Since “kinism” has reared its ugly head again, let’s comment on what passes for a serious argument in “kinism.”
Segregation of animals, including man, is the law of God and the teaching of Christ. “Thou shalt not let thy cattle render (mate) with a diverse (different) kind. Lev. 19:19.
Of course, that says precisely nothing about interracial mating.
Everything after its kind is the fiat of God and the practice of the jungle. Genesis I:21,25. Genesis VI:19,20. Genesis VII:14.
Bestiality doesn’t produce offspring. The fact that interracial mating can produce offspring is, itself, definitive evidence of reproduction after one’s kind. So this example actually disproves the kinist contention.
There is no amalgamation, or interbreeding, of man and beast, the eagle and the buzzard, the lion and the leopard, the eel and the snake, or of different species of eagles or different species of eels, with each other, or the birds of different kinds with each other.
Of course, the Bible speaks of natural kinds, not species.
The American and the English eels breed in less than two miles of the same place. Throughout the thousands of years there has been no intermingling or amalgamation of the two.
A silly example since geographically isolated species of the same kind can interbreed if brought into contact. Crossbreeding wouldn’t be possible in the first place unless two species (or subspecies) were sufficiently alike.
When God directed the building of the Temple of King Solomon, at the time when He communicated direct with man, He directed that there should be separate courts, or apartments, for the Jew and the Gentile.
Here, ethnic distinctions are incidental to religious distinctions. And it was quite possible for an outsider to convert to Judaism and thereby become a full-fledged member of the covenant community.
Intermarriage was forbidden between certain tribes of the children of Israel.
i) Of course, that either proves too much or too little since the 12 tribes of Israel were racially homogenous.
If we applied this restriction to modern times, then it would forbid intermarriage between members of the same race unless they belonged to the same clan.
ii) This argument also ignores the fact that Israelite marriage was endogamous because ancient Israel was a tribal society in which the land holdings were common property of the clan. Therefore, you married within your clan to keep the property in possession of the clan.
When Joseph made that noon-day meal for his brothers he set them by themselves, and the Egyptians by themselves, “Because the Egyptians might not eat bread with the Hebrews; for that is an abomination unto the Egyptians.”
i) Which illustrates the prejudicial attitude of the Egyptians. We’re dealing with historical narrative. It describes various events. That’s doesn’t imply editorial approval of the events thus narrated.
ii) Moreover, appealing to the patriarchal narratives either proves too much or too little. Remember that Abraham recruited a wife for Isaac by going outside his clan.
He preached to the Jews and to no other nationality or race. This proves that the principle of segregation was the law of God and the teaching of Christ.
That’s a perfectly absurd inference. It disregards Jn 4. And it also disregards the multiethnic character of the church in the Book of Acts.
This being true, segregation of the white man and the Negro has scriptural authority and may be carried out with a clear conscience.
That doesn’t follow from his own examples. If blacks and whites are both human, then they are members of the same natural kind, in which case they can intermarry.
God made the white man white and He made the Negro black.
No, he made Adam and Eve, from whom we all descend.
This was not an accident, it did not “just happen.” He did this according to His purpose just as surely as He raised Pharoah up “for a specific purpose.” Inscrutable though this may be, and is, it is true nevertheless. This was not an experiment of God nor a temporary expedient. It was intended by Him to last till “time shall be no more.”
If you’re going to equate creation with providence, and then use providence to validate a particular outcome, then that argument either proves too much or too little since everything that happens is providential. Miscegenation is providential rather than accidental.
It would charge God with folly to say that He created the white man white, and the Negro black, and then “purposed” that they should amalgamate, and thus destroy the work of His own hand by amalgamating the two races, and thus destroy the identity of both races.
Do we charge God with folly when lions and tigers successfully interbreed?
And since, as a matter of fact, different races do interbreed, then if you’re going to invoke providence, you would have to charge God with folly for that providential outcome.
God says through Jeremiah 13:23, that the Ethiopian, the Negro, can not change his skin, and He implies thereby that he should not want to change his color, or in any way destroy the handiwork of God.
Of course, that verse has reference to individuals. The racial identity of an individual is fixed.
I am unable to understand how these “uplifting do-gooders” can think that they can improve on the work of the Almighty, the builder of Heaven and earth, by destroying all racial distinction.
i) But if he’s going to equate creation with providence, then a providential outcome like biracial marriage with biracial offspring is the handiwork of God.
ii) Likewise, racial diversity is not the original condition of mankind. That’s a result of racial diversification over time and space.
How can you oppose a change in racial identity when racial diversity is, itself, the result of racial mutability?
iii) Kinism would only make sense under the thesis of polygenism. If God originally created separate races which represent different kinds.
But, of course, Scripture teaches monogenism.
God did not say that He had made “all skin of one color,” nor does the scripture anywhere intimate that such would be desirable.
A red herring.
Intermingling of the two races on terms of social and friendly equality inevitably leads to intermarriage. Intermarriage leads to amalgamation. Amalgamation leads to racial suicide for both races.
Even if it came to that, what, exactly, is so bad about “racial suicide”?
Some people seem to believe that you can have religious intermingling and stop at that. Religious intermingling in the churches would lead to intermingling at social gatherings, which would inevitably lead to intermarriage.
What’s wrong with that progression? As long as the couple is religiously compatible, so what? Scripture opposes interfaith marriage, not interracial marriage, per se.
To say that the Negro shall not be permitted to worship in the white man’s church, but that he shall be permitted to worship God in his own church according to the dictates of his own conscience, does not deprive him of access to heaven or to church worship.
Notice the multiethnic character of Temple worship during Jewish holidays (Acts 2:5ff.; 8:27ff.).
As a matter of fact, he can worship God better in his own church with his own people in the environment that he himself provides.
i) Sometimes, although churches and denominations can become too insular and ingrown.
ii) In any case, that’s a matter of taste, not morality. And it’s voluntary, not obligatory.
It is an unwarranted assumption on the part of the white man to take the position that salvation must come to the Negro through the white man’s tutelage.
That’s true. Salvation can also come to the white man through a black man’s tutelage. You can have black pastors of white churches. Or Latino/Asian/Indian pastors of white churches, &c.
Some people say that the Negro is the equal of the white, at least, religiously, and entitled to full equality in all things, and then in the next breath, so to speak, say that he is the white man’s responsibility. That is blowing both hot and cold at the same time. That is a contradictory statement. He simply can not be our equal and at the same time be our responsibility.
True, but an incoherent, compromise position can be resolve in more than one direction.
The only way to improve the lot of the Negro is to imbue him with racial pride.
Why not imbue everyone with a sense of Christian duty? Wouldn’t that be a real improvement?
Teach him to be proud that he is a Negro. Help him to go to the height of his ambition and ability as a Negro.
Translation: try to brainwash him into thinking this is the way things ought to be.
And above all, be fair and just with him in all your dealings with him.
In terms of how to fairly treat someone you regard as your inferior.
One of the evils of “kinism” is that it tarnishes Christianity by association. It also tarnishes Calvinism by association.
Like many other cults, it piggybacks on something respectable to legitimate its disreputable position. That’s why Christians need to reprove it and disown it.