Marriage is a sacred institution in the Christian faith, a union specifically created by God when he first placed man in the Garden of Eden (see Gen. 2). The union of one man and one woman in a lifelong monogamous relationship is the only design God gives for sexual intimacy and is the very foundation for the family, the very means by which God would populate the Earth (Gen. 1:28). The Christian faith places great emphasis on marriage and vigorously defends it against worldly ideologies. Or, at least it should. Unfortunately, some of the worst attacks against God’s institution come from within the ranks of those who profess the Christian faith. This is why it is necessary for the church not only look at assaults from without, but also defend marriage from within.

Kinism

One such assault on the institution of marriage comes from those who hold to the ideology of “Kinism.” The website “Got Questions” describes Kinism as “one branch of a diverse series of religious movements that promote racial segregation,” and “that God has ordained an order for mankind that goes beyond personal and individual worship. They believe God has set boundaries for groups of human beings and that human beings should respect those boundaries by maintaining tribal order.” In other words, God restricts marriages along ethnic lines (i.e., whites marry whites, blacks marry blacks, etc) and that crossing those ethnic lines is a violation of God’s created order. Depending on what kind of Kinist one encounters, that violation can be viewed as “not ideal” or outright sin against God.

While it may seem obvious to the average Christian that such views are antiquated ideas of the past, it is sadly an all too common occurrence that manifests itself in numerous ideological groups, including the church. Most recently, it has found root in what is called Christian Nationalism, a movement that purports to change the culture by forming a uniquely Christian form of government that imposes legal obligations on all citizens to act according to Christian doctrine. This movement seeks out disenfranchised young men and women who feel anger toward the leftist ideologies forced on the culture, specifically those that teach that “white” persons are fully responsible for systemic oppression of minority ethnic groups. Kinism has become a tool by which Christian Nationalist leaders seek to restore white persons to prominence in the culture. Therefore, Christians must be aware of the claims of Kinism and how to respond to its teachings.

How Does Kinism Justify Its Beliefs?

There are two very prominent streams of thought for Kinists: biblical support and the civil good. Within the stream of biblical support, Kinists point to several passages of Scripture by which they argue God has established that marriage should be restricted to particular races.

It should be noted that “race” is a common descriptor for Kinists, and they argue it is a biological reality. However, the term “race” has been demonstrably shown to be a leftist ideological construct specifically created to claim that one’s skin color alone carries with it certain immutable and monolithic defining characteristics. This term is then used to further create social Marxist ideologies that divide races into oppressor and oppressed groups. Pastors and public speakers Darrell Harrison and Virgil Walker have covered this topic in depth on the podcast, Just Thinking. It is important to address this issue upfront because there is a difference between “race,” which is an artificial construct, and ethnicity, which is grounded in biological and genetic realities. One can have several ethnic backgrounds from which their family line is drawn, but have a particularly dominating skin color. Therefore, skin color alone is not sufficient to determine someone’s ethnicity.

Kinists attempt to find support in multiple passages. First, they appeal to Genesis 11:1–9, which describes the account of the Tower of Babel. Here, mankind has gathered as one people group and seeks to build a tower to the heavens. God comes down and confounds the languages of the people, forcing them to separate into various groups, which move into the various regions of the world. Kinists argue that God intentionally confounded those languages to create and segregate the different nations away from one another. They state that any attempt to introduce interracial marriage is seeking to undo God’s purposeful creation of the racial divide.

Another argument appeals to Genesis 24:1–9 wherein Abraham sends his servant back to his own family to find a wife for Isaac, as he did not want his son to marry from among the Canaanite women. Kinists argue that this is evidence of God approving and desiring Abraham’s line to remain racially pure. In a similar argument, some may appeal to Numbers 12, where Moses is verbally attacked by Miriam and Aaron for his marriage to a Cushite woman. Once again, the argument claims that this is the normative view of Scripture and that marriages are to be maintained along racial lines.

Perhaps the most common argument refers to God’s commandment in the law to the nation of Israel after the Exodus. In Deuteronomy 7:1–5, God commands Israel regarding the other nations, “You shall not intermarry with them, giving your daughters to their sons or taking their daughters for your sons” (Deut. 7:3). This is put forth as one of the strongest reasons to believe that God intends for his people to maintain racially pure marriages. This argument is extended into the New Testament when Kinists explain that God maintains those ethnic divisions even in Heaven when they appeal to Revelation 7:9–10 which reads, “After this I looked, and behold, a great multitude that no one could number, from every nation, from all tribes and peoples and languages, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, with palm branches in their hands, and crying out with a loud voice, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” However, Kinists do not end their claims here. They also appeal to arguments for the civil good.

One argument has been popularized by Christian Nationalist writers such as Stephen Wolfe (author of The Case for Christian Nationalism). The argument claims that nations must be built around a homogenous people group and that marriages that intermix with various racial groups dilute and ultimately destroy that homogeneity. Therefore, for a nation to restore its nationalistic might, there must be an end to interracial marriages and a reestablishment of racially pure unions. Furthermore, Kinists also argue that interracial marriages are “not ideal” in either God’s design for the civil good. They claim that racially mixed marriages have to contend with culturally different backgrounds, which bring about conflict in the home and family. While these differences can occasionally be overcome, it is less-than-ideal and should be avoided. They claim that racially homogenous marriages lack such conflict and provide a more stable union; therefore, this should be the norm in a nation.

As one can see, the claims of both biblical and social support are numerous and varied. With that said, Christians must examine these claims to see if they are true.

How Do We Respond?

The Biblical Response – Old Testament

Concerning the Tower of Babel, Kinists argue that God intentionally created racial divides that are not to be undone. But does that hold up to the context of the passage? In Genesis 9:1, God had given Noah and his sons the command to leave the ark and to go be fruitful and multiply across the earth. Genesis 10 then gives us the genealogy of Shem, Ham, Japheth (which astute readers will note means that by the time of Babel, their descendants would still be ethnically connected to one another). When the people come together to build the tower, they do so as an act of defiance to God, who has commanded them to disperse and multiply:

Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.”(Gen. 11:1–4)

The very intention of the people was to remain as one unified group who would defy the God who created and provided for them. It is for this act of rebellion that God comes and judges the people:

“And the Lord said, ‘Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.’” (Gen. 11:6–7)

God’s judgment has nothing to do with establishing racial lines but with forcing the people to disperse throughout the world to keep them from being unified in their sinful defiance against him. The Kinist argument falls flat in the face of Scripture’s own testimony.

Likewise, an examination of Genesis 24 helps us see that Kinists are imposing their own bias on the text. When Abraham calls his servant to go seek a wife for Isaac, his specific direction to the man is, “that you will not take a wife for my son from the daughters of the Canaanites, among whom I dwell, but will go to my country and to my kindred, and take a wife for my son Isaac” (Ge 24:3–4). No further explanation is given by Abraham. His only justification is that he did not want Isaac to marry from among the people where they lived. One can speculate that Abraham was motivated by one of multiple reasons. Perhaps it was due to a cultural desire to maintain national lines; however, it is equally possible that he did not want Isaac to marry a pagan wife who would lead him into idolatry. Either of these could be the motivation; however, none can be definitively stated to be true, as the text does not say. Scripture does not present this as either a command from God, nor does it indicate that God approved or disapproved of the matter. This is simply a descriptive text that tells the reader what happened; it does not prescribe that any person must do as Abraham did. To argue this as proof of Kinism as normative simply does not hold up.

An examination of Numbers 12, where Miriam and Aaron mock Moses’ wife, it is clear that their verbal assault had more to do with their objection that Moses had authority and power that they desired. Their attack on Moses was swiftly judged by God, indicating that he viewed their actions as sinful and rebellious. There is no justification for believing that this moment upholds a Kinist view.

Regarding God’s commandment on whom his people could and could not marry, it becomes clear that it is not ethnicity that God is seeking to preserve, but right worship from Israel. When God commands the Israelites not to intermarry with the other nations, he states, “for they would turn away your sons from following me, to serve other gods. Then the anger of the Lord would be kindled against you, and he would destroy you quickly” (Deut. 7:4). If the Israelites married pagan men and women, it would only be a matter of time before they were led into idolatry. In fact, this very thing happened numerous times throughout the history of Israel, and God punished them every single time. The issue was not racial division; it was a matter of right worship. God did not prohibit other nations from coming to him. Under the law, sojourners could become Israelites by entering the covenant relationship and submitting to the requirements of the law (see Ex. 12:43–49). Furthermore, the Moabitess Ruth was redeemed by Boaz and became part of the family line that would later birth both King David and Jesus himself (see Ruth 4). In both cases, these foreigners became part of the covenant people of Israel even though they were not ethnically Jews. Thus, Kinism’s appeal to the law of God does not measure up in light of the full revelation of Scripture.

New Testament

There is little to no biblical appeal for Kinist beliefs to be found under the New Covenant. However, it is important to understand God’s institution of marriage in light of the New Testament. According to the Apostle Paul, God’s purpose in marriage is a revelation to the world of the relationship of Christ to his bride, the church (see Eph. 5:22–33). Within that marriage relationship, men are called to sacrificially love their wives as Christ loved the church and gave himself for it. Women are called to submit to their husbands as unto the Lord. These roles are a microcosm of the relationship of the people of God who are called to lovingly submit to their Savior, who died in order to redeem them. Marriage is not a tool from which to preserve the races, rather it is a picture of the gospel lived out in real time for the world to see. For further information, please read Submission and Love – Biblical Marriage Defined.

Christians are a people who are not primarily identified by their earthly status, instead they are identified by their union with Christ. Paul explained that Jews and Gentiles were no longer a divided people in Christ, but were made as one new man, a new creation:

Therefore remember that at one time you Gentiles in the flesh, called “the uncircumcision” by what is called the circumcision, which is made in the flesh by hands— remember that you were at that time separated from Christ, alienated from the commonwealth of Israel and strangers to the covenants of promise, having no hope and without God in the world. But now in Christ Jesus you who once were far off have been brought near by the blood of Christ. For he himself is our peace, who has made us both one and has broken down in his flesh the dividing wall of hostility by abolishing the law of commandments expressed in ordinances, that he might create in himself one new man in place of the two, so making peace, and might reconcile us both to God in one body through the cross, thereby killing the hostility. (Eph. 2:11–16)

Furthermore, Paul wrote to the Galatians that their ethnicity and sex were no longer the defining issues of their identity:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is no male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you are Christ’s, then you are Abraham’s offspring, heirs according to promise. (Gal. 3:28–29)

This is not to be taken as though Christians are now some kind of androgynous drone who has no genetically defined ethnicity, as some Kinists have attempted to retort. Nor is it an escape valve from which the biblically defined roles of men and women can be ignored, as progressivists attempt to claim. Rather, these passages define for the Christian that their primary identity, the thing that binds them altogether and separates them from the world, is their unity in Christ.

When this is examined in light of the sacred institution of marriage, Christians can then understand why Paul commands, “Do not be unequally yoked with unbelievers. For what partnership has righteousness with lawlessness? Or what fellowship has light with darkness?” (2 Cor. 6:14). Paul established that there are truly only two races, those in Adam and those in Christ (Rom. 5:12–21), and he forbids any union of a believer to an unbeliever. This harkens back to God’s commandment to Israel not to intermarry with the pagan nations. God’s design for marriage is that Christians—people of all tribes, nations, and tongues who are one in Christ—would live lives of submission and love so that the gospel would be pictured for all the world to see. There is no rational means of applying Kinist ideologies of marriage under the New Covenant context.

Lastly, when we look at the cited passage in Revelation, there is no reason to believe God is presenting this time of magnificent worship as proof that division along ethnic lines is his specific goal. When John views this moment, he sees them together as one body singing praise, “Salvation belongs to our God who sits on the throne, and to the Lamb!” (Rev. 7:10). Rather than the body of Christ being relegated to one geographic location in the world, it is made up of all nations, tribes, and tongues. These are people who have been brought into the new covenant, not by birth and submission to the law, but by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. It is telling that they are not focused on their racial differences, but on the worship of Christ. This is not evidence that God maintains racial lines in Heaven; it is evidence that the grace of God is available to all persons, in all cultures, at all times.

The Civil Good Response

The two issues that have been raised are the question of the ideal marriage and the issue of national homogeneity. Regarding how racially different spouses bring different cultural backgrounds, one would think that there must never be any conflict between any two people ever if they share the same skin color. Nothing could be further from the truth. Differences in economics, education, family values, religious or philosophical beliefs, even hobbies and personal interests, are all fertile ground in which any two spouses could find themselves at odds. The truth of the matter is that skin color alone does not confer some kind of unified sameness that prevents conflict in marriage. Every marital union is subject to disagreement and discord because two sinful people have been joined together for life, and they must learn to love and live together through compromise and working to find common ground. Scripture gives Christians the tools to find beauty and harmony in marriage; it simply takes the work to make it happen.

When it comes to the issue of national homogeneity, this becomes a more complex issue. Certainly, if one were to look at European, Middle Eastern, or Asian nations, the people of those lands share common genetics. Following the dispersion after Babel, we would expect that people would move to various areas, plant nations, and grow as a homogenous people. Those nations change, and migration of other people will impact the genetic lines, but it is not uncommon to find such nations to be filled with ethnically similar people groups. But what about America? Is it appropriate to demand that this nation conform to such a standard, given its unique history? In a word, no.

From its first discovery nearly three centuries ago, America has always been a land of numerous ethnic groups. The French, English, and Spaniards were among the first to travel here and plant colonies. Following its founding as a nation, America imported (sometimes as slaves) numerous ethnic groups. The government even encouraged mass immigration from other nations for a variety of reasons. All one needs to do is examine the historical timeline of immigrationto see this simple truth: America has always been a nation of immigrants. Therefore, the uniqueness of America is that, unlike so many other nations, is that it has never been truly homogenous. Yes, it has had majority and minority groups, but it has never been like the other nations of the world. Its promises of freedom and the right to pursue life and prosperity have been a beacon of hope for those whose own homogenous nations have been a source of poverty and oppression. The idea that the civil good demands a homogeneous people group to be established simply cannot be demanded of a nation that has never been ethnically pure. Kinism simply demands it out of its own bias rather than out of some legitimate historical proof.

In Conclusion

Kinism may sound appealing to people who have grown weary of leftist identity politics. To be fair, that is indeed a reality in our current culture, one which must be confronted and defeated. But the answer is not Kinism. In fact, Kinism merely adopts the beliefs and tactics of leftists, but exchanges the labels to make it sound more appealing to its own demographic. Kinism lacks any legitimate biblical support, and its claims for the social and civil good are found wanting. It is simply repackaged racism being presented to the Christian church in hopes that people will be too upset to notice the reality. Kinists impose their own hatred of others who are not like themselves on the Bible, and they demand that Christians cave into their own delusions. The Church must stand ready to oppose and refute the lies of Kinism so that the church may not be led into false ideologies and doctrines. The purity of the gospel demands it.