Is The Rejection of Kinism a Matter of Theological Unfaithfulness? Answering Tomes

“The maximal form (of Kinism) identifies kinism with biblical theonomy or Reformed orthodoxy and treats rejection of the system as theological unfaithfulness.”

Jonathan Tomes
Substack Series on Kinism

Now we need to pause here to ask Mr. Tomes here what are the options left to us for social order organization if we reject Kinism. This is a crucial question that nobody seems to be asking or answering, and it is a question I’ve been waving my hands and jumping up and down trying to get people to answer. Consider, that if one is determined to reject Kinism it strikes me that all that is left in its place is,

a.) Internationalism (New World Order / Communism)
b.) Civic Nationalism (Propositional Nationalism)
c.) Egalitarianism/Multi-culturalism (which Communism [a] has historically  pushed)
d.) Economic Nationalism

Inevitably choices (b) and (d) end up being (c) since (b) and (d) by definition  exclude genetic connections. Civic Nationalism and Economic nationalism operate on the basis that descent from a common ancestor is not necessary. The options, (b) and (d) operate on the basis of non-natal connections and so is inherently anti-Kinism. I would observe that all the options above end up being some form of Internationalism.

So, if those options are indeed the only other choices left to choose from besides Kinism, then I would agree that the rejection of Kinism is a matter of theological unfaithfulness, since what is being advanced by our opponents is a social order that does not reflect reality. The dilution of natural family ties and the Ordo Amoris is contrary to the way God made man to function.

People who reject Kinism must provide an alternative social order organization that isn’t egalitarian/multi-cultural and that is Biblical.

I, along with all the Kinists everywhere are waiting for that non familial social order that isn’t egalitarian/multi-cultural and that is Biblical. It strikes me that all other options, in the words of Joseph Sobran,

“… consistently attacks three basic social institutions that, by offering independent bases of action, loyalty, and authority, impede the state’s monopoly of power: private property, the family, and religion. Marxism attacks these things directly: it confiscates property, breaks up families, and persecutes worshippers. (It may be forced to come to terms with all three in order to avoid collapse, but in its early phase it tries to abolish them, and it accepts them later only as dependencies — smaller subdivisions — of the state.) Liberalism avoids the direct attack; it prefers to subvert property, family, and religion more gradually, undermining their definitions rather than attempting open violence.”

Author: jetbrane

I am a Pastor of a small Church in Mid-Michigan who delights in my family, my congregation and my calling. I am postmillennial in my eschatology. Paedo-Calvinist Covenantal in my Christianity Reformed in my Soteriology Presuppositional in my apologetics Familialist in my family theology Agrarian in my regional community social order belief Christianity creates culture and so Christendom in my national social order belief Mythic-Poetic / Grammatical Historical in my Hermeneutic Pre-modern, Medieval, & Feudal before Enlightenment, modernity, & postmodern Reconstructionist / Theonomic in my Worldview One part paleo-conservative / one part micro Libertarian in my politics Systematic and Biblical theology need one another but Systematics has pride of place Some of my favorite authors, Augustine, Turretin, Calvin, Tolkien, Chesterton, Nock, Tozer, Dabney, Bavinck, Wodehouse, Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Schaeffer, C. Van Til, H. Van Til, G. H. Clark, C. Dawson, H. Berman, R. Nash, C. G. Singer, R. Kipling, G. North, J. Edwards, S. Foote, F. Hayek, O. Guiness, J. Witte, M. Rothbard, Clyde Wilson, Mencken, Lasch, Postman, Gatto, T. Boston, Thomas Brooks, Terry Brooks, C. Hodge, J. Calhoun, Llyod-Jones, T. Sowell, A. McClaren, M. Muggeridge, C. F. H. Henry, F. Swarz, M. Henry, G. Marten, P. Schaff, T. S. Elliott, K. Van Hoozer, K. Gentry, etc. My passion is to write in such a way that the Lord Christ might be pleased. It is my hope that people will be challenged to reconsider what are considered the givens of the current culture. Your biggest help to me dear reader will be to often remind me that God is Sovereign and that all that is, is because it pleases him.

One thought on “Is The Rejection of Kinism a Matter of Theological Unfaithfulness? Answering Tomes”

  1. PATRIARCHY is like the great central node where all the great social questions meet each other – sex issues, race issues, economic (or class) issues and religious issues.

    If you just firmly hold onto the Biblical patriarchal model, you will develop de facto tribalist and consequently racialist lifestyle, even without any explicitly Kinist doctrines. Like the Old Order Amish and Mennonites have done, even with their pacifistic ways:

    https://www.takimag.com/article/race_of_the_amish_steve_sailer/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *