Category: Ethnic considerations

John Chrysostom …. The Kinist

Recently, I had a couple situations where more than one family protested rather decidedly that my embracing of Kinism was wrong since

a.) Kinism was not a first order doctrine related to salvation and so shouldn’t be front and center.

b.) Kinism was going to be a hurdle for their other friends making it difficult for children to find marriage partners.

I thought I would turn to the words of St. Chrysostom in order to demonstrate that Kinism is a first order doctrine and is related to salvation.

Speaking of those accursed who turn from God Chrysostom writes:

“Did they not trample kinship under foot, did they not forget their children, did they not forget the very God who created them.”

John Chrysostom
Discourses Against Judaizing Christians
3.3.8

“For if a man deserts those who are united by ties of kindred and affinity how shall he be affectionate towards others?”

St. John Chrysostom
The Homilies of St. John Chrysostom: Archbishop of Constantinople
ON the Epistle of St. Paul the Apostle to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon (Parker 1843), pg. 115

“If any provide not for his own, and especially for those of his own house,” that is, those who are nearly related to him, “he is worse than an infidel.”
And so says Isaiah, the chief of the Prophets, “Thou shalt not overlook thy kinsmen of thy own seed.” (Isa. lviii. 7, Sept.)

For if a man deserts. those who are united by ties of kindred and affinity, how shall he be affectionate towards others? Will it not have the appearance of vainglory, when benefiting others he slights his own relations, and does not provide for them? And what will be said, if instructing others, he neglects his own, though he has greater facilities; and a higher obligation to benefit them? Will it not be said, These Christians are affectionate indeed, who neglect their own relatives?

(2) “He is worse than an infidel.”

Wherefore? Because the latter, if he benefits not aliens, does not neglect his near kindred. What is meant is this: The law of God and of nature is violated by him who provides not for his own family. But if he who provides not for them has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel, where shall he be ranked who has injured his relatives? With whom shall he be placed? But how has he denied the faith? Even as it is said, “They profess that they know God, but in works they deny Him.” (Tit. i. 16.) What has God, in whom they believe, commanded? “Hide not thyself from thine own flesh.” (Isa. lviii. 7.) How does he then believe who thus denies God? Let those consider this, who to spare their wealth neglect their kindred. It was the design of God, in uniting us by the ties of kindred, to afford us many opportunities of doing good to one another. When therefore thou neglectest a duty which infidels perform, hast thou not denied the faith?”

Chrysostom
Homilies on 1st Timothy XIV

In terms of (b) above the only thing that might be said is that there will be a greater cost born by family members for a patriarch abandoning truth than will be born by family members if the patriarch stands by the truth.

Trinitarianism and Kinism

“There is a most profuse diversity and yet, in that diversity, there is also a superlative kind of unity. The foundation for both unity and diversity is in God…. Here is a unity that does not destroy but rather maintains diversity, and a diversity that does not come at the expense of unity, but rather unfolds it in its riches. In virtue of this unity the world can, metaphorically, be called an organism, in which all parts are connected with each other and influence each other reciprocally.”

Herman Bavinck 
Reformed Dogmatics — Vol. II: p. 435

Kinists are Kinists because we believe that on a creational level the reality of unity in diversity found in the fact of multiple races in the one human race reflects the Creator who is Himself unity in diversity. Likewise then, Kinists believe that Alienists who deny Kinism are, whether self-conscious of it or not, denying the trinitarian character of God in favor of a Unitarian monad theology. In point of fact Kinists insist that the denial of Kinism for social order is the consequence of social order Unitarianism. When the Kinist defends Kinism behind and below that defense is his conviction that God is both One and Many as well as the conviction that to deny that unity in diversity is to deny our undoubted catholic Christian faith.

Toby Sumpter On Superficial Divisions

“The multicultural globalist want to blend all culture into a bland humanism, but the blood-and-soil types end up insisting on superficial divisions. Covenant is the key to earthy and biblical unity and diversity, of what we might call a Protestant feudalism and Christendom.”

Toby “No Legs Yet Walking” Sumpter

I.) Nothing At All About Blood?

1.) “The Promise is to you and to your children….” Acts 2:39

2.) Gen. 12: 2 I will make you into a great nation, and I will bless you; I will make your name great, so that you will be a blessing. 3I will bless those who bless you and curse those who curse you; and all the families of the earth will be blessed through you.”

3.) God is known as the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, (note the patrilineal descent) and not the God of Abraham,  Hiram, and Malik.

4.) Gen. 24:2 One day Abraham said to his oldest servant, the man in charge of his household, “Take an oath by putting your hand under my thigh. 3 Swear by the Lord, the God of heaven and earth, that you will not allow my son to marry one of these local Canaanite women. 4 Go instead to my homeland, to my relatives, and find a wife there for my son Isaac.”

Keep in mind that the wife that was later married by Jacob from these same relatives of Abraham  was beset with the same pagan mindset as was true of the local Canaanite women as seen in her running off with Laban’s household gods. We note that so that we see that it wasn’t as if the people of Abraham were God-fearers unlike the local Canaanites and their women-folk.

5.) Do keep in mind also that there is a reason for all those genealogies in Scripture that demonstrate that Jesus the Christ was the son of David, the son of Abraham.  (Matthew 1) In point of fact Jesus remains the Lion of the tribe of Judah at this very moment with DNA typable blood at the right hand of the Father.

6.) Ezra and Nehemiah and their decrying of mixed marriages and children anybody?

7.) “I was only sent to the lost sheep of Israel.” Jesus the Christ

Now before I am accused of suggesting that blood is the only consideration allow me to disavow that. I am only saying there that the covenant is not a Gnostic covenant. Grace, because of God’s ordination, typically runs in generational familial lines. Blood is not everything but neither is it nothing. Jesus enemies during his earthly ministry made descent an idol. Today the enemies of Biblical Christianity make descent to mean nothing as if grace does not, because of God’s free assignment, run in generational lines.

II.) Nothing At All About Soil?

So much for all those promises about “the promised land.” And what about our one day “inheriting the whole earth?”

So, it is not at all about blood and soil and yet Christ had to come from the tribe of Judah. It’s not at all about blood and soil yet Paul can say in Romans;

“the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile.”

And Jesus will say to the Samaritan woman in John 4;

22You worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.

What is hilarious is that these same people like Old Toby will deny all categories of blood and soil while still insisting that those reputed to be blood Jews still have a glorious future ahead of them misinterpreting Romans 11. Still others want to say that the blood Jews are going to rebuild the temple on the glorious soil of Jerusalem.

Old Toby’s “thinking” (we’re feeling generous in calling it “thinking) gives us not only propositional nationhood but also propositional covenant theology. This is Gnostic covenantalism. The fact that it comes from putative Presbyterians demonstrates how far many of the Presbyterians have gone in grace destroying nature.

Again, my point in all this is to say “Old Toby is wrong.” Covenant has to do with blood and soil. My point is that while blood and soil are not everything neither are they nothing. For Pete’s sake that is proven by the 5th commandment. That is proven by the fact that the Holy Spirit can say;

“if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”

I Timothy 5:8

Finally, note this clergy member said that family ties are nothing but superficial divisions. Good gravy, if that isn’t the theme song of the Globalists among us I don’t know what is. I find it shocking that a Presbyterian — the folks who historically believed that the best method of Church growth was by having large families — is telling me that family ties are superficial divisions. It is shocking as hearing P-Diddy saying “sex should be saved for marriage.”

Family is not everything. We must give up family if necessary to follow Christ but family is so important that God uses the idea of “family” to define how the church members should inter-relate.

And yet for Old Toby it is a “superficial division” — kind of like being a Michigan or Michigan State fan.

 

Have We Gone Too Far With This Christian Nationalism / Kinism?

 

As the heat has been turning way up recently on the Christian Nationalism debate (people use all kinds of different phrases for that debate) lately, I have noticed more than a few people trying to find the middle of the road. These are the “split the middle” types seeking to insist that all sides on the debate are in error.

I offer two quotes as examples;

“The reason that there is so much heat (instead of light) being generated surrounding some aspects of Christian Nationalism is partly because of two ditches that need to be avoided:

One side seeks to ‘ethni-tize’ everything (or make it all about ‘clanship’ as David Schrock has said), ultimately mimicking some sub-biblical philosophy, and the OTHER side seeks to spiritualize everything – to untether natural relations – and disparage family, land, or any shared historical affinities.

Both are unbiblical and idiotic.”

Jim Brushtune
Reformed Baptist Pastor

“Kinism is a poisonous, unbiblical overreaction to the left’s social justice and CRT.”

Jay Antelo
Reformed Rican

First, we might note that this is a little evidence that the Overton window is shifting ever so slightly on the subject. As recent as just a year ago, people would not have suggested that there was some truth in Christian Nationalism insisting that the problem with CN is that it has gone to far. A year ago people were still, in the main, raining down anathemas on all ethno-nationalism type of arguments.However, one has to realize that this “middle of the road” nonsense is just not sane. Keep in mind that in the last 60 years or so we have lived through social revolutionary times and each decade as seen that Revolutionary activity push the culture increasingly to the left. Because this is so, any counter-revolutionary activity (such as Christian Nationalism) in any degree looks Revolutionary to the leftist Revolutionaries and the hoi polloi rank and file who have had their minds captured by the left.

This means that the least push for Christian Nationalism/Kinism/racial-realism or ethno-nationalism is going to be seen by the hoi polloi middle as something that is automatically extreme no matter how slight that push is. As such, the “middle of the roaders” who desire to say that we have to deal with two extremes are seeking to codify where the left’s revolutionary impulse has taken us over the last 60 years. To be sure, they may want to undo the most recent push of multiculturalism with the success of the trannie and sodomite leveling but they would never want to go back to the days when the US was a 88% white and largely Christian nation. Why, that would be to make everything about “clanship” or, alternately, that would be a poisonous unbiblical over-reaction. In the words of guys like Andrew Sandlin or Doug Wilson that would be akin to “Nazisim.”

And yet that is the world that for the first twenty years of my life that I lived in. Now, to insist that world was a good place and to be preferred as having greater stability as compared to and with what we have now is considered turning everything into clanship and practicing a poisonous unbiblical over-reaction.

Championing what we were in 1980 societally is not Nazism, no matter what Doug Wilson or Andrew Sandlin tell you. Those of us who desire a Biblical Christian Nationalism that honors the various white Anglo-Saxon Christian regional flavors that used to characterize these united States is not trying to ethnic-ize everything. Instead it is merely to want to honor our Fathers who combined a love of nation with a love of their own respected regions (regionalism).

So, beware the “split the middle” type arguments. The numbers of those arguing for the “Nazi” position are so minuscule there is no need to take them seriously. Oh, there is no doubt, that those Nazi minority types out there will be pointed too as “classical Christian Nationalism” but that is all done to poison the Christian Nationalism pool.

Those who are seeking to reason that people (Kinists, Christian Nationalists, ethno-nationalists, racial-realists) on all sides are wrong are themselves wrong.  The Christian Nationalists are not seeking to ethnic-ize everything and the Kinists are not a unbiblical poisonous reaction, though those on the moderate left and the far left want you to think so.

“Mother Jones” “TheoBros,” & One Related Tangent

I spent two posts dismissing Rev. Chris Gordon’s dismissal of Christian Nationalism/Post-millennialism, only to read today a “Mother Jones” article that is seeking to warn everybody about the rise of what Gordon says is a dying movement. As odd as it may sound it seems both “Mother Jones” and I agree on something vis-a-vis Chris Gordon.

To Understand JD Vance, You Need to Meet the “TheoBros”

The “Mother Jones” article is worth a read in my opinion. What is most interesting about the “Mother Jones” piece is that this traditionally liberal rag gives the movement that Gordon so eschews a more objective take than most people like Gordon and the ilk from the Reformed-Evangelical world give the movement. Now, to be sure, “Mother Jones” is opposed to the movement and it’s article is seeking to “expose” the movement as something dangerous, but even despite that obvious slant there is in the piece a more even handed approach to what is being reported on then can be found from the likes of Chris Gordon and his R2K/Pietistic Baptist fellow travelers.

You can read the article for yourself if you please. However, there is one point I want to draw attention to and that is the label “Mother Jones” gives the movement. The label “Mother Jones” gives is “The Theobros.” Now, the problem I have with this handle is that it subtly implies that “The Theobros” are brothers who are uniquely operating according to a common theology. The beef here is, is that those who are opposed “The Theobros,” like “Mother Jones” are themselves also Theobros, in the sense that their militant opposition to “The Theobros” is based on a shared theology. It is not as if “The Theobros” are unique in being bonded together by their shared theology. When bond are bonded together a key factor in their being bonded together for a particular cause is a theology that makes them Theobros.

I point this out because I am convinced that underneath this labeling is the idea that people can be scared of “The Theobros” movement for the precise reason that they are caricatured as religious extremists, when in point of fact it is the Marxist Theobros opposing “The Theobros” who are the religious extremists.

If I may, I will only give one critique of “The Theobros.” This critique is not based on the article, though the article, if read closely, I think lends credence to this critique. My critique of “The Theobros” movement is that it is not self-referentially consistent. Now, some are clearly better than others among “The Theobros” but there are many in this movement who are only interested in taking half-measures, half-taken. The remedy that many in this movement are offering will not cure the disease.  So, even if they are successful, I do not think that we, as a Christian nation, will be much better off. Oh, we may be better off for a season but the basic trajectory this nation is on will not be altered.  The one way I could be wrong on this is if “The Theobros” movement is muting their voices because they know that, politically speaking, they can not say the quiet parts out loud. In brief, I do think that many of them are trying to move the Overton Window but they are not moving it yet past what is still considered acceptable by those on the right side of the left. As I noted, this may be merely a tactic rather than a conviction.

This brings me to a tangent that while unrelated to the “Mother Jones” article remains related to the subject as a whole.

Recently, I was talking to someone I am fairly confident would be considered a “Theobros.” During the conversation he said that he did not like the methodology of Kinism. As someone who knows a little bit about Kinism I asked him if he could be precise as to what this methodology of Kinism is to which he objects.

He replied by noting two things that I would like to spill a few sentence examining.

First he said, “That I don’t like how Kinists say that inter-racial marriage is sin.”

I must admit that I find this flummoxing. It is true that there are some few Kinists who say that all inter-racial marriage is sin. However, there are also even more Kinists who do not say that all inter-racial marriages are sin always all the time. There are more than a few Kinists, like myself, who merely say that while inter-racial marriages can be sin, they are not necessarily always sin but are normatively, as the higher statistical averages on the divorce rate for inter-racial couples bear out, not wise, and so these Kinists strongly counsel against such marriages, stopping short of labeling it as “always sin.”

https://www.thehivelaw.com/blog/interracial-divorce-rates-what-percentage-of-interracial-marriages-end-in-divorce/

My conversation partner’s protest then was not valid on this point.

His second reason for “not liking the methodology of Kinism,” was his being wedded to the theory of Natural Law. He doesn’t like the fact that Kinists, often (though not always) being theonomists, find Natural Law theory ridiculous. I sought to assure him that some Kinists might well embrace Natural Law while still being Kinists. This objection of his to “so called” Kinist methodology is even more non-weighty than his first objection. If one desires to embrace Natural Law while embracing Kinism nobody is going to tear up your Kinist membership card though you may be challenged on that particular point as a side-bar discussion.

What I see has happened is that the word “Kinism” has been turned into a “boogeyman.” Just as people are scared of being tagged with the word “racist,” or “anti-semite,” or “homophobic” so they have been convinced that being labeled with the opprobrium of “Kinist” is the worst thing in the world to happen. However, like the other words just mentioned, people do not realize that they are being manipulated to operate in the world view of those who are slinging the accusations. Since otherwise decent people are being stampeded into avoiding the left hurling these words at them, people begin to operate in such a way as to avoid these empty-minded pejoratives and in their mad rush to avoid these slurs these otherwise decent people operate in terms of their enemy’s world and life view.

Given the world and life view of God’s enemies and our enemies there is not necessarily or automatically any sin in being what they call “racist” or “anti-semite,” or “homophobe” or even “Kinist.” These are just words used to manipulate people into accepting their Cultural Marxist Weltanschauung (Worldview). If we are going to be successful in resisting the Cultural Marxists we need to get used to the way they hurl these words at us and reply with something like;

“Well, I’m sure to someone who is a Cultural Marxist like yourself your accusations make sense, and honestly, were I a Cultural Marxist like you I might say the same, but since I am not a Cultural Marxist, but instead am a Christian, I do not share the premise behind your accusations, and so find your accusations to be folly. I do not take your accusations seriously in the least.”