Category: Ethnic considerations

When I opened the book Drewski provides his unique definition of Kinism;

“Kinism – a belief system that advocates for racial and ethnic separation, claiming that such segregation is divinely ordained. The word is derived from “kin,” and promotes the idea of ‘maintaining one’s own kin,’ or ‘loving one’s own kind’, as Biblical ideals.”

1.) The first sentence above just happens to be verbatim from AI as provided by Google.

2.) Note that all because someone advocates for racial and ethnic separation that does not necessarily mean that they are advocating for “racial superiority.” Yet, in Drewski’s book title he insists that Kinism is equivalent to holding to racial superiority. As I am often referred to as “the King of the Kinists” allow me to suggests that most of the Kinists I know will say that patterns of superiority and inferiority run through all different races. Some races are superior to others in one way while inferior to others in other ways.

3.) In terms of “segregation” Kinists merely agree with the greatest theologian of all time

“The ancient fathers… were concerned that the ties of kinship itself should not be loosened as generation succeeded generation, should not diverge too far, so that they finally ceased to be ties at all. And so for them it was a matter of religion to restore the bond of kinship by means of the marriage tie before kinship became too remote—to call kinship back, as it were, as it disappeared into the distance.”

City of God, book XV, Chapter 16

4.) This second sentence is a wee bit astounding;

The word (Kinsim) is derived from “kin,” and promotes the idea of ‘maintaining one’s own kin,’ or ‘loving one’s own kind’, as Biblical ideals.”

Now, understand that Drewski is going to argue in this booklet that God is so displeased with Kinism that God desires His church to label it Heresy (a denial of the Faith). The Christian faith, per Drewski, is adamantly opposed to those who champion the idea of maintaining one’s own and is adamantly opposed to those who insist that we are to “love our own kind.” We are being told right out of the gate that the Christian faith considers heretics all those who would say that, “God desires us to maintain our family lines,” and who would say that, “God desires us to love our own kind.” Drewski wants us to believe that anyone who holds these two convictions;

a.) ‘maintaining one’s own kin’

b.) ‘loving one’s own kind’

are guilty of championing heresy and so are outside the Christian faith.

Allow me to finish by observing that since there is no universal consensus on the definition of Kinism I intend to give my definition of Kinism;

“Kinism – a belief system that has historically been considered just one doctrine of many in basic Christianity that recognizes how God has distinguished the various races and/or ethnicities (Acts 17:26). In light of how God has distinguished peoples Kinism, as one doctrine in basic Christianity, agrees with God and proclaims loudly that they agree with God. The word is derived from “kin,” and promotes the idea of ‘maintaining one’s own kin,’ or ‘loving one’s own kind’, as is both implicitly and explicitly taught in Scripture. Kinism is merely the restoration of an older idea called the Ordo Amoris which taught that the right or proper ordering of one’s love, based on the closeness of the connection between oneself and the potential recipient of love.

Finally, Kinism holds that those who are opposed to this definition and characterize ‘Kinism’ as heresy are themselves heretics who are to be marked out and avoided.”

“We condemn any doctrine that God has established any barriers to marriage for individuals based on ethnicity or skin color, prohibits or holds marriages between different ethnicities in contempt, or seeks to promote ethnic-based divisions in society. We view them as inherently divisive and contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. We affirm that mankind is created in the Image of God; hence, no ethnicity is inherently more sacred or sinful than another, and all ethnicities can be in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. Thus, interethnic marriages, churches, and commonwealths can exist and flourish in the present age.”

We have said repeatedly on Iron Ink that it is not possible to get to multi-culturalism apart from multi-racialism with multi-faithism being the eventual result. Here the CREC offers a doctrinal statement that will continue the recent decades push in the West to miscegenate. This miscegenation will result in a multi-racialism which in turn will support the multiculturalism that is now so increasingly typical in the West.

All of this, in its origin, was and is the project of Cultural Marxism. The goal of Cultural Marxism was to destroy the West from the inside out. The way the Cultural Marxists intended to do that was to destroy the Christian Institutions of the West. Marriage is an Institution that the Cultural Marxist have sought to destroy and whether the CREC likes it or not the Institution of Marriage in the West in our history is the joining of one White Christian woman with one White Christian man. Now, of course, exceptions have always existed and those exceptions should be treated as marriages by a Christian people. However, on the whole exceptions should remain exceptions and this attempt by the CREC to join the Cultural Marxist chorus should be rejected.

The British statesman Edmund Burke once wrote, “When ancient opinions and rules of life are taken away, the loss cannot possibly be estimated.” The CREC here is seeking to contramand ancient opinions and rules of life as they were set forth by our Christian forebears. That this is true is seen by the reasons elucidated by one of the Fathers of the PCA for separating into a new denomination;

Causes of Separation in 1973 (PCA separates from PCUS) by 
Dr. Rev. John Edwards Richards

The Socialist, who declares all men are equal.  Therefore there must be a great leveling of humanity and oneness of privilege and possession.

The Racial Amalgamationist, who preaches that the various races should be merged into one race and differences erased in oneness.

The Communist, who would have one mass of humanity coerced into oneness by a totalitarian state and guided exclusively by Marxist philosophy.

The Internationalist, who insists on co-existence between all peoples and nations that they be as one regardless of ideology or history.

John Edwards Richards
One of the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

Elsewhere Richards could write prophetically of the CREC (as well as most other Reformed “conservative”denominations) in 2025;

“The vast majority of good thinking people prefer to associate with, and intermarry with, people of their respective race; this is part of the God-given inclination to honor and uphold the distinctiveness of separate races. But there are many false prophets of oneness, and many shallow stooges, who seek to force the amalgamation of the races.” 

Dr. John E. Richards

I continue to find it stunning that in 50 short years the theology of the clergy and church has reversed itself so thoroughly from thousands of years of Church history. We have gone on from our Father’s frowning on interracial marriage in 1973 to marking out the grandchildren of those Fathers as those who are beyond the pale in terms of Church fellowship. In 1973 they left because of the issues above. In 2025 they are insisting that the grandchildren leave because they still agree with the reasons of the Father’s leaving as given above. The views of the CREC articulated above were seen as divisive in 1973. In 2025 those who disagree with the CREC are the divisive ones. Who ever thought that white people wanting their children to look like them would be divisive?

Who knew that God was pleased with and even requires multiculturalism?

If one can’t seek to promote ethnic-based divisions in society, as is stated in this proposal, one has, by default, removed any obstacles to multiculturalism’s insistence that it must be allowed as by Divine warrant.

Notice the use of the phrase “skin color” in the proposal above. This phrase has been chosen because of the insistence that “race” can be reduced to be  only about skin color. This is a subtle insistence that there is no such thing as race, as if different races wouldn’t still be different races if they all had the same skin color. This is right out of the Franz Boas playbook in denying the objective reality of race. Boas contributed to the Cultural Marxist cause.

Next, I know very few people who would argue that any ethnicity is more sacred or sinful than another. This is a red herring and it is seeking to make the opponents to the Cultural Marxism of the CREC look evil. All those within the Reformed Church (or who were in the Reformed church before being cast out for believing what their Fathers believed) have been arguing that racial distinctions should be recognized and honored believe that all peoples are created as image bearers of God. The idea that Christian Kinists or race-realists believe some races/ethnicities are inherently more sacred (set apart as holy) or sinful than others is just horse manure.

Next one wonders how it is that doctrines that promote ethnic-based divisions in society are … contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, any more or less than promoting gender-based divisions in society are … contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel of Jesus Christ is the declaration by the heralds of the King that now is the appointed day of salvation because of the death, resurrection and ascension of the Lord Jesus Christ followed by the command that all men – regardless of race – everywhere repent. Neither Rev. Michael Spangler, Rev. Michael Hunter, Rev. Ryan Louis Underwood, Rev. John Weaver or (the worst of them all) Rev. Bret L. McAtee would deny the Gospel to men of every race, tongue, tribe, or nation. This claim that promoting ethnic based distinctions in society are contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ is more horse manure. In order to believe this one would have to argue that the greatest ministers, and evangelists in church history have been those who were contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Moving on we note that nobody denies that and all ethnicities can be in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. What we deny is the wisdom of all ethnicities being in fellowship through the gospel of Jesus Christ. We agree with Reformed theologian John Frame who said;

“Scripture, as I read it, does not require societies, or even churches, to be integrated racially. Jews and Gentiles were brought together by God’s grace into one body. They were expected to love one another and to accept one another as brothers in the faith. But the Jewish Christians continued to maintain a distinct culture, and house churches were not required to include members of both groups.”

John Frame,
“Racism, Sexism, Marxism”

Finally, no one doubts “that interethnic marriages, churches, and commonwealths can exist and flourish in the present age.” The question is not whether they can exist. The question is whether or not they should exist. Our forefathers did not think so, as has been made abundantly clear in two different large anthologies;

Who Is My Neighbor; An Anthology In Natural Relations
A Survey Of Racialism In Christian Sacred Tradition – Alexander Storen

Let it be said again. Our Reformed and Christian Fathers were against what the Church in the West (this time the CREC) is pursuing and embracing in terms of miscegenation and multiculturalism, multi-racialism and multi-faithism.

Clergy who deny the existence of distinctions in races and yet affirm the existence of the distinction of God and man are just one generation from their children being consistent.

Now, can people be saved by the Gospel who remain practitioners and champions of egalitarianism? Only God knows but I would think that it depends on far they take their egalitarianism. You see, egalitarianism is another religion, with another definition of sin, another definition of Jesus, another definition of salvation, and another definition of sanctification. How wrong must one be before they are so wrong that they can’t be Christian?

Only God knows. But why try to press the boundaries to find out?