The Opponents of Ethno-Nationalism
Almost Invariably Side with Anti-Christs
by Stuart DiNenno
Professing Christians who oppose ethno-nationalism, or what is sometimes called kinism, are fond of saying “our identity is in Christ alone” and they maintain that blood identities, such as ethnicity and race, are now meaningless or at least unimportant. This being the case, it seems to me that we should expect them to be zealous for maintaining a clear distinction between the ungodly and the godly — that is, between Christians and non-Christians. After all, having no other subordinate affinities to divide their loyalty, should it not be the case that the Christians who most strongly profess to have no other identity but their Christian one, would also be the ones most strongly advocating a biblical separation between the sheep and the goats?
And yet, generally speaking, this is not what we find at all. What we find among almost all of the Christian opponents of ethno-nationalism is a looser view of such separation and a surprisingly tolerant attitude toward anti-Christs.
Take, for example, their attitude toward those who call themselves Jews. It is undeniable that there is not a more intractably anti-Christian group of people than today’s self-identifying Jews. This being the case, it would follow that those who claim their only identity is in Christ — and who therefore would have no loyalty to anyone other than their fellow Christians — would also be the strongest opponents of this most dedicated group of anti-Christs.
But instead what we nearly always find among Christians who argue against maintaining divisions along bloodlines is either a lax, indifferent attitude toward the Jews, or a tendency to advocate tolerance and forbearing toward them. And it is quite common even to find such Christians strongly defending the Jews, along with either their own or their nation’s associations with them. This is, of course, the complete opposite of the church’s attitude toward the Jews during periods when the church was at its strongest, as can be proved by many quotes not only from the New Testament Scriptures but also from the early church elders and the Protestant reformers.
Thus, such professing Christians reveal their worldly spirits in the fact that it is not only blood distinctions that they militate against, but even the biblically commanded spiritual separation between the godly and the ungodly is seen by them as having little or no value, or as something to be striven against. Virulent anti-Christs are not seen by them as deadly enemies but merely as benign neutrals, or even as friends and neighbors to be defended, although not yet fully their brothers in every sense. And it is a curious thing indeed that the Christians most opposed to tribalism are often the same ones who defend the most persistently tribal of all peoples — particularly a people whose identity is based largely on their opposition to Christ.
We must understand that it is only the spirit of anti-Christ that puts a Babel-like unity above separation, and desires to blend away the distinctions among humanity — and most especially the distinction between the children of God and the children of the devil. If you want to “test the spirits, whether they be of God” a good way to do that is to determine a man’s attitude toward anti-Christs, and in that test almost all of the opponents of ethno-nationalism will be found lacking.