Kinism: Defining and Condemning
False teachers are notoriously slippery. They will rarely answer direct questions with direct answers. They often respond to exegesis and clear arguments with equivocations, emotionalism, and deflections. They will keep their teachings purposely vague to fool the gullible and naive. When their particular heresy is denounced by name, they choose another name in a public relations game. They will claim victimhood at every turn.
Like most other heretics, Kinists are experts at smoke screens and pious language and will play word games to sidestep clarity and responsibility. These tactics should be remembered when addressing any false teaching, lest you be easily duped and only add to the confusion.
What is kinism? How do we define it? Kinism is not a formal organization, it is a relatively new term, and its ideas are comparatively imprecise compared to other more ancient heresies. Some may believe that kinism is the same as racism. This misunderstanding is understandable, though not accurate. Though rightly associated with racism and racists, Kinism is not the same as racism. Kinism is a racist doctrine, but it is not synonymous with racism.
Though this term is not easy to define, it can be done. Sympathizers and apologists of kinism may move the “goalposts,” but the unmitigated fact is that there is a clear thread throughout kinist writing. At its core, kinism is the belief that God, according to his preceptive will, ordained “races” and that it is our moral duty to preserve those divisions. Kinism believes that God ethically and specially ordained the nations and “races.” This is in contrast to believing that God sovereignly, or by his decretive will, ordained the various races, people groups, nations, etc. In short, kinism is a doctrinal conviction of anti-miscegenation and racial separatism. All positions commonly held by kinists flow from this fundamental kinist doctrine. Much more could be said about the Biblical texts erroneously used to support kinism and how they reached their doctrinal position. For a deeper look at kinism, look here and here. For now, this concise definition will suffice.
It should be noted that kinists do not agree on all things. Some kinists, who wholly agree with the theology of kinism, may point to more radical kinists to differentiate themselves. As Dr. Joel McDurmon recently mentioned in a piece exposing two prominent kinists:
Such groups may disagree with each other on differing degrees of segregation, and they may even use more extreme positions as foils to condemn racism or heresy, or in an effort to prove their own freedom from racism. But in the end, the shared prohibition on interracial marriage shares the same principles at root as the more extreme views, and thus shows they are all of the same principle, just differing in degree.
The diversity of the fruits of kinism does not negate nor diminish the error of kinism itself. Most kinists believe that mixed-ethnicity marriage is prohibited, and I have yet to read a kinist that isn’t opposed to mixed-ethnicity marriage. Some kinists condemn mixed-ethnicity marriage by claiming it is a form of adultery, while other kinists condemn mixed-ethnicity marriage without that particular use of terminology. Sex and procreation are the most intimate level of amalgamation and therefore are the first and most apparent fruit of basic kinism. Even so, one popular (among their sect) kinist website claims that some kinists do not even go so far as to call mixed-ethnicity marriage a sin. On a FAQ, these kinists answer a question on interethnic marriage.
No, not all of us. Kinism should simply be understood as the view that, from the Christian perspective, race is real and important as a creation of God. Some kinists believe that interracial marriage is not a wise idea, while others go further, believing it is a sin. The former can be called “weak kinists”; the latter “strong kinists.”
Though we shouldn’t readily accept the overly broad self-definition of this particular kinist website, it is interesting to see the various forms this doctrine can take. Some kinists, supposedly, befriend minorities and fellowship with non-whites. Other kinists are more consistent with their separation theology and refuse to worship alongside non-whites. Like with any worldview, some are more consistent than others.
A theological support of racial or ethnic separatism is the core of kinism. One way kinism is often described is by having “natural affections” for your own “tribe” or “people.” There’s two things we need to understand about racially charged calls for “natural affections.” First, though it is natural to have affections for family and those close to us culturally and geographically, that is not the same thing as having “natural affections” for only people with the same skin color as you. When it becomes about having “natural affections” for White people but not Black people or other people of color, it’s not natural or reasonable any longer. It’s just racist. Second, the call to join together with and have community with only the ethnicity you have a “natural affection” for is another way of saying that you don’t want to join together with or have community with those outside of that ethnicity. Though this sort of person will use the language of affection (who could be opposed to affection, right?) the necessary “other side of the coin” is that they do not have affections for others who look different than themselves. The practical outcome of this sort of “affection” is racial separatism.
Some have made the mistake of equating the functional applications of kinist theology with the theology itself. For example, a questioner may ask a kinist if he believes different ethnicities can worship together. If the kinist says yes, the questioner is left confounded and may wonder if the man is genuinely a kinist. The questioner is asking good questions, but the wrong questions if he is to determine if someone is a kinist. Kinism, technically understood, is not simply being opposed to a specific list of ethnicity-mixing practices. Instead, it is a doctrine, not an application of the doctrine. It is the theological belief of separation based on ethnicity. The degree of separation that kinists subscribe to will vary. Some of the most open and offensive kinist writers, for example, do not teach that all ethnicities must be separated on a national level, though that may be their preference. They will, however, teach that there should be a family separation, at least, and often an ecclesiastical separation as well. We should be careful about defining a theological doctrine by describing its various functional fruits. For example, Christian Reconstructionism is not defined as being opposed to public schools, abortion, and excessive taxation. Though most Reconstructionists hold these practical positions, and although these positions are consistent with the theology itself, these positions are not adequate as a definition.
Bad theology, on its own, is dangerous, not just the practical positions that often flow from the bad theology. For example, many fruits of Open Theism are both outrageous and dangerous. Would we excuse and platform an Open Theism just because he was an inconsistent Open Theist who did not adopt all of the dangerous consistencies of his teaching? Even if the Open Theist was a charming guy who spent twenty years preaching in jungles?
There will even be some who are not familiar with the term “kinist,” yet they hold to anti-miscegenation as a “Biblical” conviction. Although labels can help point out and correct errors, we should not overplay the importance of naming an individual as a “kinist” or any other category of heresy. What truly matters are the doctrines, not the labels. There are the typical “paleo-confederate” or “ neo-confederate” kinists, but there are also “Christian Identity” and “British Israelites” and other distinct kinist sects. Some will proudly label themselves as kinists while others will not. Whatever kinists decide to label themselves, remember that the theological error remains the same whether or not they call themselves kinists. Find the root.
I predict that some kinists (and non-kinist sympathizers) will become very slippery with the terminology. Shining light and adding clarity to a heretic’s false teaching is often like nailing jello to a tree. I have already seen that some kinists have decided to call themselves “familialists.” The obfuscations come in force when heresy and injustice like kinism is exposed. Instead of focusing on a particular fruit of kinism, such as not fellowshipping with non-whites, it is wise to remember the foundational error—the intrinsically divisive theological separation of ethnicities in families and even within the Bride of Christ. How severe this theological separation is functionally practiced will differ, but the error remains the same.
I have recently observed that statements against kinism are being labeled as “blue pilled” or “woke.” Some are going as far as to paint condemnations of kinism as “race-baiting” or “Cultural Marxism.” In the current raging “culture wars,” far too many are willing to defend kinism or downplay the sin of kinism as it’s counter to much of what they see as “liberal” or “Marxist” in today’s culture. It’s certainly different than what’s popular today, but it’s not better. Brothers and sisters, beware of this reactionary tendency. Sometimes the antidote offered is just another poison.
Though kinism is an injustice to many people, especially those in mixed-ethnicity marriages, it is primarily an affront to God. Though less radical “weak kinists” may have fewer human victims, the foundational heresy sins directly against God. The doctrine of kinism calls good evil and evil good. That is an insult to God. It is slanderous to man, yet the slander and blasphemy it levels against the Almighty Living God is far more damning.
This article is an updated and revised version originally published here.