I've had the opportunity over the past year or so to interact from time to time with those who would separate the Church by race, ethnicity, or other factors, claiming that by worshipping exclusively with their own "kin," the world may somehow be more quickly won for Christ. While it's true that language and geography will tend to produce churches of somewhat homogeneous race or ethnicity, my basic response to the kinist argument is that Christ told a group of Jewish Christians that they were to go not just to Jerusalem, but to Samaria (bitter enemies) and the world--gentiles who were often despised.
Which is to note that there is simply not much room in Scripture for the kinist argument. When believers stayed in Jerusalem, God scattered that church via persecution. If only He were so merciful to today's "kinist" churches.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of them out there, and most of them aren't white supremacists. In addition to race and ethnicity, those of the "respectable" crowd also split due to age, social class, Bible translation used (not just the KJV-only, either), music format, and a host of other reasons.
There are certainly real theological reasons to split, such as failure to acknowledge the authority of the Scriptures and the Gospel. In splitting for 1000 other reasons, however, I suspect that a lot of us are going to find out that we missed out on an awful lot of His goodness.
The DFL Has A Bit Of A Felon Problem
-
Last week, the SD12 DFL Committee [1] endorsed convicted felon Judd Hoff,
who has been credibly implicated in stalking his opponent, Rep. Mary
Franson, by ...
1 hour ago
15 comments:
Bubba,
I appreciate the patient manner of interaction you've shown in dealing with kinism. And I have to disclose the fact that I'm not in total agreement with all that offical "Kinist" doctrine teaches. But I see some biblical precedent, and well as a host of practical and expedient reasons for maintianing homogenous community.
I don't believe that the fact that God had Jewish Christians preaching the gospel to the rest of the world is a reason to suggest He doesn't desire homogeninity. Just as we can be "in" the world and not "of" it, they very well could have preached to other races and ethnicities in the same way.
I am greatly thankful for your wisdom in seeing Kinist not as white supremacists. Most people don't give it enough serious consideration to make it that far.
You mention "kinist" churches. To date, I am not aware of any churches with that distinction. As you might know, this is not a widely accepted view, and therefore it is often difficult for them to find fellowship.
Finally, the issue of race, and how we as Christians are to deal with it is going to be and is already a major area of discussion within the boarder Church in the years to come.
The most interesting aspect of this debate/controversy has been, IMHO, the remarkable amount of charity on the part of Kinists who see people who really want to learn about them, contrasted with the hateful, venomous speech of those supposed "tolerant" Christians who disagree with them.
Thanks for the post!
Do such churches exist? I certainly haven't been looking for one, but given "Little Geneva's" tone, I'd have to guess they do. Where else would they worship if they really believe this?
Are there arguments for a church of one race/ethnicity/kin? Yes, but I'd argue that they're primarily pragmatic, not Biblical. The story of the New Testament (and portions of the Old) is of Jewish and Gentile church leaders loving their own, but led by God to reach others.
Hence, we might find ourselves homogeneous by accident and be OK, but I think God calls us to establish our kinship primarily in Christ.
I think a lot of people think "Kinist" churches exist based on LG. But LG is just a blog where people come to discuss various issues, mostly dealing with race. Most of those who are "Kinist" ( I know some personally), belong to regular churches and just try to fellowship peaceably with them.
W/O getting into the details, I'd agree w/ you that there are pragmatic reasons to encourage homogenous culture. But at the same time, I'd say the bible, at the very least, implies it as well (though I think in places it is more explicit).
And your right in that our fundamental relationships are grounded in Christ, yet how that is worked out in the real world have implications too, and the Scriptures give us light as to how best to accomplish this.
And Bert,I, unlike the majority of those whom I've ran across who disagee with me on this, respect your right to disagree on this issue. And again, I'm more impressed with yout tempered attitude than anything. I appreciate your comments on my blog and welcome your imput anytime.
I'd be willing to discuss this further with you if you like, but you may not think it a fruitful endeavor.
David, how are we going to find a Biblical example of a "kinist" mindset? The historical reality of the early church is that it was largely composed of slaves, who in turn were taken from surrounding nations that Rome had conquered. There are simply no examples here--the book of Romans was actually written in part to help Jew and Gentile reconcile in a mixed church. This was true even in Jerusalem.
We may end up in Norwegian churches here in Minnesota, or mostly Chinese churches due to language barriers in San Jose, or whatever. But that's coincidence due to geography, not Scripture's example.
The neat thing about being a Christian is that there's no separation between Greek, Jews, or Gentiles b/c our one common goal is in Christ. I've been on mission trips and while I did not know their language or culture, it was so awesome to see people of diff cultures worship the same Lord.
My church is 98% white but we are beginning to see fellow believers of other races coming as a result of our church's ministries to a nearby run down neighborhood. I certainly don't want to say to them that they either become like us white folks or form their own church. Please pardon my lack of understanding on kinism as this is the first I've heard of it. Thanks.
Bert,
Again, I'm not saying I completly agree with this line of thinking, but it goes something like this.
Kinism basically means, "love of one's own kind/kin. So at it's essence it is dealing with familial ties.
I Timothy 5:8 says if someone doesn't provide for his own family and "especially for his own household", he is worse that an infidel.
So in other words, our responsibility to our fellow man begins in the home with our own families and works it's ways outward...in concentric circles, so to speak
So that we are to honor our families and as a result our extended families, and as a result, our famlies both past and presentand furture. This would include the heritage and cultural aspects of life that our ancestors would have began, and is our responsiblity to continue.
The idea is that homogenity breeds safety, trust and opportunities that hetegenous societies can't, even in reaching them with the gospel.
Kinist also draw on the texts in Genesis 9&10 where God divided the nations through the sons of Noah. Now biblically speaking, the word "nation" means race. It is also the same word we get our word "natal" from. That's how the nations were divided. For example, the "Jewish" nation was comprised of Jews. The contention is therefore, it was God who divided people in various families, which as a result make up differing extended races of peoples, and therefore to join together that which God has seperated is wrong.
This is a nutshell version, but I know you've already be looking into it and know some of the argument already.
They would also say, that if we do find racial intergration practice in the church, at any point in history, they weren't acting in the way God had intended that they should.
But I think if you look at the nature of man (the way God made us) you see an inherit desire to live among your "own kind". Even the pagan believes "birds of a feather flock together". This is only a natural instinctive desire that the mixing of various racial and ethnical componets seem to work against.
None of this is to suggest an inherent superiority of one group of people over another. But it is to recognize that God did make us different, and is an attempt to honor those God given differences.
Mercy, glad that you're not aware of this--especially as you're from "down south" and such was very prevalent not too long ago. The pastor who did my wedding noted that churches he tried out in the early 1970s actually had sermons on the necessity of segregation. No kidding, and I'm glad things are changing.
And David, I know and understand the arguments. That said, "kinism" is not just love of one's kin. It's to maintain racial homogeniety, and I can't reconcile that with a New Testament that constantly describes churches of mixed ethnicity and race.
Can we argue that God had it wrong when He sent the Holy Spirit to cause His name to be praised in every language in Acts 2? Can we argue that Jesus was wrong to talk with the Samaritan woman, or the servants of the centurion? That Peter was wrong to take, kill, and eat? Was that somehow the "second best" for the church?
Other passages that come to mind are:
Gal 2:11-
I Cor 1:10-
I Cor 9:19-
I Cor 10:32-
What I see from these passages is foregoing our own self interest and customs to win as many to Christ as possible. I understand that cultures will always have differences. The one thing that makes Christians different is that we are not like other groups be it a race or a culture in that we accept people who are not like us while other groups reject people unlike them.
Bert you ask,
"Can we argue that God had it wrong when He sent the Holy Spirit to cause His name to be praised in every language in Acts 2?"
- I'd say no, it wasn't wrong. But because the Gospel is opened to every tribe, tounge and nation, doesn't have to mean that the mixing of the nations is implied there. It doesn't really give creedence either way.
You ask,
"Can we argue that Jesus was wrong to talk with the Samaritan woman, or the servants of the centurion?"
- Again, I'd say absolutely not. But this passage doesn't teach heterogeny either. It just says that Jesus gave the Gospel to the Samaritain women. But what did she do? She returned to "her" people, and told them what had happened.So you can't really make a case here either.
You also ask,
"That Peter was wrong to take, kill, and eat?"
- Not at all. It was fully God's intention to has the young Jewish Church take the Gospel to the rest of the world...no one is arguing against that. It is to the degree that the various God given racial and cultural distinctive each nation bears and is to be preserved that comes into question. We know the coming of the Gospel into a society impacts that society. And we should be quick to guard a heritage, a people, that has been blessed with that coming.
God saw fit to build His Church in history thus far through Rome, into the Western world. From this came the Protestant Reformation, the Great Awakening, and so forth.
So that through the WASP's (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants) God has spead the Gospel to the utter most parts of the world, and has built Christendom here in the West. Yet we are now allowing people (races) to come here and in Europe and dilute the work of God. Muslims, Africans, Mexicans, etc, none share that heritage. None care about what God has done to build up this great nation. They are just here reaping the benefit that others have built.
Why do they not care about this country as such?? They are not our "kin". Their values are not ours, their history is not ours, their hero's are not ours. Their religion is not ours. They are a different people, being allowed to destroy that which God himself has accomplished.
Again, I'm not trying to judge other people. I'm only stating what I see with my own eyes. The Gospel is spread through the nations, not to eliminate them, but that they might flourish and grow under the Gospel influence.
God is a God of diveristy, (e.i. the Trinity). He created the different races of people. He set their bounderies (Acts 17).In Revelation it says that people of every tribe, tounge and nation would be praising Him. How can this be if we continue to eliminate them through blending them all together?
Again, David, that's not a Biblical argument but a practical one. The Biblical example, again, is of churches made up predominantly of slaves captured from many nations, a few prosperous Greeks and Romans and other free men, and a few Jews as well.
Moreover, even the "Anglo-Saxon" idea of racial unity is historically false. If one reads Bede's "Ecclesiastical History" or virtually any other historical work about the history of Great Britian, one very quickly finds that "British" people have actually historically viewed themselves as Celts/Gaelic, Brittonic/Welsh, Anglo-Saxon, Nordic, and Normandic/French--with a number of divisions even there.
To argue a "unity" among these disparate ethnicities is simply to parrot Cecil Rhodes' ideas--and be historically inaccurate.
Moreover, it's historically unrepresentative of the Reformed theology you espouse--formulated by a Frenchman (Calvin) living among the Swiss, spread to England, Scotland, and the Netherlands, among other places.
So even in historic Reformed (or my Baptist) circles, there isn't a clear homogeniety that one can point to.
I agree w/ you that there are a lot of practical implications of homogenity, and that they seem to result in the best way in which to cultivate society. And though we can't say that just because something is practical or expedient, doesn't make it right...it certainly doesn't make it wrong per se either.
And to be honest w/ you this is where I differ with my Kinist friends. Whereas they see explict commands from God against things like miscegenation, I see general principles laid out that teach us that racial, ethnic and cultrual seperation is best. In other words, I see the Scriputres encouraging it, not commanding it.
Historically anthropologist have broken the human race down into 4 distinct sub-races: Sub-Sahara African (Black), Eastern Asiatic (Yellow), Germanic/European (White), and Enuit/Native American (Red). Typically, these are the lines that Kinist would say shouldn't be crossed, though, some might want to limit it further.
But for Calvin, and other Europeans to travel around Europe "mixing" with other "white" people would not go against their thinking.
I assume you know the biblical argument Kinist use to defend their views, which is why I'm avoiding an exegetical argument with you, and rather giving you my own take on how to approach this.
So that my own definition of what "Kinism" should entail does not necessarily reflect that of Kinist who hold to the explict teaching that they themselves espouse. My own definition, in one very real sense does begin with a loyalty to family and lineage. If your of a European linage (Welsh,Irish, Scot-Irish, etc) you should honor that by maintaining fidelity to those peoples.
This is the way it was for hundreds of years of history. Nations were made up of extended family groups, not geo-political boundries. Only recently have we seen a shift to this way of defining a "nation". Take the OT Nation of Israel for example. They wandered in the dessert for 40 years, moving from place to place. But it wasn't the geography of where they were that made them a Nation, it was the families (the 12 tribes) that comprised the "Nation", not a geo-political boundry.
Much in the same way, I see our ties to our people, as well as our land to some degree, as defining who we are...and a responsiblity to honor our fathers and mothers (including those who have passed away, and those who will one day live) in keeping our certain heritage, ethnicity, and culture alive and well.
The trouble with that line of thinking, David, is that it's not Biblical. Even Israel accepted foreigners into their midst if they worshipped the one true God--their separation was based more strongly on Him than on their blood relations.
And the idea that things are better if we keep to our own? That's called "tribalism," friend, and it results in rampant hatred, culminating in vicious wars. Read your European history--it's just not pretty what happens when we all cleave to our clan and eschew others.
"it's just not pretty what happens when we all cleave to our clan and eschew others. "
- I'd only say that look at what years of forced intergration has done to this country. I certainly wouldn't call this a utopia. Booker T. Washington, a great African-American thinker in the 19th century in talking about the issue of race said it well when he said,
"In all things that are purely social we can be as separate as the fingers, yet one as the hand in all things essential to mutual progress."
One last thing. You say it results in rampant hatred. Yet, I have yet to find one person who has accused me of hating someone based on race, to prove that I've ever said or done one thing to that effect.
The fact is, my appreciation of the various ethnic and racial diveristy in the world has increased in my proportion to my understanding to understanding that's how God made us.
There is a group of people called "Reformed Blacks Of America". I have recently wrote about them on my blog. They are Black Christians who understand that they are best suited for ministering to the black community. And that seperate black communities best suit black people. Do I think they hate me, because I'm white and they aren't trying to include me? Absolutely not! I commend their work, and wish God's blessing upon them. They don't hate me, they love their own people! As do I.
michael,
Thanks for your questions.You ask,
"And can we still mantain our cultural heritage while worshiping alongside those who are different from us?"
- I'd say no. We are not islands. And as a result we are influenced by our surroundings. You know the saying, "Give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach him how to fish, you feed him for life." We are to "bapitize the nations, TEACHING them" all He's commanded.
As one people group takes the gospel to another, we do it with the intent on leaving it with them, to flourish in a way conducive to the local people. If a foreigner wanted to give up all his history,leave his own heritage and culture behind, forsake his people, embrace the history, culture, and religion of my people, then I'd say welcome. But the truth is, people don't do that. They always want to "bring in" their own as well.
America has done nothing but sink in a decadent slum since we have opened our boarders to foreigners who not only demand access for them and their culture, but equality, be it pagan, heretical or whatever. And it has torn down the Christian fabric that once made this a great nation. And when I say nation I mean those of European decent who established this country.
So I'd say no, we can't, in the long term, sustain a viable culture of any type for for any race of people, when we are willing to let any and everybody have a say as to how that is going to be done.
Glad you found us, Michael!
My take on can one retain one's own culture in a different group; I managed to worship at a mostly Chinese church around LA for two summers without losing my identity. I also learned a fair amount about Chinese/asian culture, but regrettably little Mandarin.
And David, I'm glad you haven't personally had this problem, but the reality is that isolated societies who don't realize what they have to gain by interaction and trade have historically fought wars with one another instead. It pervades the history of Europe.
Post a Comment