A few months back, a “presuppositionalist” blogger named Joshua Whipps wrote a “slam” article against me, implying (and I loosely paraphrase): that I’m an evil racist everyone should avoid.
His comments were apparently sparked by my “Van Tillian Fire” blog, where I offered a few criticisms of his arguments against pop-apologist Sye Ten Bruggencate.
Now, unfortunately, I published my criticisms a day after he published an asinine (and badly-written) article defending a neo-Marxist view of “race”. He basically accused me of publishing my criticisms as an underhanded tactic of getting him back for that “race” article … because, don’t-cha-know, us evil racists simply cannot stand to have an article written that denies racial realism.
As a matter of fact, I had been talking to people about posting my article (and its clever title) months before I actually did and can easily prove (should I be inclined) that I had these criticisms of Whipps long before he published his article on race; I agree the timing of my posting was awkward, but it’s simply not true that I posted my criticisms of Whipps as a way to get revenge on him for writing that article.
And by the way, both Whipps *and* Sye have (effectively) damned me to Hell and advocated for the breaking of all bonds of fellowship with me. (If they don’t think I’m Hell bound, then I invite them to give either Scriptural or Confessional support for suggesting I be rejected from fellowship with believers).
Both have made very public statements about their opinion of me. So if I was intent on getting “revenge”, wouldn’t it make sense for me to criticize both Whipps *and* Sye?
Anyway – what of Whipps’ article on race?
He claims to have kept up with my blogging material for years now, but I find that hard to believe since he (for some reason) thinks writing a post rejecting racial realism somehow does damage to my “Kinist” position.
While the reality of “race” is an interesting and important topic, it’s only tangentially related to “Kinism”. Whatever sort of genotypical or phenotypical realities may be true of tribal groups, the important thing about them (as far as we Kinists are concerned) is that they have an inherent dignity that not only should be respected, but should be celebrated!
On our view, God meant for humanity in general (as well as the new humanity in Christ more particularly) to express a unity amongst diversity that is reflective of His nature.
This directs Kinist commentary towards entire social structures. The “United States” for example, is an Enlightenment inspired / humanistic social order and does *not* formally respect tribal distinctions. Rather, it seeks to merge all tribal groups together under an umbrella of abstract allegiance to man-made propositions (ie: the constitution).
This is clearly an un-Biblical state of affairs and fosters an unhealthy mixing of all the tribal groups in a way that “blends out” their uniqueness in favor of a “melting pot” view, which seeks to unite men together in an arbitrary, fiat way.
The family (and by extension: the tribe) is the foundational, God-ordained social order for man…and those Christians who seek to destroy this system by advocating for an anti-tribalist system, are working contrary to the Kingdom.
When will Christians like Whipps give up their allegiance to Satanic political theories and become truly self-conscious of their own presuppositions with respect to society and political theory?
For someone who supposed to be an authority on presuppositionalism, Whipps shows an unfortunately typical aversion to self-consciously examining his presuppositions in these areas.
We can only have Marx or Moses.
Chooseth this day which you’ll serve.