A Conversation on Race Between Two Christians
by Stuart DiNenno
What follows is not an actual conversation but one that has been manufactured to best exemplify the doctrines of what is called kinism (according to my conception of it, others may differ), and to juxtapose them against the positions held by egalitarians. It is set forth in a format of the egalitarian asking questions and presenting objections (which are in bold print for easier delineation between the two) with the kinist responding to them. I hold the kinist position and almost all the questions and objections are ones that actually have been presented to me or that I have seen presented to others in Internet discussions.
First, a brief description of the two opposing parties participating in this discussion:
The KINIST is a professing Christian who recognizes the reality that mankind is divided into ethnic and racial groups, that some of these groups have been blessed by God with superior traits and abilities beyond others, and that this is all part of the Lord’s created order. Consequently, he believes that the current movement to amalgamate the races is destructive and needs to be opposed. He believes that mixed race marriages should not be allowed and that national distinctions ought to be maintained by enforced segregation and racially exclusive immigration policies.
The EGALITARIAN is a professing Christian who believes in racial equality (“egalitarian” is derived from the French word for equality). That is, he believes that all the races of man are equal in every respect, only differing in skin color and some outward physical features, and he sometimes even denies the existence of distinct races altogether. Consequently, he believes that there is nothing wrong with the recent trend of crossing racial lines, and that it is sinful to forbid mixed race marriages, or to practice any sort of racial or ethnic exclusion.
EGALITARIAN: On what basis do you say that interracial marriage is wrong?
KINIST: We say that interracial marriage (aka miscegenation) is wrong on the basis that we are Whites who are loyal to our people and we desire to preserve our unique identity, which is not possible to do if interracial marriage is permitted. Also, the historical record shows the white race to have far excelled other races in every field of achievement, and we desire to preserve that inherent superiority, which we believe cannot be maintained without the exclusion of other races from our genetic lineage.
EGALITARIAN: If you are a Christian, you should be able to give a BIBLICAL basis for saying that interracial marriage is wrong. You have merely stated your opinions and preferences; you have not shown anything from the Bible to support your view.
KINIST: I stated loyalty as a basis for disallowing miscegenation. There are many examples of racial loyalty and the corresponding practice of racial exclusivity in the Bible. You can see some examples in this list. Furthermore, although the Bible makes it clear that all men are descended from Adam (“one blood” Acts 17:26), it is equally clear that it is God’s will for mankind to be divided into separate nations (also Acts 17:26) and that He forcibly accomplished this by the confusion of tongues at Babel (Genesis 11). It was not the case at Babel that all of humanity was meant to be unified in one place but then was scattered from their location only because they sinned; the scattering was a corrective action applied to them for uniting in sin when they were expected to obediently disperse over the earth. As Baptist minister B. H. Carroll (1843-1914) states in his commentary: “The divine plan was diffusion, and the command was to push out in all directions, not one; to occupy and subdue all the earth.” Mankind was forcibly divided by God into nations according to their own distinct bloodlines and unique languages, and then settled in their own separate lands: “after their families, after their tongues, in their lands, after their nations.”(Genesis 10:5, 20, 31). The Bible is clear that it was, and remains, God’s plan for all men to be divided along ethnic lines and each into their own separate territories, and this is both exemplified and stated at various places in the Holy Scriptures beginning in Genesis 10, which is often called the Table of Nations by theologians. There is no place for ambiguity on this point as national division is set forth throughout the Bible as an enduring condition of mankind.
EGALITARIAN: It’s true that God divided mankind at Babel for their sin. As a judgment for their sin, He scattered the people from Babel all over the earth and from this scattering came all the different nations. But at Pentecost (Acts 2), God reversed what He had done 2500 years earlier. He brought together the nations that had different tongues and dialects, and assembled them in one place so that they could once again understand each other. This is just one of many passages in the New Testament Scriptures which teach that the Old Testament walls of separation between people of different nations are no longer in place.
KINIST: There is no basis for the claim that the events mentioned in Acts during Pentecost in Jerusalem constituted a reversal of the forced separation into nationalities at Babel. The miracle which occurred at that time was not that the Jews and proselytes who had been assembled from many different countries all heard the apostles speaking in one language, and that therefore everyone could understand the speech of everyone else present; the miracle was that they each heard the apostles preaching to them in their own unique native tongue. There was no reunification of mankind here. This was just the first manifestation of the gift of tongues mentioned in the Bible wherein the apostles were supernaturally enabled to communicate the gospel in the languages of many nations. Moreover, the ones supposedly reunified in this passage were mostly Jews who already would have considered themselves of the same nationality prior to this event. This was not the first meeting of the United Nations as some suppose.
As for the walls of separation being torn down under the New Testament, that is true only in a religious sense. In Christ, both Jews and Gentiles were united whereas in prior ages the kingdom of God was largely confined to national Israel: “…at that time ye [Gentiles] were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and strangers from the covenants of promise, having no hope, and without God in the world: But now in Christ Jesus ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and hath broken down the middle wall of partition between us.” (Ephesians 2:12-14) But there is no indication that this was to result in the blending away of ethnic distinctions and national borders. The Christian mission is to disciple the nations as separate nations, not to amalgamate them into one borderless world, or to create a raceless humanity divided only by artificial and arbitrary boundaries, and no one interpreted it as such until very recent times.
EGALITARIAN: Biblical law did not exclude foreigners from Israel. In fact, it protected them and made them equal under the law. This is made clear in Leviticus 24:22 “Ye shall have one manner of law, as well for the stranger, as for one of your own country: for I am the LORD your God.” The same principle is also given in Exodus 12:49, Numbers 15:16 and 15:29. A man did not have to be a blood descendant of Jacob to immigrate into Israel, to worship Israel’s God, or to be under the protection of Israel’s laws.
KINIST: The Law of Moses stipulated the equitable treatment of aliens in Israel, but it also limited their rights, and foreigners did not gain full equality under the law even after embracing the Israelite religion and entering into the covenant of circumcision. For example, ownership of the land was reserved strictly for the native Israelites. They could not pass along the inheritance of it to anyone but their blood descendants (Numbers 27:8-11). Thus, possession of the land by non-Israelites was forbidden. Aliens also were not allowed to hold positions of power in Israel as, by law, only native Israelites could rule over their brethren (Deuteronomy 17:15). Though there were some examples of foreign women being incorporated into the nation through marriage with Israelite men, these were rare and the presumption in biblical law is that foreigners are in the land temporarily as sojourners — not as permanent land-holding residents.
EGALITARIAN: When the Israelites were commanded by God to be separate from the nations around them that was only for the purpose of preserving them from idolatrous worship and false religions. Now that we are under the New Testament and the kingdom of God has been extended to all nations, there is no such limitation between Christians of different nationalities or racial groups.
KINIST: It is true that there is no stated biblical restriction or exemplified principle that would forbid any Christian man from marrying any other Christian woman, but there also is no biblical command or precept requiring Christian nations to allow marriages that they believe to be destructive to the cohesiveness of their society and the integrity of their nationality, nor is there any biblical requirement for the heads of families to permit marriages they believe are not conducive to family unity or which they believe to be otherwise undesirable.
EGALITARIAN: You’re wrong. Christians cannot forbid something that God has not forbidden. The only restriction against marriage under the New Testament is between a believer and an unbeliever (2 Corinthians 6:14). We do not have the right to set additional limitations.
KINIST: If it were true that Christians do not have the right to set standards for marriage beyond a common profession of faith, then a Christian father could not refuse the request of his 20 year old white Christian daughter if she expressed a desire to marry an 80 year old one legged, homeless, newly immigrated Vietnamese man who sleeps under a bridge and speaks no English, but professes to be a Christian. Either you agree that the father does have the right to prevent this horrendous mismatch, in which case your last statement is shown to be false, or you disagree that he has that right, in which case you are shown to be a fool. Which is it? If it is the latter, then there is no basis for further discussion between us.
EGALITARIAN: Anyone can choose an extreme example to make the other guy’s case sound absurd, but what is your argument against a Christian man and a Christian woman of the same age in the same nation who have everything in common except the color of their skin? And where does the Bible give national governments the right to forbid marriages between two citizens of the same country?
KINIST: We say that the differences between races are more extensive than skin color, and so we do not believe that the two people in your example “have everything in common except the color of their skin.” Furthermore, we do not accept the idea that because the Anti-Christ government under which we live is allowing the people of all nations to flood into our country and giving them the title of citizens, that we have to accept that non-Whites are members of our nation. Non-Whites are foreigners to us and always will be, regardless of what the current regime declares, and we believe that the government should not be allowing non-Whites to reside in the country at all, so the question of whether they should be allowed to marry the native Whites is moot, as far as we are concerned.
We concur with Cyril W. Emmet (1875-1923), who wrote the entry on marriage in the James Hastings Bible Dictionary (1909), that “the general teaching of the epistles would remove any religious bar to intermarriage between Christians of different race, though it does not touch the social or physiological advisability.” Our argument is not that the Bible sets a “religious bar” between Christians of different races, but that such marriages are not socially or physiologically advisable, and are not biblically normative, nor are they conducive to maintaining distinctions and boundaries that the Bible does enjoin upon us, and so should not be allowed for these reasons.
EGALITARIAN: Again, you are not giving biblical answers; you are only giving your own opinions. Where does the Bible support racial segregation under the New Testament? Where does the Bible even define the idea that separate races exist? Where is the idea that there is a “black race” or a “white race,” for example?
KINIST: I am giving biblical answers to the questions that need them but many do not. I can answer your question as to where the Bible supports racial segregation by simply pointing out that almost all the nations mentioned in the Bible were in a state of segregation simply by virtue of the fact that they consisted almost entirely of the descendants of the person they were named after (e.g., Moab, Ammon, Edom, Israel, etc.) and everyone else was considered a foreigner.
Regarding your questions about race, we do not need the Bible to inform us of obvious realities. It does not tell us that elbows exist. Does this mean it is wrong to claim that they do? Everyone knows a white man when he sees one; everyone knows a black man when he sees one; and everyone knows that the two are of a different race. Likewise, everyone knows that the Japanese, the Koreans, and the Chinese are different nations but of the same racial stock. The Bible does not tell us these things but anyone who needs the Bible to do so is too foolish to benefit from reading it.
EGALITARIAN: So you admit there is no biblical basis for believing in a “white race” and yet you further claim that this “white race” is superior. Where do you get these ridiculous ideas?
KINIST: As already stated, there need not be any “biblical basis” for acknowledging obvious realities. Everyone knows that the different races exist and this is affirmed even by the egalitarians when they want to puff up the Blacks with ridiculous concepts such as “Black History Month” or when they want to denigrate the Whites with equally absurd charges of “White oppression.”
Race is an amazingly versatile substance. When you need to put it to use, such as when you want to accuse white people of appropriating everything for themselves at the expense of other races, then it becomes a genetic reality as solid and immovable as the rock of Gibraltar. But when you need it to go away, such as when you want to hide the fact that Blacks commit a very disproportionate share of violent crimes, then it becomes a mere social construct as evanescent and illusory as a fairy or an elf.
As for white superiority, if you challenge its reality, then let’s look at a list of achievements by white men in any field of knowledge and see how that matches up to a list of achievements by men of any other race in the same field. The difference is startling. Nowhere is this superiority more clearly exemplified than in the Christian religion. White men have always been the standard bearers of Christianity since the time of the apostles. If you do not already know this, then visit a comprehensive theological library that has a wide selection of works from throughout the history of the Christian church and you will find that, except for a handful of very recent works of dubious quality, you will be hard-pressed to find any non-White authors in the entire collection.
EGALITARIAN: God divided mankind into nations, not “races,” and those original nations do not exist today. We can form nations according to geographical limits without dividing them along ethnic or racial lines. Who says that nations have to consist of one particular skin color?
KINIST: You are only redefining what nations have always been, in order to fit your egalitarian suppositions. While it is true that many of the original nations do not exist today, the principle remains: That it is God’s will for mankind to be divided into nations and that nations are to be based on certain shared characteristics. According to Dr. Bruce Waltke, in his “Old Testament Theology,” a nation, according to Scripture, is defined as: (1) a common people; (2) sharing a common history; (3) having a common law; (4) with a common land; and (5) a kin King. And the Online Etymology Dictionary entry under nation says the following: “circa 1300 A.D., NACIOUN, “a race of people, large group of people with common ancestry and language…”
All nations in the Bible are based on a common blood lineage, which is to say a shared ethnicity. In fact, the biblical word that is translated “nation” in our English NT Scriptures is the Greek word “ethnos,” from which we get our English word ethnic. And the English word nation has always meant a group of people with a common ancestry. Nation comes from the Latin word natus from which we also get the word natal, which means “of, relating to, or accompanying birth”. And so both the Greek word “ethnos” and the corresponding English word “nation” both refer to blood lineage.
For a Christian, nations must fit the historic and biblical concept of nations, which is large groups of people with common ancestry, culture, and language. Geographical-political entities that do not possess this commonality, but instead contain a multiplicity of racial and ethnic groups, are not nations but are more akin to empires.
EGALITARIAN: The Jews were already residing in many nations when the apostles went out to evangelize those nations. This proves that the ancient nations did not segregate themselves by forbidding foreigners from residing in their land, as you want white Americans to do.
KINIST: All the nations in which there were synagogues of the Jews that the apostles visited were under the authority of Rome, and those nations had to tolerate whatever the Romans required of them. Based on what we can learn of the Jews in the New Testament narrative, it seems that those born under Roman rule were allowed to freely travel and reside in other parts of the Roman Empire, and perhaps those territories that were incorporated into the empire were not permitted by the Romans to exclude other citizens who came from different parts of the empire.
Even if it could be shown that the individual nations were allowed by the Romans to exclude foreigners from their lands, it would only prove that the people in those nations where the Jews resided saw enough commonality between themselves and the Jews to tolerate small numbers of them in their midst. It would not prove anything beyond that. It would not prove that they would have been tolerant of every other people-group who wanted to reside in their land or that they would have permitted large-scale immigration of foreigners to the point that it would have changed their culture and ethnic identity.
The Bible displays the right of nations to determine who may enter into their land, as exemplified by the Israelites asking permission to enter into the lands of the Edomites, Moabites, and Amorites as they traveled on their way to the land of Canaan, and there is nothing in the New Testament Scriptures that annuls this right.
EGALITARIAN: The U.S. government determines who can settle within the borders of our land and become American citizens, not you and your little group of racists. The church does not have the right to exclude citizens of its nation from Christian congregations and thereby effectively establish its own immigration and citizenship policy.
KINIST: We are living under a regime that is deliberately trying to eliminate all distinctions in mankind and we believe that we must stand against it by not cooperating with its attempts to amalgamate the races into one, just as Christians must oppose the regime’s efforts to destroy gender distinctions. Under normal circumstances, the civil government authorities would protect the racial integrity of the nation, and the US government did this until the 1960’s, but since they not only have abandoned their responsibility to do so, but are actually working to blend the races together, we believe the Church must do whatever it can to prevent amalgamation.
EGALITARIAN: So you actually believe that the government should discriminate according to race, and that if it does not, then the church can do so? You’re conveniently ignoring the Bible passages that condemn Christians for practicing partiality and which tell us that “to have respect of persons is not good,” (Proverbs 28:21) which means that we are not be discriminatory.
KINIST: You are conveniently misinterpreting the passages you mentioned so that they fit your equality agenda. There are sinful forms of partiality and there are non-sinful forms of partiality. Everyone shows partiality to his near blood relatives, which means that everyone is also discriminatory against those who are not his near relatives, and there is nothing sinful in it. Has anyone ever condemned a man for showing partiality toward his own children because he provides for them but not for the other children in his neighborhood? What would you think of a man who was not partial to his own wife but equally distributed his love to every woman on his street? Likewise, people throughout history have always been preferential to their own blood kin at the ethnic and racial levels, which requires discrimination against foreigners, and there is absolutely nothing wrong in it. This sort of loyalty, and the exclusionary practices that go along with it, which you are wrongly condemning as a sinful “respect of persons,” is exemplified many, many times in the Bible.
EGALITARIAN: Passages such as Galatians 3:28 tell us that in the Christian era “there is neither Jew nor Greek” and that now we “are all one in Christ Jesus.” Racial and ethnic distinctions no longer divide us under the New Testament and you are wrong for trying to divide people along these lines.
KINIST: If we look at the entire verse, then we can see that your interpretation is nonsense. It says, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.” If you interpret this verse to mean that the distinctions mentioned in it have been done away with altogether, then you would have to reach the ridiculous conclusion that “neither male nor female” means that under the New Testament there is no longer any male and female distinction in any sense, or the Bible teaches that persons can “transition” from one to the other! But, of course, Paul is not saying that Christ has abolished all racial differences, all class disparities, and all gender distinctions; that is a horrible distortion of his meaning. Paul is only saying that in regard to justification, and being the children of Abraham and the sons of God, it does not matter whether you are racially a Jew or a non-Jew, it does not matter whether you are a slave or you are free, and it does not matter whether you are a man or a woman — all are one in Christ Jesus. This is one of the senses in which God is said to be “no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34)
(See Albert Barnes’ commentary on Galatians 3:28 here, or William Perkins’ comments on the same passage here.)
EGALITARIAN: The biblical churches did not practice any kind of segregation. Paul wrote about the necessity for both unity in the church and love between the saints, and this teaching was given in epistles to churches that consisted of both Jews and non-Jews. This teaching of the apostle REQUIRES us to accept all professing Christians in our churches regardless of their cultural or racial background, but your doctrine is the exact opposite of this. In fact, Timothy was actually a product of what you would call “miscegenation” between a Greek (of the race of Japheth) and a Jew (of the race of Shem). What gives you the right to practice racial segregation when we can plainly see that the Israelites and the biblical churches did not?
KINIST: The dispersed Jews of the first-century A.D. were only a very small minority in all the countries where the apostles found them, making them no threat to the racial identity of the nations in which they resided. This is quite a different circumstance from what is happening today in North America and Europe where tens of millions of foreigners are being imported into historically white nations and race mixing is not only tolerated but encouraged and promoted through educational institutions, government propaganda, television entertainment, and product advertising. Though it is not the only reason for what they are doing, there is a deliberate plan by those in positions of power to destroy ethnic identity in white nations in order to weaken them and so to make them more easily controlled. This is not a new strategy, as this excerpt from a popular Bible dictionary shows:
“Esarhaddon was the Assyrian king who resettled Samaria with foreigners after this capital city of the northern kingdom of Israel fell to Assyrian forces in 722 B.C. (Ezra 4:2). This was an example of the Assyrian policy of intermingling cultures in the nations which they conquered to make them weak and compliant.” (Nelson’s Illustrated Bible Dictionary, 1986, Esarhaddon, page 350)
As to the voluntary mixing in the early church between the Jews and Gentiles, I conclude that there must have been enough commonality between the first-century descendants of Judah and the people of the other Mediterranean nations to where they migrated, that mingling in the same congregations was not found to be objectionable to anyone. But again, nations have a right to exclude any and all foreigners. For example, it may have been the case that the people of Achaia (which is now southern Greece), where the biblical church of Corinth was located, were compelled by the Roman rulers to accept aliens into their country, but assuming they were not and had determined that they did not want the Jews or any other group of foreigners in their realm, it certainly would have been within their right to keep them out.
We reject the claim that any of the voluntary mixing described in the Bible constitutes a compulsion for Christians to blend their ethnic and racial identities out of existence, or disallows the Church from taking steps to protect national identity where the civil government will not, and we will not be destroying our identity by intermarrying with Negroids, Mongoloids, or any other non-Whites. Those who disagree can voluntarily segregate themselves from us.
EGALITARIAN: So you really believe that there is some sort of conspiracy behind all this “race mixing”? Your paranoia about this is laughable.
KINIST: It is certain that there is a conspiracy behind it all. As I pointed out above, deliberate race mixing for the purpose of weakening nations is a practice that goes back to ancient times, and only blind men cannot see how hard racial amalgamation is being pushed today. In addition, international Communism (aka Socialism or Marxism) is a revolutionary movement established and led by Anti-Christs who falsely identify themselves as Jews (i.e., the biblical “synagogue of Satan”) and these are the same people leading the drive for race mixing and multiculturalism in America, and one of their goals has always been to eliminate national distinctions and unite the world as one — under their own control, of course:
“What will be the attitude of communism to existing nationalities? The nationalities of the peoples associating themselves in accordance with the principle of community will be compelled to mingle with each other as a result of this association and thereby to dissolve themselves, just as the various estate and class distinctions must disappear through the abolition of their basis, private property.” (Friedrich Engels, Principles of Communism, 1847, question #22)
“Lenin’s doctrine had a special appeal to intellectuals from oppressed nationalities within and beyond the Russian Empire. Basically, he foresaw an end to all national identity in the coming universal social revolution….” (James H. Billington, Fire in the Minds of Men, 1980, page 466)
“Similarly, the red Chinese communist regime declared over Peking Radio in 1956 that “nationalities will disappear in the future.” The goal of socialism is not limited to the elimination of hostility and isolation among nationalities, to the bringing of all nationalities into cooperation; it also includes the elimination of differences between nationalities, melting all nationalities into a single entity.” (Francis Nigel Lee, Communist Eschatology, 1974, page 493)
What is called Progressivism in America today is only a continuation of the Communist agenda, and the blending of mankind into a one world order has always been the goal of Satan’s revolutionary movements since the days of the tower of Babel, as 20th century Presbyterian minister R. J. Rushdoony explains:
““Lest we be scattered” (Genesis 11:4) This is the worst thing they [mankind assembled as one at Babel] felt could happen to man…. to them the greatest evil is disunity; this is the evil to man’s society of Satan. And every world order they create is a world order designed to create some kind of remedy for this evil. And so it is as they set about over, and over, and over again from the days of the tower of Babel to create their one world order apart from God, their paradise without God. They seek to create an order, not one that deals with moral evil and depravity but simply with the face of disunity. Let us bring all nations together in our tower of Babel, let us bring all races and peoples and languages and tongues together and integrate them. …let us make all one, that we may overcome this, the greatest of evils, “lest we be scattered.””
EGALITARIAN: Peter was rebuked by Paul for sinfully segregating himself from the Gentiles when the Jews were present, “But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself…” (Galatians 2:11-12). Now you are advocating the same kind of racism.
KINIST: The event you have described was not a matter of racial segregation. Peter’s separation from the non-Jewish Christians in the church was the result of him wrongfully distinguishing between the ceremonially clean circumcised Jews who were still observing the law, and the ceremonially unclean uncircumcised non-Jews who were not observing the law, when these differences had been invalidated by the New Testament. Thus, it was a matter of an erroneous religious differentiation, not a racial matter, and it certainly does not have any bearing on the question of whether national (i.e., ethnic) distinctions ought to be maintained by the Church.
EGALITARIAN: Salmon married Rahab who was a Canaanite, Boaz married Ruth who was a Moabite, and Joseph married Asenath who was an Egyptian. There is no biblical condemnation of any of these marriages, both Rahab and Ruth are in the line of Christ, and Asenath became the mother of the Israelite tribes Ephraim and Manasseh. These examples clearly contradict your beliefs about racial intermarriage and segregation.
KINIST: We do not deny that among the people of Israel there were occasions of mixing with foreigners, including all the examples you gave and several others. But these are the exceptions and some of them may not have been examples of the Israelites taking wives that were genetically far removed from their own ethnicity. Some say that Ruth was actually an Israelite living in Moab, although I have not seen this argued by any notable commentators and the biblical text calls her “Ruth the Moabitess” five times, so it is very unlikely to be true. But whether Israelite or Moabite, Ruth would have been a descendant of Shem. Asenath appears to be of the ruling class in Egypt and if it is true that she and her husband Joseph lived during the reign of the Hyksos, as some commentators assert, then she likely was Shemitic, as the Hyksos were Shemites that conquered Egypt. There are theories about Rahab being either a Midianite or Israelite, which would have made her also Shemitic, but these cannot be proved. There is no doubt, however, that there were isolated instances of miscegenation among the Israelites. These are usually singled out as if they are anomalous, such as in the case of “Shaul the son of a Canaanitish woman” in a list of Simeon’s sons (Genesis 46:10). One or two of the examples you mentioned indeed may have been cases of interracial marriage, and there are a few others that could be cited, but it cannot be denied that the norm for an Israelite was not only to marry within his nation but also within his tribe.
Many Bible passages illustrate that among God’s people there was both a strong desire for racial fidelity in marriage and an equally strong objection to unions with foreigners. Abraham makes his servant swear to him that he will journey to find a wife for Isaac from among his own kin, rather than one from the people who were dwelling around him (Genesis 24:2-3) and Isaac does the same with Jacob (Genesis 28:1-2). Esau’s Hittite wives are a grief to his parents Isaac and Rebekah (Genesis 26:34-35; 27:46). In Genesis 34, the sons of Jacob refused to allow their sister to be given to a Canaanite in marriage, even though he is said to love the woman, they had already been joined through a sexual relation, and the Canaanite had agreed to be circumcised. Miriam and Aaron labeled Moses’ wife an Ethiopian (Numbers 12:1) likely, as John Calvin states: “for the purpose of awakening greater odium against Moses” which illustrates the revulsion the Israelites would have had to such a marriage. Samson’s parents are distressed at the news that he desires to take a wife from the Philistines rather than from among his own tribe or nation (Judges 14:3).
Of King David’s eight wives only one is known to have been foreign born — Maacah the daughter of the king of Geshur (2 Samuel 3:3) who would have been Shemitic. Of course, “King Solomon loved many strange women” (1 Kings 11:1), a grievous violation of the law of God (Deuteronomy 17:17) which drew him into the worship of pagan gods, and in so doing brought the wrath of God upon him. After Solomon’s time, “of the twenty kings of Israel who reigned from the division of the kingdom to the Babylonian captivity, Ahab is the only one mentioned who married a foreign wife (1 Kings 16:31); while of the nineteen kings of Judah after the division none intermarried with aliens” (McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia, 1880, Marriage). Does it not tell us something that of all the kings of Israel and Judah after the kingdom was divided, the only one who is known to have married a foreigner (Ahab) was not only said to have angered the LORD more than all the kings of Israel that came before him (1 Kings 16:33) but his foreign wife (Jezebel) was the most wicked woman described in the entire Bible?
The prevalence of marriages between the Judahites and aliens after the return from the Babylonian captivity was a grief to Ezra and Nehemiah, and a hindrance to their work of reformation, insomuch that Nehemiah was enraged by it and he “contended with them, and cursed them, and smote certain of them, and plucked off their hair, and made them swear by God, saying, Ye shall not give your daughters unto their sons, nor take their daughters unto your sons, or for yourselves” (Nehemiah 13:25). All the “strange wives” and their mixed children were sent away, even though the law of God did not specify the exclusion of all the nationals they deported. Presbyterian minister Albert Barnes (1798-1870) comments: “Strictly speaking, the prohibition in the law of intermarriage (Deuteronomy 7:1-3) was confined to the Canaanite nations. But the principle of the prohibition applied equally to the Moabites, Ammonites, and Edomites who all bordered on the holy land; and was so applied by Ezra (Ezra:9:1) and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 13:23).” Equally enlightening is the observation that there was no religious exception stated for those foreign women who might have professed to be adherents of the Israelite religion. As far as we can tell from the biblical text, all foreigners were to be excluded regardless of creed. There is no doubt about it: Ezra and Nehemiah were zealous nationalists.
The Bible exemplifies ethnic separation as the normative state for mankind. As I mentioned earlier in this discussion, we have the example of God forcibly dividing all of humanity into separate nations at Babel by means of linguistic confusion, and we can see in the Scriptures that the nations continued in a state of segregation: the land of Moab was populated with the descendants of Moab, Ammon with Ammonites, Edom with Esau’s progeny, etc., and the sovereignty of each nation over their own land was both zealously protected by their own people and respected by their neighbors. As for the Israelites, they not only were separated into their own land after gaining victory over the Canaanites but were further divided by God along tribal lines and had been separated into their own land at an earlier time when they were slaves to the Egyptians. We also know from the testimony of history that the world has remained divided according to ethnic distinctions ever after God’s intervention at Babel.
So we can see that national separation is the model, and this by God’s decree and even His direct enforcement. While we recognize that there are a few biblical instances of individuals marrying outside of their race, or at least their ethnic group, which brought forth no verbal denunciation from God or any manifestation of His displeasure, and even became a blessing to those mixed and their descendants, we believe that a few biblical examples of race mixing do not justify embracing large scale immigration and miscegenation when we see that the Bible exemplifies the opposite as the norm.
Our belief is that we can and should uphold racial and ethnic distinctions as it is the will of God that mankind be so divided, just as our ancestors did by strict immigration controls, practicing racial segregation in cases where Whites and non-Whites were living in close proximity, and banning racial intermarriage. This is especially needful during an age and in countries where there is a deliberate attempt to erase blood distinctions, and we do not see how we can allow for exceptions without overthrowing the entire principle, as what is permitted in individual cases is likely to be used to establish precedent for the same to be practiced on a much broader scale.
We believe the current push to erase national distinctions is not only a violation of the principle expressed in Proverbs 22:28 “Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set,” but also an attempt at removing the ancient landmarks that God has set. Our attitude is similar to that of the governing authorities in Judah after the people returned from Babylon: “So long as foreign epigamy [i.e., intermarriage] was of merely occasional occurrence no veto was placed upon it by public authority; but when, after the return from the Babylonian captivity, the Jews contracted marriages with the heathen inhabitants of Palestine in so wholesale a manner as to endanger their national existence, the practice was severely condemned, Ezra 9:2; 10:2.” (McClintock and Strong Cyclopedia, 1880, Marriage) We likewise see our White racial identity and the various ethnic identities of the European nations as endangered by wholesale immigration and miscegenation, and so believe we must take action to stop it, just as Ezra and Nehemiah did.
EGALITARIAN: Moses’ second wife was an Ethiopian woman — a BLACK woman (Numbers 12). Not only did God NOT find fault with this but he punished Aaron and Miriam FOR finding fault with it. Notice that the punishment inflicted on Miriam was perfectly appropriate for her racism — she was given leprosy and made “WHITE AS SNOW”!
KINIST: That is a creative interpretation of the account given in Numbers 12, I must admit, but it is not one that you will find in any of the biblical commentaries of the past, and I have never seen any mention of it before very recent times when so-called Christians began pushing race mixing. Most likely, the “Ethiopian woman” referred to in that chapter was none other than Zipporah of Midian, who is the only wife of Moses that is named in the Scriptures. There is no evidence that Moses ever married again. John Calvin says that Zipporah was “called an Ethiopian woman, because the Scripture comprehends the Midianites under this name.” As the marginal note for Numbers 12:1 in the Geneva Bible (1599) states: “Zipporah, Moses’ wife, was a Midianite, and because Midian bordered on Ethiopia, it is sometimes referred to in the scriptures by this name.”
Commentators agree that what is translated “Ethiopia” in our English Bibles is “Cush” in the Hebrew. Cush was Ham’s eldest son (Genesis 10:6), and about the Cushites, the Jamieson, Fausset and Brown Commentary says that they were “accounted generally a vile and contemptible race.” This is likely the reason why Miriam and Aaron chose to call Moses’ wife “an Ethiopian [Cushite] woman.” Again, as Calvin put it: “I have no doubt but that they [Miriam and Aaron] maliciously selected this name [Cushite or Ethiopian], for the purpose of awakening greater odium against Moses.” However, although Zipporah was from the land bordering Cush, or may have resided within its borders, ethnically she was a Midianite (Exodus 2:15-22) and Midian was a son of Abraham and Keturah (Genesis 25:2). This means that she was Shemitic just like Moses and certainly not a Negro.
I must agree with Calvin who says: “I do not by any means agree with those who think that she was any other than Zipporah, since we hear nothing of the death of Zipporah, nay, she had been brought back by Jethro, her father, only a little while before the delivery of the Law; whilst it is too absurd to charge the holy prophet with the reproach of polygamy. Besides, as an octogenarian, he would have been but little suited for a second marriage. Again, how would such a marriage have been practicable in the desert? It is, therefore, sufficiently clear that they refer to Zipporah…”
It is absurd to believe that while Moses was leading a vast horde of Israelites through the wilderness (i.e., desert), and not long after giving God’s law to the Israelites, this holy prophet, who is second only to Jesus Christ in terms of biblical authority, and is the leader and exemplar of all the Israelite men, forgets everything he just told them about marital and racial fidelity and decides to take a second wife, not from among the many, many thousands of young, unmarried virgin Israelite women who would have been among the host, but instead choosing a Nubian woman that happened to be among the “mixed multitude” (Exodus 12:38) that followed along after the Israelites.
As for the leprosy given to Miriam, whom it appears was the leader of the rebellion against Moses, the same punishment was inflicted by God in other cases which had nothing to do with a marriage or race mixing (2 Kings 5:20-27, 2 Chronicles 26:19-21), and in fact the same phrase “white as snow” is used in the case of Gehazi, Elisha’s servant, who was stricken with leprosy for his duplicity and dishonesty of conduct in the matter of the healing of Naaman the Syrian.
EGALITARIAN: If you’re so concerned about maintaining distinctions and you want to follow what you say is the biblical example for dividing mankind, which is by nations rather than “races,” then why are you not insisting on segregating by nationality? Why is it acceptable to you that the Germans, Irish, Italians, Dutch, and Poles “amalgamate” but not acceptable for Africans, Chinese, and Europeans to mix? You claim to follow the Bible but the delineations you insist on making in mankind do not follow the biblical example.
KINIST: We agree that it would be best to maintain the national distinctions that you mentioned where it is possible but in some countries, such as the USA, there has already been too much mixing between the various White European nationalities to do so. You cannot unscramble an egg, as they say. White Americans are a result of a mixture between several White European nationalities and have become their own distinct nationality, and it would be impossible at this point to separate them into their original nationalities and establish churches for each one of them.
The idea of the “White race” is admittedly somewhat modern, but our ancestors applied racial distinctions even more stringently. They saw themselves as members of the Saxon race, the Frankish race, the Celtic race, etc. It was only with intercontinental exploration and greater contact with non-Whites that a European racial identity developed, that is, as soon as Whites recognized that they had much more in common with each other than they did with, for example, the men of the various sub-Saharan African nations or those of East Asian countries, both of which have their own unique racial commonality. To say that the racial categories we use today are not valid because they are not categories mentioned in the Bible is only foolishly denying the reality of genetic relationships that even children can recognize.
EGALITARIAN: What is it about non-whites that you find so repulsive? Why do you hate those of African and Asian ancestry? And why do you care if other people mix? You are still free not to mix. Nobody is going to force you and your racist friends to marry or befriend non-whites.
KINIST: It is not a matter of hatred of others but a love for, and loyalty to, our own kind. If Whites or any other race of people want their children to look like their parents and carry on their traits, is there anything wrong in that? Or if a nation wants to preserve its ethnic and cultural identity by excluding those of different races and cultures, is it not within their right to do so? And if families want to associate with others who are most like themselves, is this some sort of evil? These are perfectly natural desires and only satanic revolutionaries and their deceived stooges try to portray such virtuous actions as wicked.
Some might say that there is nothing stopping families and individuals from practicing racial preference in any case but the reality is that if no distinctions are maintained in a society and in the churches, then it is going to be impossible for families to do the same over the long term, especially since the forces of the ungodly culture in which we live (and the so-called churches) are not neutral in the matter but are constantly bombarding us with egalitarian propaganda, applying social pressure, and even the bringing force of law to bear in order to break down racial boundaries. It is not enough to be neutral or even to be uncooperative with the race mixing agenda. We need churches that actively oppose their evil.
EGALITARIAN: Those who believe that people of other races are inferior to their own race are going to treat those other people like dirt. For example, if you believe that blacks are not the equal of whites, then you are going to treat them as subhuman. You cannot hold the views that you do without it resulting in cruelty and oppression.
KINIST: We must believe whatever is the reality. We cannot lie to ourselves or others and expect good to come from it. The facts tell us that in terms of intelligence, the ability to build and maintain a civilization, and in moral conduct, the Blacks are inferior. There is a reason why Europe has reached a high level of civilization, and there is a reason why sub-Saharan Africa has always been in a low state of civilization (other than at times when Whites were in control). But many Christians refuse to accept the obvious reality of these differences, which is shameful for people who profess themselves to be lovers of the truth.
The protest you have raised is only an example of projection: It is likely what you would do if you had power over inferiors, so you believe that everyone else would do the same. This is a good reason to remove egalitarians from power. They cannot imagine that there can be good men who do not believe that a superior position gives them a right to mistreatment. For virtuous men, a humble recognition of their own superiority stirs up a sense of honor and duty. Knowledge of another’s inferiority is to them no occasion for oppression, but for compassion, love, and caring leadership, to the glory of God and for the good of others.
A good example of this is in the Southern institution of slavery. Egalitarians associate slavery with oppression cruelly enforced by chains and whips but many Christian slaveholders, though they rightfully saw their Negro slaves as inferiors, believed that they had a responsibility to treat them according to Christian principles and to disciple them into those same principles, and so they did.
(See quotes on this matter from 19th century Southern Presbyterian ministers Robert L. Dabney here and John B. Adger here.)
EGALITARIAN: We think the answer to all the racial strife in our world is to allow everyone to mix together. Once we tear down all the racial barriers that divide us and everyone becomes the same race, so to speak, (although we really are one race already in Adam) then that is likely to produce a more harmonious world. Not that we think it will be a perfect world but at least we will not have racial matters to fight over and that should reduce violence overall.
KINIST: Brazil is a good example of how this is untrue. To quote the BBC: “Brazil is one of the most ethnically-diverse countries in the world and many Brazilians regard their nation as a “racial democracy” where there is little overt racism.” Sounds like your ideal, does it not? Yet it also has an exceptionally high rate of violent crime. In fact, according to Wikipedia, the official intentional homicide (i.e., murder) rate per capita of Brazil is approximately three and half times that of the USA, which itself has a murder rate higher than many other countries, largely because of our population of Negroes who have a much greater propensity for violent crime as compared to Whites.
We need only look at the results in South Africa before and after the abolition of the apartheid system to see the stark difference between a segregated vs. a non-segregated society. According to a 2003 study of crime in South Africa, under the apartheid system there were “309,583 murders from the year 1950 to 1993 (44 years – averaging 7,036 per year), meanwhile according to SAPS [the South African Police Service] statistics, 193,649 murders were committed in 8 years after the “new democratic dispensation” came to power [i.e., after apartheid], thus giving an average of 24,206 per year (crime statistics for 2002/03 are not yet available). However if we consider the Interpol statistics, which are only available on their website for the years, 1995-1999 and 2001 (6 years), the number of persons murdered in South Africa within those 6 years is 287,292 – averaging 47,882 per year.”
So even if we trust the South African government statistics (and it is obvious that they would have an interest in downplaying the crime problem), we see that the murder rate increased an enormous three and a half times as compared to what it was under the White-ruled apartheid system, and if we instead use Interpol’s statistics, then we come to the conclusion that the murder rate increased an astounding seven times over what it was before apartheid.
Today, South Africa has an official murder rate that is very nearly 50% higher (33.5 vs. 22.5 murders per 100K population) than even Brazil’s tremendously high official rate. I emphasize the word official because it is generally acknowledged that a large percentage of crimes go unreported in these countries.
EGALITARIAN: I don’t know of one church that agrees with your racial views. Do you really expect me to believe that you and a few of your “kinist” friends have this right and every other church in America has it wrong?
KINIST: If we could go back in time to no more than just three generations ago in America, the circumstances would be reversed — it would not be possible to find a church that agrees with your views. That is, one which is racially integrated and tolerates interracial marriages. The question is: Were all the Christians of previous ages in error regarding racial matters or are the Christians of our time in the wrong? I believe I have made a strong case thus far that it is today’s Christians who have drifted from the truth of the matter, but let’s consider the state of today’s churches and maybe that will lend further confirmation to my case.
What has been the tendency over the years in regard to the faithfulness of the churches in America? Has the trend been that they are becoming more faithful as time progresses or has it been the case that they are becoming more and more unfaithful? Is it not manifestly the latter? Setting aside the questions of equality for the moment, disregarding a few rare exceptions that may exist among a handful of churches, and focusing on what professing Christians do rather than what they merely say, is there even one example of a Christian doctrine to which anyone could point and honestly say that the so-called Bible-believing churches of our age have collectively become more faithful in their practice of it as compared to the churches of generations ago? If not, is it reasonable to believe that apostatizing American churches, which have moved in the wrong direction on everything else, have suddenly got this one doctrine right, and that all of our Christian ancestors, who were much more faithful in all other respects, were 180 degrees in the wrong on racial matters for centuries? Is it not much more reasonable to believe, and even painfully obvious to see, that the about-face change in racial beliefs is being driven by the Anti-Christian world and that the so-called churches are only following along and conforming to it, as they have been doing on so many other points?
If racial segregation is sinful, then why was it practiced almost universally in the Christian church prior to about 1960 but there were no Christians condemning the practice and calling for reform? And is it just a coincidence that as the church in North America and Europe becomes increasingly worldly and apostate, that it has increasingly embraced racial intermarriage? And is it also just a coincidence that as the unbelieving society suddenly began shrieking about a man-made sin called “racism” in recent decades, that the church also at the exact same point in history adopted this “sin” into its moral code, though what they call “racism” is never condemned anywhere in the Bible or in any church writings prior to the late 20th century? And does it make sense to believe that the church, which is degenerating on every other point of morality, is going in the other direction on this one point?
EGALITARIAN: So do you intend to have a “white only” church? And, if so, would you you actually turn away non-whites and those who are of a mixed race?
KINIST: Yes, we would limit membership in our church only to Whites. Regarding non-Whites and those who are mixed, it is very unlikely that they will want to associate with a church which they are forbidden from joining, but anyone who is a sincere Christian would be welcome to visit temporarily. We would encourage non-Whites to establish their own congregations and might even be willing to help them in such an effort, although we certainly have no obligation to do so. Also, we would not be averse to having some sort of association with non-white churches who share the same theological profession but would not allow them to have any authority over us.
EGALITARIAN: It sounds like you are trying to establish some sort of lily white nation within a nation that is already largely non-white and becoming increasingly mixed every year. Even the overwhelming majority of white people in America are now opposed to racial segregation. Do you really believe that today’s Christians will go along with this utopian fantasy of yours?
KINIST: It is not a “utopian fantasy” to try to reestablish something that existed for centuries in America and only ceased to exist in the very recent past. The push for integrated churches and interracial marriages has only gained ground in the past 30-50 years. Just two generations ago, segregated churches were the norm in America and interracial marriages were not found among Christians or even among the ungodly.
Forty-one of our fifty American states enacted laws against miscegenation at some point in time, according to Wikipedia, and twenty-one states had them in force even as recently as 1963. Prohibitions of racial amalgamation were put in place from the early times of colonial America. In 1664, Maryland passed the first law against interracial marriage. Subsequently, similar laws were passed in Virginia in 1691, Massachusetts in 1705, North Carolina in 1715, South Carolina in 1717, Delaware in 1721, and Pennsylvania in 1725. An representative example of the wording in such laws is this statement from the Massachusetts enactment entitled For the Better Preventing of a Spurious and Mixed Issue: “…that none of her Majesty’s English or Scottish subjects, nor of any other Christian nation, within this province, shall contract matrimony with any negro or mulatto; nor shall any person, duly authorized to solemnize marriage, presume to join any such in marriage…”
What can we learn from this? We can learn that at a time when White Christians held biblical teachings in high esteem, and as soon as they inhabited a land that brought them into frequent contact with non-Whites, they outlawed miscegenation, and our ancestors continued to see the need to preserve the integrity of their racial heritage by the force of law even into this author’s lifetime. Our goal is to restore the strong sense of White identity that our forefathers had, and we intend to take the necessary steps to begin to reestablish the lines of racial separation and to work toward overthrowing the current Anti-Christian order, which is not only trying to destroy racial identities but is even attempting to erase the distinctions between male and female. It is going to be a multi-generational work of rebuilding with small beginnings, just as it was a multi-generational work of destruction with small beginnings.
It is true that there has been a dramatic change in the views of professing Christians in recent decades but this is not because they have suddenly discovered biblical teachings that condemn what they formerly practiced; it is only because they have succumbed to the spirit of the age and given in to the constant bombardment of equality propaganda from the ungodly world, and so they have conveniently reinterpreted passages of the Bible in order to conform themselves to the zeitgeist and to avoid coming into conflict with the Anti-Christian society in which they reside. In other words, the embracing of egalitarianism by the modern-day churches is only a further manifestation of their apostasy. We are not expecting the majority of their congregants to come over to our side and are only interested in joining in fellowship with those who recognize the aforementioned realities.
EGALITARIAN: We do not see your kinism doctrine taught in the history of the church at any point in time since the days of the apostles. If the blending of the races is such an evil thing, then why did neither the early church elders nor the protestant reformers write against it?
KINIST: We do not see anything written against race mixing during the periods you mentioned simply because it never happened. In ancient times and even up until recent centuries, mingling of the races was almost non-existent, due to the fact that long distance travel was an arduous and dangerous task, and very few people ever ventured more than a hundred miles from their place of birth. It is likely that five hundred years ago 99.99% of Europeans lived their entire lives without laying eyes on a man of the Negroid or Mongoloid races, and it was unusual for Europeans to marry someone from outside of their town or village, and very rare to marry a White not of one’s nation. Marriages between races of people who inhabited different continents was never contemplated, let alone practiced. To ask why the church was not condemning race mixing five hundred or a thousand years ago is like asking why they were not condemning the distribution of pornography before the invention of both photography and the printing press. But as I have already shown, when Christian Europeans began to settle in lands where they found themselves living among non-Whites, then they passed laws enforcing segregation, and this was all done with the blessing of the churches.
EGALITARIAN: So if you believe that the government should not allow non-whites to live in nations that are historically White like the USA, as you said earlier, what would you have done with them all?
KINIST: That is a question for future generations. We are many years away from being able to restore America to a White homeland and, as you stated, the trend is very much going the other way at this point in time. For the near future all we can do is try to maintain our own distinctiveness, and that is what we are determined to do.
But if Whites are going to gain back what they have lost, then they first have to understand why they lost it (and most are still blind to the fact that it has been lost). The root cause of the diminishing of the White nations is their ungodliness, and while miscegenation and non-white immigration have played a large part in this, so have other evils, among which could be named feminism, abortion, contraception, divorce, sexual licentiousness, the acceptance of sodomy, the embracing of atheism and false religions, and a general disdain for all the commandments of God coupled with an embracing of man-made ideas of morality. Whites are both being dispossessed from their lands and dispossessing themselves, and this is the judgment of God upon them, just as it was both threatened against the Israelites and executed upon them when they were unfaithful.
The dismal reality is that Whites have largely abandoned Christianity and turned their backs on their ancestors. What we do have left of Christianity in our so-called churches today is largely an eviscerated and spiritually dead counterfeit. Whites have “trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant … an unholy thing” (Hebrews 10:29) They are guilty of the sin of Esau. That is, despising their birthright. The Black man was born with a poor heritage and disregards it, whereas the White man was born with a wonderful Christian heritage and resents it. In fact, if you try to tell many White men today about the great things their ancestors did, often they will curse you and call you a wicked “racist.” Now which one will suffer the greater judgment: The man who was given little and did nothing with it? Or the man who was given everything and not only threw it all away but even despises the fact that he was given it?
I do not believe that progress will be made toward the restoration of the White race until there is a revival of true Christianity and reformation of the Church, which means Whites repenting and turning back to Christ in large numbers. Those of us who recognize this dire need ought to be crying out to God for Him to work:
“Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.” (Psalm 12:1)
“Turn thou us unto thee, O LORD, and we shall be turned; renew our days as of old.” (Lamentations 5:21)
“Shew us thy mercy, O LORD, and grant us thy salvation.” (Psalm 85:7)
11 thoughts on “”
I think you adequately covered the relevant objections handsomely.
I’ve lived as a kinist, but never contemplated it until I met Bret 10+ years ago. Send this dislogue/essay to him, for more nuanced input.
Thanks, for writing it.
(Can you email me a copy? – [email protected]
With the footnotes
Well done, Stuart. Thank you for writing this.
This is the best article and explanation of Kinism and ‘race reality’ on the internet, great info and deep dive! Wake up people, whites are being targeted and the end goal is nothing less than genocide. I remember when I thought such a thing was absolutely nutty. Not anymore.
Excellent piece answering all of the contentions about the Kinist worldview. Keep up the great writing!
Most excellent, brother! I’m sure I’ll be steering seekers towards this fine article for years to come. Thank you.
‘God hath made of one blood all nations of men, for to dwell on all the face of the earth.’ But there is no escape from the corresponding testimony, biblical and historical, that the human family, originally one, has been divided into certain large groups, for the purpose of being kept historically distinct. And all attempts, in every age of the world, and from whatever motives, whether of ambitious dominion or of an infidel humanitarianism, to force these together, are identical in aim and parallel in guilt with the usurpation and insurrection of the first Nimrod. p. 355. The true policy of both races is, that they shall stand apart in their own social grade, in their own schools, in their own ecclesiastical organizations, under their own teachers and guides: but with all the kindness and helpful cooperation to which the old relations between the races, and their present dependence on each other would naturally predispose. p. 356.
Benjamin Morgan Palmer, ‘The Present Crisis and Its Issues,’ June 27, 1872 – (Life and Letters)
Thank you, Ron. Interesting quote.
Excellent article. Answers questions clearly. Thank you for the time and effort you put into this lengthy piece Stuart. I’ll be using it for reference and posting quotes from it!
Thank you, Brother, another great addition to your collection of finely reasoned and well written articles. I count on you to do each topic justice and you do not disappoint. Your points will be useful as references whenever I need them.
As the other comments have stated, a most excellent defense of kinism, and very comprehensive. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of too many points of contention in the kinist/egalitarian debate that aren’t covered here.
The FAQ structure is a good one. It’s one the most cogent and effective ways of providing a doctrinal summary on any subject.
I particularly liked the egalitarian’s ‘gotcha!’ point of Miriam being turned white as snow for her ‘sin’. That provides the perfect snapshot of the pettiness of that crew.