“Kinism” is formally associated with Calvinist dogma, growing out of the Presbyterian cultural milieu of the early 90’s…and as such, its adherents have retained many of the proclivities so common among modern Presbyterians.
I have an off-the-cuff suspicion about Presbyterian church history that bears on this subject.
I believe (but can’t prove with relevant citations) that when the North won the war against the South, Northern religiosity was thought to have also defeated Southern religiosity. The zealous, uncompromising love for abstract doctrines, so common among the puritans and their secular ancestors, slowly dominated the agrarian, medieval-minded southerners. I say “dominated.” Maybe “infected” is a better word?
Kinists have retained some of these infected traits, while also wanting to hold an old European worldview. But it seems difficult to get Calvinist dogma to mesh with antique-conservatism.
So that leads us to the topic of today’s blog post: I routinely hear some Kinists express disagreement with “Cambria Will Not Yield”. All Kinists I know are fans of the blog of course, so I wont mention names here. It’s not my intent to call anyone out. But it is interesting that these objections keep cropping up.
There was an offending citation in Cambria’s most recent post that set off the discussion anew.
When it was objected that certain of Cambria’s statements in the post didn’t accord with Calvinist dogmatics and that the man might be “off his rocker”, I responded by noting that it’s hard to reconcile a characteristically Reformed penchant for doctrine with Mr. Cambria’s worldview.
“We can easily reconcile the two!” it was countered…. “we simply cut out all his false material!”
“That’s not reconciliation”, I replied… “that’s mere picking and choosing.”
I recount this (paraphrase) of the conversation to show what I mean about the tension among Kinists. On the one hand, we want to hold on to the zeal for theological systems that our puritan forebears taught us; but, on the other hand, we want to hold to the conservative worldview that’s hostile to systematizers and rationalistic ideologies.
I think the two are compatible, as long as we’re careful about it.
Look at the South as a paradigm case. Before the War, there were Christians of all denominations (even Presbyterians) who, nevertheless, still held to the antique-conservative worldview. They meshed naturally and organically. Even Calvinists believe God is incomprehensible, after all. If only they stay consistent with that view, they’d be laid-back Southern-fried theologians instead of zealous ideologues who try fitting God into their tiny heads.
The key is loving a Person instead of loving a system of doctrines, but that’s very difficult to do in our modern age.