Prevailing Winds "For the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is there is freedom . . ." 2 Cor. 3:17, TNIV

“For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth) and find out what pleases the Lord. Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.” Ephesians 5:8-12 (NIV)

If you’ve kept up with the “Comments” section of Prevailing Winds, you’ll remember that my harshest critic — or, at least, the harshest of those who bother writing — is a gentleman so afraid of . . . something . . . that he calls himself “Dontbia Nass.” I’ve reprinted below my response to his latest harangue, which you can read in the Comments section, and which comes from my attack on Kinism and other racial superiority/pro-Confederate theologies. Because comments are public, I’m highlighting my response to Nass, which will make more sense once you’ve waded through his criticisms of my two recent posts. And, Nass, you surely recall that I said upfront that Wilson condemns Kinists (me, I’d go for something stronger than “vainglorious,” but it’s clear he doesn’t like them), and I’m sure you don’t really take literally the (false) axiom of “saved by race, not by grace,” which I used as hyperbole to introduce the grotesque racism of the Kinist crowd, as well as the more refined, gentleman-like racial separatism of the Neo-Confederates.

My response to Nass’ comment:

“. . . You’ve asked me to confirm, verify, prove, or otherwise demonstrate why I believe that the filth of Kinism — and it is filthy — has filtered into some of Reformed/Reconstructionist theology, both here and elsewhere. I will, then, devote as much time as I can to the subject, demonstrating that there is a coziness with, if not undiscerning acceptance of, ideas and people whose message is an insult to the Gospel — and that Wilson is guilty of some of that. For the record, I don’t believe that Wilson is a racist; I’ve made this point a zillion times. I believe he is something even worse: A man who practices and preaches an insouciance toward racial sensitivity and acts of bigotry that is wholly at odds with the preaching and living out of the Gospel. To be blunt: He lacks consideration of how his words (actions, affiliations, etc.) affect those outside of the Church who then wrongly assume that careless bigotry is a hallmark of Spirit-filled living. To be more blunt: His gleeful way of offering up unnecessary offense and shameful skylarking sullies the Gospel. Publishing an apologetic for snottiness, “The Serrated Edge,” doesn’t legitimize it. So, there’s the thesis, Nass, and there’s more, much more, to come.” (end of comment response)

So, for those who didn’t get it the first time: Wilson is not a Kinist. They dislike his work and so do I. I also don’t think he’s a racist. I do, however, think it’s shameful that he doesn’t eliminate from his world, as sources and as companions, those who are. I think it’s shameful to deliberately offend with offenses not intrinsic to the Gospel. And I would think that an earnest desire to evangelize the community (which, granted, is not something Wilson or his ministries are known for) would absolutely preclude uncritical, non-confrontational fellowship with people and ideas that are racist, exclusionist, bigoted and otherwise wrong. If his involvement with such were evangelistic — a ministry to those swimming in the waters of Kinist thought, not fellowship with them — I’d be thrilled.

And, as a side note, Nass suggests I ask Voddie Baucham, a Black Calvinist pastor, about how he sees Wilson. Funny you should ask. New St. Andrews’ invited Baucham to speak at its graduation this year; I wrote an impassioned email to Baucham asking that he reconsider his acceptance, given the racial insensitivity and outright bigotry I’ve seen from the Kirk. I didn’t get an answer, and I assumed he spoke. Believe me, Nass, I spend a lot of time trying to establish dialogue with opponents, and even the ones who use their real names don’t seem to want to talk with me. I’ll grant that you’ll suggest it’s because I’m an abrasive, obnoxious, screeching feminist; I’ll just assume that they’re really, really, busy — or they sense that this stuff is indefensible. So please don’t think that I’m unwilling to engage with my critics, and be patient as I respond to the charges you’ve made against me.

Last thing: Yeah, I believe Wilson to be a Christian. That’s kinda why all this matters to me . . .

The headline: Lone Gunman Shoots Holocaust Museum Guard

The suspect: An elderly neo-Nazi

That his website is called “Holy Western Nation” tells us pretty much all we need to know about would-be assassin James Von Brunn, who today gunned down a guard at the Holocaust Memorial in Washington, D.C. Von Brunn was well known both to civil rights groups and other neo-Nazi, white supremacist “Christians,” a passionate, educated, and media savvy scourge of the South. These filth-mongers, like the good men at Kinist.org and Spirit/Water/Blood.com, pour out hatred of Jews, Blacks, and other non-whites while claiming a homeless Jew of questionable birth as their Savior — and do so even when calling Jews today “a walking curse.”

The disconnect here is the least disturbing element of Kinism; the most disturbing is that even one person in history has uttered such hate without being publicly, sharply, and unhesitatingly rebuked by the Church he or she claims as their own. But Kinism and other philosophies of racial supremacy haven’t been silenced and transformed by the Church. Too often, it’s the Church — the covenant people of Jesus Christ — that has nurtured and proclaimed Kinist filth, wallowing in some white European ideal that speaks against both reality and against the Gospel.

The violence today at the Holocaust Museum wasn’t just an example of one crazy person going off on a rampage. It was an assault against Jews past and present, and until the Church condemns not just the violence but the evil philosophy that propels it, it will have to continue to explain how it is that people can seize hold of a Satanic worldview and do so finding comfort and support within its own walls.

I’ve been spending a lot of time on Kinist websites like Spirit/Water/Blood and Kinism.org, as well as neo-Confederate sites like that of the League of the South, a favorite group of Doug Wilson’s co-laborer in slavery apologetics, Steven Wilkins. I’ve bookmarked some Internet sites that are so filthy from racism, hate, and bigotry that they threaten at times to tax my unwavering support for the First Amendment; the filthiest among them expound religious beliefs that solidify my belief in original sin and the evil unleashed at the Fall. It’s not pornography; I’m not Ed Meese. But there’s some really vile stuff out there written by people who call themselves Christians, find support among the like-minded in the pews, and seem to believe they’re saved by race, not by grace.

I don’t enjoy going through this trash. On the other hand, if I had a septic tank bubbling and threatening to blow, I’d find it necessary to check on it often. Because I believe it’s imperative for the Christian to analyze, expose, and confront evil done in the name of Christ — evil that too often finds itself encouraged, if not expressed, locally — I find that maintaining my blog — my voice — requires that I keep up to date on the beliefs and activities of evil men and women who claim the name of Christ. Silence is assent; the Reconstructionist/Kinist/Neo-Confederate/hyper-Libertarian mix these people call covenant, Reformed Christianity has a foothold here in Moscow, and while Wilson and his cohorts condemn Kinists as “moonbats” and “vainglorious,” the racist, pro-South, anti-government, patriarchal thread of Christiandom has been woven into too much of Christ Church’s fabric of faith and practice. It presents a false Gospel and a message of exclusion, it’s made frequent forays into my town, and it needs to be confronted by me and other Spirit-enlivened Trinitarians. It’s an exercise in endurance and self control — a baptism of filth, no less necessary for the horror it stirs in me.

Kinists believe that the Lord created “the nations” as distinct people-groups and that their separation and “purity” must be maintained, particularly that of the dominant Anglo culture in the United States. This insistence on the Anglo-Celtic peoples’ (alleged) identity echoes and finds comfort in the neo-Confederate assertion that white Southerners are a distinct, beleaguered, and ultimately God-favored people whose purity and preservation is paramount — indeed, whose dominance is a proper fruit of the Gospel. The racial, ethnic, gender, class and societal unity Christ calls his Church to seems entirely foreign to people who churn out exhaustive apologetics that vilify and mock Jews and Blacks while defending and proclaiming the “purity” of their own race — a race that doesn’t exist and is rendered irrelevant anyway when it comes to both access to the Cross and participation in the Church and the already/not yet Kingdom of God.

The Kinist obsession with Blood — racial and ethnic purity — is utterly opposed to the Christian significance of the saving Blood of Christ. His is the blood that saves; the only “blood-commonality” that matters is the union of men and women whose sins are atoned for by the shedding of his blood on the Cross. These people — anyone who claims white superiority in the name of Jesus — are whores, evildoers, and Christ-haters. And in the case of Spirit/Water/Blood.com, borrowing a verse from 1 John in the New Testament further condemns them (1 John 5:7-8, “For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement.”).

I wish I could shout it from the highest mountain; I’ll shout it ’til the day I die in my writing: There is no agreement by the Holy Spirit, through the waters of Christian baptism, and in the Blood of Jesus Christ, that ethnic separation and superiority can exist within Christ’s Church. It cannot, and those who try to accommodate such hate find themselves condemned not by a righteously angry, profoundly grieved woman in North Idaho, but by the very Word and Spirit of God. When racist filth is poured out, it splatters and stains and spreads, creeping into “respectable” organizations and ministries that try to cover it up with the rank fragrance of manufactured historical and theological validity. May it never be. There is no Christ-honoring tradition or theology that countenances racism, and the “good” theology of the Christian racist is fruit of a poisonous tree, entirely deadly for those who pick it and utterly condemnable for those who propagate it.

Like virtually all professing Christians, I vehemently condemn the murder of abortion doctor George Tiller by a “pro-life” vigilante claiming Christ as Savior. I also condemn, with equal vehemence, the murder of two Little Rock, Arkansas, servicemen shot to death by a Muslim convert claiming adherence to Islam. Both are examples of sickening vigilantism fanned by inflammatory rhetoric from “more respectable” members of the faith, not to mention the assassins’ own evil.

Let’s be fair, though. If we Christians delight in the Little Rock killer’s being called in some quarters a “Muslim terrorist,” even as we deplore his actions, we ought to be aware that others are calling Tiller’s assassin a “Christian terrorist.” I don’t think the murderer of the two servicemen was a true Muslim any more than I would call Tiller’s executor a true Christian. As long as people who claim the name of Christ Jesus speak, in supposed reverence to him, words that incite hatred, violence, and sacrifices of vigilante devotion, the name of our faith will be used as an adjective describing murderers.

I believe with all of my heart that abortion is the taking of human life. In this, I echo the beliefs of my feminist foremothers, Christian or not. But I am as uncomfortable with legislating against first-term abortions as I am with the legality of late-term abortions. Further, I do not believe that “murder” accurately describes the intent of desperate women seeking to “terminate a pregnancy” under circumstances I can’t imagine. “Murder” presupposes intent; the crimes of the two vigilantes above accurately describe the word. The actions of most women who have aborted pregnancies don’t indicate the intent to kill a living being, because the unborn child is not seen by them as a human being. The result — a dead human — is the same, but as our laws recognize a difference between “murder” and “involuntary manslaughter,” Christians ought to stop demonizing women who seek abortion.

No, I have not had an abortion. Yes, I would acknowledge it here if I had. But as a woman, I have a stronger foundation from which to comment than the foundation that some men — some, not all — speak from. Some men revere fetal life more than they revere women and womanhood. There are many, many men who deplore abortion out of strong, consistent, Biblical beliefs, thank God, but there are many others who, as “Christians,” hate any form of women’s sexuality and being that isn’t subjugated to them. That kernel of fear is too often nurtured in the soil of hatred and suspicion that’s no more Christian for being proclaimed from the pulpit than it is “pro-life” in any form apart from it.

“Genuine community cannot exist where social and economic conditions exploit some members of the community or place members of the community at too great a distance from each other. Although individuals, businesses, and the church itself have a responsibility for establishing a just distribution of goods, government also must work to eliminate unjust social and economic conditions and maintain fairness . . . (Catholic Social Teaching) does recognize a right to private property and to the fruits of one’s initiative, but it recognizes as well that all private property carries what the church calls a ‘social mortgage;’ that is, private property must be directed ultimately by the principle of the universal destination of goods and by the common good. Individual initiative always depends on supportive social structures and the often-invisible efforts and sacrifices of other members.”

Roman Catholic theologian Clarke E. Cochran, “Church, State, and Public Justice,” IVP 2007

“Adam became subject to the soil from which he had been taken. Eve became subject to Adam, from whom she had been taken . . . The Fall had spawned the twin evils of women suffering in labor and of man’s laboring in suffering. As a result of Satan’s work, man was now master over woman, just as the mother-ground was now master over man. For this reason, it is proper to regard both male dominance and death as antithetical to God’s original intent in creation.”

Gilbert Bilezikian, “Beyond Sex Roles,” Baker 2006

From my May 30 post on Moscow’s Vision 2020 online forum:

I find it interesting that white men who howl about affirmative action and entitlement are evidently unable to see that very many of their compatriots in the halls of power in this country were the recipients of “special consideration,” like “legacy admissions” to Yale for George W. Bush, that elevated them not because of their ability and experience, but because of who they were apart from ability and experience. “Who they were” was defined by their being white men. For generations, white men have been boosted onto pedestals of power by other white men, richer, more powerful, older, and more seasoned, who knew their fathers, worked with their grandfathers, were beholden to their uncles, or golfed with their brothers. Patronage, legacy admissions, nepotism, and political pay-back are forms of affirmative action that have benefited the majority but are now forgotten in the debate over legitimate social policy and “reverse racism.”

I’m married to and in love with a white man, I’ve raised two young white men to adulthood, and my beloved dad was a white man. What’s wonderful about all of them is that they recognize that their skin color and gender will generally favor them in this world, and they recognize that as true injustice, seek to reduce how much they benefit from it, and work for justice across gender, race, class and social lines. Being born a white male obviously isn’t a birth defect. But there is a sense in which being born into privilege increases the likelihood of certain sinful attitudes — greed, manipulation, power-seeking, prejudice and lack of empathy — that wise Christian parents anticipate and seek to prune in their children, redirecting traits that are often and mistakenly viewed as “leadership” into that character the Word recognizes as “servanthood.” I pray God is pleased with how my two young white men navigate through this world, and that he is satisfied with how their father and I raised them.