Go West Young Man…

…unfortunately, there is no “west” anymore to flee to.

So where can we go instead?  Barring easy transportation to Mars, it looks like we’re stuck on Earth for awhile.  And as America, and all other formerly-Christian nations, are becoming increasingly intolerable, I decided to take a poll of my Facebook friends to see in which locale they’d prefer living as an alternative to America.

But first, an order of business:

My Facebook friends are honorable guys; a few strongly objected to the idea of leaving America, especially the South.  “We’re going to stay and fight!  We don’t want to abandon or retreat from the foe!”  I suspect, on top of these cavalier sentiments, the relative calm of every day life has lulled many into complacency.  After all, those stories of tyranny happen far away and in big cities, right?

There’s a recent outrage – an Oregon man is going to prison for collecting rainwater.  Granted, he didn’t hop the proper bureaucratic hurdles, but we “patriots” know there shouldn’t have been bureaucratic hurdles to begin with!  And that’s way out in Oregon anyway.  So, it’s not “close to home”.

Then there’s the baby maimed by a SWAT team who invaded a house looking for someone who wasn’t even on the premises.  But that wouldn’t ever happen ’round here…

How about the brown faucet down south, opened wide, and muddying our demographics?  Or how about the government school indoctrination centers?  Or how about the trillions spent on daily propaganda disseminated through our pop-culture and government-service-announcements and / or countless other delivery mechanisms?  What about the constant targeting of white conservatives and our growing status as moral pariahs?  How about the increasing slaughter and rapine of our *elderly* citizens by marauding gangs of blacks?!

How much of this can be ignored?  We may never have a SWAT raid near our house, but they are happening more and more.  From about 3,000 raids in 1980 to 80,000 today?!  My point:  this is all “close to home” and could happen to any one of us at any moment.

So – let us do as the Apostle Paul suggests, and make the most of every opportunity and not to get drunk on wine but rather on the Spirit, because the days are evil.

Still – my friends want to stay and fight.

Which brings me to the second order of business:

Fight who?

- We can’t indiscriminately kill every post-Enlightenment modernist.  Even if we won that sort of evil battle, we’d still be alone; we’d be worse off than had we faded away to an isolated part of the world.  Worse off physically (we’d expend a lot of resources in that war) and worse off morally (how could we sleep with ourselves)?

- So maybe we narrow the scope of our attack and focus only on those self-conscious satanists at the reigns?  But who put them at the reigns?  In an evil time, when man has turned away from God, evil men will be at the reigns regardless – shoot them all day, countless others are in line waiting to hop into their place.  If society was healthy, these same evil men would never get close to the reigns – they’d lurk in the shadows where they belong.  Adding onto this point, the greatest dissidents became legends because they had the populace on their side – to hide them, protect them, fund them, and cheer them on.  But what if the populace itself is the tyrant?

- Well, (some of my friends might reply) – this means that it’s not a physical war then, but an ideological battle.  We’ll change the hearts and minds of everyone!  Only … arguments never change people’s minds.  I’ve had to learn that the hard way:  “A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.”

There are other options and a few strategies a brave man might try[1], but at this point in the conversation, I think it’s safe we at least consider the third order of business.

The third order of business:

Finding a place to live where we can be relatively free of harassment, and avoid the Orwellian oppression of modern Western nations.  This is the least violent and least costly option, even though it doesn’t appeal as strongly to the “stay and fight” crowd.

It’s an option I’ve often considered.  Granted – I might be fond of it because I have a romantic sense of adventure and my time in the military hasn’t squashed my desire to travel.  I spend a lot of time on Google maps, sliding around remote parts of the world, finding interesting places and reading about the inhabitants.  What they’re like, what language they speak, and how much the land costs.  I’ve recently found a small island off the coast of Panama with ample natural resources and only a hundred (or so) third-worlders living on it, sustaining themselves on whatever they grow in their little gardens.  (With my tenacity, I could own that little island in a year … imagine what ten of us might do with it?!)

So – I’m continuing my education in greenhouse science, industrial-sized aquacultures, and other relevant fields (like alternative energy).  But I’d also like to narrow in on a location so I can tailor my efforts to that specific environment.  Learn the local language, study the fish and plant life there, etc.

Back to my Facebook poll. 

I’m going to offer the same poll here, modified slightly to reflect the Facebook results.  Surprisingly, “Switzerland” got the most votes on Facebook (7), so I’m listing it as the first option.  Iceland, Norway, and Uruguay all tied for second with three votes apiece.  Russia came in third with two votes.  Romania, Mexico, and the Netherlands tied for third with one vote apiece.

I’m making my own poll here as well.  We’ll see what the blogosphere crowd has to say on the matter.



1.  These involve a little courage and a lot of stupidity – I have both, and in that proportion.  Grandstanding on a national level, with narrative manipulation in mind, might convince the Spirit to move through the populace again and end this time of judgment.  Still – it’s best to be a dual citizen and have a robust “escape” plan, especially for women and children.  Get them safe in an isolated place first then worry about “fighting” (via propaganda stunts) later….which still brings us back to the third order of business discussed above…





On Heroes and Betrayals

garden of evil

On this day of American hero-worship, I have a few thoughts of my own for consideration:

Years ago, I happened to see a documentary showcasing an organization called the “Army of God”.  Later, they covered Paul Hill, the man who shot and killed an abortion doctor back in 1994.

I wasn’t well read back then and was only a nominal Christian, but I remember getting very excited by that documentary.  As Christians, we were telling everyone that abortion was evil because it constituted the murder of an unborn person.  But this man, Paul Hill, had taken the truth to heart.  Indeed – if we really believed innocent persons were dying, then violence is the only reasonable Christian response, right?

Years later, after becoming a Calvinist and a Presbyterian and learning about Dr. Greg Bahnsen and Gary North, I realized that Paul Hill had once felt (about these men) as I felt.  In prison, Paul Hill wrote to Gary North, presumably pleading for sympathy, or at the very least, looking for a friend.  Such was not to be found … Hill’s church excommunicated him, and when North finally got around to responding, he damned him to Hell.

Well, I don’t think Hill is in Hell.  I think he’s in Heaven, surrounded by the loving ministrations of countless slaughtered unborn.  And ever since discovering his letter, I’ve been unable to think the same way about Gary North.  He betrayed Paul Hill and he betrayed Christendom; he’ll answer for it in the afterlife.

But this episode shows that the sanctity of Christendom is broken and those of us with regenerated hearts have been relegated to the dark forests; we’re the “underground men” now.

And it’s hard to be an underground man … it’s terribly lonely for one, but secondly, it’s an incredible internal struggle.  Consider:  I was born in 1982 and all my heroes (all the characters who shaped my childhood dreams) were Christless post-Christians.

The first was He-Man … the impossibly strong barbarian from a fictional universe.  He taught me to appreciate violence.

The second most influential was Indiana Jones.  He had aristocratic flare, good looks and the dogged determinism that made him an idol of worship for young boys like me.

Later, there was Rambo, but his movies were rated R and I was only able to watch them when visiting friends for sleepovers; friends whose parents weren’t as puritanical as mine.  Still – we found ourselves wearing camouflage and playing “war” in the woods.

As I got older and began reading, I discovered Clive Cussler’s “Dirk Pitt” and routinely tried to imitate his mannerisms.


All of these characters have one thing in common:  they’re post-Christian, liberals.

There was hardly any “air” of old Europe inherent in these men or their adventures.  I only learned of old Europe through the faint hints given from my Grandparents – a tone of voice here, a look there, or through all the old late-night stories about the past…

So, it’s a great personal struggle.  I consider myself someone of mid-level intelligence, and I’ve been self-consciously trying for the past few years to garner the old mind-set and re-ignite (in myself) the heroic “cowboy” or Knightly chivalraic attitude.   I’ve been having to rely solely on the books and movie recommendations from “Cambria Will Not Yield” … and even with all that, it’s very difficult.  Difficult to overcome the heroes of youth, who have now become, at best, old-circle friends who are trying to drag me back down the wrong path after having left them for greener pastures.


Enter Gary Cooper …

Last night I watched “Garden of Evil” and couldn’t take my eyes off the screen…it was refreshing in ways I can’t describe.  It was like I was seeing the best of my grandfather on the television.

Of course, there’s also Sir Walter Scott – I’ve read a number of his novels, but none stand out like Quentin Durward for me.  I sometimes catch myself asking “what would Durward do here…” … a better guide than Dirk Pitt, certainly.


The question will inevitably arise, though… what *would* these men, these old European heroes, do if they woke up in contemporary America?

I go back to thinking of Gary North and Paul Hill…

I can’t believe the old European heroes would want to indiscriminately slaughter all those around us.  There would be no honor in that.  If we are ever called on to kill a man, it must be with honor:  “Turn around and defend yourself!!”

No… I can only see two possibilities for the awakened hero…

One, is to leave this place and find a new home, perhaps in the wilds of South America or in some uninhabited parts of Africa?  Maybe, if he’s lucky, he might find one of the old hero women to accompany him into this new “west” (if he’s incredibly blessed he’ll find a Susan Hayward, heh).

But then there’s the second option … I’m calling this the “Robin Hood Contingency.”  This is where the hero stays in the midst of the evil and fights them from the inside, living a life of constant danger as an outlaw; a dissident.

Whatever part of me hasn’t succumbed to complete cynicism, jumps at option 2, only, there will be no beautiful Maid Marian here – there will be no clever puns and good-timing forest companions.  There will only be a lonely, demon-harassed hero, in the dark, constantly pursued, with no more hope for victory than whatever little comes with hope for miracles.

It’s a bleak choice for any man.

What would Durward do?  What would the Virginian do?  What would Gary Cooper do?

Orthodoxy’s Attitude Towards Ethnic Diversity

(While listening through an “Ancient Faith Today” podcast, I stumbled upon a discussion between Orthodox defender Kevin Allen and Orthodox deacon Michael Hyatt.  A caller asks about Orthodox attitudes towards ethnic diversity.  This is a topic which interests many of my Orthodox racialist friends, and so I’ve taken the liberty of transcribing the relevant portion of the podcast.  I’ll offer brief critical comments, from a Protestant perspective, below the transcript.  Enjoy):


Allen:  I do have a call from Gary from Tustin California.  Gary, you’re on Ancient Faith Today.

Gary:  Hello.  It’s good to talk to you guys.  Mine is more of a practical question.  I find that, for myself, before I became Orthodox, and for many of my friends who are Evangelical, our question was:  Orthodoxy looks theologically good, but ethnically, it’s … it’s so ethnic!  (laughs).   How could this be the true Faith?!  How do you deal with the issue of ethnicity that seems to be so strong in each of these different traditions, whether it’s Russian, Greek, Syrian; no matter which group it is, they all have their explicit ethnic aspects to them, and yet that seems to be what’s so hard for many Evangelicals to get past …it’s such a cultural shock.  How do you deal with that?

Michael:  Yeah, that’s a tough one too, because that is a reality and I think we have to acknowledge the fact that we have a lot of churches here (Orthodox churches) that are made up of immigrants where they brought with them, in addition to their Faith, their ethos.  Their culture from wherever they originated.  But the truth is, is that American Orthodox churches, like – I’m from a *very* American Orthodox church where probably 95% of the people who attend St. Ignatius Orthodox Church in Franklin are converts to the Orthodox church from Evangelicalism… we also are very ethnic.  We’re ethnic Americans.  So, somebody who comes in who is Russian or Greek thinks that *we* feel a little bit weird.

And I think that we have to acknowledge that ethnicity is not the problem.  Ethnicity is inescapable.  What we hope is that, with time, our ethnicity, will more and more in this country reflect the best parts of our culture and we’d have an authentic American expression of Orthodox Christianity.  But behind that, or above it, is the one Holy Catholic Apostolic Faith, that whether you’re worshiping in Greece or in Russia or Bulgaria or Tennessee, it’s the same Faith, even though it’s expressed in a diverse number of ways.

Allen:  (Allen goes on to tell a story of his aunt who had an old Roman Catholic parish bulletin from the Bronx written in Italian.  He talks about how, just a short time ago, there were uniquely Italian parishes, uniquely Irish, and even uniquely Korean and Vietnamese parishes, but that they’re coming together.  Then he cites Peter Gillquist of “Blessed Memory” who says – it’ll “..take time to work all this out.”)


Earlier in the show, this topic was skirted around when Michael and Allen discussed church unity.  Allen asks:

“How can the Orthodox church be the one true, visible church?  How do you rationalize that?”

Michael responds by noting Jesus’ prayer for unity in John 17, and suggests that we can take it in one of three ways:  1.  Either Christ’s prayer was ineffectual (and all Christians would reject that); 2. Perhaps Christ meant a mystical otherworldly sort of unity (but this is rejected as well, because the unity Christ prays for is meant to be a testimony to the world and thus, must be observable by them); or 3.  Christ meant some form of institutional unity – which the Orthodox church has supposedly maintained for all these years.

But then, a few minutes later, Allen asks Michael about 20 separate independent National Orthodox churches represented in the U.S. alone, and yet, Orthodoxy claims to be the ONE holy church.  In reply Michael distinguishes between different sorts of “unity”.

There is “doctrinal” unity.

There is “sacramental” unity.

There is “liturgical” unity. (Even those who observe the so-called “Western Right”, are still liturgically united with other Orthodox churches.)

then, there’s: “Administrative” unity.

On that last note, the Orthodox church is wanting, which, according to Michael, is “frankly, annoying”.

But apparently, this administrative unity does *not* disrupt the Unity of the church.  He says administrative unity is desirable but not essential.


So, apparently, when Christ prayed for unity in John 17, He was NOT praying for administrative unity, rather, He was praying for doctrinal, sacramental, and liturgical unity?

This smells of ad-hoc reasoning; not to mention, Michael’s different types of “unity” seem arbitrarily drawn for polemical purposes.  We might say that “doctrinal” unity, by definition, encompasses “sacraments” and “liturgy”, but then Orthodoxy would have only 1 out of 2, instead of three out of 4, and that doesn’t sound as good, does it?  (On a related critical note:  I could argue that all of us Orthodox Presbyterians have both doctrinal *and* administrative unity, so, does that make us the one true church Christ prayed about?!  Presumably, we’d have to add something about historical succession, but then we Presbys could reply with our doctrine of Presbyterial succession…and down the rabbit hole we will go…)

But it’s not my intent to critique Catholic theology here.

Instead, I want to briefly examine how this plays into the Gillquistian notion of “ethnic” homogenization.

We have two propositions:

1. When Orthodox adherents contrast themselves with Roman Catholics, they are quick to note that their view of the church is that it’s decentralized among various Patriarchates, while the West was / is centralized under the Roman see (an unfortunate fact of history from the Orthodox perspective).


2. Orthodox adherents also claim they’re the “one Holy Apostolic church“.  Fine.  Let’s give them that for a moment.

To maintain 2, they have to argue for a special meaning of “unity” that only applies to their church.  To maintain 1, they have to allow for a Godly diversity among the Patriarchates.  (So far, so good).  But to be Gillquistian in their advocacy of ethnic homogenization, they must argue for some form of centralization that seems to violate the “diversity among the patriarchates”.

So, on the final analysis, if an Orthodox adherent wants to hold to some notion of Gillquistian homogenization, they must either give up proposition 1. or proposition 2.

Which will it be Gillquistians?

(Someone might argue that the Gillquistians can take a third route to avoid the horns of this dilemma.  They might hold to some form of propositional ethnicity.  But if they make this move there doesn’t seem to be anything left to proposition 1.  Patriarchates become arbitrarily drawn human conventions and might as well be governed, “in time” as Gillquist is quoted as saying in this podcast, by a central religious government and the Orthodox would be forced to admit that Rome had the right model after all.)

We all know the solution to this dilemma is to do what my Orthodox racialist friends have been advocating:  give up the Gillquistian notion of ethnic homogenization all together and instead of recoiling in horror at diversity, celebrate it as Godly and beautiful.

The So-Called “Weak” and “Strong” Kinists…

I’ve always objected to the “weak” and “strong” Kinist designation.

(It was Gen5 who started it over on his blog).

Aside from the quibbles we might offer about the factual accuracy of Gen5′s observations of Kinist ideological diversity[1], the “weak / strong” distinction forces Kinists to define ourselves according to how our opponents view us. Our opponents see “race mixing” as *THE* central and offensive issue at the heart of their disagreement with Kinists. So, it might be beneficial for them to distinguish between Kinists who think mixing is a sin (“Strong” Kinists) and those who say it’s only a bad idea (the so-called “weak” Kinists).[2]

But this is a faulty view of Kinism and makes it seem like race-mixing is the defining issue of our position. We shouldn’t let opponents determine what the “strong” versions are and what the “weak” versions are.

Consider the following analogy:

An atheist supports abortion and a Christian opposes. They decide to debate the issue. What will they debate? Well, ultimately, the disagreement will come down to their different ethical philosophies. The Atheist might appeal to some form of materialistic utilitarianism, while the Christian appeals to objective moral norms. So, the debate (as it turns out) isn’t over abortion at all, but rather, over larger ideological disagreements.

The same is true if a liberal debates a Kinist about race-mixing. What will they debate about? In the end, the debate will focus on different philosophies of social order. The liberal will appeal to Enlightenment and jacobin forms of social order, while the Kinist appeals to tribalism.

Imagine someone claiming there’s a distinction between “weak” Christians and “strong” Christians – weak Christians only think abortion is a bad idea, while strong Christians claim it’s always a sin.  Such a distinction completely misses the scope of Christian theology.  The same is true for Kinism.

So why not define “weak” Kinism as someone who believes that tribalist social order is (at best) a good ideal, while “strong” Kinists claim that it’s the God-ordained and normative way of organizing society?  That, in my view, would strike closer to the heart of what Kinists actually believe.[3]


[1] I haven’t noticed any clear and routinely articulated distinctions among Kinists like the ones Gen5 suggests.  If anything, those who hold to (what he calls) “weak” Kinism, usually don’t claim to be Kinists at all.  They’ll say things like – “I’m not a Kinist, but… I think those guys have some good ideas!”  I encounter this sort of jargon on an almost daily basis.

[2]  Or, it might be beneficial for someone with Kinist leanings but who is, nevertheless, unwilling to alienate himself from polite society?  The distinction would separate such a person from those who are perceived as “more radical” and less apt to gain acceptance in Satania.

On another note – the distinctions Gen5 draws are ambiguous, leaving me to wonder which of the categories I actually fall into.  Who knows?  Given how Gen5 has laid out the categories, we might have to shift self-labels according to whatever particular situation we find ourselves in.  This ties in with my main gripe about the distinctions – that they’re not accurate ways of slicing up Kinism, and if utilized, present a false view of what we are actually concerned about.

[3] I’m not in favor of dividing up Kinists into “weak” and “strong” anyway … but if we’re going to do it, don’t do it according to a non-Kinist rubric.

To My Regular Readers

I apologize for the odd posts lately; I’ve been experimenting with driving internet traffic and didn’t feel like creating a new blog for the purposes. I dumped them here instead.

I despise the notion of monetizing blogs (this blog in particular) and have no intention of cluttering up things with commercial links and the like. I’ll be deleting the experimental posts in a few days and all will be back to normal.

On a similar note – I’ve just passed my 6th year blogging anniversary. My life has changed so much in that time. When I started, I was a love-struck neo-conservative, hell-bent on becoming a Navy SEAL then marrying the girl of my dreams (who was an ex-cheerleader, fundamentalist Evangelical, Republican out in Tulsa).

Since then, I became a Calvinist, discovered how to intellectually defend my racialist ideals, and despise Republicans. And … don’t ask what happened with Ms. Tulsa; it’s a sad story, worthy of a country song. (In hindsight, if I had acted as passionately as I felt, my dreams might have come true).

What’s in store for the future? I don’t know – maybe a knightly vow, more defenses of Kinism, and I have to vindicate myself for that terrible short-story I wrote a few months back. I’ll have to re-write it eventually, so look forward to that.

…until next time…

Round Eye Dares Correct a Minority … Part II


I’m going to continue my critique a few paragraphs down from where I left off, but don’t worry, there’s no-ting-wong.  The paragraphs I skipped didn’t seem immediately relevant.  So, let’s whistle the Asian riff as we dive into part II of my critique of Lue-Yee Tsang’s recent anti-Kinist article…

Multiculturalists worship at the altar of the modern (super)state; kinists fail to honour the mission of Christ to unite all peoples in his gospel.

I don’t suppose a few examples would be out of the question, eh Mr. Tsang?

I’d love to know how Kinists, with all our advocacy of Postmillennial Kingdom victory, are failing to honor the mission of Christ.  Apparently, Tsang thinks “uniting all peoples” means:  mixing everyone into a mocha-colored propositional bowl and applauding the resulting sludge.

The former overestimate the breadth of their human selves, but the latter underestimate the breadth of their communion on earth with folk of other cultures. For nothing but Christ, the image of the invisible God, can bring the human race together at the basic level of its humanity; but the will of God the Father will be done in earth as it is in heaven.

Here, we see Tsang’s ambiguity.

Is it *belief* in Christian propositions that will “bring the human race together” or is it God’s direct action?

This entire paragraph is pseudo-pious garble…

What is done in this life, in this age, will not be perfect; but the perfect virtues of Christ are infused by his Spirit into all who are in him by faith, that he may also be in them. So what we do on earth is a sign, and Christians who neglect it hide the gospel under a bushel.

It’s like Mr. Tsang forgot he’s supposed to be analyzing Kinism and multiculturalism, and has launched into an irrelevant sermon instead.  Relevance, Tsang?

The kinship between London and Heidelberg was based not on race but on religion: their common struggle was for the survival of the Protestant faith. Indeed, when King James’s royal House of Stuart eventually failed to produce any royal issue, the monarch who succeeded Queen Anne was George of Hanover, grandson of Frederick V and Elizabeth Stuart. Necessarily I have related a simplified version of things, but I think it conveys the essence of the truth.

Spare us the freshman Western Civ lesson, what does any of this have to do with Kinism?

Further – even if we grant the legitimacy of Tsang’s historical analysis, who cares?  As Kinists, we derive our beliefs about normative social order from Scripture, not historical example.

There is no principled end to the kinist notion of keeping to one’s own racial kind.

This, from an indoctrinated, neo-Marxist.

I suppose there’s no principled end to family or marriage relationships either.

In the end, marriage is the kind of thing that depends on building a common culture: neither similarity nor difference in themselves determine the will, nor is the blood of man to be reckoned greater than the blood of Christ.

Just one asinine, unsupported (and incoherent) assertion after another…

What would it ever matter for a Christian to marry someone who was of the same cultural heritage but denied the Christian faith? Such a marriage would be less happy than a marriage between two Protestants of otherwise very different cultures. The cultural differences are not something love and understanding cannot surmount by the power of the Holy Ghost. Likewise a commonwealth, like a family, can maintain a coherent identity without demanding that minority cultural practices be effaced or isolated.

A marriage between a Christian Dutchman and a Christian pygmy, would be happier than a marriage between two Dutch?  That doesn’t make sense.

Also – if the Holy Spirit is going to magically swoop in and help the mixed marriage be harmonious, why doesn’t Tsang assume that the Spirit will swoop in and regenerate the heart of the unbelieving spouse?  There’s some Biblical warrant for the latter assertion, and none for the former.

And hey… we can all sleep well at night.  Tsang assures us, on the power of his own authority apparently, that we can maintain a coherent identity without demanding minority cultural practices be “effaced” or “isolated”.

Does this mean he really is a multiculturalist afterall?  Come on Mr. Tsang, didn’t you argue (earlier in your article) that such cultural diversity causes instability in a nation?  That we need some unifying cohesive force, else we wouldn’t have a nation at all?

Maybe Tsang would reply that a little multiculturalism is fine, as long as allegiance to the national proposition comes before allegiance to one’s kin.

I understand that some folk of European extraction feel culturally beleaguered.

When you’re done acting like a self-righteous, judgmental prick, Google “Christopher Newsom” and ask if he feels “beleaguered”.  Google “Eugene Terre’blanche” and try to determine if he feels slightly “put upon”.  Or go to the Council of Conservative Citizen’s website and spend 10 minutes reading…

You’re damned right we feel “culturally beleaguered”.  That’s an understatement!  You have no idea the level of wrath Satan is building for himself.  Only the depths of a Christian heart knows such anger, because only the depths of a Christian heart knows such love.

We renounce and defy your Satanism, Tsang, and bid ye take your religious zeal for speculation back to the Asian wilds from whence it came…

But the way to strengthen the cultures of our fathers is not to keep ourselves neatly separate but to commit ourselves anew to handing down the knowledge we have received. To renew tradition and give it to Christ, we need not think ancestry and family are the sole or even the primary ground of our concentric circles of concern. No, the Body of Christ is an organism far more complex in its workings, and the Blood of Christ surprises us far more with the kinds of people it urges us to befriend. The honour claims of ancestry and the charity claims of adoption, both given by God, need a far more interesting harmony than either kinists or multiculturalists propose.

…I read this paragraph and wonder why I even bother providing commentary.

It’s so ambiguous and unfocused, I don’t know what to even critique.

All I can do is counter-assert that Kinism is the Biblical position and is (hands-down) better for bringing about “harmony” among all the races than Tsang’s neo-Marxist ideal will ever be.

For the two differ, and yet Christ is not an anti-Adam but the Second Adam. For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. So we, too, shall through suffering be perfected unto the glory of our rightful Head, the sovereign over the human race.

More irrelevant sermonizing – presumably meant to impress the round eye with pseudo-pious language…

Leave multiculturalism and kinism to pagans; Christians have a better city for all creation to glimpse in their works, a bit of heaven to glimpse on earth.

Only it’s not Heaven you’re envisioning Tsang, but a Jacobin vision of utopia, and we Kinists want nothing to do with it.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it a hundred more times:

If hell is the Europe of Beowulf or the England of Dickens, Austen, and Kipling…then consign me to the seventh level of it.  I’d rather live as a stable boy there than a nominally-rich wage slave in this present world.

God save us from the speculators…

Round Eye Dares Correct a Minority…Part I


Grab your mahjong pieces and opium pipes as we dissect yet another anti-Kinist hit-piece, this time written by one Mr. Lue-Yee Tsang.

Opposed to each other are the ideologies of multiculturalism and kinism (and suchlike). Yet neither is the way of Christ, and it is this way that must prevail in the law and government of nations.

Kinists have begged the precious guardians of the new multicultural orthodoxy to explain to us exactly what is meant by “multiculturalism”, but sadly, little is forthcoming from the church.[1]  In light of this hopeless ambiguity, I’m not sure that “multiculturalism” and “kinism” are “opposed” in the way our Asian friend thinks. In fact, given his use of the phrase “and suchlike”, I suspect he has no idea what he’s talking about at all, certainly as it pertains to Kinism, which he (apparently) thinks can be carelessly grouped in with whatever other views he has in mind by the phrase “suchlike”.

What he needs to know about Kinism, specifically the Reformed manifestation of it, is that it grew out of the theonomy and Reconstructionist movement.  And there is no one in the entirety of the protestant world (perhaps in all of Christendom) more concerned about the “way of Christ” or having it “prevail in law and government of nations”.  We care about it far more than post-Christian hipsters who have learned to use pseudo-pious language to impress the round eye…

Mr. Tsang is yet another faceless blogger presuming to be an authority on Kinism.  Let’s see if he’s done his homework…

A nation cannot survive that is no nation. There must be something to bind the people together as one nation. Multiculturalism can furnish nothing to supply this want, for several nations join together not through a common commitment to their several disintegration but through a common culture, patiently built. Such a culture will not erase the regional differences and loyalties but bind the several up in one.

He says there *must* be something to bind people together as one nation – we have to wonder if he means this as a moral imperative or a pragmatic consideration.  Does God command us to bind people together?  Or is it merely a good idea to have a cohesive force supposing we want a “nation”?  In either case, Tsang is supposing that “nations” are not organic; that they must be formed and maintained by man…and this, Kinists disagree with.[2]  While it might be granted that there must be a unified bond of affinity among the people to keep them functioning as a political unit, the nation is defined by God and thus, is a nation even when all bonds of affinity are broken and all cohesion is lost.

He then suggests that “multiculturalism” cannot “furnish” the cohesiveness necessary for nationhood.  But this asks more of multicultists than they assume to offer.  Multiculturalism (at least, as I see the movement), assumes a sort of “propositional nationalism” model, where ideology always trumps cultural bonds.  In other words, fans of the Redskins and fans of the Dallas Cowboys should be able to look beyond their cultural differences and unite over their love of the American ideal.  Asians in California and the Mexicans in California, should be able to live side by side in harmony because both (ideally) are more loyal to American ideology.

This model of “propositional nationalism” is, as we’ll see, what our Asian friend is married to.  Only, he’ll want to tweak it such that some form of Christian doctrinal ideology replaces “American” ideology.  Swap out the parts all you’d like Tsang, it’s still the same model.

For the heavenly city, this one is Christ the King, who holds the authority of all and supplies the happiness of all, and in whom all the peoples and all creation hold together. Such a deep commonality transcends the things that distinguish one people from another; but the ideologies of the world are not such a commonality.

As suggested above, he sees belief in God as a “deep commonality”…one that is “deeper” (in some mystical fashion) than love for American democracy, or love for the Soviet ideal, or love for the European Union.

To reiterate – our Asian friend is married to the propositional-nation model; he simply wants to swap the unifying proposition from a secular political ideal, to some set of Christian propositions.  Then he wants to claim allegiance to Christian propositions are more “deeply unifying” than allegiance to any of the others.

But this is more confused than mac-and-cheese on a Chinese buffet…

Indeed, not even a papacy, claiming the fullness of Christ’s authority on earth, can rule the world and unite its peoples. Nor does the Turkish sultan and his caliphate have the power and authority to hold universal imperium and dominium.

Wait, now I’m confused…

Setting aside the irony (from a historical perspective) of this claim, didn’t he just suggest a propositional model where allegiance to Christian propositions could magically bind the world together?  Now he’s saying allegiance to Christian propositions *cannot* bind the world together?

The authority that Christ holds in heaven is held by him alone, and on earth he gives this power to no one man. He was never succeeded by one man, nor was his power ever given to one. His power has been vested in the entire Church, by the presence of the Holy Ghost, and no man has any authority at all in the Church except as representing the people.

This guy strikes me as someone firing “from the hip” with no real systematic approach to the topic.  That last line, especially, is indicative of Americana bias.  No one has authority unless they’re representing the people?  What does that even mean?  It’s asinine.

So – apparently, a propositional-nation can *only* function morally, if it includes democracy?

And as governors he first appointed twelve apostles, signifying the twelve tribes of Israel; and thereafter, through human constitutions, the bishops to defend the doctrine of the faith. This is a monarchy, whose only universal head is Christ himself. Under him to preach the faith are bishops, and to protect it with the sword are civil governors. He brooks no rivals: thou shalt have no other gods before me.

Oh… not democracy, but some form of constitutional monarchy then, ruled over by God (in principle), but in practice, amounting to a propositional world-government, structured hierarchically, with every member swearing allegiance to a set of Christian propositions?

Got it…

The Kinist model is different.

The Kinist model sees Christ as the king of an *international* world, made up of many nations.  And these nations are not defined “propositionally”, but rather, “organically” the boundaries being drawn according to family and tribal affinity.  And while allegiance to Christ as king should provide some form of international code of conduct, it can never replace (indeed: should not replace) the bonds of kinship.

For you postmodern Evangelicals gasping in horror at that admission, consider it from a different angle:

Suppose some sexually perverted egalitarian preacher (is there any other sort?) suggests to a newlywed husband that his love for his wife should not supercede his love for Christ.  The preacher suggests that the husband must share his wife with all the men in the congregation.  “We’re are all unified through our common belief in Christ, after all.  As a matter of fact, “families” have passed away in the New Covenant, and any attempt to continue the family bond is a sinful attempt to cause division among the brethren…now let us at your wife!”

Such is the disgusting yet accurate analogy of the way minority Christians are dealing with (particularly white) nations.  They claim we Kinists are vile heretics and in sin for wanting to maintain Godly boundaries.

We Kinists say that if you want our nation, you’ll have to pry it from the dead hands of our many heroes.

And yet the Jews and the Greeks were different. Had they any separate bishops? No, the locality principle was to testify to the one true Church in which all believers are in Christ in a heavenly manner, and to regard one another as brethren in their earthly dealings.

Actually, we might argue that they *did* have “separate bishops” in the Early church.  Further, Tsang begs the question here when he speaks about the “locality principle”.  Can he prove any of this, or should we take him at his word?

So, though Jew and Gentile kept each his language and customs, Jew and Gentile had their wall of partition broken down between them.  St Paul says the mystery, now revealed unto God’s holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, is this: that the Gentiles should be fellow heirs, and of the same body, and partakers of his promise in Christ by the gospel: whereof I was made a minister, according to the gift of the grace of God given unto me by the effectual working of his power.

The Kinist view, and what I assume is the common Reformed view in general (at least among those Reformed scholars who aren’t out to prove some radically egalitarian agenda), is that the “breakdown of the wall of partition” means that the Covenant of Christ is now open to *all* people.

We cannot extend this concept to mean that all Christians are now meant to live and breed together…and that all Godly tribal bonds are abrogated.

So a Chinese girl can marry into a French family and become French while using the gifts of her Chinese heritage; and a White American girl can marry into a Black American family and become Black while contributing the gifts of her White American heritage. Upon this God has placed the highest seal of approval for his Church: [he quotes Ephesians 4 11-16]

It’s already been said that none of this follows from what Tsang has supplied.

Further – his propositional-nation model makes a mockery out of Ephesians 4…which is a flagship “proof text” for Kinism!  Instead of wanting to maintain a Godly diversity, as Paul suggests in Ephesians, Tsang wants to read radically egalitarian presuppositions into the text, so he can (presumably) feel justified in pursuing whatever hot blonde lass he’s got his eye on.

So a godly commonwealth will look, both within itself and (because it is not the whole Body of Christ) toward the other nations.

This is a terribly ambiguous statement, Tsang.

We Kinists, holding an “international” view of the Kingdom, can agree that we have fellowship with other Godly nations; that we can benefit from them and be enriched by their culture.[3]  But this is a far cry from the idea that we need to start daughter-swapping.

But see, this is not what a multiculturalist envisions. When my aunt married a Frenchman, they would not have asked that she even try to learn French. No, she was every bit as French as those who were born French, and she should reject the imposture of the majority culture. Can such a thing be endured in a single household, let alone a republic? No, she learned to speak French with both her husband and her in-laws, and she took up French cooking as well as Chinese, and her children she brought up speaking French and some Chinese. Her husband, who loves her and her culture, is a Sinophile and occasionally makes jokes in Cantonese. My older cousin sees himself more simply as French, though he can speak some Cantonese; his sister, despite actually speaking less Cantonese, sees herself as Chinese as well.

This paragraph belies Tsang’s confusion over the relationship between race, nationality, and culture.

I’m glad he applauds his aunt for conforming to a culture – what he should wonder is why his aunt despised her own tribe so much as to leave it for a foreign one.  Was it because she had a sexual fetish for a Frenchman?  Was it because the Frenchman was rich, dashing, and charming?  Was it because she was a traitor to her tribe and wanted to ally herself with another?  Who knows?

So far, perhaps, a kinist will agree.

That’s a great wall of “no” for you, Mr. Tsang…

Tune in next time, for the conclusion…

(See here for part II)


1.  The phrase “multiculturalism” is often used, but seldom defended with in-depth, scholarly argument.  I don’t know of any books from a Reformed perspective that go beyond popular sermonizing on the topic.  If any of you know of any rigorous defense of “multiculturalism” (however it might be defined)…please let me know of it.

2.  It’s true that even an organic nation must be “maintained”.  A Kinist might suggest that a nation, while arising organically, must nevertheless be defended from invaders, domestic lawbreakers, famine, disease, and the hardship of life.  But this is much different from the French Revolutionary ideal of a nation, where men come together based on political whim and form an arbitrary society with its own rules for membership and in which, all the petty internal factions must be herded together according to some common factor or common cohesive force.  It seems our Asian friend presupposes this latter view of “nation”.

3.  An example of this might be something like Southern Gospel music.  White musicians were able to borrow from black cultural expressions and appropriate them into the creation of new and exciting musical genres.  Of course, this relationship has been much abused by modern commentators, some claiming that white music is a cheap copy of negro songs, and others saying whites maliciously “stole” it.



Dr. Bahnsen on Plantinga: Sit Down!

One of the pressing questions in contemporary Presuppositionalist conversations is how Van Tillians are to take the work of Alvin Plantinga and Reformed Epistemology.  And as one of Presuppositionalisms greatest proponents, Dr. Bahnsen’s views on the matter are interesting, if a bit enigmatic.

It would be great if we had a lecture series from Bahnsen formally dedicated to expounding on Plantinga in light of Van Til.  Instead, we are left trying to either piece together his view from off-hand statements in many of his lectures, or from what his friends (like Michael Butler and John Frame) have said about Plantinga.[1]

Dr. Bahnsen makes many off-hand statements concerning Plantinga throughout his lectures and I can’t re-post them all here.  But one in particular is interesting (and a bit humorous) because it hints at how Bahnsen may have seen Plantinga’s work in the context of a Presuppositional apologetic.  What follows is from lecture 6 of “Michael Martin Under the Microscope”, starting at about 9:40.  I’ll provide footnotes for contextual clarity (when needed):

So yeah, he [Michael Martin - S.T.] does consider Plantinga.[2]  Though Plantinga’s not a transcendentalist, those elements of presuppositional function that you see in Plantinga or you see in Wittgenstenian fideism he [Martin - S.T.] never puts into a transcendental position.  In fact, you’ll notice:  he dismisses both Wittgenstein and Plantinga ultimately on the same grounds, that they reduce to relativism.

Here’s my comeback:

I’m not a fideist as he’s interpreted it and I’m not a full-fledged Wittgensteinian and I’m not a full follower of Plantinga, but you know, they *could* defend themselves.  They could say “Ok, our approach to religious epistemology or language reduces to relativism.  And your worldview affirms relativism, so no problem!”[3]

You see, it’s at that point he’s going to say “I’m no relativist!”  And that’s when Dr. Van Til steps forward and says, “…now listen.  Plantinga, sit down!  At this point we need to get beyond what you’re doing and now talk about transcendentals.

I realize Martin will claim he’s not a relativist, but my challenge is, you can’t make sense of your objectivism.  Given your worldview you should be a relativist, and if you are or should be a relativist, then you shouldn’t complain when Plantinga or Wittgenstein turn out to be relativists![4]

You see – it’s always a matter of taking what the unbeliever gives you and choking him with his own theory.



1.  See Michael Butler’s lecture series on Epistemology available from Covenant Media; he directly interacts with Reformed Epistemology from a Van Tillian perspective.  Also, see John Frame’s appendix on Reformed Epistemology in “Doctrine of the Knowledge of God”.  Also – consider James Anderson’s use of Plantinga’s “warrant” model in “Paradox and Christian Theology”.  Anderson’s work is probably the best place for a presuppositionalist to begin when trying to understand how to appropriate Plantinga’s work into a Van Tillian framework.

2.  In his critique of Michael Martin, Bahnsen notes that the most important argument for Christianity (TAG) is never addressed.  Thus, Bahnsen goes through Martin’s material and finds arguments against Christian positions that come closest to a Van Tillian presentation, even if they’re not quite transcendental.  In this case, he’s noting that Martin has some criticisms of Plantinga and will demonstrate that Plantinga can simply presuppose Martin’s position to escape the charge of relativism.

3. One of the critiques of Plantinga’s epistemology is that it reduces to relativism and fideism.  This charge is contested by followers of Plantinga.  Dr. Bahnsen is no-doubt aware of this discussion and should not be understood here as endorsing one side of the debate or the other.  All he’s saying is that Plantinga COULD, for the sake of argument, accept being called a relativist because on Martin’s view, there’s nothing wrong with relativism – or at least, Martin accepts relativism sometimes but other times wants to deny it.

Still – it is popular to characterize Plantinga (and externalist theories of justification) in such a way that the application to Van Tillianism has a surface-level plausibility when applied in the way Dr. Bahnsen does above.

[4] In earlier lectures, Michael Martin’s implicit advocacy for a sort of “relativistic” epistemology was highlighted.  I’d like to make a plug here, that the entire “Michael Martin Under the Microscope” series is well worth the time and money.

Got Integrity?

From time to time this “Got Questions” article surfaces as a supposed “refutation” of Kinism.  As is usual for aliensts, the author shows little knowledge of Kinist ideals.  I give him cudos, however, for at least recognizing that Kinists are not Christian Identity.

That’s more than most Evangelicals are able to realize.  Even the esteemed author of Green Baggins, Lane Kiester, (who is a good enough scholar to know better) was unable to see the distinction (at least, initially).  His article  “The Main Biblical Problem With Kinism” should be more aptly titled “The Main Biblical Problem With Christian Identity” …it simply doesn’t touch Kinism.

Since the “Got Questions” article pops up from time to time, I’ll provide a brief critique:


Kinism is one branch of a diverse series of religious movements that promote racial segregation. This movement is based in Christianity and, for the most part, is populated with people who are historic, Calvinistic, orthodox and Reformed in their doctrinal views. The tendency to adhere to some true doctrines, however, does not mean that Kinists are orthodox in belief and practice. In fact, their adherence to true doctrines, and the extensive theological knowledge of some of the followers of Kinism, makes this legalistic cult all the more dangerous.

Is there a diverse series of religious movements promoting racial segregation?  Not that I know of, and I’ve spent some time trying to categorize the spectrum of Christian racialist ideals.  While people may disagree with me – I see the entire Christian racialist spectrum as divided between those with Christian Identity-type ideals, and kinism (lower case – where people accept that all races can be saved, but they should, nevertheless, stay segregated to some degree).

Also notice how in this first paragraph, it’s admitted that Kinist (upper case, denoting the specifically Reformed expression of kinism) are “ORTHODOX” in our doctrines.  So another cudos to the author for not mindlessly calling us heretics.  Apparently, we just need some correcting on our “practices”.

I love how he says we’re smart …makes a fella feel good about himself; but the last line of the paragraph blows it.  Kinism is a “legalistic cult”?

Let’s first reject the “cult” label out of hand, as needlessly pejorative.  The more serious charge is that of “legalism”.

“Legalistic” here seems to imply that Kinists teach a works/righteousness motif, where people are saved by law.  So, if this *is* what the author means by “legalistic”, then he is claiming that Kinists both hold orthodox Reformed doctrines, and that we do not … at the same time.

So we have two possibilities.

1.  Either Kinists are blatantly unintelligent and don’t realize they believe contradictory propositions:  Sola Fide as well as Salvation by Works (legalism).


2.  The author has misrepresented Kinist beliefs.

Both I and the author agree that Kinists are intelligent and well-versed in Reformed theology, so I think we both reject 1.  That leaves us with 2.

It is difficult to get a direct answer about Kinism, because the movement is relatively new and “un-formed” and also because Kinists themselves tend to be quite scholarly and esoteric. But a few things are clear. Unlike the Christian Identity Movement, or the Aryan Nation, Kinists do not believe that non-white races cannot be saved. Also, unlike Anglo-Isrealists, they do not believe that national Israel’s true descendants are the British and American people groups.

Maybe it’s difficult to get a direct answer because the author hasn’t ever tried having a prolonged “real life” conversation with an actual Kinist?  Eh?

As for the movement being “new” and “unformed”, well, the title “Kinism” is new, sure, but the positions we hold are not new – not at all.  Applying very old ideals to contemporary (and frankly: Satanic) social orders, is difficult even for trained theologians.  We Kinists are mostly laymen trying to forge this ground on our own while simultaneously coming under attack from every conceivable angle.  I think, given these circumstances, a little “unformed” rhetoric is understandable.

What makes Kinism different is the belief that God has ordained an order for mankind that goes beyond personal and individual worship.

…as all competent Reformed thinkers would.

Remember that every inch of creation belongs to God – not just those few areas of personal holiness Joel Osteen likes to talk about.  If we’re going to be consistently Christian in our thought, then we need to apply the Bible to EVERY area of life – politics and social-order included.

God has not left us to our own devices to come up with forms of government on our own.  He’s given us a blueprint of political ethics.

They believe that God has set boundaries for groups of human beings and that human beings should respect those boundaries by maintaining a tribal order. What this means is that you could have a group of white Kinists, and a group of black Kinists, but they would not worship together. They believe that man is usurping God’s authority when they “co-habit” with different races, when (as they say) God has ordained a necessary distinction. In the words of one Kinist, “This [belief] affects our ecclesiology since it would consider a multi-racial, drum-banging mega-church to be a foul stench in God’s nostrils.” Besides being unloving, this assertion is simply un-biblical, promotes a racist point of view, and is a platform for pride and legalism.

We believe God has set all kinds of boundaries onto creation that should be respected, including tribal boundaries – yes.

And while I do believe this would (of necessity) mean that different tribes would not worship together, it’s not because they’re different tribes.  Rather, it’s because the different tribes would be worshiping in different parts of the world.

When is the last time an alienist worshiped with someone from Iceland?  Been awhile?  Of course it’s not because the person is Icelandic, rather, it’s because they simply don’t have access to each other.

But what about in a sinful sort of post-Enlightenment nation like the United States where Biblical order is irrelevant?  In this environment, various tribes *are* close enough to worship.

As a Kinist, I have a few observations about ecclesiology in this sort of order:

1.  Segregation among different races in America happens naturally.  There are various racial communities that emerge organically.  (Even Dr. Bahnsen admits that this is natural).  This is as it should be because God has created us with an affinity for our own (similar to how men are naturally attracted to women).  We should not lead campaigns to “merge” all these groups together.

2.  Suppose we’re in some metropolitan situation though, where a church is composed of many races?  Well, this is fine (from a Kinist perspective) as long as the individual races are formally recognized.  For instance – it might be possible for such a church to have racially segregated small groups.  Also, as we see in the book of Acts – there is warrant (Biblical and practical) for having an elder to represent each group.

On this model, the races would all worship and fellowship together, but also have a formal respect for each other’s unique group identities.  Ideally – this would make for a harmonious church environment to last long enough for the ideal goal of one race (that, perhaps grows in membership faster than some of the others) branching out to form its own congregation.

The author says this is “unbiblical” and “unloving” and makes for a “platform of pride and legalism”.

Well, it remains to be seen how it’s unbiblical…also, I’m not sure how it’s “unloving” (at least as I’ve presented it here).  And if a doctrine is wrong because it has potential to lead humans into pridefulness and legalism – then ALL positions are wrong.  Humans can and will exploit any doctrine to prideful ends.

Also … still not sure what is meant by “legalism” …

Kinists insist on racially segregated churches and communities, and of course, families. They believe that Christians should still adhere to the Old Testament Laws that forbade Jews to intermarry with other tribes / families. They also say that God “separated” the races at the Tower of Babel, and that to “re-integrate” is an affront to the order for mankind that He has ordained. Both of these beliefs, despite having a copious amount of scholarly support in Kinist camps, can be easily dismantled with Scripture.

Scholarship anyone?  Where is the author getting these ideals about Kinism?  Are we supposed to take him at his word?  But shoddy scholarship aside, these ideals are close to what Kinists believe, but not quite accurate.

We believe Christians should adhere to the general equity of OT case laws (because we Kinists are also theonomists), and that includes the general equity of the laws governing inter-tribal association, as well as the laws governing how non-tribal members (ie: aliens) were to be treated.  But this general equity is also derived from the very creation ordinances themselves – where God established the family (and thus: tribe) as the foundational social order for mankind.

Also, while some Kinists do believe the Babel narrative helps as an explanatory model for the origin of racial diversity – it’s not foundational to Kinism.  *That* racial categories exist and should be maintained is what is important, not *how* they came to be.  It remains for some enterprising young Christian to come up with a scientifically-precise (and Biblically harmonious) anthropological model that adequately explains the diversity we see in the world today.

As for “dismantling” our ideals with Scripture … that part remains to be seen.

First, to determine whether Old Testament law regarding segregation pplies to the New Testament church, we should ask what the reason for segregation was in the Old Testament. God’s reason for this law was very clearly to avoid the introduction / assimilation of pagan idolatry into Jewish society

I’m not going to cite this entire paragraph, because it’s a big straw man.

Yes – we Kinists realize that God often separated His people from others as a way of “sanctifying” them and keeping them holy.  Yes, maybe some younger Kinists have inappropriately appealed to this sort of thing as a way to support racial segregation in general.

Nevertheless, God has established tribalism as the normative order for man.  This is not disproved by noting that He also promoted segregation for other reasons as well.  Just because the sanctification of a particular people-group has passed away, doesn’t mean that tribalist social order has also passed away.

The author needs to note that Kinists see all redeemed people as members of the Covenant of Grace, which makes them part of a new “Kingdom”.  The Kingdom is international in scope – meaning: it includes various races (ie: Biblical nations).   So God is the King of an international kingdom of various races.  He is not the King of a single, raceless blob of a propositional, post-Enlightenment nation.

Kinists believe in an “international” kingdom.

Alienists believe in an unbiblical “national” kingdom. 

As for God’s action at the tower of Babel being taken as His ordaining racial segregation, the story of the Tower of Babel (Genesis 11:1-9) is about God confusing the languages of men so that they would not be able to work together to accomplish evil against Him. It is not about racial segregation. This is proved by Galatians 2:11-14, where Paul opposes Peter for separating himself from the Gentile believers in their church.

As noted above, Kinists don’t usually believe the races emerged *at* Babel, yet, even if some do believe it, that doesn’t really matter.  How races emerged and *that* they emerged are two different issues.

Also – I’m not sure how the author’s position on Babel is “proven” by the Galatians narrative.  He’s not even doing damage to his own straw man!

Look at Galatians 2 more carefully.  Peter’s offense wasn’t “racism”, it was more of a jewish snobbery and being uncomfortable with the idea that non-jews were part of the Covenant.

Another example would be Paul’s ordaining as a Christian pastor the Greek-born Timothy (2 Timothy 1:6). He even calls Timothy “my true child in the faith” (1 Timothy 1:2). Timothy’s mother was Jewish and a woman of the faith. This implies that Timothy lived and ministered in a community that was both Jewish and Gentile. Did his own mother not attend his church?  And, if God wished the races to be segregated, which church would he, being half Jew and half Gentile, be able to pastor?

See my comments on Timothy here.

And what about Paul himself, who was a self-proclaimed “preacher, apostle… and teacher of the Gentiles” (1 Timothy 2:7)? If Kinism were true, would not God have sent a Gentile to preach to and teach the Gentiles?

If we hold to the model of inter-racial worship outlined above, then there’s no reason why God wouldn’t send preachers out to preach to other tribes.

The author maliciously tries to make Kinists defend a view of strict separation when really we Kinists just want to see Godly tribal boundaries formally recognized and maintained.  Let non-whites come to my church and preach if they’re authoritative and learned and have something worthwhile to share.  Nothing wrong with that.  And there’s nothing wrong with Paul preaching and teaching to the Gentiles.

The problem comes when modernist hipsters try to force us all to accept an ungodly social order that eradicates tribal boundaries all together and when they try to merge everyone into a giant propositional mud-bowl.

In short, Kinism is simply another attempt to be justified by Law, rather than by the gospel of God’s grace. “I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile”

Wow … again with the “Justified by Law” stuff …

Can anyone point to me where, in this entire article, the author demonstrated that Kinists teach some sort of justification by works or justification by keeping of the law?  Where?

Where do Kinists reject justification by faith alone???

This author needs to publicly repent for so carelessly (and offensively) misrepresenting Kinists.

I wont hold my breath while waiting…

Schwertley on the Kinist “Heresy”…


It’s a shame that unchecked zealots like Brian Schwertley exist in the Reformed community – and yet, they’re amongst us.[1]  Back in 2010, Schwertley preached a series of FOUR sermons on the so-called “Kinist” heresy.  Chocked full of arbitrary and ambiguous statements and seasoned with unsubstantiated slurs, Schwertley’s material represents the worst of Evangelical scholarship.  That Christians continue to take the man seriously is a sad testimony to the state of contemporary Evangelicalism.  (See my brief statements in response to the Choosing Hats guys, who try citing Schwertley’s material.)

I’d like to cut to the heart of Schwertley’s argument that Kinism is “heresy”.  We’ll examine it and see if it has merit.

At about 36 min. into sermon 1, Schwertley launches into an irrelevant tantrum about culture.  During this meandering side-trail, he gives what amounts to an argument for why Kinism is “heresy”.  Before stating it though, it’s important to note that Schwertley assumes a particular definition of “heresy” without argument.  We can define it as “…any teaching that denies in some form or other, the truth of the Gospel.”


Granting this view of “heresy”, we can examine his argument.  It proceeds as follows:

1.  Kinists teach that the normative social order for man is tribal and ethnic.

2.  This is a model of “societal sanctification” without appeal to the Gospel.

3.  Sanctification is by appeal to the Gospel alone.

Conclusion:  Kinists are heretics.


This looks formally valid.

At least, the conclusion seems to follow necessarily from the premises, as well as from the definition of “heretic” we’ve granted.  Let’s move on then and consider the soundness of the argument – by that I mean to examine the premises to see if they’re adequate and true.

Premise 1 is fair enough and likely comes from one of the many “statements of Kinist beliefs” on the net.

Premise 2, however, is where we see the problem.

What is “societal sanctification without appeal to the Gospel”?

Presumably, Schwertley is suggesting Kinist teach that societies ordered along tribal and ethnic lines are more “sanctified” than societies which are not.  On this view – a society which becomes more and more “sanctified” would, eventually, attain perfection and thereby gain access to the Kingdom for successfully keeping God’s commandments.  This sanctification is supposedly accomplished by adherence to a tribal norm rather than any mechanism tied to the Gospel.

In response:

1.  I don’t know of any Kinist who teaches this sort of “societal sanctification”.   Kinists routinely criticize tribal-groups, African tribes or jewish elite ethnocentrism, for instance.  There’s no routine teaching in the Kinist community (that I’m aware of) that such societies are more “sanctified” in holiness than other non-tribal societies.

So – Schwertley’s premise 2 fails at this point since it presents a straw-man caricature of Kinist teaching, rather than a fair and accurate statement.  His argument may succeed against anyone who holds to some non-Christian ideal of “societal sanctification”, but it doesn’t touch Kinism.

2.  To be technically precise, as Reformed thinkers, we might agree that if someone (or by extension: an entire group) is able to keep God’s commandments perfectly, then they would have kept the Covenant of Works and earned their salvation.  This is, afterall, the only way to gain eternal life.  We do believe in salvation by works.  Of course, because of our fallen nature, no one, let alone an entire society, is able to attain this level of perfection, and so we rely on Christ, who was perfect, to impute to us His righteousness and declare us holy on the day of judgment.

For Schwertley’s argument to be relevant to Kinism, he’d have to show that Kinists believe entire societies might be sanctified by their own works somehow…and as pointed out in 1, this is just not something Kinists believe.

3. We must consider if the idea of “societal sanctification” even makes sense from a Reformed perspective.

Traditionally, Reformed systematicians have taught that union with Christ simultaneously brings about both justification and sanctification.[2]  But while our justification is immediate, our sanctification takes a lifetime.  If entire generations of a particular social group are regenerated at the same time, and they all experience an even rate of sanctification, then it may be possible to determine the total “sanctification” of a given population.  Accordingly – if we apply our rubric to the social order in the abstract, it may become possible to measure different societies against each other to see which, if any, are more “sanctified” than the others.

4. So it DOES seem like “societal sanctification” makes sense within a Reformed framework; it doesn’t look possible without tying sanctification to the doctrine of Union-With-Christ, though.[3] Attempts to get sanctification without the doctrine of Union-With-Christ, place us in the “works-righteousness” camp, which denies the Gospel…as Schwertley’s argument suggests; and as we’ve seen in both 1 and 2 – this simply isn’t what Kinists, as Reformed folk, teach.

5.  The word “sanctification” is the wrong word to use anyway.  When Kinists talk about social order, they’re not usually speaking about it in a soteriological sense.  Rather – they’re specifically referring to its adherence to the “normative” pattern of Godly governance.

Schwertley may not understand Christian ethics as clearly as he should at this point.

If we take John Frame’s meta-ethical framework for granted, we would note that there are three “perspectives” to Christian ethics – all three of which must be taken into account when determining if any action, act, or attitude, is “good” in a moral sense.[4]  We have the “normative” perspective – this deals with the law in the abstract.  We have the “situational” perspective – this deals with the particular situation in which we find ourselves, including possible outcomes of our actions, and how they govern our application of the normative law.  And finally we have the “existential” perspective, or an examination of our internal motives for performing any given act.

When Kinists speak about the “normative” order for any society, they’re speaking about what God has ordained in the Framean sense of “normative”.  In this way – all sorts of societies can live up to the “norm” of tribalism without being “sanctified” – without the doctrine of Union, they would not have proper motives (existential) nor enact their tribalism in God-honoring ways (situational).   Kinists can still speak of these non-Christian and unsanctified societies as “living up to the normative, Godly standard”.

Consider this analogy:  we acknowledge that some atheists keep parts of God’s law.  They don’t steal or murder.  But pointing out that an atheist doesn’t murder is NOT to make any statement whatsoever about his “sanctification”.  It’s merely to say that he’s living up to certain normative standards.  Imagine someone telling us that we teach “sanctification by works” because we teach that atheists should not murder…that’s ridiculous.

In the same way, we’re not teaching “sanctification by works” because we teach that societies ought to be arranged tribally.  Schwertley is confusing sanctification and normative adherence to God’s standards….he needs to understand that commenting on the latter has little to do with the former.


We might quibble with premise 3 in the same way.

Schwertley might be suggesting that “union with Christ” comes only through the sharing of the Gospel, and hence, by extension, one can only be sanctified by first believing in the Gospel … and yet, given how ambiguous his presentation is, he may mean something else entirely.

If we give him the benefit of the doubt here, though, then we can accept premise 3 as is.

Deconstructing premise 2 was enough to defeat the entire argument anyway.


[1] Schwertley is a pastor in the “Westminster Presbyterian Church in the United States”, an organization whose legitimacy is in some doubt.   Also, the man himself is known for his over-zealous and inaccurate critiques of opponents.  See this article as an example case.

[2] I’ve linked to a “Christ the Center” episode, featuring Dr. Lane Tipton; Tipton and others at Westminster Theological Seminary have numerous great lectures about Justification / Sanctification / and Union with Christ available for free on the net.  They offer general overviews of the standing of the doctrine in the Reformed theological community…which I’ve tried to faithfully re-produce in my brief comments above.

[3] Roman Catholics or Lutherans might object to my wording here, claiming that their ideals of Union and Sanctification might work as well as the Reformed model, but as this is a debate internal to the Reformed camp, I’m delicately laying aside such issues; I hope my RC and Lutheran friends will forgive me.

[4] As a theonomist and a presuppositionalist (at least – I suspect Schwertley is a presupper), I expect him to consider Frame an authority on ethics…as did Dr. Bahnsen.  Dr. Frame’s “Triperspectival” view of ethics is an outworking of his devotion to Cornelius Van Til’s apologetic methodology, and tries to present ethics as a “reflection” of God’s trinitarian nature.  See Frame’s “Doctrine of the Christian Life” for a thorough exposition of this view.  Also, see Frame’s lectures on ethics, available free from i-Tunes.