In Part 2 of his response to my “A Biblical Defense of Ethno-Nationalism,” Rev. Andy Hanson responds to my comments on racial pride, loyalty, and responsibility. He begins with my statement, “Even Christ demands that our loyalty to himself exceed our loyalty to our immediate families and spouses! It would be a severe mistake, however, to conclude that attributes such as ancestry or even marriage are meaningless!” Hanson assures his readers that he does not believe that ancestry is meaningless, but also asks if I am “accusing non-Kinists of taking the position that ancestry and marriage are meaningless,” while also accusing me of “setting up an appeal to extremes strawman.” While it might seem ridiculous to accuse anti-Kinists of believing that ancestry is meaningless, this is the position that many anti-Kinists take. An example of this can be found in the comments of prominent anti-Kinist Bojidar Marinov, who believes himself to be a charismatic prophet.
Marinov quite dishonestly asserts that the biblical word for nation has no relationship to ancestry at all:
In Biblical times and before that, the Greek word “ethnos” did not indicate genetic similarity. . . . Genetic similarity was incidental . . . therefore everyone born within the confines of a home was a member of that home, whether he was genetically part of that home or not. Most of the time the children born within the confines of a home were indeed genetic offspring of the head of the home, but this genetic relation meant nothing. . . . In the same way, in modern times, “nation” was originally meant not as genetic heritage, but “people born under the same jurisdiction.” . . . So when you say “ethno-linguistic” and then study the word in Biblical times, keep in mind that it never had the genetic meaning attached to it by the 19th century Romanticism.
Marinov asserts that the biblical understanding of national and even familial identity is and should be uncoupled from genetics and heredity. Marinov has gathered quite a following to himself and his false charismatic belief system. Consequently, there are many who have adopted his heretical views of the family and nation, and many of Marinov’s disciples echo his sentiments. My statement above is hardly an exaggeration or a strawman, but a response against a very real mistake of prominent anti-Kinists. Hanson’s contention that “nobody is arguing that race is insignificant” is manifestly false. I didn’t write the original article against anyone specific, so it might not apply equally to all anti-Kinists. I’m glad to hear that Hanson doesn’t believe that ancestry is meaningless, but I’d like him to flesh out his thoughts on exactly how ancestry is meaningful – specifically to nationhood. However, just two paragraphs after he insisted that he doesn’t believe that ancestry is meaningless, he states that a “theocentric reading of Romans 9” reveals that “in Christ blood lineage does not define who our ancestors are.” So evidently when Hanson insists that ancestry matters, he isn’t talking about physical ancestry. It is this kind of equivocation that requires Kinists to reiterate the veritable meaningfulness of our physical ancestry.
Hanson disagrees with my comments on Romans 9:3-5, which reads, “For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh. Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises. Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.” I conclude that this is a clear and unashamed expression of racial pride and loyalty from the apostle Paul towards his people the Israelites, even as they are unbelievers. Hanson states that my racial-pride view is flawed in two ways. First, he insists that this is an expression of love as opposed to pride. Hanson believes that Paul’s love for his people is reasonable; after all, “They are the people he’s been close to his entire life. They share his language, customs, and history” (and, dare I say, ancestry?).
Hanson correctly states that in this passage, Paul notes that not all who are of Israel physically are Israel covenantally (Rom. 9:6), but he fails to notice that Paul had earlier identified all of physical Israel as his brethren, even though he later notes that they were cut off from the covenant because of their unbelief (Rom. 9:6-8; 11:17). Hanson is correct when he says that “love is not pride,” but neither is love opposed to pride. When Paul states that he wished to be “accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh,” he is expressing a peculiar love for his own people, contrary to the assertions of Hanson, who insists that Paul didn’t love his fellow Israelites “more than any other group.” When Paul lists the gifts that God had given his people and the good that He had done through them, to wit, “the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises…the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came,” Paul is expressing a healthy pride in, and a particular love for, his people. This leads us to Hanson’s second objection.
Hanson complains that I attempt “to give Biblical warrant for sinful pride.” He lists a number of verses condemning sinful pride. I would direct Hanson and our readers to Nil Desperandum’s excellent article, “A Biblical Outlook on Pride,” as it is simply the final word on pride as it relates to the Bible. I would point out that what the Bible condemns as sinful pride falls under the first definition that Webster gives in his classic dictionary: “Inordinate self-esteem; an unreasonable conceit of one’s own superiority in talents, beauty, wealth, accomplishments, rank or elevation in office, which manifests itself in lofty airs, distance, reserve, and often in contempt of others.”1 There is no question that this kind of pride is rightly condemned in the Bible. When I endorse racial pride, I’m speaking along the lines of Webster’s third definition of pride: “Generous elation of heart; a noble self-esteem springing from a consciousness of worth.”2 The pride that I am describing is analogous to the pride a father feels for the accomplishments of his children. There is nothing wrong with this sense of esteem for the good gifts that God has given us, and our familial and ethnic identities are included in this. This is why I cannot support Hanson’s contention that I “should be condemning racial pride altogether as there is no Biblical warrant for it.” Romans 9:3-5 is a perfect example of the appropriate pride that we should have for our own people.
Finally, Hanson disputes my commentary on 1 Timothy 5:8, in which Paul teaches, “If any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel.” Paul is teaching that we have concentric loyalties which radiate outward from our families to our own people. Hanson is concerned that I don’t include the church in our loyalties as Christians. The reason for this, frankly, is that it wasn’t relevant to the point that I was making at the time. In the context of 1 Timothy 5, Paul is stating that widows should be supported by their children or nephews (v. 4), and that the church should not be charged unless a widow lacks relatives to support her. On this basis, and in this sense, I would state that we actually have obligations to our extended relations before the church. I am certainly not opposed to the concept that Christians have obligations to the church, but I believe that the biblical model for the church corresponds to the concentric loyalties I mentioned earlier. Historically, local churches were ethnically, culturally, and linguistically homogeneous and reflected the local community at large. Likewise the national church was simply an extension of the nation itself. Within the context of concentric loyalties, I support Christians showing solidarity with other Christians worldwide. I support Christians in the Middle East who have been victimized by Zionist policies, as well as Christians who have been abandoned by secular Western nations to Muslim tyranny.
In Part 3 of Hanson’s critique, he focuses on my comments on Babel in the context of national distinctions. My comments will be brief, since most of Hanson’s objections are addressed more completely in this recently published article in response to Brian Schwertley. Hanson contends that humanity was one nation prior to Babel, and so the problem that God is correcting must not have corresponded to any kind of racial or ethnic mixing. The claim that Noah’s descendants did not have any sense of distinct nationhood prior to the Flood is tenuous at best, but the critical issue isn’t the exact time in which the extended families of Genesis 10 became distinct nations. Kinists affirm that in the providence of God, it was His intent to form separate and distinct nations from the foundation of the world, since we see these same nations enduring throughout eternity. Regardless of when distinct nations came about, we should be able to agree that God purposefully divided Noah’s descendants into kinship-based nations in order to restrain evil. It was precisely the insistence of the Babel-builders to remain as one people and avoid being scattered over the earth that hindered distinct nationhood from naturally forming.
Hanson complains, “Kinism is very concerned with maintaining national distinctions based on race in part because of this text, but ignores language.” Hanson claims that Kinists are inconsistent because we don’t express reservations about people learning multiple languages. Again, I would direct Hanson as well as our other readers to my article responding to Schwertley above, but I will make a few brief comments. There are many good reasons to learn foreign languages, and foreign languages can be mastered without sinning. I am struck by how common it used to be for educated Europeans to know multiple languages in addition to their own native tongue. It was not uncommon for educated English-speakers to have a thorough knowledge of other European languages, including classical Greek and Latin. It was standard for clergy to know other languages, such as Hebrew and Aramaic, in order to study the Bible. Non-European languages were also taught and studied at major European universities. It is certainly permissible, even admirable, to learn about foreign peoples and cultures, including their languages.
Nevertheless, distinct languages flourished among the peoples of Europe. There was not confusion over the language that should be commonly spoken among the people of a nation or region. Our ancestors would likely have been befuddled by the bilingual labels, signs, and directions that we encounter in contemporary American society. Spanish is promoted in contemporary America, not out of respect for the excellent European romance language that Spanish is, but rather to integrate foreign Hispanics into American society. This trend is destructive of America’s cultural homogeneity. Kinists are opposed to this kind of bilingualism for obvious reasons. As racial and ethnic integration become more commonplace, the number of languages is rapidly dying. As the English language has become more commonplace, it has lost its poetic and prosaic beauty that once characterized it only a number of decades ago. These trends should indicate to us that something is vastly wrong. High culture doesn’t arise from isolation from foreign language or culture, but it does depend upon a strong sense of loyalty to one’s native culture, including language first and foremost. God willing, the renewed Christian spirit in the West will one day resurrect dying languages, just as classical Latin and Greek would have died out without the painstaking preservation of European Christians.
Hanson concedes much of what is written about the goodness of national distinctions and boundaries. He writes, “Much of what Opperman affirms in this section I also affirm. God did sovereignly make many nations. He did so that people would seek him and reach out to him. The existence of many nations is a blessing to the world and it is a means by which the LORD sovereignly brings a people unto himself. I also affirm that many nations will be represented in the hereafter. We will see every nation and people.” The issue that Hanson takes is that I seem “to believe that all national boundaries are set in stone for all eternity.” Hanson contends that nations come and go, and their boundaries also expand and contract throughout history. This is true, but I contend that ethnic identity has remained relatively stable throughout history. The Roman Republic and the Roman Empire are relics of the distant past, but the ethnic Roman people still endure, and this is true for many nations that were once great kingdoms or empires. Political boundaries do ebb and flow throughout history, and sometimes this even happens frequently during times of turbulence. There are even ethnic groups that persist without political homelands. None of this changes the fact that kinship-based nations can or should remain distinct; the non-fixedness of national boundaries does not entail that they carry with themselves no obligations. God commands us to observe boundaries, even though they can and do change (Deut. 19:14; 27:17; Prov. 22:28; 23:10). Hanson seems to be confusing political boundaries with ethnic distinctions, though both of these are important.
Hanson states that the Kinist concern that miscegenation will put an end to white nations is misguided. He states,
Kinists would have us believe that miscegenation destroys the God-given diversity, but the only way this could happen would be through guided reproductive manipulation through many generations. Most people tend to be drawn to people of their own race. Culture and religion and social norms and language are all strong forces that tend to bring people of the same backgrounds together. Therefore, the appeal to the extreme of “one world of people colored light brown” is not something we should be concerned about.
I agree with Hanson that humanity will not ultimately “bleed into one” and create a mass of brown-skinned humanity. This is because God is judging white nations for their apostasy; once this judgment is complete and He brings our people to repentance, this problem will resolve. The current one-world, anti-Christian globalism that prevails is not sustainable, and it must eventually collapse. This doesn’t mean, however, that we should be unconcerned about miscegenation, mass migration, or declining white birth rates. These current trends, if they are not reversed in the near future, will result in the end of distinctly white and European nations. This isn’t irrational Kinist alarmism, but a very real danger. Kinists such as myself are long-term optimists, because we believe that God is sovereign and that righteousness will triumph in the end. But this doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t be open and realistic about the dire straits that our people are in today. This is a very real problem, and it is our Christian duty to fight against the demise of our nations and homelands.
Hanson also doesn’t believe that we ought to be concerned with miscegenation because “miscegenation tends to increase diversity. If a black man and a white woman have a child, diversity is increased. The baby is neither black nor white. If an Asian man and a black woman have a child, diversity is increased. The child is neither Asian nor black. Diversity can only increase outside of forced reproductive manipulation, so we do not have to be worried about a homogeneous humanity.” There is a superficial sense in which Hanson is correct, but this is only because every child is genetically unique from every other individual in human history. Even a child born to two blonde-haired, blue-eyed Swedes will still be genetically unique. A child that is racially-mixed will not have any more genes than someone with racially homogeneous ancestry, just different genes. This brings us to the reason that Hanson’s argument is false, and it requires a brief lesson in genetics.
The human genome contains about 24,000 genes, and we inherit a copy of each gene from each of our parents. The genes that we receive from our parents form our genotype, and the traits and characteristics that these genes express are called our phenotype. Certain genes code for traits like blonde hair, green eyes, fair skin, etc. Sometimes the two genes “match” and other times the two genes are different. If the two genes are different, then one of the genes tends to prevail over the other and it determines the phenotype. The gene that is expressed is called dominant, and the gene that is not expressed, unless it is paired with a “matching” gene, is called recessive.
This brings us to the question as to whether or not race-mixing increases phenotypic diversity. Race-mixing does not increase the diversity of phenotypes, or external characteristics, because certain ethnic characteristics are based upon recessive traits which require the pairing of a number of recessive genes. These characteristics include fair skin, light-colored hair, light-colored eyes, etc. In short, the traits that characterize white European people are generally recessive, and their continued presence depends upon whites reproducing with other whites. The reason for various rules, written and unwritten, like the “one-drop rule” in the United States, is that the offspring of racially-mixed couples tended to look black or at least non-white, even if the offspring married full-blooded whites for several generations. Therefore, while racially mixed individuals are genotypically unique (just as everyone is), they tend to phenotypically resemble their non-white ancestors. The continuation of distinct nations in general requires them to be homogeneous. This is especially true for white nations, because the maintenance of our people with our distinct traits and characteristics depends upon whites marrying and having children with other whites, since many of our traits are recessive.
Once again, I appreciate Rev. Hanson’s willingness to discuss this matter, given the general tendency of other anti-Kinists to casually dismiss ethnonationalism and vociferously rail against it. Though I disagree with his conclusions, I do also appreciate his irenic tone, especially given the circumstances from which he is writing. I eagerly await any future posts by Rev. Hanson on this important topic.