Rev. Bret McAtee has a tantalizing new post called “Ethnicity, Culture, and Belief.” We don’t know what he means when he says that he has been “severely insulted” by Kinists for doctrinal disagreement. I wish he had provided an example, because if this is true, we may be due for an apology. I see nothing but compliments here, and his comments on Rushdoony are addressed here. We all need to be patient with each other as we search for the truth together. This is an excellent admonition for our side, but I wish anti-Kinists would also finally heed this advice and actually deal with our arguments, as Bret is doing, rather than consigning us to the blue flames of hell. Let’s reserve the insults and fistfights for family reunions, Thursday night church dinners, and gatherings of Congress.
Bret writes:
While I am not a Kinist, (in point of fact I’ve been severely insulted by them in the past for my rejection of their doctrines) I do believe that Kinism has put its finger on a significant problem (i.e. – the death of the West & the death of the faith, culture and people who made the West the West) and that problem must be addressed with precision and nuance. It will do no good to just dismiss Kinist arguments by ad-hominem. I will go on the record as saying I do not believe that all Kinists are racists (whatever that word means) and I do not believe Kinism automatically means heresy in every person who takes to themselves that descriptive title. The issues that Kinism raise are tougher nuts to crack than many people believe.
Here are a few starting points. These are not written in stone but just represent a bit of brain storming on my part.
1.) Salvation is by grace alone and people from every tribe tongue and nation will be represented in the New Jerusalem.
2.) Christianity, as a faith and belief system is the only faith and belief system that can build beautiful civilization.
Let me interrupt here to say that we would qualify this point. There are Oriental civilizations that are thoroughly anti-Christian yet stunning and inspiring on many levels. These prove that culture is both religious and blood-born. But we agree with Bret that Christian faith is the only thing that completes our lives, and the life of our nation, and the civilization that our race has produced.
3.) It is possible for varying ethnic groups / races to be Christian and yet have significantly different civilizations. It is not necessary for all Christian civilizations to look the same.
This is an important point, because the tendency among white Christians is to believe that the gospel makes everyone just like them. If evidence means anything, we know that not only are Christian civilizations very different, but some are barely civilized at all. Some may never be civilized. See the Apostle Paul’s comments on Cretans.
4.) It is a reasonable postulate that the differences that might exist between different Christian civilizations might be accounted for by the God ordained differences between varying peoples.
5.) Just as family lines have particular traits which include both strengths and weaknesses so people groups likewise will have particular traits that are characteristic of those people groups. (i.e. – Irish temper [speaking from experience] … Scottish pugnaciousness [again speaking from experience], Dutch frugality, Italian passion, German precision, etc.) Those traits will reveal themselves in the varying Christian civilizations that those people build.
We all nod in agreement with these generalizations, both because they’re accurate and because we’re white. Bret does not offer any examples for non-white national distinctives, probably because it’s hard to think of any that fit a template of virtue. No one gets upset over complimentary generalizations about various nationalities. But if traits tend to be common, they can’t all be good. As Christ said, the poor will be with us always. Some nations will always be poor, and I don’t refer merely to wealth. Some traits reveal common deficiencies, and as we all know, if you dare to discuss these openly you’ll be branded with the popular Communist label, “racist.” Christians are among the first to use this epithet, and by doing so they usually commit the sin of bearing false witness. They love to accuse those who take a realistic approach to biological differences of “hating” those who are unlike themselves. This is slander and defamation of the highest order because it equates those of us who love race with those who hate what God has created with purpose, and who murder accordingly. If you ponder this for a moment, you’ll see that the accusers of “racism” hate race themselves and seek to murder what God has created with purpose, namely the white race. But I digress. Bret’s point is a good one.
6.) It is possible for a individual who belongs to one people group to denounce his or her people group and bond with a people group that is not his or her own. This accounts for why many blacks will be referred to as “Uncle Toms” by their own people.
7.) People groups are not to be understood solely as a genetic grouping. People groups also include belief systems. It is the interplay of nurture, nature, and belief that makes people groups, people groups. This is why the subject is so complex and difficult … you just can’t extract any of those three from the other two without involving oneself in significant error.
Bret has touched on the root of the problem that Christians have who regard blood covenants outside the immediate family as “insignificant” and faith as the only matter of importance. The problem is that this denies our humanity. If you want a gnostic Utopia where every soul is a libertarian ghost who devotes himself entirely to knowledge and beliefs, you’ll have to seek out a world different than the social world that actually exists. God made us to be souls of spirit and flesh, not just in the present but in eternity. No sooner do we Kinists say that flesh and social hierarchies are good things, because they are gifts from God, than we are accused by the slanderers of being “Judaizers,” and relying on the works of the flesh for salvation. No matter how many times we deny it, they keep hammering away at the same theme.
8.) Just as most family members prefer their family to all other families, so most people groups instinctively and rightly prefer their people group to all other people groups. Even the Apostle Paul reveals this (Romans 9:2f).
9.) While the tribe that Christians should most identify with is the Christian Tribe there can still be diversity of people groupings within this tribe so that a Mongolian Christian, while identifying primarily with the Christian tribe, would, within that tribe, identify most significantly with his or her Mongolian Christian tribe. Trinitarian Christians should have no problem with this since to deny this would be to deny the trinity in favor of a Unitarian God. Think “The One and the Many” here folks.
If we don’t worship a unitarian God, as Jews and Muslims do, why on earth would we try to amalgamate a unitarian Christian people? If the whole body is a hand, can we still call it a body?
10.) A civilization composed of various people groups can only work if those various people groups are christian and are committed to a harmony of interests. When set civilizations seek to incorporate various pagan people groups under the umbrella of one civilization chaos is insured since the sin induced conflict of interests will have each people group seeking to be advantaged at the expense of the other people groups.
This is basically true, but again, I would qualify the word “work.” The words honor and duty, not chaos, come to mind when I think of the Japanese, who are solidly anti-Christian. They won’t fare any better in eternity because of it, but if they were to be converted, the faith would make them more virtuous, enhancing their already-substantive gifts.
11.) This does not mean, however that civilizations which are composed of one people group that is pagan will be harmonious. Where pagan people groups compose one civilization it is my conviction that those pagan people groups, not having some other alien people group to despise, will look for some sub-grouping within their own group to be the red-headed step child that will be taken advantage of.
In other words, homogeneity does not eradicate sin. This is why atheist white nationalists, who expect the white race to evolve into deity, are to be pitied above all men. They are chasing the biggest Nothing ever invented.
12.) People groups that are pagan will manifest their pagan-ness in their own unique ways. Ugly civilization that comes from pagan Tibetans will be a different ugly civilization that comes from pagan white Europeans.
13.) The only cure for all pagan people groups is the Gospel of Jesus Christ. However, when the Gospel of Jesus Christ covers the world as the water covers the sea it still will not be the case that all cultures and civilizations will be the same or that all the colors will bleed into one.
Nice mockery of the fabled prophet Bono! Nor does the last chapter of the Bible say that all the colors will bleed into one. Christian unity is not unitarian unity. Who would pay a penny for a painting in which all the colors bleed into one? Such “art” would be a sickly greenish-brown color and induce nausea, yet this is essentially what the Church is producing today.
14.) The death of the West has many factors … the chief of which is unbelief. Further, the primary race and ethnicity that is responsible for the death of the West are the descendants of White Europeans. The white man has torn down his own house by his abandoning of the Christian faith. However, having admitted that doesn’t explain the “how” in which that has happened or the accelerating factors of the last 40 years. In order to understand the “how” and the accelerating factors I believe that we have to look in some of the directions that kinism points us toward.
Well, there you have it, folks. Ask yourself if you would have the stones to post this if you were in Bret’s position. Unfortunately, as Bret knows all too well, his precisioned and nuanced position does not spare him from being called names like “racist.”
Craig Bodeker makes a good point here. It’s customary for race-mixers to call race a social construct. But in fact, race is real, and racism is a social construct. “Racism” used to mean the desire to harm or kill someone of another race. Now, thanks to the remarkable plasticity of words, it means any acknowledgement whatsoever of average racial differences. Likewise, “civil rights” used to mean fairness of opportunity and equal access to public resources. Now it means the right of non-whites to never be offended.
In the comments of his article, Bret says that he has been “lampooned” for denying that Rushdoony “believed miscegenation always and all the time is sin.” It’s a testament to the respect given to Rushdoony that differing sides want to claim him as their own. This is also what happens with John Calvin and few others. Did Rushdoony contradict himself? More than likely. The idea that Kinists are expected to find 100% agreement with the man is puzzling. Christians are not even in full agreement regarding the words of Jesus Christ himself, much less an ordinary man.
You absolutely must read this page as a hilarious example of how neo-Babelists parse Rushdoony’s words to show that he didn’t really mean what he clearly wrote. This quote from Rushdoony has often been cited to show that he must have been temporarily out of his mind when he wrote in Volume 1 of his Institutes that marriages between believers can be unequal, and interracial marriage is an example of this:
“The revolutionists and the statists thus have a common cause, to destroy society, to wipe out community. It is important to understand the reasons for this. Men have tried over and over again to establish a community on the basis of blood. Modern attempts to do so include the national states, Nazi Germany, the Arab states, and Israel. Others have extended this racist idea of community to include all men, a one-world order.” ~ R.J. Rushdoony, Institutes of Biblical Law: Volume 2, p. 83
At previous times, we have stated some points of disagreement with Rushdoony, but this is not really one of those times. Kinists know that healthy communities are of blood and faith. One of the themes that runs throughout Rushdoony’s work is opposition to humanism and statism. The state is not God, and neither is a particular race. Any community or nation that tries to vaunt itself against God will fall. Rush is correct that this is playing itself out on a global scale as the New World Order, and there are many smaller examples of it. Even individuals commit the sin of pride. Kinism is neither statist nor revolutionary. We are advocates of small government, on a human scale, not empire. We advocate reversing the existing disorder only through biblical and constitutional means. Our vision of community is biblically-derived. It is unfortunate that Rushdoony sometimes chose to use the Communist word “racism.” This sentence in particular makes little sense: “Men have tried over and over again to establish a community on the basis of blood.” Our own families are established on the basis of blood, and so are real, organic communities. Rush is obviously referring here to artificial “communities,” which are usually totalitarian. The question is not whether blood unites us but whether blood is all that unites us. The answer to this question sets the Kinist apart from every imperialist and every Babelist race-mixer, just as it sets us apart from every atheist and skeptic.
“Macaulay, the great English historian, used the word race when writing about families. He referred in his description of the first duke of Marlborough, to the Churchill race. Which incidentally, he didn’t think very much of for various, very good reasons. Calling families little races is not, when you look at it, very far off the mark. One notices physical types and even talents recurring through the family for generations. Such observations may no longer be fashionable, but they are unmistakable.” ~ Otto Scott
Our many Kinist friends on the social networking sites have inspired us to set up a Facebook page of our own.
If you haven’t read Kerry Culligan’s long Facebook thread on race yet, you should invest the time. When Bojidar Marinov said he would write a book against Kinism, a chill swept through the Reformitard bleachers.
Gary DeMar
Bojidar, so when will we see an article on the subject?
21 hours ago · Like Unlike ·Becky Belcher Morecraft [Joe Morecraft's wife]
All too aware of them [Kinists] — yes, defriend me here and elsewhere!! will you be at the conference this week?
21 hours ago · Like UnlikeStephen Halbrook
Bojidar, I second Gary’s question. Hope to see an article, a series of articles, or even a book.
21 hours ago · Like UnlikeBojidar Marinov
I didn’t think it deserved an article, Gary, but if you say it does, I’ll write one.
20 hours ago · Like Unlike · 2 peopleR.C. Sproul Jr.
Bojidar, Though I didn’t much like your brief article on the Ligonier conference, it has been a delight to read through your dismantling of these folks’ arguments. Thank you for fighting the good fight, and God bless.
The article will probably be laden with these Marinov gems, culled from the thread linked above:
South Africa’s problems come from the different religions, not from the different races.
“Racial purity” has nothing to do with cultural stability or prosperity, as the examples of Egypt, China, India, Japan, the Aztecs, the Incas, Nazi Germany, and many others prove.
Zulus would have created the same cultures and laws if they were Christian.
Based on moral considerations, Christian Britons were as great as Christian Zulus.
Anyone who believes inter-racial marriages are a bad idea is a heretic.
…as if family is anything else but a man and a woman under God.
The Morecrafts, Sprouls, and DeMars have high hopes, but evidently, our search for a worthy opponent must continue. We’ll link to the article as soon as we see it, with the hope that it’s heavy on substance and light on name-calling. You know how that usually turns out.
One of the high points of the aforementioned thread was the analogy of miscegenation to polygamy. We are often asked how something can be wrong, sinful, or even not ideal if it is not explicitly labeled as such in Scripture. Monogamy is the scriptural ideal, and though polygamy is tolerated for all except church elders, the West has correctly outlawed it, and no minister will participate in it. You can see the problem that confronts the race-mixer who hopes to accuse Kinists of “sin” or “heresy” for forbidding miscegenation. What do they do with the universal Western requirement for monogamy? To which Scripture verse do they appeal for labeling polygamy a sin? And if they find none, why do they not approbate the practice as a matter of Christian liberty? After all, if the singular rule for marriage is “only in the Lord,” there is no difference between monogamy and polygamy. Josh concludes that if Kinism is a heresy, those who oppose polygamy are heretics for precisely the same reason.
Josh gives the anti-Kinists a taste of their own absurdity: You don’t want two wives? You must be a queer. Why would you want to tear families apart? You should be excommunicated for preventing Christian men from marrying Christian women. Hitler was a monogamist; therefore, all monogamists are Nazis. Based on moral considerations, polygamous Zulus are as great as monogamous Britons. Clearly, the only way to reduce conflict and promote reconciliation between monogamists and polygamists is to convince everyone to become a polygamist.
Josh raises another good point that I’ve never previously considered. If Moses married a black woman, as neo-Babelists claim, he must have been at least a bigamist. There is nothing mentioned about Zipporah’s death prior to Numbers 12. Ergo, “if you want the icing, you need to eat the cake as well.”
Polygamy also frequently comes up in relation to slavery and abortion. Anti-abortionists equate the law that allows baby murder to the laws that allowed slavery. They never mention that slavery is sanctioned by the Bible but abortion is not.
Side note: Gary DeMar said recently on his show that there would never have been slavery in America if we had followed the Bible, but his reason for saying this is that an Israelite could sell himself into slavery if in debt, and he would be released in the Year of Jubilee. He conveniently neglects to mention that foreign slaves were not released. We happen to believe that enslavement of Africans was a terrible idea for racial reasons, but this does not make slavery in general a sin. DeMar calls it kidnapping if a person does not voluntarily sell himself into slavery, but this is not how it always happened in the Bible. Foreign slaves were usually taken in wars.
Next they say that slavery is a sin like polygamy. But these cannot be called sins simply because they are no longer practiced, at least in the West. There have to be scriptural reasons, even if inferred, for calling them sinful. This is what the abolitionists tried to do, but it’s difficult to do this with polygamy because it’s treated as a fact of life in Scripture, and God gives many laws to regulate it, as is also true of slavery; there are no explicit condemnations or even mild denunciations. The most that can be said against it is that it does not follow God’s original pattern for marriage, and therefore is not conducive to the right rearing of children, and this in itself is a very powerful inference.
The Westminster Confession says this in chapter 24: “Marriage is to be between one man and one woman: neither is it lawful for any man to have more than one wife, nor for any woman to have more than one husband, at the same time.” This is where the WCF is at its weakest. The verses it gives in support of this statement are Genesis 2:24, Proverbs 2:17, Matthew 19:4–6, and Romans 7:3. Of these, only the latter is relevant, and it is limited to polyandry (a woman having more than one husband), not polygyny (a man having more than one wife). Therefore, we believe Josh’s comparison of interracial marriage to polygamy—not explicitly condemned, but clearly contrary to God’s design for marriage—is unimpeachable.
Ken Hamites will deny the Kingston Thesis by appealing to One Blood, but to do this they must deny that God has ordained and established divisions in the world, and therefore they must imagine that all Christians belong to one physical nation and race, rather than the spiritual “nation” and “race” referenced in 1 Peter 2. Their argument hits the wall because only a spiritual race within distinct physical races relates to an invisible church within the visible churches. The Hamites argue for something quite different, which is that the spiritual and physical races are the same. (There is a slight connection here to Doug Wilson’s Federal Vision theology, where it is argued that covenantally and physically, but not decretally and eternally, the visible and invisible churches are the same.) We would still maintain, however, that to go against the desire of parents and ancestors when contracting marriage is clearly sinful, according to the Fifth Commandment. This places one in the rebellion of Esau. We are more reluctant to place this in the category of adultery, because though it is definitely adulterous, according to the definition of the word, the Bible seems to focus on adultery in terms of betrayal, without race or ethnicity in view. Yet what is miscegenation, if not betrayal?
Here’s a hilarious and cheeky Facebook page called “Christians Against Families.”
Here we learn that salt and pepper are social constructs that have no basis in reality. All condiments are created equal! We must pray for a One World Pantry. Everything should taste like chicken!
This anti-Kinism Facebook page is also worth reading. We agree that unity in Christ is both visible and invisible. The question is whether Christian unity is trinitarian or unitarian. For thousands of years, Christians were not confused about this.
Community comes in many sizes. On the largest scale, there is a community of the world, all of whom can be affected by things like pollution, for instance. At this level, the community has very little in common. The strongest bonds are to be found at the smallest scale, in the family. There is a spiritual bond here, to be sure, but it is primarily genetic. In between are varying gradations of community, with varying obligations. But nowhere does the Bible suggest that blood covenants are less important than the “community” of the Christians of the world. In fact, we are called worse than infidels if we neglect to care for our own. Babelists have twisted this verse to imply that “our own” are the Christians of the world.
These anti-Kinists have done the same when they define invisible unity as the “connection of all believers in Christ through the Holy Spirit,” and visible unity as “outward actions which presuppose community among believers.” These would be good definitions if we were ghosts, and if belief was our sole identity, but God has given us bodies of flesh and blood and has created us to be social beings.
This is a shocking statement:
All of the discussions of unity make no mention of race or ethnic background, but rather cast them aside. Believers find their only bond of unity in Christ Jesus, through the Holy Spirit, and that spiritual unity is commanded to be shown in visible actions/behaviors.
First, imagine saying such a thing to your wife and children. Go ahead, tell them tonight that your only bond with them is faith in Christ. Then you can explain to them that since blood means nothing, you’ll be adopting a whole new set of heirs from Africa or China. Why bother thinking more highly of those people who live in your house than any other Christians? Second, if the statement above is true then God had no reason to divide the tribes of Israel. He had no reason to set the bounds of our habitations, as it says in Acts 17, if the bond of faith is all that matters.
Again, the attempt is made to equate Kinists with Judaizers. But Kinists are not challenging salvation based on flesh or the works of the flesh. The controversy of Galatians was not merely of “associating with Gentile believers,” but rather of the duties required of Gentiles in order to be in the covenant. This had been resolved earlier in the First Church Council in Acts 15, but there was still resistance. It’s dishonest to cast the great controversy of the New Testament in terms of mere association. We Kinists are very happy to associate with believers of all kinds. We only ask that our fellow Christians stop assisting with the genocide of the white race.
Now I urge you, brethren, note those who cause divisions and offenses, contrary to the doctrine which you learned, and avoid them. For those who are such do not serve our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly, and by smooth words and flattering speech deceive the hearts of the simple. (Romans 16:17-18)
There should be no spiritual sectionalism, but as Rushdoony himself said, there was a great deal of necessary physical segregation during the early centuries, between mature Judean Christians and libertine Corinthian Christians, to cite one example. Kinists oppose the genocide of our people, not an equal approach to the throne of grace.
Next they ask how “brotherly kindness” can be shown if there is segregation of believers. This is the wrong thing to say to a Southerner. Our “racist” ancestors invested their lives and fortunes to bring savages, barely removed from cannibalism, to Christian faith and a modicum of decency and manners. It is beyond silly to suggest that charity is of no effect unless we are amalgamated. It was nothing less than unity in Christ which brought this about!
Now the curtain swings wide upon the theater of the ridiculous. They actually say that white people, who were created by God for a holy purpose and were endowed by Him with gifts to that end, have no right to form exclusive and distinct communities, states, and nations apart from anyone else who is “godly.” Needless to say, if our forefathers had believed this, the United States would never have existed. Nor would have the states of Europe. The Babelists are bold enough to put their unitarianism and gnosticism on display; they say that the Church has no “command to seek prosperity aside from godly living and the glorification of God through the spread of the Gospel.” In other words, kinship and homogeneity are meaningless. The people of Arizona have nothing to worry about! They should be less concerned about raising their children in families and familiarity than in removing borders between themselves and Mexican Christians so that the gospel can be spread. At what point did this liberalism begin to pass for Christianity?
The rest of their objections have been met by us so often as to make yet another response tedious. But their hatchet job on Acts 17:26 can’t be allowed to pass without a hearty chuckle and a sparkle of the eye tooth. They say this verse “describes God’s creation of nations, and is devoid of any moral necessity to preserve them.” These people are ripe for an anti-familism parody! They really do believe that we have a duty to correct God’s mistakes, in the name of love, of course. How could the correcting of God’s mistakes be hate? They really do count national borders as the leftovers of sinfulness which have no business being drawn between believers. Yet they probably all have fences to keep neighbors out of their yards. We could work all day on a parody of these hypocrites and it still wouldn’t be as funny as reality.
These Judeochristian race-mixers prove that “racism” no longer means racial hatred or racial supremacism, and certainly not violence or discrimination. It merely connotes shared white hegemony, identity, and purpose. If you like acronyms, call it WHIP. Whereas non-Christians always condemn this in a reactionary way, because of the alleged evils done by whites against, blacks, Indians, Mexicans, Chinese, and the victims du jour, Judeochristians condemn it because they have adopted the Marxist belief that everything must be puréed in a blender of common faith.
How the mighty have fallen. In a previous post, we discussed the strange spectacle of Judeochristians abandoning everything their forefathers believed about race, nationhood, and kinship, and pretending that they can wrap themselves in the mantle of biblical orthodoxy while treating their superior fathers as sadly outdated products of their time, like the soup can on the grocery store shelf that everyone avoids because its label doesn’t match the others.
Comes now Chuck Colson of Watergate fame to pontificate in the pages of Christianity Astray about how the “identity crisis bubbling just under the surface in the United States” is of no concern to Christians. You really have to read it in full to appreciate the brain-dead recycling of liberal platitudes that is now a substitute for sound expository doctrine. For instance, Colson writes that though “early settlers and immigrants were never ethnically homogenous, they largely traded in the same Anglo-Protestant cultural currency.” Actually, they were very homogeneous, even ethnically. Is Colson stupid or is he pretending to be ignorant that more than half of the present population of this country, even after unending immigration, is descended from four waves of Puritans, Cavaliers, Quakers, and Scots-Irish who settled well before the Revolutionary War? This is why Chief Justice John Jay thanked God for giving us a country where we are descended from the same ancestors. That’s just old-fashioned hate talk, of course. There oughta be a law.
Out of one side of his mouth, Colson says, “We rightly pride ourselves on our multiethnic, multiracial society.” Out of the other, he calls it a “problem” that “as 21st-century demographic trends increasingly draw people from other quadrants of the world, shared cultural assumptions erode,” leading to “divided loyalties.” Whatever you do, Christianity Astray, don’t let your readers know anything about race. In fact, don’t even say the word. If you catch yourself going “r-r-r,” use some other meaningless term, like “cultural currency.” Always ask: WWBGD? What Would Billy Graham Do?
How to dismount this galloping horse? Echoing Samuel Huntington, Colson rattles off four solutions to ethnic and religious tension, beginning with the creation of a “creedal community whose identity exists only in a social contract embodied in the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents. This has historically provided cohesion. [Yeah, after 300,000 men who stood in its way were murdered, in the name of government "of the people, by the people, and for the people," of course.] The next option is a bifurcated America, one that is bilingual and bicultural like Canada or Belgium. [Yeah, that has a good chance of working.] The third option is an exclusivist or imperial notion of America. [The status quo.] And the last alternative, the one Huntington clearly favored, is a reinvigorated core culture and religion coupled with the earlier solution of a reinvigorated creedal community.”
Just in case any “racists” get the idea (crazy, I know) that culture derives in part from the blood, Colson warns: “Any kind of racially or ethnically intolerant society would be incompatible with Christian principles.” American patriotism must be based on a “universal creed,” according to this Lincolnite, not “jingoistic nationalism.” (It’s kind of rude that Colson uses bigoted racial slang like “jingo” in an otherwise serious article, but that’s neither here nor there.) He goes on to say that liberty precludes us from “forcing beliefs on others,” even though this is the purpose of all law.
After a few paragraphs of this nonsense, Colson comes down on the side of Lincolnian creedalism, since blood covenants have no place “in the midst of our changing society.” We must never “embrace xenophobic notions or fall into the equally perilous trap of promoting subcultural identities over national identity.” You hear that, founding fathers and Confederates? Your silly federalism is hopelessly antiquated! This is the point, really. If the American creed is universal, nothing makes it “American.” American “national identity,” in Colson’s formulation, becomes nothing more than a stand-in for global identity. He calls it “Christian,” but its ultimate goal is the undoing of God’s intended divisions among nations, which are for the purpose of minimizing the efficacy of sin. Therefore, it is not Christian at all. Nothing that works against God’s purpose in the world can claim that title.
According to Colson, the oxymoronic and much-ballyhooed “Judeo-Christian heritage” of these formerly united states compels us to open the borders so that “all people [can] flourish.” To deny them citizenship in a nation that does not belong to them would be to deny their “dignity” as human beings. No nation can “live together in cosmopolitan bliss” if it has “abandoned its religious moorings.” He wants Americans and neo-Americans to agree religiously so that they can “live together in cosmopolitan bliss.” What could go wrong? There are so many cosmopolitan, creedal nations that have, uh, well… Let’s see, there’s… Well, there must be one or two.
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!
From Kipling’s The Children’s Song:
Land of our Birth, we pledge to thee
Our love and toil in the years to be;
When we are grown and take our place,
As men and women with our race.Father in Heaven who lovest all,
Oh help Thy children when they call;
That they may build from age to age,
An undefiled heritage.
From the final poem of W.B. Yeats, Under Ben Bulben:
Many times man lives and dies
Between his two eternities,
That of race and that of soul,
And ancient Ireland knew it all…
Our friend Petr left the following quote from Aelius Aristides (second century AD) praising the Roman concept of a “proposition nation” that has been popularized by Abraham Lincoln and race-mixers in our own time. As Petr knows, the idea came originally from Babel.
No part of the earth escapes your rule, unless you have rejected it as useless… And extensive and sizable as the empire is, perfect governing does much more than mere territorial boundaries to make it great… The world is now like a well-swept and fenced-in front yard. The world speaks in unison, like a chorus; and so well does it harmonize under its chorus master that it joins in praying that this empire may last for all time…
Like one continuous country and one race, all the world quietly obeys. Everything is carried out by command or nod, and it is simpler than plucking the string of a lyre. If a need arises, the thing has only to be decided upon, and it is done…
Most noteworthy and most praiseworthy of all is the grandeur of your conception of citizenship. There is nothing on earth like it. You have divided all of the people of the empire—and when I say that, I mean the whole world—into two classes; and all the more cultured, virtuous, and able ones everywhere you have made into citizens and nationals of Rome… Neither the sea nor any distance on land shuts a man out from citizenship. Asia and Europe are in this respect not separate. Everything lies open to everybody; and no one fit for office or responsibility is considered an alien. Rome has never said “No more room!”…
No envy afflicts the empire. You have set an example, throwing open all doors and enabling qualified men to play a ruler’s part no less than a subject’s. No hatred creeps in either, from those who fail to qualify. Since the state is universal and like one city, magistrates naturally treat the governed not as aliens but as their own… So of course things as they are satisfy and benefit both poor and rich!…
Under you what was formerly thought incapable of conjunction has in fact become united—an empire at once strong and humane, mild rule without oppression… So all people are now happier to send in their taxes to you than anyone would be to collect them for himself from others… Everyone clings tight to you, and would no sooner see fit to break away than passengers on a ship would from their pilot…
You have divided into two parts all men throughout your empire…everywhere giving citizenship to all those who are more accomplished, noble, and powerful, even as they retain their native-born identities, while the rest you have made subjects and the governed. Neither the sea nor the great expanse of intervening land keeps one from being a citizen, and there is no distinction between Europe and Asia…
No one is a foreigner who deserves to hold an office or is worthy of trust. Rather, there is here a common “world democracy” under the rule of one man, the best ruler and director… You have divided humanity into Romans and non-Romans…and because you have divided people in this manner, in every city throughout the empire there are many who share citizenship with you, no less than they share citizenship with their fellow natives. And some of these Roman citizens have not even seen this city [Rome]! There is no need for troops to garrison the strategic high points of these cities, because the most important and powerful people in each region guard their native lands for you… Yet there is not a residue of resentment among those excluded [from Roman citizenship and a share in the governance of the provinces]. Because your government is both universal and like that of a single city-state, its governors rightly rule not as foreigners but, as it were, their own people… Additionally, all of the masses of subjects under this government have protection against the more powerful of their native countrymen, by virtue of your anger and vengeance, which would fall upon the more powerful without delay should they dare to break the law. Thus, the present government serves rich and poor alike, and your constitution has developed a single, harmonious, all-embracing union. What in former days seemed impossible has in your time come to pass: You control a vast empire with a rule that is firm but not unkind…
As on a holiday, the entire civilized world lays down the weapons that were its ancient burden and has turned to adornment and all glad thoughts, with the power to realize them… Cities glisten with radiance and charm, and the entire earth has been made beautiful like a garden… Like a perpetual sacred flame, the celebration is unending… You, better than anyone else, have proved the truth of the proverb: The earth is everyone’s mother and our common fatherland. It is now possible for Hellene and non-Hellene [by this time the term Hellene did not refer simply to an ethnic Greek. It meant anyone who was a Roman citizen and who shared in the Greco-Roman high culture of the empire. Thus, Aristides, a native of Asia Minor, was a Hellene. A non-Hellene, or barbarian, was either someone from outside the empire or one of the empire's uneducated masses], with or without property, to travel with ease wherever he wishes, as though passing from homeland to homeland… As far as security is concerned, it suffices to be a Roman citizen, or rather one of those people united under your rule.
In 212 AD, the emperor Caracalla finally declared all freemen of the empire – from Britain to Arabia – to be Roman citizens.
According to Cassius Dio, the only Roman historian to talk about this edict, and with only one sentence, the reasons Caracalla passed this law were mainly to increase the number of people available to tax. In the words of Cassius Dio, this was the reason why he made all the people in his empire Roman citizens; nominally he was honouring them, but his real purpose was to increase his revenues by this means, inasmuch as aliens did not have to pay most of these taxes.
You can see how closely our history under the American empire has tracked the history of the Roman empire. Even though invaders and conquered subjects pay very little in taxes, the patria is mortgaged on the delusion that “diversity is our greatest strength.” No matter how extensive the empire, “all the world quietly obeys.” Citizenship is redefined, and borders are scorned as the useless remnants of a less-enlightened era. Loyal subjects count down the days until April 15, when they can send away their taxes along with a sizeable tip for the privilege of living under such benevolent dictators. What need is there for troops on the border? “No one is a foreigner” under our “world democracy.” All the earth breaks forth in song, right up until the day when the obese bitch collapses. America will not escape Rome’s horrible end.
“[The conquered] must at least retain the semblance of the old forms, so that it may seem to the people that there has been no change in the institutions, even though in fact they are entirely different from the old ones. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances, as though they were realities, and are often even more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are.” ~ Niccolo Machiavelli
Millions of Facebookers exclaim, without hesitation, “I love being black!” The president of the Bahama Christian Council thanks God that Bahamans live “in a divine territory, of the same ethnicity, custom, food, culture and language.”
Obamination agrees with Andrew Sandlin that being an American “is not a matter of blood or birth.” To prevent lawbreakers from breaking the law is “ill conceived” and “divisive.” Then he contradicts himself by saying that “our nation, like all nations, has the right and obligation to control its borders…” Why, to keep out the unsavory ideas?
The largest tax hike in American history is coming next year from Obama, the Great Reneger. (Don’t leave off the “re” when you say that.)
“The illegal alien malcontents, who have no rights as citizens of this country, get a U.S. Federal Judge to rule in their favor, while the taxpaying American citizens of Arizona, the vast majority of whom were in support of this law, are told to go to hell.” Until whites organize as whites rather than as idealistic dreamers and propositional patriots, they will continue to lose.
“To put it bluntly, a judge has decided that the will of criminals has been violated by the will of the citizens.” ~ Winston Smith
Beginning at 30:45 in this sermon, lying traitor John Piper says “God delights in” interracial marriage. He speaks the words “monoculturalism” and “monoethnicity” as though they are mental illnesses. In the notes, it says, “We are more related to Christians from other nations than to others of our own nation.” The trouble for race-mixers who believe this is that God has designated that we be raised to adulthood in families of blood, not of faith, and we are expected to honor those filial bonds to a greater degree as they strike closer to home. This is true whether our family members are Christians or not. But more than likely, our families and extended families and tribes will largely agree on matters of faith, and this will work its way into our culture and customs, just as we have seen throughout history. These concentric circles of genetic loyalty are how God has arranged for us to grope for Him and find Him. Piper gets this completely backwards. He reads about the gift of grace in 2 Tim. 2:25 and concludes: “Your ethnic distinctives, whatever they are, contributed nothing to the rise of faith in your heart.” Come again? What’s this libertarian schlock posing as Christianity? Those who are close in blood are likely to be close in religion. This is why there would be almost no Buddhists or Sikhs or Hindus in this country if not for open immigration. Of course faith is entirely the work of God, but faith, as important as it is, does not dissolve our blood relations or vaunt itself against them. You would never say that you love your Christian sister more than your non-Christian mother, and if you do, as seems to be the case for Piper, I would be very worried. It is simply not true that “We are more related to Christians from other nations than to others of our own nation.” Piper needs to learn a few things about God’s purposes in the world. He should become a Kinist and allow the truth to set him free.
Can Kinists be both Nazis and Communists at the same time?
Gen5 writes that Ken Ham’s Answers in Genesis hate group is pushing the idea that “opposition to interracial marriage is driven by Darwinian racism.” There’s just one little fact that the Hamite nutpods love to whack with a shovel and bury deep in the woods: “the people who have historically most opposed interracial marriage, white Southerners, have also been the group least likely to believe in evolution and most likely to believe in a young earth.”
Of course, Hitler is blamed by the Hamites for being the embodiment of “Darwinian racism.” But if “Darwinian racism” is at the root of Hitler’s abuses, how do we explain Stalin, “whose crimes exceeded those attributed to Hitler by an order of magnitude?” Stalin and the USSR were “stridently anti-evolutionist.” Human equality has been the basis for the Marxist battle against economic exploitation by higher classes.
The Soviets were so wedded to the primacy of equality that they adopted agricultural practices based on a pseudoscience called Lamarckism. Lamarck was a scientist who opposed Darwin by explaining all purported evolutionary effects as being conditioned by the organism’s environment. Thus they reasoned that certain strains of wheat most appropriate for warmer regions could indeed be grown in colder regions if they were simply exposed to the proper environment, notions they took seriously to the ruin of Soviet agriculture.
You’ll never hear the Hamite nutpods say that “Lamarckian materialism is many times worse than Darwinian materialism.” Let’s see, I wonder why. Hang on, it’s coming to me…
We could even conceive of an evil scenario where neo-Soviets convince a group of people, in their own country, that they are “racist oppressors,” and subject them to dispossession, rape and murder by foreigners in the land their ancestors built. Oh wait…nevermind, that would never happen. Much better to fret about Nazism, because we all know that human-diversity-believing neo-Nazis, not powerful Marxists ensconced in every significant institution in our society, are the greatest threat to our lives and liberties…
Thus do Judeochristians become the facilitators for Marxist dominance. Hitler serves as the all-purpose antithesis, which only serves to divert attention from problems we face in the present day. All the world is deceived by the Beast. Millions of Christians have been led astray, having been taught that they can’t protect their own ethnic interests, because the Nazis did it too, and Hitler was Evil Incarnate. This is intellectually lazy, as Tim Harris has already proved about Ken Ham.
Liberals and liberal young earthers commit the fallacy of denying human biodiversity because Hitler used his warped version of it as one of his reasons to commit murder. This is absurd. Some rapists pick their victims based on immodest dress, reasoning that “she was asking for it.” Does this mean that teaching young women that they have a responsibility to dress modestly somehow justifies rape? Such is the analogous charge of liberals and the liberal young earthers.
In short, the Hamites accept human depravity but reject human biodiversity. This is particularly contradictory, as Gen5 points out, because their whole view of post-flood development is based on hyper-accelerated microevolution, the likes of which have never been observed. “Hitting human biodiversity adherents with the Hitler stick is just one more Powerpoint slide to convince their followers that the-world-must-absolutely-be-only-6000-years-old-or-you-can’t-call-yourself-a-Christian.”
As if this weren’t enough, there are plenty more excellent points made in the article, covering the topics of delayed gratification, the death of liberty, and contraception. Gen5 has outdone himself.
Gen5 also observes that Korean Christians have not received the race-mixing memo. He says neo-Babelists suffer from “racial autism.” They are “like autistics who don’t understand normal human emotion, don’t feel any loyalty to blood, a loyalty that is instinctual and universal among all humans outside of the white race.”
Stacy McDonald is anguished because she realizes “that I may have denied those of certain races my child’s hand in marriage.” It’s amazing that the very same people who would be “age-ist” if Larry King tried to marry their daughter insist that race is never a legitimate consideration under any circumstances.
Would I allow my children to marry someone outside of their race? Yes, I would. If God brought us a godly young man that wanted to court one of our daughters, we would/could NOT rule him out because of his race. Same with our sons. If they were from a completely different culture, it would be a factor we would consider seriously, but it would not rule them out.
I would love to know how such people get the idea that “culturism” is better than “racism.”
When we add to God’s Word in any way, it plants a seed of destruction. We’ve learned that from the Reformers…and from Hitler.
Take your own advice, lady.
“Central to all the universalist heresies is race-mixing and religious atheism. The races are blended in the name of a universal god, but contact with the one true God is rendered impossible because the people who constitute a blended society lack the depth to understand or relate to the non-blended, distinctive personality of the Christian God, Jesus Christ.”
Great Article!!
Another goat herder fails miserably in an attempt to “refute” Kinism.
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=81101454374
Thought Experiment: Suppose you have an island with 5 black Christian families and 5 white Christian families. Would it be more reflective of the Trinitarian God we serve to have one church that combines the ethnicities in common worship or two churches so that the races remain separate? In the former, the one church reflects the diversity. In the latter, we save ourselves from the hard work of concretely expressing that diversity in one real body.
Kinism wants to move away from viewing nations as “ideas” and yet your brand of Trinitarianism allows a diverse church to be a mere idea, but never an embodied church that has a street address. It is diversity without tears, and about as helpful as philosophy without tears.
Thanks, Silas!
Wow, that’s a long sermon. There’s also a second part from this afternoon here:
http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=811015295310
I’m amazed that people came out to listen to this guy talk all day about the “heresy” of Kinism. You’ve gotta love Reformitard preachers.
It’s interesting that he says “species are fixed by God and cannot interbreed with other species.” Does he approve of a donkey and zebra mating to create a “zeedonk”? This just happened.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_odd_newborn_zedonk
Does this not violate Lev. 19:19 as the mating of different kinds?
He denies that kind-after-kind and unequal yoking applies to race, which is another way of saying that God did not intend for there to be distinct races, and they should be regarded as accidental.
Very few Kinists, to my knowledge, deny that all of humankind came from Adam and Eve.
The thing I can’t figure out is why he thinks the Babel passage is THE Kinist proof-text for opposing miscegenation. That’s not really what it’s about, and we’ve never argued, as he accuses, that “different language groups should not intermarry.” The key point about Babel is that language was used as a tool to disperse peoples and diverge their histories, because that’s what pleases God and minimizes sin. God is a segregationist, even though he wants all people to come to a common faith. This is trinitarian unity rather than the unitarian unity of the Reformitards, and Schwertley calls it a “unique interpretation” on our part.
He spends a lot of time on the curse of Canaan, which is almost never mentioned by Kinists as supportive of our doctrine. I don’t even believe that all of Africa was populated by Hamites. We will show an interesting graphic on this in the next post.
He makes a big deal about 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 9:1. Perhaps Noah did not feel that he had the right to curse Ham, whom God had blessed. At any rate, it’s amazing that Schwertley can spend a half hour talking about this in a sermon called “The Kinist Heresy” when it is only incidental, at best, to what Kinists believe.
He talks about Rahab and Ruth in the second sermon but doesn’t disprove our arguments that they were likely Israelites or close cousins. If Moabites were forbidden from entering the assembly and David’s own grandmother was a “Moabite,” draw your own conclusions about why there is no record of a national dispute. The point we make here is that we don’t hang policies that have the ability to wreck nations on such flimsy evidence that race-mixing is justified. We also affirm that there were many people in Israel who were not Israelites. Still, it was important for Jesus to be “perfect in his generations,” just as was said of Noah. That doesn’t sound like a good argument for consanguinity being insignificant.
As for “only in the Lord,” we would love to hear Schwertley respond to the point made above 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.
Though Schwertley preaches for hours, he consistently refuses to deal with our actual arguments. Instead, he says, “The Kinist literature on the web is almost completely devoid of biblical exegesis.” Nice try, but it’s a transparent dodge.
He blames evolution for “racist” thinking, conveniently neglecting to mention that all of our Christian forefathers believed that the differences and distinctions among races should be respected, as all gifts from God should be respected. They believed this, of course, long before evolution was a mote in Darwin’s eye.
Schwertley goes after Richard Weaver (link at the top of this page), calling what he writes “racist nonsense.” 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 since he said at the start of the sermon that we can’t exegete and he can, he should prove from Scripture that tribal nations are sinful.
“Citizenship should be by faith,” he says. “There’s not going to be crime with the blacks and Mexicans that are Christians.” 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 no historical examples of this?
Why no real-world examples of racial mixture not leading to a police state and totalitarianism? This is what has happened here in America, despite a largely common faith among blacks and whites, at least nominally.
In fact, his grand proof for Kinism being a “heresy” is that we treat race as an idol, saying that Jesus isn’t good enough to “get the job done” of restraining sin. (This is another assertion, and a false one at that, not a proof.) He calls this a “denial of the gospel and the sufficiency of Scripture.” He explains that blacks commit so many crimes because of their unbiblical worldview. But blacks in America are the most self-professed Christian group of people in the world. We simply challenge the idea that faith is going to bear the same fruit in every race. It manifestly does not.
He quotes our Principles of Kinism and calls it “complete ignorance of history and linguistics.” His reason: Indians are Aryans, and some Indians are very dark. “What morons. They don’t know that Indians in India are Caucasian?” This gave me the best laugh I’ve had all week. The Aryans who migrated to India 2500 years ago are the ones who established the caste system there, and still miscegenation followed. He says that Indians are more closely related to Germans than Germans are related to Celts. What?
He really goes off on the idea that pagan elements should be included in our culture. He calls this “Nazi” and “satanic rubbish,” but he obviously misunderstands the point. The Roman Senate has become a part of our government, for one example. I wouldn’t call this “vital,” but it’s not a bad thing either. The point is that culture is partly of the blood. Who else is going to maintain our traditions?
Another of his grand proofs against Kinism is that Egyptians were allowed to enter the assembly after three generations, and Egyptians just must have been Hamites. But this is another assertion, not proof. The difference we propose between Hyksos and Nubian Egyptians he dismisses as “a pitiful argument.” You have to listen to his convoluted reason for this because it’s impossible for me to describe.
I do thank Schwertley for doing this though. He’s rather eloquent, despite his inability to pronounce the words “miscegenation” and “Negro.” It really is a great service to push the dialogue along, even if we must do so as “heretics.” He could at least stop bearing false witness against us by calling us “racists,” but this is probably wishful thinking. We’re also called “fools” and “idiots” in his closing prayer. This really is unusually charitable discourse, in comparison to what others say about us. Much of the ire is driven by jealousy, and this is why Schwertley’s main concern needs to be with converts to Kinism in his own congregation as a result of preaching these sermons. After all, he calls Kinism a “rapidly growing movement.”
“I wish he had provided an example, because if this is true, we may be due for an apology.” I completely agree with that.
I have a question about this paragraph.
—–
Next they ask how “brotherly kindness” can be shown if there is segregation of believers. This is the wrong thing to say to a Southerner. Our “racist” ancestors invested their lives and fortunes to bring savages, barely removed from cannibalism, to Christian faith and a modicum of decency and manners. It is beyond silly to suggest that charity is of no effect unless we are amalgamated. It was nothing less than unity in Christ which brought this about!
—–
I don’t see how the argument is being made. It seems that the argument is, “Brotherly kindness can be shown through a segregation of believers, as shown by our ancestors’ benevolence to blacks. Whites and blacks were not equals back then, yet brotherly kindness was clearly portrayed.”
Now, there certainly was a sense of segregation back then, but I think that the “brotherly kindness” objections come up more with respect to separation (living in different nations) than segregation. Thus the objection is more along the lines of, How can we show brotherly kindness to non-white Christians if we simultaneously want them to go form their own country?
I would also like to see a response to webster hall’s post.
No, Ben, there wasn’t “a sense of segregation” in the 19th century and earlier – it was full-bore inequality. Blacks had no influence over the future of white people. It had to be this way because, in those days, white people actually loved their race and wanted it to continue – not in the abstract, but in the lives of their own children and grandchildren.
You seem to have a beef with separation, even if you were to concede that charity can be shown by segregationists. But the same rule has to apply: What is best for the future of our people? It was not ideal that a half million Negroes were brought here as slaves, regardless of how well it benefited them. A caste system was the best way to deal with an imperfect situation, and then after 300,000 white men were killed so that blacks could be made citizens, Jim Crow was the next best way of dealing with the situation. Regardless of the political circumstances, Christians have been charitable. But charity never requires us to believe that our own posterity should be stripped of their birthright.
You make it sound terrible that we would want a country for our people and other countries for other people. We agree with Jefferson that dissimilar races are not able to live as equals under the same government. The only way to make it “work” is to turn it into a police state, as we now have. But as we’ve said, this wouldn’t be the issue it has become if we still had biblical, tribal property laws that prevented our country from being sold out from under us. It’s malicious to characterize this as not showing kindness. If you don’t provide for your own, you’re worse than an infidel, and our own are having their future stolen from them.
This is why we’re constantly amazed by the neo-Christian doctrine that “our own” are not our close kin but the Christians of the world. Neo-Christians don’t believe this of their own families, which means that they’re hypocrites. They buy property, fence it, and lock the deed in a safe. Why can’t they show “brotherly kindness” and share their property with the “community”? Answer: They’re hypocrites.
Webster Hall’s premise is flawed. Where do you see a naturally-occurring, organic community develop as described in his thought experiment? Get back to me as soon as you find one (try East St. Louis) and then I’ll entertain the notion of how an organic church might grow in the community.
Since we both know you won’t be successful, I’ll go ahead and answer. I have no problem with different races worshiping together. I have a big problem with Babelist churches thinking, as John Piper does, that race-mixing and miscegenation are “positive goods” to be “celebrated.” I will gladly extend the right hand of fellowship to anyone, of any race, who doesn’t believe that unity in Christ means that he has the right to marry my daughter. We should work towards policies that maximize homogeneity, for the good of all. As Booker Washington said, we can be “as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress.” You would have to be a trinitarian to understand what he means. Webster clearly doesn’t, because he thinks that Diversity must share the same street address. He calls our rejection of race-mixing chaos “diversity without tears.” Exactly! We respect the distinctions that God has ordained, and you Babelists seek to clean up behind God and undo His mistakes. Good luck with that project. As I survey the world, I don’t see that you’ve had any concrete success.
admin,
I think you have misunderstood the intent of my post, which was probably, admittedly, due to poor language on my part.
I am not questioning the benevolence of antebellum Southern white Christians, nor am I questioning whether the antebellum social hierarchy or national separatism are good ideas. In fact, I presently am inclined to say they are good.
My question was basically this: How, practically speaking, do we apply the principle of ethnonationalism to our daily affairs with non-white Christian brethren? Anti-kinists deny that genuine brotherly kindness can be so shown, and your response dealt with a situation in which white Christians showed kindness to blacks. But, my point was that, in the antebellum South, whites and blacks resided in the same country. Basically, I am just pointing out that the objection involved how whites would treat non-whites kindly while wanting them to form their own nation (or, that’s how I saw it), and the answer involved an example of whites and non-whites residing in the same nation. That is all I was getting at.
So, besides what you have already said in your reply, would you offer any more practical advice on how to apply ethnonationalism to our daily affairs with non-whites? If a black Christian were to approach you tomorrow and ask you if you hated him because you wanted him to form his own country with other blacks, what would you say in reply?
Well, that’s the nature of a thought experiment. It creates premises that force us to examine the theoretical case for our positions. It doesn’t serve as a response to set aside the premises as implausible.
I think your response illustrates a thing I see commonly in Kinist argumentation – relying on an “is” to create or imply an “ought.” I grant that “race-mixing” is hard, but being godly–reflecting the Trinitarian God we serve–is hard all over, not just in this one area of race. God ordains many differences whose undoing he also ordains; from language, to various cultural customs, etc.
As a Christian, I’m not accustomed to limiting myself to the “naturally-occurring” or “organic”–the Hobbesian state of nature is not a goal. We Christians are a part of a supernatural intervention in human history, the church, which never would have occurred naturally. There’s no reason to believe our attempts to reflect Trinitarian diversity will need to be any less intentional than our attempts to conquer our sinful natures in any number of areas.
Webster Hall:
You raise an interesting point. My reply is render unto the physical what is physical and unto the spiritual what is spiritual. The two are different, but both are significant and real.
The ties of family and racial kinship are physical. Without physical closeness and physical unity, they will become lost in the population flux.
The tie of Christian faith is spiritual, and being spiritual, it is not subject to physical laws and constraints. Truly, it can transcend the physical. But keep in mind, it doesn’t abolish the physical.
One anti-kinist said that Jesus is enough to restrain sin. True indeed. But if we follow Jesus we must follow His laws. One is the division of mankind into nations, tribes and kindreds–on the physical level. Within this context, He can unite us in His spirit.
In a church of a single ethnicity or race, the two principles, the physical and the spiritual, work together in the closest harmony. And this promotes harmony among all believers.
Webster, what I always notice in anti-Kinist argumentation is the loony idea that what is hard (race-mixing) is necessarily healthy. The real question is whether it is wise. Losing weight is hard, and also healthy and wise. Putting our wives and daughters at high risk to be raped is not just foolish, it’s evil. Missionaries preached the gospel all over the world without mixing races. Only in our time have lunatics in the church come up with the idea that erasing borders is a good way to grow the kingdom of God.
If you think the natural affections of ethnic and racial bonds, according to God’s own design, are “the Hobbesian state of nature,” and that trinitarian diversity necessitates undoing what God has created, I can only say that you don’t know what you’re talking about, and that’s putting it kindly. You don’t conquer your sinful nature by working against God’s purposes in the world. You do just the opposite.
Ben, sorry if I misunderstood. I’m grieving over the loss of a friend, and I’m not really myself.
As with all problems, our plight needs to be fixed from above and below. Much can be achieved through politics, but individuals can do even more in their own families. We should challenge pastors when they support miscegenation and friends when they support interracial adoption. We should insist that our children honor our wishes in the kind of people they should marry. We should try to be as self-sufficient as possible so that we don’t rely on Walmart to feed us. As the Apostle Paul said, we should not air our grievances before pagans. Justice should always be blind, but charity is not always blind. We should generally try to help anyone in need, whether Christian or not, whether white or not. But we always have greater duties to those who are within nearer spheres of loyalty.
You asked about black Christians. I don’t see why any black Christian, if he is truly a Christian, would object to what I’ve written above.
Here’s the latest temper tantrum from that arch moron Bojidar Marinov. This pulp fiction writer is a real piece of work. Courtesy of facebook:
Bojidar Marinov TKBK, you are making things up. McAtee said that “race-mixing” destroys the Western civilization, and that the West was based on the genes of the European peoples. He said genes determine culture. I asked him to give me an example how do genes determine culture. And then he gave me the BS about tall people and short people and high and low ceilings.
However you try to excuse McAtee, it is obvious he is confused about logic, and it is obvious he prefers his anti-logical, anti-Biblical racism to common sense and the Bible.
The Richards are racist. Anyone who believes culture is determined by genes is racist. Anyone who believes that the defense of the West amounts to racial segregation is racist. Anyone who teaches that the Body of Christ must be segregated along racial lines is racist. Your “dearest” couple is a pagan couple. I don’t care how much affection you have for pagans.
This is a typical example for the tactics used by the racist heresy:
“What they’ve done is agree that nations have mantained specific identities & cultural differences & the pluralisms being insisted upon are stripping thier nation of what once was into what is the heck is all that ?” (I left your superb spelling intact.)
You are a liar. They do not stop at “agreeing” with this. This is what racists claim, “We just agree at the obvious.” There is much more besides that “innocent” agreement. They have claimed that those “specific identities” are genetically based. Quite a few of Misty’s comments are racially based: “Go to the Asian community, go to the black community, Ben has wife of the same race, etc.” Kinists do not stop at “agreeing” with the differences; they go on and claim that the differences are genetically determined, and therefore “race-mixing” is destroying the culture. Quite obvious from the links Misty posted, the authors claim that THEY HAVE MORE IN COMMON WITH WHITE PAGANS THAN THEY HAVE WITH BLACK OR ASIAN CHRISTIANS. Acknowledging the differences is one thing; and Aashik acknowledged them and pointed to the fact that his parents’ culture is pagan and he wants nothing to have with it in common.
The truth is, the “innocent” agreement of the Richards as to the “differences” is a stepping stone to paganism. And the truth is, the very words of Misty and her links show very well that the Richards ARE the skin-color racists that I claim they are.
Your moralistic manipulations don’t work with me. Racism is paganism, it is sin. I am not the one who needs to repent. The shame lies on those that shamelessly use the Bible to promote their pagan superstitions. If I need to repent for something, it is the fact that for a long time I accepted as friends and brothers in Christ those that were pagan wolves in Christian clothing. Of this I readily repent. They are not going to be my friends anymore, and I am not pulling any punches anymore. The damnable heresy of racism must be eradicated from the church.
I prefer that you stay away from my notes and from my wall. I do not want to associate with anyone who condones – directly or indirectly – racism.
I also think that the scenario is odd Webster. Are these people ship-wrecked? In this instance I would think that they would band together and do what they could to get home and then would go on with life as usual. It’s fascinating that natural separation is usually blamed on whites. As admin pointed out, we’re fine worshiping next to non-whites, but many times the races voluntary segregate in these instances. Many times blacks who are successful will move out of the projects but will establish neighborhoods with other blacks. It’s natural for them to do so and no one gets particularly angry about it. When we want the same thing it’s because we’re Nazis who just want to eradicate people.
You’re in our prayers Mr. Admin!
Thanks, Shotgun.
SF, I fervently pray that Bojidar writes a book against Kinism, as he promised. If it’s just an article, or if he chickens out entirely, I’ll be very disappointed.
It would please me to no end to see him defend this statement: “Anyone who believes culture is determined by genes is racist.” This line is also very telling: “I don’t care how much affection you have for pagans.” Like a true Reformitard, he lives in a cloistered world of abstractions.
He goes to all-caps mode when he hears that we white Christians have more in common (in many respects, at least) with white unbelievers than with believers of other races. As is always necessary for such people, you have to bring it down to the level of the family to teach them anything. Let’s say that I have a black Christian friend and an unbelieving mother. It’s fair to say that I have more in common with my friend in terms of faith, and faith is crucial, but that’s as far as it goes. Everything else about us would likely indicate that I am just like my mother and nothing like my friend. More importantly, duty means nothing if I do not have a greater duty towards my mother than towards a friend. My mother could have all sorts of bad habits that I oppose, but I would never say that I want nothing to do with my mother’s “culture” or that I want nothing to do with my mother and have no affection for her. These sentiments reveal not only an anti-Christian spirit but a touch of insanity as well.
Though I tend to dislike thought experiments (and hypotheticals in general), I think Webster Hall’s description of thought experiment should be taken with a little more heart than the Administrator or Scarborough Fayre have given it: “It creates premises that force us to examine the theoretical case for our positions. It doesn’t serve as a response to set aside the premises as implausible.” Luther’s response is rather better in this regard.
As for my own question, I’m not sure whether this is the right place to ask it — largely because I’m not sure whether there is a single right place to ask it — but I will ask it here because this is the most recent post on the site: Where can I find the biblical case for kinism being made? I have read a number of passing references made to some points of the kinist position (Deuteronomy 17.15, Acts 17.26, Genesis 1.24-25, Genesis 10-11, 1 Timothy 5.8, and Titus 1.12-13 come to mind) but only once a fully laid out exposition of the doctrine. That singular exception that I have found on this site (and not for lack of trying, though perhaps for lack of successful trying) is Harry Seabrook’s letter to a pastor who remains nameless but is presumably not Joseph Morecraft of the RPCUS, as posted here: http://spiritwaterblood.com/docs/insaneracesermons.pdf
If there are additional resources IN THIS BIBLICALLY-EXPOSITORY LINE, I would appreciate any assistance you can provide in pointing me to them. Also, I would ask to be pointed to specific links and/or references rather than general directions or whole websites (my reasoning on this request is that specific starting points, or even one, are much more helpful than general directions, which tend to be too broad and often too vague).
I would also appreciate restraint in the use of invectives toward me if (as I hope) we move forward in a dialogue. I promise to return this manner of behavior to you. I tend to find personal attacks and unwarranted inferences unhelpful in discussions aimed at finding biblical truth — and though I cannot promise perfection in this regard in advance, I will attempt to confine my criticisms in future to your stated beliefs and teachings, rather than your persons. If I fail in this regard, I welcome being called out on it.
That said, who can help me out here?
“I prefer that you stay away from my notes and from my wall. I do not want to associate with anyone who condones – directly or indirectly – racism.”
OK then, Bojidar. Now please tell the exact same thing to all Black Christians who are often quite frank about how they like the volkisch feeling of unity in their own churches.
Please tell them, for examplem, how evil they are when they idolize a blasphemous liberal heretic Martin L. King because of their sense of racial solidarity.
“He goes to all-caps mode when he hears that we white Christians have more in common (in many respects, at least) with white unbelievers than with believers of other races.”
In all fairness, this statement should have been indeed carefully qualified – it seems that those words in brackets were not in the original version of the statement seen by Bojidar.
One might say that in many worldly, temporal senses we have more in common with White unbelievers than with colored believers, but in the one eternal thing that truly matters, it’s the other way round.
In these sort of doctrinal quarrels, all parties must express themselves with preciseness and clarity. Clumsy and crudely generalizing arguments will not do.
Drew, I think the latest post answers your question. The Bible references tend to come out in response to sermons like Schwertley’s, which are almost never simply mistaken but usually also slanderous.
Thank you, Mr. Administrator. I look forward to reading it through (I’ve covered about a paragraph and a half so far). I think will confine my future comments to that post, or any subsequent ones in that vein, as that seems the more appropriate venue.