A friend of mine hold to the belief of Kinism (she’s a Protestant). I read a Wikipedia article on this, and I was shocked. Here is the article, in case if people do not know what Kinism is.

I wanted to ask, are there any Catholic critiques of this position? Or Protestant critiques?
I think this is an issue that all of Christianity, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism must stand against. So, if anyone has any good biblical/logical critiques of this kinism thing, please let me know. Thank you, and God bless.

Seems to me its simply another word for racism!

Yep, another form of racism. I think she could be rebutted as a normal protestant or racist could be.

Simply show her this verse:

[bibledrb]Galatians 3:28[/bibledrb]

There is no room for racism in the body of Christ.

:thumbsup: as a christian this ought to prove her wrong in the belifs of kinism.

Though I appreciate the responses, I still ask that you please, if you are going to post, post links or mention books that deal with this in depth. I’ve been going through the web and I can’t find anything, and I want to be able to respond to this fully. I don’t understand how so many different websites and bloggers have been able to craft apologetics responses in defense of Kinism, but scarcely anything can be found in opposition of it. If anyone can find anything besides the Brian Schwertley article that is linked on Wikipedia, I would appreciate it greatly.

I doubt you are going to find a book about this subject as it’s a non issue. It’s clearly against scripture and tradition so there aren’t going to be a lot of people trying to prove it wrong.

With respect, kinism is not racism. Racism is hating others because they are of a different race. Kinists do not hate others on that basis, nor will they refuse to associate with other christians of differing nationalities. If you want to know what kinists believe ask me; but please don’t bear false witness.

Galatians 3:28 proves nothing with regard to kinism. St. Paul is not erasing natural distinctions between different groups of men; if he were, we would have no grounds for refusing ordination to women or for not recognizing homosexual marriage for that matter. The same verse that says: ‘there is no longer jew or gentile’ also says ‘or male and female’. Paul is not making everyone the SAME. He wrote down differing instructions for wives and husbands and also stipulated that those who are ordained leaders in the church should be men. In this verse, he is teaching that all have access to Christ through the gospel, without regard to race, sex or economic status.

Of course kinism is racism.

Cruxis117 and all,

I’m a Protestant Kinist. I came across this post and thought I would respond to this thread which is now closed:

At root, Kinism is the natural extension of the understanding that God has placed us in families for covenant nurture and civil order. Since races are nothing but extended families, we enjoy a unique love for our own race and we affirm ethnonationalism as God’s prescribed social order. Consider the tribal love of Saint Paul, who, this side of the cross, expressed a special love for his own kin according to the flesh (Rom. 9:3). Or ponder the ethnonationalism (the Greek ‘ethnos’ used for ‘nation’ means ethnicity, common lineage, race) divinely sanctioned in the OT (Deut. 32: 8), affirmed in the New (Acts 17:26-27), and even acknowledged as existing in the eternal state (Rev. 21:24, 22:2). Here’s a thorough defense:

Perhaps more interesting to catholics, who appreciate the principle laid down by St. Vincent of Lérins that “What all men have at all times and everywhere believed must be regarded as true,” is that Kinism was the universal practice of Christendom until the influence of social-Marxism in the middle of the 20th century. Today, backed with the force of law (the outlawing of free association and enforcing of multiculturalism), pseudo-science (Boas school of anthropology), and the power of mass media and pop culture, the orthopraxis of our fathers is considered “hate.”

Unfortunately, Cruxis117, I don’t think you’ll find any Protestant or catholic rebuttals of the principles of Kinism as most end up either 1) misrepresenting the position (e.g., some races are subhuman; whites may not associate with blacks; not all races come from Adam, etc.); 2 ) flinging ad hominems or regurgitating social-Marxist shibboleths (e.g., Kinists are racists, bigots, etc.; there is strength in diversity); or 3) offering irrelevant reproofs such as Galatians 3:28. Allow me a few quick clarifications:

  1. We Kinists affirm that all races are sons of Adam who bear the Imago Dei and that salvation is to all who believe. Yet, we reject the notion that this unity necessitates that races intermarry and amalgamate. Far from demonstrating backwardness or hate, that mankind and Christendom are to remain racially organized actually exemplifies nothing less than the Triune nature of God: a plurality or races pursuing the single goal of glorifying God and enjoying Him forever. Because two groups can share friendships and dinner does not mean they can share beds.

  2. While it’s common to be called a racist, we Kinists implore our kin and catholic friends to consider that whatever slurs are thrown at us are also hurled at nearly two millennia of Christianity and the West. The only feasible definition of a racist we can apprehend is one who has an irrational hatred of someone based on accident of birth. This definition fits neither us nor our ancestors. If, however, a racist is one who loves and protects his extended family and wants to see his people exist in the future, or if a racist is one who doesn’t desire the novel transformation of God’s diverse racial order into one Neo-Babel tribe, then we and nearly all men are racists. Or, in Jared Taylor’s words: “If it is ‘racist’ to prefer the company of people of one’s race, to prefer the culture created by one’s race, and to want one’s race to survive and flourish, then virtually every one of every color is ‘racist,’ and the term has no useful meaning.”

  3. If Galatians 3:28 means that race has no place in the body of Christ, then it also means that gender has no bearing in the church. But how many ardent feminists have used that passage to justify female priests and bishops? As Dabney retorted on this very issue, “But if the spiritual kingdom thus levels all social and temporal distinctions, its official rights should equally be distributed in disregard of them all.” This verse is a powerful verse, indeed. But apparently not so prevailing that it would evade all our ancestors prior to Martin Luther King.

In my opinion, the best responses to Kinism are those that marshal Scriptural examples of interracial marriage. But not only are these examples usually exegetically confused (see, they confuse the authentia historiae of Scripture (what actually happened historically) with the authentia normae sive praecepti of Scripture (what is morally normative). Let it be that there were 100 cases of miscegenation in Scripture; there is still not one prescription for it, and this is expected given the Bible’s cover-to-cover ethnocentrism. Again, unless we redefine the biblical meaning of nation, under what circumstances can any non-Kinist comprehend there being distinct races recognized in heaven (Rev. 21:24, 22:2)? Perhaps if racial solidarity throughout the church militant is accidental, but in which case racial homogenous families, tribes, and nations cannot be said to be immoral.

Another more worthy rebuttal is one that invokes Paul’s commandment to marry “only in the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:39). In response, this assumes 1) that “in the Lord” does not simply mean “only according to God’s revealed will,” and 2) that if the only requirement is to choose a believing spouse, then one may marry a 6-year-old or one’s step-father. We think the first option is preferable and that such counter arguments expose the inability of experimental anti-Kinism (social-Marxism) to refute something so natural, so historic, and so Biblical.


Here is a concise article on Kinism basics: and here is another place to bookmark if interested:

Any of the four sites I posted can be used to start a dialogue with Kinists or even to offer new challenges. We regret that there is not much in the way of responses to Kinsism on the web. Unfortunately, most exchanges involve vitriol and end with censorship.

Thanks for your time,


Threads merged and original thread reopened for discussion.

I think if you quote St. Vincent of Lerins you should quote it in context, which had nothing to do with kinism. It in fact was a response to heresy in the church.

I have continually given the greatest pains and diligence to inquiring, from the greatest possible number of men outstanding in holiness and in doctrine, how I can secure a type of fixed and, as it were, general, guiding principle for distinguishing the true Catholic Faith from the degraded falsehoods of heresy.

"And the answer that I receive is always to this effect: That if I wish, or indeed if anyone wishes, to detect the deceits of heretics that arise and to avoid their snares and to keep healthy and sound in a robust faith, we ought, with the Lord’s help, to fortify our faith in a twofold manner, first, that is, by the authority of God’s Law, then, by the tradition of the Catholic Church.

You can read the rest here: St. Vincent Lerins

Secondly, if God wanted to prevent the racial lines from blurring why did Moses a Hebrew, marry a Kenite? The daughter of a Kenite?

Zipporah the daughter of Jethro, whom we are told specifically in Judges 1:16, was a Kenite. That made them cushites from north Africa. I don’t see God punishing Moses for this. In fact, we see that only Aaron and Mirriam were irritated by it, that God was angry at THEM for being upset about it. (Numbers 12:1-9) Mirriam was even punished for speaking against Moses in this way!

Then Boaz married Ruth, someone from the Moabite peoples. Here again we see a man marrying outside of his people, and it being approved by God. Then David himself took Bathsheba for a wife, and Solomon was born. Now if God hated these interracial marriages, why were they the ancestors of the Christ?

This is an interesting thread, and I wish to respond specifically to Christian Gray’s argument agaist interracial marriage (I refuse to use the word mescegenation). It is true, as he points out, that there are multiple reported cases of interracial marriage in the Bible (although in some cases, like the Hebrew-Moabite marriage of Ruth and Boaz, the “races” were actually related descendants of a common ancester, Noah). It is also true, as he points out, that there is no prescription that one must marry outside his/her own racial group, and he attributes that to the ethnocentricity of the Biblical account. However, the opposite is also true, that the supposedly ethnocentric Bible contains no proscriptions against marrying outside one’s own racial group. The only thing that is prescribed is that marriage should be within the faith.

There is something else that should be thought about when debating this subject, and that is the idea that God’s will is often reflected in how nature works. For example, God forbids sex outside marriage. Under normal conditions, sex within marriage leads to children born into a stable home environment where they can be properly brought up. Sex outside marriage leads to broken hearts, the spread of exotic diseases, and children being born into an unstable home environments. For another example, God commands the use of food and drink in moderation. I don’t think I need to go into the problems that arise when those commodities are used immoderately.

If God intended that humans marry only within their own racial group, then the offspring of such marriages should be of a higher quality, generally speaking, than the offspring of marriages in which the parents were from different racial groups. My own first exposure to interracial marriages came when I was in the Air Force in the early '70s, and what I noticed was that the children of those marriages were almost invariably better looking and brighter than either of the parents. When I investigated, a college professor told me about the concept of hybrid vigor, or heterosis, which is the occurrence of a superior offspring from mixing the genetic contributions of its parents. So here we have God’s laws, as reflected in nature, saying that you’ll have healthier kids if you choose a marriage partner from a gene pool other than your own.

I will not say that kinist beliefs are necessarily racist. I do think that they might tend toward racsm. And I firmly believe that kinist beliefs are misguided.

The Scriptures positively affirm and recommend marriage within one’s tribe.

‘Therefore my son, love your kinsmen. Do not be so proudhearted toward your kinsmen, the sons and daughters of your people, as to refuse to take a wife for yourself from among them. For in such arrogance there is ruin and great disorder. Likewise, in worthlessness there is decay and dire poverty for worthlessness is the mother of famine.’

Tobit 4:13

Notice that the father instructing his son in this passage equates marriage outside the tribe with pride and arrogance. Tobit maintains that loving your kinsmen, your tribe, is best shown by taking a wife from among them. The opposite of his proposition is then also true: we reject and do not love our kinsmen when we choose to marry outside the tribe. My friends, no one contracts marriage in a social vacuum. Since marriage is the building block of any social order, it can tend toward the building up and establishing of a people and society, or it can tend toward the tearing down of the same. While everyone is and should be welcome in the church, it does not therefore follow that christians may marry without due regard for national and ethnic differences. After all, these differences were established first by God Himself (Genesis 10 & 11). The natural order He established ought to be respected by all.

Utter and complete nonsense.

During most of history, most people could have cared less what color a man’s skin was, although it would startle them if it were unusual for the area. What was important was a man’s wealth, social position, craft skills, and so forth.

People who married within their tribe also could care less what a man’s skin color was. If he were adopted into the tribe, he was a tribe member. If he came from just over the hill and looked exactly like your tribemembers but was unrelated, he was a stranger and a foreigner. And as has been pointed out, faithful Jews did a lot of marrying of converts. This is why there are Jews in every nation, of every possible skin color and appearance.

From the beginning, Christians came from every nation, and they intermarried a ton. They adopted babies left in the sewer or on the dunghill, raised them as their own, and married them to their relatives. Christians took the children God gave them; they didn’t have any compunctions about race. What was worrying was a marriage that mixed religions, not ethnicities.

Which isn’t surprising, because the people of the Roman Empire weren’t particularly concerned about race, either. They might tease you if you married some blond German, but that’s about it. Anybody could be a slave, anybody could be free, and anybody could be some nouveau riche guy trying to marry your daughter. The only time anybody got upset was when it looked like some Bulgar would get to be Emperor; and that was about enemy countries, not race. The legend of Romulus proudly proclaimed that all the great families of the city of Rome, like those of Australia, were descended from criminals and fugitives from all over the Mediterranean.

The Roman jurist Modestinus, who was not even Christian, said of marriage under Roman law, “Marriages are the union of male and female, a sharing of life and the communication of divine and human rights.” There is nothing here about race or tribe.

Pope Pius XI’s syllabus against racism lists as one of the false and heretical propositions which must everywhere be refuted, “We must by all means, preserve and cultivate strong race and purity of blood.” Using any kind of eugenic reasoning to prevent the marriage of a man and a woman who are capable of matrimony under natural law is “pernicious”, according to his encyclical “Casti Connubii”, because “men are begotten not for the earth and for time, but for Heaven and eternity.”

With writing help from the man who would succeed him as Pius XII, Pius XI also sent forth the great letter “Mit Brennender Sorge”, which further denounced blood purity ideas: “The peak of the revelation as reached in the Gospel of Christ is final and permanent. It knows no retouches by human hand; it admits no substitutes or arbitrary alternatives such as certain leaders pretend to draw from the so-called myth of race and blood.”

I will mention finally that it’s not so many years ago when a Catholic priest, like St. Valentine himself, was murdered for daring to marry two people whose parents didn’t like the match – because she was an Alabama white Catholic girl and he was Hispanic. Christianity is the religion of love, and the Church believes in the unitive power of marriage.

The Church has traditionally discouraged marriage within the seventh degree of consanguinity either by marriage or relations on your own side (including baptismal sponsorship relationships and adoptive relationships) and required a special dispensation for first cousins (the fourth degree of kinship) to marry at all. So there’s a definite discouragement of marrying one’s kin.

Quick bunny trail – the priest was Fr. James Coyle, an Irishman from County Roscommon. I believe that there is a cause for his canonization, but I can’t find it on brief search.

Thanks for a great post, Mintaka.

Moses married a “Black Woman” when he was questioned about it God turned Miriam’s skin leprous!!!

Numbers 12:9
The anger of the LORD burned against them, and he left them.
10 When the cloud lifted from above the tent, Miriam’s skin was leprous—it became as white as snow. Aaron turned toward her and saw that she had a defiling skin disease,
11 and he said to Moses, “Please, my lord, I ask you not to hold against us the sin we have so foolishly committed.

Christian Gray Miriam’s skin was white as snow the opposite to Moses’ wife!!!
God did not side with Aaron & Miriam they were “Bigots”!


I’m guessing that you think race-mixing is a sin. Do you really think it’s a sin? I hope not! I can’t stand folks who think race-mixing’s a sin! And also, not all forms of racism includes hatred! Some white-supremacists claim that they love all humans! And are you sure you’re a Catholic? You’re in full communion with Rome, right? Catholicism has no problem with race-mixing!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit