Kinism: The Great Commission Denied

Photo by Jesus Solana/Getty Images

One of the problems with Christendom and the divisions within is that we want to circle the wagons when someone speaks against our brand instead of listening to our critics to see if there is value in what they have to say. We want to defend our own, and if sometimes our own is indefensible, we prefer to ignore them, pretend they don’t exist, aren’t a problem. This is foolishness, you can’t ignore a cancer in your body. We must be our own greatest critics, removing the planks out of our own eyes before we remove the specks from others. That is one reason why, as a Reformed, Calvinistic Christian I am critical of Douglas Wilson and his teachings. It’s why I’m thankful for the protectors of orthodoxy in the URC and OPC denominations who have written at length and in detail against the errors of Federal Vision.

But there is a stink in the Reformed body, we’re not the sole host but I believe we’re the the largest one in the Christian world. It’s the odious theology of kinism and I’ve discovered, sadly, that it’s far more prevalent than I previously thought.

A quick disclaimer, which I’m only making since previously I’ve only written about Doug Wilson: I do not believe that Doug Wilson is a kinist. To the contrary, he has actually made himself an enemy of them and pointed his barbs in a good direction with them. I believe Doug Wilson has a problem with understanding racism, but I think it has more to do with trying to justify his nostalgic views of the South, needing to shape it in his mind and others as an almost ideal Christian society. There are many problems with this, but none nearly as grave as what is espoused by avowed kinists.

Kinism is virulent racism dressed up in supposed equality. Their cry is “Africa for Africans, Europe for Europeans and Asia for Asians” (Somehow, America for Native Americans didn’t make the cut). claiming that while they believe in the equality of all races, that they need to be kept separate, segregated in order to protect their respective cultures and distinctions. A byproduct of keeping the cultures separate is, of course, being anti-interracial marriage, or as they prefer to call it, miscegenation. Of course, anyone who has studied a lick of American history understands what this separate but equal policy really hides and it is odd that they try to hide it at all since nearly everything else they say is drenched with out and out racism.

Kinism in the Reformed world primarily shows up in Reconstructionist theonomy circles who heed the works of RJ Rushdoony. If you find a kinist group on Facebook or look at a kinist’s page, there will doubtlessly be fans of nearly countless Reconstructionist and RJ Rushdoony groups and pages. Now, I believe the vast majority of theonomists in the Reconstructionist camp would deny their interpretations, but it’s very easy to see where they got their ideas from:

The answer is, there is not a law against it, but there is basically a principle that militates against such marriages, so that you might say they are just barely legal, but in principle Scripture is opposed to them. Because the whole point of marriage is that the wife be a helpmeet to her husband, and the term “helpmeet” means in effect a mirror, an image, one who reflects him spiritually; that is, in terms of faith, in terms of a common background, in terms of a common purpose. Now, marriage between persons of very different races generally doesn’t fulfill that requirement, you see. So that it can be technically a marriage, but it isn’t one in which the wife can be a helpmeet. So that while it can legally qualify, theologically you could say there are factors which normally, in almost 99 cases out of 100, would militate against it.

And another quick one:

Moreover, if she is to be “a help as before him,” a mirror, there must be a common cultural background. This militates against marriages across cultures and across races where there is no common culture or association possible.  The new unit is a continuation of the old unit but an independent one; and there has to be a unity or else it is not a marriage. Thus, the attempt of many today to say there is nothing in the Bible against mixed marriages whether religiously or culturally is altogether unfounded. We do not have to go to the Mosaic law (Exodus and Deuteronomy) to demonstrate that, because here in the very beginning (Genesis) we are told that she must be a help meet “bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh” sharing his faith, sharing a common background, a common culture, a common desire to fulfill his calling under God. This, then, is the meaning of marriage in the Biblical sense.

So essentially what we have here is what qualifies a woman to be a “helpmeet” for a man, as God established Eve. Rushdoony viewed racial and cultural divides as being nearly insurmountable, and that thus they would also be “unequally yoked” as 2nd Corinthians 6 warns against. Unfortunately, Rushdoony and the kinists ignore the clear examples set in the Bible to the preference of their extrapolations to justify their sinful, racist hearts. When Miriam criticized Moses for taking a Cushite (Kushite/Nubian) wife, God afflicted her with a skin disease (Numbers 12). Perhaps the most famous love story in the Bible is anathema to kinists, that between the Moabite Ruth, and the Hebrew Boaz.

I don’t think you’ll find a kinist denomination, or a kinist church, but the error of kinism is insidious. It’s not always as easy to sniff out as someone saying that the curse of Ham was the creation of the black race and thus, the chattel slavery the South practiced is justifiable. Today it can be as simple as something like, “Keep France safe for the ethnic French people” which might seem understandable, especially in the light of recent events, until you take a second look and wonder what they mean about keeping France for the “ethnic” French people.

Two of the largest organized proponents of kinism in America today are the League of the South (Which Steve Wilkins, Wilson’s co-author of Southern Slavery As It Was, was once a board member of. I do not know if he is still a member, but as he is no longer on the board I hope he has left it entirely and repented of his involvement) and the Council of Conservative Citizens. These organizations are baldly racist on their face, just look up the League of the Souths president’s twitter page for quick confirmation of that, but I have seen members of these societies pop up too frequently for comfort in broad online Reformed groups.

To have a legitimate voice, in order to preach the Gospel faithfully in our world, we must not shy away from policing ourselves. We need to recognize that our theology, no matter how pure, can be corrupted and put to evil use. We must call those who subscribe to these fellowship-hating doctrines to repentance if we’re to be the salt of the earth. Jesus told his disciples to go, baptize and make believers of all nations, let us honor the great commission and not mar it by tolerating those who would make a mockery of it.

Advertisements

22 thoughts on “Kinism: The Great Commission Denied

  1. Wilkins only left the BOD of the LOS when it became a political liability for Wilson in 2004. He resigned the BOD and took a position as an “advisor” to the BOD or something like that. Wilson remained on good terms with the kinists until 2005, when he began to court mainstream Christians — Phil Johnson in particular. Wilkins is a hardcore racist who does not understand racism. Whites were always meant to own blacks. What’s your problem with that? Wilson, like Wilkins, is a hardcore racist but unlike Wilkins he understands it intellectually. Therefore, he has redefined the term to suit his prejudices and hides the rest of it in his contempt for “egalitarianism.”

    Like

    1. Thanks for the background. Grieved to hear that about Wilkins, I hoped he had truly reformed and repented of that sin. If you have any sources for Wilson courting or being in the good graces of the kinists, I’d appreciate it. This was my life for so long, I need to shine as much of a light on it as possible.

      Like

  2. In September 2005, Wilson redefines racism here.

    In October 2005, Wilson cut ties with Little Geneva here. He wrote a number of anti-kinist posts at this time; in one of them he invokes Phil Johnson. You have to search the land of Gog for “Phil Johnson” and you’ll see the connection.

    Two weeks later, in October 2005, Little Geneva returned Wilson’s favor by cutting ties with him. But they wanted to remind everyone that at one time he ran in their circles.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Notice, there’s not a single attempt to show that Kinism as a set of doctrines “denies” the Great Commission in any sense, nor is there any attempt to show that Kinism is a sin.

    This article simply presupposes a modern American politically correct ethic then engages in a lot of emotional finger pointed.

    …no wonder the Reformed church is in so much trouble.

    Why not man up and try actually engaging the position theologically? We both know what will happen if you try that route. Try to get Doug Wilson to help you. You’ll need it.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. “Unfortunately, Rushdoony and the kinists ignore the clear examples set in the Bible to the preference of their extrapolations to justify their sinful, racist hearts. When Miriam criticized Moses for taking a Cushite (Nubian) wife, God afflicted her with a skin disease (Numbers 12). Perhaps the most famous love story in the Bible is anathema to kinists, that between the Moabite Ruth, and the Hebrew Boaz.”

      I’d be repent and be thankful you don’t have leprosy.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. “Perhaps the most famous love story in the Bible is anathema to kinists, that between the Moabite Ruth, and the Hebrew Boaz.”

        I tried giving you the opportunity to convince me that you had even an inkling of understanding and discernment. Alas, it was futile. It never ceases to amaze me how someone could offer such arguments so easily refuted. For the record, I do not identify as a Kinist, but this is so simple. You just spew forth the Judeo-Christian mantra that Boaz taking Ruth as a wife is proof that intermarriage was acceptable even for Israel, and that the prohibitions against intermarriage were strictly to prevent the introduction of foreign gods. We are told repeatedly that Ruth was a racial Moabitess, because Scripture clearly identifies her as a Moabitess; therefore, Christ Himself is of mixed lineage. Not so fast!

        Around 1450 B.C., the Amorites, under King Sihon, conquered and occupied Moab (Numbers 21:25-29). The Israelites then conquered the Amorite controlled Moab, and killed every inhabitant:

        “Then Sihon came out against us, he and all his people, to fight at Jahaz. 33 And the Lord our God delivered him before us; and we smote him, and his sons, and all his people. 34 And we took all his cities at that time, and utterly destroyed the men, and the women, and the little ones, of every city, we left none to remain” (Deut. 2:32-34)

        This area along the Jordan River, from the land of Moab, northward to the land of Ammon, was occupied and settled by the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half of Manasseh. 130 years later, around 1322 B.C., Elimilech the Judahite, along with his wife Naomi, and sons Mahlon and Chilion, went into Moab:

        ” Now it came to pass in the days when the judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. And a certain man of Bethlehemjudah went to sojourn in the country of Moab, he, and his wife, and his two sons. 2 And the name of the man was Elimelech, and the name of his wife Naomi, and the name of his two sons Mahlon and Chilion, Ephrathites of Bethlehemjudah. And they came into the country of Moab, and continued there.” (Ruth 1:1-2)

        Notice it says that Elimilech went to “sojourn in the country of Moab” and “came into the country of Moab, and continued there.” There had been no Moabites for 130 years, yet the land was still called Moab. In Judges 11:12-26, we see that the Israelites are still in possession of the lands of Moab and Ammon. This was around 1143 B.C. The Israelites possessed, controlled, and occupied Moab for three hundred years at this point. The story of Boaz and Ruth transpired during this time. There can be absolutely no doubt that Ruth was an Israelite, from the tribe of Reuben, Dan, or Manasseh.

        Like

      2. And to put your argument to rest, if the Moabites were utterly destroyed, as you say, by the time of Deut 2, the time of Moses, then how was there a Moabite king to oppress the Israelites and for Ehud to put down in Judges 3?

        Like

    1. “But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian, for in Christ Jesus you are all sons of God, through faith. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise”

      As Christians we are part of the one culture that matters, the Church of Christ. When Jesus told his disciples to go and make disciples of all nations, the disciples made under those nations are united under this culture. I consider myself a Christian before I consider myself white, American, or of Southern/Norse heritage. It is the overriding identity that trumps all.

      Like

      1. You could just as easily cited the same Bible passage and said, “I consider myself a Christian before I consider myself a man. It is the overriding identity that trumps all.” Disconcerting that you believe that the male/female distinction is not relevant to Christians. I’ll pray for you.

        Like

      2. “For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

        “There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil, the Jew first and also the Greek, but glory and honor and peace for everyone who does good, the Jew first and also the Greek. For God shows no partiality.”

        “For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ. For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body—Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.”

        The irrelevance of race and cultural identity in the face of the Gospel and the Church is all over the New Testament. I grieve that you are blind to it.

        Like

  4. Cicero, you said: “The irrelevance of race and cultural identity in the face of the Gospel and the Church is all over the New Testament. I grieve that you are blind to it.”

    This is not true. The Gospel transcends national distinctions. It does not erase them. Race and cultural identity are no more irrelevant than sexual identity as per Gal. 3:28. I grieve that you are blind to that. I would encourage you to read the articles posted on Faith and Heritage or Tribal Theocrat and interact with the arguments presented therein. So far I’m not impressed by your inability to be consistent in your exegesis. If you believe that race is irrelevant, than also teach that sexual identity is irrelevant like the rest of the liberals.

    Like

    1. I interpret Scripture with Scripture. Please note all the other verses I quoted above where Paul emphasizes, again and again, the lack of distinction between Jew and Greek and that together we make up one body. When it comes to sex there are many passages where he writes on the distinction of the sexes and their respective duties. There are no verses where he writes that the Church is made of Jew and Greek in separate bodies, quite the opposite, when those in the church try to use their culture to create division within the body, like the Judaizers, he opposes them in the strongest of terms. I believe that kinism divides the church in a similar way.

      I will take your suggestion to read and interact with the arguments on the sites you suggest. I expect that I won’t be impressed by their exegesis, but familiarity with the opposition is critical.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. You are not applying scripture consistently. Hence the discontinuity in which you apply the jew/greek vs. the male/female distinction of Gal. 3:28.

        ” Please note all the other verses I quoted above where Paul emphasizes, again and again, the lack of distinction between Jew and Greek and that together we make up one body.”

        Right, and one family. Does this mean that individual physical families are no longer relevant? Is it wrong for separate Christian families to own separate property and live in separate homes? Is this unlawful segregation? Of course not! The same applies to nations maintaining healthy boundaries (Acts 17:26).

        ” When it comes to sex there are many passages where he writes on the distinction of the sexes and their respective duties.”

        Agreed. So this ought to inform you that Gal. 3:28 is not about irrelevancy, but transcendence.

        “There are no verses where he writes that the Church is made of Jew and Greek in separate bodies, quite the opposite”

        One body in a sense, but the scriptures also speak of the different Christian tribes and nations as separate branches on the one olive tree (Rom. 11), and separate parts of the one body (1 Cor. 12). The NT never implies uniformity when speaking of unity.

        “when those in the church try to use their culture to create division within the body, like the Judaizers, he opposes them in the strongest of terms. ”

        That wasn’t the sin of the Judaizers. They were requiring the Gentiles to observe the ceremonial law. You can read more about this here: https://faithandheritage.com/2011/12/calvin-on-the-libertatis-doctrina-a-response-to-reformed-covenanter/

        ” I expect that I won’t be impressed by their exegesis, but familiarity with the opposition is critical.”

        I believe that your post belies an overall lack of familiarity with Kinist argumentation. Your arguments are rather simplistic and don’t speak to a knowledge of Kinist arguments.

        Like

  5. One more comment. When Paul says “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved,” he means just that. Anyone who calls on the name of the Lord, regardless of their ethnic or racial identity, will be saved. This does not mean that anyone can be French, permanently own property in France, or rule the French. These are separate issues. Paul does not teach that race is irrelevant in those verses.

    Like

    1. “You are not applying scripture consistently. Hence the discontinuity in which you apply the jew/greek vs. the male/female distinction of Gal. 3:28.”

      I am applying the consistency of a full reading of the Scriptures. We see over and over again that Paul states that there is no distinction in God’s eyes between Jew and Greek, In Galations 3:28 he talks about the meaningless of of our distinctions compared to being baptized and becoming children of God. The meaningless of the Jew/Greek distinction is pressed on over and over again throughout Paul’s writings, however he does write on the differences of men and women. If Paul had written different expectations for Jews versus Greeks I might be more sympathetic to your line of argument about gender distinctions.

      Acts 17:26 is a verse on the sovereignty of God. The allotted times and boundaries that he sets for nations are nothing that we have power over, they are set by his will alone. This is in no way an argument for racial and ethnic divisions.

      I agree that Gal 3:28 is about transcendence. The Church is a body that transcends all distinctions. It doesn’t matter if you are Greek or Jew, male or female, free or slave, as a Christian you are part of Christ’s bride, the church. Christian is the supreme identity that transcends all others.

      While 1 Corinthians 12 speaks of us being separate parts of one body, the unity of the body working together to serve the purpose of Christ. Kinism is like the eye that says to the hand, “I don’t need you!” Paul states that there is to be no division in the body, for if one part suffers, every other part suffers with it. I cannot see how this can be used as a tool to enforce racial and cultural divides.

      Yes, the Judaizers were telling the Gentiles to observe the ceremonial law, including circumcision. They were making this a burden on the Gentiles and hindering the church by doing this. The kinist demand for racial purity also hinders the church, and is even worse as it’s nothing that God has ever demanded outside of not marrying pagans and bringing their gods into your home, a law that continues with Paul’s command for husbands and wives to not be unequally yoked.

      I’m not surprised you think I don’t understand kinism, Federal Vision proponents don’t think I (or anyone else who doesn’t like it really) understand FV. I will read the link posted above as I am familiar with the words of Calvin being used against segregation and can’t see how it can be used another way and am interested to find out. I never thought I’d find myself in agreement with a Covenanter.

      Like

  6. Interestingly, Ruth 1 speaks of the wives of Mahlon and Chilion as “wives of the women of Moab” (KJV), “Moabite women” (NIV), or “Moabite wives” (ESV). Now, those are all English translations, and I do not know what the literal Hebrew translation is, but it would seem that Ruth was in fact a Moabite and not an Israelite, unless we want to argue the inerrancy of scripture. Or am I missing something?

    Like

Leave a Reply to Christen Hathaway Marshall Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s