A Commonsense View of Racism, Racial Prejudice and Racial Generalizations

The Governor of Virginia made a public statement which implied that it would be permissible to murder a baby who has inconveniently survived the attempts of abortionists to end his life in the womb, and has been born alive. This shocking revelation provoked a storm of protest and many calls for his immediate resignation, as a person who had shown himself to be unfit for public office

However he resisted the pressure to resign; and shortly after the commission of the original offense, evidence of a really criminal nature has emerged — namely, an old picture that supposedly proves he is a “racist”. This threatened the end of his political career.

Racism seems to be the one crime that is unpardonable these days. The very allegation that one is a racist can completely ruin one’s life! Now it appears that, to many people, the murder of innocent and helpless human beings for hire is no crime at all; but having once dressed up in blackface or a white sheet for a joke is an outrage not to be born!  What’s wrong with this picture?

Prejudice versus Dislike

Let’s begin with the fact that all people have prejudices and things that they dislike about other people groups. These two things must be distinguished; for while prejudice is always wrong; one may dislike things that are really characteristic of a certain class of people without fault.

A prejudice is a “pre-judgment” of the character of a person or persons. It is an unwarranted disposition to view others who are in some respect different from ourselves, in a negative way, and to treat them accordingly. When a customer enters a store and is served with reluctance and rudeness because of his ancestry , this is an expression of prejudice — in particular, what we used to call “racial prejudice”.

Prejudice expresses itself in such things as mocking, disparaging, and otherwise abusing members of the despised class, often when no one of that class is present to object. For example, poor people are often prejudiced against rich people as a group, just because they are rich, and as a result indulge in hateful words and sometimes spiteful acts against them. English people often display their disgust with French people in the same way, calling them “frogs”.

General Statements that are True

But it is not wrong to recognize and sometimes to state the fact that a particular nation is generally lacking in some virtues, when this is true of them. An example is the statement of the Apostle Paul to Titus, his apprentice, concerning the people of Crete to whom he was being sent:

“One of themselves, even a prophet of their own, said, ‘The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies.’ This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith…” (Tit 1:12-13)

This unflattering description was not a gratuitous expression of “racism” or mere prejudice on Paul’s part. He had had personal experience working among them; and found that it was true – not in every particular case — but as a generalization. One of their own, a poet, is quoted in proof of their bad character. Not all of them were infected with all these vices; but they were common enough among them to make Paul’s allegation generally true. It was necessary to prepare Titus for the problems he would face in his new parish, and how to handle them.

Racial Prejudice versus Racism

Racial prejudice is no different from any other prejudice. We all have them; and it would be impossible to eradicate them from any human being, even the most saintly. Prejudices may lead to crimes; but they are not in themselves criminal. They are immoral. They are sins. But they are not crimes.

Racism is another matter. Racism is the belief that one’s own race is superior to other races; and that this supposedly superior race is entitled to treat other races as a lower form of life — even to destroy them, in the interest of making the world better. Sometimes it is rooted in the dogma of a demagogue, like Louis Farrakhan. But in most cases, it is based on the evolutionary dogmas of the survival of the fittest, and of the development of man from animals.  Superior races are to inferior ones as the first humans were to the apes from which they came. To treat them like animals is therefore right and proper. To make use of them as we make use of horses or cows, to kill them whenever it is useful for us to do so — these are the logical consequences of racist doctrine.

White and Black Racism

To call one a racist because he may be racially prejudiced is to evidence a different kind of prejudice on the part of the accuser. It is usually people of African descent who use the term, and it is usually applied to “white” people — that is, Caucasians. White people are assumed to believe in the superiority of their own race and their right to lord it over black people. This is rarely true. It is certainly not true of most white people I have known.

To believe, without evidence, that it is true of all of us is at least prejudicial and unjust, and at worst, it is black racism. To charge it upon any of us who evidences the least hint of racial prejudice (or none at all) is slander, defamation, and incitement to violence; just as the ravings of the Nazis against the Jews were slander and defamation and incitement to violence! It makes no difference that the Nazis were in a position of power and therefore able to dispose of the Jews as they wished. There are places, such as Zimbabwe and now South Africa where the opposite is true, and racial prejudice of the opposite kind has given rise to a kind of racist dogma that has been used to justify black people in robbing and killing white men en masse.

Doubtless, it is the intention and the goal of black racists in America to overthrow what it sees to be a white racist culture.  Many of them state it openly. Those people of European descent who are afraid to resist or to do anything that might invite the accusation of racism are doing all of us a disservice. They ought to confront the evil; exposing it as a weapon employed by those who would dominate us, if they could.

It Matters

It is important to draw the distinction between racial prejudice and racism. It is important to point out the ineradicable fact of prejudice in the sinful human heart. It is important that we defend the right of all people to make informed judgments about the character of their own and other social groups and to state them publicly. It is important to take this weapon out of the hands of those who are as racially prejudiced as we are, before this country is torn apart, and quite possibly by a bloody civil war.

Howard Douglas King

February 3, 2019

The Great Deformation

How Technological Society Deformed the Traditional Church

Industrialism has affected every individual and altered every institution of society. The church is no exception. The ills of this deeply troubled institution have been blamed on many causes, but any analysis that does not take into account the effects of industrialism must fail to give an accurate picture. Let’s look at some of the more obvious effects of the technological society in the church.

“When a human society moves from traditional to technological society, a basic principle changes in the organization of the social structure. The organization shifts from a social pattern in which relationship is the most fundamental consideration to a social pattern in which functional accomplishment is the most fundamental consideration. An overall systemic change occurs in the structure of human society, and this change reshapes everything in human life. Because the change is systemic, many elements change in a subordinate way. ” (Man and Woman in Christ, Stephen B. Clark, p.472)

In our last installment, we saw that the strong traditional family has been reduced to the modern “nuclear” family, or conjugal unit. This radical alteration and weakening of the basic unit of society alone would have adversely affected the church if nothing else had. The church has been weakened by the weakness of the family. The church is modeled after the family, and so any fundamental change in the family must either clash with the traditional pattern of familial life in the church, or the church must adapt to the changed family, and become weakened by doing so. If the love of a man for his brother and sister in the extended, consanguineal family (the pattern for relationships in the church) becomes weak, then the exercise of brotherly love in the church will be correspondingly reduced. If the pattern of respect for the aged and care for the infirm in the family is destroyed, then how can it be retained in the church? When a man’s wife works in the office or factory, supervising the work of men, how can she be expected to accept a subordinate role in the church?

It is bad enough that the family has been pushed to the brink of destruction. One effect of this has been the complete detachment of many individuals from families, and the effective replacement of the family as the fundamental unit of society by the isolated individual. The church suffers from the presence of people who have been torn away from the support of committed relationships, who do not know how and/or are unwilling to commit to anyone. Work, the mortgage and the car payment are often their primary commitments. Church and especially the community life are way down the list. In addition, these atomistic individuals, lacking the support structures that should be supplied by committed relationships are often emotionally damaged and unstable.

Another effect of technological society upon the church is in the area of charitable works. As the family, the church and other more personalized institutions that have traditionally taken care of the poor, the incompetent, orphans and the sick begin to crumble, the care of social needs shifts from the realm of stable personal relationships to the realm of specialized, impersonal social welfare institutions. Either the church accepts a reduction of its sphere of activity and influence, or it accepts regulation by the state in order to maintain its role as a care provider.

In the technological society, the nature of all government moves from personal to bureaucratic. This means that leaders are chosen more for the skill and training they bear than for their personal qualities. Also, the means used to control people and effect changes in their behavior become bureaucratic and technological means. Clark observes:

“As forms of government change, so do the ways of exercising authority or “social control” (a sociological term derived from the leadership models of technological society). In traditional society, a, leader relies primarily upon the direct exercise of personal authority within a personal relationship. A different mode of social control emerges in technological society. Rather than exerting direct authority, the leaders of mass institutions prefer to establish policy, make regulations, and influence opinions. In short, the governing institutions regulate and propagandize. The people in technological society are very susceptible to such control because they are all individuals isolated from one another and unconnected to stable groupings which loyally hold and carefully pass on other values. Moreover, much of this type of social control affects people on a less than conscious level. People are often unaware that they are being controlled, and will accept this control willingly while reacting against anything that looks like a direct exercise of authority. For example, most modern Americans resist and dislike clear commands and directions, but they submit with readiness to various forms of control through opinion formation. The exercise of social control in technological society can be at least as thoroughgoing as in traditional society, and perhaps more so.”

When people take amiss the exercise of personal authority that the Bible establishes in the office of the elder, how is one to correct them? If the elder is faithful in his discharge of the duties of his office, and deals out admonition or rebuke, he will be sure to offend the man who is used to being asked by his boss to do his job. Such indirect means will not do, however, to get him to repent of sin. One must be pointed and specific, and must uphold the judgments of God’s word when dealing with sin. This he will not tolerate, for he will feel that he is being abused.

Clark highlights another symptom of functionalism influencing the church:

“… functional and relational groupings differ from one another in the way they approach change. Functional groupings tend to prize innovation and flexibility, whereas relational groupings value stability.”

The accelerating rate of change in the broader culture is affecting the church, for as it adapts to technological society, it must be able to change quickly, and in unpredictable ways. The direction of those changes is however, predictable. Gradually, as efficiency considerations replace relational considerations in the society at large, the church will re-define itself in functional terms. Both man’s relationship with God and with his fellowman will become secondary to projects and goals. Officers will be evaluated for their energy and ability to “get things done”, rather than for piety, integrity, experience.

As in every institution, tradition and truth will give way to pragmatism as a source of authority. Modernistic assumptions about reality will penetrate in countless small but significant ways long before they are consciously recognized and accepted in theology. Modest dress has already been re-defined in cultural-relative terms. The church organization will be gone over, and modern educational theory increasingly applied. Youthful, professional “pastors” with a thorough grounding in Liberal theology will replace sober, godly men with “out-dated” ideas.

Human beings must have some place in their lives for relaxation, spontaneity and the expression of emotion. Formerly, these expressions of humanness were not separated from the other activities of life. The European peasant might work a long day, but he might stop for an hour to have a beer with a friend who passes by, or to intervene in a family crisis. He might sing aloud as he worked. The modern tendency is to divorce purposive, goal-oriented activities from expressive activities. Workers rightly resent the regimentation of the factory system, and often spend a large part of their private time reacting and compensating. This has clearly influenced many churches, which try to provide a relaxed and spontaneous setting. Too often, worship becomes an emotional exercise governed by irrationality and sentiment.

Sometimes, the cult of efficiency has a more direct effect. The church services become wholly functionalized in terms of education, fund-raising, recruitment of workers and other functional goals. The corporate relationship with God: the celebration of the privileges and blessings of his covenant, and the gathering of the church in His presence to commune with him ceases to be the focus. Expressive activities are muted. The celebration of the Lord’s Supper, since it is not a functional and purposive activity, is infrequent. What matters is learning how to serve God and doing his work.

I have only scratched the surface of this subject. It deserves a much fuller treatment. My aim is to at least alert the Christian community to the encroachment of technological society in ways that have gone largely unobserved before. Here is Clark’s summary of the effects of functionalism:

“The basic units of technological society are the individual and the mass collective rather than a set of relational groupings, and this affects both government and social services. Achieved positions are valued more than inherited positions. Commitments become partial and functionally-specific. The realm of personal relationships and human expressiveness is separated from the functional realm, resulting in relationships based primarily on emotion, preference, and an anti-structural anti-purposive bias. These changes amount to a radical transformation in the shape of human society.” (Man and Woman in Christ, Stephen B. Clark, p.490)

It is time to take stock of the damage this “radical transformation in the shape of human society” has quietly — but effectively — wrought in our churches. Only then can an equally radical reformation take place.

Howard Douglas King, March 27, 2019

Originally published as “The Modern Church”, part 4 of “A Christian Agrarian Critique of Technological Society” in Foundations 1:4, May 28, 2002

Deep Time versus the Word of God

I was just watching a YouTube video called “The Last Time the Globe Warmed”. It soon showed itself to be a typical display of the ignorance, prejudice, and unfounded dogmatism of woke materialistic scientists. The arrogance is breathtaking! Thus saith the Lord: “Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” (Romans 1:22) and there you have the proof of it.

Deny the word of God and you will stumble in the dark. There has not been more than 7,000 years of earth history – let alone 4.5 billion! The earth, the cosmos and mankind were created in six calendar days; and, as the chronological statements of the Bible show, that was about 6100 years ago. We have an eyewitness to that number; and He has left a record of it. All they have is guesses.

Admit the truthfulness of God’s Word, and “deep time” vanishes, with all its fairy stories of accidental evolution and unguided earth history. They have no idea about the last time global warming occurred. They can only guess, and the premises upon which they base their guesses are as wrong and as foolish as they could possibly be!

Secular materialism will lead you into a labyrinth of blind alleys and deep pits. Are you going to trust your life (much less, your eternal destiny) to people who claim that they know all about things that happened in the distant past, long before they were born; when the only reliable and most ancient written record contradicts everything they say? How is that rational? As the wise man said, “Forsake the foolish and live!”

The Eight ‘Cs’ of History

The creationist organization, “Answers in Genesis” uses a mnemonic called “The Seven Cs of History” as a tool to set forth the most significant events of biblical history:

Creation

Corruption

Catastrophe

Confusion

Christ

Cross

Consummation

This is a useful scheme, and one that arguably is well-suited for evangelism in our day of nearly universal biblical illiteracy; because it avoids assuming the basic doctrines of Christianity are known, and it is simple in its presentation. It also avoids the more controversial aspects of eschatology. Clearly, the “Seven Cs” is a compromise between a simple gospel presentation and a full treatment of Biblical history, with an emphasis on the historicity of the early chapters of Genesis, as we might expect from the name of the organization, “Answers in Genesis”. Ken Ham cannot be criticized for his own way of doing evangelism and apologetics.

However, I do have a few criticisms to make. What I have to say is not intended so much to find fault, as to propose what I think would be improvements to that scheme. In other words, I would have done it differently; here’s how and why.

God’s Covenant with the Chosen People

First, there is a very substantial omission, one that represents the bulk of Old Testament history, and that could easily have been represented by a word beginning with a “C”. This system completely leaves out the long age (approximately 2000 years) from the call of Abram to the appearance of the Messiah, when God was revealing Himself to the world through his relationship, established by Covenant, with a Chosen people. It omits the single largest division of Scripture – the historical books, which constitutes over 40% of the Old Testament!

It should be immediately apparent that this is a serious omission. For the fact is that the history of God’s dealings with Israel is revelatory. All the doctrines of redemption and the coming Messianic age, which find their fullest explication in the New Testament, have their basis in the types, images, and foreshadowings of the Old Testament . Without the history of the chosen people, and their Divinely instituted form of worship, there would be no vocabulary to express the gospel of our redemption. Before the New Testament was written and compiled, the Old Testament served as the Bible of early Christians, from which they drew both the elements of their faith and of their practice.

Mr. Ham stresses that the New Testament makes no sense apart from the first eleven chapters of the book of Genesis (and I agree with him). But it is just as true that the gospel makes no sense apart from the wealth of material in the rest of the Old Testament. How could we understand Romans or Hebrews without the background of the Pentateuch and other historical books? Who was Abraham? Who was Melchizedek? Who was Moses? Who was David? Why do we need to know? Because the proofs of fundamental Christian doctrines are grounded in their histories!

Sum up this era with the word, “Covenant”, if you will, because it is the age of the “covenants of the promise”(Ephesians 2:12, Greek), when God’s people lived in anticipation of the coming of the Promised One. To Abraham was given the promise that in him – through his seed – would all the families of the earth be blessed (Genesis 12:3), which Paul in Galatians interprets as the promise of worldwide salvation through Jesus Christ (Galatians 3:7-9, 13-14, 16, 29). This covenant is therefore identical with the gospel (Galatians 3:8); and it is finding its ultimate fulfillment today in the ongoing conversion of the world.

The First Advent of Christ

Second, this scheme uses two of its seven “Cs” to represent “Christ” and “Cross”. While the life of Christ is certainly worthy of special focus, and may be considered as distinct from His death on the cross, they really go together to make up one historical epoch, usually called the “first advent”. The perfect life and the atoning death two necessary parts of one redemptive work; which Scripture shows when it uses the terms “the obedience of one“ and “the righteousness of one” to represent the whole redeeming work of Christ without any explicit reference to the cross.(Romans 5:18, 19) So the inclusion of the period designated either “Covenant” or “Chosen” would not necessarily require an eighth “C”. “Seven Cs” is a good mnemonic in itself, reminding us of the “seven seas” of piratical lore. But why should there not be eight Cs?

The All Conquering King

Third, I would argue that the long age in which we are now living has its own importance; and that it is just as strange to jump from the Cross to the Consummation as it is to leap from Babel to Christ. How can two time periods, each comprising about one-third of human history, be irrelevant to an unfolding of the Bible’s message? Is it likely that the greater part of the Bible text can be totally neglected without distorting the message?

This present age is not just a prelude to the rapture, when the really important stuff starts to happen and the Kingdom age finally begins! In an orthodox view, this is the Kingdom age, the age of Conquest, when God’s Son, the Divine-human king sits enthroned on the seat of all power, with saving the world; while ruling the nations with a rod of iron, making all His enemies His footstool (Psalms 2, 110; I Corinthians 15:20-28).

The Eight Cs

In conclusion, I would suggest that using the “Seven Cs” as a starting point, a more complete and more biblical form of presentation would be the following:

Creation

Corruption

Catastrophe

Confusion

Covenant

Christ

Conquest

Consummation

I submit that these “Eight Cs of History”, building on Mr. Ham’s “Seven Cs”, represent a more complete biblical world-view and therefore an excellent framework for basic instruction in the message of Scripture.

Howard Douglas King, Revised July 20, 2021

Kinist Separatism Reproved

An Open Letter to Joe Putnam

Concerning his Article

“Sitting Among Strangers”

Hey, Joe!

I greet you, brother, in the name of our Lord, Jesus Christ!

I hope you don’t mind the length of this letter. When I sat down to write it, I had no idea that I would end up writing a book.

I have read with interest your essay, “Sitting Among Strangers”. You have not asked for my comment; but since you sent it to me, I assume that you want me to read it, and that you are open to discussion.

I have lived my allotted fourscore and ten years; and I write to you as an older man to a younger. As the Scripture says, wisdom belongs to age – not because we are any smarter – but because we ancient ones have lived along enough that we have had to recognize and pay for our errors.

Brother, I agree with you on the fundamental doctrines of the faith, and I also appreciate your critique of Christianity in the technological society. We are living in the most unnatural way, and the way that we live – even us who are Christians – is far, far from the way of traditional agrarianism, the way of our forbears. The order which God established at the creation of the world has no significance for the people who created this mess that we have to live in.

Have to live in, Joe. We cannot escape the world in which the Providence of God has placed us. We cannot change the powers that rule it. We cannot reform it. We must be in it, even though we are not of it.

We must respect authorities; while retaining the right to disobey them when they tell us to disobey God. We are bound to live within the authority structure that Jesus Christ and his Apostles ordained for us two thousand years ago. And that authority structure is as the bones to the body of the living Church of Jesus Christ.

That church is one comprised of believers the whole world over. Jesus our Lord has built the church, and is building it, stone by living stone. He has selected each one of us individually, to fill a specific place: and every one of us has been been washed, clothed in robes of pure white, and given a place at the royal table with all the saints! Bless God for His infinite grace!

And here’s the thing, Joe. We are – all Christians, “brethren”. It does not diminish this relationship that it is spiritual; for the spiritual is superior to the earthly.

The unity and diversity of the church is illustrated by the Apostle Paul:

“For as the body is one, and hath many members, and all the members of that one body, being many, are one body: so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.” (1Co 12:12-13)

“For ye are all the children of God by faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ. 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. And if ye be Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” (Gal 3:26-29)

To divide the church into family units would contradict the teaching of these texts.

We are bound together with a bond stronger, more lasting, and more important than kinship. Our kinship to Jesus Christ himself is the thing that matters, as he said in unequivocal language:

“While he yet talked to the people, behold, his mother and his brethren stood without, desiring to speak with him. Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee. But he answered and said unto him that told him, Who is my mother? and who are my brethren? And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Mat 12:46-50; Mark 3:31-35)

“And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.” (Mat 19:29)

“And there went great multitudes with him: and he turned, and said unto them, If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.” (Luk 14:25-27)

And there can be no living relationship with Him unless we are willing to accept as brethren and beloved all those others who are in his family, to love them fervently, to love them as we love God:

“For this is the message that ye heard from the beginning, that we should love one another. Not as Cain, who was of that wicked one, and slew his brother. And wherefore slew he him? Because his own works were evil, and his brother’s righteous. Marvel not, my brethren, if the world hate you. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him. Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for us: and we ought to lay down our lives for the brethren. But whoso hath this world’s good, and seeth his brother have need, and shutteth up his bowels of compassion from him, how dwelleth the love of God in him? My little children, let us not love in word, neither in tongue; but in deed and in truth.” (1Jn 3:11-18)

We are to do good to all men, but especially to those of the household of faith:

“As we have therefore opportunity, let us do good unto all men, especially unto them who are of the household of faith.” (Gal 6:10)

In your paper, you state your opinion that Kinism, etc. is the most important criterion in deciding what church you should attend:

“This incident once again got me to thinking about Kinism, genealogy, and regional culture. It is of utmost importance.” When I was sitting at that last IFB church in my home county, *I was sitting amongst strangers*. Most of them (including the pastor) were not my people, and had no connection to my people and culture.”

You say that believers of a different bloodline and/or culture are no more to be regarded than “strangers”. You say that they are “not [your] people”. Joe, do you hear yourself? Does this agree with the Scriptures that I have quoted above? If it does, please tell me how your opinion can be reconciled to the words of Jesus our Lord and Master.

But this is not all. You go on:

“Local churches should be composed predominantly of *local* people -those of the same race and regional culture.”

“…those of the same race and regional culture”? Can you give me chapter and verse? Or is this merely your own theological construct? I can’t find it in the Bible.

“Doctrine alone is not enough to make a cohesive church, as evidenced literally from the beginning, with the Jew versus Gentile disputes recorded in the New Testament.”

Truly, sameness of doctrine alone is not enough to make a cohesive church. But your attempt to prove this is weak. Yes, there were ongoing conflicts between apostate Jews and Gentile Christians (but also Jewish Christians) until the Jewish wars, when the Jews lost their connection to the power and influence of Rome: which made it virtually impossible for them to persecute Christians; being now a proscribed sect themselves. This is a matter of history.

But the enmity between Jews and Gentiles evident in Paul’s epistles that affected the church did not come from within the church: it was caused by self-righteous Jews who in their arrogance thought that they must straighten out these uncircumcised, heathen followers of Messiah Jesus.

But your claim that there cannot be a cohesive church composed of Jews and Gentiles is incorrect. You err in this, Joe, because it is evident that the church in Jerusalem, composed of Jews and Gentiles, was so “cohesive” that “…the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common”! (Act 4:32) They were, in truth, a family — the family of God. They treated each other as if they were an extended family.

“And going to a church of local folk that teaches false doctrine is also not acceptable. The correct answer is that one should seek out (or found) a proper doctrine teaching church in ones own area, filled with ones own people.”

Are you really sure of that, beyond all doubt? Is this really “the correct answer”or just your answer?

“When one goes to a local church made up largely of outsiders, that speaks of “church family” being more important than your actual kin and neighbors, one is setting themselves up for manipulation, cult-like thinking, and public scandals.”

But such evils as you name have occurred in every church, even the churches planted and overseen by the Apostles! Witness the letters of Paul. That is why there are official overseers, and why there is church discipline. I know of a church composed along the lines that you advocate. The pastor, also one of the extended family, said that his greatest difficulty is just teaching people to “get along”. Family infighting can be brutal, Joe! Alas! Your formula will not solve the problem of human sinfulness – or the constant activity of the Evil One.

“My strong focus on kith and kin is at odds with what could be termed “proposition only modern Christianity”, and with the IFB movement. After 400 years of gospel witness in America, why would one seek out a church pastored by an outsider, and peopled principally by outsiders? It will not work out long term.”

Why? For a number of reasons. First, the church, as you say, ought to be really local. The members of a church family, must live close enough to each other that they can fulfill the commandments as to daily social life: the “one another” rules of the New Testament that make real “the communion of saints”. This, in the case of urban churches, at least, will inevitably result in a mixture of people. Even a family-based rural church of any size will, if it is evangelistic, have to eventually include many “outsiders”. Will you exclude them from the social life of the church? Or will you reckon them your brothers and treat them as family? Will you allow them to intermarry with “your people”? How far is this separatism to go?

“And, you may get a surprise if the ruling clique covers-up the sins of their friends, family, or ministry colleagues. Cops are rumored to occasionally cover up for their corrupt brothers in blue, and professional preachers are no different.”

I know it. I have been the victim of it myself. The exercise of authority always leads to abuses and self-protection. Fathers fail in their duties to their family because they are sinful men “of like passions as we are”. They chasten us according to their pleasure”, as Paul states in Hebrews. It is an evil that cannot be wholly eradicated, and therefore must be tolerated. As an aside, the Presbyterian form of government, as well as that of Lutherans, Anglicans, and other “connectional” churches are better equipped than autonomous local churches like the IFB to hold tyrannical pastors accountable.

“Who are you sitting beside in the pews? Are they part of your people, with multi-generational ties to your area and culture? You know their name, but do you know them? Probably not. I will never again sit in a church of strangers.”

Wow! I guess that means me. Never? Your experience seems to have affected your judgment, Joe. It looks to me that you had a shocking experience that made you afraid for your family and have over-reacted. Would you have us all live in suspicion of each other?

And if those “strangers” should turn the tables and treat you as a stranger, how would you feel about that? Would you leave, or open your heart to your spiritual brothers and sisters? Would you split the church and take your people elsewhere? Then would your church isolate itself from all the churches composed of “strangers”? So much for inter-church relations!

I beg you to re-consider, and with an open heart and mind, review the Scriptures that I have set before you. You have people that respect your opinion and Scripture knowledge. Don’t let it go to your head. What if you change your mind someday and find that you have led people astray? You can tear up the body of Christ with your “correct answer”, that you are so sure of, Joe.

I wish you all God’s best, Joe!

Yours in Christ,

Howard Douglas King

Do We Worship Donald Trump?

Some say that we “deplorables” (I wear the name with pride) worship Donald Trump – that we have made an idol of him. Perhaps we have rested our hopes too much on the man: if we have, we must repent of it. But I rather suspect that our love for him has a different basis. Every movement must have a leader. The peaceful protests of the people of Hong Kong, and the “Arab Spring” of the Iranians failed because they had no leader.

Donald Trump is a true, capable leader, and absolutely dedicated to the cause. We follow him, not only because he advocates and defends our precious freedoms; but because, as President, he proved his genuineness by keeping the promises he made to us.

I am on record that we cannot hope to save our country unless God intervenes in a mighty way. Our leader’s removal from office underscores the point: political means will be ineffectual unless God acts in our favor. Accordingly, we must humble ourselves, as Mr. Trump has been humbled. Give God all the glory for the good our Donald has been able to accomplish!

Biden and his puppet-masters will try to undo all the good he has done. Our prayers invoke a higher power to frustrate them. They cannot succeed unles he permits it; but God uses means; and Donald Trump is evidently the man He has given us. It may be that all our efforts will fail because God has determined that it is time to require the blood of innocent babes, and to judge America for her sins. But we do not absolutely know that. God would have delayed his judgment on Sodom for the sake of ten righteous men in the whole city! We must not presume to say that God’s forbearance is exhausted; while at the same time we say that we are praying in faith for it to continue.

So we must continue to hope while we pray; and to resist the tyranny of the high and mighty Globalists and Communists who now hold the seats of power. Do not cower before their seeming invincibility. Think of that corrupt career politician who has usurped the Presidency as another Pharoah, secure on his throne; but in truth, ready to be cast down and crushed by the power of the God he proudly refused to acknowledge!

It is our duty to resist while we can, regardless of the outcome. We will be judged by our character and our deeds, no matter whether we fail or succeed. The stalwarts whose brave, yet futile stand at the Alamo are rightly held in honor! The Greeks who gave their lives to hold back the vast horde of Persian invaders at Thermopylae, without hope of final victory, are justly remembered two thousand years after for their indomitable courage! And all the martyrs of the Christian church “failed” when their lives were snuffed out; but they live and reign with Christ, and in God’s judgment their failure was the ultimate victory!

So take heart! It is not a man that we worship; but the God who gave him to us in His mercy, when the kingdom was threatened by the dismal specter of an Athaliah on the throne! May that same mercy preserve what is left of our republic, and establish “the rule of law, not of men”, in answer to our fervent, believing prayers! It seems impossible; but our Lord Jesus delights in delivering His people just when their cause is lost, and deliverance seems impossible! Then the glory will go to the True and Almighty Deliverer; not to us, who are at our best merely His instruments.

Soli Deo Gloria!

Howard Douglas King

January the 26th, in the year of our Lord 2021

The People’s Republic of America

Welcome to the People’s Republic of America

Welcome to the new People’s Republic of America, the latest satellite nation of the People’s Republic of China, complete with its own supreme leader, Chairman Joe. With the last national election (the fairest, most honest, and most accurate in history) we have advanced beyond the divisive two-party system to a one-party state. This will be more efficient, since people will no longer need to decide who to vote for.

Furthermore, the Ministry of Truth media network will now remove the necessity for the people to know anything at all about the candidates, or waste precious time debating issues; since they will all be told what to think and what to say. Other, unauthorized media outlets will no longer spread the unhealthy opinions of the political right: its lies and disinformation that confuse the people and threaten the unity of the State.

Papa Joe and the Party will see to it that everyone’s time is better employed in this new extension of the workers’ paradise. The problem of unemployment that has plagued our country will be solved by instituting universal employment. The elderly will receive for their years of service a generous pension, sufficient to buy a loaf of bread every week and a bottle of whiskey; if they can find any to buy.

Medical care will be the same for all who cannot afford to bribe the hospital staff.

Every thing in the People’s Republic is owned by the people; which means free housing, free education, free transportation, free medical care, and free recreation. Therefore, the people have little need for money. Excessive wages would only tempt them to engage in the many vices that flourished under Capitalism.

The inequality of pay between men and women is a thing of the past. Now every worker will receive the same reasonable wages. The pernicious discrimination against those who work with their hands in favor of so-called “professionals” will no longer be tolerated. In a democratic state, there can be no room for any discrimination: there must be complete equality. Of course this rule cannot be applied to the political class, (who, due to their responsibilities and their exhausting labor of love in caring for the workers) require and deserve greater compensation.

The Party is pledged to guarantee the free exercise of religion and freedom of atheist propaganda. All religions will be treated the same, without any discrimination between them. Special locations will be set aside for their residence, where they will be able to live in harmonious communities as they joyfully share in the labor required for the maintenance of the ACP and the State. Medical services beyond any available in the old America will now be provided in these communities. Organ donations will be strongly encouraged; so that there will be no shortage when someone needs a transplant.

The measures required for efficient population control have been known for many years; but no one has ever had the courage and political will to implement them. But now, with our brave Leader at the helm, these and other measures to prevent over-population will be taken, including the termination of inexpedient pregnancies, the culling of the defective young, and the easing of misery for the terminally ill, and those who have a poor quality of life. The population will incidentally be further controlled by the liberal use of capital punishments.

There are some perverse and violent criminals who will, for reasons that cannot be fathomed, resist the wholesome changes introduced by the Party. These rebellious swine are not entitled to the protection of the laws which are designed for the peace and order of society. Nevertheless the state will always respect their humanity, and will treat them as comrades who have gone astray. Whenever they are found, they are taken to hospitals, which have resources and expertise to treat the criminally insane, the unsocialized, the mis-educated, and other rightists. Only those who – despite the best efforts of their caregivers – cannot be cured, will be permanantly prevented from reentering the society for which they are unfit.

Welcome, Comrade Zhi! We are sure that everything will be found to your liking.

Thanks to Obama, China is Beating us at Cyber-warfare

As if we were not in enough trouble — as if Obama had not done enough damage to our country — now this.  If this is true, it explains the audacity of the Marxists in this country that we have witnessed in the last year.  They think that they are invincible.  And they may be right.  Yet one more reason that President Trump must remain our president. We can’t let “China Biden” assume the highest office! Our Donald is the only one with the courage and smarts to take on the CCP!

Call your Senators and Congressmen and let them know how angry you are about the Congress’ failure to stand by our great President in a time of unprecedented crisis.  Tell them that you will never accept the results of the most corrupt election in our history.  If they are Republicans, if they are RINOs, call them out and shame them!  Demand action!  Tell them that you will remember their malfeasance at the next election.  Every voice counts!

A Tribute to Donald Trump

In my fifty years as an American voter and an observer of national affairs, I have never been so proud of any President of my country as I am of this President, Donald John Trump. I loved and admired President Reagan. I was proud that I had played a small part in the election that put him in the White House. But by the end of his first term, I was disappointed in him for doing so little to fulfill the hopes of the cultural conservatives – and in particular, the evangelical Christians – whose support had been crucial to his electoral victory. This I attributed to bad counsel; but that is really not an adequate excuse.

President Trump, on the other hand, has not disappointed me.

I am still amazed whenever I stop to consider what he has done for this nation. A list of his triumphs, leaving out any comment, would fill several pages. He has kept, or sincerely tried to keep, every one of the promises which he made to us when he wanted to secure our votes. This is not only rare in elected officials – it is unheard of in a modern President. That he has achieved so much while suffering so many indignities for so long – a constant, protracted flood of abuse, insults, incitements to violence and attacks upon him, his fellows, and his family – a persecution also unprecedented in modern times, almost seems a miracle.

Who else of us could have born it and kept calm enough to work every day, rising up early to attack – not his enemies, but – the problems of the nation, and of the people that he governs? There have been some men of iron like him in history. Limiting ourselves to the last half a millennium, and to secular men, the nearest likeness that I could draw would be between Donald Trump and Oliver Cromwell. You, my reader, may have other ideas; and you are entitled to them, but this is my own.

Not to press a point, Cromwell was a despised “puritan” (or more accurately, what was then called an “independent”) who became a Member of Parliament, then a general and at length, Commander of the Parliamentary army, and finally “Lord Protector”, the supreme power in his England; only because he believed himself to be called of God to do so. He thought that his country needed such a man as himself to guide her through turbulent, perilous times; and finding no other man able and willing to assume that role, he was forced to do it himself. After the war, having led the army to victory, he found it necessary to deprive himself of a well-deserved, peaceful retirement to his country home; in order that he might attempt to rule and unite an almost ungovernable nation torn by party strife. He sacrificed his own affairs and his health to the needs of his nation until the day he died. That, I conceive, is the kind of man we now have as our President. I almost feel that it is unfair of us to ask our Donald to endure another four years in office for our sakes; but to whom else can we turn? He is a man with feet of clay, to be sure; but what a man! What a fighter! Like the great Englishman, he has hitherto been unconquerable!

The time is past when we can afford to bear with the misrule of the two-party political establishment with its “good cop/ bad cop” swindle. That avaricious pack of wolves has been fiddling while America burns (or rather burning it down to warm themselves at the fire) long enough! Enough! I say. Who else but Donald Trump has ever opposed that monstrous combination of pillagers, liars and self-serving hypocrites! Who else has not only opposed, but led a successful attack against those people who had presided over America’s decline that they might fill their own pockets!

Trump is a fighter! We might have preferred a man who displays the same social graces in public as he does in his private life. We would rather have had someone without his history. I would have chosen an orator – not a man who speaks the language of ordinary Americans. But God gave us what we needed – not, (at least in every respect) what we wanted. We do not need, in these times, a soft-spoken man, a man with the manners of an aristocrat, who is yet no more than a reed shaken by the wind. We need a Cromwell, who though possessing the rude manners of a seventeenth century country squire, was a soldier of indomitable will. We need someone who fears God and not man.

What America needs now is a patriot. We need a man that sincerely and passionately loves his country; and that is willing to sacrifice his life, his fortune, and his sacred honor for the nation and the people that he loves. Our Donald is such a man. He has defended us from foreign threats and put an end to the bellicose foreign policy that has involved us in endless and unproductive wars waged chiefly for the benefit of the arms industry. He has made peace between hitherto irreconcilable nations, and extended the olive branch to those who intended us harm. He has used economic warfare – the enormous power America possesses by virtue of its wealth and its markets – to discourage our enemies. But there is an iron fist in this velvet glove. Our military supremacy is such that few, if any, would wish to provoke America to bare its mighty arm! Yes, upon full consideration, I think that I am fully justified in saying that Donald Trump is a true patriot.

There was a day (a long time ago it seems; but many of us will remember it for the rest of our lives) when we went to bed thinking that a certain woman would be the next President of the United States. We could not bear to watch the results of the election come in. We resigned ourselves to the depressing and dreadful prospect that there would be a continuation, probably an escalation, of the ruinous course pursued so ruthlessly and relentlessly by the previous President. America was doomed, we thought. Our hope of a change of course was dashed to pieces. It was over!

But we were wrong! How we exulted, how we danced for joy when we woke up to the news that the improbable had occurred – that the darling of the Left had failed! Some of us had cast our votes against the felonious female who had called us “deplorables” rather than for Mr. Trump. Still, there was some hope in the man who had promised to put America first, and to rebuild our country instead of tearing it down! Perhaps he had meant it. Time would tell: we would wait and see. At least, the worst had been avoided; and we were thankful.

We were soon to be pleasantly surprised. In his inauguration speech, he condemned the former Presidents who sat near him on the dais to their faces! He promised us once again, in no uncertain terms, a radical agenda that would make America great again. And he hit the ground running.

The reforms came thick and fast. He had charted his course, and would persevere in it against all opposition: he meant to keep his promises. And he has. But he has just begun.

There is no need to enumerate the changes that he has made. You will remember a few, though the fake news media have tried to keep them from us. You may be surprised if you will review the partial list of them found here and here and here. There are more than a hundred of them in one of the lists. America has been, to a great extent, renewed. There are limitations to what can be achieved by politics; and our President’s agenda is not identical to our own. But we cannot expect too much. There has been too much damage to repair in a day. Still, there has been an excellent beginning! The crumbled foundations are being repaired. It is truly wonderful to see what he has accomplished in so short a time!

It would be too cold an expression to say that I like the man: I am not ashamed to say that I love him. I do not worship him. But I respect him. I admire him. And I believe in him. If he can overcome the perpetrators of a fraudulent election and claim the victory that should by right be his, he will continue to bring real hope and change to America, as he has done so far.

While very many of America’s people have been corrupted by a Statist education and brainwashed by the organs of propaganda (the media that Trump has branded with the infamous and perfectly true epithet, “fake news”); the large majority of patriotic Americans are behind our President. He has our loyalty and our love. Our word to him is, “Never give up! Never give in! Never concede that the crooked and illegitimate process that the Left call an “election” was won by your opponent. You won the vote; and we know it. You are the legitimate President. They must not prevail!”

I feel the inadequacy of my words. I beg the reader’s pardon. But I ask for your consideration; for I speak out of the fullness of my heart; in sincerity and with conviction. I felt bound to write this – by the bonds of duty and gratitude. I thank God for Donald Trump; and I pray that God would deliver him from the wicked men who lie in wait to destroy him.

God bless Donald Trump!

God bless America!

YouTube’s Hypocrisy and the 2020 U.S. Election

Why does Youtube allow ads from snake-oil salesmen (such as doctors who claim that they can cure or prevent almost any disease) and other obvious frauds; and at the same time seem to be concerned about so-called “false or misleading statements” that are really not obviously false or misleading? Why do they insist on putting the label at the top of conservative Youtube channels or news stories that criticize (or even just question) the validity of the 2020 election with the misleading statement that the “AP has already called the election for Biden”? What this implies is that there is no legitimacy in any opinion not sanctioned by the AP; when in fact what the AP or any other news organization says has no authority to declare the result of the election. Any statement they make at this time is no more than editorial opinion.

Until the votes are certified, the electors chosen and their votes cast, the election process is not over. Only by condemning or ignoring the legal challenges that are being made can they pretend to have any basis for censuring those who claim that the definitive results of the election are yet to be determined. But it is unarguable that the election is not over until it can be determined which votes are legitimate and which are illegitimate; and then the legitimate votes counted and the illegitimate votes discarded. Isn’t this obvious?

Many are of the opinion that this procedure is not necessary; but they cannot give a real reason based upon evidence to support their opinion because they do not know (or will not acknowledge) the facts. That there was election fraud has been acknowledged by no other authority than the chairman of the Federal Elections Commission; and the Attorneys General of many states concur. The results have not even been certified by some of the crucial or “battleground” states because so many and varied irregularities have been found. There have been at least eight or nine discrete kinds of cheating documented, some on such a large scale that they could affect the results of the election in several states.

These irregularities (including improper and illegal procedures in vote counting centers: votes having been counted without the verification of names, addresses, or signatures, the same vote having been counted more than once, the votes of dead people having been counted and the exclusion of Republican poll watchers from the process they were empowered by law to verify) are documented in the affidavits of many hundreds of eyewitnesses who have sworn, on penalty of perjury, that they are telling the truth.

So there is no doubt that fraud occurred; and as a country of laws, we must know the extent of fraud and who committed it. There is no reasonable or responsible or honest alternative. One suspects that the reason Youtube and other organizations are pushing for President Trump to immediately concede is – given their track record of promoting Socialist opinions and censuring those of Constitutionalists on their platform – because they do not want the facts to come to light.

The hypocrisy of presenting ads that make false and misleading claims while censuring statements that – according to American law and tradition – are defined as “free speech” while claiming to be a neutral platform that only censures content that is likely or demonstrably fraudulent, is plain and easy to see.

Howard Douglas King