“The huge weakness of this (Achord’s and Dow’s “Who is My Neighbor: An Anthology on Natural Relations;”) is that most of the quotations do not support the thesis of the book. To quote the Puritans or Jewish sources on the importance of family and patriotism is a far cry from what the authors argue for in the introduction.”
Steve Hemmeke Blog
CREC “Minister” — Herein after SH
Now keep in mind that Rev. Steve admits as he begins his review that he only spent 1 hour with this 650 page anthology and after 1 hour we are to believe that he can know that most of the quotations in the book do not support the thesis of the book. This claim leaves me credulous. It’s like someone saying that they’d only spent an hour with Augustine’s “City of God” and they know, after an hour of probing here and there in the book that Augustine failed in his work. Honestly, I can’t believe the hubris of this claim.
SH writes,
I’d like to lay out and then critique that thesis, from page 41:
Society is inescapably hierarchical, and so our duties are also prioritized, “favoring the near over the far. The implication is that we have obligations to our families, neighbors and countrymen over strangers and foreigners…. This is piety and gratitude.”
On one level, this is just common sense. I’m going to invest more time parenting my kids, than the kids next door. I take more time consuming news concerning my country than Zimbabwe’s, so I can vote and act faithfully where I live.
Bret responds,
Here the man says the book is just common sense. He, in essence, says he agrees with this common sense. But in true Wilsonian fashion he has to try to have it both ways and say that he doesn’t agree with the book.
SH writes,
“The problem comes with the flip side – a non sequitur which Scripture does not endorse: to favor those not of your kind is impiety. This turns out to be a call for segregation, though kinists don’t seem to like to use that word. A people’s culture should not be tainted by intermixing, they say, which breeds confusion in personal identity, and a dilution of energy which should be focused on positive, tangible culture building.”
Bret responds
Actually, to be precise, the flip side is not what Steve says. The flip side is “to favor those not of your kind above those who are of your kind is impiety.” Notice the subtle difference between what SL wrote and the corrected flip side. Now, there is no way that one can claim that Scripture teaches the kind of piety that SL initially says he agrees with and is common sense without at the same time affirming the teaching that the same statement stated in its negative (in the bold print above) is also piety. There is no impiety in that statement in bold and yet Steve wants to say that he does not agree with the exact opposite of what he affirms. What he affirms is piety. The same position expressed negatively he affirms is impiety and a non-sequitur. Only a CREC minister could “reason” like this.
Secondly, I have no problem with the idea of segregation as long as it is part of the whole idea of “freedom of assembly.” You remember that one don’t you Steve? For example The Washington Times recently ran an article stating;
Universities are increasingly offering graduation events focused on participants’ identities and segregated by race, ethnicity, sexual orientation and even income, according to a report by a conservative education publication.
Campus Reform, which is published by the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia, reported last week that more than three dozen colleges and universities are holding graduation events this summer to recognize groups based on race, gender and sexual orientation.
I have no problem with this kind of segregation in the least. Nor do I have a problem with Universities now offering dorm living according to segregated preferences. Is Steve saying that this segregation (freedom of assembly) is wrong? Sinful? If it is acceptable to Steve for this kind of segregation to exist why would he think that kinists’ believing in segregation is a bad thing?
Steve Hemmeke writes,
But this book’s thesis in the introduction is: don’t favor the foreigner over your own kin. That may be proverbial wisdom, like the common sense above, but it should not be made a moral absolute on racial or national lines.
Bret responds,
Now let me understand this dialectical reasoning.
1.) It is proverbial wisdom to not favor the foreigner over your own kin
2.) However, when our own kin is a racial or national phenomenon what is proverbial wisdom should now not be a proverbial wisdom absolute.
Steve Hemmeke writes
Let’s look to Scripture for guidance.
I believe the Kinist standing in Boaz’ field would rebuke him for looking favorably on Ruth, the Moabite.
He would look on with horror as a faithful Israelite of the tribe of Judah, Salmon, married a Canaanite whore from Jericho – Rahab.
He would believe that Ahithophel’s family was sinning to allow the Hittite Uriah to marry a daughter of their clan – Bathsheba.
Bret responds,
Steve gives three examples of marriage that would have been akin to marrying ethnic cousins. His examples amount to a German marrying a French lady. This is not the same as cross racial marriages.
Secondly, even Ruth is disputed as to whether she was an ethnic Moabitess or an Israelite who lived in the former territory of Moab and so a Hebrew. Much the same way one might refer to a Puerto Rican living in New York City as a “New Yorker.”
Third on the matter of Rahab see
And as to Rahab see,
Steve Hemmeke writes
Yet each of these are mentioned in Jesus’ genealogy. Not as cautionary tales, but as laudable examples to God’s people that we are to “welcome the stranger.” This is a ubiquitous phrase in Deuteronomy, “for you yourselves were sojourners in Egypt.” So it was astonishing to see in print that we should NOT favor the stranger and foreigner.
Bret responds,
So many of these I’ve responded to before. Here one can reference;
Steve Hemmeke clearly does not understand the nuances that Hoffmeier brings out in the book discussed in the link above. And this is just the problem with people spouting off about this issue who haven’t done the spade work to discover other possibilities then the cultural Marxist narrative that they are drowning in.
Steve Hemmeke writes,
Now, do we favor them to the impoverishment of our own estate and family or nation? Of course not. American immigration policy is insanely impoverishing us. But Kinism seems to go too far the other way, calling for separation. Ruth should have been sent back to Moab: “let her own kind take care of her.” I believe they would say this, regardless of her assumed spiritual conversion. Even as believers across cultures (it appears to me they assert), we ought to keep distinct tribes and cultures to flourish best.
Bret responds,
Just as Hemmeke did not read a book he is reviewing so he now is guessing at what kinists might and might not say in any given situation. Incredible.
If Kinism is asserting that we ought to keep distinct tribes and cultures to flourish best it is only because Kinists are learning from the Church Fathers. I reproduce just two of many more quotes of the same kind that could be appealed to. The Alienists, like Hemmeke, are revolting against the Church fathers on this issue. Kinists are seeking to be faithful to both Scripture and Church history.
“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” ~
Dr. John E. Richards
Theology Professor Reformed Theological Seminary appx. 1970’s
If from this we may conclude that ethnic pluriformity is the revealed will of God for the human race in its present situation, it is highly questionable whether the Christian can have part in any program that would seek to erase all ethnic distinctions. That such distinctions may be crossed over by individuals may be granted, but it is at least questionable whether a program designed to wipe out such differences on a mass scale should be endorsed by the Christian. It is this line of argument that the average Christian segregationist uses to back his view. He fears that the real goal of the integrationist is the intermarriage of the races, and therefore the breakdown of the distinctions between them. Many who would be willing to integrate at various lesser levels refuse to do so, simply because they feel that such will inevitably lead to intermarriage of the races, which they consider to be morally wrong. . . .
The mass mixing of the races with the intent to erase racial boundaries he does consider to be wrong, and on the basis of this, he would oppose the mixing of the two races in this way. Let it be acknowledged that a sin in this area against the Negro race has been perpetrated by godless white men, both past and present, but this does not justify the adoption of a policy of mass mixing of the races. Rather, the Bible seems to teach that God has established and thus revealed his will for the human race now to be that of ethnic pluriformity, and thus any scheme of mass integration leading to mass mixing of the races is decidedly unscriptural.
Dr. Morton H. Smith (1923-2017) (For more see: Dr. Morton H. Smith on Christianity, Race, and Segregation)
Founder — Greenville Seminary
