Limericks for the Alienists Who Walk Among Us — Dedicated to Rev. Rich Lusk

Something the wise-men all insist
That it is death to be anti-kinist
It is a suicide wish
Wherein you’ll sleep with the fish
Being a pan-racial social order Alienist

___

In History Empires always implode
From ethnic mixtures that always explode
The fix to it all
Is to steadfastly recall
That nations can’t have minority overload

_______

There once was a man named Rich Lusk
Who argued from dawn until dusk
That National social order formation
With multicult as the foundation
Should be supported as an absolute must

McAtee Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part VII

RL writes,

“Our loves flows out through the concentric circles of local church, family,  extended family, city, state, and nation. There is nothing wrong with prioritizing those who are closest to us in terms of geography, family relations, national citizenship, etc. Indeed, we have greater and more particularized obligations  to our own family (1 Timothy 5:8), to our local church body (Galatians 6:10; Hebrews 13:7, 17), and to the rulers of our particular locales (Romans 13:1ff). But the ultimate priority is Christ and his faithful bride. Kinists are right that the Christian’s identity is very much tied to creational and providential realities — your sex, your last name, your skin color, your cultural heritage, your language, your nationality are all integral and essential features of your identity. But what the kinists miss is that Christian identity is also transcendant, supernatural, heavenly and, yes, ecclesial (Phil. 3:20; Eph. 2:19; Col. 3:11; Rev. 5:9, 7:9).”

BLM responds,

All, I can say to this is that Lusk’s last sentence is horse hockey. I know as many Kinists as anyone out there and the idea that Kinists miss that there Christian identity is transcendent, supernatural, heavenly, and, yes, ecclesial, is just a case of Lusk (like most Alienists I have interacted with over the years) projecting his irrational animus upon Kinists. What the man says here is just not true.

RL writes,

(1.) Kinists also seem to be naive about the degree to which nationalism (just like globalism) can be bent to serve idolatrous ends that are diametrically opposed to the public and cosmic scope of the church’s mission. (2.) National solidarity is good, but nationalism can become an enemy if separated from other truths and loves. Globalism can set up a rival religion to the gospel — but the family, the nation, and even compromised churches can become rivals as well. (3.) While kinism might have appeal as a reaction against the excesses globalizing trends, we must beware of the ditch on the other side. (4.) The pathway through these landmines is a strong commitment to an ecclesiocentric order, as set forth in Augustine’s City of God and Book 4 of Calvin’s Institutes.

BLM responds,

(1.) This is an assertion with no proof. Something that Lusk has done throughout his piece. Kinism are well aware that there exists such a thing as non-Biblical Nationalism. I can’t tell RL how many times I have been in drop down drag out flame wars with non-Biblical Nationalists. We know that there is a difference between Nationalism that embraces Christ as King of the Nation and Nationalism that is just humanism dressed up in evening clothes. Rich can put his mind to ease on this score.

(2.) NSS

(3.) Yet another Captain Obvious statement

(4.) Rome loves them some ecclesiocentrism. Apparently, so does the CREC.

Elsewhere RL has written as a kind of addendum to his train wreck blog post

A bit more — I think most of the qualifications I have put into my essays have been ignored by the kinist crowd. I’m actually sympathetic with much of Buchanan’s agenda. I don’t object to “ America first” type policies to a point, since we have a greater obligation to those nearest to us. But his illustration of assimilation is not complete for the purposes of our discussion. I’d agree Englishmen could assimilate into Virginia more readily than Zulus. But in the kind of culture I want to build, Clarence Thomas can be assimilated far more readily than Joe Biden. Faith is ultimately more important than genetics. The antithesis cuts through every race.

BLM responds,

Lusk can prevail here because he wants to move the observations of Kinists from a general rule to a universal rule. Kinists say, “generally speaking different races will not mix well and so should not be pursued in terms of a social order.” Along comes Lusk and finds the exceptions to the rule and then seeks to universalize those exceptions. Of course there are some examples of people of other races who would fit into a WASP social order better than Christ hating White person. This is a no duh statement. However, it is not a defeater of Kinism because Kinism is dealing in terms of general truths. As a general rule different races cheek by jowl do not a harmonious social order make and that even if they were all Christian. This has been empirically demonstrated in the book “Bowling Alone.”

This is not to deny that mixing Christ haters with Christ lovers of the same race also does not make for harmonious social order. However, if we take the OT seriously it was a greater curse to be ruled by the foreigner and alien than to be ruled by a wicked King belonging to one’s own people.

RL writes,

Further, I do not reduce culture to worship, though worship is central. I do not agree with the line that “culture is religion externalized” and have written criticism of it in the past. Religion is always already embodied and does not await the formation of culture at a later stage in order to become external. Religion drives culture but there is no a-cultural religion.

BLM responds,

It is not true that worship is central to culture. It is the case that what is central to culture is theology and genetics as those genetics are shaped by our environment. Worship cannot be central to culture because worship presupposes theology. Doxology cannot get off the ground apart from theology. We can only worship that which we know something of and in the knowing is theology. Before man can be Homo Adorans man must first be Homo theologus.

Lusk apparently misunderstands the line; “Culture is religion externalized.” Imagine that. Nobody is arguing that religion isn’t always already embodied. The point is that religion is the animating agent that makes culture to be whatever a culture is. If anything it is culture that isn’t already embodied and is awaiting religion to be the afflatus so that it might become enlivened. If there is no a-cultural religion it is only because there is at the same time no such thing as no a-religion culture.

RL writes,

I think Bill and Jarred are giving kinists good advice: Do not make this about race. Stick to the biblical categories. And do not so emphasize kinship relations that other important truths get negated.

BLM responds,

The problem here Rich is that race is a biblical category;

Can the Ethiopian change his skin or the leopard his spots? Then also you can do good who are accustomed to do evil. — Jeremiah 13:23

And it is a Biblical category our fathers have long recognized;

 

“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
One of the Founding Fathers of the PCA

We thank Lusk for the reminder of all the great truths present in Holy Writ that we need to keep in mind. It is always good to be reminded not to become lopsided. Now if only Lusk would follow his own advice.

 

McAtee Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part VI

By way of introduction to this installment I think, from reading Lusk, that Lusk thinks that Kinists absolutize race/ethnicity/kin. I get that from his first paragraph of his essay when he mentions that Kinists take the love of people and place to an unwarranted, unbiblical, even idolatrous extreme. With this language Lusk demonstrates that he thinks that Kinists are involved in what we might tag as Familialolatry or Kinolatry. This is kind of darkly humorous when one considers that many Kinists have had to sunder their relationships with family members because their family members like Lusk are Alienists.  It is of course just ridiculous that any Kinist would absolutize their family over Christ.

Having said that though we should add that if it is possible to make an idol out of family (and it is) it is just as possible to make an idol out of the Church and so practice Churcholatry. This is where I see Lusk is tending with his ecclesiocentrism. I fear that Lusk is taking his love of the Church to an unwarranted, unbiblical, even idolatrous extreme.

Man’s heart is an idol factory and it can make an idol out of family, Church, spouse, children, and anything else you can imagine. Our love is to be focused on the Triune God and no love is to be lifted up over love to the One only God. Kinists understand that and most certainly do no seek to wrongly love their family. Lusk would be wise to turn down his rhetoric if he desires fruitful conversations.

RL writes,

“In an age that hates father, and therefore fatherland, many will find kinism attractive. In the globalizing, multicultural hellscape our so-called elites are creating for us, kinism might seem like a port in the storm — a way to bring order and stability back to a world that is falling apart. But kinism will not save Western civilization or build a better alternative. Only Jesus can do that. And if he does so, it will through the ministry of his church, not through a recovery of racial homogeneity.”

BLM responds,

Yes, Kinism will save Western Civilization because all Kinism is, is a return to Biblical Christianity. Kinism is the faith of out fathers. This truth Dow and Achord demonstrated exhaustively in their Anthology, “Who is My Neighbor;  An Anthology In Natural Relations.”

Just take a moment to listen to just some of the voices of the Fathers throughout Church History.

“Nationalism, within proper limits, has the divine sanction; an imperialism that would, in the interest of one people, obliterate all lines of distinction is everywhere condemned as contrary to the divine will. Later prophecy raises its voice against the attempt at world-power, and that not only, as is sometimes assumed, because it threatens Israel, but for the far more principal reason, that the whole idea is pagan and immoral.

Now it is through maintaining the national diversities, as these express themselves in the difference of language, and are in turn upheld by this difference, that God prevents realization of the attempted scheme… [In this] was a positive intent that concerned the natural life of humanity. Under the providence of God each race or nation has a positive purpose to serve, fulfillment of which depends on relative seclusion from others.”

-Geerhardus Vos,
Biblical Theology

” [The] differences between the Caucasian, Mongolian, and Negro races, which is known to have been as distinctly marked two or three thousand years before Christ as it is now. . . . [T]hese varieties of race are not the effect of the blind operation of physical causes, but by those cause as intelligently guided by God for the accomplishment of some wise purpose. . . . God fashions the different races of men in their peculiarities to suit them to the regions which they inhabit.”

Charles Hodge (1797-1878)
Systematic Theology, Volume 2, Chapter 1, Section 3 (1872–73)

“All are not created on equal terms … This God has testified, not only in the case of single individuals; He has also given a specimen of it in the whole posterity of Abraham, to make it plain that the future condition of each nation was entirely at His disposal.”

(Calvin, Institutes …,bk.iii, pp.206-205 Beveridge translation)

“We now reply to the question, Can we know the sense of the prophetic law of Noah with absolute certainty ? We answer most unequivocally, Yes. How, then, is it to be known ? By the perfect conformity of the fulfilment of the law to its legitimate interpretation. Has such fulfilment occurred? Most unquestionably. “Where is it seen ? In all quarters of the globe since the flood, but most sublimely in America. It is obvious in a universal and permanent trinity of races ; in their political inequality of condition; in the Christianization of all the Japhetic nations, and of no others ; in the occupation of the Shemitic wilderness of America by Japheth.”

Rev. Samuel Davies,
Dominion or, the Unity and Trinity of the Human Race, p.18

“The Church Catholic is one in Christ, but it is not necessarily one visible, all-absorbing organization upon the earth. There is no schism where there is no breach of charity. Churches may be perfectly at one in every principle of faith and order, and yet geographically distinct, and mutually independent. As the unity of the human race is not disturbed by its division into countries and nations, so the unity of the spiritual seed of Christ is neither broken nor impaired by separation and division into various Church constitutions. Accordingly, in the Protestant countries, Church organizations have followed national lines.”

-Rev. Thornwell, address to the PCCSA GA 1861

“The Javanese are a different race than us; they live in a different region; they stand on a wholly different level of development; they are created differently in their inner life; they have a wholly different past behind them; and they have grown up in wholly different ideas. To expect of them that they should find the fitting expression of their faith in our Confession and in our Catechism is therefore absurd.

Now this is not something special for the Javanese, but stems from a general rule. The men are not all alike among whom the Church occurs. They differ according to origin, race, country, region, history, construction, mood and soul, and they do not always remain the same, but undergo various stages of development. Now the Gospel will not objectively remain outside their reach, but subjectively be appropriated by them, and the fruit thereof will come to confession and expression, the result may not be the same for all nations and times. The objective truth remains the same, but the matter in appropriation, application and confession must be different, as the color of the light varies according to the glass in which it is collected. He who has traveled and came into contact with Christians in different parts of the world of distinct races, countries and traditions cannot be blind for the sober fact of this reality. It is evident to him. He observes it everywhere.”……

Abraham Kuyper:
Common Grace (1902–1905)

These five quotes are just a Whitman’s sampler of scores and scores of quotes from the Fathers we could have chosen from. The idea of Kinism is latent in all these quotes and demonstrates that Kinism is just historic Christianity returning to a later generation. Lusk desires to continue with the aberration of the last 60 years or so, but the the voice of the church through the centuries has been Kinsim.

Next, we note that Lusk is involved in yet another false dichotomy when he says that Kinsim  will not save Western civilization or build a better alternative. Only Jesus can do that. This, of course is assuming that Kinism and Jesus are in contradiction one with another. A point that we have repeatedly shown throughout this series of blog posts is in no way true. Jesus and Kinism imply one another. There is no Kinism without Jesus and there is no Jesus without Kinism. Once again, Lusk is just wrong in his baseless assertion.

Finally, we note that contra Lusk, if Jesus saves Western Civilization it will be through the ministry of His church that has embraced the biblical tenets of Kinism. A racial heterogeneous Luskian church infected with the globo-homo multicult agenda which celebrates all colors bleeding into one will never be able to have a saving word for a world which has likewise fallen to the same globo-homo multicult agenda. Saruman will never defeat Sauron. Lusk’s syncretization of CRT with Christianity can never win out.

 

 

 

 

McAtee Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part V — Behold Calvin the Kinist in His Own Words

RL writes,

Calvin held similar ecclesiocentric convictions. Calvin was a kind of exile in Geneva, and while in Geneva, he ensured the city accepted religious refugees from countless other European cities and lands. He also trained and commissioned missionaries who traveled to other lands, including South America. His love and concern were not limited to people of the same skin color but extended to all people groups. Yes, Calvin loved his homeland of France. But he left his fatherland precisely because his commitment to the the gospel, the cause of the Reformation, and the Protestant church trumped his love of his native country. In the introductory preface of his Institutes, addressed to King Francs, Calvin shows he embraced the cause of Christ above the cause of his nation:

Even though I regard my country with as much natural affection as becomes me, as things now stand, I do not much regret being excluded. Rather, I embrace the common cause of all believers, that of Christ himself – a cause completely torn and trampled in your realm today, lying as it were utterly forlorn.
BLM responds,

First notice here that RL is intimating that Kinists would never do what John Calvin did in welcoming in refugees who were being hunted down because they were Biblical Christians. In so doing RL seeks to paint Kinism with the darkest of colors. However, it is just utter tripe to hint that a Kinist would not, like the Kinist John Calvin, not help fellow Christians being persecuted by Christ haters. Love of family does not translate, despite Lusk’s best efforts, to hatred of fellow believers.

Second, Lusk says that Calvin left his homeland because of his commitment to the Gospel. Let’s keep in mind though that if Calvin had not left his homeland there can be little doubt that he would have been roasted on the bonfire of the French vanities. This is not to say that Calvin was not committed to the Gospel. It is to say that commitment to the Gospel is increased several fold when absence commitment to the Gospel means you need to flee your country lest you be killed.

In the quote that Lusk provides notice the phrase, “as things now stand.” Calvin, being a good Kinist, loved his France however “as things stood” during his life he knew that if he wanted to stay living above the ground he could not return to France. Lusk’s quote does not prove that Calvin was not a Kinist. Can anyone doubt that Calvin would not have returned to his homeland and his people if the cause of Christ had not been trampled in his beloved France being utterly forlorn?

RL writes,

Calvin knew he served a greater King than Francis – the Lord Jesus. He knew the church of Jesus Christ was primary home, and this ecclesial allegiance was to be maintained, whatever earthly, temporal loyalties had to be sacrificed. He put kinship with fellow churchmen above his kinship with fellow Frenchmen.

BLM responds,

Well, lets look at some of Calvin’s quotes and see if they can substantiate Lusk’s above claims.

“Now, we see, as in a camp, every troop and band hath his appointed place, so men are placed upon earth, that every people may be content with their bounds, and that among these people every particular person may have his mansion. But though ambition have, oftentimes raged, and many, being incensed with wicked lust, have passed their bounds, yet the lust of men hath never brought to pass, but that God hath governed all events from out of his holy sanctuary. For though men, by raging upon earth, do seem to assault heaven, that they may overthrow God’s providence, yet they are enforced, whether they will or no, rather to establish the same. Therefore, let us know that the world is so turned over through divers tumults, that God doth at length bring all things unto the end which he hath appointed.”

John Calvin
Calvin’s Comm. on Acts 17:26

At the point where Calvin says, “every people,” he has established that different people groups exist and that Christianity does not destroy the reality of people groups. Calvin implies a good deal more than that but at this point all we are seeking to sustain is that the Historic church, reaching behind the past 200 years understood that Christianity didn’t eliminate the idea of race, ethnicity, clan, and kin.

Again from Calvin the Kinist,

“He then promises that he will cause Jacob to increase and multiply, not only into one nation, but into a multitude of nations. When he speaks of ‘a nation,’ he no doubt means that the offspring of Jacob should become sufficiently numerous to acquire the body and the name of one great people. But what follows concerning “nations” may appear absurd; for if we wish it to refer to the nations which, by gratuitous adoption, are inserted into the race of Abraham, the form of expression is improper: but if it be understood of sons by natural descent, then it would be a curse rather than a blessing, that the Church, the safety of which depends on its unity, should be divided into many distinct nations. But to me it appears that the Lord, in these words, comprehended both these benefits; for when, under Joshua, the people was apportioned into tribes, as if the seed of Abraham was propagated into so many distinct nations; yet the body was not thereby divided; it is called an assembly of nations, for this reason, because in connection with that distinction a sacred unity yet flourished. The language also is not improperly extended to the Gentiles, who, having been before dispersed, are collected into one congregation by the bond of faith; and although they were not born of Jacob according to the flesh; yet, because faith was to them the commencement of a new birth, and the covenant of salvation, which is the seed of spiritual birth, flowed from Jacob, all believers are rightly reckoned among his sons, according to the declaration, “I have constituted thee a father of many nations.”

John Calvin, Commentary on Genesis, Volume 2, Chapter 14 

Here we see Calvin embracing the idea of many nations belonging as nations in the one Church. Abraham remains the Father of many nations as those nations are brought into the Church, nation by nation.

____

“…. delightful to every one is his native soil, and it is also delightful to dwell among one’s own people.”

John Calvin
Calvin’s Commentary – Jeremiah 9:2

Here we see a clear indisputable Kinist comment from Calvin.

___

“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)

Here Calvin refers to men like Lusk as flighty and scatterbrained dreamers because he denies the kind of order among us that the Kinists alone are contending for.

McAtee Unravels Lusk’s Lunacy on Kinism — Part IV

In A Pilgrim’s Regress, C.S. Lewis writes about a man who ordered milk and eggs from a waiter in a restaurant. After tasting the milk he commented to the waiter that it was delicious. The waiter replied, “Milk is only the secretion of a cow, just like urine and feces.” After eating the eggs he commented on the tastiness of the eggs. Again the waiter responded that eggs are only a by-product of a chicken. After thinking about the waiter’s comment for a moment the man responded, “You lie. You don’t know the difference between what nature has meant for nourishment, and what it meant for garbage.”

Here we find an example of how Rev. Lusk uses language in service of defending his Alienism. The man twists with panache the meaning of words so that when he is done they stand on their head for those with eyes to see. However, to those who don’t see his linguistic tricks and can’t measure out his piling up of contradictions he begins, if you can believe it, to make sense. Lusk was that way when he wrote on the Federal Vision heresy long ago and he remains that way now as he attacks Kinism.

We continue here our fisking of Rev. Lusk in his assault on Kinism.

RL writes

People and place do matter. Blood and soil matter. Biological and ethnic connections matter. We are not gnostics. But we are also not kinists. We are Christians, which means the blood of Christ is the ultimate tie that binds for us. The covenant is the most important connection we have.

BLM responds,

Lusk’s first three sentence above or merely a fig leaf. Except for these occasional throw away lines everything RL has written is pure on Alienism and bespeaks a hatred of blood and soil. It’s as if RL is saying that “People and place do matter. “Blood and soil matter. Biological and ethnic connections matter, as long as they don’t really matter.” How can “blood and soil” matter when RL keeps insisting that race is only about skin color. That constant refrain of Lusk’s testifies that his first three lines above are just insincere decorations to pull in the unsuspecting.

Clearly Lusk is indeed a Gnostic as we have pointed out repeatedly now. Lusk diminishes the corporeal in favor of his unbiblical ecclesiocentric paradigm where everything gets reduced according to its “spiritual” importance.

Lusk appeals to the blood of Christ but let’s keep in mind that the blood of Christ was the blood of a Hebrew who belonged to the line of David. We don’t have the blood of Christ apart from the blood and soil of Christ. In the same manner the blood of Christ which ties us does not first, in a Gnostic type manner, disembody us before it ties us — the Church together. We don’t come to Christ as atomistic individualistic integers.  We come to Christ in our maleness of femaleness. We come to Christ in our ethnicity/race. We come to Christ in the context of covenant family lines that God graciously calls. The blood of Christ does not work so as to destroy nature. Grace restores nature. It does not destroy it.

Next, let it be said here that because of Lusk’s Federal Vison writings I am not confident that Lusk, by way of Doctrine, is a Christian.

RL writes,

As Christians, we are churchmen. The church is not our only nation, city, and family — but it is our first nation, city, and family.

BLM responds,

Keep in mind with this sentence we see the ecclesiocentrism that Lusk’s Federal Vision has always been known for. Practically speaking Lusk is collapsing the various jurisdictional realms ordained by God — Family, Church, and Governments — into one. The Church is so esteemed that the family and Governments fade into the background. Of course such a reading was highly disputed by Rushdoony who gave the family the pride of place. I disagree with both RJR and Lusk. The Church and the Family are as necessary in import as the right and left leg are to walking. Allow me to say again here that the Christian Church does not negate the importance of Christian family. Nor does Christian family negate the importance of the Christian Church. Lusk confuses the biblical jurisdictions in his ecclesiocentrism with the result that when push comes to shove the Church, as in medieval Rome, always trumps all.

RL writes,

Kinists like to point to the example of John Knox, who prayed, “Give me Scotland, lest I die!” Obviously Knox had a deep, natural affection for his homeland. But note a couple things. First, Knox did not equate his “people” with a race but with a geopolitical nation. He did not pray “Give me white people lest I die.” Knox understood the Bible does not categorize people according to skin color, but according to nations, tribes, peoples, and languages, which can include genetic ties, but can also be much more permeable and fluid.

BLM replies,

Knox is appealing to God for the Scottish people. Lusk is merely going all red herring here.

That Knox did not pray “Give me white people lest I die,” only proves that white people as a whole were not being sought out for elimination. If white people in the 16th century were in danger of being replaced then Knox may well have prayed “Give me white people lest I die,” as the Scots were one subgroup among white people. As it was it was the subgrouping of the Scots that Knox could plead for.

And what could possible be wrong with praying, “Give me white people lest I die?” Are white people any less in need of God’s visitation of grace and mercy right now than any other people? Why is Lusk so put out that someone might pray … “Give me white people lest I die?”

Next, as long as the Bible can talk about the inability of the Ethiopian to change his skin (Jer. 13:23) I can rightly believe that the Bible does categorize people according to races despite RL’s protestations to the contrary.

RL writes,

Second, Knox was also an ecclesiocentrist, willing to leave his homeland for Geneva to escape persecution and to get better pastoral training. He loved Scotland but he was also willing to leave it if necessary. He loved his homeland but it was subordinate to other loves. His top priority was the gospel. He prayed for Scotland not merely because of his natural affection for his national kin, but because of a supernatural affection that drove him to want to see his nation discipled in terms of the Great Commission. But precisely because he put the gospel first, Knox could find deep spiritual kinship with men from other nations, like the Frenchman Calvin and the German Bucer.

BLM responds,

Right, Knox was ecclesiocentric because he fled so he might not be killed. Everybody knows that fleeing one’s homeland in order to not be killed is proof that one is ecclesiocentric. Lusk asks us to believe that Knox, who was fighting the ecclesiocentric beast that was the Roman Catholic Church, was himself also ecclesiocentric and this despite the fact that Knox did not pray, “Give me the Church lest I die,” but rather prayed “Give me my extended kin lest I die.”

I quite believe all loves need to be subordinate to love for Christ but that is not the same as embracing the foolish ecclesiocentrism that one finds among the Federal Visionists and the CREC.

Finally, Lusk’s intimation that Kinists would never embrace spiritual kinship with men of different races is just grandstanding. I have several kinist friends who are not White. Like Lusk’s Bucer, Calvin, and Knox, my friendship circle includes a black South African kinist, and a Filipino kinist, and a S. American black kinist. My extended family also includes blacks. When we have family reunions we do just fine. None of this however need negate for any of us the realities of how we belong to both a shared faith and our respective different family kin.