Galatians, chapter two, and really today we're going to be dealing with assorted text. Our topic this morning and this afternoon will be a biblical critique of racism and the kinest heresy. A biblical critique of racism and the kinest heresy, and I'm going to read from Galatians two, you'll understand why in a moment, but we're going to be dealing with assorted text. We're going to look at Genesis one. We're going to look at the Tower of Babel. We're going to look at the Old Testament law. We're going to look at Rahab and a number of historical examples. Galatians 2, then 14 years after I went up again to Jerusalem with Barnabas, took Titus with me also, and I went up by revelation and communicated unto them that gospel which I preach among the Gentiles, but privately to them which are of reputation, lest by any means I should run or had run in vain. But neither Titus, who was with me, being a Greek, was compelled to be circumcised. And that's because of the false brethren, unawares brought in, who came in privilege despite our liberty, which we have in Christ Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage. To whom he gave place by subjection, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might continue with you. But if these seem to be somewhat whoever they were, you make it no matter to me, God, except with no man's person, for they who seem to be somewhat in conference added nothing to me. But contrary wise, when they sought the gospel of their uncircumcision, it was committed into me. This gospel of circumcision was unto Peter. For he that wrought affectionately in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision, the same was mighty in me toward the Gentiles. And when James, Cephas, and John, who seemed to be pillars, received the grace that was given unto me, they gave to me in Barnabas the right hands of fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen in the end of the circumcision. Only they would that we should remember the poor, the same which we were foreward to do. But when Peter was come to Antioch, I was soothed to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain men from James, he did eat with the Gentiles, But when they came, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him, inasmuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation. But when I saw that they walked not uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, I said unto Peter before them all, If thou, being a Jew, livest after the manner of Gentiles, and not as do the Jews, why compelst thou the Gentiles to live as do the Jews? We are of the Jews by nature, and not sinners of the Gentiles, knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ. Even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of law. For the works of law, no flesh shall be justified." Today, we're going to examine racism, which has plagued mankind since the fall to a certain degree. And also, we're going to be looking at a modern, rapidly growing movement, primarily among reformed people and theonomists, called kinism. Kinism, or kinist, comes from the word kin, and you've all heard the expression kith and kin. And if you're down south, you know my kinfolk. We're going to go see my kinfolk. The movement seems to be a particular problem among conservatives and ex-theonomists. I say ex-theonomists because kinism is essentially racist and antinomian. It's appeal-wise in the fact that dark-skinned immigrants to the United States, whether they be Africans, or whether they be from the Caribbean, or whether they be Mexicans, or Central Americans, or South Americans, tend to be socialistic in their outlook, tend to be much more involved in crime, criminal activities, and have certainly been a drag in the United States culturally, politically, and socially to a degree. So they seize upon that fact and they come up with a racist ideology and they try to support it from the Bible. Some of their distinctives they believe that God intended from the Tower of Bible onward when they assert that the different races were created that man is to live in separation if the races are not to be mixed. And they also of course reject intermarriage even between professing Christians intermarriage of different races even among professing Christians, so we're going to look at that today. But we're going to look at each item in turn. Although the Kinnish literature on the web is almost completely devoid of biblical exegesis, that is, they do not take biblical passages and then give you a detailed interpretation of these passages, we're going to interact with their views of these passages of the Bible and prove that they come to the Bible with a certain worldview. or idea, and then twist scripture to make it fit with their concept of reality. So we're going to examine each passage in turn and look at their ideas. In fact, their use of the passages of scripture tells us more about their racist presuppositions than it does about the actual teaching of scripture. Let's look first at Genesis 125. The first passage, of course, is found sprinkled throughout their writings. as a support for their idea that interracial marriage between different racial groups or people groups is immoral and forbidden by scripture. It says, and God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Now, the kinnest in the websites I've looked at, does not quote the whole verse, but simply seizes on the phrase according to its kind. And this becomes a slogan. For example, the Kinnes Institute Manifesto says, we quote, we denounce the sin of miscegenation. The miscegenation is intermarriage or inbreeding of whites and other races. We denounce the sin of miscegenation as a violation of God's created order. So they're appealing back to Genesis, the creation account, which has permanent consequences for every heritable trait. We appeal to God's creation mandate of kind after kind. It is the obligation of both church and state to forbid mixed unions according to biblical laws prohibiting unequal yoking." End of quote. So that's one of their main websites. Now the basic idea behind this use of this phrase is that Africans should mate according to their kind or within their kind. Whites or Europeans should mate or breed only within their kind, and so on. This is their argument. This raises the question, is this a legitimate interpretation of this passage or even a legitimate application of this passage? Well, the answer is most certainly no. It is not. Not at all. In Genesis 125, Moses is noting that God created each kind according to a specific limited sphere of birth, function, and existence. A modern way of saying this, and this will help you understand this, is that God created distinct species in the animal world. Distinct species according to their kind. This is the biblical way of describing different species. Biologically, There are what is called a genus, a broad class of animals, and then you have mammals, reptiles, etc. Then within a group or subgroup, a genus or subgenus, there are species. These are groups of animals which possess in common certain characteristics, and they may interbreed and reproduce these characteristics. For example, dogs. We all know about dogs. There are many, many varieties of dogs. You've got Chihuahuas, you've got Great Danes, you've got Basset Hounds, you've got all kinds of dogs. Beagles. All these varieties. But a dog is a dog. A dog is a species and the dogs can interbreed. And if humanity blew itself up in a nuclear holocaust and there are no more human beings, and there were only dogs left on the earth, they would interbreed and they would revert back to your basic prototypical dog. The same goes for cats that can interbreed and things like goldfish and so forth. Dogs can have different varieties but dogs can only reproduce with dogs and dogs only produce dogs. Sounds simple. And it is simple. Dogs, if left on their own, would eventually go back to their original prototype. For example, I was into breeding goldfish at one time, and there's all sorts of these really fancy goldfish. Lionhead, Bubblehead, Bubbleeye, Shabunkin, all these different kinds of goldfish. But if you take a bunch of goldfish and throw them in a pond and leave them alone for 40 years and go back, they're all going to be playing goldfish. They'll all revert back to what they, their prototype. Things do not evolve into new species And each species is fixed by God and cannot interbreed with other species. Now, you can have a horse and a donkey and get a mule, but the mule is sterile. And horses and donkeys are very, very similar. That's the only thing I can think of that's somewhat of an exception. But even that is not an exception. And Paul says the same thing in a different way in 1 Corinthians 15, 39. All flesh, It's not the same kind of flesh. There's one kind of the flesh of man, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds. Keep in mind, Paul's making a really good point, and he's not using some modern scientific language. The flesh, the physical makeup of different species, differs considerably And each species is in a different, unique category. Thus, for a man to mate with an animal would be an abomination. It's unnatural. It's against nature. It violates creation. So with the meaning of this passage in mind, because that's what he's talking about, kind after kind, you've got your lizards, you've got your birds, you've got your gorillas, you've got all these different animals that God created. and they produce their own kind. They don't evolve into new species. There may be what's called microevolution, where if this gorilla lives in a colder climate, after hundreds of years its fur might get a little thicker, but it doesn't turn into a man. It remains a gorilla. With this passage in mind, we ask, does it have anything to say regarding interracial marriage between human beings? Well, note the following comments that apply to this debate. Number one, first, the different people groups of planet Earth or what is called races. Races is not a good term. There's one race, the human race, or the different races, so to speak, of humankind. They can all easily and successfully interbreed and interbreeding Let's say a Nubian or let's say an African with somebody from Sweden does not have any negative consequences for the children physiologically or mentally. They breed quite successfully and actually inbreeding is what's dangerous where you get a group of people living together and they keep inbreeding and then you get people with extra fingers and they're really good at playing the banjo. But that's not what we're talking about. different groups or races, so to speak, of humankind can successfully interbreed. They can give each other blood transfusions. And I like to watch World War II programs and I saw a program where a man was shot up and he just happened to be working near the black troops because at that time they were segregated and he got nothing but African-American blood transfusions for about a week and that saved his life. No problem because We're all human beings. We're all the same species. We're all the same race, really. They can give each other blood transfusions, organ donations, and so on. In other words, Asians, Africans, Europeans, etc. are all of the same kind or species. Well, this point is rather obvious since we all came from Adam and Eve. We're all related to each other. Therefore, this passage does not support the kinest or racist position but indeed rather disproves it, doesn't it? As we're going to see in this study, as the study continues, the great issue with the true biblical religion is not race, it's not ethnicity, but faith and ethics and your worldview. What do you believe? Do you believe in Christ? Are you saved? What is your ethics? It is not race. In fact, it is noteworthy that modern racist movements really came not from a biblical worldview at all, but from Darwinianism and macroevolutionary theory. Blacks were thought to be lesser evolved than whites. This was popular in the late 1800s. Jews and Italians were considered lower on the evolutionary scale than northern Europeans. If you go back and you read the stuff, the garbage that passed for science in the late 1800s, this is the kind of stuff you would read. The Nazi movement, the eugenics movement, Planned Parenthood, and the like, all flow from macro-evolutionary theory. And of course, all this kind of theory was considered to be scientific. We all know it's a total scam and a sham, just like modern evolutionary theory is today. But it was very popular, and it was even adopted by some professing Christians to justify racism. And then second, although the text does not support Kinnist or racist views, it does teach by implication and application that bestiality, And the attempt to blur species through cloning and so forth is immoral. People should not be trying to inter-clone species or mix species together. And certainly, it would be wrong for a man to marry a wildebeest or a chicken. The Bible teaches that. If the Kenneth uses the text properly, he would argue that whites should not intermarry with chimpanzees, orangutans, or gorillas. Whites should not adopt a culture or the practices of the baboon. or the given. But to use this against interracial marriage between solid Christians, or to argue that I must not eat sauerkraut and sausage, excuse me, I must eat sauerkraut and sausage because I'm German, instead of burritos and Kung Pao chicken is complete nonsense, as we're going to see. Racism is absurd, it's stupid, but it's growing in popularity. It is unscholarly rubbish. Well, that's that text. Let's look now at our second major point, which is the curse on Ham, or more accurately, the curse on Ham's son, Canaan. Turn to Genesis chapter 9, and we're going to read 20 to 27. And this is a passage that has been used by racists for at least 150 years, maybe more. And it was one of the chief passages used to justify Southern slavery. And it was even used by Presbyterians, racist Presbyterians. I'll begin reading at verse 20, chapter 9. And Noah began to be a farmer and he planted a vineyard. Then he drank of the wine and was drunk and became uncovered in his tent. And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father and told his two brothers outside. But Shem and Japheth took a garment, laid it on both their shoulders and went backward and covered the nakedness of their father. Their faces were turned away and they did not see their father's nakedness. So Noah awoke from his wine and knew what his younger son had done to him. You know, you've got to read between the lines. It wasn't just he saw him, it was He was mocking him or making fun of him. There was something lewd or perverted about what was going on. And then verse 25, then he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants, he shall be to his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord, the God of Shem. And may Canaan be his servant. May God enlarge Japheth, and may he dwell in the tents of Shem, and may Canaan be his servant. Now, racists have appealed to this passage, like I said, for at least 150 years that I know of. And the general idea behind this passage is that dark-skinned people descended from Ham, and dark-skinned people, especially Negroes or black Africans, have a special curse throughout history. It's a very common view. Now, here's some interesting quotes. Now, this is obviously not from Kinnes, but these are quotes based on this text. In 1958 the Mormon Church wrote this, now they've repudiated this since, but this is what their official position was in 1958, quote, we know that the circumstances under which the posterity of Cain and later of Ham were cursed with what we call Negroid racial characteristics, and then for a long time you could not have any position of authority in the Mormon Church if you were a Negro. In 1929 the Jehovah's Witnesses took this position, Excuse me. The curse which Noah pronounced upon Canaan, and this is a C-A-N-A-A-N, not Cain, C-A-I-N, was the origin of the black race. So here we are, once again, a racist, a racial racist interpretation. Now, although not appealing directly to Ham, a Kinnist website has approvingly posted the following racist nonsense. Listen to this. Quote. And they get this from this instance. The Negroes were political idiots, and the North, by trying to put them into political authority, had sinned against all knowledge. On the topic of the Negro's natural endowment, one finds the beginning of a division of opinion. For those some held that he could never compete with the white men in the arts and sciences, others believed that he had the potential ability to succeed in all of them, save that of political management. It is a further commentary on the traditional Southern view of the arts that no embarrassment was felt over conceding the Negro Even superiority in music, poetry, and oratory, as long as politics remain the white man's preserve. The sovereign Bibwak declared that he would not be surprised to see Negroes in another generation producing artists, poets, and orators surpassing those of the white race. But it regarded talent for self-government as the predictory gift of the Aryan. Now keep in mind, this is quoted with approval on Akinna's website. The Negro betrayed his unfitness for rule through absolute, unqualified veneration for power in its every form and symbol. He could understand only external control. Nature formed him for obedience. Even when he is righteous and apparently insubordinate, it is most generally his expression of contempt for what he deems weakness, an indirect tribute to that which he esteems the real representative of superior controlling force." Let me stop for a moment. Basically, what's going on here is this is the Southern argumentation for racism, the Southern argumentation that blacks should not vote, that blacks should be held in a position of inferiority as a race. and should not be given any kind of political power whatsoever. That's what's going on here. Continuing, more than one writer took the view that it was impossible for the two races to dwell together unless the blacks remained in a condition approximating slavery. And sometimes traditional religion was invoked to sanction such an arrangement. Thus, the land we love could save the nigger that from his history we infer that God has given him a tendency to thrive and multiply in a condition of servitude, and that, therefore, the servitude condition of the Negroes of the South was not contrary to the will of God. If they lived free of white supervision and control, they would assert their natural bent, revert to a primitive status, and so create a county in which no white man could dare to remain. DuBose's review suggests that within the foreseeable future, the Negro would drive the white man from his domain and so achieve an all-Negro South. This was accompanied by the realistic observation that no inferior race is ever practically and actually free when in contact with a superior. For the latter is certain to find a means of exploiting the labor of the former." End of quote. Well, that's a bunch of racist nonsense, as you know. Does the curse on Canaan or the judgment, the statement of judgment toward Ham justify the position that black Africans should always be an inferior subject peoples? Because that's the position of racists, and they get this from the Ham incident. And of course, the answer is definitely not. This curse, which is really a kind of prophecy, God is revealing the future to Noah, does not describe the inescapable fate of a whole race of peoples, but rather applies specifically to only one of Ham's sons, Canaan, which peopled Palestine and what became Carthage. The idea that it applies to all of Ham's sons, and thus to all of Africa, is not in the text and therefore must be read into the passage by racists. And this view became popular because of justifications for slavery and the rather common idea in the 19th century that blacks were an interferior intellectually to whites. And that is not only totally unscriptural, It contradicts what we just read in Genesis about kind after kind, blacks are human beings just like we are, but it also contradicts the fact that we have black intellectuals today that are brilliant. Thomas Sowell, for example. Some of the best Hebrew scholars and commentators agree with what I just said. Here's a few. H.C. Leopold says, quote, Much serious misunderstanding, and he's writing, I believe, in the 1920s or 30s. Much serious misunderstanding has grown out of a refusal to take this word at its actual face value, specifically the word Canaan. Ham is not cursed. No matter how freely pro-slavery men may have employed this text, Canaan is the fourth son of Ham, Genesis 10.6. And so it may roughly be said to represent one-fourth of the Hamatic race. He alone is under consideration here. The rest of the Hamatic stock apparently does not come under consideration because it is neither directly blessed nor cursed. Its influence on the development of the rest of the human race is practically nil and therefore need not be mentioned here. The descendants of Canaan, according to 10, 15 to 20, are the peoples that afterwards dwelt in Phoenicia and in the so-called land of Canaan, Palestine. that they became racist, accursed, and their moral impurity is apparent from passages such as Genesis 15, 16, 19, 5, Leviticus 18, and 20, Deuteronomy 12, 31. In Abraham's day, the measure of their iniquity was already almost full. By the time of the entrance of Israel into Canaan under Joshua, the Canaanites, collectively also called Amorites, were ripe for divine judgment through Israel, his scourge. Sodom left its name for the unnatural vice its inhabitants practiced. The Phoenicians in the colony of Carthage surprised the Romans by the depth of their depravity. Verily, cursed was Canaan." End of quote. So what do we have? We have a curse on one son, not a curse on Ham and the whole race of Africans. And then Derek Kidner writes, quote, if the curse fell on Canaan, youngest son of the offender, 10-6, who is himself the youngest son, emphasizes its reference to Ham's succession rather than his person. For his breach of the family, his own family would falter. Since it confines the curse to this one branch within the Hamites, those who reckon the Hamatic peoples in general to be doomed to inferiority have therefore misread the Old Testament as well as the New. It is likely, too, that the subjection of the Canaanites to Israel fulfilled the oracle sufficiently. See Joshua 9.23 and 1 Kings 9.21." Scholar Victor P. Hamilton says this, "'Canaan is to be a servant of slaves to Japheth, Rather than seeing this oracle as the ideology of Israel's rise to power, the conclusion most often reached when critical questions are raised, we prefer to read it as a prophetic, futuristic view of the relationships between Israel and the Sea Peoples and the Canaanites. In effect, it outlines future history when Israel conquered Canaan, and the Sea Peoples were carving out their own niche, and Canaanites held lands." End of quote. And then the great scholar. G. C. H. Alders writes this. Meanwhile, the actual curse that is pronounced can hardly be applied to Canaan as a person. To be sure, one individual could be relegated to a position of total seduction to his brothers, but the sentence can more fittingly be applied to a wider group of people or a tribe or a nation. Thus, we could apply the curse to Canaan's descendants. If this is the case, it is confirmed by comparing this curse to the blessings pronounced on Shem and Japheth, verses 26 to 27. There we know to reference dwelling in the tents, plural, of Shem. This would be descriptive of the tribal group that descended from Shem. By the way, the Jews descended from Shem. This also is the case of the curse of Canaan. We should think of the tribe that descended from him. How are we then to think of the fulfillment of this curse? Let it be emphatically stated that this does not refer to the slavery of the black person. There was a time when the practice of slavery was readily defended by an appeal to the curse of Ham. But there is not one shred of biblical evidence to support this theory. When we put all this data together, our interpretation of the lowest of slaves as a designation of a position of subjection under the control of other larger, more powerful nations becomes plausible. The Canaanite tribes always were in a place of subjection and inferiority to the great powers such as Egypt and the Mesopotamian empires. We know, in fact, that before Israel occupied the land of Canaan, the area was in complete subjection to Egypt. Thus to our minds, this to our minds, it suffices a fulfillment of Noah's curse on the descendants of Canaan." Gordon J. Wenham writes, the lowest of slaves, literally slave of slaves. See the expression, leader of the leaders, Numbers 322. King of kings, Lord of lords, Revelation 1916. To his brothers, that is Shem and Japheth, as verses 26 and 27 make clear. Let Canaan be a slave to them. How and when this prediction of Canaan's objection to Shem and Japheth was fulfilled is another subject of disagreement. Skinner sums up the problem neatly, quote, three points may be regarded as settled, that Shem is that family to which the Hebrews reckon themselves, that Canaan stands for the pre-Israelitish inhabitants of Palestine, and that the servitude of Canaan to Shem at least includes the subjection of the Canaanites in the early days of the monarchy. Beyond this, everything is uncertain." Therefore, many fulfillments of Shem's dominance over Canaan can be seen. It is difficult to know more when Canaan was subject to Japheth. The Indo-Europeans come from Japheth. Here's what Matthew Henry writes. So this is not a new view, this anti-racist view. Matthew Henry. He pronounces a curse on Cain and the son of Ham, verse 25, in whom Ham is himself cursed. either because this son of his was now more guilty than the rest, or because the posterity of this son was afterwards to be rooted out of the land to make room for Israel. And Moses here records it for the animating of Israel in the wars of the Canaan. Though the Canaanites were formidable people, yet they were of old and accursed people, and doomed to ruin. The particular curse is, a servant of servants, that is, the meanest and most despicable servant shall be even to his brethren. Those who by birth were his equals shall by conquest be his lords. This certainly points to the victories obtained by Israel over the Canaanites, by which they were all either put to the sword or put on tribute. Joshua 9.23, Judges 1.28, 30, 33, 35, which happened not till 800 years after this." End of quote. So we have a prophecy here that was fulfilled very specifically in the Canaanites who dwelt in Palestine. Yes, they had Carthage and Phoenicia. Carthage and Phoenicia will be defeated also. Carthage later by the Romans, and it was a slaughter. And then John Gill, the Reformed Baptist writer, writing after Matthew Henry, says this. But as both were guilty, as appears somewhat observed on the former verses, and Cain in particular was first in transgression, it seems most wise and just that he should be expressed namely, since hereby Ham is not excluded, assuring the punishment of the crime he had concern in, being punished in his son, his youngest son, who perhaps was his darling and favorite, and which must be very afflicting to him to hear of. And since Canaan only and not any of the other sons of Ham were guilty, he and not Ham by name is cursed, lest it should be thought that the curse would fall upon him in all his posterity. Whereas the curse descends on him and very justly proceeds in the line of Canaan. And it was rather mentioned because he is the father of the accursed race of the Canaanites, whom God abhorred, and for their wickedness was about to drive out of their land. and gave it to his people for an inheritance, and an order to which the Israelites were now upon the expedition when Moses wrote this account, and which must animate them to it. For by this prediction they would see that they were an accursed people, and that they were to be their servants. A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren, the posterities of Shem and Japheth, who stood in the relation of brethren to Canaan and his posterity. And to those he and offspring were to become the most mean abject servants, as the phrase implies. This character agrees with the name of Canaan, which may be derived from the word to depress or humble and make mean and abject. And Canaan shall be his servant. The posterity of Canaan's servants are to the posterity of Japheth, as they were when Tyre, which was built by the Sidonians in Sidon, which had its name from the eldest son of Canaan, fell into the hands of Alexander the Grecian, who sprung from Japheth. And when Carthage, a colony of the Phoenicians of Canaan's race, was taken and demolished by the Romans of the line of Japheth, which made Hannibal, a child of Canaan, say, and he's got a Greek saying here, that he owned the fate of Carthage, in which some have thought that he refers to this prophecy, end of quote. So we see here, this is not a curse on Africa. This is not a curse on the black race. This is not a curse on Ham, in particular. It is a curse on Canaan, which was fulfilled very specifically in the descendants of Canaan, which were the seven tribes which lived in Palestine, which the Israels were told by God to annihilate. They were placed under the ban by God. They were placed under a special curse, not because they were black, not because they were darker than other men, not because of race, but because of ethics. They were grossly immoral, sexually especially, if you read Leviticus chapter 18. So this is the common interpretation which contradicts the racist understanding of the general curse on Am, and all Africans is supported by looking at Canaan's descendants. They are the accursed tribe set apart by God for destruction and subjugation by Israel. Let's just note here, you got Noah, then Ham, then Canaan. The other sons of Ham were Cush, Mizraim, and Fut. Canaan, Sidon is first born in half, Then you've got the Jebusite, the Amorite, the Gergesite, the Hivite, the Arkite, the Sinite, the Arvidite, the Zemurite, the Hamathite, and afterwards were the families of the Canaanites spread abroad. And you're recognizing seven of these names were specifically said to be accursed by God and set aside for the ban, for complete destruction by Israel. And then Exodus 33 verse 2 says, And I will send my angel before you and I'll drive out the Canaanite and the Amorite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hittite and the Jebusite. The descendants of Canaan were rank idolaters and were known for their disgusting sexual practices, ritual prostitution, homosexuality, bestiality. Canaan's sin and its descendants' sins reflect the perverse behavior of Ham. In that incident where he was mocking his father, whatever was going on there. The curse on Canaan has nothing to do with race or skin color, but has everything to do with God's law and ethics. So get racial considerations out of your mind. It has nothing to do with that. That is the issue. Races take the focus off of God's moral law and place it on something physical or biological. And by doing so, they get people away from God's law into stupid human traditions that are complete nonsense. We have to focus on faith and obedience. Faith and obedience, not race. Well, that takes us to our third major point. Turn to Genesis chapter 11. Perhaps the most important passage of the Kinnest movement is the narrative dealing with the confusion of languages in Genesis 11, 1 to 9. The Kinnest has a unique interpretation on this section of scripture. It is their central proof text for racial or ethnic separation or segregation. And it is their central proof text against interracial marriage. One of their websites says this, just keep your finger there, we're going to get to that passage in a minute. One of their websites says this quote, Kinism is the belief. that the ordained social order for man is tribal and ethnic rather than imperial and universal. Mankind was designed by God to live in extended family groups. Blood ties are the only natural and workable basis for a healthy society, not subject to the ideologies of fallen men. We believe this is the normative system for our people, and by that he means white people. Here's what he says, we believe that our white people have a God-given right and duty to seek their own prosperity and existence as a distinct nation. And that shows a complete ignorance of both history and linguistics and as we'll see in a moment, the Indians of India are Aryans and they're actually more closely related genetically and linguistically to the Germans of modern Germany than the Germans of modern Germany are related to Celtic peoples in Ireland and Scotland. And I don't know if you've noticed, but some Indians are quite dark. They're darker than President Obama. So that's just a complete ignorant statement showing that they're just a bunch of racists. Well, the assumption of this quote is that there is either, one is either in favor of the kindest racist nonsense or one else, one is in favor of a one world government or some kind of giant humanistic empire. This is called the fallacy of black and white. The Bible, of course, rejects both. We're not in favor of a giant one-world empire, and yet we're not in favor of racism either. And racism is not necessary to avoid a one-world empire. Note also that the Kennist assigns to blood ties something that can only be achieved by Jesus Christ and his law work. Applied racism becomes, for the Kennist, a means of societal sanctification. This is unbiblical and reveals a complete lack of knowledge of history. Blood ties do not lower crime rates and stop wars. Anybody familiar with European history? Well, European history is a history of one war after another, from the Goths and the Visigoths to the wars of the Middle Ages. the modern wars, the wars of Napoleon, the wars of World War I and World War II. Race did not do them a whole lot of good as far as achieving peace. What we need is the gospel of Jesus Christ. Only Jesus Christ can bring peace between races. The high crime rates among non-white immigrants is due to their unbiblical worldview, not their skin color. And if you take blacks, or you take Mexicans, or you take whatever, Dominicans, and they're solid Christians, you don't have to worry about them robbing your house. They're not going to. Skin color has nothing to do with it. Race has nothing to do with it. Real Christian blacks, Mexicans, and Vietnamese, et cetera, do not commit crimes and go on welfare. Real Christians do not use race to favor one group in the church or society over another. Real Christians of another race, like John Calvin, John Knox, or let us say a godlier Chinese African pastor, would be a blessing to any society. To argue otherwise is to say that the gospel is less important or less powerful than race. And that's what they're basically asserting. They're exalting race as an idol above the gospel of Jesus Christ. They're saying Jesus Christ can't get the job done. The cross of Christ is not enough. We've got to add race to this equation. And that's a heresy. Racism ultimately is a denial of the efficacy of the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and therefore racism is a heresy. Another Kenneth says, when nations cease to be based on blood heritage rooted in a common heritage, culture, and language, they will inherently lose their common faith, end of quote. Then he refers to the Tower of Babel incident as proof of his statement. Once again, The Kynist has it precisely backwards. The only way to have a lasting heritage and culture is to have a common faith. You have to have a common faith. One faith determines culture, not the other way around. The Germans, before they were Christians, when the Romans first encountered the Germanic tribes, they were naked and they were painted blue and they were carrying spears and they had human sacrifice. What made him a good culture was this thing called the Bible, the word of God and missionaries, most of whom, by the way, were Irish or Celtic at that time. Missionaries, the Bible, Jesus Christ, the gospel is what you need. Once faith determines culture, not the other way around. Culture, to a large degree, is an external manifestation of faith. If we took some real Christian families from Greece, Africa, Spain and China, and we put them on an island, what would happen? They would develop a godly Christian culture. And it would be a place where you wouldn't have to lock your doors, it would be a place of peace and prosperity. If we took a bunch of white atheists or pagans and we put them on an island, there would be oppression, murder and suffering. And I think anybody who knows history, Nazi Germany, demonstrate what happens. to a nation or culture that abandons the Christian faith. Nazi Germany and the slaughter that occurred was due to the Germans abandoning Christ and adopting modernism and theories of science like evolution and eugenics. It has nothing to do, they certainly were wicked men and they were all white. Soviet Russia is another good example. The nations, these nations, Russia and Germany, did not have a race problem. They had a faith problem. They had a faith problem. The problem was they didn't believe the gospel. They didn't believe the word of God. Culture is an expression of faith. Indifferent elements of a culture, like eating rice and fish instead of wheat and beef, are adiaphora and irrelevant. If you want to wear wooden shoes, that's fine with me. If you want to have Kung Pao chicken instead of a hamburger, that's fine with me because that's not an ethical issue. The Bible talks in terms of faith and ethics and worldview, faith in life. There are elements of culture that are adiaphora, that are indifferent. That's why I can go to a Chinese restaurant or I can go eat Thai food if I want or I can have Italian food even though I'm not Italian. Here's another quote. Kinnest Institute Manifesto says this. Extended blood ties are the only natural and workable basis for a healthy society. A society not subject to the horrifying ideologies of fallen men, be they socialist or capitalist, autocratic or democratic. We believe that an extended tribalism is the normative system for our people. The white races of Europe, the Americas, South Africa, Australia, trans-Caucasia, or whatever our extended family finds itself in the modern diaspora. What morons? I mean, come on. They don't know that Indians in India are Aryans? They don't know that? Continuing, when kinism publishes materials disparaging of other racial ethnic groups, it is for the sole purpose of exposing the incompatibility and essential uniqueness of the cultures in question. Since the differences among men are, in large part, endogenous, in other words, they're intrinsic, they're built into who you are racially. It is neat that these differences will show themselves in the fruits of social organization, whether there is a difference in wealth position or in abilities of all kinds. We honor and celebrate the shared history and the distinctiveness of our people, its ancient heroes, its legends, its celebrations, and all of its variegated glories, while recognizing its failures, its latter-day degeneracy, and its need to universally submit to the law of God. 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." Now note just how unbiblical these assertions are. They're totally unbiblical. Quote, extended bloodlines are the only workable basis for a healthy society. Now, what are they saying there? Well, this is a denial of the gospel. In other words, the gospel of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit that flow from Christ's perfect work is not enough to restrain sin, hatred, and crime. That's what they're saying. They're saying the cross of Christ did not get the job done. Well, beloved, this is an explicit denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ. No, according to the kinest, racial blood ties are what are needed. This, once again, is a denial of the gospel, and it's a denial of the sufficiency of scripture. So it's a denial of solely by grace, solely by faith, and solely, sola scriptura. North America, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Europe are having their significant problems because they have abandoned Jesus Christ and his law work. That's the problem. That's the problem. Now their insane immigration policies do not help. That's true. But if they were Christian and they adopted biblical law, immigration would no longer be a problem. Roman Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism and the like would be against the law. And only Mexican blacks and so forth who renounced the idolatry would be allowed to immigrate. And of course, people who commit crimes, repeat felons according to the biblical law, are executed. You don't have prisons in a biblical society. There's restitution, and then of course for repeat offenders, for people that are career criminals, they're just killed. So immigration would not be a big problem. See, race is not the problem. Faith and ethics is at the heart of the issue. You give me a neighborhood of blacks or Mexicans or Chinese or whatever of solid Christians, I'll go live there. You can go live with the white atheists if you want because there's going to be crime with the white atheists who believe in evolution that we evolved from pond scum. There's not going to be crime with the blacks or Mexicans that are Christians because it's all faith and ethics. It has nothing to do with race. Note also the blatant racism. The differences among men we are told is endogenous. This word means that they are intrinsic to different racial groups. They flow from internal causes and thus cannot, the implication is made, they cannot be overcome by the gospel of Jesus Christ and the power of the Holy Spirit. That's what they're basically saying. Beloved, that's an explicit denial of the gospel of Jesus Christ. And it's a denial of the power of the Holy Spirit. It's a denial of God's omniscience, his omnipotence. Totally contrary to the gospel. The gospel brings Jews and Gentiles slaves and free together in Christ. Now we don't know this today in general but the Jews and the Gentiles in the first century when Jesus Christ walked the earth hated each other's guts and the Jews were the most racist of people. You read in the book of Acts when they had the early church and you got the Greeks and the Jews and the Jewish deacons they weren't bothering. They weren't taking care of the Greeks. the Gentile women in the church. So they had to get seven deacons. And you notice they all have Greek names to take care of. What a terrible thing that the Jews were racist. And the Gentiles hated Jews. It was common. But Christ overcomes that in the church and in a Christian culture and society. There is no longer Juno Gentile in terms of status, in terms of your place in society. All believing races are part of the same church and partake of the sacraments together. To have separate tables of fellowship, Paul says in Galatians, is an implicit denial of the gospel. If different races can be brought together in the church, then they can in a Christian society also. Citizenship of a culture, a society, a nation, citizenship should be by faith. If you believe in Jesus Christ, if you have a credible profession of faith, if you're a member of a reformed church, you should be a citizen. Whether you're white or what color you are is irrelevant. And then talk of this wonderful confluence of pagan and Christian traditions being, quote, irreplaceable and vital to our survival as a people. Well, that's unbiblical and it's more in common with the Nazis in the Bible. That's unbiblical, satanic rubbish. It's a sin. It's idolatry. Paganism has nothing to offer us. Nothing. It is offensive to God. All elements of paganism in our culture should be destroyed and replaced with godly counterparts. The gods of the Vikings and the old gods of the Germanic tribes and the old gods of the Celtics. It's a bunch of satanic excrement. And to say that we need to combine that with Christianity for our wonderful white culture is very similar to the Nazis. Once again, we see that the Kennists blatantly deny soul scripture and the sufficiency of scripture. The elements, once again, of culture that are on the offer are indifferent. Chopsticks, wooden shoes, unique foods, architecture, modest clothing, styles, etc. We can hang on to and use to God's glory. For example, if you want to make good use of German beer, or fine crafted German weapons, or sausage, or automobiles, but we leave behind pagan elements from Germany, Christmas, Romanism, and the satanic modernism of recent centuries. You take what's good that a culture produces, you leave behind the bad. Paganism is any form of satanic. Everything is to be used to glorify God. Now that we have seen some of the remarkably unbiblical statements of the Kenneth's movement related to their concept of the Tower of Babel incident, let us look at the text and see if it supports a racist or segregational agenda. Now go ahead and read with me Genesis 11, 1 to 9. It says this, Now the whole earth had one language and one speech. And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar, and they dwelt there. Then they said to one another, Come, let us make bricks and bake them thoroughly. Then they had brick for stone, and they had asphalt for mortar." Now keep in mind, that's how the Babylonians built their houses. They didn't have big rocks around, like the people in South America or people in certain parts of Europe. So they learned how to make bricks. And they said, Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower whose top is in the heavens. Let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth. But the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the sons of men had built. And the Lord said, Indeed, the people are one and they have all one language, and this is what they begin to do. Now, nothing that they propose will be withheld from them. Come, Let us go down and there confuse their language that they may not understand one another's speech. So the Lord stretched them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. Therefore, its name is called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth, and from there the Lord scattered them abroad over the face of all the earth. Now, not long after the flood, an apparently very large group of people journeyed together from the east and decided to settle in a very fertile area in a plain in the land of Shinar. The land would eventually become Babylonia in the Fertile Crescent. Babylonia is southeast of Mount Ararat where the Ark settled. They became proficient in baking bricks. They became proficient in building buildings. And their sin is described in verse four, Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower whose top is in the heavens." This is probably mainly a political decision, a decision of political rulers, of which the people hardly approve. The phrase, a tower whose top is in the heavens, simply means a very, very tall tower. There's nothing in here about trying to reach heaven or anything. They wanted to build a huge monument. They wanted to build a large ziggurat, which is a symbol of religious and political power in the Middle East, as well as among the Indians of the Americas. In fact, every ziggurat ever discovered by archaeologists had religious significance. It was a symbol of religious and political power, these giant towers. You see them in South America. They have steps that go up. Even the pyramids, to a sense, are ziggurats. made a lot more sophisticated. This large group of people was clearly pagan. There is no reason to believe that the godly remnant took part in this blatant rebellion against God. Their great sin and the reason why they wanted to build the large city and a giant ziggurat are mentioned in 4b. Let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be scattered abroad over the face of the whole earth. So what was their sin? First, It was pride. The city and the tower would be a permanent monument to their power and achievement. They were seeking the glory of man instead of the glory of God. Pride. Second, it was a direct contradiction and a high handed rebellion to God's command to disperse and cover the face of the whole earth. Remember, that was important to God. He wanted mankind to be have a lot of children, populate the earth, move out over the face of the earth. That was a command. God tells them to disperse and they say, we will not. We're going to build a localized, unitary civilization. We're going to build a giant empire here and now. Dominion over the whole earth means nothing to us. And they place themselves directly against God's stated plan for mankind. It's a high handed sin. The fact In fact, the singular city of man and the giant singular tower, a religious political structure, were in essence to be visible symbols of their unity. Here's what Leopold says, the tower was to provide the rallying point and to be at the same time a token of the union and purpose. They wanted unity and security through man-made law. in man's effort instead of obedience to God, instead of faith in God and obedience to his law work. They sought salvation through human autonomy and works instead of faith in God and his work. That's what's going on here, unity and security. Or we should say security through unity and the self-exaltation of man. An apostate, anti-God, religious culture, political, and linguistic unity. That's what they sought. Man wanted to make a name for himself autonomously apart from God's law, revelation and plan. So although they were rank pagans. They were they were self-conscious humanists by uniting mankind into a monolithic force in one giant city state, they were seeking the unity of their God humanity. They were men worshipers, thus third, it was a form of idolatry. This is, as I noted, an early form of humanism. And Rushdie's comments are quite good. He says this. The Tower of Babel was an attempt to force this apostate thesis of ultimate oneness and equality into all mankind. There was to be no division among men and no separation or discrimination, only an absolute unity. The religion and virtue or ethics of Babylon was to be the fact of humanity, and community was simply in the common fact of humanity. In the city of God, community is through the Redeemer and God. In the city of man, the society of Satan, the ground of communion is a common humanity irrespective of any religious or moral differences. All differences must be suppressed in favor of the anonymity of union. The good life and the full life are in and through the state. The theological requirements for the unity of the Godhead require this faith in the unity of humanity and its one true God. Let us build a city, a one world order and ushering paradise apart from God. In terms of all this, the meaning of the proclamation, let us make a name becomes clear. Let us be our own blessing, our own Messiah, our own savior and God. Let us be our own creator, our own ultimate source of meaning and definition, that there be no value above and beyond us. Let man be the source of definition, not the subject of it. Let man be beyond good and evil and beyond meaning. since he himself is the source of all definition." End of quote. So we see what's going on here. It's just not some people, oh, we want to build a nice city. This is a quest for complete domination, humanism. Well, what was God's judgment or method of dealing with this rebellious situation? And then we'll have to carry this over in the afternoon, but let's just finish this one section. In verses 5 and 6a, the triune God observes the situation and notes this unity. Indeed, the people are one and they all have one language. Then in verse 6b, God assesses the situation. And this is what they began to do. Now, nothing they propose to do will be withheld from them. Yahweh states that nothing will be able to restrain this evil plan and its consequences unless this building project and this quest for a humanistic unity is halted. God makes it clear that this humanistic, idolatrous, godless one-world government and civilization must be stopped for God's plan for mankind to go forth. Now we need to remember the broad context. God has just recently destroyed the whole human race through the flood except for one family because of their extreme wickedness. God wants to restrain man's wicked plans without once again bringing total destruction. So in reality, we have a judgment here, but it's a merciful judgment. He could have just crushed him. What then does God do? Well, in verse seven, we read this. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, that they may not understand one another's speech. The result of this miraculous action is given in verse eight. So the Lord scattered them abroad from there over the face of all the earth, and they ceased building the city. This was a judgment with a permanent effect. The separate languages resulted in separate groups, people groups, or separate tribes, city states, and eventually separate nations. Separate languages, tribes, and nations will exist at the second coming of Christ. And Paul discusses them also in Acts when he confronts the pagan Greeks of the Areopagus in Acts 17. It was a brilliant judgment. God could have destroyed the partially built tower and leveled their city. But that would have only dealt with the problem temporarily. Towers and cities can be rebuilt. But if the leadership and the workforce are divided into separate linguistic groups and cannot communicate with each other, the unity necessary to continue the work is destroyed. That's the purpose here. The confusion, no doubt, brought fear and great bewilderment, and the different linguistic groups went their separate ways. God's purpose in thwarting a great pagan, godless empire and in spreading humanity over the whole earth was accomplished." It worked. Now, we're going to raise a question, then we're going to take a break, and then we're going to come back and finish this afternoon. All of this raises the question, does this section of scripture condemn interracial marriage, as the kinest and the racist believe. Does it teach that each racial group must remain completely separate because that is God's plan for humanity? Well, the answer to this racist nonsense will be seen this afternoon. Let us pray. Heavenly Father, we give you thanks for your word. We know from your word that the solution to racism is the Lord Jesus Christ and his person in work, his perfect accomplished redemption. And we know from the book of Revelation that all tribes, nations, peoples, and tongues will be one congregation worshiping before the Lord. We know that all men who believe in the Lord Jesus Christ are brothers and sons of God. And we know that the solution to hatred and strife and warfare and cultural degradation and crime and the faltering of nations. The solution is for people to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and submit to his law. Lord, we ask for revival and reformation in our day. We ask that people would bow the knee to Christ and abandon racism and abandon secular humanism and all these stupid human ideas where they seek solutions in man-made ideas. when we have the solution right before us, the Lord Jesus Christ. We ask this in Jesus' name. Amen.