CRITIQUE OF KINISTIC CRITIQUE
A response (see http://faithandheritage.com/2011/08/a-response-to-an-article-on-kinism-published-in-the-puritan-news-weekly/ ) has been written to my article at http://www.puritans.net/news/kinism072111.htm by kinist author Mr. David Opperman. I would offer this response:
As I have written in various of my articles (see http://www.puritans.net/homelands/ ), family and ethno-tribal ties are an inherent aspect of the human condition. Efforts to erase these ties will prove futile and are based upon erroneous notions unfounded in scripture. These ties are the historic norm for political organization, and there is good reason to believe they will always be (Genesis 10, Isaiah 19:21-25, Matthew 28:19-20, Revelation 21:24). Nevertheless, we need to be very clear about something first and foremost: for the true Christian believer, love of Jesus Christ, the Biblical reformed faith, and fellow Christians from every nation, tribe and tongue, must trump family and ethno-tribal ties. Jesus Christ was very clear about this:
“If any [man] come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
“And he stretched forth his hand toward his disciples, and said, Behold my mother and my brethren! For whosoever shall do the will of my Father which is in heaven, the same is my brother, and sister, and mother.” (Matthew 12:49-50)
My deep concern is that kinism loses sight of this very fundamental principle. While it is true that the fact that most Western Christians have bought into anti-tribalist, multicultural principles is very troubling (and I think will have significant temporal negative ramifications), to the extent kinism allows blood ties to trump religious ties it is fundamentally erring with even more negative ramifications than denying tribal ties.
With respect to the kinist assertion that a nation today has the right to outlaw marriage outside a person’s ethnicity/tribe, based upon various Old Testament judicial laws and practices, kinists are twisting these passages and misapplying them. We must be clear about one thing: during the Old Testament dispensation, there was only one nation that served the true and living God. Therefore, the general Old Testament principle forbidding marriage to the people of other nations was rooted in the fact that the people of these other nations were (generally speaking) heathens and would lead the Israelites into sinful practices if married:
“Judah hath dealt treacherously, and an abomination is committed in Israel and in Jerusalem; for Judah hath profaned the holiness of the LORD which he loved, and hath married the daughter of a strange god.” (Malachi 2:11)
“…thou hast commanded by thy servants the prophets, saying, The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land with the filthiness of the people of the lands, with their abominations, which have filled it from one end to another with their uncleanness. Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their wealth for ever: that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave [it] for an inheritance to your children for ever.” (Ezra 9:11-12)
“And they took their daughters to be their wives, and gave their daughters to their sons, and served their gods.” (Judges 3:6)
“…Of the nations [concerning] which the LORD said unto the children of Israel, Ye shall not go in to them, neither shall they come in unto you: [for] surely they will turn away your heart after their gods…” (I Kings 11:2)
Kinist arguments based upon instances of Old Testament prohibition of marriage to foreigners all too often fail to make note of the reason why such was prohibited. Generally speaking, it was not because they were of another ethnic tribe, but because they were heathen. One cannot ignore the rationale for the statement of a Biblical principle in ascertaining how it should be applied.
The general Old Testament principle discouraging marriage to foreigners was not intended to forbid an Israelite from marrying a non-Israelite if that non-Israelite was godly and was willing to assimilate into Israel, like Rahab, Ruth and Uriah. Boaz is lauded for marrying a godly non-Israelite (Ruth 4:14-15), and those who wrongly accused Moses for his marrying a non-Israelite were themselves condemned (Numbers 12). To outlaw a lawful marriage is to transgress the will of God:
“…What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” (Matthew 19:6)
Today, unlike during the Old Testament dispensation, God has His people from many nations, tribes and tongues. So a better equivalent from the Old Testament for us today would be how there was not a general prohibition on godly Israelites from one Israelite tribe marrying a godly Israelite from another Israelite tribe.
In addition, the problem that the Western nations today face has absolutely nothing to do with Christian white Americans marrying godly non-whites, but it has everything to do with our own religious apostasy and God’s consequent divine judgment on us, giving us over to abortion, sodomy, artificial contraception, feminism, etc. So long as white Westerners stay on the course of false religion (mainly secular humanism), abortion, sodomy, artificial contraception, feminism, etc., the white Western population will decline and head towards extinction. We need to repent, turn to Jesus Christ in truth, and enact laws enforcing both tables of the Ten Commandments, like our reformed forefathers.
With respect to the Mexican War by the USA (see http://www.principlesofwar.com/scenarios/19thc/USmexindex.htm) , it reflected imperialism both in its causes and its consequences. It is the duty of moral persons to respect this dictum:
“Follow peace with all [men], and holiness, without which no man shall see the Lord…” (Hebrew 12:14)
US President Polk’s insistence that the Mexican government sell the US the Mexican territories of New Mexico and California were unrighteous and provocative and imperialistic. The actions of the US military in crossing the Nueces River in Texas were clearly provocative as well, and not designed to maintain peace but to incite war with Mexico. Furthermore, the attacks by John C. Fremont in California against the Mexican forces were clearly of an offensive nature with the purpose of gaining territory for the US empire.
Not only were the causes imperialistic, but the consequences were imperialistic. By conquering and acquiring the US Southwest, the USA was clearly setting itself even further on an imperialistic footing – having under its sovereignty various conquered tribes and peoples. This set the stage for further US imperialism, such as the unrighteous conquest of Hawaii (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overthrow_of_the_Kingdom_of_Hawaii ) and unrighteous foreign interventions around the world. Kinists cannot have it both ways: kinists cannot on the one hand assert nations should be organized on ethno-tribal principles, while on the other hand defend US imperialism. In contrast, the Society for the Promotion of Christian Ethnic Homeland Nations is consistent (see http://www.puritans.net/homelands/ ).
As a moral person, each nation has the duty to respect the sovereignty rights of other ethno-tribal nations. Jesus Christ calls us to follow this principle:
“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” (Matthew 7:12)
But that person or nation that instead follows a path of conquest and disrespect of others should be warned:
“…all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword.” (Matthew 26:52)