This fun was kicked off on Facebook when an Alienist, with the deeply ironic last name of Bray and who thinks deleting comments and blocking people constitutes winning debates, posted a top ten “You might be a Kinist if…” list.
1 – “Marxist” is a word that should be frequently used
2 – Babel was separated by race rather than language
3 – Paul was wrong for rebuking Peter (Gal 2:11-12)
4 – God shouldn’t have punished Miriam for complaining about Moses’ Ethiopian wife (Num 12:1)
5 – “Different” and “unequal” are synonyms
6 – “Race” and “culture” are synonyms
7 – Loving all people means not loving your own race
8 – Christ’s genealogy would be better off without Ruth
9 – Paul’s lost letter instructs the Roman church to split into two: Jew and Gentile
10 – Man is defined by race rather than federal headship
Scott Terry took him to task both for the half of these that don’t make any sense and the other half that are simply falsehoods.
As good Christians, who are concerned with accurate scholarship, we want to strive to accurately (and adequately) apply terms and labels. And given how most Christians feel very strongly about asserting politically correct racial-norms (which are all based on neo-Marxist social theory) calling them “neo-Marxists” or referring to their rhetoric as “Marxist” is accurate. If someone is offended by being correctly labeled, they need to change their position.
I’m not sure Kinists advocate this position. Truth is, the Bible (sadly) doesn’t tell us explicitly where, when, and how ‘race’ (as we use the word colloquially) arose in history. I do believe various people-groups arose from the Babel curse, and should be respected accordingly. When God creates diversity, we should respect it.
Of course, no apostle (when speaking with God’s authority) is “wrong”. Paul wasn’t “wrong” to correct Peter. But Mr. Bray is “wrong” to suggest that Paul’s rebuke of Peter doubles as a rebuke of Kinism. He needs to demonstrate it – (but that would require him actually conversing with a Kinist, and he’s not willing to do that). Ask yourself, does the Galatians chapter 2 passage really refute ethnic nationalism? It doesn’t do so in any direct way. Mr. Bray is stretching to reach for a far-out implication.
Also, see Gic’s excellent take on this passage.
God punished Miriam *AND* Aaron; why? We don’t know exactly, but to speculate that it was because they were upset that Moses married outside his race, goes beyond the Scriptural data. Most commentators (from Matthew Henry and Gary North, all the way to the rabidly anti-Kinist Jay Daniel Hays) suggest that Moses’ wife was unduly influencing his decisions, causing Miriam and Aaron to get jealous. Further, it’s very likely that Moses wife was Zipporah the Midianite, (a cousin-ethnicity to Moses, and of the same race anyway).
No Kinist believes that “different” and “unequal” are synonymous, nor do we use the words synonymously in our rhetoric.
Men and women, for instance, are “different”, but also “equal” under the law. (They’re also un-equal in terms of physical strengths and weaknesses). Also, people of many races are “different” but under equal condemnation of God’s law (and in equal need of the saving work of Christ). But we might also say that they’re “unequal” in terms of gifts, abilities, and talents.
Kinists might sometimes confuse the words “race” and “culture” when they’re speaking fast and loose, but we do formally admit that there is a difference between the two. It’s the alienists (like Mr. Bray) who usually like speaking about “culture” as a code word for “race”. We Kinists clearly and self-consciously distinguish between the two.
I don’t even understand this one. We Kinists note that loving “all” men requires degrees of devotion, with our closest family coming first, our kin next, people and race third, then all men in general, last. (However we might slice up the pie, it must be noted, that our love must come in varying degrees and be an outward working “concentric” ring of affinity).
Perhaps some Kinist once told Mr. Bray that if he “loved everyone” then he “loved no one”, and from this, Mr. Bray typed out point 7? If that’s the case then, a quick word:
If you “love everyone” it means that you have the exact same emotional disposition towards every living person, and that you have no special emotional disposition towards anyone. It’s analogous to calling all men “brother”. If everyone is your brother, then the word “brother” becomes meaningless. If you love everyone, then the word “love” becomes meaningless; we’d have to find new words to use in its place to describe our special emotional dispositions towards certain individuals.
Ruth was very likely a Hebrew.
Paul’s lost letter *really* teaches that we’re to all blend into a mocha-colored dream world, without any sort of social distinctions, and that prophets named Marx and Rousseau would come, declaring the true Gospel and making way for the holy ones.
I don’t know what Mr. Bray means here by “defining” a man. Why does he use the word “man” for instance? God sets up the boundaries by which men are to define themselves, and race, while not the most important boundary, is certainly legitimate and important and should not be neglected.
Any time Mr. Bray would like a discussion with a Kinist (so he can quit embarrassing himself with these ridiculous straw-men), we’re here and waiting.
And we can make lists too; “You might be an Alienist if…”
6. You skip past the genealogies.
7. You think that Cretans weren’t really liars, evil beasts, and lazy gluttons.
8. You secretly fear that Paul’s concern for his own people was racist.
12. Your main argument against Kinism centers around your love of tacos and kabobs.
18. You laugh nervously when minorities make racial realist observations, but condemn whites to Hell when they do the same.
22. Your eldest son is named “Uriah the Human”.
24. You want to start a national conversation on race, but you believe there’s no such thing as race.
25. You believe that the only race is the human race, then turn around and complain about racist white people.
26. You think Galatians 3:28 puts an end to racial distinctions, but not to distinctions between the sexes.
27. You’ve never read the second half of Acts 17:26.
34. You think that a 16 year-old Swede may marry a 96 year-old Pygmy, as long as they’re both “in the Lord”.
38. You claim race doesn’t exist, and believe even if it did it wouldn’t be important, but you support the preservation of indigenous tribes in third world countries.
39. You don’t believe race exists, but you’re dying to adopt one of those foreign babies.
50. You get shocked, saddened, disgusted, appalled, and horrified over statements like “I prefer to be with my own kind.”
54. You refer to the Ethiopian eunuch as a “sexual minority”.
63. You constantly point out that MLK and Jackie Robinson were Republicans.
64. You use the term “cultural enrichment”, not sarcastically.
78. You think “freedom of association” is a code-term for racist hate.
80. Before setting your Facebook profile picture to an unknown Puritan, you spent five hours searching for a black one.
87. You won’t refer to yourself as a “bond servant” of Christ for fear of appearing to support slavery.
96. You think that an illiterate illegal immigrant on welfare has just as much right to vote as you do.
103. You value unity over truth.