Kinism – Essentially Human After All (not a Daft Punk song)

There is an aberration in Presbyterianism that seems to rear its head now and again by a few individuals that jump into our chat channel. This aberration is called Kinism. It is not a view held by many within Presbyterianism and those that do hold it seem to follow from the Rushdoony line of thought. This post and those in this series will be asking questions for clarification and or addressing issues delineated at the so-called Christian Kinism blog.

Accessed 06/24/2012 01:00 UTC:

2. That all people are essentially humans, created by the hands of Almighty God and therefore they have a portion of common rights, implicits and summarized in the Mosaic Decalogue;

The second point of Ten Theological Principles of Kinism listed on the linked page has the phrase “all people are essentially humans.” The word ‘essentially’ in this phrase brings about one glaring question: Are there people that have more [or different] ‘peopleness’ than other people that are ‘essentially’ human? One will immediately notice there is no biblical prooftext for this point so one has to wonder where this phrase is derived. What standard is being used for determining ‘peopleness’? It seems quite arbitrary.

One clear solution to this would be a biblical anthropology. One that looks back to the first family and sees that there were only people that were humans, or to put it another way, there were only humans that were people. There was no degree of peopleness.


14 Comments

David Opperman

Of course the solution is to understand that the word essential means in essence. In other words we believe that all people, regardless of their race are human in their essence. I notice that you don’t actually cite any kinist who discusses levels or degrees of “peopleness,” so your complaint is a classic straw man. Kinists believe that all people are descended from Adam and Eve.

Can’t anyone actually just critique kinism as it stands? Do you really have to venture into infinite and unsubstantiated speculation of what we could possibly believe? Rhetorical questions of course.

defectivebit

That does make it much more precise, but why even mention it at all?
BTW: it is pretty difficult claim that this was a strawman argument (or even a complaint) when the post was a question for clarification and statement of how I view Biblical anthropology.

BK

“Can’t anyone actually just critique kinism as it stands?”

David, part of the problem is figuring out where kinism stands. For instance, consider the following quote found at http://christiankinism.com/2010/12/a-kinist-cosmology-by-ehud-would

“One last but unavoidable observation on this matter is the fact that the descendents of Ham (Africans) are so morphologically, psychologically and intellectually divergent from all other races that they, like the Cainites before the flood, seem overtly ‘marked’. And the nature of this marking of extreme pigmentation is one which carries a universally recognized metaphysical correspondence—darkness is, both in and out of scripture, the symbol of evil and uncertainty.”

Do you agree with this “unavoidable observation”? I know at least one kinist who emphatically does not.

BK

cbrons

I would LOVE to see someone from CH debate one of the people at that site. Could we please get something set up? These people claim to be Calvinists? As RazorsKiss once said, “We have to clean our own house before we worry about others.”

Kristin

Cbrons, we’ve (well, I have) told you that Razzy refuses to debate. If he changes his mind, we’ll be glad to accommodate.

Every Kinist that I’ve met has been a prime example of a Calvinist. Just letting you know.

It’s funny how the only post I’ve seen about Kinism from you guys is just a complete misrepresentation of what it is. We don’t think any race is better than another. And, as Opperman stated, we don’t view anyone as subhuman. Please listen to us the next time we come to talk about Kinism. You might learn from it. 🙂

BK

Kristin said: “Cbrons, we’ve (well, I have) told you that Razzy refuses to debate. If he changes his mind, we’ll be glad to accommodate.”

There is more than one of us at CH who is willing to debate this topic. In fact, I stated that very fact to you just a day or so ago in channel. My only caveat was that if it was *I* who was debating, I would need more time than others to prepare as I am not very clear on the subject.

Kristin said: “Every Kinist that I’ve met has been a prime example of a Calvinist. Just letting you know.”

Of what relevance is this? Certainly not every Calvinist is a Kinist. Are you saying they should be?

Kristin said: “It’s funny how the only post I’ve seen about Kinism from you guys is just a complete misrepresentation of what it is. We don’t think any race is better than another. And, as Opperman stated, we don’t view anyone as subhuman. Please listen to us the next time we come to talk about Kinism. You might learn from it. :)”

It’s funny how the other day in channel I attempted to learn about Kinism from you, and you didn’t answer even the most basic questions about it. I don’t intend on being mean here, but seriously, you can’t blame someone for misrepresenting you while at the same time not being able to clearly state even the basics of the position you are supposedly embracing.

BK

Kristin

Brian,

I told you I would gladly answer any questions through facebook. In #ch, I don’t get very far without snide comments from the others. I’m not an experienced apologist, so these Kinists will do much better.

Cbrons said that Kinists call themselves Calvinists. There’s your relevance. 🙂

And, yes, you did say that you’d debate. I look forward to the results.

BK

Kristin said: “Brian, I told you I would gladly answer any questions through facebook. In #ch, I don’t get very far without snide comments from the others. I’m not an experienced apologist, so these Kinists will do much better.”

I don’t care what medium we use. I’m interested in learning more about the details of Kinism, and more importantly their arguments for their position. It seems like a very racist movement to me (please note I said “to me”), so I would like to hear someone explain why it is not.

Kristin said: “Cbrons said that Kinists call themselves Calvinists. There’s your relevance. 🙂 ”

The question of relevance was to ask why does it matter to this thread? If you aren’t trying to make a point, then that’s fine, but it sounded as if you were.

Kristin said: “And, yes, you did say that you’d debate. I look forward to the results.”

The hope was that you would pass the message on to your friends so that they would no longer incorrectly assert that nobody here at CH is interested/willing in debating them.

BK

RazorsKiss

This is false. I had a lengthy email exchange with Shotgun wherein he is the one doing the refusal – and I was the one who initiated the request. Further, I posted on the largest kinism site I could find at the time, at Shotgun’s behest, asking for a debate, and was similarly declined. I have no idea where you’re getting this nonsense, but it’s an outright fabrication. As for Paltalk, if that’s what you’re referring to – I don’t know who could possibly consider that a “debate” forum, but if they do – I certainly don’t. It’s a voice chat site. I do formal, moderated debates. If Shotgun ever changes his mind about doing an actual debate, we’d be glad to accommodate him. As it stands, I’m the only one to offer debate challenges personally – and they were declined. I’m not in the habit of tolerating falsehoods, so please be kind enough not to include them here.

Shotgun

To be a Van Tillian and claim that only humans are persons, is shortsighted, isn’t it?

A vital part of Van Til’s apologetic methodology is an appeal to the personhood of God (see the discussions on Trinitarian Personality at Reformed Forum for a discussion of how important this is).

If we’re going to be good Van Tillians, we can’t commit ourselves to the idea that *only* humans are people. Not that this has anything at all to do with Kinism.

defectivebit

I am not committed to the idea that all “persons are humans” when using the term persons in the technical sense e.g. the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Trinity but is not a human. In fact I never used the word persons. The Kinist author of the text in question appeared be using “people” in a non-techinal way and not in the technical sense of “persons” such as used when referring to the Trinity.

cbrons

Well I personally would like to see this debated in the primetime. Nevermind Skype recordings, let’s do it via ShoutCAST so we can listen live. Well anyway sure the guys here know what mediums are good to debate over… But let’s get it done! I am VERY eager to see the hermeneutic used by Kinists to support their positions.

Shotgun

It’s hard for me to take a debate challenge from you seriously, Mr. Kiss, given that (far as I know) you’ve written absolutely nothing on any of the relevant topics. (I checked your blog site, once again, and found only a few encouraging remarks about Cone’s Black Liberation Theology).

How could I deconstruct your position when, (again, far as I know) you don’t have a coherent position to deconstruct? Sure, experience has taught me what to expect from you, but I want to hear you express it in your own words — and I want to do, as Dr. Bahnsen instructed, and paint your position in the strongest possible light, then topple it.

If you want me to participate in a Skype shooting-range, where you fire Bible verses at me, and demand that I interpret them, that’s one thing. But if you’d like a genuine, relevant, and interesting debate, then you’ve got to provide something worth debating.

Furthermore, I think (for the benefit of any future investigation into the matter) you all would do well to keep the following conceptual ladder in mind. (This may not hold for all Kinists, and some would likely swap the order around, but what follows will be accurate enough):

Reformed Theology (building on the Westminster Confessional Standards) —> Presuppositionalism (in the Van Tillian tradition) —> Reconstruction (by this, I mean a “reconstruction” of various areas of academia along consistently Christian / Van Tillian lines. I have in mind the work of Frame / Poythress / Bahnsen and the others, in the book “Foundations of Christian Scholarship”) —> Postmillennialism (an optimistic eschatology. While this isn’t essential to Kinism, most all Kinists are postmillennialists) —> Theonomy / Christian Reconstruction (where we apply a consistent Van Tillian reconstruction to areas of law, government and political philosophy) —> Kinism (which is a consistently Christian reconstruction of sociology and anthropology).

I hope that helps.

RazorsKiss

“Mr. Gun”,
Given that you declined due to your supposed ‘inexperience’ in March of 2010 I find it hard to believe that the short period of elapsed time has somehow rendered you suddenly expert in the discussion. It was your own inexperience and newness to the faith that was your putative reason for declining my previous debate offer – has this substantially changed in 21 months? You acted like I just wanted “notoriety”, as well – is this your aim, now? Because, to be honest, the only difference here seems to be that now you’re the one looking for press – not me. I haven’t said a word about debating to you since that time. Further, disinterest with cluttering my blog with responses to racial separatism does not mean that I have not studied the topic. Additionally, I find the ad hominem from you quite boring. It’s obvious that I haven’t the slightest bit of “encouragement” for Cone, so why you would paint it that way is beyond me. Why would you assume that a debate would consist of me merely “fir[ing] Bible verses” at you, and merely “demand[ing] you interpret them?” This seems intended to convey some familiarity with my debates – but anyone who has read or listened to my debates knows that this is quite the opposite of my modus operandi. I’ve been consistent in asking for formal, moderated debates in respect to any position I address – and I would prefer text, in fact. I would indeed prefer a genuine, relevant, and interesting debate – not one conducted on the armpit of the internet – Paltalk – the audio equivalent of Reddit.

I think it would do you good to consider that condescension does not become one who is a visitor. Systematic theology is not solely the province of Reconstructionists, et al – please have the courtesy to distinguish lack of interest/focus on ancillary/secondary deformations of the primary theological stream from focus on the main branch. It’s not that we haven’t looked into these things – it’s that we think they’re fairly useless sidelines from the real issues. If you want to debate, fine – if you don’t, I couldn’t care less. However, when it starts to be bandied about that I’m “declining debate challenges” – reported to be said by the very person who did, in fact, decline the debate previously – I take issue with falsehood.

In any case, no, I’m not interested in “debating” on Paltalk – first, because Paltalk is a wretched hive of scum and villainy – and secondly, because I insist on formal, moderated debates. Informal discussions of wide-ranging topics are practically useless. If you want to contact me again, you have my email. Use that, or the contact form. You’re not welcome to comment here.

I hope that helps.


Leave a Comment