A Kinist Response to Brian Schwertley’s Accusations of Heresy
August 6, 2010 
59 Comments
Rev. Brian Schwertley preached two sermons last Sunday entitled “The Heresy of Kinism” (part 1, part 2). This is not the first time that a preacher has denounced Kinism as a heresy, but we think it is the first time that one has been bold enough to publish the sermons.
We could not have asked for anyone better than B.S. because he’s the perfect Reformitard. After graduating from seminary, he bounced around to various presbyterian splinter-denominations, starting with the RPCNA and then to Joe Morecraft’s RPCUS and then to the CRPC, which has four churches and the gol-danged original Westminster Confession. B.S. left that group in a cloud of acrimony, with charges flying both ways, and formed the WPCUS, having three churches, for the purpose of showing those CRPC heretics how to be Truly Reformed. B.S. bills it as “the only indigenous Presbyterian denomination in the United States that has full subscription to the original Westminster Standards.” Until it splits again in the name of Semper Reformanda, the Church of B.S. is located in rural Waupaca County, Wisconsin, which is 97.9% white, and therefore the ideal location to thunder against “racism.” Who better to denounce the “heresy” of Kinism?
The thesis of the sermons is that there is only one race, the human race. It’s humorous that the heresy-hunters can’t come to an agreement on such an important matter. R.C. Sproul Jr., who says that he is actively trying to turn entire regions of the South “coffee-colored,” denies that race exists. Ken Ham, who was publicly spanked and sent to bed by Tim Harris, teaches that there are two races: Christians and non-Christians. Now B.S. comes along and says there is only one race, the human race. On what basis can we, who disagree with all of them, be accused of heresy, since they disagree with each other on the very meaning of race? Anyway, says B.S., since there is only one race (the human race), faith, ethics, and worldview govern a biblical sociology, and nothing else. We will show why we we disagree with him, of course, but it’s important to keep in mind that he has charged us with heresy, and such a serious charge needs to be proved. The H-bomb is the favorite tactic of Reformitards because it has the same effect as the word “racist.” It’s a cannonball in the placid swimming pool of debate. (How’s that for a metaphor?) Leaving aside our differences of opinion, consider whether B.S. has actually proved his charge of heresy or if it is it simply another of his wild assertions.
Let’s begin with the flaws in his approach to the subject. (There is a very good review by a friend of ours posted at Christianity for Kinism.) The first exhibit in the sloppiness of Schwertley’s scholarship is that he never defines the words “racism,” “racist,” or “Kinist,” even though he peppers every other sentence with one or more of the words. It’s not that we mind a well-placed rhetorical jab. Rather, the problem for B.S. is that if he fails to define these labels, he bears the guilt of a false witness. Ministers of the gospel have a special duty to be careful on this point. Josh is correct that this poisons the well from the start by biasing language in Schwertley’s favor. Until he defines his terms, his sermons are little more than a rant. We can’t have a productive dialogue unless we can come to an agreement on how words are defined. Of course, it could be that the purpose is not to have a productive dialogue. If so, this too is unbecoming for a minister.
“God created distinct species in the animal world, according to their kind…and they may interbreed and reproduce… Each species is fixed by God and cannot interbreed with other species.” B.S. uses the words “kind” and “species” interchangeably, meaning those who can successfully interbreed, and he applies this rule to human beings. This is not how the Bible uses the word “kind,” however. Leviticus 19:19 commands: “You shall not let your livestock breed with another kind.” Why? Because mongrel breeds will result. The concern is not that a bull will try to mate with a horse and be incapable of producing offspring, but rather that two dissimilar kinds of cattle will produce inferior offspring. In the same verse is the command to not sow a field with mixed seed. Again, this is because the mixture of the two kinds will produce a spurious seed, which farmers used to call “chess” or “cheat.” The chess will actually bear fruit, but it will be of inferior size, flavor, and nutrition. (See the JFB commentary on this verse.) On a related note, there is this recent news story about a donkey and zebra mating to create a “zeedonk.” B.S. and his fellow race-mixers would deny that there is a problem here, because since the two were able to produce offspring, it proves that they are of the same “kind.” But this is even worse than what Leviticus 19:19 was designed to prevent, since it is extremely rare and unnatural for donkeys and zebras to mate. B.S. shows that he is “completely” and “totally” (to use his favorite words) ignorant of the reason for this law when he mockingly compares it to Germans eating “sauerkraut and sausage.”
Since he denies that kind-after-kind and unequal yoking apply to race, he is really saying that God did not intend for there to be distinct races, and since their formation is mere happenstance, we have no moral obligation to preserve them.
This relates to Genesis 11 and the story of Babel, which B.S. mistakenly declares to be “perhaps the most important passage to the Kinist movement” and “the central proof-text against interracial marriage.” This is not really what it’s about, and we’ve never strictly argued, as he accuses, that “different language groups should not intermarry.” The tree of language, having one trunk and many branches, is similar to the tree of humanity. In the divine judgment at Babel, language was used as a tool to disperse peoples and diverge their histories, because this is what pleases God and minimizes sin. Schwertley’s objections seem very strange at first, because you will notice that we agree with much of what he says about Babel and the subsequent judgment. For instance, “Separate languages, tribes, and nations will exist at the Second Coming of Christ.” These natural divisions do not hinder the gospel. The Bible is translated into many languages; we do not try to force one biblical language on all peoples, as Roman Catholics used to do. B.S. recognizes that “many languages stop sinful man from achieving assent.” He even recognizes that Christians should not desire a one-world civil government, even though they desire a global empire of Christ. So what’s the problem?
The problem, in his mind, is that if the original “unity of human language was not intrinsically sinful or wrong,” there must be nothing wrong with it today. And since language and kin diverge in tandem, there must be nothing wrong with reuniting them and mixing peoples who have followed very different paths. But this misses the entire point of the judgment at Babel. God appreciates diversity, even though He wants all people to come to a common faith. To work against His purposes in the world is foolish and sinful, just as it is foolish to work against the purpose of a tree by binding all branches into one and calling it “unity.” As every horticulturalist knows, trees grow best when they are pruned and there is space between the branches. A tree can’t be healthy if it’s a tangled mess. This sort of common sense is quickly denounced by race-mixers as separation and segregation. What of it? Historically, segregationists and separatists performed some of the greatest missionary works in history. The fact that they wanted their own people to remain distinct from others did not mean that they hated others. They understood trinitarian unity rather than the unitarian unity of the Reformitards.
“In the Old Testament, the central issue was faith, not blood; the covenant, not race. Now, it is true that Jesus had to come as a direct descendant of Abraham and David; that’s true and that’s important. But, the central issue was still faith, not blood. It is imperative that we do not fall into the heresy of the Pharisees which saw a great importance [in] race or their [descent] from Abraham.” You mean to say that it was important for Jesus to be “perfect in his generations,” just as was said of Noah? This doesn’t sound like a good argument for anti-Kinism to me. We agree that faith is primary. The dispute is over whether blood means anything at all. B.S. only admits that it did for the Messiah, who necessarily had to be born in the line of Abraham, Judah, and David. By his own words, he shows that he holds the unbiblical belief that blood is the antithesis of faith. There is no dichotomy to be found here, as much as B.S. wants to create one. Since he truly believes that it exists, he calls us Pharisees and Judaizers. We’ll deny this once again, just to be crystal clear: We do not believe that being white assures us of salvation. Nothing we are or can do will save us from the penalty of sin. Salvation comes solely by grace through faith. We sincerely hope that B.S. will repent of his slander. He has also called us “man-worshipers.” We absolutely deny that we set any man, family, tribe, or race above God. This is slander, and B.S. needs to repent of it.
“If you read the category of mankind that Paul gives in Roman Chapter 5, how does he categorize mankind? Those in Adam and those in Christ. Race is not a consideration.” The distinction between those who are in Adam and those who are in Christ is that death came to the children of the former and life came to the children of the latter, the Second Adam. Obviously, in the physical sense, we are descended from Adam but not from Christ. Therefore, Romans 5 makes a spiritual distinction. It is not about race, but by the same token, it does not prove that race is insignificant. It’s a common tactic of anti-Kinists to confuse the spiritual and physical. No single verse is more abused in this regard than Galatians 3:28. They also like to pretend that unusual circumstances pave the way for normative rules.
B.S. fishes for any and every example of miscegenation to be found in Scripture, however improbable, to show that it can’t be as aberrant as Kinists claim. He even uses Esther’s marriage to a Persian king to show that miscegenation is justified. But as our reviewer friend says, this is like suggesting that Hosea’s marriage to Gomer makes us free to marry prostitutes.
He expends a lot of energy on the the curse of Canaan, which is an interesting subject but incidental at best to our principles as Kinists. I don’t even believe that all of Africa was populated by Hamites. We don’t know for certain if Negroes descended from Ham, but this is the historical consensus. B.S. makes a big deal of how Canaan was cursed, not Ham. It’s interesting that few people seem to take note of the fact that God had already blessed Noah and his sons in Genesis 9:1. Perhaps Noah did not feel that he had the right to curse Ham, whom God had blessed. B.S. insists that the curse had “nothing to do with race or skin color.” But it had everything to do with judgment being passed through the blood, from one generation to the next. The curse of servitude was passed from Canaan genetically, not according to beliefs. Again, this is straying from the topic of Kinism, but it shows that B.S. is out of his depth.
He asserts that the mixed multitude that came out of Egypt continued to wander in the desert for 40 years and did not die there, after convincing Aaron to craft an Egyptian idol, or return home. “Their children entered the Promised Land and were absorbed into the non-Levitical tribes of Israel.” He makes assertions of this kind in a number of places, saying that foreign converts to Israel became politically equal to Israelites, sharing in the tribal inheritance, above the level of slaves and migrant strangers. No proof is offered.
He also claims that there was intermarriage between Nubians and Egyptians, and that “Egyptians were predominantly Hamite in their stock.” Of Joseph’s wife, he asserts, “She was a Hamite!” Is this what you would gather from these pictures?
He dismisses what we have said about the race of Egyptians as “a pitiful argument.” How does he respond to the leaked evidence that King Tut’s DNA shows a 99.6% match with Western European Y chromosomes?
The inability of Egyptians to enter the assembly for three generations only proves our point. How else was this determined except through the blood? And when they entered the assembly, it did not mean that they were free to acquire the inheritance of Israelites. Why does B.S. not offer any Bible verses showing that Gentile converts to the faith are referred to as Israelites or Judeans? They are always referred to as “strangers” or “sojourners.” One should not assume that the same sort of mixture occurred in Israel, and was positively sanctioned by God, as occurred in Samaria, where the mongrels became idolatrous.
There are four kinds of strangers in the Bible. Roughly defined, these are:
Ger: A resident alien who did not own land.
Toshabh: A temporary Ger.
Nokhri: An alien who could not rule in any sense because he was not a “brother” to Israel.
Zar: A “stranger in blood” who might also be called “profane.”
We see one early Ger intermarriage in Lev. 24:10, which mentions the son of an Israelite woman and Egyptian father. The mention of his lineage seems to be in connection with the fact that he was a blasphemer. Later came the law, “Nor shall you make marriages with them. You shall not give your daughter to their son, nor take their daughter for your son” (Deut. 7:3). Then, when Judeans mixed with Babylonians while in captivity, their wives and children were sent away by Ezra and Nehemiah. “So it was, when they had heard the Law, that they separated all the mixed multitude from Israel” (Nehemiah 13:3). They identified the mixed multitude by blood, not by theology exams.
Scripture does speak of a time when the geography of the world will be divided as Israel was divided. See Ezekiel 47:22-23:
It shall be that you will divide it by lot as an inheritance for yourselves, and for the strangers who dwell among you and who bear children among you. They shall be to you as native-born among the children of Israel; they shall have an inheritance with you among the tribes of Israel. And it shall be that in whatever tribe the stranger dwells, there you shall give him his inheritance.
As it says in the JFB Commentary, “It is altogether unprecedented under the old covenant, that ‘strangers’ should have ‘inheritance’ among the tribes.” The idyllic, eschatological theocracy described in Ezekiel’s vision is the “heavenly country” to which Hebrews 11:16 refers, where the partition that existed between ancient Israel and the Gentiles is removed, and both are made one in Christ. No one of faith is excluded from that blessed land. Only in Christ is there no distinction between peoples (Romans 10:12). Why do Kinists always have to italicize “in Christ“? Is this really so difficult to understand?
B.S. assumes that being members of the spiritual body of Christ is the same as being members of one physical nation. “Throughout the whole vast earth, the Lord recognized only one nation as his own, the nation of believers.” But in the Great Commission, we are commanded to baptize the nations. If B.S. is correct that there is only one nation of believers, the divine directive makes little sense. Deuteronomy 28 also makes no sense if “the alien who is among you…whose language you do not understand” was not really an alien at all but merely an unconverted Israelite-in-embryo who needed to learn the Hebrew language. In short, we are asked to believe that the same God who did not want us to mix crops or cattle now wants all races and nations to mix together. This is a horrible misinterpretation of 1 Peter 2. Only a spiritual “race” and “nation” within distinct physical races and nations relates to an invisible church within the visible churches. B.S. is pushing a “unitarian unity,” which is not Christian. Therefore, when he looks back to ancient Israel, he sees it is as nothing more than a propositional nation. If this was the case—if faith was all that mattered, and there were to be no divisions—why did God ordain that the twelve tribes should have separate inheritances? They were all closely related, and they all worshiped the same God, but they weren’t even allowed to marry outside the tribe unless they didn’t mind losing everything they owned (Numbers 36).
H.B. Clark wrote about this in Biblical Law (1944), which was a primary source and inspiration for Rushdoony’s Institutes:
[T]his textbook has been contrived for [those]…who now and in the days to come would follow “the ancient paths” and “adhere to the teachings of our fathers”… [p. 6]
[U]nder Mosaic law, the right to marry a woman was regarded as “appertaining” to one of her kindred. A woman who “possessed” an “inheritance” was entitled to marry whom she thought best, only to the family of the tribe of her father (Num.36:6). [p. 127]
Mosaic law forbids the marriage of a man to a woman to whom he is closely related, or to a “strange woman”—one of another race or nation… “he shall take a woman of his own people to wife.” (Lev.21:14). [p. 134]
A time-honored rule forbids marriage with persons of another nation, race or tribe… Abraham required his eldest servant to swear that he would “not take a wife unto my son of the daughters of the Canaanites among whom I dwell,” but would “go unto to my country and my kindred, and take a wife unto my son, Isaac” (Gen.24:3,4; Tobit 4:12). And Mosaic law provides that “thou (shalt not) make marriages” with those of other nations, “thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son; nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son” (Deut.7:3; Ezra 9:12; Neh.10:30). The reason given for this rule is that “they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly” (Deut.7:4). But it was doubtless intended also to preserve the racial integrity of the Israelites. [p. 135]
We affirm that non-Israelites were made members of the body of Christ, both before and after the cross. Job appears to be an example of this, and there are many others, all of whom signalled the inclusion of Gentiles under the new covenant. B.S. simply doesn’t like the fact that we disagree with him that there are valid examples of forbidden marriages which are treated as perfectly acceptable in the Bible, and so he calls us names, like “racist” and “heretic.” To be consistent, he should condemn many of our church fathers, starting with R.L. Dabney, as heretics. We agree with them. Why are our accusers always so reluctant to do this?
Let’s look at some of the examples that allegedly authorize miscegenation, according to B.S.
“Take Caleb, for example. He is clearly identified in Scripture as a Kenizzite. The Kenizzites were a prominent Edomite clan…” This is one theory, which would mean that Caleb was a Semite of close kin, not a Canaanite, and not even a Hamite. Another theory is that he was of the Kenizzite tribe of Ham, though perhaps not a Canaanite. The most likely explanation is that he took his name from an ancestral Judean family head named Kenaz. This could explain why all references to the Kenizzite connection were removed from the Septuagint, and why Caleb is not referred to as the “son of Jephunneh” in the earliest manuscripts, and why Caleb’s own brother is named Kenaz. At any rate, it’s not nearly as “clear” as B.S. pretends. This is a perfect example of how race-mixers find the flimsiest of pegs from which to hang theories which have the ability to destroy nations. Even if Caleb was an Edomite, it proves nothing about the “heresy” of Kinism. Edomites and Egyptians were always in a special category—you guessed it, according to blood. The former were called the “brothers” of Israel and the latter did no less than save the nation of Israel. Again, this does not necessarily mean that Edomites and Egyptians acquired an inheritance among the tribes of Israel. B.S. exclaims that their integration to the assembly of the righteous, after three generations, proves Kinism to be false, but it does no such thing.
He asserts that words like “Hittite” and “Moabite” can only be genetic rather than geographical identifiers, despite the fact that the people formerly called by these names had been destroyed. (Any Hittites still living in the time of Solomon were only alive because the Israelites were disobedient to God and refused to kill them. These were classified as strangers and were taken as slaves. See 2 Chronicles 8:7-8.) B.S. even admits that Israelites were forbidden from marrying Moabites but asserts that David’s grandmother, Ruth, must have been one genetically. Are we honestly to believe that this would have happened with no record of a national dispute, even after Moses commanded that there should be no treaties or friendship made with them? Notice how B.S. inverts the premise of the question. He says, in the second sermon: “It’s interesting there’s not the slightest hint of anyone objecting to David as the King because his grandmother was a Moabite.” This is astonishing! In the first sermon, he admits that marriages to Moabites were forbidden, and in the second, he admits that it was not just for 10 generations but “forever,” though he vacillates on the definition of “forever.” Again, read our evidence for Ruth being an Israelite by blood. B.S. says that our argument “is racial and therefore racist,” but we all agree that the significance of Ruth’s story is that she also became an Israelite by faith. We simply are incapable of elevating Schwertley’s assertions to essentials of the faith. By his reasoning, someone born in Florida must be Spanish, since the state was named by the Spanish.
It is at least possible that Rahab was an Israelite or a close cousin. To correct one of Schwertley’s many errors, we don’t claim that Rahab “just happened to live in Jericho.” We don’t claim that she was there as a spy who merely posed as a prostitute. We affirm that she was really a prostitute. Again, this is evidence of shoddy scholarship. We make a sincere effort to faithfully represent the views of our opponents, and we wish they would do the same. We believe that the Rahab of Jericho was likely an Israelite slave or descendant of slaves, and that it is unlikely that the Rahab of Jericho was the same woman who married Salmon. Read our evidence for yourself. B.S. does not even attempt to disprove the timeline, so if there are any other takers, have at it.
It’s funny that B.S. quotes Henry, Gill, and Poole that Rahab was “a woman of Canaan,” because he knows that he can’t quote any of the commentators on the alleged black wife of Moses. The closest he can come is a somewhat irrelevant quote from Keil & Delitzsch. He plays the same rhetorical tricks with Moses that he does with Ruth. Having assumed, without evidence, that either Zipporah died or that Moses was a bigamist, and having assumed that someone from the region of Cush could not possibly have been a Midianite, he concludes, “We don’t hear a word of complaint about it.” This is Bible scholarship? Where are the proofs that we were promised? We’re still waiting to hear why Kinism is a heresy. Perhaps the message will come across if B.S. shouts louder.
If marriage is based solely on “ethics, not race,” as B.S. claims, he should have responded to our view of what happened in Ezra and Nehemiah. This is crucial to an understanding of proper, biblical marriage, and no word of it in what purports to be a comprehensive rebuttal of Kinism is shocking.
How can a libertarian approach to marriage be reconciled with our obligations under the covenant? If interracial marriage is so essential to the unity of the body of Christ and denial of it is a heresy, shouldn’t anti-Kinists make it mandatory?
“Note that the Kinist assigns to blood ties something that can only be accomplished by Jesus in his Law-Word.” This is what really sets him off, and it’s quite false. He believes that the gospel will turn all people everywhere into good, productive, law-abiding exemplars of virtue. But this is manifestly not the case. The poor we will have with us always, and this does not merely concern wealth. Negroes in America, for example, are the most self-professed Christian people in the world, and their crime, illegitimacy, and disease rates are astronomical. He explains that blacks commit so many crimes because of their unbiblical worldview, and in another place he says that they are not “solid” Christians. We’ll let him dig himself out of that hole. The point is that their behavior, on average, is not very different from that of Negroes elsewhere in the world; the same could be said of other races. Similarly, Christians are no less likely to get divorced than non-Christians, according to statistics. We know that the gospel transforms lives, but there are many reasons why some may be more susceptible than others to certain kinds of sin, just as alcoholics are genetically predisposed to drunkenness, and just as some people are genetically predisposed to various sexual sins. In spite of our differences, we are all equal in one sense only: We are equally incapable of saving ourselves from the curse of sin. We Kinists have a long paper trail, and all who have followed it know that this is what we have always believed and taught. Now, behold the slanderer’s accusations:
In other words, the gospel of Jesus Christ and the help of the Holy Spirit that flow from Christ’s perfect work is not enough to restrain sin, hatred, and crime. They’re saying that the cross of Christ did not get the job done. Well, beloved, this is an explicit denial of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. No, according to the Kinists, racial blood ties are what is needed. This, once again, is a denial of the gospel and a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture…
Note also the blatant racism. The differences among men is endogenous [from within]. This means that they are intrinsic to various racial groups. They flow from internal causes and therefore cannot be overcome by the gospel of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. That is what they are basically saying. Beloved, that is an explicit denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ and it’s a denial of the power of the Holy Spirit and a denial of God’s omnipotence, his omnipresence. Totally contrary to the gospel. The gospel brings Jews and Gentiles, slaves and free, together in Christ…
They’re exalting race as an idol above the gospel of Jesus Christ. They’re saying Jesus Christ can’t get the job done; the cross of Christ is not enough; we gotta add race to this equation; and that’s a heresy. Racism is ultimately a denial of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and therefore racism is a heresy.
Again, you can see the false dichotomy between the gospel and race that he is attempting to construct. Yes, some differences are “intrinsic to various racial groups.” This is how God created us. We have never, ever said that sin cannot be overcome through faith and obedience, or that “the gospel is less important or less powerful than race.” I can tell you that if I were to believe such a thing, I would have no hope for myself. Instead, we have recognized the obvious fact that not all men respond to the gospel equally. Many who claim to be Christians are not. This does not even need to be defended, because it’s self-evidently true. Schwertley’s hatred of kinship leads him into a far more radical idea, which is that all differences must be swept away in the levelling wind called “the gospel,” and all things must be absolutely unified. It’s important to look at the end-game here. If race, kinship, and nationality are irrelevant to the life of a Christian, what is to become of them in the consummation of time? How are we to trust anti-Kinists when they say they are opposed to a one-world government and a “New World Order”? If they believe that national borders should be erased between Christian peoples, as they very openly admit, what remains of true diversity when the Holy Spirit has convicted the world of sin?
B.S. accuses us of elevating race above faith. At times, he implies that we care only about race and nothing else. This is quite slanderous and reveals a chronic ignorance of what we have written. We have always distanced ourselves from anyone who places race and kinship above our duties to God under the covenant and His sacrifice in our stead. We have said that the white race does not deserve to survive if it continues to reject its Redeemer. We have affirmed that we are saved by grace, not race. No, the Kinist controversy has always hinged on whether social beings of flesh and spirit are needful of both faith and blood kinship, according to God’s design, and that both of these inform a healthy culture and identity. There is no dichotomy between obedience to God’s law and protection of blood covenants. Both are gifts from God, and both are to be honored. The anti-Kinist understands this perfectly well at the level of his immediate family, but he becomes a hypocrite in his outer rings of loyalty. Rather than deal with our arguments honestly, B.S. dismisses our understanding of culture as “stupid human traditions that are complete nonsense.” He loves the word complete.
Here’s an example of his confusion: “Only the gospel of Jesus Christ can bring peace between races… Blood ties do not lower crime rates and stop wars.” As we have often said, homogeneity does not eradicate sin, but homogeneity does provide us with the familiarity and trust that are necessary for our society to function. It affects everything from business to the legal expenses associated with crime. To affirm that blood ties are crucially important is not to imply that the gospel is incidental or indifferent to peace. B.S. needs to repent of his slander and false witness.
He reads a long quote from the great Richard Weaver’s The Southern Tradition at Bay. When he finishes, does he say, “Now, I’m going to prove to you that everything I just read was false”? No, he says, “Well, that’s a bunch of racist nonsense, as you know.” If he believes that blacks should vote in a white republic, and that Jefferson was wrong that the two races cannot live under the same government, let him provide some examples of how this has worked to our benefit, or if it has worked anywhere else in the world, or even if blacks have been able to govern themselves at any time in history. Or since these sermons against the “heresy” of Kinism are supposed to contain biblical exegesis, he should prove from Scripture that tribal nations are sinful.
Contrary to what our Christian fathers believed, B.S. insists that citizenship in a Christian nation is entirely a matter of faith. “Citizenship should be by faith. If you believe in Jesus Christ, if you have a credible profession of faith, if you are a member of a Reformed church, you should be a citizen; whether you are white or whatever color you are is irrelevant.” Take that, you baptists! You see? I told you that B.S. is the perfect Reformitard. This is a level of arrogance that one rarely has the pleasure of witnessing. All you have to do to be an American citizen is submit to the authority of Brian Schwertley’s splinter-group of overzealous confessionalists. He’ll administer the oath right after teaching you the untarnished Westminster Standards. It’s actually rather consistent of him, if you consider the Reformitard view that propositions are to command our allegiance in both church and state.
“The Kinist has it backwards. The only way to have a lasting heritage and culture is to have a common faith. One’s faith determines one’s culture, not the other way around.” We agree with this. What Kinist has argued that culture determines faith? If B.S. had done his homework, he would know that we consider culture to be religion externalized, but not entirely. It is supplemented by our God-given genetic gifts. This is why pagans in Japan don’t form culture on the same level as pagans in Haiti. In other words, race is not irrelevant to culture, as race-mixers claim. This is the context of a line that he disparages from the manifesto at Kinism.net: “Extended blood lines are the only workable basis for a society.” B.S. rejects this statement as “a denial of the gospel,” but he’s trying to light the stake before the heretics have been tied to it. Surely we agree that idolatrous Japanese have a functioning society. The dispute is over whether blood ties are insignificant in a baptized nation. Both sides agree that our nation is incomplete without Christ. Kinists have not denied the gospel, despite Schwertley’s assurances.
Our “applied racism…reveals a complete lack of knowledge of history,” he says. (It’s never partial ignorance on our part. It’s always complete.) “In a Christian culture there is no longer Jew and Gentile, in terms of status, in terms of your place in society.” Why is it so difficult for these men to take all of Galatians 3:28 to their illogical conclusions? To be consistent, the verse would also support feminism. Men and women must not be allowed to have different roles. More to the point, notice his unbiblical concept of “society.” He assumes it to be borderless and multiracial, determined more by economic necessity than blood. This is a fair description of the Roman and American empires but not of nations that have been blessed by God. Schwertley has obviously drunk the dregs of democracy and equality, but our aristocratic, republican, Christian, “racist” forefathers knew that liberty and equality are sworn enemies. They loved one and hated the other, and they gave us all that we possess. What good has come of rejecting their wisdom?
Where has racial mixture not resulted in the loss of Christian faith and the rise of a police state and totalitarianism? Can America be used as an example to the contrary, despite the largely common faith among blacks and whites, at least nominally? “There’s not going to be crime with the blacks and Mexicans that are Christians,” he says, “because it’s all faith and ethics; it has nothing to do with race.” He even says that if various non-white Christians of different races were to be placed on an island, they would develop “a godly Christian culture.” Why does B.S. not provide real-world examples to support his theories?
He explains the origin of races in this way:
Different racial features took several centuries of different people groups living in isolation in radically different climates, breeding continually within a specific geographical area… To adopt the language of the racist macro-evolutionist and attempt to apply it to different nationalities as if they were intrinsically different as to their souls or being is macro-evolutionist, racist propaganda.
Several centuries? Where is the proof for this outlandish statement? As Josh points out, it’s surreal to be called a macro-evolutionist by a young-earth creationist who must believe that hyper-accelerated evolution formed the races as we know them in a geological blink of the eye. Furthermore, even the slightest bit of study on his part would clearly show that we reject Darwinism.
He accuses us of buying into Darwinism because we acknowledge that men are not created equal. His first problem is that most Christians down through the ages have agreed with our racial views, long before macro-evolutionary theory was dreamed up by Darwin. They believed that the differences and distinctions among races should be respected, as all gifts from God should be respected. His second problem is that he must also deny micro-evolution if he denies empirically-exhaustive studies that prove average differences in aptitude among the races. It is absurd to suggest that differences are merely superficial, such as “skin color,” and have no bearing on other capacities. One of these, recently discovered, is that whites are better swimmers and blacks are better runners because the location of the bellybutton changes the body’s center of gravity. We all know why average physiological differences of this sort are heralded as scientific but average differences in intelligence are shouted down as racist fabrications. We all know perfectly well, and it has nothing to do with Darwinism.
More to the point, the Bible does not call recognition of average differences sinful. In fact, the Apostle Paul called all Cretans “liars, evil beasts, and lazy gluttons.” He didn’t bother with averages. We happen to believe that whites are more adept at forming civilizations that suit us, as white people. We deny that whites are “supreme” or “superior” to other races in every respect. We have no desire whatsoever to subjugate other races and nations. Our opponents love to change the subject by calling us names. B.S. even says that we must be wrong about average racial differences because Thomas Sowell is smart. The question is very simple: Is it morally wrong for us to work for the survival of the white race? Put another way, is the only morally legitimate policy the extinction of our race? If the answer is yes then how is this not genocide? Is it not equality to allow every tribe the right to claim a name and place among the nations of the earth? What does this have to do with Darwinism or “supremacy”?
Red herrings abound in the sermons, including the logical fallacy of guilt by association. For instance, Margaret Sanger was a “racist” and wanted to kill black babies. We’re “racists” too, therefore we must want to kill black babies! Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses are cultists who have believed that blacks are cursed. We notice that crime increases as the black population increases, so we must be cultists too! The Nazis wanted Germany for Germans, and they valued many cultural elements that were originally born under paganism. We want America for Americans, so we must want to kill six million Jews!
Speaking of the pagan era, B.S. overreacts to Kinist respect for cultural elements that took shape in pre-Christianity. You can think of the Roman Senate as an example of a pagan creation that has no counterpart in the Bible but is still with us and is not a bad thing. The Greek phalanx and countless other examples come to mind. These are certainly not “vital” or “irreplaceable,” but we respect them as part of our heritage. B.S. rages thusly:
Well, that’s unbiblical and it’s more in common with the Nazis than the Bible! That’s unbiblical satanic rubbish! It’s a sin! It’s idolatry! Paganism has nothing to offer us! Nothing! It is offensive to God! All elements of paganism in our culture should be destroyed and replaced with godly counterparts. The gods of the Vikings and the old gods of the Germanic tribes and the old gods of the Celtics, it’s a bunch of satanic excrement, and to say that we need to combine that with Christianity for our wonderful white culture is very similar to the Nazis!
Settle down, Brian. We fully approve of the First Commandment. Do your homework next time and you can avoid the embarrassment of being called out for your slander. The lesson to be learned here is that culture is partly of the blood. If you doubt this, cite an example of a people that has perished but whose culture has been maintained by foreigners. If we perish, no one else will maintain our traditions. This doesn’t bother B.S. in the slightest, because he calls our age-old traditions “stupid” and “complete nonsense.”
It goes from bad to worse. B.S. takes every opportunity to show that some racial branches of the tree of humanity have overlapped, and since this is the case, resistance is futile. His most humorous line:
The Indians of India are Aryans. They’re actually more closely related genetically and linguistically to the Germans of modern Germany than the Germans of modern Germany are related to Celtic peoples in Ireland and Scotland. And I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but some Indians are quite dark. They’re darker than President Obama. So that’s a completely ignorant statement, showing that they’re just a bunch of racists… Thus, one could argue that the dark-skinned Indians are more closely related to Germans genetically than are the Irish and the Welsh and the Scottish, who are quite white.
Therefore, our Principles of Kinism are “complete ignorance of history and linguistics… What morons. They don’t know that Indians in India are Caucasian?” Priceless! The Aryans who migrated to India 2500 years ago are the ones who established the caste system there, and still miscegenation with Dravidians followed. B.S. ignores this and claims that “Indians are Aryans” because they have common linguistic roots in prehistory. How can he expect anyone to take this seriously?
Notice that he calls us morons right after quoting us to the effect that tribalism is normative for our people. Obviously, he doesn’t disprove the statement. It’s clear that the words “our people” roll bitterly from his tongue. He doesn’t want us to say that we belong to a people and others belong to different peoples. He wants the Christians of the world to constitute one unitarian people. Thus, you can see his need to brand us as heretics, so that we will no longer be considered part of his people. This is precisely the sort of person whom the Apostle Paul marked as being guilty of causing “divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned,” in Romans 16:17-18.
There are many other silly comments that almost don’t deserve to be mentioned. He claims that America has been “a melting pot of different races for 350 years.” This is what the Jews would have us believe, and what many whites do believe, but most still resist miscegenation. The only reason we are still white and don’t look like Brazilians is because our Christian, British forefathers were Kinists. They refused to intermarry with slaves and Indians as the Spanish and Portuguese did. Brazil is truly a melting pot, but America is not yet, and certainly has not been for 350 years, as B.S. stupidly claims.
He slanders American slaveowners by saying that they kept females for their own personal harems. Once again, he is wrong. The 1860 census proves that there was much more miscegenation (and therefore abuse, since intermarriage was illegal) in the North. Southerners were not immune from sin, but this does not absolve preachers from lying about them.
He spends several minutes speaking about ethnic food, not realizing that such cuisine would never have been created in the polyglot chaos that he advocates. He accuses Kinists of believing that “kung pao chicken” will lead to one-world government. “The whole Kinist use of this passage is based on a logical fallacy. The assumption is that any interracial marriage or any cultural mixing—that is, the non-sinful elements of a culture—wooden shoes, tacos, Chinese stir fry, burritos, etc.—is sinful and leads to a one-world government. That’s the assumption, and that is sheer nonsense.” No, your quote is sheer nonsense, as is the use of food to insinuate that we are morally obligated to open the borders and grant citizenship to anyone who can have a baby here.
As for “only in the Lord,” we would love to hear Schwertley respond to the Kingston Thesis about polygyny. Let’s hear him defend it as a matter of Christian liberty, since it’s not a sin. I just want to see a video of the reaction of the congregation.
Enough already!
Schwertley begins his sermons by claiming that “the Kinist literature on the web is almost completely devoid of biblical exegesis.” It could certainly be true that we have done a poor job in stating our case, but as everyone knows, we have taken great pains to try to respond to every objection and state clearly the reasons for what we believe, using Scripture, history, logic, and every other tool in our arsenal. This paper is evidence of our good will, and I submit that we have more faithfully represented Schwertley’s arguments than he has represented ours.
Schwertley concludes that Kinism “is a racist fantasy, it’s complete rubbish, it’s utter nonsense.” In his closing prayer, he calls us “fools” and “idiots.” Any fool can see that he has not proved that we are heretics simply for agreeing with our fathers and disagreeing with him. Does anyone reading this know of a similar example of a pastor hurling insults from the pulpit against what he discerns to be not a sinful action but merely a sinful belief? What other teachings would warrant such insults? What if we were actually committing crimes? Would he be as venomous if we were spreading AIDS or robbing banks or committing arson, or would he take a pastoral approach and encourage us to be reconciled? Obviously, B.S. is spitting mad because he knows that the last 60 years of race-mixing have been a historical anomaly, and we Kinists are reclaiming the Church. He’s worried, and he should be. In his sermons, he calls Kinism a “rapidly growing movement,” and it’s taking root in Wisconsin too.
I saw this comment on Facebook from one Jason Robert Schuiling, and it shows the degree of antagonism to old-fashioned Christianity that now exists in the churches. They are very worried.
I cannot say this often enough, or strongly enough, the doctrine of the Kinists, that of advocating any and all degrees of racial and ethnic segregation as a matter of moral imperative, stands so radically contrary to all that the Church is, all that the Church stands for, all that the Gospel proclaims, and everything that Christ came to accomplish, all that he lived, suffered, died, and rose again for, and is such a heinous slander against the character of God, that it must be opposed with holy violence, and blood must be spilt by the sword of the Spirit, or else, wherever these men should prevail, the Church of Christ will be utterly lost, trampled underfoot, and the light of the Gospel stamped out.
Oh, well for the world when the White Men join
To prove their faith again!
~ Rudyard Kipling
UPDATE: Read part two of our response to Brian Schwertley.
Regarding unitarianism vs. trinitarianism:
Some profound thinkers have opined that the doctrine of true Incarnation of Christ (the doctrine of true adoption of flesh by God, which so offended the Gnostics) was the one thing that prevented sophisticated Christians from sliding into pantheism or panentheism:
“In later times, the Jews lacked the Christian notion that Jesus was the monogenes or unigenitus, the only-begotten of God. Pantheists like the Greeks tended to identify the monogenes or unigenitus with the universe itself, or with the heavens. Jaki writes:
Herein lies the tremendous difference between Christian monotheism on the one hand and Jewish and Muslim monotheism on the other. This explains also the fact that it is almost natural for a Jewish or Muslim intellectual to become a pantheist. About the former Spinoza and Einstein are well-known examples. As to the Muslims, it should be enough to think of the Averroists.”
http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/a/science_origin.html
Think about it: without true Incarnation in flesh, monotheism becomes a mere empty abstract notion that eventually self-destructs by sliding (via unitarianism) into pantheism.
And NWO schemers have always tried to do a “switcheroo” with Biblical monotheism and abstract pagan “monotonotheism” – the M.P. Hall mentioned below was a big-league Freemasonic occultist:
http://thephora.net/forum/showpost.php?p=208741&postcount=2
“Manley Palmer Hall, writing in a South African New Age magazine, Breakthrough, gives us an accurate illustration of how a Realistic effects ones definition of truth.
“Plato’s philosophy surrounds the principle of unity. To him the concept of unity was all-pervading, everywhere present and evident. Division was illusion. To accept a philosophy of division was ignorance. Ignorance sees many separate things in the world; wisdom sees only the many parts of one thing. God, man, and the universe are related fragments of a common unity. This concept is true monotheism [i.e., Unitarian, pantheistic Monism], for monotheism is more than admitting the existence of one God — it is the realization of the existence of one life of which all things are part. . . .
Unity, or oneness, is the evidence of truth. . . .
Whatever truth does must be unity or oneness, for truth cannot be the parent of division.” (Hall 1986, 1ff)
With enemies like Schwertley, who needs friends?
“Schwertley has obviously drunk the dregs of democracy and equality, but our aristocratic, republican, Christian, “racist” forefathers knew that liberty and equality are sworn enemies.”
This is a mostly correct observation, but Christians should know that liberty is not always on the side of good either – and sometimes the principles of equality and fraternity may even be right against it.
For example, free-market fundamentalists love to exalt the “liberty” of a capitalist to abandon the community from which he can no longer draw sufficiently high profits to satisfy his greed.
Petr, this is once again a fascinating comment from you. I’ve always seen the difference between Christian trinitarianism and the unitarianism that is now being pushed by race-mixers, but I’ve never considered that these affect a proper understanding of monotheism itself.
As the piece I linked to above puts it:
“The originality of Jaki’s thought also lies in the link which he describes between the dogmas of the Creation and the Incarnation. He shows how the development of the doctrine of creation out of nothing was “connected with the conceptual refinements of the doctrine of the Incarnation around which raged the great inner debates of the early Church.” Jaki then discusses how the Jewish position on creation underwent a change during the first few centuries of Christianity. Philo, a contemporary of Jesus, tried to interpret the first chapter of Genesis, but his view “showed him closer to Greek eternalism than to Biblical creationism.” The earliest midrashim “showed that Jewish theologians were no longer willing to uphold the doctrine of the complete submission of matter to the Maker of all.” In the Mutazalite tradition of Islam there was also a tendency to slide towards emanationism and pantheism, as a result of endorsing the pantheistic necessitarianism of Aristotle.
Jaki clearly affirms that in Christianity, a slide into pantheism was prevented because the doctrine of the creation was bolstered up by faith in the Incarnation.”
To put it crudely: when not affirming the importance of Christ’s true human flesh (and by implication and extension, all other human flesh as well), concentrating only on “matters of spirit”, monotheism evaporates into mere abstract mysticism.
And this natural tendency towards pantheism is ever-present in our fallen world; C.S. Lewis prophesized that pantheism would eventually supplant atheism and become the last and greatest opponent of true Christianity.
Semi-Gnostics that scorn material differences (like those of gender and race) are on a slippery slope to pantheism – to a primordial chaos where neither divine nor human things cannot be properly differentiated.
(But let us also remember, in the spirit of self-criticism, that those whoon the other hand over-estimate the importance of flesh are on a slippery slope to crude idolatry.)
Pagans indeed have their own brand of “monotheism”, and thus that label is not an automatic certificate of true religion. The great intellectual opponents of Christianity in antiquity, the Neo-Platonists, essentially preached a doctrine of panentheistic unity of everything.
Pantheism was kept alive in the Middle Ages by heretical sects like “The Brethren of Free Spirit”:
http://www.dhushara.com/book/consum/free.htm
“But it is the heretical tract known as Schwester Katrai that gives the fullest account of all. After a whole series of ecstasies in which her soul ‘soared up’ but after a time fell back again, Sister Catherine experiences one great ecstasy which releases her altogether from the limitations of human existence. She calls out to her confessor himself clearly a Brother of the Free Spirit: ‘Rejoice with me, I have become God !’ ‘Praise be to God!’ he answers. ‘Now leave all people, withdraw again into your state of oneness, for so you shall remain God.’ The woman falls into a deep trance, from which she emerges with the assurance: ‘I am made eternal in my eternal blessedness. Christ has made me his equal and I can never lose that condition.’ Such experiences differ vastly from the unio mystica as it was recognized and approved by the Church; for the unio mystica was a momentary illumination, granted only occasionally, perhaps but once in a lifetime. Whatever energies it might release and whatever assurance it might bestow, the human being who experienced it did not thereby shed his human condition; it was as an ordinary mortal that he had to live out his life on earth. The adept of the Free Spirit, on the other hand, felt himself to be utterly transformed; he had not merely been united with God, he was identical with God and would remain so for ever. And even this is an understatement, for often an adept would claim to have surpassed God. The women of Schweidnitz claimed that their souls had by their own efforts attained a perfection greater than they had possessed when they first emanated from God, and greater than God ever intended them to possess. They claimed to have such command over the Holy Trinity that they could ‘ride it as in a saddle’. The Swabian heretics of 1270 said that they had mounted up above God and, reaching the very pinnacle of Divinity, abandoned God. Often the adept would affirm that he or she ‘had no longer any need of God’.”
16th and 17th century sects like the Libertines opposed by Calvin and the Ranters, active in the times of English Revolution, kept alive these doctrines of extreme “spiritual” egalitarianism where the initiate could become equal to God Himself.
Already during early Christian centuries, when the church had to wage it great struggle against Gnostic infiltration, Gnosticism was often associated with Communist-egalitarian extremism – from Nesta Webster’s book “Secret Societies and Subversive Movements”:
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/19104/19104-8.txt
“So in the Carpocratians of the second century we find already the tendency towards that _deification of humanity_ which forms the supreme doctrine of the secret societies and of the visionary Socialists of our day. The war now begins between the two contending principles: the Christian conception of man reaching up to God and the secret society conception of man as God, needing no revelation from on high and no guidance but the law of his own nature. And since that nature is in itself divine, all that springs from it is praiseworthy, and those acts usually regarded as sins are not to be condemned. By this line of reasoning the Carpocratians arrived at much the same conclusions as modern Communists with regard to the ideal social system. Thus Epiphanus held that since Nature herself reveals the principle of the community and the unity of all things, human laws which are contrary to this law of Nature are so many culpable infractions of the legitimate order of things. Before these laws were imposed on humanity everything was in common–land, goods, and women. According to certain contemporaries, the Carpocratians returned to this primitive system by instituting the community of women and indulging in every kind of licence.
The further Gnostic sect of Antitacts, following this same cult of human nature, taught revolt against all positive religion and laws and the necessity for gratifying the flesh; the Adamites of North Africa, going a step further in the return to Nature, cast off all clothing at their religious services so as to represent the primitive innocence of the garden of Eden–a precedent followed by the Adamites of Germany in the fifteenth century.[117]
These Gnostics, says Eliphas Lévi, under the pretext of “spiritualizing matter, materialized the spirit in the most revolting ways…. Rebels to the hierarchic order, … they wished to substitute the mystical licence of sensual passions to wise Christian sobriety and obedience to laws…. Enemies of the family, they wished to produce sterility by increasing debauchery.”[118]”
Gnosticism did not truly appear until the advent of Christianity, but by 100 AD it was already heavily rolling. It seems to me that Gnosticism was like an imitative “pirate copy” of Christianity that Satan unleashed specifically to sabotage the work of the Church.
Even today, Gnostic ideals of extreme equality and total personal liberty (see 2 Peter 2:19) seduce many people who think themselves as Christians. They are buying into devil’s parody of the Gospel – or like you have once put it, worshipping Jacobin goddess Egalité and calling it Jesus.
Here is succinctly how I see the relationship of flesh and spirit should work with Christians: they should resemble the Biblical relationship or union of man and woman.
Jesus Christ received His divine (or “spiritual”) nature from His Father, and His human nature from His mother. Thus the role of flesh should be “feminine.”
Christians must give flesh its proper due, but in serious issues spirit must have authority over it like husband has over his wife. The flesh is positive and not an evil, illusionary or vain thing (like pantheistic or dualistic Gnostics claim) but ultimately it must submit to the authority of spirit.
Thus Kinist Christians can give flesh its proper dues, but in eternal matters it must humble itself like a modest woman. The flesh must submit and the spirit lead.
Perfectly stated! How could any Christian possibly deny what you’ve written here?
This isn’t exactly what I was looking for in a biblically-systematic discussion of the kinist position (the use of “biblically-expository” may have been ill-advised in my previous comment in the “Confirm Thyself in Self-Control” post), nor is Josh Kingston’s over on Facebook. They are responses to Schwertley’s sermon, and responding to responses strikes me as less than ideal. More importantly, I think the risk of misconstruing/misunderstanding your fundamental principles is greater. Nevertheless, this post and Josh Kingston’s Facebook note, in combination with Harry Seabrook’s letter, will do for a start.
More (i.e. an actual substantive comment) later.
Poor analogy, Petr,
Did he not also receive his human nature from Joseph, a masculine man? Deny it and your a Monophysite.
More is needed to equate femininity with humanity.
Drew, I really don’t know what more could be said on the matter that could tie it all together better than what has been presented.
To us, this is mere Christianity. We give it the label “Kinism” simply to distinguish it from the modern Christian view of race and kinship, which differs radically from the old-fashioned Christian view of race and kinship. Schwertley’s sermons prove the point. The one thing he would never dare to say is that we Kinists differ from the beliefs of our fathers.
“Did he not also receive his human nature from Joseph, a masculine man?”
Well, NO? God was His father, not Joseph.
Here is more on the proto-Communist nature of ancient Gnosticism – notice how their contempt of Old Testament God led them to ignore the protection that Ten Commandments gave to private property and its ban on envious coveting:
http://robertlstephens.com/essays/shafarevich/001SocialistPhenomenon.html#pagestart_15
“Irenaeus of Lyons and Clement of Alexandria describe the gnostic sect of Carpocratians which appeared in Alexandria in the second century A.D. The founder of this sect, Carpocrates, taught that faith and love bring salvation and place man above good and evil. These ideas were elaborated by his son Epiphanes, who died at the age of seventeen, having written a work “On Justice.” According to Clement of Alexandria, he was later worshiped as a god in Samos, where a sanctuary was erected to him.
Some quotations from Epiphanes follow:
“God’s justice consists in community and equality.”
“The Creator and Father of all gave everyone equally eyes to see and established laws in accordance with his justice without distinguishing female from male, wise from humble and in general one thing from any other.”
“The private character of laws cuts and gnaws the community established by God’s law. Do you not understand the words of the Apostle: ‘Through law I knew sin’ (Romans 7: 7)? ‘Mine’ and ‘thine’ were spread to the detriment of community by virtue of the law.”
“Thus, God made everything common for man; according to the principles of communality, he joins man and woman. In the same way, he links all living beings; in this he has revealed justice demanding communality in conjunction with equality. But those begotten in this way deny the community that has created them, saying: ‘He who takes a wife, let him possess her.’ But they can possess all in common as the animals do.”
“It is therefore laughable to hear the giver of laws saying: ‘Do not covet’ and more laughable still the addition: ‘that which is your neighbor’s.’ For he himself invested us with desires, which moreover must be safeguarded as they are necessary for procreation. But even more laughable is the phrase ‘your neighbor’s wife,’ for in this way that which is common is forcibly turned into private property.” (7: p. 117)
The members of this sect, which extended as far as Rome, followed principles of complete communality, including communality of wives.”
Excellent response admin. I especially appreciated your observation that to enter the congregation of the Lord did not even necessarily entitle someone to permanent property ownership in Israel. Petr, as always your insights are profound. Admin I think that we have received several requests for a comprehensive exegetical case for kinism on facebook on the page Christianity for Kinism. While I definitely think that the archives here provide an excellent exegetical case for our position, I could see the benefit of writing a comprehensive confession if you will. I recall that years back, a link to Doug Phillips’ point by point stance on gender issues was provided on Little Geneva. While we obviously have staunch disagreements with Phillips on race I think he did a decent job with gender. Perhaps this would be something to consider for the future for an easy reference to inquirers. A brief but thorough exegetical case could be quite useful. That being said I know you’re busy and I wouldn’t expect anything like this to be forthcoming in the near future. Thanks.
It is humorous that the Admin should mention that strange cross-breed between zebra and donkey known as a “zeedonk” or “zonkey.” One of such creatures can be located at Ken Ham’s Creation Museum in Kentucky. The reason? The ability of the zebra and the donkey to interbreed allegedly an argument against macroevolution.
Regarding Schwertley’s sermon, it seems to me that he and other egalitarian types are guilty of an over-realized eschatology. They are right to point out that in the New Covenant, those who were formerly strangers to the covenant now have a share in the inheritance – but that inheritance is in the final New Creation (see Colossians 3:24, for example; there are a plethora of other similar passages.) The ultimate reward is not granted until the Judgment Day and the Resurrection.
I am a postmillennialist, and I believe that the Church will see great victory this side of Judgment Day, but the state of things in this age will never be equivalent to the state of things in the next. In the next age, the people of God will be granted their inheritance based on the work they have done for him; but in this age, if we tried to make that principle the basis of our inheritance laws, there would be chaos. In the next age, people will not marry or be given in marriage, and Levirate inheritance laws will be null; but in this age, we can and should seek to create godly offspring and bequeath upon them an inheritance.
Of course, Schwertley and his ilk are guilty not only of over-realizing their eschatology, but of muddling it up as well. Yes, in eternity, there will be one united Kingdom of God with no rebel subjects – but the Book of Revelation mentions distinct ethne as well. How this will work out must remain a mystery to us for now, but it does tell us something important about the teleology of nations.
Hello SWB,
Interesting exposition on ‘kind after kind’. However, we should beware reducing mongrelization to biology as much as we might culture. As said at SWB before, we cannot severe race from ethnicity since history has been experienced through family descent.
From my own experiences in gardening I’ve learned when two kinds seed are sewn together in a single row or field, this complicates if not compromises the crop. Different plants will have different germination, growth rates, and harvest times. They also might have different water and nutrition needs. If unmixed, you can irrigate and harvest them at once. This allows you to turn over the row of earth and replant. However, if mixed, different plants will mature at different times, and you’ll be forced to delay the next cycle of tilling, costing you food and wasting resources. Farming is done in an ordered way.
The same is true with kinds of plow animals. A donkey and ox have different gaits, and if yoked together the difference will cause the plow to be pulled in circles rather than ‘straight lines’. I think certainly ‘cooperation’ and like-mindedness are both implied here.
“Kind-after-kind” seems to mean equal yoking best for mutual faith and holiness. If holiness includes and is facilitated by preserving ethnic and racial boundaries established by God, then what do we pass on to children who don’t especially identify with either parent? Such seems to generate conflicting loyalties national church, history, and tradition, and if mongrelized in large numbers, the overall coherence of older society is weakened or made vulnerable to counter-cultural trends, deviancy, etc..
It’s not so much an issue of biological inferiority, which may or may not be true, but the problems mixed offspring typically have with adopting and cleaving to a single culture. Anyway, it’s total effect is erosive, harming both the natural context and order that presupposes and promotes national churches, common confessions, and public worship.
We might also wonder if national groups have different moments of sanctification, dispensations of grace, allotments of gifts, etc.. If we treat the twelve tribes of Israel as shadows of gentile nations to come, gathered around the tabernacle, each under their own banner, situated in their own camp, etc. (Isa. 2, Num 2-4), we might compare the distinct blessings (Gen. 34) poured upon the 12 sons of Jacob to the talents and times of gospel dispensation Paul mentions in Acts 17:26.
Perhaps, like “kinds” of plants growing in a field, each with their own separate row, every nation has their own time and degree. Looking back on the long history of Christianity, we can see national churches originating at various times, following their own branch of development, allotting peculiar gifts to that end, and prestige according to extent of mission, teaching, charity, etc., all blooming through time by by the will of Providence.
Perhaps our views of family, marriage, and church are too individualistic, informed by revivalism rather than older protestant norms of public worship, concord, and national covenant? We tend to dismiss the bearing individual choices have upon society, freeing singular man from larger ties to family and extended kin? I think a return to the church as an ‘ordered community’ is what is at stake, especially when men like B.S. pursue a more or less ‘congregationalist’ ecclesiology where mutual submission, obedience, and charity in all (non-essential) things has no vocab.
Hello Drew, I would recommend Francis Nigel Lee’s article Nationality, Race and Intermarriage as an additional resource to the resources that have already been given:
http://www.dr-fnlee.org/docs/nri/nri.pdf
There are some parts of the article that are disputable to Kinists, however overall it is a good aditional resource.
The Christian faith is incarnational.
It is rooted in the fundamentals of our human identity: male and female, our race, our nation, kindred, clan and family. In terms of the faith, this identity gives to us (through the Church) – our rite, how our nation worships God in Spirit and in Truth.
From the time that European nations converted as nations – as Gauls, Gaels, Scotians, Jutes, Angles, Saxons etc this has been sensus fidelium.
The importance of the nation as a nation may not have been the letter of law or cannon or de fide, but it is there in the web of the story itself – that God became man.
We become Christified not as generic humanity but in the natural order of our family, clan, kindred, nation and race which is fulfilled in Christ as nature is perfected in grace.
Nature does not cease to be what it was qua nature, but in Christ becomes all that it was meant to be.
Just as grace perfects nature, so glory (theosis) perfects grace. It is impossible to understand the saints apart from the pillars of the human identity which are glorified in Christ, the Light of the Gentiles and the glory if Israel.
St Germaine Cousins, the virgin of Pibrac, is unthinkable apart from the France of the enchanted woods; St Columba is unthinkable apart from the Bardic culture of Europe; St Juan Diego could not be imagined except as an Aztec penitant who became an virtually an apostle to the Aztecs at the invitation of the Blessed Virgin, herself.
The Apostles and Evangelists are designated by the nations they evangelized e.g. St Boniface the Patron of the German nation, St Andrew for Scotia etc.
The pillars of the human identity are part of this story. And for the European our race and its nations, culture, civilization are intrinsic to the way in which we experience the story of the faith, the Church in time and our own identity as Christians.
The race mixers cast their progeny adrift as mere individuals and deny to them and their faith (if they are so gifted), the strength of this identity which our Lord desires to baptise. The race mixers are rejecting the order of nature which our Lord came to fulfill in His Church.
I tried to post this last night, but my internet blinked out on me at the critical moment. In the meantime, thanks, Joshua, for the link to Dr. Lee. I’ve seen him invoked but never seen any of his own writings.
—-
I am astonished at the number of people whom I have personally met or with whom I have had direct interaction who are implicated in various parts of this website. First came the surprise of not only John Lofton (who attends the same congregation as I in the Maryland suburbs of DC) but also Brian Schwertley (who at various times candidated, unsuccessfully, for the pastorate of BOTH the congregations in which I have held communicant membership). Now I discover, by reference to the “Great Presbyterian Race Debate” of 1997, that Terry Gorden (with whom I have had at least one conversation relating to race) and Phil Pockras (who, depending on whose story you believe, either baptized me directly or else assisted in my baptism) have come in for a mention. Who knows who else I might find if I dig deeply enough!
It may be obvious to some, by this point, that I am RPCNA, and therefore I’m not sure that I feel the bite of history quite as deeply as some authors here would like to suppose. I have no stock in Dabney, so if I had the authority (which I don’t), I would be more than willing to call him out publicly and to his face for sinning on this point. His defense of the peculiarly American form of slavery is unconvincing, and at points laughable, in the “Defence of Virginia.” (I’m not familiar with his other writings, so I am not condemning ALL — or even anything else — of what he wrote, but I will stand by my remarks about the “Defence.”) I also have no stock in anyone — including myself or my own family. I believe my grandmother, and the RPCNA itself, previously held unbiblical views of alcohol consumption. The church — and I myself — still hold to errors that are not good to walk in. After all, who, personally or institutionally, is perfect?
But whether any of these — Dabney, my grandmother, the RPCNA, or myself — are worthy of being called heretics for their errors is a separate question. I realize Schwertley has opened it by invoking the term with reference to kinism, but I would rather deal with kinism in the context of an error rather than a heresy. To determine whether the error in fact constitutes a heresy needs a different debate. First there needs to be a discussion about whether kinism even rises to the level of error. And with errors, as someone rightly noted, repentance is called for. Dabney and my grandmother are beyond the need for it — their repentance is complete as they are with the Lord even now. The RPCNA, as a collective body, has repented of its legalistic prohibition on alcohol consumption, both for members and for officers, though there are, I doubt not, others that need to be brought to light and dealt with. I have many sins of which to be repentant, and for which I am grateful that the blood of Christ was shed for them, but I think that opposition to kinism is not one of them. I will endeavor to show why.
First, some responses to your responses.
1. Your commentary: “Since he denies that kind-after-kind and unequal yoking apply to race, he is really saying that God did not intend for there to be distinct races, and since their formation is mere happenstance, we have no moral obligation to preserve them.” I think the “God did not intend” claim is a bit strong to associate with anyone who believes in the absolute sovereignty of God. One can certainly believe that God decrees the formation of distinguishable nations (just as he decreed the treachery of the Jewish leaders in crucifying Jesus, or the conquering power of the Mongol empires of the early 1st millennium) without suggesting that it is a normative command for us to perpetuate this arrangement in all cases. Some more meat must be put on that bone before it can be eaten, as it were.
2. Your commentary: “we’ve never strictly argued, as he accuses, that ‘different language groups should not intermarry.’ The tree of language, having one trunk and many branches, is similar to the tree of humanity. In the divine judgment at Babel, language was used as a tool to disperse peoples and diverge their histories, because this is what pleases God and minimizes sin.” This brings up a point that I don’t understand about kinism, and a point where I think kinists misplace the emphasis. What I don’t understand is: why is it that language-mixing is not condemned with the same stringency as race-mixing? Genesis 10.5 describes the threefold nature of the division as according to languages, families, and nations. And in Genesis 11, language was the primary means that God used to bring about the physical separation and to delineate the groups from each other. So I don’t understand why language is exempt from the purity requirements that are applied so scrupulously to race. (Note: I can think of good reasons why mixing languages is unproblematic, but I’m having trouble seeing how the practice would be consistent with a kinist reading of Genesis 10-11.) The point where I think kinists misplace the emphasis is the part about the reason for the scattering of the peoples being that “this is what pleases God and minimizes sin.” I would be willing to grant everything you say here (though I would amend “minimizes” to “de-concentrates”); God’s divide-and-conquer approach to the sinfulness of his creatures seems pretty clear in Genesis 11.6. But taking only this accounting leaves a huge hole in the story. It ignores the fact that they were being punished for ignoring the command — common both to Adam (Genesis 1.28) AND to Noah (Genesis 9.1) — to multiply and fill the earth. Note that the foundational motivation for desiring to build the Tower, and garnering fame for themselves, was to avoid being “scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth” (Genesis 11.4). Now, I expect I’ll be informed by someone that “fill[ing] the earth” is TOTALLY DIFFERENT from “[being] scattered abroad over the face of the earth” (perhaps because there’s a subtle difference in the Hebrew that is supposedly worthy of BIG EXEGETICAL DISTINCTION). But it’s hard for me to see how the two concepts could be cleanly divorced from each other. And the command to scatter abroad over the earth is not primarily decreed as a way of de-concentrating sin. It was, after all, issued to Adam at creation, before there was any sin. It may indeed serve to de-concentrate sin, but this is a side benefit. And racial diversity, far from being a primary consideration, would come about as a side effect. It was a logical (and even intended), but not a primary, result. The MAJOR purpose of separating the languages (and nations) was precisely to get them out into the far corners of the globe and fulfill the command of God that they were deliberately and consciously flouting, as well as to cast them down from their prideful (ivory?) tower. It’s not clear to me that the methods by which He accomplished this — distinctions of nations, families, and languages — are to be normatively and permanently maintained, especially now that the command has largely been fulfilled.
I should note that I can already hear cries of “LOOK AT ACTS 17.26, YOU IDIOT [or, possibly, YOU REFORMITARD]“, or, related, “YOU MUST NOT HAVE READ THE ISRAELITE LAW CODE IN THE REST OF THE PENTATEUCH” and of “WHAT?! YOU THINK FAMILIES SHOULD BE ABOLISHED?” and even “WHAT?! YOU THINK NATIONS SHOULD ALL MELT TOGETHER INTO A ONE-WORLD GOVERNMENT?!” (If your response did not fit into one of those three/four groups, I apologize for giving you short shrift.) I will address these classes of response in brief fashion before calling it a night. As for Acts 17.26 and other Bible passages on the matter, I’ll come to them in due course. As for families, of course I believe that families are still normative, biblically. I can even discuss Bible passages in that line, if you wish, in due course. As for one-world government, I think there are good reasons to oppose it, but that they are based on other biblical principles and not on any specific biblical mandate to the contrary (though I also freely admit that it is not a matter to which I have given particularly close study).
I will proceed further when I have additional time and space.
Drew, if you think you have what it takes to “call [Dabney] out publicly and to his face for sinning on this point,” and prove it, you must be an exceptional person. If you were to actually pull this off, you would have done what no one else in 150 years has been able to do. Instead, all they can do is call him names. As I hope you realize, the words “unconvincing” and “laughable” don’t make a case.
As for nations, it is true that God will perform his will in the world, causing some to rise and some to fall, and at the same time, it is true that we have a duty to be faithful with what God has given us.
I think “de-concentrates” or “dissipates” is a better word than “minimizes,” so in this sense, you have the right idea for the purpose of the judgment at Babel. Language was the tool used for the separation, and our point about language is that God does not want one language of the world, just as He does not want one race or government of the world. Many people have tried to create a unified language for the world, and it hasn’t happened, and it will never happen, despite the popular idea among many Christians (mainly postmillennialists) that Pentecost has reversed Babel. If anything can be called a “lingua franca” for the world, it’s the Bible, but this is not the same as saying that the world should speak with one language. You’ll notice that the Amish cherish German because it sets them apart from the “English,” even though they know how to speak English.
It’s interesting that in places like Switzerland, which has an unusual history, you can hear a language spoken in one place and then an entirely different one in a village just a few miles down the road, even though the people are the same in every other way. We want to be careful about speaking for others, so we say that our emphasis is on protecting our right to exist and protecting ourselves from those who are hostile to our right to exist. The Fifth Commandment would still apply for others who insist upon preserving their heritage, customs, and language. For instance, there are Assyrian Christians being decimated in Iraq. I suspect that their neo-Aramaic language is as important to them as German is to the Amish.
I don’t really understand your confusion about our understanding of Babel. God wanted men to diverge like the branches of a tree, which produces racial and ethnic and linguistic distinctions, and the Babelists refused. It’s very simple.
I also don’t understand your confusion about the Fifth Commandment. THIS is the primary Kinist proof-text for anti-miscegenation – not Genesis 11, as Schwertley believes.
Rather than posting comments here, I suggest to you that it would be easier for everyone to follow if you responded in a paper of some sort, but suit yourself.
Drew,
Thanks for the response. At least you have the integrity to speak your mind honestly unlike many of our adversaries who simply condemn us to Hell and call it a day.
I’m sure you could provide us with examples from Dabney’s Defense of Virginia and the South that you find unconvincing and even laughable. Personally I think that it exhibits sound exegesis. Dabney and slavery aren’t really the subject of this post, but nevertheless I believe that your claims against Dabney are unsubstantiated.
With regard to your question about language and race, I think that you make a legitimate point. I would say that language is an essential aspect of national identity. I submit that learning a different language is fine as long as it is not undertaken with the goal of breaking down natural barriers. Language was a tool that God used to reinforce ethnic distinction. God’s primary objective was to achieve ethnic separation, language was the means to an end.
Actually, the Reformitards practice heresy every time they preach against the “sin” of racism. No such term or concept exists in Scripture, but racism is indeed part of the Communist canon.
If Noah had three sons by one wife, how could they have been different colors…or KINDS? If such was the case, and no one else survived the Flood, then every tribe and family on earth would occasionally include, by random genetic chance, a black or a mongol.
The proof that race is God’s design and not an accident of history is the fact that race endures. The negroes depicted on the walls of Egyptian tombs are as recognizable today as during the days of the Pharaohs. Heresy works against God’s design and creation to satisfy the pride and lust of fallen man.
The Reformitards seek to destroy God’s racial design to then Glorify Him? If that is what they believe, then they do not believe that God created the different races, but that some natural process, like EVOLUTION, resulted in racial distinctions. So when did this happen, before or AFTER the Flood?
Ultimately, when Reformitards preach against racism they preach against family. As the pews empty of white people, they will have to come up with some other “sin” to wield against the infidels who scorn their true messiah: Martin Luther King.
Very well stated ADMIN.
Let Mr. Drew show from the Bible that propositional nations are normative.
Men are crawling out of the woodwork to protect the god of the day: Democracy. I have yet to see anyone at all approach this issue in any relevant way.
Just to clarify, I should have said:
“I have yet to see any of the opponents of ‘kinism’ approach this issue in a relevant way.”
For what it’s worth, I wasn’t trying to make a case against Dabney, nor against my grandmother, nor against the RPCNA. I think you know that. I was simply illustrating that I have no stock in anyone who appears to be teaching or supporting an error — or, alternately, that loyalty to God’s truth trumps all other loyalties (all the while admitting, as I did, that I probably hold errors of my own). I think you also know that. Also, I doubt that “no one else in 150 years has been able to” show that Dabney was off-base here (though given our rather different standards for what would qualify as convincing proof, I’m not sure we would give the same assessment of any particular piece of related literature; then again, I’m not well-read in that related literature, so you may be right). I could toss off a two-sentence summary of my reasoning, I suppose, but I have a feeling that doing so would begin a series of responses centered on whether Dabney was really guilty of what I think he’s guilty of, and that’s pretty much (if not entirely) a different question.
On the point of “it would be easier for everyone to follow if you responded in a paper of some sort,” I think that’s fair. Indeed, it’s a mirror of my own request in my first comment earlier. Yeaaa! A point of agreement! I have been thinking of posting a Facebook note on this matter, though I’m not sure I want to invite a lot of new “friends” for the purpose of reading it. (Maybe I just need to make sure my privacy settings are wide open? I’ll look into that) If there’s some arrangement that can be worked out for posting in some reasonably all-accessible place, I would be happy to try my hand at it.
Entre tanto (as they would say in Spanish), to dialogue further on what we’ve started into, you write that “I don’t really understand your confusion about our understanding of Babel. God wanted men to diverge like the branches of a tree, which produces racial and ethnic and linguistic distinctions, and the Babelists refused. It’s very simple.” What I’m confused about is why language doesn’t come in for the same purity requirements as race. If the racial distinctions are normative, why is it not ALSO a point of doctrine that linguistic distinctions are EQUALLY normative? Perhaps I am misunderstanding your position, but I have the sense that in fact you would claim that linguistic distinctions are NOT equally normative to racial distinctions. I just don’t understand how that differentiation between distinctions is tenable.
“I also don’t understand your confusion about the Fifth Commandment. THIS is the primary Kinist proof-text for anti-miscegenation.” I certainly agree that the Fifth Commandment is very much in effect — and will continue to be so in perpetuity — but I think you actually go beyond this. You seem to be putting a requirement on fathers not to allow their children to marry with anyone of a foreign race. Perhaps I am mistaken, but the tenor of posting here seems to be in that line. If a child marries against his/her parents’ commands, then there is sin involved — though of course the parents must be careful to ensure that their own rules and standards are not themselves sinful, and to repent of them if they are. But what if a father and mother believe race to be an indifferent thing? Harry Seabrook’s “I never heard of such a thing” defense is facially insufficient, but if an example is in fact needed, I produce the example of my wife and me, who find race to be a point of biblical indifference. I would, for example, much rather that my about-to-be-born daughter grow up to marry an orthodox Japanese Presbyterian than a liberal American (in your sense of American) Presbyterian. If the former were a Christian and the latter an unbeliever, I think no one would dispute this order of preference. If they were both Christians, then yes, from a cultural perspective, I would prefer the American. But from a spiritual perspective, I would prefer the Japanese man. And if we switch over to comparing an orthodox Japanese man with an orthodox American, then all else being equal (as always, a heroic assumption), I expect I would prefer to see her marry the American. But I don’t see how I am biblically commanded to have that preference, nor, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, how I would biblically have the authority to forbid her from marrying the Japanese man — whereas you would tell me that I not only have the biblical authority to forbid it, but also the biblical duty to do so. What is my mandate to forbid such an inter-racial union? (Again, if I am mistaken that you believe it to be a biblical duty, I apologize.)
If from the Fifth Commandment you draw the teaching that a person who marries against God’s commands commits sin, then of course you are right as well. But, to restate from the end of the last paragraph, you have to show from somewhere other than the Fifth Commandment (or, for that matter, the First) that God commands the races to remain hermetically separate and commands fathers to keep their children from marrying outside their own race.
I should also note that my immediately-previous comment was directed toward the site administrator.
“I would, for example, much rather that my about-to-be-born daughter grow up to marry an orthodox Japanese Presbyterian than a liberal American (in your sense of American) Presbyterian.”
That’s not the choice, and you know it. We’re not asking what you would settle for. The choice is: Would you prefer that she marry a Japanese or a white man/American? You know the answer to this as well as we do, and if you say “Japanese,” we’re going to call you a liar. By bringing the words “orthodox” and “liberal” into the equation, you phrase it as though these are the only choices.
So you’ve proved our point that no white man really wants his children to marry outside the race. Therefore, those who do are in sin.
“What is my mandate to forbid such an inter-racial union?”
Are you serious?
Hello Drew,
I think racial separation is normative and even part of God’s eschatological plan. However, I don’t think there are a lot of explicit rules. In the NT we are left mostly with principles, derivative from the 5th commandment, and some examples from the OT. The exact content of civil laws therefore might vary from society to society, and men are free to establish and shape these laws according to expediency. Therefore, in my mind, kinism has no need to dogmatically defend Jim Crow laws or antebellum black codes, etc.. A moderate or more strict rule can be given according to what the situation demands.
Also, kinism doesn’t have to give exact rules on how separatism might work. Sure, we can look at past examples, but this is not primary challenge. The real problem is when men replace God’s occasional allowances for unbridled licence. While God allows men, under certain occasions, to marry outside their ethnic group, I do not think scripture supports miscegenation as general ‘norm’. I would say the same is true of divorce, warfare, and even women acting in leadership. There are times when the above are allowed, but they are not ‘usual’ but rather extraordinary, each depending on ‘right’ circumstances.
I wanted to point out these differences because I tend to think kinism falls into a similar category. There are warrants for interracial that kinists sometime ignore, as well as the examples of segregation in scripture that neo-babalists tend to sweep under the carpet. Too often lustful men prefer deviancy to convention, and when discussing miscegenation as ‘sin’, there is a broad context or economy which both sides often miss. Perhaps somewhere between permission and prohibition we might agree? At present, our society is at a radical extreme.
So, Drew I hope you would consider the strengths of the kinist argument, which I believe are many, applying standards equally between ethnic groups, utilizing reasonable equity between Old and New Testament, and not letting current trends desensitize or intimidate you, etc.
To the site administrator:
I’ll take your points in reverse order.
” ‘What is my mandate to forbid such an inter-racial union?’ Are you serious?” Yes, I am serious. It’s a question in line with my general desire to see an overall biblical defense of the kinist position (though I recall that I’ve seen a post by Harry Seabrook on the specific interracial marriage question posted in one of the back blog posts here. I’ll have to go and read it again, and I may need to let it stand in lieu of a direct response from you.)
On the question of a Japanese vs. American husband for my daughter: it’s not clear to me that you read all of what I wrote. I’ll repeat it, with a bit more clarification than I provided in the original. I will quote directly from the original as much as possible.
I made 3 comparisons.
1) “I would, for example, much rather that my about-to-be-born daughter grow up to marry an orthodox Japanese Presbyterian than a liberal American (in your sense of American) Presbyterian. If the former were a Christian and the latter an unbeliever, I think no one would dispute this order of preference.” (Though I suspect that you would find both of these options unpalatable.) If this were the only comparison, as you allege, then you would have reasonable grounds for crying foul. If I’m not mixing up my terms, I believe it would have been a false dilemma. But consider the second and the third comparisons that I made.
2) “If they [i.e. the Japanese man and the American man] were both Christians, then yes, from a cultural perspective, I would prefer the American. But from a spiritual perspective, I would prefer the Japanese man.” I should perhaps have used the word “theological” rather than “spiritual,” but the basic point stands. It’s a hypothetical choice between a potential son-in-law who is similar in theological belief and one who is similar in cultural belief. I know that, from your perspective, it should be obvious that culture (and physiology, which is either attendant on culture or on which culture is attendant) should trump theology, but its obviousness in your eyes is not reflected in my own eyes. I see them as competing points, and I would have grave misgivings about dismissing greater theological proximity out of hand.
3) “And if we switch over to comparing an orthodox Japanese man with an orthodox American, then all else being equal (as always, a heroic assumption), I expect I would prefer to see her marry the American.” I believe this is what you wanted me to admit. But you appear to have ignored my following commentary (except the concluding question, your response to which I have dealt with at the opening of this post): “I don’t see how I am biblically commanded to have that preference, nor, MUCH MORE IMPORTANTLY, how I would biblically have the authority to forbid her from marrying the Japanese man — whereas you would tell me that I not only have the biblical authority to forbid it, but also the biblical duty to do so. What is my mandate to forbid such an inter-racial union?” If I’m still being unclear, that is not my intention, and I hope I have rectified any problems that I had earlier in projecting my thoughts clearly.
Calm and patience.
Drew, the remark about the hypothetical Presbyterian Japanese groom is fatuous.
The Japanese are patriarchal and justly esteem their race, culture and ethnicities. Japanese Christianity has given martyrs to the faith and a true Japanese expression of the faith is abourning in the Church.
It is only the European goyim who are not permitted by our Overseers to esteem our own ethnicities and culture. Everybody else certainly esteems theirs.
Believe me, the American Kinist opposition to race mixing is nothing compared to the distress of good Japanese parents whose son decides to marry a ’round eye’.
There is nothing wrong with authentic European and Euro-American Christian culture. This will be your ‘about to be born’ daughter’s legacy. Why not give her permission to grow up strong in her faith and Euro-American culture?
I know I’m a new-comer to this particular branch of Christian apologetics (that is what we are doing here: trying to persuade our Christian brethren of a particular truth) and so I hope you guys pardon me for presenting, what may turn out to be, a passe’ observation.
Our brethren, (specifically our American brethren) have had their consciences so systematically seared, that they no longer feel many of the most basic human emotions. I can imagine a scenario in the future when we Christians will have to argue with professing Christian mothers about why they should love their own babies enough not to slaughter them. Or we may argue with professing Christians about why having sexual desires for a member of the same sex should be repulsive. They will have lost their natural affections.
It is the same with our friend Mr. Drew as well as the others we’ve been contending with over the past few weeks.
They have simply lost their natural affections in this area. As much as we may believe that, deep down, they retain some human sensibilities, they are beyond the point of ever admitting it, even to themselves!
So, appeals to natural sentiments (in this case, the natural aversion to other races) is moot. They wont ever buy it.
Perhaps it would be better to point out that, if ethnic-nationalism were granted at the outset, a father who allows for a mixed marriage is committing treason!
The emotional impact of this may not be felt by our opponents, but they WILL feel something when their most basic religious affiliation with pagan democratic systems is attacked!
We do NOT live, move and have our being in the state! Whoever condones mixed marriages necessarily believes otherwise, and will always believe otherwise until they give up their religious ties with democracy and accept a truly consistent and Godly worldview.
Drew,
Your mandate is Numbers 30. A husband and father may nullify any vow made by his wife or daughter. Or, Jeremiah 35, if you prefer. The Rechabites were praised, by God no less, for obeying their father’s extra-biblical (note: not anti-biblical) commands related to life-style. Also, please consider that the concept of ‘unequal yoking’ simply means ‘not the same as’, and so may be applied to racial differences as well as religious ones.
If none of that works for you simply look your daughter in the eye, and insist upon grand-children that look like you. Your family line has a right to exist, and be perpetuated just as it is. You have a biblical right to command your children after you, just as Father Abraham did. When an understanding of the full scope and intent of the 5th commandment kicks in for you, you will then understand our position with regard to race. Until that time comes, you will very likely remain puzzled.
Drew, I appreciate your restrained and measured response. I’m always impressed when our opponents don’t fly apart with hysterical accusations of ‘racism’.
Drew, I think you’re splitting hairs over what you already clearly understand to be true, namely, that if children were to honor the wishes of their parents for the most important decision of their lives, there would be no miscegenation at all.
The Fifth Commandment omits the specifics of how parents are to be honored, but the Bible is loaded with examples of how marriage relates to this honor, as you can see in comments from the others. For example, Eliezer swore to honor Abraham’s wish to find a wife for Isaac from Abraham’s own blood kin. The question is whether you want to follow the example of the Bible or take a libertarian approach to the subject.
You also say you’re confused (I’m inclined to say “you pretend to be confused”) about how a parent has authority over guiding the marriages of children. Again, it would be wise for you to do some biblical research in this area. Then, since you call yourself Reformed, it would behoove you to study what our fathers in the faith have taught on this subject. Some starters follow.
John Calvin’s commentary on Genesis 24:1-3,57:
“Abraham here fulfils the common duty of parents, in laboring for and being solicitous about the choice of a wife for his son. But he is even more forward-looking. Since God had separated him from the Canaanites by a sacred covenant, he justly fears that if Isaac joins himself in marriage to them, he will shake off the yoke of God…
Now this example should be taken by us as a common rule, to show that it is not lawful for the children of a family to contract marriage, except with the consent of parents. Certainly natural equity dictates that, in a matter of such importance, children should depend upon the will of their parents…”
Calvin’s commentary on 1 Corinthians 7:36-38:
“Now this passage serves to establish the authority of parents, which ought to be held sacred, as having its origin in the common rights of nature. Now if in other actions of inferior moment no liberty is allowed to children, without the authority of their parents, much less is it reasonable that they should have liberty given them in the contracting of marriage. And that has been carefully enacted by civil law, but more especially by the law of God…
Let us know, therefore, that in disposing of children in marriage, the authority of parents is of first-rate importance, provided they do not tyrannically abuse it, as even the civil laws restrict it. The Apostle, too, in requiring exemption from necessity, intimated that the deliberations of parents ought to be regulated with a view to the advantage of their children. Let us bear in mind, therefore, that this limitation is the proper rule—that children allow themselves to be governed by their parents, and that they, on the other hand, do not drag their children by force to what is against their inclination, and that they have no other object in view, in the exercise of their authority, than the advantage of their children.”
Calvin’s 1546 Marriage Ordinance:
“[I]f it happens that a child, having refused to marry according to the will of his father, thereafter chooses a marriage that is not so much to his profit and advantage, because of such rebellion or defiance the father shall not be required to give him anything during his lifetime.”
Martin Luther, in Parents and the Marriage of Their Children:
“Second, that a child should not marry or become engaged without the knowledge and consent of his parents… The fourth [i.e., fifth] commandment here stands strong and firm, ‘Honor and obey your father and your mother.’ This is why in all of Scripture we find not a single example of two young people entering into an engagement of their own accord. Instead, it is everywhere written of the parents, ‘Give husbands to your daughters and wives to your sons,’ Jeremiah 29, and Moses says in Exodus 21, ‘If a father gives a wife to a son,’ etc. Thus Isaac and Jacob took wives at the behest of their parents.
From this the custom has spread throughout the world that weddings and the establishment of new households are celebrated publicly with festivity and rejoicing. Thereby these secret engagements are condemned, and the marriage entered into with the knowledge and consent of both families is confirmed and honored. Even Adam, the very first bridegroom, did not himself select Eve as his bride. Instead, as the text clearly states, God first brought her to him; thus did he receive her…
Now someone may protest: If the father has the authority to break off his child’s engagement and disrupt his marriage, then he must also have the authority to forbid his child to marry at all, and to force him into celibacy, etc. I answer: Not so. I have said above that man is created—not by his father, but by God—to eat, drink, produce fruit of his body, sleep, and respond to other calls of nature. It is not within the power of any man to alter this. Therefore, it is one thing to hinder a child’s marriage to this or that particular person, and quite another thing to forbid marriage entirely. A father may lay down the rule that his child must not eat or drink this or that, or sleep here or there; but he cannot rule that the child abstain entirely from food, drink, and sleep. On the contrary, he is duty bound to provide his child with food, drink, clothing, sleep, and whatever else is needful for his well-being. If he fails to do this, he is no father at all, and the child will have to do it himself.
In like manner, the father also has the authority to prevent his child from marrying this one or that one; but he does not have the authority to forbid him to marry altogether. On the contrary, he is duty bound to get his child a good mate who will be just right for him, or who seems to be just right for him. If he fails to do this, the child should and must provide for the matter himself.
Again, the father can without sin forego his right and authority; when he has faithfully counseled his child and voiced his objections, he can let him have his own way and marry whomsoever he will even without his father’s consent. For who can possibly ward off all evil when good advice and sound judgment are ignored? Thus, Isaac and Rebekah allowed their son Esau to do as he pleased and take wives whom they did not favor, Genesis 27. In such a case the father has sufficiently met his obligation and fulfilled his parental duty. It is not necessary for him to restrain him with sword and spear. God will surely see and deal with the child’s disobedience and willfulness.“
I will refer to this as Drew’s Substantive Comment #3 (or, DSC3 for short).
To Charles:
I apologize for missing your post of last night before writing this one. If I am remiss in going ahead and posting anyway, please accept my apologies. I’ve only just noticed it — and not actually read it through other than parts of the opening and closing paragraphs — as I am about to post this.
To Lynda:
I assure you that my daughter is more of the about-to-be-born variety than the “about-to-be-born” variety. My wife has been trying to issue eviction notices to her, to no avail, for over a week.
To Shotgun:
I am always wary of natural-law type arguments. A man will only see in nature what he thinks to be possible, and he will be blind to what he thinks impossible. Put another way, arguments from self-evidence depend upon identical preconceptions, which clearly you and I don’t. If we’re to have a proper view of the “law of nature,” we have to have a proper view of the law of nature’s Creator, and His view of nature. This is (in admittedly brief and summary form) why I think it far more critical to fall back onto the question, “what does the Bible say?” rather than “what comes naturally/obviously to me (or you)?”
To the site administrator (and, in reference to Numbers 30, to Randall):
I very much understand that I have the authority to grant or withhold approval to my daughter in the matter of her marriage (and all previous stages of forming the relationship). It may be countercultural to an extent, but it is nevertheless biblical.
Indeed, compare my previous statement:
“If a child marries against his/her parents’ commands, then there is sin involved — though of course the parents must be careful to ensure that their own rules and standards are not themselves sinful.”
With Calvin’s:
“this limitation is the proper rule–that children allow themselves to be governed by their parents, and that they, on the other hand, do not drag their children by force to what is against their inclination, and that they have no other object in view, in the exercise of their authority, than the advantage of their children”
I think there’s an awful lot of agreement there.
Further, a parent’s blessing can be pro-active (in the form of a contracted or arranged marriage), but it may also be reactive (in the form of agreeing to a requested relationship and courtship, culminating in engagement and marriage). The excerpts from Calvin are compatible with both. I think it’s not out of line with Luther either, though he is more forcefully insistent on the pro-active arrangement. I don’t have Scripture handy in my mind (except Genesis 29.18, which, like Genesis 24.2ff, is primarily descriptive) to support the reactive form of approval, unfortunately, but I hope that will not become a sticking point.
The point of disagreement, I think, is how far a father’s authority extends to insist or refuse in this matter.
If, as said in Ephesians 6.4, we are to “not provoke [our] children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord,” then the extent of our authority cannot be absolute. I think we both agree on that. If we have raised our children in the discipline and instruction (or training and admonition) or the Lord, what is our authority for refusing any of them permission to marry another who is also walking under — and perhaps has been brought up in — the discipline and admonition of the Lord?
As I see it: if I forbid my daughter to marry an upright Japanese Christian for the reason that I do not share the the ancestors from whom he is descended (or the style of clothes he wears, the language he speaks, the continent on which he lives, the shape of his eyes, the historical heroes to whom he is accustomed, the customs of daily life — assuming they are not sinful — to which he is habituated, and suchlike), then I am being selfish. And if I am acting out of selfishness, then my motives are sinful. And if I consequently exercise my fatherly authority on these grounds, then I am exercising my authority sinfully.
I know that you and I diverge significantly at some point in that last paragraph. I suspect that it’s at the point that I say such actions are selfish — whereas you would say that they are biblical. But show me from Scripture that it is indeed scriptural and not selfish.
I would also take issue with another statement of yours: “If children were to honor the wishes of their parents for the most important decision of their lives, there would be no miscegenation at all.” You have an unstated premise here, which I reject: that the wish of all parents is that their children marry within the same race. This is turning a conclusion into a premise (or, less charitably, prejudging the question). I have granted that I have a preference for an American son-in-law as opposed to a Japanese son-in-law, all else being equal (which is, as I noted before, a heroic assumption). But, to flesh that preference out more fully, it is a preference in the same way that I prefer drinking orange juice to drinking cranberry juice: I think orange juice tastes better, but I don’t find cranberry to be an illegitimate alternative. There is nothing, so far as I can see, that is objectionable about cranberry juice. My preference in this area is NOT, for example, a preference in the same way that I prefer drinking orange juice to drinking sewer water: sewer water is not a legitimately healthful drink, nor should it be consumed except in extraordinarily desperate circumstances. Using this analogy, I would equate an upright Japanese Christian with cranberry juice, not with sewer water. The fact that he is Japanese is not an important factor to me (and to my wife) in deciding whether to grant or withhold approval. Or, put another way, my indifference toward a non-American son-in-law is stronger than, and carries greater weight than, my preference for an American son-in-law. Therefore, I would submit me and my wife as a sufficient example to show that your premise, that the wish of all parents is that their children marry within the same race, is faulty. And as a result, I am logically free to disagree with the conclusion that you claim I agree with, to whit: that miscegenation is impossible when children obey their parents’ wishes with respect to marriage. (As I asserted earlier in my discussion of selfishness, I think I am also morally free to disagree with your claim.) I do not assert that miscegenation is CERTAIN if/when children obey their parents, but I certainly assert that it is POSSIBLE.
I expect that it’s difficult for you to suppose that race could truly be a point of indifference for parents, but it is likewise difficult for me to suppose that unqualified non-indifference on the matter of race (which I believe is your position) could be motivated by anything other than selfishness. I know, and can affirm with zero reservations, that you see your motivations as biblical, rather than selfishness: so show me.
To Randall (more directly):
It’s unfortunate that my restraint is so noteworthy. Not that I find fault with you for pointing it out — indeed, I thank you for the compliment — I simply find it lamentable that it’s so rare.
Jeremiah 35 indeed praises the Rechabites for their obedience to the authority to their ancestor, in contrast to the nation at large which would not even obey God, who clearly exceeded Jonadab in authority. I would grant that this offers some biblical ground for extra-biblical rules — and that extra-biblical rules are necessary when you’re raising children (what time to send them to bed, when to feed them or call them to dinner, what friends to allow them to have, etc.) and for most other facets of life. But extra-biblical rules must be based on biblical principles, and, as you note, they must avoid being NON-biblical. A crucial part of meeting this criterion is that the motivation underlying the rules must be biblical. I would assume that Jonadab’s motives for issuing his command were biblical, and I think it is not too much of a stretch to suppose that his descendants followed him out of a reverence driven by a desire to glorify God. (Given how Jesus treated the Pharisees, it is difficult to see how they could have come in for a blessing otherwise.) But as I stated above, I cannot see how prohibiting my daughter from marrying a non-American BECAUSE HE IS A NON-AMERICAN is a prohibition based on biblical principles, or indeed on any principle other than selfishness. As a result, I am unable to see how my fatherly authority permits me to make this prohibition, much less how it requires me to do to so.
A small point, if I may be permitted…
Admin’s earlier statement to Drew was this:
“That’s not the choice, and you know it. We’re not asking what you would settle for. The choice is: Would you prefer that she marry a Japanese or a white man/American? You know the answer to this as well as we do, and if you say “Japanese,” we’re going to call you a liar. By bringing the words “orthodox” and “liberal” into the equation, you phrase it as though these are the only choices.”
For the sake of clarification, allow me to add some all-caps emphases to part of Admin’s statement, and then a comment of my own. Drew, try reading it like this:
The choice is: would you PREFER that she marry a Japanese or a white man/American? In other words, do you lie in your bed at night and think, “I truly HOPE that my daughter marries outside of her race?” Note the distinction here. There is a vast difference between (a) being willing to passively ACCEPT your daughter’s miscegenation and violation of the 5th Commandment (as so many geldings do today) and (b) actively LONGING for your daughter to miscegenate.
If you are a white man, Drew, I don’t for a minute believe that you actually overtly hope your daughter will one day marry a Japanese or a Negro or a mestizo. But if I am wrong and if you DO think such thoughts, your approach to your daughter’s future is literally perverse.
One final point. You assume that hypothetical Japanese “believer in Christ” to be a “Christian” because he PROFESSES (claims) to be a Christian. But if your daughter marries a MacLeod or a Dulaney or a Griffiths, that particular young man IS a kinsman, not just professing or claiming to be a kinsman.
“Historically, segregationists and separatists performed some of the greatest missionary works in history. The fact that they wanted their own people to remain distinct from others did not mean that they hated others. They understood trinitarian unity rather than the unitarian unity of the Reformitards.”
This is a gem worth filing.
Drew is one of the rare Kinist opponents who doesn’t flip out when engaging us. For this he deserves recognition. On the down side, Drew, you’re a bit long-winded, brother. Either way, we’re glad for the interest.
Drew,
I appreciate your well-articulated response; your comments on pre-judgment have some merit, I think. I do agree with the earlier posts that “natural affection” does play a role in our understanding of these issues. However, you are correct in that gut instincts do have to be examined in light of Scripture in order to determine their validity (or lack thereof.)
That said, there is a particular passage of Scripture to which I would direct your attention: in Numbers 36 we have the interesting case of the daughters of Zelophehad.
“Now the chief fathers of the families of the children of Gilead the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, of the families of the sons of Joseph, came near and spoke before Moses and before the leaders, the chief fathers of the children of Israel. And they said: “The LORD commanded my lord Moses to give the land as an inheritance by lot to the children of Israel, and my lord was commanded by the LORD to give the inheritance of our brother Zelophehad to his daughters. Now if they are married to any of the sons of the other tribes of the children of Israel, then their inheritance will be taken from the inheritance of our fathers, and it will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so it will be taken from the lot of our inheritance. And when the Jubilee of the children of Israel comes, then their inheritance will be added to the inheritance of the tribe into which they marry; so their inheritance will be taken away from the inheritance of the tribe of our fathers.”
Then Moses commanded the children of Israel according to the word of the LORD, saying: “What the tribe of the sons of Joseph speaks is right. 6 This is what the LORD commands concerning the daughters of Zelophehad, saying, ‘Let them marry whom they think best, but they may marry only within the family of their father’s tribe.’ So the inheritance of the children of Israel shall not change hands from tribe to tribe, for every one of the children of Israel shall keep the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers. And every daughter who possesses an inheritance in any tribe of the children of Israel shall be the wife of one of the family of her father’s tribe, so that the children of Israel each may possess the inheritance of his fathers. Thus no inheritance shall change hands from one tribe to another, but every tribe of the children of Israel shall keep its own inheritance.”
Note the following:
1. Even within the nation of Israel, each tribe had a distinct inheritance; God specifically instructed them that the boundaries of this inheritance were never to be changed. (Hence Naboth’s refusal of Ahab.)
2. The fathers of the tribe were rightly concerned that their kinsman’s property should continue to be reckoned among the tribal inheritance.
3. When an individual’s prospective marriage threatens the legitimate, God-given legacy of a people group, then that people group has the right and responsibility to censure and even outlaw such a marriage.
It follows from this, that if race is indeed part of a people’s God-given identity, then those who seek it’s lawful preservation and perpetuation by preventing its dissolution via radical admixture, are doing so in accordance with divine ordinance. Thus, fathers and civil rulers do have a biblical mandate for preventing inter-racial marriage.
Much more could be said on this; rather than spend the night typing, however, I will instead link you to (what I would consider) a very good clarification of kinist principles. The author may be somewhat off on historical anthropology with respect to Ham, Nimrod, et al, but I think that is incidental to his main thesis. Give it a good read, and I think you will find it very tightly argued.
http://www.kinism.net/publications/a_kinist_elucidation.pdf
I’m going to have to agree with Drew on a couple of things here. First, it’s certainly not the case that every parent wishes their child to marry within their race. This is where I see something of a contradiction in much Kinist discussion – on the one hand, it is claimed that White people utterly lack racial consciousness and are eager to prostrate themselves before nonwhites; and yet it is also claimed that no White person, not a single one, would ever want his child to marry a non-white.
There are plenty of White Christians who, for better or for worse, would love to adopt a non-white child or who would love for their child to marry a non-white. You can, of course, say that they are lying to themselves, and deep down they really are disgusted by miscegenation – but it takes a lot of guts to argue that you know their hearts better than they do.
I was raised in the heartland, surrounded by White Protestants and Evangelicals, and it never occurred to me that any Christian would object to miscegenation until high school, when I learned about pre-1960s America. I never heard an adult express even the slightest disapproval for miscegenation. While interracial marriages were rare, given the demographics, they were not unheard of, and indeed they were most common in evangelical churches with mostly-white congregations.
My point is not to repudiate the Kinist position on the whole, merely to challenge Kinists’ common arguments. When most White people don’t even believe they HAVE an objective racial identity and culture, you’ll have a hard time convincing them that, deep down, they don’t want their children to marry non-Whites.
Secondly, the absolutist appeals to history are, I think, slightly faulty. The Church was silent on the issue of miscegenation for centuries at a time. This is to be expected in an era when Christendom was largely confined to white Europe; therefore it doesn’t mean much to say that Medieval Christians preserved their ethnic distinctions.
And where the bounds of Christendom were extended to non-white lands, intermarriage did occur. During the Crusades, it was common for Christian knights who settled in the Near East to take converted Saracen wives.
More could be said about this issue; for now, suffice it to say that the statement that Christian history is unanimously against miscegenation is a sweeping generalization.
Thirdly, Dabney has been appealed to frequently throughout this conversation. It is important to note that Dabney was not a theonomist. In fact, he explicitly says in various places that the particular civil laws of Israel are not binding on modern nations. When making his case against miscegenation, he appeals to what is obvious from nature – that hybridization diminishes the positive characteristics of the superior race. He does not make use of the OT law other than as proof that God is not always against racial distinctions.
This does not greatly diminish his usefulness to the Kinist. But it is important to keep in mind when appealing to him as an authority.
TO CONFED:
Oh yes, I can be QUITE long-winded. 1) I like words, 2) I have this (maybe rash) assumption that more words can help reduce ambiguity, 3) as someone once said, “I would have written you a shorter letter, but I didn’t have the time.”
TO WHEELER:
I think my post #DSC3 (and my post preceding it, of August 9 at 12:03 a.m.) should satisfy your curiosity.
To LAZARUS:
Cool! I think I agree with everything you wrote — right up to the end of the second-to-last sentence of the second-to-last full paragraph. (The reason I diverge from you there is that I’m highly skeptical that race IS a part of a people’s God-given identity or that “a [genetic] race” and “a people” are necessarily identical. But then you already knew that.) I also think the record of Zelophehad’s daughters has an important component that I’ve not seen in kinist writings, but I’ll draw that out sometime later. Perhaps I’ll find it in the link you have provided.
Speaking of the link, thank you so much! The name “a kinist elucidation” is already whetting my interest (or, to continue mixing metaphors, it’s piquing my appetite).
I would like to add the commandment against adultery as being against race-mixing. At the time of the KJV, adultery had both the meanings of adulterate and committing adultery.
In the Septuaint moichao was used for adultery, and moichao also has both meanings of adulterate and committing adultery.
But, in truth, it should not be necessary to tell a man that he should do his part to preserve his race. I agree with the earlier commenter that it will be necessary to convince future generations of Christians that homosexual behaviour, abortion, bestiality etc are sick.
Mr. Himmel,
In my last post I made a case that is very much similar to yours.
I argued that Christians today have seared consciences and even if we believe they hold natural affections deep down, it would be useless to try and draw them out.
But the more I consider it, the more I regret arguing that way.
It does a disservice to the poet and the bugler alike. The artist is skilled at presenting a certain sort of apology, one that reaches into a seared heart and soothes the scarred tissue.
The winds of change are blowing and our brethren will be thrust face to face with nightmare scenarios. I wouldn’t bet against the combined might of poet and truth.
When thus allied, chill-bumps, as well as common sense, emerge anew!
Oh, and by the way Mr. Drew,
We don’t believe in mixing metaphors around here!
Drew doubts that race is part of our God-given identity. Well, let me pose a question: If God didn’t give us race, then where did it come from? The only possible alternative is the random selection of godless evolution.
Thus it amazes me that Babelists constantly accuse kinists of deriving their view from Darwin. Actually Darwinism is much more consistent with their dogma that race is simply a mistake for their spiritual goodness to correct.
In any case, if we can agree that a purposeful God is the author of all creation–a God who knows when every sparrow falls–can we imagine that he slipped up one day and absently-mindly caused race to happen?
Hardly. Deut. 32:8 states that it was God’s purpose to divide the sons of Adam into nations. And certainly race works to accomplish that purpose.
A Christian friend once told me that racial mixing is impiety toward the Creator, something that brings confusion to His order. That logic is hard to deny.
Hello Drew,
“But extra-biblical rules must be based on biblical principles, and, as you note, they must avoid being NON-biblical.”
This was my point with about the form ethno-nationalism might take in a society, its particulars left to civil law. Kinist needn’t over-commit to these particulars, but we should defend the principle. I think this is the reasoning with Dabny. Nevertheless, there is nothing sinful in preserving one’s ethnicity, drawing lines in marriage and certain areas of private life. God instituted the nations by family lines. Why would it be a blessing to erase these genetic markers?
Thus far, I feel the argument has become as false dilemma. Drew, if you only had a choice between your daughter marrying a japanese christian vs. white pagan, then in my opinion expediency allows the former. The example might be Joseph in Egypt or Elimelech in Moab. The principle here is when no suitable “Israelite” can be had, you marry amongst the strangers you dwell, “It is wrong for man to be alone”.
Yet the ideal of marrying within the same physical kind, “of my bone and flesh”, is often missed because we have the unfortunate tendency to divorce the natural from the spiritual. Why can’t natural lineage be consecrated by the spiritual? Isn’t this more descriptive of the covenant, “it is for you and your children”?
I think there is a line of irresponsibility too often crossed, hence, ‘making the irregular normal’. And, here is the problem. We are not in Moab or Egypt (yet), but still live in a land (thankfully) that has a vestige of christian culture with many Anglo-americans of faith around us. I assume you are not in a foreign land, so why not begin with your own family? This was Abraham’s commision to Eliezer, and Christ even said he came to the Jews first. Paul also affirmed ethnicity, not denying himself a Benjaminite. Paul also said, “but if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel”. The idea of natural and spiritual coinciding in a nexus of stewardship is not foreign to biblical thought, nor is it “non-biblical”.
The principle here is we have obligations and priorities to our natural families which are not sinful. Kinist have never said our kin ties must be at the expense of our catholicity or spiritual communion. We have only said our desires to define and keep nations by family lines are not wrong. We see no change as to what constitutes a nation between testaments, so kinists assume their familiar basis continues, just as gender and sexuality do.
So, the question, “If I cannot find a white christian, then a Japanese will suffice”, belies the point. Instead, we should ask, “Will I labor (like Eliezer did) to find a suitable spouse amongst my own kind (both spiritual and natural) for my daughter to marry”? This is really a question of context, and why I said earlier our extra-biblical rules are somewhat circumstantial. Nonetheless, I find it somewhat dishonest that you propound a question that you do not really face and very few are forced into? Inotherwords, given you live in a land with many anglo-christians about, what are your current responsibilities? Do you have any to your present ethno-nation?
Drew, I too appreciate your honest inquiry, and I do agree with you Siegfried that for better or, as I argue for worse some Christians actually would want there children to marry outside the race just as they actually want to adopt foreign children. Drew, I agree that fathers cannot enforce sinful standards on their children. The 5th commandment applies to non-Christian as well as Christian parents, although a non-Christian parent cannot tell their Christian child that they cannot marry another Christian, since this would obviously be sinful. The question is whether the scenario you posited above would really be sinful. You suggested that forbidding your daughter from marrying a Japanese man because he is different in certain ways from you would be sinful because it would be selfish. Here’s where I disagree. I don’t think that you can clearly demonstrate where this would be clearly identified as a “sin” in the Bible. Abraham restricted his son from marrying interracially and it wasn’t a religious consideration since his relatives still had pagan idols. I also agree with other posters that race/ethnicity is a God-given aspect of our identity as it states in Deut. 32:8 and Acts 17:26-27. I would say that given the examples of Abraham, Isaac, Manoah, and Tobit we can surmise that ethnicity should be a consideration in marriage and that fathers should naturally prefer their own kind after the “each according to its own kind” principle we see in Genesis.
TO SHOTGUN:
“We don’t believe in mixing metaphors around here!” LOL!
TO LUTHER:
Your attribution of Darwinist beliefs to me is inaccurate, as is your attribution to me of a belief that distinct races are somehow a mistake or accident. Perhaps an excerpt from an earlier post of mine will make my thinking on this clear (from August 8, 12:19 p.m., under Point 1):
“One can certainly believe [as I do] that God decrees the formation of distinguishable nations (just as he decreed the treachery of the Jewish leaders in crucifying Jesus, or the conquering power of the Mongol empires of the early 1st millennium) without suggesting that it is a normative command for us to perpetuate this arrangement in all cases. Some more meat must be put on that bone before it can be eaten, as it were.”
Also, Deuteronomy 32.8 is part of a passage in which God talks to Israel about his own special care for them, and how they are separate and special to Him — how they are (32.9) “the LORD’s portion” among the nations. In 32.8, He even points out that, in particular, “He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel.” I will pass on providing an exhaustive commentary (for now anyway), but suffice it to say I do not think that the lesson to be drawn from this passage is the one that you think should be drawn.
TO CHARLES:
A repeat apology for my ignoring you in my comments up to this point. I appreciate your willingness to leave room for latitude in how to apply the principle. I think that’s quite commendable, not to mention sensible. Yet it is on the point of principle that our basic disagreement lies. I still hold the view that the kinist doctrine of race is roughly equivalent to selfishness.
Now, to your points.
You say: “we have the unfortunate tendency to divorce the natural from the spiritual. Why can’t natural lineage be consecrated by the spiritual? Isn’t this more descriptive of the covenant, ‘it is for you and your children’?” As my father-in-law used to say, “God is in the business of saving families,” which I think is a wonderfully pithy remark. A heritage of godly ancestors running back for generations is unquestionably a blessing to be celebrated. Physical children are indeed heirs of a spiritual covenant. That is why my wife and I are baptizing our daughter as soon as we can after she’s born. But racial purity is not at all a New Testament (and is only somewhat of an Old Testament) consideration for whether children inherit the covenant. So I don’t think invoking the physical aspects of covenant inheritance is terribly relevant to the question of whether genetic bloodlines need to be kept separate.
Much might be said regarding Genesis 24.2-8, but for now I will posit only that the passage is narrative/descriptive and not necessarily didactic/prescriptive. As for 1 Timothy 5.8, I find its use as a kinist proof-text to be over-rated, particularly in the broad interpretation of the words “his own.” I might also note that a man in a church of Paul’s day could find, especially if he was wealthy, that within “his own house” were included both genetically-related members (children born of himself and his wife) and genetically-distant members, such as slaves (and perhaps adopted children).
You say: “The principle here is we have obligations and priorities to our natural families which are not sinful. Kinist have never said our kin ties must be at the expense of our catholicity or spiritual communion.” That is not entirely true, as the man through whom I became acquainted with kinism is sure that blacks and whites need to maintain separate places of worship. But it would appear that he does not speak for you, and perhaps he does not speak for most. Nevertheless, I think that there is a place for privileging the spiritual above the natural in our relationships with both God and men. When Israelites could be cut off from the community and nation, and strangers grafted in (centuries prior to the writing of Romans 11), it seems to me that this is a biblical precept. Though care for our bodies, and by extension our genes, may be spiritually important (e.g. it is a righteous thing to carefully avoid exposure to excessive radiation), it seems to me that the natural should ultimately be inferior to the spiritual in the formation of our interpersonal relationships with God and with others. This would include the selection of marriage partners. Thus, as I stated in an earlier post (August 9, 12:03 a.m.), in “a hypothetical choice between a potential son-in-law who is similar in theological belief and one who is similar in cultural belief . . . I would have grave misgivings about dismissing greater theological proximity out of hand.”
That brings me to the matter of my daughter getting married (which, I am assured by older saints, will “happen before [I] know it”,
). There seems to be a continuing misunderstanding of my position, and not only by you. I made 3 comparisons (explicitated in my post of August 9, 12:03 a.m.), trying to cover all scenarios. You and my other critics seem to be reading #1 as if it were in isolation. I am rather puzzled by this.
I will also note that the choice of a Japanese counter-example was deliberate. The RPCNA has a member presbytery in Japan, as well as a sister/daughter presbytery in Sudan. If my daughter should partake in a missions effort in either of those presbyteries some day, or if she should come into contact with ministers-in-training from those presbyteries who are receiving their training in the United States (or even visitors from those presbyteries spending an extended time in this country), it would be foolish to suppose that a mutual love could not possibly develop. Are the chances small? Yes. But let me quite clear: this is not a question of expedience. It is a question of a very possible, even if far from certain, reality.
Now, my use of the phrase “a mutual love could . . . develop,” gives away my belief that arranged marriages are not required, as does my previous post (August 9, 4:12 p.m.) where I described parental blessings as being pro-active or reactive, and submitted that both were scriptural. You seem to be pre-supposing that the pro-active approach (i.e. a contracted or arranged marriage) is the only proper one, or at least that it is consummately to be wished. But the pro-active approach is not commanded in Scripture nor is the reactive approach deprecated (I think I’m correct on this point; in any event, Calvin seems compatible with this line of reasoning), and I, as is common in the United States today, am perfectly comfortable with a reactive approach.
Indeed, I do not see it any more necessary to pro-actively choose my daughter’s husband than to choose her friends. I am content to allow her to keep company with others, or to disallow it if the company is bad — a righteous father could do no less — and to then leave it to her and her husband to choose each other within that context. And so, as far as my “current responsibilities” as her father are concerned, I do not see them extending any further than to ensure that she enters marriage (and engagement and courtship) within the house of God/household of faith.
“Perhaps it would be better to point out that, if ethnic-nationalism were granted at the outset, a father who allows for a mixed marriage is committing treason!”
Stuff like this sounds frankly too fanatical to me, interfering with the rights of a father. I actually believe that any absolute ban (as versus mere “relative” ban) on race-mixing smells like Galatian legalism, no matter for how “good cause” it might be.
(Not even going into all the practical casuistic difficulties that overt extremism in this matter would entail.)
Perhaps I could call myself a “moderate Kinist” who believes that if forced integration (that modernism pushes) were abandoned and overall doctrinal orthodoxy and good moral atmosphere were maintained in churches, the ethnicities would spontaneously self-segregate, following the anti-Babelist intention of God. “And all these (good earthly things) things shall be added unto you.” (Matthew 6:33)
And yes, I know well enough that even my moderate approach would be seen as outrageously bigoted by the PC establishment. But I am not going to rush from one extreme to another, from race-denial to race-idolatry.
Drew, you said, “I still hold the view that the kinist doctrine of race is roughly equivalent to selfishness.”
I still don’t see how this has any foundation. I agree with you that the Genesis 24 passage is generally narrative. However I don’t think that any narrative passage of scripture is without moral application. Our opponents love to quote Numbers 12 to this end. I think that the narrative portions generally do have a “go and do thou likewise” depending upon the consequences of what happened. Again, I think that Abraham, Isaac, and Manoah are positive examples. Other examples of narrative principles would be a good example of biblical adoption in Mordecai adopting his younger cousin Hadassah/Esther. From this I think that we can establish that it is normal/normative for adoptions to occur amongst close family members. Yet another narrative portion of scripture that I think has a moral message is the example of Naboth not giving his vineyard to Ahab under tribal property rules. Was Naboth being selfish for looking out for his families interests?
Furthermore, I think that your characterization of the kinist position as selfish could just as easily be applied to families. As a father, you will devote your time and attention to your wife and family. Your children will become your heirs because they descend from you. Given the Naboth passage in 1 Kings 21 I have no reason to believe that this is selfish conduct. St. Paul speaks of natural affection. I agree with you that we shouldn’t interpret 1 Tim. 5:8 too broadly, however I do think that it shows that we have familial obligations based upon heredity and that these do radiate out in concentric circles. We see this work itself out in history as people have had a natural affection for those like themselves. I fail to see how this natural affection can be construed as selfish.
TO SCARBOROUGH FAYRE:
Your comment of August 11, 11:16 a.m., is excellent. It, along with Petr’s comment (August 11, 12:23 p.m.) and those by Charles, are making it clear that kinism comes in a number of “shades of a color.”
You make two points that are worthy of a more detailed response:
1) “You suggested that forbidding your daughter from marrying a Japanese man because he is different in certain ways from you would be sinful because it would be selfish. Here’s where I disagree. I don’t think that you can clearly demonstrate where this would be clearly identified as a ‘sin’ in the Bible.”
2) “I also agree with other posters that race/ethnicity is a God-given aspect of our identity as it states in Deut. 32:8 and Acts 17:26-27.”
I believe the best forum for addressing these, as well as Ehud’s very thought-provoking article in the latest “Kinist Review” (and other well-articulated statements of the kinist position), would be in a Facebook note, where constraints of time and space are somewhat lessened. The site administrator suggested something of this sort, and I think an opportune time has come to leave off discussion here and instead focus on developing a complete expression of my thinking in that setting. (Note: this will likely take some time.) I want to thank those who have dialogued with me thus far, as it has been an invaluable help to me in gaining an understanding of where y’all are coming from — and indeed where I am coming from.
When I have completed the note, I will, with the permission of the site administrator, announce the fact here and try to figure out some way in which it may be made accessible to all who would be interested.
Apologies: I do have ONE additional question before I finalize my departure. In the banner at the top of the site, who is the 5th man from the left? I think I can identify the other 5 (I’ve been assuming they’re Calhoun, Dabney, Lee, Jackson, ???, and Rushdoony), but I’m stumped on him.
Petr,
Perhaps you would better get my meaning if you consider that when I mention “race-mixing” I mean it in the context of the contemporary pagan society that we all know and love?
In such a society, mixing is endorsed wholesale and supported with odd bits of theology or practical arguments.
If we don’t legalistically outlaw it all together, it must be admitted that when (and if) there are times that it is appropriate, it would be a very serious matter that must be undertaken carefully.
However, I don’t see how there can be a “moderate” position between the Bible and our current pagan society. While there are always strictures and exceptions to a Biblical rule, I caution against mixing a strong Biblical statement with care-free libertarianism for the sake of staving off “legalism.” There is enough lee-way in the truth to account for legitimate variations (in my humble, uneducated, and pretentious opinion.)
Drew: Yes, in Deut. 32:8 God did divide the nations “according to the number of the sons of Israel.” Nevertheless, he still divided them for his purpose of promoting salvation, as we see stated in Acts 17:26-27. That’s not exactly the same as a Mongol invasion.
The division of mankind is normative. To deny that suggests the randomness of Darwinism. I don’t wish to accuse you of that. I’m just trying to figure where the logic of some people on your side, if not you, is leading.
Marlon: Your point about adultery is interesting. The word, as it derives from its linguistic sources, indeed means to “adulterate,” i.e., an improper mixture of entities.
In most of the Bible the commandment against adultery refers to the illicit mixing of spouses, and by extention their family lineages. But the concept also extends to the mixing of peoples.
One example is Hosea 5:3 where God accuses Israel of “whoredom.” This is the Hebrew word zanah which also can mean “to commit adultery.” And what was the specific nature of Israel’s whoredom? God explains in Hosea 5:7 that his people have “begotten strange children.” The word “strange” translates from the Hebrew word zuwr, which means “foreigner” and “to commit adultery.”
The commandment against adultery applies today as it did in the Old Testament. And we have no reason to believe that its full meaning has changed from its Old Testament roots.
Another concept to consider is fornication, i.e., improper sexual relations. In Hebrews 12:16 we are warned not to follow the way of Esau, a “profane man and fornicator.” And what was the nature of his fornication? All the Bible tells us about his sexual behavior is that he married Hittite women. (Gen. 26:34) Bear in mind that these were not interfaith marriages because as a “profane man” Esau was just as much of a heathen as his wives. Also, these marriages caused “great grief” to Esau’s parents, a clear violation of the commandment to honor father and mother.
Do the commandments against adultery and fornication have bearing on the question of interracial marriage today? As Rousas Rushdoony observed, “the weight of biblical law is against interracial marriage.”
That’s an interesting point Luther. My question would be when do we consider intermarriage to be adultery and when should it be considered fornication? Could it possibly be considered both? Just wondering how it would work itself out. Thanks
Drew, I believe he’s Cornelius Van Til.
It is Van Til.
Scarborough: I think it’s included under both headings.