Steve Hemmeke is a Pastor of a CREC “church” in Livingstone Michigan. This is the final part of examining Steve’s “insights” into a 650 page Anthology that he looked at, by his own admission, for one hour. In that one hour Steve knows all about what Kinists believe. This series demonstrates that Rev. Steve, on this subject, is absolutely clueless.
Rev. Steve Hemmeke writes,
Doing this contributes to keeping the tyranny of the state at bay (a prevailing motivation of most kinists). Mediating institutions are needed: church, art guilds, faithful extended families, universities, non-profit organizations, social groups, etc. Find ways to build these up. There were several quotes in this book by Communists, who sought to blur and eliminate natural distinctions, to eliminate mediating institutions, so it would be easier to control the masses. There’s something to that. But the way to counter it isn’t to promote segregation. We may need walls to protect the church or societies, but they need to be permeable.
1.) There’s something to that? There’s something to that?
It has been the goal of the Marxist from time immemorial and it remains the goal of the Cultural Marxists to put all mortal distinctions in a blender and hit the “fast” button. It is most certainly not just a slight “there’s something to that matter.” That’s like saying “there’s something to the idea that sex has something to do with pregnancy.” The goal to blenderized everybody is the lay of the land in the West today. It is not a mere passing thought we can wave our hands at.
2.) Despite the fact that there are a gazillion quotes where we find the Church fathers promoting segregation.
“Segregation or separation is thus a basic principle of Biblical Law with respect to religion and morality. Every attempt to destroy this principle is an effort to reduce society to its lowest common denominator.”
“A voluntary segregation, even of believers, can well be a Christian procedure.”
Carl F. H. Henry
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-) (For more see: Dr. Morton H. Smith on Christianity, Race, and Segregation)
Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS)
John Edwards Richards
- The Socialist, who declares all men are equal. Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.
- The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.
- The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.
- The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.
John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA).
What does Rev. Steve do with all these quotes and many others like them? Does he just keep on using the word “segregation” as some kind of “scare” word?
And on this score, no one is advocating building legislated impermeable walls. All that is being advocated is a freedom of assembly for all people. Get the government out of passing legislation that forces integration. Allow people to decide for themselves who they have social concourse with. Is that so scandalous?
Rev. Steve Hemmeke writes
Too many liberal churches insist on no walls or boundaries at all. Everyone is welcome, no matter what you advocate for. Some conservative churches in response have a Checkpoint Charlie, shooting anyone attempting to cross the Berlin Wall they erect. The proper response is to fence the Lord’s Table each Lord’s Day properly, with the basic gospel. The dividing line is Christ, not kin.
The dividing line is indeed Christ and not kin. We are to love Christ above all else including family. However, that does not mean that family ceases to exist as a category that we are responsible to in our living. Is Rev. Steve saying here that Christians must cut off all kin who are not Christian because the dividing line is Christ, not kin? Do my responsibilities to my non-Christian kin end because of regeneration?
Rev. Steve writes,
There are many such recent immigrants today in the middle class that we should rejoice over, patriotically, not despise or separate from.
Here the curtain is pulled back. Rev. Steve believes that kinist’s despise people from other races. What is curious is that I think it is Rev. Steve that despises both other people and his own kin by his position. His position puts everyone in a difficult social-order setting as Robert Putnam demonstrates in his book, “Bowling Alone.” It is not a kindness to forcefully create a multi-cultural and multi-racial society. It is Rev. Steve who is guilty of despising people and not Biblical Kinists. It is Rev. Steve who, though full of good intentions, who is practicing hate.
And just to make a point … right now I despise Rev. Steve (a white man) far more than any imagined despise Rev. Steve’s construct would attribute to me in relation to my friends from other races.
Rev. Steve writes,
I am quite aware of the cultural relativistic dangers of woke-ism, and of the mass immigration of those who are intent on subverting our culture, etc.
But racial segregation, or even a milder definition of Kinism, is NOT the way to fight it.
And on the authority of Rev. Steve alone we are supposed to accept his conclusions.
These idiots are going to get us all killed in the most massive civil war that one can possibly contemplate and that all because they want to be nicer than God.
2 thoughts on “Responding to Rev. Steve Hemmeke’s Take on His One Hour Reading of “Who is My Neighbor” — Part III”
I’ve dealt with this in my reformed church even. We talked about “racism” and I stated how the term has been distorted, even to the point of saying something like “I prefer to marry one of my own race” is considered racism. Which it absolutely is not.
To my surprise, (and distress) one person said “Oh I think it is racism”. They then proceeded to interrogate me to see if there was some hateful reason I preferred to marry one of my own race.
They didn’t respond when I stated that I felt this way because “God gave man a natural inclination to marry those of his own kind. Or how else would there still be races after 6000 years of human history?”
After they realized I didn’t feel this way because of “hate”, they tried to convince me to not have a racial preference and made irrelevant statements like:
“How was Adam attracted to Eve”
Or “maybe Adam and Eve weren’t white”
People’s desire to torpedo the sovereignty of nations, races, and (western Christianity by consequence) in the name of being “nice” is mind-boggling and infuriating.
You are absolutely correct!