Wednesday, December 15, 2010

John Weaver is not a Kinist

Pastor John Weaver
Kinists are at it again.  First they claim R. J. Rushdoony as a kinist, and now they are attempting the same with John Weaver.

This tactic is not surprising.  Without a biblical basis for their heretical beliefs, kinists will attempt to gain credibility in some other way—in this case, to convince others that important and respectable theologians such as Rushdoony and Weaver are kinists.

But it is nothing short of slander to call these men kinists.  Kinism is a heresy, and one of the most perverted theological systems ever developed in the name of Christianity.

Calling someone a kinist is like calling someone a murderer, or a rapist.  Perhaps worse.  After all, while the aforementioned sins violate the 2nd table of the law, kinism not only does this (e.g., refusing to love one’s neighbor of another skin color as oneself), but, in being premised on skin worship, violates the 1st table of the law as well.

The notion that Rushdoony was a kinist has already been refuted.

As for Weaver, the pretext kinists employ to claim him is by pointing to the fact that Weaver opposes interracial marriage.  We do disagree with Weaver’s position on this matter, and we by no means justify it—such a position must be opposed.  However, Weaver’s view on interracial marriage in and of itself does not make him a kinist.

To be a kinist, one must go way beyond this and hold that God commands races to be segregated.  As such kinists must oppose not only interracial marriage, but interracial nations, interracial friendships, and even interracial Christian fellowship.

If one does not hold to this foundational tenet of total racial segregation, one is not a kinist.  To be a kinist one must oppose racial “mixing” of any kind.

Thus it is an incredible stretch to jump from Weaver’s opposition of interracial marriage to calling Weaver a kinist. Simply having a doctrine in common with a theological system does not necessarily mean one holds to that theological system.

Advocates of a certain form of the carnal Christian heresy are also dispensational; however, not all dispensationalists hold to the carnal Christian heresy. 

Campbellites, who hold to the heresy of baptismal remission (which says that water baptism saves), reject infant baptism; however, not all of those who reject infant baptism believe in baptismal remission.

The heretical Roman Catholic churches employ crosses in their worship services; however, not all churches that employ crosses in their worship services are Roman Catholic.

Similarly, kinists oppose interracial marriage; however, not all who oppose interracial marriage are kinists. 
While opposing interracial marriage is sinful, we don’t believe that such a view is as dangerous as kinism.  (Just as we believe that dispensationalism, rejecting infant baptism, and worshipping with crosses are all sinful, but we don’t believe they are as dangerous as the carnal Christian heresy, baptismal remission, and Roman Catholicism.) 

Certainly a non-kinist who opposes interracial marriage—but goes no farther regarding race—must be viewed differently than a kinist who uses this view to lend support to his much more dangerous doctrines, which include race worship, denying the Gospel’s power to transform interracial societies, opposing interracial Christian fellowship, racial prejudice, opposing the immigration of peaceful people of other races (including Christians of other races fleeing persecution), and the rejection of the requirement to love one’s neighbor with a different skin color as oneself. 

Thus while we strongly oppose Weaver’s view on interracial marriage, we don’t believe this is reason enough to reject his ministry as a whole.  (On the other hand, the aforementioned heretical teachings of kinism are more than enough to reject the ministries of kinist preachers and to condemn them as false teachers.)

Weaver’s ministry is strong on the Lordship of Christ over all areas of life, which is why this site promotes his works.  Regarding his position on interracial marriage, we must keep in mind that no pastor lacks blind spots.  After all, even the most godly men are finite, fallen sinners.  One is blind to the sinfulness of his own heart if he thinks any pastor is free from error.

While kinism does not welcome those of other races,
John Weaver does, as he supports interracial friendship
and interracial Christian fellowship.
We have personally corresponded with Weaver, and he has told us that he does not oppose interracial Christian fellowship.  Not only this, but despite his disagreement with interracial marriage, he has told us that he has preached in many churches with interracial couples.

Moreover, he said Christians in interracial marriages are welcome to join his church.  Clearly then Weaver, unlike kinists, considers church unity much more important than race.

In addition, consider the following from one of his sermons (there are technical difficulties with some of the audio, so we use ellipsises in place of words that can’t be discerned—although the gist of what Weaver says is clear):
There were several black families that were raised on our farms.  Some of those black children I grew up with.  One of them particularly who’s still a good friend of mine—one of them, my daddy called him “son” half the time.  He got all of my clothes, he got all of my toys, he’s 4-5 months younger than I am.  Do you know, even after he was grown, he and his family still lived on our farms.  Now I want you to think about something.  And I thought about this the other day.  And by the way, this black boy helped save my life.  … pulled a knife on me, and before I could ever move, this black boy … took the knife away from him, knocked him up against the wall and said, “if you ever pull a knife on … I’ll kill you.” 

John Weaver,, Where We Are and How We Got There: Part 7 (August 16, 1998), at the 6:48 minute mark.  (This can be heard at the player at the end of this post.) 
John Weaver was raised in an interracial environment.  He grew up around families of another skin color which lived on his family farms.

Weaver even grew up with someone with black skin who has been like a brother to him. Weaver’s father affectionately called him “son.”  He and Weaver shared the same clothes and toys.

Weaver’s life was even saved by him—and he is “still a good friend” to Weaver.  Kinists don’t believe in being friends with those of other skin colors—let alone “good” friends.

According to kinist doctrine, Weaver is supposedly a “race mixer,” a “cultural Marxist” who wants to overturn God’s dispersal of man at Babel and create a one world government.  A kinst society would persecute such men.

(Some kinists might argue that in light of Weaver’s view of interracial marriage, he is at least a “partial kinist.”  But this doesn’t help their case, when we consider the several more aforementioned anti-kinist doctrines that Weaver affirms [e.g., interracial friendship, interracial Christian fellowship, acceptance of interracial couples in his church].  Thus if one kinist doctrine makes Weaver a partial kinist, how much more does several anti-kinist doctrines make Weaver a partial anti-kinist?  Hence even if we accept the “partial kinist” argument, on net balance Weaver is still more anti-kinist than pro-kinist.) 

And so in conclusion, while Weaver opposes interracial marriage, he does not use this view to lend support to the very dangerous teachings held by kinists.

Moreover, he supports fellowshipping with interracial couples, and allows them to become members of his church.  Obviously then he does not consider interracial marriage a disciplinary offense.  Thus while he is wrong on this issue, he does not use this doctrine to beat interracial couples over the head with.

And, Weaver was raised in an interracial environment; he is good friends with a black person he grew up with; and he supports interracial Christian fellowship.

Clearly then, Weaver is no kinist, and to say otherwise is slander.  Rather, he is a faithful—albeit imperfect, as all pastors are—preacher of God’s word.  And his ministry has much to offer in the the application of God’s law to every area of life.

Hear Weaver's aforementioned comments at the 6:48 mark.


Umve said...

While I enjoy reading this post you must be careful steve that you don't call something a capital crime that the scriptures do not. in order for something to be considered a capital crime God must have prescribed the death penalty for it and unfortunately for you kinism is not in the realm of being a capital or even a civil offense.

Steve C. Halbrook said...

I didn't mean violations of the 1st and 2nd table of the law from a criminal sense, but from the standpoint of heinousness before God.

I agree, all capital crimes must be prescribed by God. Off the top of my head, I can only see the outward display of kinism being a capital crime if it in principle violated the law against subversion found in Deuteronomy 13.