Kinism believes in racial separation. Oftentimes, kinists believe that Caucasians are a superior race. For instance, Wheeler MacPherson believes that Caucasians are Adamic, while all other races are demonic in origin. In order to be a true Christian, then, Wheeler believes that one must not only have faith, but also must be of the Adamic race. In this, his views are similar to Christian Identity (usually abbreviated CI), which is not the same thing as Kinism.
Now, when reacting to this, we must be much more concerned with what the Bible says, and not react with a “frothing at the mouth” rage. We need to stick to the issues.
The promises made to Abraham include the promise that all nations on earth will be blessed through Abraham’s seed. Who is Abraham’s seed? Paul interprets that seed (through the fact that it is a singular noun) as being Jesus Christ in Galatians 3. The next step of Paul’s interpretation of the Abrahamic covenant is that anyone who has faith in Jesus Christ is a true child of Abraham (also Galatians 3). The Judaizers were saying that the Gentiles had to be circumcized in order to be “real” Christians. In effect, they were saying that race matters to the gospel. So, the book of Galatians is vitally important to this issue.
What does it mean, then, that the promises of the Abrahamic covenant will come to all the nations of the earth? The book of Acts has an example: the Ethiopian eunuch. Here is a clear example of a black man coming to faith in Jesus Christ, being baptized by Philip the deacon, and becoming the first African to join the church. The Bible clearly views this as an act of God, providentially ordered by God. This is a good thing. It seems to me that Galatians and Ephesians both are clear that race is not a qualifying factor for Christianity. What is required is faith in Jesus Christ.
Here is another question: how much Caucasian blood is necessary before someone is qualified to be of the Adamic race? If someone is half and half, is it possible for that person to be a Christian? What about one quarter Adamic? What about one-quarter Cainite? Actually, I believe that all the Cainites were destroyed in the Flood. Only Noah and his sons and daughters-in-law were saved.
Going further back, the Bible claims that our Adamic heritage is sin and death, not salvific privilege (Romans 1-5 is rather clear on this point). The Bible is further clear that all tribes of the earth are Adamic (Genesis 5 and Genesis 10). Even Cain is Adamic. The biblical story is that Adam was the representative for the whole human race. He sinned, thus bringing down the whole human race with him. Jesus Christ, the last Adam, redeemed us from sin and death by His saving work on earth. Saving faith in Him is all that is required (and is also given by God). Anyone from any race can therefore be a part of that world-wide family. God’s family is not genetic, but faith-based.
David Gadbois
greenbaggins
paigebritton
Reed Here
reformedmusings
rfwhite
Ron Henzel
Green Baggins 
The Main Biblical Problem With Kinism | Christian Heritage News said,
March 26, 2014 at 9:26 am
[…] Posted at Green Baggins: […]
Justin Esposito said,
March 26, 2014 at 9:49 am
Include also Acts 13:1ff. wherein a man called “Niger” was among the prophet and teaching ministry of the early church:
In other words, an African with black skin. Praise Christ :-)
Shotgun said,
March 26, 2014 at 11:24 am
I want to note how disappointed I am with “Green Baggins”…
I’ve been a long time reader and admirer of this website; it’s helped me work through some serious theological issues. I’m sorry to say, though, that the scholarship in this post is abysmal.
As a Kinist, there are a some important points I’d like to make:
1. Kinists have nothing but an orthodox Reformed soteriology.
2. We have always tried to draw a distance between ourselves and the so-called “Christian Identity advocates” of the sort caricatured in this blog. Please take the time to realize that it’s a malicious equivocation to use the word “Kinist” when describing Christian Identity view points.
3. Wheeler MacP, while a good friend to many Kinists, is *NOT* a Kinist – there was a controversy when he left the Kinist movement and accepted Christian Identity ideals.
4. When taken literally, we should all believe that Christians must be related to Adam, right? If an entity is not related to Adam, then he / she / it cannot be a member of the human covenant situation, and his/its redemptive status can only be speculated about. But, of course, as Kinists (and as the gentlemen who participate in this group) are well aware – this means *all* races are eligible for inclusion in the new covenant.
5. I’m particularly upset by this hit-piece, because I’ve labored long and hard to present a theological argument against certain “Dual Seedline” views of Christian Identity. Consider the following:
P(1): DSCI claim to be Christians.
P(2): Christians must believe in the doctrine of the Imago Dei
P(3): The Imago Dei cannot be a physical part of man.
P(4): From 3, the Imago Dei must be some aspect of man that is shared by many races of sentient beings (ie: intelligence, language, use of logic, responsibility for dominion, etc. etc.)
P(5): DSCI must reject the ideal that some sentient beings have the Image of God.
Conclusion: DSCI must either give up their DSCI, or give up Christianity.
——————————————-
Please do more careful study before attempting to critique a movement in the future.
At the very least, please find a Kinist and have a short conversation with him.
As Christian brothers, we’re at least entitled to that much…
greenbaggins said,
March 26, 2014 at 11:35 am
Shotgun, (what is your first name?), a few things to say in response. I will make them correspond with your numbering.
1. My post did not address questions of soteriology directly. Therefore, I was making no statement about the kinist viewpoint on it.
2. I am aware of the differences, actually, between kinists and the CI movement. I heard some of them while listening to the interview that Wheeler did with Christian Gray, and researched some of them on other websites. My post is addressed to Wheeler’s version of kinism, which is something of a hodgepodge. No doubt there is a variety of views on various things within the kinist movement.
3. In the interview, done only 8 months ago, Wheeler actually emphatically denies that he is CI. Maybe you should listen to that interview.
4. I’m glad we agree on this point. Wheeler doesn’t, and it was his position to which I was responding.
5. On this syllogism, I disagree partially with premise 3. The image of God cannot be limited to the physical, but it does include physical aspects. Even though God has no body, our bodies are still part of the image of God.
Shotgun said,
March 26, 2014 at 11:50 am
My name is Scott Terry … (You’re Mr. Green Baggins? I’m not sure who authored this particular blog).
If you ask Wheeler, I’m sure he’d recount for you some of the controversy that surrounded his “move” towards CI. The Kinist community (at large) wasn’t happy about it…regardless of his off-hand comments in a radio interview.
All the Kinist FAQ’s you might google, would clearly distance Kinism from such rhetoric.
Wheeler simply doesn’t represent a “faction” of Kinism enough for anyone to claim that the word “Kinism” labels a body of doctrines that might be equated with Christian Identity ideals. (If anything – it’s the hodge-podge of ideals inherent in the label “Christian Identity” that are ambiguous and ill-defined. Not Kinists’).
It gives off a false impression of the Kinist movement to equate it with Wheeler’s ideals…and does a disservice to the bulk of Kinist advocates who are working so hard to distance ourselves from CI (or CI-sounding) rhetoric.
It’s disappointing that this blog doesn’t even acknowledge a difference, and leads the uninformed reader to assume there either is no difference, or the difference is so small as to be unimportant.
——————-
As for my syllogism,
I realize discussions about the nature of the Image are wide-ranging, and I hoped to word my argument loosely enough to allow for the variation in views. (I’ve relied mostly on Anthony A. Hoekema’s book “Created in God’s Image” to formulate this argument).
The point I try to hammer home to the DSCI folk is that *whatever* the Image turns out to be exactly, it cannot be exclusively physical (that would be tantamount to blasphemy, as God has no physical parts).
(Some DSCI advocates claim that the image of God is the image of the incarnate Christ, but that seems to exclude everyone who doesn’t physically resemble Jesus, as well as women…and that’s absurd!)
…as always though … I’m happy to have the argument criticized from a variety of perspectives, so I might better formulate it – and to that end, I appreciate your comments.
greenbaggins said,
March 26, 2014 at 12:07 pm
Scott (my name is Lane Keister), thanks for your comments. In my previous comment, I acknowledged that there is a difference between Kinism and CI. As I understand it, Kinism is the belief that races should stay separated, whereas CI can be roughly equated with the dual-seedline theory (often accompanied with the belief that the Caucasion race is superior). There can, however, be overlap in an individual’s position. Wheeler, for instance, obviously believes in racial segregation (a la Kinism), but he also believes in the dual-seedline theory (a la CI). So, of course, it could be that he is simply confused. Or it could be that the categories are not especially helpful. Names, terms, and labels are not always that helpful, and I tend to prefer, in circumstances like this, to take one individual’s position at a time.
greenbaggins said,
March 26, 2014 at 12:09 pm
I have modified the first paragraph to clarify.
Nathanael said,
March 26, 2014 at 12:59 pm
As a Kinist, your post is a good refutation of Christian Identity. Your titling it as a post discussing Kinism is very confusing though.
“The Main Biblical Problem with A
OK, now let me tell you why B is wrong…”
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 1:23 pm
Great refutation of CI which, by the way, is NOT Kinism. The fact that you conflate the two suggests that you have not yet thought the issues through.
Secondly, you did raise soteriology by bringing up the whole dual seed theory.
This lack of accuracy is disconcerting and it makes one wonder if the same lack of accuracy is reflected in your posts in general.
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 1:39 pm
And this requires a little clarity as well,
You noted,
” The Judaizers were saying that the Gentiles had to be circumcized in order to be “real” Christians. In effect, they were saying that race matters to the gospel.”
More precisely they were saying that in order to become Christian one had to become a cultural Jew. What Paul teaches is that different peoples can retain their racial and cultural identity and still be Christian. One doesn’t have to surrender their National identity to become Jew in order to become Christian. Of course this is consistent with the Jerusalem council.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 1:46 pm
Lane: you like tipping over worm cans, don’t ya?;-)
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 1:52 pm
Christianity believes Jesus is God. Oftentimes kinists believe that Jesus and Satan were Brothers. For instance Brigham Young believes that the fall in the Garden was a good thing. In order to be a true Christian then, Brigham believes that one must not only have faith but also must believe that Jesus and Satan were Brothers. In this his views are similar to Mormonism, which is not the same thing as Christianity.
greenbaggins said,
March 26, 2014 at 1:55 pm
Reed, that’s what this blog is built on. Maybe I should rename it “The Can of Worms Overturned” blog.
Nathanael said,
March 26, 2014 at 2:14 pm
“Oftentimes kinists believe that Jesus and Satan were Brothers.”
I’ve pretty heavily involved in online Kinist circles for years and I have never ever heard any Kinist profess that view. So I have no idea where you’re getting this from unless you’re reading the Book of Mormon or the wackier CI material, neither of which Reformed Kinists, by far the largest and primary “faction”, believe in.
So apparently the “main Biblical problem with Kinism” is something (the dual seedline theory) Kinists don’t believe in, and in fact consider heretical. So a better title for this post would be something along the lines of the biggest problem with Kinism is that critics refuse to actually address Kinism.
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 26, 2014 at 2:27 pm
It seems like Mr. Samuels thinks that any generic rejection of race-mixing, is to be called “kinism”.
This is a serious misunderstanding of the Kinist movement, which grew out of right-leaning Reformed social movements (ie: we want to consistently “reconstruct” sociology, political philosophy, and anthropology, along Biblical lines).
Trent said,
March 26, 2014 at 2:36 pm
Funny why kinists are white supremacists when they were themselves the barbarians than invaded the Roman Empire with their brutish ways. They were the backwards ones until the Renaissance.
Trent said,
March 26, 2014 at 2:38 pm
Not to mention the numerous historical problems, if Kins were to stick together then what of all this mixed Europe from the Barbarian invasions?
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 2:55 pm
Wait… you mean Satan and Jesus are NOT Brothers and that Kinists don’t really hold that?
Cowabunga dude … so that is just as loony as Lane saying conflating Kinism with CI.
I think Trent needs to go back and study his Western Civ.
greenbaggins said,
March 26, 2014 at 3:01 pm
Nathanael, while CI and Kinism are distinct, nevertheless, they share one core belief at least, which is that racial segregation is a good thing. When asked about Jesus’ family, Jesus redefined His family to say that those who do the will of God are His family, His kin. One’s position in God’s family, and one’s true family is not based on blood, but on something else. In this way, my criticism of CI with regard to the covenantal promises made to Abraham is an answer to Kinism as well as to CI.
Nathanael said,
March 26, 2014 at 3:01 pm
“kinists are white supremacists”
So believing that every nation/ethnicity/people regardless of race has a right to its own culture and identity, and to preserve and govern itself is racial supremacy now?
greenbaggins said,
March 26, 2014 at 3:04 pm
Nathanael, I don’t think it is helpful to define Kinism as simply the belief that every race has a right to its own culture and identity, and to govern and preserve its own identity. Heck, I believe that. Kinism says much more than that. Kinism says that it is actually bad for any cross-culturalism to happen, or for inter-racial marriages to happen. Of course, that would not imply that all Kinists are white supremicists.
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 3:14 pm
Wait a minute. Muhammad Ali who also didn’t support inter-racial marriages is a White Kinist?
Lane … please… stop now. You are swimming in uncharted waters.
Was Gerhardus Vos a White Supremacist?
“Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral.
Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”
Geerhardus Vos
Biblical Theology, p. 60 in the old Eerdman’s edition (1948, re-set in 1975)
Kinism is merely nationalism in proper limits.
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 3:15 pm
The Bishop of Hippo as Kinist
“The ancient fathers… were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance.”
Augustine – (A.D. 354 – 430)
City of God, book XV, Chpt. 16:
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 3:18 pm
“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.
“Now this is not something special for the Javanese , but stems from a general rule . The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same , but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different , as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races , countries and traditions can not be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”
Abraham Kuyper
‘Common Grace’ III.XXXII
greenbaggins said,
March 26, 2014 at 3:22 pm
Perry, you are misreading my comments, and cut out the condescending tone, please. Of course Ali wasn’t a white Kinist. Where exactly did I say that he was?
As to the Vos and Augustine quotations, I agree with them. But they are not absolute statements that deny any and all mixed marriages, or all cross cultural society. Maintaining one’s cultural identity is not an evil thing.
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 3:27 pm
How does one maintain one’s cultural and ethnic identity by practicing mixed marriages?
Nathanael said,
March 26, 2014 at 3:28 pm
Lane, I disagree completely. The reasoning behind the belief is hugely important. CI is far from a monolithic, but, if we use the term in the sense you do in referring to people who believe in the dual seedline theory, then the convergence of belief that racial separation and boundaries are a positive thing whether you believe this is due to non-Europeans not being human or as a normative application of Biblical social order amongst equally human groups is going to result in fundamentally different theology and the applications of that belief.
Jesus didn’t redefine the family in the sense that He ceased to be related to or have duties and responsibilities towards His physical family. In addition to the little matter of 5th Commandment still being in full effect, John 19:26-27 makes this crystal clear; He still identified Mary as His physical mother with a relationship that had meaning and duties. Jesus was using that as an opportunity to teach us that as Christians we possess BOTH a physical and spiritual family using earthly terms and relationships we could understand as a picture of the spiritual relationship. But the spiritual reality no more negates the physical relationship it is mirrored by in the case of the family than the fact that Christ’s relationship to the Church being referred to as a marriage negates physical marriage.
In the same way, the fact that Christians are referred to as a spiritual race in no way negates the realities of the physical race and nation God has gifted us with. In fact, just as in the examples of the family and marriage, the normative structure, responsibilities and duties, and relationship we have towards our physical race is meant to inform our actions with regards to our spiritual race. Once again it is a case of both/and, not either/or.
No Kinist would argue that we are saved through blood or race or heritage rather than by Faith alone in Christ. Kinism is simply the historical orthodox Christian answer to the question “how then should we live” in the area of national and social order.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 4:22 pm
Kinists: Lane keeps pointing out the problem with the denial of cross-cultural association, especially in terms of marriage.
Do you deny that this is perfectly godly under the gospel, that believers, of opposite gender, of two different ethnicities may marry one another?
How far does the separation go? Should I not live next to my black neighbors, who are brother and sister to me in Christ?
In eternity, will the ethnic separations be maintained? Will the New Jerusalem have its Jewish quarter, African quarter, European quarter?
How do you differentiate between one ethnicity vs. another? I.e., how does one actually know who one’s kin is?
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 4:43 pm
In eternity, will the ethnic separations be maintained? Will the New Jerusalem have its Jewish quarter, African quarter, European quarter?
The Scripture seems to indicate that the answer is that ethnic distinctions remain.
Rev. 15:4 Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nationS shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.
In Revelation we see the success of the Great Commission to disciple al the NationS when the NationS stream into the new Jerusalem (Rev. 21:26) and it is the NationS which find healing from the leaves of the tree(22:2).
Also in Revelation
And the nationS of them which are saved shall walk in the light of it: and the kingS of the earth do bring their glory and honour into it.
[25] And the gates of it shall not be shut at all by day: for there shall be no night there.[26] And they shall bring the glory and honour of the nations into it.
____________
Kinist do NOT say that there should be no association between peoples, though they do say that inter-racial marriage is not wise and we think it not wise because we agree with Lane that “maintaining one’s cultural identity is not an evil thing.”
On the question of miscegenation most Kinists, agree with Dr. Clarence MaCartney (a Chief Allie of Machen during the Modernists vs. Fundamentalist controversy, when MaCartney wrote,
“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”
Finally, it may be the case, on your question of differentiation, that you are involved in Loki’s wager.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 4:51 pm
Thanks Perry:
Where in those Revelation passages do they teach that the nations that come to the New Jerusalem maintain their ethnic divisions?
So inter-racial marriage is not wise, but it is also not sinful? I.e., will God affirm the inter-racial couple, or will he expect repentance from them? (I’ll ignore that your MaCartney quote addresses cross-religion marriage more than cross-ethnicity. Not the same thing.)
Not Loki’s Wager at all. Sure you’re not trying to avoid a real question? I’ll ask again: how do you differentiate between one ethnicity vs. another? I.e., how does one actually know who one’s kin is?
If kinism can’t answer that then it is at best a theory without any validity.
Oh, yes, sincerely, what would a kinist response be to my neighbor question? Should one of us move?
Justin Esposito said,
March 26, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Kinists: A hypothetical–you are involved in planting/shepherding a church somewhere in the world. You have a church family of indigenous XYZ people. In the course of time, one of your baptized members becomes engaged to someone from the AZQ-type people who live close by but who are ethnically distinct. Do you:
a) advise against the marriage, yet condone it reluctantly?
b) advise against the marriage, and forbid it from happening?
If the congregant chooses to go forth with the marriage in the case of b), do you exercise church discipline and excommunicate them as a Gentile and tax collector?
If a), do you treat their children differently than other, more “pure-blooded” children?
Thanks.
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:00 pm
Mr. Here,
I’d prefer not to debate you in this venue, as I would consider that rude. I don’t want to hi-jack the comment section.
But, if you’re interested in these sorts of questions, I’d ask you to either try your darndest to provide a thoroughly Reformed answer to them yourself (create some models and write a book or two), or to seriously look into what the Kinist community has provided on the topic.
…further…
You seem confused about terminology – equivocating between “race” and “ethnicity”, using the word “ethnicity” in an authoritative sense, then claiming confusion about what the term even means…Please look into these matters, develop a clear and precise position of your own, *then* try critiquing Kinism.
—————-
Even if Kinism is wrong-headed (it’s not, but even if it were), we should all thank God for the movement, as it will hopefully push the Reformed community (at large) towards clear thinking on racial and other relevant social issues.
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:03 pm
@ Mr. Esposito,
I’d be happy to interact with your proposed hypothetical in some other venue (again – I don’t want to be rude to Green Baggins)…
I am curious, though, why you used the phrase “pure-blooded” and put it in scare quotes.
…is blood purity a concept you’ve often heard from Kinists?
…or are you simply caricaturing Kinists according to characters you’ve seen on Jerry Springer or some other pop-cultural expression?
Justin Esposito said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:08 pm
I doubt Lane or any mod here would object to you answering my hypotheticals.
I used scare quotes because, if I am reading y’all correctly, there is a purity to ethnicity that is maintained by avoiding “inter-marriage.” I put that one in scare quotes because I’m not granting the premise that there is any such thing, unless we speak of marrying with another species.
Feel free to correct me, this thread is the first I’ve ever heard of Kinism, so I am wide-open to be educated. I am, of course, wildly biased against the idea, but I am also genuinely interested in the dialogue for sake of Christian understanding.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:10 pm
Scott: call me Reed. Please, get off your high horse and quit being so condescending.
No need for debate. I’m looking for clarity. You came here to discuss this, so discuss this here.
Race or ethnicity, I’m not trying to create confusion, but trying to understanding your distinction. I did not equivocate. I used “ethnicity” consistently.
How about dropping the huffiness and simply help us understand. The question is sincere. Feel free to answer it the way you want to defend it. How is kin determined?
—————
And if kinism is wrong (and it sure seems like it), I won’t thank God for it, any more than I would thank God for the first lie introduced in the Garden.
Nathanael said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:10 pm
“Lane keeps pointing out the problem with the denial of cross-cultural association, especially in terms of marriage.”
We don’t deny cross-cultural association, we merely hold to the historical Christian position that there is a difference between appropriate and unlawful associations. I’ve personally been on a handful of missions trips to non-white churches in non-western countries. The Christian fellowship was genuine and appropriate. Missionary work, commerce, tourism, and friendship are completely legitimate cross-cultural associations that Kinists have no issue with. It’s only when we get to the cross-cultural associations outlawed in the only official God-given blueprint for national structure and government given to mankind that we draw the line. Property ownership, political citizenship, and inter-marriage are examples of unlawful associations from the God’s national blueprint in the Old Testament.
“Do you deny that this is perfectly godly under the gospel, that believers, of opposite gender, of two different ethnicities may marry one another?”
There are a good number of criteria which would preclude two godly Christians from marrying each other. Being from different racial backgrounds is one of them. This is not a question of superiority or inferiority or calling anyone’s Christianity into question, but a matter of unequal yoking going against the purpose of marriage.
“How far does the separation go? Should I not live next to my black neighbors, who are brother and sister to me in Christ?”
Ideally, no, for the reason that it is impossible for a multi-racial country to obey God’s law of kin rule in Deut 17:15. This is one of the reasons why ethno-nationalism is a Kinist position; one political country per one blood nation and one blood nation per one political country. Of course, we live in an age far from the ideal and in such a situation non-optimal arrangements are certain to occur. I’m speaking of the ultimate goal here.
“In eternity, will the ethnic separations be maintained? Will the New Jerusalem have its Jewish quarter, African quarter, European quarter?”
The Scriptures are silent on that point and so I can’t and won’t answer that directly. I will point out that in Revelations the people gathered before the throne of God are referred as distinct peoples, tribes, and tongues and not as an amalgamated mass of humanity. And after Jesus rose from the dead and received His new body, He was still identifiable to those who knew Him AS Jesus when He appeared to them; a middle-aged Middle Eastern man, not an androgynous, raceless, genderless robot. You can take implications from that as you will.
“How do you differentiate between one ethnicity vs. another? I.e., how does one actually know who one’s kin is?”
The same way Scripture does – by lineage. And I’ve never met a person who didn’t know what they were unless they were playing dumb for the sake of argument.
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:17 pm
I apologize (to anyone) if I came across as condescending or rude – such wasn’t my intent.
But since you both claim to be curious, though, also seem set in your view, I can only suggest (again) that you do a little research of your own on the matter.
We Kinist love hearing “Biblical Problems” with our *actual* position.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:17 pm
Nathanael: your last answer, by lineage?
I’m: Scotch, Irish, Anglo, Welsh, maybe some Norse, definitely a little Cherokee, maybe some Jew. So whom am I allowed to marry? One from one of those lineages (aren’t those ethnicities?)?
And if they marry me, would they be sinning, since I am not exclusively of one lineage?
If the world were separated into the kin as you define them, what country would I live in?
How exactly does this lineage distinction work? Still not clear.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:19 pm
Scott: are you set in your convictions? Obviously. So why are we somehow guilty of some offense when: 1) this is our blog home, 2) you’re the quest, 3) you’re the one offering objections?
Why not drop the martyr attitude and simply interact? You strongly disagree with those who disagree with kinism. Great. Do you want to talk or not?
Tim Harris said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:20 pm
Reed, please, you must remember how someone explained the theory to me that all those who address their father as a derivative of pather are likely part of one sub-group of humanity. This would be a nice first step toward identifying your kin.
In all of world history, the question of “which kin” is really only difficult for Americans in the last 50 years. Apart from the New World, the delineation of kins is nicely carved up for you to first order just by looking at the boundaries etched on a globe.
Somehow, the Czechs know who they are, and the Slovaks know who they are. The Allied, and subsequently communist attempt to fuse them together just never took.
Couldn’t the neighbor question be modeled under the “alien and sojourner” rubric?
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:22 pm
Nathanael: so theory aside (the ultimate goal), how practically does kinism apply to me living next to folks from a different ethnicity? (Or race, or other term that kinism uses to identify the differentiation).
How does the 2nd Great Command apply to me and my neighbor?
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:25 pm
Nathanael: so the OT blueprint provides the model for kinism’s concept of separation between the races? (Or ethnicities, or whatever term you think appropriate).
So the fundamental characteristic separating the Jews from their neighbors was, race? As in, the Jews and Canaanites were not racially related therefore there could be no commerce at a certain level?
What Scripture supports that?
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:27 pm
Rev. Here …
Trying to see that the MacArtney quote wasn’t what you said,
Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same RACE and religion….”
///////////////////////
Clearly MacArtney was dealing with Race as well as religion. He explicitly says so. Like almost all Christians prior to 1960 or so MacArtney was a Kinist and thought inter-racial marriage unwise. I’m merely one who advocates what Dr. MacArtney advocated. It is just not wise.
Elsewhere Rev Here posed,
Where in those Revelation passages do they teach that the nations that come to the New Jerusalem maintain their ethnic divisions?
Question answered,
The Revelation passages teach that the Nations continue as identifiable Nations in the New Jerusalem. All colors do NOT bleed into one.
Rev. Here,
So inter-racial marriage is not wise, but it is also not sinful? I.e., will God affirm the inter-racial couple, or will he expect repentance from them?
Question answered,
Kinists differ on this question. Some kinists advocate that such marriage is guilty of adultery. Others suggest that once two have been bound they are obliged to remember that God is with them even if they make their bed in Sheol.
Rev. Here,
Not Loki’s Wager at all. Sure you’re not trying to avoid a real question? I’ll ask again: how do you differentiate between one ethnicity vs. another? I.e., how does one actually know who one’s kin is?
If kinism can’t answer that then it is at best a theory without any validity.
Oh, yes, sincerely, what would a kinist response be to my neighbor question? Should one of us move?
Question responded to
No … I do think it is Loki’s wager. I find it surprising that your suggesting that most people can’t identify either their race nor their ethnicity, broadly speaking. Most Historic Americans, are European. See the book, “Albion’s Seed.”
Of course confusion regarding Kin and who we belong to is what Kinists are trying to avoid. What we generally advise people who are confused about who they belong (perhaps because they are children of mixed races) is to identify with the people that they can most easily identify with.
Kinism, tends to be Libertarian minded. If you would like to move to inner city St. Louis we are fine with you doing that.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:30 pm
Tim, you observations do not prove that this reality is a Biblically based imperative from God. You’re offering secular historical observations that may or may not anecdotally support a supposed biblical principle.
Obviously this goes back to at least Babel, maybe no more than Noah’s sons. Maybe we’re only supposed to marry within lines of the 70 descendants, or the three sons.But if that were the case, then it completely denies the Jews not inter-marrying with some of the surrounding nations, which were also Semitic.
Even more, if kinism does premise itself on the Tower of Babel, one has to interpret those “kin” divisions as a good thing, something to be maintained and NOT addressed by the gospel.
My reading of the Tower of Babel is exactly opposite.
I’m still waiting for a straight up answer: is is sinful to marry outside one’s kin?
As to the alien/sojourn rubic, but that applies in the OT to actual foreigners (non-kin) living side by side with Israelites. That seems to argue against kinism.
(How does kinism handle Jesus’ mixed kin heritage? E.g., Rahab was Canaanite, Ruth was Moabite.)
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:34 pm
Perry: please, call me Reed.
No, MaCartney is not dealing with race. Here offers three couplets. The first two are religious based.
The last one: American and Foreigner are not specifically religious based. But American is CLEARLY NOT kin based. So,
> Given the immediate context in which the previous two couplets ARE religious based, and
> Given the era in which he wrote, in which America was assumed to be a Christian nation,
The reasonable reading is that the man was referring to inter-religious marriage, something explicitly forbidden by Scripture.
Race is not necessarily in view in the last couplet. It is more reasonable to read that as another religious expression. (Unless you can find something more specific from the author.)
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Perry: New Jerusalem and the Revelation passages. You have not demonstrated that the nations in view are:
> Identifiable as kin according to whatever your definition is (race, ethnicity, I still don’t know).
> Distinctly separated from one another so that there will be no inter-marriage between them.
The context for these nation references stretches all the way back to the Tower of Babel’s 70 Nations. The emphasis is on their reunification in the New Jerusalem, not their mutual membership but separation.
Dan said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:38 pm
Reed:
1. Lets start with this basic premise: Some Biblical rules have exceptions, and some don’t. You clearly disagree with the Kinists that the Bible places any sort of restriction on interracial marriage, but for the sake of argument, lets assume the Kinists are correct that such restrictions do indeed exist. The question then is this: Are those restrictions absolute, or do they have exceptions?
Some Kinists do indeed believe (or so it seems from what I’ve read) that interracial marriage is sinful in 100% of cases, and I’d reckon the majority of White Christians before the 1950s or 60s felt the same way (a 1958 Gallup poll showed that 96% of ALL Americans were morally opposed to interracial marriage).
Can it be argued that there are exceptions to the rule? In my opinion, yes. HOWEVER, just because exceptions may exist does not, in any way, suggest that interracial marriage must be excepted as normative. Put it simply: The exception is not the rule.
I can think of situations where killing another human being would be justified (hence why self-defense laws exist), but that doesn’t mean killing other humans should be the norm or that people should be able to do it freely.
For Biblical verses that clearly suggest interracial marriage should NOT be the norm, see: Genesis 24:3-4, 27:46 – 28:9; Exodus 34:15-16; Leviticus 21:14; Numbers 25:1-9; Deuteronomy 7:3-4; Joshua 23:12-13; Judges 3:5-6, 14:3; I Kings 11:1-6; Ezra 9:1 – 10:44; Nehemiah 10:30, 13:23-27; and Ezekiel 44:22
HT: Faith & Heritage
2. The separation goes as far as it says in Acts 17:26:
“From one man he made all the nations, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he marked out their appointed times in history and the boundaries of their lands.”
God wouldn’t have made nations (plural) or given them different geographical boundaries if he intended for all of humanity to mix as one. Indeed, when humans tried to unite, he separated us at the Tower of Babel. What we can derive from this is that the different races and ethnic groups should live in their own nations and not intermix.
If people like you want to have black neighbors and other non-white neighbors, than knock yourself out. But lets be honest: You would deny Kinists the option to live exclusively among their own kind. This is not a matter of you being able to live with non-white people. This is a matter of you and other liberal-minded people forcing Whites to live with non-whites against their will.
3. Maybe, maybe not. Galatians 3:28 would suggest the answer to your question is no, but so what? We’re talking about Planet Earth here, not heaven.
4. Kin is easily traceable through ancestry, and even if you don’t have easy access to your ancestral history, modern DNA tests cal tell you whether your 100% European (white), African (black), Asian, etc. Let me put is this way: The Koreans, Japanese, and Chinese have no problem distinguishing one from another even though they are of the same race. Ethnic groups around the world know who “us” is and who “them” is. It’s not as complicated as you’re making it out to be.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:40 pm
Perry: so the best kinism offers an inter-racial marriage is that their marriage is somehow a marriage made in hell?
That’s nothing more than saying, yes the decision to marry was sinful but now that you are married God can supersede your sin.
I find the distinction you’re observing meaningless. Whether a kinist calls inter-racial marriage adultery or a hell-made marriage, both are labeling such marriages as an act of sin.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:44 pm
Perry: in a day and age when the Mormon concept of ancestor worship has all but taken over our fascination (e.g., Ancestor.com), I am not confused nor seeking to confused.
It maybe that you’re not getting my question. Try this hypothetical:
How can I determine if I am marrying within the confines of my kin? How do I determine one is not the same kin?
What is the measurement based on? The modern evolution-based definition of races? The biblical Tower of Babel nations?
If kinism has any value in the most basic building block of civilization, the family, then it has to be able to answer this question.
Nathanael said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:48 pm
Reed, lineage in the sense that each of Noah’s three sons fathered one of the main racial groups and in turn each of their sons fathered different ethnic groupings. Genesis 11 takes place in the middle of the genealogies of Genesis 10 and yet the genealogies are unbroken showing that God’s confusion of the languages was along family lines. And we see the proliferation and relation between the different ethnicity groups in the similarity and dissimilarity of their languages and biology. And, as modern science progresses, in their genes too (check 23andme.com or criminal forensics as examples). Anthropology actually had a fairly good handle on how closely related different groups are to each other even centuries before Darwin came along and made a mess of things. A Dane is more closely related to a Dane than a Swede, more closely related to a Swede than a German, more closely related to a German than a Russian, and more closely related to a Russian than a Chinese or Bantu. With each step of the process taking you a step closer in lineage back towards Noah. From the list you gave, it looks like you come from one or two of Japheth’s sons and really aren’t that mixed. I would bet that unless you actually told someone, no one would ever guess that you weren’t entirely European. It is one of God’s gifts that there is almost always a dominate group a person, even highly mixed, resembles and identifies with in order to give them a place to belong and a people to identify with.
You’re a white American, that is your ethnicity and that is the group you should seek a mate from. Before you object that white American isn’t a distinct ethnicity, let me point out that if you go back as little as a fifteen hundred years many of the other groups you name as real distinct ethnicities in your bloodline weren’t either and yet over time and with a central culture and similar blood they have forged identities which you now treat has meaningful. How is white American with a Protestant English-speaking culture of primarily mixed northern Europeans any different? In fact, I would argue that there are actually multiple white American ethnicities taking shape.
The fact that ethnicity boundaries are real doesn’t conflict with the fact that they can also change and evolve. There’s no difference between:
Gaulic + Roman + Frankish = French
or
Scots + Picts + Norse = Scottish
and
Anglos + Celts + Germanics = white Americans
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:51 pm
The Gospel addresses Babel as a good thing with Pentecost where God sanctifies Babel. Not all hear in the same tongue but all the Nations hear the same message in their divided tongues.
Here is a quote from a Calvinist Professor from prior to the 1960’s that is germane to this conversation,
“Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will therefore be extended.”
Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.
“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”
“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.
Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”
Martin Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.
Those who would encourage inter-racial marriage have to explain how it is they are supporting something that is fraught with so much failure and crime.
The most definitive data comes from a 2002 report from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). This report[9] revealed that the ten-year probability of divorce in a first marriage for individuals of the same race is 31%, while the risk for those of different races is 41%. Thus, interracial marriage introduces a 32% increased risk of divorce.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:52 pm
Dan: no. 47: don’t have time to respond right now to all you’ve said, so just one quick point.
You’re reading the Tower of Babel wrong. The issue was not that they were trying to unite – they already were. The issue was they were not willing to obey the dominion mandate. Differentiation of languages was the means God used to end this rebellion.
Nothing in view in the passage has anything to do with kinism concerns. The resulting kin relations can just as easily be a SAD result, an experience of curse for their rebellion.
Reed Here said,
March 26, 2014 at 5:56 pm
Nathanael: using your ethnic boundary evolution logic:
White American + Black American + Hispanic American + Asian American = TADA! A new kin line, American!
(Sorry for anyone who feels left out.)
Seriously, you can’t even make this work in theory, let alone practice.
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 6:01 pm
#52
That could be a misreading of Gen. 11.
The issue was that they were trying to make a name for themselves by uniting against God’s clear command to be diverse (Gen. 10:32)
32 These are the families of the sons of Noah, after their generations, in their nations: and of these were the nations divided in the earth after the flood.
God divided the Nations. They defied God and sought to come together. There is your issue. Clearly the passage is concerned with Kinism concerns. They were seeking to become one people against God’s intent that their be Nations.
Mark B said,
March 26, 2014 at 6:09 pm
“In all of world history, the question of “which kin” is really only difficult for Americans in the last 50 years. Apart from the New World, the delineation of kins is nicely carved up for you to first order just by looking at the boundaries etched on a globe.”
Apologies if I’m missing some sarcasm here or something, but really? In the history of what world? Not the planet I live on. Consider the last few thousand years of European history, with war upon war upon war, with conquers raping as they went. (Your g,g,g,g,g,g,g,g,grandmomma) Or maybe you mean continents…wait, that doesn’t work either, ever been to Spain or north Africa? Or Asia? Never mind, I suppose all those “other people” look alike to you…
PS These kinists should be required to post a detailed DNA analisis of themselves before commenting. Might cut own on the nonsense.
Nathanael said,
March 26, 2014 at 6:09 pm
“so theory aside (the ultimate goal), how practically does kinism apply to me living next to folks from a different ethnicity? (Or race, or other term that kinism uses to identify the differentiation).”
As a practical suggestion, I would counsel begin planning on moving to a more homogenous area. Multi-racial empires like the US always, always, collapse and the American breakup will make the Yugoslav wars look like a picnic in the park by comparison if it comes to blows. If the breakup is peaceful, then you’re already ahead of the curve, if not then you’ve at least gotten your family off the frontlines.
Until then, the general rules of Christian love, politeness, and civility apply.
“How does the 2nd Great Command apply to me and my neighbor?”
The same as it does to everyone else. A relationship based on loving right action towards the other person based on the nature of your relationship which in this case would include a mutual respect for racial boundaries.
“so the OT blueprint provides the model for kinism’s concept of separation between the races? (Or ethnicities, or whatever term you think appropriate).”
That’s correct.
“So the fundamental characteristic separating the Jews from their neighbors was, race?”
Ethnicity, culture, and religion. Their religious covenant with God certainly marked them out as a special nation, but even time and time again as they abandoned the covenant and fell into sin they were still considered Israelites and the tribal affiliations and genealogies were important for such things as land ownership.
“As in, the Jews and Canaanites were not racially related therefore there could be no commerce at a certain level?”
Reread what I wrote, “Missionary work, commerce, tourism, and friendship are completely legitimate cross-cultural associations that Kinists have no issue with.” There are several examples in the Old Testament of Israel dealing economically with pagan nations with no condemnation, in contrast to the sharp negative response to inter-marriage.
Nathanael said,
March 26, 2014 at 6:15 pm
“using your ethnic boundary evolution logic:
White American + Black American + Hispanic American + Asian American = TADA! A new kin line, American!
(Sorry for anyone who feels left out.)
Seriously, you can’t even make this work in theory, let alone practice.”
All the examples I gave were of members of the same racial group which in the example you gave is not the case. In contrast to the more or less successful outcomes of intra-racial mixes, inter-racial mixes don’t work well. Just look at the poverty and racial stratification of Mexico or Brazil or the caste system of India.
Dan said,
March 26, 2014 at 6:24 pm
Reed:
Perry Samuels has answered everything in Post 54, but I’ll address this point of yours specifically:
“The resulting kin relations can just as easily be a SAD result, an experience of curse for their rebellion.”
Acts 17:27 belies this notion. God separated the nations “so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him.” When humanity unites as one, we think ourselves above God and remove Him altogether from our lives, hence why God said in Genesis 11:6, “now nothing that they propose to do will be withheld from them.”
The message is clear: Separation of humanity into distinct races and ethnic groups allows humans to seek out God and find Him, and that’s very much a GOOD thing, not a sad thing. The overwhelming majority of White Christians before 1960 knew this and understood this. It’s no coincidence that in this immoral, anti-Christian age, interracial marriage is embraced as normative.
Don said,
March 26, 2014 at 8:15 pm
This has been an enlightening discussion, demonstrating that kinism is just one strand of plain old ugly racism, while “Christian” Identity has the additional evil of trying to deny the gospel to certain groups of people.
GreenBaggins on Kinism at Faith and Heritage said,
March 26, 2014 at 8:15 pm
[…] and its applications. Recently the man behind the site has taken notice of Kinism and decided to write a post refuting it. Unfortunately this involved doing the same old “refute Christian Identity and call it […]
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 9:09 pm
Don
According to your Standard the Lord Christ was a Racist.
[A] woman whose daughter had an unclean spirit heard about [Jesus], and came and fell down at his feet. The woman was a Greek, by race a Phoenician from Syria. And she started asking him to drive the demon out of her daughter. He responded to her like this: “Let the children first be fed, since it isn’t good to take bread out of children’s mouths and throw it to the dogs! [kynaria]” But as a rejoinder she says to him: “Sir, even the dogs under the table get to eat scraps dropped by children!” Then he said to her: “For that retort, be on your way, the demon has come out of your daughter.” She returned home and found the child lying on the bed and the demon gone (Mk. 7:25-30).
Jesus calls a non Jew a dog for the very reason that she was not a Jew. By any standard this is what today would be known as a “racial slur.”
American Christianity … nice than Jesus.
Mark B said,
March 26, 2014 at 10:12 pm
Don summed this up succinctly in 59, but I’ll add another thought. My “kin” are my brothers and sisters who are in Christ, whatever shade their skin happens to be. The true evil of the kinian view is that it subordinates what should be paramount to any Christian, (the body of Christ) to distinctions built on sinful human perceptions.
Justin Esposito said,
March 26, 2014 at 11:04 pm
Blog moderators: a question.
At what point in a non-church setting like this do Paul’s admonitions kick in? It’s funny if we all stop to consider that we are actually jawing back and forth upon these exact things in Titus 3:9–> But avoid foolish controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels about the law, for they are unprofitable and worthless.
I mean, he even calls out “genealogies” in particular. If that is not Kinism and CI et al, then I am a french crouton.
Titus 3:10 As for a person who stirs up division, after warning him once and then twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
Where does such a (surely uniquely American) chattering end?
Perry Samuels said,
March 26, 2014 at 11:43 pm
Garlic crouton or Parmesan crouton?
Of course you’re invoking the same Kinist Paul who could reveal his Kinism by saying, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit,
3 For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh
Was St. Paul sinning by kinning here?
Don said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:04 am
Perry Samuels 61,
Interesting that you start quoting at vs. 25, not 24. I’m sure Jesus got lost and ended up in the region of Tyre and Sidon by accident, and didn’t mean to interact with any of the local Gentiles like this woman. I’m pretty sure this is the only time Jesus ever said anything provocative to incite someone to demonstrate their faith.
/sarcasm
But if in comment 64 you are sincerely attempting to recruit the Apostle to the Gentiles to your little racist heresy, then God have mercy on you.
Perry Samuels said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:45 am
@65
#1 — Kinists rejoice when Christ builds His church among all people groups. We affirm that the Gospel is for all Peoples and that the Lord Christ intended to make His name known among other peoples. That does not negate in the least that the Lord Christ aimed what today would be called a racial slur at the woman.
#2 — I don’t have to recruit St. Paul. He recruits Himself. He was concerned uniquely for his kinsmen… as any Kinist would be.
Don said,
March 27, 2014 at 1:21 am
Perry Samuels 66,
Seriously. Start with Romans 11:13 and I Timothy 2:7. Then read the beginning of Philippians 3, but then consider verses 7 and 8 to tell you how valuable Paul considered his ethnicity to be.
I am almost shocked that the non-kinists in these comments have had the restraint to not bring up Galatians 3:28. But I think 3:29 is even more important here.
Chris E said,
March 27, 2014 at 8:05 am
The reasons these arguments exist is because of the reluctance of the Reformed to confront them properly and biblically, because to do so would involve also confronting the same attitudes in various revered figures from the past.
It’s all very well to rail against the excesses of other denominations – but it’s rather empty when the excesses of ones own corner of Christendom are never properly delt with (rather like railing against the sins that ones own congregation are never likely to commit).
Perry Samuels said,
March 27, 2014 at 9:09 am
@ 67
13 But I speak to you that are Gentiles. Inasmuch then as I am an apostle of Gentiles, I glorify my ministry;
7 whereunto I was appointed a preacher and an apostle (I speak the truth, I lie not), a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth.
No kinists has any problem with St. Paul being the Apostle to the Gentiles. We remember that the purpose of Kinist Paul was the conversion of his own people by making them jealous.via his ministry to the Gentiles. (And notice that Paul understands that distinctions remain between Jews and non-Jews [Gentiles]).
The fact that he was the Apostle to the Gentiles unto the end of making Israel Jealous reveals that even his Apostleship was aimed at the good of his own people. Of course this confirms the very special affection that St. Paul had for his own people — a special affection that is the Biblical norm.
Romans 9:3.) For I could wish that I myself were anathema from Christ for my brethren’s sake, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
@67
7 Howbeit what things were gain to me, these have I counted loss for Christ.
8 Yea verily, and I count all things to be loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord: for whom I suffered the loss of all things, and do count them but refuse, that I may gain Christ,
No Kinists prioritizes his family over Christ and the Christian faith. All because Kinists insist that family is important doesn’t mean we prioritize our kin over Christ. Kinists, like Christians throughout the ages might think any number of things are important but doesn’t mean we make those things absolutes over Christ.
Am I to think that on the basis of #67’s appeal that non Kinists don’t think their family’s are important? That they don’t cherish their wives but instead count them as refuse?
No … we all agree with St. Paul in Phil. 3:7-8
@67
28 There can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither bond nor free, there can be no male and female; for ye all are one man in Christ Jesus.
29 And if ye are Christ’s, then are ye Abraham’s seed, heirs according to promise.
No kinist denies that people from all tribes, nations, and tongues are expected to be members of Christ. Like the Church throughout history we glory in that face. Most of us are postmillennialists and as such wwe pray for that eventuality when all the Nations will bow to Christ before His return. Some of us even agree with Warfield and are Eschatological Universalists.
We simply deny that union with Christ means we lose our maleness, femaleness, or ethnicity. At the Right Hand of the Father is a Man (as opposed to a female) who was born of the Tribe of Judah (as opposed to some other Tribe) who remains the son of Mary (as opposed to the son of some other woman).
Upon union w/ Christ our Creational identity markers do not go away and do not become insignificant. Union with Christ does NOT mean that all colors bleed into one (a Bono reference). Union with Christ does NOT mean that all the saved Mothers in the Church — as important as they be to me in a spiritual sense — become just as significant to me as my own (perhaps unsaved) Mother. Family is not lifted over Christ but it is not eliminated into a mass amalgamated Frankfurt School reality because of Christ.
We hold to this because we agree with Lane that,
“maintaining one’s cultural identity is not an evil thing.”
And of course, admitting that exceptions might and do occur, peoples can not maintain their cultural identity if they are miscegenating.
And of course the reason why this thinking exists is that it has NEVER been refuted. Sure, Kangaroo Church courts might someday condemn it but if they ever do so they will do so with the same type of evidence that was used to condemn Machen. (Who, by the way, as a Sourthener, was a Kinist.) And if they do condemn it they will be condemning nearly every Christian man who walked the earth prior to 1960.
Only a Christianity soaked in the axioms of Enlightenment Egalitarianism would ever reason the way that some people are reasoning in this thread. Of course still yet others haven’t yet thought through what they are advocating and so are merely being inconsistent with their faith by not having their thinking transformed by the renewing of their minds.
John McNeely said,
March 27, 2014 at 9:44 am
It seems Kinists use our term race and import it to the scripture passages that speak of nations and tribes. These ideas should not be conflated. They also seem to not really understand the reality that God has ordained for our world. The vast majority of people in the west are not of pure ancestry from any nation or tribe. The idea of race as it relates to color of skin is not found in scripture. Therefore, no biblical argument can be found to keep people of different skin color from marrying. If you want to use the idea of national or tribal distinctiveness to discourage inter-tribal or international marriages, it seems clear that in the west, at least, you will have a very difficult time finding a mate that shares your tribal heritage.
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 27, 2014 at 11:08 am
To Mr. McNeely (Post 70)…
You say:
“It seems Kinists use our term race and import it to the Scripture…”
There are a few problems with this argument.
1. It’s a fallacious ad hominem, at best. Even if someone incorrectly reads Scripture, that doesn’t mean their doctrinal conclusions are automatically wrong (perhaps, for instance, I may read the doctrine of incomprehensibility into the verse “Jesus Wept” … and while my interpretation of the passage may be wrong, the doctrine of incomprehensibility is not, therefore, also wrong).
2. Even if it’s demonstrated that Kinists are incorrect in their exegesis, further argumentation must be provided to demonstrate that wholesale racial mixing, as advocated for by modernist egalitarians (like yourself) is a normative life-style choice for Christians.
3. Contrary to what you’ve said here, it’s been my experience that Kinists, if anything, try to impose Biblical meaning onto the colloquial word “race”. You’re saying it’s the other way around…but that doesn’t match up with my experience of either myself (a Kinist) or the Kinist community at large.
4. Mr. McNeely – you don’t show anything more than an off-the-cuff pop-culture notion of what the word “race” means, and so, I’m not sure how serious any of us can take your statements. If you presume some authority on this issue, then you should reveal to us some of the source material you’ve studied to come to your conclusions.
Personally – I am dying of thirst for Reformed books that fairly, thoroughly, and consistently tackle issues of sociology and anthropology from a Reformed perspective. Dr. Vern Poythress, for instance, has seen the need to “reconstruct” sociology, linguistics, logic, science, (and many other disciplines) along consistently Christian grounds…do you appeal to his work when you make ethical decisions about racial issues?
Or do you coast along with pop-whims on these matters?
—————————–
There are similar fallacious ad hominems and non-sequiturs throughout your post, but I don’t intend to challenge each and every one.
I’d just re-iterate my request for study material.
If you’re an expert on what the Biblical world order ought to be, then I’d love to hear you out. It seems that, according to you, the Enlightenment world order ushered in by the French Revolution, is *the* Biblical model.
But to us Kinists – that sort of advocacy (on your part) speaks more to your pop-culture indoctrination rather than to any serious scholarly consideration.
David Opperman said,
March 27, 2014 at 11:19 am
Hello. I’d like to respond to John McNeely’s comment. John said that many Kinists conflate the idea with race with that of tribe or nation, and then read this into the scripture. I don’t believe that this is the case. I believe that the Bible presents a hierarchy of relationships based upon heredity. The family is closest, followed by the clan, tribe, nation, race, followed by all mankind. The Bible does seem to acknowledge the existence of race when Israel calls Edom their brothers (Num. 20:14 and Deut. 23:7). Race is identified by skin color, but it is not entirely a matter of the difference of skin color. The prophet Jeremiah acknowledged that Ethiopians or Cushites had a distinct skin color (Jer. 13:23), which would not make any sense if nations were not hereditary.
Don said,
March 27, 2014 at 11:21 am
Perry Samuels 69 says
whilst Nathanael 36 answers Reed saying
So, how exactly do you think Paul communicated the gospel to the Gentiles without living next to them? Did he Skype in from the Jewish enclaves?
You are taking Scriptures that say, essentially, that various ethnicities exist, and extrapolating from there to claim that races should live separately. To read Philippians 3 and claim that Paul agrees with your racist viewpoint is absurd. I Corinthians 9 shows fairly clearly that Paul felt that any advantage in his being Jewish was to spread the gospel to Jews, but he would easily set that aside if it helped spread the gospel to Gentiles (“those outside the law”).
First of all, no. To condemn a person’s belief is not the same as to condemn that person. But if “nearly every Christian man” was wrong, so what? They were wrong.
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 27, 2014 at 11:49 am
Mr. Don,
Paul went on (what we call): “Missionary Journeys”.
I don’t understand how Paul’s journeys somehow prove that French Revolutionary, radically Egalitarian social orders should be normative for Christians…
John McNeely said,
March 27, 2014 at 11:53 am
To Shotgun who said, “Even if it’s demonstrated that Kinists are incorrect in their exegesis, further argumentation must be provided to demonstrate that wholesale racial mixing as advocated for by modernist egalitarians (like yourself) is a normative life-style choice for Christians”
It was not my intent to provide a full exegetical analysis of your position. I think many here have already pointed out all the scripture you must ignore to continue to hold your views that demonstrate a clear hatred for scripture. On the issue of “race” it is you that is importing a false understanding of the term into scripture. 1 Peter 2:9 speaks of all believers united in one race. If you are looking for “some of the source material you’ve studied to come to your conclusions. ” I suggest scripture.
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 27, 2014 at 11:56 am
Mr. Chris E (in post 68):
Since God has put it in your heart to confront both Kinism, and those evil Presbyterians in the past who bucked modernist notions of egalitarian propriety, maybe you could direct us to some material that thoroughly explains what “race” is from a Christian perspective, and how, exactly, these racial categories are to be implemented and / or interacted with in the modern world?
As a Kinist, I love learning about these issues; even if someone presents a model I disagree with, I’m still interested in studying it.
So, please let me know what sort of material you’ve dealt with, or are planning to study on these issues.
David Opperman said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:02 pm
“So, how exactly do you think Paul communicated the gospel to the Gentiles without living next to them? Did he Skype in from the Jewish enclaves?”
Don, there’s a difference between ethnic and racial integration and missionary work. Kinists don’t believe in absolute racial separation, but in boundaries. It’s analogous to saying that separate families should live in separate houses, and that to merge all the families of a particular community into a single compound would be inordinate and against what the Bible prescribes for property ownership, but this doesn’t mean that families can’t or shouldn’t entertain guests. The distinctions just need to be maintained.
” To read Philippians 3 and claim that Paul agrees with your racist viewpoint is absurd.”
First I would ask:
1) What does “racism” mean?
2) How is “racism” a sin?
3) How does this apply to Kinism?
Then I would comment on Phil. 3. Phil. 3 doesn’t teach that physical relationships are meaningless or worthless, but rather that they are dung compared to the excellency of Christ Jesus. Romans 9:3 and 1 Timothy 5:8 both demonstrate the value of physical nature and relationships.
“But if “nearly every Christian man” was wrong, so what? They were wrong.”
I agree in the sense that I am perfectly willing to dismiss the current consensus among professed Christians and people in general on the question of race. I think that we need to be extremely cautious in setting aside the consistent beliefs of the Church over the centuries. As late as 1948 Gallup polls indicated that 95% of Americans were opposed to miscegenation. Has our understanding of the Bible improved during the recent decades? Have we become more Christian? I think not.
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:04 pm
Mr. McNeely,
Reading Scripture is what made me a Kinist – along with the sovereign grace of our Lord. So, I’m happy you suggest it to me.
But since you’ve been unable (or mysteriously unwilling) to provide any sort of scholarly material, I’m tempted to think that you don’t take these issues seriously enough to see what Christian scholarship has to say.
If that’s true, fine. Just don’t expect your off-the-cuff opinions to be taken seriously.
If you are alluding to a body of literature to help inform your opinions, I’d love to study some of it. (Excepting, of course, if your body of literature is Jerry Springer, Oprah Winfrey, and a government school education).
—————
I’d like to note a common mistake people make in hermeneutics.
(This mistake is pointed out in some intro. to hermeneutics text books; additionally – Dr. Bahnsen, in his lecture series on hermeneutics, specifically mentions it).
The mistake is this:
Making doctrinal conclusions based on Biblical analogy or illustration.
A famous example would be thinking that God is literally composed of light, or that God is literally a chemical reaction we call “love”, simply because the Bible, in different places, calls Him “light” and “love”.
Thinking that Jesus is literally a shepherd, would be another incorrect conclusion. He’s often compared to a shepherd, but He is not literally a shepherd.
In the same way, when the Bible speaks of us as being part of a new family, or being “brothers”, that doesn’t literally mean we’re part of a new family. The institution of the family is still very much a normative part of the Christian life.
If we take the viciously literal reading of “family” in the way you egalitarians need us to take it (in order to support the depraved ideals of modernity), we’d never be able to marry, because all Christian women are our “sisters”!
…and I don’t know about you… but I don’t want to marry my sister.
Angela Wittman said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:09 pm
Please take note that when one broadens the definition of kinism, it is to make it appear more acceptable and harmless. It really is racism and I am concerned for those who are deceived by it, much as Eve was deceived by the snake in the garden. I am glad to see it discussed here as many in the reformed camp have been led astray.
David Opperman said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:13 pm
“1 Peter 2:9 speaks of all believers united in one race.”
John, this is true in a qualified spiritual sense. Galatians 6:10 also refers to Christians as the members of one household or family, and this is true in one sense. But we wouldn’t use Galatians 6:10 to de-legitimize the concept of individual families or their individual property, inheritance, etc. The same is true for 1 Peter 2:9. In Revelation 21:24-26 and 22:2 we read of the multiple nations of the saved. This demonstrates that separate and distinct physical nationality is still a valid concept within the Body of Christ, and it will be in all eternity.
David Opperman said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:16 pm
“It really is racism and I am concerned for those who are deceived by it”
Angela,
1) What does “racism” mean?
2) How is “racism” a sin?
3) How does this apply to Kinism?
David Opperman said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:20 pm
Moreover I would suggest that the initial criticism of the article by Kinists is that it is too broad; to wit that it conflates Kinist ideas with Christian Identity.
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:22 pm
Mrs. Wittman,
I have no idea what the word “racism” means, unfortunately. :(
John McNeely said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:25 pm
Since the issue of race has been brought up by Kinists the burden of proof is on them to demonstrate how their view of race conforms to the Bible. Shotgun keeps characterizing the Biblical understanding of race as, “French Revolutionary, radically Egalitarian social order”. He has not defined what he believes this to be. Does he believe the Bible teaches superiority amongst his artificial understanding of race? The only place the Bible teaches the superiority of one race over another is in relation to the people of God being Holy. The idea of “race” being interchangeable with tribe and nation is not found in the new covenant. Anyone who would teach, contrary to scripture that people, of different tribes or nations are forbidden to intermarry should be brought up on charges in their presbytery. Anyone with even the most superficial knowledge of history should see the artificial idea of a pure race is absurd. It is not surprising that these same people who cannot read history also cannot read scripture. They ultimately must reject the mixed breed Lord of the Bible.
John McNeely said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:30 pm
I should have used multi-ethnic rather than mix breed. Jesus was indeed muti-ethnic. Rahab, Tamar, and Ruth were not of Jewish decent.
David Opperman said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:36 pm
John,
I thought that the definition of race as kindred nations (ethnicities) was fairly clear. The example of this is the relationship of the Israelites to the Edomites (Numb. 20:14; Deut. 23:7). We could also mention their kinship with other Semitic nations. I don’t think we are conflating race with nation or tribe.
“Anyone who would teach, contrary to scripture that people, of different tribes or nations are forbidden to intermarry should be brought up on charges in their presbytery.”
A radical notion indeed, since this would have included at least 95% of Christians as late as 1948.
“Anyone with even the most superficial knowledge of history should see the artificial idea of a pure race is absurd.”
Genealogical purity does not exist, but relative genetic purity does exist. The distinction is discussed here: http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/11/racial-purity-ethnic-genetic-interests-the-cobb-case/
John McNeely said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:38 pm
Jewish descent. I need to get a better keyboard for my laptop.
Justin Esposito said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:42 pm
“Hello, I’m your next door neighbor, Phil. Welcome to Sunnyside Acres.”
Hi, Phil, I’m Rick the Kinist.
What’s a Kinist, Rick?
Let me answer that for you by asking why your daughter over there seems to have darker skin than you, Phil?
Well, Rick the Kinist, her mother, my wife, is black.
…
Honey? Don’t unpack those boxes! We’re moving again!!
Praise the Lord and pass the U-Haul.
Perry Samuels said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Really?
Dr. Clarence MacArtney, conservative Reformed stalwart, should have been brought up on Charges?
“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”
Dr. Morton Smith, conservative Reformed stalwart, should be brought up on charges?
As one studies the origin of man in the Bible it is evident that all men descend from a single pair of first parents. This is clearly set forth in the first chapters of Genesis, where the creation of Adam and Eve is presented. Not only do we find the unity of the race in the original creation, but again at the time of the flood, we find all humanity destroyed except for one family, from whom all the peoples of the earth have come. This unity of humankind is confirmed by the common nature that we possess. It is seen in the fact that we are all sinners. It is seen in the fact that the gospel is offered to all men alike. . . .
On the basis of this unity of mankind the integrationist teaches that we are all brothers, and should thus ignore all external differences and mix as one race. There is a plea to forget racial and national differences and simply to amalgamate into one common brotherhood. It should be noted, in passing, that the biblical teaching on brotherhood is not primarily that of physical unity, but rather it is reserved for the spiritual unity that Christians, who know God as Father through Jesus Christ, have with one another.
It is rather striking to see that the very verse used by the integrationist as supporting his position also speaks of the diversity of peoples. The verse reads: “And He made of one every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed seasons, and the bounds of their habitation” (Acts 17:26). Notice that the verse not only teaches the basic unity of the human race, but it also speaks of the diversity of mankind in different nations and groups, whose bounds have been set by God. Granting that this may be speaking primarily of the national distinctions as being under God’s sovereign control, one who believes in God’s sovereignty over the history of the world must also grant that racial distinctions have arisen under his plan and control. . . .
It should be observed in connection with the event of the Tower of Babel, that we have a divine intervention which broke up the unity of the people. Mankind was seeking to remain together, thus disobeying the command of God to replenish the whole earth. Prior to the flood the human race had demonstrated what it would become if allowed to develop as a single people. Thus God, by a judicial action, intervened, confused their tongues, and scattered the people. Though this was an act of judgment, it was also gracious on God’s part, for it prevented a repetition of the development of sin by the unified race in the proportions of the pre-flood situation. Thus God, by his common grace intervened, and by his act of judgment intensified the diversity or pluriformity that was inherent in his creation.
If from this we may conclude that ethnic pluriformity is the revealed will of God for the human race in its present situation, it is highly questionable whether the Christian can have part in any program that would seek to erase all ethnic distinctions. That such distinctions may be crossed over by individuals may be granted, but it is at least questionable whether a program designed to wipe out such differences on a mass scale should be endorsed by the Christian. It is this line of argument that the average Christian segregationist uses to back his view. He fears that the real goal of the integrationist is the intermarriage of the races, and therefore the breakdown of the distinctions between them. Many who would be willing to integrate at various lesser levels refuse to do so, simply because they feel that such will inevitably lead to intermarriage of the races, which they consider to be morally wrong. . . .
There is to be found in Paul’s writings a recognition of the continued differences between Jewish and Gentile Christians. Some of the Jewish Christians continued to observe Old Testament practices, such as Sabbath observance and temple worship (Rom. 14:5-6; Acts 18:18; 21:23-29). Paul himself practiced certain Jewish observances at times, thus becoming a Jew to the Jews, and a Gentile to the Gentiles. It seems evident therefore, that Paul does not teach that the church should be a distinctionless mass, but rather the individuality of each person is recognized with all of his diversities. . . .
Again, if diversity is God’s revealed way for mankind, one wonders about any program that advocates the intermarriage of the diverse races in a way which will eradicate the differences that God has established. Though the present writer has been raised in the South, and personally feels that the intermarriage of persons of two races is something most undesirable, he must admit that he is not able to find any clear teaching of the Scripture that would condemn individual intermarriage as such, except between the Christian and the non-Christian. (The practice of endogamy is Scripturally normative. Dr. Smith would have done well to considered the following verses: Genesis 24:3-4, 27:46 – 28:9; Exodus 34:15-16; Leviticus 21:14; Numbers 25:1-9; Deuteronomy 7:3-4; Joshua 23:12-13; Judges 3:5-6, 14:3; I Kings 11:1-6; Ezra 9:1 – 10:44; Nehemiah 10:30, 13:23-27; and Ezekiel 44:22 ~ Mickey Henry)
The mass mixing of the races with the intent to erase racial boundaries he does consider to be wrong, and on the basis of this, he would oppose the mixing of the two races in this way. Let it be acknowledged that a sin in this area against the Negro race has been perpetrated by godless white men, both past and present, but this does not justify the adoption of a policy of mass mixing of the races. Rather, the Bible seems to teach that God has established and thus revealed his will for the human race now to be that of ethnic pluriformity, and thus any scheme of mass integration leading to mass mixing of the races is decidedly unscriptural.
Rev. T. Robert Ingram should have been brought up on Charges?
Let us not be lulled into a stupor by sweet talk, and let us not be too naive to admit that what is called integration is nothing more nor less than the organized attack of the forces of Hell upon God’s order in nature and in human society. T. Robert Ingram
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 27, 2014 at 12:58 pm
Mr. McNeely,
Are you asking me to teach you what kinism is, so you can critique it?
That seems like an odd way to approach a subject.
If, on the other hand, you’ve done some simple web-research and have been able to critique an ideal or two, I might hear you out.
By the way,
You speak of *the* “Biblical” understanding of race.
…what is this, please, and can you recommend any scholarly material outlining a Biblical model; perhaps some material you’ve studied on the issue?
Are you referring to something by Francis Nigel Lee? Something by Rushdoony? Something by Vern Poythress? Maybe you’re utilizing material from some other scholar?
I’d love to learn from you on these points, sir… but I demand deep and serious thought, as opposed to off-the-cuff emotional whim, garnered by pop-sentiment.
John McNeely said,
March 27, 2014 at 1:09 pm
The scholar that gives a great Biblical understanding of race is Peter the Apostle. His treatment of it is contained in his first epistle about 9 verses into the second chapter. Perhaps you should give it a little more weight than you give the “deep and serious” thought of your scholars.
shotgunwildatheart said,
March 27, 2014 at 1:15 pm
That’s a very disingenuous and intellectually dishonest answer, Mr. Neely.
The meaning of Scripture’s teachings on these issues is the very thing being contested.
If your beliefs concerning French Revolutionary social orders, and radical egalitarianism, are so strong that they lead you to offer such responses, I’d consider seriously praying about them, and seeing if God might open your heart to a different (more consistently Reformed) path.
Please pray about these issues and think deeply about them – we Kinists do.
David Opperman said,
March 27, 2014 at 1:16 pm
John, I’ve responded to your use of 1 Peter 2:9.
This is true in a qualified spiritual sense. Galatians 6:10 also refers to Christians as the members of one household or family, and this is true in one sense. But we wouldn’t use Galatians 6:10 to de-legitimize the concept of individual families or their individual property, inheritance, etc. The same is true for 1 Peter 2:9. In Revelation 21:24-26 and 22:2 we read of the multiple nations of the saved. This demonstrates that separate and distinct physical nationality is still a valid concept within the Body of Christ, and it will be in all eternity.
John McNeely said,
March 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Only someone who is being intellectually dishonest would refuse to submit to the clear teaching of scripture in exchange for scholarly thought. What kind of principles is one seeking to apply when they refuse to accept the clear teaching of scripture? Those principles are certainly not Christian. I read shotgun’s blog and one of his reasons for being opposed to interracial, as he understands it, marriage is because it is done in his estimation to the detriment of the “white race”. I think that should tell everyone where Mr. shotgun’s motives are. He is a false teacher who twists scripture to promote his idolatry of the “white race”.
I am against the practice of interracial marriage as the Bible defines it. The Bible defines interracial marriage as the union of a believer to a nonbeliever.
michael said,
March 27, 2014 at 1:35 pm
Scott/shotgun:
//P(4): From 3, the Imago Dei must be some aspect of man that is shared by many races of sentient beings (ie: intelligence, language, use of logic, responsibility for dominion, etc. etc.)\\
Like: 22 For Jews demand signs and Greeks seek wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and folly to Gentiles,
24 but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.
25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards,[fn] not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
29 so that no human being[fn] might boast in the presence of God.
And
Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.
I’d like you to address these verses and God’s intent in their being a part of the Scriptures?:::>
Exodus 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.”
Now adding to what God had written by Moses there there is this here:
Ezekiel:
21 “So you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel.
22 You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.
23 In whatever tribe the sojourner resides, there you shall assign him his inheritance, declares the Lord GOD.
Pay special note to verse 23 as I now open up to just examples from the Scriptures that at least by my account blow holes in this Kinist thinking, this pure genetic cultural segregation keeping the races pure and not allowing for racial marriage and integration across national lines:
First is Caleb. Here’s an excellent example of Ezekiel 47:23.
Let’s start with the broad stroke, here:
Genesis 15:19 the land of the Kenites, the Kenizzites, the Kadmonites,
Now we see God tell Moses to give Caleb a portion of the land promised to the sons of Jacob:
Numbers 14:24 But my servant Caleb, because he has a different spirit and has followed me fully, I will bring into the land into which he went, and his descendants shall possess it.
The thing is Caleb was a Kenizzite!
Taking the truth seen in Exodus 12 and Ezekiel 47 we realize God merges into His pedigree, the twelve sons of Jacob, Caleb. Keep in mind where Isaac’s wife Rebekah is from; and Jacob’s wives! Two of them were servant girls not even members of Laban’s blood!
Two more verses about Caleb:
Numbers 13:6 from the tribe of Judah, Caleb the son of Jephunneh;
See that there? Caleb’s identity is fully recognized with the tribe of Judah just like Ezekiel 47:23 shows. I’ll digress a moment on this identity with a personal note after citing the final Caleb verse I’d like to see you respond to that in my judgment blows holes in this kinism teaching:
Joshua 14:6 Then the people of Judah came to Joshua at Gilgal. And Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite said to him, “You know what the LORD said to Moses the man of God in Kadesh-barnea concerning you and me.
7 I was forty years old when Moses the servant of the LORD sent me from Kadesh-barnea to spy out the land, and I brought him word again as it was in my heart.
8 But my brothers who went up with me made the heart of the people melt; yet I wholly followed the LORD my God.
9 And Moses swore on that day, saying, ‘Surely the land on which your foot has trodden shall be an inheritance for you and your children forever, because you have wholly followed the LORD my God.’
10 And now, behold, the LORD has kept me alive, just as he said, these forty-five years since the time that the LORD spoke this word to Moses, while Israel walked in the wilderness. And now, behold, I am this day eighty-five years old.
11 I am still as strong today as I was in the day that Moses sent me; my strength now is as my strength was then, for war and for going and coming.
12 So now give me this hill country of which the LORD spoke on that day, for you heard on that day how the Anakim were there, with great fortified cities. It may be that the LORD will be with me, and I shall drive them out just as the LORD said.”
13 Then Joshua blessed him, and he gave Hebron to Caleb the son of Jephunneh for an inheritance.
14 Therefore Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh the Kenizzite to this day, because he wholly followed the LORD, the God of Israel.
Now just a personal digression about “identities” and “name” association regarding Caleb, where in one verse we read Caleb is from the tribe of Judah, Numbers 13:6 yet most every other reference to Caleb identifies him as a Kenizzite.
My last name is “Burke”. I’m from a tribe of Northern Californian Indians. How my family got the “white man name” Burke was because settlers from Europe came to Northern California in the 1800’s by the name Burke and bought land and settled in “Indian” country. The laws in California at the time permitted these white settlers to own Indians. There was an Indian woman who was a domestic for the Burke’s who had three sons. Each of the sons, one of them being my great x 4 grandfather were always identified by their land owner’s name, so and so from the “Burke” ranch. As time went along and the Indians were allowed to become a part of this new white man culture own identities were kept with the integration. Hence today you can come to my reservation cemetery and see grave stones and markers on “Indian” graves with these odd white man names.
Now, please account for this snippet from Matthew’s genealogy:
Matthew 1:5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse,
Here we have Rahab, Boaz, Ruth, a Moabite, whose son is Obed the father of Jesse!
If that’s not wacky enough just look up a few verses and see from whose womb Perez came from!
Can you explain all that then continue to justify kinism/Kinist?
John McNeely said,
March 27, 2014 at 1:53 pm
Michael, yes and amen. However, when dealing with Mr. shotgun you cannot use scripture to come up with a christian application to culture. Because it is the “meaning” of scripture that is being debated. Apparently it is intellectually dishonest to use scripture to come up with its meaning and christian application to culture.
John McNeely said,
March 27, 2014 at 2:51 pm
i just noticed Mr. Opperman’s remark about my use of 1 Peter 2. His belief that Rev 21 and 22 undermines my view fails scriptural scrutiny. we need to let scripture interpret scripture. First the presence of nations in Revelations does not teach that it is wrong for people of different ethnicity to marry. If we were to apply his hermeneutic to Zech 14 we would come up with still doing sacrifices during this period. The Old Covenant was mainly characterized as being between God and the nation of Israel. These references to nations in prophecy is to point to the fact that under the new covenant all nations would be united under a single race. This race is defined repeatedly in the New Testament. It is interesting Mr. Opperman mentions the possibility of obliterating family from Gal 6:10. Christ does mention family relationships and where they should fall in our priorities when compared to the household of faith. Christ does not obliterate families or nations. In Christ these institutions are strengthened. However our union to Christ and his race is stronger than these institutions. There is no biblical reason to discourage international or inter ethnic marriages because our union to the household or race of faith supersedes these distinctions.
Perry Samuels said,
March 27, 2014 at 3:21 pm
That is a interpretation alien to Dr. Wyngaarden @ 97.
Dr. Wyngaarden was Reformed and taught OT Theology as a Seminary Professor. Dr. Wyngaarden, disagreeing with John McNeely notes,
“Now the predicates of the covenant are applied in Isa. 19 to the Gentiles of the future, — “Egypt my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance,” Egypt, the people of “Jehovah of hosts,” (Isa. 19:25) is therefore also expected to live up to the covenant obligations, implied for Jehovah’s people. And Assyria comes under similar obligations and privileges. These nations are representative of the great Gentile world, to which the covenant privileges will therefore be extended.”
Martin J. Wyngaarden, The Future of the Kingdom in Prophecy and Fulfillment: A Study of the Scope of “Spiritualization” in Scripture (Eugene: Wipf & Stock, 2011), p. 94.
“More than a dozen excellent commentaries could be mentioned that all interpret Israel as thus inclusive of Jew and Gentile, in this verse, — the Gentile adherents thus being merged with the covenant people of Israel, though each nationality remains distinct.”
“For, though Israel is frequently called Jehovah’s People, the work of his hands, his inheritance, yet these three epithets severally are applied not only to Israel, but also to Assyria and to Egypt: “Blessed be Egypt, my people, and Assyria, the work of my hands, and Israel, mine inheritance.” 19:25.
Thus the highest description of Jehovah’s covenant people is applied to Egypt, — “my people,” — showing that the Gentiles will share the covenant blessings, not less than Israel. Yet the several nationalities are here kept distinct, even when Gentiles share, in the covenant blessing, on a level of equality with Israel. Egypt, Assyria and Israel are not nationally merged. And the same principles, that nationalities are not obliterated, by membership in the covenant, applies, of course, also in the New Testament dispensation.”
Martin Wyngaarden, pp. 101-102.
Angela Wittman said,
March 27, 2014 at 4:53 pm
As most can tell, the Kinists are out in full force and trying to hijack this post and it’s comment section. I’ve gone round and round with a few posting here in years past and sincerely pray the good Lord will open their eyes to the truth. I shudder to think what a community or even a church would be like of they were ever to gain traction and/or acceptance in mainstream Christianity.
David Opperman said,
March 27, 2014 at 5:10 pm
“the Imago Dei must be some aspect of man that is shared by many races of sentient beings (ie: intelligence, language, use of logic, responsibility for dominion, etc. etc.)”
I don’t think that any Kinist would object to this. All humans are rational creatures, but everyone is not equally rational.
“Colossians 3:11 Here there is not Greek and Jew, circumcised and uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave, free; but Christ is all, and in all.”
Whatever this verse is saying, it is saying the same thing as Gal. 3:28, no? Gal. 3:28 mentions “neither male nor female,” so it is clear that this is not saying that these distinctions are irrelevant or unimportant. If it is, then the foundation for gender roles and even marriage between a man and a woman is undermined.
“I’d like you to address these verses and God’s intent in their being a part of the Scriptures?:::>
Exodus 12:48 If a stranger shall sojourn with you and would keep the Passover to the LORD, let all his males be circumcised. Then he may come near and keep it; he shall be as a native of the land. But no uncircumcised person shall eat of it.
49 There shall be one law for the native and for the stranger who sojourns among you.””
Non-Israelites could join the covenant, but they were still non-Israelites. They weren’t numbered with the tribes, seeing as they were still a distinct entity (Num. 11:4). They could not rule Israel (Deut. 1:13-16, 17:15, 2 Sam. 5:1, 1 Chr. 11:1). They could not permanently own property that was allotted to the tribes (Lev. 25, Num. 36).
Ezekiel:
21 “So you shall divide this land among you according to the tribes of Israel.
22 You shall allot it as an inheritance for yourselves and for the sojourners who reside among you and have had children among you. They shall be to you as native-born children of Israel. With you they shall be allotted an inheritance among the tribes of Israel.
23 In whatever tribe the sojourner resides, there you shall assign him his inheritance, declares the Lord GOD.
I’m actually working on a series for Faith and Heritage that will address these topics specifically. These verses in Ezekiel correspond to a vision of New Jerusalem. The Apostle John in Revelation uses the same imagery as Ezekiel. In Revelation he describes multiple nations of the saved. So the distinction still remains. Ezekiel was not talking about foreigners of all nations becoming land-owners in the physical nation of Israel. This would be a geographic impossibility. Rather Ezekiel is referring to all nations coming to faith. This is evident in other passages such as Isaiah 19:25 which says, “Whom the LORD of hosts shall bless, saying, Blessed be Egypt my people, and Assyria the work of my hands, and Israel mine inheritance.” Egypt and Assyria will be God’s people even though they had oppressed the Israelites, though they will remain separate nations.
“Now just a personal digression about “identities” and “name” association regarding Caleb, where in one verse we read Caleb is from the tribe of Judah, Numbers 13:6 yet most every other reference to Caleb identifies him as a Kenizzite.”
Keil and Delitzsch comment “On the Kenizzites, all that can be affirmed with certainty is, that the name is neither to be traced to the Edomitish Kenaz (Gen 36:15, Gen 36:42), nor to be identified with the Kenezite Jephunneh, the father of Caleb of Judah.”
Keil and Delitzsch continue, “Caleb was not “the head of the Judahites,” as Knobel maintains, but simply the head of a father’s house of Judah, and, as we may infer from his surname, “the Kenizzite” or descendant of Kenaz (“the Kenizzite” here and Num_32:12 is equivalent to “son of Kenaz,” Jos_15:17, and Jdg_1:13), head of the father’s house which sprang from Kenaz, i.e., of a subdivision of the Judahite family of Hezron; for Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel and father of Achzah, according to 1Ch_2:42 (cf. 1Ch_2:49), was the same person as Caleb the descendant of Hezron mentioned in 1Ch_2:18. From the surname “the Kenizzite” we are of course not to understand that Caleb or his father Jephunneh is described as a descendant of the Canaanitish tribe of Kenizzites (Gen_15:19); but Kenaz was a descendant of Hezron, the son of Perez and grandson of Judah (1Ch_2:5, 1Ch_2:18, 1Ch_2:25), of whom nothing further is known. Consequently it was not the name of a tribe, but of a person, and, as we may see from 1Ch_4:15, where one of the sons of Caleb is called Kenaz, the name was repeated in the family. The sons of Judah who came to Joshua along with Caleb were not the Judahites generally, therefore, or representatives of all the families of Judah, but simply members or representatives of the father’s house of Judah which took its name from Kenaz, and of which Caleb was the head at that time.”
Keil and Delitzsch seem to provide the simplest solution to the question of Caleb’s Kennizite ancestry. Caleb is specifically assigned to the tribe of Judah, which would be odd if he were not a patri-lineal descendant of Judah. The genealogies of the book of Chronicles are not exhaustive, so it appears that Caleb’s father Jephunneh is the son or descendant of an unnamed Kenaz of the tribe of Judah among the patriarchs listed in 1 Chronicles 4 from whom his family took his name.
This is corroborated by Caleb having a brother named Kenaz (Joshua 15:16-17, Judges 1:12-13, and 1 Chronicles 4:13), and by Caleb having a grandson or descendent named Kenaz (1 Chronicles 4:15). Keil and Delitzsch seem to confuse the Caleb of Joshua and Judges with the Caleb who is called the son of Hezron (1 Chronicles 2:18), whereas the Caleb of Joshua and Judges is mentioned in 1 Chronicles 4. This only reinforces Caleb’s ancestry in the tribe of Judah, since this would mean that there was a Caleb who descended from another branch of the tribe of Judah who could possibly be the namesake of the famous Caleb who is mentioned in Joshua and Judges. Regardless, it is far more likely that Caleb and Kenaz were names that were familiar to the tribe of Judah, and this is why they are associated with the family mentioned in Joshua and Judges. Jephunneh being a Kennizite does not make him a descendant of a foreign nation. The suffix –ite is sometimes used to denote the branch of a tribal clan or extended family. Another example of this would be the Judge named Jephthah, who is called a Gileadite (Judges 11:1) because he is a descendant of Gilead, the son of Machir and the grandson of Manasseh (Numbers 26:29). Caleb is clearly a member of the tribe of Judah, not the descendant of a foreign nation.
“Matthew 1:5 and Salmon the father of Boaz by Rahab, and Boaz the father of Obed by Ruth, and Obed the father of Jesse,
Here we have Rahab, Boaz, Ruth, a Moabite, whose son is Obed the father of Jesse!
If that’s not wacky enough just look up a few verses and see from whose womb Perez came from!”
I believe that the best treatment of this issue is from our friend Tim. I’ll post the link rather than simply copying and pasting the work here. http://firstword.us/2012/06/ham-on-genealogy-tamar-rahab-ruth-and-christ/
David Opperman said,
March 27, 2014 at 5:26 pm
“i just noticed Mr. Opperman’s remark about my use of 1 Peter 2. His belief that Rev 21 and 22 undermines my view fails scriptural scrutiny. we need to let scripture interpret scripture. ”
I agree entirely that Scripture needs to interpret Scripture, I just don’t think that you are doing that.
“First the presence of nations in Revelations does not teach that it is wrong for people of different ethnicity to marry.”
I never said that this was the basis for the prohibition concerning miscegenation. The Kinist position is far more in depth than that. You can read more here:
http://faithandheritage.com/2011/05/the-moral-status-of-miscegenation/
http://faithandheritage.com/2012/10/christian-ethics-and-interracial-marriage-part-1-preliminary-definitions/
http://faithandheritage.com/2012/05/divorce-miscegenation-and-polygamy-a-comparative-approach-to-their-morality-part-1/
The point that I was making is that the verses in Revelation demonstrate that the concept of multiple, separate, and distinct nations (ethnicities) within the Church is a valid concept. On Pentecost, Dr. Francis Nigel Lee comments, “Pentecost sanctified the legitimacy of separate nationality rather than saying this is something we should outgrow… In fact, even in the new earth to come, after the Second Coming of Christ, we are told that the nations of them which are saved shall walk in the light of the heavenly Jerusalem, and the kings of the earth shall bring the glory and the honor—the cultural treasures—of the nations into it… But nowhere in Scripture are any indications to be found that such peoples should ever be amalgamated into one huge nation.” This is the concept that you seem to be failing to grasp. The idea that 1 Peter 2:9 teaches that all Christians are members of one nation in every sense is not valid. This would mean that verses like Gal. 6:10 would mean that it would be wrong for Christians to live in separate families. It doesn’t, because all Christians are only members of one household in a spiritual, rather than physical sense.
“If we were to apply his hermeneutic to Zech 14 we would come up with still doing sacrifices during this period.”
Revelation 21 and 22 refer to the eternal state. No sacrifices are mentioned.
“These references to nations in prophecy is to point to the fact that under the new covenant all nations would be united under a single race.”
There is no scripture to support this, and much that militates against it as the Francis Nigel Lee quote illustrates. The word nation in 1 Peter 2:9 is the same word used in Revelation 21 and 22. That’s the point I was making.
“It is interesting Mr. Opperman mentions the possibility of obliterating family from Gal 6:10. Christ does mention family relationships and where they should fall in our priorities when compared to the household of faith. Christ does not obliterate families or nations. In Christ these institutions are strengthened. However our union to Christ and his race is stronger than these institutions.”
I agree that in Christ the institutions of family, nation, and race are strengthened. I also believe that loyalty to Christ is more important than loyalty to my family, nation, and race. It does not follow that my relationship to all Christians of all races is therefore more important than my relationship to my immediate family, tribe, nation, etc. Certainly the Apostle Paul didn’t seem to think that this was the case (Romans 9:3).
“There is no biblical reason to discourage international or inter ethnic marriages because our union to the household or race of faith supersedes these distinctions.”
This does not follow from what you’ve just said. I would encourage you to follow the links that I’ve provided.
David Opperman said,
March 27, 2014 at 5:30 pm
“As most can tell, the Kinists are out in full force and trying to hijack this post and it’s comment section.”
We’re not “hijacking” anything. We are responding to what we sincerely believe to be a misrepresentation of our position. Debates over theological questions such as this one can only be resolved by open discussion. It is disheartening to see Christians such as Ms. Wittman think that the debate can be resolved by silencing Kinists.
“I shudder to think what a community or even a church would be like of they were ever to gain traction and/or acceptance in mainstream Christianity.”
Kinism WAS mainstream Christianity until the recent decades. Just peruse the quotes provided by Perry Samuels. The group of denominations referred to as “mainstream Christianity” today are mostly apostate. Let God be true and every man a liar (Romans 3:4).
Kinism? said,
September 7, 2017 at 8:26 am
[…] Lane Keister: https://greenbaggins.wordpress.com/2014/03/26/the-main-biblical-problem-with-kinism/ […]