed an argument, that the purpose of the gospel is to dismantle racial, ethnic, cultural, linguistic, legal, national, or any other boundaries, barriers, or borders. The genius of the gospel (meaning the real, trinitarian gospel, not the Alienist, unitarian counterfeit) is that it supersedes but does not destroy physical divisions. Men are still proudly men, women are still proudly women, Latvians are still proudly Latvian, the Flemish are still proudly Flemish, and all to the glory of God.

Statement: The “USA” has “oppressed minorities…for years…by redlining, racial profiling, and other methods.

Response: These lame accolades to the left are tossed in to give Ward street cred. His point is that Kinists continue the woeful “oppression” by “divid[ing] people by race and ethnicity,” as though Kinists are doing the dividing, and free association has nothing to do with it. Of course, minorities, and especially blacks, much to the consternation of Asians, are treated with an almost holy reverence in America. Oppression? It seems that the treasuries can’t be raided fast enough to satisfy the constant whining for reparations in one form or another. Redlining? First the banks were called racist for refusing to lend money to high-risk minorities. Then came the sub-prime mortgage crisis, and banks were called racist for the opposite reason, for lending money too easily to minorities whom the banks should have known would be likely to default. Racial profiling? Heather MacDonald, author of The War on Cops, writes: “Black people make up 23 percent of New York’s population, but they commit 75 percent of all shootings… Whites are 33 percent of the city’s population, but they commit fewer than 2 percent of all shootings… These disparities mean that virtually every time that police in New York are called out after a shooting, they are being summoned into minority neighborhoods looking for minority suspects.” As former Mayor Giuliani has said, the statistics indicate that blacks are not stopped enough by police.

Kinists and cops, oppressing the bruthas, dividing the Church.

Statement: To “divide people by race and ethnicity…is…to oppress those people [referring specifically to racial minorities, meaning non-whites, even though whites are now in the minority in some states]. Any principle of segregation is not loving, but hateful.”

Response: Tell this to the Norwegians in Oslo, which used to be a peaceful, Christian city, where Christian Norwegian youths could be raised in safety and familiarity. Oslo has become the rape capital of the world due to Islamic colonization.

Here in America, the state of both black families and white families was strongest prior to integration. Ward uses the word “loving” but seems to not understand what it means.

We Concerned Presbyterians can’t help but wonder when Korean Presbyterians will suffer reproach for segregating themselves from all other Presbyterians. Not that we Kinists would participate. We don’t think they’re “hateful” at all.

Statement: “Further, to attempt to reinforce segregation by means of an appeal to an authority like Scripture is among the worst forms of racism, because it is systemic in nature.”

Response: I too am outraged that Kinists read the Bible. Faith is all that matters, not the Bible.

Statement: “Kinism is a sin. This is why Overture 43 was passed to begin with.”

Response: How flattering to think that we Kinists have had such an impact that Overture 43 was passed because of us. We wear it as a badge of honor.

Ward set out to make it “explicitly clear that there is no way to defend Kinism, or Racism for that matter, from the Bible.” I’ve shown that not only has he failed to make his case, but he is fully on board with the Satanic agenda of the New World Order, to bring about the genocide of the white race, the historical standard-bearers of Jesus Christ. His arguments and assertions are contrary to Scripture, Christian history, and what the founders of the PCA, including Morton Smith, believed to be true.