John Reasnor’s Definition Of “Kinism” Examined

“Kinism – A system that theologically supports racial or ethnic separatism. The degree of which varying Kinists support separatism or supremacy will vary.”
 

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.”

Dr. E.J. Young
WTS professor and OPC minister – 1964

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,

“Even the natural differences within species, like racial differences…, can and must be done away with historically.”
 
K. Marx’s Collected Works V:103,
 
As cited in S.F. Bloom’s The World of Nations: A

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.

The Suffering Of Modern Theology

“In my experience, the number of degrees one has in theology has no bearing on his knowledge of Christian politics. In fact, the more theology degrees the more committed he is to some form of modern liberalism.”

Dr. Stephen Wolfe

Wolfe’s experience is my experience as well. When I meet a Ph.D. in theology I pass on by without comment. I’m sure exceptions exist. I just don’t meet many of those exceptions.

However, the problem here is not so much the earning of theology degrees as it is the fact that precious few (including Wolfe) see politics as derivative of theology. What we are seeing in the West today is the lack of ability to see all knowledge as being organically integrated. For ages the maxim was well understood that “theology is the Queen of the sciences,” which was to say “show me a man’s theology and I will tell you, if he is consistent, his politics, educational theory, historiography, sociology, anthropology, etc. Today, theology has been sundered from the other humanity disciplines with the result that theology is still the queen of the sciences but it is a theology that insists that theology has nothing to do with the other subjects.

One must view theology as an artesian well out of which many founts may flow. Those founts may be in other locations but they all draw their water from the same artesian well. Instead theology as well as a myriad of other disciplines are all seen the same way the guy views the tupperware in his refrigerator when he considers what leftovers he will have for supper. In one tupperware container he finds politics, in another tupperware container he finds cultural anthropology, in a third tupperware container he finds theology, in a fourth tupperware container he some moldy psychology. Each container promises a distinct meal unrelated to the meal he could have if he warmed up the other container contents.

The way we treat theology now, as sundered from other disciplines, makes theology, which should be the most fertile of disciplines, to be sterile. In the current way we teach theology, theology becomes abstraction unrelated to the concrete affairs of life.

Picking At The Issue Of Culture

In the Christian anthropology man is being that is composed of two parts that are so closely integrated that some theologians have referred to man’s ontological reality as being a “modified unichotomy,” comprised of a corporeal dynamic (being made from the dust of the ground) yet also having a spiritual dynamic (God having breathed into him the breath of life). Some have referred to man as being a dichotomous being but this doesn’t quite capture it given that man’s body and spirit are so closely and intimately integrated. We can distinguish body and soul but we can ever isolate them or divorce them. God alone does that at death and then only for a season until our bodies as glorified will be reunited with our heaven dwelling spirits. Unichotomy is a clumsy way to express this union of body and soul (spirit) since the word itself means “One” and “to cut.”

I lead in with the above observation in order to talk about the problems with what we call “multiculturalism.” Multiculturalism, professing that it delights in a multitude of cultures in point of fact ends up creating a unitarian culture that disallows Christian culture since Christian culture is premised upon the conviction that inferior cultures should not be allowed equal standing with superior cultures. For example, while multiculturalism would insist that cultures that honor sodomite marriage should be protected, Christian culture would demand laws prohibiting such inferior cultural norms as existing among a Christian people.

The link between the first two paragraphs is that for multiculturalism, premised at it is on Marxist underpinnings, holds an anthropology that denies the Christian anthropology insisting instead that man is only matter in motion. Since man is only matter in motion and since there are no transcendent ethics by which man must be guided the multiculturalist seeks to create a culture that is unitary. Since man himself is definitely not a composite of body and soul and therefore is a unitary being then it is inevitable that man should build unitary cultures that disallow for any culture that insist that distinctions exist as given by extramundane God, who, according the to the multiculturalist worldview can’t exist because he is a spiritual being.

So, we have established thus far

1.) Multiculturalism is a euphemism that hides the unitarian uni-cultural agenda.

2.)  Man created as body and soul has implications for culture.

It is #2 that I would like to tease out a wee bit.

When we consider culture we have to consider it as being the product of both man’s corporeal and spiritual reality. This is why when asked the definition of culture my answer is typically, “culture is a particular people’s religion externalized.” This is a slight twist on the Calvinistic philosopher’s “culture is religion externalized.”  When we talk about what makes culture, culture we have to take into account our Christian anthropology which teaches that man is a modified unichotomy. We have to take into account that like man individually, culture is, a modified unichotomy expressing both man’s corporeal and non-corporeal realities.

Culture is the expression of men living in one geographic area that reflects both a shared genetic heritage (thus tipping the cap to man’s corporeal being) and a shared religion, belief system, worldview (thus tipping the cap to man’s non-corporeal being). Another way of saying this is that “culture is theology as poured over a particular people group.”

The implications of this are fairly obvious if this is an accurate assessment of culture. One implication is that where there is a particular culture that exists one cannot add too  that particular culture either a large injection of alien peoples (corporeal aspect of culture) or a large injection of an alien worldview (non-corporeal aspect of culture) and still at the end of that addition have the same culture that one started with before the addition was injected. The application here to massive third world migration to the formerly Christian West should be obvious.

Another implication is that just as one cannot add to a particular culture either a massive injection of foreign peoples or alien ideas and retain the same culture, in the same way one cannot delete or vastly diminish either a particular culture’s convictions/religion/worldview or it’s genetic heritage and still have the same culture after the deletion or diminishing.

The implication of pursuing an agenda of either massive addition or deletion as described above in any particular stable culture will be significant conflict as the new mix vies for hegemony in the new culture.

Now, there are many in the Christian community, who will insist that culture is only a matter of an abstracted large number of individuals owning a shared set of ideas. They do not believe that a shared genetic heritage should be considered an element for building stable Christian culture. The problem here, for these will intended but vacuous thinkers, is that they are denying the Christian anthropology as applied to culture that man is both body and soul. Instead, what they have is an anthropology, when applied to culture, that sees man as only the sum of his thoughts. Historically, this line of thinkinking has been known as “Gnosticism.” This line of thought is Gnostic because it does not take seriously the truth that man is an embodied being, opting instead to see man as a brain on a stick. This line of thinking belittles the corporeal realities that make for the manishness of man.

Dr. Adi Schlebusch offers insight here as to the historical foundations of this errant form of Gnostic thinking that has invaded the Christian universe of thought;

“This (Gnosticism as applied to defining culture) is the basic tenet of liberalism and this was central to the flaws of the Enlightenment. It is for this very reason that seventeenth- and eighteenth-century counter-enlightenment philosophers polemicized so heavily against abstract theories of human rights or the idea of the social contract as the basis of society. 

What the liberal philosophers of the Enlightenment, especially the eighteenth-century French philosophers sought to do was to rebuild a new society based on ideals. It fundamentally sought to de-root man from the so-called “chains” imposed upon him by created realities. In doing so, they often appealed to nature or man’s supposed state of nature which, according to them, had been corrupted by customs and habits imposed by tradition. It is for this reason that I believe the contemporary Neo-Thomist accusation against Theonomists that we are fundamentally liberal in our anthropology as a result of our skepticism about natural law, holds no water. The fact of the matter is that appeals to nature as justification for egalitarianism and a universal human fraternity was actually quite common during the Enlightenment, particularly in France. This is not to say that natural law theory is liberal in and of itself, but it has certainly historically been much more of a tool employed by liberals than Scripture has, for example.”

The opposite problem of a Gnostic definition of culture that insists that culture is only the sum total of how abstracted individuals think is the assertion that culture has nothing to do with any spiritual reality, insisting instead that culture is merely matter in motion. This materialist Marxist understanding of culture viewed man and cultures as being a biological machine(s) that could be shaped by the party in any direction it desired. In reality Marxism was the anti-culture culture because it was the anti-religion religion. Marxist culture remained the outward manifestation of a people’s inward beliefs but what was manifested in Marxist culture was the Marxist religion that held that man was an economic being that could only be understood in terms of class warfare. Because man in Marxist religion and culture was only matter in motion man became dehumanized and having lost the manishness of man he lost those realities that make men, men; connection to family, clan, nation, church, and place.

Only Christianity can build stable culture because only Christianity has an anthropology that seeks to maintain the relation man as body and man as soul. Christianity then must do battle with the Gnostics in the church that says culture is only the consequence of what men in the abstract think and Christianity must do battle with the Materialists in the church who think that man is merely matter in motion.

What is interesting here is that even though man as material alone or man as spiritual alone are stark opposites in terms of anthropology in the end they both will build cultures that are unitarian and monistic. If man is merely one component then man will build a culture that is monochrome and unitary. So, even though spiritualist views of culture and materialist views of culture are seeming at opposite ends of the spectrum they end up building the same kind of ugly mulatto cultures. This is where we are right now with the rise of multiculturalism – a euphemism if there ever was one.

As a Christian the danger that I am dealing with now the most in the Christian church on this subject is the the Gnostic/spiritual side of the equation. More than a few are the clergy who seemingly believe that the results of Christianity, in terms of culture, will eventually be a world where particular nations  disappear because the gospel has been so successful that there is no longer a need for diverse nations or cultures. I call this “Christian Globalism,” and it is more prevalent than one might think. It’s almost as if the only reason diverse nations and cultures exist is because of sin.

From what we have said here we see that the finest culture can only arise where there is a dynamic interplay between Christian thinking and Christian genetic heritage. The fun thing about this is that because God has made peoples to be diverse different peoples, these different peoples when turning to Christ, will result in their thinking their thoughts after Christ, and the result of that will be a plurality of diverse Christian cultures, each and all expressing in ways distinct to their heritage strengths the glory of God.  Each and all of these cultures will esteem God’s law but the esteeming of that law will run through the prism of genetic distinctive heritage. In such a way the temporal one and many of culture(s) will reflect the One and Many character of God. With this shared owning of Christ the different distinct and different nations and cultures will together glorify the great and magnificent creator God just as a symphony orchestra with all it diverse instruments work together to produce majestic pieces of music.

 

 

‘Dios! Patria! Fueros! Rey! — God, the fatherland, local rights, and the King, in that order

“The political philosophy of the Traditionalist Communion (opposing the Spanish Revolution) rejected any strong central government, parliamentary or otherwise; except for national defense and foreign affairs, they wanted Spain governed by its separate provinces. (The Carlist motto was ‘Dios! Patria! Fueros! Rey! — God, the fatherland, local rights, and the King,) in that order.”

Warren Carroll
The Last Crusade; The Twentieth Century’s War For the Sake Of The Cross – p. 19

There are a good number of variant visions being cast in favor of Christian Nationalism. Recently, I’ve read one Christian Nationalist proclaim that given what we are up against in our own government that it is ridiculous to think any movement that is decentralized could successfully defeat the current Leviathan State. I will concede that is possibly true but be that as it may could I have my vision of Christian Nationalism come to pass it would be of the kind in the quote above. I still believe that power tends to corrupt and that absolute power corrupts absolutely. I still believe that if we are able to cashier our current god-state with a centralized state that would work in the favor of Christians the end result would soon enough be a return to where we began. Like our Founders I do  not trust power to be concentrated in any one place and as such I would desire a Christian Nationalism has many power centers as lodged in the society.

Of course a multitude of power centers can never work where there is not a harmony of interest among the population and a harmony of interest can only arise where there is a common Christian faith and worldview as embraced by a kin people. Both a common Christian faith and worldview combined with a kin people can provide social order that will avoid the deep fractures that currently exist in what was once Christendom. Where there is a common Christian faith and worldview combined with a kin people then a decentralized arrangement can work. In that arrangement “God, the fatherland, local rights, and the King” can provide a solid foundation for social order.

Naturally, this kind of desire is not possible in our current arrangement in America where massive immigration has instead given us a country where there is no common faith and there is no one predominant kin people. Diversity of faith and/or blood will never be any social order’s strength.

A decentralized and diffuse jurisdictional approach where a people are characterized by a common faith and a common blood is the only approach to building social order where maximum institutional and individual liberty can be lived out. A decentralized and diffuse jurisdictional approach allows the institutions of family, church, civil-social, and others to flourish and that apart from a top-down approach where all authority is lodged in the State.

Fashions Change But Style Endures

In the last few weeks I’ve been in and out of a couple hospitals visiting folks. Of course, as clergy, hospital visitation is part of the calling and so I am not unfamiliar with this territory. However, I’ve noticed something recently that was reinforced by viewing video clips of the different denominational gatherings. Both the denominational gatherings and the hospitals I’ve been in recently are screaming at me that we are a different type of people than even a few short decades ago.

You see, I’m old enough now to remember hospitals from decades ago as well as denominational meetings from the same time frame. Hospitals a few decades ago were staffed by a very prim and proper staff. Nurses wore their white dresses with their nursing caps all wearing their nurse’s pins. Doctors, when making their rounds wore their white smocks with their names sewn into the lapel while wearing a button down collar and tie. Clergy, in a very similar manner attended their denominational gatherings in suit and ties. The few women present serving in support roles were all wearing dresses.

Those times are gone.

Both hospitals and denominational meetings are characterized, for the most part, by people dressed, comparatively speaking to the past, incredibly slovenly. I constantly finding myself arching my eyebrows by what I’ve seen in the past few weeks in both hospitals I’ve been in and by the attire seen at these denominational meetings. Of course, if it were merely a matter of attire I could probably care very little but I suspect that sloppy attire might possibly belie sloppy thinking.

Undergirding this observation is the irrefutably true observation of the difference in attire, in both pulpit and pew, when gathering to worship in God’s house. The clergy and laity in 1975 (randomly chosen) appear for worship dressed in their “Sunday best,” whereas clergy and laity appear for worship dressed like Hobos, Hippies and Hobgoblins. This belies a different view of not only “dress,” and what is happening in and with Worship but it belies low views of God.

I understand that we should be glad that people are in Church no matter their attire. If forced to choose between seeing people in Church dressed like beachcombers and beatniks or not seeing people in Church because they don’t want to dress the part I would obviously choose the former. But I would do so with sadness.

I’m not looking for a return to 3 piece suits or even the nurses white dresses and little hats of old. I merely desire professionals to dress professionally when working in their professional capacity. At this point I’d only ask people to think through this matter a wee bit.