Rev. James McDonald, the pastor of Providence Church in Peoria, Illinois, has written the following “Affirmations on the Nations of Men.” It’s a dandy example of how the unitarian heresy of denying the nature of God often begins with denying the nature of Man.

We, the Session of Providence Church, [meaning, I, James McDonald] have undertaken a study on the topic of the nations of men and the resulting implications of these nations on our church and our families. This study is presented below in a series of affirmations. It is our prayer that these affirmations will help us work through this topic in a spirit of unity and peace.

You will see that his definition of “unity” is not the biblical and covenantal definition of unity. Without unity there can be no peace.

We affirm that God has created from one blood every nation of men (Acts 17:26).

One thing we love about anti-Kinists is their uncanny ability to ignore the second half of Acts 17:26. They hope that it will go away if they ignore it long enough. But the statement is true enough. Adam was the federal head of mankind, and in Adam all men died.

We affirm that the division of the nations (Genesis 11:1-9) was a result of man’s sin of defying God’s plan to take dominion of the earth (Genesis 1:28, 9:1,7).

Yes and no. The division of Babel was the result of the refusal of Babelists to obey the Creation Mandate reiterated to Noah. But the division of nations and diversification commenced a very long time prior to the founding of Babel, most notably by the Japhethites. The final words of Genesis 10 are that “the nations were divided on the earth after the flood.” This is very important to understand because it means that God struck the Babelists with confusion of languages so that they would be forced to resume His divine plan that men should separate into distinct nations and tribes. McDonald is incorrect that the nations were divided only as the result of a sinful rebellion on the part of Nimrod and the Babelists, but you can see why he must take this stance. His unbiblical doctrine of nationhood depends on it.

We affirm that the division of the nations directly led to multiple languages, not multiple skin pigments (Genesis 11:7).

This is where McDonald begins to lose touch with reality. Separation leads to many differences, including languages, genetics, customs, cuisine, and even religious persuasion. It’s very easy to see why God used language as a tool to enforce diversity.

We affirm that Jesus died to secure for Himself a Church, His Bride, which is composed of people from every tribe, language, and nation (Revelation 5:9, 7:9).

We affirm that the reference to the tribes, languages, and nations (Revelation 5:9) is not to establish the principle of eternal distinctions that we must strive to maintain in history, but rather the power of the Gospel to establish the principle of E Pluribus Unum – “out of many, one” which principle of unity we are to pursue and grow into in history. The church triumphant will indeed be comprised of all tribes, languages, and nations, and skin pigmentations, but there is no mandate for such separation in the church militant.

This is blatant ingratitude for God’s gifts to us. The anti-Kinist thanks God for his immediate family but not his extended family. While he recognizes that the Church is comprised of many nations, his unitarian instinct compels him to amalgamate the whole. Then he declares the “nation” of the Church to be the only nation that matters, which is like saying that the invisible Church is all that matters, not the visible Church.

Just as we are told, in the Parable of the Talents, that we dishonor God by failing to appreciate His gifts and put them to the use for which they are intended, we dishonor His Church, comprised of many tribes and nations, when we deny that it reflects His own image. That image is pluriform, not uniform. Christian unity is pluriform; Babelistic unity is uniform.

Having misunderstood this basic trinitarian concept, McDonald fares no better with E Pluribus Unum (“many uniting into one”). Our “racist” Christian forefathers applied this principle to sovereign states in order to create a federal republic. The states did not dissolve into one. Instead, they bestowed limited authority on a national government for matters that were good and necessary for all parties involved. Only when a dictator and his patron bankers exploited a sectional rivalry and legalized murder, rape, and arson did the Old Republic fall, and the Constitution with it. Now, E Pluribus Unum is falsely understood to mean a melting pot of races rather than unified, diverse, and bounded states in a voluntary compact. McDonald advocates racial amalgamation according to the Lincolnian formula. He believes that the Many must be sacrificed to the One. This is why he says “there is no mandate” to “strive to maintain” the divisions that God has imposed on the world for His own glory. He believes that races are accidents and have no purpose except to beget strife, and it is the job of the enlightened Christian to beget love and harmony by undoing these gaffes of history.

The nation of ancient Israel, having boundaries established by God Himself, is our best example of ethnonationalism and unity in diversity. Israel was one nation of multiple tribes. Inheritance laws secured the boundaries of tribal property and thereby discouraged tribal intermarriage. See Numbers 36: “Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe.” The anti-Kinist is required to explain why God did this and why ethnonationalism in our own time is suddenly “heresy.”

We affirm that the Great Commission (Matthew 28:18-20) will fulfill God’s plan of dominion.

Yes, of course, but not your twisted, miscegenated version of dominion. Revelation 21 confirms that the schemes of Babel will be thwarted, and even in heaven “the nations of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth…shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it.” The final chapter of the Bible tells us that the leaves of the Tree of Life are for the healing of the nations.

The word “nation” is defined in Scripture as a race or tribe, as we see in Strong’s Concordance.

We affirm that all men, regardless of ethnic background, are sinners in God’s sight (Romans 3:22-23); but, faith in the finished work of Jesus brings God’s forgiveness and gives new life (Romans 10:13).

We affirm that just as the first century church was comprised of many ethnic groups (Acts 13:1), our church should welcome all, regardless of people group, culture, color, or background (Galatians 3:28).

McDonald wants his church to reflect his vision of the Church, but his vision of the Church draws more inspiration from Marxism than Christianity. If it were a healthy and covenantal view, he would agree with us and with our Christian forefathers that we can honor our forebears, be faithful stewards of our inheritance, and at the same time be spiritually unified with all who are baptized. We reject the anti-Kinist doctrine that “ethnic backgrounds” and “people groups” are not purposely created by God with identities worth preserving.

We affirm that the Gospel breaks down walls of separation (Ephesians 2:13-14), establishes unity inherent in the body (Ephesians 4:3-6), and is the basis for our growing and maturing into visible unity (Ephesians 4:12-16).

What is the “middle wall of separation” in Ephesians 2? Is it the physical separation between races or the spiritual separation between those who were given the Law and those who were not given the Law? In Ephesians 4, does “the unity of the Spirit” necessarily entail unity of the flesh? The apostles did not appear to think so in Acts 15. These questions must be answered, and the burden of proof is on the anti-Kinist, who pretends that Christians have always agreed with him, even though he knows that only since about 1950 have his subversive doctrines become popular.

We affirm that it is this visible unity for which Christ prayed (John 17:20-23).

Christ prayed for unity in diversity, so that God’s creation will reflect God Himself. Notice that McDonald repeatedly uses the adjective “visible.” It’s true that spiritual unity has physical manifestations, beginning with the common purpose of glorifying God in the flesh and helping others in need. But just as each of us is able to do this without sacrificing the exclusive claims of his own family, the races of men are capable of achieving organic human unity while retaining their distinctive gifts and direction. Scripture tells us that the unity of the body does not negate the fact that the body has many members, each with a different function. The common purpose of the hand does not negate the fact that the fingers are separate and unique. This is one of the elementary Christian principles that even children used to understand, and now the wise and learned have become fools.

We affirm that it is this visible unity for which Christ gave gifts to the Church (Ephesians 4:8, 11-13).

Body parts are not designed to be mixed. Stomach acid does not belong in the lungs. Fingers do not belong in the eye or nose. Yet there is no part of the body, no matter how small or seemingly insignificant, that does not have a common purpose with the whole. God gives some of us bodily gifts that others do not possess. How is it that we can all recognize this fact without jumping to the anti-Kinist conclusion that unity requires amalgamation, and that those who oppose amalgamation are “heretics”?

We therefore affirm that it is our duty as pastors and as gifts to the Church to actively teach and disciple this maturity and unity (Hebrews 13:17).

In other words, McDonald pretends that his duty as a pastor is to promote miscegenation as a sign of maturity.

We affirm that racism (any explicit or implicit belief or practice that qualitatively distinguishes and values one people group over other people groups) is sin.

We give McDonald credit for defining the word “racism,” or at least borrowing it from the PCA, but the definition is inadequate. What is a people group? The smallest of these units must logically be the family, yet no Christian in his right mind would deny that we must more highly distinguish and cherish our own families than even the families of our closest friends. If you have guessed that the family is too small a unit to fit McDonald’s definition of a “people group,” you are correct. In a comment submitted afterwards, McDonald explains:

A people group is a significantly large sociological grouping of individuals who perceive themselves to have a common affinity with one another… [A] people group is not a family, it is a macro sociological entity that shares common values, customs, and beliefs.

You’ve gotta love evangelical kooks who devise new words for race, ethnicity, and kinship, even when they believe these to be nothing more than social constructs. Notice that “people groups” share “values, customs, and beliefs,” but not blood! Notice that they don’t really have common affinity – they just perceive it. Notice also that you will not find any pre-modern Christians who agreed with this. For instance, see Chief Justice John Jay’s wise comments on what makes a nation strong; common ancestry is vital.

Fortunately, we have 1 Timothy 5:8 to guide us in the proper direction. We are told 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.” Even many Kinists fail to grasp the breadth of this statement. It does not say that he who does not provide for his immediate family is worse than an infidel. It says that he who does not provide for his own people, and especially those of his own family, is worse than an infidel. No matter how many propositions he might affirm, the anti-Kinist has denied the faith. Refusing to accept that you belong to a people, believing that you belong to a propositional “people,” or considering your own people to be the equals of those who are not, is the same as failing to provide for your own. It’s amusing that we Kinists are called “heretics” by the very same people that the Word of God calls worse than infidels.

The anti-Kinist pretends that 1 Timothy 5:8 refers solely to the Church. This is not possible, of course, because the verse uses the “household” as its basis, which is a government of blood. Blood is the rock upon which the family is built, just as the Word is the Rock upon which the Church is built. The anti-Kinist breaks this blood covenant by building his house on the sand of interracial marriage and interracial adoption. He strives to make his “family” every bit as propositional as his “nation,” and this is sinful because it works against God’s purpose in the world.

If a family is not blood-based, what is a father?

Douglas Jones does a better job of stating the position that McDonald is trying to convey. He has been widely quoted on his statement that it is sinful for parents to forbid marriages solely on the basis of race. (As further evidence of his confusion, Jones has written: “One of the best ways of beginning to think about the nature of Christianity is to think of it in the light of Judaism.”) But it’s refreshing to find in Jones an anti-Kinist who is not as hypocritical as McDonald and many others and is willing to follow his hateful ideas where they lead him. In a sermon entitled “Who Are Your People?” which he preached on October 29, 2006, Jones made a more consistent and gnostic case against Kinism:

“Neither Scots, Spaniards, Saxons, nor Zulus are a people… In the end, only the Church International is the people of God. We have something very revolutionary going on in the New Testament. We have, in a sense, all bloodlines being suppressed as unimportant… So our tribe, our people, actually come out of Zulus, come out of Scots, come out of Finns, come out of everywhere, to make a new people of God… Blood doesn’t matter, in this case… Christ comes along and says, ‘This blood isn’t important’; His Blood is important… You are not bound by blood, you are not bound by nationality – you are bound by baptism.”

This is helpful in bringing into focus what the anti-Kinists mean when they accuse us of racism. But how can those who want to preserve a race and those who want to destroy a race be called racists? This definition is too broad to be a definition at all. And while anti-Kinists are carelessly tossing the r-word as a verbal grenade, they pretend to appreciate a diversity of cultures. Please don’t pretend that you respect a diversity of cultures if you are participating in the destruction of my culture.

Racism denies the Gospel (Galatians 2:11-16).

It’s important that you not associate the nebulous term “racism” here with all the ways in which it might be defined, but only with the way in which McDonald defines it. Is it a denial of the gospel to place a higher value on our own families and kin than those who are in the most distant parts of the earth? Was it selfish for King David to weep louder for his son Absalom than for the sons lost by others?

We Kinists do not believe that our own families and kin have a higher ontological value than anyone else created in God’s image. We are not “supremacists,” as the word is commonly understood. Even when our own children falter and disappoint us, our love for them does not wane. Even if they aren’t very bright or self-disciplined, our duty and affection for them remains greater than for the children of any other family. Every parent knows this to be true, just as every living soul understands that there are concentric spheres to his loyalty. It is impossible to consider all men as equals and to be equally obligated to all.

Now, consider the quoted passage from Galatians 2. Is it about the necessity of Judeans and Gentiles to form a commingled heritage, or was the act of refusing to eat with the supposedly “unclean” a denial of justification by faith in Jesus Christ? Clearly, it is about the latter, and the reason is stated plainly: “by the works of the law no flesh shall be justified.” Does McDonald think that Paul renounced his tribe or his nation on this account? He did not even renounce his Roman citizenship! No, in Romans 9:3, he says that his love for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” was so strong that, if possible, he would have sacrificed himself so that they might live. Paul was a Kinist; he did not pretend that his only “people” were the Christians of the world.

Racism is a form of idolatry (Exodus 20:3-4).

Again, you must use McDonald’s own definition of racism to verify if the quoted passage proves that the duties of kinship are idolatrous. How does the desire to be a faithful steward of God’s gifts equate to idolatry?

Racism is a form of murder (Exodus 20:13, Matthew 5:21-22, 1 John 3:14-15, see also Westminster Larger Catechism 135 & 136).

This is the most amazing affirmation of all. If we are morally obligated to abandon the white race and join ourselves solely to Christians, this is genocide, because the result will be that the white race, which God created for His own glory, will cease to exist. Genocide is murder. If, on the other hand, Kinists are correct that we can be united to our people of the flesh and to our fellow Christians, who is being murdered? As was true for Pharaoh and Caiaphas, McDonald’s own words are turned upon himself.

The passages that McDonald quotes imply that we are motivated by anger without a cause and by hatred for our brothers. Where is the proof for this? If none is offered quickly, McDonald should repent of his false witness and his accusations should be retracted. (It is obvious that these affirmations are prompted by the presence of Kinists within McDonald’s own church, which is also the reason for Brian Abshire’s article below.)

We affirm that, from God’s perspective, there is only one race, the human race (Acts 17:26) and that God is only concerned with one division of men: the seed of the serpent and the seed of Christ (Matthew 25:31-46).

This is the very thing that needs to be proved and has not been proved. Still, we can all agree that we are saved by grace, not race. No man is saved by his blood or social status or anything of this world.

We affirm that in Jesus, we are made into one nation, one people, one priesthood (1 Peter 2:9-10).

There is a sense in which this is true and a sense in which it is false, and to understand the difference requires a trinitarian rather than a unitarian understanding of God and Man. There is one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism. There is the human race with Adam as its federal head and the race of the redeemed with Christ as its federal head. In different ways, Adam and Christ are the firstborn of many brothers. We are only capable of understanding the Church as a spiritual “people” or “nation” if our bonds of blood are real. I am only able to recognize the sense in which I have brothers in Christ because I know the importance of my brothers in the flesh. A spiritual “nation” cannot exist in the absence of physical nations, just as the Church of the Elect cannot exist without physical, visible churches.

We affirm that while national and familial ties are important, our covenantal relationship to Jesus overrides all ethnic bonds (Matthew 12:46-50).

The double-minded are unstable in all their ways. McDonald hopes to straddle the fence here, but we won’t let him get away with it. If there is only one race (meaning no races), how are national, ethnic, and family bonds important? Are these not idols? These are questions that must be answered. We Kinists agree that “our covenantal relationship to Jesus” is more important than all other allegiances. This is not the point of dispute.

We affirm that there are positive examples of marriage between people groups in the Bible, and that Jesus’ own genealogy testifies of the engrafting of other people groups into the Messianic line (Numbers 12:1, Ruth 1:16, Matthew 1:5) and that such marriages are not sinful.

We have shown for years that the examples offered (the “black wife” of Moses, Ruth the “Moabite,” and Rahab the “Canaanite”) fall flat as proofs that God and Israel excused forbidden marriages, which means that they do not justify interracial marriage either. Notice that McDonald assumes their validity and then pronounces that “such marriages are not sinful.” The question is much broader than this: Can anyone, under penalty of the Fifth Commandment, rightfully ignore the wishes of his parents for the kind of person he should marry, even if there are racial restrictions? And if this is not sinful, what is to prevent a legal jurisdiction from outlawing the same? Questions…that…must…be…answered.

We affirm that while culture and ethnicity may be an issue to be considered in choosing a spouse, one of the only barriers to marriage for the Christian is that the potential spouse be in the Lord (1 Corinthians 7:39, see also the Westminster Confession of Faith 24:3). Other barriers include consanguinity (Leviticus 18, 1 Corinthians 5:1, Amos 2:7), unlawful divorce (Matthew 19:8–9, 1 Corinthians 7:15), and polygamy (Genesis 2:18, 21-25).

More double-mindedness. This does not appear to be intended as a comprehensive list of biblical restrictions, and McDonald leaves the gate open with the words “ethnicity may be an issue.” Now the cows have trampled the corn and are munching on the grapevine. The livestock are running wild because McDonald was concentrating on plugging a gaping hole in his argument, which is that polygamy can scarcely be called a barrier to marriage if the only requirement (as we often hear) is “that the potential spouse be in the Lord.” This is why he lists some other prohibitive cases, with polygamy in the caboose. The point being ignored, which Kinists will continue to hammer, is that there are many good and biblically-acceptable reasons for forbidding marriage, including the reasons McDonald lists, and a father knows perfectly well what will prosper his children and what will hinder them. Who is to convict him of sin for exercising this parental prerogative?

We affirm that children born to couples of different ethnicities are covenant blessings (Psalm 127:3) and are to be brought up in the training and admonition of the Lord (Ephesians 6:4).

This is a clever misrepresentation of the game that is afoot. It assumes that races are irrelevant and interracial marriage, which is an unequal yoke that is contrary to God’s pattern and purpose, is perfectly normal. The bastard child of a whore should not answer for the sins of his mother, but in acknowledging that his life has value, we must be careful not to excuse the act which conceived him.

We affirm that the blood of Jesus makes us one in Him, and that Jesus paid for our sin, even the sin of racism. And thus, we encourage all members of Providence Church to embrace the admonition of Colossians 3:11–15…

Just as it’s the habit of anti-Kinists to ignore the second half of Acts 17:26, many of them try to be clever by quoting Colossians 3:11, which is the sister verse of Galatians 3:28. The reason this works in their favor is because they know how well we have exposed their rape of Galatians 3:28, and they are discomforted by the realization that, according to their perverted theology, if races no longer exist after the Cross then neither do sexes.

We agree that the blood of Christ has redeemed us, and we are unified in the Holy Spirit. We deny that “racism,” as McDonald has defined it, is a sin. If it were actually a sin, everyone would be guilty of it, because everyone values his family above all others. This does not imply hatred for other families. On the contrary, a man with strong family bonds is able to more fully appreciate and show love to those who are outside the family. Those with strong extended family bonds can better show love to complete strangers. This is basic Kinism and basic Christianity. It is why the gospel was designed to be spread from Judea to Samaria to the uttermost ends of the earth.

Our hope and prayer is that James McDonald and Providence Church return quickly to the faith.

We’ll also comment briefly on Brian Abshire’s foray against Kinists. We agree with much that Abshire has written, but too much of it is disagreeable.

We agree that “the key issue that separates men” is religion, and the most important thing to know about a man is whether he is a Christian. But we deny that there is anything wrong with men of the same religion being separated. Again, think of the tribes of Israel. We agree that culture is “invigorated, renewed, and transformed” by the gospel, but we deny that “all culture is religion externalized,” and nothing more.

Abshire asserts that “xenophobia” is a “manifestation of original sin.” But in the cases he cites, it is obviously a healthy trust of those who are well-known and a healthy distrust of those who are not well-known. This is how God created us, and the effect of cosmopolitanism is that even those who are closely related, who would otherwise trust each other, retreat into their shells like turtles. Without trust, everything suffers. Homogeneous nations are able to build strong economies because business is based on trust.

Abshire blames the problems of massive, multiracial immigration on religious differences alone.

Our social disintegration that rightly deserves a Christian response is not a result of the massive influx of black, brown or yellow people leaving their traditional homelands – but because the gospel of Jesus Christ has not yet sufficiently changed people’s lives – neither theirs, nor “ours.” The cultures these people come from either have not received the gospel, or worked out its implications consistently in family, work, recreation, charity, etc… The solution then is not playing the “race card” – but rather in rediscovering a truly consistent Christian faith, and aggressive evangelism, verified by one’s own transformed life.

The anti-Kinist denies that the tension inherent in polyglot societies and the lopsided crime statistics that overwhelm us have any racial component at all. Notice the suggestion that even a “massive influx” of other races would be acceptable if everyone could act like a true Christian. Abshire knows that blacks and mestizos are Christians too, so he digs for excuses: the gospel “has not yet sufficiently changed people’s lives” and the invaders have not yet “worked out its implications consistently,” which means that theirs is not “a truly consistent Christian faith” until they have been “significantly affected by the Gospel.” Schwertley uses similar language. Apparently, we need to wait another thousand years or so before those who claim to be Christians act civilized. While the rest of us engage in the “aggressive evangelism” needed to move hostile foreigners along this path, Mr. Abshire will be in lily-white Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. Like Schwertley, he can’t be expected to actually solve the problem. It’s his job to tell you how to solve the problem, and your job to deal with it.

Of course, no white man who moves his family to Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, wants his children to grow up around violent Negroes and Salvadoran MS-13 gangs, and we’re confident that Abshire is no exception. There is surely more to him than meets the eye. He might just be a privately sensible man who needs to overcome his fear and help his people survive. No man with mouths to feed and a job that depends on having approved opinions can blame him for being fearful. We’ve all been there.

Abshire places the words “ours” and “race” and “minority” in quotes, which is a trick that anti-Kinists like to play. They deny that we are a people, and they deny that there are other peoples.

When Abshire writes that men ought to be “united by ties stronger than blood,” he is really saying that there should be no bond of blood at all. This is the same sort of hypocrisy that is evident in what McDonald wrote. Abshire claims that faith is the “only distinction that matters” (emphasis his). In terms of salvation, this is true, but this is not what the anti-Kinist is saying. When McDonald writes that “national and familial ties are important,” he is being dishonest. Anti-Kinists believe that such concerns of the flesh do not matter at all.

The same theological errors are present in Abshire’s article. “God divided men at Babel into various linguistic/cultural groups.” As we’ve shown, this began prior to Babel. Though it seems to be a minor point, anti-Kinists never fail to get this wrong. “Throughout the Old Testament the dividing line between men was never race…” If this is true then it becomes impossible to explain why Ezra and Nehemiah separated Israelites from their own Babylonian spouses and children. The Apostle Paul tells us that we should not divorce unbelieving wives. Abshire apparently believes that God has changed His mind.

As we saw with McDonald, Abshire tries to straddle the fence by denouncing “any doctrine or practice that makes unlawful distinctions between Christians” as failure to show “love for the brethren.” This is the very point of contention, yet to be resolved.

We Kinists deny that it is “love” to place our posterity at risk of death and dispossession simply to satisfy the unbiblical and ahistorical theories of nationality and culture held by anti-Kinists. We believe that good fences make good neighbors.

The most interesting part of Abshire’s article is that (in his second to last paragraph) he grants that interracial marriage can be justifiably forbidden under the Fifth Commandment. He calls this a “pragmatic” rather than a scripturally binding reason, but in either case he can expect to be denounced as a heretic by the Reformitards. Perhaps this will not displease him.

McDonald’s mendacious, muddled manifesto and Abshire’s abysmal, aberrant abnegations are positively profound compared to the laughable “refutations” of Kinism by Steve Halbrook, who is working overtime to justify his own miscegenation. If this is the best the anti-Kinists can do, they had better call up reinforcements. How can they not be embarrassed by such flawed logic and sinful false witness? We honestly considered not responding at all, because it’s bad form to pick on someone who is not up to the task. Instead, we’ll limit the response to several brief points:

1. Where do these people get the idea that we believe the judgment at Babel was not punishment for sin? It was. It was also an act of mercy, and the faithful chastisement of a righteous Father, because the rebellion was not allowed to continue. We have never said that the people at Babel were engaged in “race-mixing” per se, but rather that race-mixers like Halbrook, in calling for races to amalgamate, seek to join what God has providentially separated, and therefore are Babelist rebels themselves.

2. We have never argued that “race and language are inseparable” or that “race and geographic boundaries are inseparable.” Wouldn’t it be more productive to substitute our actual arguments for these straw men? Have you ever noticed that anti-Kinists never quote Kinists? This is because their blogs are so pure and Truly Reformed that even so much as linking to a Kinist blog might bring them under the condemnation of their local heresy tribunal. It’s easier to wage battle with phantoms. We really do make a sincere effort to faithfully represent the beliefs of our adversaries. I think this is obvious to any objective bystander, just as it is obvious that the favor is not returned.

3. The fun thing about a chain of false witness is that one link leads to another. Halbrook writes: “if America was an all-white kinist nation, then it would forbid Chinese Christians from coming to America to escape persecution.” This is special pleading designed to distract attention from the threat of open borders and open citizenship. As we’ve always said, give us biblical property laws that keep our inheritance within the tribe, and we won’t have to build a thousand-mile fence at the border. But to be fair, I hope the neo-Babelists will explain to the Japanese that right after they become Christians, they’ll have to abandon their “racist” immigration laws. Let me know how that works out!

4. Did he really just quote “Acts 17:26a” without the rest of the verse? Oh, dear. I believe he did. And in the same article, he says we have an “obsession with twisting Scripture.”

5. He claims that Tamar was a Canaanite. No, Tamar was the daughter of Aram who was the son of Kemuel who was the son of Nahor of Mesopotamia, the brother of Abraham (Genesis 22:21). We’ve addressed Halbrook’s other bloodsmut examples numerous times, and they hold no more weight than his lie about Tamar.

6. He even tries to make Abraham’s calling away “from your country and your kindred” normative. Yes, he actually says that the nations will be blessed if we all do likewise. Why would children not also be blessed for leaving their families?

7. He even tries to justify miscegenation and propositional “nations” because the Apostle Paul resolved to be “all things to all people.” Do you see what I mean? This is just sad. And this guy calls himself a “teacher of theonomy, apologetics, and history.” If I were enrolled at “New Geneva Christian Leadership Academy,” I think I would have to demand a refund.

8. Actually, the most interesting part is the quote from John W. Robbins: “Borders were instituted for the purpose of separating rulers, not peoples, from each other.” There is no way possible to square this statement with Numbers 36 or any of the other laws governing tribal inheritance. Is the fence surrounding your yard for the purpose of separating you from your neighbors or your property from theirs?

We could go on, and for instance, refute the quite false suggestion that Moab was not wiped out (see the reference to Deuteronomy 2 but not to Numbers 21). But what’s the point?

These men are proof that Ghandi was correct when he said: “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.”

For additional background on the perverted anti-Kinist mindset, see Petr’s comment here which compares anti-Kinism to the celibacy mania of the medieval era. “Both were and are grounded on the semi-Gnostic conviction that it is beneath a truly spiritual person to form extensive contacts with this material world. The church is the only allowable family for both celibate priest and Babelist believer.” Both are equally hypocritical. Just as “a priest could maintain a mistress with all villagers knowing about it, but he could not marry her,” so the anti-Kinist moves to an all-white or mostly-white area to pound his pulpit and call for universal racial admixture.

‎”There was a law among the Jews which forbade the yoking together of certain animals, either because, being unequal in size or strength, one of them must be oppressed, or for the sake of some lesson thus embodied to the Eastern mind – possibly for both reasons. Half the tragedy would be taken out of social life if this law could be applied to human beings.” ~ George MacDonald, The Butcher’s Bills

Perhaps MacDonald did not realize it, but such laws as found in Leviticus 19:19 were given not primarily for animals but for human beings, as 1 Corinthians 9:9-10 makes clear:

Is it oxen God is concerned about? Or does He say it altogether for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written, that he who plows should plow in hope, and he who threshes in hope should be partaker of his hope.