From The Mailbag — Could You Give A “Back Of The Napkin” Explanation Of Kinism?

“Hey brother, when you have a minute could you sketch out for me a quick ‘back of the napkin ‘ explanation of kinism and what the opponents of kinism are all twisted up about. Just haven’t been able to nail it down. No rush, I know you are with family and it is Advent, so whenever you are inclined.

Thanks.”

Kyle Patrick

Hello Kyle;

Thanks for asking.

Remember, per your request this is a back of the napkin kind of explanation. Much more could be said.

Kinism is the doctrine that God, by His creative and providential work has set men in families, clans, tribes, and nations and because of that there is a natural and biblical requirement to prioritize and order our loves in just such a fashion.

Kinist do NOT deny that they also have responsibilities to those who share a common faith who are not in those concentric circles of natural responsibilities but they recognize that normatively we are to provide for our own relatives and especially for members of our own household, realizing that the man who does not prioritize his own Kin has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.

Further, Kinists do NOT believe that conversion strips a man of his race, nation, tribe, clan, or family. Instead, Kinists believe that grace restores nature and as such conversion and sanctification lifts us to be the best sons, daughters, fathers, husbands, Uncles, Aunts to our own people that God in creation intended us to be.

In brief Kinism is anti-Gnosticism.

Finally, people (especially Christian Clergy it seems) are all tied up into knots and hysterical about Kinism because;

1.) They were educated in Government schools and so have bought into the egalitarian swill.

2.) They think the civil rights era was all about Christianity when in point of fact it was all about Marxism.

3.) They are afraid of the peer pressure. Their children might not be able to marry just the right people. They might not get the promotion at work. They might get shunned by friends for believing Christian truths held for every generation by Christians until 1950 or so. Most people are basically cowards.

4.) They follow the crowd.

I hope this helps Kyle. If you have more questions I’d be glad to field them if I am able.

From the Mailbag; Pastor Can You Give Me A Reading List Dealing With The Post-War Consensus

A friend writes and asks;
Dear Pastor,

Do you have some recommended reading on the Post War Consensus debate? I’m trying to get some awareness into these recently contested matters.

Bret responds,

Hello Josh. I don’t know of anything that deals directly with the current angst but here are a list of books that if read will give you the context of why people are justly complaining about this “post-war consensus.” (That really is a bit of mislabeling since the post-war consensus is just the final flowering of all that was pursued in the post-enlightenment consensus.)

Return of the Strong Gods — R. R. Reno

The Age of Entitlement — Christopher Caldwell
The Unprotected Class — Jeremy Carl
Reflections on the Revolution in Europe — Christopher Caldwell
Out of Revolution — Rosenstock-Huessy
Law and Revolution — Harold J. Berman
Law and Revolution II — Harold J. Berman
The Bondage of the Free — Kent Steffegen
The Dispossessed Majority — Wilmot Robertson
The Tears of the White Man; Compassion as Contempt — Pascal Bruckner

I Get By With A Little Help From My Friends; Ethan Holden On Transparency

“I’ve always believed in a “Flags Out Front” approach to things.

Meaning:

1. Be upfront and honest with what you believe politically, theologically, philosophically, and morally.

2. Don’t be afraid to put your views out in the open, especially the ones that people will find most controversial.

3. Fight for those views without apology.

4. Eventually, you will have the “Adam Carolla” or “Howard Stern” affect. Have you ever noticed how those two men can say anything they want, and nobody calls for them to be cancelled anymore? They used to….but not anymore. Why? Because they know that both of those men are too far gone to be scolded and scorned into changing their opinions. The sons of earth are shrewd in that way, and we should be too.

5. Don’t lie or obfuscate your views unless you are dealing with your enemies. You do not owe them any information. But your family, friends, and church leadership are not the folks that you want to hide your beliefs from. To do so is to put them in the same camp as your enemies.

6. If your more controversial “flags out front” views are not shared by your Elders, do not undermine them by trying to convert the congregants to your point of view. Sure, use your public platform to discuss what you want to discuss. But do not be a subversive.

7. Lastly, enjoy yourself! Don’t be a shrill, get wrapped around the axels, and self righteous. State your business, and have a good time doing it!

Raise the flag.

They are going to find out anyway.”

From the Mailbag; Rachel Challenges Pastor Bret On His Hot Take On Carlson Interviewing Wilson

Rachel J. Hill writes,

https://sashastone.substack.com/p/tucker-talks-to-doug-wilson

If the link above works, it will take you to a direct link to the full interview on Spotify. I understand you were reacting to the short trailer video but I would be curious to know if any of your critiques change after hearing the entire thing.

I personally completely agree with you on the ethnic nationalism issue. But it’s a moot point because of the way America is already compromised of so many different kinds of ethnic groups. Short of kicking people out, there’s no way you’re going to narrow the gene pool. Not only that, but the very idea of narrowing the gene pool as a proposition to achieve national unity is absurd because sinful nature still exists in every ethnicity. That’s why I am not opposed to the nationalism Wilson defined, when contrasted with the parallel options of tribalism or globalism.

I understand that there are people who only follow Wilson because of his snark and sarcastic language. He’s an “edgy” Christian who draws people who are tired of the weak ecclesiastical response to sensitive cultural issues. But as of yet, I have not found any of his videos on his blog to be contrary to the Gospel. Rather, they’re some of the most intentionally laid out guides to application for Christian living that come across.

Bret Responds,

Hello Rachel

You’ll not be surprised to find me disagreeing with you once again. I’ll respond to you point by point.

1.) I’ll try to view the whole interview you have linked.

2.) Not a moot point. Look up Eisenhower’s “Operation Wetback.”

3.) Narrowing the gene pool is no more absurd than expanding the gene pool. Have you ever heard of Rudyard Kipling? Kipling makes my point for me on the advantages of a narrower gene pool. Sinful nature indeed exist in every ethnicity but that sinful nature in the way it expresses itself is going to be unique and distinct in every ethnicity. This is why Kipling could write;

The Stranger within my gate,
He may be true or kind,
But he does not talk my talk–
I cannot feel his mind.
I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,
But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock,
They may do ill or well,
But they tell the lies I am wanted to,
They are used to the lies I tell;
And we do not need interpreters
When we go to buy or sell.

The Stranger within my gates,
He may be evil or good,
But I cannot tell what powers control–
What reasons sway his mood;
Nor when the Gods of his far-off land
Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,
Bitter bad they may be,
But, at least, they hear the things I hear,
And see the things I see;
And whatever I think of them and their likes
They think of the likes of me.

This was my father’s belief
And this is also mine:
Let the corn be all one sheaf–
And the grapes be all one vine,
Ere our children’s teeth are set on edge
By bitter bread and wine.

4.) Wilson’s propositional nationalism is NOT nationalism. Wilson is NOT a Nationalist. He is for Empire. Now it may be a domestic Empire but it is still Empire. If you read the book “Bowling Alone,” you might understand the problem better.

5.) I don’t find Wilson edgy anymore. There was a time I used to but now the man is just off the Christian Nationalist reservation with his propositional nationhood, love for lab grown meat. dalliance with Federal Vision, and warfare against those who are for ethno-nationalism. (OH, and lets not forget his advocacy for a paedo to marry a virtuous young woman as if marriage could fix sexual perversity.) Wilson is merely trying to revive the classical liberal world and life view but he will fair here. That world and life view is never coming back. Too many different moving pieces in religion and ethnicity for that to ever work again.

6.) In terms of Christian living… I will concede that Doug has been helpful with some of those issues, but I prefer sticking with the original (i.e. –Rushdoony) as opposed to going for someone who has said he was trying to be “Rushdoony 0.5.” I’m not a big pale ale fan.

Thanks for the conversation Rachel. Tell Doug I said “Hey.”

Vox Day, Vox McAtee

Over here;

MAILVOX: In Defense of Doug Wilson

Vox Day answers a letter defending Rev. Doug Wilson. It is a magnificent response. Still, despite that I can’t help but wanting to have my own go at this letter defending the Pope of Moscow.

Doug’s Defender (DD) writes to Vox Day,

Firstly, I acknowledge your critiques of Doug, and recognise that he has some enormous Boomer tendencies.

 

McAtee responds,

Is this like acknowledging that FDR was a cripple? I mean, Captain Obvious much?

DD writes,

But.

He has a growing appeal to disaffected young evangelical men (of whom I belonged).

McAtee responds,

Nobody can disagree with that sentence above. However, Doug should be to disaffected young evangelical men what marijuana was to druggies in the day, and that is only a gateway drug to the real narcotics. Doug is the wine cooler that opens the way someday to Tennessee Sipping Whiskey. If one doesn’t move beyond Doug, one remains stunted in their Christianity.

DD writes,

He spearheaded an enormous push towards Classical Christian schooling, founded on Western Civilisation (including the Greco-Roman underpinnings).

McAtee Responds,

Not to be too technical, but you do realize, don’t you, that the Greco-Romans were pagans? Classical Education has some real merit but unless it is reinterpreted through a Biblical Grid all it produces is pagans who now how to argue. I’ve seen my share of graduates from the Moscow Greystoke Manor who embody my observation.

DD writes,

It’s a huge movement, that is reintroducing the youth to the Good, Beautiful, and True.

McAtee responds,

If that is true, than certainly enough, these youths will see that Wilson and the CREC is still not that for which they are looking. If these youths are getting a taste of the good, the true, and the beautiful than soon enough they will push on from the holding tank that is not quite the good, the true, and the beautiful that is the CREC.

Imagine if you will a large room of painting canvases all set next to one another. The very first painting canvas is covered with a very watery red. The very last painting canvas is covered with a bold fire-engine red. All the canvases between the first one and the last one are canvases that each are a little more red then the previous one but a little less red then the next one in the series. Pope Doug and the CREC represents the entry level red canvas. It has introduced you to the idea of “red.” However, if you are really captivated by Red you will push on from the entry level red and eventually you’ll look back at the entry level red and see that it really isn’t that red at all.

DD writes,

They have cleaned up church liturgy, and recaptured theological maximalism, with many offshoot ministries pushing phrases like ‘Rebuilding the New Christendom.’

McAtee responds,

Cleaned up church liturgy and taken us back, in many cases, to a liturgy that goes back to smells and bells. Further, your CREC has taken up the cursed cause of Ecclesiocentrism and the fact that you may not even know what that word means, means that you have miles to go before you sleep.

And in terms of Wilson’s vision of “Rebuilding the New Christendom,” let me just say that if Wilson is successful in doing so, then I’ll be praying that the New, New Christendom will soon come to replace Wilson’s version because Wilson’s “New Christendom,” looks an awful lot like the old Liberalism of 1950. Tell me, please, how is Wilson going to build a New Christendom while holding on to the idea of “principled pluralism?”

DD writes,

This is all important foundational work to waking up Christians. It has led to me creating a homeschool co-op teaching the Classical method, and we are exposing our children to the glorious things that the Christian West has to offer.

McAtee responds,

And now someone has to come along and shore up the cracks on Wilson’s foundational work. I promise you there is something much larger than a pea under all those mattresses.

If you want your children exposed to the glorious things of the Christian West make sure you teach them about Lepanto, the Crusades, Jon Sobieski, Jan Valjean, etc.

DD writes,

Ministries like G3 ministries are on the warpath against ‘kinism’ which has significant sway over the Reformed Conservative movements.

McAtee Responds,

Have you been sleeping? Wilson’s warpath against Kinism makes the G3 look like a bunch of boy playing cowboys and injuns.

DD writes,

Guys like Doug want more mainstream appeal, so they have opted to go soft on the racial issue. They have ousted guys like Thomas Achord, which shows they mean business.

McAtee responds,

It’s clear to everybody who has eyes that Pope Doug is going for the neo-con/New York Times crowd.

And you think “outing guys like Thomas Achord” is a recommendation for Wilson and his peeps? This is like saying that Sherman should get a medal for raping and pillaging his way to Atlanta.

DD writes,

But it is worth noting that there are more guys like Thomas Achord in these organisations who will eventually start speaking out. The time doesn’t seem to have come for that yet.

McAtee responds,

And Pope Doug is the one we are all supposed to be waiting on to give the signal when the time has come for all that? Trust me… the time will never come because Doug is merely a gatekeeper interested in pushing his brand.

DD writes,

I’m sure you’re aware that racism is perhaps one of the most unforgivable sins in the Evangelical church and will get a robust and powerful reaction from the Evangelical base (especially the Boomers). He is pushing young men in the right direction, and Christian Nationalism, as promoted by Stephen Wolfe, is gaining significant traction.

McAtee responds by quoting Vox Day,

“Stephen Wolfe’s Christian Nationalism is fake nationalism. It’s a religious form of civic nationalism that substitutes Christianity for US citizenship. He’s just another gatekeeper.”