By Davis Carlton

John Andrew Reasnor recently made a lengthy post on his Facebook wall regarding Kinist arguments that have transpired on the Fight Laugh Feast Network Facebook page. Below are his comments in bold followed by my responses.

Should Christians have “natural affections” for their own ethnicity? … Recently, a popular podcast network group affiliated with Doug Wilson (Fight Laugh Feast Network) has been embroiled in dozens of posts and hundreds (if not thousands) of comments debating kinism. It’s been wild…Many are openly supporting kinism. Some are condemning it strongly. Many more are being very diplomatic towards the kinists and trying to have a “balanced” take.

Perhaps those taking a “balanced” approach aren’t aware of the history of the debate and are simply trying to learn?

One way many in these conversations talk about race is by affirming and calling for Christians to have “natural affections” for their own ethnicity. This rhetoric isn’t new to me. I’ve been dealing with kinists for years and I’m very familiar with how they speak. But let’s have a level head concerning “natural affections” and get into the weeds of the matter.

I find it odd that Reasnor repeatedly places the phrase natural affections in scare quotes seeing that it is a Biblical concept. The Apostle Paul condemns those “without natural affection” in Rom. 1:31 and 2 Tim. 3:3 along with those who are “without understanding” and who are “covenant breakers, implacable, unmerciful, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce” and “despisers of those who are good.” St. Paul considers the lack of natural affection to be a grave offense, and his identification of his people as his kinsmen according to the flesh, even in the midst of their rebellion against God (Rom. 9:3), as well the fact that he identifies one’s own people as our primary responsibility (1 Tim. 5:8) is foundational to the case for Kinism. Reading Reasnor gives the impression that natural affection is a concept that Kinists simply made up.

There’s three primary things we need to understand about ethnically charged calls for “natural affections.” First, though the language is focused on “affection,” the outcome is a strong racial bias. It’s not just about finding common life experiences, but about focus and centering community on ethnicity. It’s about a strong racial bias for who you work with, live with, marry, and even worship with.

The problem with Reasnor’s first objection is that it presupposes a 21^st century postmodern American mixed race society as normative. Historically, communities were racially and ethnically homogeneous and rooted in a common history, language, religion, culinary traditions, and folk customs. It’s normal for people within an ethnic group or tribe to share these things in common, and thus to associate within their own group for work, leisure, worship, and ultimately marriage and family. The social stability of homogeneous communities has been well documented by Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam. Putnam also notes that the opposite was also the case in ethnically dissimilar regions, in which social trust disintegrated even among those of similar backgrounds.

This makes sense in light of what Paul says in Acts 17:26-27 in which God establishes national (ethnic) boundaries “That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him.” I previously argued that the ethnic boundaries described in this passage are a prerequisite for high social trust societies that encourage the spread of the Gospel. Evangelism is hindered in societies that are deracinated, atomized, and individualistic. Does Reasnor have any evidence that I or other Kinists are wrong on this point? Are there high trust and deeply Christian communities that are also multi-ethnic and multi-racial? Where are they located? Simply arguing from hypotheticals isn’t going to prove his point.

Second, though it is natural to have affections for family and those close to us culturally and geographically, that is not the same thing as having “natural affections” for only people with the same skin color as you.

Reasnor began his post by stating that he’s “been dealing with kinists for years” and that he’s “very familiar with how they speak.” This experience isn’t particularly apparent here. If Reasnor would actually take the time to read any Kinist literature he would know that we don’t reduce race to a mere difference in skin color as our opponents so often do. Secondly he would know that Kinists approach natural affection and responsibility under the concept of concentric loyalties. Those closest to us hereditarily, geographically, religiously deserve our greatest affection and have the highest demand on our time, talent, and treasure. This of course does not preclude having genuine love for all of mankind. All it means is that our affections should be rightly ordered. Today many opponents of Kinism act as though we ought to have more affection for those who are more dissimilar from ourselves and it is this inversion that we oppose.

For example, I have a natural affection to my brothers, sisters, cousins and so on. Many of my cousins are very different from me in hobbies, interests, politics, and even culture, but I still have a natural affection for them.

Keep this in mind when Reasnor denounces the Kinist view on natural affection as “racist.”

I also have a natural affection for Oklahomans because that’s where I’m from. Though Oklahoma includes many different sorts of people, we naturally share something important and I favor, in a small way, Okies over other folks.

Great! I would simply point out that traditionally “Okies” distinguished themselves from the Indian tribes that resided within their state, and that “Okies” also shared a common ethnic, linguistic, and cultural history. The commonality experienced by traditional residents of Oklahoma isn’t simply a matter of shared geography. If you emptied out the population of Oklahoma and replaced them with random individuals from across the globe the newcomers wouldn’t feel a sense of shared identity or solidarity simply because they happened to live within the same geographic borders of what is now Oklahoma.

I also have natural affections for people who are very similar to me culturally. If you share much of the same values as I do, listen to the same music, eat the same food, and read similar books, it’s highly likely I’ll have a type of affection towards you.

Again, great! I would simply point out that common culture derives from common ethnic background. Albion’s Seed by David Hackett Fischer illustrates this well. He provides the history of the settlement of America into four distinct regions that were settled by different groups from England and more broadly from Great Britain or other countries of northwestern Europe. The regions brought their distinct customs and folkways over from England that matured in an American context. The regions had their own distinct cultures based upon their unique populations that varied in subtle but definite ways. The different regions were cohesive enough to form into a single nation because of the underlying cultural similarity made unity possible. Distinct cultures can cross pollinate in healthy ways, but when populations become too jumbled this results in healthy cultural distinctives giving way to fast food as well as mass produced pop music and entertainment.

However, when it becomes about having “natural affections” for White people but not Black people or other people of color, it’s not natural or reasonable any longer. It’s just racist. When there’s talk of having “natural affections” for specifically “anglo” people, it’s no longer about culture, community, faith, or shared experience, it’s about skin color and ethnicity.

Patriotism properly understood is entirely natural and countries historically and ideally corresponded to those of a single ethnic group. For example, historically England was comprised of Anglos, Scotland was made up of Scots, etc.

There are two problems with Reasnor’s claim that Kinists are “racist” for our loyalty to our ethnic group. First, Reasnor arbitrarily divorces ethnicity from “culture, community, faith, or shared experience.” As I mentioned earlier, all of these things easily correspond to ethnic identity. The American regions shared common iterations of English, British, and northern European culture because these regions were settled by people who brought their culture with them and adapted it to their context in the new world. Reasnor treats ethnicity and race as though they are just groups of people who happen to look like each other without sharing anything else in common.

The second problem is that Reasnor earlier stated that he has “a natural affection to my brothers, sisters, cousins and so on” even though many of his cousins “are very different from me in hobbies, interests, politics, and even culture.” In spite of these differences Reasnor admits, “I still have a natural affection for them.” So why is it “racist” for this kind of affection to radiate outward to those of our country or ethnic group? Kinists can acknowledge that there are many cultural and religious deficiencies within our race and ethnic group while having a particular desire for the conversion of our people back to the truth of Christianity and in continuity with our traditional folkways.

Third, the call to join together with and have community with only the ethnicity you have a “natural affection” for is another way of saying that you don’t want to join together with or have community with those outside of that ethnicity.

So what? As mentioned earlier the concept of concentric loyalties allows for a measure of love for all mankind and for all creation. All that this means is that our affections ought to be properly ordered. The Apostle Paul condemns “inordinate affection” in Col. 3:5. The same applies to Reasnor’s admitted affection for the members of his family. The affection that Reasnor has for his brothers, sisters, and relatives isn’t shared with everyone. Why are Kinists “racist” for our concentric loyalty to our extended clans, tribes, nations, and race while Reasnor doesn’t consider himself a “familialist” for his loyalty to his family or a “statist” for his loyalty to his home state of Oklahoma?

Though this sort of person will use the language of affection (who could be opposed to affection, right?) the necessary “other side of the coin” is that they do not have affections for or they have lower affection for others who look different than themselves.

Why is this wrong? A man ought to have a particular affection for his wife, and this necessarily means that he does not share this affection with other women. It’s also normal for those closest to us to look similar to us. This is simply a consequence of heredity and bearing children after our image and likeness (Gen. 5:3). Once again, this does not exclude all outside our immediate family and clan from friendship or any kind of charity, but simply that one’s affections ought to be properly ordered.

And as clarified above, it’s never just about affections, it’s about who they’d prefer to live around, work with, marry, have children with, and worship with. The practical outcome of this sort of “affection” is racial separatism.

So affection is only acceptable if it isn’t extended beyond our friends and family or at most our state and isn’t manifested in actual tangible ways. What Reasnor is advocating is racial integration which is what the Tower of Babel narrative cautions against (Gen. 11). Why is “racial separatism” evil while familial separation in separate households on separate properties is acceptable? Separation has never been absolute, but there can be and ought to be a healthy recognition of ethnic homelands.

If we were to apply these “natural affections” to the civil realm, the outcome is segregationism.

The law of kin rule (Deut. 1:13-16, 17:15) presupposes distinct nations with their own distinct populations who are governed by their own kinsmen. This requires a certain natural degree of “segregationism.” Without this we necessarily lapse into globalism, as separate countries are simply cogs in the larger globalist machine, similar to how separate states have simply become regional constituencies of the leviathan federal government. Secular humanists and globalists have been openly stating this as their goal for over a century.

And just as the segregationists of the past said, the “natural affection” kinists will claim there can be equality in their separatism. But we all should know better than believe the rhetoric of “separate but equal.”

Equality isn’t a major concern for Kinists…obviously. Why should it be? Jesus’ parable of talents (Matt. 25) presupposes that not everyone is dealt the same hand. Jesus presupposes inequality, but also states that we will be held responsible for what we did with what we were given (Lk. 12:48).

Expressing concern about those who genuinely support natural affection is definitely a red flag.

It’s a way for them to frame the conversation in a positive way, but practically it’s more about separatism as opposed to affection.

I live in a house with my family. I spend the overwhelming majority of my time with my wife and children. Guess I’m just a hater…