Formerly Appearing on "Did You Mean?" at www.did-you-mean.com
Kinists are advocates of secession, racial separatism, agrarianism, homeschooling, patriarchy, theonomy, and are primarily Reformed Christians. Unlike mainstream paleoconservatives and Reconstructionists, many of them are charged with holding to anti-semitic conspiratorial views, though Mark Godfrey wrote, "we hold to Kevin MacDonald’s view that the ethnic “rules” of Jews which prioritize ethnic loyalty and survival virtually ensure their disproportionate representation in elite circles -circles where these self-same values are propagated. We do not put much stock in cabals or star chambers or population-wide conspiracies, but rather in the conspiracy of consensus".
They believe in outlawing interracial marriage, and many are members of the League of the South.
Leaders in this small, but growing, movement include Harry Seabrook, Mark Godfrey, Chad Degenhart, and Scott C. Mooney.
In the attempt to create a one world, neo-Babylonian government, a loosely organized but relentless campaign is now underway throughout the world to eradicate racial and ethnic distinctions. White Christians are the foremost targets of this campaign….
We at Kinism.net believe that our White peoples have an inalienable, that is, God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as distinct nations, apart from all other genetic and ethnic families….
Nevertheless, we stand or fall with no other but the White peoples of Europe, and their standards of beauty, their cultural achievements, the achievements of their civilization, established through the confluence of pagan and Christian traditions, are both irreplaceable and vital to our survival as a people.
Prior to its disappearance, the Wikipedia.org webpage on Kinism stated that the ideology primarily represented those of Anglo-Saxon ethnicity who also confess Reformed Theology, and Theonomy (often criticized for an unbalanced focus on Old Testament legalism). Many who wholeheartedly embrace Reformed Theology reject that the Old Testament advocated racial purity as a foundational concept but rather for the purpose of maintaining Israel’s religious holiness which was threatened by other cultures. With the advent of the New Covenant in Christ, because salvation by grace through faith in Christ was made available to all races and ethnicities, the concerns of racial purity as advocated in the Old Testament no longer served a vital spiritual purpose. Faith in Christ transcends all concern over race and ethnicity. Thus, concerns with racial and ethnic purity could actually be considered an affront to the Gospel message.
This past week (27Dec07), an evangelist for the doctrine of so-called “Biblical patriarchy” displayed a photo of the congregation that he pastors on his website. Many people identified the person standing to the left of the pastor as a well-known, self-declared kinist along with other members of the kinist’s family. (In fact, this kinist in the photo is noted to be one of four nationally known leaders and developers of the kinist movement.) People who know the man personally and those who recognize both the kinist and his family from photos of them all that are available online soon noted his identity. Many others pointed out that this pastor and the kinist enjoy a very friendly online relationship that spans a few years. I deny that this association identifies this pastor as a kinist, but considering the nature of other pro-slavery and neo-Confederate groups affiliated with “Biblical patriarchy,” this is a matter of great concern for all Christians who deny kinism and those who purchase written materials produced by that pastor’s family.
Could this be perceived as “guilt by association”? In the absence of documentation that establishes that this pastor denies kinism or any other implication that may disturb him, I would say that this is a major cause for concern. Does the pastor’s denomination make a definitive statement about kinism, especially considering that this pastor is a co-founder of his own denomination? If the denomination does not have a statement, it would behoove the pastor to develop one in a timely manner to assuage the concerns of both this his own family’s following and the following of the other organizations with whom he is affiliated. I am reminded of the saying “You only intimidate the weak.” If this area concerning a doctrinal position on race indicates a point of weakness (especially considering that patriarchy attracts “racialists”), then this occurrence presents and excellent opportunity for the denomination to strengthen, clarify and delineate its doctrinal position.
The attention drawn to this loose, kinist connection presents another matter of concern regarding proper Christian conduct. If the pastor does not share common kinist ideals, we may not be privy to any counseling or disciplinary action that the pastor has undertaken with the kinist. However, given the seriousness of the matter of racial impropriety, if the pastor either does not recognize the significance of the matter or actually shares those ideals, one must consider the Proverb that states “The righteous should choose his friends carefully, for the way of the wicked leads them astray" (12:26). This becomes a matter of informed consent for those who follow the teachings of this pastor’s family, as they may not wish to hold a person with such controversial beliefs in high esteem. Consider this excerpt from “Modesty: A Vanishing Virtue” by David Treybig:
The Effect on Christianity
Doug Phillips, in his introduction to "Christian Modesty and the Public Undressing of America" by Jeff Pollard, explains that with "the rise of antinomianism (the rejection of God as lawgiver), the resurgence of Gnosticism (the belief that God is not concerned with physical things) and the widespread acceptance of the neutrality postulate (the notion that the Lordship of Christ over human action only extends to spiritual matters), many 20th-century Christians have simply allowed themselves to be swept away by cultural trends, rather than following the biblical admonition to take every thought and action captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ" (page 12)....
Within the Church of God
If righteous Lot was affected by the society around him, are we not also affected by the trends of the society in which we live? What we see and hear does have an impact. As 1 Corinthians 15:33 puts it: "Do not be deceived: 'Evil company corrupts good habits.'"
The Bible reveals the principle of cause and effect. As Proverbs 6:27 explains, "Can a man take fire to his bosom, and his clothes not be burned?" Since the world does have an effect upon us, let's consider how it is displayed.
(painting ~ "Escaping Criticism"
by Pere Borrell del Caso)
Patriarchy seems to be an outgrowth of Christian Reconstruction which is largely spearheaded by Calvinistic and Reformed groups. Patriarchy is not monolithic by any stretch of the imagination and crosses many denominational bounds however, patriarchy is not limited to Reformed Theology. Because so many different groups and ideologies have contributed to what is now understood to be so-called “Biblical patriarchy,” it can be difficult to sort through.
The tension that exists as a consequence of religious freedom in the United States contributes to this problem. I believe that our nation was founded upon Christian principles and by men who held a Christian worldview. Our founding father’s faith in Christianity provided the US with religious freedom, and freedom for all religions. Here’s the rub: most religions want to reform culture and make new disciples or converts. The system works well when there is a reasonable balance between the protection of and provision for religious liberty and free exercise of religion. We run into trouble when groups or individuals seek to proselytize rather than evangelize, or when these efforts encroach upon the religious liberty of others. (And then we have groups like the “Freedom from Religion Foundation” that seek to eradicate Biblical Christianity specifically without much concern for religions). Patriarchy presents an additional challenge because it mitigates or fails to make the distinction between and among those things which are Christian, American and cultural (related to family).
Patriarchy presents quite a potpourri of these influences -- some are very innocent and some are basically authoritarian and aggressively coercive (spiritually abusive/cultic IMO). Patriarchy represents a number of discrete groups and ideologies, although these separate groups inconsistently associate with one another. It makes for great confusion and associations may be true on a smaller scale but not characteristic of patriarchy in the general sense. Christian Reconstruction and Dominionism get slammed in the process, although those who represent them are much related to the confusion and some of the abuses within the patriarchy movement.
Let me elaborate a bit. Dominionism, distinct from Dominion Theology gives rise to Theonomy (the Bible as the sufficient source for human ethics) which gives rise to Christian Reconstruction (seeking to establish Christianity as a potent influence if not the most significant influence in civil government. Dispensationalists and other non-
Dominionist, Evangelical groups support Christian Reconstruction, though they are not based in Theonomy. Victorian social ethics (apart but frequently viewed as synonymous with Christian ethics and values contribute as well. Throw in patriotism. Throw in agrarianism, homeschooling interests and then things like kinism. This makes for very strange bedfellows. I’ve identified the following schools of thought that are associated with patriarchy but may or may not be related to one another. I've tried to be as inclusive as I can, but this is not an exhaustive list.
- Agrarianism
- Biblical Christianity
- Calvinism
- Christian Fundamentalism
- Christian Patriotism
- Christian Reconstruction
- Complementarians (gender related issues)
- Creation Science
- Dispensationalism
- Dominionism
- Dominion Theology
- Family Integrated Church Movement
- Family Oriented Interests
- Family Oriented Religion (mixture of Christianity, US Patriotism and Victorian/Antebellum Idealism)
- Fundamentalist Authoritarianism (mild authoritarian/fundamentalist ideals such as the Constitution Party)
- Fundamentalist Libertarianism
- Homeschooling
- Kinism
- Neo-Confederate Ideology
- Political Theocentrism (that which seeks Theocracy)
- Pro-Life Movement
- Reformed Theology
- Right Wing Populism
- Submission Theology
- Theonomy
The modern patriarchy movement (that which has emerged from within Evangelical Christian circles from within the homeschooling movement) presents some confusing associations because these discrete groups relate to one another without consistency. For instance, Vision Forum publicly denounces specific Kinists, but both groups rely heavily on the writings of the Confederate Presbyterian RL Dabney. Patriarchalists like Doug Wilson embrace the concept of slavery (hopefully as a form of Christian philanthropy and as a solution to the Welfare State). The modern homeschooling movement was pioneered in many ways by Theonomists and Dominionists such as Rousas Rushdoony. The League of the South which supports Agrarianism, at its inception, avoided race-related positions, but later discussed and favored Kinism (though that documentation is no longer available and is now supported only by my personal claims based on my memory of the documentation online). The League of the South supported the Constitution Party candidate for the US Presidency in 2004, and the founder of the party is the father of the founder of Vision Forum who hails RL Dabney as a prophet. The Family Integrated Church (FIC) Movement draws from the ideology of Confederate Presbyterian writings like those of RL Dabney and BM Palmer, but individual FICs may or may not be kinist or pro-slavery (though many are). And on and on it goes.
There are many associations made and some quite rightfully noted, and each individual must decide what degree of association they are comfortable with in regards to support and participation in each ministry. As I’ve recently delineated in posts here, my convictions prohibit me from rightfully participating in some of these groups and have withdrawn support from those groups which validate and contribute to others on the list. One must be careful (as I may or may not have been in prior posts here) in making these associations, careful to not absolutely associate one group with another unfairly. Sometimes that proves quite difficult.
Is there guilt by association? Certainly. This post concerns perception. There is perceived guilt. Stacy McDonald mentions something like this in that online Gunn Brothers video (time mark 2:10). If a woman wears provocative clothing, should she be surprised if she is perceived to be of ill character? Stacy says that this is a foregone conclusion and that woman should not be surprised. Is such an association valid? For public ministries and teachers of Christian doctrine, I believe that it is very valid, especially concerning matters that require a distinction between that which is Christian and that which is political or related to the civil government. But how is guilt or implied guilt resolved? It's really quite simple. The supposedly guilty person can clarify, give a ready defense of their actions or their association, or they can repent. If the person has a stable and solid testimony historically, then the guilt is quite easily remedied.
Teachers are held to a higher standard. Ministers are held to a higher standard, and Christians are certainly held to a higher standard than unbelievers. Should these associations be public knowledge? I would hope so. Paul called Christians to be an open book -- living epistles to be known and read of all men.
May the Lord Alone Rise Again (Neither North nor South)
This is no easy thing. Many founding fathers criticized James Madison, Godfather of the US Constitution, as one who argued in opposition to the Federalists. Yet he was a formidable force with great tenacity. Was he wrong? Perhaps, or did he see something that others did not? Did he fail to appreciate the view of his critics, or were they in error? I’m certain that there is One who knows.
With the consideration of the neo-Confederate on my mind, I am reminded of Mark Noll’s book on the War of Northern Aggression entitled “The Civil War as a Theological Crisis.”
In that book he examines only the theological arguments presented by both the pro-slavery groups as well as those who argued for abolition. In many ways, he states that the arguments for the South were more robust, but it was ultimately given to the "Reverend Doctors William Tecumseh Sherman and Ulysses S Grant" to determine the truth. We then engaged in what I used to know as the bloodiest war in American History. The North used the case of slavery as a cover for economic exploitation of the South, something Noll does not discuss. And the Reconstruction of the South was very much like its own little war. By all constitutional rights, the Confederacy should have been permitted to secede, but Lincoln won the war, so here we find ourselves.
It is interesting that we find many rehashing over these old political arguments and dipping into the ideology of the past and the Bible in order to pioneer our way through our future. I’ve been around a few sides of a large and complex building of life, well aware of my perspective. Presuppositions have a great deal to do with our perspectives concerning matters of theory and ethics. I am studied in the Word, I am sensitive to the Spirit of God through my cultivated relationship with Him, and I am captive to my experience. All these speak and communicate what I believe is like a “system of checks and balances” all working to help me discern my course in life. When my “roof started to come off”, my heart condemned me, and I trusted that God was guiding me into all truth through each one of these elements, pressing on my whole being. I followed what I believe, based on all these factors, into a place where I now stand before God with confidence towards Him.
A friend of mine took a (British) online political survey that placed the participant on grid accounting for economics and social concerns. She called me to help her understand the meaning of the survey, and asked me what the correct position was. I fell somewhat near Milton Friedman in the Libertarian Quadrant which was no great surprise to me. Most all of our current 2008 political candidates (both Right and Left) fell into different positions in the same quadrant, no where near me. My friend fell right on the horizontal axis and very near the intersection.
It is my belief that many of my brethren from the upper right quadrant visited here in this place I have shaped in cyberspace recently. I believe that I’ve actually met some of you personally. Let me say that I ventured through your quadrant once and believed your perspective. Many aspects of it were true and honorable, but I believed that we held common ideals because I wanted to see them there. But with all honesty and with experience, I now stand in the only place that I believe Providence would have me. If that makes me a libertine or a feminist or a humanist or a heretic in your eyes, then call me what you must. But I ask that you consider this paradigm I present here before you do.
I learned yesterday that a notable figure in the patriarchy movement called for a "cease-fire" for the holidays. I didn’t believe that we were at war with one another, but rather a calling back and forth from each of our vantage points, hopefully all pointing in the direction of that City who’s Builder and Maker is the Lord. I hope with all my heart that all the people that I mention here, particularly those over the past month or so, are pointed at that Eternal Home. My efforts are not personal for the sake of strife but they are my contending for my perspective and my own understanding in full confidence towards God. Mark Noll says in his aforementioned book that our nation was given a wonderful roof of rights and freedoms through the Constitution, but our nation in the 1800s lacked “walls” of commonality. I’m saddened to see that within the Church and within our nation, this is very much still the case. In that sense, we are engaged in a war of ideology.
So let me take the opportunity for this record in cyberspace that I believe that our disparagements here are those of perspective and not matters of Biblical Authority. I believe, however, that it is wrong to enslave or surreptitiously manipulate any man, and stating that racism is a "wax nose" stands inadequate. From my vantage, my heart condemns me not, and I rally here for my brethren in my quadrant. Concerning some of these political perspectives within Christianity of both the Church and the State, I believe that we are just in different quadrants but all working according to God’s providential plan. I intend to stand where my heart condemns me not with faith in God’s continued guidance. I am committed to speak the truth, describing my perspective that views many brethren as false teachers. Some I believe to be wolves in sheep’s clothing, as I have been likewise accused. And some just have a different framework than I. For those aggressors who accuse me of heresy, defamation and bitterness, I ask that you seek after God and ask that He continue to bring us all into all truth. I honor your tenacity. I believe that Our Father is at work in all these things. So I bless you and ask for God to continue to bring you into the fullness of your high callings in Christ. Know that the only war I wage is against deception.
The only wars I intend to wage are those against lies, deception and tyranny. May the Holy Lord of All establish Himself and His truth in the hearts of all men. To that end, I will wage spiritual warfare, in season and out. Here I stand, God help me.
Patriocentric Fringe in the Catholic Church?
Recently, I’ve become acquainted with some Catholic Believers in the Lord Jesus who note nearly identical patriocentric trends in the Catholic Church as we’ve described with Evangelical Christianity, particularly within homeschooling circles. There are, reportedly, even European connections to neo-Nazi groups within the Catholic homeschooling groups, just as there is some overlap between patriarchy and those who espouse racialist/kinist/agrarian ideals. The many parallels amaze me, as the same message within a growing faction also now grows within a margin of the Catholic Church as well. Here follows an example of one of the many questions that these Catholic Believers posed to me:
“The main question my wife and I never could answer is whether this was a philosophical problem or a political one. (Which came first the chicken or the egg?) In all actuality it is probably both. As with all things human, ideas are eventually played out in action and politics.
I think this movement needs to be exposed and fought. Movements like James Town and Nazism are never fought until there is carnage or sexual abuse, but then it is too late. I believe that Perennialist ideals are forming a "Super-Religion" which can unite people of various backgrounds to common belief and action. It offers a salvation similar to the Marxist ideal of a paradise in this world. A paradise with no need for Our Lord.”
[Note: I understand “perennialism” to describe a society’s cycle through paradigms and prosperity as foundational, enduring, “perennial” truths emerge repeatedly within each cycle.]
Considering that the church and religion defines its own type of government and that the term “politics” defines that which involves law-making and governance, the question is one that is somewhat difficult to answer. I am reminded of Christian Reconstruction and the overlap of religious and political ends within the Christian Right. I certainly don’t agree with Berlet and Lyons
, bu I found their description of “Right Wing Populism” to be quite interesting, particularly pertaining to this topic. As I pulled this material from the book, I noted the many similarities between this approach and the tactics employed by the new, brave breed of “complementarians” that promote the concepts of “Christian feminism” and the “evils” of the egalitarian perspective as they attempt to “win the gender debate.”
I was also asked what I believed the “patriocentrist world” would look like. Given the authoritarian and elitist tactics employed thus far; personally, I believe that it would have some totalitarian, bureaucratic, Orwellian flavor of some type. Indeed, I hope that none of us find out.
A Review of Reviews of "Passionate Housewives"
Updated 06Mar09
Book Reaction Not All Positive
Saturday, January 12, 2008
"Passionate Housewives Desperate for God," co-written by Peoria-area resident Stacy McDonald, has come in for praise and scorn, which isn't surprising for a book that takes such strong stands on the issues of feminism and family life.
The most vocal critic of the book is Karen Campbell, a Canton home-schooling mom and former member of Providence Church, which McDonald's husband pastors. Campbell said she and her family left the Peoria church after attending "a couple years" due to disagreements over hierarchies in church and family. The Campbells left the church before the McDonalds arrived in 2006. "
[Karen Campbell told this blog host that they left because of the host of problems with patriarchy and patriocentricity, in addition to a comment from an elder: "The Klan did some good things."]
The Canton woman writes a blog, thatmom.wordpress.com, on which she and others have discussed in-depth her objections to the book, though she also said the volume contained "many good principles." She posted a negative review of "Passionate Housewives" on Amazon.com which included the following points:
- Campbell said authors McDonald and Jennie Chancey are misleading readers on what it means to be a faithfully biblical Christian wife and mother. She accused them of teaching that all women must "live just like them." Campbell, though, said she feels that different women have different callings at different times of their lives...."
Download the full article at the HERE
&
Read all reviews at Amazon.com
Karen Campbell has asked Stacy McDonald, co author of the book, to clarify some of the statements made in the book. Mrs. McDonald invited herself and Jennie Chancey, the other author of the book, for an interview by Karen Campbell on Karen's own website. Karen declined the interview but did invite the authors to clarify their statements online at http://www.thatmom.wordpress.com/, but neither author has responded to this opportunity.
The Campbells who oppose the McDonalds' concepts of so-called "Biblical patriarchy" as spiritually abusive have been quite aggressive with the Campbells for declining a dinner invitation. Apparently, the McDonalds have pursued a Matthew 18 confrontation with the Campbells because they declined the invitation due to these stated doctrinal differences. The Degenhart family, kinists who attend the McDonald's church (where the elder stated that the KKK had done good things) also invited the Campbells for a dinner invitation, just after Karen mentioned the Degenhart's appearance in a photo of the McDonald's congregation. (The photo was displayed on James McDonald's blog where Degenhart stands to the left of McDonald.)
Regarding Stacy's self-initiated invitation to participate in a podcast, Karen Campbell made this comment on her blog, True Womanhood:
This is from the thatmom blog in the comments under “a little podcast history” Let me add some more insights that might help.I believe that the Passionate Housewives book and the subsequent interviews have various layers to them. On the surface, a casual reader or listener who is a stay-at-home mom responds by feeling affirmed in her convictions about her life, especially after a difficult day of pouring out her life for her family. By reading the examples in the book of women like “Carolyn,” a career woman who doesn’t want children, or the soccer moms with their marble sinks, she is satisfied the she has made not only the right choice for her life, but she has chosen the role for women that God has ordained before the foundation of the world. This is an understandable response, since we all like to feel that our choices are validated, especially by God. But these sorts of caricature examples encourage the temptation to “compare ourselves among ourselves,” which the scripture tells us is not wise. ( “For we dare not make ourselves of the number, or compare ourselves with some that commend themselves: but they measuring themselves by themselves, and comparing themselves among themselves, are not wise.” 2 Corinthians 10:12)
However, if that same woman steps out of her own life and her own experience and examines the many presuppositions in the book and holds them up to the light of Scripture, she will have another level of understanding. She will see that yes, she is being obedient to what the Lord has called HER to do, but that her calling is not the same as another woman’s calling. She will begin to question the fact that there are examples throughout Scripture of women who were called to serve the Lord in a variety of ways. She will examine church history and see that many women who have been mightily used of God, even in our day, did not fit into the mold of a passionate housewife as described by these authors. She will begin to see that this worldview isn’t really a biblical one, but rather, one that is Americanized, especially if she is in tune at all to world missions.
Then, finally, if she looks at these same presuppositions in light of the other writings of the authors, she begins to understand on an even deeper level. She begins to be aware of an overriding, extra-biblical, patriocentric agenda that is being promoted. She measures what she is reading in the book with not only the authors’ other writings on women and their roles, and not only the ramifications of those writings, but she begins to see the inconsistencies between those writings. She starts to be able to recognize “patriospeak,” as it were, and suddenly her eyes are opened.
If you have listened to any of the interviews that have already been done with Stacy and Jennie, you quickly realize that they keep their interview on the first level and even state things that are not what they say elsewhere, including in the book. They are betting on the fact that most listeners have not read their other writings or have not watched any of their spots on documentaries. They are very shrewd, because if they were to openly state that women’s suffrage was a terrible idea or that women are blaspheming God’s name if they work outside the home, they would not be allowed on any speaking circuit. (It all reminds me of politicians whose views are radical and their handlers warn them not to tell the audience their real positions on issues. Just think presidential debates.) They are being the “kinder and gentler” patriarch wives.
So, you see, I am not willing to be party to the charade by handing a microphone to Jennie and Stacy, allowing them to give their first level presentation. I care too much about those who listen to the podcasts and I know that, before the Lord, I have a great responsibility to present things honestly and in an upright manner, which includes the deeper levels of understanding of this book and how Scripture has been used in it.
I also want to take Stacy at her word, that she honestly and sincerely wants to have an audience to be able to “clear up any misunderstandings.” That will be done in a format that allows for questions and follow-up questions that will enable us to not only look at the shiny new car, but under the hood as well.”
Download the other Peoria Journal Star articles featuring the McDonalds here:
