Alienism is “a prejudice in favor of the alien, the marginal, the dispossessed, the eccentric, reaching an extreme in the attempt to ‘build a new society’ by destroying the basic institutions of the native. The most terrible fulfillment of this principle is Communism.” – Joseph Sobran
We received this question from a reader via our Contact page.
What was the biggest difference between Southern Presbyterians and Northern Presbyterians during the 1800s? Did Southern Presbyterians believe in the Establishment Principle like the Scottish Presbyterian church? Were the Northern Presbyterians more statist due to their English background as to the Southern Presbyterians who were from Scottish/Irish descent? Thanks. What seems to be the hatred towards your website and postion at places like Theonomy Resources? I didn’t even know what kinism was until I saw it as a topic on the TR website. It seems that of all the searches on that site by visitors, kinism is one of the most looked at topics. Are these guys trying to distance themselves from your views to avoid persecution and being linked to a “racist” group? Just wondering what the big debate is about since Rushdoony obviously held to many of your views. I even read in a Biblical Philosophy of History the other day that he said Black history, was to paraphrase him a “myth.” I could find the exact quote if needed and even John Macarthur agrees with your position in his Study Bible on the Acts 17 passage. I have that quote as well if needed. Thanks.
I have been encouraged to publicly share my response in hopes that other readers may benefit from it as well.
Thanks for your message, we always enjoy hearing from people who appreciate our work.
To answer your question about American Presbyterians, as with most theological disputes, it’s a little complicated. The first and main split between Northern and Southern Presbyterians occurred in 1836-37 between the “New School” primarily in the North and the “Old School” primarily in the South. The New School favored revivals and a “less stringent” Calvinism (i.e. not holding firm to the Confessions) versus the Old School favoring traditional Calvinism and formal worship. Then in 1857 and 1861 both Northern and Southern Presbyterians each split again over the issue of slavery. After the war, there were mergers, splits, more mergers, and more splits and so on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_School-New_School_Controversy
As for Theonomy Resources, that is a curious question indeed. The people at TR and we Kinists hold very similar views on Scripture and the role of the Civil Magistrate in society, so one would assume that we would be fast allies. Both groups actually were friends until the Fall of 2010 when there was a rift over a Facebook post. Someone, a mutual friend of both groups, posted the passages in Ezra and Nehemiah where inter-racial marriages are condemned and asked for his friends’ commentary. This generated a war of hundreds and hundreds of posts between Alienists and Kinists over inter-racial marriage, race, nationalism, and related topics. It ended with the Alienists damning all Kinists to hell (not joking) and blocking all of us on FB. Since a number of the Alienists wrote for or were good friends with the people at TR, this began their war against Kinism with a slew of articles and posts attacking us from Marxist presuppositions and/or purposely misrepresenting our views as heretical Christian Identity.
As to why this is the case; first of all, there are a number of people involved with TR who are in inter-racial marriages, so they’re obviously not going to hold that what they’re doing is morally wrong even if they have to ignore Scripture. Secondly, Christian Theonomy is unpopular in the modern pagan society, so they think that perhaps they can buy some favor from the culture at large if they can say “well at least we’re not RACISTS”. This is silly, of course; as silly as the Christians of past decades thinking that by embracing miscegenation they could persuade the anti-Christians from pursuing Sodomite unions.
This is doubly silly since by rejecting the Biblical doctrine of ethno-nationalism, the people at TR no longer have a Biblical or coherent definition of what a “nation” is. Think about that, the people who are championing the application of God’s law at the national level can’t define what a nation is; that would be like championing Biblical patriarchy without being able to define “family” or championing the orthodox confessions without being able to define “church”. To deal with this, they:
1) Scream RACIST and simply refuse to answer the questions about their definition of a “nation”.
2) Advocate an anti-Christian propositional nationhood of the French Revolution and Soviet Union.
3) Support a religious based citizenship which no one can figure out how to make work.
4) Simply scrap the idea of nations and call for a neo-Babel one world government.
None of which are practical, Biblical, or supported by any of the orthodox Church Fathers. At the end of the day, Kinism is the only Theonomy.
Hope that answers your questions
Some might think that last part is bit hyperbolic, but it is not. The following is an actual conversation about this topic last week on Facebook: R is sympathetic to Kinism and asks a group of Theonomic Alienists to define what a nation is, while D is a vehement anti-Kinist who is one of the responders to the question.
Chaotic and disordered indeed: a world of “nations” formed by haphazardly slapping lines on a map without regard for blood, language, history, culture, or religion. A morality of nationhood where might makes right and there are no Christian principles for ethnic self-determination or sovereignty. Where arbitrary borders established and changed via the bloody sword are completely legitimate. Where peaceful co-existence and the principle that good fences make good neighbors are denounced in favor of the whims of whatever geo-political power can grab and hold any given piece of land. Does that sound like a Christian worldview to you?
| Tweet |
|
|
|
