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.

God’s Remarkable Providence – #1

All of those who are Christians, I think, have times and events in our lives that when we look back on them we clearly see the hand of God orchestrating and superintending. It is good that we remember these because they remind us of the goodness of the Lord Christ and because they serve as encouragements when we face other tight situations.

In the Psalms we see this kind of thing often. In the Psalms this is called “recital theology.” These are texts where the Psalmist is reciting some greatness of God in the past often in order to give him hope for the future.

Psalm 136 is one such example where the Psalmist practices recital theology. He remembers God’s previous provision to the end of being confident in God for the future;

to him who struck down the firstborn of Egypt
His love endures forever.
¹¹and brought Israel out from among them
His love endures forever.
¹²with a mighty hand and outstretched arm;
His love endures forever.

¹³to him who divided the Red Sea^[a] asunder
His love endures forever.
¹⁴and brought Israel through the midst of it,
His love endures forever.
¹⁵but swept Pharaoh and his army into the Red Sea;
His love endures forever.

¹⁶to him who led his people through the wilderness;
His love endures forever.

I have tried to teach from the pulpit that we should all have our own recital theology. We should all have the ability to remember God’s past goodness and provision so that we never despair of the Lord Christ’s ability to deliver us from present trials.

As such, I’d like to do a series of these where we (and sometimes just I, before Jane came along) saw the Spirit of God provide in ways I could never have expected or anticipated at the time.

The first one I like to recall is when we took up our first ministerial charge.

The year was 1988. I had been finished with Seminary since December of 1987. I had sent out a few sending resumes looking to see if I could find some interest but to no avail. I was operating without any institutional support and so I did not have a natural network or structure to work within. Further, I was still doing a good deal of reading as I was moving from Arminianism to a Reformed understanding.

I was still working part time at United Airlines (about 30 hours a week) but it was clear that something had to change. We were living in a really nasty situation (a hovel that we shared with mice, palmetto bugs, termites, and bees — depending on the time of year). It was, as you can imagine, very inexpensive (150.00 dollars a month) but it was the kind of place one lives in when one is scraping buy in Seminary. It was not the kind of place where one settles in for long term.

Laura-Jane had been born in July of 1986. She had experienced more than one bout of getting stung up by bees while sleeping. However, by 1988 we learned that Jane was with child with Anna and fitting four in this living situation was something we could have done if we had to but certainly not ideal.

The quarters we were living in, there in South Carolina had only one room that was air conditioned (and SC can get oppressively hot in the summer) and that air conditioned room was due to the kindness of the Church we were attending at the time. They saw Jane’s condition when she was pregnant with Laura and bought us a small unit and installed it in our bedroom. We were very thankful for that kindness of that small church.

Similarly, in the winter time we had one small heater in the house that could not heat the whole house and we had to keep a portable kerosene heater running to keep whatever other room in the house we were occupying warm.

This was our situation in 1988. We knew we had to change things but we were, by all observations seemingly stuck.

The God’s providence and provision descended upon us. A chap who was a couple years ahead of me in Seminary and who I had known just a wee bit was pastoring a church in rural South Carolina about 45 minutes from where we lived. I had lost touch with him and didn’t even know what had become of him after he graduated Seminary. Come to find out he had been filling the pulpit at a PCA country church in Longtown, SC. That Church had been a vibrant church before experiencing a church split before my friend arrived and so it was experiencing hard times. My friend, who was affiliated with the PCA, had some trouble getting fully ordained in the PCA (that’s a story in itself but is ancillary to this story) and was told he could not fill the pulpit of this small rural church until the PCA ordained him. The refusal of his ordination was political and he was not happy with the PCA and the Church as well was not pleased with the PCA. The Church believed that the man was capable and orthodox and that the Presbytery was being a further hindrance to their ability, as a Church, to get back on track after a devastating split.

Before he left that congregation the Elders at Longtown Presbyterian asked him to recommend a name for them to phone in order to secure pulpit supply. For reasons that to this day amaze me, he recommended me and gave them my phone contact. The reason this amazed me is that I didn’t really know John that well. We had had a few interactions over the course of time but we were more acquaintances than friends. I was amazed (and remain amazed almost forty years later) that he gave the Elders my name and that he would recommend me.

Well, the Elders phoned me in September of 1988 and asked me to come fill their pulpit one week. I did so. At that point they asked me to come the following Sunday and I did. Pretty soon I was out at Longtown SC filling the pulpit weekly and doing visitations with the Elders in various homes.

By March or so, they asked me to consider coming to live out in Longtown. I told them that really wasn’t financially feasible. A few weeks later they said they wanted to make it financially feasible by purchasing and bringing a brand new double wide trailer and sitting it on a portion of the 80 acres the Church owned. They also said they wanted to add a substantial front porch so we could entertain folks on the porch.

There was just one hitch in all this and it disappointed me that I had to admit it to them. The hitch was that I was still figuring matters out in terms of being Reformed vs. being Arminian. I had grown up Wesleyan and my experience, before moving to South Carolina, was all Reformed churches were liberal. Now while in Seminary, I learned that was not true but that didn’t mean that I wasn’t still struggling to get my head around Reformed theology. I mean, I had taken the required classes in Seminary. I had done the reading required. I did well in the classes but I still was not convinced. In point of fact I was not convinced of either Arminianism or Reformed theology at that point.

And I had to tell them that. I had to tell them that I couldn’t try to be ordained in the PCA because I just was not there yet. I thought that would be the end of their pursuit. It wasn’t. The Elders said to me when I told them this, “Look, we’ve been listening to your preaching now for a few months. We are confident that you are headed in a direction you don’t even realize yet. If you promise to keep studying and reading on this subject, we would still like to consider you to come. You don’t need to worry about denominational issues because we are leaving the PCA. Our departure from the PCA has nothing to do with you. We are leaving whether you come or not.”

So, seeing this as God’s open door we showed up in our new home about a month after Anna was born in 1989 and we stayed there for over six years. I kept my job at United and commuted the 45 minute drive and worked as a tentmaker for those six years. I continued to keep up my reading and eventually God convinced me that Reformed theology alone was consistent with His revelation of Himself. Before we left Longtown Presbyterian we even had our three children baptized in the context of infant Baptism (though they were all toddlers at the time).

The new home was glorious, compared to where we had been living. The children had all kinds of room to run and play. Eventually the Church put up a playhouse for the children and a out building for storage for us. All of this Lord Christ dropped in our laps in the most unexpected manner possible. His provision came out of nowhere. It was not the first time and it would not be the last but it is one of those times where the impact of it remains beyond my ability to reckon.

The church also paid us a small stipend weekly while we were there. Remember, they had just gone through a split themselves and so there was not a lot of money for a salary. Some of those first few Sundays, I remember we would have only 9 people in the service — most of them widows. The group that split off built a PCUSA chapel just down the road about 5 miles. We would eventually build up to about 25 people on any given Sunday before the door closed at Longtown and the Lord Christ brought us to Michigan. Longtown, Presbyterian is still open today. They are again now part of the PCA. I know very little about how all that came about but I rejoice to know that the Church continues to glorify God where it is at.

And almost 40 years later I marvel at God’s hand of provision for Jane and I and the children (Anthony came along in 1990). Those years at Longtown were a challenge but we never doubted that tiny congregation and community loved us. It was hard on us when the time came, because United Airlines was closing its operation in Columbia, SC, we had to leave that congregation and that place.

Most of those folks we ministered to their in Longtown almost 40 years ago have gone to be with Christ. I think if Jane and I just showed up today for worship at Longtown Presbyterian no one would recognize us because the congregation is a different congregation than the one we served. I think there might be one or two who might recognize us, but on the whole we could slip in and out on a given Sunday just being visitors in the area who decided to visit one random Sunday.

However, these many years later I remain amazed at how the Lord Christ opened up a situation that I could not have foreseen in a million years. I am amazed at His work not only in providing a home for the McAtee family but also in distinctly placing us in the ministry. All of this is part of my recital theology and I return to it over and over again when I am in a sticky wicket that I have no idea how I am going to get out of.

And then six years later, when we moved to Michigan the Lord Christ did it all over again.

But that is a different chapter in my recital theology and is for another time.

Christians Opposing Christian Nationalism — A Poem

The “Christians” chanting,

“Anti- Christian Nationalism,

Lord to thee we bow

Savior of our destiny

Thy name be hallowed now”

But heed ye not their ravings

To thy King now be true!

For Anti- Christian Nationalism

Is the “Kingdom of the Jew.”

Keep your Nationality

His and mine and thine

Be not driven headlong

Like Gadarenia swine.

Know ye well, the enemy

of Christendom of yore

Anti Christian Nationalism

Is that great Babylonian whore

From The Mailbag — Randy Watkins asks; “Do You Even Understand The Gospel”

Randy Watkins, (who I don’t know from Adam) left a comment on Iron Ink in response to one of my posts on Kinism. The comment was so good I thought I would turn it into a short post. Randy wrote asking;

“My question would be – do you even understand the Gospel? Do you even know Jesus? Kinism is nothing but pseudo-sterilized racism.”

Thank you Randy for these questions. Let’s take them one by one.

First, I do understand the Gospel. The Gospel is announcement of the good news that Jesus Christ, being the long promised Messiah, came to live, die, resurrect, ascend and sit in session at the right hand of God to vindicate God’s name and to provide redemption for all who call upon the name of the Lord. The Gospel teaches, Randy, that Christ can do this because he was the penal substitutionary atonement who provided satisfaction, by the spilling of His blood, in the place of sinners who deserved God’s wrath for committing the sin(s) of rebellion against a thrice Holy God. In and by His death Christ turned away the wrath of God (propitiation) by taking away our sins (expiation) so that men could have peace with God. In this sacrifice Christ pays the ransom price required for sin committed by sinners and in doing so is the means of our reconciliation. The Gospel teaches that the elect have the righteousness of Christ imputed (put to their account) to them while their sins are imputed to Christ. In light of this finished work of Christ for the elect God commands all men (regardless of race, ethnicity, or religion) to repent and so be united to Christ and numbered among the people of God. This Gospel pronouncement is to go out to every tribe, tongue, and nation, in their tribes, tongues, and nations.

As to your second question, by God’s grace alone I have been knowing Jesus now for over 60 years. Jesus means “Jehovah is salvation,” and knowing Jesus means knowing Him as Prophet, Priest, and King sent by God to speak for God, to be the Priest who offered up Himself as the sacrifice for sins, and to rule as God’s mediatorial King in all matters. Further, Jesus was and is the living incarnation of God’s law. Jesus, as the Lion of the tribe of Judah, remains a Judahite and son of David even now and has gathered to Himself a church that is characterized as a confederated church where each national Church together comprises the one people of God. The fact that Jesus has no other Church except a confederated church comprised of different National churches is explicitly taught in Revelation 21

²²But I saw no temple in it, for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are its temple. ²³The city had no need of the sun or of the moon to shine ^[l]in it, for the ^[m]glory of God illuminated it. The Lamb is its light. ²⁴And the nations^[n]of those who are saved shall walk in its light, and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honor ^[o]into it. ²⁵Its gates shall not be shut at all by day (there shall be no night there). ²⁶And they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into ^[p]it.

Finally, Randy, you say that “Kinism is nothing but pseudo-sterilized racism.” I’m sure in a Cultural Marxist worldview that is an insult. However, I don’t live in a Cultural Marxist worldview. To be honest… racism, pseudo-sterilized or otherwise, really has no meaning and is just a pejorative intended to end the conversation. Randy, the word “racism” means everything and so means nothing. Water off of a duck’s back my friend.

May God bless you and keep you Randy Watkins.

Interacting With Dr. Stephen Wolfe’s Plea For Christian Nationalism

Dr. Stephen Wolfe has been one of those who has been loudly calling for a return to Christian Nationalism. No doubt, as many of my readers know, Wolfe even wrote a book on the subject. I am all for Wolfe’s desire for a return to Christian Nationalism. I have been advocating that long before Wolfe secured his Ph. D. in Political theology (or something down that line). However, the Christian Nationalism Wolfe desires is of a substantially different stripe than what I envision.

So, we are both for Christian Nationalism but as all ideas are embedded in larger worldviews and it is our worldviews that stand jabberwocky to one another. This post by Wolfe, as posted on X, begins to demonstrate our differences. I do cheer many conclusions that Wolfe champions but I cringe at the Worldview he employs in order to arrive at those conclusions. This fisking of Wolfe will reveal some of our differences and some of our agreements.

SW writes,

Another thing about this: NAPARC is talking a lot about political theology today, but in my estimation only a handful of pastors and theologians understand what Brandon describes in this article. They do not know the Reformed political tradition.

BLMc responds,

Here is the link to the article that SW references.

On Baptist Establishment, Again

I have some problems with this article as well but responding to Wolfe here does not require me to respond to Brandon, though I may do that in the future. However, one point that needs to be made against Brandon — and it is a point that touches on Wolfe’s reasoning below. That point is that all Governmental arrangement come with an established church. No exceptions. Brandon, in the article linked above, argues for a return to Establishment churches (Stated funded churches) but one cannot return to that which one never left. Establishment churches are an inescapable concept. Currently, our Federal Government supplies vast funds to government (Public) schools and Universities. These government schools and Universities are now the equivalent of established churches and fill all the functions that established State Churches once filled when overt establishmentarianism between Church and State once existed. Government schools and Universities catechize our children, provide a priestly and prophetic function via the teachers, provide a local context where worship takes place as is seen in their adoration of the state from whence their instructions come. So, contrary to the labor of much of Brandon’s article there is no need to return to state Established churches. However, there is a need to change the Established churches the state currently supports.

So, given the above I’m not sure Brandon or SW understands the lay of the land when it comes to re-establishing Christian churches as those churches which the Magistrate overtly supports.

Secondly, concerning what Dr. Wolfe writes above we would agree that not many clergy understand the Reformed political tradition. Indeed, I would argue and have argued that we are at a lower ebb in clergy ability in the West than we have been in for decades and decades. I do concede that Dr. Wolfe understands the Reformed tradition when it comes to politics. Unfortunately, Dr. Wolfe and I disagree on the 20th century corrections to some of the earlier “Reformed Tradition.” More about that to follow.

Dr. Stephen Wolfe writes,

They still think that wanting a Christian nation means “theonomy” or “theocracy” or “postmillennialism” or “transformationalism”. They still think that “two kingdom theology” requires secularism. They are stuck in the debates of the last few decades. Many think they’re combatting something akin to “federal vision”–a “menace” threatening sound doctrine. That is false, of course. They are combatting classical Protestantism.

BLMc responds

1.) SW habitually focuses negatively in on theonomy, postmillennialism and transformationalism. This is because his worldview, like the R2K worldview, abominates theonomy, postmillennialism and transformationalism. Here we begin to get at the nub of the matter. SW does desire Christian Nationalism but he desires it as existing in a Thomistic Natural Law context which is at severe variance with theonomy, postmillennialism, and transformationalism. SW is in a tight spot here. On one hand he has to battle against those who share his Thomistic and Natural Law beginning points (Radical Two Kingdom theology) but who come to 180 degree different conclusions than what SW arrives at, while at the same time SW has to battle against those who share his desire for Christian Nationalism but who have zero interest in accepting the premises upon which his Christian Nationalism is pinioned. We will not give up Reformed theology in order to have compromised “Reformed” political theology.

2.) SW also misses a point here that is cheek by jowl with an observation I have already made. Given what SW says immediately above, it seems to be the case that SW believes that it is possible to avoid “theocracy.” However, given that established churches are an inescapable category, so it is the case that theocracy is likewise a inescapable category. All political arrangements, without exception, are theocratic. It is never a case of “if theocracy,” instead it is always the case of “which God shall rule.” All governments create law. Creation of law expresses morality and morality (right and wrong) is, without fail, an expression of some god or god concept. All governments are theocracies, though I freely admit that some governments (especially in a classically liberal political order) seek to hide the fact that they are hopelessly theocratic.

3.) When SW complains about many clergy thinking that all two kingdom theology “requires secularism,” he is at this point tilting at the windmills that is now routinely known as R2K. As I said above, Stephen is in a tight spot as he is taking on both R2K and theonomy/reconstructionism. The humorous thing here is that Stephen battles R2K he is battling with those who agree with him on the primacy of Natural Law but who read Natural Law exactly contrarian to the way he reads it. So much for Natural Law being perspicuous and so obvious.

4.) Here we begin to see why those who are the legitimate inheritors of the tradition of Rushdoony, Bahnsen, Clark, C. Greg Singer, Nigel Lee, Francis Schaeffer, etc. (as opposed to the”Libertarian theonomy” of North, Doug Wilson, A. Sandlin, Joel Boot, etc) are frustrated with SW. They certainly salute the idea of Christian Nationalism. They even salute many of the particulars that Wolfe supports. However, they choke at the idea of paying the price of accepting Wolfe’s Thomistic Natural Law worldview in order to have Christian Nationalism. It needs to be understood that if Wolfe’s vision of Christian Nationalism were to come to pass, it would only come to pass at the cost of giving up on presuppositionalism across the board. For most of us who have looked at both political theology of early Reformed thinkers as well as the political theology of presuppositionalism that is a price too great to pay. We agree with Wolfe that R2K sucks. Wolfe is convincing us that all expressions of 2K theology also sucks. The article linked above only confirms our suspicions.

It is becoming clear that there are more flavors of Christian Nationalism then there are Baskin Robbins Ice cream flavors. This reality is part of the problem in having a civil conversation on the subject. When one person says “Christian Nationalism,” ten people understand ten different conceptions of Christian Nationalism.

Is it the Christian Nationalism of Cromwell? Of the Antebellum South? Of Mussolini? Of Althusius? Of Bullinger? Of Lincoln? Of Uncle Adolf? Of Burke? Of the Reconstructionists? So many Christian Nationalisms… so little time.

Stephen Wolfe writes,

They are modern evangelicals on church/state questions. They are not Reformed. I’ve found that most pastors, theologians, and academics in NAPARC don’t care about the mountains of evidence in the tradition against them. But the laymen do care, and they are reading the old books, the venerable dead. More and more, the laymen will understand classical protestant political thought better than their pastors and teachers. And, in the end, denominational leaders–being obstinate in the face of evidence–will try to wield denominational authority against them. That is the future our leaders have chosen. But it’s not too late to choose humility.

Bret responds,

1.) Here SW plays the game that I suppose all the contestants in this battle royale play. Here SW desires to be the arbiter of what constitutes being “Reformed.” If one does not agree with SW one is running a couple quarts low of Reformed oil in his engine. Though, I must say I agree with SW that most Reformed pastors are not particularly Reformed on this subject. (Honesty requires me to admit that I don’t find SW to be particularly Reformed here either.)

2.) There is certainly a mountain of evidence that supports Stephen. Just as there is a mountain of evidence from Reformed theology that supports how the theonomist arrives at his political theology. Here Stephen admits he is a neophyte having confessed many times that he is no theologian. (Actually, Stephen is a theologian… a theologian in the school of Aquinas which was not particularly Reformed.)

3.) Finally Stephen appeals to the rise of the laymen. In history at various times there have been more than a few who counted on the laymen to overthrow the “expert class.” It has happened a few times. More often it is the expert class that divides with eventually one set overthrowing the other set and the laymen then follow. Speaking only for myself, I wouldn’t bet the house on a tidal wave of laymen becoming familiar with the original sources so as to overthrow the putative expert class. There will be a few laymen, but on the whole laymen have to work for a living while raising a family and that doesn’t allow for the time required to invest in the reading and studying. I spent the first 10 years in the ministry as a tentmaker and believe me when I tell you that it was difficult to keep up with everything that needed to be kept up with in the study.

4.) I do agree with SW that the denominations will try a power play to get their way. That kind of thing is seen quite routinely. Sometimes I think that nobody does tyranny as well as clergy. I’ll go a step further than Dr. Wolfe. I see a day coming when the splits that have begun in the “Conservative” “Reformed” denominations will accelerate to the point that more and more denominations will split off and be created. I think the name “Occidental Reformed Church” for a denomination would be grand. We are already seeing this phenomenon in micro. The RCA has a split off group. More than a few CRC churches have departed recently. The Vanguard Presbytery departed the PCA. The Bayly’s a few years ago created a phone booth denomination out of the PCA. I expect this kind of thing to continue. We are at a point where;

Turning and turning in the widening gyre

The falcon cannot hear the falconer;

Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;

Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,

The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere

The ceremony of innocence is drowned;

The best lack all conviction, while the worst

Are full of passionate intensity.

A Simple Definition of Kinism Offered And Defended

“Kinism is the belief that ordained social order for man is tribal & ethnic rather than imperial & universal. Mankind was designed by God to live in extended family groups. Blood ties are the only workable basis for a healthy society not subject to the ideologies of fallen man.”

Joe Sobran

Currently, there is a great deal of angst over Christians embracing Kinism or Kinism adjacent or informed philosophies. Currently, many denominations are absolutely in a roil over “Christian Nationalism.” Other labels by which Kinist thought travels under is “ethno-Nationalism” (a classic tautology) and “race-realism.” What is humorous about the Church denominations denunciation of all things Kinist is that often one finds the denunciation only to be followed by the insistence that there is a need to define Kinism. Clearly, if Kinism, or any of it’s adjacent partners needs to be defined for people how can it first be condemned?

I come across countless Christians who hate Kinism who simply have no idea what it is they hate. Recently, I knew of a particular congregation that found one of its members accusing one of its Elders of being a “Kinist.” When the Elder in question asked his accuser, “What is Kinism,” the accuser said, “I don’t know.” The accuser didn’t know what Kinism was and yet he was accusing his Elder of being a Kinist. How could he accuse someone of being a Kinist without knowing first what a Kinist was?

And so, I offer the above definition from Joe Sobran as a stable and simple working definition of Kinism. If we are going to rail against and rend one another over this idea of Kinism and Kinism informed theories then we should all be able to operate from a common definitional foundation.

I also think it might be helpful to offer a definition of what Kinism is fighting against. Often one can understand somebody in terms of what they are supporting and what they are for if one can understand what they are fighting against and what it is they oppose.

The 2oth century was the century that will be remembered as being that century which saw the rise and then the flourishing of Marxist thought. Marxist and Marxist adjacent thought comes in a host of packaging. Most recently it has been flexing its muscle in terms of Cultural Marxism. Whatever packaging it comes in Marxism has always been that ideology which is the sworn enemy of all forms and shapes of Kinism. If we were to define the aspect of Marxism that is in opposition to Kinism we would define Marxism, in a parallel mirror image of Sobran’s definition of Kinism above as;

“Marxism is the belief that ordained social order for man is imperial & universal rather than tribal & ethnic. As God does not exist, Mankind, per Marxism, was designed by to live disattached from any notion of family groups. Blood ties are barriers to a healthy society as defined by the ideologies of man as god.”

The goal of Marxism has always been the universal Soviet man who has no attachments to anything except the universalizing State. This universalizing necessarily includes the destruction of the kind of tribal and ethnic family dynamic upon which Kinism (and Christianity) is based. So, for epistemologically self conscious Kinist the choice is between a Christianity that teaches the tribal and ethnic familial particularity vs. a Marxist informed “Christianity” that teaches a universalistic idea of family, and by extension global nation.

The Kinist sees in those Christians abominating Kinism an agreement with Marx;

“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:

The Kinist hears in the agenda of any church that would vilify Kinism the echo of Marx’s partner, Friedrich Engels;

“Only when we have led every woman from the home into the workplace will complete equality be achieved, by the destruction of the institution of the family, which is the basis of capitalist society.”

Friedrich Engels,
Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State

Kinism believes, following Christianity, that the destruction of the institution of the family is accomplished by advocacy for a universalization of marriage that does not respect the tribal and ethnic lines that Sobran speaks of in the above opening paragraph.

If one considers the historical embodiment of Marxism via their Revolutions in places like France, Russia, China one sees a two-fold destructive thrust. What Marxists seek to destroy first is the Christian faith as well as the tribal and ethnic understanding of family – built as it is from categories provided by the Christian faith.

Having explained all this allow me to say that it is my knowledge and so hatred of all forms of Marxism, including Cultural Marxism, that fills me with so much reproach for those who oppose Kinism. Kinism is the Christian elixir that cures the disease of Communism. The fact that so many in the institutional Church are fighting a central plank (Kinism) of the Christian faith in favor (whether they realize it or not) of a central tenet of the Marxist faith leaves me apoplectic.

What the enemies of Kinism have to do in order to relax the tension that has arisen over this issue is provide a social order theory that is an alternative to “tribal and ethnic” that isn’t at the same time Universalist. I don’t think that can be done. I think that one either follows God’s design that arcs towards tribal and ethnic or one follows the Marxist design that arcs towards the destruction of the Christian family in favor of a Universalist (Babel) impulse towards a global nation state social order. When this Kinist looks at this debate he sees either a movement towards cosmopolitan internationalism (the passion of Marxism) or a movement towards “Honoring our Fathers and Mothers.”