The Presbyterian Church in America is voting to adopt a committee report on Federal Vision at their General Assembly next month. Without getting into what Federal Vision is, and whether it is correct or in error, the story bears a striking similarity to ecclesiastical vapors over Kinism. Notice, in this paper by Jeffrey Meyers, that the men in question were never contacted for clarification or allowed to participate in the investigation, even though their covenantal status is on the line. It shows that a one-sided "trial," without rebuttal allowed from the other side, often leads to a different outcome. There’s nothing quite like due process to test the veracity of anyone’s claims. Instead, pastors are more than willing to ignore Matthew 18, stack the deck against their opponents, consider their own views to be self-evident, misrepresent the views of their opponents, and gossip. And just think of how the chance of error compounds when major decisions are left in the hands of one man. This happens all the time in churches that pretend to have a plurality of elders but don’t. One of the great ironies is that Doug Wilson, FV’s principal evangelist, has been critical of Kinism, which he calls "skinism," though he has offered nothing of substance to disprove it. (He has merely asserted that it is malicious and vainglorious.) And now he is upset that he has been misunderstood by the PCA. What goes around comes around. Meyers writes: "According to our BCO, nothing that cannot be proved from Scripture is to be admitted as a matter of accusation." Not that this has ever been much of a hindrance to anyone.

Here is some very, very good news: "Just when you thought it was safe to attend that PCA men’s retreat on getting in touch with your inner immigrant, Kinism.net is back to assume our rightful role as gadfly to all those puerile, supercilious, and just plain daffy false lights from the heady and oh-so-respectable realms of self-annihilation. Well, we’re not really ‘into’ being ‘respectable’ if respectable means running over your grandmother on your way to the adoption agency to pick up another foreign trophy baby."

This definition of Kinism from Answers.com is very well-stated and would be an excellent starting point for our critics. It’s important to note, however, that the quote from the Kinist Institute, while hardly objectionable to most Kinists, is also not a consensus statement. When attempting to refute Kinism, it is important to stick to the principles and prove from Scripture and our own history as a distinct people that such views are in error. Approach it logically, but keep in mind that there is latitude in every movement, including Kinism. As to speculation about future solutions, one problem is that we don’t have a Christian monarch in this country who could take decisive action to correct a terminal threat. We have, instead, a pagan monarch and a sham "republican" Congress owned by bankers. Our hope, therefore, is not in politics but in small communities led by godly men who lead godly families. And that image, my friends, is what frightens the world to death. Kinism is "mere Christianity," and there is no greater horror for the lovers of death.

Reformedville promises a series addressing the sociological ramifications of Kinism, so we’ll see if they do better than what we’ve seen thus far, which is not good at all. How can any sociological discussion leave out how successful, strong nations have always ordered their affairs, stretching back to the Patriarchs and beyond? The fatal flaw of political correctness is the conceit that wisdom was born with our generation. I can give 6,000 years of examples to prove the veracity of Kinism. Our opponents can only talk about the last 50 years. Does anyone see a problem with this? At any rate, the reason we linked to this page is because of the claim that "kinism is a distinctly Jewish concept." This betrays a public school education, and conveniently forgets most of White history, but it is certainly true that Jews understand kinship. The Jew knows how to survive, unlike the modern American. This is why Israel refuses to recognize marriages between Jews and non-Jews, just as our fathers refused to recognize marriages between blacks and Whites. And no, a Jew is not a member of the Judaic religion. Even atheist Jews are still Jews in good standing. We can’t seem to find Reformedville’s theological rebuttal to Kinism, which interests us even more. But there is good cause for concern when we read statements such as: "Our problems are not created because of any race." The Kinist agrees that sin is what separates men from God, not skin color, and so it is simply dishonest to mischaracterize the Kinist position in this way, if this is what was intended. Another way to interpret the statement is that all races are equally depraved, which is equally false. The Calvinist certainly does not believe this about individuals; rather, the doctrine of depravity is that all men are totally but not utterly depraved. Some races are very serious problems for us, and even if it were not so, they should still not be considered equal to our own people by virtue of their obedience to the law, because they have a different, God-ordained history. It does not stand to reason that strangers have the right to determine our future for us simply because they are here and agree to pledge allegiance to a flag. That’s how Jews want you to think, not how Christians should think. Either way, it is extremely foolish to say that "Our problems are not created because of any race." Tell it to Channon Christian’s family.

We also see that Jon Barlow presented a paper on Kinism to the American Academy of Religion. If anyone can locate a copy, please send it to your old friend Randy (randydotjamisonatgmaildotcom). These links are encouraging signs because Kinism is typically handled by intimidation tactics and character assassination by the National Association in Favor of Firing Those With Whom We Disagree (NAFFTWWWD). We routinely ignore web pages that dispatch us to hell without ever trying to prove why we are wrong. (This covers about 98% of all cases. I wish I were kidding. Here’s an example where you can also read the lie that we discourage missions.)

There are a couple of funny things about Barlow’s post. One is that Kinism, as a movement, is dead because a couple of blogs go away. Our friends are quite busy on a number of fronts that have nothing to do with the Internet. Though Harry quit blogging in disgust, he has been working hard in some areas that will soon bear fruit. Besides, I’m pretty sure that the way in which societies have been ordered for as long as men have walked the earth is not at the mercy of an Internet that is barely old enough to shave.

Another is the assertion that a political hack (i.e., liar) who is a close friend of Doug Phillips and on Doug’s brother’s payroll is an "investigative citizen reporter." Yeah, and my 11-year-old is a tax accountant. I wish it surprised us that hacking into servers, planting porn files, and engaging in one long string of espionage and false witness can be called an "investigation." As Machiavelli once said, the merit of a man’s argument is far less important than his Social Security number. Over the years, Kinists have received harrassing phone calls to their unlisted numbers, seen satellite images of their unlisted addresses posted with incitement to harrass (including by Mr. Barlow’s close friend, Anthony Bradley), repeated hack attacks on their servers, and many other injustices – not at the hands of those whom they supposedly hate but by fellow White Christians. Kinists have never repaid in kind despite being given enough personal information on their foes to fill a small booklet. Kinists have made a sincere effort to focus only on the public records of public figures, and have retracted and apologized for the times they crossed the line into the private sphere. Except for occasional failures, there has been a good faith effort at honest discourse on the part of Kinists, and if all Christians followed the same rules I think there would be far less gossip and slander. While not entirely blameless, we expect to be reproved logically, if at all, not silenced by intimidation tactics. We resolve never to negotiate with terrorists, Internet assassins, or ad hominem artists.

This is why Mr. Barlow’s post is rather encouraging, not so much for what it is (true to form, there is no attempt whatsoever to prove any statement by any Kinist to be false) than for the debate it could generate. We welcome challenges, as long as they are actually challenges. A few comments in response to the article come to mind. It is not quite accurate to say that Kinists seek "to lead others to separate themselves into various neighborhoods by ethnicity." Rather, the Kinist recognizes that such behavior is natural, normal, healthy, and rampant. Segregation is taking place all around you, and there are no people with bullhorns barking out orders on where to line up. Places where segregation is difficult, such as inner cities, are threats not only to families but to faith. Rushdoony taught that even the early church was segregated. The entrance of Gentiles to the kingdom did not erase local customs or kinship. Christianity requires unity in the Spirit, not in the flesh. Christians today need to come to grips with the fact that God created the races for a reason that should be obvious, and we have no right to undo His work. This statement is ludicrous: "If Kinism is true and prescriptive, then either all resurrection bodies must be of the same race or heaven must be segregated." On the contrary, God has predestined multiple nations (which are races and ethnicities, according to Strong’s Concordance) in both heaven and earth. Psalm 102:15: "The nations will fear the name of the LORD, all the kings of the earth will revere your glory." Revelation 21:24,26: "The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their splendor into it… The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it." A multitude of nations will be represented in heaven, and they will work and worship in symphony. That’s a picture of a trinitarian kingdom created by a trinitarian God. Only the neo-Babelist, whose thinking has been shaped by the polyglot insanity of the last 50 years or so imagines that all people must be blended together absolutely in order to be unified. They certainly don’t run their dinner through a blender or appreciate songs without diverse instrumentation. This leads to an even more ludicrous statement, that Kinism "essentially teaches that humans should give up on salvation, separate from each other, and simply wait for God to make the races interact with trust and comfort." This is profound ignorance of history. As I said, the neo-Babelist filters all human experience through the prism of his own corrupt generation. Such people used to be called liberals, but now they call themselves conservatives. Did missions or theology or piety ever suffer when our homeland was homogeneous? Were we a more faithful people at that time? Has mass immigration served us well or is it a burden that threatens to crush us? Life is not about waiting for "diversity" (i.e., cosmopolitanism) to become easier to cope with. Life is about giving our children a future. True respect for diversity is a respect for boundaries.

At any rate, we thank Mr. Barlow for his very interesting thoughts. He stated them clearly and rationally without threats, intimidation, or wild conspiracy theories. It will take us days to get over our shock. He apparently is not a member of the Ministry Mafia. However, if he is alarmed that "aspects of the Kinist worldview [are] popping up all over," including within Pat Buchanan columns, he should brace himself. Things will probably get a lot worse over the next few decades before they get better, but the fierce pull of blood will reassert itself, as surely as you breathe. Neo-Babelists will have as much success in forging a "citizenship of the world" as feminists have had in pretending to be men. Marxism can dominate for a season, but not forever.

Meanwhile, please, someone, give us substantial proof, rather than bruised emotion, that Kinism is what Mr. Barlow calls "a soteriologically heterodox Christian sect." A useful side-project would be to explain to us why you should not retroactively condemn our Christian forefathers for sounding and acting exactly like Kinists.

What is racism?

If you thought that anti-Semitism is hatred for Jews and a desire to see them killed or hurt in some way, you are forgiven for your ignorance, my son. Now an anti-Semite is one who believes "that Jews are more loyal to Israel than [our] country, that they have too much power in the business world and financial markets and that they talk too much about the Nazi Holocaust of World War Two." Guilty on all three counts, your honor. It occurs to me that wetbacks could use the same strategy. They, like Jews, are allowed to have dual citizenship. (Isn’t it crazy that we accuse those with dual citizenship of having dual loyalty?)