John Reasnor
Often I will complain that people who condemn Kinism have themselves no working definition of what Kinism is. However, Reasnor here takes a stab at a definition. Let us consider what he offers here.
1.) Keep in mind that the chap who is faulting a theological support for racial and ethnic separatism is a chap who employs theological support for egalitarianism. If one is going to fault a system of thought because it theologically supports racial or ethnic separatism, in any degree, then it must be the case that said person has a theological system that desires no racial or ethnic separatism and the desire for absolutely no racial or ethnic separatism is egalitarianism. Indeed, it is the same exact theological system that was pursued by the builders of Babel.
So, if an Egalitarian like Mr. Reasnor is going to accuse Kinists of not being Egalitarian then, speaking only for myself, I admit my guilt. It is true … not being someone who supports egalitarianism, I am a Kinist. Indeed, by the definition above, anyone who thinks that races are real and so distinct and should be honored as real and distinct is a Kinist. In point of fact by Mr. Reasnor’s definition anybody who is not an egalitarian is ipso facto a “Kinist.”
2.) With this quote Reasnor has put a vast multitude of our Church fathers in the dock as being “Kinist.” Here are four Church Fathers (and their are multitude more) who are guilty of believing “a system that theologically supports racial or ethnic separatism.” and so by Mr. Reasnor’s definition were Kinists when they were alive.
“Hence, I question very much the wisdom of any attempts to ‘integrate’ the church. Making our Negro brethren in Christ welcome when they voluntarily come to worship with us is one thing; seeking to attempt integration for the sake of a witness may do more harm than good.”
Page 130 of the October 1964 edition of The Presbyterian Guardian
Difference of race or condition or sex is indeed taken away by the unity of faith, but it remains imbedded in our mortal interactions, and in the journey of this life the apostles themselves teach that it is to be respected, and they even proposed living in accord with the racial differences between Jews and Greeks as a wholesome rule.
St. Augustine on Galatians 3:28
“Regarding our eternal salvation, it is true that one must not distinguish between man and woman, or between king and a shepherd, or between a German and a Frenchman. Regarding policy, however, we have what St. Paul declares here; for our, Lord Jesus Christ did not come to mix up nature, or to abolish what belongs to the preservation of decency and peace among us….Regarding the kingdom of God (which is spiritual) there is no distinction or difference between man and woman, servant and master, poor and rich, great and small. Nevertheless, there does have to be some order among us, and Jesus Christ did not mean to eliminate it, as some flighty and scatterbrained dreamers [believe].”
John Calvin
Sermon on 1 Corinthians 11:2-3
“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”
Dr. Clarence MacCartney
Presbyterian Minister
Indeed, the definition that Mr. Reasnor gives us above could have been written by a Marxist, as Marxists have been the ones who have denied that there should be any racial or ethnic separatism.
”What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities?
The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and hereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.”
~ Frederick Engels in “The Principles of Communism”, 1847
Or we might consult one Nikita Khrushchev on the matter.
“Full-scale Communist construction constitutes a new stage in the development of national relations in the U.S.S.R., in which the nations will draw still closer together until complete unity is achieved…. However, the obliteration of national distinctions and especially of language distinctions is a considerably longer process than the obliteration of class distinctions.”
Nikita Khrushchev
Or perhaps Marx himself,
Study of the National Implications in the Work of Karl Marx, Columbia University Press, New York, 1941, pp. 11 & 15-19:
So, we do have a definition here from Mr. Reasnor but it is a definition as provided from a Marxist worldview. By Mr. Reasnor’s definition all Christians should be Christian and indeed the only reason that the idea of “Kinism” as a distinct theological discipline has arisen is because the church has adopted a Marxist mindset when it comes to race and social order. Kinism advocates a return to Biblical Christianity as combined with an honoring of our Fathers who were better and wiser men than either myself or Mr. Reasnor.
