Matt Slick is an internet apologist whose specialty is intellectually bullying Roman Catholic and Atheist teenagers while broadcasting live on his internet radio show. He’s also the founder and president of “Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry” or “CARM”.
I’ve had a long affiliation with this ministry. I used to hang out in their chatrooms, spreading the Kinist message via the internet. There, I’d have interactions with Matt Slick, who was (more often than not) disposed to boot me from the room without a second thought.
Additionally, Matt Slick is also hostile towards theonomy. I called his live show once and had a “debate” about it which lasted a little over ten minutes. (I have the audio in my archive somewhere, and I’m sure it’s still available on his website, but this was over 3 years ago at least; I couldn’t hope to remember the date. So, it’d be virtually impossible to find). His argument against theonomy consisted in asking me very provocative questions: “Wait, wait, so…you’re for executing adulterers????” As if answering “yes” to that question was all the refutation I required.
I pointed out over and over, that God’s law was not to be mocked in that way. We’re not to presume that God’s law is crazy or outrageous simply because it’s politically incorrect. That is to place political correctness in judgment over His law. Blasphemy! But Matt Slick didn’t think too deeply about it.
Later, I moved my efforts from CARM (where I was frequently censored) to another online venue where, quite unexpectedly, it turned out Matt Slick also spent some time. Although, at this new venue, he wasn’t in control of the infrastructure and was participating as an equal (without the ability to administratively silence his debate opponents). Of course, he didn’t seem to thrive in that sort of environment, and quickly arranged affairs such that you had to enter his “room” to talk with him, and there, he could boot, ban, or bounce as he saw fit.
Nevertheless, I continued my dialogues off and on with him there. One day, we finally had a debate about Kinism – which he seemed to understand solely as a euphemism for “denial of race mixing”. The debate consisted of me arguing that our position is derived from good and necessary consequence from many Scriptural passages, and him replying that unless I mention a specific Bible verse that outlaws race-mixing in the next 30 seconds, I was to be censored and thrown from the room. He would repeat this over and over and over, in a mindless and zealous fit. “BIBLE VERSE PLEASE! BIBLE VERSE PLEASE!”
Well, Mr. Slick, … it’s right next to the verse that says only explicit statements are authoritative! Or, it’s right next to the verse that sanctions white genocide!
I was booted, and haven’t spoken to him on the topic since. However, shortly after these events, a hastily-written article showed up on the CARM website. “What is Kinism? Is it biblical?”
A refutation of Slick’s criticisms
The article begins by presenting a (more or less) fair outline of Kinism, with citations from Kinism.net. Nevertheless, there are a few issues in his caricature that bear highlighting.
“Kinism is a relatively new theological movement…”
“Kinism” as a self-conscious body of thought, is new, sure, but the doctrines and attitudes we promote are very old, even as old as the first humans (we would argue). Tribal solidarity not only defined much of the Old Testament narratives, but has been a stalwart and strongly-held ethical norm for most every culture and people-group in the world for all of history. (Similar to the institution of marriage).
Sadly, however, this time-honored and Godly social order was seldom self-consciously defended. Only in our recent era has a self-conscious defense been called for, and Kinists are rising to meet the challenge.
“It maintains that people are to be involved with, worship with, and marry people of their same kind; that is, their same race.”
This is a true statement about Kinism, certainly, but Slick is missing the point about *why* we teach this. He’s solely focused on *that* we teach it. His statement above makes it seem like he’s envisioning all this taking place within a multicultural, modern, American society; as if we would be segregated off in a back room, putting bars over the door, and keeping the colored folk out.
What we Kinists really have in mind, is national segregation – meaning: entire nations, based on racial kin-groups, would be separate from each other. And once these nations are established, it naturally follows that we’d only be worshiping with and marrying our own race. That’s all who would be available. And towards this end, we practice segregation as much as we possibly can in this depraved society.
I should also mention that, as for “worshiping” based on racial groups – we Kinists do prefer segregated worship (because we prefer segregated nations), but the point must be made that, should a Christian black couple, visiting from a neighboring black nation, happen to pass through the community on Sunday, and wish to worship at a white church, they’d be more than welcome, certainly. But, should they wish to stay and live in the area (thereby creating an unnatural situation), they’d either have to be segregated during the service (sit in a balcony, for instance), or start their own church.
As a Kinist, then, I strongly support the church segregation that is still popular in the South (although, thanks to the efforts of rabid egalitarian and politically-correct pastors, like Matt Slick, all-white churches are slowly becoming a thing of the past).
“Furthermore, the races were separated at the Tower of Babel…”
While some Kinists may believe this (and some may not), it’s not a tenet of Kinism. We’ll see, in a moment, that Slick tries to critique this premise. But it’s simply irrelevant to Kinism. We don’t know for sure how God brought about human races on Earth; it’s certainly not a refutation of Kinism to argue that races didn’t arise at Babel. There are many different theories (and models) based on Scripture, that speculate about how races came about, but refuting any one of them, doesn’t damage Kinism. *That* racial categories came about, and are important for regulating social behavior, is what’s important.
As stated above, they are against interracial marriage and advocate intermingling only with their “own kind”
Besides the irony of putting “own kind” in scare quotes, I’d like to note that this sentence is only mostly true. In a perfect Kinist world, we would have various racial nations – preferably, Christian racial nations. And as a Kinist, I have absolutely no problem dealing with, and being allies with, a neighboring black nation. We could trade with each other, sight-see in each others countries, and have church councils together (and other such things), as long as the natural, Godly borders between our nations remain very clear and firmly established. But if “intermingling” means, letting some buck negro play out his sick sexual fantasies with young Christian white girls … then I absolutely do *not* support “intermingling”.
After this brief introduction, Matt Slick offers six points of “analysis” that seem very hasty and off-the-cuff. Two of his points are completely irrelevant, and the remaining four are nothing more than the tired, passe’, and ill-thought-out criticisms that Kinists have already answered ad nauseam.
1. Genesis 1:25 is about kinds of biological life such as cattle, insects, birds, etc. There is nothing here about “kinds” meaning different races within humans.
First, this is irrelevant. Kinism doesn’t stand or fall on someone’s interpretation of Genesis 1 or “kind after kind”. Racial categories exist today and should be maintained, whatever “kind after kind” means.
But, Kinists believe there is good reason to suspect that “Kind after Kind” does speak to racial diversity. Matt Slick believes he can post a simplistic statement like this and have it count as a refutation, because he doesn’t believe he’ll be called to account for himself. It’s sloppy. What is “biological life” anyway? How is it different from regular life? Can Matt Slick provide some defense for his statement about the meaning of this text? Dr. Bahnsen, in his lecture series on hermeneutics constantly reminds his students that they had to have a reason for thinking a verse meant what they thought it meant. What’s Slick’s reasoning?
If “Kind after Kind” means bluejays with bluejays and redbirds with redbirds, then, prima-facie, it also means white folk with white folk, and blacks with blacks. What kind of egalitarian, hermeneutical magic will Slick use to defend his bold statement in point 1? Well, he doesn’t suspect he’ll ever have to defend it.
2. The Tower of Babel dispersion was because the people were not spreading through the earth and they were elevating themselves. So, God dispersed them. There is nothing in the text that shows segregation based on skin color.
As mentioned above, this is irrelevant to Kinism.
However God created the races, the fact is, He created them … it’s up to some young, enterprising, Christian anthropologist, to come up with a plausible model to explain the process.
One thing that needs mentioning about 2, however, is the last sentence: “there is nothing in the text that shows segregation based on skin color”.
Even among Kinists who do believe the Babel narrative had a role in the origin of racial diversity, it’s not believed the groups were divided because of “color of skin”. This is a very naive (and ignorant) characterization of racialist positions, made popular by pop-rhetoric. “Race” even if colloquially designated by skin color (ie: “hey, there’s a white guy” or “hey, there’s a black guy”) is far more than mere “skin color”. It’s very disingenuous to imply that differences between racial groups are merely “skin deep”. There are thousands of years of differences in culture, physical development, and language, being glossed over by politically-correct hipsters, who look down their noses at anyone who isn’t a rabid egalitarian.
And further, the groups separated at Babel, were very likely separated along family lines, no matter what Slick says.
This is because God is not cruel in His punishments. He wouldn’t destroy the family institution. Further – we have some empirical evidence of this; if we study the history of human languages, we can see that different geographical regions shared different language groups, strongly suggesting that the same tribes / races, spoke the same family of language, and migrated to the same parts of the world.
3. All people are descendants of Adam, and ultimately Noah, so that all people share a common ancestor. This means there is one race, not many.
This is a non-sequitur.
“All people descend from Adam, therefore racial categories don’t exist”. False.
Most Kinists believe all men descend from Adam, and yet we still believe racial categories exist. Slick is presupposing some very odd definition of the word “race”. (See my refutation of this “one race – the human race” mantra, in the Kinism FAQ).
4. Moses married a Cushite woman…
Ugh… really? This again? See my FAQ on Moses’ wife.
5. Joseph married an Egyptian woman…
Ugh…really? This objection again? What I said about “irrelevancy” in my FAQ about Moses’ wife, goes equally well for Joseph: EVEN IF it’s proven that Joseph married outside his race (and there’s no proof he did), does that warrant wholesale race-mixing today? Remember, Joseph wasn’t always the most upstanding guy – we don’t want to copy every single thing he ever did (like messing around with divining cups and sorcery, for instance). Just because Joseph did something, doesn’t automatically mean we’re justified in accepting it as a morally normative act.
There are many supposed cases of “race mixing” in Scripture – none of which, after study, turn out to be either 1. ethically relevant, or 2. legitimate cases of race mixing.
Because these sorts of arguments frequently crop up, I’m working on a project called: “Shotgun’s Encyclopedia of Biblical Mixing”, where I find, list, and provide commentary (and links to relevant material) on every single supposed case.
So please, non-Kinists … offer as many of these “mixing” illustrations from Scripture as you think you can find. That keeps me from having to work so hard at digging them all out of the text.
As for Joseph, a case can be made that his wife actually was a Hebrew, which would solve certain internal difficulties in the narrative.
6. Kinism bases segregation not upon belief, Christian marrying Christian, but on skin color which cannot be found in Scripture.
This argument is purely asinine.
Ok Matt Slick, you only want Christians to marry Christians? So mothers and sons can marry, (as long as they’re Christian?) Two men can marry, as long as they’re Christian? A 35 year old can marry a 12 year old, and you’re ok with that, long as they’re Christian?
No, no … Slick wouldn’t suggest any of that. When it comes to those social boundaries (which aren’t taboo quite yet in a PC society – although they will be soon) … he’s perfectly fine with admitting they’re legitimate characteristics to consider when thinking of the moral status of a wedding.
It’s only when “skin color” is introduced as a legitimate ethical consideration, that he has a problem…
What Slick really has a problem with is the Godly idea of a racial nation – where families and extended families are the God-ordained social order for society. He’s so addled by post-Enlightenment political ideology that he doesn’t even realize he’s reading “propositional nationalism” and French Revolutionary ideals into Scripture, which cause him to overlook the inherent support of tribalism all throughout the Bible.
When two people of different races marry, the state is sanctioning the breakdown of Godly order – and Matt Slick is perfectly fine with that.
We Kinists think it’s a tragedy.