Thursday, November 11, 2010

Kinism is not pro-Theonomy, but anti-Theonomy

An example of Kinism's anti-theonomy is its idolatry.  While many religions advocate  stone worship, kinism advocates skin worship.   In kinism, race--as reflected in skin color--is the ultimate measure of things.
As the debate over the kinist heresy spills into the internet, it is likely that hardened anti-theonomists will seize upon the fact that kinists claim to be theonomists and use it to associate theonomy with kinism.

The guilt-by-association tactic is the kind of fallacious thinking we’ve already refuted regarding the supposed linkage proposed by anti-theonomists between theonomy and the Federal Vision heresy.  

We must note a few things.  First, when the kinist controversy erupted on Facebook, it was theonomists who led the way in fighting it.  

It was theonomists among others who were engaging and refuting the kinists in Facebook debates, and it was theonomists who put together the Christianity against Kinism Facebook page, which frustrated some kinists so much that they put together a mock Facebook page of their own to attack their theonomic critics.  (Getting under their "skin" is very easy.  So much for the power of race.)

Theonomist who have battled kinism on Facebook have included theonomy writer and missionary Bojidar Marinov (of, theonomy scholar Daniel F. N. Ritchie (author of A Conquered Kingdom), translator of historical theonomy works Adam Brink (translator of Disputations on the Judicial Laws of Moses), and myself.  And this is not to mention others who may not have a theonomy website or book to their name, but are nevertheless convicted theonomists who strongly oppose kinism.

Moreover, it has been theonomy preachers who have led the way in battling kinism in the pulpits.  Once informed of the kinist heresy, Rev. Brian Schwertley immediately prepared a sermon series refuting it.  And not too long afterwards, Rev. Joe Morecraft delivered a sermon where he unapologetically said that God hates kinism.  

In addition, around that time Rev. Brian Abshire released a piece that, while not using the word “kinism,” was clearly a rejection and refutation of kinist theology. 

Finally, among the most anti-kinist sites on the web are the theonomic Confessional Puritan Board and Theonomy Resources.

But let's deal with Scripture.  Kinism is not pro-theonomy, but anti-theonomy.  For kinism is legalistic, that is, it adds to God’s word.  Examples include kinism’s forbidding of "interracial marriage" and its view that races should be geographically segregated.

“Interracial” Marriage

Kinism forbids "interracial" marriage.  It even advocates state persecution of those "guilty" of this.  In the kinist society, “sensible anti-miscegenation laws would be enacted.”  Summary Statement of Purpose,” The Kinist Institute for European-American Studies.  Retrieved October 30, 2010.

But God’s law forbids no such things.  While Christians must marry other Christians (1 Corinthians 7:39), there is no restriction based on “race” or skin color.  (And even though Christians must marry other Christians, the state has no authority to punish Christians for marrying non-Christians.)

And God even permitted the Israelites to engage in “interracial” marriage:
“When you go out to war against your enemies, and the LORD your God gives them into your hand and you take them captive, and you see among the captives a beautiful woman, and you desire to take her to be your wife, and you bring her home to your house, she shall shave her head and pare her nails. And she shall take off the clothes in which she was captured and shall remain in your house and lament her father and her mother a full month. After that you may go in to her and be her husband, and she shall be your wife.” (Deuteronomy 21:10-13)
Apparently, God is no kinist.


Kinism holds that those of different "races"--which are identifiable by skin color--should be geographically segregated.  In the kinist society those of different skin colors would not be permitted to immigrate.  As says,
“ advocates an end [to] all non-white immigration.” “Summary Statement of Purpose,” The Kinist Institute for European-American Studies.  Retrieved October 21, 2010.
But God’s law takes for granted that nations should allow for immigration of those of all skin colors:
 “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.” (Leviticus 19:34)
There is no restriction here to skin color; this law allows for immigration of strangers in general, not just strangers with the same skin color as the Israelites.  Of course, one must wonder even how monolithic the skin color of Israelites was.  Regarding the "mixed crowd" delivered from Egypt, J. Daniel Hays writes, 
“Included with the biological descendants of Jacob were other Semitic peoples (probably Arameans, Amorites, Canaanites, etc.) as well as Black Africans from Cush.”
J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A Biblical Theology of Race (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 2003), 68.
Moreover, consider the following:
“You shall do no injustice in court. You shall not be partial to the poor or defer to the great, but in righteousness shall you judge your neighbor.” (Leviticus 19:15)
"And I charged your judges at that time, 'Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him. You shall not be partial in judgment. You shall hear the small and the great alike. You shall not be intimidated by anyone, for the judgment is God’s." (Deuteronomy 1:16, 17a)
A general principle we can draw from this is that we are not to discriminate by favoring one class of people over the other.  This applies to matters of skin color and immigration.   God’s law is colorblind--men are judged by ethics, not by skin.  As Joe Morecraft notes:
“God who is Lord of heaven and earth has ordained that the human race should live in accordance with His law.  Legally, morally and spiritually the races of the world have been given a common law—God’s law in the Bible—by which they are to live, and obedience to which binds them together and determines all their relationships.”

Joseph Morecraft III, “A Christian Approach to Racism,” The Council of Chalcedon, May-June 2007, no. 3: 7.
Thus “all people are equal before the Law of God that judges all people justly and ‘blindly,’ i.e., without regard for race, sex or status.”  Ibid., 4.

This is not to say that there is not to be controlled immigration; those blatantly hateful of God’s people should not be allowed into the country (cf. Deuteronomy 25:17-19).  But this is a spiritual restriction, not a physical one based on skin color.

Remember the parable of the Good Samaritan:  nationality or "race" is not to be used as an excuse to segregate from those of other skin colors.

Kinism is not only legalistic, it is antinomian, that is, it takes away from God’s word.   An example is the idolatry kinism advocates.


Kinism is premised on race-worship.  In kinism, it is only in an idolatrous unity by race can society avoid collapsing. As the Kinist Institute Manifesto reads:
"[W]e stand or fall with no other but the White peoples of Europe, and their standards of beauty, their cultural achievements, the achievements of their civilization, established through the confluence of pagan and Christian traditions, are both irreplaceable and vital to our survival as a people."
 “The Kinist Institute Manifesto,” The Kinist Institute for European-American Studies.  Retrieved October 21, 2010.
Thus in kinism race is the ultimate measure of things.  In kinism, race is what holds society together, not Christ working through Christians regardless of skin color.  In kinism, race is god.

But God’s law forbids idolatry in any form:  
“You shall have no other gods before me.” (Exodus 20:3)
Whether the idol is stone or skin or whatever, idolatry is a violation of the First Commandment.  Thus kinism makes void the First Commandment in its skin worship.

In light of all of this, it is clear that kinism is not theonomic.  We can say that it is actually the anti-theonomist who  has more in common with kinists than theonomists do.  For when one rejects theonomy--whether as an overtly anti-theonomist, or as a kinist who claims to hold to theonomy but really rejects it--one inescapably embraces legalism and antinomianism.

Thus anti-theonomists and kinists both are legalists/antinomians.  If anti-theonomists are truly concerned with opposing kinism, they first need to repent and become theonomists.  Only then can they oppose skin-worshipping kinism on the basis of God's law.


No comments: