By Davis Carlton

Recently the Christian Reformed Church, North America (CRCNA) has issued an overture condemning Kinism as a “grievous sin.” The CRCNA has outlined their objections to Kinism in their 2019 Agenda. I obviously disagree with the CRCNA’s condemnation, but I think that they have made a huge tactical blunder in the way that they have chosen to proceed. The overtures are filled with examples of tortuous and in many cases truly cringe-worthy interpretations of Biblical passages in making their case against Kinism.

Examples of Hidden “Exegesis”

The CRC makes use of worn out arguments that have been ably refuted by Kinists. For example the CRC uses examples like Ruth and Rahab to suggest that Old Testament prohibitions against intermarriage were only based upon the detestable practices of those nations. The examples of Ruth and Rahab have already been addressed before so there is no need to retread this ground.¹ Even granting their understanding of these selected examples of what they believe constitute interracial marriages, merely citing a few examples doesn’t prove that something ought to be normatively acceptable. The same approach could be used to argue that a practice like polygamy is normatively acceptable as well. This has also been unpacked on Faith and Heritage.²

A persistent theme in the overture is that Kinism is contrary to Christian unity. Col. 3:11-12 is cited with the conclusion that “God removed the wall of division between Jew and Gentile.” What this demonstrates is that the elders of the CRC have read enough to know not to cite Gal. 3:28, because this verse also includes the male/female distinction alongside the Jew/Greek distinction. Taken to its logical conclusion this would mean that distinct gender roles and functions in society, not to mention marriage would have to be dispensed with in the name of Christian “unity.”

A final example is perhaps the most laughable and demonstrates the shallow nature of CRC exegesis: “Kinists claim to want to maintain God-given distinctions, yet they ignore the fact that Christ has done away with ethnic distinctions in the church through his marriage to a single bride.” The logic here is that Christ’s bride, the Church, is comprised of members of every race, therefore race should not be a barrier in Christian marriage. The logical conclusion of this type of argument is that Jesus is actually a bisexual polygamist because the Church is comprised of many members of all different ages who are both male and female. Therefore biological sex, age, and number of spouses should not be a barrier to Christian marriage. The analogy is honestly so terrible that it’s amazing that this never occurred to anyone prior to being published.

Actual Kinism is Largely Not Addressed

Several times the CRCNA overtures imply that Kinism is opposed to spreading the Gospel to all nations or believes that ethno-nationalism entails absolute geographic racial separation. Segregation and apartheid are used in order poison the well against Kinist thinking. The idea is that Kinists want apartheid just like in South Africa, and everyone knows that apartheid is evil. Case closed.

This obviously isn’t true. All we have to do to understand just how ridiculous this is would be to substitute ethno-nationalism for familial private property. Is the ownership of private property among distinct Christian families a cause for strife and hostility? It can be, but the Bible takes the ownership and goodness of private property for granted. The same can be said of national boundaries. Taking this argument to its logical conclusion would force the CRCNA to condemn not only ethno-nationalism, but individual private property as well. Anyone who defends private property must understand that all Christians are “segregated” to a certain degree. This of course doesn’t preclude Christians from interacting with people from other families, tribes, nations, or races. It certainly doesn’t preclude Christians from sharing the Gospel. Kinists encourage the spread of the Gospel to all ethnic groups and races precisely because we believe that race is significant.

Ethno-nationalism is condemned as a “heresy” and “grievous sin” without an alternate explanation for national identity being proposed. If ethno-nationalism is indeed false then are we to erase national distinctions with the progress of the Gospel? Are distinct nations no longer relevant or significant as nations? Is the blurring of ethnic lines championed by the Left actually a function of the triumph of Christian ethics? These questions are entirely relevant if Kinism is going to be condemned as a heresy, and yet no one seems concerned about them or even aware of the implications of their own arguments.

But we shouldn’t conclude that ethnic identity is entirely irrelevant to the CRCNA. Ethnic identity is of capital importance when it comes to promoting “diversity” meaning greater representation of non-whites in white institutions and countries. The CRCNA calls the Church, “To pray and work for the increased enfolding of ethnic-minority persons into the CRCNA in order to reflect more fully the racial and ethnic diversity of Canada and the United States” and “To ensure the equitable representation and meaningful participation of ethnic-minority persons in leadership and other roles of influence at all levels of denominational life.”

From these statements we can conclude that race is irrelevant when it comes to marriage and immigration into historically white countries, but of great importance when non-whites are considered under represented. The consequence of this kind of “diversity” is white displacement. The CRCNA has two associated presbyteries in Mexico. Have they issued overtures that call for increased diversity in their congregations and leadership? Do they actively seek to increase the representation of Gringos in their churches and among their elders and deacons? Why not? Why aren’t they prodded to be more “diverse” like white congregations throughout North America?

The same applies for the CRCNA denunciation of apartheid in South Africa. Everyone is taught that the kind of separation stipulated by apartheid is evil, but South Africa under the apartheid system was a first world country with advanced infrastructure in which everyone including black Hottentots and Bantus benefited to the extent that illegal black immigration was a concern towards the end of apartheid. Today post-apartheid South Africa is a third world dumpster fire in which white residents live in constant fear of being murdered, brutalized, raped, or all of the above. Even South Africa’s Zulu nation has sided with whites against the theft of land perpetrated by South Africa’s increasingly anti-white government. The fact that the clergy and leadership of the CRCNA views the legacy of the Dutch Boers in South Africa with such disdain while they face the specter of genocide is nothing less than treason to their distant kinsmen.

The CRCNA leadership has intended to denounce and refute Kinism, but I don’t think that these overtures will have the desired effect. I think that the CRCNA leadership has actually made several tactical blunders. The overtures provide the text of “What is Kinism” originally posted on Tribal Theocrat and later also posted on Faith and Heritage. Several articles from Faith and Heritage and Tribal Theocrat are also cited. There is every indication that the CRCNA is sliding into the ubiquitous apostasy of our age, but there may still be some young men in their denomination that haven’t completely surrendered to the spirit of the age.

They can see the world crumbling around him, but they still don’t know how to respond within a Christian worldview. If they read the CRCNA overtures they may encounter Kinism for the first time. This may be the opening for them to discover just how terrible anti-Kinist exegesis is in comparison with the clarity afforded by Kinism. If the elders of the CRCNA want to demonstrate that Kinism is actually heresy it will take more than half-baked analogies and meaningless appeals to unity to succeed. My prayer is that what the leadership of the CRCNA have meant for evil will be used by God for good.