Theologically Sound. Culturally Relevant.

Stephen Wolfe

Samuel Sey Libels Stephen Wolfe

Stephen Wolfe is no stranger to controversy. The author of The Case For Christian Nationalism has many detractors. In our interview with him earlier this month we explored some of the controversy surrounding him. Samuel Sey is one of the up and coming writers in Evangelicalism and has not been shy about calling opponents racist despite at one point standing against Critical Race Theory. 

His most recent attack on Stephen Wolfe attempts to attack him in a way that was settled quite some time ago on a different interview, thus we didn’t retread the kinism allegations. Yet Samuel Sey does rehash kinism allegations against Wolfe, calling him “one of the most influentual Kinists in evangelical circles.” His article “Why Some Evangelicals Are Embracing Racism” thus violates the 9th Commandment by labeling Wolfe something he has repeatedly said he is not.

And Samuel Sey’s justification is that Wolfe believes that preserving ethnicity is a good thing.

“People of different ethnic groups can exercise respect for difference, conduct some routine business with each other, join in inter-ethnic alliances for mutual good, and exercise common humanity (e.g., the good Samaritan), but they cannot have a life together that goes beyond mutual alliance…What I am saying is that in-group solidarity and right of difference along ethnic lines are necessary for the complete good for each and all.”

However, Stephen Wolfe is not against interracial marriage as would be necessary in order to be a kinist as evident by his lauding of Justice Thomas’ marriage.

He also labels Andrew Torba, founder of Gab, a kinist, despite the fact that he too is not opposed to interracial marriage.

Kinism is an ideology within some Reformed circles that teaches that a person’s so-called race makes them “kins” or related to people within their racial group. According to Kinists, all white people have a shared ethnicity and culture that should be preserved. Therefore they support racial segregation in communities and families. Meaning, they’re especially opposed to immigration (not just illegal immigration) and “interracial” marriage.

Samuel Sey might be unaware that the word kindred is used in the earliest New Testament English translations to address race and ethnicity which would actually make the starting premise of Kinism consistent with how the author’s of Scripture would have seen it.

Just as most Big Eva leaders (mainstream evangelical leaders) do not embrace every facet of critical race theory, not all Kinists embrace every facet of Kinism. However, their soft form of Kinism isn’t any less destructive than a soft form of critical race theory. 

These Kinists are significantly smaller in number and influence than professing Christians who’ve embraced critical race theory. However, they’re less uncommon than you might think.

Samuel Sey attempts to draw a moral equivalency between Critical Race Theory and Kinism despite the demonstrable pattern of destruction the former has demonstrated to society for all races involved. The moral equivalency doesn’t exist because if a society adopts Kinism as Sey sees it, it does not implode on itself like we’ve seen from post-Apartheid South Africa which adopted Critical Race Theory whole cloth.

This is a soft liberalism in calling opponents racist because you disagree with their embrace of racial consciousness as a defense mechanism against Cultural Marxism. It’s also an agreement with the Cultural Marxists who believe that race was an invented concept. Neither Stephen Wolfe nor Andrew Torba’s views on race fit neatly in the categories established by Political Correctness or the Post-War consensus, and this is ultimately what their detractors are unwilling to admit they’ve been influenced by.

Support the Evangelical Dark Web

By becoming a member of Evangelical Dark Web, you get access to more content, help drive the direction of our research, and support the operations of the ministry.
Receive the Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.


3 Responses

  1. “groups have a collective duty to be separate and marry among themselves”

    Seems to me that is indeed soft kinism, at best. And it is nowhere to be found in scripture. There is no such Biblical duty.

    There is no such Biblical duty. There is no such thing as “collective duty” in scripture at all – with respect to anything. Our duties are individual duties, which are ultimately a matter of duty to the Lord. These individual duties may require cooperation with fellow believers, but the individual duty itself is not to the collective – it is to the Lord. Further there is no Biblical charge for any and all groups, based on any and all criteria, to remain separate.Our duty to separate (which includes turning away and having no association, in certain cases) is delineated by two, and only two, groups, believers and unbelievers. Our kin is fellow believers. Our kin is our brothers and sisters in Christ. Our duty is to separate along that line, and no other, and if we marry, to marry along that line, and no other. Not as a collective duty, but as duty and service to the Lord.

    The problem is that both “sides” are getting in God’s way, encroaching on His domain and His authority. They’re trying to bring about their own vision for the future of mankind, and how they think things should be, rather than submitting to the Lord and letting Him deal with things that are His and His alone to deal with.

    Let go and let God …

    Just as forced/coerced diversity is bad, so is forced/coerced lack thereof.

    It’s God’s domain. Quit leaning on your own understanding. Shut up about it, and get out of His way. Let Him deal with it according to His vision. The more you talk about it, the more you encroach on His authority.

    I don’t know enough about either Wolfe or Sey to jump to the defense of either man. But Sey’s particular article in question was pretty much spot-on. He’s calling out both sides, and both sides need to be called out.

    1. And when I say the line is between believers and unbelievers, I’m talking about true believers, not those who claim to be believers but pervert the grace of God into license for immorality, continue in sin, justifying wickedness and condemning righteousness, bearing such bad fruit. They are not born again Christians. Such are not believers.

    2. Frankly, the idea that there is or should be delineation based on skin color, is just plain stupid. Both sides are being stupid.

      Joe Biden is white. The progressives pushing and imposing abominable sin are white. Europe is the epicenter of it.

      God’s word specifically tells us not to associate with such people. They are not our kin.

      It is sinful to conflate skin color with wickedness. And it’s also, frankly, just plain stupid.

Leave a Reply

Get Evangelical Dark Web Newsletter

Bypass Big Tech censorship, and get Christian news in your inbox directly.

Join 5,117 other subscribers

Trending Posts