From time to time this “Got Questions” article surfaces as a “refutation” of Kinism. As usual for social Marxists, the author shows little knowledge of Kinist ideals. At least he recognizes that we’re not Christian Identity advocates. That’s more than most Evangelicals are able to realize.
Even the author of Green Baggins, Lane Kiester, (who ought to know better) was unable to see the distinction. His article “The Main Biblical Problem With Kinism” would 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…