Alienism & Kinism … Some Considerations

Recently, the Alienism that stems from accepting the principles of Cultural Marxism has found itself trying to sweep Kinism off the scene by pejoratives. One podcaster did a podcast titled, “Kinism; Luciferian and Wicked.” Another “clergy” member in the RPCNA spent 56 mindless minutes haranguing and screeching his congregation in a sermon titled; “Against the Heresy of Kinism.” We definitely have their attention and personally I am flattered that they find us so dangerous that now they have to go to these silly extremes in order to try and quench the prairie-fire that is endangering their post-Endarkenment consensus “Christianity.”

I am actually hoping these harpy clergy continue on this path. Their rants are so mindless and so absent any substance that their arguments against Kinism are actually providing arguments for Kinism for those who aren’t completely brain dead. Their argument by vacuous assertion and impressive straw men, as well as their steady refusal to deal with all the quotes from Church Fathers and Church history can only strengthen the position of Biblical Christianity. Sooner or later the Alienists are going to have to deal with quotes like this recent one I just came across thanks to Dan Brannan.

 We see here that St Isidore of Seville (6th century) argued that it was within the fundamental rights of a nation to prohibit miscegenation as recorded in his Etymologies (Origins) of Isidore of Seville;

vi.) What the law of nations is (Quid sit ius gentium) 1.) The law of nations concerns the occupation of territory, building, fortification, wars, captives, enslavements, the right of return, treaties of peace, truces, the pledge not to molest embassies, the prohibition of marriages between races. And it is called ‘law of nations (ius gentium) because nearly al nations (gentes) use it.”

In light of all this condemning Kinists to the deepest level of hell the question has arisen as to whether one can embrace Alienism (born of Cultural Marxism and the polar opposite of Kinism) and still be considered Christian. Now, of course distinctions have to be made here. We concede that while Alienism is, by definition, not Christianity, it certainly is likely that many Alienists are Christians. God’s grace reaches beyond all of the lack of sanctification that is doubtless characteristic of all of us.

We also have to make distinctions between the Alienists who are ideologues and so true believers –that is they who are epistemologically self conscious about their Alienism and those others who are merely useful idiots for the Alienists. We have great hope that many of the useful idiots for the Alienists are indeed Christian despite their useful idiot status. For example, I have great hope that Drew Poplin (the chap who preached that “Kinism is Heresy”) is indeed someone who, despite his utter and embarrassing nonsense is in Christ. I say this despite at the same time insisting that he has no business being within three blocks of a Reformed pulpit.

However, having said all that we Kinists still must insists that all those who are Alienists — epistemologically self conscious or useful idiots — that what they are espousing is NOT Christianity. And they must be told … “Shall we go on sinning that grace might abound? God forbid!” The doctrinal position of Alienism is anti-Christ. It is against the Christian faith and where consistently held to it is anti-Gospel inasmuch as tears at the structure of the Creature-Creator distinction with its egalitarian norms. Such egalitarian norms are either a consequence of a monism that is birthed by denying the Creator-Creature distinction or alternately is certain to lead to the eventual denial of the distinction between God and man. If there is no distinctions between creatures, born of monism, eventually there will be a energetic denial of the distinction between God and Man. The distinction between Creator-creature cannot survive a mindset that levels all God ordained distinctions between creatures. So whether the denial of all distinctions between creatures leads to denial of the Creator-Creature distinction or whether all distinctions between creatures is the consequence of the denial of the Creator-creature distinction the result remains a monism that in no way can co-exist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. One can not be a Christian while embracing a monism that denies the Creator-Christian distinction. How deep can one be in this error and still consistently hold to the Gospel is not something I know the answer to. I do know that it is all Christian’s responsibility to say that “Alienism and the Gospel cannot consistently co-exist together.”

This is the same kind of issue that Machen was facing in the 1920s except then the issue was not Alienism born of cultural Marxism but rather the issue was Liberalism born of denying the transcendence and supernatural character of God (Actually, that stemmed from a monistic impulse as well.) Machen never tried to give a person by person examination as to just how deep the infection of liberalism was too deep in order for one not to be Christian. Instead, Machen wrote and preached that Liberalism was not Christianity … just as Alienism is not Christianity and cannot coexist with the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

We see St. Paul do the same kind of thing in his epistles. He makes it clear in Colossians and in the Timothys that Gnosticism is NOT Christianity and is against the Gospel. Now, as to how much Gnosticism was too much Gnosticism in every individual case was not something we get in his writings. What we get is the Gnosticism is anti-Christ and so can not exist consistently with the Gospel.

We all know of congregations are flat up full of Cultural Marxism and the Alienism it produces. We would not blink an eye in saying “those people need to hear the Gospel.” On the other hand we know of congregations that are less infected and to those places we might say, “Well, while I don’t doubt that there may well be Christians among them, it is still the case that what they are holding in principle is against the Gospel and if given its head will overturn the Gospel in that place.”

What we believes about the whole of the Christian faith matters and this tendency to want to somehow cordone “the Gospel” from the totality of the whole Christian faith is not healthy and is unwise. The Christian faith is an organic whole and a severe error in one place is going to warp the Gospel — and warp it enough in some cases to drain the Gospel of being the Gospel.

So, on one hand we want to be generous with people in their confession of personal faith in Jesus the Christ, but on the other hand we do not want people to think that doctrine is unimportant so that “it really doesn’t matter what you believe about Christ as long as you believe.” God is not egalitarian and egalitarian Christianity if given its head means that a Gospel defined by Alienist/ egalitarianism is not a Gospel that can save.

A Post-modern Epilogue To “A Christmas Carol

It was just a few weeks after Ebenezer’s Scrooge’s wondrous transformation and finally Ebenezer’s former fiance, Belle, finally got wind of the change in her former beau. Upon hearing the report Belle had to see for herself so she secretly put herself in the way of Ebenezer’s acts of kindness to see for herself.

Having witnessed it all, she was drawn back to the enchantment she once had for Ebenezer and this enchantment increased the long endured  misery she had with her current husband. Life had been hard since she had spurned Ebenezer. Her husband was so generous towards orphans, immigrants, and the Oliver Twist types in London that she and the children often went around in rags and sometimes went hungry. She had tried to talk sense into her husband but he always responded with… “Hey, we need to love everybody the same.” Her husband had used the same type of reasoning for his dalliances with other women. “Now, Belle, honey, it’s hardly right or Christian, in light of the fact of the ‘Brotherhood of all men’ that I should favor you above all the other Sheilas.” And so Belle had spent her married life in misery constantly thinking that being married to a miser like Ebenezer could have been any worse.

And now Ebenezer was a changed man and her own Eberhard remained so unchanged. Belle couldn’t help but wonder why three spirits had not visited her husband … why Eberhard could not have been transformed just as Ebenezer clearly had been.

The children were all grown now and Belle was left alone with this spendthrift that she had grown to find repulsive. If Ebenezers later years could be lived as a changed man then why couldn’t her life also be changed from what she had endured all her life?

Belle decided not to wait for an extraterrestrial visitation from a syndical of Spirits. She would take matters in her own hands.

And so Belle began to plot. It all began with her separation and divorce from Eberhard. She had proper reasons to do so for decades but now with the possibility of returning to a transformed Ebenezer and a life lived of comparative comfort the iron was hot for such a divorce from Eberhard.

When Belle told Eberhard of her intentions, he merely shrugged and reminded her that he had plenty of other phillies in the pasture.  Belle rejoiced at this response. Now, she had to set the hook for Ebenezer.

On Christmas Eve day of the year following the visitation of the Spirits Belle put herself in the way of Ebenezer in the best dress she had left, along with all the feminine accouterments that she thought would be necessary for Ebenezer’s next transformation. Belle thought of herself as the Spirit of Christmas Femme-fatale. “And why not” she thought, “after all Ebenezer will be even happier after he sweeps me off my feet.”

And just as Belle planned Ebenezer remembered all that was past when all of Belle was present again before him. In no short amount of time Ebenezer had “wrenched” out of Belle her “story.” The sympathy for Belle swelled to levels not seen since that same sympathy had swelled for Tiny Tim almost a year ago.

From that point on, the old flame of the old romance was kindled. Just as Ebenezer had been transformed by the Spirits of the previous year, so Ebenezer was transformed by the  Spirit of Belle and in July a Christmas wedding was planned.

And for the few years that Belle and Ebenezer had left together Ebenezer never treated her as if she was “just another woman.” Ebenezer prized her above all women and even treated Belle’s children as having a unique relationship to him. All the egalitarianism of Eberhard was gone from Belle’s life and her life was now transformed.

Drew Poplin Preaches 56 minute Sermon Against Kinism — What a Spectacle (I)

It boggles my mind that some young torpid clergy member would take 56 minutes to preach a sermon against Kinism and yet that is exactly what one Drew Poplin did in a RPCNA church in Durham, NC.

Below are from his posted notes.

“Defining the Term: Kinism is a heinous and heretical philosophy rooted in four general principles: (1) Race is narrowly defined and focused upon skin color and ancestral heritage rather than recognizing the reality of present societies; (2) Kinism holds to the permanence of race, following false evolutionary premises; (3) The belief that the intermarrying of races and peoples is immoral; (4) At the root of this is the abominable belief of white supremacy.”

Rev. Drew Poplin

1.) Kinists do not reduce race to the idea of skin color as if skin color is the only factor in race.  Kinists do recognize Ancestral heritage believing as they do in the simple reality of real live biological genetics. God has made peoples to differ and part of that difference is encoded in particular gene patterns that end up making up different races.

Now, as Poplin continues he says that Kinists don’t understand the differences between ethnicity and race but it is really Poplin who is playing the thick one here. Kinist’s understand that ethnicity exists and that different ethnic peoples exist as belonging to distinct races. We get it Drew, that there are Germanic, Anglos, Saxons who are distinctly ethnic peoples but we go on to say that a broader category exists wherein each of these fall and the broader category is called “race.” Germans, Anglos, and Saxons are ethnic groups who belong each to the broader category of White people just as Hutus, Ndebele, Shonas, and Zulus are particular ethnic peoples who belong to a shared race. And all of them Drew belong to the largest category of the human race.

2.) Poplin makes a false assertion when he insists that Kinists follow evolutionary philosophy. Sigh. Poplin seems not to realize that long before the rise of Darwin or Evolution people examined the issue of races. Shakespeare examined the theme in some of his plays. Shakespeare’s dates predate Darwins. The Early Church Fathers wrote about race. Here is just one example;

“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.”

Augustine – (A.D. 354 – 430)
City of God, book XV, Chpt. 16:

Hey Drew … not everyone who believes in the reality of race is sniffing around the remains of the really dumb evolutionary theory. What other really dumb assertions do you want to toss from the Holy Desk Drew?

Indeed,  Drew, Kinists don’t even hold that race is permanent understanding that over enough generations one line can go from one race to another race. However, this also proves that race is real as that breeding has moved a line from one very real distinct race to another very real distinct race.

Are you following me Drew?

3.) Kinists agree with all the Church fathers prior to 1950 or so that interracial marriage is at the very least normatively unwise and can often be sinful and immoral. I could give you a gazillion quotes but here is one from Machen’s friend, defender and colleague Dr. Clarence MacCartney;

“Love imagines that it can overleap the barriers of race and blood and religion, and in the enthusiasm and ecstasy of choice these obstacles appear insignificant. But the facts of experience are against such an idea. Mixed marriages are rarely happy. Observation and experiences demonstrate that the marriage of a Gentile and Jew, a Protestant and a Catholic, an American and a Foreigner has less chance of a happy result than a marriage where the man and woman are of the same race and religion….”

Dr. Clarence MacCartney – Presbyterian Minister
1879-1957

Does it give you any pause Drew that you are peaching from a pulpit a doctrine that no Church fathers, save possibly the heretical Anabaptists, taught or believed in? Any pause at all?

4.) Poplin again makes a dumb assertion when he ties Kinism with White supremacy. I know many non white people who are Kinists. Muhammed Ali (he was a famous black Boxer Drew) held Kinist principles, insisting that blacks should only marry blacks.

But, I will say it is true that Whites are supreme in some areas while clearly inferior in other areas. For example, I have concluded that modern day whites named Drew are vastly inferior at being Presbyterian clergy.

Refuting A Natural Law Fan Club Member

“A lot of nonsense and misunderstanding concerning natural revelation / law / theology could be spared if people would distinguish between different points of telos. Presupps tend to reduce the discussion to the soteriological telos. But there are many others to consider.”

Cody Justice
Natural Law Aficionado

“There remain, however, in man since the fall, the glimmerings of natural light, whereby he retains some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and discovers some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment. But so far is this light of nature from being sufficient to bring him to a saving knowledge of God and to true conversion, that he is incapable of using it aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”

THIRD AND FOURTH HEADS OF DOCTRINE
Of the Corruption of Man, His Conversion to God, and the Manner Thereof
Article 4

I am a presuppositionalist. Over the years I have followed this argument carefully about Natural Law. I have read books on both sides. I am finishing up one now that Cody recommended to me some time ago. It has not changed my mind. Not even close.  Having said that, I am here to tell you that Presupps understand perfectly that

1.) That their opponents (The Natural Law club) do not themselves argue that Natural Law is of any service in relation to the soteriological telos. Indeed presupps acknowledge that there is the retaining of some knowledge of God, of natural things, and of the differences between good and evil, and of the discovering of some regard for virtue, good order in society, and for maintaining an orderly external deportment.

Indeed, it is not possible for those outside of Christ to have a worldview system that doesn’t incorporate some aspects of God’s natural revelation and natural law for a unbelieving worldview that would be completely absent of natural revelation and/or natural law would be one that brought instantaneous death. Van Til would speak of this content of God’s natural revelation/ natural law present in unbelieving worldviews as “stolen capital” as gained by filching from Christianity.

We only insist that the this stolen capital from Christianity is in service against Christianity as it exists within the worldview of the non-Christian in order to deface Christianity. For example, over the centuries many peoples have understood the distinctions between males and females (as is going into eclipse now among some Western peoples) but the understanding of those distinctions often made for marriages where the women (wives) were slaves of their husbands. Natural Law was accepted as to male and female differences but then put into the service of demeaning women. So, in such examples we see the truth of what Dordt says when it offers;

that fallen man is incapable of using it (Natural Light) aright even in things natural and civil. Nay, further, this light, such as it is, man in various ways renders wholly polluted and holds it in unrighteousness, by doing which he becomes inexcusable before God.”

2.) Another thing that needs to be noted here is that nobody among the presupps deny that the heavens declare the handiwork of God or that the earth showeth forth His firmament (Ps. 19). Those among the presupps who reject Natural Law as a epistemological foundation for fallen man agree that Natural Revelation exists and that God is making Himself known in all creation. Our issue is not with the fact that God makes Himself known in nature. Our issue is that as fallen man suppresses the truth in unrighteousness and as fallen man has a mind that is at enmity with God, fallen man takes Natural Law in all its varied purposes (ends/goals) and twists them thereby becoming inexcusable before God.

3.) The fact that fallen man can still produce or apprehend beauty is accounted for by the fact of the common providence of God whereby God has not yet completely turned a people over to their sin. It is not that by means of Natural Law man is climbing to a higher state. It is, rather, that by God’s common providence fallen man has not yet fallen as far as he will fall if he does not repent.

4.) Presupps believe that the proper use of teleos for Natural Law in all things (not merely soteriology) can only be arrived at by reading Natural Law through the grid of special revelation. This is one reason why Scripture teaches; “In thy Light we see light.”  To hold a contrary view, such as is held by the Natural Law fan-club denies the noetic effects of the fall, which in turn denies the standard Reformed teaching of total depravity, which in turn overturns the whole of the Reformed faith. This explains why the presupps can get a wee bit exercised over this issue.

5.) An illustration that Van Til used here touched on signals and radio stations. CVT would say that indeed Natural Revelation / Natural Law is being sent, much as radio signals are being sent out. The problem is not with the radio signals. The problem is that fallen man is constantly pushing every button on the old Delco car radios in order to find a station that is not playing God’s signals.

So, Corey is plainly in error here, as are all the members of the Natural Law fan club.

From the Mailbag … Roger and Bret Continue Their Discussion On Kinism & Christendom

Pastor,

Thank you (and all) for your detailed responses. It warms my heart to know that there are real people, your friends, that are in community with each other and ready to risk it all to fight. It is especially helpful to know where to send money for support in the fight. I am sure that supporting a firearms group like the NRA or the one you mentioned will go a long way.

Note that I asked you about fighting for kinism, but you said fighting for Christendom in the title of your reply. Are these synonyms? What would you say to a Christian family that leaves a church where the pastor is more devoted to kinism than Christendom, if they are not synonyms?

Hello Roger,

Yes … they are synonyms.

One cannot contend for Christendom without contending for Kinism. Especially in our current context in the West where Christendom is being attacked via the means of attacking the family structure. Christianity is a faith that presupposes the family unit. Kinism is merely an extension of that presupposition carried out to each continuing concentric circle that ripples out from the family unit.

Since I hold that there is no such thing as Christendom (or Christianity for that matter) that has subtracted the centrality of family such as is found everywhere in Scripture, and since Kinism is merely another way of stating the doctrine of the Creator Creature distinction (an essential and primary truth without which the Christian faith cannot exist as the Christian faith) I would say to such a hypothetical family leaving such a hypothetical church having such a hypothetical pastor that they should rethink their understanding of Biblical Christianity.

Besides … this is surely a vastly hypothetical question since I am full of doubt that any Pastor exists who is more devoted to Kinism than Christendom. Indeed, since the WOKE assault that now servers as the point of the spear attacking Christianity, and Christendom it is simply the case that most Pastors are asleep at the switch.

Since Christianity has as an essential aspect to its reality what Kinism is championing your question is like asking “what if the Pastor at the Church is more devoted to the incarnation or to the penal substitutionary doctrine of the Atonement than to Christendom.” You see the implicit contradiction here don’t you? You have presented what is called a “false dichotomy.” How can a Pastor be faulted for being more devoted to a cardinal doctrine of Christianity without which Christianity can not be Christianity than he is to Christianity itself?

As to time spent on this one doctrinal aspect of Christianity Luther is reputed to have said;

“If I profess, with the loudest voice and the clearest exposition, every portion of the truth of God except precisely that little point which the world and the devil are at that moment attacking, I am not confessing Christ, however boldly I may be professing Christianity. Where the battle rages the loyalty of the soldier is proved; and to be steady on all the battle-field besides is mere flight and disgrace to him if he flinches at that one point.”

Guess where that one point is now Roger? That one point is the point that Kinism is engaged in. If the Church loses here Christendom goes into declension (something R2K desires very much) and it is back to the catacombs while living in Dark chaos and old night. Indeed, it is not too much to say that the enemy will have been successful in a short term victory.

In Athanasius’ time the issue that was being attacked was the deity of Jesus Christ. In Augustine’s day the issue that was being attacked was whether or not man had Libertarian free will. In Luther’s day the issue was both Justification by faith alone and the what was the epistemological ground for the Church — Scripture or Tradition. Today the issue is also twofold

1.) Creator-Creature distinction and the means of attack is by attack the doctrines of Scripture that have been shorthanded to be called “Kinism.” (Which is merely Christianity 101).

2.) Theonomy or Autonomy. (These two issues are implied in one another just as the two issues at the time of the Reformation were implied in each other.)

Of course, as has been more than hinted at in the original response, most Christians seem not to have the capacity to understand the implications and consequences of this issue. Just as Athanasius, Augustine, Luther were the minority voices at their time so Kinists are the minority voices today.

But as Rushdoony said …

“History has never been dominated by majorities, but only by dedicated minorities who stand unconditionally on their faith.”

R.J. Rushdoony

Blessings Roger as you consider all this,

Bret

p.s. — FWIW The NRA is counter-productive to securing the 2nd amendment. If you want to secure the 2nd amendment don’t send your money there.

p.p.s.  – If you really want to dig into this I can offer a few books that may help turn some lights on. Let me know.