Wesleyan Kinism;
“Everyone, therefore, that has a soul to be saved, is entitled to this good office from thee. Yet this does not imply, that it is to be done in the same degree to everyone. It cannot be denied, that there are some to whom it is particularly due. Such, in the first place, are our parents, if we have nay that stand in need of it; unless we should place our consorts and our children on an equal footing with them. Next to these we may rank our brothers and sisters, and afterwards our relations, as they are allied to us in a nearer or more distant manner, either by blood or by marriage. Immediately after these are our servants, whether bound to us for a term of years or any shorter term. Lastly, such in their several degrees are our countrymen, our fellow citizens, and the members of the same society, whether civil or religious.“
John Wesley
1787 Sermon on the ‘Duty of Reproving our Neighbor‘
Anglican Kinism
“But secondly, the same Native Country is another cement of Christian Charity. It must be some instinct in Nature, because the consent of all Mankind to love their own Nation, to value their birthright and the inheritance of their Fathers. When Moses spied an Egyptian smiting an Hebrew one of his Brethren, i.e., his own countrymen; in his tenderness he delivered the one,and out of too great indignation he slew the other. And when he went a second time and saw two men of the Hebrews strive together, he said to him who began the assault, ‘Wherefore smitest thou thy fellow? Is he thy brother an Israelite? This may provoke God to make you longer slaves in a strange land.’ Our Blessed Savior seems to have had a particular regard to the good estate of his own Nation, while he declared, that he was not sent, save to the ‘lost Sheep of the House of Israel’; while he wept over Jerusalem, and often visited Nazareth and Bethlehem, tho one would think, nothing could draw him thither but an impulse of natural affection; for he himself was sensible that the ‘Prophet had least Honor in his own Country’. St. Paul was another great example of inbred Love and Zeal for his Native Land, the goodly Heritage of his Ancestors. He was by Birth a true old Hebrew of the Hebrews, i.e., for many generations. He had indeed but little reason to be fond of that Birthright; for he was brought into great Perils by his own countrymen, and he had least to do with them, for his Mission was to be an Apostle to the Gentiles; yet Nature must break through all discouragements; wherefore, Act xxviii.19 tho’ plagued and oppressed by his fellow Jews, he had still a loving eye upon his dear Country, ‘I was constrained (says he) to appeal unto Ceasar, not that I had ought to accuse my Nation of’; and how much less would he have betrayed his Nation? Nay, what a rapture of zeal had he, Rom ix.3 ‘I could wish myself accursed or separated from Christ for my Brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, who are Israelites.’”
Rev. Dr. White Kennett
From Bishop Gilbert Burnet’s Exposition of the Church Catechism,
p. 20-21
More Anglican Kinism
“Quest. But who is your neighbor?
Answ. Every man, of what Nation or Religion soever he may happen to be.
Quest. Must you love all these alike?
Asnw. No. I must make a difference, according to the Degree of their worth, and of the Image of God that I see in them; and according to the Relation God has placed me in to them.”
Anglican Bishop Gilbert Burnet (1643-1715)
Exposition of the Church Catechism
Precisely because such Kinist sentiments were so normative in pre-modern times, back then such active subversives as, for example, the Counter-Reformation era Jesuits had to appeal specifically to that one great exception, Christ’s words about “He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me” etc. That is, the Jesuits taught their pupils that it was their sacred duty to God to betray their families and countrymen if the interest of the holy mother church required it.
The atheistic Illuminati conspirator Adam Weishaupt, who sought to camouflage his revolutionary subversion with seemingly pious rhetoric (being thus the ancestor of modern “Christian Left,” as such writers as Nesta Webster have observed), also cynically twisted the Scriptural words in such a manner – arguing that indifference towards natural ties was a holy and righteous attitude.
abbé Barruel wrote:
https://www.sacred-texts.com/sro/mhj/mhj315.htm#fr_218
“In order to raise the public spirit, he must with the greatest ardour preach up “the general interest of humanity, and inculcate the utmost indifference for all associations or secret unions which are only formed among the subjects of one particular nation.”19 Here the impious legislator blasphemously cites for an example Christ, and his pretended indifference for his family. Because Christ died for the redemption of all mankind, because his affection for the most holy of mothers never made him lose sight of that great work, is that a ground on which the illuminizing Epopt shall persuade his simple auditory, that to love all mankind is to dissolve the bonds of nations?”
Even among sane and reasonable unbelievers are Kinists who rebuke professing Christians for their Bolshevik leanings:
“The opponents of the thesis I am presenting … who happen to be of the Christian Faith … are the most unexpected, because, apart from the authority given them for upholding race segregation in many a passage in the Old Testament (Gen. 10 and Deut. 7) [Lev. 19:19], … there is in the Creation itself abundant evidence of a clear admonition against miscegenation. There is, moreover, the clear teaching in the New Testament – for instance, in Acts 17:26, — that the existence of separate nations is according to the will and plan of God.” p. 38.
Anthony M. Ludovici, ‘The Importance of Racial Integrity’, 1958-59, Ostara 2015