Cruxis117 and all,
I’m a Protestant Kinist. I came across this post and thought I would respond to this thread which is now closed:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?p=8884248
At root, Kinism is the natural extension of the understanding that God has placed us in families for covenant nurture and civil order. Since races are nothing but extended families, we enjoy a unique love for our own race and we affirm ethnonationalism as God’s prescribed social order. Consider the tribal love of Saint Paul, who, this side of the cross, expressed a special love for his own kin according to the flesh (Rom. 9:3). Or ponder the ethnonationalism (the Greek ‘ethnos’ used for ‘nation’ means ethnicity, common lineage, race) divinely sanctioned in the OT (Deut. 32: 8), affirmed in the New (Acts 17:26-27), and even acknowledged as existing in the eternal state (Rev. 21:24, 22:2). Here’s a thorough defense:
faithandheritage.com/2011/01/a-biblical-defense-of-ethno-nationalism/
Perhaps more interesting to catholics, who appreciate the principle laid down by St. Vincent of Lérins that “What all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true,” is that Kinism was the universal practice of Christendom until the influence of social-Marxism in the middle of the 20th century. Today, backed with the force of law (the outlawing of free association and enforcing of multiculturalism), pseudo-science (Boas school of anthropology), and the power of mass media and pop culture, the orthopraxis of our fathers is considered “hate.”
Unfortunately, Cruxis117, I don’t think you’ll find any Protestant or catholic rebuttals of the principles of Kinism as most end up either 1) misrepresenting the position (e.g., some races are subhuman; whites may not associate with blacks; not all races come from Adam, etc.); 2 ) flinging ad hominems or regurgitating social-Marxist shibboleths (e.g., Kinists are racists, bigots, etc.; there is strength in diversity); or 3) offering irrelevant reproofs such as Galatians 3:28. Allow me a few quick clarifications:
- We Kinists affirm that all races are sons of Adam who bear the Imago Dei and that salvation is to all who believe. Yet, we reject the notion that this unity necessitates that races intermarry and amalgamate. Far from demonstrating backwardness or hate, that mankind and Christendom are to remain racially organized actually exemplifies nothing less than the Triune nature of God: a plurality or races pursuing the single goal of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. Because two groups can share friendships and dinner does not mean they can share beds.
- While it’s common to be called a racist, we Kinists implore our kin and catholic friends to consider that whatever slurs are thrown at us are also hurled at nearly two millennia of Christianity and the West. The only feasible definition of a racist we can apprehend is one who has an irrational hatred of someone based on accident of birth. This definition fits neither us nor our ancestors. If, however, a racist is one who loves and protects his extended family and wants to see his people exist in the future, or if a racist is one who doesn’t desire the novel transformation of God’s diverse racial order into one Neo-Babel tribe, then we and nearly all men are racists. Or, in Jared Taylor’s words: “If it is ‘racist’ to prefer the company of people of one’s race, to prefer the culture created by one’s race, and to want one’s race to survive and flourish, then virtually every one of every color is ‘racist,’ and the term has no useful meaning.”
- If Galatians 3:28 means that race has no place in the body of Christ, then it also means that gender has no bearing in the church. But how many ardent feminists have used that passage to justify female priests and bishops? As Dabney retorted on this very issue, “But if the spiritual kingdom thus levels all social and temporal distinctions, its official rights should equally be distributed in disregard of them all.” This verse is a powerful verse, indeed. But apparently not so prevailing that it would evade all our ancestors prior to Martin Luther King.
In my opinion, the best responses to Kinism are those that marshal Scriptural examples of interracial marriage. But not only are these examples usually exegetically confused (see
spiritwaterblood.com/2008/08/is-interracial-marriage-scriptural/), they confuse the
authentia historiae of Scripture (what actually happened historically) with the
authentia normae sive praecepti of Scripture (what is morally normative). Let it be that there were 100 cases of miscegenation in Scripture; there is still not one prescription for it, and this is expected given the Bible’s cover-to-cover ethnocentrism. Again, unless we redefine the biblical meaning of nation, under what circumstances can any non-Kinist comprehend there being distinct races recognized in heaven (Rev. 21:24, 22:2)? Perhaps if racial solidarity throughout the church militant is accidental, but in which case racial homogenous families, tribes, and nations cannot be said to be immoral.
Another more worthy rebuttal is one that invokes Paul’s commandment to marry “only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). In response, this assumes 1) that “in the Lord” does not simply mean “only according to God’s revealed will,” and 2) that if the
only requirement is to choose a believing spouse, then one may marry a 6-year-old or one’s step-father. We think the first option is preferable and that such counter arguments expose the inability of experimental anti-Kinism (social-Marxism) to refute something so natural, so historic, and so Biblical.
[continued]
as a christian this ought to prove her wrong in the belifs of kinism.