A Brief Note on Defining Kinism

False teachers are notoriously slippery. They will rarely answer direct questions with direct answers. They will often respond to exegesis and clear arguments with equivocations, emotionalism, and deflections. They will keep their teachings purposely vague in order to fool the gullible and naive. When their particular heresy is denounced by name, in a public relations game they choose another name. They will claim victimhood at every turn.

Kinists, like most other heretics, are experts at smoke screens, pious language, and will play word games to sidestep clarity and responsibility. When addressing any false teaching, these sort of tactics should be remembered, lest you be easily duped and only add to the confusion.

So, 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 is understandable, though not accurate. Kinism, though rightly associated with racism and racists, 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. The “goal posts” may be moved by sympathizers and apologists of kinism, but the unmitigated fact is that there is a clear thread throughout kinist writing. At its core, kinism is the belief that God specially ordained “races” and that He intends for us to preserve that division to one degree or another. Kinism believes that God ethically and specially ordained the nations and “races”. In short, kinism is a doctrinal conviction of anti-miscegenation. All positions commonly held by kinists flow from this key kinist doctrine. Much more could be said about the Biblical texts erroneously used to support kinism and how they reach their doctrinal position. For a deeper look at kinism look here, here, and here. For now, this concise definition will suffice.

It should be noted that kinists do not agree on all things. It should also be noted that the same could be said of every ideology. Some kinists, who wholly agree with the theology of kinism, may point to more radical kinists to differentiate themselves. As Dr. Joel McDurmon recently 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 do not negate nor diminish the error of kinism itself. The bulk of kinists believe that interethnic marriage is prohibited. I have yet to read a kinist that isn’t opposed to interethnic marriage. Some kinists condemn interethnic marriage by claiming it is a form of adultery, while other kinists condemn interethnic marriage without that particular use of terminology. Sex and procreation are the most intimate level of amalgamation and therefore are the first and most obvious 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 interethnic marriage 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 consist with their separation theology and refuse to worship with non-whites. Like with any worldview, some are more consistent than others.

Some have made the mistake of equating the functional applications of the 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 truly a kinst. 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 set of amalgamation forms. It is a doctrine, not an application of doctrine. It is the theological belief of ethical separation based on “race”. The degree of separation that kinists subscribe to will vary. Not even some of the most open and obnoxious kinist writers think that all “races” must be separated on a national level, though that may be their preference. We should be careful about defining a theological doctrine by describing its various functional fruits. For example, Christian Reconstructionism is not merely defined as being opposed to public schools, abortion, and excessive taxation. Though these practical positions are held by the vast majority of Reconstructionists, and although these positions are consistent with the theology itself, these positions are not adequate as a definition. There are many fruits of Open Theism that are both outrageous and dangerous. Would we excuse and join in fellowship with a missionary and teacher of Open Theism just because he was an inconsistent Open Theist that did not adopt all of the dangerous consistencies of his teaching? Even if the Open Theist was a really nice guy and has spent twenty years in jungles preaching a truncated Gospel?

I predict that some kinists (as well as non-kinist sympathizers) will become very slippery with the terminology. Shining light and adding clarity to a heretic’s false teaching is too often like nailing jello to a tree. I have already seen that some kinists have decided to call themselves “familialists”. When a heresy and injustice like kinism is exposed, the obfuscations come in-force. Instead of focusing on a particular fruit of kinism, such as not fellowshipping with non-whites, it is wise to remember what the foundational error is: the intrinsically divisive, theological separation of ethnicities (“races”) even within the Bride of Christ. How severe this theological separation is functionally practiced will differ, but the error remains the same.

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 be helpful in pointing out and correcting error, 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. Whatever kinists decide to label themselves, remember that the theological error remains the same whether they call themselves kinists or not. Find the root. Though kinism is an injustice to many people, especially those in interethnic 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 reflects on the character of God. It is slanderous to man, yet the slander and blasphemy it levels against the Almighty Living God is far more damning.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s